HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-04 City Council (7)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Repo a
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2004 CMR: 439:04
SUBJECT: PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVISIONS
TO THE INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING ZONING DISTRICTS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council accept the Planning and Transportation Commission’s
recommendations of the attached revisions 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.
Staff further recommends that the Council accept an alternative to the Planning and
Transportation Commission recommendation for establishing how the 25% limitations on
office space is counted in the Research Park (RP) Zoning District. Staff’s
recommendation is to delete that proposed revision to the code and that Council direct
staff to monitor office space in the zone and to identify whether and when the amount of
approaches 25%.
BACKGROUND
On January 27, 2003; the City Council reviewed and discussed preliminary
recommendations of the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) regarding
proposed uses, standards, and issues related to the Office Research (OR), Limited
Industrial/Research Park (LM), and General Manufacturing (GM) districts, along with
relevant combining districts and definitions. Sections of the ordinance providing for
performance standards to address impacts on neighbors and criteria for mixed use
development were to be prepared later for incorporation into this chapter.
The Council accepted many of the modifications, but directed that staff address several
issues in conjunction with moving forward with the changes to:
Revise the ordinance provisions limiting administrative office space in the
Research Park (RP) zone to retain flexibility for businesses but to clarify what is
CMR: 439:04 Page 1 of 8
°°ancillary" to research and development (R&D) and what comprises an adequate
component of R&D.
Clarify "medical office" and "medical research" uses, and include research related
to clinical trials in the medical research definition.
Address long-term performance standards (noise, odors, vibration, landscaping,
etc.) for adjacent uses, such as industrial adjacent to residential.
Incorporate mixed use and housing criteria after development by the urban design
consultants.
Proceed to develop Transportation Demand Management (TDM) approaches for
the Stanford Research Park and Embarcadero/Bayshore areas, and if possible
develop TDM standards as part of the performance standards for these zones.
Prepare design standards or prototypes for industrial park development with
alternate access (spine road in the Research Park), including pedestrian
Connections, to avoid impacts on adjacent residential uses.
Although not a part of the Council’s motion, there also was direction to review the 35-
foot height limitation for the RP and Research Office and Limited Manufacturing
(ROLM) zones, especially to accommodate biotech needs. The Council also asked the
City Manager to analyze the economic benefits of the various types of uses, especially
related to potential revenue generation for the City. The minutes of the Council meeting
are included as Attachment E.
Since January of 2003, staff has focused on the low-density residential sections of the
ZOU, on parking criteria, and on the development of a ~°form-based code" to address new
and updated land use types, among other tasks. Staff has also, however, maintained a
dialogue throughout that period with the industrial business community, particularly in
the Research Park and Stanford Medical Center areas, and the Governmental Affairs
Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, to address the remaining ordinance issues.
On June 30, 2004, the P&TC considered revisions to the draft ordinance to address three
of the Commission and Council’s concerns regarding the modified ordinance: 1) height
and floor area exceptions for equipment storage and maintenance in R&D (particularly
biotech) facilities; 2) limitations on office use in the Research Park (RP)zone; and 3)
provisions for medical office and medical research uses in the Medical Office and
Medical Research (MOR) zones. The Commission recommended modifications in each
of these areas, as reflected in the revised ordinance. The Commission’s minutes from the
meeting are included as Attachment D to the staff report.
CMR: 439:04 Page 2 of 8
DISCUSSION
The revised ordinance (Attachment A) reflects the changes recommended by the P&TC.
Revisions from the ordinance draft previously reviewed by the Commission and Council
are highlighted in a striket~reug~2underlined format.
Planning and Transportation Commission Action
The P&TC’s action on each of the three key issues is summarized below. Additional
background information, including full discussion of each issue, is found in the June 30,
2004 P&TC staff report (Attachment C).
Evaluate modifications to the 35-foot height limit and other provisions to
accommodate equipment needs of biotech and other industrial users.
Staff worked closely with the biotech and other industrial users to develop an
acceptable approach to this issue. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) and, in
particular, Board member Ken Komberg, reviewed and assisted in the
development of the proposed modifications. The P&TC approved (4-0-1) staff’s
proposed revisions to provide for:
a)
b)
Increase in the maximum building height in these zones from 35 feet to 40
feet, where interstitial space is provided and designed to preclude use as
habitable space, where no more than two habitable stories above grade are
proposed, and where additional setback from residential properties is
required for any portion of the structure above 35 feet.
Exemption of mechanical and/or electrical systems equipment areas from
floor area calculations when enclosed on the roof or in a basement, with
provisions that a total area not more than one-third of the footprint of the
building is exempt, that rooftop equipment or enclosures not exceed 15 feet
in height above the roof, and that rooftop equipment adjacent to residential
sites be set back at least 20 feet from the building edge (or 100 feet from
the property line, whichever is less).
Revise limitations on office space in the Research Park (RP) zone to clarify how
administrative office space within or apart from R&D buildings is counted with
respect to the 25% limit.
The P&TC (4-0-1) approved the recommended provisions of Section 18.24.030(b)
to apply the 25% limit only to professional office space. Administrative office
space would not be addressed or limited by the revised approach. Professional
office space, for the purposes of this section, would include professional services
in the fields of law, architecture, product design, civil engineering, financial
CMR: 439:04 Page 3 of 8
services, and similar professions. It would exclude administrative office space
used to support research and development uses and would exclude any use that
might otherwise be defined as "research and development."
The P&TC also considered a staff recommendation for an option to delete that
proposed revision to the code, thereby not limiting professional or administrative
office space in the Research Park zone. The recommendation included direction to
staff to monitor office space in the zone and to identify whether and when the
amount of office space approaches 25%. The rationale for this alternative was that:
a) office use was a short-term problem in the dot-com period and no longer creates
the same level of concern; b) the updated Research Park EIR would address the
impacts of possible changes and would help to define potential limits on office
uses; and c) it would maintain maximum flexibifity for Research Park users and
for Stanford in an uncertain economic climate. A Commission motion to adopt this
option did not receive a second, but the City Council may want to discuss its
merits.
o Revise the Definitions to provide for separate definitions of "medical office " f!’om
"medical research" allowable in the Medical Office and Medical Research
(MOR) zone," including providingfor clinical trial research in that zone.
The P&TC approved (4-0-1) the proposed revisions, with a clarification to note
that medical research means "within medical offices."
Other Minor Modifications
The proposed ordinance also includes a few other minor modifications from the language
previously reviewed by the City Council, including:
Offsite new vehicle storage for auto dealerships was added to the list of uses in
Table 1 (page 4)under Service Uses in the ROLM and GM zones. This revision is
consistent with the Council’s recent action creating the Auto Dealership
Combining District. The Commission modified the wording to assure that any auto
dealership using this provision must be located in Palo Alto.
Section 18.24.040(e)(3) on page 9 was added to clarify that certain equipment
(generators, air conditioning compressors, etc.) is permitted outdoors, subject to
setback regulations and screening from view from residential properties and in
compliance with noise ordinance standards.
The definition of "research and development" was revised to expand the list of
examples of types of research and development products and services, and the list
of ancillary administrative uses.
CMR: 439:04 Page 4 of 8
Fire Department Review and Revisions
Subsequent to the P&TC action on the draft ordinance, the Fire Department provided
some additional comments and corrections to assure that the ordinance’ refers to
appropriate sections of the Municipal Code. These provisions relate primarily to
limitations on the use or storage of hazardous materials. The Fire Department’s revisions
are reflected in the draft ordinance.
Child Care Facilities and Housing Opportunities
Staff has continue its dialogue with the Child Care Advisory Committee and notes that
the draft ordinance proposes to 1) provide for bonus floor area (50%) for child care
facilities, including where the facility serves more than just the on-site employer, and 2)
limit child care facilities in the GM zone to require a conditional use permit, given the
potential incompatibilities with heavy industrial uses. The Committee has been
supportive of these changes, and staff believes that the floor area bonus for child care will
help encourage and accommodate larger facilities, which may make them more feasible
to the developer on a site.
Also, multi-family and single-family housing continues to be an allowed use in the
industrial and manufacturing zones. Staff is aware that some of the industrial areas are
being evaluated for housing, especially for multi-family (single-family homes may in
many locations present a conflict with the industrial uses).
Related Issues to be Addressed
Some of the Council’s prior direction relates to issues that are to be dealt with later in the
ZOU process or would be outside the ZOU entirely. They include:
Addressing long-term performance standards (noise, odors, vibration, landscaping,
etc.) for adjacent uses, such as industrial adjacent to residential. This will be
developed as a separate section of the ZOU, to apply to all industrial and
commercial development.
Incorporating mixed use and housing criteria after development by the urban
design consultants. An initial presentation to the Commission of a "form code" for
mixed use, multi-family, village residential, and transit-oriented development
occurred in August. Appropriate criteria will be developed for the industrial
districts to allow for specified mixed use and residential uses.
Considering TDM approaches for the Stanford Research Park and
Embarcadero/Bayshore areas, and if possible developing TDM standards as part of
the performance standards for these zones. This effort is primarily outside of the
limits of the ZOU process, as there are some legal constraints on incorporating
CMR: 439:04 Page 5 of 8
TDM provisions into zoning. However, there will be some analysis of whether
traffic or parking impacts could be part of the performance standards section.
Preparing design standards or prototypes for industrial park development with
alternate access (spine road in the Research Park), including pedestrian
connections, to avoid impacts on adjacent residential uses. Subsequent to
presenting final form code concepts, the design consultants will prepare a
prototype that will address some site planning and circulation components of
Research Park development. It is unlikely that information will be incorporated
into the ZOU; however, as it is more appropriate to be addressed in the EIR for the
Research Park or in subsequent site planning,
Evaluating the economic benefits of the various types of uses, especially related to
potential revenue generation for the City. Staff has addressed two critical issues
with the revisions to the office limitations in the Research Park and the provisions
for mechanical and electrical system needs for R&D and biotech facilities. These
changes should allow for point-of-sale offices in those districts and added
flexibility for those businesses. Also, the approval of an auto dealership overlay
responds to the economic impact issue, and includes allowances in the industrial
districts for offsite vehicle storage. The ZOU budget does not provide for more
extensive Citywide economic analysis of the ordinance.
Additional P&TC Recommendation
The P&TC also recommended (5-0), after the ordinance discussion, that the City Council
direct appropriate City staff to evaluate incentives to encourage point-of-sale and
business-to-business sales (with attendant tax benefits) within the City. This would
include analyzing other incentives, such as permit streamlining and fee waivers and a
variety of tools available to encourage such sales and tax generating measures.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The implementation of the proposed ordinance " amendments is not expected to impact
staff resources or the City’s budget. Some additional monitoring of office uses will be
needed, but staff will rely primarily on property owners (especially Stanford) and
applicants to provide the necessary support information. The Council may wish to
consider the P&TC’s recommendation to evaluate (outside of the Zoning Ordinance
Update) other incentives for increased point-of-sale and business-to-business sales to
provide for increased tax benefits for the City.
CMR: 439:04 Page 6 of 8
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance
with the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Nan. Staff and the Commission believe that the
proposed amendments are a significant step in that direction, and will be supplemented
with criteria for mixed use development, parking, and performance standards.
NEXT STEPS
The Zoning Ordinance Update work program has involved intense efforts in several key
areas in the past months, including:
Recommendation by the Planning Commission of a stand-alone R-1 chapter of the
ordinance, also scheduled for the Council’s October 4, 2004 meeting. This review
included revisions to second unit requirements, modifications required to implement
adopted Housing Element policies and programs, a few remaining R-1 issues not
resolved in the Single Family Neighborhoods discussions in 2001, and modifications
to the Individual Review and Home Improvement Exception processes.
Recommendation by the Planning Commission of the revisions to the Low Density
Residential (R-E, R-2 and RMD) zoning districts, and related combining districts.
Council review of these changes is also scheduled for the Councils October 4, 2004
meeting.
Extensive review of the "context-based design" (form code) components of the
Ordinance, especially the development of graphics and standards for multi-family,
village residential, mixed use, and transit-oriented development. The design
consultants presented a "context-based design" format to the P&TC on July 28, 2004,
and on August 25, 2004 followed with a review of some of the basic criteria under
consideration for village residential and mixed-use development. A presentation of
the format to the Council will be scheduled in the Fall.
Evaluation of possible revisions to the City’s .parking criteria, including parking
ratios, shared parking potential, and parking lot design. Staff has worked with a
parking consultant and a Working Group of the P&TC to develop initial
recommendations for revisions to the Parking chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. An
initial approach to parking for the new land use types is in process. Some preliminary
concepts were presented to the P&TC on September 1, 2004 and staff will refine the
chapter with the Working Group. A revised Parking chapter will be presented to the
Commission in late October.
The industrial and manufacturing districts will be revisited upon development of criteria
for mixed-use development, parking, and performance standards. The proposed project is
scheduled to result in a draft ZOU for distribution by January 2005. Public hearings
would then follow and are anticipated to take another three to six months.
CMR: 439:04 Page 7 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Industrial/Manufacturing Districts: Revised Ordinance
Map of Industrial/Manufacturing Zoning Districts
June 30, 2004 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report
June 30, 2004 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes
January 27, 2003 City Council Minutes
COURTESY COPIES
Jean Snider, Stanford Management Company
Ken Kornberg, Kornberg Architects
Bud Mission, Roche
John Igoe, Cirrus Regis/TIBCO
Steve Dostart, Dostart Development
Chamber of Commerce
J~./n/E~siardi,~
Planing l@anager
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: \~,~Y("
STEVE EM~IE
~ Director of Pla~ing and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL : ~ ~_ ~
~MILY HARRIS(~
ssistant City M@ager
CMR: 439:04 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
Chapter 18.24
OFFICE, RESEARCH, AND MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.24.010
18.24.020
18.24.030
18.24.040
18.24.050
18.24.060
Purposes
Applicability
Land Uses
Site Development Standards
Design Requirements and Guidelines (Performance Standards)
Grandfathered Uses
18.24.010 Purposes
The office research, industrial and mamffacturing zoning districts provide sites for office, light
industrial, research and development, and limited commercial uses. The specific purposes for
each district are listed below.
~_a)Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) District
The MOR medical office and medical research district provides for medical office, medical
research, and some medical support services in areas characterized by low building
intensity, large site .size, and landscaped grounds. The MOR district is primarily intended
for land that is designated for research and office park use in the Pato Alto Comprehensive
Plan, and that is near hospitals.
(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 manufactnring 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 E1 Camino Real.
(c)Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing Subdistrict - Embarcadero [ROLM(E)]
The research, office and limited manufacturing subdistrict [ROLM(E)] modifies the site
deve!opment regulations of the ROLM research, office and limited manufacturing district
to apply to smaller sites in areas with ~imited access or with environmental sensitivity due
to their proximity to the Palo Alto Baylands in the Embarcardero Road area.
(d)Research Park District
The RP research park district provides for a limited group of research and manufacturing
uses that may have unusual requirements for space, light, and air, and desire sites in a
research park environment. Premium research and development facilities should be
encouraged in the RP district. Support office uses should be limited and should exist
primarily to serve the primary research and manufacturing uses. The RP district is intended
DRAFT: September 29, 2004Eeptember !5, 2004
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc
18.24.020 Applicable Regulationsl~ oo ann I De-~
for application to land designated for research and office park use in the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan on sites that are west of El Camino Real and held in large parcels,
which may or may not also be subiect to ground leases.
(e)Research Park Subdistrict 5 [RP(5)]
The Research Park site subdistrict [RP(5)] modifies the site development regulations of the
RP research park district to regulate large sites in hilly areas.
(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.
18.24.020 Applicable Regulations
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures established
by Draft Updated Code Chapters 18.40 to 18.92 inclusive shall apply to all Office Research,
Industrial, and Manufacturing districts.
DRAFT: September 29, 200d~eptember !5, 2004
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc 2
o c~,c~De-f-~~ 8 24 030 Land Uses-l-g~9.. .....I
18.24.030 Land Uses
(a)Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses
Table 1 lists the land uses permitted or conditionally permitted, in the industrial and
manufacturing districts.
Table 1: Industrial’Manufacturing District Land Uses
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and activities customarily
associated with or essential to pemfitted uses,P
and operated i~cidental to the principal use.
Automatic Teller Machines, incidental to
permitted use
Home Occupations, when accessory to ppermitted residential uses.
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND
ASSEMBLY USES
Business and Trade Schools
Chm’ches and Religious Institutions
Colleges and Universities P
Private Clubs, Lodges, or CUPFraternal Organizations
Schools Public or Private CUP
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
Ambulance Services CUP
Convalescent Facilities CUP
Medical Office P
Medical Research P
Medical Support Retail P
Medical Support Services P
MANUFACTURING AND
PROCESSING USES
Manufacturing
Recycling Centers
Research and Development ,CUP
Warehousing and Distribution
OFFICE USES
Administrative Office Services
MOR
Financial Services
Professional and General
Business Offices
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES
Service and Equipment Yards
Utility Facilities
m,(s)
P
P
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
CUP
P
P
P
CUP
P
ROLM
ROLM(E)
P
P
cup
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
CUP
P
p
P
CUP
P
GM
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
P
P
CUP
P
CUP
Subj ect to
Regulations in
Chapter:
Currem Code
Chapter 18.88
Current Code
Chapter 18.88
18.24.030(bi
18:24.030(b)
18.24.030(c)
18.24.030(c)
18.24.030(b)
18.24.030(b)
18.24.030(b)
DRAFT: September 29, 2004September !5,200a,
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc
18.24.030 Land Usesl ....... . I ~
MOR
CUP
CUP
ROLM
ROLM(E)
CUP
GM
CUP
Subject to
Regulations in
CUP
[Note." Deferred to housing discussion]
[Note." Deferred to housing discussion]
[Note." Deferred to housing discussion]
Chapter:
P P CLIP
CUP CUP CUP
CUP CUP CUP
P
CUP
P P CUP
P P P
P P P
P
P
CUP CUP CUP
CUP CUP
CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision of .
utility services but excluding CUPconstruction/storage yards, maintenance
facilities, or corporation yards.
RECREATION USES
Commercial Recreation
Neighborhood Recreational Centers CUP
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family
Two-Family
Multiple-Family
Residential Care Homes P
RETAIL USES
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-
in and take-out services
Retail Services
SERVICE USES
Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels
Boarding and Kennels
Day Care Centers P
Family Day Care Homes
Small Family Day Care P
Large Family Day Care P
General Business Services
Lodging
Hotels providing not more than 10% of CUProoms with kitchens
Mortuaries and Funeral Homes
Personal Services
Vehicle Services
Automobile Service Stations, subject to
site and design review in accord with the
provisions of section Current Code
Chapter 18.82
Automotive Services
Off-site new vehicle storage for auto
dealerships located in Palo Alto
TEMPORARY USES
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that
such facilities shall remain no more than five CUP
years.
TRANSPORTATION USES
Passenger Transportation Terminals
P = Permitted Use CUP - Conditional Use Permit Required
CUP
CUP
CUP CUP CUP
CUP
(b)Professional Office Limitations in the Research Park (RP) Zone
(1) The intent of this limitation is to restrict professional and administra~4ve=offices tha4
DRAFT: September 29, 2004~eptember !5, 2004
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc 4
18.24.030 Land Usesgg-x.99.020 I De.q~
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
~e-s-in the Research Park district. For the purposes of this section, "professional
office" means a use providing professional or consulting selwices in the fields of law,
architecture, product design, civil engineering, financial smwices including
investment banking, brokerages, accounting, and similar professions. Professional
office excludes administrative office use that supports research and development
and/or manufacturing uses and excludes all uses that meet the definitidn of research
and development or manufacturing.
Professional ORffice uses within the Research Park (~) zoning district are limited
to twenty five percent (25%) of total ~oss floor area within the district.
In order to detel~ine the total ~’oss floor area of a t~e of use in the district, each
space occupied by the owner, a tenant subject to a ground lease or a space lease, or a
subtenant shall be desi~ated as research and development, manufacturing,
i 1 ffi "other."profess ona o ce, or e
Any occupancy with a research and development or manufacturing component; shall
be classified as a research and development or manufacturing use, ~
~o~ .,o~**.4~Mr A research and development and/or manufacturing
componem exists when a) floor area is provided and used for the study, testing,
engineering, desi~, development, manufacturing, fabrication, processing, assembly
or storage of prototypes, devices, products or materials, or similar activities, and b)
office and related floor area is devoted to adn!inistration, sales, or other services
primarily in suppo~ of the pro&cts of such research or manufacturing activities.
Where a single firm operates on more than one site within the RP district, the
multiple sites shall be treated as a single space for determining that a primary use is
research and development or manufacturing.
The landowner shall provide an annual report to the city regarding professional
office space on its Research Park properties, whether such properties are occupied by
the property owner, its tenants or subtenants, or are subject to a ground lease. The
report shall be in such form as the director may reasonably require, and shall include
the gross floor area of the sitex, and a brief descriptions of the uses on site, and
fe hp ,~mr, o,~ ........a a’e~ lessee, , ........identification o ac rofessional office use...,**.~., . ..... , ....
The director may require a cun’ent report whenever application is made to the city to
developnew space for professional office uses or to convert non offie-eresearch and
developlnent or lnanufacturing space to professional office uses, and may, from time
to time, establish procedures and standards implementing this Section 18.24.030(b);
i~c!uding directicn~ on de4ermining predeminant use on a ~ite.
No site, leasehold, or subleasehold shd4-classified as research and development or
office spacemanufacturing shall be converted to a different use without prior
approval of an "office occupancy" permit, pursuant to Section xx.xx.xx [Note: to be
developed] of the Municipal Code. No office occupancy permit is required unless
the change of use would result in reclassification of the site, leasehold, or
DRAFT: September 29,200 ~ep~emaer 15, 2004
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc 5
18.24.030 Land Usesgg-c,99.020 I De-f~
(9)
[Note: An "office occupancy"permit is intended to be a ministerial approval by
staff with a maximum time frame of three days for review, comprised of comparing
the proposed professional office square footage to the allowable professional office
limitation for the zone district. If there are other specific limitations in effect for a
site, through conditions of a prior environmental review, conditional use permit, or
other entitlement, those conditions Will also be checked to assure conformance. The
"office occupancy"permit does not, however, relieve any applicant or owner from
other applicable requirements, such as for environmental review.]
If, and so long as, the percentage of space in professional office use exceeds twenty
five percent (25%) because of a reduction in other uses in the park, existing
professional office uses may remain as legal non-conforming uses but no additional
space may be converted to professional office uses. In such situations, N_new office
space may only be constructed if it is less than twenty five percent (25%) of the new
space to be constructed as part of the same project.
(c)Limitations on Medical Support Service and Medical Support Retail Uses in the
Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) Zone
(1)The intent of this limitation is to restrict medical support service and medical support
retail uses in the Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) zone in order to
preserve and facilitate space for medical offices and medical research facilities.
(2)Floor area devoted to medical support services and medical support retail uses in the
Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) zoning district shall not exceed twenty
percent (20%) of the total gross floor area within the district.
(3)The director may require a report from the property owner or applicant whenever
application is made to the city to develop new space for medical support service or
medical support retail uses or to convert existing space to such uses. The report shall
identify the gross floor area of buildings on each site within the zoning district and
the gross floor area of medical support service and medical support retail uses for
each site. The director may, from time to time, establish procedures and standards
implementing this Section 18.24.030(c).
DRAFT: September 29, 2004 September¯~ _,, < ~’mna.
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc 6
18.24.040 Site Development Standardslg.99.020 I Defi~
18.24.040 Site Development Standards
Development in the office research, industrial, and manufacturing districts is subject to the
following development standards, provided that more restrictive regulations may be required as
part of design review under Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
(a)Development Standards for Non-Residential Uses
Table 2 shows the site development standards for exclusively non-residential uses in the
industrial and manufacturing districts.
Table 2: Industrial/Manufactnring Non-Residential Site Development Standards
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side
Yard (ft)
Street Side
Yard (ft)
Minimum Yard
(ft) for site lines
abutting or
opposite
residential
districts
ROLMMOR ROLM
25;000 1 acre 1 acre 5 acres
150 100 100 250
150 150 150 250
Setback lines imposed by a special setback map
pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply
50(3)20
10(3)20
10 20
20(3)20
10(3)20
Maximum Site 30% 30%~overage .,
Maximum Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
Parkin~
Landscapin~
Maximum Height
(ft)
Standard
Within 150 ft: of
a residential zone
Within 40 ft. of a
residential zone
GM
20 100
20 40
20 40
20 70
30%
20 10
0.5:1 0.4:1c~ 0.3:1m 0.4:1~
See Chapter 18.X~, Parking (to be added)
See Chapter 18.XX, Landscaping (to be added)
50 35N 35c~
25 25
Subject to
regulations in
chapter:
18.24.060(e)(1)(D)
18.24.060(e)(1)(E)
15%
0.3:1~0.5:I
50
35
DRAFT: September 29, 200dEeptember !5, 2004
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc
18.24.040 Site Development Rt-na-r,~-t~ oo a’~a I De-~
ROLM Subject to
MOR ROLM (E)RP RP(5) GM regulations in
chapter:
Daylight Plane for
site lines having any
part abutting one
or more residential
districts.
Initial Height
Slope
_(2)
_(2)10
1:2
(1) For any property designated GM and fronting on East B ayshore Road a minimum setback of 20 feet
along that frontage is established.
(2) Daylight plane requirements shall be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most
restrictive residential district abutting the side or rear site line. Such daylight planes shall begin at the
applicable site lines and increase at the specified slope until intersecting the height limit otherwise
established for the MOR district.
(3) In the MOR district, no required parking or loading space shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining
the street property line of any required yard.
(4) See subsection 18.24.030(d) below for exceptions to height and floor area limitations inthe ROLM
and RP zoning distrfcts.
(b) Development Standards for Mixed Uses and Exclusively Residential Uses
(To be developed latet; along with mixed-use standards for all districts)
(c)Floor Area Bonus for Child Care Facilities
Floor area operated as a licensed child care facility shall not be included when calculating
floor area ratios for a site. In addition, the permitted floor area on the site shall be
increased by an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the floor area of the child care
facility. The floor ~rea bonus is not exempt from parking requirements and shall not be
granted unless the director determines that on-site circulation for the child care facility is
adequate.
Height and Floor Area Exceptions for Equipment Storage and Access in the ROLM
and RP Districts
(1)The intent of this subsection is to provide flexibility in height and floor area
limitations to accommodate eqmpment needs for research and development and
similar facilities.
(2)The maximum height in the ROLM and RP zoning districts may be increased to forty
(40) feet where a) interstitial space is provided between floors to accommodate
mechanical and/or electrical equipment, b) the load for such interstitial space is
limited, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, to preclude conversiQn to
habitable space, c) the building contains no more than two stories of habitable space
above grade, and d) for any building adiacent to (including across the street from) a
residential site, the portion of the building over 35 feet in height is set back an
DRAFT: September 29, 9nna¢~,.~.~,- ~ ~ 2004
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc
18.24.040 Site Development Standardslg-.9~.020 !De-f-nI
(e)
additional 20 feet from the building edge closest to the residential site or a minimum
of 100 feet from the residential property line, whichever is closer. Interstitial space
refers to intermediate floors used for mechanical or electrical systems and access for
equipment maintenance purposes.
Rooftop and/or basement areas used to enclose mechanical equipment shall be
excluded from floor area calculations, provided that the total of any such excluded
areas does not exceed one-third of the building footprint area. Rooftop equipment or
rooftop equipment enclosures shall not extend above a height of fifteen (15) fe~t
above the roof, and any enclosed rooftop equipment located adiacent to residential
property shall be set back at least 20 feet from the building edge closest to the
residential site or a minimum of 100 feet from the residential property line, whichever
is closer.
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)Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exc, eeding the gross
building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a conditional use
permit.
(B)Areas usedfor outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats, campers,
camp trailers, trailers, coaches, house cars, or similar conveyances shall meet
the minimum standards applicable to off-street parldng facilities with respect
to paving, grading, drainage, access to public streets and alleys, safety and
protective features, lighting, landscaping, and screening.
(c)Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or fence of
between five and eight feet in height. This requirement is not applicable, to
recycling centers.
