HomeMy WebLinkAbout0227.092: .~
-
April 23, 1992
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo AIm, California
THl. -!BJECT OF
THIS REPORT
ISA
COUNCIL PRIORITY
A Planning Polic)' Audit Df Rew1 A~s in the City of Palo Alto
Members of the Council:
3
The purpose of this report is to summarize Plannmg Commission discussion and recommen
dation. on the ·Planning Policy Audit of Retail Areas in the CIty of Palo Alto,· a report
prepared by Gruen Gruen + Associates, economic and land use amsultants. The attached
February 21, 1992 report to the Planning Commission contain. a staff analysis of the
findings and concbsions (if L"rJ.e study, along with eight follow-up recommendations to the
srudy suggested by staff. The March 6, 1992 Planning C<JII'"lishlOn ,Wf report, also
attached, is an expanded discussion of the staff recommendation (number 7) regarding
amortitation of existing nonconformLllg uses along E1 Cami"1o Real.
On July 8. 1991, the City Council authorized appro,-al of a study, to be prepared by an
economic consultant, to determine the general economic health of the City's commerdaJ
areas) and specifically the neighbol'hCX>d commercia] centers and F.l Camino Real strip
commercial development. In addition. the consultants were to report on the applicability of
the hotel overla.y rone to present hot:!I market conditions (.60 Floor Area Ratio) and the
economic and planning implications of the 65,()(X)..squa.re-foot cap on the expansion of the
Stanford Shopping Center. The Midtown neighborhood commercial area and University
Avenue Downtown b~sioess district were not part of this study.
Plaoning CQmmisWnM.tl00
On February 26 and March 11, 1992, the Planning Commission received public testimony on
the findings and conclusions of the Gruen study, staff analysis of the stUdy, and staff
CMR:227:92
-
recommendations ()l] follow-up actions to address those is,sues or conc,em identified in the
consuita..l'lts· report. Parming Commissior, minutes of both meetings are contained in 'he
CoL!ncil~s Apri123 packet. Following l! a summary of the Commission's di.sc'.J.ssion and
actions on the recommenri2tions contained in L'I:Ie Februa.oy 26th report to the Commission:
I. Delay the removal of the M,OOO·square·foot development cap on the Stanford
Shopping Center until such time as the Sand Hill Road extension is resolved.
Planning Commission Action; Vote<! 7-'.) to "Delay the removal of the 6S,OOO-square·
foot development C3p on the Stanford Shopping COfiter until such ti me as the
drcu1ation and pa,ting issues lrave be .. dealt .. ith. "
2. Remove L):je Aoor Area Ratio limitations within the Hotel Overlay 7...one.
Planning Commission Action: Voted 7-0 to remove Ole Hotel Overlay zone flOOi area
ratio .restrictions.
3. Remove the 2O,OOJ-squ.are·fool cap on grocery stores 'Within the Neighborhood
Commercial (C.N) zone..
Planning. Commission Action: Voted 5-2 (Beecham, Christensen voting no) to
remove the 2O,OOO-squ.are-foot cap on grocery stores within the eN wnes.
4. Lowu the parking requirements in order to allow remodeling and expansion within
the City's neighbortlOOO commercial centers.
Planning Commission Action: Voted 7-0 to c.onsider lower parking requirements in
neighborhood commercial centen, on a low priority basis, given recent changes to the
Cil)l's parking regulations which allow some decreases in parking required fO£ retail
use.
5. Revise the City'S multiple family zones to reIn floor area ratios/restrictions.
Planning Commission Action: Voted 7-<J to direct staff to,tudy fumeT the issues of
multiple family development in ",!ati"" to floor = ratios, townhouse·style projects
(particularly in the RM 30 20ne) , and minimum densities. Pending fumer staff
analysis and observations from the March 13, 1992 Planning
Commission/Architectural Review Board field l1ip on recently-wnstructed multiple
family projects in the City, item to be re-agendired for recommendation ", the City
Council.
CMR:227:92 4/2:\/92
Page 2
-'",,' ": ,,' ,.1,
---.,.:.._---"<'""'---
'""",
6. Facllitate parcel mergers alonE EJ CiO'.Jno Real by:
•. 5, mplifying the parcel m<lp process; and
b. Allowing use entitlements to be cumula.tive whef'l'.: merger.; occur.
Planning Commission Action: Voted 7-0 to support the IeC0mmendation. with tlle
following additions:
a. Staff to investigate a formula f'Or use entitlements in Co..-mjuncoon with parcel
mergers that relates to parcel size; or other alternatives which would promote
parcel mergers (as oppos.."d to 'imply allowing them).
b. Staff to return with anaJysis and recommem1ations regarding the
appropriateness of use caps within L'le eN di:>t.';cts, and to recommend, where
desirable, elimination of such restrictions.
7. Extend the 1993 amortization period of uisting nonconfonning uscs along E! Camino
Real south of Page Mill Road until such time as tile Comprehensive Plan update is
complete and attendant wrung action s are in place.
Planning Commission Ac.tion: Voted 4-3 1U){ to extend the amorti(..:ition period for
existing OCR noncoofonning uses (Commissioners Beecham, Christensen, CuUeo and
Schmidt voting not to extend Lie period),
8. Allow for a voluntary proces:s. for conceptual review by City Counci! of major project
proposals in the Planned Community Zone and Site and Design process.
Planning COfllmission Action: Voted 7-{) to support the recommendation.
It is worth noting that the concept of two-tiered review for Planned Community zone
changes and Site and Design appllations was previously discussed by Ole Planning
Commission. The concept is described in the attached staff ~rt dated MMch 23.
1990 and mi.1U~ of the 1990 discussion. The March 23, 1990 staff report is in
error, in one way, and should be corrected. Approval of conceptual plans could not
be achieved during a preliminary re.view. Denial is the only option availab1e prior to
CEQA reviev.'. Therefore, tile tw~tiered process could yi~ld a denial or the applicant
could be encouraged only to pursue a flnal application, with the understanding that the
final decision could not be made without Ute benefit of the full application submittal,
environmental review. and public hearing .requirement!..
CMR:227:92 4/23/92
Page 3 p ;\em.r\.n.Wl.cmr
L
-
SUfimao' of "RcjscQ'" mendittiQDS
Staff supports tl-.nning Commissi.vn actiO[".S on items 1-6 and 8, as outlined above.
Regarding the eA, ~on of t."te 1993 amortizatioc. period of existing nonconforming uses
along El Camino Real t:ntil such time as the Compreher.sive Pian update is comp:ete
(item 7)~ staff continues to recommend such extension, provided that it is applied to all uses,
and n<>l on • =-by~ l>asis,
-i/ / f /,," / .. '
/U'1 ;-l'~: .. w,{ /l.". _4{'~ 'it-c/~5.
WIiHAM ZANEr,
City Manager
KENNETH R SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Commurity EnvL-onment
Attachmenl1: 2/21192 Planning Cnmmimon report
3161rn Planning Cnmmimon report
Planning Commimon Stiff report of March 3, 199<J
6127/9IJ E<cetpt Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
Report from Gruen Gru"" + Associate< (Council Members only)
ce: PlanrJng Commission
Atcllitectural Review Board
Chamber of Commerce
Stanford Univernty (Andy Dety, Diane Healey, Pbil Williams)
Stanford Shopping Center (David Longoine)
Charleston Meadows Neighborhood A.ssociation
Barron Park Association (Jobn 1oynt, BoO Moss)
Barron Square Condo Association
lnterdale Way Homeowners Association
Park Central Commercial Condominium Association
Ventura Neighborbood Association
Hoover Park Neighberhood Association
Greenmeadow Comml:nity Association
College Tom", Neighberhood Association
Evergreen Park Neighberhood Associatior.
CMR:227:rn 4/23192
Page 4
-....... -~
•
Granl A venue Condo mini urn OvineiS Asso:iation
Chestnut~Wiltoo. Homeo'\lollets Association
Cbarie.> K=n
lames E. Boer
WiU'J'Ul Thoits
Jo5Cph Hirsch
Economic Outlook. Committee Members
Economic Resources Planning Committee Members
Attendees at ~113192 Chamber of Commerce Meeting
CMR:227:92 4123192
Page 5
F<bruary 21, 1992
PLAh'NING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, Califomia
Citi' of Yolo )lito
,,, soY 10.B~
PAlO A.:.T<i, r. .. ~~ltlJ
A PLANNING POLlCY AUDIT OF RETAIL AREAS IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
The purpose of IDis report is to provide s.taff c<>mment on the "Planning Policy Audit of
Retail Areas in the City of Palo Alto: a report prepared by Claude and Nina Grueo,
economic and land use consultants from San Francisco. California. Staff recommendations
on the findings and conclusions of the study are cmHained below. (For a summary of the
report, see pages Hi, attaChed.)
BACKGROUND
On July 8, 1991, !he City Council authorized "i'proval of a study, to be prepared by an
economic consultant, to determine tlJe general economic health of the City's c.cmmercial
areas, and specifically the neighborhood C<Jmmercial cenlers and EI ea,-uino Real strip
commercial deveJopment. ]n addition I the consultants were :0 report en the applicability of
the notel overlay zone to present hotel mat1cet conditions (.60 Floor Area Ratio) aJ'Id the
economic and planning implications of the 65,OOO-square-foot cap on the expansion of the
Stanford Shopping Center. The Midtown neighborhood commercial area and University
A venue Downtown business district were not part of this study.
smpy FINDINGS
In general, !he consultants found that the rate of retail sales gro",~~ that occurred in the City
in the 19705 and 80s is unlikely to continue in the 1990s given the projected lack of gro",!h
in employment and income expected in this area. This projected employment slowdown,
coupled with decreasing retail spending overall, aging population, and changes in perceived
retail needs, will ultimately effect the long-run competitive strength of the City's retail
commercial areas. In addition, the consultants determined tbat a number of zoning
restrictions imJX)sed in the 19705 and 805 limit property owner and reta.i1ers options, and
contribute to the continued deterioration of the City's neighborhood and El Camino Real strip
cornmerclal sh opping areas.
)jfft::: l
-;-"~1":
-
.1
-
Implicil in the Gruens' findings regarding the impacts of restrictive wning provision.> is Lf)o=
timirlg of their effecLr.;;. Dl1ring times of n!pid commercial ar'ld office grO\ltt.1, as exper:ienc~
b the 19705 2nd 19805, restrictions to control the "excesses" cre.aT!,,d by reaJ estate
specuiatiC"n and o .... e.·'3bundant financing may well have been appropriate itrId necessary.
Those same zoning provisions, however, can become I..lnnecess.ary a."1d overly fe!.tr1cti\"e
during times of economic stagnation or re.cessio:!'1, as we are experiencing now and may weil
experience thorughoui the 199Os.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMEND:\TlQ1'{5
A summary of the staff recommendations is as folJows.
L Delay the remo·.'aI of the 65;:O(),J-squ.are~foot deve~("\"ment cap or.. L'le SWjford
Shopping Center until such time as the Sand Hill R .d extension is resolved.
2. Remove the Floor Area Ratio limitations w:thin the Hot'!] Overlay Zone.
3. Remove the 20,OOO-square-foot cap on grocery stores wil'rJ the Neighborllood
Commercia] {eN) zones.
4. Lower the parking requirements in ord.er to allow remodeling and expanslon within
the City's neighborh~ commercial centers.
5. Revise tlle City"s multiple family zones: to relax floor area ratios/restrictions.
6. Facilitate parcel mergers along El Camino Real by:
a. simplifying the parcel map proc.eS.$; and
b. allowing use entitlements to be cumulative ~'here mergers oc.cur.
7. Exte."d the 1993 amortizatlon period of eXlsting Tlon-conforming uses along El
Camino Real south of Page MllJ Road W"lt.il such time as the Comprehensive Plan
update is complete and attendant zoning actions are in plau:.
8. Streamline the Planned Community Zone and Slte. and Design process to permit
earlier conceptual review by Cily Council of major project proposals.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Stanfgrd Shopping Center
"The Stanford Shopping Center is the City's onJy substii.:ltlal destination rel.a.il center.
2l21)92
Page 2
Revenues to the Cit)' from the Center represenr 6% of the total general fund revenues for
the City of Palo AltO. and average retail sales per square foot for the er,tlre center (anchors
plus sat.cllites) is in .excess of $450 per square foot, nearly Nw'ice the na~onal average for
major I'!gional cem~rs. As suc!l, Stanford Shopping Center reFresents one of the Cit(s
major revenue and service resources. Since August of 1990, a deve!opmern cap of 65,000
additional ~uare feet has been imposed' by Lie City of Palo Aito. Approximaic1y 45,COO
square feet of the 65,CXJO-square-foot cap remain:; fer minor additions and f'!modehng. The
purpose of this cap is to limit future grnv...th of the center, :md partlcu1arly new anchor u~s
('oIw'hich require l..!pwards of 125,000 squa!'e feet), due to t.""afrlc conge-.sdon on Sand Hill Road
and eI1vlrons ami: concomitant parking probler..s. The consultants rec.ommend remov'il of tbe
cap in order to increase the flexibility of the Center to expand, particulariy in the area of
entertainment uses, such as a theater comp!ex, should that be desirable, aJld to ac.ccml'!lOOate
a seventh anchor use comparable to Stanford's major-comfIf'W~, 1J!".ion Square in San
Fr.mdsco.
Staff concurs with the consultant's assessment of import to the City of ll)e S:.anford Shopping
Center. We believe, how~r, that removal of the cap should accompany a resolution of the
Sand Hill Road extension. Removal of the cap without this would be primarily s.ymbolic in
nature, since the lack of any viable SaTld Hill Road extension, regardless of 'its IT.J.gnitude or
configuration, is the de facto limitation on the ability of Slanford Shopping Center to either
expand or add in'(cnsive new uses. This is acknowledgec! by the Center's management.
Under the Sand Hill Comdor procedural framework: agreement between the Ci:y iIld the
University. the University is obligated to initiate the En\'ironmentaJ Impact Report
application process with the City. and that tlJ.S not yet been done, City staff an.ticipace
re.:eiving the application L'1is month, but recent conversations wilh University staff suggest
Liar: such an application may not be forthcoming in the near future due to cost ronsiderations.
California Avenue Commercjal District
The California Avenue business area was found to be relatively healthy. A new parking
structure is presently under study for this area, which Yo.'ill help to militate merchants
continued concerns with inadequate parking. In tl-,e 1984 CaJ.ifomia Avenue Siudy, a floor
area ratio of 2:1 was applied to this area. Subsequen! to t.i;e impositicn of a 2:1 floor area
.ratio (FAR), the Downtown Study, adopted.in i9-86, imposed a 1:1 FAR for t~e entire
downtown area,
Staff notes tbe !nconsistency in having a substantially higher development .JX)lentiaI for the
CaJjfomia Avenue BUsiness DisLrict than the University Avenue downtown area. It is,
however, .relatively inconsequential in t.od&y's financing market, when little or no money is
available for commercial office development. It should be noted that higher PARs are
l.Innecess.ary for retail development. and rna!:. consequently lowering or raising the FAR from
2:1 to ]:] or vice versa would have minima! impact on retail development. It has been
planning staff's intent, since the adoption of the Citywide land Use and Transportation Study
L
2/21192
Page 3
I
r r· --.... -~---
-
ill 1989, to init:iate a zoniflg text a..'";1endmen! to lower the FAR to 1: I in t11r'! California
Avenue Business District; however, du~ to lack of deveiop1T'ent activity in the area and
higher-priority work, this has not been lJr,dertaken. Unle.o;;s direcled hy Council otherwise, it
is staff"s intent to initiate-revisions tu Lt,e FAR restricticns in this area, but on a low-priority
b;:sis.
Or..e of the reasons for the continued ec.onomic health of the Ca!~fJ-rnia Av(',nue Buslness
District is activity from Stanford Research Park employment, parJcularly ir. the :Jse of
restaurants. Sta:lford University's reaJ estate management division. is in the process of
developing a s::rategic plan to address issues related to future park: tenancy, park amenities,
and services required for a modem research park. One area of special r:eed t'1iat has-been
. identified is hotel and meeting room 'pace_ Plan, for the Westin Hotel at Sand Hill Road
and Interstate 280 in Menlo Park have been shelved, and the possible sale of both Pal" Alto
Hyatt hotels further clouds the mid-to long-term picture fOI ~ote1Jmeeting facilities in Palo
Alto. Of interest to the Urlversity is the Page MilliE Camino Real intersection area, which
is pr--...sently planned for high dt-.nsit)l housing (former Mayfield School ~ite. former restaurant
and the BP service station) and office uses on the Hewlett-Packard site, The urban design
aspect.."i of that location for a major retaiUhoteVoffice commercial project, as an entry feature
to t..'ie park and its offset location at tne terminus of the CaEfornia Avenue Business District,
are veiY appealing. Any change in use designation for that area would requL~ a
comprehensive plan .am .. ~dment, wning change, and a subsrantia! change in the alo-a.iIabillty
of hotel financing.
