HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6596
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6596)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/28/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Review of CAC Land Use Element
Title: Review of the Draft Land Use & Community Design Element of the
Comprehensive Plan Update Recommended by the Citizens Advisory
Committee
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss the Draft Land Use and Community
Design Element (Attachments A & B) developed by the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizen
Advisory Committee (CAC), including the growth management options (Attachment C) and
issues summarized in this staff report. This is intended as an initial discussion/preview, since
the draft element will return to t h e Council for further discussion and direction together
with a revised draft Transportation Element in early 2017.
Executive Summary
The Land Use and Community Design Element is the third element of the Comprehensive Plan
that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) has developed and transmitted to the City Council
for review. This Draft Element is based on the City Council’s direction regarding vision and
goals, as well as input from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the public.
This update is the product of seven meetings of the full CAC, seven meetings of the Land Use
subcommittee of the CAC and three meetings of the Sustainability subcommittee of the CAC.
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Draft Element be forwarded to the Council for
review and input (with one abstention), along with the individual CAC member comments in
Attachment D.
At this evening’s meeting, staff will summarize the CAC process, themes of the Draft Element,
changes from the existing Element, as well as next steps. Staff is seeking the Council’s initial
comments and questions on the range of options and the outstanding issues summarized
in this Staff Report. The Council will have an opportunity to delve deeper when they consider
the draft Land Use and Community Design Element and the revised draft Transportation
Element together at the end of January.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background and Discussion
The basic purpose of the Land Use and Community Design Element is to designate “the
proposed general distribution and general location and extent of uses of the land”
(Government Code Section 65302(a)). This Element’s objectives and policies provide a long-
range policy direction for short-term actions, including zoning, subdivision and public works
decisions and is therefore the guiding force behind the physical form of Palo Alto for the next
15 years. Given its crucial role, it is not surprising that this Element is the one that the CAC has
spent the most time on. The CAC identified many important areas of consensus, and, where
consensus was not reached, identified a range of options for Council’s consideration.
The CAC as a whole agrees that Palo Alto should:
Require the highest quality development with the least impacts on the physical
environment and the community’s livability.
Focus on ensuring that housing that is affordable is available in the community,
recognizing that “housing that is affordable” goes beyond deed-restricted Below Market
Rate “affordable housing” to include housing at the lower end of market rate housing.
Identify strategies to prevent the displacement of existing residents.
Increase the supply of housing for seniors, people with special needs, and other
vulnerable members of the community.
Monitor growth carefully and regularly reassess its effects, recognizing that the current
system of monitoring non-residential growth in nine areas only is outdated and should
be replaced with a Citywide system. (Options for a growth management system are
described below.)
Manage the growth of Office and Research & Development (R&D) uses while avoiding
restrictions on retail uses, establishing growth monitoring and management programs
that address conversions from one non-residential use (e.g. retail, warehouse) to
another (i.e. office/R&D) within existing buildings, not only net new non-residential
uses.
Consider establishing new requirements for development (“development
requirements”) and new “community indicators” (described in more detail below) to
regularly assess the influence of both existing and new development on livability of the
community as a whole.
Continue to set high standards for urban design, protect neighborhood character,
support local retail, and preserve and enhance open spaces and the urban forest
Use coordinated area plans as a tool for guiding change in targeted areas.
Over the course of the CAC, Land Use, and Sustainability subcommittee meetings, CAC
members identified and discussed the key issues listed below. In the following sections, each
issue is discussed. Areas of consensus are described, as are options crafted by the CAC where
consensus was not reached.
A. Housing affordability (options)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
B. Non-residential growth management tools (options)
C. Office uses in Mixed Use designation (initial consensus; later comments)
D. Convenience Retail in Residential Areas (consensus with agreement for future study)
E. Basements (consensus)
F. Coordinated Area Plans (consensus)
G. Height Limit (options)
H. Parkland acquisition (consensus)
A. Housing Affordability
There was consensus that Palo Alto needs to be more assertive in sustaining a socio-
economically diverse community by addressing the high cost of housing. Part of this
approach includes a broad and comprehensive interpretation of “housing that is affordable”
rather than a narrower focus on “affordable housing.” At the CAC’s suggestion, several policies
and programs were revised to refer to “housing that is affordable,” meaning housing that is
at the lower end of the local price range due to age, size, design, location, or other
characteristics, but is not legally required to be affordable to a certain income level. Only
policies and programs that directly address the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) program
use the term “affordable housing.”
In addition, there was strong consensus that existing housing that is affordable should be
preserved to avoid displacement of existing residents. To this end, the Land Use Element
includes a new program to address displacement, and includes preservation of affordable units
in the new development requirements and community indicators (explained below).
CAC members offered a range of different ideas about how to address housing affordability. For
example, as described in more detail in the sections below, some would be willing to exceed
the City’s height limit in order to build additional housing, especially housing for seniors and
people with special needs, while others would not. Some strongly supported protecting local
retail and/or existing surface parking in shopping centers, particularly Stanford Shopping
Center, while others felt that these spaces could be considered as potential locations for new
housing. These divergent approaches are articulated in the range of options for growth
management, height limits, and neighborhood commercial areas presented in the attached
Element and explained below.
B. Non-Residential Growth Management
The CAC spent considerable time and energy addressing non – residential development,
especially the amount of future office and R&D space. The current Comprehensive Plan
manages non-residential development through absolute numerical caps on the amount of non-
residential space in nine “monitored” planning areas and in downtown. Preserving or
modifying this policy and program from the existing Comprehensive Plan is an important focus
City of Palo Alto Page 4
of the Comprehensive Plan Update. After learning about the existing system and reviewing
data on past non-residential growth and capacity remaining under the current caps, the CAC
developed a series of new options for Council’s consideration. The CAC’s growth management
options evolved into three major components, summarized in Table 1 (Attachment C) and
explained below.1
The three different components -- a cumulative growth cap, an annual limit, and a downtown
cap -- could function interrelatedly or independently, meaning the Council could adopt none,
some, or all of them. However, the current numerical ranges for each have been developed
based on the assumption that all three caps would be in place. Therefore, for example, the
annual limit amounts are roughly equivalent to the average growth per year to meet the
remaining development allowed under the cumulative cap.
Cumulative Cap Options
The City’s current cumulative cap on non-residential development is established in the existing
Comprehensive Plan as Policy L-8, which set a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-
residential development since 1989 for nine planning areas. Currently, about 1.4 million square
feet of development subject to this cap has been built, and 1.7 million square feet remain
available.
The summary diagram of options and choices in Table 1 (Attachment C) explains the cumulative
policy options the CAC formulated. These options were developed using the existing Policy L-8
as a starting point and range from eliminating the cumulative cap to keeping the cumulative
cap, with or without the introduction of “development requirements” and “community
indicators” which are explained further below.
In all options with a cumulative cap, the growth limit would apply citywide minus the SUMC
development that has already been entitled, rather than focusing on the nine planning
areas, and would apply to office/R&D (or office/R&D plus hotel) rather than all non-residential
uses. While this narrower focus would mean that other non-residential uses (e.g. new
warehouses and retail uses) would no longer count towards the cap, it would also mean that
existing building space that is converted from one of these uses to office/R&D would count
towards the cap. There was also general agreement that any growth management or
monitoring system should use 2015 as the baseline, while building on the valuable data
collected on growth between 1989 and 2015.
Some CAC members expressed concern about recommending a specific numerical value for the
cap and felt the CAC had not had adequate time or data to arrive at the right numbers.
1 Table 1 includes vote tallies for some items. Over the course of developing and refining growth management
options, the CAC elected to take votes at some meetings as a way of recording minority and majority opinions.
However, as the process evolved, the CAC determined that votes were not a constructive way to move forward and
shifted to a system of articulating a range of options that captured the range of viewpoints on the CAC;without
taking a vote to quantify support for each option. Therefore, not all of the items in Table 1 were voted on.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
However, the CAC generally supported staff’s proposal to carry the remaining 1.7 million square
feet forward as the new cumulative cap on Office/R&D development. This number is reasonable
based on the existing cumulative cap, and the City’s historic track record of development.
If new hotel development is also subject to the cap, one option discussed was a total cumulative
cap of 1.7 million square feet of Office/R&D development and 500,000 square feet of hotel
development. That figure is based on the past 15 years of development history and would
accommodate two current active hotel proposals plus one more full service hotel within the
City. However, the CAC could not come to agreement on an appropriate hotel cap number and
instead agreed that the Comp Plan should include a program to conduct a study to consider a
hotel cap in more detail and set an appropriate cap if needed.
The current Policy L-8 is silent on if or when the cap should be re-evaluated. The CAC’s policy
revisions add a provision that the cumulative cap would be re-evaluated when the amount of
approved office/R&D (and hotel, if included) reaches 67 percent of the remaining allowed
square footage. This is consistent with the provision in existing Program L-8 about the
downtown cap.
To address the concern about the amount of development capacity allowed under current
zoning and the lower amount of development allowed under the Policy L-8 cap, the CAC also
discussed created a new program, L1.12.3, to adjust non-residential development potential in
the CC, CN, and CS zoning districts and convert some non-retail commercial FAR to residential
FAR, where appropriate. The program notes that conversion to residential capacity should not
be considered in Town and Country Village.
Annual Limit Options
The annual limit addresses the pace of development. Currently, the pace of development is
regulated through the interim ordinance adopted by the City Council in 2015 establishing an
annual limit of 50,000 square feet per fiscal year of new Office/R&D development in three
commercial districts: Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real south of Park
Boulevard. Neither the SUMC nor Stanford Research Park developments are included in the
current annual limit.
There was consensus on the CAC that if an annual limit is implemented on a permanent basis, it
should be expanded beyond the three areas covered in the current ordinance. The CAC
considered an option to apply an annual limit citywide and an option to apply the annual limit
citywide with the exception of Stanford Research Park. In both options, the SUMC
development that has already been entitled would be excluded.
There was consensus on the CAC that the annual limit should continue to apply to office/R&D
uses and the CAC formulated two options for a numerical annual limit. Under the citywide
annual limit option, the subcommittee recommended a limit of 50,000 square feet Citywide,
plus a separate additional cap on annual development in the Stanford Research Park. While the
subcommittee did not come to agreement on a specific square footage cap for Stanford
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Research Park, it did suggest that the Stanford Research Park have the ability to rollover unused
square footage allocations to future years. The CAC also considered an option to exempt the
Stanford Research Park from an annual limit, on the condition that a trip cap is applied to the
Research Park.
Specifically, CAC members suggested that Comp Plan policies be added to encourage the City
and Stanford to agree on traffic reductions if the Research Park is exempted from annual
growth limits. Two possible options for wording have been submitted by CAC members, and
readers are encouraged to review the letter from Stanford in Attachment C. If the Council
directs, relevant text could be added as a new program under Policy L-1.15 (which presents the
option of a citywide annual limit with an exemption for the Research Park).
Downtown Cap Options
The existing Downtown cap is established in Program L-8 of the current Comprehensive Plan,
which established a cap of 350,000 square feet of net new non-residential development
Downtown measured against a baseline of 1986.
Table 2. Downtown Cap (Existing Program L-8) Summary – As of July 2016
Gross sq. ft.
Commercial Downtown Zoning Districts Growth Cap 350,000 sq. ft.
Net non-residential SQFT added through August 31, 2015 277,717 sq. ft
Total SQFT development proposal in the pipeline 26,664 sq. ft.
Total SQFT development remaining to reach the cap if pipeline
projects are approved
45,619 sq. ft.
Source: Planning & Community Environment, October 2016
The CAC put forward one option that the Downtown cap would be revised to apply to
Office/R&D uses only, and another that the cap would apply to both Office/R&D and hotel uses.
In both options, the Downtown cap would continue to apply to the area covered by existing
Program L-8. As noted earlier, focusing the cap on office/R&D uses (or office/R&D plus hotels),
rather than all non-residential uses would mean that other non-residential uses (e.g. new retail
uses) would no longer count towards the cap; but it would also mean that any existing building
space that is converted from retail or other uses to office/R&D would count towards the cap.
If the Downtown cap applies to Office/R&D uses only, the CAC recommended using the square
footage remaining under the current cap as the cap on Office/R&D uses. If the Downtown cap
applies to Office/R&D uses and hotel, the CAC recommended retaining the square footage
remaining under the current cap for Office/R&D and allowing an additional 50,000 square feet
of hotel development above what exists today. The CAC also raised an option to exempt small
City of Palo Alto Page 7
offices of 5,000 square feet or less from the Downtown cap in an effort to support smaller local
businesses.
Any adjustments to the downtown cap will require conforming amendments to the Municipal
Code and the Draft Element also includes a program (L1.16.5) to update the CD district zoning
to convert some non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR Downtown and consider revising
the TDR program to create bonus residential, rather than commercial square footage.
Development Requirements and Community Indicators
Over the course of their discussions about growth management, the CAC advanced two related
tools called “development requirements,” to be placed on new development projects, and
“community indicators” that would be monitored over time to evaluate livability in Palo Alto as
a whole. (Note: the term “development requirements” was preferred over “performance
measures” and other, similar options.) These new tools could be used in addition to or instead
of a numerical cap, as shown in Table 1 (Attachment C). Their intended purposes are
summarized below:
Development requirements:
o Are imposed on new development at the time of approval (whether through
changes to the zoning ordinance or standard conditions of approval).
o Focus on new measures that would be added to existing development
requirements to enhance and reinforce the City’s commitment to achieving the
highest quality development with the least impacts.
o Are not applied to existing development.
Community indicators:
o Evaluate the community as a whole, including existing and new development
and existing and new residents and employees.
o Reflect the outcomes of changes in behavior, new technologies, etc., over the
planning period, not only the outcomes of new construction.
o Are not about achieving a specific end point, but about taking a snapshot, or
check-up, to measure progress over time, recognize successes, and tailor efforts
to areas where improvement is still needed.
o Are used to periodically consider whether to retain, revise or eliminate the
growth limits.
Suggested development requirements are listed in Table L-1 of the attached Draft Element;
community indicators are in Table L-2. For ease of reference, both tables are reproduced here.
The suite of development requirements and community indicators crafted by the CAC includes
components that address both the physical environment and other topics that impact livability
as identified by the CAC, such as schools, parks, and community diversity. However, given the
complexity of instituting a new system for monitoring growth and its impacts, the range of
topics CAC members expressed interest in monitoring, and the nuances of the data associated
City of Palo Alto Page 8
with each individual topic, some CAC members felt that formulating specific development
requirements and community indicators over the course of a few CAC and subcommittee
meetings would not give this the attention it deserves. Thus the range of development
requirements and community indicators presented in the Draft Element is intended as a
starting point for Council review, discussion, and refinement. In addition, the Draft Element
includes one option that presents a detailed system of development requirements and
community indicators, and one option that defers creation of a new system through a new
program calling for a future process.
The CAC formulated three options for using development requirements and community
indicators only:
1. Using development requirements and community indicators only, meaning that growth
would not be capped as long as development requirements were met and indicators
reflected positive change and livability.
2. An “all of the above” approach to impose development requirements, monitor
community indicators, and apply numerical growth caps and annual limits.
3. Using a combination of numerical growth caps and community indicators, but no
development requirements. In this option, it was suggested that compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would establish development requirements
for each development project.
Under any of these options, the CAC agreed that the effectiveness of the development
requirements and the community indicators should be re-evaluated regularly.
C. Mixed Use Designation
The commercial land use designations in the current Comp Plan all allow for a mix of land uses;
however, the consensus on the CAC is that zoning that encourages mixed use projects with no
office component would be a valuable addition. This concept has been incorporated into the
framework in the form of the following new program under Policy L-6.12 [L120]:
PROGRAM L6.12.1: Update the municipal code to include zoning changes that allow
a mix of retail and residential but no office uses. The intent of these changes would be
to encourage a mix of land uses that contributes to the vitality and walkability of
commercial centers and transit corridors. [L121]
Later written comments requested to remove the language prohibiting office uses described in
both Program L6.12.1 [L121] and the Mixed Use Land Use Definition. (See Attachment D.)
D. Convenience Retail in Residential Areas
City of Palo Alto Page 9
CAC members grappled with the pros and cons of providing retail services and daily needs near
neighborhoods with potential traffic, parking and noise impacts on neighborhoods. Ultimately,
the CAC came to consensus on a new program to “explore whether there are appropriate
locations to allow small-scale neighborhood-serving retail facilities… in residential areas.”
(Program L2.2.1 [L46])
As a program, this has been moved so that it is linked to Policy L-2.2 [L45] to “[e]nhance
connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential
neighborhoods” by promoting “a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily
needs of residents.” By agreeing to “explore” only, the CAC did not feel the need to create
options for this issue.
E. Basements
The CAC received extensive and detailed public comments on the issue of basements in single
family homes and the array of potential impacts they can cause to groundwater supply,
flooding, occupancy densities, and public safety. The CAC agreed that the Land Use Element
should address this issue, in addition to policies and programs in the Natural Environment and
Safety Elements, if needed. The following new policy and program are included in the Draft
Element:
Policy L-3.9 Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on
adjacent properties, public resources, and the natural environment. [NEW POLICY] [L63]
Program L-3.9.1 Develop a program to assess and manage both the positive and
negative impacts of basement construction in single family homes on the
community and the environment, including:
Land use issues. Evaluate the City’s policy of excluding basements from the
gross floor area and maximum floor area ratio limits in the zoning ordinance.
Consider zoning revisions, including greater setbacks, to limit basement size
and increase basement setbacks from adjacent properties.
Impacts to the natural environment, such as potential impacts to the tree
canopy, groundwater supply or quality, and soil compaction.
Safety issues such as increased surface flooding, increased groundwater
intrusion with sea level rise, emergency access and egress, or sewage
backflows. [NEW PROGRAM] [L64]
CAC members also recommended that staff forward a proposal for the Council to take action to
further limit or regulate basement construction prior to Comp Plan adoption, given the urgency
of the issue. Some members favored a moratorium on single family basements until more
rigorous regulations are in place.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
DRAFT TABLE L-1 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
These requirements are new tools strongly focused on ensuring the highest quality development with
the least impacts. .
1. Reducing Trips: a specific percent of typical single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commuter trips.
2. Alleviating Traffic Congestion: minimize impact on intersection Level of Service (LOS)
3. Connectivity: enhancing connections to transportation infrastructure or services.
4. Preserving Affordable Housing: no net loss of affordable dwelling units, no displacement of
residents of Below Market Rate (BMR) units, and discouraging loss of smaller homes such as
cottages .
5. Facilitating Affordable Housing: Facilitate a mix of multi-family housing, including affordable
units, and housing for seniors and people with special needs.
6. Protecting the Natural Environment: Create a resilient landscape by preserving or increasing the
tree canopy and natural understory, landscaped/open space areas planted with native
plantings, creating or restoring a resilient landscape, and bird-friendly design.
7. Providing Parking: do not allow parking spillover onto residential neighborhood streets.
8. Preserving Affordable Office Space: Encourage the provision of new small office space and
the preservation of existing low-cost office space.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The City already regulates many aspects of development. The City will review these existing regulations
to ensure they are consistent with current targets and effective in achieving the highest quality
development with the least impacts.
Green Building: Conserving energy, water, and resources through meeting specific
requirements in the City’s mandatory green building ordinance, as periodically amended. It
covers topics such as:
o Energy Efficiency and Conservation
o Materials and Waste
o Light Pollution Reduction
o Emissions
o Electric Vehicle Charging
o Water Efficiency, Conservation, and Reuse
o Permeable Surface Area For Groundwater Recharge
o Native, Drought-Tolerant Planting
o Indoor Air Quality
Parking: Meeting need without providing excess:
o Bike Parking
o Vehicle Parking
Parkland: Providing common open space and contributing to Citywide park need:
o Provision of parkland or payment of fees
o Private open space
Landscaping and Amenities: Making Palo Alto more beautiful:
o Tree protection and retention
o Public Art
Neighborhood compatibility and building design: Avoiding negative impacts and improving
the surroundings:
o Glare
o Noise
o Shade
o Utility Undergrounding
o High-quality architecture
o Support for historic resources
Source: Draft Land Use & Community Design Element, September 2016
City of Palo Alto Page 11
DRAFT TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Measure
Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80% below 1990 emissions by
2030 (S/CAP goal)
At least every 2
years
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Capita 5% decrease per year At least every 2
years
Percent of Commute Trips to Employment Centers by Single
Occupant Vehicle (SOV)
50% trips by SOV, based on
employee survey responses Annually
Number of Commute Trips to Employment Centers
40% below ITE standards for
Downtown and 30% below ITE
standards for SRP.
Annually
Corridor Travel Times
Typical PM peak hour travel time
along 2 major north-south
corridors and 2 major east-west
corridors
At least every 2
years
Commercial District Parking Overflow into Neighborhoods Non-resident parking on sampled
residential neighborhood streets Annually
Air Pollutant Levels
Maximum 24-hour
concentrations of criteria
pollutants identified by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management
District, as reported at the
monitoring stations closest to Palo
Alto
Annually
Groundwater Contamination Acres of City underlain by shallow
groundwater contamination Every 4 years
Jobs/Housing Balance (Expressed as a Ratio of Jobs to
Employed Residents)
Ratio of jobs to
employed residents Every 4 years
Housing Cost Burden
Percentage of owners and renters
paying more than 50% of
household income for housing
Every 4 years
Affordability of Housing Stock
Number of housing units
affordable to moderate-income,
low-income, and very-low-income
households
Every 4 years
Economic Diversity
Percentage of households at
various household income levels
[see Fig. 2-3 in adopted 2015 HE]
Every 4 years
Below Market Rate (BMR) Units Number of units Every 4 years
Progress toward Housing Element goals
Annual Report to State Housing
and Community Development
Department
Annually
Existing Resident Displacement Number of existing units
demolished Every 4 years
Unoccupied Homes
Number of homes
vacant/unoccupied for longer
than 3 months per year
Annually
City of Palo Alto Page 12
DRAFT TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATOR S
Measure
Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Age Diversity Percentage of population in various
age cohorts Every 4 years
PAUSD Class Size Class size Annually
PAUSD Satisfaction with Schools Satisfaction ratings as reported
by Strategic Plan Survey Annually
Park Acreage per Capita
Ratio of district and
neighborhood parks per 1,000
population
Every 4 years
Urban Tree Canopy Canopy cover – percent of city
covered by trees Every 4 years
Biodiversity Species counted in spring and fall
bird counts Biannually
Infrastructure or Acres Affected by Sea Level Rise
Number of key facilities, major
infrastructure, and/or acres of
land within the City limits directly
affected by sea level rise
Every 4 years
Wastewater Reuse Percent of wastewater recycled Every 4 years
Impermeable Surfaces and Stormwater Infiltration in
Urbanized Area
(Need to determine how this can
be measured) Every 4 years
Source: Draft Land Use & Community Design Element, September 2016
F. Coordinated Area Plans
The CAC acknowledged that while a coordinated area plan is a valuable tool for building a
shared vision for the future, developing one is a time- and resource-intensive undertaking.
Initially, the CAC formulated policies to prioritize the Fry's Site and South El Camino Real for
coordinated area plan processes, as these locations represent the important opportunities for
positive impact. However, some members expressed that additional areas should be identified
for Coordinated Area Plans because of their importance to the community, specifically all of the
California Avenue area (not just the Fry’s site), Downtown (including connections between the
Transit Center and University Avenue), and all of El Camino Real (not just the southern
segment). The policies and programs under Goal L-4 reflect the final consensus.
Program L4.2.1 [L68] addresses a South El Camino Real Coordinated Area Plan, Program L.4.2.2
[L69] calls for a Coordinated Area Plan for the “Fry’s site and the surrounding California Avenue
area, and Program L4.6.2 [L79] addresses a Downtown Coordinated Area Plan that includes the
multi-modal station.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
CAC members expressed differences of opinion on which Coordinated Area Plan should be
completed first. However, some members expressed concern that development is already
underway in these areas and will outpace the Coordinated Area Plan efforts.
G. Height Limit
The CAC and subcommittees discussed height limits extensively. A citywide height limit of 50
feet was established in the 1970s in response to community concerns about the growing
number of taller buildings. In the current context of rapidly rising housing costs in Palo Alto and
throughout the Bay Area, however, the CAC discussed the possibility of recommending that City
Council review the height limit. Some CAC members strongly supported maintaining the
existing height limit. Others proposed options that would allow height limit exceptions in areas
close to retail and transit in order to incentivize a mix of multifamily housing, including
affordable housing, units for seniors and people with special needs and to allow for more
design quality and flexibility for that housing. In addition, the CAC heard input from some
members that heights of up to 55 or 65 feet would allow ground-floor retail spaces to have 15-
or 20-foot ceilings, which is increasingly desirable for competitive, attractive retail spaces. For
this reason, 65 feet was specifically included in Option 3 of the 4 options the CAC is putting
forward (below).
The full CAC discussed and voted on a range of four options created by the subcommittee. The
CAC utilized “approval voting,” meaning members could vote for as many of the options as they
felt they could support. The votes did not include input from non-voting CAC members. In
addition, staff solicited votes from the voting CAC members who were not present on May 17
via email. The final approval votes, including emailed votes, were:
7 votes OPTION 1 - Keep the current building height limit
4 votes OPTION 2 – Incorporate flexibility in building regulations to foster better design
7 votes OPTION 3 – Allow the possibility of building heights up to 65 feet in specific
areas to encourage a more diverse and affordable range of housing
options. 10 votes OPTION 4 - Allow the possibility of higher building heights in specific areas to
encourage a more diverse and affordable range of housing options.
The attached Draft Land Use Element (Attachments A & B) includes all four options, along
with the vote tallies.
H. Parkland Acquisition
Parks are an important part of the exceptional quality of life in Palo Alto; however, with few
large, undeveloped parcels available in the urban service area, creation of new parks is a
challenge. Several CAC members have suggested that the Comprehensive Plan should plan for
acquisition of land for new parks and not just collection of in lieu fees to fund construction of
new parks, which the municipal code currently allows developers to opt to do. The
City of Palo Alto Page 14
subcommittee considered a range of tools at the City's disposal to help address the need and
made a range of recommendations that were supported by a majority of CAC members. These
recommendations, with some refinements, resulted in a new Policy and four new programs
under Goal L-8.
Other Land Use Element Changes & Issues
Other Land Use Element changes recommended by the CAC are summarized briefly below:
Community and Sustainability
Wording addressing sustainability was added to this goal at Council direction; however, it is
important to note that policies and programs supporting sustainable development and
conservation are woven throughout the Land Use and Community Design Element and other
elements of the plan. This goal addresses the overall structure of the city, connectivity
between the different building blocks of the city, a mix of housing types, and reuse of existing
buildings, which CAC members recognized as a very effective sustainability strategy.
Residential Design
In addition to the changes related to single-family basements, described above, the emphasis
under Goal L-3 remains preserving and enhancing livability in residential neighborhoods and
mixed use areas. New policies and programs here support the provision of a range of housing
options, prevent the conversion of housing to non-residential uses, and discourage
displacement of existing residents.
Commercial Centers
The policies and programs under this goal guide development in three different kinds of
commercial centers: regional centers, multi-neighborhood centers, and neighborhood centers.
New programs and policies regarding coordinated area plans were added under this goal, as
described separately above.
In addition, the CAC revised some policies and programs to clarify expectations for bike- and
pedestrian-friendly design. References to support for small businesses were added in several
locations. References to housing in Town and Country Village and in Neighborhood Centers
have been removed in response to CAC concerns.
Employment Districts
The policies and programs under this goal focus on guiding future growth within the city’s four
employment districts in a manner that encourages transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel, and
reduces that number of auto trips for daily errands.
Policies and programs have been updated to call for preservation of some open space in
Stanford Research Park, to plan for attractively designed potential residential or mixed-use
projects along the El Camino Real edge of the Park. Consistency with and implementation of the
City of Palo Alto Page 15
East Meadow Circle Concept Plan is now specifically identified, and an antiquated reference to
development at Stanford Medical Center has been removed. (The Draft East Meadow Circle
Concept Plan, which contemplates modernization of existing buildings, with an emphasis on
bicycle connections and compatibility with adjacent single family neighborhoods, has been
accepted by the City Council and will be included as an appendix to the updated
Comprehensive Plan. The Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan does not enjoy the
same status and will have to be re-visited before it can be included.)
Urban Design
The policies and programs under this goal focus on promoting high quality, creative urban
design that is compatible with existing development and public spaces. This is the location of
the building height options described above. Policies and programs guiding building design,
which were previously spread throughout the Element, have been consolidated under Goal L-6.
Policy changes so far include revisions to encourage design that promotes neighborhood
character, public health safety, and active lifestyles. New programs include developing
guidelines for bird-safe design.
Historic Resources
The policies and programs under this goal focus on encouraging both public and private
maintenance and preservation of historical resources in Palo Alto.
Substantial new policies and programs were added to this section to reflect the mitigation
measures from the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR that are intended to avoid or reduce
impacts to historic resources and archaeological resources in Palo Alto, although the wording
used in the EIR has been modified to be consistent with the tone and level of detail found in the
rest of the Comprehensive Plan.
Civic Uses
The policies and programs under this goal encourage public life in neighborhoods that do not
have a commercial center nearby by promoting the use of existing community facilities and
creating new gathering places. Policies and programs under this goal have linkages to the
Community Services and Facilities Element.
The most significant change under Goal L-8 thus far has been the addition of a new policy and
four new programs addressing parkland acquisition, as discussed above.
Public Spaces
The policies and programs under this goal focus on creating an inviting and welcoming public
realm through urban design.
A new section addressing the design and planning of utilities and infrastructure includes two
new policies and two new programs that reference, among other topics, the work of the
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee. Other new policies and programs address:
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Incorporation, by reference, of the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan.
Alternatives to surface parking lots, especially between buildings and street frontage.
Shade impacts on public open space.
Preservation of the Baylands.
Palo Alto Airport
The Palo Alto Airport (PAO) is addressed in Goal L-10 of the Land Use Element, per Council
direction. In response to CAC comments, the Program regarding preparation of an Airport
Master Plan has been revised to specify that the Master Plan should minimize environmental
impacts of PAO. CAC members expressed interest in regulating the sale of unleaded fuel at
the airport; while PAO staff support this transition, safe and reliable unleaded fuel for
aircraft is not currently widely available.
Additional CAC Member Comments
Additional CAC member input was received in written comments. Some of this input raised
substantive ideas. For example, many involve wording changes to policies that had been
discussed and revised, and these comments would change the meaning of those policies.
Others address very specific issues that are not usually included in a Comp Plan. Although some
of these items were touched on at the September 20 CAC meeting when the CAC
recommended forwarding the Draft Land Use Element to Council for review, the CAC did not
discuss any of these issues in depth and did not come to consensus on them. Therefore, staff
committed to the CAC that these issues would be forwarded to the City Council for
consideration. Written comments provided at or after the CAC’s September 20 meeting are
included in Attachment D. Previous written comments and minutes from all of the CAC
meetings on the topic of land use and community design can be found at the following links:
December 15, 2015 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-
advisory- committee/#December 15, 2015
March 15, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-
committee/#March 15, 2016
April 6, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#April 6, 2016
April 19, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-
committee/#April 19, 2016
May 2, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#May 2, 2016
May 4, 2016 Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#May 4, 2016
May 10, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#May 10, 2016
May 17, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-
committee/#May 17, 2016
City of Palo Alto Page 17
June 13, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#June 13, 2016
June 24, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#June 24, 2016
July 19, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-
committee/#July 19, 2016
July 26, 2016 Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#July 26, 2016
August 1, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#August 1, 2016
August 16, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-
committee/#August 16, 2016
September 6, 2016 Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/#September 6, 2016
September 8, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/#September 8, 2016
September 20, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-
advisory- committee/#September 20, 2016
Land Use Map Corrections
Substantive changes to the Land Use Map have never been anticipated as part of the
Comprehensive Plan Update. However, the Land Use Map in the attached Draft Element
includes two corrections:
Stanford lands outside of the City limits and SOI are shown as blank on the map, similar
to the way the map labels, but does not provide designations for, surrounding
communities like Los Altos or Mountain View. This is because all land outside the SOI is
outside the City’s jurisdiction. Stanford lands within the SOI but outside the City limits
are shown with designations consistent with the Community Plan. Stanford lands within
the City, such as SUMC, Stanford Shopping Center, or the Stanford Research Park, have
not changed.
The designation on the former Hyatt Rickey’s site has been changed to reflect its
existing use; the former Multifamily Residential with Hotel Overlay is replaced with
Multifamily Residential.
All other maps in the existing Land Use Element are being carried forward, although many have
an updated format and symbology in order to be internally consistent with other Comp Plan
maps.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Timeline/Next Steps
As next steps, the attached schedule (Attachment E) shows the Council reviewing the Draft
Land Use and Community Design Element in depth, together with the Draft Transportation
Element, at the end of January 2017.
The schedule also shows the CAC completing its review of the additional elements and
sending its recommended drafts of these elements to the City Council by March, 2017. This
timing is ideal, since some CAC members have expressed that they may not be able to
continue to participate after the end of 2016, and some members are transitioning to the City
Council and the Planning & Transportation Commission.
The Council is scheduled to receive the Scenario 5 and 6 Supplement to the Draft EIR in
March. At that time, the Council can select a preferred alternative for the EIR. Any revisions to
the draft Comp Plan to reflect the Council’s preferred alternative can also be identified then.
Resource Impacts
Comprehensive plan updates are significant undertakings for any jurisdiction and the City of
Palo Alto has invested time and resources in the project since 2008. The need to allocate
multiple members of City staff, significant time on the City Council’s agenda, and financial
resources for consultant assistance and event/meeting programming will continue until the
adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan and its companion environmental document.
Contract amendments for the City’s consultants Placeworks and Management Partners are
being considered as part of a separate agenda item on November 28, 2016. These
amendments reflect the additional effort needed to analyze a sixth EIR scenario, as directed by
the City Council, as well as the additional effort associated with multiple additional
subcommittee meetings and the current schedule.
Environmental Review
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Comprehensive Plan Update was published
on February 5, 2016 and the public comment period closed on June 8, 2016. Council has
directed staff and the consultant team to prepare a supplemental analysis of a 5th and 6th
planning scenario, which will be circulated for public review early in the spring of 2017. A Final
EIR incorporating the DEIR, the supplemental analysis, substantive comments on the DEIR and
supplemental analysis, as well as written responses to those comments, and needed changes to
the text and analysis of the DEIR will be proposed for adoption concurrent with the
Comprehensive Plan Update as shown on the attached schedule included as Attachment E.
Attachments:
Attachment A: LandUseElement_CouncilDraft_20161107_CLEAN (PDF)
Attachment B: LandUseElement_CouncilDraft_20161107_tracked (PDF)
Attachment C: Growth Management Options Summary Table (DOCX)
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Attachment D: September 20 CAC Minutes & Comments, Incl. Comments Received
After the Meeting (PDF)
Attachment E: Comp Plan Monthly Schedule October 13, 2016 (PDF)
LAND USE AND
COMMUNITY DESIGN
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-1
3
This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the
CAC and members of the public received from December 2015 through July 2016. The
Element will be reviewed by the full CAC in August and September, 2016 and presented
as a draft to Palo Alto City Council in the fall of 2016.
INTRODUCTION
The Land Use and Community Design Element sets the foundation for future
preservation, growth, and change in Palo Alto and serves as the blueprint for the
development of public and private property in the city. It includes policies and
programs intended to balance natural resources with future community needs in a
way that makes optimal use of available land, to create attractive buildings and
public spaces that reinforce Palo Alto’s sense of place and community, to preserve
and enhance quality of life and services in Palo Alto neighborhoods and districts, and
to maintain Palo Alto's role in the success of the surrounding region.
This Element meets the State-mandated requirements for a Land Use Element. It
defines categories for the location and type of public and privates uses of land under
the City's jurisdiction; it recommends standards for population density and building
intensity on land covered by the Comprehensive Plan; and it includes a Land Use
Map (Map L-6) and Goals, Policies, and Programs to guide land use distribution in
the city. By satisfying these requirements, the Land Use and Community Design
Element lays out the basic guidelines and standards upon which all of the other
Comprehensive Plan elements rely and build. Other elements of the Plan
correspond with the land use categories and policy direction contained in this
Element, while providing more specialized guidance focused on particular topics,
such as transportation or conservation.
VISION: Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance our future growth needs
with the preservation of our neighborhoods, address climate protection priorities
through sustainable development near neighborhood services, and enhance
the quality of life of all neighborhoods.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-2 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
CONNECTIONS TO OTHER ELEMENTS
The Land Use and Community Design Element is replete with direct connections to
all of the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Its guidance for land uses is
strongly linked to the Housing Element’s prescriptions for residential development,
even though the Housing Element is cyclically updated on a separate State-
mandated timetable. The inextricable tie between land use and transportation is
clearly apparent both in this Element and the Transportation Element, as the co-
location of land uses significantly affects the ability of transit, walking, and biking to
replace vehicle travel, in addition to capitalizing on the presence of rail service in
Palo Alto. The success of programs in the Natural and Urban Environment and Safety
Element is largely dependent on land uses decisions that protect the environment as
well as people and property. The Land Use Element dovetails with both the quality
of life initiatives in the Community Services and Facilities Element, and the prosperity
objectives of the Business and Economics Element.
PLANNING CONTEXT
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
With a backdrop sweeping from forested hills to the Bay, Palo Alto is framed by
natural beauty. Views of the foothills contribute a sense of enclosure and a reminder
of the close proximity of open space and nature. Views of the baylands provide a
strong connection to the marine environment and the East Bay hills. Together with
the city’s marshland, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and riparian corridors, these natural
resources, clearly visible in the aerial photograph in Map L-1, are a major defining
feature of Palo Alto’s character.
Preserving the city’s attractive and valuable natural features is important for a
number of reasons. Ecologically, these areas provide key habitat for wildlife, create a
buffer from developed areas, and act as a natural filtration system for storm water
runoff. For the community, they represent an important facet of the look and feel of
Palo Alto, contributing to a sense of place both through direct public access to
natural areas and the views that establish Palo Alto’s local scenic routes.
Foo
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Sunnyvale
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpressway
Em bar ca der o R oad
ElCa
mino
Real
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
§¨¦280
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
MA P L- 1
P A L O A L T O A E R I A L V I E W
P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NL A N D U S E
0 1 2 Miles
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; ESRI, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016.
Railroads
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
PALO
ALTO
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-4 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
REGIONAL PLANNING
Palo Alto cooperates with numerous regional partners on a range of issues of
common interest. Regional planning partners include the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and other State agencies, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, San Mateo County Transit District, Santa Clara County, San
Mateo County, and neighboring cities. The City of Palo Alto works together with the
cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park on a variety of shared programs relating to
economic development, social services, education, public safety, and housing.
Palo Alto also works with Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills on joint
ventures such as fire protection and water quality control. In addition, Palo Alto
elected officials and staff participate in numerous countywide and regional planning
efforts, including via both advisory and decision-making boards and commissions.
Palo Alto also maintains a strong relationship with Stanford University. Although the
campus lies outside of the city limits, as shown in Map L-2, important Stanford-
owned lands are within Palo Alto, including Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford
Research Park, and the Stanford University Medical Center. The City, Santa Clara
County, and Stanford maintain an inter-jurisdictional agreement regarding
development on unincorporated Stanford lands and collaborate on selected land use
and transportation projects.
CITY EVOLUTION
EARLY HISTORY
There is evidence in the archaeological record of people living along San
Francisquito Creek as far back as 4000 BC, and the first widely recognized inhabitants
are the Costanoan people starting in about 1500 BC. The Costanoan are Ohlone-
speaking Native Americans who lived near the water from San Francisco Bay to
Carmel. Costanoan and earlier artifacts have been identified in the city, particularly
along the banks of San Francisquito Creek. Preservation of these resources is a high
priority for the City and essential to defining the character of the community.
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Sunnyvale
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpressway
Emb a rc a dero Road
ElCaminoReal
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lou
i
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
§¨¦280
MA P L - 2
S P H E R E O F I N F L U E N C E , U R B A N S E R V I C E A R E A , A N D S T A N F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y L A N D S
P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NL A N D U S E
0 1 2 Miles
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; Stanford University, 2000; PlaceWorks, 2014.
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Stanford Academic Growth Boundary
Railroads
^_Potential Future School Site
Stanford University Land Use Designations
Academic Campus
Campus Residential - Low Density
Campus Residential - Moderate Density
Open Space and Field Research
Campus Open Space
Special Conservation
Lake/Reservoir
Urban Service Boundary
!Caltrain Stations
^_
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-6 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
CITY DEVELOPMENT
From its earliest days, Palo Alto has been a world-class center of knowledge and
innovation. The city incorporated in 1894 on land purchased with the specific intent
of serving the newly established Stanford University. Originally centered on
University Avenue, Palo Alto grew south and east, incorporating the older town of
Mayfield and its California Avenue district in 1925. By the 1970s, the city had almost
doubled in size, stretching into the foothills and south to Mountain View, with
commercial centers along Middlefield Road in Midtown and El Camino Real through
formerly unincorporated Barron Park, and research and development areas at the
city’s outskirts.
Today, Palo Alto covers almost 26 square miles (16,627 acres) of land, about a third
of which is open space, including 34 city-owned parks and 1,700 acres of protected
baylands. Ensuring that activities in and around the baylands, including airport
operations, occur with minimal environmental impacts is of major importance to the
City and region.
COMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Palo Alto was an early adopter of compact development principles, as embodied in
the Urban Service Area designated to manage growth in the current Comprehensive
Plan. Through this strategy, the City has endeavored to direct new development into
appropriate locations—such as along transit corridors and near employment centers—
while protecting and preserving neighborhoods as well as the open space lands that
comprise about half of the city.
SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE
Palo Alto is regarded as a leader in sustainability, having adopted its first Climate
Action Plan in 2007 and continuing through the City’s multi-faceted efforts to
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-7
eliminate the community’s dependence on fossil fuels and adapt to the potential
effects of climate change. Through the direct provision of public utility services by the
City to the community, Palo Alto is able to achieve truly outstanding energy efficiency
and water conservation. The City and community also are leaders in promoting non-
automobile transportation, waste reduction and diversion, and high-quality, low-
impact development.
Together, all of these efforts make Palo Alto a more resilient community, able to
adjust behaviors and actions in an effort to protect and preserve environmental
resources.
CITY STRUCTURE
COMPONENTS
The city is composed of unique neighborhoods and distinct but connected places.
Understanding how these different components of the city structure support one
another and connect to the region can help inform land use planning. By reflecting
the existing structure in its policies, Palo Alto will ensure that it remains a community
that encourages social contact and public life and also maintains quality urban
design.
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
Palo Alto’s 35 neighborhoods are characterized by housing, parks, and public
facilities. Their boundaries are based on land use and street patterns and community
perceptions. Most of the residential neighborhoods have land use classifications of
single-family residential with some also including multiple-family residential, and
transitions in scale and use often signify neighborhood boundaries.
Each neighborhood is a living reminder of the unique blend of architectural styles,
building materials, scale, and street patterns that were typical at the time of its
development. These characteristics are more intact in some neighborhoods than in
others. The City strives to complement neighborhood character when installing
streets or public space improvements and to preserve neighborhoods through
thoughtful development review to ensure that new construction, additions, and
remodels reflect neighborhood character.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-8 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Neighborhoods built prior to the mid-1940s generally have a traditional pattern of
development with relatively narrow streets, curbside parking, vertical curbs, and
street trees between the curb and sidewalk. Many homes are oriented to the street
with parking often located to the rear of the lot.
Many later neighborhoods were shaped by Modernist design ideas popularized by
builder Joseph Eichler. The houses are intentionally designed with austere facades
and oriented towards private backyards and interior courtyards, where expansive
glass walls “bring the outside in.” Curving streets and cul-de-sacs further the sense of
house as private enclave, and flattened curbs joined to the sidewalk with no planting
strip create an uninterrupted plane on which to display the house. Some
neighborhoods built during this period contain other home styles such as California
ranch.
Both traditional and modern Palo Alto neighborhoods have fine examples of multi-
unit housing that are very compatible with surrounding single-family homes,
primarily because of their high-quality design characteristics, such as entrances and
gardens that face the street rather than the interior of the development. Examples
include duplexes and small apartment buildings near Downtown, as well as second
units and cottage courts in other areas of the city.
DOWNTOWN
Downtown Palo Alto is widely recognized for its mix of culture, architecture, and
atmosphere of innovation, which make it a uniquely special place. Downtown plays
a key role in concentrating housing, employment, shopping, and entertainment near
each other and regional rail and other transit, exemplifying and supporting citywide
sustainability and resiliency.
CENTERS
Centers are commercial and mixed use areas that serve as focal points of community
life. These commercial centers are distributed throughout the city, within walking or
bicycling distance of virtually all Palo Alto residents, as shown in Map L-3. There are
three basic types of Centers in Palo Alto:
Regional Centers include University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford
Shopping Center. These areas are commercial activity hubs of citywide and
regional significance, with a mix of shopping, offices, and some housing.
Downtown is characterized by two- and three-story buildings with ground
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
OregonExpresswayEmbarcaderoRoad
AlmaStreetElCaminoReal
Page MillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
Channing Avenue
Stanford
Lands
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
3
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
1
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2014.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
0 0.5 1 Miles
MA P L - 3
C I T Y S T R U C T U R E
!Caltrain Stations
Sphere of Influence
City Boundary
Railroads
Park/Open Space
Regional Centers
1. University Avenue/Downtown
2. Stanford Shopping Center
Commercial Districts
1. South of Forest Area (SOFA)
2. California Avenue
3. Alma Village
1. Stanford Research Park
2. Stanford Medical Center
3. East Bayshore
4. San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor
"Ø
Mixed Use Areas
Employment Centersl
³³lo×
Employment Districts
1. California Avenue
2. Town & Country Village
3. South El Camino Real
Multi-Neighborhood Centers"Ø
1. Charleston Center
2. Edgewood Plaza
3. Midtown
Neighborhood Centers"Ø
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-10 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-11
floor shops. Trees, benches, outdoor seating areas, sidewalks, plazas, and
other amenities make the streets pedestrian-friendly. Transit is highly
accessible and frequent. Stanford Shopping Center has evolved from its
original auto-oriented design into a premier open-air pedestrian environment
known for extensive landscaped areas surrounded by retail and dining.
Multi-Neighborhood Centers, including California Avenue, Town and
Country Village, and South El Camino Real, are retail districts that serve more
than one neighborhood with a diverse mix of uses including retail, office, and
residential. They feature one- to three--story buildings with storefront windows
and outdoor seating areas that create a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere.
These centers also contain retail uses clustered around plazas and parks that
provide public gathering spaces. They can be linked to other city Centers via
transit.
Neighborhood Centers, such as Charleston Shopping Center, Edgewood
Plaza and Midtown Shopping Center, are small retail areas drawing customers
from the immediately surrounding area. These centers are often anchored by
a grocery or drug store and may include a variety of smaller retail shops and
offices oriented toward the everyday needs of local residents. Adjacent streets
provide walking, biking, and transit connections.
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Palo Alto’s employment districts, such as Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical
Center, East Bayshore, and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor, represent a
development type not found in other parts of the city. These Districts are
characterized by large one- to four-story buildings, with some taller buildings,
separated by parking lots and landscaped areas. The Districts are accessed primarily
by automobile or employer-supported transit, though future changes in land use and
tenancy could support a shift toward transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
(Note to readers: this section reflects the range of options being reviewed by the
CAC as of September 2016. It will be updated as those options evolve, and will
ultimately be refined to accurately describe the suite of growth management tools
selected by the City Council. Text shown [in brackets] represents possible choices still
under consideration.)
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-12 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
The pace of non-residential growth and development in Palo Alto has been
moderated by a citywide cap on non-residential development first adopted by the
City Council in 1989. Based on the demonstrated and continuous strength of the
city’s economy, and recent changes in the approach to growth management
throughout California, this Plan presents an updated cumulative growth
management and monitoring system. This system moderates the overall amount of
new office/R&D [option: and hotel] development, the pace of development, and its
impacts on Palo Alto’s livability.
CUMULATIVE GROWTH CAP
This updated approach uses 2015 as the baseline from which to monitor new
development and establishes a cumulative, citywide] cap on office/R&D [option: and
hotel] uses, including conversions of existing square footage to office/R&D space. It
also establishes clear guidance to address what the City should do as the cap is
approached. The cumulative cap would restrict development to less than what would
otherwise be allowed under the existing Service Commercial (CS) and Community
Commercial (CC) zoning designations. To address this issue, the City will assess non-
residential development potential in these zones and consider converting some of
the non-residential development potential into residential capacity.