(2)In the ROLM and RP districts, all outdoor activities or uses are prohibited except:
(A)Outdoor activities associated with residential use;
(B)Landscaping;
(C)Parking and loading facilities;
(D)Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit;
(E)Noncommercial recreational activities and facilities accessory to permitted or
conditional uses; and
(3)
(F)Activities and facilities accessory to conditional uses, when authorized by a
conditional use permit.
In all industrial and manufacturing districts, equipment such as generators and air
conditioning compressors is permitted outdoors so lon~ as it is located out of
setbacks adjacent to (including across a street from) a residential use, and is screened
from view from the residential area.
DRAFT: September 29, 200 ,~ep~emDer ~. ~, < ~’~na~,
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc 9
18.24.050 Design Requirements and Guidelines (Perfom~ance Standmds/lo .... 0~,0
(f)
(4)Any outdoor storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of exempt quantities
prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code or any amount of toxic gas or materials
regulated by under Title 15 shall also require a conditional use pem~it
Employee Showers
Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any
addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 4.
Table 4: Employee Showers Required
Uses
Medical, Professional, and General
Business Offices, Financial Services,
Colleges and Universities, Business and
Trade Schools, Research and
Development, General Business Services,
and Manufacturing
Gross Floor
Area of New
Construction (ft2)
0-9,999
10,000-19,999
20,000-49,999
50,000 and up
Showers Required
No requirement
1
2
4
(g)Nuisances and Hazards
In all office research, industrial, and manufacturing districts, excluding the MOR Medical
Office and Medical Research district, all uses~ whether permitted or conditional, shall be
conducted in such a manner so as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or commonly
recognized, offensive conditions or characteristics, including creation or emission of dust,
gas, smoke, noise, fumes, odors, vibrations, particulate matter, chemical compounds,
biological material, electrical disturbance, humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night illumination.
Prior to issuance of a building permit or occupancy permit, or at any other time, the
building official may require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or devices have
been provided to ensure and protect the public interest, health, comfort, convenience,
safety, and general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition.
(h)Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more .
floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior
enclosures for the storage ofrecyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design,
construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval
by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that
board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 16.48.070.
,18.24.050 Design Requirements and Guidelines (Performance
Standards)
(Performance Standards will be addressed when general standards are addressed citywide.)
DRAFT: September 29, 2004September ~ < "tuna
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc 10
t8.24.060 Grandfathered UsesggX,9~20
18.24.0611 Graadfatt~ered Uses
(Grandfathered uses will be addressed later, when non-conforming uses are addressed citywide.)
DRAFT: September 29, 2004 September !5, 2004
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc 11
18.99.010 Purpose-t-ga.9~. 020I De-fin
Chapter 18.99
DEFINITIONS
18.99.010 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to promote consistency and precision in the interpretation of the
zoning regulations. The meaning and construction of words and phrases defined in this chapter
shall apply throughout the. zoning regulations, except where the context of such words or phrases
clearly indicates a different meaning or construction.
.18.99.020 Definitions
(a)Definitions, "A"
(1)"Administrative office services" means offices and service facilities performing
headquarters, regional, or other level management and administrative services for
firms and institutions.
(b)Definitions, "B"
(c)Definitions, "C"
(d)Definitions; "D"
(e)Definitions, "E"
(t)Definitions, "F"
(g)Definitions, "G"
(1)"General business office" means a use principally providing services to individuals,
firms, or other entities, including but not limited to real estate, insurance, property
management, title companies, investment, personnel, travel, and similar services, and
including business offices of public utilities or other activities when the service
rendered is that customarily associated with administrative office services.
(2)"General business service" means a use engaged in sales, servicing, installation,
and repair services, generally intended to support other businesses, rather than
individual consumers. General business services typically include, but are not limited
to, volume printing and photography services, blueprinting and publishing,
commercial bakeries, dry cleaners that accept laundry from other businesses and are
classified as Class IV plants in Title 15 of the Municipal Code, creameries or
catering, cabinetry and furniture repair, lumber, plumbing, electrical, heating and air
conditioning, and other construction and building materials, and commercial
automobile and truck parts and supplies.
DRAFT: September 29,200a.September ! 5,290A,
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc 12
18.99.020 Definitionslg-.99.020 ]De-f~
(h)
(i)
(k)
(l)
(m)
Definitions, "H"
Definitions, "I"
Definitions, "J"
Definitions, "K"
Definitions, "L"
Definitions, "M"
(1)
(2)
"Manufacturing" means a use engaged in the manufacture, predominantly from
previously prepared materials, of finished products or parts, including processing,
fabrication, assembly, treatment, and packaging of such products, and incidental
storage, sales, and distribution of such products, but excluding basic industrial
processing of extracted or raw materials, processing utilizing inflammable or
explosive materials (i.e., materials which ignite easily under normal manufacturing
conditions) in excess of the exelnpt quantities listed in Title 15 of the Municipal
Code, and processes which create hazardous or commonly recognized offensive
materials or conditions other than properly stored and handled hazardous waste or
byproducts incidental to the manufacturing process. Examples of manufacturing uses
typically include, but are not limited to, industrial laundries and industrial dry
cleaning plants classified as Class II, 1It3, or IIIA in Title t5 of the Municipal Code,
machine shops, electronics assembly, food and beverage product manufacturing, and
furniture manufacturing. Manufacturing may also include the storage of hazardous
naaterials necessary to the manufacturing process in excess of the exempt quantities
listed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code when stored in an approved exterior storage
area, accessory room or stnlcture.
Related administrative uses such as finance, marketing, sales, accounting,-
purchasing, or corporate offices; provisions of services to others on or off-site; and
related educational uses may also be inclnded provided they remain ancillaD~ to the
primary uses of "manufacturing" and are part of the same manufacturing firm.
’,Medical office" means a use providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic,
preventive, or corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical
and dental laboratories, and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for
¯ humans, licensed for such practice by the state of California-a ....... ¯ ...... ~o’-~’~ +~
¯f !!’
’!7 ap~,ti 1 d ! p
¢.ou;+; ........~ ;.m,m~ ;. ~;. ~.;,~.. ~.o~ao.t.~ medical and/or dental research
within the office is considered pa~ of the office use, where it supports the client
services. Medical office use does not include the storage or use, other than %r
medical gas, of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt quantities as defined in
Title 15 of the Municipal Code, Medical £as storage or use shall be allowed up to
1,000 cubic feet per gas type,
DRAFT: September 29, 9nn/l<~..÷~l.o. ~ <, OnC~A
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc 13
18.99,020 Definitionsl 8.99.020. [Defil
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(3)"Medical research" means a Use related to medical and/or dental research, testing .
and analysis, located within a medical office, including but not limited to trial and
clinical research. Biomedical and pharmaceutical research and development facilities
are not included in this definition. Medical Research does not include the storage or
use of quantities of hazardous materials above the exempt quantities listed in Title 15
of the Municipal Code nor any toxic gas or material regulated by Title 15.
Additionally, Medical Research does not include storage and use 0fbiological
materials as defined in Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
(4)"Medical support retail" means a retail use providing sales, rental, service, or
repair of medical products and services to consumers or businesses, and whose
location near hospitals or medical offices facilitates the provision of medical care or
medical research. Examples of medical retail uses typically include, but are not
limited to, pharmacies, sale ofprosthetics, and sale of eyeglasses or other eye care
products.
(5)"Medical support service" means a use providing administrative support functions
for healthcare providers or facilities, intended to support the operations of hospitals
or of medical and dental office uses, and whose location near those medical facilities
enhances the interaction between medical providers and!or facilitates the provision
of medical care or medical research. Examples of medical support service uses
typically include, but are not limited to, administration and billing services, public
relations, training, and fundraising. Hospitals and ambulance services are not
included in this definition.
Definitions, "N"
Definitions, "0"
Definitions, "P"
"Professional office" means a use providing professional or consulting services in
the fields of law, architecture, design, engineering, accounting, and similar
professions, including associated product testing and prototype development, but
excluding product manufacturing or assembly and excluding the storage or use of
hazardous materials in excess ..............................................
pemait quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code.
Definitions, "Q"
Defin itions, "R"
(1)"Research and development" means a use ~engaged in the study, testing,
engineering, product design, analysis and expe#.merAa! development of devices,
products, processes, or services related to current or new technologies. Research and
development may include limited manufacturing, fabricating, processing, assembling
or storage of prototypes, devices, compounds, products or materials, or similar
related activities, where such activities are incidental to research, development or
evaluation. Examples of "research and development" uses include, but are not
DRAFT: September 29.~,,~,~ O¢~nA
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc 14
18.99.020 DefinitionsJ~g,99.020 I De-gn
limited to, computer software and hardware "4m~, computer peripherals and related
products, electronic research~, biotechnical and biomedical-f+m~, instrument
analysis, genomics, robotics and pharmaceutical research !aborato14m-s, and related
educational development. Research and development may include the storage or use
of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt quantities listed in Title 15 of the
Municipal Code, or biological materials as defined by the Center for Disease Control
as up to and including Biological Safety Level 3. Biological materials as referred to
in this section are as defined in Title 17 of this Code. Higher classification level of
Biological materials are not allowed without express permission of the City
Manager, Fire Chief, and Police Chief.
Related administrative uses such as finance, legal, hulnan resources, management,
marketing, sales, accounting, purchasing, or corporate offices; provisions of services
to others on or off-site; and related educational uses may also be included provided
they remain anci!!ar)T toprimarily supportive of t~,e ~-imary u~eoo of"research and
development" and are part of the same research and development firm.
(s)Definitions, "S"
(t)Definitions, "T"
(u)Definitions, "U"
(v)Definitions, "V"
(w)Definitions, "W"
(x)Definitions, "X"
(y)Definitions, "Y"
(z)Definitions, "Z"
DRAFT: September 29, 2004September !5,200a,
2004-09-13 Industrial Section.doc 15
ATTACHMENT B
Channing Ave
LM, LM(L), a LM,
LM-5, LM-5(D)
LM(D)(3)
GM
GM(B)
OR
School Sites
Parks & Preserve
~,City of Palo Alto GIS
Industrial Zones
~
,
with parks and school sitesThe City of "
Palo Alto ~~
0’3600’
ATTACHMENT C
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION CO2vEMIS SION
FROM:Curtis Williams
Contract Planner
DEPARTMENT:Planning
DATE:June 30, 2004
SUBJECT:Zoning Ordinance Update -Draft Ordinance Regarding Office
Research and Industrial/Manufacturing Districts
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recolmnends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission)
recommend to the City Council approval of the attached revisions 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.
BACKGROUND:
On December 11, 2002, after four prior study sessions, the Commission discussed uses,
standards, and issues related to the Office Research (OR), Limited Industrial/Research
Park (LM), and General Manufacturing (GM) districts, along with relevant combining
districts and definitions. At that meeting, the Comanission forwarded its
recommendations on the preliminary ordinance changes to the City- Council. The
Commission requested that the ordinance return after Council review and input to address
specifics about the limitations on office use in the Research Park (P_P) zone and
restrictions on medical support uses in the Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR)
zone. It was also understood that sections of the ordinance related to providing for
performance standards to address impacts on neighbors and criteria for mixed use
development were to be prepared for later incorporation into this chapter. The
Commission’s minutes from the meeting are attached to the staff report (Attachment C).
On January 27, 2003, the City Council reviewed and discussed the code revisions, as
recommended by the Commission. The Council accepted many of the modifications, but
City of Palo Alto Page 1
directed that staff address several issues
changes:
in conjunction with moving forward with the
Revise the ordinance provisions limiting administrative office space in the
Research Park (RP) zone to retain flexibility for businesses but to clarify what is
"ancillary" to research and development (R&D) and what comprises an adequate
component of R&D.
Clarify "medical office" and "medical research" uses, and include research related
to clinical trials in the medical research definition.
Address long-term performance standards (noise, odors, vibration, landscaping,
etc.) for adjacent uses, such as industrial adjacent to residential.
Incorporate mixed use and housing criteria after development by the urban design
consultants.
Proceed to develop TDM approaches for the Stanford Research Park and
Embarcadero/Bayshore areas, and if possible develop TDM standards as part of
the performance standards for these zones.
Prepare design standards or prototypes for industrial park development with
alternate access (spine road in the Research Park), including pedestrian
connections, to avoid impacts on adjacent residential uses.
Although not a part of the Council’s motion, there also was direction to review the 35-
foot height limitation for the RP and ROLM zones, especially to accommodate biotech
needs. The Council also asked the City Manager to look at the economic benefits, of the
various types of uses, especially related to potential revenue generation for the City. The
minutes of the Council meeting are included as Attachment D.
Since January of 2003, staff has focused on the low density residential sections of the
ZOU, on parldng criteria, and on the development of a "form-based code" to address new
and updated land use types, among other tasks. Staff has also, however, maintained a
dialogue throughout that period with the industrial business community, particularly in
the Research Park and Stanford Medical Center areas, to address the.remaining ordinance
issues, as outlined below.
DISCUSSION:
This report focuses on revisions to address three of the Commission and Council’s
concerns regarding the modified ordinance: t) height and floor area exceptions for
equiplnent storage and maintenance in R&D (particularly biotech) facilities; 2)
limitations on office use in the Research Park (RP) zone; and 3) provisions for medical
office and medical research uses in the Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR)
zones. Other remaining issues are discussed in the final section of the discussion. The
revised ordinance is included as Attachment A to the staff report.. Revisions from the
ordinance draft reviewed by the Commission and Council are highlighted in a
~,,~,~ format.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Proposed Ordinance Modifications
Staff has revised the proposed ordinance and definitions (Attachment A) to address issues
raised by the Commission and Council at prior meetings. Each of the tt~’ee key issues is
summarized below, followed by a discussion of how the ordinance has been revised:
Evahtate modifcations to the 35-foot height limit and other provisions to
accommodate equipment needs of biotech cmd other industrial ~sers.
Staff has spent considerable time worldng with the biotech and other R&D users
in the Research Park and with Ken Kornberg of the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) to develop appropriate accommodation for the extensive equipment needs
of industrial users. Mr. Kornberg has extensive architectural experience designing
these types of facilities and his input was quite beneficial to staff’s understanding
of this issue. The revisions were also discussed with the Design & Environment
Committee and with the full ARB. Staff’s recommended ordinance provisions are
found in Section 18.24.040(d) on page 8 and provide for height and floor area
exceptions for equipment storage and access in the Research, Office and Light
Manufacturing (ROLM) and Research Park (RP) districts.
The intent of this section is to provide flexibility to better accommodate equipment
needs for research and development and similar facilities. These uses today require
extensive mechanical equipment for heating, cooling and ventilation as well as
ready access to the equiPment for maintenance purposes. The equipment
frequently needs to be segregated from other systems to avoid .contamination,
requiring additional space. The ability to provide for this equipment and
maintenance access is an important economic consideration for the industry.
Equipment needs are usually addressed in one of three ways: a)provision of
"interstitial space," an intermediate floor(s) between or above other floors,
requiring additional interior height, b) storage on the roof, or c) Storage in a
basement. Diagrams included with the staff report (Attachment B) outline 3
examples of how equipment needs can be addressed in research facilities.,
The revised ordinance language provides for one or i both of the following
exceptions to better allow for equipment needs:
b)
Increase in the maximum building height in these zones from 35 feet to 40
feet, where interstitial space is provided and designed to preclude use as
habitable space, where no more than two habitable stories above grade are
proposed, and where additional setback from residential properties is
required for any portion of the structure above 35 feet.
Exemption of equipment storage areas from floor area calculations when
enclosed on the roof or in a basement, with provisions that a total area not
more than one-third of the footprint of the building is exempt, that rooftop
equipment not exceed 50 feet above grade, and that rooftop equipment
City of Palo Alto Page
adjacent to residential sites be set back at least 20 feet from the building
edge (or 100 feet from the property line, whichever .is less).
Staff believes that these provisions are appropriate to allow flexibility for R&D
and similar facilities to locate their equipment efficiently while assuring that
neighboring properties are not adversely impacted.
Revise limitations on office space in the Research Parle (RP) zone to clarify how
administratiVe office space within or apart from R&D buildings is counted with
respect to the25% limit.
The l~nguage of section 18.24.030(b) on pages 4-6 has been revised to apply the
25% limit only to professional office space. Administrative office space would not
be addressed or limited by the revised approach. Professional office space, for the
purposes of this section, would include professional services in the fields of law,
architecture, design, civil engineering, financial services, and similar professions.
It would exclude administrative office space used to support research and
development uses and would exclude any use that might otherwise be defined as
"research and development." This definition differs slightly from the City’s
definition of "professional office" in that it excludes language related to other
types of engineering with prototype development, which would most likely be
considered as "research and development."
There was previously much discussion about how to determine the extent of
administrative office space in these buildings and to prevent a building from
becoming almost exclusively "administrative office" (management and support
facilities). Staff believes that modifying the restriction to "professional office"
only is appropriate for several reasons:
b)
It is consistent with Stanford’s limitations on its leases, which serve as the
original basis for the 25% restriction, and still addresses the primary
concern of the City that the area not turn into an office park of atton~eys,
accountants, and realtors, etc ............
It avoids the need for the City to attempt to monitor interior uses of the
businesses, which would be difficult to enforce and which is considered
highly intrusive by these businesses.
It recognizes the evolving nature of the research and development, and
particularly the biotech, industry that is prominent in the zone district, and
further supports retention of these industries in the Research Park.
Revise the Definitions to provide for separate definitions .of "medical office "from
"medical research" allowable in the 3/_[edical Office and Medical Research
(~/[OR) zone," including providing for clinical trial research in that zone.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The revised De~qnitions section no~v includes a definition of "medical research"
apart from the "medical office" definition. Medical research under this definition
would now include trial and clinical research, such as for pharmaceutical or
biomedical purposes. Uses meeting the definition of "research and development"
would not, however, be permitted in this category. "Medical research" would be
an allowed use within the MOR district, but would not be permitted elsewhere
tl~roughout Palo Alto unless other zoning districts are amended to .allow that use.
The ~medical office" definition was revised slightly, but retains language
permitting incidental medical and/or dental research within the office to support
client services.
Other Minor Modifications
The proposed ordinance also includes a few other minor modifications from the language
previously reviewed by the Commission, including:
Offsite new vehicle storage for auto dealerships was added to.the list of uses in
Table 1 (page 4) under Service Uses in the ROLM and GM zones. This revision is
consistent with the concurrent action related to the Auto Dealership Combining
District on the June 30th Commission agenda.
Section 18.24.040(e)(3) on page 9 was added to clarify that certain equipment
(generators, air conditioning compressors, etc.) is permitted outdoors, subject to
setback regulations and screening from view from residential properties and meets
noise ordinance standards.
The definition of °°research and development" was revised to expand the list of
examples of types of research and development products and services, and the list
of ancillary administrative uses.
Related Issues to be Addressed
Some of the Counci!’s direction relates to issues that are either to be dealt with later in
the ZOU process or would be outside the ZOU entirely. They include:
Address long-term performance standards (noise, odors, vibration, landscaping,
etc.) for adjacent uses, such as industrial adjacent to residential. This will be
developed as a separate section of the ZOU, to apply to all industrial and
commercial development.
Incorporate mixed use and housing criteria after development by the urban design
consultants. The initial presentation to the Commission of a "form code" for
mixed use, multi-family, village residential, and transit-oriented development is
expected in August. Subsequent to that date, appropriate criteria will be developed
for the industrial districts to allow for specified mixed use and residential uses.
Proceed to develop TDM approaches for the Stanford Research Park and
Embarcadero/Bayshore areas, and if possible develop TDM standards as part of
the performance standards for these zones. This effort is primarily outside of the
limits of the ZOU process, as there are some legal constraints on incorporating
City of Palo Alto Page 5
TDM provisions into zoning. However, there will be some analysis of whether
traffic or parking impacts could be part of the performance standards section.
Prepare design standards or prototypes for industrial park development with
alternate access (spine road in the Research Park), including pedestrian
connections, to avoid impacts on adjacent residentiM uses. Subsequent to
presenting initial form code concepts, the design consultants will prepare a
.prototype that will address some site planning and circulation components of
Research Park development. It is unlikely that information will be incorporated
into the ZOU, however, as it is more appropriate to be addressed in the EIR for the
Research Park.
Evaluate the economic benefits of the various types of uses, especially related to
potential revenue generation for the City. Staffhas addressed t~vo critical issues
with the revisions to the office limitations in the Research Park and the provisions
for equipment needs for R&D and biotech facilities. These changes should allow
for point-of-sale (administrative) offices in those districts and added flexibility for
those industrids. Also, the proposal of an auto dealership overlay responds to the
economic impact issue, and includes allowances in the industrial districts for
offsite vehicle storage. The ZOU budget does not provide for more extensive City-
wide economic analysis of the ordinance.
Commission Consideration of Proposed Revisions
The Planning and Transportation Commission should consider public comments and then
act to recommend to the Council whether to incorporate the proposed changes into the
ordinance. Staff notes that the three major items of discussion relate to Stanford lands
(RP and MOR zones), with the~ exception that the equipment provisions for R&D would
also apply in the ROLM. district (Embarcadero/Bayshore and some other sites east of E1
Camino). The other minor modifications could apply in any district, except that the
vehicle storage provision does not apply on Stanford lands. Commissioners should step
down and recuse themselves as necessary where they have potential conflicts. Discussion
topics should be arranged to address the RP and MOR districts separate from areas east
of E1 Camino Real.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon action by the Commission, the revised ordinance will be forwarded to the City
Council for its direction, likely at a meeting in September. The draft ordinance will later
be revised to incorporate provisions regarding mixed use, parldng, and performance
standards, and will then return to the Commission with the remainder of the ordinance for
final adjustmems or reconciliation with other sections of the updated ordinance.
ATTACHI-~IENTS:
A. Draft Revision of Chapter 18.24 for Office, Research and Manufacturing Districts
B. Examples of Biotech Equipment Needs and Solutions
C. December 11, 2002 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes
D. January 27, 2003 City Council Minutes
City of Palo Alto Page
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
Architectural Review Board
Jean Snider, Stanford Management Co., 2770 Sand Hill Road, Men!o Park, CA 94025
Zoning c~,,~,_,1 ~,,~,,~,,,,~ Update Binder
Prepared By:Curtis Williams, Contract Planner
Reviewed by:John Lusardi, Planning Manager
Department/Division Head Approval:
Chief Planmng
City of Palo Alto Page 7
LAB8 FOR T°NE nY
A typical partial floor plan.
Conventional Design Interstitial Design
i ~ ~ .. ~ i ~---~-~-- e=-~-:~-.~
A Cross section comparJi~a a convention~I design
interstitial design.
Interior view silbwing interstitial space,
The study compared $ost data On the Thomas building
construction with cost data on eight other laboratory
buildings. No one conductin~ the study knew which
buildings used interstitial design. The Thomas building
hard-construction costs were within ! % o{ the lowest proj-
ect cost. ~or combined hard and so~ costs, b-7~iC12.C was
18% lower in overall costs against eight other conventional
lab projects. &. separate study also showed that from an
operations standkmt, the buffdiu~ en~dmeers could cover
more areas in intersff~ial facilities. The averaoe area serviced
by a building en~s 16,400 ft2, At FHCRC operating
engineers.ar~0~ponsible for approxi~nately 40 % more
builj~9~k than peer institutions as a result of the
int~tiM design. Therefore, staffing needs are lower
th~----~ ~ose at comparable research centers..
goals for ~uildind Energy Efficiency
As a component o~ ~ts ?rhmary r~tssion, ~q~C has
¯ta2en a comprehensive a~roach to the ~ze~e~t~on o~
environmental damage and conservaion of resources
in the 25 years that it has been in e.’dstence. During the
planning stages, the goal was to desig-n a building that
was better performing than the existing Seattle energy
code. 19uring desi~n for Phase I, the Seattle.energy code
.was slightly less restrictive t.han ASI-EP ’<AE standm:d
90.1-89. Over time ~e Seattle code has changed and
now it is slightly more restrictive than ASI-I-fq%E 90.1-89.
One incentive to do this was the Energy Smart Services pro-
~am offered hy the local municipal utilit}¢ Seattle City
Light (SCL). The p~ogram has been in operation for more
than 20 years and offers financial incentives for con-umer-
dal, residential and industrial customers to insta~l energy
efficiency measures. The incentives vary by technology.
For exmmple, for lighting measures the incentive is calcu-
lated as $0.14 mu!tiplied by the estimated first-year savin~s
resliting @ore ~he measureS.~or heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC) measures, the savings is calcu-
lated as $0.23 times the estimated savings from the meas-
ure. The SCL offers these finandl incentives because they
believe that efficiency is more cost-effective and environ-
ment~lly responsive than building new generation facilities.
The center Js comlmitted to energy efficiency e×cd]ence
and has won both energy effidencv and architectural
awards for its buildings.
[] Psrimater Offices
[] L~borstori~s
[]Service Cerrlders[]Osrri@rs ~ad Cernman Areas
Figur~ i. Typical PETL floor pl~,n
Figure 2~ Cross section of the building
Attachment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
!7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
:MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
REGULAR MEETING- 7.’00
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pa!o Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:05 P3"I
Cotnmissioners:
Annette Bialson, Chair
]vfichael Griffin, Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burt
Bonnie Packer
Phyllis Cassel
Joseph Bellomo
Staff..
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Julie Caporgno, Acting Chief Planning Offcial
Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Amy French, Current Planning ~’[anager
Carl Yeats, Director of Admin. Services Dept.
Curtis Williams, Consultanr Planner
Robin Winkler, Staff Secretary
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretory
Chair Bialson’ I’d like to start this meeting of December 11, 2002. Will the. secretary please call
roll. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is Oral Communications.
ORAL CO~IMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
spencer request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Bialson: I don’t have any speaker request cards for Oral Communications so I will close
that item.
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Chair Bialson: We now have item three on the New Business is the Zoning Ordinance
Preliminar?~ Recommendations r~garding Industrial and Manufacturing Districts. Would Staff
care to speak on this item?
3,Zoning Ordinance Preliminary Recommendations re~ardin~ Industrial and
Manufacturin~ Districts.
Mr. John Lusardi, Plamaing Mana,~er:- Madam Chair and members of the Commission, the item
before tonight is Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission make a preliminary
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
recommendation on the Industrial and Manufacturing Ordinances to be for~varded to the City
Council in January or February for their preliminary direction. Staff would like to point out that
this is a preliminary action on the part of the Commission and the Commission will be seeing
this ordinance in its entirety with the entire Zoning Code Update. Obviously there are more
areas to address in this ordinance and we will continue to address those.
In the Staff Report presented to the Commission we address several areas that the Commission
had asked us to pm into the ordinance. Staff would like to point out that one of those items, that
is the 25% cap on office in theResearch Park, Staff has continued to !ook at that and.we have
looked at it in the context of Stanford’s comments. Par~ of our presentation tonight is we will be
making and amended recommendation to you for basically a modification of what Stanford has
recommended. There are really two reasons for that. Number one is Staff is looldng for a
standard here that can be reasonably implemented, enforced and monitored. Number two I think
you will here from the testimony tonight that speakers wi!! provide a much better profile of what
constitutes a research and development use in this park in relation to office. So with that I would
like to turn it over to Curtis for a presentation on the Zoning Ordinance Update.
Ms. Furth: Excuse me. Before you do that because there is a specific recommendation about
Stanford you will need to bifurcate this matter again. Now that we have all watched the City
Council do it, it is probably clearer but what is necessary is that recommendations that are
specific to Stanford need to be dealt with by those of you who don’t have a conflict on that
subject then the entire Commission can vote on moving the whole package along.
Chair Bialson: I am not sure I understand. Say it again in slightly different words.
Ms~ F~_lrth: The request before you is to direct the Staff to present this on a preliminary basis to
the City Council. Some of you have a conflict on things that are specific to Stanford. Because
Staff is going to be asking for directionon some things specific to Stanford, when it gets to that
part 0f your action those of you who have Stanford conflicts will need to identify yourselves and
step down. The rest of you will arrive at whatever decision you wish to on the Stanford matter.
Then you can all come back and vote on the issue of moving the whole thing along. It is like the
Housing Element where the inventory was adopted by that part of the Council that didn’t have a
conflict and then the ~vhole Council was able to vote on Housing Element as a ~vhole.
Chair Bialson: We are all able to vote on the procedural matter of advancing it to Council.
Ms. Furth: That’s right.