The consultants found all neighborhood shopping c.enters studied to be in some degree of
economic stress. In particular, the Alma Shopping Center was viewed aJ, most vulnerable to
changed conditions_ This center is undersized and lacks street viSlbilit"j to Alma. \\1tile the
Alma Plaz.a Lucky's mar'ket has repeatedly expressed a desire to expand from its ex.isting
9~OOO-square-foot facility, lack of agreement wit.i the .second owner (the parcel containing
the satellite stores) and inability to meet the City's siIingent ret.ai1 parking regulations has
rendered expansion virtually impos.sible. Finally, L~e 20,OOO-square-foot cap on grocery
stores imposed in the eN district provides little incentive for a market to res.olve the leasing
and parking hurdles CL-'iSOCi.a.ted with c\:'etl minor expansion.
The con5ll1tmts recommend the removal of the 20,OCO-square-foot cap on grocery store size
in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts, and staff concurs with this
recQmmendation, Major grocery stores today rang.e in size from 40,000 to 60 ,000 square
feet, yet all of Palo Alto" markets .. ." in the area of 15,000 10 20,000 square feet. Given
the other many constraints of expanding in the neighborhood commercial areas, including
those along we El Camino Real, an arnitrary s.Ue restriction whkh reflects ma.r'ket conditior.s
of twent)' years ago is an unnecessary burden. The consuicants accurately note that the
City·s stringent parking regulations for retail govern uses and center size far more than any
L
2121192
Page 4
, floor area ratio resdctions. The recent remodeling efforts (Jf the Charleston Center have
borne that to be true, as parking was the major impediment to more aggressj .... e center
expansion.
In addition leo elimination of the grocery store size restridions, the consultants recommend
reducing the retail parking requirerr,ents to 4.5 spaces per thousand square feet or lower.
According to thi! Gluens, actual usage in neighborhood com~ercitd centers demonstrate a.
need for parldng at a ratio of 3.5 spaces per ulOusand squ>.n: feel. At the February 13,1992,
Planniilg Commission meeting, the Commissioil considered revised parking requirements for
retail uses .and rec.ommended to the City Council that a reqi.lirement of 5 spa..::e.s per thousand
square fret be imposed in lieu of the 6.6 spaces pet thousand presentiy required. \Vhile this
adjustment will aDeviate the problem of meeting parlring requi;ements somev.rhat, the facts
are that neiEhborhood shopping Centers i-a.."-eiy exhibit the demand fOf parking found 1n new
and more aggressi\fe strip commerdal and destination rel'lil developmenL Staff recommends,
therefore, that further study of the parking requirements for t~e neighborhood centers be
ronduct.ed, with the inrent to return to Ole Pianning Commission and City Council with
n.vised parking regulations. In the interim, some relief win be available with the lower
requirements consideP'....d by the Planning Commi.ssion at its February 12th meeting and
scheduled for Council review on March 9.
Hotel Overlay lime
In conjunction with the adoption of the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study in
1989, a new hotel overlay zone was created, with the intent to provide some incentives for
existing botels to ex:pan::l or remodeL Three of Lie City's four major hoteis are zoned PC,
Planned Community, a zonlng whk.'I] seLs its oown developmenc parameters. Consequently, the
apph,"",ility of the hotel overlay rone is somewhat lirnite<l, and the Floor Area RAtio of 0.6
FAR (versu, hi. 0.4 FAR pennisslble in the CS zone) has only been applied to two facilities,
Hyatt Rickey·s and Dinar:s MoteL Neither facility has chosen to expand unde! the overlay
zone provisions, which requires approval of a Site and Design application. Two of the
City's major hotels along the El Camino Real, H)'att Rickey's and Hyatt Cabana j are
presently being marketed.
The consultants conclude that the hotel overlay zone FAR restlicaofl'i are too ]ow to attract
interest in new hotel const:n.ictlon or major remodeling. and staff agrees wit.i that assessment
Many of the provisior,s of the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Srudy were driven I:ly
jong-tenn stated city policy to reduce employment growth. FARs are an appropriate tool for
office uses, in that square footage is more directly related to employment, which in turn is
directly relared to traffic. Imposition of FARs for hotel purposes is much less applicable.
since trip generation of Olese uses is pri.rnarily based on the number of rooms and meeting
facilities, and hotel trip generation per 1,000 square feet of floor area, is substantially lower
than most other employment or commercial uses. The architectural style of the hotel, U!e
nature of the facility, the higher proportion of corridor space in hotels and the extent of
2121192
Page 5
-
meeting room and conference space: are all dete:mi::la.n~ of FAR, and they vary considerably
from one type of hotel facility to another. ]n comld~ring the h,1tel overlay zone in the
City\'ide srudy, an FAR of 0.75 was -,' ,;ally proposed by staff as being refle.-tive of !he
"boutique" hotel f -ket of the time, ex.hibited t y Stanford Coun in. Menlo Par'k).
Markets chang~,. ,Never, and the Gruer.::; suggest thaI F ARs 0 f 1: 1 to 2: 1 are necessa.ry to
axcmmodate n~' rlotels today, particularly If any substantial meeting room space is w be
provided.
It is staff'$ opinion that tl-},e issue of building mass, ..... hkh i~ wnat FARs govern, is
adequately addressed _ !he Planned Community wning process, or in !he case of the H~"'l
Overlay Zone .. L~e Site and Desigr. process. Trip .=.eneration j:; addressed -by the
environmental review process. Consequef:.uy, we feei it unnecess.a.ry to impose at! FAR cap
on hotels, and concur with the consultants' assessment that it is aJi impediment, rallJer than
an incentive, to new hotel development or expansIon of existing facilities. It is
.recommended, therefore, t.'at the Hotel Overlay Zone be amended to delete FAR restrictions.
E1 Camino Real
The consultants found a number of issues at play with the City's strip commercial uses akmg
E1 Camino Real. As with tile City's m:i~hborho--....d commercial centers. lack: of demand,
building obsolescence, and changed economic conditions have ltd to delerioration in the
economic health of El Camino Real. The consuhants al~ note, hm\'e\'er. 'the effect of capital
gains income tax laws work against property sales and, concomitantly, redevelopment of
some sires. In some cases, city zoning regulations are cited as impediments to a healthy
economic climate along the El Camino Real
Most imJX>rtantly. the consulwmts implicitly state that the \0131 volume of comme:<cial uses
along the El Camino cannot be .upported by exi.ting neighborhoods in the city. and therefore
alternative uses should be considered for at least portion~ of the strip. The Gruens note: Lhat
the smaller, shallower parcels backing onto s~ngle famiiy res.~dential are perhaps least
IY..lnducive to commercial uses, while the larger, dee.per parcels ,ould accommodate more
intensive retail node.r; 'W'ith minimal residefiU<:l conflicts. This approach represents Ll-Je
reverse of land use policy direction it. the 1970s a.'1~": J 9801, which resulted in matly large
parceb being d~ignated fa. multiple family residential development, while the smaller
parcels were retlined ion eN and, in some cases., CS zoning.
Clearly. such land use issues go beyond the .scope of thls s.tudy, and are more appropriately
dealt with as part of the upcoming Comprehensive PI.m l!pdate. However, some actions can
be mitiated in the interim to provide greater fl:xibility for El Camino Real property O'WnCTS
and retailers, without comprumising existing land use policies as follows.
fared Combination -At present, the City's zoning restrictions work against parcel
combination for new development or redevelopment of existing sites.. Both the eN
L
2121192
Page 6
··r
,_ ... " ........ _---
L
and CS zones contaltl provisions which reslJit in entitlement los:~s if parcels are
combined. For exampJe, maximum SQuare footage of office uses are imposed
regardless of parcel size, such that the owner of a twelve-tho'Usatld-square-foot parcel
may have. a five-tho1Jsan(!-square-foot office: bu.ilding, but if he or she <:ombi:les the
pa.-ce1 "'1m an adjaceflt property, regardless of size: only five thousand square feet of
office is permissible. Clearly l"rtis works again:;.t parcel CC'lmbination, and may also
impede financillg of commercia] projtC'ts, sil1ce muitipTe property lines (and therefore
potentlal multiple ownerships) can present a higher risk to lenders. Even j:f these
impediments arc. rt..mo .... ed by tJlo"'ing cumulative entitlements, the process for parcel
combination is; arduous. Linder city regulation ... , a patcel map mU:i~ be approved by
the City Council, a Jenglhy and potentiaHy expensive proceeding.
In 1987 ~ in recognition of .a comparable burden to comb~ne properties in single
family residential districts, the city adopted a lot merger proces.s. to facilitate e<\Sy, and
less expensive 10( combinations. ft is the PlanJ~itlg staff's intention 10 propose a
similar process for commercial and muitiple family lot combinatioo.s at an upcoming
Planning Commission meeting. It 1S also recommended that text revisions be initiated
to allow for cumulative entitlements where lot mergers are approved in both the eN
and CS dhtriClS. The latter would result in no new net lncr~i in eJ;isting uses Li.an
thGse considered under tllt Cityv.'ide l.aJld Use a.'1d Transponation Study of 1989.
Mu1tiple:E~jJy Densities -Both the CS and eN uming districts permit multiple
family developments at RM 30 2..'1d RM 15 densities, respectively. The consultants
note, however, that market conditions for "For Sa)e"" cOIJdominiums (1.e., i.arager
units with ample parking) a..--e difficulll.O achieve with maximum der.sities given
parking requirements and FAR restrictions. PlarmirJ.g staff, atld particularly the
architectural review board sta.ff, have become increasingt)' aware of these and other
issues in implementing the City's multiple family regulations, whkh were rewritten in
19:88 .. -\t that time, FAR re&trictions ",:ere imposed for tne first time within the City's
multiple family 2ones. Experiem:e with real development "tests" of the multiple
family zDnes support the Gruens' cop-elusions. The most recent eX-2;ceroating factor
has been the impos.ition of much. more stringent h3...~,Ecap parKing req"Jirerr.ents
imposed by the State, which in addlticn may nece:s:sit2te a -set-aside-for handicap
parking should it be requested in the future. Due to all of these factors, it is planning
staff's intent to initiate, for Planning Commission and City Council con.s.ideration 1 text
amendments to revise the pennlssible FARs within all of the multiple family zones.
Non-Conforming Uses -The cons~!tants stroJl.gJy recommend the relocation of the
non--confonning uses along the E1 Camino to other, unspecified area.s. of the City. In
1993~ twenty-three busines.ses on or near El Camino Real, many of t11em automotIve
servjce related, are schedu.!r.d to go out of business. \Vhile staff supports the
consultant's desires to re1ocat~ these uses, \he short-term practicality of such
relocation, given Palo Alto's built-out .-:onditions and high land value~, is grim
L
2/21J92
Page 7
;'.,.
r.· t
indeed. \\o'e agree Vr'ith the Grue:ns' a.ssessment tfJ.at such uses are best located' in
isolation frem higher end c..oremerdal areas am! re.s~clentia1 neighborhoods, but o'Jt<;ide
of the City's industrial areas and Urban Lane, few such areas exist. Finally, L"1e
consultants. conclude that the 19,») vacation of many of the ex~sting buildings along
the El camino Real to comply with the City·s amortization schedule 11,,'ill lead to
further deteriorarion of tl1e City's commer~ia1 strip.
Historically? PaJo Alto has sUcc.!ssfully imposed amonization on non-co:1fonoing uses In
order to facilitate new, and better planned, development. We see two major problems \I,:iL;
the immediate loss of nor.-conformir'g uses along the El Camino, howe.,:er. The firsl is l'l.l[
the vast majority of those to be amortized are automotive sen;ce related, and their demise
will suhsta.lltially Jimic Palo Alta.'ls' choic.s for normal ... ·ellicle maintenance a.nd repair,
Secondly. while the non-cunforming uses are scheduled for rennination l any other
colT'.merciaI use permissible \l,filltin the eN di.s.trict may take their p13ce. If we concur with
the consultant's findings that the: E! Camino has too much: commercial zoning altogether, we
could expect to see contimJoo deterioration regardless or the existence, or non-exisli:nce, of
these non-confonnlng uses. Add~tionally I enforcement of the amQrtization schedule could
res.uH in new leases for possibly marginal commerci.al uses on sites that may be considered in
tl\e net so distant f\lture for reside-ntial zor.tng.
III staffs. opinlon, the long term ~and use issues ah:mg El Camino Real should be evajuated )n
the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. Artificial forces to change one CDmmerci.a.l u:;e to
another commercial use should be avoided in liIe interim. Consequently, ',A.·e recommend the
e:::;;:tension of L~e amortization for existing non-confonn[ng uses locared along the E1 camino
Real until such time as the Comprehensive Plan update, and comp!emenlar)' zoning changes,
are in pIau.
Process chane-es tQ allow earl)' acceptapce of ne~' uses -The consultants recommend
that some form of '"advance confirmation'" of the acceptability of new uses be
instituted' in order to mitigate the uncertainty of processing plans for approval in the
City"s commercial areas. We do nOi beliell.e. the uncertainty in plan appro .... al is a use
problem -indeed, L"rJe City's commercial wning districts are quite liberal it! their
permissible uses. Many of the recommend3tions contained in this report, if
implemented, will ~elp to alleviate the difficulties of ctevelopme"t plan preparation by
providing increased flexibility v.ithin the City"s commercial and mu1tiple family
zones. The wrnpticaterl struCl\lre of tl\¢ City"s Planned Community zoning and Site
and Design application processes are such, however, that early Planning Commission
and Cjty Councillnput on a project at the conceptual ie'o'el js indeed diffIcult to
achieve. During lllc: City'ool.'ide Land Use and Transportation StudYt Council directed
staff to return to the Planning Commission with proposed revisions to the Planned.
Community wne process to addre..c:,s the issue of having an early conceptual review.
The Commis~on subsequently recommended no change 10 the process. We
L
2121192
Page 8
f
\' , ,~~~:;~':: ,,'
t ,_~~~~f',>.'· .~ ... -
d (
l
-
recommend revisiting thos.! decisions, and sug,gest that staff return to the Planning
Commi.'is.ion wit; proposals to simplify the PC and Site and Design processes.
RECOMMENPATlOIll
StarT recommends discassion of each individual recommendation su,ggeste.1, with spedfic
di!ccticn to staff for follow-t.:p studies where appropriate. Where consensus is lacking. a
vote to detennine speciflc direction would be instructi\'~.
1. Delay the removal of the 65 I OOO-square-foot developme.."lt cap on the StaJ:iford
Shopping CerJter until su.ch time as the Sa.nd Hill Road ex.tension is, resolved. _
2. Remove the Floor Area Ratio limitations wit'lin the Hotel Overlay Zone.
3. Remove the 20,000 square foot cap on grocery stores with the Neighborhood
Commerdal (eN) zones.
4. Lower the parking requirements in order to allow remodeling ll1d expansion within
the City'oS neighborhood commercia] centers.
5. Revise the City's muItipie family wnes to reiax floor area !iltioslrestrictions.
6, Pacili"'te parcel mergers along the EI Camino Real by:
a. simplifying the parcel map process; and
b. a11ol401ng use entitlements to be cumulative where mergers occur.
7. Extend the 1993 amortization period of existlng non-conforming uses a.!ong the El
Camino Re2J until such time as the Comprehensive Plan updale is complete and
attendant ron ing actions are in pI ace.
8. Amend the Planned Community Zone and Site .and De~ign proc.ess to permit earlier
conceptual review by City CO'Jr-cil of major project pT01XJsa1s.
RespectfuUy submitted,
/,(:{?''''~'-f£ ,X:~J,/t~<.,~~~ .~ / -'~
:x~'
KENNETH R. SCHRElBER
Director of Planning and
Community uYlronmenl
/--;) 1,>1 "
Lib-?!) (!.g;'J/Y/:--iU
,,/"
CAROL JANSEN
Office of the City Momser
Economic Resources Planning
2;21/92
Page 9
.' ..
, ":;
,~",
-~-----
~'
-
'.
Planning Commlssioll
ArchitectunJ Review Board
Cbamber of Com merce
Stanford University (Andy Defy, Diane Hea!e:", Phil Williams)
Stanford Shopping Center (David Longbine)
Charleston Meodow. Neighbo,hood Association
Barron Park As..sociation (John Joynt, Bob Moss)
Barron Square Condo Association
InterdaIe V-lay HOmCOlAollerS Association
Park Central Commercial Condominium Association
Ventura Nei,ghborhood Association
Hoover Park NeighborhOC'ld Associativn
Grecnmeadow Community Association
College Te"""" Neighborhood A=iation
Evergreen Park Neighborhood A=iation
Gr.mt Aver,ue Condominium Owners Assodation
Chestnut-Wilton Homeowners Association
Charles Keenan
James E. Baer
Warren Thoirs
Joseph Hirsch
Economic Outlook Com mittee Memlx:rs
Economic Resources Planning Committee Members
Attendees at 2113192 Chamber of Commerce Meeting
2121192
Page JO
-
I
"I
I
"'>~~i" .. ~-:.
-
•
SUMMARY OF PRI~JCIPAl CONCLUsrONS
THE NEED ~OR PROACTIVE PUBLIC POLICY
The City of Poro A!to wi!! rleed to take :3 proacti'l& stance to encoUfesye me long-run
physical main~er:ance ar.d fiscar t1ea!th of its re':.aiiing bas~. In an era of hearrhy
ecol1omic growth and slJfGir;g cemartd, such a5 Palo Alto exper~encerj in the '70's.