ANNUAL LIMITS
[Option: No annual limits will be applied, and this section would be omitted.]
In addition to regulating the overall amount of development, community consensus
has emerged that it is important to regulate the pace of development to avoid sharp
spikes in construction and resulting rapid changes in the urban fabric and natural
environment. In 2015, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that
established annual limits on new office/R&D space in the City’s fastest-changing
commercial districts to 50,000 square feet per year. This plan expands that cap to
encompass the entire City, excluding the Stanford University Medical Center, which is
subject to a development agreement. Stanford Research Park is subject to a separate
annual limit of ______ square feet per year, but may carry unused capacity forward
to future years. [Option: Stanford Research Park is subject to a trip cap rather than an
annual limit on development.]
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
For many years, the City has carefully regulated new development in Palo Alto; the
sidebar on page LU-Error! Unknown switch argument. lists examples of ordinances
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-13
and requirements. This Plan adds [a program to create] new “better, stronger, and
faster” development requirements, applied to proposed projects at the time of City
review and approval, which will help the City be ensure the highest quality
development with the least environmental impacts. Development requirements will
require new projects to reduce trips, preserve affordable housing, and protect the
urban forest and other natural vegetation. The development requirements will be
regularly re-evaluated in order to monitor their effectiveness, and may be adjusted or
removed as necessary.
COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Maintaining and improving Palo Alto’s livability will demand more than applying
requirements to and evaluating the performance of new development in Palo Alto,
because new development represents a small proportion of the buildings that will be
on the ground in 2030. Existing businesses, institutions and residents also play a role
in creating a more sustainable Palo Alto. These efforts will involve changes in
behavior and new technologies as current conditions evolve over the planning
period. In response to these anticipated changes, and in parallel with the
development requirements, this Element introduces [a program to develop] a group
of community indicators that will measure progress towards stated targets and will
inform the City’s decision-making process on growth management. Each community
indicator is [would be] monitored regularly, based on the specific identified target
and the data available.
DOWNTOWN CAP
A recent cycle of economic growth has brought increased pressure for additional
office space in Downtown Palo Alto, which combines a desirable address with a
beautiful urban environment, access to transit, and proximity to dining and
shopping. In recent years, the demand has become so strong that other important
uses that contribute to Downtown’s vitality, such as storefront retail, are at risk of
being pushed out. To ensure that Downtown remains a regional center with a
diversity of destinations, new office development Downtown is limited to just over
45,000 square feet. This is the amount remaining in a cap originally established in
the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. “New” development includes conversions from
another use to an office use, so it is likely that the cap will be reached within the
horizon of this Plan. In addition to capping office development, the City will monitor
parking demand and commute trips by single-occupant vehicle. [Option: To ensure
that Downtown remains a regional center with a diversity of destinations, non-
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-14 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
residential development, single-occupant vehicle commute trips, and parking
demand Downtown will be monitored annually.]
URBAN DESIGN
The look and feel of Palo Alto is shaped by urban design, which encompasses the
wide variety of features that together form the visual character of the city. These
elements range from aesthetic to functional and include the design of buildings, the
historic character of structures and places, public spaces where people gather,
gateways or entrances to the city, street trees lining neighborhoods, art decorating
public spaces, as well as parking lots and essential infrastructure. Key community
design features are illustrated on Map L-4.
BUILDINGS
Palo Alto has many buildings of outstanding architectural merit representing a variety
of styles and periods. The best examples of these buildings are constructed with
quality materials, show evidence of craftsmanship, fit with their surroundings, and
help make neighborhoods comfortable and appealing. To help achieve quality
design, the Architectural Review Board reviews buildings and site design for
commercial and multi-family residential projects. Palo Alto’s commercial and
residential buildings have received regional and national design recognition. Design
issues in residential neighborhoods include sympathetic restoration and renovation
of homes, protection of privacy if second stories are added, and efforts to make
streets more inviting to pedestrians.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Palo Alto has a rich stock of historic structures and places that are important to the
city’s heritage and preserving and reusing these historic resources contributes to the
livability of Palo Alto. The City’s Historic Inventory lists approximately 400 buildings of
historical merit, with more than a dozen buildings on the National Register of
Historic Places, as well as two historic districts: Ramona Street and Professorville.
Map L-5 illustrates historic resources in Palo Alto.
Historic sites include the El Palo Alto redwood, believed to be the site of a 1776
encampment of the Portola Expedition and one of 19 California Points of Historical
Interest in the city. The garage at 367 Addison that was the birthplace of Hewlett-
Packard is one of seven sites or structures listed on the California Register of Historic
Foo
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpresswayEmbarcaderoRoad
AlmaStreetElCaminoReal
Page MillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lou
i
s
R
o
a
d
Channing Avenue
Stanford
Lands§¨¦280
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2014.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
0 1 2 Miles
MA P L - 4
C O M M U N I T Y D E S I G N F E A T U R E S
Major View Corridors
k Primary Gateways
! !Scenic Routes in Palo Alto
!Caltrain Stations
Railroads
Park/Open Space
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-16 LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016
!!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!! !!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
·|}þ237
Sunnyvale
Atherton
OregonExpressway
Embarcadero Road
ElCaminoReal
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Loui
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
MiddlefieldRoad
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
LouisRoad
Professorville
Historic District
Green Gables
Historic District
Greenmeadow
Historic District
Ramona Street
Architectural District
§¨¦280
M A P L - 5
!!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!! !
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
H I S T O R I C R E S O U R C E S
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016; The City of Palo Alto, 2013.
0 1 2 Miles
*Cultural and historic resources include Historic Structures on the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory
(categories I, II, III, or IV), and/or Buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, and/or California
Registered Historic Landmarks, and/or Points of Historical Interest.
This map is for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the full inventory of historic
structures, landmarks, or other cultural resources in Palo Alto. For a more complete listing,
please refer to the content of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
associated environmental review documents.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
!Cultural or historic resource*
Highways
City Limit
Professorville
Historic District
Ramona StreetArchitectural District
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-18 LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Landmarks. The length of El Camino Real from San Francisco to San Diego, including
the section that passes through Palo Alto, is a State Historic Landmark. Many historic
buildings in the city have been rehabilitated and adaptively reused as office or
commercial spaces, including former single-family homes in and near downtown.
PUBLIC SPACES, STREETS, AND PARKING
Throughout Palo Alto are a variety of public spaces from parks and schools to plazas
and sidewalks, to cultural, religious, and civic facilities. Each of these can increasingly
serve as centers for public life with gathering places, bicycle and pedestrian access,
safety-enhancing night-time lighting and clear visual access, and, in some cases,
small-scale retail uses such as cafes.
Well-designed streets also invite public use and enhance quality of life. Palo Alto’s
reputation as a gracious residential community is due not only to its fine street trees
and attractive planting areas, but also to appropriate street width for neighborhood
character, accommodation of pedestrians and bicycles, height and setbacks of
buildings, and color and texture of paving materials. These components help to
ensure that streets are pleasant and safe for all travelers.
Parking lots occupy large amounts of surface area in the city. Well-designed parking
lots make efficient use of space while contributing positively to the appearance of the
surrounding area. A parking lot can provide an opportunity for open space and
outdoor amenities rather than just a repository for cars. Many parking lots in Palo
Alto include trees, landscaping and public art.
GATEWAYS
Community identity is strengthened when the entrances to the city are clear and
memorable. In Palo Alto, these entrances or gateways include University Avenue, El
Camino Real, Middlefield Road, Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road, San Antonio
Road and Embarcadero Road, and the Palo Alto and California Avenue Caltrain
stations. Well-designed gateways are defined by natural and urban landmarks that
complement the character and identity of the neighborhood.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-19
URBAN FOREST
Palo Alto’s urban forest—including both public and privately owned trees—is a key
part of the community’s history, identity, and quality of life. It offers enormous social,
environmental, and financial benefits and is a fundamental part of Palo Alto’s sense
of place. Regular spacing of trees that are similar in form and texture provides order
and coherence and gives scale to the street. A canopy of branches and leaves
provides shade for pedestrians and creates a sense of enclosure and comfort. On the
city’s most memorable streets, trees of a single species extend historic character to
the corners of blocks, reducing the apparent width of streets and intersections and
defining the street as a continuous space. Protecting, maintaining, and enhancing the
urban forest, as called for in the 2015 Urban Forest Master Plan, is among the most
effective ways to preserve Palo Alto’s character.
PUBLIC ART
Public art helps create an inviting atmosphere for gathering, fosters economic
development, and contributes to vital public spaces. Palo Alto’s public art program
reflects the City’s tradition of enriching public spaces with works of art, ranging from
the subtle inclusion of handcrafted artifacts into building architecture to more
traditional displays of sculpture at civic locations. The Municipal Code requires both
public and private projects to incorporate public art.
UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
A city is supported by its infrastructure—features such as paving, signs, and utilities.
These features represent substantial public investments and are meant to serve all
community members. Infrastructure improvements must meet current needs and
keep pace with growth and development. While the purpose of infrastructure is
usually utilitarian or functional, attention to design details can add beauty or even
improve urban design. For example, replacing a sidewalk can provide an opportunity
to create larger tree wells and provide new street trees.
PALO ALTO AIRPORT
Palo Alto Airport (PAO) is a general aviation airport owned and operated by the City
of Palo Alto. PAO occupies 102 acres of land east of Highway 101 in the baylands
and has one paved runway. The airport functions as a reliever to three Bay Area
airports. PAO facilities include an air traffic control tower operated by the Federal
Aviation Administration and a terminal building. Flight clubs and fixed base operators
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-20 LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016
operate on-site, offering fuel sales, flight lessons, pilot training, and aircraft sales,
rentals, maintenance, and repair. From 1967 to 2015, PAO was operated by Santa
Clara County under a lease agreement. Operations and control have since been
transferred to the City and key challenges ahead include addressing deterioration of
runway conditions, addressing noise impacts and hours of operation, and the
relationship between the Airport and the Baylands Master Plan.
LAND USE MAP AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Map L-6 shows each land use designation within the city of Palo Alto. The land use
designations translate the elements of city structure into a detailed map that presents
the community’s vision for future land use development and conservation on public
and private land in Palo Alto through the year 2030. Residential densities are
expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre.
Building intensities for non-residential uses are expressed in terms of floor area ratio
(FAR), which is the ratio of gross building floor area (excluding areas designated for
parking, etc.) to net lot area, both expressed in square feet. FAR does not regulate
building placement or form, only the spatial relationship between building size and
lot size; it represents an expectation of the overall intensity of future development.
The maximums assigned to the land use designations below do not constitute
entitlements, nor are property owners or developers guaranteed that an individual
project, when tested against the General Plan’s policies, will be able or permitted to
achieve these maximums.
!
!
FOO
T
H
I
L
L
E
X
P
Y
FA
B
I
A
N
W
A
Y
SAND
H
I
L
L
R
D
AL
M
A
S
T
SEA
L
E
A
V
E
SAN
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
R
D
OREG
O
N
E
X
P
Y
QU
A
R
R
Y
R
D
LOMA
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
ARA
S
T
R
A
D
E
R
O
R
D
E CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
EMBARCA
D
E
R
O
W
A
Y
PASTE
U
R
D
R
CAL
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
E
LI
N
C
O
L
N
A
V
E
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
JU
N
I
P
E
R
O
S
E
R
R
A
B
L
V
D
PA
G
E
M
I
L
L
R
D
§¨¦280
|ÿ82
£¤101
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Los Altos
Arastradero Preserve
Baylands
Preserve
Byxbee
Park
SOFA II CAP
SOFA I CAP
Baylands Master Plan
East Charleston Road
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125
Miles
Source: ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; City of Palo Alto, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2015.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
Residential
Single Family Res
Multi-Family Res
Multi-Family Res (w/Hotel Overlay)
Mixed Use
Commercial
Hotel Commercial
Service Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Regional/Community Commercial
Business/Industrial
Light Industrial
Research/Office Park
Other
SOFA II CAP
SOFA I CAP
School District Land
Major Institution/Special Facility
Streamside Open Space
Public Park
Open Space/Controlled Development
Public Conservation Land
Stanford University Land Use Designations
Academic Campus
Campus Residential - Low Density
Campus Residential - Moderate Density
Open Space/Field Research
Campus Open Space
Special Conservation
Lake/Reservoir
!Caltrain Stations
Urban Service Area
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Railroads
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E
L A N D U S E E L E M E N T
MA P L -6
C O M P R E H E N S I V E L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N S
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-22 LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-23
LAND USE DEFINITIONS
OPEN SPACE
Publicly Owned Conservation Land: Open lands whose primary purpose is the
preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land and its plants and
animals. Only resource management, recreation, and educational activities
compatible with resource conservation are allowed.
Public Park: Open lands whose primary purpose is public access for active
recreation and whose character is essentially urban. These areas, which may have
been planted with non-indigenous landscaping, may provide access to nature within
the urban environment and require a concerted effort to maintain recreational
facilities and landscaping.
Streamside Open Space: This designation is intended to preserve and enhance
corridors of riparian vegetation along streams. Hiking, biking, and riding trails may be
developed in the streamside open space. The corridor will generally vary in width up
to 200 feet either side of the center line of the creek. However, along San
Francisquito Creek between El Camino Real and the Sand Hill Road bridge over the
creek, the open space corridor varies in width between approximately 80 and 310
feet from the center line of the creek. The aerial delineation of the open space in this
segment of the corridor, as opposed to other segments of the corridor, is shown to
approximate scale on the Proposed Land Use and Circulation Map.
Open Space/Controlled Development: Land having all the characteristics of open
space but where some development may be allowed on private properties. Open
space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential densities range from 0.1
to 1 dwelling unit per acre but may rise to a maximum of 2 units per acre where
second units are allowed, and population densities range from 1 to 4 persons per
acre.
RESIDENTIAL
Single-Family Residential: This designation applies to residential neighborhoods
primarily characterized by detached single-family homes, typically with one dwelling
unit on each lot. Private and public schools and churches are conditional uses
requiring permits. Second units or duplexes may be allowed in select, limited areas
where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and do not create
traffic and parking problems. The net density in single family areas will range from 1
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-24 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
to 7 units per acre, but rises to a maximum of 14 units on parcels where second
units or duplexes are allowed. Population densities will range from 1 to 30 persons
per acre.
Multiple-Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units will vary by
area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit,
distance to shopping, and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8
to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the
scale next to single-family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted
by zoning may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived,
services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be compatible with the
overall Comprehensive Plan.
Village Residential: Allows residential dwellings that are designed to contribute to
the harmony and pedestrian orientation of a street or neighborhood. Housing types
include single-family houses on small lots, second units, cottage clusters, courtyard
housing, duplexes, fourplexes, and small apartment buildings. Design standards will
be prepared for each housing type to ensure that development successfully
contributes to the street and neighborhood and minimizes potential negative
impacts. Net densities will range up to 20 units per acre.
Transit-Oriented Residential: Allows higher density residential dwellings in the
University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within a
walkable distance, approximately 2,500 feet, of the City’s two multi-modal transit
stations. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that
support substantial use of public transportation and especially the use of Caltrain.
Design standards will be prepared to ensure that development successfully
contributes to the street and minimizes potential negative impacts. Individual project
requirements will be developed, including parking, to ensure that a significant
portion of the residents will use alternative modes of transportation. Net density will
range up to 50 units per acre, with minimum densities to be considered during
development of new City zoning regulations.
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial: Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a
cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples
include Charleston Center, Edgewood Center, and Midtown. Typical uses include
supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-
service laundries, dry cleaners, child care and hardware stores. In locations along El
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-25
Camino Real and Alma Street, residential and mixed use projects may also locate in
this category. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4.
Child Care Options – Choose One to Carry Forward
Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber
shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners, child care and hardware
stores.
Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber
shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners, and hardware stores.
Child care is an acceptable use except in Charleston Center, Edgewood
Center, and Midtown.
Regional/Community Commercial: Larger shopping centers and districts that have
a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They
rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores,
furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail
services such as banks. Non-retail uses such as medical and dental offices may also
locate in this designation. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and
Country Village, and University Avenue/Downtown. In some locations, residential
and mixed use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential floor area
ratios range from 0.35 to 2.
Service Commercial: Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying
on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in
high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses
include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores, and
restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good
automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without
impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be
appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include
San Antonio Road, El Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road northeast of the
Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4.
Mixed Use: The Mixed Use designation is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented
places that layer compatible land uses, public amenities and utilities together at
various scales and intensities. The designation allows for multiple functions within
the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a
mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-26 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Most typically, mixed use developments have retail on the ground floor and
residences above. This category includes Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail
and Residential/Office development. Floor area ratios will range up to 1.15, although
development located along transit corridors or near multi-modal centers will range
up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible where higher FAR would be an incentive
to meet community goals such as providing affordable housing. The FAR above 1.15
must be used for residential purposes. FAR between 0.15 and 1.15 may be used for
residential purposes. As of the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use
designation is currently only applied in the SOFA area.
Commercial Hotel: This category allows facilities for use by temporary overnight
occupants on a transient basis, such as hotels and motels, with associated
conference centers and similar uses. Restaurants and other eating facilities, meeting
rooms, small retail shops, personal services, and other services ancillary to the hotel
are also allowed. This category can be applied in combination with another land use
category. Floor area ratio will range up to 2.0 for the hotel portion of the site.
Research/Office Park: Office, research, and manufacturing establishments whose
operations are buffered from adjacent residential uses. Stanford Research Park is an
example. Other uses that may be included are educational institutions and child care
facilities. Compatible commercial service uses such as banks and restaurants, and
residential or mixed uses that would benefit from the proximity to employment
centers, will also be allowed. Additional uses, including retail services, commercial
recreation, churches, and private clubs may also be located in Research/Office Park
areas, but only if they are found to be compatible with the surrounding area through
the conditional use permit process. In some locations, residential and mixed-use
projects may also locate in this category. Maximum allowable floor area ratio ranges
from 0.3 to 0.5, depending on site conditions.
Light Industrial: Wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing,
processing, repairing, and packaging of goods. Emission of fumes, noise, smoke, or
other pollutants is strictly controlled. Examples include portions of the area south of
Oregon Avenue between El Camino Real and Alma Street that historically have
included these land uses, and the San Antonio Road industrial area. Compatible
residential and mixed use projects may also be located in this category. Floor area
ratio will range up to 0.5.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-27
INSTITUTIONAL
School District Lands: Properties owned or leased by public school districts and
used for educational, recreational, or other non-commercial, non-industrial purposes.
Floor area ratio may not exceed 1.0.
Major Institution/Special Facilities: Institutional, academic, governmental, and
community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as
non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City facilities.
Major Institution/University Lands: Academic and academic reserve areas of
Stanford University. Population density and building intensity limits are established
by conditional use permit with Santa Clara County. These lands are further
designated by the following sub-categories of land use:
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Single-Family Residential:
Single-family areas where the occupancy of the units is significantly or totally
limited to individuals or families affiliated with the institution.
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Multiple Family Residential:
Multiple family areas where the occupancy of the units is significantly or totally
limited to individuals or families affiliated with the institution.
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Educational Facilities:
Academic lands with a full complement of activities and densities that give
them an urban character. Allowable uses are academic institutions and
research facilities, student and faculty housing, and support services. Increases
in student enrollment and faculty/staff size must be accompanied by
measures that mitigate traffic and housing impacts.
Major Institution/University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space:
Academic lands having all the characteristics of open space but upon which
some academic development may be allowed provided that open space
amenities are retained. These lands are important for their aesthetic and
ecological value as well as their potential for new academic uses.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-28 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GOAL L-1 A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors
with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping
districts, public facilities, and open spaces.
CONCENTRATING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA
Policy L-1.1 Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within
the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is
otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped
land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space,
with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent
with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land
northeast of Highway 101 as open space. [Previous Policy L-1] [L1]
Policy L-1.2 Maintain and strengthen Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods
while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities.
[Previous Policy L-4] [L2]
Policy L-1.3 Promote infill development in the urban service area that is
compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of
the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. [(Previous
Policy L-5 )(PTC Policy L1.7)] [L3]
Program L1.3.1 Work with neighbors, neighborhood associations,
property owners, and developers to identify barriers
to infill development of below market rate and
more affordable market rate housing and to
remove these barriers. Work with these same
stakeholders to identify sites and facilitate
opportunities for below market rate housing and
housing that is affordable [(PTC Program L1.7.10)
(Edited)] [L4]
Policy L-1.4 Ensure that future development addresses potential risks from climate
change and sea level rise. [Note: the revised Safety Element will
include a much more extensive discussion of this issue along with
policies and programs to respond.] [NEW POLICY] [L5]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-29
Program L1.4.1 Review development standards applicable in areas
susceptible to flooding from sea level rise, including
east of Highway 101, West Bayshore and East
Meadow Circle, and the area east of San Antonio
Road and north of East Charleston, and update
requirements as needed to ensure that new
development is designed and located to provide
protection from potential flooding impacts. [(NEW
PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation
Measure GHG-3.)] [Note: The revised Safety
Element will include additional mitigation
measures to address sea level rise and climate
change adaptation] [L6]
REGIONAL COOPERATION
Policy L-1.5 Maintain an active engagement with Santa Clara County, San Mateo
County, neighboring cities, other public agencies including school
districts and Stanford University regarding land use and transportation
issues. [Previous Policy L-2] [L7]
Program L1.5.1 Maintain and update as appropriate the 1985 Land
Use Policies Agreement that sets forth the land use
policies of the City, Santa Clara County, and
Stanford University with regard to Stanford
unincorporated lands. [Previous Program L-1] [L8]
Policy L-1.6 Participate in regional strategies to address the interaction of jobs,
housing balance and transportation issues. [NEW POLICY] [L9]
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING
Policy L-1.7 Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and
manage change and development to benefit the community. [NEW
POLICY] [L10]
Program L1.7.1 Review regulatory tools available to the City and
identify actions to enhance and preserve the
livability of residential neighborhoods and the
vitality of commercial and employment districts,
including improved code enforcement practices.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L11]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-30 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-1.8 Sites within or adjacent to existing commercial areas and corridors are
suitable for hotels. Give preference to housing versus hotel use on
sites adjacent to predominantly single family neighborhoods. [NEW
POLICY] [L12]
CUMULATIVE CAP OPTIONS CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Policy L-1.9 (no cumulative cap on non-residential uses) A well designed,
compact, and resilient City maintains a healthy mix of non-residential
uses. The City will monitor non-residential development over time in
addition to applying development requirements and community
indicators designed to ensure the highest quality of development with
the least possible impacts. [NEW POLICY] [L13]
Program L1.9.1 (no cumulative cap; trigger for evaluation of
development requirements)When new Office &
R&D development approved since January 1, 2015
reaches 500,000 square feet citywide, evaluate the
success of adopted development requirements and
community indicators. [NEW PROGRAM] [L14]
Policy L-1.10 (citywide cap on office/R&D minus SUMC plus development
requirements) Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet
of office/R&D development, exempting medical office uses associated
with SUMC. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor
development towards the cap on an annual basis. Regularly assess the
effectiveness of requirements applied to development and other
community performance measures and remove or adjust the cap
and/or development requirements accordingly. [NEW POLICY] [L15]
Policy L-1.11 (citywide cap on office/R&D and hotel, minus SUMC, plus
development requirements) Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million
new square feet of office/R&D and an appropriate additional amount
of hotel development using January 1, 2015 as the baseline and
monitor development towards this cap on an annual basis. Regularly
assess the effectiveness of development requirements applied to
development and community indicators and remove or adjust the cap
and/or development requirements accordingly. [NEW POLICY] [L16]
Program L1.11.1 (possible Citywide hotel cap) Study demand and
potential impacts in order to determine whether the
Citywide cap should include a cap on hotel
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-31
development and what an appropriate
development cap would be. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L17]
Policy L-1.12 (cumulative cap exemptions) Exempt medical, governmental, and
institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development. [NEW
POLICY] [L18]
CUMULATIVE CAP AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS – IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAMS
Program L1.12.1 (citywide cap re-evaluation) Reevaluate the
cumulative cap when the amount of new
office/R&D [and hotel] square footage entitled since
January 1, 2015 reaches 67 percent of the allowed
square footage, or 1,139,000 square feet.
Concurrently consider removal or potential changes
to the cap and/or to the amount of additional
development permitted by the City’s zoning
ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L19]
Program L1.12.2 (development requirements reevaluation) Regularly
assess the effectiveness of development
requirements and revise them as necessary. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L20]
Program L1.12.3 (adjust development potential to reflect citywide
cap) Assess non-residential development potential
in the CC, CN, and CS zoning districts, and convert
non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR, where
appropriate. Conversion to residential capacity
should not be considered in Town and Country
Village. [NEW PROGRAM] [L21]
ANNUAL LIMIT OPTIONS – CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Policy L-1.13 (no annual limit) Use performance requirements to assure that new
development adds to the quality of the community and addresses or
avoids new impacts. [NEW POLICY] [L22]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-32 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-1.14 (citywide annual limit) Limit the amount of new office/R&D square
footage permitted in the City on an annual basis to 50,000 square feet
outside the Stanford Research Park and ___ square feet inside
Stanford Research Park. Allow unused development capacity within
Stanford Research Park only to be carried forward to future years.
Stanford University Medical Center shall be exempt from this annual
limit. [NEW POLICY] [L23]
Policy L-1.15 (citywide annual limit with SRP exemption) Limit the amount of new
office/R&D square footage permitted in the City on an annual basis to
50,000 square feet, exempting new square footage in Stanford
University Medical Center, and exempting the Stanford Research Park
if a cap on peak period auto trips to the Research Park is established
and enforced. [NEW POLICY] [L24]
Policy L-1.16 (annual limit exemptions) Exempt public facilities, offices less than
5,000 square feet, and medical offices of less than 2,000 square feet
from the annual limit. [NEW POLICY] [L25]
DOWNTOWN CAP – CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Program L1.16.1 (no downtown cap) Monitor non-residential
development in Downtown on an annual basis,
tracking new square footage by use, as well as
commute trips by SOV and parking demand. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L26]
Program L1.16.2 (retain downtown cap) Limit new office
development in Downtown to 45,619 square feet,
using January 1, 2015 as the baseline. Monitor this
development on an annual basis, tracking new
square footage as well as commute trips by SOV
and parking demand. Reevaluate this Downtown
development cap when the amount of new office
and hotel square footage entitled since January 1,
2015 reaches 67 percent of the remaining allowed
square footage and concurrently consider potential
changes to the cap and/or to the amount of
additional development permitted by the City’s
zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L27]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-33
Program L1.16.3 (exempt small offices from downtown cap) Limit
new office development in Downtown to 45,619
square feet, using January 1, 2015 as the baseline.
Small offices, where the design clearly
demonstrates that the space is intended for use by
one or more tenants that occupy less than 5,000
square feet total, shall be exempt. Monitor this
development on an annual basis, tracking new
square footage as well as commute trips by SOV
and parking demand. Reevaluate this Downtown
development cap when the amount of new office
square footage entitled since January 1, 2015
reaches 67 percent of the remaining allowed
square footage, or 30,564 square feet. Concurrently
consider potential changes to the cap and/or to the
amount of additional development permitted by
the City’s zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L28]
Program L1.16.4 (limit both office and hotels Downtown) Limit new
office development in Downtown to 45,619 square
feet square feet and limit new hotel development
to 50,000 square feet, using January 1, 2015 as the
baseline. Monitor this development on an annual
basis, tracking new square footage as well as
commute trips by SOV and parking demand.
Reevaluate this Downtown development cap when
the amount of new office and hotel square footage
entitled since January 1, 2015 reaches 67 percent of
the remaining allowed square footage, or 30,564
square feet. Concurrently consider potential
changes to the cap and/or to the amount of
additional development permitted by the City’s
zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L29]
DOWNTOWN CAP – IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program L1.16.5 (adjust downtown development potential to reflect
the cap) Update the CD district zoning to convert
some non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR
Downtown and consider revising the TDR program
to create bonus residential, rather than commercial
square footage.[NEW PROGRAM] [L30]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-34 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Program L1.16.6 (character of downtown) Evaluate and adjust the
zoning definition of office uses allowed in
downtown to and consider ways to prioritize for
small business and startups. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L31]
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Option 1 – Articulate the Purpose and the Topics for the development
requirements in the Comp Plan but develop details through a later program.
Policy L-1.17 (development requirements) Hold new development to the highest
development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and
achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. These
development requirements are intended to promote sustainability, a
high quality of life and ensure that the City consists of well-designed
and livable neighborhoods and centers. [NEW POLICY] [L32]
Program L1.17.1 Review and refine both new and existing
development requirements that address topics such
as energy, water and other natural resource
conservation, parking, open space and parkland,
landscaping, tree protection and neighborhood
compatibility to ensure they are effective at
achieving the highest quality development with the
least impacts. Publish the results of the review in a
clear and readable document. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L33]
Program L1.17.2 Create development requirements that protect
livability and the environment by addressing
additional topics such as reducing trips, preserving
and facilitating affordable housing and preservation
of the tree canopy. [NEW PROGRAM] [L34]
Policy L-1.18 (community indicators) The city will monitor key community
indicators on a regular basis to determine whether the policies of this
plan and the efforts of the Palo Alto residents and businesses are
effective at promoting livability. Collect the data on the community
indicators in a transparent manner, and publish the results in a clear,
user-friendly, easy-to-understand document. [NEW POLICY] [L35]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-35
Program L1.18.1 Develop community indicators for topics such as
greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, jobs,
housing, schools, parks, the tree canopy, the natural
environment and diversity. Create a list of
community indicators and a schedule for
monitoring these indicators. [NEW PROGRAM] [L36]
Program L1.18.2 Based on monitoring the community indicators
data over time, periodically consider whether to
retain, revise downward or upward, or eliminate the
annual limits on growth, the growth caps in
individual areas, and/or the Citywide cumulative
growth caps in this Land Use and Community
Design Element. [NEW PROGRAM] [L37]
Option 2 – Provide detail and specificity of the Development Requirements in
the Comp Plan.
Policy L-1.17 (development requirements) Hold new development to the highest
development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and
achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. These
development requirements are intended to promote sustainability, a
high quality of life and ensure that the City consists of well-designed
and livable neighborhoods and centers. [NEW POLICY] [L38]
Program L1.17.1 Review and refine both new and existing
development requirements that address topics such
as energy, water and other natural resource
conservation, parking, open space and parkland,
landscaping, tree protection and neighborhood
compatibility in Table L-1 to ensure they are
effective at achieving the highest quality
development with the least impacts. Publish the
results of the review in a clear and readable
document. [NEW PROGRAM] [L39]
Program L1.17.2 Create development requirements that protect
livability and the environment by addressing
additional topics such as reducing trips, preserving
and facilitating affordable housing and preservation
of the tree canopy as shown on Table L-1. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L40]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-36 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
TABLE L-1 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
These requirements are new tools strongly focused on ensuring the highest quality development
with the least impacts. .
1. Reducing Trips: a specific percent of typical single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commuter trips.
2. Alleviating Traffic Congestion: minimize impact on intersection Level of Service (LOS)
3. Connectivity: enhancing connections to transportation infrastructure or services.
4. Reserving Affordable Housing: no net loss of affordable dwelling units, no displacement of
residents of Below Market Rate (BMR) units, and discouraging loss of smaller homes such as cottages.
5. Facilitating Affordable Housing: Facilitate a mix of multi-family housing, including affordable
units, and housing for seniors and people with special needs.
6. Protecting the Natural Environment: Create a resilient landscape by preserving or increasing the tree canopy and natural understory, landscaped/open space areas planted with native plantings, creating or restoring a resilient landscape, and bird-friendly design.
7. Providing Parking: do not allow parking spillover onto residential neighborhood streets.
8. Preserving Affordable Office Space: Encourage the provision of new small office space and the preservation of existing low-cost office space.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The City already regulates many aspects of development. The City will review these existing regulations to ensure they are consistent with current targets and effective in achieving the
highest quality development with the least impacts.
Green Building: Conserving energy, water, and resources through meeting specific requirements in the City’s mandatory green building ordinance, as periodically amended. It covers topics such as:
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation
• Materials and Waste
• Light Pollution Reduction
• Emissions • Electric Vehicle Charging
• Water Efficiency, Conservation, and Reuse
• Permeable Surface Area For Groundwater Recharge
• Native, Drought-Tolerant Planting • Indoor Air Quality
Parking: Meeting need without providing excess:
• Bike Parking
• Vehicle Parking
Parkland: Providing common open space and contributing to Citywide park need:
• Provision of parkland or payment of fees
• Private open space
Landscaping and Amenities: Making Palo Alto more beautiful:
• Tree protection and retention
• Public Art
Neighborhood compatibility and building design: Avoiding negative impacts and improving the surroundings: • Glare
• Noise
• Shade
• Utility Undergrounding • High-quality architecture
• Support for historic resources
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-37
TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Measure Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
80% below 1990 emissions by 2030
(S/CAP goal) At least every 2 years
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) per Capita 5% decrease per year At least every 2 years
Percent of Commute Trips
to Employment Centers by
Single Occupant Vehicle
(SOV)
50% trips by SOV, based on employee
survey responses Annually
Number of Commute Trips
to Employment Centers
40% below ITE standards for
Downtown and 30% below ITE
standards for SRP.
Annually
Corridor Travel Times
Typical PM peak hour travel time along
2 major north-south corridors and 2
major east-west corridors
At least every 2 years
Commercial District
Parking Overflow into
Neighborhoods
Non-resident parking on sampled
residential neighborhood streets Annually
Air Pollutant Levels
Maximum 24-hour concentrations of
criteria pollutants identified by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District,
as reported at the monitoring stations
closest to Palo Alto
Annually
Groundwater
Contamination
Acres of City underlain by shallow
groundwater contamination Every 4 years
Jobs/Housing Balance
(Expressed as a Ratio of
Jobs to Employed
Residents)
Ratio of jobs to employed residents Every 4 years
Housing Cost Burden
Percentage of owners and renters
paying more than 50% of household
income for housing
Every 4 years
Affordability of Housing
Stock
Number of housing units affordable to
moderate-income, low-income, and
very-low-income households
Every 4 years
Economic Diversity
Percentage of households at various
household income levels [see Fig. 2-3
in adopted 2015 HE]
Every 4 years
Below Market Rate (BMR)
Units Number of units Every 4 years
Progress toward Housing
Element goals
Annual Report to State Housing and
Community Development Department Annually
Existing Resident
Displacement Number of existing units demolished Every 4 years
Comment [PW1]: M Note: has been slightly re-
ordered per CAC direction to group like topics.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-38 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Measure Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Unoccupied Homes Number of homes vacant/unoccupied
for longer than 3 months per year Annually
Age Diversity Percentage of population in various age
cohorts Every 4 years
PAUSD Class Size Class size Annually
PAUSD Satisfaction with
Schools
Satisfaction ratings as reported by
Strategic Plan Survey Annually
Park Acreage per Capita Ratio of district and neighborhood
parks per 1,000 population Every 4 years
Urban Tree Canopy Canopy cover – percent of city covered
by trees Every 4 years
Biodiversity Species counted in spring and fall bird
counts Biannually
Infrastructure or Acres
Affected by Sea Level Rise
Number of key facilities, major
infrastructure, and/or acres of land
within the City limits directly affected by
sea level rise
Every 4 years
Wastewater Reuse Percent of wastewater recycled Every 4 years
Impermeable Surfaces and
Stormwater Infiltration in
Urbanized Area
(Need to determine how this can be
measured) Every 4 years
Policy L-1.18 (community indicators) The city will monitor key community
indicators on a regular basis to determine whether the policies of this
plan and the efforts of the Palo Alto residents and businesses are
effective at promoting livability by using community indicators.
Suggested indicators and monitoring frequency are listed in Table L-2
related to greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, commute
trips by single occupant vehicle, jobs/housing balance, and
community diversity. Collect the data on the community indicators in
a transparent manner, and publish the results in a clear, user-friendly,
easy-to-understand document. [NEW POLICY] [L41]
Program L1.18.1 Develop community indicators for topics such as
greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, jobs,
housing, schools, parks, the tree canopy, the natural
environment and diversity as shown in Table L-2.
Create a list of community indicators and a
Comme
Note: has been
slightly
re-
ordered
per CAC direction
to group
like
topics.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-39
schedule for monitoring these indicators. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L42]
Program L1.18.2 Based on monitoring the community indicators
data over time, periodically consider whether to
retain, revise downward or upward, or eliminate the
annual limits on growth, the growth caps in
individual areas, and/or the Citywide cumulative
growth caps in this Land Use and Community
Design Element. [NEW PROGRAM] [L43]
Option 3: Use community indicators along with a cumulative cap, annual limit,
and downtown cap, but do not use development requirements.
GOAL L-2 An enhanced sense of “community” with development
designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and
embrace the principles of sustainability.
Policy L-2.1 Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers,
and Employment Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the
region’s transit and street system. [Previous Policy L-10] [L44]
Policy L-2.2 Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and
the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable
and bikable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that
caters to the daily needs of residents. [Previous Policy L-11] [L45]
Program L2.2.1 Explore whether there are appropriate locations to
allow small-scale neighborhood-serving retail
facilities such as coffee shops and corner stores in
residential areas. [(Previous Policy L-16) (Converted
to Program)] [L46]
Policy L-2.3 As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and
encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, designed for greater
affordability, particularly smaller units and senior housing. [NEW
POLICY] [L47]
Policy L-2.4 Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. [Previous Program L 20] [NEW
POLICY] [L48]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-40 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-2.5 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate
greenery and natural features through the use of features such as
green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas, and rain gardens.[(NEW POLICY)
(Combined with Previous Program C26)] [L49]
DISTINCT NEIGHBORHOODS
GOAL L-3 Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its
own distinct character and within walking distance of
shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering
places.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures. [(Previous Policy L-12) (Comp
Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1)] [L50]
Policy L-3.2 Preserve residential uses from conversion to office or short-term
rentals. [NEW POLICY] [L51]
Program L3.2.1 Evaluate and implement strategies to prevent
conversion of residential and neighborhood-serving
retail space to office or short-term vacation rentals.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L52]
Policy L-3.3 Support efforts to retain and encourage housing units that are more
affordable, such as cottages, other small homes, and rental housing
units in existing neighborhoods. [NEW POLICY] [L53]
Program L3.3.1 Review development standards to discourage the
loss of housing units, and the replacement of rental
housing units with ownership housing units. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L54]
Policy L-3.4 Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower
income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as
feasible. [NEW POLICY] [L55]
Program L3.4.1 Collaborate with PAUSD in exploring opportunities
to build housing that is affordable to school district
employees. [NEW PROGRAM] [L56]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-41
Policy L-3.5 When considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize
displacement of existing residents. [NEW POLICY] [L57]
Program L3.5.1 Conduct a study to evaluate various possible tools
for preventing displacement of existing residents.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L58]
Program L3.5.2 Develop and implement a system to inventory the
characteristics of existing housing units and track
changes in those characteristics on a regular basis.
Make the information publicly available. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L59]
MIX OF HOUSING TYPES
In appropriate locations, encourage a mix of smaller housing types
such as studios, co-housing, cottage, clustered housing and secondary
dwelling units, to provide a more diverse range of housing
opportunities and preserve existing housing units of these types.
[(Previous Policy L-13) (Note: Program H3.3.5 of the adopted Housing
Element is to explore modifications to development standards to
further encourage second unit development.)] [L60]
Policy L-3.6 Recognize the contribution of cottage cluster housing to the character
of Palo Alto and retain and encourage this type of development. [NEW
POLICY] [L61]
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
Policy L-3.7 Ensure that new multifamily buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are
designed and arranged so that each development has a clear
relationship to a public street. [Previous Policy L-14] [L62]
Policy L-3.8 Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family
homes on adjacent properties public resources and the natural
environment. [NEW POLICY] [L63]
Program L3.8.1 Develop a program to assess and manage both the
positive and negative impacts of basement
construction in single family homes on the
community and the environment, including:
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-42 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Land use issues. Evaluate the City’s policy of
excluding basements from the gross floor area
and maximum floor area ratio limits in the
zoning ordinance. Consider zoning revisions,
including greater setbacks, to limit basement
size and increase basement setbacks from
adjacent properties.
Impacts to the natural environment, such as
potential impacts to the tree canopy,
groundwater supply or quality, and soil
compaction.
Safety issues such as increased surface
flooding, increased groundwater intrusion with
sea level rise, emergency access and egress, or
sewage backflows. [NEW PROGRAM] [L64]
COMMERCIAL CENTERS
GOAL L-4 Inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail
and commercial services and provide focal points and
community gathering places for the city’s residential
neighborhoods and employment districts.
COMMERCIAL CENTERS AND MIXED USE AREAS
Policy L-4.1 Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a
manner that is compatible with the character of surrounding
neighborhoods, without loss of retail and existing small, local
businesses. [Previous Policy L-18] [L65]
Policy L-4.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of formula retail limits adopted for California
Avenue and consider whether these limits should be applied in other
Centers. Develop incentives for local small businesses where
warranted. [NEW PROGRAM] [L66]Use coordinated area plans to
guide development in areas of Palo Alto where significant change is
foreseeable. Address both land use and transportation, define the
desired character and urban design traits of the areas, identify
opportunities for public open space, parks and recreational
opportunities, and address connectivity to and compatibility with
adjacent residential areas; include broad community involvement in
the planning process. [NEW POLICY] [L67]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-43
Program L4.2.1 Prepare a coordinated area plan for the South El
Camino corridor from Curtner Avenue to West
Charleston Road, as shown in the diagram below.
The plan should articulate a vision for the corridor
as a well-designed complete street with an
enhanced pedestrian environment including wider
sidewalks, increased building setbacks, public open
spaces, safe pedestrian crossings at key
intersections, trees and streetscape improvements.
Mixed use residential and retail development on
shallow parcels should be encouraged to support a
more walkable and bikable environment along the
corridor, with appropriate transitions to the
surrounding single-family neighborhoods. The plan
should also foster improved connections to
surrounding destinations. [NEW PROGRAM] [L68]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-44 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Program L4.2.2 Prepare a coordinated area plan for the Fry's site
and surrounding California Avenue area. The plan
should describe a vision for the future of the Fry's
site as a walkable neighborhood with multi‐family
housing, ground floor retail, a public park, creek
improvements, and an interconnected street grid.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L69]
Policy L-4.3 Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all
Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the
pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and
landscaping. [Previous Policy L-20] [L70]
Policy L-4.4 Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide
centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and
encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such
as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. [Previous
Policy L-21] [L71]
Program L4.4.1 Study the feasibility of using public and private
funds to provide and maintain landscaping and
public spaces such as parks, plazas, sidewalks and
public art within commercial areas. [Previous
Program L-16] [L72]
Program L4.4.2 Through public/private cooperation, provide well-
signed, clean, and accessible restrooms. [Previous
Program L-17] [L73]
Program L4.4.3 Collaborate with merchants to enhance the
appearance of streets and sidewalks within all
Centers. Encourage the formation of business
improvement districts and undertake a proactive
program of maintenance, repair, landscaping and
enhancement.[Previous Policy L-22] [L74]
Program L4.4.4 Identify priority street improvements that could
make a substantial contribution to the character of
Centers, such as widening sidewalks, narrowing
travel lanes, creating medians, restriping to allow
diagonal parking, and planting trees. [Previous
Program L-18] [L75]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-45
REGIONAL CENTERS
University Avenue/Downtown
Policy L-4.5 Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major
commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural,
recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that
recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and
reinforces its pedestrian character. [ (Previous Policy L-23) (Comp
Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1)] [L76]
Policy L-4.6 Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and
supports bicycle use. Use public art, trees, bicycle racks and other
amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians and
bicyclists. [Previous Policy L-24] [L77]
Program L4.6.1 Pursue redevelopment of pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit connections to and from between the
University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station area,
University Avenue/Downtown, and the Stanford
Shopping Center. [Previous Policy L-27] [L78]
Program L4.6.2 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown,
encompassing the University Avenue Multi-modal
Transit Station Area. [Previous Program L-25][L79]
Stanford Shopping Center
Policy L-4.7 Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere
regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and
encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill,
potentially including housing and mixed use development on existing
surface parking lots, while continuing to supply adequate parking.
[Previous Policy L-26] [L80]
Program L4.7.1 While preserving adequate parking to meet
demand, identify strategies to reuse surface parking
lots. [(Previous Program L-23)(Merged with
Previous Policy L-27)] [L81]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-46 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
MULTI-NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
California Avenue
Policy L-4.8 Maintain the existing scale, character, and function of the California
Avenue business district as a shopping, service, and office center
intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the
smaller neighborhood business areas. [Previous Policy L-28] [L82]
Program L4.8.1 Create a Coordinated Area Plan for the California
Avenue area to guide its development as a well-
designed mixed use district with diverse land uses
and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets
providing links to California Avenue. [(Previous
Policy L-31) (Converted to Program)] [L83]
Program L4.8.2 Create regulations for the California Avenue area
that encourage the retention of smaller buildings to
provide spaces for existing retail, particularly local,
small businesses, including to allow for their
replacement or rehabilitation. [Previous Program
L-27] [L84]
Policy L-4.9 Improve the transition between the California-Cambridge area and the
single family residential neighborhood of Evergreen Park. Avoid abrupt
changes in scale and density between the two areas. [Previous Policy
L-30] [L85]
South El Camino Real
Policy L-4.10 Enhance the pedestrian environment along South El Camino Real,
redesigning the street to provide wider sidewalks, increased building
setbacks, safe pedestrian crossings at key intersections, trees, and
streetscape improvements, consistent with the recommendations in
the Grand Boulevard Design Guidelines. [(Previous Program L-33)
(Converted to Policy) (Consistent with Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation
Measure AES-1)] [L86]
Program L4.10.1 Provide better east-west connections across El
Camino Real to bring neighborhoods together and
to improve linkages to local schools and parks.
[Previous Program L-34] [L87]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-47
Town and Country Village
Policy L-4.11 Recognize and preserve Town and Country Village as an attractive
retail center serving Palo Altans and residents of the wider region.
Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities,
pedestrian scale, and architectural character while also improving safe
access for bicyclists and pedestrians and increasing the amount of
bicycle parking. [Previous Policy L-32] [L88]
Policy L-4.12 In Town and Country Village, encourage a vibrant retail environment
and urban greening. [Previous Policy L-33] [L89]
Policy L-4.13 In Town and Country Village, encourage improvement of
pedestrian, bicycle, and auto circulation and landscaping
improvements, including maintenance of existing oak trees and
planting additional trees. [Previous Policy L-34] [L90]
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
Policy L-4.14 Improve the local-serving focus, and provide safe pedestrian, bicycle,
and multimodal access to all three Palo Alto Neighborhood Centers –
Charleston Shopping Center, Edgewood Plaza, and Midtown Shopping
Center. Support their continued improvement and vitality. [Previous
Policy L-37] [L91]
Policy L-4.15 Encourage maximum use of Neighborhood Centers by ensuring that
the publicly maintained areas are clean, well-lit, and attractively
landscaped. [Previous Policy L-38] [L92]
Policy L-4.16 Maintain Midtown Shopping Center as an attractive, compact
Neighborhood Center with diverse local-serving uses, a mix of one-
and two-story buildings, adequate parking, and a network of
pedestrian-oriented streets, ways and gathering places. Encourage
retention of Midtown’s grocery store and encourage a variety of
neighborhood retail shops and services. [Previous Policy L-40] [L93]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-48 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
GOAL L-5 High quality employment districts, each with their own
distinctive character and each contributing to the character
of the city as a whole.
Policy L-5.1 Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that facilitates
transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. Provide mixed uses to reduce the
number of auto trips. [Previous Policy L-42] [L94]
Policy L-5.2 Provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and
connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment
Districts. Pursue opportunities to include sidewalks, paths, low water
use landscaping, reclaimed water, and trees and remove grass turf in
renovation and expansion projects. [Previous Policy L-43] [L95]
Policy L-5.3 Design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and
consistent with the character of the area where they are located.