Chair Bialson: Great. That i understand. Go ahead Curtis.
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
4!
42
43
44
45
46
47
Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant Planner: ThaN,: you. We have laid out in the Staff Report the
issues that there are eight specific items that we want to talk about. We have broken them up
into those that are essentially west of E1 Camino on Stanford lands, east of E1 Canaino in the LM
and GM Zones and then the common areas that are overlapping. So when we get to those
specific items we will break out just as we have in the last couple of meetings on this topic. In
the meantime I would like to just run through the presentation. It probably would be helpfu! to
hear from the audience all at once as you have done before and then get down the specifics of
those issues.
The purpose tonight is to initially accept public testimony regarding these changes, to provide
your preliminary recommendations regarding the ordinance and then to talk about our next steps
in the process.
At your October 23 meeting the Commission reviewed some available information we had in
response to your prior requests. You discussed quite a number of issues and came to consensus
on most of those issues but did direct us to look into io.me changes and make some specific
changes on a number of the items that were before you.
We have categorized those into eigkt different changes and a couple of them are actually Staff
initiated after looldng at some of the comments that you made and going back to the ordinance.
Most of them are in response to specific direction of the Commission.
The first was the cor~cept of medical support service use in the MOR Zone, the Medical Office
and Medical Research Zone. You asked us to revise the definition and include some specific
examples of that to make it a permitted use rather than a conditional use in that zone, to limit the
percentage of total floor area in the zone, you didn’t give us a specific number we talked about
20 or 25% and we have started with a 25%. Certainly I want to hear from you whether you think
that is adequate. Then something that Staff discussed as we got into this a little more is that
perhaps it is useful also to have a medical support retail use-to cover pharmacies and anything
similar like that. We are aware that there is a pharmacy out in that area currently. As it turns out
that is on the parcel that is rezoned from OR to Public Facilities some time ago. So it is not
actually in the zone but we have included the potential for something like that to be within the
zone. If you feel that is a problem we wouId not include it. Then there is one otr~er issue that is
not up there that came up today in some of our discussions with Stanford which relates to
medical research and ~¢hether that is part of a medical office or part of the support service: We
will talk about that in a little more detail in a minute.
The second issue is limiting office use in the Research Park Zone. You asked us to clarify that
office subleases count separately from main tenancies, that the property owner is responsible for
providing the reports that we aren’t looking to all the individual tenants to do that, thatonly
office space in excess of 50% counts against the office cap of 25% where it is supporting R&D.
or manufacturing so that if a p~rticular use has R&D or manufacturing but more than 50% of that
use is office that that.increment would count. We have prepared the draft ordinance in that
manner. Stanford has submitted a letter of opposition and concern about that which is in your
packet and We will speak to that in just a minute as well.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
--26
27
28
29
3o
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
I might add that I think those first two are really the key substantive issues that we probably need
to focus on here tonight. The rest of them I thirtk are a little more straightfortvard.
The third is more detail on the office occupancy permit. We have not actually changed the
ordinance but we have put in italics some language indicating that we anticipate this would be a
ministerial permit that would have a three, day limitation on the timeframe for reviewing and you
would just basically.be comparing to make sure these percentages were met and that any other
prior conditions of approval were met.
Fourth is to revise the current LM. Zone name, which is Limited Industrial and Research. Our
stab at it at this point is Research, Ofiice and Limited Manufacturing, which covers research and
office being the primary uses and then some manufacturing remaining in the district. We have
abbreviated that RLM. We looked at ROM but that was the reverse of MOR so we thought
might be confusing. So for clarification purposes we are using RLM. If you have other
suggestions we are certainly open to those.
You asked us to look at the uses in the GM zone and particularly educational institutional type of
uses and whether those maybe should be prohibited or at least be conditional uses rather than
permitted uses due to potential conflicts with the .industrial uses. Our suggestion as reflected in
the draft ordinance is to make them conditional uses. We didn’t feel comfortable prohibiting
them but the conditional use process would allow, looldng at a specific site to see if those
conflicts existed and it may very ~vell be that at the perimeter of the GM Districts in some
locations that these uses are appropriate or that over time they become appropriate as other uses
change.
The sixth area is one that you discussed last time but didn’t direct a change on. When Lisa and
Wyrme and I looked at it again we determined that there was a conflict. This is ~vhere the
limitation on administrative office uses in the GM zone was discussed. The prior version of the
ordinance said that first of all instead of being a permitted use in the GM zi~ne administrative
office would become a conditional use which means that each administrative office request goes
through a hearing process and some findings need to be made. We also had a provision that said
that administrative office could be no more than 40% of the use on a site, which really when we
looked at it is an accessory use on the site. Our code right now allows things like that. It allows
a certain percentage or less than half of the site to be used for something like that to support the
primary use on the site. So it really was not purposeful to have that provision in and you still
have full discretion, or the City does, to go through the hearing process and review any requests
for administrative office. We felt that that was sufficient in terms of being able to limit
administrative office use in that zone. So we can discuss that if you don’t think that works but
that was our thought process. So the conditional use permit is still in there for administrative
office but the 40% limitation does exist. Remember, this again was not a 40% of the entire GM
zone this was a site-by-site type of 40% limitation.
The seventh area that you directed us to look at was to use either "manufacturing" or °!industrial"
consistently in the purpose statements. We have chosen ’°manufacturing" because we have
worked on a definition for that and that seems to be a more common usage than "industrial.~’
There is a reference in the Comp Plan to "light industriaF’ as being the area where the GM zone
in particular applies but throughout the Zoning Ordinance it seemed to be more consistent to use
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
~9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
!9
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
"manufacturing" so we have done that andjust changed all those "industrials" to
"manufacturing."
Then the last is under the table of uses to show "single-family" and "two-family" uses and just
put in that slot "Deferred to housing discussion." As we talked about when we get to the housing
discussion we will discuss whether it is appropriate to have those kind of uses in these industrial
zones.
That is a quick summary of the eight areas of changes. I want to spend a little bit more time on
those couple of substantive issues. Stanford’s letter from Jean Snider has suggested a somewhat
different way of addressing this 25% limitation. It has called for a term "administrative office
use" any office use associated with a research or manufacturing component would not count
against the 25% limitation. So regardless of how much that office use was on that particular site
or for that user it wouldn’t count. What they have called "professional standalone office space"
such as attorney, accounting offices, that kind of thing would count against the 25%. Then they
also had suggested one of the changes was that the reporting that we have requested that Stanford
provide to document these things be required not only as the Director reasonably determines but
also as the owner can reasonably produce given its contractual rights with tenants. We have
looked at this proposal and also discussed it with Stanford and after hearing their reasoning we
think that generally that works from an administrative standpoint. It is much easier to monitor
and enforce because we don’t have to get into individual buildings and try to break them up as to
what the square footage is there. We just need to categorize whether it is an R&D user or an
office user or a manufacturing user. We are concerned that their language of using
"administrative" and "professional" conflicts with the way we use it in our code. So our
suggestion is to substantially.use the language that Stanford has proposed bm to delete the
references to "administrative" and "professional." We are not really interested in distinguishing
exactly what the office use is called but if there is an R&D component or a manufacturing
component to that site or that user then we are going to say that that’s an R&D or manufacturing
use and not try to get into whether the office is called professional or administrative or whatever.
On the other hand if there isn’t that component like an attorney’s office or an accounting office
then that is all considered office and that gross floor area for that site does count against the 25%.
We also took objection to the language about the reporting. We believe that just saying, "As the
Director may reasonably .require," is sufficient and that it implies in it that it is reasonable from
the applicant and landowner’s standpoint as well. If there is for some reason a problem with a
tenant where Stanford can’t get certain information and that tenant is applying for something
then we are going to have go directly to that tenant and get that information fi’om them. I think
that is a reasonable approach.
So we would recommend essentially using the language Stanford has proposed but with these
modifications of eliminating the references to administrative and professional Office and
maintaining what we ha.ve prgposed as the language on the reporting requirements.
As far as the medical research issue goes the confusion there is that the current language for
medical office, the definition of medical office, includes services related to medical research,
testing and analysis. We have sort of felt like that was covering the medical research aspect of
this Medical Office and Medical Research zoning district. There is some concern that that may
read that it is only where it is in support of a doctor’s office or a doctor’s clinic or a dental clinic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8.
9
10
11
12
13
!4
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
or something like that. That it doesn’t really apply if it is just a clinical research office use where
there isn’t an actua! doctor’s office associated with it. It seemed tous that the intent was to have
it broad enou~ to include those types of research uses as well.. The Medical Support Service
definition includes as an example trial and clinical research support. So that creates somewhat of
a conflict with the Medical Office. So our suggestion there would be that unless you feel that
medical research should not be a strictly permitted use within this district that we would clarify
so that we would include those provisions for trial and clinica! research in the definition of
Medical Office and remove it from the support services language. The other alternative is to
create a separate definition of medical research, which we prefer not to do but that is a possibility
too and list it as an additional permitted use. That is what we would recommend on that
particular item.
As I mentioned we have tried to group the proposed changed: Again, numbers one, two and
three relate to the Stanford lands west of E1 Camino. Four, five and six relate to districts that are
east of E1 Camino and the last two are general and cross boundaries of the districts. So if you are
conflicted in either zone then you need to I believe, as Wynne said, step down from the
discussion on both of those items.
The next steps in this process are, as John mentioned, to report to the Council in January or
February on the Commission’s preliminary recommendations and get initia! feedback from the
Council. Secondly, we will be revisiting these districts and the criteria after deve!oping the
mixed-use, parking and performance standards criteria at a later date. So we will be coming
back and plugging in those holes. Then reconciling or adjusting as needed once we get to the
end and are trying to put all this package of the ordinance together. With all the other districts
we will inevitably find that there are some areas that need to be tweaked at that time. As far as
the Zoning Ordinance Update overall goes, you wi!l be seeing next week some information from
our design consultants about the development of design prototypes for some of these specified
developments. Moving along on that process and then on Jam~ary 27 we are anticipating a
session with the Council to introduce them to the design component of the process and the kind
of things that you have seen so far so that they can get up to speed on that. Then we are
anticipating that early in next year you will be having a study session on parking to get going on
that important issue. With that, I would be glad to answer any questions before moving to the
public.
Chair Bialson: Any questions by Commissioners before we hear from the public? Pat,
Commissioner Burt: I see Director Emslie stepped away for a moment. I would like to direct
this question partially to him. Here he is, great. At the last Council meeting where the Council
reviewed the former Scott’s Seafood site several of the Council Members raised issues regarding
prospective housing opportunities or incentives for housing within some of the LM Districts.
This is something we touched upon em’lier in our discussions and it was ldnd of initially viewed
as perhaps impractical. Upon hearing some of the Council Members aI!d additional thoughts that
I had had on the subject recently I want to toss this concept back on the table. I would like to ask
questions of Staff regarding some of the concerns and objections that were initially raised to
them. As I understood them one had to do with whether there were seismic problems related to
it being on former Baylands. Second some people have raised issues about odors related to the
nearby waste treatment plant. Third is distance to retail. Can I have any Staff thoughts on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
--26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
whether these are barriers that would preclude additional consideration of housing in these
districts?
Chair Bialson: Steve, if you could just answer whether they would be impediments I would
appreciate it because I don’t want to go off track now.
)cir. Emslie: There are of course environmental impacts but there are I thi!~_k feasib!e mitigations
for including housing in the East Bayshore area.
)cir. Williams: I seem to recall that our discussion here was that we didn’t want to preclude it at
sort of this level. That when we get into our discussion of mixed-use and multi-family type
products and single family too and we put all of that off until we have that discussion to
determine to what extent we would want to include it in this zone. Whereas I think we said in
the GM gone that wasn’t something that was likely to be feasible.
Ms. Furth: I think we just saw housing as a defen’ed issue, generally,
Mr. Williams: Righ{.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions before we go to the public? Okay, a lot of cards recently
came up each speaker will have three minutes. There may be some questions by Commissioners
so we would appreciate your staying by the speakers’ area there in case we do have questions.
The first speaker is Sherri Sager to be followed by Tracey Hutchison.
Msl Sherri Sager, Packard Children’s Hospital, 725 Welch Road, Palo Alto: Good evening.
Thank you very much. I am the Director of Government Relations for Lucile Packard Children’s
Hospital. I would first like to thank again the Commission and the Staff for worldng with us to
come up with a definition that I think is amenable to all of us. What I wanted to say is that we
are happy with the clarifications that Curtis and Staffhas presented this evening. We had some
concerns that research wasn’t delineated enough and so I believe either of his options for
clarification of either putting the clinical trials under medical offices or having a separate
definition of medical research. We were very concerned that if that was listed under the 25% cap
then we would have created an artificial cap in our medical research. So we are supportive of the
Staff recommendation asit was presented this evening. I am happy to answer any questions.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie, do you have a question?
Commissioner Packer: Yes. From your knowledge of the medicat world by having medical
research as a permitted use along with the medical office is there a potential 0fmedical research
eventually moving the medical offices out or is that unlikely to happen?
Ms. Sager: I believe that it is unlikely because in most cases where we have medica! research it
is what is called the dry research, Some of these terms I am learning myself. So it is in the
office. It is looking through results. It is studying. But it is not a laboratory so it is not likely to
move a physician’s office out of the area. Or we do clinical trials where you have patients come
in and then pull in that research. So it really is a compatible use with medical offices.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Packer: But isn’t it possible that you could have a small laboratory with some
small research that you wouldn’t want to eliminate laboratories?
Ms. Sager: This doesn’t eliminate laboratories, It allows the whole gamut of research, which is
why we are having it combined under one area. It allows the whole gamut of research.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Tracey Hutchison to be followed by JeffBirdwe!!. Then
Jeff Birdwell to be followed by Jean Snider.
Mr..JeffBirdwe11, Sares Regis/TIBCO Software, 330 Hillview, Palo Alto: Good evening. We
are representing TIBCO Sofavare in the Research Park. We would just like to say this evening
that we are supportive of Staff’s revised recommendation. We were quite concerned about the
recommendation at it was previously written in that we would have become a nonconforming use
within the Research Park. We are currently occupying about 300,000 square feet of space within
the Park and saw the initial recommendation as a th_reat to our future here in Palo Alto. We
would have indeed become a nonconforming use as would many of the other successful
companies like Hewlett Packard as we read the initial draft. So we are supportive of the revised
direction.
Chair Bialson: We have some questions for you. Pat.
Commissioner Butt: Jeff, I can’t recall if you were one of the speakers last time that I asked
whether you could find out information on whether TIBCO’s products are sales tax generating.
Ms, Birdwell: Yes and we are still researching that. I hope that before yearend we should have
that to Curtis and to Staff.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair BiMson: Thank you. I think that’s it. Jean Snider to be followed by Bud Mission.
Ms. Jean Snider, 2770 Sandhill Road. Menlo Park: I am the Director of the Stanford Research
Park. I really don’t have anything to add to the letter that I submitted. I wanted to just convey
our support of the revised recommendation and just be here to answer your questions if you have
any.
Chair Bialson: None right now but one never lmows. Bud Mission to be followed by Steve
Richardson.
Mr. Bud Mission, Roche Bioscience, 3401 Hillvie~v Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening
Commissioners and Chair Bialson. I am Director of Facilities Planning for Roche Bioscience. i
would like to thank you for the opporttmity to speak. Roche Bioscience currently operates in
approximately 900,000 square feet of laboratory and office.facilities on 105 acres in the Park. In
the short time that I have this evening I would like to focus my comments on two aspects
covering the RP Zone or the RLM Zone now.
The first has to do with the approach of capping the internal office proportion of use in an R&D
business, t think this idea seems to have been conceived from the notion that what has been
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
t4
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
applied in the case of limited retail business is fair and reasonable to also apply to R&D business.
The problem is that the shoe just doesn’t fit. R&D business works on an entirely different pro
forma.
First of all the business investment horizon is completely different. R&D requires far geater
capital outlays on a square foot basis but more importantly it need the flexibility to shift the
balance between the office support and the dedicated research spaces such as laboratories and
special purpose space over time. Let me be more specific about this. I am going to talk about it
from the standpoint ofbi0tech and bioscience arguably one of the brighter segments of our
.regional economy. I think this is important as a point of information to understand the dynamics
of what goes on with a biotech startup. So I am going to actually draw your attention to the
screen now and I am going to through a series of life cycle phases of what a bio startup actually
experiences. If we look at the initial phase of startup typically a company that is entering what
we call a proof of mechanism or proof of concept phase in which an idea originates. Typically
this would be something where a molecule or an idea for a molecule is generated. In the case of
a company that i~ worldng in the area of drug discovery, cardiovascular, onc01ogy, any number
of areas this idea originates at the molecular or cellular level and in the first few years of
operation typically a staff of maybe a dozen or so people worldng in a facility size of under
20,000 square feet predominantly laboratory. In this particular phase you will find a company
that is essentially two-thirds laboratory based, one-third office. You can See the cost outlays is
$5.0 to $15 million in seed money necessary to get this company throuo~h this proof of concept
stage.
Next comes the pro-clinical. The heavy lifting begins. At this point they need to be able to take
this idea and move it into typically an animal model and test it for what are tl~e metabolic effects,
what are the potential adverse effects that might be there? What potentially might be the
pathology related to this molecule that they may be testing? Typically you are going to see a
facility that now requires a [viaticum]. Again, you are going to see the ratios even though the
size of the operation will Wow in both square footage and population. It is typically still about
two-thirds laboratory and 0he-third office. Again you can see that the capital outlays rise
dramatically. So in the first let’s say five years of operation your burn rate could be already
through some between $50 and $70 million. Again, this is before anything has even gone into
man for testing.
So let’s move on to clinical development. This is where the real heavy lifting occurs. Where the
initial studies in man begin. Again, I don’t have time to go through each of the phases of clinical
research but this where we big to see a dramatic change in the company, The company must
ramp up with the support functions to enable it to make the FDA filings, to deal with al! of the
clinical data that needs to be generated to validate both safety and ethicacy and to produce the
necessary reports that may require bio-statisticians, a whole number of people. This is where we
start to see the dynamics change and the laboratory and sort of typical research component starts
to reduce and we start to see the administrative component of the company rise tremendously.
During this phase and during the late stages of phase three when there is a huge, huge clinical
effort ~ve see the ratios begin to switch to one-third laboratory and tw0-thirds office component.
Now this is a critical stage of development for any R&D company. If it is disrupted and it can’t
flow through and understand that the levels of investment here and the timeframe; time is the
enemy of any company like this because it has to prove to the FDA that it has got a viable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
!7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
--26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
commercial product. So the race is on through this phase. You can see the numbers of the
dollars involved and potentially the size, 50,000 to 100,006 square feet.
As we move on to FDA approval there is always questions that come back. So the research isn’t
done. They typically will have to resubmit data to validate issues or answer questions so another
one to two years involved potentially another couple hundred million dollars involved. At this
point the emphasis still remains heavy on the admin side, a little lower on the research side.
Then finally commercialization and that is getting ready to get this thing out to market.
So let’s add up all of these costs along that second line and those are costs that a research
company has to endure before dollar one is made. That is the fundamental difference between
R&D and retail. The capital outlay, the necessity to be able to be flexible in terms of shifting the
functions internally to be able to accommodate both the laborator) as well as the administrative
component and the timeframes. This could go out for ten or twelve years. So this is really ~vhat
is involved with a typical biotech company today. Now, admittedly biotechs will try to ally with
other bigger firms to try to address some of these functions.
Chair Bialson: Coutd you wrap up? We have given you a lot more time and appreciate the
education.
)cir. Mission: Okay. The point I want to make here is the issue fundamentally of flexibility. If
companies are going into this kind of an investment timeframe with the problem of can they
grow, can they not grow it is going to be difficult for them. I want to reinforce the point that was.
raised earlier in the amendment. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. There aren’t any questions so we will go on to Steve Richardson to
be followed by Robert Wheatley.
)cir. Steve Richardson, 4582 Gatefree Circle, Pleasanton: Good evening. I am Vice President of
Alexandria, a real estate investment trust. We o~vn property in the Stanford Research Park and
we are principally involved as a company on a national scale investing, owning and managing
life science properties similar to ones that were described.
I just wanted to point out three different perspectives. We are in support of the revision that
Staff has made. If those revisions hadn’t been made from the perspective of staff we just got
~nished renovating a small project, 12,000 square feet in the Stanford Research Park, One of the
areas has electrostatic carpet init. If this more than 50% office were in place we might be in a
situation ~vhere we would be spending a lot of staff time deciding whether a couple thousand
square feet with electrostatic carpet was office space or was it R&D space or was it support
space and those types of decisions would be repeated over and over again. From a tenant’s
perspective looking at different alternatives knowing that there was this uncertainty that would
have a chilling effect on a tenant’s ability to go ahead and commit to the Park knowing thattheir
needs might change as was just pointed out and if they bumped over that threshold they all of a
sudden are a nonconforming use. From an investor’s perspective it would have the same chilling.
effect. We wouldn’t be able to move forward with investments knowing that an R&D tenant,
which is the stated goal of all of the working sessions I have been involved in and the Staff
Report that I read, if that R&D goal was not met or jeopardized by this additional ruling that
would be a problem. Finally, I thinic yo.u can look just up the road to San Francisco, the
1
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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
redevelopment agency had almost an identical criteria for the biotech development around
Mission Bay and that has had an absolute chilling effect on investment up there. I think part of
the reason why they are having problems getting started is only now are they having a lot more
certainty around how the process will work. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Robert Wheatley to be followed by Joy Ogawa.
lVir. Robert Wheatlev, 3225 Ash Street, Pale Alto: I represent or own different office buildings,
a lot of them in the Research Park and different areas in Pa!o Alto. A general comment, I would
strongly advise not to tinker with percentages on the different zones just because you can’t
legislate demand. The way we have survived in the Park is by being able to take on biotech
when biotech was viable, before that other things were viable and we had to have the flexibility
to accommodate those tenants. If you put percentages on that are attractive today for some
reason it has a really problematic effect if the economic environment changes tomorrow. Also
echoing Bud’s comments I have biotech tenants and I am in discussions with them now. They
are looking ten years out and what will we be able to do. They are in phase three trials where
before their use was very lab intensive and they had one building, our building. Now they have
intensified lab use in another building they have acquired nearby and our building has become
more of their clinical trial looking more like office space. So they do change and they need the
flexibility to change. They have options. They have spoken to us about options of moving to
other places and anything that is a threat to the $50 million to $100 million to $300 million
investment they have made is an extreme negative and they would look to other places where
they don’t have the threat to that investment. I want to make that recommendation that we do
not tinker with and set specific limits that while attractive today or for specific purposes that may
be attractive limit flexibility in the long run. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you.
Commissioner Burr: I have a question, What do you see as the trend in demand for industrial or
Research Park space for biotech applications?
Mr. Wheatle¥: Biotech is as Bud said been one of the bright spots. Obviously other uses have
declined that we saw in the Park a few years ago. So there have been biotech uses that have
moved in where other more computer or dot.corn kind of research or office has gone away. So it
is a very important element right now,
Commissioner Burr: I certainly appreciate that it is a growing trend and I am trying to get a
sense of is it five percent of the utilization going to ten percent or is it ten percent going to fifty
percent. Can you give me any ldnd of sense?
Mr. Wheatley: I think Jean Snider might be able to give us a better sense of that. I am putting
her on the spot, thank you very much. I am not really in aposition to tell you what percentage of
the Park going to which use I lcnow that in a building where I used to have Hewlett Packard I
no~v have a cardiovascular research group. That has been duplicated in various locations
throughout the Park so it is becoming more important.
Commissioner Burr: Thank you. Joy.
10
!1
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
1 Ms. Oga~va: I guess I am not sure if I am even understanding this correctly. I guess I am so
2 taken aback by the events in previous items tonight as well. Maybe I am not understanding this
3 correctly. My understanding is that Staff is basically recommending Stanford’s revisions except
4 for the idea about the administrative and l?rofessional office. So basically my understanding
5 from that is that this whole idea of whether it is R&D or office what I am getting is that if there is
6 0.1% research and development use that that is considered research and development use 100%
7 in terms of the use. If any little part of that is research and development it is considered research
8 and development. So I am seeing this as basica!ly totally undermining the whole idea of limiting
9 office .at all. I don’t know that other residents who were involved in focus groups and ~vhatever
and who had watched previous Planning Commission meetings think. As I say I am totally
surprised by this. I don’t really understand why the sudden huge backtrack. So the way I see it
going, through is if it goes through with Stanford’s revisions you might as well not have any
office limitations at all and that is pretty much what you are doing and saying. So as long as you
can say that 0.001% of your use is research and development it is research and development.
Wow. I don’t really even know how to react to that. So I guess that is what I have to say. I
think that Stanford’s changes would undermine the whole concept of office limitations.
Totally different subject, as far as the LM and the 2300 East Bayshore we had a little discussion
about the interest that Council showed in housing. Council from my understanding that main
part of that motion was to look at auto dealerships, how to include auto dealerships in those
zones. The way I see it now is right now basically LM doesn’t allow auto dealerships and CS
allows auto dealerships but also allows greater intensity of development. So I really think that
attention should be paid to how you can accommodate auto dealerships without allowing for
higher intensity office development. Those are my comments. Thanks.
Chair Bialson: Thank you, Joy. We will come back to the Commission now. I have no more
cards. Any questions or comments by Commissioners at this time? Cu~is.
Nk. Williams: If you don’t mind just a couple comments. One is that a few of the speakers
mentioned nonconforming as they would be nonconforming with an existing or proposed level of
office space. I just wanted to clarify even though we are supportive of generally their position
that this would not result in nonconformity. The proposal that the Commission discussed last
time and that is in the draft tonight is that the increment above 50% office space would count
against the 25% cap. It doesn’t mean you couldn’t have more than 50% office space. It doesn’t
make you nonconforming to have more than 50% office space. We understand the dilemma that
creates for trying to apportion that and for businesses trying to grow and make those shifts in
flexibility. Apart from that I just want to clarify there is not a nonconformity issue it is just an
issue of counting against the cap or not counting against the cap.
I did want to also mention that Joy is correct that what this does is if you have a fairly small "
percentage of R&D or manufacturing and the rest is office it would not count but by the same
token what we want to make sure it is still fundamentally an R&D firm or a manufacturing firm
that may be making that transition to having more office but it is not an office use. It is not what
we typically think of as profession,al offices and that has seemingly been the major concern, the
gro~vth in professional office space out there apart from the R&D and manufacturing industries.
It does address that and that 25% cap does address those. It is currently about 19% or 20%. So
it does create a fairly small finite growth potential for those types of uses.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
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
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: Curtis, on that subject I think the, excuse me?
Ms. Furth: Are you beginning to get to your deliberation stage?
Chair Bialson: All we are doing now is asking questions of Staff.
Ms. Furth: At some point questions get indistinguishable from deliberations.
Chair Bialson: Pat, are you going into deliberations or are you planning on asking a question?
Commissioner Butt: I want to ask a question about how Staff would establish a meaningful
distinction in this regard. So I will let Wynne interrupt me ifI go too far.
Chair Bialson: Let me just say if you are going into the issue of Stanford matters it probably
would be appropriate at this time for whoever is unable to participate in Stanford matters to say
so and leave.
Mr. Williams: On the overhead the categories, the first three issues do relate to Stanford
properties.
Commissioner Casse!:. I am unable to participate due to a conflict as both my husband I work for
Stanford University.
Chair Bialson: Now we can go on with your question, Pat.
Commissioner Burt: So as I perceive the problem we want to provide adequate latitude for
companies that may have over 50% of a facility or a site that is devoted to administrative
services but that the function of that company and that site is to a large extent true R&D. So how
do we differentiate between wanting to require that it be substantially R&D even though we may
not be requiring that on a square footage basis it be a majority versus a token R&D, somebody
puts a Bunsen burner in a closet and they qualify as an R&D facility? So how do we make a
distinction that is meaningful without being burdensome?
Mr. Williams: I tl~ink that is a good question. I think when we have talked to Stanford asked
that what they would be providing us with fairly detailed description of the R&D or
manufacturing component that a particular site or tenant provides. There is some judgment
involved in whether that’s truly involved in R&D or if it is like you said some token corner
office that they have a test tube in.
