HomeMy WebLinkAbout0403.000. '-',
t
-
{ •
...
'.
) ,
• _ .... ..:;;.;.:~--=_..;....;.;-"~.-'-________ ~_ ~ .L_-~" _~,_""""_""",_""""",,,,,,,,,,, ,-_,--"~--",,_,,,,";"'" z:aa:s _
o I
JulJ 19. 1990
HONORABtE (Ill COUNCIL
F,l. Alt •• Callforoi,
SummaTY Report ~ Citywide land Ose and Transportlt1~n Study
~mbers of the Council:
T!1s 1s an ilformational staff report wit~ no Council actton necessary or
reconnended4
10 JulJ 1989, the (itJ (ouncl1 adopted the final recommendations of the
Citywide Land ~se and TransportatIon Study. The Study ;.,.l,ed • major
reassessment If the Cit,'s non-resfdentia1 land ~se pol1cfes ind regulations
and related transportatfon guidelines$ including i~tersection improvements and
transportation demand management objectives. The attached Summary of the
Cftywfde Study has beeR prep.red to f.cilitate public access to. and
understanding ofJ t~e Study.
Respectf.llJ submitted.
~ad...eJJ~9
KENNfTK I. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Communit1 Environment
Attachment
cc: Architectural Review Board
')anni~g Commission
CMR:40):O
.--------.... --
~~nMnJ
WILLIAM ZAN(R~'V""
CH, Hanager
---..-,-,,';:;.-.
,
,
r
t
I
t
!
f
I
3-:
~.
•
• ';J-
1;: ',.-
~
.
.. \
\
\ .
\ ,. .. \,.
... Ji,: .... ~
•
•
• .
L
__________________ r~ ______________ ~
..J
~-i
,
\
o •
Co~er photo: Warfan~s new offfce complex
located 1& the Stanford Research Park_
PhOt0 Credit; Ann-~irie Perslanl.
•
,"
' .
•
•
·"
o o
CITYlIIDE I.AHD USE AND TMHSI'ORTATION STUOY
A SUMllARY
Cit, of P.l. Alt.
Depa~tment cf Pla~ning and tommunit, Envfronme~t
Oecember 1989
. ,
-
/
o o
TABLE Of CONTENTS
C1TIl1tDE tAMD USE N«l twmRTATtOli S1t1OY
Table of Content.
list of figures and rables
J. SUll!Wty
II • BACKGRDUIIl
111. 10lHIIII RE6UUTlOli ClWI6ES
1'1. lOllING !lAP AIID COMPREIIaISln PW lAIIO USE IIAP tlWlGES
Y. TRAfFIC MITIGATIONS
YJ. fOlLOV-UP ACTIOHS
YII. APPENDICES
''',-~". -.',. '
,.' \
-i-
Page No.
1
if
1
8
13
19
21
3D
33
•
\
-
flGIJRES
Figure I.
Figuee 2.
FIgure J.
figure 4.
ffgure S.
figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
figure 9.
Hsure 1Q.
figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure ... ·1
figure ... ·2
Ugure j,·3
Figure ... ·4
Figure .1.·5
Figure .1.·6
Figure A·J
Figure ... ·8
HBLES
Table I.
Tab1e 2.
Table J.
f;"i~S·~· ,
"< " ".'
/
o
llSl ~f FIGURES AND TABLES
Study Area Locotions
Areas .f ruture Study
Key Study IntersectIon.
o
South n CiII,no Sites· Conrnereiol to Housing
Mayfield School Site
Sites Changed fro~ Service Commercial to Neighborhood
COnlne-rel"l
New Hotel Combilt~g Zone Sites
Quarry/Arboretum Site.
Hewlett·Paekard Tra!.i.g Center
location Map of Study Areo 8 -£1 C.~\no/Stanford
Researcfl Part
1515 £1 CaMino Real
Stanford Jerraee Inn
Area 2 . Urban tan.
Area J -Midtown
Area 4 -East eayshoro
Are,S· Southeast Pal. Alto
Area 6 -Sout~ [I Camino Real
Area 1 -Central Pol. Alt.
Ar.o 8 . El Camino/Stanford R.seare~ Park
Area 9 -Sand Hill Corridor
Comparison gf Commerci.l a~d Indu~trfal Oeve1opment
Pot.ntills
Estimates of Additional Square fo~tage a~d Housing
Units by Alt.r.alive
Approved [~tersectfDn Capacity Improvements and (ost
SUlTlTlary
-ii-
Page No.
2
6
11
18
20
21
22
24
24
26
11
31
34 3,
36
37
38
39
40
41
4
43
44
•
\
I.
A.
." _.
SUMItA.RY
STUDY PURPOSE
T~is report summarizes the (it~ Qf Palo Altors (it~ide land Use and
Transportation Study, and actions taken l~ 1989 as a result of the study.
ThfO Cifvwidp. ,,)fud.,-bPqan fa 19.RS. It W.l"". ;~itj.~f'·d tll .)1101"'·.·.
~utllll~lIni(J wilt" «(U1U'rll', .. bout Inl.n.·i~ing h'OIlfic lonlj;"-.Illifl n':.(111IWi
from continuing commercial and industrial development.
The objectfves of t~e C;tywi~e Stud~ were t~:
1. Reduce f~ture commercia' and industrial development potential to
ml~lmize deteriorating traffic conditions,
2. Preser~e existing businesses,
3. Encourage desirable ~ses stich as housing by identifying commercial
and industrial sites or areas $ijitable fer mixed-use or housing
proj ects, and
4. Identify appropriate traffic mitigatfons i~ ~ijor employment areas
and ne(~ssary physTcal traffic improvements~
The titywiae Study actions acc~mplish tnese obj~ctlves~ They reflect
Pi.lo .l.1to"s c(1lMlitment to reduci! growing traffjc congestTon h the Cit,)'
while ~a;mtafnlDg t~e wiabilit, and vitality of its comrnercfal1, and
ind 'Jstrhlly loned areas.
Incceasing traffic -a community-wide concern
-1-
4·
•
•
, -
I
\
" \
---.......• . ' ,~'.I
, -
,
I
I
I
l
•
:-.'
I ','
I /
I
CITYWIDE STUDY SUMMA.RY
FIGURE 1. STUDY AREA lOCATIONS
-2-
-'L
-
t
I
I '
!
I
f
i ,
•
,
-, .
.-~ ::.;."
,
,
\
--
•
,
I
"
!
o o
I. TI![ STUDY MEA
The (Hywi·ae Study included most commerciall, and industriillT:;' zoned land
in the (it, cf Palo Alto. for the purposes of the Study~ tne commercial
and industrhl zones were divided 11'1tO line distinct ge-ogr(tphical areas..
The locations of tne 5fne areas are snown on figure 1. the eXisting
zoning and boundaries of Stud1 Areas 2 thrcugn 9 are shown in Appendt. A
on Figures A~l througn A-S. A map Qf Study Area J, Downtown Palo Alto p
i~ not fncluded because no c~anges were proposed fo~ t~is area.
c. NAJOR STUDY FINDINGS
Earl, in the Citywide Study it was found t~at the existing zoning
reguhtlnns would permit a potel:lth.l level of deve10pment that cou1d
res~lt in unacceptable traffic conditions at the (it1~s key
intersect ions.
Ond'er previous zonfng regul ations, (:ommerchl and industrial development
i. the City ~ad the potential to doub1e, adding roughl, 2; millfon square
feet to the existing 25 million square feet. S~th deve10pment would ~ave
increased traffft by ]9 percent~ The magnltude of the potential traffic
lmpacts made it clear that substantial reductions 1n development Jevels
were needed to mai~taiB acceptable f~ture traffic conditions. The
Cftywi,de Study process was to determine 'What level of fwture development
would balance the communityrs need to maimtain wiable commercfal areas
and to prellent lJnacc.eptable tnf(ic congestion.
The titywide Study ~sed i two-tfered approac~ t~ determine the des fred
dellelopment level and the final Study recommendations~ first, existing
traffic conditfons ~ere documented. from this base, the traffic im~acts
~f a series of alterr.ati~e redu(ed-growt~ development scenariOS were
enTaated'.
The Citywide Study found t~at traffic conditions im Pilo Alto are now
poor and are getting progressivel, worse. The traffiC conditions would
<ontinue t& deteriorate even jf no ~ew ~eve1opment ~ere to be approlled.