City poricies v'Jhich were primari',y dire::.:ted at redvcing negative eX1ernaEties i;.ke
traffic did not result in a !"'loticea::'l~ reduction in sales fevenues. In the economic
climate of the '90's. when Palo Alto is foreca,<;;t to ex~erience a slowdo'iJ'tn or even a
negative trend in the growth of employment and in~ome [S8<;-Chapter II), po\ici-es
which adver,,,ely impact t!1e rong-run competitive strengtn o~ the City'S retailing areas
need to be ri;:-eva1va!ed lf the City wishes to aVDid the loss of future sales revenues
and the detp,.~[oration of some of J'::5 !':ncpping areas.
This ,projected slowdown in the-g,'o\Nth of empi.oYinent and incom.e in combin2~ion
with other demand dampenIng conditions induding a decrease in th~ proportion of
disposable income consumers spend in retai' storE'S. the aging of tfl,e papufat;,on
(older populations tend to spend less on retail goods than do younger-aged adults).
and a reduction in the amount of goods that t;,e consumer feels he or she ~needs·.
are working together to darken the demand picture faced by the City's merchants.
This ch"mge from the demand cond~tions that have historicaHy app"ed to Palo Alto
makes for a particularly competitive situat~on now because of the farge arno~nt of
additiona' retail space thin ~as been built .. vithin the region during the last decade of
real estate o ..... er-optimi:.m. The dramat:c natwre of the ch~nge j., demand is reflected
in a 7.2 percent decline in inflation adjusted jr.-store retail sales t·etween 1988 and
1990. This decline was calcl..ila: _ by deflating Palo Pdto's retail sales by the
Consumer Price Ifldex (CPI) and deducting the growir:g amount of retail sales dollars
from nonstore sales. It is the consultants' opinion that the recent decline of retai'
sal~s within Paro Alto stores is not just a biip caused by the recession but stems
fr.am these more persistent demand-influencing trends.
Gruen Gruen + Associates
L
· ",
AREA·SPECIFJC ~r.JClUSIONS
Stanford Shopping Center
The Stanford Shopping Cerner, which cOrltin',Jes to be healthy, is the Clty':s mast
impo~af'1t destinat'ton shopping a~ea s~rvlrlg the enrJre peninsula. rt:5 .... ery important
that municipal pOliC"y perm;: th~5 Center to continue to enjoy hs regional d-amir.snce
As discusssd in Chapter V, the Lrpgrading of 1:1-)e San Artonio Center in Mountain
View js not flkeiy to th;eaten the viability of the Stanfo~d Shof:ping Center.
Ho ..... e .... er. if this C~mterfs to continue the adaptatio~s r~Qui,ed for it to mafntair. its
dominance. the CIty's present 65,OOO-square-foo! growth cap must be removed.
Furthermore, it would very much be to t:-'e best interest o~ t;'~ City and the
Shopping Center i~ they could \Nark tog-ether to solve the very signiflcant
traffi-:;/transjJortation probferll C8Lised by the rack of a Sand Hiri Road extension.
Without the Sand Hill Road extension, Stan1crd \vould nat be abre to aCCt.lmmod:.::tr::
an additior.al anchor. tho~gh it might be ab:e to add :nore space than the present
cap would aflow [n a multrp!ex theatre comp'ex and other n'ghttjme entertainment
facilities. Such nighttime activities, wr,en locaTed in major regiona! shopping
tenters, are less likely to create the-traffic and pi:irking impacts that a major d<lytime
draw would be expected to encourage. Such complementary us.:!s encouraQe shared
parking opportunities.
The Ca~fornia Avenue District and the
Town & Country ShQQP.ing Centf'.~
80th the Cafifornia Avenue 8usiness District end the Town & Country Shopping
Center were found to be bss1caily healthy and capable of adopting to future
compEtitive condit'lons in the retail marketplace (refer to Chapter fiJI. However. it is
imp.ortant for the City to proceed witr. the implementatiDn or t~e parking expansion
in the California Avenue Business District to be accomplisned by the parking
jmprovement district. Current land use regL.:lstions which altow a fiDor area ratio of
~J ' M. "0< ,. ", •• ,
Gruen Gruen + Assoclales
A finding influencing all of the study areas is that it is the
1
-
-
parking regulations. nut t)-le fliJcr area r.atio, that clJrrent!y c~t as the major re:gulatory
inf~uence en density. Panicul,ar attentioJ1 will nave to be paid to enco'J;aaing the
cor,tinved enha01C81Tlent of the Cahfo..-nra AvenLJe Business District'S rstali and food
service !::pace, if retail expansion takes place with;~ r,rlE-Stanford Research Park.
Should the City pursue its c .. men! poljey and IO'Nef the district's FAR tIJ the same
l:l ratio th~t is existe;;t in the downtown, the redJced FAR ~'\'~II miljtate against the
developolent of mid-risa office structures on top of ground ~e .... 'e! retair \I'.!)-',jch, jt"1 turn,
wili alter the longer-term retls.e; patterns of the Dis"rict,
Conditions within ne(ghborho.od shcppinQ centers are cOr"1s:derably Jess salutary, as
discussed in Chapter IV. It w~rl be difficult for many cf Pa'o Arto's existing
neighborhood centers to avoid becomif19 increasir.gly obsoleTe. In order to increase
their ability to respond to the demands of their mar-kets. the City should consider the
foflowJng policy changes:
1. Parking requirements per square fOCJt of retail arld restaL.:rant
space should be lowered for neighb~rhood centers.
Em~JricaJ studies perfDrmed by organizations like The Urban
Land Institute suggest a 4.5 ratio to be more th·.ln <ldequate
for most-sized shopping centers.
2. T!"I€ elm'ent ca~ of 20,000 square feet on grocery STOles
~hould be E'lim'tllated. If they are r.ot. the City wiJl lose
increasing dollars to those adjacent cornmun;ties that
provide sites for large supermarkets.,
3, The potential for !he comersron Df pcm;ons of obsOlete
centers to residentiel use shoula' be enhanced by incri!ssing
the certai:1ty that densities between i 5 and 25 unlts to the
3
Gruen Gru~n + Associa!es
L
",
I
er.re would be allowed on portions 0' S\,JC'11 fl~ighbo(hC'>od
centers,
The E1 Camino Real
Th! inttlrp:ay of the appl~cable real estate economics, the relative ~ack of demafld for
the kind of space that exists today, the income tax laws, and Palo Alto's piannrng
reguiatiQI1s a~i work te mHil,.2te against the convefsiol1 of obsolete properties along
the El Camino i'1tc more e.concmically healthy uses [,.efer to Chapter lin, This:s not
to sa). that some such conversions 'NilJ not take place, t~e)i will. Ho .... ·ever. a not
insignificant portion of the property owners within the area are W<ely to c'Ut
maintenance costs to the bone and perm'! their prope-nies!IJ continue to deteriorat~
in an effort to wring some income cut cd what ',Nill be a difficult situation. While
some conversi{Jns to residentiai uses are taking place, that market is v€ry thin -C!r'ld
there is very little potential for additi'Jr,al cOi:ver.sioros wnless effective densities in the
15· to .25-acrs range ere permitted.
D'iscussiClnS with developers lead the consultants tD conciude that e).istjng
regulations as they are implemented do not pro'..-ide any assurances of residential
densiti-es in the 15-25-per-acre range. One problem is that the av€rage size of for
sale cor,dominium units dictated by the developers' perception of the for-sale rnari<et
is rr,ucn larger than the average .size of the spartm,;nt ur'lits envi5~or.ed when th~
Floor Area Ratjas (FAR) called fer in the ordfnance were drElfted. Therefore, because
of farger than anticipated units, t1",,= effect of the FAR ru~!:! is to decrease maximum
density. The combination of height, buJk and parking regurations (two or more
pa-:.k.ing stalls_are required by the market for higher-priced condomlniums) also ar~
working to lower the effective densities of res;dential units. The Crty may wish to
consider dow!1zoning the shallower par.:eis along the EI Camilla from eN to P.M-' 5
or RM·30 to encourage the orderly tranSJtion from increaSingly obsolete to more
desirable land use~ while, at thE same time, altering the permitted parkin{l rat;.os and
FAR's to refiect ;''''"Ie demand for somewhat larger-sized condominIums.
4
Gruen Gruen + Associates
'L
. ""'"' ..
,.~~-'
':'\'~~.~:l 1:
-
The amOlJnt ot small stores and space on wh:cll smaJr sto'es -:an bt: bllir~ exceeds
th~ dema'1ds for such :space. The removal of nonccnformrng uses a.,d, in fact, the
anticipation of such removal. will lend to lo'.ver (he ask~ng priCE: of some properties.
This may create oppo;tunities for .some ir.r.o'iati\i.e n.,;:w r~creationar arrd
€ntenainme,nt uses such as Sports bars, ~ndoor game CEn~ter.s catering to yownger-
aged children, multipiex o. s;:Jeciaiized movie theatre ~cr:'1piexE's,
innovatiQf'ls ,ere riot Hkeiy to be imnlem.:-,.."r.,':i L1ni'E!Ss the Cit'! ::do;ns iii more fi-:xjbJe.
and posjtive policy toward the creation of such new developments. Tli'ls is bec2use
land assemblages and/or major remodeJing eHorts are iik~ly to be requ;red to create
ilew use opportunities. Wo'ulc!-be land assemblers 2nd remodelers could be
encouraged it the City adoPtEo' a pcricy that el1etJed developers to cbtaii1
confirmation in a-Jvance that the City would allow variances I:, existing regurations L1
cCjses wi-.ere redevelopment or rehabjlitation would worK t::: facl!itate new ';iabre USES
that create no more traffic or ether problems than the s~etus qwo.
If the City wishes to ir")crease the number of Paio Aito's retaiJ/"isitor entertaJnment
developments serving the regional market, it must search for opportunities to create
relatively farge agglomerations. One site that wouid seem idear fOf both a la:ge new
hote} and additional office space wtlEn the market for such uses retuons would be
the corner of Page Mill Road and Ef Camino. It is unlikely that the currerH over!Ci y
:t.oning over the Ricky's Hyatt pmperty wrfl en,:owrage the redevel<Jp.'T1-Ent of that
large site for hotel use, The currel"1t dernel,d for r.e-w /",or-e.' !CQrns is ve~y Yie.;:\::
throughout the country beca'Jse mC\st areas are s:gnificantly ove-rbuiit GG +J... (>BS
not conducted an analysis c~ tJie demandiS'Jpply refatior-:ship for t.~e Cit)· of Falo
A:to, but jf Pa!o Alto's si:-uation is s;mija~ to most U.S loci3ti::ms. there is unlike-!y to
be sufficient dEmand to encourage new development until the latter part of this
decade. Even whe,l this new demand would warrant addftional no!el roO"ls. the
staWs proposal. in the 1989 City-wide land Use end Transportation StudV. of Ci .75
FAR. would be unlikejy to induce the. required finar;cial investment, A 1:1 FAA
would perm;t a first-class 350'[oom hotel with limited conference faciljties A 500-
to 700-room facility with imen.se retaiiing developrne.nt and the abilJty to handle
regionat meetings might require up to a 2.1 FA.,R, In order to create nEW regkmal
Gruen Gruen + Assoclates
•
-. -
-.~~ .
. ;~~~:~,,~~~.
. ::," . ~. <~f.::\ '.' ", _:c,3;~, .~.
+~f;~~:if;.~.;.~_}_::\-_____ _
nodes of 8ct,vit:es ano enc,;:n.!r2gt: th.e adopti\le and bel"eficial re'Jse at properties in
the EI Camino study area, ir,:rE'~sed pionnjllg frexibinty 3r1d a prcac,tive aui
toward creativE> possibilities would be tlerpflil.
Further, action should be tak~n now to reiocate the n,Gncoj'lor~Lig uses, particularly
autcrnobifC? uses, that wilJ have to move from t:-,e: EI Camino in 1993. The
consultants are not in the position to recommend a speCific receiving ares(sj.
Urlfortunetefy. auto-related U1es require large amounts of space at: relative1y low
rents. They also need to be relatively se!f'comained a~d iSOlated from higher-end
cammerci.eJ and resident1al uses.. Regurations that work to improve the aestheti:-s of
an 8.ea militate against its use fOf automobile-related services. Zoning can be
utilized to preserve an area for al.Jto-related uses but this zoning snould not be used
to keep other lncubator uses out, The SOFA area curre"t~y contains a \tariety of
uses that might confl;ct with an avtc-relatad zoning, W11ile we hc::ve not stud!ed the
area in sufficient depth to designate it to bs the best receiving loc?tran, Urban lane
would appear to warrant further study for a pcte:1tial r.azor.;ng cecause it aHe.s ari
accessible location that is aiso well buffeted from competing uses.
Finally. we recommend that the trends we have presented and attempted to
interpret in this report be monitored by the City Or) al1 ongo;ng basis.
5
·~iJf··· --
I
~.
I .-
---
-
March 6,1991
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, california
Ex!ension of 1993 Amortization Period
For Exiuini Noncpnfouning Uses Along El Caml~
Members of the Commiss.ion;
Thioreport includes additional information, as requested Fobruary 26, 1992. The february 21,
1m, staff report and the Planning Policy Audit of Relail Areas in the City of Palo Alto,
prepared by Gruen Gruen + Associates, \JI.'3S distributed in tbe February 21. 1992, Planning
Commissicm paclreL If you need additional oopies conlact Cathy Jones, 329-2440.
Recommendation 7 of the February 21. 1992, staff report to the Pla.'1ning Commission en the
Gruen Gruen + Associates study is as follows.
·7. Extend the 1993 arnortizationperiod of existing nonconforming uses along El Camino
Real, south of Page Mill Road, until such time as the Comprehensive Plan update is
complete a.'ld attendant zoning action .. are in place .•
Staff offers the following clarifications and potentia! options regarding that recommendation,
.Extension of the 1993 amortization period for existing nonconforming uses along El Camino
Real would apply only 10 those listed as numbers 8 -23 on P"Ee 39 of the Gruen Gruen +
A:s.sociates report, i. e., those south of Page Mill Road and fronting on El Camino Real. An
extension oftlle amort:i.z.ation period acts, in effect, as a mO!d.torlu:n on amortization, and must,
therefore, be for a date certain. A precise estimate of the time that the Comprehensive Plan
Update and subsequent 1.One changes wilt take is not possible until the Council approves the
Comprehensive Plan update work program in June 1992. At fr..is time, tlIe best estimate of the
time nced.ed for the Plan update and subsequent zone changes is three years, or until mid-1995.
P:\JANSE~\PCGRUEN2 00/06/91 .,.
.'--' '
-
'-
'.
Extension would allow existing uses to be maintained iJntil that future date, and no further.
Consequently, nonconforrntng uses in eN wnes (properties which had been dowD-wr. I from
CS in 1978, such as:a number of .automotive service uses) that cease operation would be 1 lUired
to revert to ,soiM other confonning eN zone use within that three year time period. If presently
zoned eN pa.rceIs containing nonconforming uses were to be rezoned to multiple-famil:. as ;1Mt
of:he City~s Comprehensive Plan update, then no use (.!other than residential would be permitted
on L~Ose sites at the conclusion of the Plan update.
The implications of suci'. an actio:> may be partially anticipated. The Gruen Gruen + Associates
study suggests L"fJ.at if the present amortjzation schedule is realized, t..'I-tere \l.illfmay be a number
of new vacant buildings along E! Camino Real, exacerbating the preser.t situation. A three-year
reprieve, however, may have little long-term JX'sitive impact for individual property O\\o'Tlers,
espectally jf the amortization is eventually imposed ir 1995, or if land use changes from
commercia! to residential are approved in the Comprehensive Plan update, and commercial uses
with their attendanl StnlctJTeS face re:-;ersion to multiple-family residential. Trying at this time
to pick and choose what U~ sholild be termlnated in i993 and which should have an extension
means anticipating what the outcome of the Comprehensive Plan update will be and t""-t co.ud
lead to an impasse in decision making on this recommend2:tion.
In lieu of extension, hcw,"ever, the Planning Commission could consider grandfathering existing
oonconforming uses along H Camino Real until such time as the businesses tennlnate. This
approach is mostly market dependent, i.e., there would ~ no direct City policy forcing uses to
terminate. However, grandfather clauses traditionally contain preclusions of expansion or
limitations on substantia] change to the prO?erty, which would tend to shorten continued Jong
tenn nonconforming use.
Reogmmenclation
Staff reaffirms Reccmmendation 7 of the February 21,1992, staff report_
Respectfully submitted,
J:!P>-L-tR..:scL;L .I
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER "/(,,---
Director of Ptanrung and
Community Environment
ce: Architechual Reyjew Board
Gruen Gruen + Associates
Chamber of Commerce
11 //7 [ a'WVd-;14.J!?~,-
CAROL JAl'jS"EN
Office of the City Manager
Economic Resources Planning
Stanford Univt'rsity (A.'ldy Voty, Diane He.aiey, Phil Williams)
Stanford Shopping Center (David Loogbine)
P:VANSEN\PCGRUEtf2 03/06/92 .,.
L :,:-~ ~
',:.'~ '..
i
I
j ,
-.-.'