Commissioner Burt: So is it Staff’s intention to develop something that is descriptive that would
attempt to provide the basis for a judgment by Staff on whether something is qualified?
Mr. Williams: I think it was our intent to develop some accompanying guidelines for how this
process occurred. I think we might have even put something in.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie mentions that it is in the definitions. Is that correct Bonnie?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
Commissioner Packer: Well there is a definition of research and development in the definitions
on the last page of our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Williams: That is true but I am thinldng item number seven under this section on office
limitations in the Research Park zone on page five of the Ordinance says,.’°Director may reqmre
a report as far as the office space uses versus other uses and establisk procedures and standards
implementing this section including directions in determining predominant use on a site."
Ms. Furth: I do read Stanford’s language, their request essentially, to say if you are an R&D
company you can do virtually anything you want on your facilities at the Research Park. In other
words, if you are a company that runs retailers you can’t but if you are an R&D company, you
can.
Chair Bialson: We are dealing with item number t~vo a little out of sequence but we might as
well go with that. Yes, Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: We had a presentation that eloquently showed an evolvement of an
R&D use. Is Staff under the understanding that as it evolves and it morphs into a predominantly
a commercialization of their use and that demands more administrative office space, is it your
intention to allow that metamorphosis of their company to be allowed and as it shrinks and
heaves in directions that that is just par~ of the R&D evolving business that Palo Alto is able to
just go with?
Mr. Williams: So long as it remains that same fundamental R&D firm, yes. That evolvement
will happen and there will that increase likely in administrative functions.
Commissioner Bellomo: Is there any way of monitoring that or enforcing how internally it
works? There is no monitoring of that.
Mr. Williams: That is much of the dilemma. It is very difficult to closely monitor it.
Commissioner Bellomo: It seems like fundamentally the problem we are looldng at is how it
grows and falls back.
Commissioner Packer: I would imagine that the other thing that could happen is once the
company goes up that curve and gets administrative the one idea and the one concept that
becomes commercia!ly successful they will say we don’t want to be a one product company.
They will probably have a few other things.in the pipeline so that there always could be a certain
amount of R&D that is coming in line for the next product. So I don’t see that every company is
going to all of a sudden morph into offices because if their strength is originally R&D they are
going to probably go with that and keep it there. The sense that we got from our previous study
sessions is that the Research Park is a research park and there are incentives for R&D.
Mr. Lusardi: I think you have to look at it the other way too which is we don’t want to .build in
regulations that preclude R&D from coming in. If their lifecycle is what is being presented and
it is a true R&D the nature of a true R&D growth and development then you don’t want
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
!0
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
regulations necessarily that are going to prevent or preclude R&D companies from wanting to
come into the R&D park also.
Chair Bialson: Absolutely. Go ahead.
Conmiissioner Holman: There certainly are administrative difficulties to this. One loophole of
this is that it wouldn’t preclude a research and deve!opment company from c6ming at the get-go
and installing itself into the Research Park when it is predominant use is not research and
development but’it is vastly predominant use if office. I don’t how to best address that without
doing some kind predominant use monitoring. I understand the difficulties of that but how do
we do what we can do to keep it a research and development area?
Chair Bialson: It seeias to me that Staffis essentially saying we can’t do the monitoring that we
are talking about. We are ending up looldng at trying to, yes Wyrme.
Ms. Furth: I think it is even beyond that. The property owner and its tenants are saying we don’t
want any limits. That we find the mere possibility of limits on our ability to shift space back and
forth among the various functions of an R&D company makes the unattractive comparatively.
This maizes this a less desirable place for R&D companies .to operate whether they wish to put all
their licensing lawyers there or their headquarters or people with Bunsen burners. The City’s
original proposal was to require predominant or at least half of the floor space to be used for lab
space and that turned out to not even accommodate a lot of the existing R&D firms that are there.
So ~vhile it is true that monitoring is expensive and cumbersome at times I think the debate is
really about whether limits are appropriate. What this had said is that law firms should be
limited, I try not to fe’el too defensive, things like freestanding law firms and accountants and
freestanding service businesses should be limited. That is really ~vhat the Stanford proposal
limits the office limits too.
Chair Bialson: Also; Wall Street Journal and other places so let’s not feel too defensive in our
occupation. I thiN< that is the crux of the issue at this point. Do you have something to say to
that, Michael?
Commissioner Griffin: Are we in the deliberative stage now where we can talk? I liked Jean’s
letter. I thought that it did a good job of describing the way an R&D company moves from being
two guys in a garage to two guys in a garage and a salesman and as.they become more and more
successful the office requirement increases. That has been my experience. Furthermore when I
have been in an R&D company I have been struck by the fact that you go through those swinging
doors and instead of guys in lab coats it is engineers sitting in front of computers, row after row
after row. Consequently I am pretty supportive t{~ the compromise that I think John and Curtis
worked out with Stanford. I think it shows a realistic approach to what is going on in the R&D
industry and I am supportive. This is based on my own experience.
Chair Bialson: Do we need to make a motion for you to proceed? Okay, would you care to
make a motion?
Commissioner Griffin: Now this would be just for topic two.
Chair Bialson: Yes, this is item number two.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
!7
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
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: Fwill move that we approve the Staff revised compromise measure that
they developed here and presented to us tonight.
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: I will second.
Chair Bialson: I think you have already spoken to your motion.
Commissioner Griffin: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: The seconder?
Commissioner Packer: I think everything has been said. I think flexihility in this context makes
a lot of sense.
Chair Bialson: Fine. Do you want to say something, Karen?
Commissioner Holman: Clarification. I want to make sure that I am clear on this in one place it
seems clear and in another place it doesn’t seem clear that the combined administrative and
professional standalone would not exceed 25%, not administrative office and then additionally
professional office could each have 25%, it is the combined should not exceed 25%.
Mr. Lusardi: Essentially what you are saying is correct, yes. If it is a standalone office whether
it is administrative or other office, there is no R&D or manufacturing component then it goes
into the 25% cap.
Ms. Furth: We are not proposing using the exact language submitted by Stanford. That
embodies a proposal.
Chair Bialson: So We have clarification. Yes, one more question.
Commissioner Burt: Could Staff clarify this item B-7 within the proposed ordinance, page five,
this what Bonnie pointed out gives Staff some role in making sure that it is an R&D facility even
if it has over the maj ority of the floor space devoted toward administrative?
Mr. Williams: Right, this would have us come up with some parameters here for making some
of those determinations based on the definition that we have of R&D but also probably based .on
some specifics and laying ont in some specific circumstances we would consider this. I am sure
we would work very closely with Stanford on coming up on what that is so we would understand
what the reality is of that but we do need to have something that at least avoids the abuse of this
kind ofprovisiom
Commissioner Bnrt: I want to make sure I understood what the paragraph ~vas saying:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
2o
21
22
23
24
-25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ms. Furth: It is an enabling paraN’aph of a kind that we propose to put in a lot of places in the
ordinance that authorizes the Director to issue procedures to hnplement a broader rule that is set
forth here. Incidentally, I don’t understand this proposal to say that you need a particular size
component of R&D work taking place in the Research Park if you are an R&D fxrm. If you feel
differently then you should tell us.
Chair Bialson: I think your co_mment Wynne may go to earlier discussions we had. I don’t think
that is something that we are having now unless you feel strongly.
Commissioner Burt: I am still trying to make sure I understand what would occur to help make
sure that are counting as R&D facilities companies that have a sizable portion of their operation
being R&D. That is what I am trying to make sure of is that we have mechanisms to
differentiate that.
Chair Bialson: Does Staff understand the question?
Mr. Williams: I thiN( we have a mechanism hereto try to be more specific about that but I don’t
have any specifics for you as to what those parameters would be right now. I agree we need to
be clearer for the benefit of the applicants in particular who are going to come to us and ask if
this is acceptable that we all have an understanding of whether we are really talldng R&D or it is
just a shell for an office.
Commissioner Burt: Perhaps ~ve can be able to move forward by saying that ~vhen this comes
back to us we can have a more clear understanding of what this paragraph would entail.
Ms. Furth: Perhaps you can also when it comes back give us direction about what it is you are
talldng about. There is one issue, which is classifying the ~vhole enterprise as whether or not it is
an R&D enterprise. Then there is the issue of classifying the occupancy and it would probably
be helpful to get more direction from you when it comes back.
MOTION PASSED
ChairBialson: Okay, we can have a vote on the motion that was made by Michael and seconded
by Bormie. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those against nay. That passes unanimously
with Phyllis not being able to participate.
Commissioner Holman: Just one little clarification, I just want to make absolutely certain that
tire will be addressed when it comes back to us so that we will be able to get clarification on
that.
Chair Bialson: You mean seven.
lVlr. Williams: Number seven on page five.
Commissioner Holman: Well, five and seven actually on page five. I thought Pat was also
speaking to number five.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
i4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Bialson: Were you spealdng to number five or was it on page five, item seven?
Commissioner Burr: I wasn’t addressing five but it doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t apply. I hadn’t
reread it.
Mr. Williams: I think seven wi!l he!p clarify five.
Commissioner Holman: I see five as being problematic as well so I just want to make sure those
are going to come back and we can still clarify those and get a little more clarity on them.
Ms. Furth: Well Staff’s recommendation that I thought you passed the motion on says that sites
will be amalgamated in evaluating whether there is an R&D presence.
Commissioner Holman: That was not my understanding so then I would need to change my vote
them.
Fir. Williams: I see.
Chair Bialson: I was thinldng that they were amalgamated. So if there was a misunderstanding
let’s go back and take the vote over again.
SECOND VOTE - MOTION PASSED
All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed. Okay, we now have a vote where all
Commissioners voted positivelyexcept that Karen did not and Phyllis was not able to participate.
Thank you Karen.
Okay, going back to item number one, the medical support services.
Fir. Williams: There our recommendation at this point is to include the trial and clinical research
components within medical office, clarify that the medical research that is discussed there
includes that trial and clinical research component as part of that definition, therefore, it would
not be under medical support service. Other,vise, both of those are permitted uses in the MOR
District.
Chair Bialson: Any discussion on that point? Pat.
Commissioner B~.trt: I just want to make sure that medical research would not potentially include
biotech R&D. Is there an adequate differentiation there?
Mr. Williams: I think the definitions will help but I thiN< also we would leave this provision in
here about the hazardous materials in excess of allowances contained in Title 17, which I think is
pretty limiting. It sort of is a threshold on when haz-mat stuff comes into effect. That would
more. likely, apply on an R&D site.
Commissioner Burr: I .am not sure ~vhether that does differentiate adequately and I would like to
make sure that these areas that we are referring to offofWelch Road which are predominantly
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
for physicians and limited amounts of medical research associated with those operations, that we
don’t have a future time where biotech companies can afford to out bid physicians for this space
and we inadvertently allowed large biotech firms to be able to occupy this space when that
wasn’t our intention. So I think we are going to need to have language that will adequately
differentiate that. I would not attempt to determine what that lan~lage would be tonight but that
would be important to me.
lVlr. Williams: We could even specifically say in there this does not include research and
development firms.
Chair Bialsol~: I think something does need to be addressed in .the definitions. I think Pat is
absolutely correct on that. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I just wanted to support Pat’s comments there. Even though there isn’t
an identified pressure on those doctor’s offices and dentist offices currently we just don’t have
the ability to foresee what happens in the future. So protection of those services to the
community I think is paramount. So I think there does need to be clarification.
Chair Bialson: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I would like to ask Curtis about medical support services. You have
given some examples and I have a question-about fund raising and public relations. Those two
strike me as being beyond the limits of what I would think of.
Chair Bialson: I see one of the members of the public leaping to their feet. If you could wait I
would appreciate it.
Commissioner Griffin: I am just saying that I think in support of what we have heard from my
two fellow Commissioners about wanting to preserve this zoning for doctor’s offices and
dentist’s offices that when we get into the area of fund raising and public relations, for me, that is
not a very compelling use for use of zoning that is supposed to be reserved for doctors and
dentists.
Fir. Williams: During the.discussion that I think we had last time Ms. Sager, who I am sure
would like to speak to that, indicated some of the connections and why she felt like it was
appropriate or necessary for those to be located in close proximity to the offices and the hospital.
I think the flip side of it was the Commissi~)n was tryingto be as broad as possible here but then
layering a limitation on the amouiat of the space that could be used for that purpose. That is why
the definition is broader but there is now a 25% limitation on the space to be used for those types
of support uses. That is the direction I heard at the last meeting.
Commissioner Griffin: [ just wonder if my fellow Commissioners have any thoughts about that.
I am just throwing that out as a concern.
Chair Bialson: I think that the discussion that we had and can have again if need be gave me
substantial reason for supporting this. I think with the existence of both Packard and Stanford
Hospital there they do need to have some of their as you say fund raising and public relations
close to the hospital to bring those folks in from, I think they are now located on Page Mill Road.
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
They are now on Welch? Okay, they were on Page Mil! at one time and it was very difficult. So
I tlSnk that was what prompted that language and whether we wanted to make sure that language
addressed just that use that Packard and others have experienced the need for rather than being as
broad as this may be what you are speaking to Michae!, is that correct?
Commissioner Griffin: Maybe addressing it thi’ough a reduction of the percentage from 25 down
to 15 or something like that perhaps is another way of addressing it. and then it could be anything
that you want such as if you wanted to have public relations and your accounting department in
there.
Chair Bialson: The issue is how much you want to fine-tune this. Let me have Bormie’s input,
Commissioner Packer: I just want to point out Michael that the 25% would apply to all those
medica! support uses and the retail uses and when you add them all up you are probably just
going to have a little bit of a fund raising office and a little bit of PR office and little pharmacy,
When it all adds up it can’t be more than 25%, So I think the concerns that you raise could be
addressed that way. Maybe it will never reach the 25%. Like even now in the RLM zone it is
not yet at 25%. So that is why when we had the discussion we thougl~t that that would be a
reasonable way to keep those uses down.
Chair Bialson: Karen, do you want to say something? Then I would like a motion.
Commissioner Holman: Just one thing. We have a square footage of 20 to 25% as suggested.
When we discussed this previously I think Commissioner Burr had said 15%. Maybe if we give
Staff direction to a specific percentage if we just average that to maybe help satisfy the concerns
here and make it 20%.
Chair Bialson: Would you care to speak to that Ms. Sager?
Ms. Sa~er: Thank you. I really do appreciate the concerns. I think we share some of the same
concerns. I would be a little worried about the 20% because we can only ascertain what we have
over there, We can’t ascertain what our other medical support services in other places have. So
I would be concerned about setting it at 20%. because I think that could be right at the edge of
where we are right now but I don’t know that. So that would be a difficult one. I can assure you
that the ldnds of medical support services that we have over there are ones that are really
essential to the hospitals. If they weren’t there we would be increasing traffic because these
would be people that would be going back and forth a significant portion of time as opposed to
being able to walk across the street or walk down the street. The other issue I would just like to
again reassure everyone of is we work very closely with those community physicians and the
community, So we are not interested in displacing them. We appreciate your concern and we
have heard it and we are very cognizant of that as well.
Chair Bialson: Any o[her questions?
Commissioner Bellomo: I just think in concert with your statement regarding where it is at
present I think is concerning. Maybe we could direct Staff to work with them to ascertain what
percentage they are at now with the support services.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Bialson: And where would be go from that?
Commissioner Bellomo: Well, if it is 25% I say we leave it there.
Chair Bialson: Okay. Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I concur with that approach. I don’t think_ we necessarily have to set a
percentage tight now.
Ms. Furth: You are just sending this to the City Council to ask them to start worldng on this.
Commissioner Butt: Right. So we are making at this point in time conceptual recommendations
and that gives us an opportunity to get feedback on what is an appropriate percentage to set. I
think the objective is to a!low for some flexibility but not a significant creep beyond what we
have now.
Ms. Furth: We also hear that your.objective is to be sure that there is still a significant amount of
space available for doctors and dentists basically.
Commissioner Burt: Correct.
Chair Bialson: Is tl~at okay now? Can we have a motion?
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: i will move that we approve the text as it appears in paragraph one and
that we leave undecided for the moment the exact percentage of the total square footage that will
be devoted to support services.
Chair Bialson: And definition of research, do you want to add that?
Commissioner Griffin: Yes. And that Staff will come up with a definition, of research.
Mr. Williams: Wasn’t it that we were going to add a prohibition of research and development as
part of that medical research? Isn’t that what we were talking about?
Commissioner Burt: If I might clarify. Yes, a definition of medical research that would exclude
biotech research companies from what we are including in this area. Is that okay, Wyrme?
Ms. Furth: yes, I am looking forward to learning more about the distinction b.e~veen medical
research and biotech.
Chair Bialson: I think that one is going to be a little tou~:
Ms. Furth: Basically, the goal of this is to prevent the swamping of that space again by services
that aren’t closely related to being there interacting with people who are there.
Chair Bialson: People who don’t need to be next to medical offices and such.
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
Cormr~issioner Griffin: Perhaps that verbiage needs to be added to the motion. Would that make
it more clear what our intent is?
Ms. Furth: That you wish us to investigate further as to what the appropriate percentage might
be on the limit and to providing a definition of medical research that focuses the use of the space
on research.
Commissioner Burr: Research supporting the tenants that are there. I would feel comfortable for
right now leaving that pretty open-ended. I think we have a sense of the concern and perhaps
from experts we can get some suggestions on how to differentiate there.
Chair Bialson: Do I have a second to the motion?
SECOND
Commissioner Burr: Second.
MOTION PAS SED
Chair Bialson: I have a second to the motion. The motion is made by Michael, seconded by Pat.
Do I have any discussion or can we go to a vote? Lets’ go to a vote. All those in favor say aye.
(ayes) All those opposed saynay. So that is six Commissioners voting aye and Phyllis not
voting due to conflict.
Commissioner Burt: Annette,-I wanted to ask since we are closing in on eleven o’clock and we
have gone through two of the items is it realistic for us to attempt to complete this?
Mr. Williams: I was just going to comment that in my mind those are the two substantive issues
for you to deal with. I think that hopefully maybe on the next group you can just take the group
as a whole and see if anybody has any changes. Then the last two are pretty close to no-brainers.
Chair Bialson: I think that unless you know something I don’t that we should be able to get
through this.
Item number three then is the office occupancy permits.
Mr. Williams: Which is simply sort of a parenthetical outline in here that they would-be
ministerial with a three-day time period for review. That would get worked into the procedures
section of our ordinance once we get to that phase. But just for information purposes we put that
in here.
Chair Bialson: I have a question with regard to that. Would there be an appeal fi’om that? There
wouldn’t be an appeal there would be the three-day period and that’s it.
Mr. Lusardi: What we are saying is Staff would have about three days to turn that around. We
don’t want to make it a long process or necessarily we don’t want to make it a regulatory
process. It is a discretionary process. You are either in or you are out.
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
Chair Bialson: And we can’t.have an appeal from that either by the person who asks for the
occupancy permit or an adjacent landowner can’t appeal that? I am not clear as to ~vhat this is,
that’s all I am asldng about.
Mr. Williams: This should be much like a business license would be in terms of determining that
the use meets the zoning code and in this case that the percentages are met. If there were some
conditions on this site that applied from a prior approval to make sure that it met those
conditions. Either you meet them or you don’t so it is pretty straightfor~vard.
Chair Bialson: Okay likening it to a business license, etc. really helps. Any discussion on this
subj ect? If not, let’s have a motion.
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: I move that we approve the text in paragraph three as Stafflaas
recommended.
Chair Bialson: Second?
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: Second.
MOTION PASSED
Chair Bialson: No need for a discussion. Let’s vote on this motion. All those in favor say aye.
(ayes) All those opposed. So that is six in favor with Phyllis abstaining.
Next we go to East of E1 Camino and I will go get her when I leave. I have to remove myself
because I have. conflict occasioned by owning property in that area. So I will get Phyllis and
Michael will be the Chair from this point.
Commissioner Griffin: Welcome back, Phyllis. I think we are ready to go now with the fourth
item. We have been asking Staff for further elaboration or are we going to ask Commissioners
for any questions on item number four?
Commissioner Packer: I will make a motion that we approve it. It is just the acronym.
Commissioner Griffin: Karen, did you have a question?
Commissioner Holman: I did and this just make sure that it is out there. This does reference the
land use and development standards tables in this. I just want to be absolutely clear .that we are
not taldng any action on the development standards at this time. We are waiting on the
consultants to come back with recommendations and examples and that sort of thing. I just want
to make sure that we are all real clear on that.
Mr. Williams: Right. This is just a name change.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
16
17
18
!9
20
21
22
23
24
25
--26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Griffin: Bonnie did you want to make a motion?
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I will make a motion that we move the Staff recommendation for the
name change as set forth in paragraph four.
SECOND
Commissioner Cassel: Second.
Commissioner Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Butt: One of our objectives has been to have these acronyms as fully as possible
reflect the meaning. I wonder whether ROLM, which would be Research, Office, Light
Manufacturing would be even more meaningful or if people, Staff and other would be receptive
to it I would pose that amendment.
Mr. Williams: I think that is fine. We have been trying to keep the number of letters down
because we then get overlays and additional things and we are trying to avoid getting too
complicated but it does make sense. We did toss that around too. So if you are more
comfortable with that that is fine unless Wyrme has a problem with it.
Commissioner Burr: Either is fine.
Commissioner Griffin:
AMENDED MOTION
Do you want to propose that as a substitute motion?
Commissioner Burr: Yes, I would propose it as a friendly amendment.
Commissioner Packer: Okay.
Commissioner Griffin: Seconder as ~vell? Okay. Let’s move this question. We will have a vote
on this item number four. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That carries unanimously with
Annette being absent.
Number five. Staff?.
Mr. Williams: This is to make those educational daycare and other uses like that conditional
uses rather than permitted uses in the GM zone so that there would be specific site review of
those through a discretionary review process.
Commissioner Griffin: At the moment they are prohibited uses?
Mr. Williams: Permitted uses without that level of review.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
---26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Griffin: Karen.
¯ Commissioner Holman: If memory serves when we discussed this last I had asked for comment
back from Susan Arpan regarding her thoughts about the southerly most GM District and what
her thoughts and concerns might be regarding allowing these other uses in that area of GM.
Mr. Williams: We provided that at you last meeting. There was an email from her that she said
that she was concerned that other uses not move these existing industrial uses out of the area. So
that is why we think there still needs to be the potential to have them if they are in an appropriate
pocket of the GM zone but they would be conditional uses so they would go through a process of
determining whether the sitting is right and whether they are consistent with the overall intent of
the zone, which right now they don’t they are just permitted and allowed without that level of
review. The alternative is prohibit them and she wasn’t that strong about it but she just wanted
to be sure that we weren’t doing anything to add retail as a permitted use or something like that
that would really turn Over the character of the area and force the existing small businesses out
and did feel that they were very valuable to maintain.
Commissioner Holman: Did she comment perhaps on putting a percentage cap on this? After
all, if someone applies for a conditional use permit and they satisfy the conditions then there
could become a proliferation of other uses theoretically.
Mr. Williams: She didn’t and at that time we weren’t talldng about this. This was two meetings
ago. Last meeting this came up about specifically these ldnds of uses. Before that we were
talking more about services and retail and particular office I think is what we focused on. So she
hasn’t seen this specific proposal with the use permit for that. I don’t know whether she would
encourage that or not. I think one of the findings that you make is that it is consistent with the
purposes of the zoning district. If it appeared that this was happening over and over again I think
that finding could be made that it is not and it wasn’t appropriate to do it. You can certainly
advise us if you think there needs to be a cap on that. We just don’t see that this is likely to
create that problem.
Ms. Furth: One thing that as you continue to think about it and we will probably talk about is the
Religious Uses and Institutionalized Persons Act, otherwise lcnown as [RLUPA], is a federal law
that replaces a struck down federal la~v that seeks to prevent discrimination against religious uses
in land use decisions and has been the subject of a certain amount of litigation. One of the things
that it leads us to do is to think about religious uses generally in more functional terms, i.e.,
places of assembly, places where there are various uses. It will be harder to turn down a
conditional use permit for a project that qualifies for protection under [RLUPA] than for other
kinds of uses.
Commissioner Griffin: Phyllis.
MOTION
Commissioner Cassel: This area has one church in it now. It is not an attractive place for large
facilities for religious pursuit. Interestingly enough we have small religious organizations
meeting now in areas where they theoretically are not supposed to be because they are so small
and there is simply some office space or a little more than that for many small religious groups.
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Large groups are not going to want to be there because they want atmosphere.and other issues
related to their place of worship. So t.don’t think it is going to cause any harm. This is a small
district. It is not going to attract a huge daycare center. It hasn’t yet. ~ can see it attracting a
small, individualized educational space but not a large one because these lots .are small, relatively
small in terms of business. So I think we should go ahead and approve this. I will move that we
approve the.conditional use permit so that we have some limits put on that.
Commissioner Griffin: Is there a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: Second.
Commissioner Griffin: Is there further discussion? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question. I have a little bit of a concern like residential care
homes are like single family use but they can have up to six people living there. It is very similar
to having a single family home and I wonder if that is one of them that we could come back to.
If we decide that we can have single-family homes that are permitted but then we have this as a
conditional use permit it may create a problem. So if we approve this I would like to be able to
come back to some of the specifics because each one of these categories has a different set of
questions. Daycare, suppose maybe what we mean is standalone daycare but if a company has a
little daycare component for its employees would that require a condition use permit especially
when we have an incentive FAR bonus if you have daycare? I don’t lcnow if it is in this zone or
not. So I don’t know that we have really thought about each of the categories enough. I am a
little nervous. I can see the reasoning but I don’t know if we have something that is broken that
we have to fix. I don’t kmow if we are going to have some unintended consequences by making
one category conditional use when a very similar category ends up being permitted. So those are
some questions I have.
Commissioner Griffin: Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: In the. interest of time I have had a recent situation in another
jurisdiction with a conditional use on a institutional project and it was quite controversial. It was
a religious facility and it was turned down by a city council as it went through a conditional use
permit with the owners having purchased a property with the assumption that the conditional use
would go through. I agree that they are small sites but it is still a hazard in potential buyers
wanting to buy lots or to thinlc in terms of a directive towards a use on a node of this
neighborhood. It is something to discuss. I am not going to get into this discussion it would be
long and arduous but-the conditional use is appropriate I believe in this zone.
Commissioner Griffin: I am going to tack on to that a little bit. I am fan~iliar with Jubilee
Christian Church which is an enormously successful and quite large congregation operating in a
industrial park in North San Jose. They are really big.
Commissioner Bellomo: There are certainly religious organizations looking for lots like this.
can speak to that.
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
4!
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Kolman: Last quick comment on this is I can’t support the motion to approve this
language because I do have concerns about there becoming more of a proliferation. Also,
education facilities too as much as we like to support those there are also other uses that you
would like to support and there is lot combining potential here. So I am more comfortable with
one potential way of looking at this in the future would be to put a percentage cap on these other
uses.
MOTION PASSED
Commissioner Griffin: Are we ready to vote on this? All in favor? (ayes).Opposed? (nays)
So we have four Commissioners in favor and Karen and Bonnie opposed.
Let’s move to item number six.
Mr. Williams: This is our suggestion that we delete the provision limiting administrative office
to 40% on a site but we retain the conditional use permit requirement for the district, which
currently allows administrative office as a permitted use.
Commissioner Griffin: Comments from Commissioners? Bonnie.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I move that we accept the Staff’s recommendation.
Commissioner Griffin: Is there a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Cassel: Second.
Commissioner Griffin: Phyllis seconds. Comments? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I did find this one a bit confusing. Could Staff please indulge me here
and do just a brief explanation of why you think that this is redundant and not necessary:
Mr. Williams: Right now in virtually any district you are allowed to have accessory uses in a
building that support the primary use. That is essentially what we have defined with the 40%
imitation on administrative office. There was a gentleman here at the last meeting who has a car
dealership there, European Motors maybe, I forget the name of it but he was talldng about how
he has some office component in there as well. My answer at that time was that is an accessory
office use that is allowed. It may have been 40% or 30% or something but it would be accessory
to the main use. That is all we have. defined by putting that 40% in is really what an accessory
office use is when what we are really trying to do is look it site by site and saying is this an
appropriate site for administrative office. Whereas right now it is a permitted use and that
conditional use permit allows us that further discretion to look at those sites and to have public
input on those site as necessary, an appeal process if necessary. The 40% doesn’t really add
anything to that and in fact it prohibits you from where there may be sites where administrative
office on the whole site is okay but it has to go tl~ough that use permit process to get there.