Th~s is because scme projects fa Palo Alto ~ave been approved t but ~awe
~ot been constructe~. Growth i~ regional traffic flowing through Pa10
Alto is another contributing factnr_
Relativel, little difference was found among the trifffc impacts of the
three reduced-dellelopment s<:enarios ewa1oated. Eac~ scenarlO calTed for
dramatic redutt;ons im growt~ potential ranging fro~ 80 to 90 percent
below t~e level of dewe10pment permitted under the~·e~istin~ zoning. All
of t~e scenarios resulted 1m rough1y t~e same traffic impacts.
represented by the level of congestion or ·level of ser~ice· at City
inter~ections. The primary difference between the scenarios was in no~
long cit, i~ter$ections were expected t~ be tongested. The scenarios
allOwing slj9~tly greater dewelopment potential res~lted i~ slightly
longer periods of congestion.
The Study found t~at the biggest traffic reduction measure t~e City coul~
employ was to ac!opt one of the reduced--development s-cenarioL He
remal!lng criticil land ~se decisions ~ade in conjunction ~it~ the
Citywide land Use and' Transportatfon Study lIIere hased primar-1J, on the
-3-
L
"
. ~ ".
-
\
.'
Q 0
the appropriateness of the land ~se(5J fo~ I given area O~ parcel. rather
than i mare narrowlJ focused square foota9! increase/traffic correlation
bas is..
Table I. whfch (ollows~ shows the dramatic reduction i~ development
potential ac~ieved by the approved reduced-gro~th ~cen~rfo compare1 to
w~at co~ld have occurred previously. The amount of development projected
to aecor with;~ in eac~ of t~e Study Areas under the t~ree alternatives
eVil~ated and the final scenario selected are show~ in Tahl~ 2 of
Appendix B.
Hu.!!:Area
L Downtown
2~ Urban lane
3. Joiidtown
4. East Bays~Qre
5. Southeast Pal. Alt.
6~ South 11 Camino
1. C.ntr.t Pit. Alto
S~ Stanford Researc~1
ECR
9. Sand Hi 11 Road
torrjdol"
TOTAL
TABLE 1
Compari~n of Commercial and
Industrial Development Potentials
ExistIng Development
Square feet! Potenth1/
!!!L!981 __ ~ __ revfous ZOI"l_iE..g_~~
3,313,200 3s.?,OOO
578,100 2,s.?I,600
143,600 253,500
1,318,800 450,900
3,072,300 1,~7,200
1,084.900 3,356,100
1,878,900 2,5<6,900
9,555,700 2,906,800
3,941,~~ lL 4O l,600
24,886,800 25,314.600
•• Amount of deveJopment ~~ic~ (ould be added
Development
Potentiall
f!lew ___ Jqf1 __ tl"l_g~~
350,000
34,400
5,200
93, s.?0
665,000
200,100
(6,ZOO)
1.794,100
_HI ,BOO
3,251,900
·4·
•
'?.:J)-~
~~~
< •
I
I
f
· ,
~------~~--------~-. ------~
-
)
~
I
i
~
-~
f
I -" I
j
I ;
CITYWIDE STUDY SUMMARY
FIGURE 2. AREAS OF FUTURE STUDY
-6-
I
I
-··1
~
,-,---', ~ .
,
I '~~~;;~~>
~-.;~?§::;..,:-....
\VI i'
-
/
o o
£. R£SULTS OF THf STUDY
The Citywide Stu~y ictio~s fall f~t~ four categories: zoni~g reg~lation
changes, comprehensive ,lan and zone map c~anges~ traffic mitigations, and
areas of future study.
]. Zoning Regulation Changes. Th! zoning regulation cha~ges were mad~ to
reduce f~ture de~elopment allowed ia th! (it~'s industrial and commercial
ireas. C~anges were ~lsa ~ade to allc~ some exceptions from the new sfle
limitations. These limitatfons allow existing noncomplying buildings to
be reb~ilt to t~ejr previous size. They also allow minor expansions for
purposes of coae compliance. energy conservation or employee servlces,
suc~ as day (are ~r cafeterias. Additional mDdifications were made to
establish limits on the size of certain ~ses. such as offices and hotels.
3.
Zoning ~ap and Comprehensive 11an land Ose ftap Changes. The zoning and
(ompreheRslve Plan c~anges resulting from the Citywide Stu~y either
prQwide opportunities for increased housing or enhance t~e
neighborhood-servi~g c~aricteristics ~f a given commsrcial area. The
lnajorH, of H~ changes irlvohe corl'versfons from Sen'Tee Commercial to
Mult;~le famll, ReSidential designations of varying densities. o~ to a
N~ighborbood !ommerc1al (eN} deslgnation.
Traffic "itigatfons. I~prowements to Cit, intersections and the
establis~ment of two Transportation Demand Management (TOM) programs
designed to reduce t~e number of commuters who drive alone ~ill be
imp1eme~ted to reduce tfiffic c~ngestion in t~e community. A new Traffic
fmpact Fee Ordinance ~as also beeR adopt~d to ~elp fund eig~t identified
intersection impraveme~t5~ w~ich are needed eit~er wit~i~ or bordering
the Stanfof'd Researc. Pari:. All net flew delJelo,pment located wiUHII the
Stanford Researc~ Park ~~ on commerc1all,-zoned land immediatel, adjacent
to the Researc~ Park will be requir~d to pay a Traffic Impact fee before
a building Permit will be iss~ed. Funds from colle~tion of the fee .ill
be wsed to construct the needed imtersectioD improvements. Other
identified imtersection imprcwements will be funded tnrough tne C;t~~s
Capital Improvements Progra~, through developer contributions, through
the San Antonio/West Sayshore Traffic Impact Fee Or~i~ance, and tnroug~
state and countJ funis.
4. Areas of future Study. four areas or Sites i~ the City nave been
idcntifiej for further special study because t~ey are vacant or are
consfdered likel, candidates for redevelopment because of tneir
locitions. t~e age and conditions Qf existing structures. and increasing
propert~ wiTues. I~ respons~ tG the Compre~ensive Plan and Solden
Triangle ~olicy goals to create additional housing opportunlties~ these
a~eas are ta be studfed further for future conversions to ~lternative
land ~ses, including housing? before major redevelopment occurs. These
areiS include {see also figure 2J:
'.
Urban lane CS parcels -ffrst priorit1~
fist ~adow Circle lM area -second prlority,
(ommercialJIr.~ustrji'/Transport GM area,
395 Page Mili He.lett Packard, GM sit.,
1050 Arostradero Road, l~(5) ,ite_
-7·
•
3M,
~":'.+' '
.'~~
,
•
i
\
. ... f .... ' .. -.. ' --1.
-
11 • BACKGROUND
A. ORIGIR Of THE STUDY
I. titl land Use ~~udie~
The Citywide Study is t~e most comp~eheRsiwe land ~~e stu~y to be done in
P.l. Alto since t~e adoption of t~e 1980·1995 Comprehensi,e Plan. The
(~11owin9 land ~se studi~s wbic~ substantiilly reduced commerc;al or
industrial development potentlal within specific areas of Palo Alto ~ere
completed prior to t~e Citywide Study:
I) ['5t Bays~ore Study (LM and G~ zones, 1984),
2' Park Boule,ard Study (S~ zones, 1985),
3J (aljforDi~ Avenue Study «(( zones, 1985}.
4) San AntoniojVest Bayshore 5tudy (CS and GM zones, 1986), and
5) Downtown Study (CD zones, 1936).
However, none of these studies prDvided the comprehensive citywide wi~~
necessary to address the cumulative effects Qf continued development and
increasing traffic througllout tl'Ie entire CitJ~ Tne Citywide land Use and'
Transportation Stud1 )Joked at the entire Cit1~
Several of t~e above areas {[ast Bays~ore, Park Boulevard and parts of
San Antonl0/West Balsl'lore} were incorporated into tfle Citywide Study to
~yoid inconsistencies ia policies and zoning which could ~a~e res~lted
from an incremental irea~by-arei approac~. Ot~er pre~iousl¥ studied
ireas~ including the Downtown, (aliforlfa Avenue and parts 0f San
A~tonio/West Bays~ore, ~ere not consldered for further c~anges. Tney
~ere i~cluded fa t~e Citywide Study to praject cumulatf~e traffic and
development levels.
2. !;olden Triangle Task force Pollcle.
The Citywide Study 'WaS also initiated is i means of responding t~ U,e
City~s obligatfons as i member of He Golden Triangl~ Tasle; fcr(.e~ HIlS
Task f~rce is made up of five citfes and Santa tlar3 Count, which
convened in 1985 to address traffic congestion in the (Ount1~
Participating cities are ~;lpitas. Mo~ntail Vlew~ Palo Alto, San Jose,
and Sunr.yvale~ The (ity Df Santa Clara withdre~ from tne Task Force in
1981.