[(Previous Program L-44) (Converted to Policy)] [L96]
Policy L-5.4 Foster compact employment centers served by a variety of
transportation modes. [Previous Policy L-44] [L97]
Program L5.4.1 Create and apply zoning standards and design
guidelines for commercial hotels, conference
centers, and possible residential or mixed-use
projects in Stanford Research Park, particularly near
El Camino Real. [Previous Program L-45] [L98]
Program L5.4.2 Evaluate the optimum number of future hotel
rooms for Palo Alto and consider reductions in the
allowable floor area ratio as appropriate. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L99]
Policy L-5.5 Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor
areas as diverse business and light industrial districts, consistent with
the approved East Meadow Circle Concept Plan (Appendix Y of this
Comprehensive Plan). [Previous Policy L-46] [L100]
Policy L-5.6 Implement the 2012 East Meadow Circle Concept Plan (Appendix Y of
this Comprehensive Plan) when approving new development or other
improvements within the Plan area. [NEW PROGRAM] [L101]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-49
GOAL L-6 Well-designed buildings that create coherent development
patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces.
DESIGN OF BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC SPACE
Policy L-6.1 Promote high quality design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces. [(Comp Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure AES-1) (Previous Policy L-48)] [L102]
Program L6.1.1 Promote awards programs and other forms of
public recognition for projects of architectural merit
that contribute positively to the community.
[Previous Program L-53] [L103]
Policy L-6.2 Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design
guidelines, and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality
residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility.
[Previous Program L-48] [L104]
Policy L-6.3 Require bird-friendly design. [NEW POLICY] [L105]
Program L6.3.1 Develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design
that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the
potential for collisions. [NEW PROGRAM] [L106]
Policy L-6.4 In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character,
encourage the design of new development to maintain and support
the existing character. [Note: This is labeled as a program in the
existing Comp Plan but should more accurately be a policy since it is
an ongoing statement to guide design.] [(Previous Program L-49)
(Converted to Policy) (Comp Plan Draft EIR as Mitigation Measure
AES-1.)] [L107]
Policy L-6.5 Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills
from public streets in the developed portions of the City.[Previous
Policy L-3] [L108]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-50 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to
promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to
enhance a sense of community safety. [Previous Policy L-49] [L109]
Program L6.6.1 Ensure that the zoning ordinance encourages an
ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays
and balconies along public ways where it is
consistent with neighborhood character; avoid
blank or solid walls at street level; and include
human-scale details and massing. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L110]
Policy L-6.7 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 1-7 “approval” votes) Maintain the
current 50-foot height limit on building heights in Palo Alto. [NEW
POLICY] [L111]
Policy L-6.8 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 2-4 “approval” votes) Maintain a 50-
foot height limit on building heights in Palo Alto, but allow heights up
to a maximum of 55 feet for residential and retail mixed use projects
to allow flexibility in floor to ceiling heights and enhance the livability
in multi-family residential units. [NEW POLICY] [L112]
Policy L-6.9 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 3-7 “approval” votes) Building height
limits up to a maximum of 65 feet may be considered for areas well-
served by transit, services and retail as a way to facilitate a mix of
multifamily housing, including affordable units, units targeted to
seniors and other special needs populations, and micro-units designed
to accommodate younger members of the workforce. [NEW POLICY]
[L113]
Program L6.9.1 Revise the Zoning ordinance to establish criteria
and conditions that must be met in order to allow
building heights up to 65 feet. Criteria shall address
affordability of the residential units; compatibility
with surrounding land uses; sensitivity to context;
proximity to transit, services and retail; and
mitigation or avoidance of adverse impacts on
traffic and parking conditions. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L114]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-51
Policy L-6.10 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 4-10 “approval” votes) Building height
limits over 50 feet may be considered for areas well-served by transit,
services and retail as a way to facilitate a mix of multi-family housing,
including affordable units, units targeted to seniors and other special
needs populations, and micro-units designed to accommodate
younger members of the workforce. [NEW POLICY] [L115]
Program L6.10.1 Revise the Zoning Ordinance to establish criteria
and conditions that must be met in order to allow
building heights higher than 50 feet. Criteria shall
address affordability of the residential units;
compatibility with surrounding land uses; sensitivity
to context; proximity to transit, services and retail;
and mitigation or avoidance of adverse impacts on
traffic and parking conditions. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L116]
Policy L-6.11 Promote gradual transitions in the scale of development where
residential districts abut more intense uses in order to minimize
negative impacts where land use transitions occur. Avoid abrupt
changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential
areas and between residential areas of different densities. [Previous
Policy L-6] [L117]
Program L6.11.1 Implement architectural standards to assure they
effectively address land use transitions. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L118]
Policy L-6.12 Support existing regulations that preserve exposure to natural light for
single-family residences. [NEW POLICY] [L119]Create opportunities for
new mixed use development consisting of housing and retail.
[Previous Policy L-9] [L120]
Program L6.12.1 Update the municipal code to include zoning
changes that allow a mix of retail and residential
uses but no office uses. The intent of these changes
would be to encourage a mix of land uses that
contributes to the vitality and walkability of
commercial centers and transit corridors. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L121]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-52 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Program L6.12.2 Modify design standards for mixed use projects to
promote a pedestrian-friendly relationship to the
street, including elements such as screened
parking or underground parking, street-facing
windows and entries, and landscaping, and trees
along the street. [Previous Program L-10] [L122]
Program L6.12.3 Consider revising development standards in the
Community Commercial, Service Commercial, and
Downtown Commercial Districts (CC, CS, and CD)
and the Neighborhood Commercial District (CN)
along El Camino Real to incentivize the conversion
of non-retail commercial FAR to residential use.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L123]
Program L6.12.4 Update the zoning code to preserve ground-floor
retail and limit the displacement of existing retail
from neighborhood centers. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L124]
Policy L-6.13 Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view of the front of
houses from the street. [(Previous Program L-52)(Converted to
Policy)] [L125]
Policy L-6.14 Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy-efficient,
appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic
needs. [Previous Policy L-50] [L126]
GOAL L-7 Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s
historic buildings, sites, and districts.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Policy L-7.1 Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources
that have historic merit, including residences listed in the City’s
Historic Resource Inventory, the California Register of Historical
Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places. [Previous Policy
L-51] [L127]
Program L7.1.1 Update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource
Inventory to determine all historic resources that
are eligible for the California Register as well as
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-53
important examples of California history or
prehistory. Historic resources may consist of a
single building or structure or a district. [(Previous
Program L-54)( Draft EIR Mitigation Measure CULT-
1b)] [L128]
Program L7.1.2 Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to
ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and
preservation of historic resources, particularly in the
University Avenue/Downtown area. [Previous
Program L-55] [L129]
Policy L-7.2 If a proposed development would affect a potential historic resource
that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory, consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in the
City’s Inventory prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations
permit. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure
CULT-1b)] [L130]
Policy L-7.3 Actively seek state and federal funding for the preservation of
buildings of historical merit and consider public/private partnerships
for capital and program improvements. [Previous Policy L-53] [L131]
Policy L-7.4 Relocation may be considered as a preservation strategy when
consistent with State and National Standards regarding the relocation
of historic resources. [Previous Policy L-55] [L132]
Policy L-7.5 To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown,
promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. [Previous
Policy L-56] [L133]
Policy L-7.6 Promote awards programs and other forms of public recognition for
exemplary Historic Preservation projects. [(Previous Program L-
62)(Converted to Policy)] [L134]
Policy L-7.7 Streamline, to the maximum extent feasible, any future processes for
design review of historic structures to eliminate unnecessary delay and
uncertainty for the applicant and to encourage historic preservation.
[(Previous Program L-63) (Converted to Policy)] [L135]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-54 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
REHABILITATION AND REUSE
Policy L-7.8 Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings. [Previous Policy L-58] [L136]
Program L7.8.1 Develop incentives for the retention and
rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit in all
zones and revise existing zoning and permit
regulations as needed to minimize constraints to
adaptive reuse, particularly in retail areas [(Previous
Policy L-57) (Converted to Program)] [L137]
Program L7.8.2 Create incentives to encourage salvage and reuse of
discarded historic building materials. [Previous
Program L-57] [L138]
Program L7.8.3 For proposed exterior alterations or additions to
designated Historic Landmarks, require design
review findings that the proposed changes are in
compliance with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Rehabilitation. [Previous Program L-
58] [L139]
Policy L-7.9 Allow compatible nonconforming uses for the life of historic buildings.
[(Previous Program L-61) (Converted to Policy)] [L140]
Policy L-7.10 Ensure the preservation of significant historic resources owned by the
City of Palo Alto. Allow such resources to be altered to meet
contemporary needs consistent with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Rehabilitation. [Previous Policy L-52] [L141]
Policy L-7.11 Maintain the historic integrity of building exteriors. Consider parking
exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation..
[(Previous Program L-59)(Converted to Policy)] [L142]
Program L7.11.1 Review parking exceptions for historic buildings in
the Zoning Code to determine if there is an
effective balance between historic preservation and
meeting parking needs [NEW PROGRAM] [L143]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-55
Policy L-7.12 Encourage and assist owners of historically significant buildings in
finding ways to adapt and rehabilitate these buildings, including
participation in state and federal tax relief programs.[(Previous
Program L-64) (Converted to Policy)] [L144]
Program L7.12.1 Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the
transfer of development rights from designated
buildings of historic significance in the Commercial
Downtown (CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites
in the CD zone. Revise the TDR Ordinance so that
transferred development rights may be used only
for residential development on the receiver sites.
[Previous Program L-60] [L145]
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Policy L-7.13 Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land
formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats, and
remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the
nineteenth century. [(Previous Policy L-60)(Comp Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure CULT-1c)] [L146]
Policy L-7.14 Continue to consult with tribes as required by California Government
Code Section 65352.3. In doing so, use appropriate procedures to
accommodate tribal concerns when a tribe has a religious prohibition
against revealing precise information about the location or previous
practice at a particular sacred site. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft
EIR Mitigation Measure CULT-3)] [L147]
Policy L-7.15 Assess the need for archaeological surveys and mitigation plans on a
project-by-project basis, consistent with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. [Note: the
referenced figure will likely be removed from the Comp Plan to
protect the integrity of known and undiscovered archaeological
resources.] [(Previous Program L-67) (Converted to Policy)] [L148]
Policy L-7.16 Ensure that developers understand their obligation to meet state
codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and
paleontological deposits. [NEW POLICY] [L149]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-56 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
GOAL L-8 Attractive and safe civic and cultural facilities provided in all
neighborhoods and maintained and used in ways that foster
and enrich public life.
Policy L-8.1 Facilitate creation of new parkland to serve Palo Alto's residential
neighborhoods, as consistent with the Parks, Trails, Open Space and
Recreation Master Plan. [NEW POLICY] [L150]
Program L8.1.1 Encourage dedication of new land for parks
through regulations and incentives for new
development and programs to solicit bequests of
land within the city. [NEW PROGRAM] [L151]
Program L8.1.2 Pursue opportunities to create linear parks over the
Caltrain tracks in the event the tracks are moved
below grade. [NEW PROGRAM] [L152]
Program L8.1.3 Explore ways to dedicate a portion of in-lieu fees
towards acquisition of parkland, not just
improvements. [NEW PROGRAM] [L153]
Program L8.1.4 Explore opportunities to dedicate City‐owned land
as parkland to protect and preserve its community
serving purpose into the future. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L154]
Policy L-8.2 Encourage use of data driven, innovative design methods tactics and
use data to understand to evaluate how different community
members use public space. [NEW POLICY] [L155]
Policy L-8.3 Provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art
adjacent to library and community center entrances. [Previous Policy
L-62] [L156]
Policy L-8.4 Encourage small-scale local-serving retail services, such as small cafes,
delicatessens, and coffee carts, in civic centers: Mitchell Park,
Rinconada Library, and Cubberly Community Center. [Previous Policy
L-63] [L157]
Policy L-8.5 Create facilities for civic and intellectual life, such as better urban
public spaces for civic programs and speakers, cultural, musical and
artistic events. [NEW POLICY] [L158]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-57
Policy L-8.6 Recognize public art and cultural facilities as a community benefit.
Encourage the development of new and the enhancement of existing
public and private art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto.
Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and
identity of the surrounding neighborhood. [Previous Policy L-72]
[L159]
Policy L-8.7 Seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces,
open space, and community gardens. [Previous Policy L-64] [L160]
Policy L-8.8 Encourage religious and private institutions to collaborate with the
community and the surrounding neighborhood. [Previous Policy L-65]
[L161]
GOAL L-9 Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance
the image and character of the city.
STREETS AND PARKING
Policy L-9.1 Recognize Sand Hill Road, University Avenue between Middlefield
Road and San Francisquito Creek, Embarcadero Road, Page Mill Road,
Oregon Expressway, Interstate 280, Arastradero Road (west of Foothill
Expressway), Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway, and
Skyline Boulevard as scenic routes and preserve their scenic qualities.
[(Previous Policy L-69) (Previous Program L-71)] [L162]
Program L9.1.1 Evaluate existing zoning code setback requirements
to ensure they are appropriate for scenic routes.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L163]
Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the
project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground
wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas.
Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the
amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets,
street trees, a vibrant local economy, and sufficient parking to meet
demand. [Previous Policy L-78] [L164]
Policy L-9.3 Require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and
bicycle safety. [NEW POLICY] [L165]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-58 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-9.4 Enhance tree health and the appearance of streets and other public
spaces through regular maintenance as well as tree and landscape
planting and care of the existing canopy.. [Previous Policy L-70] [L166]
Program L9.4.1 Continue to use the El Camino Real Design
Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance to enhance
the visual character of this corridor by addressing
appropriate sidewalk widths and encouraging
building forms, massing, and setbacks that relate to
the street and the pedestrian, whether through
traditional architectural forms or innovative new
designs. Consider whether sidewalk widths and
building setback should also be addressed along
other major thoroughfares such as Alma Street and
Charleston Road. [(NEW PROGRAM) (Comp Plan
Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1)] [L167]
Program L9.4.2 Involve tree owners in tree maintenance programs.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L168]
PUBLIC SPACES
Policy L-9.5 Maintain and enhance existing public gathering places and open
spaces and integrate new public spaces at a variety of scales. [NEW
POLICY] [L169]
[Note: This Section Moved From Goal L-3 Residential Design]
Policy L-9.6 Create, preserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible, shared
outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of
residential neighborhoods.[Previous Policy L-15] [L170]
Program L9.6.1 Analyze existing neighborhoods and determine
where publicly accessible shared, outdoor gathering
spaces are below the citywide average. Create new
public spaces, including public squares, parks and
informal gathering spaces in these neighborhoods.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L171]
Policy L-9.7 Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood
amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy trees,
benches, and other amenities that promote walking and “active”
transportation. [Previous Policy L-17] [L172]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-59
Program L9.7.1 Review standards for streets and signage and
update as needed to foster natural, tree-lined
streets with a minimum of signage. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L173]
GATEWAYS
Policy L-9.8 Strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways,
including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real
and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to commercial
districts; Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real, and between Palo Alto
and Stanford.[Previous Policy L-71] [L174]
Program L9.8.1 Develop a strategy to enhance gateway sites with
special landscaping, art, public spaces, and/or
public buildings. Emphasize the creek bridges and
riparian settings at the entrances to the City over
Adobe Creek and San Francisquito Creek. [Previous
Program L-72] [L175]
URBAN FOREST
Policy L-9.9 Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan, as periodically
amended, into the Comprehensive Plan by reference in order to
assure that new land uses recognize the many benefits of trees in the
urban context and foster a healthy and robust tree canopy throughout
the City. [NEW POLICY] [L176]
Program L9.9.1 Establish incentives to encourage native trees, and
low water use plantings in new development
throughout the city. [NEW PROGRAM] [L177]
Program L9.9.2 Update City requirements regarding trees and other
landscaping that capture and filter stormwater
within surface parking lots to take advantage of new
technology. [(Previous Policy L-76) (Converted to
Program)] [L178]
Policy L-9.10 Involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development
review. [NEW POLICY] [L179]
Photo by Scott Haefner—Courtesy of Canopy
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-60 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-9.11 Recognize the urban forest as City infrastructure to be maintained in
accordance with applicable guidelines and requirements. [NEW
POLICY] [L180]
UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Policy L-9.12 Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures,
parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design
standards and embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities
to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or
mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or
visually disruptive. [Previous Policy L-79] [L181]
Program L9.12.1 Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility
wires. Minimize the impacts of undergrounding on
street tree root systems and planting areas.
[Previous Program L-80] [L182]
Program L9.12.2 Encourage the use of compact and well-designed
utility elements, such as transformers, switching
devices, backflow preventers, and
telecommunications infrastructure. Place these
elements in locations that will minimize their visual
intrusion. [Previous Program L-81] [L183]
Policy L-9.13 Provide utilities and service systems to serve all urbanized areas of
Palo Alto and plan infrastructure maintenance and improvements to
adequately serve existing and planned development. [(NEW POLICY)
(PTC Policy L2.9, edited)] [L184]
Program L9.13.1 Develop an Infrastructure Master Plan that projects
the future needs of streets, underground utilities,
and all City assets and plans for the incorporation
of new technology that improves efficiency and
effectiveness. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC Program
L2.9.1)] [L185]
Program L9.13.2 Implement the findings of the City’s Infrastructure
Blue Ribbon Committee and its emphasis for
rebuilding our civic spaces. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC
Program L2.9.8)] [L186]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-61
Program L9.13.3 Identify City-owned properties where combinations
of wireless facilities can be co-located, assuming
appropriate lease agreements are in place. [(NEW
PROGRAM)(PTC Program L2.9.5)] [L187]
BAYLANDS
Policy L-9.14 Regulate land uses in the Airport Influence Area to ensure consistency
with the Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the
Baylands Master Plan. [NEW POLICY] [L188]
Policy L-9.15 Palo Alto is committed to preservation of the Baylands as called for in
the Baylands Master Plan, which is incorporated here by reference.
[NEW POLICY] [L189]
GOAL L-10 Maintain an economically viable local airport with minimal
environmental impacts.
PALO ALTO AIRPORT
Policy L-10.1 Operate Palo Alto Airport (PAO) as a vital and efficient facility at its
current level of operation without intruding into open space areas.
PAO should remain limited to a single runway and minor expansion
shall only be allowed in order to meet federal and State airport design
and safety standards. [(Previous Policy T-57)] [L190]
Program L10.1.1 Relocate the terminal building away from the
Runway 31 clear zone and closer to the hangars,
allowing for construction of a replacement terminal.
[(Previous Program T-58)] [L191]
Program L10.1.2 Update the Airport Layout Plan in accordance with
Federal Aviation Administration requirements, as
needed, while ensuring conformance with the
Baylands Master Plan to the maximum extent
feasible. [NEW PROGRAM] [L192]
Program L10.1.3 Identify and pursue funding to address
maintenance, safety and security improvements
needed at PAO. [NEW PROGRAM] [L193]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-62 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-10.2 Minimize the environmental impacts associated with PAO operations,
including adverse effects on the character of surrounding open space,
noise levels, and the quality of life in residential areas, as required by
federal and State requirements. [NEW POLICY] [L194]
Program L10.2.1 Establish and implement a system for processing,
tracking and reporting noise complaints regarding
local airport operations on an annual basis,. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L195]
Program L10.2.2 Work with the airport to pursue opportunities to
enhance the open space and habitat value of the
airport. These include:
maintaining native grasses;
reconstructing levees to protect the airport
from sea level rise while enhancing public
access and habitat conservation; and
evaluating the introduction of burrowing owl
habitat. This program is subject to federal
wildlife hazard requirements and guidelines
for airports. [NEW PROGRAM] [L196]
Policy L-10.3 Provide public access to the Airport for bicyclists and pedestrians.
[NEW POLICY] [L197]
Program L10.3.1 Continue to provide a bicycle/pedestrian path
adjacent to Embarcadero Road, consistent with the
Baylands Master Plan and open space character of
the baylands subject to airport federal and State
regulations. [(Previous Program T-57)] [L198]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-63
Policy L-10.4 Address the potential impacts of future sea level rise through
reconstruction of the Bayfront levee in a manner that provides
protection for the Airport and greater habitat along the San Francisco
Bay frontage. [NEW POLICY] [L199]
Policy L-10.5 Encourage the use of alternatives to leaded fuel in aircraft operating in
and out of Palo Alto Airport. [NEW POLICY] [L200]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-64 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
LAND USE AND
COMMUNITY DESIGN
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-1
3
This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the
CAC and members of the public received from December 2015 through July 2016. The
Element will be reviewed by the full CAC ion August and September16, 2016 and
presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council in September the fall of 2016.
INTRODUCTION
The Land Use and Community Design Element sets the foundation for future
preservation, growth, and change in Palo Alto and serves as the blueprint for the
development of public and private property in the city. It includes policies and
programs intended to balance natural resources with future community needs in a
way that makes optimal use of available land, to create attractive buildings and
public spaces that reinforce Palo Alto’s sense of place and community, to preserve
and enhance quality of life and services in Palo Alto neighborhoods and districts, and
to maintain Palo Alto's role in the success of the surrounding region.
This Element meets the State-mandated requirements for a Land Use Element. It
defines categories for the location and type of public and privates uses of land under
the City's jurisdiction; it recommends standards for population density and building
intensity on land covered by the Comprehensive Plan; and it includes a Land Use
Map (Map L-6) and Goals, Policies, and Programs to guide land use distribution in
the city. By satisfying these requirements, the Land Use and Community Design
Element lays out the basic guidelines and standards upon which all of the other
Comprehensive Plan elements rely and build. Other elements of the Plan
correspond with the land use categories and policy direction contained in this
Element, while providing more specialized guidance focused on particular topics,
such as transportation or conservation.
VISION: Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance our future growth needs
with the preservation of our neighborhoods, address climate protection priorities
through sustainable development near neighborhood services, and enhance
the quality of life of all neighborhoods.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-2 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
CONNECTIONS TO OTHER ELEMENTS
The Land Use and Community Design Element is replete with direct connections to
all of the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Its guidance for land uses is
strongly linked to the Housing Element’s prescriptions for residential development,
even though the Housing Element is cyclically updated on a separate State-
mandated timetable. The inextricable tie between land use and transportation is
clearly apparent both in this Element and the Transportation Element, as the co-
location of land uses significantly affects the ability of transit, walking, and biking to
replace vehicle travel, in addition to capitalizing on the presence of rail service in
Palo Alto. The success of programs in the Natural and Urban Environment and Safety
Element is largely dependent on land uses decisions that protect the environment as
well as people and property. The Land Use Element dovetails with both the quality
of life initiatives in the Community Services and Facilities Element, and the prosperity
objectives of the Business and Economics Element.
PLANNING CONTEXT
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
With a backdrop sweeping from forested hills to the Bay, Palo Alto is framed by
natural beauty. Views of the foothills contribute a sense of enclosure and a reminder
of the close proximity of open space and nature. Views of the baylands provide a
strong connection to the marine environment and the East Bay hills. Together with
the city’s marshland, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and riparian corridors, these natural
resources, clearly visible in the aerial photograph in Map L-1, are a major defining
feature of Palo Alto’s character.
Preserving the city’s attractive and valuable natural features is important for a
number of reasons. Ecologically, these areas provide key habitat for wildlife, create a
buffer from developed areas, and act as a natural filtration system for storm water
runoff. For the community, they represent an important facet of the look and feel of
Palo Alto, contributing to a sense of place both through direct public access to
natural areas and the views that establish Palo Alto’s local scenic routes.
Foo
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Sunnyvale
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpressway
Em bar ca der o R oad
ElCa
mino
Real
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
§¨¦280
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
MA P L- 1
P A L O A L T O A E R I A L V I E W
P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NL A N D U S E
0 1 2 Miles
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; ESRI, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016.
Railroads
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
PALO
ALTO
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-4 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
REGIONAL PLANNING
Palo Alto cooperates with numerous regional partners on a range of issues of
common interest. Regional planning partners include the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and other State agencies, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, San Mateo County Transit District, Santa Clara County, San
Mateo County, and neighboring cities. The City of Palo Alto works together with the
cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park on a variety of shared programs relating to
economic development, social services, education, public safety, and housing.
Palo Alto also works with Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills on joint
ventures such as fire protection and water quality control. In addition, Palo Alto
elected officials and staff participate in numerous countywide and regional planning
efforts, including via both advisory and decision-making boards and commissions.
Palo Alto also maintains a strong relationship with Stanford University. Although the
campus lies outside of the city limits, as shown in Map L-2, important Stanford-
owned lands are within Palo Alto, including Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford
Research Park, and the Stanford University Medical Center. The City, Santa Clara
County, and Stanford maintain an inter-jurisdictional agreement regarding
development on unincorporated Stanford lands and collaborate on selected land use
and transportation projects.
CITY EVOLUTION
EARLY HISTORY
There is evidence in the archaeological record of people living along San
Francisquito Creek as far back as 4000 BC, and the first widely recognized inhabitants
are the Costanoan people starting in about 1500 BC. The Costanoan are Ohlone-
speaking Native Americans who lived near the water from San Francisco Bay to
Carmel. Costanoan and earlier artifacts have been identified in the city, particularly
along the banks of San Francisquito Creek. Preservation of these resources is a high
priority for the City and essential to defining the character of the community.
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Sunnyvale
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpressway
Emb a rc a dero Road
ElCaminoReal
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lou
i
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
§¨¦280
MA P L - 2
S P H E R E O F I N F L U E N C E , U R B A N S E R V I C E A R E A , A N D S T A N F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y L A N D S
P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NL A N D U S E
0 1 2 Miles
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; Stanford University, 2000; PlaceWorks, 2014.
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Stanford Academic Growth Boundary
Railroads
^_Potential Future School Site
Stanford University Land Use Designations
Academic Campus
Campus Residential - Low Density
Campus Residential - Moderate Density
Open Space and Field Research
Campus Open Space
Special Conservation
Lake/Reservoir
Urban Service Boundary
!Caltrain Stations
^_
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-6 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
CITY DEVELOPMENT
From its earliest days, Palo Alto has been a world-class center of knowledge and
innovation. The city incorporated in 1894 on land purchased with the specific intent
of serving the newly established Stanford University. Originally centered on
University Avenue, Palo Alto grew south and east, incorporating the older town of
Mayfield and its California Avenue district in 1925. By the 1970s, the city had almost
doubled in size, stretching into the foothills and south to Mountain View, with
commercial centers along Middlefield Road in Midtown and El Camino Real through
formerly unincorporated Barron Park, and research and development areas at the
city’s outskirts.
Today, Palo Alto covers almost 26 square miles (16,627 acres) of land, about a third
of which is open space, including 34 city-owned parks and 1,700 acres of protected
baylands. Ensuring that activities in and around the baylands, including airport
operations, occur with minimal environmental impacts is of major importance to the
City and region.
COMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Palo Alto was an early adopter of compact development principles, as embodied in
the Urban Service Area designated to manage growth in the current Comprehensive
Plan. Through this strategy, the City has endeavored to direct new development into
appropriate locations –— such as along transit corridors and near employment
centers— – while protecting and preserving neighborhoods as well as the open space
lands that comprise about half of the city.
SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE
Palo Alto is regarded as a leader in sustainability, having adopted its first Climate
Action Plan in 2007 and continuing through the City’s multi-faceted efforts to
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-7
eliminate the community’s dependence on fossil fuels and adapt to the potential
effects of climate change. Through the direct provision of public utility services by the
City to the community, Palo Alto is able to achieve truly outstanding energy efficiency
and water conservation. The City and community also are leaders in promoting non-
automobile transportation, waste reduction and diversion, and high-quality, low-
impact development.
Together, all of these efforts make Palo Alto a more resilient community, able to
adjust behaviors and actions in an effort to protect and preserve environmental
resources.
CITY STRUCTURE
COMPONENTS
The city is composed of unique neighborhoods and distinct but connected places.
Understanding how these different components of the city structure support one
another and connect to the region can help inform land use planning. By reflecting
the existing structure in its policies, Palo Alto will ensure that it remains a community
that encourages social contact and public life and also maintains quality urban
design.
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
Palo Alto’s 35 neighborhoods are characterized by housing, parks, and public
facilities. Their boundaries are based on land use and street patterns and community
perceptions. Most of the residential neighborhoods have land use classifications of
single-family residential with some also including multiple-family residential, and
transitions in scale and use often signify neighborhood boundaries.
Each neighborhood is a living reminder of the unique blend of architectural styles,
building materials, scale, and street patterns that were typical at the time of its
development. These characteristics are more intact in some neighborhoods than in
others. The City strives to complement neighborhood character when installing
streets or public space improvements and to preserve neighborhoods through
thoughtful development review to ensure that new construction, additions, and
remodels reflect neighborhood character.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-8 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Neighborhoods built prior to the mid-1940s generally have a traditional pattern of
development with relatively narrow streets, curbside parking, vertical curbs, and
street trees between the curb and sidewalk. Many homes are oriented to the street
with parking often located to the rear of the lot.
Many later neighborhoods were shaped by Modernist design ideas popularized by
builder Joseph Eichler. The houses are intentionally designed with austere facades
and oriented towards private backyards and interior courtyards, where expansive
glass walls “bring the outside in.” Curving streets and cul-de-sacs further the sense of
house as private enclave, and flattened curbs joined to the sidewalk with no planting
strip create an uninterrupted plane on which to display the house. Some
neighborhoods built during this period contain other home styles such as California
ranch.
Both traditional and modern Palo Alto neighborhoods have fine examples of multi-
unit housing that are very compatible with surrounding single-family homes,
primarily because of their high-quality design characteristics, such as entrances and
gardens that face the street rather than the interior of the development. Examples
include duplexes and small apartment buildings near Downtown, as well as second
units and cottage courts in other areas of the city.
DOWNTOWN
Downtown Palo Alto is widely recognized for its mix of culture, architecture, and
atmosphere of innovation, which make it a uniquely special place. Downtown plays
a key role in concentrating housing, employment, shopping, and entertainment near
each other and regional rail and other transit, exemplifying and supporting citywide
sustainability and resiliency.
CENTERS
Centers are commercial and mixed use areas that serve as focal points of community
life. These commercial centers are distributed throughout the city, within walking or
bicycling distance of virtually all Palo Alto residents, as shown in Map L-3. There are
three basic types of Centers in Palo Alto:
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
OregonExpresswayEmbarcaderoRoad
AlmaStreetElCaminoReal
Page MillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
Channing Avenue
Stanford
Lands
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
3
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
1
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2014.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
0 0.5 1 Miles
MA P L - 3
C I T Y S T R U C T U R E
!Caltrain Stations
Sphere of Influence
City Boundary
Railroads
Park/Open Space
Regional Centers
1. University Avenue/Downtown
2. Stanford Shopping Center
Commercial Districts
1. South of Forest Area (SOFA)
2. California Avenue
3. Alma Village
1. Stanford Research Park
2. Stanford Medical Center
3. East Bayshore
4. San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor
"Ø
Mixed Use Areas
Employment Centersl
³³lo×
Employment Districts
1. California Avenue
2. Town & Country Village
3. South El Camino Real
Multi-Neighborhood Centers"Ø
1. Charleston Center
2. Edgewood Plaza
3. Midtown
Neighborhood Centers"Ø
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-10 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-11
Regional Centers include University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford
Shopping Center. These areas are commercial activity hubs of citywide and
regional significance, with a mix of shopping, offices, and some housing.
Downtown is characterized by two- and three-story buildings with ground
floor shops. Trees, benches, outdoor seating areas, sidewalks, plazas, and
other amenities make the streets pedestrian-friendly. Transit is highly
accessible and frequent. Stanford Shopping Center has evolved from its
original auto-oriented design into a premier open-air pedestrian environment
known for extensive landscaped areas surrounded by retail and dining.
Multi-Neighborhood Centers, including California Avenue, Town and
Country Village, and South El Camino Real, are retail districts that serve more
than one neighborhood with a diverse mix of uses including retail, office, and
residential. They feature one- to three--story buildings with storefront windows
and outdoor seating areas that create a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere.
These centers also contain retail uses clustered around plazas and parks that
provide public gathering spaces. They can be linked to other city Centers via
transit.
Neighborhood Centers, such as Charleston Shopping Center, Edgewood
Plaza and Midtown Shopping Center, are small retail areas drawing customers
from the immediately surrounding area. These centers are often anchored by
a grocery or drug store and may include a variety of smaller retail shops and
offices oriented toward the everyday needs of local residents. Adjacent streets
provide walking, biking, and transit connections.
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Palo Alto’s employment districts, such as Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical
Center, East Bayshore, and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor, represent a
development type not found in other parts of the city. These Districts are
characterized by large one- to four-story buildings, with some taller buildings,
separated by parking lots and landscaped areas. The Districts are accessed primarily
by automobile or employer-supported transit, though future changes in land use and
tenancy could support a shift toward transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-12 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
(Note to readers: this section reflects the range of options being reviewed by the
CAC as of September 2016. It will be updated as those options evolve, and will
ultimately be refined to accurately describe the suite of growth management tools
selected by the City Council. Text shown [in brackets] represents possible choices still
under consideration.)
The pace of non-residential growth and development in Palo Alto has been
moderated by a citywide cap on non-residential development first adopted by the
City Council in 1989. Based on the demonstrated and continuous strength of the
city’s economy, and recent changes in the approach to growth management
throughout California, this Plan presents an updated cumulative growth
management and monitoring system. This system moderates the overall amount of
new office/R&D [option: and hotel] development, the pace of development, and its
impacts on Palo Alto’s livability.
CUMULATIVE GROWTH CAP
This updated approach uses 2015 as the baseline from which to monitor new
development and establishes a cumulative, citywide] cap on office/R&D [option: and
hotel] uses, including conversions of existing square footage to office/R&D space. It
also establishes clear guidance to address what the City should do as the cap is
approached. The cumulative cap would restrict development to less than what would
otherwise be allowed under the existing Service Commercial (CS) and Community
Commercial (CC) zoning designations. To address this issue, the City will assess non-
residential development potential in these zones and consider converting some of
the non-residential development potential into residential capacity.
ANNUAL LIMITS
[Option: No annual limits will be applied, and this section would be omitted.]
In addition to regulating the overall amount of development, community consensus
has emerged that it is important to regulate the pace of development to avoid sharp
spikes in construction and resulting rapid changes in the urban fabric and natural
environment. In 2015, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that
established annual limits on new office/R&D space in the City’s fastest-changing
commercial districts to 50,000 square feet per year. This plan expands that cap to
encompass the entire City, excluding the Stanford University Medical Center, which is
subject to a development agreement. Stanford Research Park is subject to a separate
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-13
annual limit of ______ square feet per year, but may carry unused capacity forward
to future years. [Option: Stanford Research Park is subject to a trip cap rather than an
annual limit on development.]
DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES REQUIREMENTS
For many years, the City has carefully regulated new development in Palo Alto; the
sidebar on page LU-38Error! Unknown switch argument. lists examples of
ordinances and requirements. This Plan adds [a program to create] new “better,
stronger, and faster” development performance measuresrequirements, applied to
proposed projects at the time of City review and approval, which will help the City be
ensure the highest quality development with the least environmental impacts.
Development performance measuresrequirements will require new projects to
reduce trips, preserve affordable housing, and protect the urban forest and other
natural vegetation. The development requirements performance measures will be
regularly re-evaluated in order to monitor their effectiveness, and may be adjusted or
removed as necessary.
COMMUNITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES INDICATORS
Maintaining and improving Palo Alto’s livability will require demand more than
applying measures requirements to and evaluating the performance of new
development in Palo Alto, because new development represents a small proportion
of the buildings that will be on the ground in 2030. Existing businesses, institutions
and residents also play a role in creating a more sustainable Palo Alto. These efforts
will involve changes in behavior and new technologies as current conditions evolve
over the planning period. In response to these anticipated changes, and in parallel
with the development performance measuresrequirements, this Element introduces
[a program to develop] a group of community performance measuresindicators that
will measure progress towards stated targets and will inform the City’s decision-
making process on growth management. Each community performance
measureindicator is [would be] monitored either annually or every four
yearsregularly, based on the specific identified target and the data available.
DOWNTOWN CAP
A recent cycle of economic growth has brought increased pressure for additional
office space in Downtown Palo Alto, which combines a desirable address with a
beautiful urban environment, access to transit, and proximity to dining and
shopping. In recent years, the demand has become so strong that other important
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-14 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
uses that contribute to Downtown’s vitality, such as storefront retail, are at risk of
being pushed out. To ensure that Downtown remains a regional center with a
diversity of destinations, new office development Downtown is limited to just over
45,000 square feet. This is the amount remaining in a cap originally established in
the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. “New” development includes conversions from
another use to an office use, so it is likely that the cap will be reached within the
horizon of this Plan. In addition to capping office development, the City will monitor
parking demand and commute trips by single-occupant vehicle. [Option: To ensure
that Downtown remains a regional center with a diversity of destinations, non-
residential development, single-occupant vehicle commute trips, and parking
demand Downtown will be monitored annually.]
URBAN DESIGN
The look and feel of Palo Alto is shaped by urban design, which encompasses the
wide variety of features that together form the visual character of the city. These
elements range from aesthetic to functional and include the design of buildings, the
historic character of structures and places, public spaces where people gather,
gateways or entrances to the city, street trees lining neighborhoods, art decorating
public spaces, as well as parking lots and essential infrastructure. Key community
design features are illustrated on Map L-4.
BUILDINGS
Palo Alto has many buildings of outstanding architectural merit representing a variety
of styles and periods. The best examples of these buildings are constructed with
quality materials, show evidence of craftsmanship, fit with their surroundings, and
help make neighborhoods comfortable and appealing. To help achieve quality
design, the Architectural Review Board reviews buildings and site design for
commercial and multi-family residential projects. Palo Alto’s commercial and
residential buildings have received regional and national design recognition. Design
issues in residential neighborhoods include sympathetic restoration and renovation
of homes, protection of privacy if second stories are added, and efforts to make
streets more inviting to pedestrians.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-15
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Palo Alto has a rich stock of historic structures and places that are important to the
city’s heritage and preserving and reusing these historic resources contributes to the
livability of Palo Alto. The City’s Historic Inventory lists approximately 400 buildings of
Foo
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpresswayEmbarcaderoRoad
AlmaStreetElCaminoReal
Page MillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lou
i
s
R
o
a
d
Channing Avenue
Stanford
Lands§¨¦280
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2014.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
0 1 2 Miles
MA P L - 4
C O M M U N I T Y D E S I G N F E A T U R E S
Major View Corridors
k Primary Gateways
! !Scenic Routes in Palo Alto
!Caltrain Stations
Railroads
Park/Open Space
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-17
!!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!! !!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
·|}þ237
Sunnyvale
Atherton
OregonExpressway
Embarcadero Road
ElCaminoReal
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Loui
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
MiddlefieldRoad
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
LouisRoad
Professorville
Historic District
Green Gables
Historic District
Greenmeadow
Historic District
Ramona Street
Architectural District
§¨¦280
M A P L - 5
!!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!! !
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
H I S T O R I C R E S O U R C E S
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016; The City of Palo Alto, 2013.
0 1 2 Miles
*Cultural and historic resources include Historic Structures on the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory
(categories I, II, III, or IV), and/or Buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, and/or California
Registered Historic Landmarks, and/or Points of Historical Interest.
This map is for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the full inventory of historic
structures, landmarks, or other cultural resources in Palo Alto. For a more complete listing,
please refer to the content of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
associated environmental review documents.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
!Cultural or historic resource*
Highways
City Limit
Professorville
Historic District
Ramona StreetArchitectural District
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-19
historical merit, with more than a dozen buildings on the National Register of
Historic Places, as well as two historic districts: Ramona Street and Professorville.
Map L-5 illustrates historic resources in Palo Alto.
Historic sites include the El Palo Alto redwood, believed to be the site of a 1776
encampment of the Portola Expedition and one of 19 California Points of Historical
Interest in the city. The garage at 367 Addison that was the birthplace of Hewlett-
Packard is one of seven sites or structures listed on the California Register of Historic
Landmarks. The length of El Camino Real from San Francisco to San Diego, including
the section that passes through Palo Alto, is a State Historic Landmark. Many historic
buildings in the city have been rehabilitated and adaptively reused as office or
commercial spaces, including former single-family homes in and near downtown.
PUBLIC SPACES, STREETS, AND PARKING
Throughout Palo Alto are a variety of public spaces from parks and schools to plazas
and sidewalks, to cultural, religious, and civic facilities. Each of these can increasingly
serve as centers for public life with gathering places, bicycle and pedestrian access,
safety-enhancing night-time lighting and clear visual access, and, in some cases,
small-scale retail uses such as cafes.
Well-designed streets also invite public use and enhance quality of life. Palo Alto’s
reputation as a gracious residential community is due not only to its fine street trees
and attractive planting areas, but also to appropriate street width for neighborhood
character, accommodation of pedestrians and bicycles, height and setbacks of
buildings, and color and texture of paving materials. These components help to
ensure that streets are pleasant and safe for all travelers.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-20 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Parking lots occupy large amounts of surface area in the city. Well-designed parking
lots make efficient use of space while contributing positively to the appearance of the
surrounding area. A parking lot can provide an opportunity for open space and
outdoor amenities rather than just a repository for cars. Many parking lots in Palo
Alto include trees, landscaping and public art.
GATEWAYS
Community identity is strengthened when the entrances to the city are clear and
memorable. In Palo Alto, these entrances or gateways include University Avenue, El
Camino Real, Middlefield Road, Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road, San Antonio
Road and Embarcadero Road, and the Palo Alto and California Avenue Caltrain
stations. Well-designed gateways are defined by natural and urban landmarks that
complement the character and identity of the neighborhood.
URBAN FOREST
Palo Alto’s urban forest—including both public and privately owned trees—is a key
part of the community’s history, identity, and quality of life. It offers enormous social,
environmental, and financial benefits and is a fundamental part of Palo Alto’s sense
of place. Regular spacing of trees that are similar in form and texture provides order
and coherence and gives scale to the street. A canopy of branches and leaves
provides shade for pedestrians and creates a sense of enclosure and comfort. On the
city’s most memorable streets, trees of a single species extend historic character to
the corners of blocks, reducing the apparent width of streets and intersections and
defining the street as a continuous space. Protecting, maintaining, and enhancing the
urban forest, as called for in the 2015 Urban Forest Master Plan, is among the most
effective ways to preserve Palo Alto’s character.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-21
PUBLIC ART
Public art helps create an inviting atmosphere for gathering, fosters economic
development, and contributes to vital public spaces. Palo Alto’s public art program
reflects the City’s tradition of enriching public spaces with works of art, ranging from
the subtle inclusion of handcrafted artifacts into building architecture to more
traditional displays of sculpture at civic locations. The Municipal Code requires both
public and private projects to incorporate public art.
UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
A city is supported by its infrastructure—features such as paving, signs, and utilities.
These features represent substantial public investments and are meant to serve all
community members. Infrastructure improvements must meet current needs and
keep pace with growth and development. While the purpose of infrastructure is
usually utilitarian or functional, attention to design details can add beauty or even
improve urban design. For example, replacing a sidewalk can provide an opportunity
to create larger tree wells and provide new street trees.
PALO ALTO AIRPORT
Palo Alto Airport (PAO) is a general aviation airport owned and operated by the City
of Palo Alto. PAO occupies 102 acres of land east of Highway 101 in the baylands
and has one paved runway. The airport functions as a reliever to three Bay Area
airports. PAO facilities include an air traffic control tower operated by the Federal
Aviation Administration and a terminal building. Flight clubs and fixed base operators
operate on-site, offering fuel sales, flight lessons, pilot training, and aircraft sales,
rentals, maintenance, and repair. From 1967 to 2015, PAO was operated by Santa
Clara County under a lease agreement. Operations and control have since been
transferred to the City and key challenges ahead include addressing deterioration of
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-22 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
runway conditions, addressing noise impacts and hours of operation, and the
relationship between the Airport and the Baylands Master Plan.
LAND USE MAP AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Map L-6 shows each land use designation within the city of Palo Alto. The land use
designations translate the elements of city structure into a detailed map that presents
the community’s vision for future land use development and conservation on public
and private land in Palo Alto through the year 2030. Residential densities are
expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre.
Building intensities for non-residential uses are expressed in terms of floor area ratio
(FAR), which is the ratio of gross building floor area (excluding areas designated for
parking, etc.) to net lot area, both expressed in square feet. FAR does not regulate
building placement or form, only the spatial relationship between building size and
lot size; it represents an expectation of the overall intensity of future development.
!
!
FOO
T
H
I
L
L
E
X
P
Y
FA
B
I
A
N
W
A
Y
SAND
H
I
L
L
R
D
AL
M
A
S
T
SEA
L
E
A
V
E
SAN
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
R
D
OREG
O
N
E
X
P
Y
QU
A
R
R
Y
R
D
LOMA
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
ARA
S
T
R
A
D
E
R
O
R
D
E CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
EMBARCA
D
E
R
O
W
A
Y
PASTE
U
R
D
R
CAL
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
E
LI
N
C
O
L
N
A
V
E
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
JU
N
I
P
E
R
O
S
E
R
R
A
B
L
V
D
PA
G
E
M
I
L
L
R
D
§¨¦280
|ÿ82
£¤101
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Los Altos
Arastradero Preserve
Baylands
Preserve
Byxbee
Park
SOFA II CAP
SOFA I CAP
Baylands Master Plan
East Charleston Road
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125
Miles
Source: ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; City of Palo Alto, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2015.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
Residential
Single Family Res
Multi-Family Res
Multi-Family Res (w/Hotel Overlay)
Mixed Use
Commercial
Hotel Commercial
Service Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Regional/Community Commercial
Business/Industrial
Light Industrial
Research/Office Park
Other
SOFA II CAP
SOFA I CAP
School District Land
Major Institution/Special Facility
Streamside Open Space
Public Park
Open Space/Controlled Development
Public Conservation Land
Stanford University Land Use Designations
Academic Campus
Campus Residential - Low Density
Campus Residential - Moderate Density
Open Space/Field Research
Campus Open Space
Special Conservation
Lake/Reservoir
!Caltrain Stations
Urban Service Area
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Railroads
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E
L A N D U S E E L E M E N T
MA P L -6
C O M P R E H E N S I V E L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N S
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-24 LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-25
The maximums assigned to the land use designations below do not constitute
entitlements, nor are property owners or developers guaranteed that an individual
project, when tested against the General Plan’s policies, will be able or permitted to
achieve these maximums.
LAND USE DEFINITIONS
OPEN SPACE
Publicly Owned Conservation Land: Open lands whose primary purpose is the
preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land and its plants and
animals. Only resource management, recreation, and educational activities
compatible with resource conservation are allowed.
Public Park: Open lands whose primary purpose is public access for active
recreation and whose character is essentially urban. These areas, which may have
been planted with non-indigenous landscaping, may provide access to nature within
the urban environment and require a concerted effort to maintain recreational
facilities and landscaping.
Streamside Open Space: This designation is intended to preserve and enhance
corridors of riparian vegetation along streams. Hiking, biking, and riding trails may be
developed in the streamside open space. The corridor will generally vary in width up
to 200 feet either side of the center line of the creek. However, along San
Francisquito Creek between El Camino Real and the Sand Hill Road bridge over the
creek, the open space corridor varies in width between approximately 80 and 310
feet from the center line of the creek. The aerial delineation of the open space in this
segment of the corridor, as opposed to other segments of the corridor, is shown to
approximate scale on the Proposed Land Use and Circulation Map.
Open Space/Controlled Development: Land having all the characteristics of open
space but where some development may be allowed on private properties. Open
space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential densities range from 0.1
to 1 dwelling unit per acre but may rise to a maximum of 2 units per acre where
second units are allowed, and population densities range from 1 to 4 persons per
acre.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-26 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
RESIDENTIAL
Single-Family Residential: This designation applies to residential neighborhoods
primarily characterized by detached single-family homes, typically with one dwelling
unit on each lot. Private and public schools and churches are conditional uses
requiring permits. Second units or duplexes may be allowed in select, limited areas
where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and do not create
traffic and parking problems. The net density in single family areas will range from 1
to 7 units per acre, but rises to a maximum of 14 units on parcels where second
units or duplexes are allowed. Population densities will range from 1 to 30 persons
per acre.
Multiple -Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units will vary by
area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit,
distance to shopping, and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8
to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the
scale next to single- family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted
by zoning may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived,
services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be compatible with the
overall Comprehensive Plan.
Village Residential: Allows residential dwellings that are designed to contribute to
the harmony and pedestrian orientation of a street or neighborhood. Housing types
include single- family houses on small lots, second units, cottage clusters, courtyard
housing, duplexes, fourplexes, and small apartment buildings. Design standards will
be prepared for each housing type to ensure that development successfully
contributes to the street and neighborhood and minimizes potential negative
impacts. Net densities will range up to 20 units per acre.