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
Ms. Furth: You don’t need a permit if you have a use which is one of the primary uses permitted
there, if it is a manufacturing use and part of your manufacturing operation is the office, the front
or back office, you don’t need a permit. That is an integrated part of your business as opposed to
a separate tenant. This is directed to aprimary use being administrative.
Commissioner Griffin: At what point does accessory use turn into primary use? It seemed like
the 40% kept tl~e office as an accessory usage.
Mr. Williams: Right, and we wil! continue to look at it. The definition of accessory use talks
about being sub0rdinat.e to the main use and all that. There isn’t a 40% number in there but that
certainly probably .is at the high end of what we would consider to be an accessory use.
Ms. Furth: It also doesn’t mean subletting part of your site to somebody else’s office use.
Mrl Williams: Yes. The alternative is to define accessory use as no more than 40% or
something like that and I don’t think we want to go there. It depends on the type of use that we
are talking about and the particular situation but 40% is probably the upper limit of what we
would consider to be accessory on most sites.
Commissioner B ellomo: Like a research and development park the general manufacturing and
an office would have a normal building permit separation that would I am sure be implemented
during kind of the improvement process in a building like this. S a that would be cross-through
planning and the Building Department. They would see the separation of uses. I don’t think you
could just include office use in a GM manufacturing facility. There would be inherent
separations between uses.
Commissioner Holman: So this is where I need the clarification. This does not address
freestanding administrative. You are only talking about on a site-by-site basis integrM to a site
and that site’s use.
Mr. Williams: On a site 40% of that building could be considered an accessory use if it is office.
That freestanding administrative office request would go through a conditional use permit
review, whereas, right now it doesn’t have to go through that review.
MOTION PASSED
Commissioner Griffin: Would you like zo make a motion? Then let us do vote. All those in
favor? (ayes) Opposed? That measure carries unanirnously with Amaette absent.
Mr. Williams: Now neither Phyllis nor Almette can participate in these last ~vo. One is to use
manufacturing rather than industrial throughout all the purpose statements and the other is just
noting that sing!e family and t~vo family uses will be discussed later during the housing
discussions.
Oommissioner Griffin: Would someone make a motion then to ~oup these Wvo? Karen, you
want to discuss them individually? Go ahead.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
--26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
MOTION
Commissioner Holman: I will move the Staff recommendation for item number seven.
SECON-D
Commissioner Burt: Second.
MOTION PASSED
Commissioner Griffin: Pat seconds. Any discussion on that or can ~ve vote? Let’s vote. All
those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That carries with the five of us.
Karen, you want to address item eight.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, for number eight can Staff say why this is limited to deferring
single family and ~vo family to the housing discussion as opposed to multiple family being
included here?
Mr. Williams: I think that because of Housing Element policies and Comp Plan policies we are
anticipating that there will be some ldnd of provision for multiple family housing in these zones
either as a mixed-use component or as perhaps a separate potential parcel at the perimeter of the
districts or something like that. So I think we have assumed that there is going to be some kind
of component like that. With single-family and two-family our thought initially was that that
would not be appropriate and would conflict with these industrial uses and we should exclude
them. Then it wag brought up that there may be some instances whereeven that would be
allowed especially if it were like a townhouse development or something like that that fit under
more of a single-family type of a nature and that we should not preclude that right now but we
should just defer those until we have that housing discussion. But there didn’t seem to be an
issue that there wasn’t some potential for multiple-family in these districts. I think we talked a
little bit about the GM that that might be a problem but I think the determination was that we
should still leave that open. We could put it under all of these. We are eventnally going to get to
that point of discussing them.
Commissioner Holman: It may be nit hearing and understanding and appreciating your
explanation but it seems to me that just for consistency purposes and clarity purposes that we just
defer discussions of single-family, two-family and multiple-family to the housing discussion.
Maybe it is a nit but that seems to be to b~ appropriate.
Mr, Williams: It is fine here if you would like to do that.
MOTION
Commissioner Holman: So that is what I would move.
SECOND
Commissioner Burr: Second.
1
. 2 Commissioner Griffin: Any discussion on that?
3
4 MOTION PASSED
5
6 Then let’s vote. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That carries unanimously.
7
8 We have now completed item number eight.
9
10 Ms. Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary: Commissioner Griffin, would you please repeat the last
11 motion for number eight.
12
13 Commissioner Griffin: Karen, Would you repeat your motion, please?
14
15 Commissioner Holman: Yes, just add mult.iple-family to what the Staff recommendation is so it
I6 shows single-family, two-family and multiple-family uses as deferred to housing discussion.
17
18 Commissioner Griffin: Now we can call back Annette for the remainder of this and Phyllis as
19 well.
20
21 Chair Bialson: At this point are we through with this item? Good. Than you very much and I
22 hope this wasn’t too painful a process.
ATTACHMENT D
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
@IEI21’INGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, June 30 at 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:03p.m.
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin Chair-Late." 8:40p.m.
Phyllis Cassel - Vice-Chair- Left at break
Karen Holman
Patrick Burr
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson - Absent
Lee I. Lippert
Staff."
Steve EmsIie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects
Curtis Williams, Consultant Planne~"
Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) : Planning and Transportation review and
recommendation for a new Auto Dealership (AD) Combining District.
2.Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU); Chapter 18.24 Office, Research, and Manufacturing
Districts.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Minutes for the Regular meeting of April 28, Special meeting
of June 2 and Regular meeting of June 9, 2004.
Vice-Chair Cassel: We are having some problems with the mikes tonight. If it starts to buzz
loudly our nice Secretary is going to turn it off and start it again. They have tried to fix it and
they haven’t been able to any more than this.
Would the Secretary please take the roll? Thank you.
The next item on the agenda is Oral Communications. [ have one card and it is three minutes,
Bonnie.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Zonin~ Ordinance Update (ZOU); Chapter 18.24 Office~ Research~ and
Manufacturin~o Districts: Review and recommendation of the Final Draft Chapter
I8,24 of the Zoning Ordinance Update, The office, research, industrial and
manufacturing zoning districts provide sites for office, light industrial, research and
development (R&D), and limited commercial uses. The zoning ordinance update
consolidates the existing chapters 18.55, 18.57, 18.60, and 18.63 into a single zoning
Chapter 18.24. The review of this item also includes added development standards for
infrastructure/utilities necessary for Biotech and R&D uses as well as office limitations in
the Research Park District.
SR Weblink: http://www.cityofpaloalto.or,~/citya~enda/publish/plannin~-transportation-
meetings/3491.pdf
Mr. Curtis Williams. Consultant Planner: I would be glad to thank you. This is an item that the
Commission saw for much of 2002 and at the end of that year after four study sessions passed
along recommendations to the Council. The Council subsequently heard the item in January
2003, accepted a number of the recommendations and asked for a few revisions to be addressed
before finalizing.
The three areas that we have revised that we would like to focus on tonight with you are first
addressing the biotech and R&D needs for increased height or other accommodations for
equipment needs. Secondly to revise the provisions for specifically limited office use in the
Research Park District. Thirdly, provisions that clarify the medical office and medical research
definitions in what is today the Office Research Zone and would now be called the Medical
Office and Medical Research Zone and distinguishes medical office from medical research in
that.
What we would like to do is I will run real quickly through those three areas for you and then
probably have you either ask questions or go straight to the public comment and accept public
comments on these items and then come back and discuss them one by one and you can make
recommendations.
The first item is the biotech and R&D equipment needs as I think you heard us the last time this
item was before you, the extensive equipment needs of these facilities are such that in order to
accommodate them they need either to have interstitial space between floors and/or to enclose
extensive amounts of equipment on the roof or in basements or somewhere else. We have
suggested a couple of recommendations in this regard. One is to allow in the RP and ROLM
districts which are essentially today LM, Light Manufacturing zone, allow the height to increase
from 35 feet to 40 feet for the purpose of accommodating interstitial space although it would still
be a limit of two habitable floors not to exceed that with the interstitial space and to require
additional setbacks for that additional height where it is adjacent to residential. We can go
through the details of that if you would like to in the question period as far as the amount of
setback.
The second recommendation is to allow for floor area exemptions for rooftop equipment
enclosures and/or for basement storage enclosures for the equipment. This would be limited by
the fact that those total areas that would be exempted could not exceed more than one-third of
the building footprint that is related on the roof at least to a building code requirement for
equipment loads. The equipment in any event could not exceed 50 feet above the grade. Again,
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 31
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
additional setbacks and screening for the rooftop equipment when it is adjacent to residential
sites. So those provisions we think are beneficial to the industry in terms of providing for that
kind of equipment. We worked very closely with a number of the R&D and biotech industry
reps from Palo Alto in developing these criteria.
The second area of modification is the office limitations in the Research Park Zone. As you
recall we discussed previously a 25% limitation on office use in the Research zone. This
Research Park Zone is essentially coterminous with the Stanford Research Park. The discussion
previously dealt primarily with how do we deal with administrative office space that is serving
part of these research and development groups but it may become a very large part of them over
the lifecycle of the buildings. We have come kind of full circle to the standpoint where we do
not believe it is appropriate to try to limit that administrative office use which is those support
services within a firm but instead to focus as Stanford does in its limitations solely on the
standalone professional office types of uses. Those are defined as uses, which include services
for law, financial services, architecture and design, civil engineering and those types of things.
Then specifically excluding the administrative office space, which is a management and support
for the various firms, that is not a separate firm. In that way it also provides a benefit of being
much more enforceable because the other method one of the big problems we were having was
trying to figure out how you do this without getting into the space and looking around and seeing
what is there and how it changes over time. So this is a much more administratable and
enforceable approach.
The third revision is to provide a separate definition for Medical Research which previously was
included as part of the Medical Office definition. It allowed for research butit wasn’t clear that
it allowed for trial and clinical type research. There were suggestions from the folks out there
that it .would be helpful to create a separate definition of Medical Research and allow that as a
pelq~aitted use in the Medical Office and Medical Research zone. We have done that and listed it
as a permitted use in that district. The Medical Office definition was revised but we did make
sure that we still allow for the various laboratory type work that has to be done to support the
dentist office or doctor’s office or something like that on the site.
So those are the changes that we have and I would be glad to take questions. As was suggested
you might want to also go to the public comment before we have discussion on each one of the
items.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Curtis. Colleagues, Staffhas made the suggestion, which I would like
to implement and that is to facilitate public comment on this item before we ask our questions.
So if you would permit me todo that I would like to go to the public. We have five cards. Our
first speaker will be Audrey Jacob followed by John Igoe and Steve Dosta~t. lfyou folks would
come forward one at a time and introduce yourself to us and each speaker would have five
minutes. Audrey, I do recognize you. Good evening.
Ms. Jacob: Good evening Commissioners. I spoke to you earlier this evening. It is looking like
it is going to be a long night: I am here on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. I wanted to let
you know that we have closely been following this ordinance but ~nly recently received the final
language and were not able to get a Board consensus on support or opposition to the ordinance.
We do want you to be mindful of the importance of the Research Park as a major economic
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
engine of the City and that care should be taken in terms of regulations placed on uses in the
Park. Thank you for your consideration.
Chair Griffin: John Igoe.
Mr. John I~oe, 901 Marinas Boulevard, San Mateo: Thank you very much. I am with [Cirrus
Regis] and tonight I am speaking on behalf of TIBCO So~vare to Support the Staff Report and
to also commend Staff and Stanford management for the excellent work that they have done in
looking at what works and what doesn’t work and what allows flexibility for these companies
operating within the Park to be able to change with time. So we think that the way that things
have been outlined in the proposal work fine and we would highly recommend the support of the
Commission for it. Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: John, we may have a question here for you.
Commissioner Burt: John, one of the things that we have been discussing as a City is how we
might be able to incentivize companies to have their business-to-business tax point of origin
within Palo Alto. First question, do you know whether TIBCO has Palo Alto as your point of
sale?
Mr. Igoe: As far as I know it does. The headquarters is located here but I will follow up on that
to confirm that.
Commissioner Burt: Great and just maybe not to put you on the spot tonight but one of the
things we are going to be interested in is what sorts of incentives either might induce companies
to assure that they have Palo Alto as their point of sale initially or to retain Palo Alto as their
point of sale. I would be interested in your thoughts on that in the future unless you have any
comments on that at this time.
Mr. Igoe: I could give you some comments right now. I have spent 15 years incorporate real
estate so I feel some level of confidence there. It seems to me that the most important thing is
especially in the high tech area is the ability to be able to attract talent, to be able to work within
the environment. Palo Alto has a fantastic environment from the standpoint of the ability of .
providing social services and a great place to live. I think that the downside would be that if it
became onerous relative to controls and I think Staff has seen that that it is better to leave a
certain level of flexibility with regard to allowing the companies to be able to operate within
their own environment and again most importantly to be able to change as things evolve, We
have seen this over the past five years considerably and I think that would be very, very
important to corporations to be able to know that they can have if you will a long term residence
in a community and build upon that and be able to have a steady state of employees producing
great productive work.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, John. Our next speaker is Steve Dostart followed by Jean Snider.
Welcome, Steve.
Mr. Steve Dostart, 777 High Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to
be able to speak tonight. I have three comments, which reflect my concerns as a ground lessee
under two Stanford leases with remaining terms of about 26 and 50 years.
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
First I don’t believe that I and all the other ground lessees were noticed for either tonight or the
preceding study sessions. I just think it would probably be a good policy on the part of the City
to notice those other stakeholders given the length of term of the leases in Stanford. We are
more like owners than tenants in a sense.
Chair Griffin: Steve, could I get you to stand a little closer to the microphone? Thank you.
Mr. Dostart: I don’t think that currently ground lessees are automatically noticed for like this
session tonight or the study sessions previously. My instinct is given the long term of those
leases in Stanford it would probably be a good policy for the City to do that. I am sure a number
of people like myself didn’t get noticed and I just happen to hear because Stanford let me know.
Second, the ground leases I have are office oriented. I have office buildings with office tenants.
At an absolute minimum I think that the sites, which are currently entitled to be used as office
space, should be grandfathered in that right in order tO protect the enormous investment people
like myself have made in office buildings in Stanford. The way it is currently worded there are
some things that could happen and you could lose your entitlement and I don’t think that is
appropriate.
Third, I read the 75-plus pages of tonight’s Staff Report and attachments and it really wasn’t
clear to me what aspect of the Research Park is broken and why the City believes that additional
restrictions on use are necessary. It is my concern that added restrictions will only hurt the Park
and my instinct is to oversimplify but if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I didn’t read a compelling
reason for these new regulations. It doesn’t strike me that there is something terribly wrong with
Stanford Research Park. It seems to me it works pretty well and I really didn’t understand why
this is all occurring anyway. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jean Snider followed by James Freitas.
Welcome, Jean.
Ms. Jean Snider, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park: Commissioners, thank you for the"
opportunity to speak tonight on this important issue. I am the Director of the Research Park. As
the steward of the Stanford Research Park we have taken a keen interest in the Zoning Ordinance
Update and have followed its progress over the last two years. We believe the City 0fPalo
Alto’s and Stanford’s interests are aligned in wanting to maintain a successful Research Park
centered around innovative R&D companies. Any amendment to the current zoning ordinance
could significantly impact the way company decision-makers view doing business in Palo Alto
and thus ultimately affect our ability to recruit and retain world-class research and development
companies similar to those who call the Research Park home today.
Since thebeginning of the zou the City has communicated its desire to codify some form of
office limitation in the Park. While traffic was cited as the original concern we believe all
involved now understand that the trip generation from today’s R&D or typical R&D businesses
is very similar to that of office users. The City’s interests then seem to take on a slightly
different focus and that is how to assure the Park maintains its research orientation and not
become an office park or as we have heard some people say a law office park. Maintaining a
balance of uses in the Research Park has always been part of Stanford’s vision. From the Park’s
City of Palo Alto Page 34
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
1 inception Stanford has imposed restrictions on use through its ground lease provisions. That
2 ideal balance of uses has evolved over time to adapt to changing markets and the ever-changing
3 needs of businesses in general and our tenants in particular. In the past decade Stanford has been
4 cognizant of the need for professional office uses as an absolutely essential ingredient to a
5 successful Research Park but instituted a policy limiting such use to 25% of the Park in order to
6 preserve its R&D concentration. Despite S,anford’s policy and our effective management of the
7 Park’s uses it has become clear that the City Council and the Planning and Transportation
8 Commission still believe that codified restrictions are needed for professional office uses. In
9 response to this we have actively worked with the City to develop language their addresses the
10 City’s concerns while still providing enough flexibility to continue to attract and maintain first
class R&D companies.
We do want to bring your attention however to note that we are not the only stakeholder in the
Park. As you heard Steve talk he is a stakeholder he is a ground lessee and ground lessees view
their ownership as fee ownership nearly identically to fee ownership and we now directly only
control 10% of the Park. Many leaseholders have expressed concern that codifying Stanford’s
policy jeopardizes the Park’s overall flexibility to consistently adapt in a rapidly changing
globally competitive business environment. We certainly share these concerns when we look
toward the future. We feel confident our 25% service office limitation works today and therefore
Staff’s suggested language could work today as well. But we would respectfully ask the City to
evaluate its ability to respond quickly to changes in market conditions. If after consideration of
this fundamental question the Planning Commission and City Council still want to mandate a
formal zoning r.estriction on professional office space Stanford will support the ordinance
language as proposed in tonight’s Staff Report.
We want to express our sincere appreciation and thanks to City Planning staff and contract
planners as well as Mr. Ken Kornberg of the Architectural Review Board for their collaborative
approach to this very important issue. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: We have a question for you.
Commissioner Burt: Jean, I am going to follow up on the same important subject and that is
looking for ways in which we might be able to create an environment where we will have a
greater number of companies who will use Palo Alto and the Research Park as their point of sale
for tax purposes. Do you have any suggestions on how we might take some of these or other
¯ modifications to the zoning code and turn them into incentives for business-to-business? One I
would be interested in your thoughts on is what if there were some exemption for office space
that was sales office only? Any thoughts on any of that?
Ms. Snider: No, what I would like to do is actually poll some of our companies in the Research
Park and find out if they don’t have sales tax, if this is not a point of sale why that is and what
motivates them. Otherwise I think I would just be guessing. I think having an exemption is fine.
If you are talking about a company that already has research in the Park anyway I think we are
saying we don’t really want to see any limitation on administrative office and we see that as an
administrative office component. I think the other thing I would say is if you just provide that
incentive but then you have overly restricted regulations in the ordinance elsewhere then I think
you have a problem. But I would be happy to do some research on that for you.
"Cio~ of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Butt: Great and when you do that follow up for instance we recommended that
we have this increase in height limit specifically to address emerging biomed applications and ¯
one ofthe interesting things I would want to know is are those ’companies using Palo Alto as
their point of sale. Is this working on two levels not only to help the vitality of the Research
Park but help that sales tax base.
Ms. Snider: I absolutely agree and I will research that for you.
Commissioner Burt: Thanks a lot.
Chair Griffin: Our next speaker is James Freitas followed by Joy Ogawa and Bud Mission.
Welcome James,
Mr. James Freitas, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto: Thanks. I am with the Mosart
Development Company and we ground lease approximately 200,000 square feet of office space
in the Research Park. Because all these ground leases are in excess of 50 years we do feel like
land owners. We are very concerned that this potential change in the zoning could dramatically
affect the value of our property. We have invested a lot of money in these properties. The main
reason why we invested in these properties is because they were entitled for office use. So now
that it is potentially at risk we are very concerned about it and that is why we are here tonight, .
Steve Dostart and I.
My other concern is I think the amount of stakeholder that we are, Mosart Development
Company and Dostart Development Company, we deserve to have some direct and proper notice
about this change because this would dramatically affect the value of our asset. Thanks.
Chair Griffini Our next speaker is Joy Ogawa.
Ms. Joy Ogawa, Yale Street, Palo Alto: I am just so surprised to hear the previous speaker say ’
they need a notification when this has been going on for years. I have forgotten what went on at
the last meeting it was so long ago.
The Staff Report says that it is appropriate not to limit administrative office space along ~vith
professional office space because it still addresses the primary concern of the City that the area
not turn into an office park of attorneys, accountants and realtors, etc. My recollection from the
focus group that I attended was that the neighboring residents’ concern was not about
professional office uses per se. I don’t have a problem with attorney’s or accountants per se.
Our concerns were about intensity of uses and the impact on neighbors. It really is about the
number of employees per square foot or per 1,000 square feet and the working and commute
hours of those employees, the habits of those employees. To me there really is no distinction
between administrative office uses and professional office uses when it comes to impacts on
neighbors. Therefore in my opinion the 25% restriction to professional office use but not
administrative office use really doesn’t address my concerns. I don’t really see that it serves a
great purpose.
Switching topics a bit about retail. You may recall on June 11 Mayor Beecham had a retail
forum and during that meeting a comment was made by a woman who identified herself as
someone who worked on Page Mill Road near HI? and she commutes from San Jose. She
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1 expressed a desire to shop in Palo Alto but pointed out that she does not shop in Palo Alto for
2 two main reasons. One reason was that she doesn’t know.where the kinds of stores she needed
3 were located and the other reason was that there were not any stores that she was aware of that
4 were conveniently located for her to shop at. It was interesting that when Staffw~ote down her
5 comments they only wrote down the first part of her comment, which was that she didn’t know
6 where things were located. Staff didn’t record the part that they weren’t conveniently located
7 places for her to shop.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
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
At one time in another life I worked on Sand Hill Road while I still lived in Palo Alto and I can
tell you that I used to shop at the Sharon Heights Shopping Center a lot. I shopped at the Long’s
Drugs, I ate my lunch at the dell, I used the dry cleaners, I used the bank there and I shopped at
the Safeway there. I don’t buy Shell gas but a lot of my coworkers bought Shell gas at that gas
station. My point is that workers in the Research Park would shop in Palo Alto if it were
convenient for them to shop in Palo Alto. Having appropriate retail I believe located in the
Research Park would generate sales tax dollars, would serve the workers in the Research Park
and would help the neighbors in terms of traffic impacts. So this Zoning Ordinance Update it
seems to me would be the perfect opportunity to address this. I think it is a need for the workers
there and it is a need in terms of sales tax dollars and it is a need for the neighbors.
One final thing is medical research. I haven’t really looked at this that carefully it just caught my
eye when it was being discussed. I thought that a few years back there was a big uproar about
Welch Road and the doctors and dentists and private offices being forced out there and that there
was a real desire to keep those medical office uses there. My concern is that if you permit
medical research that because of the way the dynamic with the Stanford University Hospital that
that’s going to eventually turn into all medical research and we are going to lose:what
supposedly I thought we wanted to keep which was those doctors and medical offices that are on
Welch Road and the Welch Road area. Maybe I have it all wrong and that is not the purpose of
the zoning but I thought it was and I am concerned about medical research. I think that it can
easily envelop any space that becomes available for it. Thanks.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Joy. The last speaker card here is from Bud Mission. If there are any
of you out there in the audience that would care to chip in on this item now is the time. Good
evening.
Mr. Mission: Good evening Commissioners. I am Director of Site Services for Roche Palo
Alto. I am pleased tonight on behalf of Roche to express our support in urging your approval of
the Staff proposed ordinance modifications to recommend endorsement to the City Council
without further change. We also concur with StafFs recommendation that TDM standards for
the Park should be dealt with outside of the ZOU performance standards at a later time. It is our
view that such standards should be reviewed in the context of proposed redevelopment on a
pr0ject-by-project basis. We also want to voice our sincere appreciation and thanks for the
efforts of the Planning Staff through this long and difficult process to remain open to the views
of all the community stakeholders and in particular John Lusardi, Curtis Williams and Lisa Grote
who have done a great job in our view in fairly reporting and keeping the business community
informed with clarifications and updates throughout the process. Finally, I also too want to
acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Ken Kornberg of the Architectural Review Board with
respect to his insights as a practicing design professional servicing the biotech industry and
providing Staff with a more detailed understanding of the unique physical challenges that we
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
. 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
face in our facilities. In order for Roche and other life science companies to continue to innovate
we must have the flexibility to accommodate changes in our plant and facilities to create the
most supportive physical environment possible. We are deeply grateful that the Planning Staff
has listened. Thank you for your consideration.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for your comments. We will bring this back to the desk. Colleagues if
you have questions of Staff. Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Iama relative latecomer to this item. I didn’t get a chance to participate
earlier on on it. There is something that I noticed is missing from this and I am hoping Staff can
address it. Part of what makes what I like to think makes Palo Alto great is its ability to
"innovate." You see many cities like Mountain View and Sunnyvale creating incubator districts.
Why hasn’t something like that been addressed with regard to the Research Park where that is
really the essence or germ or seed of many of these great corporations?
Ms. Grote: We actually have discussed incubation areas in town. The Research Park wasn’t
seen as one of those partially because of the size of the lots they are frequently quite large, There
are other areas that are currently zoned LM which we have made some recommendations for
changing the name of the zoning and some of the requirements. But those were seen as more
probable locations or better locations for incubation purposes for smaller firms that are trying to
get started. Some of those areas are located off of San Antonio Road. They have a little bit
different characteristics. They are smaller both in size of the lot and size of the building on the
site. So that is where we had really targeted that effort rather than the Research Park.
Commissioner Lippert: But there are smaller buildings and those buildings have the tendency of
leaning towards being more professional offices you might say. We put a limitation on what we
consider to be office space why not put an imposition or a requirement that a certain percentage
of the Research Park be dedicated to incubators?
Mr. Williams: I think that there are a couple, of things that are at play. One is.that the Research
Park has been a source of new innovation throughout its lifetime. I am not sure that that would
be in our area where there was a need for and we haven’t heard any need for that there 6r frankly
elsewhere in Palo Alto. But it seems that that is one of the greatest sources of innovation in Palo
Alto is the Research Park so I don’t think would occur to us td go there. The other is and this
isn’t across the board I assume Mountain View would be different than this but a lot of times
incubator sites are part of sort of redevelopment and stimulation type of efforts. That wouldn’t
really apply within Palo Alto. We don’t have that kind of redevelopment area to deal with that
other communities I am aware of try to focus on that. I.think the real critical thingis that we
haven’t heard that need and that there seems to be .an extensive amount of innovation without
creating that stimulus. If there is some way you can guide us as to what would be appropriate
there and Mountain View’s standards or something and see if that seems to be relevant we can
look at it.
Chair Griffin: I will just make a comment for what it is worth. My wife is a management
consultant and she does work for an incubator in San Jose and it is as you say Curtis located in a
much more low cost square foot type facility as opposed to higher rent districts that exist at the
Stanford Research Park. I think your comment about a redevelopment agency probably is right
on. Colleagues, any other questions here at the moment? Pat.
Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 38
1
2
3
4
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
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to see if Stanford might be able to share with us what are
the current trends on incubators or smaller companies that begin at a smaller size and grow and
stay in the Research Park as a result of having started there. I think we had an incubator of a
little garage down the street some time ago that turned into a pretty good size company at the
Park.
Ms. Snider: We have some ground lessees that focus on this very thing. You are not talking
about 1,000 square foot incubators. Generally they are starting at 3,000 to 5,000 and growing
pretty quickly. One of those ground lessees is Alexandria REIT they are a biotech REIT. They
basically coddled Nanosyg, which is a nano technology company on Hanover who has now
¯ grown to 30,000 feet and is looking for space. So you see a rapid growth. So we see some of
our lessees who are focused on a certain industry and have incubation within their own buildings.
We also have companies that incubate other companies. A lot of this happens in the biotech
industry because there is a lot of collaboration on drug discovery. So it comes from landlords
but it also comes from other companies, larger companies who set aside funding for incubator
companies and founded companies.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Nothing Bonnie? Karen? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I would like to return to questioning Staffon this issue that I have been
raising on business-to-business taxes. We had a couple of situations recently where we were
dealing with transportation impact fee and permit streamlining which each had potential
opportunities to create a kind of a bag of incentives that Staff and the City may have to induce
companies to locate their point of sate in Palo Alto. I would really like us to look at how we can
fold that into the ZOU and address this extremely important part of the sales tax revenue
component. We talked about auto dealerships are very important and hotels and other retail but
business-to-business tax is where it’s at. You can have a very large company that can just decide
to up and move their point of sale as Sun did from Menlo Park to Mountain View and suddenly
Menlo Park lost millions of dollars in revenue and didn’t even know it was happening. It is
something that some cities have deliberate programs to help incentivize it and often it doesn’t
take a lot because the point-of-sale sometimes is where you locate your sales force and other
times it is where you put the point-of-sale on paper. It may not take a lot to tip the decision,
making in a way that is Ve~ favorable to the city. So I would like us to make sure that the ZOU
and this part of the ZOU really looks for opportunities to create those incentives. So far we
haven’t really looked at that comprehensively. I think it is the major missing component that we
have in this process right now.