Charleston Meadows N,ighborhood Association
Barron Par" Association (Jot-..n Joyo!, Bob Mess)
Bam:m Square Condo Association
Interdale Way Homeowners Association
Park CerJ,ral Commercial Condominium Association
Ventura Neighborhood Association
Hoover Park Neighborhood Associ.tion
Greenmeadow Community Association
College Terrace Neighborhood Association
Ev~re.l\ PaIk Neighborhood Associanon
Grant Avenue Condominium Q<.vr.ers Association
Chestnut-Wilton Homeov.mets Assoc\2.tioT'.
Charles !Ceenan
lames Eo Baer
Warrell Thoits
Joseph Hirsch
Economic OJt100K Committee Members
Ecollomk Resourc.es P.la:nl'1ing Committee Members
Attene= at 2/13/92 Chamber of Commerce Meeting
P~IJANSEN\PCQP,UEN2 03J~I92 0'.
-
March 23. 1990
PLANNING COMMISSION
Pa10 Alto, California
?l'lnned Ccmmur1'~l1_._p'istrir:t ArnendmE'n!J..
Me~bers of the Comrnlss;on:
Bad:.grcuild
Thi> report has b€en prepared 1 n response to a previous Council iECjuest u,at
the PC t Plann~d Community District portion ~f the Zoning Ordinance (copy
attached) be el,'aluated fer ways te simplify the appHcatlon review proc{!s:s. ,1\
simplification ~f the review proc€ss was recommended by the Downtown Amenities
Committee in o~d~r to encQurage p~ojects with public be~efits in the Downtown
area. The request was also based on the Counen··s deSire tc el iminat~
situations where a PC project wou1d n~qllire apprcllal of a subsequent variance,
such as that needed for the rece~t PC zone appTied to ~roperty at 250
University Avenue.
The purpose of tl1is repo,'t is to 1} identify which sections of the PC district
regulations should be conSidered for changes, 2) raise issues related to those
changes t and 3) receive direction from the Cnmmission as to futUre process.
Proposed Amendments
Following are the changes recommended for Commission cnnsideration.
L Increase design fl'!xibility of PC zone so that the FC approv'!l can
incorporate all necessary variances.
2. Allow greater administrative approllals cf minor use and d'9sign changes.
3, Change the PC review process to al1ew for a two-tiered process, approva1
of a preHminary (conceptual) plan ar1d approlla.l of a final (precise)
pl an.
4. Emphasize the intent of the zane to also pro'w'lde for a) inno'Wative design
and design excellence, b) efficie'lt and economic use of land, an-d c)
protection of valuable environmental amenHies.
5. Elimtnate the manddtory inspection requirement.
PCORD2
sc
3/23/S0
-\-
•
.po .•
-
IHC~EASEll DESIGN FLfXIBILrTY
Issue: The PC ordinance now contains a mnimum hEight li!l':it of 50 feet and
twa specia.l req' .. :irement.s sections whic~ limit d€sisn flexibilfty and
unn~cessarily extend the public review process.
DisCIJ.ssi.g":
The specific referenc~ to a 50-root maximum height fSectlon 18.68.1l0(c}]
resulted in the need fa ..... a: recent PC Jpp11catlon tc obtain approval of a
height variance. This was nec:e-ssar)' even after a lengthy public reltie'wri
process~ including public hearings before the Planr,1ng COfmdssiol'l, Historic
Res~urces Board, Architectural Review Soard and ctty Council and after
findings in support of the app11cation had been made.
The f1rst spec'al requirements sect10n of the PC zone [Section J8.58.110(e}]
allows the Planning Cormliss;on to recommend any additional regulations they
consider appropriate for th~ proposed development. The second special
r!qufrements section (Section 18.68.1S0) is similar to all such sections in
ccmmercial and industria1 ~Qnes. and ca~Js for specific setbacks desig~eG to
buffer resi~ential lJses from cCITITJerclal us.es. Staff belie'_'es that listing
specific site dewelopment regulations within t~e PC zone defeats the purpose
of the zone to pr~vide for f1exibility. The PC regulations already call for
suc~ an extensive thorough pub1ic review process, that any site development
regulations proposed as part of the district should be suffic'ier.tly relliewed
in this process. Need for a subsequent variance after the riglJrolJs PC r-eview
process results in unnecessary dup1ication of review and e~aluation.
It is the intent of the PC zone t~ establish de~elopment reguTations that
allow fo~ flexibility yet provide fer sufficient light, air, open space and
privacy. and assure compatibility with surrounding d~\o"l:loprnent and the
Comprehensi~!' Plan. It is also ttle intent of the PC zone to allow the
specifi' .regulations to be determined on a case-by-case basis. To assure
compatib111ty. the site dellelopm€nt regulations of surrounding zor.lng and
actual dev~10pment should be used as the starting basis for what would be
appropri ate wi th i f'l any part i cui a r P( zone. For examp 1 e, if a PC s He borders
in RM-15 Site ~r a eN site. tne site setbaCKS along these borders should be
found to be compatible with the setbacks of those pCirticlJlar zones. A.ny
differences proposed l'l1ust b-e justifted and supported by the particulars of the
project and benefits prollided.
lecommende~ C~anges:
Increas~ the desjgn flexibility of the PC zane and simplify the PC r~¥iew
process by eliminatjng the spec1fic SO·foot height limit in Section 18.68.110
(t) and the entire second sp~ciil requirements section (Section 18.68.150).
Clarify tne intent of site devel{Jpment regulations sc-ct'ion [18.68.110(c)] by
amending the text tc inc.lude a reference to "assure compatibility with
surrounJf~g development and the policies of the Co~prehensive Plan ...
ADMINIST~TIYE APPROYAL~F ~INOR CHANGE~
Jssue: The PC zone allows no process for administrative appro~al of minor
c~·anges in use.
PCOR!J2
sc
L
3/13/90
-1-
'-".-
-
Dfscuss1on: The ZOr',ing Ordinance (Sectjot1 18.fl9) provides a pr-ocess ... ~ich
allows for administrative approval of minor design changes to approved
pr~ject5. including PC districts. This pr-ocess allows the Director of.
Plannlng and (orrrnunit) En .... ironment to appro..,€' .a minor change after re'ne'" ana
recommendation by the Architect~raj Reyie~ Board. Any ,hanges of use for a PC
must go back to t~e COlmlission and Council for approval. Staff bel feves that
m:nor use cnanges to allow for ancillary uses which pro~ide desirab~e
ser .. -jces or support ~ne approved use sno lJld be able to be. apDroved thro\Jgfot a
simpler process. Examples of such uses wo~ld be allowing the ~ddition of a
minor retail component to a seniors residential prcject, or a small day care
facility to an office deve1o?ment. The review process could be the same as
for the minor design changes, with the exception that applications for min~r
use char.ges be: appro'ted by He Director of Planning and Corflmurrity fnvi n;,nment
after ren .. 1ew and recof'mlendatior1 by the Zoning Adillinistrator. Allowing for
administrative appron1 of minor use (~ar.ges would sHr.plify the PC revieW'
process.
RecolTlilended !:hanges: f,mend the PC regulations to allow adrninistrati\lE
approvar of minor changes in us!:-, and to inc1 ude language describing the
process for approval of minor design and use changes.
OPTIOH FOR TlIO-TIE!l<O REVIEll ~RgCESS
Issue: The current PC review process does not provide for approval of
preTTminary conceptual plans, such as a master plan for a site w~ich may not
be bU71t fc~ some time or may be phased over several years.
O;scussio~.!. Ther-e may be situiitions where th.e CHy and 10cal deve~opers w{luld
benefit from a project revlew process that would allow a major project to be
approved conceptually before large investments are made in the prepar3t~on of
detailed design drawings. The Stanford west site is one Example of st:d a
project. The current PC review process allows for the submittal of
preliminary plans at the time or the first Phnning Commission review~ but
detail~ p~ans are required ~rior to review by the ARB. Allowing a
preliminary review process for major projects to be developed in pha:es, or on
large or e.rwlronmentally sensitiv.e site.:; cc.uld be of benefit to both the City
and ]~cal d~velopers. Obtaining City approya1 of a development concept before
having to make major investments in design details couid encourage a developer
tc. pursue a PC project, there-by increasing the potential for public benefits
for the City_
Currently the review process for a PC project requires Planning Commission
Review, AR8 review, a second Planning Commission review and final approva1 by
the City Council. Ttle review process for conceptual approval and final
approva1 is anticipated to be the same as that described above. The submittal
reQuire~~ts, ho~ever, would not require the same level of detail normally
found in fina1 PC apprcval.
The proposed changes to the PC zone, i~cluding the concept for a two-tiered
review proc~ss were forewarded to John Northway. Chairman of the Downtown
Amenities (ommittee and current president of the Palo Alto Chamber of
Commerce, for review and comment. ~r. Northway recDmmends that t~e option for
a two-tiered review process and opportunity to obtain conceptual approval be
open to any applicant who wishes to pursue a PC zone change, rather t~an be
limit~d to phased or major projects.
PCOR02
50
L
3/23/90
-3-
•
"
I
I
'\
-
._ ... _-c._.~,_
Staff bel1e\l&s that the majority of PC applications will not tl!! of slJd sizt!
or c~arar:ter; St1C3 to warrant a ;:lrel iminary appnrval process. Tne two-phased
PC process is not intended to app',y to singie bunding appl'fcat'ion pes whozre
tlO c~nstr~ct1on phasing is anticipated, such as ~or t~~ recent PC zonF
approved f~r 250 University Ave~t.ie:. Furthe-r, t 'opp.,rtunity for a
prel iminary appro .... al process should riot encoura",~ appl ications designc
primarily to test the City's rece~t;vity to a specific development CO~C€pt.
The two-phased PC review proct:_~s ;s intended to apply to largH ~roject:s
wheri! it may not be feasible to ac(',orr,plish all c,nstruction within tnt! time
frame of the normal Site and DeSign and ArChitectural Review Soard approval
processes. A pl1ased PC applicatior. may be the most a~prQpriate ~ay of
~chiev1ng final approval in phases.
A prel illlir,ar), approvll process 'Woul d be used to resol .... e any major
c.irculation or environmental concern'S. and to establish a11cwable 1and uses,
dens1ties. and any special site deve1opmer1t r~qujrements such as height or
set~ack.s .
The preliminary approval would re!:l:1t in an interim zene change of the
property. It would establish the time fra~e allowed before a. final plan had
to be approved, w~at interim uses would be permitted, and wh~t wou1d occur if
a final plan -was not appro'led. It wC'uld be staff's recorrrnendation that all of
thEse be established on a case by case basis. HDwe .... ~r, it is expected that
the interim uses allowed would be simi?ar to those permitted under the
previously existing z~ning and the sit~ would revert to the previous zoning if
the final plan was not filed and the pre1iminary app~oval lapsed. In general
the t~me frame ~f the preliminary approva1 should be relatively short,
s~mewhere between six months dnd two years. Rather than establish a spectfic
time frame, it is recorm1ended that the ordindnce allow greater flexibility in
establishing a time frame appropriate for the nature of a particular project.
In summary, staff recommends a simple change to the ordinance such as an
additional paragraph which allows for application of a preliminary PC at the
discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. This change
could include some criteria for projects t~ be eligib?e for the two-tiered
prOCfSS, and identify the elements contained in a preliminary approval. Staff
would be reluctant to ccodify either an optional or more elaborate preliminary
review process because there is a serious concern that preliminary plans would
be requested for a number of smaller projects, which could be acc~mplished
wit~ ~ standard PC applicatio~.
Reconrnended Cl'langes: Amend' the PC regulatiDns to add a section to all ow for
processing of a prel1minary conceptual PC at the discretion of the Director of
Planning and Community Environment. Such preliminary ap~lication should
specify the locatiDn, type, density and intenSity of uses, and address major
circulation and environmental issues. fhe cor.ceptual approval would be
conditioned on later approval of a final plan.
EI1PHASIZr DESIGN EX~EllrNCr AND INNOVATION
~_§:ue:_ The purpose section of the PC ordinance does not emphasize des1gn
excellence and innovation as a fundamental reau; rement of the 1>1 anned
COlilTlun; ty zone. .
PCORD2
sc
-'-L· .. · .
3/23/90
-4 -
. ... "' . . ....J-
,
~ .
-
Oiscussion:
Tn e'faluati1'1g the City's PC on:!ina:1ce for chang~s) staff aha, re .... io:wed PC
or~inances, or their equivalent) for a numb~r of ot~er jurisaictions
thrut!g~out the c'"Juntr.,ll_ O~e element that these ordinar.ces had which staff
considered lacking ~n Palo Alto's PC zone was an emphasis in the intent of the
ordinance to provide fJr design fJ.exibllity in order to achieve innovative,
excellent design. Other ordinances also ;ncl~jed a desire to prov1de for
economic and efficient use of land and for pres~ryat~on of un~que
environmer.ta1 areas. The emphasis is orl the beneficia1 trad~offs expected for
~llowing greater deslgn flexibility. Clearly, through practlce all of the
above have been the intent of Palo Alto's PC zone··to prolJide a means by whicil
rigid development regulations of other spe~ific zones could be modified Tn
order to ad,1eve piojec::ts prol:iding public benefit, inno'latilJe and superior
design, economic and efficient use of land, and/or to protect a valued
enVironmental area. Clarifying that these are part of the intent of the PC
district should be supported by an addftic~al finding in the required
determir,ations section of the ordinance.
Recomended Changes: Amend the specifiC purpose section (Section 18.68.010)
and required determinations s~ctior. (18.6S.060j of the PC district to add
references to acnievement of innovative superior deSign, economic and
efficient {4se of land and/or preser'o'atiofi of -:istinctive envlroiimental areas.
ELIMINATE INSPECTIONS
Issue: Required inspections of PC districts fOr co;npliance is "lot occurring,
due primarily to the elimlnation of staff resources in the Inspectional
Services Division in the 1988-89 budget.
Discussion: The PC ordinance contains a provision 'lI'nich requ;-'-~s that eacn PC
district shall be inspected by the building dtvision at least once every three
years for compliance with district regulations and conditions (Sectlen
18.68.160). These inspections have not occurr~d on a regular basis during the
last two years due to i lack of staff resources. lack of inspections has not
rEsulted in an increased number of complaints from either property owners or
occupants, Dr any known noncompliance. Inspections for pas5ible zoning
Violations ~ill still be investigated on a complaint basis as are all other
potentia1 violations.
Recomm~nded Changes: Eliminate the inspections requiiement {Section
18.58.160) from the PC district.
AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCES~
The Commission has several choices of how to proceed in pU~5uing amendments to
the PC lon€::
1) If the COJTlTlTssion conceptually concurs with the staff rec':Hnmendations.
the Commission should direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance and
return to the Commission fDr form31 pu~lic review of th~ proposed
cnanges;
PCORD2
SC
;:<L
. -',.
3/23/90
-5-
1
t
•
,. ,
• i
t
,
•
-
2)
o
If the Commission desires additional
CManges before pr~ceeding. the Cammis
tn~ Commission with a second infctmat
nformation related
ion sholild request
onai report;
to any of the
staff return to
3) If the Commission desires greater invo'v~ment in the de'l2To~mer.t of the
amendments, the COrmlission carl create a PC subcommittee to assfsl staff
in the Qrdinanc~ revisions;
4) If the Commissior, does not see the necessity for the proposed cf1anges ,
the Commission should d!rect staff not to proceed ~it~ any changes.
ST.l,fF RECOMMENllATlON
Staff recomm~nd~ that t~e P1anning C~mm~~sicn direct staff to:
1) prepare draft ordinance 1 anguage wh iet'! incorporates the abc· .. e recommEnded
changes, and
2) return to the Commission fer forma' public review of the proposed
changes.
R.S~tfUllY S~7rnitt.d,
If;I; CHENE"j
Senior P1inner
a;J~
CAROL JANSEN/ /'
Chief Planning Official
Attachment: PC Planned Community District Regulations
C,! DO~Tltown Amenities Committee
Urban Design Committee
Architectural Review Board
Chamber of Commerce
PCORD2 .c 3/23/90
-6 "
AGEKDA ITEK 3
,/
POLICY DIRECTIQH on enanges proposed to amend tne Pl,nned
Community zone regulitions and modify the Planned
Community public review process. Zone District rC.
C'Ontinuec from Plannir!g Corrmission meeting of May 9,
1990.
Chairman (ha~dler: Is t~is a public hearing?
Ms, Jar'lsen: 1"is;s r,ot a publ1c hearing. but yot! certainly can have
public 1nput. There is no requirement for a public hearing.
Commissioner Hirsch: I would like to nave a clarffication as to why tnis
partfcurar item is being brought forth, and w~at is the impetus for our
review of this? As I understand it, there is not any great OJtpouring of
s~pport in the community for changing the P( zone in any way, so ~hjl are
we looking at thIs?