Transit-oOriented Residential: Allows higher density residential dwellings in the
University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within a
walkable distance, approximately 2,5000 feet, of the City’s two multi-modal transit
stations. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that
support substantial use of public transportation and especially the use of Caltrain.
Design standards will be prepared to ensure that development successfully
contributes to the street and minimizes potential negative impacts. Individual project
performance standardsrequirements will be developed, including parking, to ensure
that a significant portion of the residents will use alternative modes of transportation.
Net density will range up to 50 units per acre, with minimum densities to be
considered during development of new City zoning regulations.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-27
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial: Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a
cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples
include Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Center, and Midtown. Typical uses
include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants,
self-service laundries, dry cleaners, child care and hardware stores. In some locations
along El Camino Real and Alma Street, residential and mixed use projects may also
locate in this category. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4.
Child Care Options – Choose One to Carry Forward
Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber
shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners, child care and hardware
stores.
Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber
shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners, child care and hardware
stores. Child care is an acceptable use except in Charleston Center, Edgewood
Center, and Midtown.
Regional/Community Commercial: Larger shopping centers and districts that have
a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They
rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores,
furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail
services such as offices and banks. Non-retail uses such as medical and dental offices
may also locate in this designation. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center,
Town and Country Village, and University Avenue/Downtown. In some locations,
residential and mixed use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential
floor area ratios range from 0.35 to 2.
Service Commercial: Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying
on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in
high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses
include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores, and
restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good
automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without
impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be
appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-28 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
San Antonio Road, El Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road northeast of the
Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4.
Mixed Use: The Mixed Use designation is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented
places that layer compatible land uses, public amenities and utilities together at
various scales and intensities. The designation allows for multiple functions within
the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a
mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity.
Most typically, mixed use developments have retail on the ground floor and
residences above. This category includes Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail
and Residential/Office development. Its purpose is to increase the types of spaces
available for living and working to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain
areas, and to encourage the upgrading of certain areas with buildings designed to
provide a high quality pedestrian-oriented street environment. Mixed Use may
include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate
buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. Live/Work refers to one or more
individuals living in the same building where they earn their livelihood, usually in
professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office, Residential/Retail, and
Residential/Office provide other variations to Mixed Use with Retail typically on the
ground floor and Residential on upper floors. Design standards will be developed to
ensure that development is compatible and contributes to the character of the street
and neighborhood. Floor area ratios will range up to 1.15, although Residential/
Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near
multi-modal centers will range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas
resistant to revitalizationwhere higher FAR would be an incentive to meet community
goals such as providing affordable housing. The FAR above 1.15 will must be used
for residential purposes. FAR between 0.15 and 1.15 may be used for residential
purposes. As of the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use designation
is currently only applied in the SOFA area.
Commercial Hotel: This category allows facilities for use by temporary overnight
occupants on a transient basis, such as hotels and motels, with associated
conference centers and similar uses. Restaurants and other eating facilities, meeting
rooms, small retail shops, personal services, and other services ancillary to the hotel
are also allowed. This category can be applied in combination with another land use
category. Floor area ratio will range up to 2.01.5 for the hotel portion of the site.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-29
Research/Office Park: Office, research, and manufacturing establishments whose
operations are buffered from adjacent residential uses. Stanford Research Park is an
example. Other uses that may be included are educational institutions and child care
facilities. Compatible commercial service uses such as banks and restaurants, and
residential or mixed uses that would benefit from the proximity to employment
centers, will also be allowed. Additional uses, including retail services, restaurants,
commercial recreation, churches, and private clubs may also be located in
Research/Office Park areas, but only if they are found to be compatible with the
surrounding area through the conditional use permit process. In some locations,
residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Maximum
allowable floor area ratio ranges from 0.3 to 0.5, depending on site conditions.
Light Industrial: Wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing,
processing, repairing, and packaging of goods. Emission of fumes, noise, smoke, or
other pollutants is strictly controlled. Examples include portions of the area south of
Oregon Avenue between El Camino Real and Alma Street that historically have
included these land uses, and the San Antonio Road industrial area. Compatible
residential and mixed use projects may also be located in this category. Floor area
ratio will range up to 0.5.
*INSTITUTIONAL
School District Lands: Properties owned or leased by public school districts and
used for educational, recreational, or other non-commercial, non-industrial purposes.
Floor area ratio may not exceed 1.0.
Major Institution/Special Facilities: Institutional, academic, governmental, and
community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as
non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City facilities.
Major Institution/University Lands: Academic and academic reserve areas of
Stanford University. Population density and building intensity limits are established
by conditional use permit with Santa Clara County. These lands are further
designated by the following sub-categories of land use:
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Single- Family Residential:
Single- family areas where the occupancy of the units is significantly or totally
limited to individuals or families affiliated with the institution.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-30 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Multiple Family Residential:
Multiple family areas where the occupancy of the units is significantly or totally
limited to individuals or families affiliated with the institution.
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Educational Facilities:
Academic lands with a full complement of activities and densities that give
them an urban character. Allowable uses are academic institutions and
research facilities, student and faculty housing, and support services. Increases
in student enrollment and faculty/ staff size must be accompanied by
measures that mitigate traffic and housing impacts.
Major Institution/University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space:
Academic lands having all the characteristics of open space but upon which
some academic development may be allowed provided that open space
amenities are retained. These lands are important for their aesthetic and
ecological value as well as their potential for new academic uses.
GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
LOCAL LAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GOAL L-1 A Well-Designed, compact, and resilient city, providing
residents aand visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work
places, shopping districts, public facilities, and open spaces.
EXTENT OF URBANCONCENTRATING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE
AREA
Policy L-1.1 Continue current City policy limiting Limit future urban development
to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The
boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban
growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill
Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made
for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space
character of the area. Retain undeveloped Baylands land northeast of
Highway 101 as open space. [Previous Policy L-1] [L1]
Policy L-1.2 Maintain and strengthen Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods
while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities.
Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable
qualities.[Previous Policy L-4] [L2]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-31
Policy L-1.3 Promote infill development in the urban service area that is,
compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of
the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Maintain
the scale and character of the City Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. [(Previous
Policy L-5 )(PTC Policy L1.7)] [L3]
Program L1.3.1 Maintain a list of vacant and underutilized
properties. Work with property owners and
developers, and neighbors, and neighborhood
associations, property owners, and developers to
identify barriers to infill development of affordable,
below market rate and more affordable market
rate housing on these properties and actions that
addressto remove these barriers. Work with these
same stakeholders to identify sites and facilitate
opportunities for below market rate housing and
housing that is affordable [(PTC Program L1.7.10)
(Edited)] [L4]
Policy L-1.4 Ensure that future development addresses potential risks from climate
change and sea level rise. [Note: the revised Safety Element will
include a much more extensive discussion of this issue along with
policies and programs to respond.] [NEW POLICY] [L5]
Program L1.3.1Program L1.4.1 Review development
standards applicable in areas susceptible to
flooding from sea level rise, including east of
Highway 101, West Bayshore and East Meadow
Circle, and the area east of San Antonio Road and
north of East Charleston, and update requirements
as needed to ensure that new development is
designed and located to provide protection from
potential flooding impacts. [(NEW
PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation
Measure GHG-3.)] [Note: The revised Safety
Element will include additional mitigation
measures to address sea level rise and climate
change adaptation] [L6]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-32 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
REGIONAL COOPERATION
Policy L-1.4Policy L-1.5 Maintain an active cooperative working relationship
engagement with Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, neighboring
cities,, other public agencies including school districts and Stanford
University regarding land use and transportation issues. [Previous
Policy L-2] [L7]
Program L1.4.1 Maintain and update as appropriate the 1985 Land
Use Policies Agreement that sets forth the land use
policies of the City, Santa Clara County, and
Stanford University with regard to Stanford
unincorporated lands. [Previous Program L-1] [L8]
Program L1.4.2 City staff will monitor Stanford development
proposals and traffic conditions within the Sand Hill
Road Corridor and annually report to the Planning
Com- mission and City Council.[Note: Conflicts with
current City practice - annual Mayfield and SUMC
reporting requirements] [Previous Program L-2A]
Program L1.4.3 City staff will review development proposals within
the Airport Influence Area to ensure consistency
with the guidelines of the Palo Alto Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and when
appropriate, will refer development proposals to
the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use
Commission for review and comment. [Previous
Program L-2B]
Program L1.5.1 Evaluate changes in land use in the context of
regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives,
as well as the desires of surrounding
neighborhoods.[Previous Policy L-7]
Policy L-1.5Policy L-1.6 Participate in regional strategies to address the interaction of
jobs, housing balance and transportation issues. [NEW POLICY] [L9]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-33
MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN CITY CHARACTER[NOTE: THIS SECTION RENAMED
“GUIDING BUILDING DESIGN,” AND MOVED TO GOAL L-6 PER 6/24/16 LAND USE
SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION.]
COMMERCIAL GROWTH LIMITS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING
Policy L-1.6Policy L-1.7 Encourage land uses that address the needs of the
community and manage change and development to benefit the
community. [NEW POLICY] [L10]
Program L1.7.1 Review regulatory tools available to the City and
identify actions to enhance and preserve the
livability of residential neighborhoods and the
vitality of commercial and employment districts,
including improved code enforcement practices.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L11]
Policy L-1.7Policy L-1.8 Sites within or adjacent to existing commercial areas and
corridors are suitable for hotels. Give preference to housing versus
hotel use on sites adjacent to predominantly single family
neighborhoods. [NEW POLICY] [L12]
CUMULATIVE CAP OPTIONS CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Policy L-1.9 (no cumulative cap on non-residential uses) A well designed,
compact, and resilient City maintains a healthy mix of non-residential
uses. The City will monitor non-residential development over time in
addition to applying development requirements and community
indicators designed to ensure the highest quality of development with
the least possible impacts. [NEW POLICY] [L13]
Program L1.9.1 (no cumulative cap; trigger for evaluation of
development requirements)When new Office &
R&D development approved since January 1, 2015
reaches 500,000 square feet citywide, evaluate the
success of adopted development requirements and
community indicators. [NEW PROGRAM] [L14]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-34 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-1.10 (citywide cap on office/R&D minus SUMC plus development
requirements) Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet
of office/R&D development, exempting medical office uses associated
with SUMC. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor
development towards the cap on an annual basis. Regularly assess the
effectiveness of requirements applied to development and other
community performance measures and remove or adjust the cap
and/or development requirements accordingly. [NEW POLICY] [L15]
Policy L-1.11 (citywide cap on office/R&D and hotel, minus SUMC, plus
development requirements) Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million
new square feet of office/R&D and an appropriate additional amount
of hotel development using January 1, 2015 as the baseline and
monitor development towards this cap on an annual basis. Regularly
assess the effectiveness of development requirements applied to
development and community indicators and remove or adjust the cap
and/or development requirements accordingly. [NEW POLICY] [L16]
Program L1.11.1 (possible Citywide hotel cap) Study demand and
potential impacts in order to determine whether the
Citywide cap should include a cap on hotel
development and what an appropriate
development cap would be. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L17]
Policy L-1.12 (cumulative cap exemptions) Exempt medical, governmental, and
institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development. [NEW
POLICY] [L18]
CUMULATIVE CAP AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS – IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAMS
Program L1.12.1 (citywide cap re-evaluation) Reevaluate the
cumulative cap when the amount of new
office/R&D [and hotel] square footage entitled since
January 1, 2015 reaches 67 percent of the allowed
square footage, or 1,139,000 square feet.
Concurrently consider removal or potential changes
to the cap and/or to the amount of additional
development permitted by the City’s zoning
ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L19]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-35
Program L1.12.2 (development requirements reevaluation) Regularly
assess the effectiveness of development
requirements and revise them as necessary. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L20]
Program L1.12.3 (adjust development potential to reflect citywide
cap) Assess non-residential development potential
in the CC, CN, and CS zoning districts, and convert
non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR, where
appropriate. Conversion to residential capacity
should not be considered in Town and Country
Village. [NEW PROGRAM] [L21]
ANNUAL LIMIT OPTIONS – CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Policy L-1.13 (no annual limit) Use performance requirements to assure that new
development adds to the quality of the community and addresses or
avoids new impacts. [NEW POLICY] [L22]
Policy L-1.14 (citywide annual limit) Limit the amount of new office/R&D square
footage permitted in the City on an annual basis to 50,000 square feet
outside the Stanford Research Park and ___ square feet inside
Stanford Research Park. Allow unused development capacity within
Stanford Research Park only to be carried forward to future years.
Stanford University Medical Center shall be exempt from this annual
limit. [NEW POLICY] [L23]
Policy L-1.15 (citywide annual limit with SRP exemption) Limit the amount of new
office/R&D square footage permitted in the City on an annual basis to
50,000 square feet, exempting new square footage in Stanford
University Medical Center, and exempting the Stanford Research Park
if a cap on peak period auto trips to the Research Park is established
and enforced. [NEW POLICY] [L24]
Policy L-1.16 (annual limit exemptions) Exempt public facilities, offices less than
5,000 square feet., and medical offices of less than 2,000 square feet
from the annual limit. [NEW POLICY] [L25]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-36 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
DOWNTOWN CAP – CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Program L1.16.1 (no downtown cap) Monitor non-residential
development in Downtown on an annual basis,
tracking new square footage by use, as well as
commute trips by SOV and parking demand. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L26]
Program L1.16.2 (retain downtown cap) Limit new office
development in Downtown to 45,619 square feet,
using January 1, 2015 as the baseline. Monitor this
development on an annual basis, tracking new
square footage as well as commute trips by SOV
and parking demand. Reevaluate this Downtown
development cap when the amount of new office
and hotel square footage entitled since January 1,
2015 reaches 67 percent of the remaining allowed
square footage and concurrently consider potential
changes to the cap and/or to the amount of
additional development permitted by the City’s
zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L27]
Program L1.16.3 (exempt small offices from downtown cap) Limit
new office development in Downtown to 45,619
square feet, using January 1, 2015 as the baseline.
Small offices, where the design clearly
demonstrates that the space is intended for use by
one or more tenants that occupy less than 5,000
square feet total, shall be exempt. Monitor this
development on an annual basis, tracking new
square footage as well as commute trips by SOV
and parking demand. Reevaluate this Downtown
development cap when the amount of new office
square footage entitled since January 1, 2015
reaches 67 percent of the remaining allowed
square footage, or 30,564 square feet. Concurrently
consider potential changes to the cap and/or to the
amount of additional development permitted by
the City’s zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L28]
Program L1.16.4 (limit both office and hotels Downtown) Limit new
office development in Downtown to 45,619 square
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-37
feet square feet and limit new hotel development
to 50,000 square feet, using January 1, 2015 as the
baseline. Monitor this development on an annual
basis, tracking new square footage as well as
commute trips by SOV and parking demand.
Reevaluate this Downtown development cap when
the amount of new office and hotel square footage
entitled since January 1, 2015 reaches 67 percent of
the remaining allowed square footage, or 30,564
square feet. Concurrently consider potential
changes to the cap and/or to the amount of
additional development permitted by the City’s
zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L29]
DOWNTOWN CAP – IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program L1.7.1 (adjust downtown development potential to reflect
the cap) Update the CD district zoning to convert
some non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR
Downtown and consider revising the TDR program
to create bonus residential, rather than commercial
square footage.[NEW PROGRAM] [L30]
Program L1.16.5
Program L1.16.6 (character of downtown) Evaluate and adjust the
zoning definition of office uses allowed in
downtown to and consider ways to prioritize for
small business and startups. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L31]
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Option 1 – Articulate the Purpose and the Topics for the development
requirements in the Comp Plan but develop details through a later program.
Policy L-1.17 (development requirements) Hold new development to the highest
development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and
achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. These
development requirements are intended to promote sustainability, a
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-38 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
high quality of life and ensure that the City consists of well-designed
and livable neighborhoods and centers. [NEW POLICY] [L32]
Program L1.17.1 Review and refine both new and existing
development requirements that address topics such
as energy, water and other natural resource
conservation, parking, open space and parkland,
landscaping, tree protection and neighborhood
compatibility to ensure they are effective at
achieving the highest quality development with the
least impacts. Publish the results of the review in a
clear and readable document. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L33]
Program L1.17.2 Create development requirements that protect
livability and the environment by addressing
additional topics such as reducing trips, preserving
and facilitating affordable housing and preservation
of the tree canopy. [NEW PROGRAM] [L34]
Policy L-1.18 (community indicators) The city will monitor key community
indicators on a regular basis to determine whether the policies of this
plan and the efforts of the Palo Alto residents and businesses are
effective at promoting livability. Collect the data on the community
indicators in a transparent manner, and publish the results in a clear,
user-friendly, easy-to-understand document. [NEW POLICY] [L35]
Program L1.18.1 Develop community indicators for topics such as
greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, jobs,
housing, schools, parks, the tree canopy, the natural
environment and diversity. Create a list of
community indicators and a schedule for
monitoring these indicators. [NEW PROGRAM] [L36]
Program L1.18.2 Based on monitoring the community indicators
data over time, periodically consider whether to
retain, revise downward or upward, or eliminate the
annual limits on growth, the growth caps in
individual areas, and/or the Citywide cumulative
growth caps in this Land Use and Community
Design Element. [NEW PROGRAM] [L37]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-39
Option 2 – Provide detail and specificity of the Development Requirements in
the Comp Plan.
Policy L-1.17 (development requirements) Hold new development to the highest
development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and
achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. These
development requirements are intended to promote sustainability, a
high quality of life and ensure that the City consists of well-designed
and livable neighborhoods and centers. [NEW POLICY] [L38]
Program L1.17.1 Review and refine both new and existing
development requirements that address topics such
as energy, water and other natural resource
conservation, parking, open space and parkland,
landscaping, tree protection and neighborhood
compatibility in Table L-1 to ensure they are
effective at achieving the highest quality
development with the least impacts. Publish the
results of the review in a clear and readable
document. [NEW PROGRAM] [L39]
Program L1.7.2Program L1.17.2 Create development
requirements that protect livability and the
environment by addressing additional topics such
as reducing trips, preserving and facilitating
affordable housing and preservation of the tree
canopy as shown on Table L-1. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L40]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-40 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
TABLE L-1 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
These requirements are new tools strongly focused on ensuring the highest quality development
with the least impacts. .
1. Reducing Trips: a specific percent of typical single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commuter trips.
2. Alleviating Traffic Congestion: minimize impact on intersection Level of Service (LOS)
3. Connectivity: enhancing connections to transportation infrastructure or services.
4. Reserving Affordable Housing: no net loss of affordable dwelling units, no displacement of
residents of Below Market Rate (BMR) units, and discouraging loss of smaller homes such as cottages. .
5. Facilitating Affordable Housing: Facilitate a mix of multi-family housing, including affordable
units, and housing for seniors and people with special needs.
6. Protecting the Natural Environment: Create a resilient landscape by preserving or increasing the tree canopy and natural understory, landscaped/open space areas planted with native plantings, creating or restoring a resilient landscape, and bird-friendly design.
7. Providing Parking: do not allow parking spillover onto residential neighborhood streets.
8. Preserving Affordable Office Space: Encourage the provision of new small office space and the preservation of existing low-cost office space.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The City already regulates many aspects of development. The City will review these existing regulations to ensure they are consistent with current targets and effective in achieving the
highest quality development with the least impacts.
Green Building: Conserving energy, water, and resources through meeting specific requirements in the City’s mandatory green building ordinance, as periodically amended. It covers topics such as:
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation
• Materials and Waste
• Light Pollution Reduction
• Emissions • Electric Vehicle Charging
• Water Efficiency, Conservation, and Reuse
• Permeable Surface Area For Groundwater Recharge
• Native, Drought-Tolerant Planting • Indoor Air Quality
Parking: Meeting need without providing excess:
• Bike Parking
• Vehicle Parking
Parkland: Providing common open space and contributing to Citywide park need:
• Provision of parkland or payment of fees
• Private open space
Landscaping and Amenities: Making Palo Alto more beautiful:
• Tree protection and retention
• Public Art
Neighborhood compatibility and building design: Avoiding negative impacts and improving the surroundings: • Glare
• Noise
• Shade
• Utility Undergrounding • High-quality architecture
• Support for historic resources
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-41
TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATORS (SEPTEMBER 6TH VERSION)
Measure Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
80% below 1990 emissions by 2030
(S/CAP goal) At least every 2 years
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) per Capita 5% decrease per year At least every 2 years
Percent of Commute Trips
to Employment Centers by
Single Occupant Vehicle
(SOV)
50% trips by SOV, based on employee
survey responses Annually
Number of Commute Trips
to Employment Centers
40% below ITE standards for
Downtown and 30% below ITE
standards for SRP.
Annually
Corridor Travel Times
Typical PM peak hour travel time along
2 major north-south corridors and 2
major east-west corridors
At least every 2 years
Commercial District
Parking Overflow into
Neighborhoods
Non-resident parking on sampled
residential neighborhood streets Annually
Air Pollutant Levels
Maximum 24-hour concentrations of
criteria pollutants identified by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District,
as reported at the monitoring stations
closest to Palo Alto
Annually
Groundwater
Contamination
Acres of City underlain by shallow
groundwater contamination Every 4 years
Jobs/Housing Balance
(Expressed as a Ratio of
Jobs to Employed
Residents)
Ratio of jobs to employed residents Every 4 years
Housing Cost Burden
Percentage of owners and renters
paying more than 50% of household
income for housing
Every 4 years
Affordability of Housing
Stock
Number of housing units affordable to
moderate-income, low-income, and
very-low-income households
Every 4 years
Economic Diversity
Percentage of households at various
household income levels [see Fig. 2-3
in adopted 2015 HE]
Every 4 years
Below Market Rate (BMR)
Units Number of units Every 4 years
Progress toward Housing
Element goals
Annual Report to State Housing and
Community Development Department Annually
Existing Resident
Displacement Number of existing units demolished Every 4 years
Comment [PW1]: M Note: has been slightly re-
ordered per CAC direction to group like topics.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-42 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATORS (SEPTEMBER 6TH VERSION)
Measure Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Unoccupied Homes Number of homes vacant/unoccupied
for longer than 3 months per year Annually
Age Diversity Percentage of population in various age
cohorts Every 4 years
PAUSD Class Size Class size Annually
PAUSD Satisfaction with
Schools
Satisfaction ratings as reported by
Strategic Plan Survey Annually
Park Acreage per Capita Ratio of district and neighborhood
parks per 1,000 population Every 4 years
Urban Tree Canopy Canopy cover – percent of city covered
by trees Every 4 years
Biodiversity Species counted in spring and fall bird
counts Biannually
Infrastructure or Acres
Affected by Sea Level Rise
Number of key facilities, major
infrastructure, and/or acres of land
within the City limits directly affected by
sea level rise
Every 4 years
Wastewater Reuse Percent of wastewater recycled Every 4 years
Impermeable Surfaces and
Stormwater Infiltration in
Urbanized Area
(Need to determine how this can be
measured) Every 4 years
Policy L-1.18 (community indicators) The city will monitor key community
indicators on a regular basis to determine whether the policies of this
plan and the efforts of the Palo Alto residents and businesses are
effective at promoting livability by using community indicators.
Suggested indicators and monitoring frequency are listed in Table L-2
related to greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, commute
trips by single occupant vehicle, jobs/housing balance, and
community diversity. Collect the data on the community indicators in
a transparent manner, and publish the results in a clear, user-friendly,
easy-to-understand document. [NEW POLICY] [L41]
Program L1.18.1 Develop community indicators for topics such as
greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, jobs,
housing, schools, parks, the tree canopy, the natural
environment and diversity as shown in Table L-2.
Comme
Note: has been
slightly
re-
ordered
per CAC direction
to group
like
topics.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-43
Create a list of community indicators and a
schedule for monitoring these indicators. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L42]
Program L1.7.3Program L1.18.2 Based on monitoring the
community indicators data over time, periodically
consider whether to retain, revise downward or
upward, or eliminate the annual limits on growth,
the growth caps in individual areas, and/or the
Citywide cumulative growth caps in this Land Use
and Community Design Element. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L43]
Option 3: Use community indicators along with a cumulative cap, annual limit,
and downtown cap, but do not use development requirements.
Maintain a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential
development for the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide
Land Use and Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City
Council may make modifications for specific properties that allow modest
additional growth. Such additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900
maximum. [Previous Policy L-8]
Establish a system to monitor the rate of non-residential development and
traffic conditions related to both residential and non-residential
development at key intersections including those identified in the 1989
Citywide Study and additional intersections identified in the
Comprehensive Plan EIR. If the rate of growth reaches the point where the
citywide development maximum might be reached, the City will reevaluate
development policies and regulations. [Previous Program L-7]
Limit new non-residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000
square feet, or 10 percent above the amount of development existing or
approved as of May 1986. Reevaluate this limit when non-residential
development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area. [Previous
Program L-8]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-44 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Continue to monitor development, including the effectiveness of the
ground floor retail requirement, in the University Avenue/Downtown area.
Keep the Planning Commission and City Council advised of the findings on
an annual basis. [Previous Program L-9]
GOAL L-2 An enhanced sense of “community” with development
designed to foster public life, and meet citywide needs, and
embrace the principles of sustainability.
Policy L-2.1 Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers,
and Employment Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the
region’s transit and street system. [Previous Policy L-10] [L44]
Policy L-2.2 Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and
supportEnhance connections between commercial and mixed use
centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting
walkable and bikable connections and a diverse range of retail and
services that caters to the daily needs of residents. [Previous Policy L-
11] [L45]
Program L2.2.1 Consider sitingExplore whether there are
appropriate locations to allow small-scale
neighborhood-serving retail facilities such as coffee
shops and corner stores in existing or new
residential areas. [(Previous Policy L-16) (Converted
to Program)] [L46]
Policy L-2.3 As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and
encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, designed for greater
affordability, particularly smaller units and senior housing. [NEW
POLICY] [L47]
Policy L-2.3Policy L-2.4 Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. [Previous Program L 20]
[NEW POLICY] [L48]
Policy L-2.5 Encourage In conjunction with new development and redevelopment
to incorporate greenery and natural features through the use of
features such as green rooftops, pocket proposals, pursue creation of
parks, plazas, or other public gathering places that meet
neighborhood needand rain gardens.[(NEW POLICY) (Combined with
Previous Program C26)] [L49]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-45
RESIDENTIAL DISTINCT NEIGHBORHOODS
GOAL L-3 Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its
own distinct character and within walking distance of
shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering
places.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
Policy L-3.1 Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by
encouragingEnsure that new or remodeled structures to beare
compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. [(Previous
Policy L-12) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1)] [L50]
Policy L-3.2 Establish pedestrian-oriented design guidelines for residences that
encourage features that enliven the street. [(Previous Program L-
11)(Complete)]
Policy L-3.3Policy L-3.1 Where compatible with neighborhood character, use
Zoning and the Home Improvement Exception process to create
incentives or eliminate obstacles to remodel houses with features
that add street life and vitality. [Previous Program L-12]
Policy L-3.2 Preserve residential uses from conversion to office or short-term
rentals. [NEW POLICY] [L51]
Program L3.2.1 Evaluate and implement strategies to prevent
conversion of residential and neighborhood-serving
retail space to office or short-term vacation rentals.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L52]
Policy L-3.3 Support efforts to retain and encourage housing units that are more
affordable, such as cottages, other small homes, and rental housing
units in existing neighborhoods. [NEW POLICY] [L53]
Program L3.3.1 Review development standards to discourage the
loss of housing units, and the replacement of rental
housing units with ownership housing units. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L54]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-46 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-3.4 Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower
income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as
feasible. [NEW POLICY] [L55]
Program L3.4.1 Collaborate with PAUSD in exploring opportunities
to build housing that is affordable to school district
employees. [NEW PROGRAM] [L56]
Policy L-3.5 When considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize
displacement of existing residents. [NEW POLICY] [L57]
Program L3.5.1 Conduct a study to evaluate various possible tools
for preventing displacement of existing residents.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L58]
Program L3.5.2 Develop and implement a system to inventory the
characteristics of existing housing units and track
changes in those characteristics on a regular basis.
Make the information publicly available. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L59]
MIX OF HOUSING TYPES
Policy L-3.4 Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density andIn
appropriate locations, encourage a mix of smaller housing types such
as studios, co-housing, cottage, clustered housing and secondary
dwelling units, to provide a more diverse range of housing
opportunities and preserve existing housing units of these types.
[(Previous Policy L-13) (Note: Program H3.3.5 of the adopted Housing
Element is to explore modifications to development standards to
further encourage second unit development.)] [L60]Create and apply
zoning standards for Village Residential housing prototypes. Develop
design guidelines for duplexes, townhouses, courtyard housing,
second units, and small lot single family homes that ensure that such
housing is compatible with single family neighborhoods and other
areas where it may be permitted. [Previous Program L-13]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-47
Create and apply zoning standards for Transit-Oriented Residential
housing prototypes, including consideration of minimum density
standards. Develop design guidelines that ensure that such housing is
compatible with the University Avenue/Downtown and California
Avenue centers where it may be permitted. [(Previous Program L-14)
(Replaced by new Programs L67 and L68 calling for Coordinated Area
Plans)]
Policy L-3.6 Recognize the contribution of cottage cluster housing to the character
of Palo Alto and retain and encourage this type of development. [NEW
POLICY] [L61]
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
Policy L-3.5Policy L-3.7 Design and arrangeEnsure that new multifamily buildings,
including entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged, so
that each unit development has a clear relationship to a public street.
[Previous Policy L-14] [L62]
Policy L-3.8 Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family
homes on adjacent properties public resources and the natural
environment. [NEW POLICY] [L63]
Program L3.8.1 Develop a program to assess and manage both the
positive and negative impacts of basement
construction in single family homes on the
community and the environment, including:
Land use issues. Evaluate the City’s policy of
excluding basements from the gross floor area
and maximum floor area ratio limits in the
zoning ordinance. Consider zoning revisions,
including greater setbacks, to limit basement
size and increase basement setbacks from
adjacent properties.
Impacts to the natural environment, such as
potential impacts to the tree canopy,
groundwater supply or quality, and soil
compaction.
Safety issues such as increased surface
flooding, increased groundwater intrusion with
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-48 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
sea level rise, emergency access and egress, or
sewage backflows. [NEW PROGRAM] [L64]
COMMERCIAL CENTERS
GOAL L-4 Inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail
and commercial services and provide focal points and
community gathering places for the city’s residential
neighborhoods and employment districts.
COMMERCIAL CENTERS AND MIXED USE AREAS
Policy L-4.1 Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a
manner that is compatible with the character of surrounding
neighborhoods, without loss of retail and existing small, local
businesses. [Previous Policy L-18] [L65]
Policy L-4.2Policy L-4.1 Establish a planning process for Centers that identifies the
desired character of the area, its role within the City, the locations of
public gathering spaces, appropriate land uses and building forms,
and important street and pedestrian connections to surrounding
Residential Neighborhoods. [Previous Program L-15]
Program L4.2.1 Evaluate the effectiveness of formula retail limits
adopted for California Avenue and consider
whether these limits should be applied in other
Centers. Develop incentives for local small
businesses where warranted. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L66]
Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of
small-scale local businesses. [Previous Policy L-19]
Policy L-4.2 Use coordinated area plans to guide development in areas of Palo Alto
where significant change is foreseeable. Address both land use and
transportation, define the desired character and urban design traits of
the areas, identify opportunities for public open space, parks and
recreational opportunities, and address connectivity to and
compatibility with adjacent residential areas; include broad community
involvement in the planning process. [NEW POLICY] [L67]
Program L4.2.2Program L4.2.1 Prepare a coordinated area
plan for the South El Camino corridor from Curtner
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-49
Avenue to West Charleston Road, as shown in the
diagram below. The plan should articulate a vision
for the corridor as a well-designed complete street
with an enhanced pedestrian environment
including wider sidewalks, increased building
setbacks, public open spaces, safe pedestrian
crossings at key intersections, trees and streetscape
improvements. Mixed use residential and retail
development on shallow parcels should be
encouraged to support a more walkable and
bikable environment along the corridor, with
appropriate transitions to the surrounding single-
family neighborhoods. The plan should also foster
improved connections to surrounding destinations.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L68]
Program L4.2.3 Prepare a coordinated area plan for the Fry's site
and surrounding California Avenue area. The plan
should describe a vision for the future of the Fry's
site as a walkable neighborhood with multi‐family
housing, ground floor retail, a public park, creek
improvements, and an interconnected street grid.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L69]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-50 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-4.3 Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all
Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the
sidewalkin a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form
corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. [Previous Policy L-20]
[L70]
Policy L-4.3Policy L-4.4 Provide Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood
Centers provide with centrally located gathering spaces that create a
sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage
public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and
public art. [Previous Policy L-21] [L71]
Program L4.3.1Program L4.4.1 Study the feasibility of using
public and private funds to provide and maintain
landscaping and public spaces such as parks,
plazas, and sidewalks and public art within
commercial areas. [Previous Program L-16] [L72]
Program L4.3.2Program L4.4.2 Through public/private
cooperation, provide obviouswell-signed, clean, and
accessible restrooms available for use during
normal business hours. [Previous Program L-17]
[L73]
Program L4.3.3Program L4.4.3 Collaborate with merchants to
eEnhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks
within all Centers. Encourage the formation of
business improvement districts and undertake a
proactive program of through an aggressive
maintenance, repair, landscaping and
enhancement. and cleaning program; street
improvements; and the use of a variety of paving
materials and landscaping. [Previous Policy L-22]
[L74]
Program L4.3.4Program L4.4.4 Identify priority street
improvements that could make a substantial
contribution to the character of Centers, including
such as widening sidewalks, narrowing travel lanes,
creating medians, restriping to allow diagonal
parking, and planting street trees. [Previous
Program L-18] [L75]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-51
REGIONAL CENTERS
University Avenue/Downtown
Policy L-4.5 Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the
centrala major business district commercial center of the City, with a
mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses.
Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical
importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. [
(Previous Policy L-23) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-
1)] [L76]
Support implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide. [
(Previous Program L-19)
Policy L-4.6 Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and
supports bicycle use. Use public art, trees, bicycle racks and other
amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians and
bicyclists. [Previous Policy L-24] [L77]
Program L4.3.5 Improve the University Avenue/Downtown area by
adding landscaping and bicycle parking and
encouraging large development projects to benefit
the public by incorporating public art. [Previous
Program L-21]
Policy L-4.4 Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed
use area. [Previous Policy L-25]
Program L4.4.1 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for the SOFA and
the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) site.
[(Previous Program L-22)(Completed)]
Program L4.6.1 Pursue redevelopment of pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit connections to and from between the
University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station area,
to establish a link between University
Avenue/Downtown, and the Stanford Shopping
Center. [Previous Policy L-27] [L78]
Program L4.6.2 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown,
encompassing the University Avenue Multi-modal
Transit Station Area. [Previous Program L-25][L79]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-52 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Establish the following unranked community design priorities for the
University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station Area:
Improving pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections to create
an urban link between University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford
Shopping Center.
Creating a major civic space at the Caltrain Station that links University
Avenue/Downtown and Palm Drive.
Infilling underutilized parcels with a mix of uses such as shopping,
housing, office, hotel, and medical facilities.
Improving public park space.
Protecting views of the foothills by guiding building heights and
massing. [Previous Program L-26]
Stanford Shopping Center
Policy L-4.7 Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere
regional shopping centers. Promote Encourage bicycle and pedestrian
use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur
through infill, potentially including housing and mixed use
development on existing surface parking lots, while continuing to
supply adequate parking. [Previous Policy L-26] [L80]
Program L4.7.1 While preserving adequate parking to meet
demand, iIdentify strategies to reuse surface
parking lots and improve pedestrian and transit
connections at Stanford Shopping Center.
[(Previous Program L-23)(Merged with Previous
Policy L-27)] [L81] Maintain a Stanford Shopping
Center development cap of 80,000 square feet of
additional development beyond that existing on
June 14, 1996. [Previous Program L-24]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-53
MULTI-NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
California Avenue
Policy L-4.8 Maintain the existing scale, character, and function of the California
Avenue business district as a shopping, service, and office center
intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the
smaller neighborhood business areas. [Previous Policy L-28] [L82]
Program L4.8.1 Create a Coordinated Area Plan for Develop the
Cal-Venturaifornia Avenue area to guide its
development as a well-designed mixed use district
with diverse land uses , two- to three-story
buildings, and a network of pedestrian-oriented
streets providing links to California Avenue.
[(Previous Policy L-31) (Converted to Program)]
[L83]
Program L4.8.2 Create regulations for the California Avenue area
that encourage the retention of smaller buildings to
provide spaces for existing retail, particularly local,
small businesses, including to allow for their re-
placement or rehabilitation of smaller buildings
while preventing buildings that are out of scale with
existing buildings. [Previous Program L-27] [L84]
Policy L-4.5 Work with merchants, property owners, and City representatives to
create an urban design guide for the California Avenue business
district. [Previous Program L-28]
Encourage residential and mixed use residential development in the
California Avenue area. [Previous Policy L-29]
Revise the zoning of the California Avenue business district to reduce
the non- residential development potential to levels comparable to
other commercial areas in the City while retaining substantial
residential development potential. [Previous Program L-29]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-54 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-4.6 Improve the transition between the California-Cambridge area and the
single family residential neighborhood of Evergreen Park. Avoid abrupt
changes in scale and density between the two areas. [Previous Policy
L-30] [L85] Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for the Cal-Ventura area.
Use the landuse diagram from the Community Design Workshop as
the starting point for preparing this Plan. [Previous Program L-30]
Policy L-4.7 Establish the following unranked priorities for redevelopment within
the Cal-Ventura area:
Policy L-4.8 Connect the Cal-Ventura area with the Multi-modal Transit Station and
California Avenue. Provide new streets and pedestrian connections
that complete the street grid and create a walkable neighborhood.
Policy L-4.9 Fry’s Electronics site (300 Portage): Continued retail activity is
anticipated for this site until 2019. A program should be developed for
the future use of the site for mixed density multi- family housing and a
park or other open space.
Policy L-4.10 Hewlett-Packard: Uses that are compatible with the surrounding area
and a site plan that facilitates pedestrian use of Park Boulevard.
Policy L-4.11 North of Sheridan Avenue: Development of one or more of the City-
owned parking lots with primarily residential uses, provided that public
parking spaces are replaced.
Policy L-4.12Policy L-4.9 Park Boulevard: Streetscape improvements. [Previous Program
L-31]
South El Camino Real
Policy L-4.13 Establish the South El Camino Real area as a well-designed, compact,
vital, Multi-neighborhood Center with diverse uses, a mix of one-, two-
, and three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian-oriented
streets and ways. [Previous Policy L-35]
Policy L-4.14 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for the South El Camino Real area.
Use the land use map from the Community Design Workshop as a
starting point for preparing this Plan. [Previous Program L-32]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-55
Policy L-4.10 Study ways to make Enhance the pedestrian environment along South
El Camino Real more pedestrian-friendly, including redesigning the
street to provide wider sidewalks, increased building setbacks, safe
pedestrian crossings at key intersections, street trees, and streetscape
improvements, consistent with the recommendations in the Grand
Boulevard Design Guidelines. [(Previous Program L-33) (Converted to
Policy) (Consistent with Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure
AES-1)] [L86]
Program L4.10.1 Provide better east-west connections across El
Camino Real to bring the Ventura and Barron Park
neighborhoods together and to improve linkages to
local schools and parks. [Previous Program L-34]
[L87]
Allow a full range of office and retail uses on shallow parcels along
South El Camino Real, subject to adequate buffering from adjacent
residential uses. [Previous Policy L-36]
Consider Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as a tool to
encourage re-development and/or community-serving amenities
along South El Camino Real. [Previous Program L-35]
Town and Country Village
Policy L-4.11 Recognize and preserve Maintain Town and Country Village as an
attractive community-serving retail center serving Palo Altans and
residents of the wider region. Future development at this site should
preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale, and architectural
character while also improving safe access for bicyclists and
pedestrians and increasing the amount of bicycle parking. [Previous
Policy L-32] [L88]
Policy L-4.12 In Town and Country Village, encourage housing development
consistent with a vibrant business retail environment and urban
greening. [Previous Policy L-33] [L89]
Policy L-4.13 In Town and Country Village, eEncourage improvement of
pedestrian, bicycle, and auto circulation and landscaping
improvements, including maintenance of existing oak trees and
planting additional oak trees. [Previous Policy L-34] [L90]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-56 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
Policy L-4.14 Maintain the scale, Improve the and local-serving focus, and provide
safe pedestrian, bicycle, and multimodal access to all three Palo Alto’s
four Neighborhood Centers – Charleston Shopping Center, Edgewood
Plaza, and Midtown Shopping Center. Support their continued
improvement and vitality. [Previous Policy L-37] [L91]
Evaluate current zoning to determine if it supports the types of uses
and scale of buildings considered appropriate in Neighborhood
Centers. [Previous Program L-36]
Policy L-4.15 Encourage property owners within Neighborhood Centers to prepare
master plans, with the participation of local businesses, property
owners, and nearby residents. [Previous Program L-37]
Policy L-4.15 Encourage maximum use of Neighborhood Centers by ensuring that
the publicly maintained areas are clean, well-lit, and attractively
landscaped. [Previous Policy L-38] [L92]
Facilitate opportunities to improve pedestrian-oriented commercial
activity within Neighborhood Centers. [Previous Policy L-39]
Revise land use and zoning designations as needed to encourage
medium- density housing (20 to 25 units per acre) within or near
Neighborhood Centers served by public transportation to support a
more vital mix of commercial activities. [Previous Program L-38]
Policy L-4.16 Revitalize Maintain Midtown Shopping Center as an attractive,
compact Neighborhood Center with diverse local-serving uses, a mix
of one- and two-story buildings, adequate parking, and a network of
pedestrian-oriented streets, ways and gathering places. Encourage
retention of Midtown’s grocery stores and encourage a variety of
neighborhood retail shops and services. [Previous Policy L-40] [L93]
Prepare a plan for Midtown with the participation of property owners,
local businesses, and nearby residents. Consider the Midtown
Economic Study and the land use concepts identified during the 1994
Community Design Workshop in developing the plan. The plan
should have a special emphasis on public improvements, including
parking, street furniture and signage. [Previous Program L-39]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-57
Policy L-4.17Policy L-4.16 Make improvements to Middlefield Road in Midtown that
slow traffic, encourage commercial vitality, make the street more
pedestrian-friendly, and unify the northeast and southwest sides of the
commercial area, with consideration given to traffic impacts on the
residential neighborhood. (Previous Program L-40)]
Support bicycle and pedestrian trail improvements along a restored
Matadero Creek within Hoover Park. [Previous Program L-41]
Maintain existing residential uses within the Midtown area and
encourage additional residential development. [Previous Policy L-41]
Retain the existing housing along Colorado Avenue and consider
increasing the density to allow townhouses, co-housing, and/or
housing for the disabled. [(Previous Program L-42) (Complete)]
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
GOAL L-5 High quality employment districts, each with their own
distinctive character and each contributing to the character
of the city as a whole.
Policy L-5.1 Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages
facilitates transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. and Pprovide mixed
uses to reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands. [Previous
Policy L-42] [L94]
Policy L-5.2 Modify existing zoning regulations and create incentives for employers
to pro- vide employee services in their existing buildings—for example,
office support services, restaurants, convenience stores, public
gathering places, and child care facilities—to reduce the need for
employees to drive to these services. [Previous Program L-43]
Policy L-5.2 Provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and
connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment
Districts. Pursue opportunities to build include sidewalks, paths, low
water use landscaping, reclaimed water, and trees and remove grass
turf in renovation and expansion projects. [Previous Policy L-43] [L95]
Policy L-5.3 Design the paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and
consistent with the character of the area where they are located.
[(Previous Program L-44) (Converted to Policy)] [L96]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-58 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-5.4 Develop the Stanford Research Park as a Foster compact employment
centers served by a variety of transportation modes. [Previous Policy
L-44] [L97]
Program L5.4.1 Create and apply zoning standards and design
guidelines for commercial hotels, and conference
centers, and possible residential or mixed-use
projects in Stanford Research Park, particularly near
El Camino Real. [Previous Program L-45] [L98]
Program L5.3.1Program L5.4.2 Evaluate the optimum number
of future hotel rooms for Palo Alto and consider
reductions in the allowable floor area ratio as
appropriate. [NEW PROGRAM] [L99]
Policy L-5.4 Develop Stanford Medical Center in a manner that recognizes the
citywide goal of compact, pedestrian-oriented development as well as
the functional needs of the Medical Center. [Previous Policy L-45]
Policy L-5.5 Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical
Center. [(Previous Program L-46)(Complete)]
Policy L-5.6Policy L-5.5 Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore
Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts,
consistent with the approved East Meadow Circle Concept Plan
(Appendix Y of this Comprehensive Plan). [Previous Policy L-46] [L100]
Consider the East Meadow Circle Area as a potential site for higher
density housing that provides a transition between existing housing
and nearby industrial development. [Previous Policy L-47]
Undertake a Community Design Workshop for the
East Meadow Circle Area. [Previous Program L-47]
Program L5.6.1 Implement the 2012 East Meadow Circle Concept
Plan (Appendix Y of this Comprehensive Plan)
when approving new development or other
improvements within the Plan area. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L101]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-59
GOAL L-6 Well-designed buildings that create coherent development
patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces.
DESIGN OF BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC SPACE
Policy L-6.1 Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is
compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. [(Comp
Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1) (Previous Policy L-48)]
[L102]
Program L6.1.1 Promote awards programs and other forms of
public recognition for projects of architectural merit
that contribute positively to the community.
[Previous Program L-53] [L103]
Policy L-6.2 Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design
guidelines, and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality
residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility.
[Previous Program L-48] [L104]
Policy L-6.3 Require bird-friendly design. [NEW POLICY] [L105]
Program L6.2.1Program L6.3.1 Develop guidelines for bird-
friendly building design that minimizes hazards for
birds and reduces the potential for collisions. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L106]
Policy L-6.3Policy L-6.4 In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design
character, encourage the design of new development to maintain and
support the existing character. [Note: This is labeled as a program in
the existing Comp Plan but should more accurately be a policy since
it is an ongoing statement to guide design.] [(Previous Program L-49)
(Converted to Policy) (Comp Plan Draft EIR as Mitigation Measure
AES-1.)] [L107]
Policy L-6.4Policy L-6.5 Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East
Bay hills from public streets in the developed portions of the
City.[Previous Policy L-3] [L108]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-60 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-6.5Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to revitalize complement streets and public
spaces; and to promote personal safety, public health and well-being;
and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an
ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along
public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid
blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details
and massing. [Previous Policy L-49] [L109]
Program L6.5.1Program L6.6.1 Ensure that the zoning
ordinance encourages an ordered variety of entries,
porches, windows, bays and balconies along public
ways where it is consistent with neighborhood
character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level;
and include human-scale details and massing.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L110]
Undertake a comprehensive review of residential and commercial
zoning requirements to identify additional architectural standards that
should be incorporated to implement Policy L-49. [(Previous Program
L-50) (Complete)]
Use illustrations and form code methods for simplifying the Zoning
Ordinance and to promote well-designed buildings. [(Previous
Program L-51) (Complete)]
Program L6.5.2 Maintain and periodically review height and density
limits to discourage single uses that are
inappropriate in size and scale to the surrounding
uses. [Previous Program L-3]
Policy L-6.7 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 1-7 “approval” votes) Maintain the
current 50-foot height limit on building heights in Palo Alto. [NEW
POLICY] [L111]
Policy L-6.8 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 2-4 “approval” votes) Maintain a 50-
foot height limit on building heights in Palo Alto, but allow heights up
to a maximum of 55 feet for residential and retail mixed use projects
to allow flexibility in floor to ceiling heights and enhance the livability
in multi-family residential units. [NEW POLICY] [L112]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-61
Policy L-6.9 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 3-7 “approval” votes) Building height
limits up to a maximum of 65 feet may be considered for areas well-
served by transit, services and retail as a way to facilitate a mix of
multifamily housing, including affordable units, units targeted to
seniors and other special needs populations, and micro-units designed
to accommodate younger members of the workforce. [NEW POLICY]
[L113]
Program L6.9.1 Revise the Zoning ordinance to establish criteria
and conditions that must be met in order to allow
building heights up to 65 feet. Criteria shall address
affordability of the residential units; compatibility
with surrounding land uses; sensitivity to context;
proximity to transit, services and retail; and
mitigation or avoidance of adverse impacts on
traffic and parking conditions. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L114]
Policy L-6.10 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 4-10 “approval” votes) Building height
limits over 50 feet may be considered for areas well-served by transit,
services and retail as a way to facilitate a mix of multi-family housing,
including affordable units, units targeted to seniors and other special
needs populations, and micro-units designed to accommodate
younger members of the workforce. [NEW POLICY] [L115]
Program L6.10.1 Revise the Zoning Ordinance to establish criteria
and conditions that must be met in order to allow
building heights higher than 50 feet. Criteria shall
address affordability of the residential units;
compatibility with surrounding land uses; sensitivity
to context; proximity to transit, services and retail;
and mitigation or avoidance of adverse impacts on
traffic and parking conditions. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L116]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-62 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-6.6Policy L-6.11 Promote gradual transitions in the scale of development
where residential districts abut more intense uses in order to minimize
negative impacts where land use transitions occur. Where possible,
aAvoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and
non-residential areas and between residential areas of different
densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between
land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations
rather than along streets wherever possible. [Previous Policy L-6]
[L117]
Program L6.6.1 Implement architectural standards to assure they
effectively address land use transitions. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L118]
Program L6.6.2 Review and change zoning regulations promote
gradual transitions in the scale of development
where residential districts abut more intense uses.