Chair Griffin: Unless there are comments from Staff, would you like to respond to that?
Mr. Williams: I wouldjust comment that the Council has asked us to talk to the economic
consultants about not specifically point-of-sale but about some of the economic implications
within a sort of limited budget and how to use them. We do expect them to give us some
indication of what they think would be ways to provide some of those incentives. We haven’t
really focused on discussing these issues with them. We have been focusing more on the mixed
use and transit oriented prototypes to date.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
City of Palo Alto Page 39
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
1
2 Commissioner Packer: I think one of the speakers mentioned or maybe Staffmentioned that the
3 sales office is considered an administrative office and that office space in this proposal before us,
4 would not be included in the 25% limitation. So that is an indirect incentive. In other words we
5 are saying it is okay to have your sales offices here this is one way we can be saying that to them.
.Commissioner Burt: Right and there are two different approaches that we might have. One is to
not create barriers to locating point-of-sale in the City. This is one of them is that I think it is
very possible that limitations on the administrative offices would create a barrier to the sales:
The other is more of a clear incentive that might be linked that if a company does locate their
point-of-sale here they get a certain permit streamlining, they get a fee waiver in transportation
impact fee or in the case of the non-administrative office the pure office here we might want to
consider that ifa company - companies don’t necessarily locate their sales office at the same
location thatthey have their R&D or their manufacturing. We might say that companies that
locate their sales offices here that are separate sales offices from what would be included under
the administrative, the standalone sales office, if they have the point-of-sale here and locate the
sales office here then maybe that is exempt from the 25%. I am just tossing out what might be a
set of incentives that we could use. I think that Stanford might be a Very valuable resource in
looking at their client base and helping us understand what would motivate them to make this
decision that is very favorable to the City. We just weht through this whole last item on auto
dealerships and the awakening that the City has recently had on the importance of certain forms
of revenue to the City. There are certain forms that are gold mines and business-to-business
sales tax is a gold mine. It is a neglected one. We lucked out and over the decades certain
percentages of the companies that do business here have their sales office here and we don’t
really know which ones they are. We don’t l~now why they do it and we don’t do anything to
induce them to do it. We are missing the boat and we have to get onboard on this one.
Chair Griffin: Well it sounds like Staff has heard these comments. Colleagues, do any of you
have any particular questions on the SR and the material in the Staff Report? Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: There is something in the report that I am a little troubled with. I guess
the way I can do it is illustrate it by way of an anecdote. This reaches back to what Pat was
talking about with regard to business-to-business sales. In Palo Alto there was a company that
was characterized as a product design firm. This product design firm what they did was sold
services to the large computer manufacturers in the way of designing computer cases. You
would actually look at this very small operation and in fact it looked as though it would take a 30
person product design firm doing some very innovative stuff. In fact they sold to Compaq, they
sold to Dell I think they made the design for the first Palm Pilot. What Palo Alto didn’t see is
that in fact this was the largest single manufacturer of computer cases in the world. This
company in fact had manufacturing in Taiwan and they had their sales offices located in Palo
Alto. This of course was a business that sold wholesale so they sold directly to manufacturers
that would then take these cases and assemble them and make their computers and then Compaq
would sell their computer with the case being part of it. A very profitable business.
Subsequently the small product design firm was bought out by a much larger company during
the dot.corn bubble and went off to San Jose. This was the lossofa very valuable resource to
this community. As I think as Pat illustrated early on this is not something that is visible.
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
In this report it characterizes product design firms along with architecture firms and other types
of firms as being really office space. When in fact this firm really represented the largest
manufacturer of computer cases. How do we make a distinction here and allow a business like
that to thrive and grow and want to stay in Palo Alto?
Chair Griffin: Curtis.
Mr. Williams: First of all I guess I would have to understand a little bit more about it but my
initial thought is that a product design firm is a research development firm. The designing here
is really architecture design, the word product and design are both in the definition of Research
and Development so that is my initial thought. If we assume for a minute that it is under the
professional office heading my take is there is still lots of room in the Research Park for
professional office space too and there are other zones in the City that allow professional office
space. So I don’t think it is being precluded in any way by this. Again, I think that type of use is
considered a research and development firm not a professional office.
Chair Griffin: Curtis, there ~vas a comment from the public about grandfathering existing
professional office in the Park. Can you expound on that a little bit?
Mr. Williams: Yes. There are a couple of issues related to that. One is first of all if an office
space exists out there today it may continue as long as it would like, especially since the
percentage is well under 25% right now. The concern that we understand the speaker was
making is that they have office space today that is leased out as such and maybe in a couple of
years that tenant leaves and they lease it out for research and development. The research and
development firm is there for five years and in that five year period the percenta.ge of
professional office space it’s the 25% and then the R&D firm leaves and then they can’t then
have the option of going out and leasing it back for office space. I think to grandfather them
essentially that because of the use today for office space no matter how it changes back and forth
it is pretty much contrary to the intent of what is being done here. I think that the concern about
in the future there may be this extensive desire for office space that is going to exceed the 25%
cap I have to believe that if that happens if we approach that point that the City will look at that
and consider whether the cap is still justified or there is some reason to leave it. I understand
.there is some anxiety about the uncertainty of knowing but .right now there is a lot of room for
the professional office space to actually grow, not to just retain the existing but to grow within
the Research Park. So the provisions in here do allow if you hit 25% and then there is office
space that some research and development left and it went over 25% that those uses would still
be allowed to stay there. That is the kind of grandfathering that it would allow.
Chair Griffin: Steve.
Mr. Emslie: I would just like to tag on to what Curtis is saying. I think some of the concern is
stemming from the more fluid nature of R&D and office and the difficulty in distinction. An
example of R&D use very common today is software development where people work in
cubi(les and workstations identical to what we would characterize as a professional office. So it
is difficult to start to characterize one over the other anymore and it is getting more difficult as
technology continues. That is one issue because you would have the infi’astructure in place, all
the cubicles and e~,erything could very easily be moved from one use to another and then all of a
sudden that is now jeopardized because of the name on the building.
City of Palo Alto Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The second issue is that a part of the concern.is that as technology is changing at a more rapid
pace and that the need to be flexible in terms adapting to new needs and we are finding that out
in biotech. There are different kinds of structural needs. Being able to act quickly has been one
of the stren~hs of the Park. That has been because there has been responsibility in that. I think
from the leaseholders and from the landowner’s point of view that some degree of flexibility is
going to be absolutely essential as we move to the future and we need to continue to adapt and
undercutting edge of development of the next phase of technology.
To maybe throw out an idea perhaps rather than impose a cap now and then consider changing it
later perhaps the Commission might want to consider a recommendation to monitor the
proportion and if it does approach a certain level then evaluate the conditions at that time, It
would be difficult to be able to predict what might happen five or ten years from now. I think
that perhaps maybe an approach that would monitor the proportion of office and then we will
report of some sort every two years and consider the health and the long term future of it at that
point. It is just something to throw out for the Commission to consider it its recommendation to
Council.
Chair Griffin: It seems to me and I will just make one last comment that Jean Snider had said
something and I hope I am quoting her properly about Stanford’s generalized inclination to make
sure that the Research Park in fact does stay true to its roots in effect and not become a lawyer
park but rather to continue to be focused on being an R&D venue predominantly. That is one of
the reasons that this 25% cap was instituted. Did I say that right? Is the recollection?
Mr. Emslie: Yes, we believe those were the comments from the Stanford representative.
Chair Griffin: I see Karen and I see Lee. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: In response to that I look at this as kind of a comparison although it is
not the same of course, but I look at this as kind of a comparison to ground floor retail
protections. If you have the protection there for the ground floor as opposed to a monitoring
system then you don’t have a situation that exists where you already have intrusion into the
ground floor area. You are going to have that situation that may not be desirable for some period
of time until you can get something in place and lease’s run out and that sort of thing. So it
would seem to me that as a comparison that it is better to have a cap rather than monitoring. If
you monitor you are monitoring and you get to the point where it is an undesirable situation then
you have the situation, So it would seem to me that having a standard or a limit might be a more
desirable way of monitoring in a proactive way, .....
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commission’er Lippert: Steve, I appreciate your admission that office space is hard to ........
distinguish from somebody who is working as programmer in a cubicle from somebody who is
working as a professional in a cubicle. Would it not be better to look at wholesale space in the
big picture and say that a manufacturing company or a company that is involved in selling
product that all of their office space is characterized as part of that R&D manufacturing element?
When you have a wholesale company like say a law firm that has an equally large building that it
City of Palo Alto Page 42
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
is all dedicated to professional office space even though you might very well have that entire
building filled up with attorneys that are writing say patents.
Mr. Williams: That is exactly what this provision does. It essentially says what is the business
that is in that building. If it is an R&D business then it is classified as that even though 80% of it
may be support office services for that use. Whereas if it is professional office, what are they
writing contracts for.
Mr. Emslie: That works. Where it gets tricky is when you get close to the cap and then if a
wholesale use where to change from office to R&D it is not taken out of the cap and it can’t go
back in. That is the problem. The wholesale works as tong as we don’t get close to the 25%
because then they can flip back and forth.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues this Staff Report is divided predominantly into three sections. We
have been ~vorking on item number two here for the last few minntes having to do with the 25%
cap. I am wondering in an attempt to get through this if we might go ahead and continue to
address this item number two and then move on to the other two items here. That being said do
we have any more comments on item number two and the limitations on office space? if we
don’t’ then perhaps we could revert back to number one which deals with the modifications to
the 35 foot height limit moving it to 40 feet in order to accommodate the biotech. Yes, Curtis.
Mr. Williams: I suggest that you make a motion on number two, dispose of that and then discuss
number one.
Chair Griffin: Then I would entertain a motion on item number two. Bonnie, take a stab.
Commissioner Packer: I am intrigued with Steve’s suggestion about reviewing the situation on
an annual basis and then when it reaches 25% triggering what? I would like to know more about
how that would work as opposed to starting out with the 25%. What would be the difference?
Mr. Emslie: One the monitoring wouldn’t put it in the code. It would basically be something :
that we would evaluate trends and demographics in the City for a number of land uses. So it is
part our responsibility in Advance Planning to anticipate needs. So Advance Planning would
review annual changes in the business park and if it appeared that more standalone offices were
starting to root then we could come back with recommendations for possible actions or no action.
Rather than have it codified now and have it be an issue that had to be dealt with in some
regulatory way it would be more part of our advance planning program and the commitment to
return to the Commission and the Council with recommendations Should it appear that the
dynamic nature of the park being a research oriented park appeared to be overtaken by other
more professional office uses.
Commissioner Packer: Would it be necessary to codify that approach?
Mr. Emslie: You could go that way but I wouldn’t think it would be necessary to codify it.
Basically it could be a recommendation to the Council for direction to Staff as opposed to
codification.
MOTION
City of Palo Alto Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
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.
Commissioner Packer: I would like to make a motion that we recommend to Council that we
don’t put in the 25 % cap at this point but make sure the code emphasizes that the purpose of the
Research Park is to be a research park and that the Director will be monitoring the relative uses
between professional office and R&D to see if other caps may have to be put in in the future to
make sure that it stays a research park. That is my motion.
Chair Griffin: Let’s see if you can pick up a second. I am not hearing one. So that item fails.
Perhaps the reason it failed for me is that there is still a lot of ambiguity in this concept and while
I am attracted to the objective of what you are trying to get at which is to achieve flexibility and
yet at the same time keep the Research Park a research park. I guess I would like a little bit more
help with some text that would put some flesh on the bones and we don’t seem to have that right
now.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: Before I heard Steve’s recommendations I was going to move the Staff
Report as it was written. It sounded like a good idea to me. The Staff Report is also a pretty
good idea because it does maintain the research and development; it excludes the administrative
office, which gives a lot more flexibility. The only thing i may want to suggest is that we clarify
the way the word ’design’ is used in the definition of professional office so it doesn’t create the
ambiguity that Lee pointed out because the word ’design’ is also used in research and
development. That standalone design word is confusing in the definition of professional office.
So my motion would be to support the Staff recommendation with a little bit more refinement on
the definition with regard to clarification ot~ design.
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: Second.
Chair Griffin: Looks like we have picked up a second. So do you wish to speak any further to
the motion, Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: No, it is kind of late.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: No just to Clarify that related to this aspect at the end I will be wanting to
make a separate motion regarding requesting Staff to pursue the aspects that would relate
incentivizing business-to-business taxes in the City.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I am still somewhat suspect and questioning the language here. Part of
it is that what I hear is that removing wholesale businesses, manufacturing and R&D, and saying
we are not going to count your office space and then we are limiting other buildings to the 25%.
By the shear virtue of just looking at that we are actually increasing the amount of office space
allowing a relaxation of the amount of office space, which to me is okay, but I think that is like
City of Palo Alto Page 44
4
5
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
1 the limit. Because after awhile you are going to begin to have traffic impacts, you are going to
2 have some impacts in terms of infrastructure, all these people going out at lunchtime. I have a
3 number of concerns that I am very troubled about. Even though,at that point we go and look at
relaxing or increasing the limit beyond that I don’t feel comfortable going close to that.
Chair Griffin: All right. I see Pat and I see Karen.
Commissioner Burt: I was just going to make a comment. We are having to recall some thi,ngs
we discussed a year ago, two? Part of what we had come to the recognition of was the even
though this has always been called an R&D park decades ago there was manufacturing that went
on there. Hewlett Packard had plating facilities and fabrication plants and assembly and there
was a lot more manufacturing as well as R&D. The reality is this is premier R&D property and
we are not going to see a return to manufacturing even high-end there. The reality is that the
types of things that are defined today as code writing is a form of manufacturing software. That
is the trend that we have now. Steve was talking about capturing emerging technologies and I
don’t know if it means nano technologies is going to need little offices. In any event I think we
have an unavoidable trend that the best we can do are some of the things that we had elected to
do here which is to try to create environments where we will help the Park do things such as
attract biotech which is really the only true manufacturing other than nano technology that can be
done efficiently and requires the environment that is there. In biotech you have PhDs essentially
overseeing manufacturing and in nano technology you have very Small devices where five
dollars a square foot for R&D space is not going to kill that company. Those are the trends that I
think we are seeing here and I think we have to recognize that we can’t regerse that.direction.
We can try to incentivize some of the outcomes but I have come to accept that this principle that
there is very little differentiation in intensification of use between what is today’s use of R&D
there in software and the office. So I am less concerned about that than I was. It is an issue that
had concerned me in the past and I think there is just an economic and business reality that is
part of the evolution of; this is one of the centers of Silicon Valley.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am sympathetic to Pat’s comments earlier about the business-to-
business sales tax generated here. I am wondering if a means that might help accommodate that
in the future and recogniZe the importance of that might be to add sales to the definitions under
professional office and under research and development. Does Staff understand where I am
going? Certainly the Commissioners don’t.
Under professional offices it says means of use providing professional consulting services in the
fields of law, architecture, design, accounting and similar professions. Then under research and
development it says means of use of engaging in the study, testing, engineering design. If we
could just add to those definitions a means to provide a location for or means of facilitating
business-to-business sales in the definitions as kind of a placeholder for the motion that is going
to be made separate fi’om this. It is one of the things that we are going to be looking for. The
Research Park has how many hundreds of thousands of square feet so it is a significant piece to
consider.
Mr. Williams: First of all the research and development definition already includes sales as an
ancillary part of the company that’s already taken care of an issue that we could explore is what
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 45
1 does it mean to have a sales office that is independent of business that otherwise might be
2 considered to be a professional office and whether that could be included. I don’t think we have
3 enough information yet to know what that means and to be able to add it. That would be part of
4 our analysis. Right now sales within the context of office, HP has five buildings and one of them
5 is all sales people, That is allowed in here andit is still considered part of the R&D, so that is
6 taken care of. There is another issue, a bigger issue, about sales.
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
Chair Griffin: Karen, I am wondering would it be appropriate in your opinion if that concern
were folded into the eventual motion we are going to get from Pat on supporting business-to-
business transactions?
Commissioner Holman: Yes it would. I just wanted to make sure that Staff wasn’t then going to
be reluctant to go back and reopen these definitions again if that is what needed to happen in
order to facilitate that since we are just finishing up with this as it is.
Mr. Williams: Whatever comes out of that comes out of it if it is necessary to open up the
definitions then that’s what we’ll do.
Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then I am okay with that being a separate motion later.
MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2 Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent and Commissioner
Lippert abstaining)
Chair Griffin: I am going to support Bonnie’s motion even though it pains me a little to see civil
engineering being picked on here. That is an industry near and dear to my heart however for the
sake of moving this item along I will support your motion. I think that gave all of us an
opportunity to speak on it. So if we could then vote for Bonnie’s motion on item number two.
All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Those opposed?
Commissioner Lippert: I will abstain and the reason for my abstention is that I was not part of
the original discussion that happened two years ago.
Chair Griffin: That is fine. So the item does carry with Commissioners Bialson and Cassel
absent and Commissioner Lippert abstaining.
If we could go to item number one to discuss the modifications to the 30-foot height limit and
incorporation of a 40 foot provision for interstitial. Do we have comments from colleagues
and/or questions on this item?
Commissioner Packer: I have a quick question. The screen on top of the roof would that be
included in the no more than 50 feet? It says the equipment should not be more than 50 feet is it
the equipment plus screens because sometimes screens go above in which to effectively screen.
Ms. Grote: Currently the regulation is that you can have 15 feet of additional height to screen
mechanical equipment that is on top of the roof. So if you have a 35-foot height limit you can
have 15 feet for screening. The way this is written if you have a 40 foot height limit and then the
mechanical equipment can’t go more than 50 feet that means you have a ten foot allowance on
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
top of the 40 feet for mechanical equipment and that means your screen can only be ten feet to
screen that ten feet of equipment.
Commissioner Packer: That was my question. The screen and the equipment are the same thing.
Ms. Grote: Correct.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make a comment here for the sake of the Commission.
Biotechnology takes much larger equipment than say office where there are just air handling
units for ventilation. With biotechnology and medical there is a tremendous amount of air
handling so the equipment is significantly larger.
Chair Griffin: Just to clarify your clarification, does that mean that the equipment would for
example exceed this ten-foot limit and that there would be a constraint in terms of people
designing buildings to provide sufficient HVAC support.for.biotech?
Commissioner Lippert: There could be some problems where they come very, very close to the
height limitation that has been proposed here.
Chair Griffin: Does Staff wish to weigh in on that?
Mr. Williams: We discussed that some with Ken Kornberg of the ARB who you may know
designs these types of facilities. He felt comfortable with that 50-foot provision. There hasn’t
been an objection to that but we haven’t focused on it either so we certainly don’t want to put
something in there that in reality is going to be a hindrance.
Commissioner Lippert: Let me tell you where the rub is and I can illustrate it for you. Across
the street at Palo Alto Medical Foundation where you have buildings and then you have screens
above~ They are not in proportion architecturally to approve, but I think that the problem is that
you can allow for an increase in the height of these buildings in order to bring the screening in
proportion to the building. Where the difficulty is going to be is keeping that equipment within
that additional screen.
Chair Griffin: Curtis.
Mr. Williams: Could I suggest that if you would that you move this forward like this and that we
will talk to the biotech folks between now and.this going to the Council and get a sense of
whether they feel like that is real critical then we will move forward and recommend they be
allowed to go up to the full 15 feet. But again it is not something that we really focused on
maybe it has gone under the radar and we need to revisit it.
Chair Griffin: Then if it went to the 15 feet then that would exceed our 50-foot limit.
Mr. Williams: The 50 foot limit is the building and we would have 15-foot allowances for 50-
foot buildings.
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 47
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
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I was just going to suggest that respecting what Commissioner Lippert
has said and then also respecting the ~vork that Staff has done already on this there is sometimes
something else we suggest which is reviewing something in a year after it has been put in place
because if there have been no complaints about this and you have done your outreach and
worked with ARB and Ken Kornberg who designs specifically this type of building then maybe
an easier way to do it might be just to review it in a year.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: As a solution to it what you might want to look at or what you might
want to consider is have increased height as screens step back. Therefore what happens is the
sight line is diminished the further it gets away. So, you might say ten feet when it is within ten
feet of the edge of the building and t5 feet when it is back beyond that.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I understand the principle. I don’t know if it is something we can write
sitting here though
Commissioner Lippert: No, we couldn’t I am just giving an example.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, did you have a motion?
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I will move the Staff recommendations with regard to the allowances for
the interstitial space and with regard to the equipment on the roof i move that we support that
subject to Staff checking again with interested parties to see if an allowance for maybe going. 15
feet in the middle of the building would be appropriate. "
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: Second.
Chair Griffin: Let’s see if we have a second to that. Have yQu spoken sufficiently to your
motion?
Commissioner Packer: I think I have. I didn’t really say anything about why it is a good idea
but I think that all the reasons have all been said in the Staff Report and by the public.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Holman: I just need one clarification. Maybe I just overlooked this but the 40-
foot height as opposed to 35-foot height and then there is an additional setback from residential
properties for the portion of the building that is above 35 feet, Is there a quantification of that
that I overlooked or is that only referring to the equipment itself or is that the building too?
City of Palo Alto Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Williams: That is the building too. It says increase the height from 35 feet to 40 feet and
then the Staff Report just says where additional setback is required. The specific ordinance
language says.
Commissioner Holman: I didn’t find it in the chart in the ordinance.
Mr. Williams: It says that the portion of the building over 35 feet in height is. setback an
additional 20 feet from the building edge closest to the residential site when it is adjacent to a
residential site. If itis not adjacent to a residential site it would just be ARB review would
determine what is appropriate but if it is adjacent to a residential site then that additional height
would have to be set back an additional 20 feet or a minimum of a 100 feet off.
MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2 Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent and Commissioner
Lippert abstaining)
Chair Griffin: I would like to vote this item. All those in favor of Bonnie’s motion, I am not
going to repeat it but it substantially supports the Staffrecommendati{)n. All those in favor say
aye. (ayes) All those opposed? Do we have any abstentions?
Commissioner Lippert: I will abstain for the same reasons.
Chair Griffin: So again we have that item carrying with Commissioner Bialson and Cassel
absent and Commissioner Lippe~ abstaining.
That moves us now to item number three of the Staff Report.
Mr. Williams: Actually there is 1-B also which was allowing the rooftop enclosures and the
storage exemptions for floor area for the enclosed equipment on the roof and the equipment in
the basement. I didn’t hear that as part of the motion if that was intended.
Commissioner Packer: I did intend to include the exemption I am sorry I didn’t express that.
The exemptions from floor area that additional storage space in the basement and on the roof.
Should we have another quick motion?
Chair Griffin: Does the City Attorney think that is required?
Commissioner Packer: Do another little vote?
Chair Griffin: I am sorry I can’t hear you. Unless there is an objection it is good to go with the
entire both item A and B. Colleagues, are we all right with that? It appears to be the case.
Moving to number three that has to do with revision of definitions providing for medical office
separated from medical research. Commissioners, do you have questions of Staff on this item?
Pat.
Commissioner Burt: We had a member of the public who raised an issue that I realize is one that
we probably should be considering. In liberalizing the definition on medical research are we
City of Palo Alto Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
potentially jeopardizing the viability of the independent doctors who are on Welch Road there?
Are they potentially going to get squeezed out by medical research in any way? Does Staff have
any comments that that might be an unintended consequence of this definition?
Mr. Williams: We don’t think so primarily because we have tried to define medical research in a
way that it doesn’t turn into R&D in and of itself. We have limited the amount of hazardous
materials that are involved to a level that is in the code with a fairly minimal level, So I don’t
think we see it as being that extensive but it is hard to judge too. I would point out that the
speaker who brought this to your attention back a year and a half ago as far as separating the
medical research out from medical office is in the audience and is supportive of doing what we
have done here. She is part of that community and I don’t think she feels like it will jeopardize
the office use but I won’t speak for her if she wishes to speak to you.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, would it be helpful to hear from a member of the public who is a
stakeholder in this item? We can do that if you are so inclined. Actually we would enjoy
hearing from you briefly and we do respect the hour.
Ms. Sherri Sager, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, 725 Welch Road, Palo Alto: Thank you.
I am the Chief Government Relations Officer for Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital. Actually I
would like to thank the Commission and the Staff for all the hard work. What we were really
focusing on was to be able to do the clinical trials in the community physician’s office and in our
physician’s offices because that is considered research. So this definition allows for the clinical
trials to occur in the medical offices. We aren’t looking to build research labs there or really get
into as the comment was what we normally think of as research and development. We are really
focusing on medical trials and clinical trials so the patient gets care at the same time they are.
participating in a research effort.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Pat, did you have a question?
Commissioner Burt: With that clarification it seems that maybe we should seek a definition that
captures what was just described there a little bit more than what we presently have. That seems
like a good objective and it sounds like we are close to that but we may need to tweak the
definition so that it is specifically referring to medical research within medical offices.
Mr. Williams: We can certainly add that.
Chair Griffin: Good. Bonnie did you have a motion?
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I would like to move the recommendations of the Staff Report with
regard to the medical research definitions and to ask that Staff add to the medical research
definition the clarification that that research would take place within a medical office.
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: Second.
City of Palo Alto Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: We have a second to that as well. Did you wish to speak to that motion at all or
have you said enough.
Commissioner Packer: I think the recommendations by Staff are good ideas and I thank them for
doing it.
MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2 Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent and Commissioner
Lippert abstaining)
Chair Griffin: Seconder? All those in favor of Bonnie’s motion on item number three say aye.
(ayes) Opposed? Do we have an abstention?
Commissioner I~ippert: I will abstain for the same reasons.
Chair Griffin: All right so that item does pass with Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent
and Commissioner Lippert abstaining.
Staff this now takes us to what appears to be the final two items, which have to do with other
minor modifications and the second one being related issues to be addressed. You folks,
colleagues, have already spent a lot of time this evening discussing offsite vehicle storage but I
am on thin ice here. Karen, maybe you could help me with this.
Commissioner Holman: I would like a clarification on the offsite new vehicle storage for auto
dealerships that is now being allowed in RLM and GM zones. It requires a CUP and I am
wondering if one of the findings would be, I am presuming but I don’t like to assume, that it
would be for dealerships only ~vhich sales offices are located in Palo Alto. Would that be one of
the findings for the CUP ! would hope and pray?
Mr, Williams: I don’t think we talked about having special findings for the use permit. I think
what we should do is have a footnote or something in the actual standard here that indicates that
it is onlyoffsite storage for dealerships that are in Palo Alto that certainly is the intent.
Commissioner Holman: I think stating that explicitly would help protect from the consideration
that I brought up the last time we discussed this.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, do you have further questions on this other minor modifications item?
Apparently we do have one more.
Commissioner Holman: Just one. In the other item it talked about vehicle storage and the
screening but those aren’t mentioned here so will those be carried over?
Mr. Lusardi: They would only be carried over I believe if they were adjacent to residential use.
I think as part of the use permit if there was for instance some relationship to the Baylands or
something we would look at that sensitivity as well.
Commissioner Holman: Would it not be appropriate to als0 require landscape screens or
something of that nature no matter where they are located? It is vehicle storage it is not, this
isn’t something that does need visibility.
City of Palo Alto Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Lusardi: Right but the objective here is to utilize existing parking lots in industrial areas: So
the parking lots are essentially already built and improved. I am not sure but all those parking
lots typically have landscape buffers around them so the landscaping is there. I am not sure what
additional screening you would need.
Commissioner Holman: I didn’t read this, maybe I misread it, and I did not read this to say that
it would only be for existing parking lots. I read this that theoretically an auto dealership could
scrape.everything on a parcel and use the whole parcel subject to setbacks for auto storage. That
was how I read it.