Ms. Jansen: It was council diretted. It came out of the adoption of the
d~town regulations and in the s~bseQue~t Downtown Ame"iti~s Committ€e
r.port. At that tIme, that committ •• felt that the Planned Community zone
needed revisfons in order to make it more flexible, ar.d it was part ~f
06/27/90
-11-
N, .. -7/0. l'ofMISSION ...... MI.... NUTES .t -tiC Z7(jqq~
/ f
f
--
tneir final report ~h;ch tha clty council Iporo~ed. Ther~ was a
recognition that there might be mor~ pes submitted as a re~ult of adoption
of the downtc'A'fI regulati'Ons. Basically, anything that did not fit the
·zoning box· anymore was goi~g to hav~ to go the PC rDute. Staff doei nr.t
feel t~ere ;s any o'olerwhelmirg need to do this, and clearly. the public.
sentiment has been sunwnar; ly again~t it. I waul d say that the Pl iMed
COf!II'IoJnity lOM is Rube Goldbt'rgish. rt is a bit c.umbersome. but it 1s not
b-roken, so if we do not want to go through the pain of fi.!(ing !o~t~ing
that ;s not brokEn, we ~ould sure like you to say that.
Commissioner Cullen· I had a q!J:fstion along the same lines. I do ~~t
recall any strong direetlon from the council, and I would appreciate
having that background. [think there was some sort of general ta1k, and
of ccurse, the Amenities Committee is not an official retommend~~g b~dy~
[ was trying to think ~ack to where this strong counc.il recommendation
came from. J do not se~ any minutes to su~port it or anything like that.
If we do go forward with some of this, 1 think we shouTd research that a
1 tttl e mort.
Ms. Jansen: I apologize for n~t having the min~tes t~ dJ that, but it was
definitely a staff aSSignment that came out of that Downtown Ameniti~s
COlmlittee report, when it was considered by (,Jun';:.; 1. Then 1t was
reconfirmed by the then Mayor Klein in conjunction with th€ 250 University
Avenue project. When he questio~ed at c.ouncil why we had to go through
the variance process afte( tne project had gone through all of the other
procedures, we said it was because that was one of the provisions ~f the
PC regu1ations. He tnen reiterated his desire~ at 1east, to see that
fixed. I t01d him we would be coming back with the proposal to amend the
PC zone as per the previous council assignment -on the DOMIn town Ame!liti~s
Conmitti!e. I would happy to s.upply the cOlfllr.is.sion 'With those mlnutes.
Commissioner Cullgn: I do r!call that remark of Mayor Klein. but I did
not see that as a countil direction.
Ms. Jansen; That was not the direction 'We are operating under. That was
a reconfirmation from tne then mayar, but it was indeed a staff
assignment.
Currmissioner Marsh: I 'Would like to add the corr.rn€nts in regard to
COnll'lissioner Hirsch's que~tion. I was ~t one meeting of the Medties
Committee when this lssue came up. It was at that meeting that the
Amenities Commltt~e formed a resolution to recommend these changes or some
.ort cf changes to the council. I .ant to add that I think it .as really
in the spirit of the public ben~fit discussion of th~ Amenities
Committee~ Tnere was a reCo9nition that there would be ~ore pes because
tnere is more stringent deyelopm€nt regulation~ but it went beyond that to
a recognition of the council at that time, seemed to want to be
encouraging PC apPlications, because of the whole discussion of public
benefit. There wer~ definitely certain things on the public agenda to be
accomplished thro~~h these pes. So J think that to add that, adds a
little more of almost a pyblic ser~lce kind of reason for pu~hing this
forward, and no! simply as an avenue to beneflt developers.
CCTIJJllssipner HiJber~ I ha'ole a question reg,nding the inspection process.
The report says that t~ere ~ere many inspections in the last two years,
b~t were there regu1ar inspections of these pes before that time?
06/27/90
-12-
~,. ,,~--------
,
Ms. Jansen: A~tualjy. there apparently were. J had a cor.vpr~Gtion with
K~n Sc~reiber on this ;ss~e. There was a half·time inspection position
that was added in t~e Building Inspection OiVision to do just tnat -. to
do inspections on the Planned Community zone in particu1.r, b~cause
apparently at that time, there was quite l con~ern that many of the
conditions that were a~plied to pes were not bei~9 complied wltn out in
the fie'd. That positinn, however. W4S deleted by the city council t~o
years ago in the staff c~ts. so W~ are dQing the same ;nspe~tlons for PC
l~nes as we do for anything else, that 15, on a complaint basis, for the
most part.
CprIIIlissiOfier Huber: When the-se inspections are being donE', a~d violations
~ere found. what, tnen came a~ut?
~,sen: J apo1ogize that r cannot give you any specifics that 1 am
aware of. where something occ~rred in a Planned Community as a result of
those inspections. ! was not around at that tim~. We had that po~ition
cut about two y~ars ago, so I d~ not hdve any first-hand experience. I do
k.no .. that the one ... h~ch came before the pl anning Lomrni'ssion when we
·recently dfrl a rezoning dearly had had some long-standing violations that
bave never b€!en cleared up.
Co~issioner H~: My sense is that it sounds like there is a
monit.oring, but when you find something wrong, nothing is rl~ne about it.
~nsen: In that partj~ular ,ese, [ would say that is c pretty
accurate statement.
Chainman C~andler: I was informed earlier by staff t~at tnis ;s a
legislative jtem~ and we are allowed to have opinions befere, durfng and
after public hearings en these matters. From the questic~s. J sense that
there is not a great deal of enthusiasm for a lot of tnese proposed
cnl:inges. My own view is that if this :)rdinance is broken, it is broken in
the opposite direction than the direction in which these changes are
proposed to go, in the sense that -If it ain't broke, don't fix it.-am
generally in fa~or of trying criminals before we hang them, but if
e .... eryone is ready to hang this one, maybe iJl!e sho~ld cDns"lder sending it
back to council for discussion at i (ounciljcorrndss;on joint meeting as to
whether tf1ey are st;11 serious about His, setttng a date for that as one
of our items for new business. If the commission does not feel
unanimously in that direction, r ~ nappy te open the ~~tt~r to the
public, but if we ill It. ... ow what we thi.nk about this one, perhaps we ought
to consider dofng that.
Commissjoner Marsh: At the risk of elongiting the meeting l I feel that
S~ of these changes are ~ery good, particularly the one that would leave
conceptual approval up to the council before we go tnrough the very
difficult process of approving specific Planned Community applications.
Commissioner Beecham: Thjs is not the only one 1 would f~~l positively
about, but I would support that.
Commissioner Hirsch: ] we1J1d add that I might very well s.upport that
myself. F'or example) we are spending a fair amount of time looki:1g at the
PC proposed for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. If we get H to counc.il
L
06/27/90
-13-
'--
o
after tnat at-le.a.st-yeu-1Gng process has taken plac:e, and c\luncil 1n a
very shod period of tlJMI tLirns tnumbs down, 'lie \Ifill f'lav(! expended a
considerable amount of energy for naugnt. So there is a good ut!mple
where conceptual approval might wo;l very favorably fQr all people. ~ith
the under~tandin9 t~it ~it ain't over ~ntil it's o~er.· [~en if you dQ
get a conceptual approval. that does not ~~n that you erE autom~tlcal'
entitled to final approval.
kQm'I'1issioner Hyber; I will say "ditt()-to what everyone Else has said,
and aiso, I am interested in No. 5, that is, the ~1imin~tion of
inspections, not to eliminate them cut to beef tnem up so that th~re i.
some clout to that, when these numbers that ~e have seen coming in that
are so a..,ful.
Chairman Chandler~ J will n~w open thi! pl'b11c hearing. You have heard
pretty clearly the interest of the cOrmtlssion in advancing tnese topics,
with the exception of the conceptual approval, and perhaps ~xt£ndin~ the
inspection requirement rath~r than de1eting it. Unless you strongly
object tOo the ideas that the crnrciSSlon has been putting forward, if you
would comment specifically on those it~~s we are ~oing to be con5ider~ng
in detail, it ~ould heip the proceedings.
Commissioner Mars~: I am also interested in some of the other items~ so
if some~dy has a ccmment on same ~f them, I would liKe to hear them.
~hairman Chandler: The first card I have is fram Jo~n Mock.
~ohn Mock. 2823 Alma Street. Pa12-A!12: With respect to Chainnan
Chandler1s remarks, I will irdtiilly address the points on which there
seem to be some controversy, that is~ the c~ission's views seem to be
si",ilar to those re-fleeted in my ~etter "",hid J trust you ha .... e had a
chance to r1!ad. Tr.is is lIy third attempt to spea~ on this item. I am
particularly disturbed about the PC zone not having a 50·foot neight
Hl?itatlon. That would be a really bid thing to do. We will see a lot of
PC applications coming through, simply getting past that limit,tion by
virtue of fraying a PC zone. That is wro;,g, and it is something WI; shoul'd
explicit a~oid by explicitly not eliminating tnat requirement.
Similar remarks can be made concerning the speciai r€quirements sectlon
for residential areas. That is an import~nt section, and is ,ertainly
something tnat·should be retained. Also, W~ need some clarification in
terms cf staff's desire to do administrative appro~ilt particu1arly for
minor changes in use. Changes in use can often hav! effects which are ~ot
tompletely obvious, and in some cases, S~me procedure for public notices,
e~~ination and appeal to council on administrative appro~als is
necessary.
With regard to t~E conceptual approva', conceptua1 plans, which is where r
think we have some discussion. I am i littie concerned ab{lut that. I have
b~en through the Specific Plan process with regard to the Palo ATta
Medical Foundation, from the st.ndpoint of the fIR, and I really think
that was a very good process. J really do not think we should be
short-circuiting that. It is the kind of process we should use, and if it
is not directly applicable to a particular project, that should be the
model on which we would consider approving prelimfnary conceptuaJ plans.
It seems to me that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Specific Plan was
06/27/90
·14 -
ofl
, I,
If '
t '
~, ! ,
-
''\
e-xactl,. that. It certainly did not inliolve
design. If anything. tho materhl prepared
particularly; 11 regard to the Bryant Street
the preparat~on of a detailed
was net specific enough,
closure.
1t}e PC zone certainlY shojJld not be an ea:i.Y one, for the same reason that
spot zoning 1S illegal. If we go 'to iii concept'Jal appr~nl lTiechanism
through the PC zone, I think we may be getting into that sort of a
situ.tior). We should cont'inu~ t{l tr,;.' to use the processes which most
benefit the public, not th~ developer. r don't think we should MaKe any
changes at ;11, particu1arly with respect to conceptual re~iew. 1 think
this should result in b~tter pr{ljec.ts, not more PC zoni!S. We are real1,.
in danger of dOing that witn many of the changes that are proposed here by
staff.
One area which I think staff needs tn clarify is the cnncepts of design
excel1ence and innovation. I am realTy concerned as to w~at that ma.y do
in t~rms of steering the direction of PC appljcatio~s. Design excellence
~nd innovation is al~st certain to mak~ a PC prnject stand cut rather
than fit into an existing neighborhood. This is not something I would
consider de~irable, not would most reside~tialists. Compatibility with
the surrounding area is mO'~E! important. Similarly. the notion of
economica11y efficient use of land is also ~ague. What does that mean?
flnd that a little troub1ing. I think it is something that is ~orking in
the interest of the developer, and hardly sometning that the city needs to
propose. Any of these thi~gs 1 feel will dilute the notion of substa~tial
benefit. by adding other goals which ~ead off in other directions. We
need that requirement for i PC lone to make sense, and we should not
dilute :t.
Finally, we do need to 00 ~ore, not less, inspections of PC zones.
Pernaps we cou1d defe~ some of these inspections where ther~ is
controversy, but if insp€cti~ns have been requfsted, they certainly should
be d~ne. This is a good law, and definitely sh~uld not be repealed.
Than~ you for this opportunity to comment .
. Willhm Spangl~r, 471 Carolina Lane. Palo Alto: I belie\le that PC zones
should n~t be osed as often as they are, ar at least should not be
approved as often as t~ey seem to be. ~hat makes sense to me ',s that the.y
primarily be invoh'ad with the I;!';(pansion of the permitted uses, or
providing a forum for conSidering the expansion :If permi tted uses beyond
what ~ould be accommodated by a zone anywhere in the city, not so much
that someone wo~ld just like to do a particular project at a particular
sHe. A ct)rrmon occurrence in the past wf'lere the maximum building envelope
for. the underlying zone was taken as the starting paint, and then ~arious
things are wa'ived or dimensil)nS are increased beyond that is a:'l
unfortunate approach. r think it would be important to rr,aintain that
en~elope in return for granting the flexibility tnat the PC 9iyes~ and
look. at tightening it uD~ not taking that as a minimum entitlement.
i have some problems with the increased flexibility proposed, especially
the 50-foot neight limit. I am not sure what the effect wouTd be of
special setback, but I think the setbacks of the underlying zone should
not be encroached upon when a PC is granted.
There was a proposal that the PC approval can incorporate all necessary
variances. A concer~ I nave here is that you mjght end up with
'L
06/27/90
-15·
-
essenthll) accidental, unintentiorlal variances where som~Uing is shown
on the plan that .oul~ not be obvious, something that might not ~h~w ~~
until yG~ had final, detailed' building plans, fer ~nstance. To the extent
t!'lat paramet2rs are being varied Clr different from the underlyJng zone-,
those should have to -. nade explicit and itemized in a PC application, so
that it is clear as t ~';"lt is being proposed, and how it differs fr{):Tl
what is otherwise permltted.
The proposal that there be ach~e'llement of effic~ent ar.d sconOiilic use of
land strikes me as being to-tally unnHessary. Tilat is in the
~elf-interests of the devfloper. If they did not view it as having higher
val~e to tnem under the proposed PC, they would not be asking for it. I
am concErned that this could p~rhaps be tu~ned around and become criteria
for appro .... al t if the proponent could sl-'QW that it increased the l'a 1!J!;"
that is grounds for approving it on that baSis. That would be tota11y
back.'!'iards.
There sh~u1~ be consid~ration of se~ wa; tnat the subst~nt;al public
be~efit could be ~hown to be actually substantial, some method of
quantlf.yir.g it or even puttfn9 iI dollar price tag on it. Historically.
some of the public benefits haye ceen a Tittle thi~ or had justifications
that were hard to follOW. Thank you.
John Wanless. 26a2 Co~per Street. Palo Alto; I ha¥e a problfm with Items
), 2 and" of the pr<lposed amendments. like the ether .ipeakers, I have a
problem with the elimination of tt'te 50-foot height limit. The particuhr
problem J have, however, in Item 2 ii ~ith the adm1~istrative approval of
miner changes in use. I feel that is open to muc~ interpretation. The
examples that were given constltute major changes to me, such as t~e
addition of a minor retail component to Oil senior residential project or a
small day~are center. Those appear to me to be quite majcr changes to any
P( lone, and I think they should undergo the same review process as
previously al10w!d for.
J also ha'lle difficuHy with inspections, which I feel ~hould be retained.
Also, excelTence in design innovat~on becomes a ve~) subjective Kind of
thin9~ and I tn-ink Hat it should be quantihti..-e in nature and public
comment should be allowed on it. Thank you.
~fiSS) 4010 Qrme. Palo ... Alto; ~ou have a letter from the Barron Park
Asso(idt;on. I would lik~ to e1aborate on a fe~ paints in the letter tnat
we are concerned about in the pr~posed chang!s i~ the PC ordinance. One
is the suggestion that adminlstratiYe changes can be made to th2 PC
without going throLlg~ a revision of the entire PC. Let me refres~ your
memory Dn a few historical points of the PC. About IS years ago, a
resldentlal deve10pment l'ias bUllt on the site of i1 former lumber yard at
los Robles and E1 Camino. It was call!d Villas de las Plazas. It was
built as a PC. As i result, if somebody wanted to make some minor changes
tD the edifice Df their building, such is putting up a trellis or paint it
i different color, ttJey had to go through a full PC revision process.
This was brought the attention of staff, planning commission and city
council. It was agreed that this not the intent of a ~C, so the ordinance
was ~dified to allow these minor decisions to be made administratively.
That 1s a yalid use of an administrative change for a PC. Changing
function or a loss of the so-called public benefits which are granted in
exchange for a PC is not app~opriately made admin1stratively. The PC zo~e
~6/27 /90
-16 -
-
.--.....
is essentially i contract between th~ d~~eloper and the comm~nity,
repr2~ented by tn~ planning commission and th~ city cour-ell in exchange
for do~,n9 sOR::i!'thing they would n~t be allowed to do under existing
zoning. The developer gives. back. som'!?thing in e.J::cnange to the city.
something which is defined ~s a public beneflt. ft could be anything from
more landscaping O~ more lo~-i~come huusing or garbage cans downtown or
repaving a street. All of these things are aJ hoc defi~ed as public
benefits. Public bodies, suer. as the planning commission and th~ titJ
council ind the community. are allowed to debate wheth~r or not these are
appropriate. When it is adopted, it is adopted is an ordinance.
Ordinanct!s are referendable. Administrative dHrS;uns. are not publfcly
debated, and t~ey are riot r-efer'fndable. Therefore, if a PC is granted,
and thpn slgnificantly (hanged admi~istratiyely, tne public really ha~ no
recours!. We ha\le traded a pllDl ic benefit, and what ha .... e we r~cei .... ed in
exchange? We have no way of knowing in the fut~re ~hether that pub11c
benefit will remain, or that something elSE wi1l not be giyen ~p. The
history of P\:s in ttlis tOllin is that tf'te developers promise everything,
give less than everything, occaSionally are caught by pub1ic outeri, and
then bargain thefr way out of it. I ~ave yet to see a PC revert to the
underly~ng zon;ng because the developer Q~ the operator of the use
flagrantly violated his agreement. That just does not happ€n. It is all
one way. So I urge you not t~ adopt that.