I~ June )ggg, the Palo Alto CitJ Council app~oved four policy pacKages
prnposed by t~e Go14e~ Triangle Task force, ~hich concerned Gro~th
~anageme~t, TransporLation Demand Management (TDM). Capital rmprovements
and Housing. The Citywide Study actions ha~e implemented severil of
Uese policies_
The goal of He Golden Trhngle tro.·th "'anagement PrograrJ is to ac1lieve a
better balance among jobs, bousing supply and transportation capacitie5
by establ1s~ing limits on de~elopment consistent with tne capacity of
e.xisting; or 'planned imfrilstructure~ The Task fone endof'sed an i~erage
floor area ratio (FAR) of Q.3S:1 for commerc;il and in~ustTiill
deve10pment .s one ~f two methods for ~ontrolling gro~l~_ Average
development le~els under all of the Citywide Study scenarios e~aluated
-8-
--; .. -" .
" .....
\. " ..
'-',,"
\~~ . ,
.
i , ,
T
.,
-
. .
'--
,
/ J .
• 1IIlI1Iiio ... ..:....,;;.;:..;.;.;~-'-',:--I, __ "_ ...... ~_-'",'~~~o.,.Z" _.:~~:.-_<""~~ :~,;~¥;c.?&2.c.41l(''''ij).
{)
were lower than wo~ld be allowed under the
iverage.
o
Golden Tri.ngle 0.35:1
The Citywide Study actions support the Colde~ Triangle Task Force goals
to pursue ~ ~ulti~jurlsdjctfonal Transportation Demand ~anagemert (TDM}
Progra~ and provide additional housing units IS means of reducing
increases l~ traffic growth. Citywide St~dy actions also support the
Golde~ Trfangle goal to re~uce traffic congestion by making physical
imprQvements to increase roadwa~ ca~acities.
C. CONDUCT Of THE STUDY
J.. ~_r:'_~~e Assumptions
The three reduc~d-developme~t S(enar;os eVi1~ated i~ tne study were based
an modifications t~ industria1 and commerCial loning previsions whi,h
establish bow much development is permitted on a given site, and whic~
~ses are allowed. The scenarios also include possible Comprehensive PTan
a~d zone c~anges to increise housfng opportunities and t~ encourage
retention of nefghborhood ·business serv;ces~
The primar1 ,Tanning tool ~sed to determine de~eloprnent levels was the
floor area rati0 (FAR), ~ measurement of building square footage relative
to the size of the lot (a floor area ratio ~f 0.4;], for example, w~uld
permit i 4,000 square foot buf1ding on a 10.000 square foot lot)~ Total
pr~jected square footage is simpl, the sum total of all parcels' fAR
development capabilities.
O~ce the alter"atfve development scenarios were se1ected~ prOjections
were ~ade to deterMine 1) t~e ~axlmu~ commerciil and industrial
de~elopment under existf~g looing, 2} the likely de~elopment under the
three development StenarlOs , and 3J f~ture traffIC generated by this
development.
The maximu~ ·theoretical" buildout was assumed under the existing zaning
scenarlc to determine the ·worst case-situation. "Reallstic W bUildout
assumptions ~lc. took existing site conditfons and constril~ts into
consf~eration were ~sed to determine buildout under the three reduced
development scenarios. ro~ example ~ minimum of one acre ~as cons;de~ed
necessary fof' mixed commercial/residential projects, and hotel lIs-es "ere
onlI evaluated for sites whe~e ~ min;mu~ of t~ree to four acres was
available for suc~ development~
-9-
r::: . -U,.:w'" i. ''''i ;.v #'." -'
'. . .,;,.
. \ ..
i ,
; i
J
,I
. "."
-
o o
2. T!iffic AnalysIs ~.t~o~
Trip gener~tion (new ~ebicle trips) was based Gn J) traffic expected from
f~ture development. 2) traffic expected from approved development not yet
built. and 3) traffic expected from developme~t occurring in surrounding
communlties~ Trf~ generation rates were based on a cross section Qf uses
_it~im eac~ commercfal and industrial lone, or tne total number of
projected ~ousin9 units.
Tne number ~f trips generated by dev~lopment. hawever t is onl1 i partial
indicator of traffic impact. TraffiC volumes. particularl, at tey
fntersections~ constitute i mo~e acc~rate assessment of additional
traffic generated by the various land ~se alternatives. Basically. these
questions ~ere aske~:
i~ Row muck more trifffc will t~ere be (measured i~ traffic volumes)?
b. How does the increase iA traffiC compare to the capaclt1 of the
roadway s1stem {the intensitJ of tO~ges\ion measured ~s 1 'evel of
service [LOS])?
c~ H~ long will conditfons Df congestion at the intersection occ~r
{dYfat,on of congestion)?
SixtJ-.lne intersections were incorpa~ated imto the analysis. A subset
of 11 key iatersections was se!ected and used .s the primary b~sis for
presentfng the tr.ffic-related im~acts i~ the {itywide Study_ The 11 ley
intersections were c~osen be(ause they best rep~esented traffic
conditions at the City~s ~ajor imteTsections.
Tbe eleven key imtersectfons eval~ated are as follows:
Middleffeld/University
~iddl e fi old/Oregon [xprosswa}
Middlefield/Sao AntoDio
Alma!C~arleston n Camino Real/Alma
£1 (a~fnoJEmbarcadero/Sa'vez
{~ Camino/Arastradero/{harleston
foot~ill/P.go Mill/Juniper. Serra
root~ill/Arastradero
Santa Cr"llSand Hill
[1 Camino Real/Page Mill
Figure 2 shows the locations of the 11 key inte~sections. The results of
the traffic analysis are discussed i~ more detail im the Citywide land
Use and Transportation StudJ final RepQ~\. and ~lft £n~1rQnme~til Impact
Reort ~h7cn are available at the Palo Alto Depart~ent of PlannfDQ and
CommunitJ {n~1ronme~t.
- J 0-
•
\
. ,
/.
I .;
-:
,.
• II KEY I~TfRSfCT!ONS ! ,
CITYWIDE STUDY SUMMARY [
FIGURE 3. KEY STUDY INTERSECTIONS
·11'
L-O'
, "
Town and Country Shopping Center
Stanford Sh'Jpp!ng CcnU:r
,11
-"-L
1.1-.
• \
,
.I ,
.T
c·
--
J o
II. ZONING REGUlATION CHANGES
A. !ed~!!~ ____ ~onmerchl ~nd Ir;c1us.!!jal f1oQ~J.re-a Ratfos
Actions of the Citywide Stu~y r2~uced the floor area ratfos ;~ t~e
folTo~;ng zones:
~one
(S. Service Commercial
eN. Neighborhood Cammerc'al
OR. Office Research
Gf1.(I). General P'anufacturif\S
2:1
] : I
O.IS: 1
I: ]
0.4;]
0.4:1
O. Sol
0.5:1
The (itJ~s (S zones are p~imariT, located along £1 (amino Real, ~ith i
smaller area located along the east side of San Antonio Road. The (~
zones are la<ated a10ng E1 Camino Real. and at the ~fdtown Shopping
District {~iddlefield Road/Colorado Avenue), the (~arTeston Shopping
Center (~iddlefteld Road/fist C~arleston AwenueJ, and the Alma Shopping
Center {Alma: Street/Eist l'Ieadcw Drive). Tne ()R zone is located along
Welck Road Wit~;6 Stanford Jan~s i~ the arei borcering the Stanford
Hospital. The GM(8) lone i~ found il two locations. One is along the
frontage road north of [mbar<:aderQ Road, east of He 10] freewa]. The
second is located betwee~ Park Bou1evard and the Soutner& Pacific
Ral1road~ just sout~ of Page ~ill Road.
Special provisions ~ere added to several other zones to reduce the
permitted FAR it specific sites.
~_~ __ .. COlTlTluni_!L.C::_~!,cf.~I -Special prOVlslons ~ere added to the C('
zone to re~uce the FAR allo~ed at the Town and Country Shopping
Center from 3:] to 0.35:1; and to limit development at the Stanford
Shopping Center to an additional ~aximum of 65,000 s.quare feet above
that existing is of August 1989.
PF. Public facilities. -a special prO~lS1Qn ~as added to the PF zone
f~ red'-uce He JAA---illowed at tne 'Stanford UniversitJ' Hoover Pivil ;00
slte from ]:1 to 0.25:].