Mr. Lusardi: Right but number one if they scrape the site or they had a vacant site and they did it
would need not just a CUP but they would require a site development permit through ARB,
which would have screening standards and landscape standards with it. Plus parking lots
themselves have landscape standards in them so they would have to meet the landscape standards
for the parking lots. This is not just a sea of asphalt.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, so that is explicit in here then, thank you.
Chair Griffin: Do we need a motion to agree with these three bullet points under minor
modifications? Would that be helpful?
Mr. Williams: It would be helpful to have a motion that basically encompasses everything we
have done here and forwards the ordinance with the changes you have discussed tonight and I
think Pat had an additional motion to go in that or separate from that to the Council.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: If we could do number one unless you want me to make comments on
number two at the same time and then consider all three.
Chair Griffin: Please, go ahead.
Commissioner Holman:: This has to do with certain equipment generators, air conditioning,
compressors, etc. as permitted outdoors subject to setback regulations and screening from view
from residential properties and meets noise ordinance standards. Over in the ordinance it doesn’t
mention noise ordinance standards but of course that would be assumed and presumed too
because you have to satisfy the noise ordinance. What I would like to see and Staff tell me if this
is something that is going to come back as a part of something that is mentioned later here about
noise, what I would like to see is this equipment housed and insulated. What I have noticed in
the community in the last couple of years especially is it has gotten noisier and noisier and
noisier. So just having it screened from view is one thing but having it insulated and noise
mitigated is something very different.
Mr. Williams: The answer is yes it is coming back to you later and is probably going to be a
separate section in the zoning ordinance or performance standards that include things like where
equipment on commercial and industrial property is set and particularly when it is near
residential and noise mitigations it may also include dust and odors and landscape screening
City of Palo Alto Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
buffering, those kind of transitional concerns. But it is not only specific to industrial it also
applies to a number of other uses so we are bringing that back as a separate section.
Commissioner Holman: Given that I am okay with this. We will get a crack at. i~educing tile
noise impacts later.
Chair Griffin: Perhaps it is now appropriate to what I wanted to do was get to Pat’s concern.
Fine. Then Bonnie give us a motion to wrap up those three bullet points if you would.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I move that we recommend to adopt the minor modifications that are
referenced on three bullet points on page five of the Staff Report with the reminder that we
already mentioned something in my first motion I believe about professional office space that the
definitions of administrative uses be clarified with regard to design uses. And it be made clear
that the auto storage be allowed to store the autos of auto dealers who are located in Palo Alto.
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: Second.
Chair Griffin: We have a second. Bonnie, do you wish to speak further to the item?
Commissioner Packer: No I don’t. I think it is stated in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Holman: Ditto.
MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2 Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent and Commissioner
Lippert abstaining)
Chair Griffin: We will vote on this item. All those in favor of Bonnie’s motion say aye. (ayes)
Opposed? There are no votes opposed. Commissioner Lippert is abstaining and Commissioners
Cassel and Bialson are absent.
Now we will hear from Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: I would like to ask guidance from Director Emslie. Given the intent of my
motion would be to request Staffto return to the Commission with a set of recommendations on
how to utilize elements of the ZOU to incentivize business-to-business taxes to occur within the
City and that I would like to include in that motion Staff evaluating other incentives including
possible fee waivers and permit streamlining incentives which are not specifically within the
ZOU but have some interrelationship to it. I want to ask Steve what he thinks would be the best
way to proceed under that recommendation.
Mr. Emslie: I think what you want to do is include with your recommendation on the zoning
codes you just acted on a recommendation to Council to ask Staff to prepare that report. This is
an area that is going to cross several departments so it is going to be a multidisciplinary approach.
so we always need Council direction to be able to do that. I think in this case it is especially
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 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
48.
important because it is going to involve economic development and other fee levying
departments. I think we have a very clear idea of the program that was discussed this evening.
MOTION
Commissioner Burt: Okay then I would like to make a motion to that effect that the Commission
recommend that Council direct Staff to embark on a program to evaluate a variety of tools that
may be used to help facilitate and enhance business-to-business taxes within the City.
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: I will second.
Chair Griffin: Would the maker wish to speak further on his motion?
Commissioner Burt: Well we had a pretty good discussion on it earlier and we actually had
begun discussions on this one or two years ago and I am glad that between the Mayor’s effort at
looking at sales tax revenue in retail that I think this is a valuable service that we can have as to
give a greater emphasis to what I think is the most under-appreciated and perhaps easiest to
obtain sales tax revenue form.
I would like to add one more anecdote. Commissioner Lippert had one earlier and I don’t know
how many folks saw in the last few months the City of Los Gatos was faced with a need in their
case they had to allow for a FAR increaseto retain NetFlix as a business in the City of Los Gatos
that had grown from a startup to one that ifI recall the numbers correctly is projected to shortly
go to $1.0 billion a year in sales taxable revenue which I think ballparks at about $10 million a
year to the City of Los Gatos. So when I have been emphasizing the significance of this I just
can’t emphasize enough how under appreciated I think this issue can be and has been and we
need to go for it and come up with ways to provide Staff with tools that can really make this an
economic engine with minimal impact on the City.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, I am thinking it is coming up to eleven o’clock and I want to
encourage everyone to be mindful of the hour. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a quick question for Staff and then maybe a friendly amendment
to add to the motion. How many square feet are in Stanford Research Park?
Ms. Grote: I believe it is 10 million total.
Commissioner Holman: So I am going to ask Commissioner Burt if he would accept a friendly
amendment as a part of that request of Council in directing Staff to consider a minimum
requirement for business-to-business in the Stanford Research Park. If you consider that there
are 10 million square feet if the percentage was even small it could amount to quite a lot of sales
tax revenue to the City.
Commissioner Butt: Well, I would like to take any and all possibilities that Staff would consider
as what they would bring back to us as opposed at this point in time attempt to come up with
what those specific tools would be I don’t think we should exclude that consideration nor
City of Palo Alto Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
necessarily include a number of ones that I have mentioned earlier that I think are well worth
pursuing. But I think it is too early for us to determine which ones there should be but I certainly
Wouldn’t want to exclude that.
Commissioner Holman: I just wanted to ask it to be considered as part of the explorato~2¢.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, basically I would like to request that ever3~hing is on the table ¯
including that.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, I am done.
Chair Griffin: Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I support what you said and just to augment or add to that my earlier line
of questioning with regard to incubators was along the same lines, which is that when you look at
these companies when they come to Palo Alto to mature they don’t move into the Research Park,
they move somewhere else. A good example of that is Yahoo! I don’t know if they generated
any tangible sales tax from their business but they were a Palo Alto company at one point and
now they are located down in Sunnyvale. And in some ways we are saddled with some of the
older mature companies. I think that by virtue of limiting office space to 25% I think we have an
obligation to have the BMRs of technology included in the Research Park because innovation is
really the cutting edge of what is important here.
Chair Griffin: All those in favor of Pat’s motion say aye. (ayes) All those opposed and the item
does carry unanimously Commissioner Lippert being included with the majority and
Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent.
Staff, are we good to go with this item now? Did we cover all of your topics?
Ms. Grote: Yes you did. Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: That th’en brings us to the end of item number three and I will close that item at
this stage.
We now come to Report~ From Officials. We have a presentation on Sustainable Silver Bullet.
REPORTS FROM OFFICL4LS:
Sustainable Silver Bullet: Stanford Research Park Multimodal Demand Analysis.
Presentation by Steve Raney of Cities 21 .org of the results of the 3-year study exploring
the impact of advanced transportation technology on solo commuting and in-fill
development.
SR Weblink: http://www.cityofpaloalto.’or~/citya,~enda/publish/plannin.g-transportation,
meetings/3492.pdf
Mr. Emslie: Given the lateness of the hour we have asked the presenter of that to come back
another time to present when we have more time on our agenda.
City of Palo Alto Page 55
ATTACHMENT E
CITY COUNCIL 5/I~NUTES
JANUARY 27, 2003
...... . . .Special Meeting
January 27, 2003
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .........................., ....................................: .........3
1, Resolution 8264 entitled ’~Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
.Alto Urging the .:California .Legislature to Reject the Governor’s
Prop0-~d.i~hift :of .Eo~:a-.VehicleLicense Fee (VLE) Revenues and I~9
H0fior’~h~ 1998 S;ca~c0mr~ii:i~ientt0 Eesi)~re the VLF); ": ’: ...:4
2.Amendment Number 1 Between the City of Polo Alto and Uptown
Services in the Amount of $132,500 for.Development Contract in the
Fiber tot.he Home Business Case " ¯ .......................... ;...4.
¯" ": " ":~: ’.i"" " ; :."’: :.’ :-’,." "3A:. ,(O!d. No..3) ApProval .of a New Management Agreement for ,Golf
Professional Services .............~L.........L...~.. "" ’ ....." ......~ .4
-4.:PUBLICHEARING: The Palo Alto City Council Will consider a. prelim nary
slcreen.!ng Of.:.a redevelopment c0ncepL for the .’former ..Sun
:Microsyste.ms site located.at 90I San Antonio Road, as provided forby
Chapter 18,97. of the Pa[o Alto Municipal Code, " " - 8
From :Planning and - TranspoCcation Commission: Request; :for
Preliminary Review and Direction on Planning and Transportation
Committee: Recommendations. Regarding the. Industrial arid
Manufacturing Zoning Districts (ZOU) ...................... ,.~ ..................... 8
5.Service Efforts and Accomplishment~s Report (City Auditor) ..................28
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTs .......................30
6.Conferencewith City.Attorney -- Existing Litigation .............................31
7.Conference with City Attorne._y -- Existing Litigat on ............................31
FZNAL AD,~OURNMENT’ The meeting adjourned at 12:55 a.m. in honor of
Beth Bunnenberg, who was honored by the Polo Alto Historical Association
with the Gleim Community Leader Award for her volunteering over the
01/27103
-difficulty in putting in explicit termination clauses and rationale were
persuasive, The contract was .negotiated fai.rly,
Council Member Kishimoto suggested-continuing the item for One week to
allow Council Members with questions to feel more comfortable.
SUBST]:TUTE HOT:]:ON:Council Member Kishimoto moved to continue the
item to the February 4, 2003, Council agenda.
SU~ST’tTUTE HOTZO~I D]:ED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Kishimoto said the City did not .expect all recreational
facilities to pay for themselves, but the golf course warranted special
sciTutiny because 85 percent of its users came from outside of Palo Alto.
HOTION PASSED 6:3, Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle ’)no."
PUBLIC HEARINGS
.4.PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a preliminary
screening of a redevelopment concept f~r~. the former Sun
M.icrosystems site located at 901 San Antonio Road, as pro~zided for by
Chapter 18.97 of the Palo Alto Municip.al Code. The redevelopment
concept is a mixed-use development, with housing units, a community
-center and senior huUsing with assisted:,living services. Bridge Housfng
and Campus.have requested this preliminary screening for .Jewish Life.
Environmental Assessment: Prescreenings are exempt from CEQA.
Z.o.n!n.g District GM. (Item.to be continued to.a later date at the_reques~ o~ staff)
Mayor Mossar announced the item would be removed at the request of staff.
REPORTS OF COMMtTTEE~ AND COMMISSIONS
4A.From Planning and Transportation Commission:
Preliminary Review .and Direction on Planning and
Committee Recommendations Regarding
Manufacturing Zoning Districts (ZOU)
the
Request for
Transportation
Industrial and
Mayor Mossar reported the work product.included properties that were both
Stanford lands and non-Stanford lands. She and Council Member Kleinberg
had conflicts related to Stanford. They would be present while staff made
presentations. Public comment would be heard with all present. She and
Council Member Kleinberg would then leave the room, and Vice Mayor
Beecham would conduct the part of the meeting that addressed Stanford
lands. The Council7 under Vice Mayo[ Beecham’s (]irection, would discuss,
make motions, and vote on the motions regarding Stanford lands. She and
01/27/03 8
Council Member Kleinberg would rejoin the Council and complete the tasks
for non-Stanford land properties
Planning. Manager John Lusardi pointed out that the item :before the Council
was a preliminary direction and prelim!nary.recommendations and was not
.the adoption of the Industrial Manufa~;tudng Zoning .Ordir!.ance. That would
return to the Council wi:th a completed :update. ol~..the ~ntire Zo.ning
Ordinance. Staff would lay out the action items ,at the .conclusion .of its
Presentation to delineate the stanford items and n0n:Stanf0rd items for the
Council’s put:poses.
Consulting Planner Curtis Williams reminded _the Council the primary
objectives were to implement the 1998 Comprehensive P!an ,([Comp :l~lan) to
try to "refleCt ’ modern i.land useSin the igistricts, to :clarify terms and
definitions that were unclear or in .need of. new definitions,..to explore new
zon!ng techni.ques and formatsfor, the Zoning i Code.. (.Code), to .make the
Code .mora .user-frie~dy:, .and .to enhance its ~online usefulness.. That
~efmeated th~ :.Z0nin~o~ii~a n ~e
the Study Session was to give the Couacil...an ;.~pportur~ity to ~eYi.ew thePanning :..:’ah~i Transp0rtati6n "cornmission ~ ~(P&TC~)~ .::.:,preliminary
recommendations on the Tndustrial and :Manufacturing .Districts and to
¯ -:ai:’~pt-r&-~:or~r~endations o:r pr:o~iide m0difiCations’ to ’th6~e sQgg&Stions. THe
dietetiCiS i.ttl~at .i ~taff :i6~k~! at ..wet& .office.-.::Resear~h-..::(oR), -. Limited
" .]:ndustria!/Research Pailk. (LM), :-General Mgnufact, u.r!:og .~:(GM). an.d .r#!ated
LM-3 and 5 zC~ne~; and .the GMB zone. The .hM zone
:cover:ed more area than any.of.the others. Tiie ~eview i~i:ocess.todate on the
" ::diStriCts Began"With a ~0rmulation of a reformatted ordinance that Combined
-allof .the districts that were currently in different Chapt.#rs .of..th.e Pa o Alto
Municipal. Code :.(PAMC) into One ~hapter and :iU:t!iized .tab es"~f0r.ldeiineating
the ..... allowable., uses and. ..~ required development standards.:: rather .than
reiteratingeach 0f-~:he uses in each chapter. A number of focus g~oups.were
conducted by.staff, attended by 161anning and 7~arispor~a~ci0.n Commissioners
¯ and business. .
and _property owners, as we!!. some of the neighb0r[ng
residents to discuss the issues. The. P&TC then toured :the .various districts
.-and the key potential redevelopment sites in those distri~ts and Conducted a
series. .°f. four Study s.essi0.nS to discuss the number of..,issues. Staff.went to
the Council on September 23, 2002, with some interim ..work product and
tis~:ussion. The PT&Cmade its recommendations on iDei~ember ~::[8, 2002.
The PT&C discussed several key :issues during the process. One issue was
whether to limit office uses "n..the industrial..zones and make a distinction
¯ between office and research and devel0Pmen_t and manufacturino uses. A
second issue was to adjust the names Of the ~listrictsto better reflect the
uses; as well as, in some cases, the geography of those areas. Other issues
were how to allow for a better mix of land uses suchas retail services and
housing within the industrial zones, to review some of the definitions,
01/27/03 9
provide incentives for. onsite childcare within the industrial .diStricts, and to
address potential traffic impacts, as well as possible economic implications of
the changes. There were no substantive changes to.the basic standards of
the zones involving lot sizes, .FARs, coverage .provisions,-height, -and
setbacks. The names of..some of the ~districts were changed and. purpose
s~atements rev.,!sed to better reflect.~he!~, geography and intent. The.current
LM zone was divided into one district west of ElCamino Real (Research Park
:(RP) ¯:District):and one east of El Camino (Research, Office and.:.Li.mited
.Manufacturing (ROLM) District the area current.y known as LM-3..district
a.ong Ernba.~cadero Road, would be, retained as be .changed to ROLNInE
(Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing ,."Embarcadero) subdistrict;
The current Office Research (OR) District along Welch Road.was renamed
:Medical Office and Nedica: ~.Re.s~aEch.. (M.OR)emphasizing those uses in that
z0hing ~]ist.rict. There was no charge to (GM) and.the .GM:B 0veriay.W~uldbe
deleted. The NOR district was renamed to .emphasize the focus on protecting
and. promoting :the :medica i;~ated ..uses in close proximity ,to ~Stanford
Medicai:.Center. ,The MOR would, be..the .perm tied .use:.iu ,.that :particu ar
Wl:i.i~h w~S ger~eP~ily~0mpdSed of stafford Research Park foCused 0r~
:r:~seai:ch"arid developmerit:(R&D) and :wa~ ::[h~ :pl:i~ary, pei:mittedU~;e;
:iT{~in Change. was .ajimitatiOn 0nstanci,al:0ne .0~ice.uses t~ 25 :.percePit of the
:to.t;.al fo0.~:.:~re~.,:::wi~h"the in:tent tC~ pres.e~,e:the r~sea~ch em...Phasis ofthe
ReSearch Park. ’The Stand-al0ne .uses tended .to be..i~ttorneys,.:.:acCounting,
au_d .r~a! iestat~ ::a~.~l-¢~Jrr~nt!y..comp_rised .approximate y~:2O, percent Of
.R~sear~h Pai:k~S ’sCi~~e: :~o0tagei:Tfi~ ~i cuia~:ioi~s e×(~ Udect 0ffice~pa~:e that
was :.p~rt :of:..an R&D firm. -[here .was a.~:provision to require:~an office
occupancy permit to track .the process whenchange in occupancy..occurred.
The P&TCTecommended that transportation, demand managernent::(_TDM)
--approaches Be lutilized t~c~ ti:y to ..minimize..the traffiC:and parking impacts of
:the.office an:dR&D useS;The GM ;disti’iCt, which was predominantiy..a!0ngthe
San AntonioRoad,:"i~Fabian .Way,:.. and the.. Charleston area, ,.remained
:permitted u~es. Adi~ii~:istrative office, .currently a.permitl~ed :.Us~,:.became a
.cOnditional use t0.try to .retain the ex!sting small manufacturing businesses.
Other 0ffice uses were currently prohibited. The GM-B ~ombining dist.rict was
delete8; WhiChl applied to Parce s.near-the East Palo Alto border and along
Park Boulevard near "Page ..Mill Road. The .P&TC believed the .li~itatic~n of
Administrative ~Offi~:~ u~s t~ a conditional use permit (CUP):helped to
ameliorate con(~erns :about traffic that office development ;otherwise
generated in the GM-B zone. There were .some institutional, semi-public
uses, such as day care centers and churches, which required CUPs to assure
they ’were compatible with .the industrial uses in the area. The :Research
Office and Limited Manufacturing District (LM) zone east of El Camino Real
included.research and development (R&D) and office uses as well as light
manufacturing, .which remained as permitted uses without specific
limitations on those office components. The Embarcadero area retained the
0!/27/03 10
more restricted standards for FAR and coverage that the LNI-3 zone currently
prescribed.. The P&TC .felt the -FDM measures :were useful in that location to
try to ~".m.nim.._~ the .traffic and pa~king Impa.~=" "*~ for O,~,lce and R&D.
Discussion was held regarding housing in the zones, and no. determinations
were made, in particular, with how mixed use housing was appropriate. The
P&TC deferred.the discussion on .housing until the deliberations tookp ace.
Other uses such as.stand,alone retail and itestaurants were looked at in
terms of their mix with industrial and were prohibited :in the MOR district as
ithey currently..... . were. . ,:in the :.OR-zone. Childcare Wa~ a~IdreSSed With a
provision for a 50 .percent floor, area .credit for childcare fa~ilities on top of
:the exemption that onsite childcare currently, received. :Other issues that
r~eeded t~ be a~idres~ea.i-iinCluded mixed-use requirements" And how ~hey
r~6iated in the 20~iing..distriCts; and :Perfoilmance.stan.da[ds in terms,i
0mpatibiitY with neigl~b.0~ing- re~id~ntial area~. The ne×t Stel~s in ~tl~e
’process includedl..CO~ti!3uing :to ideve!op .the design prgtotypes: for...the
SPecified deveopmer~t :types outlined in the Comp Plan, ¯scheduling the
parkingl ai4alysis..~focus:gr:oups and-~tudy sessi0n wi~h .~he. P-&~C, initiating
part 0f the a6-ai:¢~is~ ~i~d an ongoin~ ~nvir0nmer~tai ~eView Process. with the
envlronm.ental-._consultant.:..The .:.Council.:.was asked J;o.:.aCcep~ the P&TC’s
preiiminary..Ordinan~:ei~ecomm~ndati0ns gr modify.:.thos.e :.as .necessary;
¯ . .-direct.st_aff. and the.’P&TC .to,proceed.with deve.oping the Enixed :useparking --:and p~rf~:fn~nces.i~n~Jakd~i to-incorporate into the ~ainance;and dir~e~t the
’ Ti:ansp0~a~iC~n~taf-f. i~o?pruceed ~Vih ~he .TDM .anaiysiS,"!par~icuiarly for’the .
Sherri. Sager, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, 725 Welch Road,. thanked
the. PI.anDing,staff:.and.P&TC for their hard work with the revisions. The
Hospita!.~upported the Change to the MOP but asked for.additional .clarity in
the definition secti6m iThe..title currently read, "Medical-Office." The ci~ange
in wording to :"Medcal O~ce and Research"-was .suggested. The P&TC
recommended exclusion to )’.biotech research’(, in Chapter :!8.99.02. There
¯ were times when. s0me:of the research and phar~maceutical research were
connected to ongoing, clinical trials in doctors’ .offices. Suggested,wording
included, ".unless .dire~ctly. related to clinical-.trials occurring at nearby
hospitals or clinics." That Change in wording kept the intent of the P&TC and
a!lowe~ the: appropriate .research to occur in close:pro~imity ~o the hospital.
_]oy.Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, said when staff began one year prior to update
the Zoning Ordinance by addressing the industrial and manufacturing.
districts, she was concerned because the reason staff gave was that those
districts would be simple. The districts were the main source of the
jobs/housing imbalance and much of the traffic impacts. If the City were
serious about addressing the job!housing imbalance and traffic impacts, the
industrial!manufacturing districts required a major over-haul. If the City were
01/27/03 11
.to seriously address the jobs/ housing imbalance, unlimited .job growth in
the Research Park should not be all.owed. Housing was a permitted use in
the Research Park for the prior 25 years, but no housing was ..built.
Tncentives for housing needed to be provided. A goal to consider was that all
new jobs created io.the Research Park needed to be.housed in the Research
Par:k. Lower commercial EAR;.couP!ed with incentive~ :l~or~bui!dingho~Jsing,
was.a topic for discussion. Stanford Unive[sity Claimed it Voluntarily adliered
toa policy .that :limited office" use in the Research Park. Stanford Univei’sity
~iefineci. reseaF~h_.a~j .de~eibl~ment t0include admini~tra~iv~ (~ffices.".Wl:]en
s~aff, ’at the direction of..the :P&TC, drafted an ordina:r~ce that tried ~o~.iimit
office use in the Researdi .Park,stanford University objected to .the
s~anford University Submitted its own rewritten wording to codify:Stanford’s
.i.decepti~e .defi_nition of research and deveiopment. :]:f.the City were. to a low
un.!imited adn~ii~!~trative ’.O~i(~es:ii:i :tt~e Re~e~.r~h Pa[k, ~_hat sh6uj.di~be~Sta£ed
:clearly in the PAMCrather than hiding it with deceptive.definitions of R&D,
. w.hi~h was:rel~e~red to in.Pr0vision B~4on page 5 of Attachment A of the staff
!:ep.o~ .(CMR; 132:.03). Stanford should ~net .continue ..tO..make ~a, !~a se .c aim
~:I:i~L th&~i~wei:~ .i~i~ing0’ffi~e :US~ in: i:t~b~~ R~’se~r~l~ ’Pai;k to";~.5
:December 9, 2002, the Counciliheld a public hearing on. 2300 East Baysh0re,
i:~h~ :former S-cott S~a~o(Jd’ location, a<d oi]ndi Voted 7-2 :to. denythe :PC
a~ipiic.ati0i~ ih~ into -aii0wing fo~: auto
dealerships on the p~eperty.and~to, reviewwhether.housing could be. buit On
:::the-Pr~P~Y. On .:De~e~b~i~ ,:l&; :2002.,::’.tHe P&TC he d ::a. mk~ting On
-p.re!iminaEy recommendations .for the industrial/man.Mfaqturing .dist~ict~,
¯ .which included U~ir3:"..:Eho.Se :recommendations were before the.Council.
Council.~s direction regarding 2300 :.East Bayshore should haye been a .topic of
discussion a.t..the December. 11,:.2002, .meeting. The P&TC voted on
preliminary recommendations without any .discUssion of concerns she raised
a~ tl~e beCember.$l; 2002,meeting. ":: :. ’i~ ..:’: . - " ’ : ¯ -.~ ....
Jean Sn[der, Stanford.Research Park Director, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo
.Park, supported the staler, recommendations, .Which were the result of .many
focus groups and P&TC meetings. One.concern heard in the..focus groups-
had to do with biotech uses in the:Research Park. The 35-foot height
limitation..proposed challenges for biotech companies that required a .great
deal of mechanical: equipment between floors. The optimal build was 40 feet.
Staff was ’asked to look into the height limitation to accommodate biotech.
Todd Arris, 3401 Hillview .Avenue, supported the preliminary ordinance
recommendations. The importance of maintaining flexibility in the Zoning
Code was stressed.
Mark Sabin, 533 Alberta Avenue, Sunnyva!e, supported the staff
recommendations and agreed there should be flexibility in terms of research
01/27/03 12
and development, which was a .critical part of the area’s economy. Having
zoning regulations that supported current and future needs was important.
Bud .-Mission, :Roche,. 3401 Hillview Avenue, addressed :two. issues that
impacted R&D businesses.in the LM-5 or new. RP zones. A proposal was put
forth.that suggested the C0unc!, !mp ement a PeRcentage cap on the amount
of.administ[ative .versus non-admin strativeoperations within an individual
R&D business. The P&TC heard those ideas .and.recommen.ded against them.
The idea seemed to have been born from the notion that what had been
applied in the case of limiting retail businesses was reasonable and fair to
apply toward R&D business for the broader purpose :.of congestion
management...The investment horizon was different for an R&D business.
The capital .outlays .on a square foot.basis .were significantly.:greater. R&D
.businesses required flexibility over time to shift the .proportion of
:administrative support functions and non-a~Iministrative functions as the
research activity. ~Xpanded and changes. Occurred through the. p[oduct cycle.
The:need for. flexibility to .accommodate shifts, in the workforce through the
R&D cycle Was .i:iti~al~ :" ":. .... ": : .: :".::: ’"" ~~". ~..’.: .’’ :". ~’.: " .:-. :": ~
~lim-Robinson, 3410 Hillview Avenue, supported =the Zoning’ changes. Limiting
office Sp~ce tor:e~ain;che"flavor.6f the Resear’ch Park was important. Coancil
needed to look at t~ransit and other:traffic:mechanisms. . ’-
Mayoi~:No.s.sarl !ea~m.#d the City .of. San-lose invested heavi, yto attract biotech
to San Jose and asked whether staff considered how econornics"played into
decisions. - " "
Nr..Williams said staff carefully considered the components of flexibility for
biotech. An economic analys s hadnot bee.n..done, but staff hoped.that would
be done ~by the economic consultants. " " -
Mayor Mossar clarified staff hoped to havean.economic analysis. -- -
Mr..:Williams said.staff hoped to look at economic mu!tip iers for.the different
types of uses and feasibility issues. - "
City.Manager Frank Benest said recent data was released by .loint Venture
Silicon Valley. Their new analysis showed a.growth in biotech in the Silicon
Valley, A separate meeting was held with the. Stanford Research Park about
being open and supportive of that trend. The two areas of concern included
height for configuring space and .the issue of more administrative area.
Staff’s concern about administrative ¯area was to find a way to ensure that
Sales and marketing Stayed in Polo Alto.
Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not par~ticipate in the item .due
01/27/03 13
to a )otential conflict of interest because
represented Stanford in land use matters.
her husband’s formerlaw firm
Mayor Nossar stated .she. would not participate in the item due to a conflict
of.interest because her husbandwas employed by Stanford University.