[Previous Program L-4]
Program L6.6.3 Establish new performance and architectural
standards that minimize negative impacts where
land use transitions occur. [Previous Program L-5]
Program L6.6.4Program L6.11.1 Revise the City’s
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Service
Commercial (CS) zoning requirements to better
address land use transitions. [(Previous Program L-
6) (Complete)]
Policy L-6.7 Support existing regulations that preserve exposure to natural light for
single-family residences. [NEW POLICY] [L119]
Policy L-6.8Policy L-6.12 Enhance desirable characteristics in Create mixed use areas.
Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new
mixed use development that includesconsisting of housing and retail.
[Previous Policy L-9] [L120]
Program L6.8.1Program L6.12.1 Update the municipal code to
include zoning changes that allow a mix of retail
and residential uses but no office uses. The intent
of these changes would be to encourage a mix of
land uses that contributes to the vitality and
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-63
walkability of commercial centers and transit
corridors. [NEW PROGRAM] [L121]
Program L6.8.2Program L6.12.2 Create and apply the following
four new Mixed Use zoning standards: A
“Live/Work” designation that permits individuals to
live on the same site where they work by allowing
housing and other uses such as office, retail, and
light industrial to co-exist in the same building
space; and “Retail/ Office, “Residential/Retail,” and
“Residential/Office” designations that permit a mix
of uses on the same site or nearby sites. Develop
Modify design standards for all mixed use projects
designations providing for to promote a
pedestrian-friendly relationship to the street,
including elements such as buildings with one to
three stories, screened rear parking or underground
parking, street-facing windows and entries, and
landscaping, and trees along the streetzero setback
along the street, except that front gardens may be
provided for ground floor residential uses. [Previous
Program L-10] [L122]
Program L6.12.3 Consider revising development standards in the
Community Commercial, Service Commercial, and
Downtown Commercial Districts (CC, CS, and CD)
and the Neighborhood Commercial District (CN)
along El Camino Real to incentivize the conversion
of non-retail commercial FAR to residential use.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L123]
Program L6.8.3Program L6.12.4 Update the zoning code to
preserve ground-floor retail and limit the
displacement of existing retail from neighborhood
centers. [NEW PROGRAM] [L124]
Program L6.8.4 Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view
of houses. [Previous Program L-52]
Policy L-6.9Policy L-6.13 Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view of the
front of houses from the street. [(Previous Program L-52)(Converted
to Policy)] [L125]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-64 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-6.10Policy L-6.14 Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy-
efficient, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with
aesthetic needs. [Previous Policy L-50] [L126]
GOAL L-7 Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s
historic buildings, sites, and districts.
HISTORIC CHARACTERRESOURCES
Policy L-7.1 Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources
that have historic merit, including residences listed in the City’s
Historic Resource Inventory, the California Register of Historical
Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places. [Previous Policy
L-51] [L127]
Program L7.1.1 Review and update the City’s Inventory of historic
resources including City-owned structures. Update
and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory
to determine all historic resources that are eligible
for the California Register as well as important
examples of California history or prehistory. Historic
resources may consist of a single building or
structure or a district. [(Previous Program L-54)(
Draft EIR Mitigation Measure CULT-1b)] [L128]
Program L7.1.2 Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to
ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and
preservation of historic resources, particularly in the
University Avenue/Downtown area. [Previous
Program L-55] [L129]
Seek additional innovative ways to apply current codes and ordinances
to older buildings. Use the State Historical Building Code for
designated historic buildings. [Previous Program L-65]
Policy L-7.2 If a proposed development would affect a potential historic resource
that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory, consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in the
City’s Inventory prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations
permit. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure
CULT-1b)] [L130]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-65
Maintain and strengthen the design review procedure for exterior
remodeling or demolition of historic resources. Discourage demolition
of historic resources and severely restrict demolition of Landmark
resources. [Previous Program L-56]
Policy L-7.3 Actively seek state and federal funding for the preservation of
buildings of historical merit and consider public/private partnerships
for capital and program improvements. [Previous Policy L-53] [L131]
Support the goals and objectives of the Statewide Comprehensive
Historic Preservation Plan for California. [Previous Policy L-54]
Policy L-7.4 Relocation may be considered as a preservation strategy when
consistent with State and National Standards regarding the relocation
of historic resources. [Previous Policy L-55] [L132]
Policy L-7.5 To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown,
promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. [Previous
Policy L-56] [L133]
Policy L-7.6 Promote awards programs and other forms of public recognition for
exemplary Historic Preservation projects. [(Previous Program L-
62)(Converted to Policy)] [L134]
Policy L-7.7 Streamline, to the maximum extent feasible, any future processes for
design review of historic structures to eliminate unnecessary delay and
uncertainty for the applicant and to encourage historic preservation.
[(Previous Program L-63) (Converted to Policy)] [L135]
Follow the procedures established in the State Public Resources Code
for the protection of designated historic buildings damaged by
earthquake or other natural disaster. [Previous Policy L-59]
REHABILITATION AND REUSE
Policy L-7.8 Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings. [Previous Policy L-58] [L136]
Program L7.8.1 Revise existing zoning and permit regulations as
needed to minimize constraints to adaptive reuse,
particularly in retail areas. [Previous Program L-66]
Program L7.8.2Program L7.8.1 Develop incentives for the
retention and rehabilitation of buildings with
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-66 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
historic merit in all zones and revise existing zoning
and permit regulations as needed to minimize
constraints to adaptive reuse, particularly in retail
areas [(Previous Policy L-57) (Converted to
Program)] [L137]
Program L7.8.3Program L7.8.2 Create incentives to
eEncourage salvage and reuse of discarded historic
building materials. [Previous Program L-57] [L138]
Program L7.8.4Program L7.8.3 For proposed exterior
alterations or additions to designated Historic
Landmarks, require design review findings that the
proposed changes are in compliance with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation. [Previous Program L-58] [L139]
Policy L-7.9 Allow compatible nonconforming uses for the life of historic buildings.
[(Previous Program L-61) (Converted to Policy)] [L140]
Policy L-7.10 Ensure encourage the preservation of significant historic resources
owned by the City of Palo Alto. Allow such resources to be altered
to meet contemporary needs consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior Standards for Rehabilitationonly if, provided that the
preservation standards adopted by the City Council are satisfied.
[Previous Policy L-52] [L141]
Policy L-7.11 Maintain the historic integrity of building exteriors. Allow Consider
parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation.
Require design review findings that the historic integrity of the building
exterior will be maintained. [(Previous Program L-59)(Converted to
Policy)] [L142]
Program L7.11.1 Review parking exceptions for historic buildings in
the Zoning Code to determine if there is an
effective balance between historic preservation and
meeting parking needs [NEW PROGRAM] [L143]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-67
Policy L-7.12 Encourage and assist owners of historically significant buildings in
finding ways to adapt and restore rehabilitate these buildings,
including participation in state and federal tax relief
programs.[(Previous Program L-64) (Converted to Policy)] [L144]
Program L7.12.1 Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the
transfer of development rights from designated
buildings of historic significance in the Commercial
Downtown (CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites
in the CD zone. Revise the TDR Ordinance so that
transferred development rights may be used only
for residential development on the receiver sites.
Planned Community (PC) zone properties in the
Downtown also qualify for this program. [Previous
Program L-60] [L145]
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Policy L-7.13 Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land
formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats, and
remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the
nineteenth century. [(Previous Policy L-60)(Comp Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure CULT-1c)] [L146]
Policy L-7.14 Continue to consult with tribes as required by California Government
Code Section 65352.3. In doing so, use appropriate procedures to
accommodate tribal concerns when a tribe has a religious prohibition
against revealing precise information about the location or previous
practice at a particular sacred site. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft
EIR Mitigation Measure CULT-3)] [L147]
Policy L-7.15 Using the archaeological sensitivity map in the Comprehensive Plan as
a guide, continue to aAssess the need for archaeological surveys and
mitigation plans on a project-by-project basis, consistent with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act. [Note: the referenced figure will likely be removed
from the Comp Plan to protect the integrity of known and
undiscovered archaeological resources.] [(Previous Program L-67)
(Converted to Policy)] [L148]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-68 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-7.15Policy L-7.16 Ensure that developers understand their obligation to meet
state codes regarding the identification and protection of
archaeological and paleontological deposits. [NEW POLICY] [L149]
GOAL L-8 Attractive and safe civic and cultural facilities provided in all
neighborhoods and maintained and used in ways that foster
and enrich public life.
Policy L-8.1 Facilitate creation of new parkland to serve Palo Alto's residential
neighborhoods, as consistent with the Parks, Trails, Open Space and
Recreation Master Plan. [NEW POLICY] [L150]
Program L8.1.1 Encourage dedication of new land for parks
through regulations and incentives for new
development and programs to solicit bequests of
land within the city. [NEW PROGRAM] [L151]
Program L8.1.2 Pursue opportunities to create linear parks over the
Caltrain tracks in the event the tracks are moved
below grade. [NEW PROGRAM] [L152]
Program L8.1.3 Explore ways to dedicate a portion of in-lieu fees
towards acquisition of parkland, not just
improvements. [NEW PROGRAM] [L153]
Program L8.1.1 Explore opportunities to dedicate City‐owned land
as parkland to protect and preserve its community
serving purpose into the future. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L154]
Program L8.1.2 Promote the use of community and cultural
centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other
community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that
they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a
variety of community services during both daytime
and evening hours. [Previous Policy L-61]
Program L8.1.3 To help satisfy present and future community use
needs, coordinate with the School District to
educate the public about and to plan for the future
use of school sites, including providing space for
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-69
public gathering places for neighborhoods lacking
space. [Previous Program L-68]
Program L8.1.4 Enhance all entrances to Mitchell Park Community
Center so that they are more inviting and facilitate
public gatherings. [(Previous Program L-69)
(Complete)]
Program L8.1.5Program L8.1.4 Study the potential for
landscaping or park furniture that would promote
neighborhood parks as outdoor gathering places
and centers of neighborhood activity. [Previous
Program L-70]
Policy L-8.2 Encourage use of data driven, innovative design methods tactics and
use data to understand to evaluate how different community
members use public space. [NEW POLICY] [L155]
Policy L-8.2 Use the work of artists, craftspeople, architects, and landscape
architects in the design and improvement of public spaces. [Previous
Policy L-74]
Policy L-8.3 Provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art
adjacent to library and community center entrances. [Previous Policy
L-62] [L156]
Policy L-8.4 Encourage small-scale local-serving retail services, such as small cafes,
delicatessens, and coffee carts, in cCivic cCenters: Mitchell Park,
Rinconada Library, and Cubberly Community Center. [Previous Policy
L-63] [L157]
Policy L-8.5 Create facilities for civic and intellectual life, such as better urban
public spaces for civic programs and speakers, cultural, musical and
artistic events. [NEW POLICY] [L158]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-70 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-8.6 Promote and maintain Recognize public art and cultural facilities as a
community benefit. Encourage the development of new and the
enhancement of existing public and private art and cultural facilities
throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with
the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. [Previous
Policy L-72] [L159]
Policy L-8.7 Seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces,
open space, and community gardens that encourage and support
pedestrian and bicycle travel and person-to-person contact, particularly
in neighborhoods that lack these amenities. [Previous Policy L-64]
[L160]
Policy L-8.8 Encourage religious and private institutions to provide facilities that
promote a sense ofcollaborate with the community and are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. [Previous Policy L-65]
[L161]Public Ways
GOAL L-9 Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance
the image and character of the city.
GOAL L-10 Maintain an aesthetically pleasing street network that helps
frame and define the community while meeting the needs
of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.[(Previous Policy L-
66]
GOAL L-11GOAL L-9 Balance traffic circulation needs with the
goal of creating walkable neighborhoods that are designed
and oriented towards pedestrians. [Previous Policy L-67]
[Covered in Transportation Element]
[Note: concepts above covered in more detail in the Transportation
Element under Goal T-3: Streets. To avoid redundancy, extra length,
and potential confusion, we suggest keeping them in Transportation
and deleting here].
Integrate creeks and green spaces with the street and
pedestrian/bicycle path system. [Previous Policy L-68] [Covered in
Transportation Element Policy T-1.18]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-71
STREETS AND PARKING
Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists,
cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. [Previous Policy L69]
Policy L-9.1 Recognize Sand Hill Road, University Avenue between Middlefield
Road and San Francisquito Creek, Embarcadero Road, Page Mill Road,
Oregon Expressway, Interstate 280, Arastradero Road (west of Foothill
Expressway), Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway, and
Skyline Boulevard as scenic routes and preserve their scenic qualities.
[(Previous Policy L-69) (Previous Program L-71)] [L162]
Program L11.1.1Program L9.1.1 Evaluate existing zoning code
setback requirements to ensure they are
appropriate for scenic routes. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L163]
Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the
project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground
wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas.
Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the
amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets,
street trees, a vibrant local economy, and sufficient parking to meet
demand. [Previous Policy L-78] [L164]
Policy L-11.2Policy L-9.3 Require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian
and bicycle safety. [NEW POLICY] [L165]
Policy L-11.3Policy L-9.4 Enhance tree health and the appearance of streets and other
public spaces through regular by expanding and
maintainmaintenanceing as well as Palo Alto’s street tree and
landscape planting and care of the existing canopy. system.. [Previous
Policy L-70] [L166]
Program L9.4.1 Continue to use the El Camino Real Design
Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance to enhance
the visual character of this corridor by addressing
appropriate sidewalk widths and encouraging
building forms, massing, and setbacks that relate to
the street and the pedestrian, whether through
traditional architectural forms or innovative new
designs. Consider whether sidewalk widths and
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-72 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
building setback should also be addressed along
other major thoroughfares such as Alma Street and
Charleston Road. [(NEW PROGRAM) (Comp Plan
Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1)] [L167]
Program L9.4.2 Involve tree owners in tree maintenance programs.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L168]
PUBLIC SPACES
Policy L-11.4Policy L-9.5 Maintain and enhance existing public gathering places and
open spaces and integrate new public spaces at a variety of scales.
[NEW POLICY] [L169]
[Note: This Section Moved From Goal L-3 Residential Design]
Policy L-11.5Policy L-9.6 Create, pPreserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible,
shared outdoor the public gathering spaces within walking and biking
distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential
neighborhood has such spaces. [Previous Policy L-15] [L170]
Program L11.5.1Program L9.6.1 Analyze existing
neighborhoods and determine where publicly
accessible shared, outdoor gathering spaces are
below the citywide average. Create new public
spaces, including public squares, parks and
informal gathering spaces in these neighborhoods.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L171]
Policy L-9.7 Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood
amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street
trees, benches, and other amenities that promote walking and “active”
transportation. favor pedestrians. [Previous Policy L-17] [L172]
Program L11.5.2Program L9.7.1 Review standards for streets
and signage and update as needed to foster
natural, tree-lined streets with a minimum of
signage. [NEW PROGRAM] [L173]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-73
GATEWAYS
Policy L-11.6Policy L-9.8 Strengthen the identity of important community-wide
gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, El
Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to
commercial districts; and Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real, and
between Palo Alto and Stanford.[Previous Policy L-71] [L174]
Program L11.6.1Program L9.8.1 Develop a strategy to enhance
gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public
spaces, and/or public buildings. Emphasize the
creek bridges and riparian settings at the entrances
to the City over Adobe Creek and San Francisquito
Creek. [Previous Program L-72] [L175]
Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in
connection with new development projects. Consider incentives for
including public art in large development projects. [Previous Policy L-
73]
Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking
behind buildings or underground wherever possible. [Previous Policy
L-75]
Revise the Zoning Ordinance to require the location of parking lots
behind buildings rather than in front of them, under appropriate
conditions. [Previous Program L-73]
Modify zoning standards pertaining to parking lot layout and
landscaping for land uses within Employment Districts. [Previous
Program L-74]
URBAN FOREST
Policy L-11.7Policy L-9.9 Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan, as
periodically amended, into the Comprehensive Plan by reference in
order to assure that new land uses recognize the many benefits of
trees in the urban context and foster a healthy and robust tree canopy
throughout the City. [NEW POLICY] [L176]
Program L11.7.1Program L9.9.1 Establish incentives to
encourage native trees, and low water use plantings
Photo by Scott Haefner—Courtesy of Canopy
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-74 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
in new development throughout the city. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L177]
Program L11.7.2Program L9.9.2 Require Update City
requirements regarding trees and other landscaping
that capture and filter stormwater within surface
parking lots to take advantage of new technology.
[(Previous Policy L-76) (Converted to Program)]
[L178]
Policy L-9.10 Involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development
review. [NEW POLICY] [L179]
Policy L-11.8 Recognize the urban forest as City infrastructure to be maintained in
accordance with applicable guidelines and requirements. [NEW
POLICY] [L180]
Policy L-11.9 Consider Zoning Ordinance amendments for parking lot landscaping,
including requiring a variety of drought-tolerant, relatively litter-free
tree species capable of forming a 50 percent tree canopy within 10 to
15 years. Consider further amendments that would require existing
nonconforming lots to come into compliance wherever possible.
[(Previous Program L-75) (Complete)]
Policy L-11.10 Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots to minimize the amount
of land that must be devoted to parking, provided that economic
and traffic safety goals can still be achieved. [Previous Policy L-77]
Policy L-11.11 Evaluate parking requirements and actual parking needs for specific
uses. Develop design criteria based on a standard somewhere
between average and peak conditions. [Previous Program L-76]
Policy L-11.12Policy L-9.11 Revise parking requirements to encourage creative solutions
such as valet parking, landscaped parking reserves, satellite parking,
and others that minimize the use of open land for parking. [Previous
Program L-77]
[Note: Concepts above such as Parking requirements and creative
parking solutions addressed in Transportation Element under Goal T-
5: Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-75
Encourage the use of Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking
structures Downtown and in the California Avenue area. [(Previous
Program L-78) (inconsistent with current City practice)]
UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures,
parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design
standards and embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities
to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or
mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or
visually disruptive. [Previous Policy L-79] [L181]
Policy L-11.13Policy L-9.12 Undertake a coordinated effort by the Public Works, Utilities,
and Planning Departments to establish design standards for public
infrastructure and examine the effectiveness of City street, sidewalk
and street tree maintenance programs. [(Previous Program L-79)
(Complete)]
Program L11.13.1Program L9.12.1 Continue the citywide
undergrounding of utility wires. Minimize the
impacts of undergrounding on street tree root
systems and planting areas. [Previous Program L-
80] [L182]
Program L11.13.2Program L9.12.2 Encourage the use of compact
and well-designed utility elements, such as
transformers, switching devices, and backflow
preventers, and telecommunications infrastructure.
Place these elements in locations that will minimize
their visual intrusion. [Previous Program L-81]
[L183]
Policy L-9.13 Provide utilities and service systems to serve all urbanized areas of
Palo Alto and plan infrastructure maintenance and improvements to
adequately serve existing and planned development. [(NEW POLICY)
(PTC Policy L2.9, edited)] [L184]
Program L9.13.1 Develop an Infrastructure Master Plan that projects
the future needs of streets, underground utilities,
and all City assets and plans for the incorporation
of new technology that improves efficiency and
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-76 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
effectiveness. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC Program
L2.9.1)] [L185]
Program L9.13.2 Implement the findings of the City’s Infrastructure
Blue Ribbon Committee and its emphasis for
rebuilding our civic spaces. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC
Program L2.9.8)] [L186]
Program L11.13.3Program L9.13.3 Identify City-owned properties
where combinations of wireless facilities can be co-
located, assuming appropriate lease agreements
are in place. [(NEW PROGRAM)(PTC Program
L2.9.5)] [L187]
BAYLANDS
Policy L-9.14 Regulate land uses in the Airport Influence Area to ensure consistency
with the Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the
Baylands Master Plan. [NEW POLICY] [L188]
Policy L-11.14Policy L-9.15 Palo Alto is committed to preservation of the Baylands as
called for in the Baylands Master Plan, which is incorporated here by
reference. [NEW POLICY] [L189]
GOAL L-12GOAL L-10 Maintain an economically viable local
airport with minimal environmental impacts.
PALO ALTO AIRPORT
Policy L-12.1Policy L-10.1 Support the continued Operate Palo Alto Airport (PAO) as a
vitality and efficientectiveness facility at its current level of operation of
the Palo Alto Airport without significantly increasing its intensity or
intruding into open space areas. PAO The Airport should remain
limited to a single runway and two fixed base operatorsminor
expansion shall only be allowed in order to meet federal and State
airport design and safety standards. [(Previous Policy T-57)] [L190]
Program L12.1.1Program L10.1.1 Encourage Santa Clara County
to Rrelocate the terminal building away from the
Runway 31 clear zone and closer to the hangars,
allowing for construction of a new replacement
terminal. [(Previous Program T-58)] [L191]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-77
Program L10.1.2 Update the Airport Layout Plan in accordance with
Federal Aviation Administration requirements, as
needed, while ensuring conformance with the
Baylands Master Plan to the maximum extent
feasible. [NEW PROGRAM] [L192]
Program L12.1.2Program L10.1.3 Identify and pursue funding to
address maintenance, safety and security
improvements needed at PAO. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L193]
Policy L-10.2 Minimize the environmental impacts associated with PAO operations,
including adverse effects on the character of surrounding open space,
noise levels, and the quality of life in residential areas, as required by
federal and State requirements. [NEW POLICY] [L194]
Program L10.2.1 Establish and implement a system for processing,
tracking and reporting noise complaints regarding
local airport operations on an annual basis,. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L195]
Program L10.2.2 Work with the airport to pursue opportunities to
enhance the open space and habitat value of the
airport. These include:
maintaining native grasses;
reconstructing levees to protect the airport
from sea level rise while enhancing public
access and habitat conservation; and
evaluating the introduction of burrowing owl
habitat. This program is subject to federal
wildlife hazard requirements and guidelines
for airports. [NEW PROGRAM] [L196]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-78 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-12.2Policy L-10.3 Provide public access to the Airport for bicyclists and
pedestrians. [NEW POLICY] [L197]
Program L12.2.1Program L10.3.1 Continue to pProvide a
planting strip and bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent
to Embarcadero Road, that is consistent with the
Baylands Master Plan and open space character of
the baylands subject to airport federal and State
regulations. [(Previous Program T-57)] [L198]
Policy L-10.4 Address the potential impacts of future sea level rise through
reconstruction of the Bayfront levee in a manner that provides
protection for the Airport and greater habitat along the San Francisco
Bay frontage. [NEW POLICY] [L199]
Policy L-10.5 Encourage the use of alternatives to leaded fuel in aircraft operating in
and out of Palo Alto Airport. [NEW POLICY] [L200]
Table 1: Growth Management Options and Choices (For Non-Residential Growth)
Source: Planning & Community Environment, October 2016
Cumulative Cap
(Amount of Development)
Annual Limit
(Pace of Development)
Downtown Cap
(Amount of Development)
Desired Approach
Implement a cumulative cap plus development
requirements and community indicators.
Implement a cumulative cap plus community
indicators but do not use development
requirements.
Don’t implement a cumulative cap. Use
development requirements and community
indicators instead.
Implement an annual limit
Don’t implement an annual limit
Maintain a downtown cap
Don’t maintain a downtown cap
Baseline √ Build on the 1989 land use study but use 2015
as the baseline and monitor from 2015
√ Resets annually √ Build on the current cap, but use 2015 as
the baseline and monitor from 2015
Applicable Area
√ Apply Citywide minus SUMC Apply citywide minus SUMC (3 votes)
Apply citywide minus Stanford Research Park
(SRP) and SUMC (12 votes)
√ Apply Downtown
Uses Affected Apply to office/R&D (13 votes)
Apply to office/R&D plus hotel (6 votes)
√ Apply to office/R&D Apply to office/R&D
Apply to office/R&D plus hotel
Numerical Cap Apply to office/R&D = 1.7M sf
Apply to office/R&D plus hotel = 1.7M sf plus
hotel cap to be determined though future study
√ Address what should happen when cap gets
close
√ Address zoned but unbuilt development
potential
Citywide including SRP = 50,000 sf Citywide +
[TBD] for SRP; allow SRP to rollover unused
square footage to future years
Citywide minus SRP = 50,000 sf with a trip cap
applied to SRP
Apply to Office/R&D = 45,619 sf
Apply to Office/R&D and Hotel = 45,619 sf +
50,000 sf
Consider exempting small offices
√ Address what should happen when cap gets
close
√ Address zoned but unbuilt development
potential
Exemptions √ Continue to exempt public facilities √ Continue exemptions from the interim
ordinance (offices <5K sf, medical offices ,2k sf,
city offices, accessory offices, and “self-
mitigating projects”)
Exempt small offices (< 5k sf)
Eliminate TDRs or use them for residential
square footage only
KEY: √ = CAC Consensus reached • = Options for consideration by City Council TBD = To Be Determined
Comments Received After September 20, 2016 CAC Meeting
The following documents are attached for your review and information:
1.CAC member Whitney McNair’s comments
2.CAC member Elaine Uang’s comments
Public Comments
1.Rita Vrehl
Attachment C - CAC/Public Comments and
9/20/16 CAC Meeting Minutes
Land, Buildings & Real Estate
3160 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304-8442
September 27, 2016
Ms. Hillary Gitelman
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Stanford University Comments on Annual Office/R&D Limit Proposal in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element
Dear Hillary:
As you are aware, the September 20, 2016 draft of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and
Community Design Element contains two options for an annual office and R&D growth limit, in
Policies L-1.14 and L-1.15 (p. L-31). Draft Policy L-1.14 would limit new office/R&D square
footage permitted in the City to 50,000 square feet annually outside the Stanford Research Park
and to a to-be-determined amount inside the Stanford Research Park. Draft Policy L-1.15 also
would limit new office/R&D square footage permitted in the City to 50,000 square feet annually,
but would exempt the Stanford Research Park from a limit “if a cap on peak period auto trips to
the Research Park is established and enforced.”
Stanford University could support a single policy, as set forth below, that consolidated and
revised the two current draft policies. The new proposed policy would limit annual net new
office/R&D square footage permitted in the City to 50,000 square feet and an additional 50,000
square feet within the Stanford Research Park, while also authorizing an exemption for the
Stanford Research Park, in whole or in part, should the City and Stanford reach agreement on
alternative means for addressing auto trips to and from the Research Park. Stanford’s proposed
Policy L-1.14 is as follows:
Limit the amount of net new office/R&D square footage permitted
in the City on an annual basis to 50,000 square feet outside the
Stanford Research Park and an additional 50,000 square feet inside
the Stanford Research Park. Allow unused development capacity
within the Stanford Research Park only to be carried forward to
future years. Stanford University Medical Center shall be exempt
from this annual limit. The Stanford Research Park, in whole or in
part, also shall be exempt from this annual limit if the City and
Stanford enter into a mutually acceptable agreement with defined
performance standards providing for alternative means of
addressing auto trips to and from the Research Park. Any such
agreement may not cause new or substantially more severe
significant environmental impacts than those that would be caused
under the annual limit. [NEW POLICY] [L23]
MS. HILLARY GITELMAN
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PAGE 2
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Whitney McNair, AICP
Director, Land Use Planning
Stanford University
cc: Tiffany Griego, Managing Director, Stanford Research Park, Stanford Real Estate
From:Lee, Elena
To:Costello, Elaine; Joanna Jansen; Moitra, Chitra
Subject:FW: Post: declining student enrollment
Date:Wednesday, September 28, 2016 11:07:24 AM
Attachments:FullSizeRender.jpg
FullSizeRender.jpg
From: Elaine Uang [mailto:elaine.uang@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 1:46 PMTo: Lee, ElenaSubject: Fwd: Post: declining student enrollment Hi Elena,
Given there was some discsusion on Tuesday about "school impacts" could you forward to the
CAC the following images of today's Daily Post article on school enrollment numbers? Theyhave been steadily declining for six years and are projected to continue declining. The article
also highlights the fact the number of 25-40 year olds has declined 7% in the last 10 years. This age group is the family formation cohort and if their numbers continue to dwindle,
PAUSD enrollment will continue to dwindle as well.
Elaine
From:Lee, Elena
To:Gitelman, Hillary; Costello, Elaine; Joanna Jansen; Moitra, Chitra
Subject:FW: CAC comments and Staff"s report sent to the City Council
Date:Wednesday, September 28, 2016 10:49:52 AM
From: Rita Vrhel [mailto:ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 9:10 AMTo: Lee, ElenaCc: Council, CitySubject: CAC comments and Staff's report sent to the City Council
Hello Elena....I attended the 9/20 CAC meeting and heard your request for letters by 9/27.
It was interesting how many on the CAC requested that all of their verbal comments and
written communication be included in the document sent to the City Council for their review.
Some members noted during Staff "editing" their comments were removed, which CACmembers indicated "skewed" the final document rather than being reflective of all CAC
statements.
At the 9/20 meeting CAC members were assured all their comments would be included and
sent to the City Council. I hope this occurs.
Inclusion of all comments is crucial as many in the community believe the CAC is a "puppet"
formed to advance certain agendas under the guise of of "community involvement". Theoriginal selection of CAC members supported this view; addition of other community
members resulted in a more balanced committee. But not including all CAC comments inyour report supports lingering "agenda" suspicions.
Over the last 4 months I have observed more and more CAC members become increasinglyconcerned with the waste of community groundwater occurring during residential basement
dewatering.
On 9/20 all but 2 CAC members (present) voiced their support for ending this wastefulprocess as California remains in a severe drought. Three (3) members even called for a
moratorium.
Please reflect these statements in your report to the City Council. Please call or email me ifyou have any questions regarding my comments.
Thank you.
Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM
Medical Case Management
Phone: 650-325-2298Fax: 650-326-9451
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AT PLACES MEMO
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
The following documents are attached for your review and information:
1.CAC member Steve Levy’s comments
2.CAC member Jennifer Hetterly’s comments
3.CAC member Bonnie Packer’s comments
4.CAC member Arthur Keller’s comments
5.CAC member Annette Glanckopf’s comments
Public Comments
1.Keith Bennett, Save Palo Alto's Groundwater
Steve Levy’s Comments
I want to thank staff and my subcommittee members for supporting two important
language/policy clarifications mentioned in our packet today,
One is clarifying that we support both traditional “affordable” housing meaning efforts at helping
low-income residents through public programs/polices like BMR units and also the concept of
making housing more affordable (increasing housing affordability) for residents who are not
wealthy but also not poor enough to qualify for public subsidy. Our adopted Housing Element
has policies for both concepts of increasing affordability and the Comp Plan should as well.
The second clarification with policy implications is distinguishing “performance requirements” for
new developments from the collection and use of community indicator data such as traffic
counts, water and energy use, school enrollment, road maintenance and the many other
community indicators in the S/CAP and sustainability committee work.
The important policy point is to keep focus not just on new development but on the large
potential but also heavy lifting needed to be done by existing residents, workers and
businesses in, for example, reducing car use or saving water and energy.
Attached below are two articles—one showing how new options like Lyft and Uber are allowing
residents to go car light in our allegedly worst car centric city Los Angeles—home of my birth.
People in Los Angeles Are Getting
Rid Of Their Cars
Instead, they’re riding Uber and Lyft to work.
Eric Spiegelman grew up in a six-car family in the San Fernando Valley and
has lived in Los Angeles for the majority of his life. At the end of May, he let
the lease on his Volkswagen CC expire, opting to live car-free in a city
synonymous with car culture. For the past three months, he’s been commuting
to and from work exclusively via Uber and Lyft — mostly using Pool and Line,
cheaper options that allow passengers to share trips with other riders on
similar routes.
“It ran so contrary to the culture that I’d been brought up in, and also my
sense of what was doable,” Spiegelman, 39, told BuzzFeed News. “It was the
most unnatural feeling thing at first. But it was so freeing.”
An understandable sentiment — after all, Spiegelman is president of the LA
Taxicab Commission.
Spiegelman had been studying the economics of riding Uber and Lyft versus a
taxi or driving a personal vehicle when he decided to run the math for his own
car. He made a spreadsheet outlining the cost of leasing his Volkswagen: $458
monthly for the lease itself, $158 for insurance, $70 for gas, and at least $72
for parking, for a total cost of about $758. Based on those calculations, he said
he has saved more than $1,100 in the last three months, spending an average
of $3.42 for each UberPool or Lyft Line ride to work in August.
Ride-hail companies are betting that in the future — particularly after the
introduction of self-driving cars — owning a car will become a thing of the
past. LA, a city long known for car dependency, sprawl, and gridlock, has
become a proving ground for this shift. More than a half-dozen Angelenos told
BuzzFeed News they have ditched their cars recently and instead rely on Uber,
Lyft, public transportation, bikes, and, for longer trips, ZipCar, Turo or similar
services. And they’re part of a growing movement that’s slowly reshaping the
Autopia that is LA. “If you think about it, the ideal form of public
transportation for LA is cars on demand.”
There were nearly 6.3 million cars registered in Los Angeles County from
January through December 2015, according to the California Department of
Motor Vehicles. Nearly 73% of workers ages 16 and older in LA County drove
to work alone in 2014, according to the most recent US Census Bureau data,
and 67% in the city of LA. Residents complained in an LA Times poll
conducted in September that traffic is their biggest concern. LA drivers spent
81 hours each sitting in traffic in 2015, more than drivers in any other US city,
according to the transportation analytics company Inrix.
“LA, that confluence of sort of an extremely high dependence on cars, a lack of
public transportation, does in fact make it very well suited to transition more
rapidly to Uber or Lyft,” said Arun Sundararajan, a New York University
professor and author of a book called The Sharing Economy. “If you think
about it, the ideal form of public transportation for LA is cars on demand.”
Lyft has grown 25-fold in LA since January 2014, the company told BuzzFeed.
Line, the cheaper ride-sharing option it introduced in LA in September 2014,
now accounts for 30% of rides. Derek Kan, Lyft’s general manager for LA, said
the “vast majority” of wait times are under 3 minutes, and that the highest-
volume passengers in the city take up to 200 rides a month.
Uber, which provides more than 150,000 rides in LA per day, has seen similar
popularity for Pool. About five months after Lyft launched Line in LA, Uber
launched UberPool. That ride-sharing service now accounts for 25% of trip
requests.
“I was actually surprised by how well Angelenos have adopted UberPool,”
Brian Hughes, Uber’s general manager for that market, told BuzzFeed. “We
knew as we were launching UberPool that we were asking for a significant
change in behavior from the Los Angeles population.”
It helps that rides can be dirt cheap. Compare the base UberX fares for several
cities: $2.55 in New York City, $2 in San Francisco, $1.15 in Washington, DC,
and $1.70 in Chicago, according to Uber’s fare estimator. And the minimum
fares: $8 in New York City, $6.55 in San Francisco, $6.35 in Washington, DC,
and $4.20 in Chicago.
In LA, the base fare for UberX is $0; the minimum fare is $5.15. The per-
minute rate is 15 cents and the per-mile rate is 90 cents, lower than the
corresponding rates for the other cities, except Chicago, which has the same
per-mile rate.
For UberPool and Lyft Line rides, which are shared with other passengers, the
cost goes down even further.
On average, choosing to share a ride with UberPool only adds about 4.2 extra
minutes to a rider’s trip, Hughes said. But Uber found that LA riders were
nervous that getting in a car with another passenger would make them late.
After finding that was a concern in other markets as well, Uber added “you’ll
arrive by” estimates to its app.
If there’s anything as frustrating as driving in LA, it’s parking there: The
city issues more than 2.5 million parking citations each year, raking in $165
million. Christian Nurse, a 36-year-old commercial and music video producer
who lives in the Fairfax District, had been living in LA for about 14 years by
the time Uber launched there in 2012. He was sick of all the parking tickets
that regularly collected on his Jeep Wrangler’s windshield.
“Having a car in LA is a giant pain in the ass. You’re always worried about it,”
Nurse said “It’s this giant expensive thing that you constantly need to be aware
of when you’re in it, when you’re not in it.”
Nurse did the math and realized even if he rode Uber everywhere, it would
cost him about the same amount as owning a car. So he sold the Jeep.
“I tell people I live in LA like it’s New York. Uber and Lyft are my public
transit station,” he said. “Before ride-sharing, I wasn’t really taking taxis
everywhere. It’s not like calling a taxi, and you have to give them your address,
and they’re dispatched out, and they’re more expensive.”
It’s worth noting that this is a relatively new phenomenon. In December 2014,
when the Transportation Sustainability Research Center at the University of
California, Berkeley, asked LA residents about their usage of Uber and Lyft,
they didn’t feel the same way.
“The focus group … told us that they use Uber and Lyft periodically for
commutes and for other trips, but that they did not use it, they would not sell a
vehicle, they would not rely upon it on a daily basis because of surge pricing
and the uncertainty of trip costs,” said Adam Cohen, a research associate for
the center who focuses on Southern California. “It would be good to get a
reassessment on that now.”
But that was just a few months after Lyft Line launched, and before the debut
of UberPool and the companies’ price wars to win market share.
Whether Uber and Lyft have made a significant dent on parking congestion in
LA is unclear. Donald Shoup, an urban planning professor at the University of
California, Los Angeles, who has studied parking in the city, said riding Uber
and Lyft round-trip is generally cheaper than owning a car and paying to park
it in LA. But he said it’s difficult to determine if it’s made finding parking any
easier, or rates cheaper in garages. Uber approached him to ask whether he
had studied if the company’s services reduced vehicle travel or parking
demand, but he said he didn’t have the evidence to answer the question.
The other article was an op ed in the Wall Street Journal on limiting jobs in Palo Alto.
In the Heart of Silicon Valley, They Don’t
Want New Jobs
Palo Alto is doing great, thanks. So please build your
affordable homes somewhere else.
By
Andy Kessler Sept. 16, 2016 6:21 p.m. ET
196 COMMENTS
Palo Alto, Calif.
The capital of Silicon Valley is ready to abdicate. A few weeks ago, bizarre as it might seem, Palo Alto Mayor Patrick Burt came out against jobs. “We’re looking to
increase the rate of housing growth,” he told Curbed San Francisco, “but decrease the rate of job growth.”
Think about that. Almost every mayor in the U.S. is wracking his brain trying to entice jobs into town. Yet Palo Alto—3.8% unemployment, a magnet for the geek
class, the place that nurtured Facebook —is telling everyone else to get lost.
I had to meet this guy. Near City Hall, I pulled my (proudly gas guzzling) car into a spot between a white Tesla and a black Tesla. This was the Coral parking zone, giving me two hours before I had to move to the Lime zone. Nearby stood the Epiphany, a
new $800-a-night hotel, just down from the ancient House of Foam, fulfilling all your polyurethane and polystyrene needs. Next to the Verizon Wireless store, the old Stanford Theater was showing a Ruth Chatterton double feature. Palo Alto, 65,000
people sitting on 26 square miles of some of the most valuable land anywhere, is certainly a town of contrasts.
The city doesn’t have a mayoral election. Instead, the council members, some of whom identify as slow-growth “residentialists,” install one of their own as mayor for a
one-year term. Now it’s Patrick Burt’s turn, and he’s making the most of it. “Big tech companies are choking off the downtown,” he told the New York Times.
Right before the mayor went rogue, one of the city’s planning commissioners, Kate Downing, resigned in an open letter. Her family, she said, couldn’t afford to live in
Palo Alto any longer. She’s got a point.
Michael Dreyfus, a top real-estate agent in the area, says the cheapest home for sale is
a three-bedroom, one-bathroom, 959 square footer on about an eighth of an acre that backs up to train tracks. The asking price (are you sitting down?) is $1.35 million. Or
he can sell you a place with five beds and four and a half baths on less than half an acre for $17.5 million. OK, that one is in desirable Old Palo Alto, but it isn’t even that
old—no cobblestone streets or anything.
I wanted to ask Mayor Burt: Is stifling job creation really going to help? Or would that
only boost surrounding towns? Palo Alto has already capped the annual growth of
office space. It took years to approve a new $5 billion Stanford Hospital extension, which the area desperately needed. Even worse, there is a funny quirk in the zoning
laws that limits what’s allowed in so-called Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development areas (downtown). This includes restrictions on research and
development, a catchall for limited manufacturing, “storage or use of hazardous materials,” and “computer software and hardware firms.”
I can tell you outright that the only hazardous materials in an office of software coders are their high-test caffeine concoctions. But the software firms are many. Amazon has
its search team in Palo Alto. The big-data firm Palantir has been gobbling up buildings for its engineers. Facebook had several before moving to neighboring Menlo
Park. SurveyMonkey has a huge site near the train station.
Even Palo Alto’s residential areas are filled with startups, real-life versions of Erlich
Bachman’s house from HBO’s “Silicon Valley.” They’re easy to spot, having more cars parked during the day than at night. These companies offer high-paying and productive jobs that are great for society.
Someone asked on Quora, the question-and-answer website—whose offices, not coincidentally, used to be right across the street from City Hall before being moved to
neighboring Mountain View—“Will Palo Alto Mayor Patrick Burt really be able to ban tech companies?” One outlier’s answer included this line: “The way to moderate
housing prices in the face of growing demand is to . . . build more housing.”
Mayor Burt told Curbed San Francisco that he wants “metered job growth, and
metered housing growth.” To me, “metered” implies pay as you go. The city government’s job should be to build out infrastructure to meet increased demand.
The thing is that Palo Alto has plenty of room. The city reaches from the San Francisco Bay all the way up to the top of the hills holding back the Pacific Ocean.
The city says that only 0.5% of “developable land” is vacant. But that doesn’t tell the whole story.
In 2011 residents passed a measure with 65% of the vote to take 10 acres of city parkland and turn it into a composting facility. If my math is right, that’s enough room
for 80 “affordable” homes. Sounds like Palo Alto has room but chooses not to make it available for anyone else. It’s not exactly NIMBY—Not In My Back Yard. But
maybe IGMYOOL—I Got Mine, You’re Out Of Luck. That’s the definition, I suppose, of a residentialist.
Even downtown has room: upward. Most buildings are two stories, maybe three. Only one, filled with lawyers and venture capitalists, hits 15 stories. Though there’s also
City Hall, which is eight floors. I took the elevator to the seventh to see if I could drop in on Mayor Burt. Turns out mayor is a part-time job. Mr. Burt’s full-time gig is
running a medical-technology company doing research and development in . . . Palo Alto. Hmmm.
Mr. Kessler, a former hedge-fund manager, is the author of “Eat People” (Portfolio, 2011).
Hetterly 9/20/16 1
Land Use Comments 9/20/16 Jennifer Hetterly Firstly, I’d like to clarify that the Land Use Subcommittee’s review of the draft development requirements and community indicators was cursory. We received the language at places, therefore Subcommittee input to the draft reflects only brief, on the fly discussion.
CUMULATIVE CAP OPTIONS Policies L1.10 [L15] and L1.11 [L16] The options presented are a little confusing. One proposes an exemption for SUMC, but says nothing about hotels, while the other suggests an additional hotel cap, but says nothing about SUMC. Perhaps it would be clearer to offer one citywide cap policy, followed by outstanding policy questions listed below it as follows: “Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet of office/R&D development. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor development towards the cap on an annual basis. Regularly assess the effectiveness of development requirements and community indicators and remove or adjust the cap and/or development requirements accordingly.
• Should SUMC be exempt from the citywide cap?
• Should hotel square footage be included in the citywide cap?
o If so, should the total square feet allowed under the cap be increased to accommodate an appropriate amount of hotel development?”
Policy L1.12 (cumulative cap exemptions) Lists exemptions for medical and institutional uses. Needs clarification. Given option in L1.10 to specifically exempt SUMC, is the additional medical exemption here intended to address PAMF and it’s ilk, or smaller medical office? Also, is Stanford Research Park considered institutional use? Private schools? I would oppose exempting private schools. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND COMMUNITY INDICATORS References to “maintain” or “protect” livability suggest that we’re currently at the high point for quality of life. Given significant dissatisfaction with existing traffic,
Hetterly 9/20/16 2
parking, and housing affordability, among other indicators, those terms should be replaced with “improve” as noted below. Both Options 1 and 2 completely lack enforcement mechanisms. A program should be added to both (or alternatively to the “Cumulative Cap and Development Requirements Implementation Programs”) that will monitor compliance and set and enforce penalties, such as: “Monitor project compliance with development requirements (annually?) and enforce penalties as appropriate.” I support Option 2 to provide detail and specificity. Didn’t like the topics identified in Program L1.17.2 (particularly absence of traffic and parking). At the same time, I don’t like all the items listed in the two tables. The “such as” language in the option 2 program suggests an intent that the tables offer a starting point for considering appropriate requirement/indicators, not a requirement that those topics, and only those, become the final requirements/indicators. With that understanding, the Tables offer much more guidance to staff and clarity/confidence to the public about what we hope to achieve through the requirements/indicators. Revise language of L1.17.2 [L40]: “Create development requirements that protect livability and the environment by addressing additional topics such as reducing trips, preserving and facilitating affordable housing and preservation of the tree canopy as those shown on Table L-1.” Revise language of L1.18.1 [L42]: “Develop community indicators for topics such as greenhouse gas emissions, transportation… those listed in Table L-2.
Table L-1 Reference to ensuring consistency with “current targets” under “Existing Development Standards” is vague. Targets for what? Goals and policies of the Comp Plan? Isn’t there something in Existing Development Standards that addresses localized traffic impacts and/or LOS? Or does (did) that analysis only come in through CEQA process? If the former, that should be added to Table L-1.
Table L-2 Should have an intro that puts the list in context, like Table L-1 does. Suggest: “While development requirements are designed to reduce and manage the community impacts of individual developments, community indicators set targets and monitor success in managing cumulative impacts of citywide development.”
Hetterly 9/20/16 3
Add LOS to Corridor Travel Times measure or as a stand alone. I’ll say again, jobs/housing ratio is not an appropriate livability index. To my knowledge, achieving balance is not a goal realistically considered by any City decisionmaker, but there is no other target identified. Achieving balance could require more than doubling the total resident population and quadrupling the cumulative housing built over the past 45 years. Negative livability impacts are potentially massive. A much better jobs/housing measure would be the ratio of
jobs growth to housing growth. Metrics for Percent and Number of Commute Trips are swapped. Add measure for groundwater interference/depletion.
Policy L1.17 (in both options, [L32, L38]): “Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain improve Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts….”
Program L1.17.1 (in both options [L33, L39]): Review and refine both new and existing development requirements that address topics such as energy, water … to ensure they are effective at achieving the highest quality development neighborhoods and centers with the least impacts….”
Program L1.17.2 [L34]: Create development requirements that protect improve livability and the environment by addressing additional topics such as reducing car trips, traffic congestion, and spillover parking, preserving and facilitating affordable housing and preservationing and increasing of the tree canopy.
Policy L1.18 (in both options [L35, L41]) Seems to be addressing both purpose of community indicators and need for transparency (tho no transparency called for in creating the indicators!). Suggest rewording second part and possibly moving it into new, separate policy: “Community indicators will be developed, and monitoring data will be collected in a transparent manner. Results will be published in a clear, user-friendly, easy-to-understand document.”
Add a program before or after Program L1.18.2 (in both options [L37, L43])
Hetterly 9/20/16 4
“Based on monitoring of community indicators, periodically consider whether to adjust development requirements to more effectively achieve livability goals.”