Regarding t~e 50·'oot heig~t llrnit: there ha\le been a Jot of objections
to the Demonay project in East Palo Alto on the grounds that it ;s too
large and out of scale with the nearby community. Now, this proposal to
eliminate the 5~-foot height limit in Palo Alto if the PC is granted ..
h~re we are, telling the people in tast Paio Alto on tne one hand that we
do not want them b~llding a large, overly bu1ky proj!ct, and on the Dther
hand, we are saying we want to reserve that right for ourselves. H~w will
that b! percei .... ed'? The rtch white people in Palo Alto pl.Jtting the people
in East Palo Alto in their place agatn? I thi~k it is the wrong messagE
to send. The argument about the ~O-foot hel~ht limit has been hashed out
o\ler and over again in the city in the last 2D years. One of the things
that ~akes tne city charming is the fact that we do have the limit and
that we do not nave too many big, tall ugly buildings. I think we should
keep tn~ SO-foot height li~it. If someone (an make a compelling argument
that gOing above SO feet fer his particulai project is .... alid, they can get
it. There ha~e bee~ projncts approved that w~re o\ler 50 feet. The bank
building over here is more tMan 50 feet hTg~. Th~ Jim Baer project on
Unlverstty Avenue is over 50 feet. It L~ not a fl at out, total
prohibition under all circumstances., but the developer should he abie to
mak.!! a case·by·c:ase decision. Un1ess you look. at the 50 feet t where is
tha ljmit? Right now, peop1e are r!!luctant to CQme in for anything more
th~n 60 or 70 feet, because that is considered significantlY above 50
f.et. If there is no limit in the PC zone, look for 100-foot, 20~-foot
applications, and yo~ ~ill end up argui~g the developer down to only 125
feet, and feel you have made a good bargain. Don~t do it. It is a
~istake. r have seen this sort of thfng happen in the past when the
zoning ordinance ~as opened up, and staff thought it would facilitate the
processing of applications. What happens is that the snarpies and the
develQpers work 48 hours a day just thinking up ways of getting around
it. r remember Frances Brenner saying that there is no way that nine
council members could be as sharp as one developer \!i!h{l is dedicated to
putting something in. So they will come in, en masse. The staff is going
to have more ~ork in the first year after this proposal is approved to
06/27/90
-17-
-
~r
----:---~--.~<."~-.
remove the 50-foot height limitl if it is approved, than they could
possibly dream cf.
let lite '5reak bri~f1j on public ber.efits. I wou'd like to !JHond the
comment that was made earlier this evening about defining public benefit.
Right now. it is very ~pen. I have seen pes approv~d in the past which
were called publ,c: beni:~fit, and after they were bunt and everyone had a
chance to look at them in the cold light of day, it was reiiized that what
waS thought of ~s a benefit ~as a benefit onlY to the de~eloper? nQt to
the community. We should have some sort of guidelines. That would help
everybody. It would help you., the contr.issiol'i it ~ould help the city
council; it ~~uld help tne staff. It would help the developers to
understand what they ~ould or would not have to ask fer or offer~ SC[~
sort of guidelines are useful. Businesses can exist in almost any klnd of
en'i1rOnment, is long is they understand "what Ue rule,,) are, and the rules
are not changed too often. If yo~ set reasonable limits on public benefit
definitions I you will get some really interesting pro~osals, which might
very well make it werthwhil. to have. PC.
Another point is on inspec.tions, one of my favorites. I na'r',a be-eli trying
to get il particular business en £1 Camino Real to have their illegal signs
and illegal awn1ng remo""ed, fo\" about eight monUs. The signs finally
came down. 1 think they came down frOtli old age. The awning is still
there. The staff is more frustrated than I am. They would like to see it
come down, tDO. But it is very diffi~~lt, because the enforcement is on
the basis of ~ait1ng untii thf public compTains, and then we will put you
1n 1ine. Tl'tey only nilYe one guy, and he is on va.c.a.tion right now, to
enforce this. ~ou irf asking an a.ful lot to expect tne OWliers, operators
and developers to be up front and abide by all the regulations. If you
take off the requirement for periodic. inspections, you remove the only
stick the city has. to beat a PC del/eloper with. If he knolOis he c.an wait
until there is public complaint, and the staff eventually gets around to
investigating it, there will be no incentive to do it right, and ~e ill
1~se. Remember, the development is i contract. The PC is a contract. If
we have no way of enfor(ing that contract, ~hat do we have? So I would
urge that YDU not adopt these positions. I don't think they .ere
thoroughly thought out by the stiff. I have bee!1 around 1 anger than most
of the staff has, and I have seen !Gme of these disaste,4s that I hav~
spoken of. I know most of you have been around QUitE a ~hile too, and!
hope you will use your experience and wisdom to reject thes~ proposals.
Ti1ank you.
Chairman Chandler: Since! hav~ nD ether cards from members of the
puhlic, I wi11 close tne public hearing and return this item to the
plan1"llng cOItITIission. I will note at this time that 'We have at Dur plact!s
Tetters from Susan Richardson and frDm the Barro~ Park Associatlon.
~_Q.IOO!.iu..iDner Christensen; We also received a letter from the Charleston
Meadows Association at our hom~s, to he included.
Chairman Chandlgr: Now [ would like to go thr~ugh the items one by one.
The first is rncreased Design Flexibility, which is directed particularly
to the 50-foot height limit and to special requirements regarding desigr,
fl.,ibil ity.
COmmissioner Marsh: I have a question about the recommendation on the
L
06/27/90
~ 18~
-
;-.
first of t~e special requirements. the on! tnat allows the planning
commissiun to es!ential1y place any conditions th~t they f~el ~re
'myortant. It says. -additional regulations that ~ay be recommended by
the c01!'mission.· Why ",ould you r-ecolM'if!nd taking that out? Isn't t~Clt the
?o~nt of tt:e Pc. proces.s til a,110. .. an ebb and floli "1'\ c-erta ir, kbds of
rec~ndations?
~ansen; r don't l:leiieve that recorJmendation is taken out. lie lliere
just not,n9 that the first specia1 requirement section al1o~s the
(omission to recormtend any additional regulations. Therefor;:" y\:lu. t1a .... e
an enabling mecha~ism.
Commissioner Marsh; On,) ~m sorrj. I misread it. You ~ere rec0mIT~nd1ng
only the second special retommendation.
M~Jan~~: That is carre~t.
Commissioner Hirsch: I wc~ld add tnat in that paragraph you were looking
at. COirolissicrer Marsh. there was a reference t<l Point 11.0, Subparagrapn
(, and that ~as where the 50·foot limitation came in. They were not
direct1ng themselves to the preamble to Section 110.
Commissionel'" Cullep: I know you all received my F.e.X when I was in Oregon
and this was first scheduled. As the ·~istorian· on the planning
commission, I wou1d like the public record to show that the 50-foot height
limit was put in aft!r a long history of overdevelopment in this city.
development that was referended by the-voters, including this .... ery city
hall, which unfortun&tely the wordi~g of tne referendum referred to the
-f1nanting procedure-and unfortunately, although it was voted against,
the financing was done another way. There W2S the Medical fo~ndation
hospital, 18 stories that were proposed. which was referended and turned
down. There was a proposed sup~rblo(k ~hich ~as referended and turned
down. The Hnliday Inn w~s refer!nded, and narrowTy squeeked by. There
was a threatened refere~dum for the bank expansion at the site of what is
now the Great western Bank. Because enough signatures were obtained on
that bank expansior., the c~unc,l put in the 50-foct height limit allover
town. To remove this limit, especially in the PC lone, gives an
exp€ctatian that the cap is off, and that higher buildings will be
acceptable. At the time of the opprow'al of 250 Uni .... erslty .e,'.IerH.i02, 1
reca1l stat;;ng that 1 did not Wihlt thQt sma.11 9 odd\tio~il height 'wjhic!'t
b~lieve was two or four feet of unaccupiab1~ space to be seen as a
pretedent. 1, ind I thi~k I speak for many, many Palo Altan5 , a~
completely opposed to considering the removal of the 50-foot neight limit.
COlmljssioner Hirsch; 1 want to say that I concur total],)I "With
CQmmissioner (u11en in thi5 regard. 1, too, am equally apPDsed to eVEn
con~idering (hanging thf! 50-foot height limit. It "as served us well in
recerlt times, and hopefu11y will (Ontinl1e to serve us ... ell in the future.
~ith regard to the second special requirement section, which is the Patnt
150 section, I think. it sets certain design parameters or limitations, and
1 think every zone should have some of tho$e~ at least as a startir.g
paint. although they mal be ~aried, upon request, during the public review
process. I do not be1ieve this community really wants a clear slate for
developers or PC applicants to .... rite upon. 1 wouTd support retaininq th::.t
secti~n as presently worded.
06/27/90
-19-
-
t.21!!!1ill..iQ.M1"..J::!uber: \IIaLi1.j 1 He-to c(W"'ment upon what COITITIlsS10ner Hirsch
jl.ls.t said. flo SU99~'it'O!"J was made-that fj,ther tha.n r!qtJ~rirv~ these, '-H,ri~us
regu1~tlons, that they be \Js2d as a starting ~"int. Fra~'o::ly, 1 l1ke the
com'ers! fven better 1 that is, that the emphasis cf the-se restrictions
exist, Period. Ther'l you have some idea of what you are deal ing with wne;;
you come in as a developer. You are ri9ht. ff you can change it, fine,
but at least, you 'Know that r\ght now, yeu ha~e to baCK aW,iY frl')l'r. the
resldentia1 areas. 5.:1 it would be an absolute mistake to free ",lit up and
ComE in with whatever you want. .
(omi ssjoner Marsh: I .... ·culd orlly add th.at ; t has certai nly been our
e~perience in the past few years that it is the tr~nsitiona1 issues that
have be€n tbe ~st hot and heavy in any deve'~pment appli:ations that ha~e
come forward. So it certl~nly mek~$ sense to retain some part of that
ordinance that speaks spe'ifical1y to these issues.
Commissioner Hirscn: There was a statement in the staff report on Page 2~
the last sentence in the second paragraph in the section on fncreased
Design FlexibHity, It reads, '"Need for a subsequent ·variance after the
rigorous PC review process results lr'l unneC!SsHY duplicatior= of revie-w
~nd ev~lu4tiGn.· Conceptually, 1 am n~t Dpposed to have the variance
applic.ation come in at the same time as the P( review. As long as U1'E!re
is significlnt public review, QPpcrtunity fer tne publiC to comment,
opportunity for the commission, pr!sumabT) the ARB, and the ~ity councii
to eViluat~ it, I do not see anyt,~ln9 necessarily inherently wrong with
having the variances considere it th~ sa~ time, although I do concur
with will iall Spangler that if 'fariances are re'iuested, they should be
specifically designated at t~at time so t~at the r!view process can focus
in on them.
Comm;ssiontr Cullen; When the sa~ kind of intensive stiff review that
any ordinary variances get, m~ one hesitation is that a variance gets a
really thorough look when it is all by itself. But when it ;s thrown in
with a PC, it may not get quite as thorough a lock, s~ I wo~ld not be
opposed to t~e variance, prn~i~ed it receiYes tnat 5ame ~ind of re~ie~
with the same kind of notice to the neighbors.
Chairman Ch.r!!Jill; I would respond th.t I agree with what
Commissioner Cullen has just said. On the surface it would seem that
there is no real problem with having a variance be considered at the same
time as t~e Pl, but I think the number of issues that i PC raises and
requires review of would almost inevitably lead to the variance gettfng
sec~ndary review~ compared to what it .ould normally receive. A PC coming
in simultaneously with a variance to allcw 120 feet will focus a lot on
the height issue 11": ttle review, in that case, but I st i" feel it .. auld b.e
diluted by the other. I do not understand Ute council's discomfort in
having items come to them twice, once for approval of the PC and once for
approval of th~ variance.
Ms. Jansen; Only if there is an appeal. Otherwise, it is at the staff
levE1.
Cha;irman Chandler: Right, and the cit!' council's discomf~rt over this
supposed duplication because someone feels strongly enough about the
var,iance to bring it forward i'ii not i good enough reason fDr taking away
L
"-'-
-
thiot process.
~!Lnm.iU.iQoer CtIri.steng:M: 1 'Conc(.;r with what Chairman <)ll!ndler just
s~id. The ~ariance also sets up a little bit different test. 1t is
important f~r these projects that are vi~7atin9, for instance, the SO-foot
height limit, t~ aeet tnat additional test.
COlll!1issioner Beecham: To fo11o,-, up on (crmtisslonel'" Hirsd1's comment. what
they Ire looking at is some degree of efficiency Lo proceed with the
analysis of the PC it the time. Th~ main thin~ you are talking about is
to keep the limit5 in the ordinance. 1 tnink we are en the path toward
dOlng thilt. That sets th~ clear standard th'lt tne develDpmeflt "'ill be
judged by and from any deviation. That is set up~ and everyone will see
the limits, 50 fEet, tne setbaCKS, whatever that may be. I do not see
that there is any damage to the process of gO:lng through the \fari ance
process at the same time, b~cause you do have limitations s~t up, and you
ire explicitly considerlng them versus whit tne regulations are. So r
'Would support Joe's cOlTIUent on w:'at may be done f.,r making Uds morE
efficient, because in this case~ r don't thinx it is degrading the
process.
Chairman Chandler: feel i desi re to respor.d to that. I do not see
effie iency in this process as necessarily advantageo.us to the city. When
you looK at a Fe, everything that is being asked for tends to be weighed
against public benefit instead of against the specific standards that
apply to variances. So calling them out separately in a separate review
process is desirable. We are seeing an evolution of the PC process at ~
time of tight zantng restrictions into an aimost wholesale excuse to 5e11
zoning. where developers are told that if tney give this amount of money
for that good cause, ~r that amount of money for some other good cause,
they can buUd somethin9 they want. Or perhaps the d~l{eloper-CDrJteS in and
makes tnat offer without being told th.t that is what they have to do. I
think it is a very undesirable way to nave tne zonfng work. Keeping the
variances separate and tota1ly apart from the weighing of the very loose
public benefit that has evolved is probably. desirable thing. That is
why I oppose this proposal. I do r.ot see the difference between this
proposal and the one where tne variance gets considered at the same time.
In practice, it w~,l1 amount to the same thing.
CO!TlTl1ssic.M.Ll:i..iJ:lll!: My coroents ... ere based on the as~umpt iun ti'lat tlH!,.-e
would bt a rig-araus staff analysis, I. rigorous public review. and a
rigorous commission and council of the proposed variance. This commission
has shown itself capable of nandling some extr~ly complex issues, many
of them simultaneously, and with a great degree of success. I am not
uncomfortable with that. but r agree wit~ you, nonetheless, that there
does have to be separation necessary of the standards for the review of
the PC from the different standards for the variance itself.
Corrmjssloner Cull@: After listening to se'JE'"ral of you discussing this, I
am gOing to withdraw my support of the ~arjance procedure going through at
tne same time. It is diffiCult to focus ~n a number of items or
combination of itetll.s jn a PC, and to throw in a ~driance~ it ;s almost
like an afterthought. r would rather see the variance procedure
separated. ! am not concerned that the council is seeing duplication,
because unless it is appealed, the council does not see it .t all. I
cannot remember a variance on a PC tnat has been appealed, so I will
f r wtt~draw my 5UPPQrt for the ~3riance procedure going through at the same
tl ....
Comissioner Marsh: In the PC precess, if an application comes forward
like Jim B,aerTs. Ramon;e: Street project that exceeds t~e height limit, and
then I ~arfance comes thr~ugh. ~hat would be the process for turnt~g dow~
that ~iriance? 1f the appeal was placed. and it went to the city (cuncil,
is tntre any room there? I suppDse you could tUrn down the variance. but
then you upset the whol. applecart 00 the PC.
Ms. Jansen: Obviously. if we chose that one, we would use t~at is a model
in future Pes, to tiKe the project throl~gh the publ ic re't'iew prc<:E'SS
before dealing with the v,flance ou~selyes. r~ the past, however. ~e did
fuve an app1icition for a variance; n height from 50 to 100 feet Gn thi!'
Hobart building. ~e took that at the staff 1 ••• 1 and den;ed that
~a~jance. and allowed it to be appealed throu~h the process. So ~e took
it bet~use we thought it wouid give the applicant a position b~fore the
cO{Jrlcil in Ii more timely mar'tner than making h1m file a PC application a~d
gG through that. It ~iS an extreme case, however. It w~uld be rare to
see anythlng like that come through again. The bottom line is that If you
have a 9-0 wote fn favor of a project at the coun~il level, I cannot
imagine what baSis the staff would have for denying a v~riance.
Cgmmissioner Marsh: That is why I am wond!ring whether this is just a
duplfcatlon of &ffort. rt seems to me that if you approve a PC that
exceeds the height limit, yo~ are approving the neight 1imit ir the
application. To go back to a variance process, while it does give you
more public review, it is really a.lmost antithetical to the approllil of
the PC. It is hard to see tnat there Is any other kind of outcome~ if yo~
nave already approved the PC, unless you are gOing to throw the whoTe
thing out and redesign.