·13·
'~-'L--,
_. -
,
1
~-..
~
,
':.1:"
-
t.
o
CI"_I:!_~_~Ton of NN_HoteJ (H) Combfnl'!9..._:~_o~_e -A new hotel overlay zone lIas
~el:l createdtoaTfOwh"OfiTs ttt develop-up to iI FAR of O.6:1~ with iI ~5-e
permit and site and dp.slgn reYfew~ T~ls ~e~ {H) zone is to be applied to
specific sftes in th~ (t and {S zoneS.
C. _lIfcxtUfe:_(t~u$fn~o"f!.Jf:lns_ -A number of modi fieat ions 'Were made to
,assure the compatif:.i1ity01 nellt housing projects wit~ surrounding
de'ielcpmeDL
Site ~d~!!9!1Revl .... for MlxedC~ercl.l{Reslden!J!LProjects -
Applicat;o~ aT thi site and desfgn rewiew process is now required
for all rolxed co~ercial/resldential projects occurring in the {C,
CN~ and (S zones. T~is is a three-tiered procEss. req~iring review
b1 tne Planning Commlssion. Arch,tect~ral Review Board and (ity
Council. This process was consfdered appropriate fer the unique
plarmfng and design fssues presented b.i mhed .commercial/reside-nthl
projects.
for .ixed conrnercialjresidentfal projects. permitted FARs fo,r the
commercfal and residential portions may be combined. but the ~ore
restric.ti~e multiple·famil, sHe development reguhtfor,s will apply
to the entire prGject.
RM·)o ProvisIons ~t;ll ApplJ t. Coomercl.l CS and CC and Industrial
!J!.L!!Il!l • ..!!!.C!hJ!!! ... J'II,I) and OR Zones -RM-3Q provisions will
contf~ue to appl, to ~ousing pr0jects 1m t~e commercial CS, CC zones
and ,ndu,trill lit. l~(3). l~(5). Gil. G~(a) and OR zones. No changes
~ere made because these zones are appropriate locations fnr
multiple-f~i11 housing at medium densities (up to 30 units per
acre}.
!cow~CensltlRM·15PIov;slons will~llto C~one -The RM-15
provisions will now appl, i~ the eN lone rather tMan the
lIigfler-cfellsitJ RK-30 provisfons. Tltis dange was made because He
C~ zone afteR borders single (amil, neighborhoods and ;s conSidered
~ost ippropriate for multi,le-familJ developments at lower densities
(up to 15 units per acre).
Housing P~OMJl.ted at CharIest_nand IIldtown---.!il!2Pp!gg DIstricts -
Additiona provis;or'l,s have been added to the C~ district to prohibit
housfog at t~e (harleston Center and ~fdtown S~opping District eN
zones. This actfon ~as been taken because these areas are lalued
neighborhood s~opping districts w~ic~, because of small parcel size
and ~ari;ng reqUirements, might lose some cf their com~erc,al space
if tney were to be redeveloped wit~ ~ixed commercial/residential or
resicfe~tial projects.
-14-
·L
r."
•
f
I
\ .
r-I
--.-_-it"
rll" Redwoods -a housing project along EI Camino Real
D. ~.Hl~-"!~ Size Li!lJt~ -The following 1 imitations were p1aced all the \ize of
new of'f'lCes-:
CS Zone -In the (5 zone, offices will continue to be 1 imHed to a
s.-cfOOsquare foot l'iximLJ:t! unless they obtain a conditional use
permft. Existing offices above this size lfmit are ~randfathered ir.
and allowed to remai~~
eN __ lon~_ -Exl,S,ting 1imits: u~ ofnce size in tne 001 zone are
retimecL Offfces in this lone are 1 imited to 25 percent of lot
size up to i 5,000 square foot ma~imum. unless a use permlt is
obta;ne~. Existing offices above t~is size limit are grandfatnered
i~ and allowed to remain.
~c Zgne -Additional pru .... isioi1s .... 2re added to He CC lone to limit
o-fflce-uses it tile Town and Country Shopping Center to IS percent of
the eXlsting site floor area as of ~ugust 1989 (limited to 31,000
square feet of office spac~J.
~ 15-
"
, ,
•
.. "
•
\
\
\ \ ~-, ,
\
\
~. '''~'.'' .~. ... ---~. ,.,J
. '~
--:. '
I
j
" ~, .
[.
"": ..
o o
.New ~efgh"~"Q.rl!Q~"~ Busfness Ser-v1ce U'S:"~ - A new tlse category. ~r.;EIGHBORrlOOD
BUSr ESS SERVICE USE-, has been added to the C~ zone as ~ permitted USE.
rbis use is generally the same as the General Busfness Servlce .ith a
2,SOO-square-foot size limit. T~is size requirement w~s established to
allow operitfo~ of smaller neighborhood serving general business uses in
the N~Tghborhood Commercial zone, but preclude operation ~f the general
business service ~ses with larger area requirements and larger market
hase. A. small pl'lotocoPJ shop. tile store or catering o'peration~
occupying less t~an 2,500 square feet. are examples of ~ses whi(~ would
now be permitted withiQ t~e (N lone. large lumber, plumbing. sheet metal
and building material suppliers, large autorr~obi1e parts and supplies
distributers. ind other uses requiring more than 1,500 square feet are
examples af uses w~ich would not be pErmitted.
A Neighborf1ood Business Service use
•
" \
\
\ • \
,
--, ,I
~"
\
, ,
"
1
-
f.
o .0
----y
Noncom,1 1 fng Fac'Jt~1J:r'.~_yfsfons -A rH:>nco~1)';n9 faell ity is defined as
a fael it] Of development whic' does not meet the s1te de~e1op~nt
requirements of t~e underlying zoning dlstrlct. For example, a
d~velopme~t mal be noncomplying because it does not provfde enou9~
park\ng~ or does net provide the prc~er building setbac~s. or betau~e It
exceeds the ~~i~um slze or height limitatfons. Currently. jf more than
50 percent ~f I noncomplying building is destroyed, or if the site is
redeveloped, the new structure must be built to com~lJ with ~11 current
regtllationL
The Citywide Stud, actions modified the noncompl~;ng facilit, provls,ons
i! tne 10ning Ordinance to allow legal noncomplying facilities ~h1C~
exceed required sfze limits tl I) be rebu"t to their present size, or 2J
~ake minor additions above t~e established floor area ratio limit for
purposes of ~ode compliance, energy ~onservation, or employee services.
The "",dified provisions apply t. the CC, CS, CN, SM, 611(8), LM. l~[3},
OI{5) and OR lones, with u.ception (If areas identified for further
speciil studi~s whic~ are discussed on page 1.
6. Hlminatlon of Certal. Combl.IM Zone~ -The CS[3), GM,I) and tM[I}
combiling lones 'PIave beeR e1 il1lirlated, viU: the underlJing (S., -GM and llll:
zones retained. T~fs action was taken betiuse the lower fARs establis~ed
by the combiling zones have been superseded by the towering of tfle fAR in
the principal underlying zones.
I ,
-17-
t ,
\
! ,
t·
!
i
!-'
,
~-
)
~ . ~
..
,
I
L " "
I"
r
L
~
'"
---~~~-~~~~..........,..'-"-.' ,;:, -------,-~-,-I,
CS(H)
~ ,.,
'1"1',, -'vl'lI: ~··' .. 1~~:~
-'i .... .J.-( ~ ;Ii 'f_v\. ,1. ..~\
,7_ i-
' • .1. _ -I •• .---.... ').. ,Ir~ ~
o
~I.)/ lh 0
FIGURE 4, SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL SITES -COMMERCIAL TO HOUSING
·C--l~'----__ ~.-;--~-~"" .. : ___ ~~~--'r_,
.. , !'J' "
,
'~,--'-' --.-:---.
"
\: "
f1'" I ",
~ j.)
f~i ~
"< ~
;
t~:
~f
:f,
,<
,
~
J .,
<
"
, ,
'-.J,
_ ,,,.., . .r
•
"
~
, .
~.-..
"
-' .r--c..-
'U
"
•
I j;l
-
./
o
IY. ZONING IIA1 AHO COMPREHEICSIVE ,UJI LAND Us( IIA1 CIlAHGES
Zonlng map and Comprehensive 'la~ Land Use ~ap changes WEre made tD specifyc
parcels tc change their designations fro~ rrfmarilJ service commerciil to
mu1tl~le-fami11 residenth.l or neigflbor'hood (:OITIr,e-rcfil designations.