BASEMENTS Basement bedrooms invite future conversion to non-conforming use (e.g., transient occupancy, multi-family use). This can result in occupant density in excess of area maximums, reduction in single family housing stock and increased burdens on public resources without associated revenue to the City. Furthermore, when legally compliant, such uses enjoy the protections of heightened fire, flood, safety and accessibility regulations. Those protections directly serve the building’s inhabitants while also protecting the broader community through careful management of costs, risks and impacts. By turning a blind eye to likely future conversions under the guise of single family design review, we are tacitly approving housing arrangements that lack those protections - consigning future residents to less safe conditions and taxpayers to unanticipated costs and impacts. That outcome is exacerbated when residential basements are constructed in areas at increased risk of flood due to climate change and/or nearby basement construction, including several areas of the City that are not currently considered flood zones. The FAQ submitted by “Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater” is extremely informative and identifies several other areas of concern related to groundwater, soil impacts, flooding and stormwater management costs. I encourage all CAC members to read it. With residential basement construction on the rise (14 sites in 2015), escalating housing costs increasing incentives for illegal conversions, and continuing drought and climate change, the issues associated with basements are becoming increasingly urgent. They should not be an afterthought in this Comprehensive Plan.
Program L3.9.1 [L63]: Revise program as below, along with an added reference to stormwater management (either as natural environment or safety issue). Develop a program to a Assess and manage both the positive and negative impacts of basement construction in single family homes on the community and the environment, including: Land use issues: Evaluate the City’s policy of excluding basements from the gross floor area and maximum floor area ratio limits in the zoning ordinance. Consider zoning revisions to limit excess occupancy, redefine flood zones to reflect impacts of climate change and groundwater impedence, and prescribe construction practices that reduce groundwater displacement as well as including greater setbacks to limit
Hetterly 9/20/16 5
basement size and increase basement setbacks from reduce impacts on adjacent properties…. Finally, I would support a moratorium until more rigorous regulations are in place as well as additional policies prohibiting basements (and especially basement bedrooms) within flood zones (as redefined through Program L3.9.1 [L63]), and limiting commercial basement construction located underneath sidewalks.
Outstanding Land Use Element Issues I support items 1, 2, 10, 11 and 17.
Other Policies/Programs Program L1.3.1 [L4]: Work with neighbors, neighborhood associations, property owners, and developers to identify barriers to infill development of below market rate and more affordable market rate housing and to remove these barriers. Work with these same stakeholders to identify sites and facilitate opportunities for below market rate housing and housing that is affordable to median and moderate income residents. Policy L1.7 [L9]: Participate in regional strategies to address the interaction of jobs, housing balance and transportation issues. Program L1.16.3 [L28]: Remove reference to “hotel square footage” re small office exemption under the Downtown Cap. Policy L2.3 [L47]: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller units, BMR units and senior housing.” Add new program L3.2.1A: “Scrutinize development in residential zones for features likely to result in occupancy that exceeds area maximums.”
Bonnie Packer’s Comments on the September draft of the Land Use and Community Design Element. 9/19/16 My congratulations to the subcommittees that developed this draft. It is much more cohesive and forward looking. Just a few general comments: The Staff Report observes that Coordinated Area Plans (CAPs) are time and resource intensive. That is the cost of good planning. There needs to be political will to do CAPs along with a recognition that the expenditure of time and resources is a worthwhile, if not a critically important, investment. The sections in Goal 4 of the element that discuss CAPs should each refer back to the Development Requirements in Table L-1: South El Camino Corridor, Fry’s, California Avenue. The introduction and Policy L-1.17 that the Development Requirements and the Community Indicators are a way to maintain Palo Alto’s “Livability” is a totally
subjective term. I urge that term “livability” be deleted entirely as follows: (Introduction) COMMUNITY INDICATORS Maintaining and improving Palo Alto ’ s livability will demand more than applying… Policy L-1.17 (development requirements) Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The suggested community indicators are excellent, except for PAUSD Class Size. An optimal class size depends on the grade, the subject and many other factors. The issue of overcrowding, which this measure seems to want to get at, could be addressed with the PAUSD satisfaction measure. I also recommend that the List in Table L-2 on community indicators be organized more logically into related groupings. Goal L-6 about the design of buildings should also refer back to the Development Requirements in Policy L-1.17. Policy L-9.2 about parking in developments should cross ref to Policy L-1.17 and to the relevant sections of the Transportation element. Finally, I do not agree with most of the outstanding issues on pages 6-7 of the staff report, for the reasons briefly explained below.
1. There may be areas where a hotel next to a residential area would be ok, if planned well. Blanket prohibitions are not necessary. The zoning code addresses transition issues. 2. Not all areas that have been zoned for retail or really good for retail. Times have changed and so has the retail world. 3. In a multifamily development, a good design may require that some units do not face the street. The change proposed here would be too restrictive. 4. Traffic lights belong in the Transportation element 5. Downtown attracts a regional crowd. Don’t ignore reality. 6. Reusing parking lots at Stanford Shopping center is an excellent idea. Why delete it? 7. Eichlers already have CC&Rs to protect them, as well as the single story overlay process. You don’t need to have a program for this. 8. Office in mixed use: there may need to be some clarification that small offices related to residential portion may be allowed. 9. I think the last sentence about ensuring that each residential neighborhood has parks had been removed. 10. It is not necessary to move the school impact items from Community Facilities Element. 11. Requirements for conditional use permits are set forth in the zoning code. It is not necessary here. 12. I don’t see why the phrase- allowing for replacement or rehab of smaller buildings in Cal Ave area - is a problem. 13. The zoning code probably already prohibits housing in Charleston Plaza – but if it is prohibited in Town & Country, it could be prohibited here. There is no room for housing there anyway. 14. It is a good idea to streamline design review processes. 15. Requiring historic structures to comply with parking requirements will create a catch -22 for these buildings. 16. Why would anyone not see public art and cultural facilities as a community benefit? This statement is not in the context of a PC zone issue. 17. No comment until we see the language.
CAC Comments Sept 20, 2016
Annette Glanckopf
1) There are many photos. Make sure they have a caption
2) Page 4: Housing”
a. Raise BMR requirements to 25%
b. It is not my concern that “Excessive BMR units will stifle housing”. I do not
remember this being a key issue
3) Page 5: Memorial park: add police officers and fire fighters
4) Page 5: Coordinated area plans: no sense of urgency. I am concerned by the time the comp
plan gets approved and council priorities coordinated area plans, that development will be
underway
5) Staff comments on land use element issues
a. Some items do not have placement such as traffic lights
b. Eichler neighborhoods program is in wrong place and there is nothing about IR
c. On point of prohibiting housing in Charleston center, add Midtown as well (see my
point 14)
d. Just curious as to why the sentence was removed “ recognize public art and cultural
facilities as a community benefit”
6) Open space
a. Limit size of homes
b. Make our comp plan compatible with Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan
7) Page 11: zoning issue. If use of fireplaces is prohibited, can we prohibit chimneys in new
buildings?
8) Page 11: Noise: Prohibit gas leaf blowers
9) Page 12: Light pollution: Needs to be addressed in zoning…as well for need for strong code
enforcement
10) Page L 11: Under Development Requirements” this program adds ..new “Better stronger
faster development requirements: These adjectives don’t work together. IMHO better and
stronger don’t work with faster. Remove word faster.
11) Page L 19: Why call out building intensities for non-residential uses are expressed in terms
of FAR. I would eliminate non-residential…since commercial development also is regulated
by FAR
12) Page L 24: My vote is for the second option under child care
13) Page L 29: Cumulative cap: My vote: Policy L 1.11 with no on Program L.1.12 (L 18)
a. Medical offices should not be eliminated from cap.
14) Page L 30: Program L1.12.2: IF development requirements change, they should be reviewed
after the first year and every other year after that
15) Page L 30 Cumulative cap and Development – Implementation
a. Program L1.12.3 This addresses housing in T&C. Add ”no housing in Charleston plaza
or Midtown Center.” Also on Page L-46 under Neighborhoods Centers
16) Page L 30: Where is Program L1.13.1-L1.13.3 ?
17) Annual Limit Options
a. My vote is Policy L.1.15
18) Downtown Cap:
a. My vote is L1.16.4 with second Choice L1.16.2
19) Page L-32
a. Program L1.16.5: Wouldn’t it just be easier to change zoning to include housing in
the CD district? Not sure what is meant by “some non-retail” and what would be the
criteria for selecting these areas?
20) Development Requirements and Community Indicators
a. My vote is for Option 1.
b. In Program L1.17.1 and Policy L.1.18: Documents/reports should be online with
some copies available. I would remove wording about documents and say results
published in a clear, user friendly manner
21) Page L 35
a. Add to development requirements “fencing” to neighborhood compatibility and
building design
b. Page L 37: Monitoring suggested for community indicators is too infrequent, esp at
beginning
22) Page L 38: Under Policy L.2.2 Program L2.2.2 No retail in neighborhoods. Only exception
would be d’town where they are already
23) Pages L 44- L-46: To me: Regional Centers, Multi-neighborhood Centers and Neighborhood
centers should be larger and highlighted
24) Page L46: Neighborhood Centers; Here is where the text should be added: no housing in
Charleston and Midtown Centers.
25) Page L 49: Building Heights
a. My vote Policy L.6.7
b. This should be presented, not by votes but a majority/minority opinion
26) I do not think Eichler fit under building heights. I think there should be separate policy for
development of Eichler standards and also a policy on development standards using IR .
Maybe these should be a program under Policy L.6.12
27) Page L 55: Why is Development of Lubberly not mentioned.
28) Page L 57: Program L 9.4.2 change wording to read “ Develop a program to involve…”
29) Page L 57: Program L9.6.1: Add word “amenities “
30) Page L 58. Program L9.9.1 incentive for native trees….in new development ..add remodeling
or dying trees
31) Page L59: Add Program L9.13.1 Call out “Fiber to the home “
Land, Buildings & Real Estate
3160 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304-8442
132654069.3
September 12, 2016
Land Use and Community Design Comments
Whitney McNair, Director Land Use Planning, Stanford University
Comments on September 7 Proposal
On September 7, Arthur Keller made a proposal to the CAC Land Use Subcommittee that would exempt the
Stanford Research Park from possible Comprehensive Plan limits on annual office development “in exchange
for achieving binding targets for reductions in traffic at key intersections, as well as required mitigating other
impacts of employment and office growth.” Mr. Keller’s letter also proposed a Comprehensive Plan program
that would provide: “The City and Stanford University shall enter into an agreement” specifying certain items
relevant to accomplishing the objective described above.
Stanford appreciates the thought Mr. Keller has given to the unique nature of the Stanford Research Park and
its customized Transportation Demand Management program. We believe Mr. Keller’s proposal merits
consideration in concept, and we continue to assess it carefully.
While Stanford needs more time to comment on the details of the proposal, we can provide some comments
now and can recommend a modified approach we believe would be feasible.
Under Mr. Keller’s plan, the City and Stanford would be required to enter into an agreement to implement the
proposed Comprehensive Plan policy. By law, a Comprehensive Plan policy or program cannot bind the City
to reach a future agreement. The City must reserve its right to determine whether to enter into an agreement
with Stanford. By the same token, the City also cannot require a private entity to enter into a voluntary
agreement.
To address this concern, the proposed policy instead could be worded conditionally, providing that, in the
event Stanford and the City were to reach mutual agreement, Stanford Research Park projects would be
exempt from certain growth limits. This framework would empower the City to agree, as desired, to tailored
approaches that could ensure the City’s trip reduction goals are achieved while alleviating the threat strict
limitations would pose to the economic vitality of the Stanford Research Park.
We have one additional preliminary comment on Mr. Keller’s proposal. As written, the policy would mandate
reductions in traffic at “key intersections,” presumably near the Stanford Research Park. Stanford cannot
control traffic volumes at intersections near its property, as a significant percentage of trips are generated by
uses unrelated to Stanford. To illustrate why this policy would not achieve its intended effect, consider that,
even if the Stanford Research Park were to achieve deep reductions in trips, significant new development on
nearby, non-University property nonetheless could result in a net increase in traffic at monitored intersections.
CAC Packet Page 455 of 459
2
132654069.3
In any agreement between Stanford and the City, the parties would want to identify a metric tailored to the
specific outcomes that Stanford and its tenants can control.
To address the issues raised above, and to allow the parties to any agreement the flexibility to craft
satisfactory alternative arrangements, Stanford suggests allowing project proponents to seek agreement with
the City on to-be-negotiated terms, provided environmental effects are not made worse. Accordingly, we
propose that further consideration of proposals motivated by Mr. Keller’s approach focus on the following
revised policy:
Policy. Allow Stanford University and/or tenants at the Stanford Research Park to
be exempt from any Comprehensive Plan annual growth limits and limits on land
use conversion by entering into a mutually acceptable agreement with defined
performance standards providing for alternative means of reducing vehicle trips
and the effects of employment growth that would apply to a specified project,
projects, or geographic area at the Stanford Research Park. Such an arrangement
may not cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts
than those that would be caused by implementation of the Comprehensive Plan
growth limitations absent the agreement. Subject to the above limitation, the City
has discretion to determine whether and on what terms to enter into an
agreement.
Policy L-1.20 Community Performance Measures
Stanford requests that the City review the Community Performance Measures described in Table L-2 of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan to ensure that the Measure and Target are consistent and the performance data
can be collected and reported in a meaningful way. The Measure of SOV use is a common and reasonable
measurement of the effectiveness of employer TDM efforts and is typically determined using an employee
survey. The Target of a reduction from ITE standards is a trip-based standard that is most often measured
using automated counters placed at driveway entrances. ITE has different measurements, including peak hour
of the generator, peak hour and daily trips. Therefore, the Target and Measure described in Table L-2 are not
directly related to each other and rely on different data collection techniques.
Policy L-6.13 and Program L6.13.1
The City should consider allowing office within a mixed use development. There may be instances where a mix
of uses that include office together with retail, services, or housing is appropriate. For example, Palo Alto
Square has office uses and a theater. Stanford Barn has offices, restaurants and retail. Stanford Shopping
Center has some offices together with retail. Prohibiting office altogether limits options which might be
appropriate in certain locations.
Map Comments
Map L-2. It appears that Map L-2, Stanford University Land Use Designations, is meant to show the land
use designations for Stanford’s lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. However, the “Medical
Center” and “Shopping Center” are both located within the City of Palo Alto and are shown on the map.
Other uses within the City limits on Stanford’s lands, like those of Stanford West and the Stanford
CAC Packet Page 456 of 459
3
132654069.3
Research Park are not on this map. Those lands within the City limits should be removed from the map to
avoid confusion and inconsistencies.
Map L-3. Since the Comprehensive Plan references the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement,
the boundary of the “Stanford Medical Center” should follow the area covered by the SUMC Development
Agreement to avoid any inconsistencies.
Map L-5. The areas along Sand Hill Road and the Stanford Research Park should be treated like the rest of
the city. It is unclear why they are a different base color. Those lands are within the City limits.
Map L-6. Stanford’s lands within unincorporated Santa Clara County are depicted on Map L-2 and should
not be replicated on this map.
Map L-6 identifies lands outside of the City limits and outside the Sphere of Influence. The Comprehensive
Plan will not govern or affect Stanford lands in the unincorporated Santa Clara County during the applicable
planning horizon. If the City shows land use designations on any of Stanford’s lands in unincorporated Santa
Clara County, it would be for reference only, should be labeled as such, and should be consistent with the
County’s land use designations. The City should not give a land use designation for any lands outside their
Sphere of Influence.
As drafted, the land use designations for Stanford’s lands, as identified in the legend, are inconsistent with the
Land Use Designations in the text of the Comprehensive Plan.
CAC Packet Page 457 of 459
Frequently Asked Questions
Underground (Basement) Construction and Groundwater
Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater
Prepared by Keith Bennett
This document is intended to provide factual information on the impacts of underground construction
on groundwater specifically relevant to Palo Alto. Technical references are available upon request.
Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater is only concerned with underground construction that impacts
groundwater, either during or after construction. Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater does not have a
position on underground construction that does not impact groundwater levels, storage or flows.
Underground construction affects groundwater both
a.during construction (when groundwater is pumped during the construction process) and
b.after construction, where underground construction extending into the water table reduces
stormwater handling capabilities of the soils
This FAQ is organized into 3 sections:
I. Pumping groundwater for underground construction (dewatering)
II.Impacts of underground construction on stormwater handling abilities of soils
III.Palo Alto’s groundwater facts
Pumping groundwater for underground construction (“Dewatering”)
1.How much water is pumped to construct residential basements?
This year (2016) is the first year that Palo Alto required measurement of the amount of groundwater
pumped for basement construction. Official measurements are available for the first site only, and
totaled 30.88 million gallons (approximately 95 acre-feet). Placed on a 10,000 square foot lot, this
water would be about 400 feet deep, or about 300 – 400 years of rainfall on the same lot. Used for
irrigation, this is enough water to irrigate about 1,000 average single family residences in Palo Alto
for one year, and would certainly be more than enough to irrigate all of Palo Alto’s parks for a year.
If we assume that this particular site was twice the average amount pumped, then the total pumped
across the City for 14 dewatering sites (the number in 2015) would be approximately 14 x 95 x 50%
= 215 million gallons (= 665 acre-feet).
2.How does the amount of water pumped compare to the amount of water is recharged from
precipitation in Palo Alto annually?
Based upon the Todd Groundwater study for East Palo Alto’s Groundwater Management Plan
(2015), 665 acre-feet is roughly the total amount of water recharged annually through precipitation
in Palo Alto.
3.How much of pumped groundwater is used?
The city requires measurements of the amount of water used through the hose bibs truck fill
stations required at dewatering sites. These measurements indicate that 1 – 2% of the water is
used. The remaining 98 – 99% is discarded to the storm drains.
4. Couldn’t more water be used?
Improving the pumps used to fill the tank trucks, ensuring higher pressures in the hose bibs would
increase the amount of water used and requiring applicants to pay for water distribution every day
could likely increase water use ten-fold or greater. The City currently requires trucking only one day
pre week at “applicant” expense. Water can also be recharged locally through percolation.
5. Doesn’t the Santa Clara Valley District charge for groundwater pumping?
Yes, the charge for groundwater pumping in Palo Alto is about $1,105 per acre-foot. 30.88 million
gallons would cost about $105,000. However, SCVWD provides an exemption for “nuisance water,”
and construction dewatering is exempted from these fees. Residents who want to pump
groundwater for irrigation must make wells at least 50 feet deep, and seal the wells to prevent
contamination, in addition to paying for the water.
6. Is it necessary to pump so much water for underground (basement) construction?
No. There are proven methods using cut-off walls, either using bentonite clays or slurries or sheet
piles. It may still be necessary to pump some water that leaks through the cut-off walls, but done
properly, it is a small fraction of the water pumped using the methods currently used in Palo Alto,
and this water could readily either be entirely used or replaced into the soils.
7. Palo Alto land owners are required to pay a storm drain fee. Are contractors required to pay for
use of the storm drains, which require maintenance and pumping at the Bay?
No. Point-source discharges (such as dewatering sites) are not charged additionally for use of the
storm drains. In 2015, dewatering likely put ½ as much water into the storm drains as from all
streets combined.
8. Didn’t the City commission a consultant’s report that showed that dewatering didn’t have
significant impacts?
Yes, the City received a report by EIP Associated in 2008. Public Works no longer believes that this
report is useful for policy, as the assumptions used in the report do not correspond to current
conditions, and the report included no measured data. For example, the report assumed that a
typical residential dewatering site would pump 8 – 10 million gallons, but the actual amount
pumped is greater than 3X as much, and the pumping rates 3 – 5 times higher. In addition, the
report assumed that only “a few” dewatering operations would occur in any year. In 2015, 14 sites
were dewatered. The report estimated that the water table would be “temporarily” lowered by a
few inches, and only within a few 10’s of feet of the dewatering site. Actual measurements show
that the water table was lowered by over 5 feet more than 100 feet from the dewatering site, and
about 3 feet over 250 feet from the dewatering site.
9. The City enacted new regulations for dewatering in 2016. Didn’t these address the issue?
Partially. The new regulations limit the number of days for dewatering at each site to 70 days.
Pumping longer than 70 days incurs a penalty, which is imposed at the discretion of Public Works.
This has reduced the total amount of water pumped. The City has also required measurement of
the amount of water pumped; for the first time, there quantitative data is available. However, there
are no restrictions on the total amount of water pumped, either for a single site or collectively, and
current practices still result in groundwater pulldown of several feet well beyond the boundaries of
the construction location.
Impacts of underground construction on stormwater handling by soils
1.Does underground construction have impacts on the groundwater handling capability of our soils?
Yes, there are two impacts:
a.The ability of the soil to absorb water in the immediate area is reduced if the construction is
impermeable, and
b.The water level needs to increase to maintain the same flows through the soil, as the
underground construction has the same effect as dams.
2.Isn’t the water displaced by the basement just distributed to a wider area?
The impacts of a single basement are not large. However, just as a small area of impervious surfaces
does not significantly affect the load on the storm drain system, the cumulative impacts on the
storm drain system of multiple sites with impervious surfaces are significant. Similarly, the
cumulative impacts of underground construction can be significant. If every home has a basement
that covers 40% of the lot area (including light wells), and the construction extends into the water
table, the local storage capacity of water on the lot is reduced by 40% (saturate soils cannot absorb
additional water). If all of the properties have similar underground construction, the storage
capacity of the larger area is significantly reduced.
3.Does underground construction affect groundwater levels?
The impacts are most significant during storms when stormwater is flowing through the soils,
including increasing the risks of flooding if the soils become saturated to the surface (i.e.
groundwater rises to the surface). For example, the “normal” winter groundwater level in the area
of Webster and N. California is about 10 feet below ground surface. During the heavy rains in 1998,
the groundwater temporarily rose 6 feet (to about 4 feet below ground surface). The water level
dropped about 2 feet as the water flowed for several days after the rain stopped. Underground
constructions are like “dams” that impede the underground flows (technically, the average soil
“transmissivity” is reduced). Therefore, a greater slope of the water level is required to maintain the
same flow rate. As the highly permeable section of the aquifer is generally shallow (typically the top
30 feet or so), building basements in most properties could increase the slope by 25%; that is, at a
location where the water table rose 6 feet during a heavy storm would rise 25% more, or 7.5 feet.
For a single property the difference is water levels is perhaps ½” across the property, but the
cumulative impacts of all properties to the Bay can be significant.
The geotechnical report for the construction of the basement at 736 Garland states that the water
table at that location in spring 2015 was 6.5 feet below ground surface, but, in the experience of the
geotechnical firm, water levels can rise to 3.5 feet below ground surface during heavy storms.
During periods of time when flows are low, underground construction does not materially affect the
groundwater levels.
4.Is underground construction in areas of high groundwater consistent with the City’s and Santa
Clara Valley Water District’s efforts to reduce stormwater management through absorption into
soils?
While underground construction does not have significant impacts where the construction is
entirely above the groundwater levels during storms, the impacts are likely not large. However, the
cumulative impact of underground construction that extends into the winter water table level surely
reduces stormwater management capacity.
5.How will sea level rise affect the stormwater handling capability of the soils
Sea level will raise groundwater levels by approximately the same amount as the rise in mean sea
level. In many areas of Palo Alto, groundwater is 6 feet or less below ground surface in winter. A sea
level rise of 3 feet would approximately reduce the storage capacity of soils in this area by 50%. In
addition, flow rates for the same groundwater level will likely be significantly reduced. Soils cannot
absorb additional water when they are saturated to the surface.
Palo Alto’s Groundwater
1.Where in Palo Alto is groundwater, and how deep do I have to dig to hit it?
Generally speaking, groundwater is found “east” of the Pulgas Fault, which roughly runs along
Foothill Expressway / Junipero Serra Boulevard. “West” of the fault, bedrock blocks the aquifer, and
subsurface water flows are small.
Bob Wenzel and his associates have made a map of the depth to first groundwater (available for
download at
http://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org/files/PaloAlto_ShallowGroundwater_Update_wPlumes_V3_re
d.pdf
In much of Palo Alto, groundwater is found at 10 – 15 feet below ground surface, however in other
areas, groundwater is much deeper. It is in these areas where the interactions of underground
construction and groundwater are most significant, both during and after construction.
2.Does the groundwater level vary with the seasons?
Yes, the groundwater level rises during the winter following rains and drops during the summer. In
general, the summer to winter variation in groundwater levels (in the absence of pumping) is 1 – 2
feet. This information is shown on the groundwater map referenced above.
3.Does the groundwater level vary for short periods of time during and following heavy rains?
Yes, the groundwater levels can rise significantly during heavy rains. For example, in 1998, the
groundwater levels along Webster Street between Santa Rita and Oregon Expressway, normally at
about 8 to 10 feet below the surface rose to within 4 to 5 feet of the surface level for a few days
during and following an exceptionally heavy rain storm. This is evidenced by the flooding of utility
basements of several homes in the area, resulting in a fire in one home (596 N. California) as a pilot
light on furnace was extinguished by the water, which resulted in the leaking gas being ignited by
another pilot light.
4.What is the connection between the soils and aquifer and stormwater management?
The City of Palo Alto is proposing a ballot measure authorizing a Stormwater Management Fee
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53633). Part of the funds will be used
for “Green Stormwater Infrastructure” projects to reduce runoff to the storm drains through
absorption into the soils. This water is then stored and transported by the aquifer.
Our soils and groundwater are critical to handling stormwater. If soils are saturated to the surface, a
heavy rainfall of ½” per hour corresponds to 3,700 cubic feet per second of rain in Palo Alto between
Junipero Serra and highway 101. This flow is greater than ½ of the maximum recorded flow of San
Francisquito Creek. Handling this amount of water on the surface is similar to handling ½ of the
maximum flow of San Francisquito Creek on our streets. Clearly the storm drains could not handle
this load, and flooding would result.
5.What is the source (inflows) of our groundwater?
Groundwater sources in Palo Alto are precipitation, irrigation, water and sewer pipe leakage, San
Franciscquito Creek and subsurface flows, including inflow from the Bay. Estimates by Todd
Engineering for East Palo Alto’s Groundwater Management Plan are that about 17% of groundwater
recharge in the “San Francisquito Creek Cone,” which includes Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto,
is from precipitation (1320 acre-feet/year), while about 25% is from irrigation (1891 acre-feet / year)
and 26% from water supply pipeline leakage (1990 acre-feet per year).
6.What are the likely effects of climate change and water conservation on aquifer recharge?
Annual recharge is likely to be significantly reduced through the combined effects of reduced
irrigation and sewer pipeline leakage due resulting from water conservation, reduction in recharge
from water supply pipeline leakage from Palo Alto’s efforts to improve the water supply
infrastructure, and reduced recharge from precipitation.
Sea-level rise is likely to increase recharge from salt-water intrusion from the Bay, as freshwater
flows (which is required to flush salt water) will be reduced.
7.Isn’t all groundwater pumped for underground construction simply flowing to the Bay, and
therefore pumping water to the storm drains the same as natural flows?
Absolutely not, per the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and Todd
Engineering studies, groundwater in the shallow / surface aquifer levels (which is the area directly
affected by underground construction) flows to streams and the Bay, to deeper aquifer levels (if
those levels aren’t full), and is pumped. Some groundwater leaks into sewer pipes, and some is
evaporated and transpired. During very heavy rains, the Bay receives a larger fraction of the flow.
In addition, salt water intrusion will increase due to reduction of sub-surface freshwater flows.
8.Isn’t the surface aquifer separated by an impervious layer of clays from the deeper aquifer,
thereby preventing water from the shallow aquifer from entering the deeper aquifer used for Palo
Alto’s Emergency supply wells?
Both the BAWSCA water model and San Mateo County models show that the aquifer layers are
tightly connected, and there is no clear geologic separation between the “deep” and “shallow”
aquifer levels in Palo Alto. This distinction in the levels was made for the purposes of groundwater
modeling, and the models show the layers as being “leaky.” The Santa Clara Valley Water District
simply defines the “deep aquifer” as 50 feet below ground surface, independent of any local
geology. See slides at:
https://green.smcgov.org/sites/green.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/StakeholderWorkshop_201
60907_Locked.pdf
9.The “shallow” aquifer is non-potable, and therefore waste, correct?
False. In addition to the role in recharging the deeper aquifer levels, water in the shallow aquifer
was historically the major source of water for human use in Palo Alto, and continues to be used for
irrigation by some residences, and is suitable (and easily accessible in many areas) for irrigation.
Comments from Previous
Subcomittee meetings-
Available via the following links:
September 6 Sustainability subcommittee meeting written communication:
[http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/
#September 6, 2016]
September 8 Land Use subcommittee meeting written communication:
[http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/
#September 8, 2016]
CAC Packet Page 259 of 459
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 1 of 83
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
Rinconada Library – Embarcadero Room
1213 Newell Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
5:30 PM TO 8:30 PM
Call to Order: 5:35 P.M. 1
Co-Chair Keller: I call the meeting to order of the Citizens Advisory Committee on the 2
Comprehensive Plan for Tuesday, September 20th. It is 5:35 p.m. Will the secretary please call 3
the roll? 4
Present: Filppu, Fine, Glanckopf, Hetterly, Hitchings, Keller, Kleinhaus, Levy, McDougall, 5
McNair, Moran, Nadim, Packer, Peschcke-Koedt, Summa, Sung, Titus, Uang, 6
Uhrbrock, van Riesen 7
8
Absent: Emberling, Garber, Kou, Wenzlau 9
Robin Ellner: Also, I've been asked to announce for those of you attending the subcommittee 10
meeting on the 27th and October 5th, (inaudible) has your parking passes. 11
Female: (inaudible) 12
Robin Ellner: Safety and Natural Environment. 13
Female: (inaudible) 14
Robin Ellner: 27th and the 5th. There's one subcommittee meeting on the 27th for Safety and 15
Sustainability. On the 5th is the Natural. See (inaudible) after the meeting. 16
Oral Communication: 17
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. We start with Oral Communications. The first one, it says Rebecca 18
Byne. Is that correct? You will have 3 minutes. 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 2 of 83
Rebecca Byrne: Good evening, Commission. My name's Rebecca Byrne. I'm here on behalf of 1
Housing Choices Coalition. We're a nonprofit that helps people with developmental disabilities 2
find housing throughout Santa Clara County. In Palo Alto, there are 472 residents with 3
developmental disabilities, who are adults that need housing. I'm just here to encourage you 4
when you're doing land use or any other relevant policies to just consider these residents, 5
because there is a tremendous need. I know that you guys can find the solution. Thank you. 6
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The next speaker is Maria Marriott. By the way, I appreciate the 7
brevity of the first speaker. 8
Maria Marriott: Hi. I am a resident of Palo Alto. My name's Maria Marriott. I have a son with 9
developmental disabilities. He's 18, and we will be one of those people who is looking for 10
housing in the area. We would like him to be able to be close enough that we can help him to 11
learn to function on his own. Having housing in Palo Alto would be great. We're longtime 12
residents. Thank you. 13
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The next speaker is Esther Nigenda. 14
Esther Nigenda: Good evening, Esther Nigenda speaking for Save Palo Alto's Groundwater. 15
Groundwater is part of our natural environment, and yet it gets no respect. For years, I 16
assumed that if the City permitted pumping and dumping of groundwater into the Bay and if 17
our environmental groups did not object, then it must not be a problem. It wasn't until the 18
State mandated a 25-percent reduction of water use because of the drought and that we 19
continued pumping and dumping water that this didn't seem to make sense at all. As an 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 3 of 83
emergency services volunteer, I thought we'll need this water especially if the drought 1
continues for a decade or more. Mega droughts lasting 20 or more years have happened in 2
California before. With climate change, the likelihood that this will happen again is even higher. 3
As a scientist, I could no longer ignore my gut feeling and go with the conventional wisdom, and 4
so I joined Save Palo Alto's Groundwater. Our mission is to protect our community 5
groundwater and promote its use in a sustainable manner. Groundwater has many uses 6
including being the primary source of drinking water for over 50 percent of the United States' 7
population. It is used for growing crops. Shallow groundwater recharges our deeper aquifer, 8
our streams, rivers and wetlands. It is used in many industrial processes, and it supports our 9
structures and infrastructures. As an aside, not many people know that due to overdrafting of 10
our groundwater, Palo Alto subsided 2-4 feet in the 1960s and that this subsidence stopped 11
when we started importing 100 percent of our potable water from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir. 12
Used sustainably—this means having a groundwater budget and knowing how much we can 13
extract every year without overdrafting—groundwater protects us from saltwater intrusion and 14
subsidence. Dewatering for construction purposes is not using the water, but rather 15
considering it construction waste. When dewatering is needed for some community purpose 16
such as for the construction of a Public Safety Building, we propose that measures should be in 17
place that limits the amount of groundwater extracted by following best construction practices 18
and mandating that all groundwater extracted be recharged to the aquifer or used for 19
beneficial purposes such as irrigation, firefighting, street cleaning and dust suppression. To 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 4 of 83
discourage waste of groundwater, any water extracted from the ground should be metered and 1
charged at market rates. In Palo Alto, bones and rotting food are considered a resource to be 2
composted, not waste. We should apply the same philosophy to our community groundwater. 3
Thank you. 4
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Last speaker is Rita Vrhel. 5
Rita Vrhel: Hello. Rita Vrhel. I'm also with savepaloaltosgroundwater.org, and that would be 6
hard to follow Esther. I just returned from a trip to New Mexico. All across Arizona and New 7
Mexico and in southern California the topic was saving water, either the drought and/or how 8
can water restrictions help save water. One way is not to pump out our precious groundwater. 9
I was going to have a 3-minute video tonight of the sound of 30.88 million gallons being 10
pumped from one house, 736 Garland, my poster child for dewatering. That equals 686,000 45-11
gallon rain barrels. This is from one house. We know this is accurate because the City actually 12
metered it. Water is our most important resource. If we had to go to a stream or walk 10 miles 13
like some unfortunate individuals in the world have to do to obtain water and we're not even 14
talking about clean water, we would probably value it more. Right now, you can go right across 15
the street from Hoover Park, and you can see groundwater being pumped into the storm drain. 16
Many residents were at the Hoover Park ice cream social on Sunday, absolutely outraged when 17
they saw this pumping of a valuable community resource. I don't know if any of you or all of 18
you have seen the amount of water that's being pumped down the drain. The City this year for 19
the first time is metering, and they're also mandating Purple Pipes to have groundwater go into 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 5 of 83
their truck one day a week. The problem is that the City is not supplying enough electricity so 1
that adequate pumping can occur. When I spoke with Joe of Purple Pipes yesterday, because I 2
was going to use some of their water for myself, they could only fill one truck a day. I think it's 3
really time that perhaps you, the Citizen Advisory Committee, start putting some teeth in do we 4
think water is important or do we just want to throw it away. When we're talking about 5
increased growth and continued housing development and population increase in Palo Alto and 6
the Bay Area, where is this water going to come from? Everybody taps into the aquifer. East 7
Palo Alto is having their business development halted until more water can be found. I think 8
we really shouldn't wait until it's too late. Thank you very much. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. 10
Staff Comments: 11
1. Recap of City Council Discussion on Draft Transportation Element 12
Co-Chair Keller: Next we have Staff recapping the long and late City Council meeting last night 13
that some of us attended, including Lydia Kou who is now not feeling well today. Also, I want to 14
mention that we have a resignation. Bob Wenzlau decided to resign from the CAC. Before we 15
continue, I'll just say that—I'll take a moment to talk about how we work together. One of the 16
things that Dan Garber has stressed and I've also stressed is that the meetings of the CAC and 17
the subcommittees need to be safe places. We have a lot of work to do. To do that work 18
effectively, the CAC and subcommittee meetings need to be collaborative and inclusive places 19
where differences of opinion can be expressed civilly and everyone's opinions can be heard and 20
valued. I hope that you'll keep this in mind at all our meetings. Next, staff, Hillary. 21
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 6 of 83
Hillary Gitelman: Thank you, Arthur. Thanks to those of you who did attend last night. The 1
City Council received your draft Transportation Element and offered some very constructive 2
comments. I think all of the Council Members expressed their gratitude to the CAC and were 3
impressed by the quality of the work product. They then went on to provide lots of suggestions 4
about how we could make it even better, but we anticipated that. I think it really was a very 5
constructive conversation. I think each of them had a handful of suggestions or edits or things 6
that we could do to tighten it up. It really was in the realm of tightening it up. I don't think 7
they identified any big topics that we missed, maybe some questions about emphasis on the 8
part of some members of the Council, and then a desire by some to reduce the number of 9
programs, reduce the amount of introductory text, sort of comments that we were all 10
anticipating. Thanks again to all of you who had a hand in that. I thought I'd let you know what 11
we think will happen next with this. The Council did ask to see it again after they've had a 12
chance to look at the Land Use Element. What we're going to do is use the version we gave to 13
the Council last night, which was your draft, as a base document. We're going to accept all the 14
changes that were in that, and then from now on we'll be tracking changes so you'll be able to 15
see exactly how it changes. We're going to make some changes to reflect the input we got 16
from the Council, share it with them again, and then it'll come back to you when we put all of 17
the elements together. Once you get through all the other elements, you'll see it again, and it'll 18
have those track changes. You'll see exactly how it's been modified since you forwarded it to 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 7 of 83
the Council. Congratulations. I think the Council really appreciated your work on this. I think 1
it's a great step forward for this process. 2
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Now what we're going to do is go to the Land Use and Community 3
Design Element. First we're going to start as—first we're going to have a discussion by staff 4
introducing what's happened. Then we're going to go as is usual to the members of the 5
committees first. 6
Agenda Items: 7
Elaine Costello: I'm just going to say a couple of things, and then Joanna—am I on? I just 8
wanted to sort of give you the context of where we are and where we're going on projects 9
before we launch into the two elements that we have tonight, which are Land Use and the 10
Natural Environment. Our goal is to forward the Land Use Element to the Council tonight. They 11
were eager to see it at the Council meeting. They're looking forward to it. That's our primary 12
goal. We're just launching the Natural Environment discussion tonight. We know from the 13
discussion at the last CAC meeting that some of you—all of you have been wonderful in giving 14
so much of your time. Some of you at the end of the year for various reasons may not be 15
continuing on with the CAC, so we are trying to make sure that we can get through as much of 16
the Natural Environment and the Safety Elements before the end of this year. We sent out a 17
schedule, and that shows that the upcoming October, November and December CAC meetings 18
will be devoted to the Natural Environment and Safety Elements, and that the members of the 19
sustainability committee, the safety committee and the natural environment committee will be 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 8 of 83
holding a number of meetings to sort of review each of those documents before they come to 1
you. That's just sort of where we are and where we're headed. The goal is to finish Land Use so 2
that we can launch into these others. By the end of December, we'll still have a lot of work to 3
do in terms of the Economic and Business Element and implementation and a number of other 4
topics. The substantive elements, our goal is to get through as much as we possibly can with 5
the original CAC members. Any questions on that? With that, I'm going to turn it over to 6
Joanna Jansen from PlaceWorks to go through where we are on the Land Use Element, how we 7
followed up with the land use subcommittee on the issues that you had at your last meeting 8
and what the status of that is pretty quickly so we can get to your comments and thoughts. 9
1. Action: Land Use & Community Design Element 10
a. Introduction of Revised Draft Element, including the five issues identified at the 11
August CAC meeting 12
b. Report from the Land Use and Sustainability Subcommittees 13
c. Discussion of Draft Element 14
Joanna Jansen: Thank you, Elaine. I'm just going to run through what has happened on the 15
Land Use Element first, since the last time we were altogether as a group in August, since that's 16
the first topic on the agenda. If you recall the last time we were in this room, near the end of 17
our meeting Hillary and Arthur and others did a great job of kind of summarizing the input that 18
we had heard and the outstanding issues that needed to be addressed and kind of assigned 19
those to the sustainability and the land use subcommittees. Those topics included housing 20
affordability, the urban forest, coordinated area plans, basements and what was at that time 21
called performance measures. We met first with the sustainability subcommittee, and they 22
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 9 of 83
focused on performance measures and moved those forward in a couple of different ways. We 1
added detail to what are now called development requirements that are in Table L-1 of the 2
element, in terms of requirements that will be placed on new projects as they are approved 3
and as they are constructed. In addition to that, recognizing that those are really going to be a 4
relatively small percentage of the built environment that's on the ground in 20 years from now, 5
we also spent additional time on the community performance measures, which are now called 6
community indicators and which measure the performance not only of new development but 7
also of all of the existing buildings and the actions of existing residents and existing workers as 8
well as future residents and workers over time. We also made some important changes to 9
those indicators. You can see in Table L-2 in your Land Use Element that one got quite a bit 10
longer. We added things like corridor travel times, air pollution, unoccupied homes, additional 11
indicators on the urban tree canopy, on groundwater contamination and really a broad range of 12
different issues that were important to the subcommittee members. The other thing to 13
understand about the development requirements and the community indicators is that what 14
we're anticipating is that two options for these tools will go forward to the City Council. In this 15
meeting last time, we came up with the ideas of, one, having all of the detail about these items 16
in the Lane Use Element, so a detailed Table L-1 for development requirements for new 17
development and a pretty detailed Table L-2 with ways that we're going to evaluate the 18
performance of all of the buildings in Palo Alto. Including that detail in the Land Use Element, 19
making those decisions now and including that in the adopted Land Use Element is one option. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 10 of 83
In your staff report, that's actually referred to as Option 2. Option 1 would be to just include a 1
program in the Land Use Element that says you should develop something. You should develop 2
a list of requirements and you should develop a list of community indicators through a 3
subsequent transparent, open, inclusive process, etc., but we shouldn't try to hammer that out 4
right now as part of the Comp Plan. We heard both of those ideas last time at the full CAC. 5
Because we've heard both of those ideas, we are planning to carry forward both as options. 6
Both are relatively fully fleshed out at this point in your draft Lane Use Element. Certainly your 7
comments and thoughts are welcome on that tonight, but at least it's my understanding we're 8
not trying to decide and choose one of those options tonight. We're going to be carrying both 9
of those options forward to the Council for their consideration. The other four issues were 10
looked at in more detail by the land use subcommittee. They looked at housing affordability as 11
distinct from affordable housing. We spent a little bit of time talking about subsidized, below 12
market rate, deed restricted units that are affordable housing and also just a much broader 13
category of housing that is more affordable or some people call it more attainable simply by 14
nature of its size, its design, its age, its location, etc., rather than being legally or otherwise 15
restricted to a certain income level. There was support for ensuring that the Land Use Element 16
really addresses both types of housing and of housing affordability more broadly. When we 17
looked at all of the urban forest policies together, the committee didn't make any major 18
additions to those programs and policies, but we did kind of refine them and added some new 19
policies and programs, just increasing the recognition in the Land Use Element of the 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 11 of 83
importance of the urban forest and involving urban forestry staff in project review, which is 1
something that's already happened but can be memorialized in the Land Use Element. We 2
talked a little bit about coordinated area plans. We have added options to the Land Use 3
Element to expand what was formerly going to be focused on the Fry's coordinated area plan to 4
the larger California Avenue area as well as considering a possible Downtown coordinated area 5
plan. In terms of basements, this continues to be a very important issue. We've been hearing 6
about this a lot. We've had speakers here tonight as well as at a number of our past meetings 7
really emphasizing the importance of this issue and kind of the urgency of the issue. We have 8
added a new multi-part policy that includes evaluating and regulating the potential negative 9
impacts of basements, not only in terms of their impact from a land use perspective in terms of 10
the occupant density or neighborhood character but also in terms of flooding issues, safety 11
issues and urban forest issues as well as a recognition that the potential impacts of basements 12
and their interaction with groundwater may change over time with sea level rise and climate 13
change. That policy is all in the Land Use Element right now. Possible that over time some of 14
those pieces may move to Natural Environment or the Safety Element, because of course they 15
do have to do with both Natural and Safety topics. It's in the Land Use Element right now for 16
your consideration. In addition, the subcommittee suggested that staff should bring forward a 17
more immediate action for consideration by the City Council in light of the level of community 18
concern about this topic. Finally, I just want to bring your attention to a list of outstanding Land 19
Use Element issues that's in the staff report. You've got 17 numbered items here on pages 6 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 12 of 83
and 7 of the staff report. We wanted to highlight these because these are all changes that, 1
while they look really small—they're just a line or two here—some of them could be pretty 2
significant policy changes. They're ones that are important and have been raised primarily in 3
the written communications that we've received both for your August meeting as well as for 4
the intervening subcommittee meetings. We haven't really had a chance to talk about them, 5
but your fellow members have put them out there. It's important to bring these to your 6
attention. If anybody wants to discuss these, if we can get some resolution on any of these, 7
we'll reflect that in the Land Use Element. If not, this list will also go forward to the City Council 8
for their consideration. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. First, let the record show that Elaine Uang has joined us. Let me 10
give some overarching remarks about process. There's a concept, paraphrasing Voltaire, that 11
the best is the enemy of the good. There's also a concept of economics of the notion of 12
decreasing marginal utility. We can continue to meet to try to—as Steve observes. We want to 13
make sure that we don't drag out the process in such a way that we don't keep on 14
incrementally improving it. We want to give it to the Council and let the Council look at it, 15
evaluate it with the Transportation Element, and then give us feedback and figure out what to 16
do from there. A couple of things. First of all, we are not going to have any votes except for a 17
vote to recommend that the City Council consider the draft of the Land Use and Community 18
and Design Element. Secondly, what I think would make sense is for all the comments that are 19
made, either in writing submitted today or ones that you have a chance to submit before a 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 13 of 83
week from today at 5:00. Mark your calendars, September 27th at 5:00, staff will be accepting 1
comments. Those comments will go to Council along with the minutes of this meeting when 2
this goes to Council in mid-November. Because of the timing, we really can't do this in October. 3
It compresses too much and we would take time away from the other elements that we have to 4
do. We're basically running out of time. We've spent a lot of time on this element. We spent a 5
lot time on the Transportation Element. We've spent more time than we originally planned to, 6
so I think it's important to move on with this and to gather your input. Therefore, what I am 7
recommending you do at your comments now is to talk about your highest level issues that we 8
can basically hear. This way, if there are people who agree or disagree with those issues, they 9
can comment on that without being disagreeable and so we can see if there's any consensus 10
that can go to Council based on the reading of their comments. In addition, you can write more 11
between now and a week from today at 5:00. With that, going on. What I'd like you to do is if 12
you are on the land use committee and, I think, the sustainability committee also met on this. 13
If you're on either of those two committees and you met on this element, if you could raise 14
your name tents and make them so that I can see the names, that's helpful. Thank you. We'll 15
go to you first. I can't see your name, so turn it around. No, it's blank that side. Thank you. If 16
you'd always keep your name tags so that we can see them up here, it makes it a lot easier for 17
me. We'll first go to the people who were on the committee, and then afterwards we'll go to 18
the other people. Sustainability as well. If you can make your name tag, Elaine, so I can see it. 19
Thank you. I will start—yes? 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 14 of 83
Alex van Riesen: Can I ask one clarification? 1
Co-Chair Keller: Yes. 2
Alex van Riesen: You said highest level. Are you suggesting that these are things that we have 3
not yet talked about that are not mentioned or are you just asking people to drill home the 4
thing that—I think we've pretty much expressed everything that could humanly, possibly be 5
expressed. How do we avoid kind of redundancy here? 6
Co-Chair Keller: Let me say that I'm not going to control how you spend your time. We will 7
take 2 1/2—I'll let you in on a little secret, and that is we don't actually get 3 minutes. We 8
actually get an extra 30 seconds. Because time is limited, we're going to take 2 minutes and 30 9
seconds for everybody to go this round. If you wish to use your 2 minutes and 30 seconds for 10
things that you don't think are high-level comments, be my guest. On the other hand, the idea 11
is to be as efficient and as high level of the important things as appropriate. 12
Hillary Gitelman: Can I add to that? 13
Co-Chair Keller: Sure. 14
Hillary Gitelman: Just having had this experience last night, I guess I will ask for your mercy. 15
Think of us as the staff conveying your work to the City Council. What would you like us to 16
report as your kind of high-level thoughts on this element as we bring it forward? 17
Co-Chair Keller: We'll start on this side. Steve, you can lead off. 18
Stephen Levy: I'm blown away by the collegiality of the subcommittee and the incredibly good 19
reporting of Joanna and Elaine. I may not get a chance more, but I'd like to thank Shani and 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 15 of 83
Doria and Annette and Jennifer and Hamilton and Alex and Amy. I hope I didn't miss anybody. 1
On that, my priorities are what Joanna said, and I hope you convey them to the Council. I'm 2
interested in the broader issue of housing affordability including below market, subsidized 3
housing but also other housing. I think you've cleared up that language, so I hope you bring 4
that forward to Council. It's certainly in the Housing Element. Second, I really hope that we're 5
able—that the Council can help you with additional staff or whatever so we can proceed on all 6
the area plans. I think the two that are the hardest may also be the ones that have the most 7
impact, the ones that got left off the first time, Cal. Ave. and Downtown. I know there are 8
staffing issues, so I'll support you in asking for help on that. There's all sorts of stuff going on 9
Downtown. The last one is again thank you to the committee and to Joanna and Elaine. In my 10
world of measuring stuff like water usage or energy usage or the condition of the roads—our 11
roads have been going up since we've been putting infrastructure. Traffic and parking are really 12
called community indicators. The importance of that is not the language, but it's what Joanna 13