.Co.uncil Member.Freeman asked the Council to agree to add to the Urban
Des!gn. consultantTs task, a Feasibility and desig[!.study of the ¯"spine" that
:iron perpendicular, to F! (::amino Real, .Hanover. Street; California Avenue, and
iPage Mill Ro~i.behind theBank:of America. ~ -’ ....
.Mr. Williams_.said the Zoning Ordinance was not going to be as site specific
for parcels in ~ certain :location to.state th..ey have a spine road through it~
however, there could be.a .design.prototype for a site in the vicinity.
Vice Mayor Beecham believed what the Council had before itwas definitional
:Council Member. Freeman said .the study, could fit in related issues under
~:Placeholde"r:S !and ’ordinance" and fit in "Next Steps":-unde~’.’:’Development of
.:D.esign Prototypes for Specified Devel.opment Types.’f
¯ :.Mr. Williams said that was not part of the current ordinance but could be
:..d,g.a.lt.with later, a~.part of the design exercise. When the.issue returned, the
~<3ou~dl ha~li":;~):decide wiiether it was appropriate tO ena~:t:i~it into some type
~:o.f .:prototype or -guide ine or into .the.Architectural. Review Board (ARB)
:process.
:~IOTTON;-.-Council. Member .Freeman moved, .seconded :by-Kishimot0, to
direct staff to have the urban design consultant review the feasibility and
design of tl~e spine, as discussed during the ’Hanover project, that would run
PerP’endicular to FI Cami.no Real and Hanover Street and between California
.Avenue and Page Mill Road .....
council Member Freeman said when .the Council discussed the Hanover
Project; one 0f the points .the College .Ter!:ace.Neighborhood Association
addressedwas that the~e might POSsibly.be a. spi.ne :~or.delivery trucks. That
would take traffic of~ the residential part of California Avenue and place it
where there was currently a semi-street. Stanford Management Company
had stated that was a possibility for the future.
Council Member Morton felt the Council was on the verge of passing an
ordinance that dictated future development, which basically included road
and a specific site. Since there was no project before the Council, including
general discussion of permitted uses in zoning areas was not appropriate.
01/27/03 14
Mr. Calonne said for the Council to say, as a Comp Plan exercise, that it
w~#nted a road.in a particular location was unlawful. To the exten~ the motion
asked the Urban Design Consultants to look atthe impacts of the. spine road
in terms of land use was appropriate and lawful.
Council Member.Oiakian. recalled the Council’s discussion on the_ Hanover
Project a year prior and belieged there was a mutua understanding at that
time between Stanford Universib/ and the neighborhood association..Mr.
~Lusardi was askedto comment on thematter.
Mr. Lusardi suggested the current discuss on was similar.to a .discussion the
Council held two iweeks prior on urban design and prototypes where staff
talked about developing prototypes to look at relationships between different
land uses~ What w.as asked at the current meeting was to show a prototype
on how an industrial development could happen with relationship to. public
rights-of-way, public spaces, and other" and uses.
:Council Member Ojakian Clarified staff was amenab e to the motion.
Mr. Lusardi said that was correct. ]:t was a matter of how much analysis was
necessary. . .
Vice M~yor Beecham asked whether s;~aff had any idea how rnuc~ analysis
:was necessary. .- . ¯ : .......
Mr. Lusard.i .rePlied ..if the Council wanted .staff to investigate the .prototype, it
could be done with the [3rban Design cousultant, .
:Vice Mayor BeechamSaid he worked with .the College Terrace .residents on
the issue one-year prior and was interested in finding a way to make the
spine work. The motion was not supposed because therewas r~oten0ugh
information on priorities and staff requirements. "
MOT:i:ON PASSED 5-2, Beecham, Norton "no," Kleinberg, Mossar ’~not
participating."
Council Member Morton said more flexibility than the 25 percent limitation
allowed was necessary, Tax revenues came from product sales tax and
individuai employees in the community who used restaurants and shopping
centers. The Council did not. fully understand what happened when a firm. did
not find space inthe community. The City lost major patent attorney firms
:and attorneys~ A concern was that administrative, limitation, in terms of.the
P, esearch Park, did not permit the evolution of major companies, staff was
asked to .comment further on the 25 percent limitation. " "
01/27/03 15
Mr. Williams said Stanford University applied its 25 percent. The City was
not necessarily Josing :something, but there .was a potential that the
.Research Park could .turn into an office park. The-25 percent applied to the
attorneys and accountants and allowed a substantial growth in biotech firms.
.Council Member Morton clarified if. the Research Park became entirely an
administrative office, .it would stil!.qualify for the 25 percent.
Mr..Williams said no. The P&TC asked staff to return with. guidelines.f0r
maintaining :an R&D component in the Research Park. The language said
there had to .be an R&D component in order to have the office use not :count
as part of the 25 percent. ’~ ..... .- ..... " :-...
Council Member Morton clarified the R&D could drop to 30 percent.
Mr[ Williams said that was correct. -
Mr. Calonne said the la~g~]age in the-ordinance was vague, and the
administrative uses were to remain.ancillary to l;he R&D. The Council .could
modify the definition to be. more specific. ..... ’ ’ ’-.. " ......
.Council .Ner0ber .M0:rton r~eferred;to a question from the speaker from Roche.
and asked staff to assure- the City wou ld allow for the evolution ofa business
fr:om, in qffect, a signEt;up .to..:[u!l producti.ou and marketing support.. ....
Mr,. Williams said. that was .the intent and the understandir~g staff had with
Stanford Unive~:sity. " i. -. ~ ::::.:.. :.: ..".i. :"i"::.~..i.:.¯ "...; .i.. -
Council Member Kishimoto said she went back to two large frameworks in
under:standing .the proposal to change the zoning. One was to review the
Comp P!an policies and~prog[:ams, land the other Was to remind the Council
of.the original rationale..tohave .zoning, which was the police power, that a
community had..Zn the old days, the .police power was given to a community
to protect the c0mmunit.y~s public health, safely and welfare, and zoning, was
.done to separate residents from noxious fumes and hazardous ~wastes. Two
current community problems were traffic.and the,impact :on jobs/.housing
imbalance, which drove.up .the. price of housing and drove out teachers from
the community. TheStanford Research Park and employment districts were
an important part of the City.. Good .companies should be encouraged to stay
in Palo Alto. The City’s responsibility was to manage, and minimize impacts.
MOTION: Counci Member Kishimoto, seconded by Ojakian, to accept the
Rlanning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) prelimina~/ ordinance
recommendations regarding modifications to the industrial -and
mar~Jfacturing districts West of El Camino (Stanford Lands): Research Park
01/27/03 16
(RP) and Medical Office and Mbdical Research (MOR) Districts and direct the
ordinance proyisions be revisited upon preparation of criteria related to
mixed use, parking, and performance standards.and includ!ng the definitions
as indicated b.y the City Attorney.
Council Member.Kishimoto was curious to find there was no subdivision map
for the Research Park.
Mr. Calonne said.Stanford University qpei:ated under a number of State law
exceptions to the Subdivision Map Act that allowed leasing in such are.as
with0.ut.subdivision maps. That would change if-residential were added. ....
council Member Kishimoto said when. she...0:oked at .the Comp P a.n goals for
the area, the dominant policy direction was for there to be developed, in
addition t0..TDMr .sidewalks,. pedestrian .paths,. and connections to the city
l~ansportation system. Staff sh-6uld :be asked .to develop urban design
¯ standards to be used :by the Archited~urai and Review Board .(ARB).
"
Mr. Calonne said staff.did a legal analysis on .whatcould be done by way of
:TDM,.and .the Council coulddiscussthat; ’.-.:.. "
Council... ~. Member.. . Lyt. e asked.., about .the issue .of. . affecting site development:..
parameters. Her: .unde.rstan~ing.~as.that site. de~zelopment parameters were
frier cha~ged, per sta~ re~:orn~encialJoni.a.thoUgh t~re was a request from
.th’e public to increase height in medical research areas.
Mr..Williams said that .was correct. There would be some change :to..
standards when staff talked about mix use and.housing relations.
C~’ouncil Member hyt!e asked whether theP&:l:C discussed the idea of bringing
:.development intensity.toward El caminc~ Real"and away; from the foothills;
for. instance,". .down-zoning. . some Of .the areas in the outlying parts of. the
ReseaEch Park and making more development closer to where there was
transportation and services. -
Planning and. Transportation Commissioner Karen Holman said the P&TC
talked about housing to .some degree"arid talked about keeping, housing
towards areas where it_here was transportation available. The P&TC did not
address the development standards. Public comment was heard about
needing more height for the R&D projects to be more viable.
Council Member Lytle asked whether.there was a district where development
intensity could be brought down "n some .Of the outlying areas and shift
higher development intensity in the compact areas. -
01/27/03 17
MS. Holman said deve!opment standards had not been addressed, Staff.
looked’ at uses. . -
Council Member Lytle said .the issue points indicated childcare and
restaurants were encouraged, but steps were taken to make those more
difficult in most of.the distdc.ts by requiring a CUP..SlEaff was asked to
explain..why the Council worked in the reverse direction.
Mr..Williams said the childcare facilities in the GN district would be .a CUP.
The P&TC was concerned about the proximity .of .childcare facilities to
industrial uses. There was concern that if childcare facilities were permitted
uses, ,.they could proliferate at the expense of some of the remaining
research and manul~acturing types of uses.
Council. Member Lytle said the PAMC was amended to include childcare in the
districts. As part of the Childcare Master Plan recommendations, some of
the regulator~ .burdens .on childcare.facilties ,throughout .the community
were Eelieved. The ordinance was.relaxed so that childcare was a permitted
use in the districts. ’ " : " ’
¯Mr. Williams indicated the CUP. was required .only in the GN district.
M:r. husa~-di Siid st~ff found that an individuai R&D or individual industrial
c0uld: .n0.~::s[4pp.ort a stand .alqne .childca.re for qn!y their.emp,10yees Staff.
looked atways to congEegate a childcare facility within an industrial park so
several companies .could share the faci ity. :".: ! :: :" ’
Council Member Lytle said the .performaace..stau.daEds:.were the next step,
which were critical :for the neighborhoods that abutted-the Research Park
areas. The City wanted Oses that generated tax revenue-for.the City in the
:Research Park, which was tlie original model .when the. Council set up the
areas for. growth..She asked.:whethe~ .anything was done, as part of the
Zoning Ordinance, to encourage the retail sales center:uses as part of what
-was required .to be in the Research Park or was the. City-trying to indirectly
limit the .uses ,to.25 p.ercent .The definition on page ;5 of the staff report
.(CNR:132:03)_ seemed to. make a mockery out of the 25 p.ercent limit
:because staff, used. the word ~’ancillary," Which usually meant it occupied less
but staff Said it occupied more than the main use. ]:f staff was going to limit
to 25 percent but say ancil-lary use did not-mean a subsidiary use to the
pr:imary use, she asked what was the limit. :.
Mr. Williams said staff needed to address that concern. The P&TC left staff
with the task to return with further definition. Staff did not focus on the tax
revenue aspect, although the City Manager had subsequent meetings to
broach that subject with Stanford.
01/27/03 18
Council Member .Lytle asked what would be done in the future to try to
assure the economic gain out of the Stanford Research Park in the long
term..The .way .the community doubled in .population placed an enormous
burden on the City, and the residents paid for the daytime .population in
terms of wear and tear on the infrastructure. The .Council needed to take
into account.the iCOstbenefits of ~the various uses in.the ResearCh Park and
how incentives could be added to the Zoning Ordinance that assured.the City
received return from the uses that were required or permitted;
C0unciLMember Ojakian.said staff.talked about having .a conditiona! use for
restaurants for various reasons and asked whether there was a.ny discussion
about limiting, restaurants to a .percentage of one of the particular zones or
Stanford Research Park. " " "
Mr. Witliams said because.the restaurants were conditional uses, there was a
sense that there would be some discretion at looking at them. There was
disf~ussion, in. ithe~GM .zone, but .that was where ’they....were ~:limited more
Council Member Ojakian commended staff and the .P&TC for the work they
did onthe :tOpic..There were many imP0rta.nt aspects of.the.zoning that were
considered. The:addition of .the TDM and ,bonus around ::childcare were
:supPorted..The advantage 0f :havimg a restaurant in the :.area was that it
t.timited traffic.to some degree. Housing c~uld g~Jinto the industrial park. The
" Council.was urged to support the staff recommendation. .: . .... . .
.Council .Member Burch supported the efforts of the P&TC. The.speaker from
-:-R.ochehad sai.d companies needed help and there needed .to be alternative
.transportation ~meth0ds ..for them :.~o ."..work -.with.. :~he Council -.had a
responsibility to :..push for an expanded shuttle with. different, ways for
.businesses to offer~ uses to their employees ...... -i , .. .......
:ViCe Mayor Beecham said the community wanted commerce, . retail, and the
services used by res dents every day. The objective. Was to come up with the
best possible general :heath of the community. The.overall purpose for the
zoning for the industrial areas .was the good, economic health of_the City.
The City needed .to in~r~ith.at.tresearch operations had the services they
needeCl., which inclut.ed accounting, legai~..i-estaurants, and childcare. A
complete .mix was needed for future industries:Flexibility was needed. Palo
Alto was uneconomical for manufacturing, tn .the future, many revenues
mightbe at long-term risk, and industries needed :what was necessary to be
successful. The City needed to provide the environment for businesses to be
successful.
01/27/03 19
Council Member Freeman agreed with Vice. Ma.yor Beecham’s comments on
zoning. The Council balanced the economic vitality with the quality of life
and balanced flexibility with the quality of life and people who lived in the
City. One issue noted in the staff..report (CNR:132"03) on page 5 was that
some additional monitoring of office use was needed, but.staff .would rely
primarily on the property owners, especially Stanford, and applicants .to
-provide the necessary support information. ..Staff was asked if they had
:thought of some .way to automate the gathering of information.
Mr. Williams said staff wanted.!~o .ge.t base information on the uses from~the
applicant, and staff would update :that information with a computerized
database. If information ..were not available from an applicant right away,
staff would get the information from Stanford
Mr. Lusardi said the P&TC discussed the use of business licenses to help staff
do monitoring, independent of a property owner such as Stanford.
Vi~:~ Mayor Beecham .said .[he staff report .(CMR:132:02) indicated staff
con.s!de!~ed Iook!ng at business licenses.
Council IV]ember.,Free.an said it needed.to be clear that the business license
helped s~aff, ev.aluate occupancy,
AI~IEi~IDME~NT: .Council Member.Kishimoto moved, seconded by Lytle, to
!.di[ect staff, and the Planning and Transportation .Commission .to add to :~he
ordinance for ;the land .west of-El Camino Real, "development of
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) dove opment standards. "
Council Nember.Kishimoto said she was willing to allow some flexibility but
¯ wanted tight controls on the impact on the community. The two major
mpacts were traffic and jobs/housing.
Mr..Calonne said .staff could do development standards that, in effect,
implemented TDiVl, restrictions on parking, and requirements for transit as
conditions of new development.. As discussed the prior year during the
Hanover Project, State law forbid the City from requiring emp oyers to
develop trip reduction programs. There were voluntary TDM programs,.such
as in the City of Pleasanton. The lawful range of TDM meant .the type of
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance that were for bus shelters, bus bulb
outs, employee space, and chi!.dcare.
vice Mayor Beecham said no one recommended the City do anything that
was nor allowed by State law.
01/27/03 20
Mr. Calonne was unsure how clear the range of options was to the P&TC.
Council Member Kishimoto was concerned about the precedent with the
Stanford GUP where the .City .allowed a certain amount of square feet of
development but, added no net traffic increase.
Mr. Calonne said the no net traffic increase was fine; specifying a trip
reduction program as the means by :which to accomplish no net traffic
increase was not allowed. - - ¯
Council Member Kishimoto did not know if there was agreement about going
for no net traffic increase. A standard for.managing traffic increase should be
developed.
Vice Mayor Beecham said the basic concept was to include TDM standards.
C0.unci!. Nember_Qjakian:,,:,.a.sked .-wheth.~r the discussion applied..:only:to ;the
Research Park. ’if it.app.l.ied across the board to the various Zones, how
-would Mayor Mossar and Council Member Kleinberg get their voices heard.
Mr. Calonne said ,the d!scussion woN!d, be brought up again when the motion
..came up. . ... . .... ........... : .:. .~. ::. -:...:... : ..,.
"
..A~E~ID!~E~NT:-PASSED 5~2, Mortq.n, )ja.ki:a~ ..:"no," Kleinberg, Mossar ’thor
participating "
. . A~IEi~D!~ENT.’_ Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by .Lytle, that
when staff returns to Council to include.a California Environmental q~ua!ity
Act (CFqA) evaluation for an analysis of the impact of jobs/housing
balances. "
Council Member Kishimoto said she was willing to look at flexibility .but
wanted the largest.impacts.on the community tightly .managed. The impacts
were traffic and jobs/housing imba ance
" "
council Member :Mor~_.on asked staff.what they thought an analysis of the
impacts of job/housing :imbalance entitled.
Mr. Benest.said he had no idea.
:vice Mayor Beecham said as the Council made changes tO the Zoning
Ordinance, an estimate could be made as to how job potential in Palo Alto
would change. Housing potential would not change unless the City stated
what it would specifical!y allow
01/27/03 21
Mr. Lusardi-said staff would look at the issue.in the context of the
environmental re~iew on the Zoning Ordinance update. Staff would report
~=~" to the ~’~’,............ on what was involved.
Vice Mayor Beecham suggested the amendment include that the
review included an evaluation of the impact of jobsYhousing imbalance.
CEQA
pa£icipating."
PASSED 6-1, Morton ".no," Kleinberg, Mossar "not
Mr. Calonne said the importance of the motion wasto flag that, regardless of
the Environmental Impact Rep6rt (EIR); the Council had a planning issue to
!confront in the way ofjobs/h0us ng imbalance. " "
AM£NDM:=NT: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to
include in the design requirements and guidelines urban design .standards
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would use when review!ng p~ojects.
~Mr. Williams said site. planning was not anticipated at the current time;
however, the spine type approach could.be i!?duded in the prototype.
.Mr. Benest said at some point,s:Laff. had tO return, and suggest the priority
.urban des.ign aspects to look at in terms of the.Pr0totypes, and the Council
could...., .. decide.:.:..: ¯- if it agre#.d, or disagreed.-. :.. -...: ....:.._.--:. :"... : -._ . ......~
/Mr. :Lusarcli-said staff would prioritize the urban, design component of Phase
2 and return to the Council in the late spring." .....-
Mr. Behest asked the Council to identify, items it wanted. staff .to cost out,
~ and.staff would return to Council for approval;
:~Vice Mayor Beecham clarified staff’s intent was to return in late spring with
an urban design approach that would be applicable in terms of the zoning
definitions and guidelines. . .. " : -. .
Mr. Lusardi said that was correct. Staff would take what the Council
~discussed two weeks prior as far as the Phase 2 design folded into the
prototypes discussed at the current meeting.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to ask
Staff to revisit the definition On page 5 of proposed section 18.24.030 (b)
(z~)~ "Any occupancy with a research and development Or manufacturing
component, shall be classified as research and development or
01/27/03 22-
manufacturing use, even if office uses ancillary to those uses occupy more
floorarea than the research and development or manufacturing use itself.
Council Member Morton did not want to end up driving industries or
businesses out of the area.
Vice Mayor Beecham clarified the intent of the motion was to be sure there
were no circular definitions.
Council Member Lytle said the solution might be to limit the section from the
PAMC if uses were not to be limited.
. .. --.PASSED. 6-1, Morton "n.o," Kleinberg, Mossar "not
participating."
Mr. Benest asked whether there was a:sense the Council wanted to allow the
flexibilil;y:within .:...... ..... .-._ ....... :....:~......<.. : .. :
~ice Mayor Beecham clarified the motion was not made with an .intent to
limit flexibility. .. . . ..
Co.unci..Member Lyt[e,.did not want to be disingenuo.us about a JimiCation that
..was. not really a limitation. !f, staff~ recommended 7~no li~it"..because it did not
allow sufficient f exibility,.ithe limitation should be eiiminated.
MF.:Calonne said one way to get flexibility was to ..have a quantitative
maximum that could be exceeded with a use permit,
Vice Mayor Beecham said his understanding :of the motion was to insure the
definition.was not circular. "
~lr, Calonne said the definition spoke to ancillary. Staff would be asked to
come up with a quantitative standard and flexibility to go beyond with a
discretionary permit.
council Member Norton asked whether the discretionary permit required
Council approval. "
Mr. Calonne said the idea was that there would be a safe level of office use,
ano more than that required analysis.
Vice Mayor Beecham clarified the ordinance would return to the Council.
Mr. Calonne said that was correct.
0$/27/03 23
AN~END~JENT.’ Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Freeman, to
make childcare a permitted use in general-manufacturing districts and
~es~au~l~ a permitted use in.medical office zones.
Mr, Williams noted that childcare was permitted in all zones except for GM,
Restaurants.were conditional use permits (CUP.) in all-the zones except for
.the medical office zone
¯ Council Member Freeman said RP.had permitted use for chil.dcare and CUPs
for restaurants. Staff was asked what the benefit was of making restaurants
permitted uses...:... . ..
Council Member Lytle said the intent--with the Comp Plan was to allow uses
to mix, particularly in.the area around FICamino Real.
Council Member Freeman was concerned that the Research Park was
separated into two segments: - one segment was further.to..:the foothills and
one segment was closer in. The new P,P considered that..By giving a
permitted request for restaurants, a restaurant, could be added without a.
Council M.ember.Lyt.e .preferred to see the change in the area that currently
..had a constrained use. --::.:. . .- , .- . ..... - .
Council Hember Freeman said she would withdraw her second to the motion.
~IOTION DIED .FOP, LAC~[OF..A SECOND
Council .Member Ojakian ~hoped staff.and the P&TC took a further look at the
issue to see a value and benefit. Restaurants were previously housed in the
Research Park and were popular.
Council Member.Kishimoto said the City did not want the area to become a
restaurant row. A.square footage limit might be-considered. " ..... .
AiHENtDMENT: Council :Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kishimoto, that
site and design standards with housing and mixed uses to ask Planning and
Transportation Commission .to consider shifting some of the current
development intensity from the far reaches of the research park toward the
California Avenue and El Camino Real business district, -
Council Member Lytle said the motion encouraged more compact
development and ess sprawl.
01/27/03 24
Council Member Kishimoto said the action did not have to be used to
encourage more development, but there was a shift from less development
near.the foothills and more deve.lopment near El Camino Real.
Council Member Morton said the industrial park was already built out. He did
not support the motion.
Council Member Freeman suggested staff return with the feasibili:[y of
separating Stanford EeSearch Park into two parts (above and below Foothill).
There was a natural .split at Foothill. - - " ......
Mr. Williams said that had already been done. The zone was. RP-5. Staff
Could. distinguish the .uses.
Council Member Lytle said there was a 10t of .development potential in the
upp#r Foothill area. Stanford had-plans .to try.to.intensify in the upper part Of
the park. Looldng at transferring de~!elopment p0tential.away.fror~ the.outer
parts of the Community .was usefu!’~That should be done for all types .of
development. : ..:........ .... . .. . .
,.- .. "~ :... . : : .
C0u.nci! Member Ojakian Supported the discussions that. came up with the
Mayfield agEeem.ent iregardingi, potential housing, on the ..open areas :off -Foothill. There :was an advantage to ~p~ittirighousing off Foothill, including
.the facet there was a high school down .the street.-.. ..:
A.ME.NiDMENT.:~=AZLED 3-4, Freeman, Kishimoto, LYtle ~yes," .Kleinberg,
:Mossar’~not.participating.".¯ . - :
.- .....~ i- ". ’: :~:.:. " ::.: ~ : " :- ~ ’.:. ,... ’ . ~-’ -
.AME~IDI~IEI~iT; .Council Member..Ojakian moved, seconded by Freeman, for
Staff.to c0nsidei~ comments in a letter from Lucile Salter. Packard Children’s
Hospital :as follows: to :include fn Chapter :[8.90. a separate definition of
-Medical Research.or t0 change Chapter’...~[8.99 (m) (2)" :.to inclucie medical
research as written: "Medical Office and Medical Research means..." and to
addthe following language to the end .of .the currently proposed Medical
Office definiti0n.in.Chapter 18.99.02 (m) (2), "...unless directly related to
clinical trials occurrinq at nearby hospitals or clinics."
A~ENDI~IENT PASSED 7~0, Kleinberg, Mossar "not participat!ng."
NOTZON PASSED AS.A~ENDED 7-0, Kleinberg, Mossar "not participating."
RECESS’ 9:50p.m. to.9:55 p.m.
Mr. Calonne summarized the Council’s action. Staff was to return with
Transportation. Demand Management (TDM) performance standards, and the
01/27/03 25
CEQA review of the update was to include an analysis of the jobs/housing
imbalance and consequences.
Mayor Mossar asked whether the Council had a discussion on performance
standards about noise, etc.
Vice Mayor Beecham said the Council did address performance standards.
Mayor Mossar asked for future feedback about what happened, as properties
turned over, for example, what and where were the problems that might
occur between different uses.
MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Ojakian, to add to
properties west of El Camino Real to have the Planning and Transportation
Commission review the compatibility of uses and building types over time
with performance standards (lighting, noise, vibration, odors, etc.) to be
coordinated with environmental consultant.
Council Member Morton asked whether Mayor Mossar’s motion raised the
philosophical issue about the appropriateness of mixed use developments. A
major reason why people moved to the suburbs was because they did not
like living above retail or that type of development. ~.
Mayor Mossar replied that was not what she envisioned. Land uses were
made up front and changed over time by residents. The Council needed to
understand that by making decisions at the current time, things changed in
the future that were not obvious when decisions were first made. ;
Council Member Kleinberg did not understand the wording of the second
motion that the CEQA review include analysis of the jobs/housing imbalance
and impacts that would cause.
City Attorney Calonne asked if the City Clerk had the wording.
Ms. Rogers said the wording was, "When staff returns to Council to include a
CEQA evaluation for an analysis of the impact of jobs/housing balances."
Vice Mayor Beecham said the motion was by Council Member Kishimoto, and
her intent was to insure that the Council had an analysis of the impact of
any changes on jobs/housing imbalance. Housing was not being changed at
the current time. Staff indicated that would be included in the CEQA review.
Council Member Lytle clarified Mayor Mossar’s new motion, asking if it
included the performance standards for performance of how to limit impacts
on residents.
01/27/03 26
Mayor Mossar said. the performance standards she referred to included
noise, lighting, vibration, etc. to be coordinated with environmental
consultants.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kleinberg, Mossar"not participating."
MOTION: Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Freeman, for properties east
of El Camino Real to direct staff and the Planning and Transportation to add
to the ordinance "development of Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) development standards;" when staff returns to Council to include a
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation for an analysis of the
impact of jobs/housing balances; staff consider comments in a letter from
Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital as follows: to include in Chapter
18.90 a separate definition of Medical Research or to change Chapter 18.99
(m) (2) to include medical research as written: "Medical Office and Medical
Research," and to add the following language to the end of the currently
proposed Medical Office definition in Chapter 18.99.02 (m) (2): "...unless
directly related to clinical trials occurrinq at nearby hospitals or clinics.
Further, that the Planning and Transportation Commission review the
compatibility of uses and building types over time with performance
standards (lighting, noise, vibration, odors, etc.) to be coordinated with
environmental consultant. ~,
Council Member Kleinberg said she would not participate because when she
left the room, she understood there would be a .complete discussion of the
east of El Camino Real Zoning Ordinance presentation. Being denied the
opportunity to discuss the issue, she would not participate in the vote.
Mayor Mossar agreed with Council Member Kleinberg and would also not
participate.
MOTION PASSED 7-0-2, Kleinberg, Mossar"not participating."
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Burch, to accept
the Planning and Transportation Commission preliminary ordinance
recommendations regarding modifications to the industrial and
manufacturing districts East of El Camino: Research, Office and Limited
Manufacturing (ROLM) and General Manufacturing (GM) Districts, General
Topics (definitions, childcare, etc.). Further, direct staff and the Planning
and Transportation Commission to proceed with developing mixed-use,
parking, and performance standards to incorporate into the ordinance and to
include the definitions as indicated by the City Attorney.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kleinberg, Mossar"not participating."
01/27/03 27