A. SItes ~edeslgnat.d from CoMmercIal to Rousing
(lis Club ~ 4249 [1 C~fna Real -Tbis site .as redeSignated from Ser~Tce
Commercial ta Mu1ti~T!-Fam;lJ Residential and rezoned fro~ {S and RM-lS
to RM-30. ~-15 and 1-]. A ~aximum of )98 units is possible undEr the
three new lones. The eXist1ng [lis Club use is grandfathered 11 and
.Ilowed to rem.i, and expand up t •• 0.4;1 f~~ {see figure 4).
Palo Alt o lowllng Coop.nl (Fiesta lines) -4315-4329 [1 CamIno Re!! . The
site vas redeSignated from Service Commercial to ~ultiple-Farnfry
Resi·de-nthl and rezoned frM (S to RM-30 and RH-15. A lIIaX;mUI1 (If 55
u~its is possible under the two new ZDnes~ The existfng bowling alley
~se is grandfat~ered 11 and is allowed t~ remaiB fndefi8itel, (see Figure
4) •
re,:an"d from CS, RM-40 and RM·IS t. CN,
~aximu~ of 94 unlts is possible on t~e site
square feet Df commercial development allowed (In
(see Figure 4).
ial and
15 and RM·15 Il). A
an additional 20,320
the portioo zoned CH
~aybell sfte -located ~ehfnd 4170 £I C .. fnoReal . RedeSignated fro.
Serv;c_e tonmercfal to Jll'ulUple-famib Resfd'enthl and rezoned froll CS h
RH-1S. A ~aximul1 of 8 units is possible O~ thls site. (See figure 4)
·I!·
"'-, ..... ,-_."
•
I
, I
l
\
-
/
, .
_!::i_ .. ~""",_;,;;...." ...
o o
~ayfieT~SchooT~.~htlon/Rest.ur.nt Sites:.2650-278(} El C'!.ml'!f'....~e~
Redes;~nl~rom Service Com~erciil and Public Facility t~ ~ultlple-family
Residectfal and rez~ned fro~ CS and pf to RM·40. A ma~imurn ~f 235 units is
possible on the sites combined. Stanford ~as considered pursu~ng ~ mix~d-use
development under ~ 'lanned Community zone for t~is site (see figure 5).
FIGURE 5_ MAYFIELD SCHOOL SITE
·20·
•
\,
•
'.~-,
~~>
,
'j ,
I.
•
......
" " ,
.-;." . .-: . .;;; -.,' ,,", ..,..,"".:c"':;;,.:;j':'"i.. ... ,..:..,.":;.,.;-S."':':"I':.\?:'<~;t,~'J ~:>.]z i
"~ -.. )'
Site. C~.ng.d fran Sorvlce Coomercl.l t',Nt,ghbgrhoo4 Commercial
All (S-loned propertfes located on the wtst side of £1 {a~i~o Real
between (alifornii and Stanford A~enue$ ~ave been c~anged from Serwice
C~erciil to Neighborhood Commerc;.l and from CS to CN~ Tals thange was
m.ade to reflect and retlin the nefg'hborhood ('orm1erda 1 c'haracter of the
existing ~ses and development (see figure 6'~
FIGURE 6. SITES -SERVICE COMMERCIAL
TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
-21-
•
"';
\
\
\
\
\
\
'" V'
"-.::;:.,.~-~ ~
~-''';~'-~~'\''~
-
-
,.,'
o o
c. ~otel~!!"IY3on. Applied
The ne~ hotel Q~erli~ 20ne c~eated to al1o~ hotels to develDp U? to i fAR
of Q.6:1 with a ~se permit, and site and design revie~ ~as been applied
to the f.'lo~lng sites ( ... Flgur. 7):
Rict.,'. Hyatt l4201·(Z21 [I CamIno Re.'}
Dlna~'s ~otor lodge {425!·4273 £1 C.-inc Re.')
RICKEY'S
HYATT
.:.. ".& ~
\fO ..... GR
lODGE
FIGURE 7. NEW HOTEl. COMBINING lONE SITES
-22-
L
•
•
,
o o
"'. __ "_'~r:"'''-''. :""""" .... "' ...... '-'~",,","---., "-
, -, ......
.-
',; .:
•
.,
f
P
t
I
')-.'
:r~:
,
.1
o o
FIGURE 8. QU .... RRYrARBORETUM SiTES
PACK .... RD
FIGURE 9. HEWLETT PACKARD
TR .... INING CENTER
, ' ?
·24·
• . .... ,
•
, '. ,. ,
. ~~
''':,-" '""" -.~. ~
'~:f:'
-
D.
o o
Deslsnatlon Change. for ~.nford llMs
!l!Y-!r'/Ar~or.tU1l Rectan;!. an4 fr.pelold Sites
Though thes! sites are 1m Santa Clari Co~ntJt the P~lc Alto (omprehe~sive
Plan designations were ~~Inged ta reflect Palo Alto's desired fut~re ~ses
of t~e sites. and tG send a clear message to b¢th Stanford University and
Santa Clara Count1 as to the Cit,'s posit;o~.
~_~~!_~_~.9'e SUe -The Rectangle site (site bordering Ue BP gas station)
~s redeslgnated froro ~ajor l~stit~tlon/Univer51tJ lands/Academic
Preserve and Open Space to ~ajor InstitwtionjUnfvers;tJ Lands/Campus
~ultiple-fami11 Resi~enttal to encourage ~se of the slte for multiple
f.,!l, housing (see figure 8).
~_~_~_oi~ _____ Site ' The Trapezoid sit!! 'Was redeSignated from "ajar
I~st't~tlonfUni~er$itJ lands/Academic Reserve and Open Spa~e to ~a5or
Inst1t~tfo"jUn;versitJ lands/Campus to reflect t~e CjtJ~s acceptance of
t~e Universlt,'s propos a) to use tk~ site for Campus de~e1opment,
pO'SSiblJ inc1udfng c.onstr'Uction of Stanford's Ilroposed new Psycniitric
Hospit.1 {see figure S}.
BP (Kobil) 6a. Station -375 ArboretU1ll Ro.4 • This site was re~.sign.t.d
rroi Community CDmmercial to Neighborhood Commercial and rezoned from CC
to eN. The existing gas station is permitted as a conditional use i~
bot~ zones and is allowed to continu~ operition (see figure 8).
E. Hewlett P.c"ar~(.lr.I.ID9 Center -lOO~ff.!d -r~ls site ... s
redeSignated from Regional Community CommerC1al to Res~arch Office Park
and rezoned frD~ Ct to LM. T~is c~ange ~s ~ade to reflect t~e reuse of
the Dld "~ffeld Shopping Center is I triim~og facility for the Hewlett
Packar. Corporation (see figure 9).
-25·
r
I
f ,
!
:;,
f ,
ii-• f ~.
r
I t-t f
r .
--.' --..
L
." , •• "'0'<
LL [\r'HSS~l ."
CITYWIDE STUDY SUMMARY
FIGURE 10. AREA 8-EL CAMINO/STANFORD
RESEARCH PARK
-26-
•
\
,
• .,.'i" \
'---'-"J--...
i
I,
"
I
1
.--'
" /-:00 '~-. t "'-:.
,-,.,.-.,-
o
Y. TRAFflt MITIGATIONS
The {itywiae 5tudy actions included measures to further reduce traffic
congestion it (ity intersections. Tnese measures lncl~ded l) establishment of
Transportation Demand ~anageme"t (TOM) programs to reduce the numher of
commuters w~o drive aTone. 2} f~tersectfon ~apacitJ improvements to reduce
traffic congestion duriog peak commute perioas t 3} i Traffic Impact fee
Ordinance to fund intersection imprQvements wit_in or bor~erjng the Stanford
~esearc~ Park, and 4J adoption of amendments to t~e Transportation £lement of
the Cornprehe~sive Plan to estahlis~ new programs supporting the ne~ impact fe~
and TOM programs.
A. Transportatlon Demand Management Programs
The Citywide Study inithted t"e creati0l'l __ 5l __ L.t_~_Q_ separ.ate TOM programs.
The first will ap,pl, to all new (:onl'T'-ertla1 and fndustrlal development
citywide~ It _ill be ~odeled .after the Golde" Trfang1e TDM ordinance~ as
soon as the ordinance is completed. Tne second TOM progra~ ~ll applJ to
~xlstl!!9. ____ .and new development occurring fI the lM, lr-!(5), (S~ and PC zoned
properties located withil Study Area a [i.e., the Stanford Researc~ Park
and nearby £1 Camino Aeal frontage. see rig~re 10).