said. It reminds us that in a City of 68,000, where we could add 10,000 or 15,000, at the most 14
heavy-lifting it's going to be on affecting the behavior of the existing residents, the existing 15
workers and the existing companies. How do they use energy? How do they handle parking? 16
How do they handle commuting? I haven't looked at the scope of the EIR, Joanna, for all of the 17
scenarios. I hope that you're measuring not just the impacts of the new development but how 18
we can mitigate existing. 19
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Elaine is next. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 16 of 83
Elaine Uang: I echo some of the things that Steve just said. I'm very glad to see the expanded 1
language and definition for housing affordability and really glad to see the inclusion of 2
coordinated area plans. I do agree with Steve that—if staff can get more staffing—the two 3
really critical plans are probably Downtown, Cal. Ave. They have the greatest impacts. They're 4
also our greatest opportunity, because they both—if you look at the map, they're the ones that 5
are the most transit accessible, the most walkable. They already have the good bones to 6
support a lot of the sustainable transportation initiatives that we had set forth in the 7
Transportation Element. One thing that I do want to bring that is new and goes back to housing 8
again. I think housing is not just about how many units are created or removed; it's also 9
remembering that people live here. People who have lived here in the community for a long 10
time often may not feel like they can stay here. Remembering that there's a human dimension 11
to that is important. One concern that I have in reading this Land Use draft is that we haven't 12
really thought very carefully about how we can expand those options to allow those folks to 13
stay. We're losing people all the time. I don't think that even my kids are really going to be 14
able to make many, many friends who are going to stay long term. I think if you look steadily at 15
the sort of family formation cohort, they're increasingly renters, and they're just not able to 16
stay here. Traditionally, that was sort of the bulwark of Palo Alto. Concern that we haven't 17
really looked at the land use map. Again, I raised this in my notes last time, but I didn't get a 18
chance to mention it in comments. I just want to bring it forward. 3 percent of our land, 3 19
percent—I'm supportive of the 58 percent of land that is open space, but 3 percent of our land 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 17 of 83
is designated multifamily dwelling, and only 0.7 allows mixed use. There's a really good graph 1
in the existing conditions document I'd encourage you to look at. I'm just really sad that we 2
haven't really taken a look at that map, and we haven't had the opportunity to say how can we 3
change things. There's a policy noted—can we take a look at what are the things that are 4
preventing construction of affordable housing and below market rate units? I think we already 5
know what those are, but we haven't actually addressed them by looking at the land use maps. 6
I think that we had an opportunity, and it'd be nice if we could take that extra step. Look at the 7
map, look at where things can go and really make that and allow people to stay here long term. 8
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Annette. 9
Annette Glanckopf: I did turn in my comments, so I'll just hit the highlights. I would like to see 10
captions on the photos. They're just sort of thrown in there with—though, they're very pretty 11
but whatever. Just a couple of additions that I think we need to put. In Memorial Park, you 12
need to add first responders. Dennis Burns as really our Police Chief is very—I'm glad to see the 13
Memorial Park. On the staff comments, it would have been interesting to see where you 14
actually want to insert them, like traffic lights, in the Comp Plan. The Eichler Neighborhood 15
Program needs to have a special place for it. I don't think personally it belongs under building 16
heights. I think it should be its own policy, and Individual Review needs to be next to it. There's 17
nothing on either thing, so I think that along with this affordable housing issue, Eichlers and 18
single-story overlays are critically important in our land use decisions. On the topic of housing 19
again—back to the staff comments—there was a comment about prohibiting housing in 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 18 of 83
Charleston Center, which I'm very supportive of. I think we need to add Midtown as well. 1
There is a reference to that later on in page L-30 and also L-46. I would like to see both of these 2
to eliminate housing. If we do build housing, we're going to kick out retail, and it's going to be 3
basically unaffordable. I definitely think affordable housing is the key issue, whatever it is, 4
however we want to define it. I think the Comp Plan needs to be stronger in our position. 5
There's something in there that says work with stakeholders to find sites. I think we need to be 6
more hard-hitting and be very specific and say, "Let's identify two sites from the Housing 7
Element and then develop plans to make those sites affordable housing." As far as the 8
performance measures, I'm one of those that are sort of on the speculative side. I think that 9
they're very, very ambitious. In the chart—my vote would be the Council would pare them 10
down. If we do use them in any shape or form, they need to be reviewed much more 11
frequently than are indicated in the documents, 4 years. In some cases, it's—I have one more 12
high-level comment. I think anything that goes forward should be majority and minority, and 13
we shouldn't talk about how many people voted on one side versus the other. 14
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Doria. 15
Doria Summa: Hi. I have a lot of specific comments still, and I'm still a little sorry that we never 16
had the time, but I understand why we didn't, in the process to really go through it at the 17
subcommittee line-by-line. I think we could do some more work on—be more specific about 18
what we want to see in Stanford Research Park with regards to caps or growth mitigations. I 19
thought we had decided that we wanted in the C zones mixed land use that had retail and 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 19 of 83
housing but not office. I'm not a big fan of having too many area plans, and I actually don't 1
think we need one for Downtown. I think area plans work best when there's sort of a clean 2
slate and are very problematic when you're imposing them over a built-out neighborhood. I 3
think there could be stronger language in a couple of places throughout. I don't want to go into 4
all the details. For protection of not just R-1 but all the low-density, residential 5
neighborhoods—that's a big thing for me—I think we need to address the basement and 6
dewatering issue in some more specificity. I think the urban forest language could be a little 7
stronger. I'm really worried about people being displaced in the process of redevelopment, but 8
I understand that is a very tricky issue. I'm not sure the best way to deal with it. I agree with 9
Annette. I think the Eichler building thing was just in the wrong place. I think it should be in 10
Goal 3. I continue to think that our emphasis on below market rate housing should be for the 11
most vulnerable in our community, disabled or elderly, disabled adults and those with financial 12
accessibility issues. Other than that—I also was concerned. I wanted to address some of the 17 13
items. I wasn't sure which way you guys were stating them, whether there was a—like in 14
Number 9, it says delete the last sentence and then in quotes it says ensure that each 15
residential has such spaces. I think what that means is you're adding that last clause and 16
deleting the existing last sentence. In some cases, those specifics were a little confusing for me. 17
I'll leave it at that. 18
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Hamilton. 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 20 of 83
Hamilton Hitchings: First, I want to start by saying I really agree with the comments of Annette 1
and Doria. As for the subcommittee and for the Land Use Element, we took an approach which 2
was not to try and come to compromise on everything, because it was clear that different 3
opinions were sufficiently far apart we would not be able to. What we tried to do was come 4
together on where we could and where we couldn't. Staff and Hillary and Elena have done a 5
really nice job of laying out the different options for next City Council to be able to decide what 6
to do. It took a lot of work but, Hillary, I have to say I'm impressed. Thank you very much for 7
that. I do feel that this document is at a point where it's ready to go to City Council. We 8
certainly need their feedback in order to finish it up. I am very concerned, as you know, about 9
low income and displacement. From the data points I've seen, not only are these folks getting 10
priced out but even if we build more housing, it will still not be within their reach, which is why 11
I continue to advocate for below market housing. There is one specific area. If you look at 12
Table L-1 and you look at Item Number 5, in Item Number 4 we talk about not displacing below 13
market. In Item Number 5, we don't actually talk about increasing below market. I would like 14
to see Number 5—we add below market housing as well as including affordable housing. For a 15
lot of people, $2,500 or $3,000 a month just isn't affordable, and they're going to be priced out 16
or they won't be able to live in this community, which will be a detriment to the community. I 17
hope we can capture that in the version that goes to Council. Another area that I think we 18
missed—I realized it when reading this over—is, I think, a giant loophole that anyone can build 19
a big medical center and it not be covered under the office and R&D grant. We have an 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 21 of 83
exemption for below 5,000 feet. Stanford Medical Unit is exempted. I think if someone else 1
wanted to build a big medical facility, we shouldn't exempt medical from the office/R&D just 2
because we already have those other exemptions in there. It's obviously going to be a big 3
project at that point. The last thing I would say is in my subcommittee, I asked that we end the 4
(inaudible) of dewatering. We do have the technology with cut wall and other construction 5
techniques. I would like to see it banned or at least put that up to the Council as an option. 6
Thank you. 7
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Jennifer. 8
Jennifer Hetterly: I submitted written comments. I'll try to just pull out the highlights. I 9
thought the cumulative cap options were a little bit confusing, so I offered some language to 10
clarify that, that I don't think changes the meaning at all. Development requirements and 11
community indicators, there are several references to maintaining and protecting livability 12
which, I think, suggests that we're at the high point right now for quality of life. I think that the 13
significant dissatisfaction with existing traffic, parking, housing affordability suggests that we 14
really want to be improving livability. I would like to see those changed to improve. Options 1 15
and 2 completely lack any enforcement mechanisms. I think we need to add a program to both 16
or alternatively it could go in that cumulative cap and development implementation program 17
section that'll monitor compliance and set and enforce penalties for meeting the development 18
requirements. As far as the tables, I prefer Option 2 mostly because, I think, we could fight 19
forever over what are the specific examples used in Option 1. I like having the tables but, as I 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 22 of 83
read it, that's not an all inclusive list of what are going to be the indicators. That's the starting 1
point for discussion and developing indicators. Is that a correct understanding? Policy L-1.18 2
has a bit about transparency and how data will be monitored and published regarding the 3
community indicators, but there's nothing about calling for transparency and creating the 4
indicators. I think that needs to be added as well as for creating the development 5
requirements. I suggested how you could split out that program into two separate programs to 6
cover that. I think we should periodically assess the development requirements themselves, 7
not just the caps. If our community indicators are not getting where we want them to go, we 8
should consider maybe these development requirements aren't the right ones or aren't at the 9
right levels. I think there should be a program to periodically assess that as well. On 10
basements, I would like to see the addition of reference to storm water management, to excess 11
occupancy that was mentioned in the intro but it didn't show up in the language, to redefine 12
flood zones as well as the construction practices that Hamilton referred to. I'll leave it at that. 13
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. 14
Shani Kleinhaus: I had a lot of comments. One thing is it looks like you've done a lot of 15
consolidation, and I like it. Some of the things that disappeared I would like to see back. I don't 16
know if I'll get to cover all of those, because I have two bigger issues right now. One is what 17
Rebecca Byrnes talked about, and that's housing for the bottom of the lowest people in this 18
society. This is not affordable housing; this is not attainable housing. This is people that cannot 19
afford it unless they're subsidized. I'm looking for a program for the City to partner with local 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 23 of 83
nonprofits and whatever other government grants we can get, anything we can do, to 1
accommodate those people. I think that probably belongs as another program under Policy L-2
1.3, to have another program specifically for those people who are the most vulnerable in the 3
community and are not covered here. I also think that Program L-131 is not well written, and it 4
needs a little more editing. I can see what you tried to do here, and it's the right direction for 5
that, but it needs some editing. I would really like to see a program that really looks to care for 6
those people. We have a huge need in this community. That may be seniors, and it may be 7
those people with developmental disabilities. The other thing is a little difficult, because it's 8
late. I tried to introduce it before, and it wasn't that easy. I spoke about it to City Council last 9
night. That's the issue of having caps only and no performance measures and no requirements. 10
I'll try and explain why and why I think that should be advanced as well as the other options. 11
It's not there now. It's hard to explain to people who don't work with CEQA or the California 12
Environmental Quality Act a lot. What we do when we have standards and requirements is we 13
lose the granularity of spaces and specific areas. We say as long as you stand by all our 14
requirements, we check the box. The person who usually checks that box is somebody who 15
graduated yesterday from some school. As long there's something that covers that 16
requirement and it looks okay, that box gets checked. All those elements that we have and we 17
think that they'll be done in a really comprehensive way get a check in the box. Often for staff, 18
it's almost impossible to say, "No, you can't build something," when the box is checked. What 19
that does is it takes away the ability of us, the public, to comment and improve projects on a 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 24 of 83
site-specific rather than some kind of an overall standard basis. This was a huge issue that the 1
Governor actually issued orders to allow affordable housing projects and mixed-use projects to 2
move forward. They didn't do it for office. We need to think about it, because the moment 3
that we have those things to replace our ability to influence a project, our only way then is 4
some kind of a referendum. I don't think people want to go there; it divides the community. 5
Look what it's done to Palo Alto. I really think we should offer the alternative if anybody agrees 6
with me. I said, "Let's do it," and they told me, "You're the only one." I work with CEQA on a 7
day-to-day basis. I know it's power. It's our people power. That's what we get out of CEQA. 8
While I don't necessarily think we should have no requirements, those should not replace—it's 9
a hard and fine line to go. That could be something that staff can work on later. I don't think 10
we are the forum that can solve that. I want that ability to just look at caps for now until 11
maybe we catch a better jobs to housing ratio or something. To just say maybe we need to 12
wait, we have some patience, let's build up the housing, let's deal with the environmental 13
issues. Housing will continue to increase. The cost will continue to increase if we build a lot 14
more office. We can put caps on office and let's look at what happens. I'm not suggesting caps 15
on housing if anybody is reading it that way. I thought I should bring it up. 16
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. If you have already spoken, if you could put your name sign down. 17
Thank you. Don, you're next. 18
Don McDougall: Speaking in real general terms about a few things. One is the housing 19
affordability. I think the terms that have been used is affordability, attainability, availability. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 25 of 83
Frankly, I like housing accessibility. Is it available and do the lower level of people that we're 1
talking about here, lower income, disabilities and so on, have access to that by any means? I 2
think Shani's comment about we should create partnerships wherever we can with nonprofits 3
to help us with that—everybody knows that I rant about partnerships. I think that's really 4
important. In fact, I think the other thing is I want to compliment staff for in here covering all 5
the different possibilities, even a separate program or policy, I forget, on cluster housing. I 6
think the one thing that is wrong here is we've dictated where we can't put housing. For 7
example, Town and Country says no housing. There's a big parking lot. Are we absolutely 8
certain that, if we're looking for affordable housing, isn't an opportunity to explore? I think that 9
we should not be prescriptive to eliminate at least exploration. I want to speak again in favor of 10
the idea of measures. I really like what staff has done and the committees. I think the 11
committees did a great job of coming up with the idea of requirements and the idea of 12
indicators. I like that. I think that there needs to be a transition of how we use them. I think 13
Jennifer's right. Do we have all the right ones? The answer to that is no. Should we continue 14
to explore it? I think that whatever we do we should start collecting measures to the extent 15
that we have the staff and affordability and the data available to do that. Even if we're not 16
using them, at least we're creating a base point. I agree with—I think it was Annette who said if 17
we're going to have them, we should look at them more frequently. I do want to comment that 18
at Council last night—I think everything we've done we've talked about the interconnectedness 19
of things. Alexander von Humboldt. The transportation and the land use, they're connected. I 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 26 of 83
think we've tried to do that. I think the other thing I want to comment on is—I think this is up 1
to staff. I want to—I think for the third time now—compliment staff with what they've done 2
here. I think it's up to staff to figure out if we're supposed to be detailed or suggestive. I think 3
Council has given confusing and we're confused. Do we want to be more detailed or more 4
suggestive? Thank you. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Whitney. 6
Whitney McNair: Thank you. Addressing the annual cap. I appreciate the changes that are in 7
the options, but I suggest that we take the two policies that are in the Comp Plan element 8
here—it's Policy L-1.14 and 15; it's also Number 17 in the staff report—and blend them 9
together. My suggestion is that there's a 50,000-square-foot cap within the City, an additional 10
50,000-square-foot cap at the Research Park with the ability to roll over the unused 11
development capacity with the Research Park. We'd already talked about the Medical Center 12
being exempt. I would include the Research Park can be exempt from this annual limit if the 13
City and Stanford enter into a mutually acceptable agreement with defined performance 14
standards providing for alternative means of addressing auto trips to and from the Research 15
Park. Any such agreement may not cause new or substantially more severe or significant 16
environmental impacts than those that would be caused under the annual limit. I think it takes 17
all the things we've been talking about and puts it into one comprehensive policy. As far as 18
Policy L-1.11, I don't support including hotels in any of the caps. There hasn't really been a 19
rationale that we've discussed here or provided of why we need to cap hotel rooms. If size of 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 27 of 83
hotels is an issue with recent hotel developments, then the City should be looking at 1
development standards within the Zoning Ordinance or study hotels separately. Just don't 2
outright cap them without the information to support that idea. Within the development 3
requirements, there is this one that says preserve low cost rents. That really can't be a 4
development requirement, but maybe that's a goal. Community indicators, there's a percent 5
commute trips to employment centers, which is new. I just don't understand the metric. It 6
says 505 trips by SOC. I just don't know what that means. Number 8 in the staff report in Policy 7
L-6.13 and the program—I've said this a lot of times in my written comments—there shouldn't 8
be a prohibition on office uses in mixed-use developments. I understand there's a concern 9
about office uses, but there may be places where a mix of uses including office is important. 10
That's it. 11
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Amy. 12
Amy Sung: Right off the bat I wanted to say thank you. I read this draft and thinking that is like 13
really, really capture a lot of discussion that took place in the subcommittee meetings. Thank 14
you, Joanna and Elena. Wanted to start out with the housing that is affordable. I really think 15
that captured the spirit of what we face as a City. Thanks, Don. I learned a new term, housing 16
accessibility. Nonetheless, I think that what we can do is to use that as a basis for an inclusive 17
community. What we face is not just a particular section of the population. We hear an outcry 18
of all levels of housing need. What we need is to have housing choices that we accommodate, I 19
wanted to repeat, the young and the old. The young people—we are here to draft a 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 28 of 83
Comprehensive Plan that's supposed to last until 2030. This should be a guiding principle that 1
will last that long. The young people until then probably will be middle of the range. 2
Nonetheless, what we have to solve the problems today, I think it should be a Council decision, 3
but what we lay out should be long term. I think that is something that I wanted to emphasize. 4
Real quickly, I also wanted to bring back the ideas of putting housing in areas like Town and 5
Country and also in the surface parking lots. Stanford Shopping Center parking lot to me is just 6
a fabulous location for us to consider for housing. I also think that right now we are looking at 7
limiting the office space; however, I just think it is a danger of putting an outright prohibition 8
for that office space. Dewatering, this is very, very real. That is an issue that we need to look 9
at. I think that dewatering is real impact to the tree roots, the canopy and also the impact to 10
adjacent properties, because of the basement excavations. I think these are all real and needs 11
to be looked at and studied with a scientific foundation and basis, so that we address this issue. 12
However, I wanted to ask that basement will not be looked at as another area to fully restrict 13
how houses should be built. Thank you. 14
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Our final of this half round is Alex. 15
Alex van Riesen: I just want to add my own thanks to all the work that's been put in. I find 16
myself agreeing with a number of comments, especially with Hamilton and Jennifer. I guess 17
one thing I wanted to come back to. The coordinated area plans have been mentioned a 18
number of times. I've heard comments, everything from they should all be done to maybe 19
prioritize one or two. This seems to me there needs to be a process established. I wanted to 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 29 of 83
suggest a process for prioritizing these plans. It seems like we had two decided, but now it 1
seems more up in the air. I guess behind that, what I wonder is what are the values that the 2
City or the Council has for deciding which places should be developed, when, and then follow 3
those. It seems like now there's some controversy about whether it should be the Fry's site, 4
which I think a number of months ago was more of a priority, and now maybe Downtown. I 5
think there's some argument for Downtown and Cal. Ave. because of the location of 6
transportation, but I think there's potentially more opportunity to do stuff with what's 7
happening at Fry's and in the other locations. I think that's the biggest concern. That's the 8
highest level. In the report, it's the thing where we have the least clarity, the understanding of 9
the coordinated area plans. I also wanted to urge the City Council to put the—I want to agree 10
with a moratorium on basements until a clear policy going forward is achieved. I think City 11
Council should do that immediately. What with being in a drought-stricken area and all the 12
implications that we're unclear on, I don't know why we're allowing that to continue to happen. 13
I think I read something—I think it's something Stephen put out—that the Council should 14
consider a gradual increase each year beginning at 20 percent and moving towards 25 percent 15
in terms of the amount of BMR housing. I thought rather than keep it at 20 or make it 25 is 16
something that's prorated and moves a little bit over each year. 17
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. First, I'd like to thank the land use and sustainability 18
subcommittees for their comments. If you could all put down your tags and then, if you didn't 19
speak in the first round, then you get to put up your tag now. We'll call you. We'll start again. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 30 of 83
If you could make your tags face me so I can see your names, that would be helpful. Lisa, 1
you're first. 2
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: This would be on the overall high-level comments, right? 3
Co-Chair Keller: Yes, these are your high-level comments on the element. 4
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I've got four items. Actually most of them aren't new; they're picked up 5
somewhere here. The first one is I would still propose language in Goal L-1 that adds the word 6
diverse. It would read a compact, diverse and resilient City, etc., with the diversity capturing a 7
lot of what we've talked about, but for sure economic, age, ability. I really mean the broader—I 8
think it sets the framework for a lot of the land use. I would still ask before it goes to Council 9
we add the word diverse, because pretty much, I think, all of us have talked about it in some 10
way. It can also cover the type of land use. I'm thinking more of the human diversity, but it can 11
also cover that. That's Number 1. Second on the housing, still very passionate, several of us 12
have said around affordable and below market and subsidized housing. To me it's all of those 13
things. I like the accessible, because I may package it. It really is how do we get Palo Alto back 14
to where all incomes, all different—just a mixture of us. The diversity of who can afford to live 15
here. That said, I also think that folks with less money may live in multifamily units, in higher 16
buildings. I'm not saying everyone gets a single-family residence on a big lot. That just isn't 17
practical, but some sort of diversity with that and really targeting, I think, City workers, teachers 18
and first responders, all that, and certain groups that we may want to set as a priority for the 19
good of the City, whether it's disability, age, students, whatever. The third is the urban forest. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 31 of 83
Sorry. My third big is around urban forest and parks and open space. Critical to maintain and 1
protect that as we go, even with our building, even with our changes. The last one, basements. 2
I very much agree with what Alex said. I think for the basements we need to change the 3
policies that—I think basements are fine—there be zero wasted groundwater coming out of the 4
basements. That's on the developer; that's on the homeowner. If they can commit to that, it 5
can go forward in the meantime while the City works out the policy on this. If not, I would also 6
do a moratorium. I think this is critical. As one of our public speakers said, it's just such a waste 7
of our very precious water. It's just horrible to see, and I think it's a fair thing. It is doable at a 8
reasonable cost from the limited things I know about it. That's my last one on the basements. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Bonnie. 10
Bonnie Packer: Like others, I want to congratulate the subcommittees for work really well 11
done. The last couple of meetings, I spoke out against the caps and items that seemed 12
somewhat draconian. I think this version has come up with what I wanted to call the thinking 13
person's cap. You've tied it so well to the development requirements and the community 14
indicators, which is what needed to be done. I congratulate you on that. I agree with what 15
people are saying about the coordinated area plans. I think a coordinated area plan is really 16
one of the best planning tools the City can use to really understand a particular area and figure 17
out development standards for that area, for the uses in that area, that would work well there 18
but wouldn't work in another part of the City. It's just that kind of fine-tuning, and you get 19
community input, is really worth the extra investment. My message to this City Council and 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 32 of 83
future City Council is try and find the means to pursue the coordinated area plans. I don't know 1
which area should get priority at this point. Fry's has a lease that's going to expire, I think, 2
that's driving that issue. They will decide that. I agree with what Lisa said about diversity. I 3
think there are some items about diversity in the community indicators. As that list gets 4
developed, other types of diversity could be included in there. Also, in my written comments I 5
made a point—this is maybe not a big point. The word livability, I think, is a subjective kind of 6
term. What's livability for me may not be livability for somebody else. I suggest removing the 7
word in the appropriate places in the Comp Plan, because I'm not sure what it means. I think 8
the community indicators is a way of arriving at that. I also suggest that you add using citizen 9
surveys, SurveyMonkey-type tools, whatever is available, as the years go on to find out what 10
the community is really thinking. The final thing, I'm heartened to hear so many people here 11
talking about the need for affordable, attainable, whatever you call it housing. In order to do 12
that, you have to be willing to have buildings that include these people who need the housing. 13
You can't say, "We need to be sure we're not negatively impacting the environment, but we 14
need affordable housing," but then say, "No, we can't built it because there's going to be a 15
negative impact." There's balancing that has to be done and priorities. That's it for now. 16
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Julia. 17
Julia Moran: Echoing everyone else's comments, thank you all, subcommittee, for the work. 18
This is clearly the beast of the committee. Better you than me. I'd have to agree with Shani 19
and Don. I think that we do need to make sure that we have a very strong policy in this about 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 33 of 83
our most vulnerable communities and partnering with nonprofits. More than anyone else 1
who's spoken to us, we've had people come to talk to us from these communities. If we're 2
going to listen to our citizens, we need to include this. I would also agree with Amy regarding 3
dewatering and basements. I think that it's important that we're being environmentally 4
responsible. I'm sorry, I can't remember your name. The woman from the emergency services 5
brought up some great suggestions of ways that we can—teeth we can use with regards to 6
basements. I don't want to muddle that with housing and not building housing. I think some of 7
these suggestions here have nothing to do with the environment. Not allowing people to put 8
bathrooms in basements is an entirely different issue and should not be included. I'd also agree 9
with Don regarding—I don't think that we should include in the Plan—I don't think we should 10
dictate where we can't put housing. I would add to that I don't think we should dictate where 11
we can't put childcare facilities. It's one thing to say we're not saying we must put housing here 12
and we must put childcare facilities. I disagree with saying that's absolutely not allowed. Just 13
quickly, lastly, in the section of—the list that's going on to the Council of (inaudible) Land Use 14
Element issues, most of these I disagree with. It seems to be a pretty skewed list. I hope that's 15
rounded out in the final list that goes on to the Council. I think there are a lot of things in here, 16
like the dewatering, where they will hinder new housing being developed and are put under the 17
name of other things. I think we need to focus on that. Thanks. 18
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Jason 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 34 of 83
Jason Titus: I'll be kind of short. The idea of having coordinated area plans for Downtown and 1
California Avenue, whether it's specifically—whether we do something that is actually called a 2
coordinated area plan or not, I feel that it's very important for us to recognize and convey in the 3
document that, where we have public transit, this is the only place where we can effectively 4
develop in ways that don't seem to bother people and create problems in all the ways that have 5
come up again and again across parking and traffic and all of this. If we don't spent time saying, 6
"How are we going to consciously manage the constrained resource we have around our public 7
transit," then I don't think we're going to be able to develop effectively. I think it's great for 8
Fry's to make sure we do good stuff, but it's not going to—we're going to be able to have a 9
much more effective management of things like affordable housing if we're thinking about it in 10
the context of how would people get to and from that housing without somehow substantially 11
increasing traffic or parking problems. I do think if you look around both those areas, there will 12
be in the next 15 years substantial redevelopment that happens. If you look at like where the 13
SurveyMonkey building happened or where the High Street developments were, the next block 14
down there is all—like on High near Alma, that's all auto repair. That will change, and how we 15
change that, I think—I would like to imagine that it would be done in a coordinated manner 16
considering transit, childcare, affordable housing, all of these things together and ideally with a 17
view. Whether that's officially called having an actual area plan or not, I think it needs to be 18
thought of holistically, not just one-off approvals or denials after long run-ups. Another thing. I 19
agree with what Julia was saying and others around—I'm hesitant for us to actually write into 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 35 of 83
the Plan, saying you shouldn't have housing in some specific area like in Midtown or at a 1
shopping mall. I think in particular it is a weird thing to think about, like Stanford Shopping Mall 2
parking as housing, but it is worth keeping in mind that how we—transportation, personal 3
transportation in particular, is changing a lot. Like, it is changing pretty rapidly. I think much 4
more rapidly than even people in this committee would have thought one year ago. The 5
number of companies that are now starting tests with driverless cars is pretty astonishing. 6
Fifteen years from now, what will Stanford Mall look like? I don't know. And Town and Country 7
and all that. I probably wouldn't write into the Plan that you can't putting housing in these 8
places, because that may be pretty—it's not very useful besides parking right now, and maybe 9
it could be. 10
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Mark. 11
Mark Nadim: First, I concur with Doria about the mixed use labeling or this mixed use zoning. 12
It should refer to residential and retail rather than residential, office and retail. We all know 13
that we need the BMR; everybody is talking about BMR, senior housing and low income. 14
Probably some of the best places for these developments are along El Camino and Cal. Ave. 15
The main issue is we need to be very specific on what the building size and what requirements 16
are applied to these buildings rather than going through the whole design process and then we 17
have an appeal based on a subjective item. That would delay the development years. We need 18
to be a lot more specific on what these buildings should look like. As for watering, we need to 19
look at studies of the effects of the dewatering to the area, to the region. The Central Valley 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 36 of 83
has been pumping out underground water for irrigation for several years now. There has to be 1
some studies that were done to evaluate what this has done to the land in the Central Valley. 2
That's it. Thank you. 3
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Len. 4
Len Filppu: Thank you. It's really been an honor to work with this committee. I'm enjoying the 5
mix of ideas and will add some now. I agree with Alex on the moratorium on basements. It's 6
something we ought to move forward with real quickly. Here are comments on some of the 7
outstanding Land Use Element issues that came in the memo. I agree that the plan should 8
prohibit hotel use on sites adjacent to single-family neighborhoods., but that should also 9
include low-density residential neighborhoods as well. That was Number 1. On Number 7, the 10
policy about Eichler neighborhoods, first of all it should be moved somewhere within L-3. It's in 11
the wrong place right now. I think that we do need to have some special regulations for Eichler 12
neighborhoods but understand that there are competing points of view within the Eichler 13
neighborhoods and neighbors. The policy should be developed with direct neighborhood input, 14
very important. On Number 10, I agree that planning for the impacts on schools should be 15
added to the Land Use Element, but I would argue why not have it in both, also keep it in 16
Community Services and Facilities. It's a critical issue. It's an issue that's been neglected in this 17
town for a long time. As the Comp Plan attempts to be consistent across all elements, making 18
sure such an important item is in both places makes sense to me. On Number 13, I agree that 19
the text should be added to prohibit housing in Charleston Center. I would include Midtown. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 37 of 83
These are neighborhood centers for primarily walkable retail. We ought to keep it that way. 1
We've seen some situations where we have not kept it that way. These are not always great 2
outcomes. My last one is Number 16, recognize public art and cultural facilities as a community 3
benefit, I say yes, let's delete it. It hasn't worked. There's been a history of this very loaded 4
phrase, community benefit, transforming from a Keith herring to a red herring. Thank you. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you, Len. Ellen. 6
Ellen Uhrbrock: The first thing that I want to say is I am in complete awe of everybody that can 7
do 469 pages in preparation for this meeting. I've admired very much all of your comments, 8
because I know now that you have read it. I'd like to start off with the high level thinking that 9
we really should emphasize the gateways that come into Palo Alto and the gateways 10
connecting us with our other communities like Stanford. Going up University Avenue and Palm 11
Drive, this could be a spectacular, welcoming gateway to both Stanford and to Palo Alto and the 12
others. I think that would be money extremely well spent. A lot of the gateways are near 13
heavy traffic areas, so this would be a good, over high level goal for the City. I'll add to that I 14
agree with all the housing affordability. Consider making parking an affordability element too. 15
When I got my first job after getting out of Stanford, it was at Stanford. I negotiated—this was 16
50 years ago. The first thing I negotiated was I don't type. That was a big barrier. The next 17
thing I negotiated for was a parking spot on the circle. Actually, businesses always are using 18
parking as a perk within their company parking lots, and they can do it within town. It gets 19
complicated to work out, but I think it would be kind of fun to work out. It would bring in 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 38 of 83
people that we want to be residents or workers or part of our community. I guess that's really 1
all I have to say, except that going back to the first element when you had the TMA and you 2
designed the SOV and the share the ride things. I have not seen, within this group or anybody I 3
know, anybody actually participating in it. I'd like to have a plan that we get going and be part 4
of the plan and not just observers that this is a good thing for other people to do. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Adrian. 6
Adrian Fine: Thank you. Just to start, I agree with many other folks here. This is a pretty good 7
product; although, I think there is a bit of a lack of focus on affordable housing. Just putting it 8
in the Comp Plan that we want affordable housing really isn't enough. Per Shani's comment, 9
we actually need to identify funding sources, cross-subsidies and partnerships to get it done. 10
This document doesn't do much in that regard. Given this land use chapter, we should also be 11
looking at housing densities and parking requirements as they relate to the overall cost of 12
housing. On the development requirements, I still have this question: why only new buildings? 13
The greatest impact in terms of traffic and congestion and pollution, things like that, is from 14
existing buildings and existing building users. Additional building will add marginal costs there, 15
but we should consider ways to mitigate the impacts of existing buildings and users. I think 16
Jason was speaking about this, that we've removed the ability, in the Comp Plan at least, to 17
look at housing in places like Midtown, Stanford, some of our CN, CC, CS zones. That's kind of 18
stringing our hands for the long term. I'm not sure we want to do that yet. I also think it's 19
funny that we've removed a bunch of high quality design metrics and requirements for the 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 39 of 83
hospital and employment centers. I wasn't really sure why that happened. I think we do want 1
those to be pedestrian-friendly, bike-friendly places for all residents and workers. On the 2
community indicators, I like that section, but I was wondering if there's a way to regionalize 3
some of those measures. Maybe look at nearby cities and see what they do in terms of 4
measuring them so that we can all kind of cross-evaluate projects. Recently we were looking at 5
the Facebook project in Menlo Park, and it was kind of hard to compare it to what kind of 6
impacts it would have in Palo Alto unless both cities are using the same metrics. I think that 7
might be helpful. On the basement dewatering, I agree with everyone here. It's clearly an 8
issue, but I think we should study it first before we make a broad decision here in the Comp 9
Plan. It may be an item outside of the Comp Plan itself for Council to talk about. I think that's 10
about it. Thank you all. 11
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. A couple of things. With respect to school impacts, as Len 12
mentioned, it says here on page 6 of the staff report, move policies related to planning for 13
school impacts from the Community Services and Facilities Element to the Land Use Element. If 14
we choose not to do this, does that mean it goes back into the Facilities Element? It was 15
already taken out of that Community Services Element. You've got to put it somewhere. We 16
have not as a body agreed to delete it, so it needs to be put somewhere. Since the element 17
we're looking at is the Land Use Element, it must go there because we have not as a body 18
decided to remove it. I haven't heard anybody saying remove it from the element at all. I think 19
that's important. The next thing is that Fry's—with respect to coordinated area plan, Fry's may 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 40 of 83
be moving in a few years. Therefore, we want to control that, so that should be a priority. We 1
should also use that as a laboratory. If we could figure out how to do a coordinated area plan 2
efficiently and effectively, we can think about how many more we do. In particular, South El 3
Camino Real needs one, and that's important. The next thing is that in terms of what 4
percentage of our land is housing, it's actually a false measure. That's because, firstly, R-2 and R 5
MD are considered single-family residential when they're not. Secondly, things that are not 6
considered multifamily residential is, for example, Arbor Real which is actually not zoned for 7
housing. It's actually zoned for CS. We should revisit our land use map to reflect the actual 8
uses. Thereby, we'll actually know how much of our land is actually multifamily residential. In 9
addition, R-2 and R MD should be considered its own zoning of low-density residential. Then, 10
we will not confuse that with single-family residential, because it's actually different. The next 11
Housing Element is in 2022 and, therefore, we won't wait until 2030 to revisit our housing 12
policies. I noticed that it was mentioned by Adrian Fine, and I've also mentioned it. He 13
mentioned in the past the idea of value capture. I think we should value capture avoided 14
parking and increased density, and the City should get the value from that that is given to 15
developers for that increase. In particular, for the project at El Camino and Page Mill Road, if 16
that value capture were allowed to be obtained, that could pay for a subsidized master lease 17
which could be a mechanism for housing our City first responders and utility workers who need 18
to be here in an event of an emergency. I hadn't heard anybody create a mechanism for that, 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 41 of 83
but certainly value capture of that would be a way of doing that. I'm not sure if that can be 1
done other than as a PC. 2
Male: (inaudible) 3
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The next thing is I think that the idea of accessible housing, 4
accessibility, really refers to—that term seems to be used for handicapped, and that's not 5
sufficiently broad in terms of what I would refer to as subsidized housing, which I think is the 6
broadest term. We have about 2,500 units of subsidized housing in Palo Alto. Some of it is 7
below market rate. Some of it is other kinds of subsidized housing. That's the term that's used 8
in general for housing. I think that we should use that in general. When we mean BMR, that's 9
specifically referred to, for example, increasing the percentage from 15 percent which most of 10
our developments are for-purchase housing, maybe increasing that to 25 over time. We're 11
thinking about how to do that. I think that makes sense. In terms of indicators, I'm in favor of 12
Option 2. Also, I'm intrigued by Shani's comment about not having indicators in there. I do 13
think we should do measurements. I'd like to actually have in here where the sources of this 14
data are. If we don't have the data, we're not going to be able to measure anything. Also, in 15
terms of development requirements, how can you have a development requirement, Number 16
8, that is encourage something or facilitate something or minimize—I guess minimize is 17
something. Facilitate and encourage don't sound like requirements to me. I have a little bit of 18
trouble with that. In terms of livability, I think that's a perfectly good term. We somehow got 19
allergic to the term quality of life, which some of us like. Now, if we're going to ban livability, I 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 42 of 83
think that's a problem. Let me close on the issue of dewatering. There are lots of levels of 1
aquifer. By the way, I serve on the Environmental and Water Resources Committee for the 2
Santa Clara Valley Water District. I think I know a little about this, but not as much as the 3
people who have been studying it a lot. There are different levels of the aquifer. It turns out 4
that Santa Clara Valley Water District charges us for the State Water Project, of which we 5
receive no value. Some of that money is actually used in other areas to fund recharge zones, so 6
that surface water actually recharges the shallow aquifer which in turn recharges the deep 7
aquifer. We have no recharge zones in Palo Alto. One of the things is if you deplete the 8
shallow aquifer, not only are you removing water that is watering trees, because trees do have 9
their roots go down and some shrubs do, but you're also eliminating water that would recharge 10
the deep aquifer. When you don't recharge the deep aquifer, then you can result in 11
subsidence. We do have emergency wells. If we were to draw on those, we could have more 12
subsidence. We did, as mentioned, have subsidence in the past. It is about 5 minutes after 13
7:00 approximately. I think we have a little bit more time to go around for people who raised. 14
If you could capture the names as they appear. We'll continue on. This time we'll take 1 1/2 15
minutes, if we can, so we have enough time. We have about a half hour, and we'll go on from 16
there. I think that, Shani, you were next. 17
Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. I wanted to explain why I among others thought that Charleston 18
Center is not good for housing. It's not because I don't think housing is needed. That specific 19
site, I think, the parking there will eventually make room for more retail and services. Right 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 43 of 83
next door in Mountain View, there are going to be 10,000 units in North Bayshore. There is no 1
services in North Bayshore. One of the closest areas to North Bayshore is Charleston Center. I 2
expect that area will need to grow, and it will need to grow up and it will need to grow wide. 3
That parking area will be needed for retail and services, so I don't think housing belongs there, 4
because you can't move people from their homes. If there's a business that doesn't—you can 5
always have more businesses. People need tutoring and they need dentists and they need 6
shops, and that's where they'll go. That's why; it's not because housing is not needed. I just 7
wanted to respond to you on that. I'm not going to go through all of these. I already 8
commented on some of the things. Policy L-1.3, promote infill development in urban service 9
area, is compatible with the surrounding is okay. It says and the (inaudible) scale and character 10
of the City. That does not mean anything, because in south Palo Alto, you don't want to build 11
something that is compatible with the character of California Avenue or Downtown. I think that 12
should be modified. 13
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Next is Alex. 14
Alex van Riesen: I wanted to come back to the coordinated area plans for a minute. It seems 15
like we talk about Downtown and Cal. Ave. as the only ones that are on the transportation 16
corridor. I would argue, with regard to the Fry's site, whether we have the Fry's site by itself or 17
put in with Cal. Ave., that is also on the corridor. The distance from the Cal. Ave. station to Fry's 18
is nominal. I think that would make it, because of its current turnover that's going to occur and 19
that size, probably the primary place for development. That was my suggestion. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 44 of 83
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Next is Doria. If you could put down your name tag after you 1
finish speaking, that would be helpful. 2
Doria Summa: Thanks. I wanted to agree with a lot of the concerns that I've heard. I, first of 3
all, want to encourage everybody to allow Shani's option of caps to be presented to Council. I 4
think it won't take work to do it. I think it's a very interesting one. I'm in favor of that. I 5
noticed also that we couldn't use quality of life because people didn't like that term and 6
livability we can't use. I don't know what we're going—I agree with Author. I don't know what 7
term we can use to replace those. We need something to capture that feeling of how people 8
are experiencing their life in Palo Alto. I don't have a problem at all with designating sites at 9
this time that are not appropriate for housing. I think it's perfectly appropriate to choose uses 10
where you want them. I'm really concerned that Palo Alto, as long as it can, maintains walkable 11
neighborhood centers, so people don't have to get into cars and drive places to get everything 12
they need. That includes having it delivered by UPS or FedEx, because those trucks are just 13
increasing daily, and it's really a nuisance. Walking is really healthy. I also agree that the way 14
the City measures the residential zones is a little bit misleading, and we could improve so 15
people would have a better understanding. I really want to put a plug in for Shani's idea, 16
because I think it's a really good one. Thanks. 17
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Next is Annette. 18
Annette Glanckopf: A couple of fast points. I want to get back to affordable housing for first 19
responders and school teachers. I don't know if that's an urban myth or not. Talking to a lot of 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 45 of 83
firefighters, especially if you look at their schedules, they don't really want to live in cramped 1
apartments. I have not talked to anyone, even the younger ones, that really want to live in an 2
apartment. I think before we really get off on this track, we really need to do a little bit more 3
work. Another point, I'd like to see Cubberley more prominently mentioned in the Land Use as 4
far as active words. I agree with Arthur. There's a lot of very weak terminology in here, not 5
direct and a lot of fluffy adjectives. I'd like to see something about implementing the Cubberley 6
plan. I think dewatering is absolutely critical. What is in the Land Use is not very strong. It's 7
sort of high level. I think all of the heavy duty stuff should probably be in the Natural 8
Environment or the Safety Element, so I've not had my comments. I'll save my comments 9
there. As far as Midtown Center, I think it has a lot of the same characteristics as what was 10
described for Charleston. There is a real concern about loss of retail. The whole Midtown 11
Residents' Association, which is about 10,000, people, was formed on walkable retail. We keep 12
losing, losing, losing retail. If any part of those sites are developed, we're going to lose all these 13
mom and pop stores to larger, branded firms. That does concern me. 14
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Mark. 15
Mark Nadim: A quick comment about the Charleston Center and Midtown Center. Actually, I 16
think those are best models for mixed-use development, where you have upper floors that are 17
all residential and the bottom floor is all retail. What Annette just mentioned, that the small 18
retail would be lost with new development, the mom and pop shops, that can be done as a 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 46 of 83
requirement or a contingency on the developer to rent—after the development to have the 1
same mom and pop shops come back into that center. I think that's a doable thing. Thank you. 2
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Next is Elaine. 3
Elaine Uang: Just a couple of points. On urban forest measures for Table L-2, urban tree 4
canopy cover, I think the Urban Forest Master Plan is going to be pushing forward a percentage 5
of City covered by trees, and it's about 40 percent over 10 years. The recommended frequency, 6
I think from speaking with Canopy folks, is actually every 5 years because I know that there is 7
some short staffing to do that. It's actually pretty difficult to take that measure, so every 4 8
years is a little bit too frequent. I wanted to just go back to housing and retail. I actually agree 9
with Mark that some of these places are actually great mixed-use opportunities. They can 10
provide that walkability, and it provides a built-in customer base. We talk a lot about retail, but 11
we're also not recognizing that retail in order to survive in this day and age of online shopping 12
needs people and people close by to frequent those places. Housing with respect to zoning, I 13
actually want to call out that a lot of places in our community—what a parcel is zoned for is not 14
necessarily reflective of what's there. I think case in point is College Terrace area where there 15
are a lot of small bungalows on 3,000-square-foot lots, some of which may have been 16
consolidated into single-family residential parcels. It makes it harder for anybody who comes 17
along with those parcels to—they're existing, nonconforming, which means that it's kind of 18
technically illegal to rebuild those again. There is a potential for losing housing stock because 19
what you can build legally new doesn't reflect what is actually there. Downtown there's 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 47 of 83
actually a couple of these where there may have small, three-unit multifamily that technically 1
doesn't conform with the zoning that exists right now. I think as a starting point our land use 2
map should reflect what is on the ground, not just what was arbitrarily assigned to it in the '70s. 3
Co-Chair Keller: Next is Bonnie. 4
Bonnie Packer: If Shani is recommending an arbitrary cap without means for evaluating it, I 5
don't think that's a good idea. I think what we have now in the Comp Plan, which gives people 6
a chance to look and see if the cap is really what's still needed when things have changed, then 7
that's a better way to go. I agree with what Mark and Elaine just said about mixed use in these 8
neighborhood shopping centers. That may be something that we might want to see in 5, 10 9
years. The other thing about the school impacts, Arthur you said nobody said to eliminate it. I 10
understand that we should be aware of what is happening in the School District and we work 11
with them, but we both also understand that there are legal limitations to how that's 12
expressed. If that is in the Comp Plan, it should be expressed within the context of the State 13
requirements about school impacts, how you use that information and whether you use it to 14
limit development. The other thing about housing for specific groups of people are laws about 15
fair housing don't allow you to exclude or have housing for just specific groups of people, 16
except for some exceptions like seniors and veterans in certain places. While theoretically it's a 17
good idea, it only works if other things happen like the School District owns the land and they 18
can have it for housing for teachers, but not otherwise. We just have to be aware of that. 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 48 of 83
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I think the old policy did not refer to particular developments. It 1
referred to changes in policies and zoning. I think that is within State law as I understand it, and 2
I think you would agree. The second thing is with respect to Midtown and Charleston. We saw 3
what happened when Alma Plaza was redeveloped into Alma Village. The reason it's called 4
village is because it's mostly housing and a mere shadow of itself in terms of retail. We see 5
what happened with the College Terrace Center where we were promised that JJ&F would stay, 6
and that just isn't going to happen. On the idea that we would redevelop and allow an existing 7
retailer to go away and somehow come back in 2 years after the thing is redeveloped, how is 8
that retailer going to continue to live, continue to operate, continue to pay their employees? 9
They're not going to continue to exist. It's going to be replaced by something else at a higher 10
price and gentrified. That's typically what's happened in the redevelopment. I think that in 11
terms of the mix in Midtown and Charleston Center, that is very delicate and needs to be 12
retained. I think that—there's no more comments. Next we will go with next round with 13
Whitney. 14
Whiney McNair: Thank you. I just had a couple of additional comments. Number 2 in the staff 15
report talked about having a definitive statement, the net loss of retail uses should not be 16
allowed. I would just caution putting in really definitive statements like that. Cupertino is 17
struggling with that with the Vallco Shopping Center right now. There's a mandate to keep the 18
amount of retail that's there, and it's a failing shopping center where retail may be more 19
appropriate in a smaller building or the footprint's smaller or the type of retail may change over 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 49 of 83