~nsen: That is exactly the .,y we felt about it.
Commissioner Beecham: ConSidering the variance at the same tlme is the PC
helps us to foc~s during the PC pr~cess on exactly what we are doing,
being the idea that the commissioners feel like they cannot focus on
everythi n9 at once, so let's do it pitcemeal, I do not see ho.., we can
approve a PC without l(Jl)king at everything, and in feet, tn2 more I tiiink
about it, I hear that the vari ance is l way of enforc ~ng that we do it,
and enforcing that we can. in fact, confirm the findings to the p~int of
what we are essentially approving in the PC, but it ~akes it expliclt at
that time.
Commisst~ner Marsh: I think it is val~able, upon reflection, to have the
50-foot requirement of a variance. I would say that for a couple of
reasons. One is because the 50-foot heignt limit is such a sacred
inst~tution within the City of Palo Alto. We really ~a~t tQ make jt cTear
tQ any develuper that comes forward that it is something we take very
seriou:.ly. Second1y, b~cause tt will, in the process, fOCllS special
att~ntion upon the fact that there is an excess to the height limit, but
given that. considering tne variance process along with the PC application
;s reilly the only realistic approach to looking at the whol~ thing.
Chalrman Chandler: This is something that is not included ;~ the staff
report as a proposal, but we seem to have some diffe~ence of opinion on
06/27/90
-22-
.'?~~.
,"'0. l ;,>--.. -.:~::
I
i-
t , ')r
~~'---
,
,
-
.-~
\
,-
it, so does anio~e'wint to make a metlen to make a cnange to the ~rdinance
rp.spectfng when a var;ar.~e is heard, as opposed t~ the staff proposal that
~aria~c!s be folded into the precess i~d eliminat~d.
C(1lT1l1iss;Qntt....~: First, I would like to ~a"e clarifjed what tnt!
curr&nt ordinance is aoout the ability to app'.y for a 'IIariance, eitber
prior t~. during or after a PC ip~lication.
Ms. lyt)e~ The process for applying for a variance in conjunction ~ith a
PC is no different than a viriance at any other tim~. It can be dQne
concurrently with the FC applicatiDn~ and it can be handled after the PC
applicaticn. It is the zoning administrator process. In the subdivision
process, we do h~ve the ability to wkick l t~At dtcislon up to the planning
corrmission and city council, so that the two run concurrenUy through
commission and council, si~ce tnose are the bodies tMat ~ill be reviewing
tne subdivision. Maybe t.hat is what the c.orrrnission is trying to get at in
this discl.ission --allowing for tt~e ability to process the variance
through the planning commlssion a~d ctty council with staff
reco~ndation, rather than the extra zoning administritor nearing and
process. It is a variance for structures all properties in conjunction
with subdivisions, do not go througn the normal loning administrator
process. They can be referred, with the map, to the phnn~t1g cormJ1ssion
and counc11 directly.
COllll'1issjoner Culh_n: So you are saying we currt!ntly can do it anyway,
with. PC?
Ms. lytle: Not with a PC. Only with the subdivision.
Chairman Chandler: Does any~nf want to mlke a proposal, or shall we just
leave this where it is?
tommiss10ner Hirsch: Do we need one? I question the need for one. It
can either go throug~, along with the PC process. or it can be separate,
depending on tne applicant1s desires. I am comfDrtable either way, unless
1 mis~nderstood you. The applicant could request a Y&riance, along with
tne PC.
Ms. Lytle: Yes, but it would ni~e to go to the zQ~ing administrator.
ui"lder the current code. The PC, on t,~e other hand, goes thrOugh t:'e
planni~g canr.ission and council. Sa there is no mechanism for the zoning
administrator to send the variance. along with the PC application, to the
COMmission and council directly. It would have to go through a zoning
admi~istritor.puhTic hearing first.
COmmissjoner Hirsch: And it could be appealed.
Ms. Lytle: Yes, it could be appealed. Or denied. In the subdiv;s;Qn
process, on the oUler hand, rather than going through the extra zoning
administrator step, there is an ability in our curre-nt ordinance to Simply
take it to the commission directly, with a staff recommendation on tne
~ariance. Then it goes on to the council for final action. That may be a
solut1on here, to adopt the same proctss we flOW use for sub<livisions. The
findings still ha¥! to bE made. The separate Variance findings would
still be before you in the fol"'ll'1 of a staff recommendation. so it would
~tiil require the same scrutiny by staff. It would simply avoid the e~tra
L
06(27(90
-23-
~_:>::';;J:,:
__ :,'~::~~?-f ...
---, .. ----~ -.-----~-------
Thursday afternoon nearing and decision, and possjb12 appeal process, t~at
sort of complicates the ~nol~ matter.
t:Qnmjssiooer Hirsch: .'ould yOOJ pTe'ase describe the subdivision process
one poore time?
Ms. lytle: 'tittn yaT'iancfs that occur along '.dtn a sL!bdi .... isicn. the code
now allows that t~e varlance be proc!ssed thr~ugh the planning commis5io~
recOIAITIe:;dation and cHy council action directly. It does not require
zoning administrator action ~t a11. Although the same findings are
necessary, those findin;s i,e ones that 'Would corne before the cOl'lll1issi<Jn
with stiff recommendatiGn. Ther~ would be no hearing in front of the
lonin9 admlnistrator. It would go striight to th~ commisSion? along with
the subdivision map and any other findings necessary for the subdivision
itself. The ~ariance is ~andled in the same package before the
(onmiss1on, -.with staff re'Cor:rnendat1on. and then soes or. to the council fO~4
final action.
~: Crnnmissicner Hirsch: A parallel process would b~ that a variance
application Dr request associated with a PC would come direct1y to the
plinning commission and then on to the tit~ council as part of the PC
application, ~r in conjunction .,th it, or it could be handTed
separately. I WOULD HOVE THAT as being an aTternative process, that we
parallel the 5ubdlvision process, to clarif~ t~e situation where an
applicant is going for s3mething totally difff!rent than the zone lI/olJld
oth~rwise prOVide.
Corrtnissioner Marsh: In that case, 'JIIould the neighbors ever be notified
that there is an application pendlng to exceed the height limit?
I1s. I ytlc: Yes. The notifiCation .. auld be <If the p1anning (:olTlTlission
meeting, but it would be within the s.ame radfus as would n'Jrmal ly be
required for a zoning administrator hearing. The ad would have to
specifically say that a variance, in addition to the PC zone change. It
wou1d have tD include a specific mention of the variance and what it is
faT.
(orrmiss;aner Marsf1: Would the notification also separate out the variance
from t~e PC application?
Ms. Lytle; That is correct.
SECOND: By Commissioner Cullen. I will go back to my original position.
Chairm,an Cha.n_~: I am going to argue the other position, in hopes of
swaying some votes. 11'1 cr~ating a fist-track process f{lr pes, which 1s
wkat ~e are doing. is a mistake. They arf different from subdivisions
which generally aT! l;mlted to the contents of the map, which is only an
outline. A PC is often a very complex project with many diffeient
interactions. includtng i cor,cept of public benefit. We ar~ fir better
off to callout the varfance as a separate item. The main effect of this
is to take the spctlight off the variance and to take away a second a~enue
for publi~ input and public review on projects that, in the type of zonlng
restrictions that we have in the cOlMlunity no.,., a:-e likely to be the most
comple( a~d iargest projects that we see. J think thls ~ou1d be a
mistake~ and it is not at all parall~l to the subdivision process. Making
r r
I
r
'.
• <
" "
." ,:~B~{~}:t~"~ ',: :' .
..•.. 'i? ."' "'.·cr .. ' . . ..
J ~';'"·"-;iMil.~~lil:fll!t""illiL ...... ____ .
-
it lo~k like tne subdivision process m1~ses what PC applications tend to
be about.
COllll1issjonex ClJllen~ J wO' . ..ild 1ike to try and persuade you a little bit,
Cr.ai'!""!l'lan Chandler. }low many people show up on Thursday afternoon at 4
o~c.1cck for iii. variance, compared witr. how ma:1j1 show up at a pla.nning
commission meeting ~t 7~30 on i Wedn~sday night? AS1de from the people
1n\loh'ed in the va:riince, 'there is se1do1ll anyone present from the public.
I'll bet that wnen Jim Baer's 250 University Avenue variance ~ent through,
there ~as no public present.
Ms lytle: That is correct.
Chairman Chandier: I don't know how ~'ny people show up on a Thursday
afternoon, but I do know that in the PC protess, by leaving it the way it
is, ~e would not be takin; away any of the rtvie~ that ~urr~ntly goes with
the PC process. The people that ~ould sho~ up for that wouid still ha~e
the opportun!ty to. In the case ~here the council made a mistake in the
PC process and a variance is coming alcng. as wel], on a particular item
that deser¥es additional attention, such as height. and which might hare
been considered in the cor.text of the project as i whol~ instead of looked
at for its 1mpa~t by itself, which I think ;s approprtate for the types of
things that arc subject to variances, that it ii worthwhile to have a
separate, inaependent review. I have ~en very disturbed by the types of
pes we are-seeing 1 atelYI and I t,~ink that that type of review 1S useful.
Comissione.!:' HirsQ: I would say that I do not f~el it is a fast-trad.
process. I concur with what C0l!l'l11ssicner Beecham si'id. If I can
paraphrase his statements, it is getting a11 the cards o~ th~ table in one
hearing. r feeT that is appropriate. You rea1ly get to see what the
proposal is, and an aspects of it~ and all dlscretionary reque::aU that
are being made. That is highly desirabl!.
Chairman Chandler: I think. you get tnat an'yllfay. in the PC process~
because when tne PC comes to y~u, you see that it is 62 feet high; you see
that it says they are going to have to appl~ separately for a variance; it
is not like tnere is some big part of it that ~e are miSSing now. It just
takes away the chance for separate review ind independent analysis outside
of the project.
Commissioner Hirscn: As Commlsiioner ~~rsh mentioned, if you approve that
PC with a 60·foot height. what ire you 90in9 to do later on when the
variance comes back?
Commjssioner Christensen: You can approve it, subject t~ the adopt~cn of
a variance. Jf you approvE i PC that has a 60-foot height limit, you have
to have it subject to the adoption of the variance. If the variance is
not approved, then yeo do ~ot have tne PC approval.
HQTION p~: Chai~a~ Chandler~ Is tnere any furtner diSCUssion on
this motion? Tne ~cticn has been made b~ Commissioner Hirsch and seconded
by Commissioner C~ll€n to recommend a change in the PC ordlnance to
provide for review of variances that relate to PC prejects in the same
manner as vartances in subdivisions are handled. All those i~ favor, say
Aye? .1.11 opposed? That passes \In a 5-2 'Iote, witn COlTlTlissioners
Christensen and Chandler opposed.
06/27/90
-25-
. ,
-
· _.' ,-
--";'
.>:. 'iJ'T?r-
The next item is Administrative Approvals of Minor Changes.
Comm1ssioner Chrjstens~n: I am opposed to this item. Having spent on
several pes that we have seen before us, including Centur.l' liquors, where
we have spent all1'1Qst a whole meetin9 taH_in9 aiJout what the uses are going
to be a~d, In fact. talking about how m~ch space is going to be al10cated
to I particular use, that process and the public interest in that prac~ss
and that the uses are set up in i certain way gets lost if an
iidmlnistratf','! apP"'ovil pr~o<ess-;s allowed to dange those lJses without
going bac~ t~ the pub1ic, who help~d us set up th~$e ~se5 i~ a specific
way, saying. now we want to dange them; is that okay with ,,'ou? I think
that violates the tenns of the contract, 50 I would be opposed to this
change.
~.2!!!tl.uiann Marsb: Personally. I would ~ave no prob1em wit~ putting tnat
power in the ,ands of the st.ff. I think they would probably go t~rough a
very sound detisionmaking proce~s. J am opposed to this, however~ because
I think it would ca~se them more pain than it would provide us with
benefit. Once developers or owners of the pes know that some kinds of
changes can be made by the staff, it just may be undue pressure, and the
publ it is obviously not going to be happy havi ng ar,y kinds of changes in
the hands of staff. r think we have t~e potential for a big mess :n the
har'tds of peopl e who do not deser· .. e that.
Chairman Chandler: The next proposal is the Option for Two-Tiered P~view
Process. This 1nvolves conceptual ap~rovil by commission and council
before a PC and all its deta;led beauty were presented to t~e city. Any
C OIIIflfn ts ?
COIml1s.S10ner Christensen: I am torn about this idea. It is appea1ing for
the reasons that Commissioners Hirsc~ and Beecham suggested earlier. On
the other hand, 1 think it is wery hard to give conceptual approval, and
not ha~e tne impl1cat;~n that you are going to be able t~ go forward and
do the rest of tne project. r think it would be very h3rd to ~ay no~ once
yo~ have said yes. For th~t reason, I have tr~ubTe saying yes to this
proposal.
CQITITI1s.Jioner~; we already ha'ole a t..,{)-tiered process. thought the
pro;lOsal was for ii two-tiered process for phasE!d projects. r am even mare
reluctant to approve that. We have conceptual approval. They do not have
to submit working drawings in order to ~et conceptual approval. Then it
comes back a second time, so I do not see that what is being proposed is
different frDm what we are doing.
~Janser.! This ~as specifically the recQmmendation of the Downtown
Amenities Committee. It was particularly th~ chairperson, John Northway,
an archttect in the community, _no felt that the 1evel of detail required
ror a PC submittal was rar too great for some peJpTe to embark upon it
before tney had any kind of nod, yea or nay, from the varjcus bodies, and
ultimately, the city council. What the commission would have to ask
itself, because frankly we have great reser~ations tnat this could
actually be implemented in Palo Alto, is what level of detail is required
in this community before the decisionmakers giwe that con<eptual nod yea
or nay. I d~ not know whether, even jf you appro¥ed this process, you
would be able to see it ~mplemented. That i:;. the question! would ask
L
06/27/90
·26-
" .. ,.,.
~'tt
-
~self if r were on the commission.
no to • ·conceptual· pian?
Woul~ we really be able t~ say ~es C~
Commis~ioner ~ar5h: Commis!ioner Cullen, would you clarify for ID€ ~hat
.I,'~u were referring t~ when you said there alreoldjl was a conceptual
process?
~fssioner Cyllen: We always get pes in two stages.
first, and we tak.e a Too:" at the generll, ralt concept.
tne ARB and they get mare detailj then it comes back to
drawfngs, etc.; then it goes on to the council. All of
for in the present system.
It comes through
Then it goes to
us and W2 get rnor~
that ;s provided
Co~;ssioner Marsh: SO' the differ~i1ce bll:'!tween that and wnat M~·, Northway
intended when he put this forward was that ther~ would be i con~eptual
approval by the city council. Is that correct, by staff's
interpretation? I thir,k there is value in this. Naybe what we really
want is some sort of d:scretion at the level of the p1anning commission
that can boot projects up to the city council when W~ fe~l there is need
of sort of policy direction. Basically, we built O~ something Tike that
with the Architectural Review Board a few years ago. ~e ensured that the
Architectural Review Boarlj had the power to boot projects that implicate
planning iss~es up to the planning commission for fe~dback before the ARB
goes through the wr.ole precess ('If reviewing a project. Maybe we r-eed
something like that at th! planning commission, to look at something and
say, as with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. We would like to get some
city council feedback on tnis befora we spe~d eight months on t~~ [;Rs.
think there is a lot of ~alue in that. There are certai" policy issues
that are discussp.d at the city council Tevel that may never teak down to
us. One e~ample of that which we nave run into is the issue of child
care. The city council has gone through some extensive disci.lssions and
~as the task force and i report, but we have never been privy to any of
tMat, biciuse tnat whDle discussion has taken place at the council level.
Yet, if an app1ication comes forward with a child care center as a public
benefit, Wi need some direction from the city coun~il, perhaps, as to how
that public benefjt is, in their eJes. The option t~ kick that up to them
and g~t that assessment, r feel, would be very valu2bl~ at tim~~. If we
implemented something like this, I would lHe to see it more broad than
slmply llmited to projects that werE two-tiered in the de~elapm€nt cycle,
There are others that wouid qualify, as well.
Commissioner Huber~ My problem is how you define conceptual plans.
[very time you start to do that, tnen you ask the next ~uestion~ and the
next question. I suspect it would be very similar to the Palo Alto
Medical Foundation. You get a bunch of boxes anlj lines drawn, and then
you say, what is it going to Took li~e? Somebody says, jtrs only
conceptual. I am only i lawyer~ not a designer. I have a real prahl em
not being able to see that building in front of me. So I have mixed
feelings about this. If I could get a definition of ~conceptua1· that
w~uld give me a sense of it, J think it mak~s sense, frankly. So~~thing
may float in where .,)'ou really want to tell the de .... eToper, forget it. I'ou
are wasting your time, so don't spend tens Df tho~sands of dollars, but r
don't know how you get around a definition of ·conceptual~ that would give
me enough to work with.