C;~ __ ~..!_JDH Pro9ran -The Citywide TDM program is to be cons i stent with
any TOK ordinance reswltfng from the Golde~ Triangle pra<ess. This
process fncorp~rates t~e goal of aC~levlDg a 35 percent non-drive~alone
rate for c~ute trips during the afternoon peak c~mmute period {3:00 PM
t~ 6:00 PM} by t~e year 2000. r~is program ~uld at i mjnrmum applJ to
new single development~ of 30,000 square feet or multi-tenant complex~s
of 150,000 square feet witk oyer sao employees.
Stan for' J:esear~'h Park TOft ProRraJi -Tne separate mandatory Stanford
~esearch Parl:lFDM progr~ wit' a \igher TDM goal is to be developed by
the (itJ ~ith Researcn Park representatfves. The progra~ will applJ to
all Stanfof"d Researcll Park employers. occupying exiSting and fwture
nOl1-resi'dentfal development 11 the PC a {JIt and l,.,{5J zoned parcels wit"in
the Resear<h Par. (see figur. 10).
B. Intersec~J«!~ Capacity Jmproveme~s
The Citywide Study identified 38 possible f~tersectloD improvements which
coul~ be ~ade to reduce congestio~ it (ity i~tersections during the peak
commute period (3:00 PH t. 6:00 PM). Tn. Citl rejecled IZ of the 38
fdentiff~ fmprow~e~tsa primaril, because of their rel.at'velJ .ig~ cost
for little improvement, including loss of raleed landscaped setbacks and
street trees. A list of the imt~rsection impro~ements t~ be p~rsued are
prow'Tdec1 ill Table 3 of Appendix C. Eight of Ulese impt"owements vil1 be
funded by the new Traffic I~pact fee described below. The remainder will
be funded through He City's Capital ImprDvement PrograrJI, loeal developer
contributions 9 and possibl~ state and county funds.
-17·
. --'-.---...-~:-~ .. -..-,---
-
•
, ..
!
r
I
r
!
•
,
..
.1
-':--...
\
" \
\
-\
"',
"",
. .,
no.:' )W
., .. , _. , .
o o
(~ Transp_C:J_~_~_i1tfon I_pact fee Ordinance
, .
A Transportitfon Imp~t fee ~dinance ~as ido~ted to apply to all new
nan-resltential d~velopment in Area B -Stanford Research Park L~, tM(5)
and PC lones and II (amino Reil CS zone. Such fee will be applied on a
square footage basis to prDvide funds to ~ake necessary capacity
improvements to the ei9~t intersections found to be adverselJ impacted by
t~e amount of additional development projected to occur i" Area B. The
specific improwements are included in Tab1e 3 of Appendix t and described
im more detail ;1 the !itywide St~dy land Use and Transportation Study
~aft fIR on pages IY.S.-50 t~ToU9~ 85, and i~ the Final Addendum to the
£Ill on ~itges n. -23 t~rough 1,1. funds colll!cted frol'll the new ordiMance
will be ~sed to iRstall capacity improvements at the follo~i~g
imtErsections:
foothill/H;11.ie~
Page ~ill/Hanover
foot~ill/Arastra~ero
foothill/Miranda
Foothill/Page ~;Il
11 C.mino Real/Page ~;Il
"iddleffeld/Oregon
Al rna/Charleston
The Transportation Impact Fee w;11 apply tc net~ new development above
250 square feet th.t occurs f. Studl Area 8 (Stanford Res.arcn ParK/E1
Camino). Replacement square footage will not be stihject to the
ordinance. fhe ordi"ance also provides exemptions for certaim on-site
employee serwlces. suc~ as cafeterias, rec:reatfonal and day-care
facilities~ and for hazardous materials storage or er.ergy con5er¥atio~
{t~ermal sto~age facilities, ett_}.
Tbe amount of t~e Transportation Impact fee was calc~lated by dividing
the amount of additional development estimated to occ~r in t~e study area
by t~e estimated costs of accomp1is~ing the elg~t Ci~iCit1 improvements.
Tbe fee iTs~ incorporates I standard imflation factor to adjust fo~ cost
~;Krei.SeS due to iPination~ The fee at the time the ordinance was
adopted vas S2.l9 per gross square foot of new d€velopment~ fu1l payment
of the transportation impact fee yill be reQuired at O~ before issuance
of a building peroalt. Projects i. Area 8 that recei~ed building p€rmits
before the effecti~e date of the ordinance are not subj~ct to the fee.
Projects t~at recei~ed Ar'~ite'turil Review Board approval, but dld not
recefv~ buildlng pe~its by that date, will be subject to the fee.
-28-
•
•
• f':: '>',;,{,.,,·i;,i:i'&'
I; .
I
;,:-~-,", "
~
r
r
!
'?
.-
.,' "'t
...J
D.
o o
lIew Tnnsportat'on (l ..... nt ~!:!'grams
An amendment tD the Transportation (lement of the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted to 1) support creatfon of t~e new Traffic fmpact fee to assess
+ net new nOrl-resfdenthl delle10pment in Stud,Y Are-a B to pay ({Jf needed
intersection l~provement$. 2J support creation of a separate Stanford
Researc_ Park Transportation Cemand Management program. and 3) add t~e
following two programs tQ the Transportatl0n Element:
Requfre i Trlffj( Impact fee (or New Non-Resident;,l Development in
t~e Stanford Researc~ Park. and
Require a Transportation De~an' Management [TOM) progra~ for all
Stanford Researt~ Part empToy~rs. with a TOM goal to be defined by
t~e (ity 11 conjunction w1t~ Researc~ Park partfcfpants~
Tbe amendm~nt was made to emp~asize the Cfty's commitment to sue'
programs ~1 jncorporating t~eM jato the Compre~eRsjve P1an~
·29-
. -
\
•
.';"~:"
"
; '.
f
i ~"j;.l1't7.
\}
.~
; ~
-
u. fOllOW-UP ACTIONS
The Citywide Stud), genented I l1uRlber of different foHow-up actions .. hich
~eed to he acccmplis~ed. These actions are lfsted below.
A. :follow-Up Compr.~ensl~!..lJan and ZonIng Ch~.s -The (it)'Wide Study
actions included direction to staff to consider and i~itiate
Comprehensive Plan and zoning desfgnat10n changES for tne following
listed properti.s. Tlls ~as been accomplished and the follo~ing list
reflects Cit1 Council actlons taKen on November 20. 1989.
ISIS El C •• lnoRe.1 -~edlr..l Office" ne Compcehensi" Plan
designation 01 t~is site vas c~anged-fro~ Neighborhood Commercial to
~u'tiple-fa~ll1 Residentfil. The loning ~s c~anged from (N~
Neighborbood Co~rcia' to RM-15, Low Densit, Mult1ple-Fami11
Resfdentfal. The rezoning attion included i grandfat~er clause to
allow t~e existing medical office ~se t~ continue indefinitely (~ee
figure lIon page 311.
53) Stanford Avertu_Ii!' __ • _ Stanford Terrace Il'IfI_: The Comprehensive Plan
designation of~is!Sfte was changed from ~ei9hborhood Commercial to
Multiple-Famil, Resfdential~ The zoning ~as changed from C~,
Ne!9hbor~ood Commercl.l t. RK-lO, Mediu~ Density Multiple-Family
Residential. A Qrandflt~er clause vas include~ in the rezoning
action to allow t~e existing botel Dse to continue indefinitely {see
figure 12 DO page 31).
3277 ~ir.nda Avenue -Uolverslt, Club
3351 M!randa Avenue -foot~lll$ Tenn!s and Sw1m Club: No changes were-made. A Comprehensive Plan changi"Tr"ori-rfe"ie-a:rcli Office Park to
Open Space/Contrclled Development, and zone c~ange from L~, Limited
[ndustrfil/Resear'~ Park to ~E, Resfdential Estates wer~ considered
but rejected.
I. Ioncon.to~t~q Ose TerwfnaUon Pr_~es_~ -Property owners of us.es becoming
nonconformfng is I res~lt of the Citywide StDdy zoning and (omprehe~si~e
'lan c~anges ~ust be fO~ill, notfffed of the c~ange in the status of
their 'se and t~elr required termination dates_ They will also be
imformed of the City's procedure on how t~ file for i possible exempt jon
from termination.
c. Tral!_~~_!,_~_atfon Demand JIIa.n.!.9....emen~ _~_~grams -The Cit, ~as comrni tted to
adopting i (itywide TDM program consistent with t~e Golden Triangle TOK
Progra~ .men suc' ~as bee~ adopted. (it, stiff ~as been directed to work
~t" Stanford Researc~ Park employers to develop i Dandatory TOM pfDgram
fo~ ill employers j~ the Researc_ Park occupying eXlsting or f~ture
development.