time. Mandating a specific square footage doesn't allow for any flexibility. I'd just caution 1
putting in statements like that. It's the same as with no prohibition on office uses in mixed use. 2
It doesn't allow for any flexibility. Lastly, I think there's some idea floating around that we 3
would just go forward with a straight cap without any ability to look at it over time. Again, I'm 4
not sure what that is, but I just want to make sure that before anything goes forward, because 5
I'm not allowed to vote on it, that we understand what that is and the group talks about it and 6
makes sure what that is. Thanks. 7
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I think that, Jennifer, you haven't spoken yet in this round. 8
Jennifer Hetterly: I just wanted to call out a couple of the items in the outstanding issues. I 9
absolutely believe that the school impacts piece belongs in Land Use and not Community 10
Services and Facilities. Those impacts come from development, and Community Facilities and 11
Services is not about housing or population growth. I also support Number 11, which is add a 12
new policy requiring a conditional use permit for any new or expanded private school. I'm also 13
concerned that private schools may be incorporated in Policy L-1.2 about the cap exemptions 14
under institutional use. I'd like some clarification of that, whether private schools are 15
considered institutional use in that exemption. Also, Number 1, I do not believe that hotels 16
should be adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. 17
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Everybody has spoken at least once, so Shani is next. 18
Shani Kleinhaus: I think I need to clarify what I meant. I think we do need to have the 19
community indicators and measure what's going on in the community, but the requirements—20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 50 of 83
I'm worried about them replacing our ability to provide input with standards that just get a 1
check. I do think that we need to have the community indicators, but I think if we should be 2
able to do caps only plus those indicators without the requirements. There's a lot of 3
requirements already in the Green Building Code, and those should continue and the Green 4
Building Code get updated every 3 years and things could be added. That's about that. I have a 5
couple of more—I hope some of you would be willing to forward that. Doria is. If maybe 6
there's a couple more, then maybe that will go forward. Maybe I can write and explain it a little 7
better later. I'm worried about Policy L-77 or it's L-134 on page L-767, streamline to the 8
maximum extent feasible any future processes for design and review of historic structure to 9
eliminate unnecessary delay and uncertainty for the applicant. I don't believe in that. I think 10
we don't need to eliminate uncertainty for the applicants, because that's what it's all about. 11
There should be uncertainty for the applicants if they're going to destroy a beautiful, ancient 12
building. I think that I would like to see that changed. The mature oaks are part of our history 13
and should not be removed. That's on the same page. One last one. L-177 on Page L-87 is 14
including too many things that don't belong together very well. It needs some work. 15
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Next we have Bonnie. I think everybody else has spoken. 16
Everybody has spoken. At this point in time, I will entertain a motion. The motion I'd love to 17
have—I'm not allowed to make a motion as Chair, but I can suggest a motion, which somebody 18
else can make. The motion I'd like to have is to forward to the City Council the current draft of 19
the—Annette, did you want to say something first? 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 51 of 83
Annette Glanckopf: Have a question. I'd be happy to make the motion after this. We've talked 1
about a lot of things today. I don't know—there's a lot of bits and pieces that some of us have 2
turned in. I just wonder if that's going to be incorporated or if it's just going to be the draft as it 3
is. 4
Co-Chair Keller: That will—hear my motion. Hear my suggestion for the motion that you're 5
going to make. The motion that I’m entertaining, that I'm requesting is a motion that we 6
forward the current draft of the Land Use and Community Design Element to the City Council 7
along with the minutes of today's meeting, the verbatim minutes of today's meeting, all of the 8
documents that are submitted at places in today's meeting and any documents forwarded to 9
staff by a week from today, September 27th at 5:00 p.m. 10
Annette Glanckopf: I'm not sure there's enough time for them to read all this stuff, unless 11
that's the entire agenda of the City Council meeting. I'm happy to make the motion as said. 12
Doria Summa: Second. 13
Co-Chair Keller: We have a motion on the floor by Annette Glanckopf, with a second by Doria. 14
Does anybody wish to speak to the motion? I guess put up your name tags. I think Shani is 15
first. 16
Shani Kleinhaus: I would like ... 17
Co-Chair Keller: Wait a second. I think the maker and the seconder by policy get to speak first 18
to any motion. Annette, do you want to say anything first? 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 52 of 83
Annette Glanckopf: Just that I think there is a sense of urgency. As you said, the enemy of the 1
best is the enemy of good or something like that. I do think we need to move ahead. I am 2
concerned with the volume of material. I don't think we should turn in—my own feeling is I 3
don't think we should turn in the marked up copy as well as the other one. It just gets so 4
confusing. They probably have the original Comp Plan, and they can go back to it. I'm just 5
concerned with this vast amount of material, that they have plenty of time to get all of the 6
documents. 7
Co-Chair Keller: Hillary, would you like to talk about the draft? I think they'll give the current 8
version and the difference from the original version or something like that. I think that's what 9
you did for Transportation. 10
Hillary Gitelman: We're going to have to look at that. It's maybe that we've made so many 11
changes it'll be hard to reflect the difference from the original. We'll definitely give them a 12
clean copy and transmit all of the comments that we heard this evening and that we get in 13
writing. 14
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Doria, do you want to say anything? 15
Doria Summa: Yes. I think that it makes sense to get this to Council for their first pass at it. I 16
don't think it's perfect, and I think there's a lot of little details that we haven't addressed. That 17
being said, I don't think this group is likely to come to any more consensus about the big issues, 18
so I think it's just best to move it along to Council with the choices. I would wish, if it's possible 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 53 of 83
with scheduling, we could have more than just a week to get our final comments in, but I don't 1
know if that's possible. I think it's good for the Council to review it at this time. 2
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. 3
Shani Kleinhaus: Can I make a friendly amendment to add an option of caps only and 4
community measures, so no standards? 5
Co-Chair Keller: I think you mean caps only, not the development requirements ... 6
Shani Kleinhaus: No development requirements. 7
Co-Chair Keller: ... but still have the community indicators. 8
Shani Kleinhaus: But still have the community measurements. 9
Annette Glanckopf: As maker of the motion, I accept that. 10
Co-Chair Keller: As one of the options to be included to the Council? 11
Doria Summa: I agree to accept that. 12
Co-Chair Keller: Don, I think you're next. Microphone please. 13
Don McDougall: I would suggest it's a good idea to include the written input along with this. I 14
think the transcript of the evening is not going to necessarily help, and it's an extra burden. I 15
would trust the staff, who we have all complimented tonight, would take the essence of what's 16
been said and help us with that. 17
Co-Chair Keller: I think that we are including the written input. The motion includes the 18
written input to today's meeting at places as well as the materials that will be received in the 19
week. Anybody else? I'll let staff ... 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 54 of 83
Female: (inaudible) 1
Co-Chair Keller: Hamilton, sorry. 2
Hamilton Hitchings: Thanks. I was at the City Council. There weren't a lot of CAC members, 3
but some were there last night. I think you're underestimating the significance of the changes 4
that Council provides. The stuff we're talking about is relatively minor to something like Tom 5
DuBois' comment that we should only have half the programs in the Transportation Element 6
that we do now. If we're sort of nitpicking on this stuff and they come back with significant 7
changes, it's really counterproductive for us to withhold that from them for significant 8
direction. I think it's in good enough shape for them to be able to provide the high-level 9
feedback that we need so we can continue to move forward with this, rather than just go 10
around in circles. I think providing our comments, if we have differences from what's in the 11
draft, will be sufficient, which is why I'm going to vote for the motion. 12
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I'm going to make a comment. Last time when this came last 13
night, it was supposed to come to the Council about 9:15 in the evening after a bunch of long 14
agenda items. Considering that the Council seems to want to deal with the Transportation 15
Element and the Land Use Element together, my recommendation is that you deal with the 16
Land Use Element first as the only agenda item on the meeting, and then you bring up the 17
Transportation Element afterwards for them to make additional comments related to that 18
together, and that you devote a single Council meeting to both items, and that you start 19
promptly at 6:00, no Study Sessions, just the typical Consent Items. That will give the Council 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 55 of 83
enough time to really devote time to it and allow the community to participate effectively in 1
that process. That's just a recommendation. That's not part of the motion. With that, any—2
you have a question, Shani? Cue the microphone please. 3
Shani Kleinhaus: Is Council going to get just the transcript or are you going to summarize it for 4
them? 5
Female: They'll get (inaudible). 6
Elaine Costello: We will do a staff report. 7
Shani Kleinhaus: All these comments will be kind of condensed and given as to ... 8
Elaine Costello: Really condensed with the major issues. I think a lot of the issues that—a lot 9
of the comments tonight were around the five major issues, and then there were some other 10
major issues. We will summarize those, and they will get all the other comments. 11
Shani Kleinhaus: How are they going to comment—like what I said about the architectural, 12
how does that move forward? That's a very small thing. Do they have to read the entire 13
transcript to see that? 14
Elaine Costello: We haven't figured out how every individual comment is going to get 15
transmitted. What we have tried to do—we probably will just run a long list like we did with 16
the 15. We might make it 30 or something. I think we are going to try and focus them in on 17
what were the major issues that were discussed tonight, which were very similar to things that 18
have gone on throughout the entire discussion. They will get all the wording changes. 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 56 of 83
Co-Chair Keller: Maybe this is an opportunity for staff to comment on the request that we have 1
more than 1 week for comments. I'll let staff weigh in on that. 2
Elaine Costello: It's just we have a pretty ... 3
Co-Chair Keller: Are you on microphone? 4
Elaine Costello: I am on the microphone. Of course, if the group wants more than a week—let 5
me see. We really do need to get them in a week, because we sat down this afternoon for a 6
long time trying to lay out what's going to happen to get this to the Council. Really you need to 7
get it to them a month before, so we do need it in a week. If it's going to get included. We 8
want to be able to include it. 9
Co-Chair Keller: I also realized that if staff is going to be assembling it in some useful way, 10
that's going to take them time. Any other comments? Don, you're next. 11
Don McDougall: Just clarification. Number 1, I want to make sure everybody knows I was at 12
the Council meeting last night too, since everybody else is taking credit for that. Can we get 13
clarification of the motion? I think we agreed that we're going to submit as-is with written 14
comments. Are we including the transcript from tonight or are we trusting staff to consolidate 15
tonight? 16
Elaine Costello: We will always include the transcript from the CAC. 17
Don McDougall: Thank you. 18
Elaine Costello: There'll be the transcript. There'll be a summary, and there'll be all the written 19
comments. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 57 of 83
Don McDougall: Thank you. 1
Co-Chair Keller: The written comments received at the meeting today as well as the written 2
comments received by a week from today. Bonnie. 3
Bonnie Packer: I'd just like to be sure that Council understands that when we have our—it's 4
not really a discussion. We have everybody presenting an idea. The way it's set up and 5
understandably we don't have the opportunity to say, "That's an interesting idea, but did you 6
think of that?" A lot of ideas that were presented tonight, I didn't choose to say maybe, maybe 7
not. Just because somebody said something, it doesn't mean that is the sense of the whole 8
group. We each are saying our individual things. We're each individuals. We come at this from 9
our varying perspectives, which is good. They just have to understand that one person's idea 10
isn't the idea of the whole committee. We don't have the opportunity to find out whether it is, 11
because it could very well be or not. We don't know. 12
Co-Chair Keller: I appreciate that. I think that's well said. I also want to say that hopefully at 13
this meeting, I think it will be November 14th, is that right? 14
Elaine Costello: No. 15
Co-Chair Keller: No. 16
Hillary Gitelman: We're still futzing with the dates partly because of your observation that the 17
Council agendas are too full. I wanted to just follow on Bonnie and say that your observation is 18
absolutely correct. I think that one of the good things about getting this element to them is 19
that you've articulated with the subcommittee's help all these options. It's going to be clear to 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 58 of 83
the Council that this is not a consensus document. The consensus is there's a lot of options 1
here. With your transcript comments and your written comments, I think they'll get the full 2
scope of this. 3
Co-Chair Keller: I look forward to the Council weighing in on what they think are among the 4
choices and how that moves forward. Is there anybody else or can I call the motion? All in 5
favor of the motion, raise your hand please and if you're a voting member. All opposed to the 6
motion. No people opposed to the motion? All abstaining. We have one abstention. That 7
motion passes. Thank you very much. Let's take a moment to just stretch and sit down. Don't 8
take too long. Then, we'll start on the Natural Environment Element. Thank you. 9
2. Discussion: Natural Environment Element 10
a. Introduction of Natural Environment 11
b. Report from Natural Environment and Sustainability Subcommittees 12
c. Discussion of Draft Element 13
Co-Chair Keller: We have about 50 minutes left to our meeting. Will staff please start with the 14
introduction to the Natural Environment Element? 15
Elaine Costello: I'm just going to let Joanna get started and kind of give you an up ... 16
Joanna Jansen: Thank you very much, Elaine and Arthur. Tonight is your first meeting as a full 17
CAC on a new element, the Natural Environment Element. I know that a lot of you have been 18
looking forward to this one for a long time, and we're excited to kick it off tonight. This is the 19
first meeting, and we have three more CAC meetings scheduled on this. Each month from now 20
to the end of the year, October, November and December, we're going to be looking at this 21
element. As Elaine said, we spent some time on the schedule this afternoon. We'll also be 22
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 59 of 83
looking at the Safety Element at those three meetings as well. Natural Environment is moving 1
forward a little bit ahead of Safety. What you have right now is a rough draft. We have had 2
one subcommittee meeting on this element, back at the last week of August. The next task that 3
we're going to do after tonight, when we get your input and before the next subcommittee 4
meeting, which is coming up in early October, is sharpen and focus the element. So far, after 5
last night with the Transportation Element and the Council's previous review of the Community 6
Services Element, we're really hearing pretty consistently from them that they want to see 7
things that are concise, well organized, sharp. We are going to take that to heart and try to do 8
a better job as staff and the consultant team of kind of presenting you as the CAC and as the 9
subcommittee with something that reflects what we're hearing from Council, so that we can 10
get something back to them that reflects their feedback. One of the things that the 11
subcommittee looked at was the organization of the element. The organization merits a little 12
bit of discussion here, because this is one element where the Council motion from back in 13
December on this element is to split this current element into two elements. We would retain 14
a Natural Environment Element. The Council had some direction about adding goals to that 15
element, including a new goal about climate change and adaptation. The Council also wanted 16
to split Natural Environment into Safety and move the topics of hazardous waste, solid waste, 17
natural hazards and then a new topic of community safety and emergency management to a 18
new Safety Element. Given that pretty fundamental Council direction on the contents of this 19
element and of the new Safety Element, we wanted to spend some time with the 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 60 of 83
subcommittee and then tonight with you, going over different possible organization. You had 1
in your packet—I think it was Attachment J in this kind of large, 11x17. Tonight you probably 2
realize that you got—there's a new version of this at places or over on the countertop there. 3
We found a mistake in the one that was in your packet where the climate change was 4
mistakenly shown as part of the Safety Element. That was not correct. The Council motion 5
would have retained that in the Natural Environment Element. We've updated this 6
organization and then also the recommendation column to show climate change as part of 7
Natural Environment rather than as part of Safety. Again, all of this organization is part of what 8
we're here to talk about tonight. You can see one set of recommendations from the 9
subcommittee meeting discussions in the column that's called Subcommittee A. Ideas of 10
adding understory to the urban forest section, a new section on light pollution was suggested at 11
the subcommittee meeting. Changing terminology from hazardous waste to hazardous 12
materials in the Safety Element. We also received some written comments from a 13
subcommittee member that had a little bit more of a reconceptualization of the element into 14
these categories of land, water and air with some additional categories as well for topics that 15
don't fall into those three major ways of thinking about the natural environment. I think we as 16
staff and the consultants were interested in exploring whether or not that land, water and air 17
theme could be carried forward. You see that in the recommendation column as well as 18
retaining the other categories of noise, energy, the new category of light pollution and climate 19
change. This table is just an attempt to show you a comparison of the current organization as 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 61 of 83
well as a couple of different organizations that have been suggested since the PTC and the 1
Council started their discussions of this element. I think maybe it would be a useful thing for us 2
to spend some time on tonight. Before we get into that, I also just wanted to make sure we've 3
had a chance to give you a brief overview of the major topics that the subcommittee brought 4
up. Those are on pages 8, 9, 10 and 11 and 12 of your staff report. I'm not going to list all of 5
those right now, because I do want to leave the majority of the time for your discussion. One 6
comment just to make is that Natural Environment, I think, and particularly when we think 7
about a new topic of climate change and adaptation is one of many topics in the Comp Plan 8
where we want to make sure that we're seeing integration and consistency with the S/CAP. 9
Just to reiterate the point from your staff report that specific S/CAP strategies from the draft 10
S/CAP have been integrated into the policy framework that's before you tonight. That's one of 11
several types of changes that we went ahead and made to try to move this element forward 12
before you tackle it, so that you're not feeling you have to start from scratch. Of course, there's 13
many further changes that remain to be made and that's what we want to start with tonight. 14
Annette Glanckopf: I'm really confused. Maybe I could just cut to the chase and ask you, since 15
we have this whole packet, can you just fold this in half and say everything from the natural 16
hazards down is going to be in another chapter? 17
Joanna Jansen: Climate change is below natural hazards. At least based on the initial Council 18
motion, that would remain part of Natural Environment. You could fold ... 19
Annette Glanckopf: You can just (crosstalk) this and we're not going to talk about this tonight? 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 62 of 83
Joanna Jansen: The only comment I would make is that the subcommittee did have a different 1
idea about solid waste. They saw solid waste as a part of Natural Environment rather than a 2
part of the Safety Element. You may see some topics down on the lower half of the table that 3
some folks might feel should be part of Natural Environment rather than Safety. Other than 4
that, you really would focus on what's in the upper half or two-thirds of the table. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Lisa, you have a question? 6
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I'm sorry. Just a question of the original open space, I think, also included 7
parks or did it not? It may be my memory. It was sort of in Land Use and it was sort of in the 8
Natural ... 9
Joanna Jansen: I think parks are primarily in Community Services and Facilities. 10
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: In Community Services only. 11
Joanna Jansen: Open space here is more like your ... 12
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Like the Bay stuff. Thank you. 13
Joanna Jansen: ... wild, open space areas in the Bay and Foothills. 14
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: It's not taking anything out. It just was never in the definition of open 15
space. 16
Joanna Jansen: We have changed the content of the open space category. 17
Co-Chair Keller: If you want to speak, please put up your tag. Hamilton. 18
Hamilton Hitchings: What is the difference between Subcommittee A, Subcommittee B? 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 63 of 83
Joanna Jansen: Subcommittee A was the kind of verbal discussion that we had during the 1
subcommittee meeting. Subcommittee B is written comments that ... 2
Hamilton Hitchings: You keep referring to the subcommittee meeting. Apparently it's not 3
either the natural environment subcommittee nor the safety subcommittee. What 4
subcommittee is it? 5
Joanna Jansen: It was a meeting of the natural environment subcommittee and the 6
sustainability subcommittee on August 30th. 7
Elaine Costello: We did get written comments from a member of the sustainability 8
subcommittee who could not attend that day about a suggested organization. We thought 9
there were some value in that, so we just showed it on the chart. 10
Female: That's B. 11
Elaine Costello: That's B, right. 12
Female: (inaudible) 13
Joanna Jansen: Yes. 14
Elaine Costello: Because we ended—because (inaudible). Yeah. 15
Co-Chair Keller: Just to get that in the record. Subcommittee B is an alternative from a 16
member of the subcommittee. Just as a clarification, what we're doing is—Sorry. That doesn't 17
even get on the record either. The issue is that the Subcommittee B recommendation is a 18
recommendation from one of the members of the subcommittee. The way we're doing this is 19
that the sustainability committee is meeting with the element committee the first time that the 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 64 of 83
element committee meets before the CAC meets. There was a meeting of the natural 1
environment subcommittee with the sustainability subcommittee that one time. The next time 2
the natural environment subcommittee will meet by itself without the sustainability 3
committee. The future meetings that happen will be the natural environment committee 4
alone. However, the sustainability committee will meet with the safety subcommittee once 5
before we as the CAC see the Safety Element. After we see the Safety Element, then the safety 6
committee will meet without the sustainability committee. I hope that's clear as mud or at 7
least a little better. I'm just trying to clarify that the sustainability committee is meeting once 8
with each element before we see it as a CAC. Do you want to ... 9
Elaine Costello: No, we had a number. We have Bonnie ... 10
Co-Chair Keller: Bonnie, go ahead. 11
Elaine Costello: ... and we have Don and we have Shani. 12
Bonnie Parker: I'm just observing from the committee list that the people—the same people 13
are on the sustainability committee as are on the natural environment committee. That's just 14
an observation. Is this the time for me to make just a couple of suggested organizational 15
changes? 16
Co-Chair Keller: Actually is staff finished with their report? 17
Joanna Jansen: I can be. 18
Co-Chair Keller: If you have any clarifying questions, that's fine. Otherwise, why don't we let 19
staff finish? Then what we can do—this is really clarifying questions that people had. What we 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 65 of 83
also want to do is go with the process that we have of starting with the subcommittees first to 1
speak. We'll do that. Maybe continue. Anybody have a burning, quick question? Don, did you 2
have a burning, quick question? 3
Don McDougall: I'll wait (inaudible) 'til you do the subcommittee. 4
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Go ahead. You want to finish? 5
Joanna Jansen: I think I'm finished. 6
Co-Chair Keller: If you are on the natural environment subcommittee or you're on the 7
sustainability subcommittee, then you raise your tent and then we'll call on you. That's all. 8
Let's start with Don. You go first. 9
Don McDougall: Partly to Hillary. One of the things that Council continually says is that the 10
preamble is too long. It was commented last night that there was 26 pages here or whatever. I 11
would note that 14 of those pages are maps and definitions. You could put those in an 12
appendix or somewhere else as opposed to in the preamble, and then your preamble would be 13
a lot shorter. In the preamble, we have land use definitions, publicly owned conservation lands, 14
public parks and whatever. When we get to this, I'd like to defend the Subcommittee B thing. 15
It's Subcommittee A with just a little better organization so we understand what the 16
components are. I would suggest that instead of Foothills and Bay, maybe we should be 17
referring to the publicly owned conservation land to be consistent with the definitions that 18
we've created. Under Subcommittee B, I don't think the climate change and climate adaptation 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 66 of 83
box should be left empty. That should continue to be a separate box, I believe. Neither should 1
energy or light pollution be left out. 2
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. Microphone. 3
Shani Kleinhaus: I usually speak too loud. I think that urban parks, there are policies now that 4
talk about the urban parks as a continuation of the natural experience for people. I don't want 5
to see urban parks left out of the natural environment. I'm looking at your recommendation, 6
because I think it's a pretty good representation of the other various things here. Soil is 7
missing. Soil is a big thing. We see people putting dyed mulch that poisons the soil. We see 8
people putting those (inaudible) under the plastic turf. That kills the soil. We see salinization 9
due to irrigation with recycled water. We need to think about how to solve that problem in a 10
more comprehensive way and not poison our soil. Soil is something we kind of think of as dirt, 11
but it's really something we all need. I would like to see that somewhere in the parks. I think 12
under risk and safety—I'm not sure how to do this. Water supply should be in there, because 13
we don't know that we'll always have Hetch Hetchy water. I know that we already deal with 14
this to some extent, so maybe that's something that we should have. Another hazard that we 15
kind of don't think about but has been quite a problem for Palo Alto is the trains and what 16
people use them for. I don't know if we want to say something about the trains being a hazard. 17
Maybe it's not a natural hazard, but still. The last thing is about solid waste. There is a 18
comment in here that solid waste was not commented on as an issue. What we see these days 19
is that the value of recyclables is going down, and it's very hard to sell them to China now. I just 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 67 of 83
do it very, very quick, googling on how many fires at recycling plants in California happened in 1
the last few months. I counted four, one in San Jose, one in San Carlos, one in Maywood which 2
is (inaudible), one in Newark which was huge. This is all just this year. Then, there was another 3
one in Arizona. What happens to that is we send all this recycling material with a lot of good 4
will and they don't have anything to do with that. Accidental fires happen. I can't blame 5
anyone. I don't know that anybody actually ignited those, but this seems to be a huge increase 6
from what happened in previous years. We might want to think about what to do with 7
recyclable in some other way. I don't have solutions here, but it's something we need to think 8
about. It's something we want to do, but there's no market anymore. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Are we timing this by the way? Thank you. Jennifer. 10
Jennifer Hetterly: I was going to make the same point about soil. I think that needs to be here 11
somewhere. I would put it with—I don't know—either land or water. Storm water, I think, 12
maybe belongs better with climate change and adaptation, because that's so closely tied to 13
increased flooding and storm water management and sea level rise together. Also, I wanted 14
to—I'm not going to go on. I wanted to draw everybody's attention to the (inaudible) 15
groundwater piece that was submitted in the at-places comments. There's an FAQ that is really 16
informative and useful. I encourage everybody to read it. It talks a lot about groundwater, and 17
it talks a lot about soil impacts. It's not just about basements. Please do read it carefully before 18
we have a further discussion about this element. Thanks. 19
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Elaine. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 68 of 83
Elaine Uang: Mine are picky thing. Under safety, I think you've got solid waste twice, both for 1
infrastructure. I generally do like the recommendation and the way that this is organized. I'm 2
just kind of poking around at some other elements. It is interesting. The infrastructure piece, 3
I'm glad that there is an infrastructure piece. I think that's actually really important and 4
captures a lot of the things that—I guess safety is probably the right place. It captures a lot of 5
things that are important to the urban landscape but also in service of protecting our natural 6
environment. I think maybe the only thing might just be, since we're talking a lot about water 7
resources, this sort of overarching category of watershed management, which isn't really 8
captured either under water resources, but it could be in a couple—the water thing is really 9
tough because you've got to bridge everything. I think this is probably as good as it gets, but 10
maybe watershed management could be placed under water resources. 11
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Were you on the committee, Adrian? What we'll do is if you did 12
not just speak, then please put up your tent. We'll go around. If you put up your tent, I guess 13
next is Bonnie. Yes, go ahead. 14
Annette Glanckopf: Are we just talking about the organization now or are we talking about 15
general comments? 16
Co-Chair Keller: Any comments that you have overall. 17
Elaine Costello: It can be both. 18
Co-Chair Keller: Bonnie. 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 69 of 83
Bonnie Packer: Just some comments about the organization. I'm just looking at the 1
recommendation column. One thing that struck me is that the infrastructure way on the 2
bottom deals a lot with water. Why wouldn't that be put in the natural environment section 3
under water resources? We could have water resources, and then a section within that on the 4
infrastructure related to water. It might make more sense. I don't see what infrastructure has 5
to do with safety. The other thing I thought of was climate change and climate adaptation. It 6
may flow better if that particular chapter of the element comes right after energy. A lot of 7
energy policies and programs have to do with reducing greenhouse gases, etc. I think that 8
would be a natural flow into that. Also, in the energy section, you might highlight if some of the 9
policies are specifically related to climate change issues, that there be some kind of indicator, 10
maybe mark it in green throughout the element that these are issues that are addressing 11
climate change. It's kind of like what we did with transportation when we noticed that traffic 12
congestion was affected by a lot of the policies. Climate change is one of these things that a lot 13
of the policies in here may affect how we address climate change. The other couple of things 14
on safety. I wonder if we want to add a category about privacy in terms of—I haven't thought 15
this through. Just in terms of internet privacy, that kind of thing. I don't know if there's 16
something that the City can do or what it would do, but I'm just throwing that idea out there. 17
The solid waste, we have electronic recycling. I didn't see any mention of electronic recycling in 18
this—other types of recycling. This is on the detail level on the lower hierarchy. It's a safety 19
thing, and it has to do with urban forest and street trees. You've got to be careful about those 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 70 of 83
roots. They lift up the sidewalks and create a safety problem. Somehow addressing the 1
relationship of our urban forest with our urban environment and the unintended consequences 2
like the roots. Some trees don't have the root problem, and others do. That kind of thing. 3
Mountain bikes on trails is another safety and environmental impact issue that we may want to 4
study. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Julia. 6
Julia Moran: I just have a couple of quick things. One of the things, looking at Goal N-3, the 7
urban forest. One of the bullet points was Downtown tree health. I am happy to have 8
Downtown trees may benefit from targeted support policy or programs. I think we also need to 9
look at other areas. Personally when I drive down Middlefield and I cross Oregon Expressway, I 10
find a significant difference between the trees on the south side of Palo Alto and the north side. 11
I think we need to be looking at the south side. I think like months ago, I couldn't find it. 12
Someone said that as we've added trees, it's disproportionately been added to the north side of 13
Palo Alto. If we're going to look at targeted areas, we need to look at the south side of Palo 14
Alto. Also, why there aren't trees. I think one of the things is the rolled curbs. It's the 15
responsibility of property owners. With the drought, people have turned off their water bills. 16
We need to put something in here of being better at not just educating people but providing 17
outreach to people who perhaps can't afford their water bills to keep the tree canopy. It might 18
not necessarily be a south side issue, but it seems to be to me. In the recycled water section, I 19
don't know. I'm just throwing this out there. That seems more like a Citywide thing. I don't 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 71 of 83
know if we've looked at educating people about household gray water use. I know certain 1
cities allow it and some don't. I don't know what Palo Alto's view is on that. Perhaps 2
something to add in as well. Thanks. 3
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Jason. 4
Jason Titus: A couple of things. One was actually the same thing around water. I was glad to 5
see that there was things around rainwater capture. That seemed like a good thing to be 6
planning for. To do that well, that's usually something for new construction or renovation to be 7
able to actually have any substantial water storage. Also gray water is something that it seems 8
like would be worthwhile calling out just because that is something that is much easier for 9
existing households to be able to do. Actually I had one other thing, but I didn't write it down, 10
and I don't remember what it was. 11
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Mark. 12
Mark Nadim: Looking at the table, I'm a bit confused of what—what am I supposed to 13
understand from this table? I think we need to do a little bit more work on this to either fill 14
more boxes or—I don't know. I don't know what it is for. Looking at the Natural Environment 15
Element, there is a graph on page whatever. It's a graph of the projected water demand, which 16
is very outdated. I'm sure the water usage in Palo Alto is much lower now than what it used to 17
be. For Foothills Park or actually the open space which is about one-third of the City area to the 18
south, southwest of the City, it's our natural environment. It's a treasure for us. Currently the 19
Foothills Park is exclusive to Palo Alto residents' use. Every few years we hear people who want 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 72 of 83
to open it to the rest of the public, to other cities. I think that's the wrong thing to do. The 1
more people using it, the higher the risk of a wildfire. We look at what happened in the recent 2
forest fires that were caused by humans. The more humans you have, the higher the risk of 3
fire. As for the urban forest, we have a lot of non-native trees. Now with the drought, a lot of 4
the trees are dying. It would be great to replace all these aged or the dying trees with native 5
trees rather than just bringing trees from all over the world. Thank you. 6
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Annette. 7
Annette Glanckopf: I'm really confused why we want to break this thing up. I agree with 8
Bonnie that this infrastructure thing should be moved up to the natural environment, and 9
climate change should be after energy. I actually wrote that down. Again, natural hazards 10
certainly belongs in safety. I would vote to keep it as a chapter because there's very little left in 11
safety at this point. Some high-level comments. We're talking a lot about trees. There's 12
nothing in here that talks about Canopy, which is our tree organization. I have a longtime 13
concern about the right type of tree planted in the wrong place or vice versa. I think we need 14
to do a better job in our tree policies to make sure that we plant—maybe it's native trees or 15
whatever—trees where roots are not going to mess up the sidewalks, etc., and that need little 16
watering. I could go on about that. Talking about preserve (inaudible) trees and we're talking 17
about incentives for carbon benefits. To me, I don't really understand that whole policy. If 18
we're talking about increasing carbon benefits, it might be private development rather than 19
public. To me it's either in the wrong place or not that. On the groundwater section, this is 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 73 of 83
where we really, really need to buff it up or fluff it up with the dewatering. I don't have any 1
policies that I'd like to suggest. I'm very concerned as well as the watering group on the 2
cumulative impact of multiple buildings in a certain geographic area. I'll come back the next 3
time with something like that. Many of these points are not really strong enough in my benefit. 4
We talk a lot about educating customers throughout the Comp Plan. I'm really concerned that 5
we develop these massive programs with massive literature that no one reads or they just 6
throw away. I think we need to be very, very careful when we do that. I think we can do more 7
with rainwater onsite. It'd be interesting to either have some new Code to develop 8
underground water systems to collect water or incent people to have more rain barrels. That's 9
not really a widely used program. I love the idea of permeable paving materials, but it's really 10
much more expensive. I'd like to see some incentives for people to do that. Anyway, I've got 11
lots more comments. 12
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Len. 13
Len Filppu: Thank you. Under water—I'm not sure exactly where this fits. I want to talk about 14
grass. Under water resources, to save—Man, I want to talk about grass, man. Invariably, when 15
a new house is sold, they put in new lawns and everything's all green and then people water. 16
That's what I did when I bought my house. Over years you get into this habit of continuing to 17
keep this little patch of green grass growing, even though it doesn't work in this environment. 18
It's not natural to the environment. It's inappropriate. It's a big waste of water. I wonder if 19
there's—I know the City used to have a program where they would help fund changing lawns 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 74 of 83
from grass to more indigenous plants and whatnot. I just wonder if the Comp Plan might be an 1
area where we educate people about grass. It takes enormous amounts of water to try to keep 2
a green lawn in this town. They're still all over despite the drought. I learned my lesson. I 3
wonder if others might be able to do so too. I'd like to see something about the wastefulness 4
of our green grass. Thanks. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Hamilton. 6
Hamilton Hitchings: I like the general organization. I do agree with Annette that safety is 7
rather short, but I think there's a lot that the City needs to do over the next 15 years in 8
improving our safety infrastructure, so that when things go wrong there will be much less 9
impact and our City will be more resilient. Certainly myself, Annette and Lydia have spent a lot 10
of time volunteering and working and being trained by the City in public safety, and we're all 11
emergency responders if there's a big earthquake. I just had a few comments on the specific 12
organization. First of all, I feel that it's important that flood be under safety. For some reason, 13
under Subcommittee B there was a proposal that it be moved under. Because I was part of the 14
flood of '98, wading around in the middle of the street, I talked to neighbors who woke up in 15
their bedroom with 6 feet of water on De Soto Drive. I think it's critical, and we have some 16
important projects on that. Infrastructure is very important because when there's an 17
earthquake, it's important we have our electric grid and supply. There's some very important 18
infrastructure projects like the Public Safety Building and fire station improvements that will 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 75 of 83
need to be done. Lastly, we need to add crime as one of the bullets under public safety. Thank 1
you. 2
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. 3
Shani Kleinhaus: I'm looking at the key issues about the creek setbacks. I mentioned that 4
before, I think. There is some (inaudible) in other groups, that they're looking at creek 5
corridors. Especially for the areas up in the hills, 50 feet and what you can do in it is probably 6
not enough. If you look at the County, they're requiring 150 feet. If you look at the habitat plan 7
for Santa Clara County, it's 100 feet. If you look at San Jose, it's 100 feet. I think Palo Alto can 8
look at that again. I don't expect that to be 100 feet from a concrete channel, but we do have 9
some land where we could look at that again. There is many other issues. As we build too 10
close to the creeks, then we have to reinforce those creeks, because people get flooded. 11
There's a lot of benefit at looking upstream at what we can do there. Flood management could 12
be part of that, but that's really not Palo Alto's jurisdiction. At least we can look at how we plan 13
next to creeks. The Stanford HCP, I think people need to understand what that is, what an HCP 14
is, what the Stanford HCP is. It says here that the Comp Plan Update could substantially affect 15
special status species if it allows development in certain areas. HCPs are created to allow 16
development in sensitive areas. What they provide is the permits to build on a sensitive area. 17
In return, pay fund or protect area somewhere else. We need to understand this in relation to 18
these land uses and consider those in discussion. Those are things that I wanted to especially 19
mention. The issue with the streamside review area, I think, we do need to update the plans 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 76 of 83
there. What's in here is just the tip of the iceberg of how important it is to protect creeks. One 1
thing that Julia talked about. The Urban Forest Master Plan actually is looking at the 2
discrepancy between north and south and looking to find why and to remedy that. I don't 3
know if it will be successful, but there is definitely attention to that. Just so you know. I'm 4
looking for some drought solutions. Drought is another issue that we have. Somehow it keeps 5
coming up, but we don't actually have that as a category anywhere. I don't know if we need it 6
as a category by itself, but we need to talk about drought as something that we need to deal 7
with. There's something about the urban forest in coordination with PG&E, but I think it's really 8
Palo Alto Utilities that we have to deal with here and not PG&E. That's about it for now. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Whitney. 10
Whitney McNair: Thank you. I would love to take Shani up on the offer to meet with staff to 11
talk about the Habitat Conservation Plan. Just for reference, within the staff report the Habitat 12
Conservation Plan is sort of incorrectly described. It talks about the plan covering lands within 13
the City of Palo Alto including Lagunitas. It's Lagunitas Reservoir, and actually that's within the 14
county. The only area that's within the City of Palo Alto that's not already developed, that's 15
covered by the Habitat Conservation Plan is actually Coyote Hill. That's the area east of Page 16
Mill Road, the undeveloped area right now. The rest of the area is either within the 17
unincorporated Santa Clara County or in the Research Park is already developed land. There 18
are several policies in the open space section that refer to maintaining the Stanford Lower 19
Foothill property that's predominantly within the City. I just don't know which areas the plan is 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 77 of 83
talking about. It would be helpful to clarify specific areas. It even talks about Policy N-1.9, all 1
development in the Foothill portion of the planning area, i.e., above JSB. That area's not within 2
the City and wouldn't have to comply with the City's open space development criteria. It's 3
actually governed by the County and the community plan within the County. There are very 4
stringent regulations within the County. It's a concern that I've had even in the Land Use 5
Element, that it doesn't accurately describe what's within the county and governed by the 6
County plan and what's within the City of Palo Alto. We've gone a long way in the Land Use 7
Element to take out areas outside the sphere of influence, but still it's hard to distinguish what's 8
on Stanford lands, outside of the City of Palo Alto's jurisdiction. The only other thing I'd 9
comment is on Policy N-12.1. It's the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent 10
below 1990 levels by 2030. That's much more aggressive than Governor Brown's new 11
legislation of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. I just want to make sure either that's 12
consistent. This is where we're bringing in the S/CAP and targets are mirroring each other. 13
Thank you. 14
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Alex. 15
Alex van Riesen: Can I make one comment? I think if you're not speaking, you can turn your 16
mic off. I think that's some of the feedback. I heard someone talking during one of ... Maybe 17
they're just the voices in my head. 18
Female: (inaudible) 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 78 of 83
Alex van Riesen: Yeah, you guys were on. We heard all the vicious things you were saying. I 1
was thinking another way to organize this instead of land, water—what was it? Land, water 2
and air. Why don't we change it to earth, wind and water? I thought it might be a little 3
catchier. I like the organization. The only one that struck me, near the end under the Safety 4
Element, was the natural disasters. It might make—I appreciated Shani's comment. I would 5
suggest moving fire down to community safety and emergency, and put drought in there, and 6
call them something like natural threats. They might be disasters; that's even a scarier word. 7
Some category or collective threats that seismic, flood and drought are things that will affect 8
the City as a whole. Unless you guys were thinking like a fire that was going to take out all of 9
Palo Alto. That wasn't what you were probably thinking. I also didn't see anything more 10
content-wise. Does stuff like other forms of energy get picked up in this element? Like solar or 11
geothermal or stuff like that, is that just ... I was thinking something that talks about—with 12
things that are changing, it seems like energy sources and renewables should be predominant 13
somewhere in this. Is there a plan or any kind of thought for a connected city, sort of the digital 14
idea of how are we going to be a city—are we going to go wireless? What's the view of that for 15
Palo Alto and the effect of that on the environment? I also thought under the urban forest, 16
under the comment stronger protections, I also noticed there was no comment about 17
replacement of trees due to drought or disease. It was sort of not allowing the canopy or 18
whatever—I was also wondering how drought is affecting that and affecting the overall amount 19
of trees and the canopy. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 79 of 83
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I have a few comments. The first is that we have under natural 1
environment climate change and climate adaptation. I guess I'm done. Thank you. We have 2
sea level rise there. Yet, we have flooding under natural hazards. I think those should go 3
together. Separating those seems strange to me. I'm not sure whether climate change and 4
climate adaptation may be safety issues. I'm not sure how you handle that. Think about that a 5
little bit more. I agree with adding drought. I also pointed out in terms of sea level rise that the 6
description on page 14 of the staff report refers to safer Bay levees between San Francisquito 7
Creek and Redwood City. In fact, we are actually studying it on our side of the San Francisquito 8
Creek to south Palo Alto through Adobe Creek. In fact, I made the motion for the Planning 9
Commission to initiate that in terms of working with the JPA on that. I'd like to see that added. 10
The other thing is in terms of grass we do participate in the Santa Clara Valley Water District's 11
program for cash for grass, which is replacing grass with cash. In fact, Palo Alto matches the 12
amount that the Water District provides. I think it may also be worthwhile thinking about—I'm 13
not sure where this fits in. Sometime in the not too distant future, there'll be a new Stanford 14
General Use Permit. I'm not sure where that fits in and what the policies of that are, but 15
somewhere in the Comp Plan we might think about what Palo Alto wants to have out of a new 16
General Use Permit Finally, in terms of the issue of waste, I would like us to think about the 17
idea of extended producer responsibility, which is the standard technical term for the idea of 18
you make it, you deal with it. If you're dealing with recycling and waste and all that kind of 19
stuff, promoting the idea of (inaudible) responsibility and whether we actually implement 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 80 of 83
policies on it or whether we simply work in terms of encouraging government agencies to adopt 1
it, it is something that is a solution to the problem instead of trying to subdivide it into different 2
categories and deal with it. With that, unless there is—Annette, you have a burning issue? 3
Annette Glanckopf: I just wanted to sort of resonate with what Alex said. The whole Safety 4
Element really needs to be aligned with what emergency management is doing right now. 5
They're in the process of doing this big threats and hazards, natural environment, human made 6
and biological. Alex was right on. Drought is included. Flood's included in that. When we 7
come back or when I go to the safety committee, I'd like to make sure that's aligned, because it 8
is not now. You were right on. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. I hope we don't have to add pestilence, hail and boils. 10
Don. 11
Don McDougall: Just a quick comment. I think if we looked at the Safety Element instead as a 12
risk element or a risk management element, because that's what you're dealing with here, then 13
it would be easier to categorize what kind of risk are we dealing with, a natural risk or are we 14
dealing with a manmade risk or whatever within that section. It's really risk that we're dealing 15
with in all of those pieces. 16
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Elaine, you wanted to say something? Microphone. 17
Elaine Uang: This conversation jogged my brain a little bit. I think along with the risk comes 18
the infrastructure. Obviously there's defining the risks and the challenges and then how do you 19
deliver the solutions and manage that. I do think that Alex's point about the digital 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 81 of 83
infrastructure is particularly important. I might even just consider reshaping this and not just 1
calling it safety, but safety and infrastructure because I think those two things go together. One 2
is defining what the problem can be, and then the other is the delivery mechanism for those 3
solutions. 4
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Hillary would like to add a few remarks. 5
Hillary Gitelman: I just wanted to make one observation. Sort of like when we've been 6
working on other elements and we're incorporating by reference and tiering off of them, like 7
Urban Forest Master Plan is a good example, Parks Master Plan. We've talked about those in 8
the context of other elements. For this element, there are other plans going on. Annette 9
referred to one, the threat hazard mitigation plan. There's a much more specific and detailed 10
planning effort going on around that. I don't think our role is to repeat that, but to be 11
compatible and consistent and supportive of those goals. To the extent that the committee 12
members want further education about what those other plans contain and what the status of 13
them are, we can provide that to you. I just don't want us to have to rethink everything that's 14
already been put in motion. 15
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I'll add one remark about creeks. I think that we should think 16
about, as is mentioned here, separating the notion of the riparian corridors in wildland creeks 17
as opposed to the creeks in the flatlands that we've spent tens of millions of dollars 18
channelizing Adobe Creek and Barron Creek and Matadero Creek. We're not going to tear 19
down those creek walls and eliminate the houses in order to create a riparian corridor. That's 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 82 of 83
just not going to happen. When we update our riparian corridor ordinance, which I think makes 1
sense to improve it for the wild creeks, we should also make sure that we don't onerously affect 2
the people who are near the channelized creeks that are going to stay that way. Alex, you have 3
the last word. 4
Alex van Riesen: Two quick things. For your comment, Hillary. Is it possible when you redo 5
this, rather than duplicating, maybe you could put an asterisk where there's any other plan, like 6
Annette was mentioning, and then note that at the bottom with a website that we could go to 7
from that. The other thought I had was just a quick thing when I was reading this. On the Point 8
6 or whatever, hazardous waste, I was just struck by the very thing that said discourage the use 9
of toxic and hazardous materials. That just seems sort of soft. I was just sort of curious. Is it 10
possible to use the word eliminate or is it just a part of life that you have to have toxic and 11
hazardous materials? I was just curious why it was only discourage or wag your finger viciously 12
at them. 13
Hillary Gitelman: Did you drive here this evening? Gasoline could be considered one. 14
Alex van Riesen: I get it. That's what it is? Okay. 15
Hillary Gitelman: They're ubiquitous. 16
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. I think we've done a great job. I'm impressed. We 17
finished the Land Use Element and recommended that on to the City Council. We did a very 18
admirable job in not quite an hour on the Natural Environment Element. 19
Feedback for Continuous Improvement: 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 83 of 83
Future Meetings: 1
Next meeting: October 18, 2016 – Rinconada Library (Embarcadero Room) 2
Topic: Natural Resources Element II 3
4
Adjournment: 8:25 p.m. 5
Co-Chair Keller: With that, we will be adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Thank you very much. 6
Comp Plan Monthly Schedule October 13, 2016 *
1
Month Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Schedule of Meetings & Topics
Schedule of Other Events Related to the Comp Plan
Update
City Council
Schedule of Comp Plan Discussions
October Discussion of the first half of the
Natural Environment Element and
Introductory Discussion of the Safety
Element (October 18)
CAC Natural Environment Subcommittee reviews
revised 1st half of the Natural Environment Element
(October 5)
November Discussion of the second half of the
Natural Environment Element and the
Safety Element ( November 15)
CAC Natural Environment Subcommittee reviews
revised 2nd half of the Natural Environment Element
(November 1)
CAC Safety Subcommittee reviews revised Safety
Element (November 3)
CAC Safety Subcommittee reviews revised Safety
Element ( if needed)
City Council review of CAC
recommended Land Use Element
(November 28)
December Recommendation on Natural
Environment and Safety Elements
(December 13)
January
2017
Discussion of the Business & Economics
Element (January 17)
CAC Business & Economics Subcommittee reviews the
Business and Economic Element
CAC Business & Economics Subcommittee reviews the
revised Business and Economic Element
City Council review of the Revised
Transportation and Land Use
Elements (tentative for January 23)
February Recommendation on Business &
Economics Element (February 21)
CAC Governance & Implementation Subcommittees
review Implementation & Users Guide/Governance
Publish Scenario 5 and 6 Supplement to the Draft EIR
for 45-day public review period
City Council Review of CAC
recommended Natural Environment
and Safety Elements
March Discussion and Recommendation on the
Implementation Plan (March 21)
PTC Hearing on the Scenario 5 and 6 Supplement to the
Draft EIR
City Council Review of CAC
recommended Business & Economics
Element
City Council Hearing on the Scenario 5
and 6 Supplement to the Draft EIR
City Council Selection of a preferred
Alternative for the EIR
April Discussion and Recommendation on the
intro/users guide/governance topics
(April 18)
May Final CAC Session (“Putting it all
Together”) & review for Internal
consistency (May 16)
Comp Plan Monthly Schedule October 13, 2016 *
2
Month Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Schedule of Meetings & Topics
Schedule of Other Events Related to the Comp Plan
Update
City Council
Schedule of Comp Plan Discussions
June, 2017 Revised Draft Comp Plan Update Disseminated for
Public Review
July, 2017 PTC Review & Recommendation to the City Council on
the Draft Comp Plan Update (Multiple meetings)
August Final Review of Transportation & Land
Use Elements
Final Review of Natural Environment
&Safety Elements
September Publication of the Final EIR
Preparation of Mitigation Monitoring Plan & CEQA
Findings
Final Review of Business & Economics,
Community Services & Facilities
Elements
Final Review of Users
Guide/Governance & Implementation
Plan
October City Council Final EIR Certification
Hearing
Review of City Council’s Changes &
Errata; Adoption of the Updated
Comp Plan
*All dates and topics subject to change. This schedule assumes that City Council comments on CAC work products will be addressed by staff and
reviewed by the CAC in a final “putting it all together” session in the spring of 2017 once the Council has reviewed all of the elements.