-30·
•
i
h.·· .. " t :':-, ,',
-
FIGURE 11. 1515 El CAMINO
REAL
FIGURE 12. STANFORO
TERRACE INN
D. JlfollitOf'Jng of "ftf~atfon_ "e~_~ures -(it} staff will lIIonHo·r campl iance
~;t" the identlfie C)t~ide Study mitigation measures on an ongoing
basis. Sucn duties include but are not l;~Tted to;
1. CollectioD and allocation of Housing and Transportation Tmpact fees,
2. I~;tiatioD Qf ;~ter5ectfon i~royementsl
3. Monito~ing of establi5~ed 1DH goals for suc~ programs,
4. Monitoring Qf building additions and ~se and O(cupancy permits to
assure that specific de~elopment or use limits are not exceeded fer
the Stanford Shopping Center or Tawn and Country Shopping Center
t6S~OOO-square-foot cap on additional development at Stanford
Shopping Center. and 31,DDO-square-foot limlt on office use~ at Town
and Countr) Shopping Center -IS percent of floor irea e~15tfng in
!~2).
£. ~~Ja' ____ ..$tudfe-s -efty staff has heen directed to iaitiate special
stUdies Df-t~follow)ng listed ireas or sites to consider c~anges to
alte-rnative land uses. inclDding ho~sing_ Cit1 staff w~s requested to
retur~ to the Cit1 Council for direction before flltfating the l.st thr€e
spedal studies.
Urban lane CS Arel, first prioritJ,
fast ~ead~w tircle L~ Area, second priority.
(ommerciilJTran5port/rnd~strial GM Area;
395 Page ~ill Road 6M site; and
1050 Ar.strad.ro Road lM(5) site,
-31-
•
\
•
\
\
\
.J
-I
i , I
l
•
',:-.
'll. A1P£HDltES
fig",e A·l
figure A·l Fig"'. A·l
figure A·4
fig"," A·S
fjgur~ ".$
figu". A·]
figure A·a
i, .
O· ,
Are. 2 • Ur~.n tan.
Are. 3 . ~jdt'wn
Ar •• 4 • E.;t Eay.~or.
Are. S • $out~.ast Pale Alt~
Ar •• 6 . South £1 {amino R.al
Ar~. 1 . ten\(.1 P.l~ Alt.
o
Ar •• a • fl (Imlno/Sta,ford Rn~"<~ Park
Ar .. 9 . san/! Hill '''fridar
•• tabl. l· EstIMate. Qf A4~\t!~n.l $quare F~t.g. ".4 R~sjn9 Units by
Altorn.the
t, tabl. l • Approv.d Jnfer •• <tlcn C.~.ojt7 Imp'4V~"tS.
I ' .~. -.. .
, , ,.
"
'I
I
-
j
...
FIGURE 11. 151S El CAMINO
REAL
FIGURE 12_ STANFOR[)
TERRACE INr-I
1iI~ lII'o~ __ H.r:J..!'.J.I:1.g of liIitfgatfon ~asur.~.~ -City staff yj n l1anitor campl ranee
~t~ t~e ide~tified Citywide Study mitigation measures on an ongoing
basis. Such duties lDclude but are not limited to:
I. tollection and I1TocatfoD of Rousing and Transportatfoo I~pact fees,
2. I.itfation of i~tersection imprQ~ements,
3. Monitoricg of established TDH goals for such programs, c_ ~nitorlng of b~ildin9 additions and use and occupancy per~its to
assure that specific development or ~se limits are not exceeded for
t~e Stanford Shopping Center or Town and Country Shopping Center
{6S,OOO-sQuare-foot cap aD additIonal development at Stanford
Shopping Center, and 3J.OOO-square-foot limit on office ~s~s at Town
and Country Shopping Center -]5 percent of floor area existing lA
1!l89J_
£. ~J!! ... Stll.~ . .i..~.~ -Cit), staff 'has beell directed to initiate special
studies ~t~e following listed areas or sites to consfder c~anges to
~lternitiye land ~ses, In(luding bous;ng. Cit)' staff was requested to
retur9 to tne Cit, C~uncl1 for direction before i~;tiating the last three
speclil studies.
Urban Lane (S Area, first priorit,~
[ast Meadow (irtle LM Area, second ~riority.
Commercial/Transport/Industrial GM Area;
39$ Page Mill Road GM site; and
1050 Ar.str.~ero Road lM(5) sito_
-31-
•
\
~.
,t. .... ... , , .-,
\
\
\
\
\ ,
~ ". \
,
.. ip
.1
i
i .,
l
•
\
',/ .
/.
/'
o
f
-31-(
f
.~
-
. ,
-
•
'"
o o
YII. APPENDlcts
A. Study Ar •• location ~.ps
figure A-I
figure A-l
figure A-3
figure A-C
figure A-5
Figure 4.-6
Figure A-J
Figure A-a
Ar •• 2 -
Ar •• 3
Are. 4
Ar •• 5
Ar •• 6
Ar •• 1
Ar •• 8
Ar •• 9
Urban lane
"idtown
fist Ba],shore
Southeast P.l. Alto
South E1 em;no Re.l
Centr.l P.lo Alto
(1 Camino/Stanford Researc~
Sand Hill Corridor
Park
•. rabl. 2 -Estimates of Additional Square footage and Housing Units ~y
Alternative
C_ TahTe, -Approved [~tersectfon tapacity Improvement!~
-33·
,-
..
c-
,
~ ,
r' ,
i-
~. ,
I
I
"
L I, ,.
r
L
/
...
'"
----.~-
CITYWIOE STU~Y SUMMARY
FIGURE A-1 AREA 2 -URBAN LANE
,,----~-,--.-~~---,-~-----............... ~~-"----
,I
i
';t-"
,-'"
I, \ ,~,1""-1':"
e,
Cl
I, ..
. '
• ,
~
"
•
•
,e
~
" ,
z
>-;:
0 a: f-« 0
::;: ::;;
::;:
~
(J} '" >-<:
Cl w
~ a:
I-<:
(J} Coo[
W I
Cl <:
3: w
a:
>-~
I-C!l -0 u.
e
-35-
'L
,
II
J
I
,
/.
",---. , ,
L ~.
# "
,
'! , r'!
L
)
I I -~? '" ;
"-.~' .. --
~ ,
CITYWIDE STUDY SUMMARY G) FIGURE A-3 AREA 4 -EAST BAYSHQRE
--~--'
'.
,1-.' .. ,--,':
..
"
:.',)~~:' ,h '" ",,;
. , :1' • 1
, -, .
I
•
,
--.1' ! '~
------
,..,
:.".,-... , " ,<,' '" "",,::7":" . ,,:> , .J "
\,I,;
CITYWIDE STUDY SUMMARY
FIGURE A-4 AREA 5 -SOUTHEAST PALO ALTO
-3/-
1,-•
L
•
'.--,
-.
\
/
•
-1 ,
,
,/
I •
CITYWIDE STUDY SUMMARY
FIGURE A-~ AREA 6 -SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL
-38
L
-
L . ...
,. r':
L
I
!
~ \II
CITYWIDE STUDY SUMMARY
FIGURE A-6 AREA 7 -CENTRAL PALO ALTO
, ,
\1\. I ...... H ';i· \E"OII ( )
'\\t -;l::,,'''''T''~'O;'''~~>: '-X:" OY ,
•
•
.--.1
-'
~,~., . .J I',' '.
•
,
•
...
----.-~ ....... -,.." -.-".
CITYWIDE STUDY SUMMARY
AREA 8 -El CAMINOI
FIGURE A~7 STANFORD RESEARCH PARK
~ 40 ~
L
,
i
I
I
t r
I
I ,
I
i
I
I
!
!
/
.',-'
--:
-
'f
,
. I
.. ,.-----....
• \
I
I
I
~
i ce
I -, , .. I .J
STANFOfW
1 SHOPPV~G
1
f[,TOR
, .
oc
1
CITYWIDE STUDY SUMMARY
FIGURE A-8 AREA 9 -SAND Hill CORRIDOR
'41·
, · ,"", "'::."1' '.
•
I ,
f
I
I
I , ,
t ,
I
t ,
I
•
:::'
\
\ .-
.,
, .
. , ,
,
I
J ,
.-
o o
~'. ~--"
~.<:
..
•
~4Z~
·,.-tL-.', .
. '-
-
,
;
I
':d~" /(~~i.,/, ,'I,:, "1 \
,M, 'i'!l,,~, ; ,."rt'., "I'
.,', ";::S:i:::, '·:;';'t. ;1
' . ~ : \ '-~ '. :" I "
" .
!
(
i ,
,
, I
I
i
,
J
f.
~
" ,l,
.' ;,
,
~,: ~\, ,
.---~-----.---. ~"",,,,,,,,,-,
•
TABLE ~
Estimates Of Additional Squire footage .n~ Housing Units by Alternatlvo (Re.listlc Buildout)
Approved r ,. ,-".-.
Alternathe I Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Reguloti ons ',-, '
" " . ~ ,. i
Area ~ ft, • Units 5g, ft, • Units ,59' ft, • Units &.!1, + Units
Area I, Downtown 350,000 + 500 350,000 • 500 350,000 • 500 350,000 + 500
Q \
"
" ,
Area 2, Urban lane 106,100 + 0 273,450 • 90 46,400 + 140 34,400 + 91 " L "
Are. 3, Midtown 5,200 • 0 2,990 • 0 2,990 • 0 5,200 + 0
~;~ "
Area 4, East Bay,hore 93,500 + 0 159,300 + 0 245,500 + 0 93,500 • 0 , ," ,
, ",' ? Area 5. Southeast 340,620 + 0 664,960 + 0 674,910 + 69 665,000 • 69 i
Ar •• 6, South El Camino 78,870 • m 212,330 + 676 638,460 + 233 200,100 • 404 i
Area 7, Central (59,550). 0 (4,120). 147 102,390 • 167 (6,200). 167 • P,'o Alto t· , Area 8, El Camino/5RP 1,145,380 • 250 1,794,120 • 265 1,97Z,490 + 2M 1,794,100 + 265 l Area 9, Sand Hi'l (29,650)+ 1,449 1,096,530 + 885 904,330 • 1,185 121,800 • 800 0 ~
rOTAL
j
2,030,470 + 2,526 4,549,560 + 2,563 4,937,470 + 2,494 3,257,900 + 2,296 \
NOYES: ~ , ]. Estimates of buildout are considerod "re.listic" be,ause they take Into account physical characteristics V.
"" 'l w of .ach parcel, parking and setbaCk rogulation., and other developmont constraints in addition to Floor I' ,
Area RatiOS under Consideration.
~
.',
--------~--.~,..,--
·-~·''''h-' "', \" ... .!"_.,.'·.lll·"'-.,'''": .. p'llI'7_,.,,. .. .,.. .. ,.-.; ... -,"H,·,''',.''',·,-_-trt'''~"~~~"'~"·'l''''''i'''''' ."'."t,,-... ,.,. '~\:--." ...... ','K.A"f ....... ·_¥(· .... ~.'~ ...... T'7':'-.,--l;
-""
t,j, ",., .: ,1_' c
I , .' " ,
,
,_,_/f
.' ,"
•
"
J,.. . '. ",
, ';:~i~'::~F::;;:\~·.·';~};".·.:,j '.. '". ".r·l . . ". ' .....
" ,
• 'i
/
,
.~
'" •
TABLE 3
APPROVEO INTERSECTION CAPACITY IMPROVE~ENTS
AND COST SUMMARY
Int.~.ction Im~roY.""nt'
G.o~p A ($1,000 -$)OO,OOOJ.
I El Camino Real & S.rra/Par~ Blvd, (*26) Add SB right-turn lane
2 El Camino Real & Charleston/Arastradero (#30) Add sa right-turn lane
3 Page Mill & Porter (*58) R.strip. N6 approach
4 ('reg on Expwy. & W. Bayshore (N53) Restripe NB approach for
5 Middlefield & E. Meadow ('13)
two lanl}s
Lengthen HB & 5B left-turn
pockets 100 feet 6 Middlefi.ld & Hamilton (*5) Add EB left-turn lane
7 Page Mill & Oeer Creek (159) Add NB left-turn lane
8 £1 Camino Real & Californi_ (#69) Revise phasing to elimInate
east/west split
9 ['! Camino Real & Univ.rsity/Palm (*25) Restripe NB off-ramp lanes
10 £1 Camino Real at Hansen & Portage (130) Add WB left·turn lane
II Middlefield & Un1vetsity (N4) Add WB thtough lane
sub-Total Group A
nr~.uLU1!99,OOO TO mo.o~
I El Camino R.al & Embarcadero/Galvez (#26) Add SB left-tutn lane;
testripe WB approach
2 Junipero Serra & Santa Cruz/Alpine ('37) Add EB right-turn lane 3 Foothill & Hillvie. (#42) Add SB right-turn lane;
close Miranda
4 Page Mill Expwy. & Hanover ('56) Add SB right-turn lane;
5 El Camino Re.l & Churchill (#27)
rest ri pe NB approach
Add WB left·turn lane;
NB rig,t-turn lane
6 Middlefield & Willow (#2) Add SB through lane & .8
left~tur'n lane
... ~........,.~ •
, .\':\1," ...
, t'l{::J·~';"''f;'f)2''~'Wf~'';''/'.' '" .. I>"~
~t1~at.d Cos.!
i"· "''';, .... :.1.(." ,,,:'.: ,-;. ,.
r
' ",
-.","""
S 1,000 ,\
;,i;,,' ,
1,000 .I., -',' '.-'1',' \ 3,000 0 ' , '. , . 3,000
I 1>,000 [. 6,000
10,000 ',', 30,000 "
3$,000 i ,.,.
10.000
$ 107,000 ~ ,,' .
! lj
0 1
$ 125,000
f 125,000
Ii
125,000
125,000
< , 200.000
250,000
,-'./
I ",,-•
I r •• ,',
·iJ ,,' j,"" ''I'
\',' y',
I, -'.' ',".-'.'
!/ '> ":~N;-1:'··1~'/( ,:~:-~:,--;\, \" ~. '., ;',,' . , ,_~,\t'.~'t~":»l<\"\)'i.;JJ :-l ., . ";'-
.. '
I,
.'
/
/
,
-'
. \
-,-------------
',-j
.,j
I
,
'" ~ ,
7 Sand Hill & Arboretum (*46)
8 Alma & ~eado. (#73)
Sub-Total Group 8
Group C ($259,000 TO $500,000)
I Middlefi.ld & Oregon Expwy. (#10)
2 Alma & Charleston (#21)
J Foothill & Ar,stradero (*43)
4 Arboretum & Quarry (147)
5 Arbor.tum & Palm (*48)
6 Sand Hill & Pasteur (#45)
7 Foothill & (ne.) Miranda (IX)
Sub·Tot.l Group C
Gr0\!LL(l500,000 and Abov.)
I Foothill. Page Mill & Junipero S .... ('41)
2 El Cami no Real & Page Mill (#70)
Sub-Total Group D
--.--
Reconst~uct to accommodate
Stanford We,t
Add bicycle and p.de,trian
improvements
Add NO & SO l.ft-turn l.nes
Add HB left· turn & SO
right·turn lan.s
Cl0ge M1randai eliminate
shared 1 anes
Add EO left-turn & NO
through lan.,
Add S8 l.ft-turn lane; 2 S8
l.n.s from Quarry
Reconstruct to accoomodat.
Stanford West
COnstruct n ••• t.vrade
Intersection
Provide at-grade improve
ments
Provide at-grade improve
ments
-i,~" .... ~;""";':--'-L....
250.000
IOO,OOQ
$1,300,000
S 300,000
400,000
~OO,OOO
300,000
300,000
400,000
~O,OQO
$2.400.000
Sl,OOO,OOO
I,ooo,ooq
$2,000,000
o
, ,
o , '
I
I
I ~ I
~ z <=
k
'"
'',....,.,,-.----.....,...,.."~~__,; .. ..__n-'''--''''_-,-,~,..-.. ,,...~,''-'1..-------rr' .. ,..''.~.,~ ..... ''L"''''''"-...... ~_ "'" .,,_ _ ..... ~~!
-'<-..--,;,\-/ ."'*',' • ',:!1 ' .~ ,t' :"",. 'V'
q'. .
'/;1: •
'~.\
.'
.'. ,:r:j'~T'-~'_ J
",' -....
':~
'\ ,
,I
"
.-/ . ,-..... •
",
'.'.'