Comiss.i(mer Beecham: I would like to TOOK at this from the point of view
L
06/27/90
-17 -
· -,--
.',N·
,
i ,
:
"
of ~at it car: do for LIS. I be1ie't'~ what ~orthway is thinking of, and
this is, in fict, to c~me forwird with a d~tailed p1an, is a major
1nyest!Jient for a developer. The whole idea of a PC is that tile reason we
do it 1S ~cause there is a pJ01ic. benefit. I suspect U'ere are some
creitfve ideas out t~er>E that \fe flave never tH~ard of, because the
deve10per has not enough confidence t~3t it wou~d ever be approved. Some
of them probably .~uld net be, but some of t~em mig~t, and if we (an make
it easier to fi~J out about it, we may heir of some pes that ~e wou1d love
to have happen. I do not see a problem for us, aside from some
diff~culttes in defin,tion and how far to go in proceeding ~ith this
idea. I would like to proceed with it because!, at this point, I am .an
optiGist, and hope we will hear some ideas that we do like that we wou1d
otherwise never hear abcut.
Ms. Case: I WOUld like to say that from a legal point of vi~w. tne b~st
thing you ,an probably get out of this, as Corrmissioner Huber nas said, is
to kick out it an early stage the real dogs. It will be done probably
before there would be any environmental review? for instan<:e, so anything
that you give someb<ldy will alwiYs be subject tc all kinds of flJrther
reviews. I think it car. be positiv2 in that ;f you have some-one who is
tentat1\1e and is not sure wh!ther the idea will go, and if trlat person
gets SQme positi~e feedback from the council, then they can feel a litt1e
more is~ured tG 9D through and pay for the en~ironmenta1 review, etc.
Commissioner Cullen: [just want ~o ask) how is this different from
havin9 the staff kitk to the city (ounc1l t is they have an at least three
projects that I knlJ'!I" of, some k.ind Df discussion of .hether they iIrIIant
anything to proceed. Fc~ .xample, the Hohb.ch proposal to get ,11 the
parking lot that belonged to Cal Trans and putting a couple of other things
together and make a PC ~ut of that. That want directly to the council.
Two proposal s for Bryant Street went d ired 1 y to the counci 1, one wh i cr.
was Rye Kelly's idea of closing off a biock and d~vel~ping across the
whole street, and anoH.er one for an SU garage combined .... ith a senior
center Gi grocery store. That one went directly to the council, so
doesn't the mechanism already exist for kicking something up that looks
11k.e you need to ~ave a yes, go or further study, or no, forget it, this
is a dog?
Ms. Jansen: ~e ha~e on11 done that where public property was involved.
All of those you ~ave mentioned nave involved public property. On private
property, we d~ not have that mechanism.
COlTIEissjonex Hi rsch: I vie" thi·s 1 ssue in the c.:lntext of {lllr proposed
Agenda Item One for the joint m~eting with the city council that we were
supp~sed to nave last week, and did not haye it. [will read that:
~Shou1d planning commiss;~n/clty council procedures be revi~ed to allow
the cOfOOllss1on to refEr matters to the city council to obt.ain broad pol icy
direction befcre major stud1!S or reviews are undertiker.?" While in the
context of oLir relationship wit~ the c.ity counci1, we are ad~isorJ. in
that \lfe make recolmlefldations. e't'ery now and then I have a very strong
fee1ing that I would like to ha¥e an advisory opinion from city cOLincil
that we should go forward ind study something, or maybe that we should
not. If we had the opportunity to present the Palo Alto Medical
foundation proposal for an ad~isory opinion early on? and council. in its
wisdom, said. dunrt even bother, there ire many members of the planning
commission and sutx::orrmittee of the whole who ha't'e been very relieiled.
L
06/27/90
-28-
-
Othe,.....ise, we would ~ave ~ee-n spendir:g an inordinately amount of time
qhdn9 !'\\in)! of our e~enirlgs to that process, Oill, to f1r1d out that council
was not intEr-est'!!d in the 51~ghte-st. I would like tc see sO:l'le mechanism
in place fer that to h~ppen. I think we miss something by not having it.
What do we lIlis~? '!Je Illiss Wednesday e .... ·enings, when os; lot of people sit
~rou~d thinkin9 about so~thin9 that miY never come to pass. If that can
be, quite frankly, determined very early on? r think. everyone will
ber,efi t .
CsmraissioneT' Christcel'lsen: TiliCi things. First, in the project you keep:
citing, I cannot fmagine the city council sayin9 what you seem to think
they might pcssibly say. They might, in the en1~ but I cannot im3gine
them saying a.t the very beginning, "e don't want to look at '["'is at all,
'Whatsoe'Jer.
Secondly, 1 se~ ~~ role as a planning cummissioner as giving the council
tne best advice I can give tnem, based pn my knowledge and wisdom acquired
o~er a11 these years~ I do not necessarily see it as th~ir telling me the
ad~jce that they want to hear from ~e. That is ~hat I hear some of this
con~ersation sounding like, i.e., we want to go and find out what the city
council thinks before we 100k at this. The fact is t~at we cannot
undertake lny studies without the city council's approval anyway, sin~e
tney are the ones wh~ direct staff and direct us to undertake studies.
aut ~nQckin9 something up to them and saying. well, if you are not gOing
to like this. it may not be a g~od idea and we don't want to spend any
time on it. That rubs me the wrong way_
COmmissioner Marsh: T~a reality of all of this iS I of (ourse, that any
devel~per wh~ knows anything is out there talking to tMe city coun~il
before they e~er begin Hfe process. What they are doi ng is ha~-in9
one-on-one meetings within legal limlts with city ccunci! ~£mbers to get
their informal input. [t seems to me that it makes a lot more sense to do
that in some kind of public forum where that input Cin be shared with tne
publi:: and shared with us. It is not as if the city council is not giving
feedback back on t~ose projects. They ~re in nearly e~ery singTe case.
lt is just being done privately.
_L~~issioner IHrsch: Regarding Com;ssioner Christensen's corrrnents or: ~jI
remarKs, I t~.ink therE are many a.pp11cations, maybe not studies as such,
but tertainly applic:,ations that come dlrectly to us before they go to
cOl.mcil, and they are not authorized by council. They are generated by an
applicant requesting something. I think it would cert.inly be advisable
if you could aSK the question, is the city counci) prepared to allow
significant expansion of the clinic, and you re~ei~ed a reply of NO, then
that whole process could be truncated and we could all go back to enjoying
ourselves. r don't know if they would' do that~ but 1 would like to have
the opportunity to explore the parameters before spending an entire year
of your life working on that project.
Chairman Cl1al'1dler; r have ho (OI'mIerrts. ] do not think this is such a
good idea, and igree very strongly witk what CommiSSioner Christensen has
said, and J ~il1 cover that ground again. Beyond that, as stated right
here in the staff report, -The current PC review process allo~s for the
submittal of prelimfnary plans at the time of the first planning
commission reyfew,-b~t still, plans are required prior to revie~ by the
ARB. If the purpose of concept~a' re~iew is to kick out real d09S, as the
L
-
cHy ,attorney PlJt it, I h~
,and kicking it out without
a bark test t~ere.
that We are capable of recognizing a real oog
i.~l(ing to send it up to the city COLlne" to do
One additional comment: don't think the idea t~at pes ~ncJude pub~ c
benefit me4ns tnat there shouid be a special process that e~courages the
review or submittal (If th:£m. The ~H!bl ic benefi t requi rement stems from a
totally dHferent ide .. , and that ;s that this is a projert which, for same
reason. ;s incapable of adhering to t~e zoning standards that have been
adopted for the benefit of the community, and ~t is a situation where
someone is ~sking for I very ~pecial z~ning that applie~ only to them.
People-generally d<l not create business enterprises for the purpose of
creating' public ben.fit. That is often the effect. A lot of the
development that has happened in the cnmmunity has protided public
btnefits, incl~ding some t~at did not require PCs, b~t thos~ are not tne
purpose of tnem. We look to i public benefit in or~er to justify changi~g
the standards that we feel everyone else is suppos~d to live by. For tnat
reas~n, J do not mind saying that there needs to be a burden after that
initial conceptual dog test by the plann1ng commission, i burden of
bringing forward detail that wi'1 allow for a very close re~ie~ of wnat ;s
g~ing on. So I will join Ccmm;ssi~ner Christensen in opposing this
proposal.
Commissioner Beecham: It seems somehow that we have gotten off the
tracK:. What we were-talKing about here is .110,"in9 i. mechanism by ""hid
somebody could cerne and tne applicant can get a preliminary view from the
commission and the council. I de not see this is being a mechanis~ that
we are gOing tnrough right now on the counc'rl or the c0llll11ssion a.sKing the
advice of the council on what advice the commission should give. I do not
see tnat as being an lss~e here. Also, in the discussion of ~W€ can
always kick out a dog,~ t~at (ertai"'y is tru~. We can a1ways kick out i
dog. The reaSon for doing this is to get more animals, if you want to
phris~ it that way. to apply. So we will kick ~ut the dogs, one way or
the other, but if w! find a variety coming in, hopefully we will havt a
few more comlng in. That is t~g intent of doing this. The dogs will be
kicked out, in any case, and we will spend more time doing this. ~hat!
would lilte to '5~e is a few more good projects coming in, a:-rd I thi.,k this
is the mechanism for a110wing that.
Ccumissioner Chr_istens_.~.n.: r .... ould 1 ike to c.1arify somethin.g. If a
preliminary pr~posal comes in to us, as it can now under our current
pr~cess, and we say no to it, what nappens?
Ms. --Jarisen: Jt does not go fOnolard. But r don't think you can do that
under the current process. We have an application submittal requirement
for PC lone appl'cations that would not allOW fo~ just a look-see ktnd of
proposa 1.
Chair-man Chandler: What does it mean when it says. -ne current PC re~iew
process allows for the submittal of preTiminary plans at the time of the
first p1anning commiSSion review"?
Ms. Jansen:, I think it is a question of "conceptual" and ~preliminary"
and what they mean. For E7arnp1e, the plans that go on to the
Architectural Revfe. Board after the plannlng corrrnission's first review
are generally in greater detail than t~e ones that you originallY see in
L
OS/27/90
-30-
I
I r-... i 'B;
-
that first go+around' at tne planning corrmiss101'1 leilel." However, they i:-E
not, in my mind. what Mr. Northway Mad in 1I11nd at all when he was to\H.ing
about doing a prelimina.ry, first-cut -look-see" through the council. Y~'J
have mentioned that you co not require working drawings. No we do not,
but ~e certainly require rather detailed drawlngs. What Mr. N~rth~ay Mad
in mind, 1 bel ie'lle, is mor~ along tne 1 ines of what Il'::! have take;" with
projects proposed fGr public lands. like the S&L ;roposal, which was
really only verbiage. ft _as only in written f'::l1'1l1. ihere were no
drawin':1s, and' it was just 9!ner-!c square footage, etc. I tt'link that is
.~at h! had in mind when he asked for this pro~lsion to be included. I
think it is a question of whether or not you feel the commission and the
c~uncil could review somet~ing li~~ that and give an approval on that
basis w; t~out having any ~ind of dri.wings before yot!.
Commissioner Hubf!: In 1istening to everyone, I do not like the idea of
this, beciuse frankly, it is inviting iii zone change, if that 'js what a PC
ends. up as. If Otlr loning is any good. we are not invH~ng that stuff,
and I have oil feeiing that if you get down to tne basics, wl,~ch 15 probably
where John Northway wants to be, it is I few sketches and a little sense
of it. and he thrGWs it at yoo. That prOCESS, it seems tJ me, we do not
want to see. The staff has tal~ed about tne larger projects, ind maybe
that makes some sense, but if somebody were to look it i p~ece of property
and say, ~ell, 1'11 take a flier at tnls because it is only gQing tc cost
a few grand to run it through and see what they ~ay) see if th~j bit~ on
it. 1 do not think that is what we '-'ant to do. If we do that, we aTe
saying that GUT basic zoning does nGt make much s~nse. So I dor.lt like
the idea and 1 am n.at ;oing to support it.
Commissioner Marsh: [n defense of the original reco~ndation from John
Northway and Company, tne env;r.anment in which that recGmmendation was
made was one in which it was felt tnat the city was) ir. fact, en(our4ging
PC applications to come forward. It was made on tne Amenities Committee,
when W~ made lo~g lists of things we would like to see come forward to
complete the envirunment of dDwntown Palo Alto. So in fact. [ think it
was made in the spirit of desiring PC appl icatiol".s, and what call we do to
facilitate creative PC applications. That is where this recommendation
comes from. Now it is a Question before us that is being well debated as
to whether we can a::tually put tnat into some concretl; form that makes
sense. But it ..,as very definitely in that spirit..
Comissioner l1irsch: 1 do concur "'Uh Corrmissioner Huber that! do not
see this bejng applicable to small projects. I see its major benefit as
being large projects which r!Quire inlensiye evaluation, and quite
fran~ly, potentially extensive development of data at greit cost, and
would likE to see the filtering rrocess work ear1y on, rather than later
ont for the benefit of eyeryone.
Cornnissloner Marsh: I do recognize the corrments t,",at ha'{e been made here
about how difficult it may be. We may not have the self-restraint that
this kind of recomm€ndatjon would require, and the council certainlY may
nat, either. But it w.auld be worth a shot, if the rignt project comes
along, to see ho~ we could deal with a project on c conceptual basis, and
whether it would benefit both tho applicant and the city to do that. So
maybe we could try it on a test basis.
CQ.nrnissiOl'ler Huber: rr this flows from the Downtown AinenHies Comittee
-L
\
00/17/90
-31-
, " ..
... -~.:> ....
i
I
i
and it is an tn~itat;an for Pes to get certain amenities, then p~rhaps it
1s something that cou1d work just in the downtown, in a fairly limited
arf., rather tha~ invitlng PCs out at M;dto~n or elsewhere. That
apparently is the thrust of what YO'J havt'! stated tnt! committee was talk.i~g
abolJt.
(orrmissioner Christen5eo: I would hale to see us encou:"agit19 e:very perso'1
who has al'l ldea., lind we have nei'd many of them given to us Dve!" the
microphone, just bar.c-of-the·envelope ideas. 'what dJ you think about
this, or that? I would hate to see us do that allover town. We have
seen pes come ,n for the downtown offering us the amenities that W~ are
asJdng for witnolJt U'ds kind of proposal. [f we only 1 imit it to major
ones, we have not turned t~em down.
Cha1rma~ Chandler: Does ~nyone have a proposal to change our current
re~iew p~ocess? 1 .owld note thQt we have this ftern on cur age~d; for a
joint meeting with the tity council.
(Commiss;Qn consensus was to discuss with the city council at jOint
seis; em.}
The next pr\Jposed change was to fmphas'ize DeSign fxcellen-:e and Innovation
as a sp~cjfic purpose in the required determinations section of the PC
district. Any comments?
Cormissioner Cyllen: I am a little concf!rned about why this ;s in I,ere.
I understand that staff has revie.ed other cities, and found that we dn
not have a design excel1ence, but we have , in fact, used design excellence
as one of the c.riteria. r am a little afr.id that by putt-1n.g this in,
some people will feel that that is the public benefit. ] am not a .... erse to
puttina it in. but r want it to be very, very clear that tn1s in no way is
meant to repl~cf! the p~biic benefjt~ but is in addition to that
requirement. A9ain~ it ain't broke, so why fix it1
COmlissioner M.rsh: Was that, in fact, the intent of the staff? I had a
QUEstion about that. Was your expectation that this additional cTause,
Design Excellence and lnnovation, would be a pub1ic benefit Tn and of
itsel f?
Ms. Jansen: Absolutely not. We think it should be a fundamental. All we
wanted to do was to institutionalize that d~sign requirement. Tnat is all
it was intended to dOt so any public ber.efit wDuld be as we are nOIli
reviewing it. Thi, design, we felt (.nd ! think we are getting it) and
wha~Cornmi5SiQner Cullen says is partially true. If it's not brOKe) don't
fix it, but we thought that if we were 90in9 to do this ordinance
amendment, wa s~ould insert language that emphasized design excellence for
PCs.
t2-mmissioner Hirsch: My objection to it ;s that (1) I just absolutely do
nat know what it means, and how one wou1d satisfy it, 50 1 hate to see it
as i reQuirement. On the bottom line, I am just a f1aming conservative.
1 love old style buildings, and 1 do not necessari1y believe that new
design excellence and innovat;~n is f!it~er desirable or, quite frankly~
expected by this cDmmunity. We see a lot of buildings that are approved
and goinS ~P, and many people object to them. Vet, th€y are approved and
they go fOrw'ard. I would leave it just as it is. The real issue we are
06/27/90
-12-
".,"-.. '~
·~i~}:'
I
I
-
" talking about "herr ~ get tG a t'l: is subs;tanti al pUbl i c bCilefi t. That
should be bal'Jdled on a cas~-by-cilse t:.asis !I.'ithout oUe; neCE-SBry
requirements. such as this one.
Comrn1ssiQner Beecham; I wculd like to go off to a different portion of
this, and ask staff wnat is meant by ·efficlent and economical use of
land.-What i~ the objettive of tnat?
Chairman Chandler: Who wrete this, a",yway? (la'Jghter)
Ms, Jansen: Uds is the !'lost painful exp-erience 1 think f have ever gone
throught We are tcld to d~ this, we d~ our job, and we come back t~ you,·
and, it's incredible! (la.ghter)
Chairnan Chandler; I WDlJ1d 1 ike to nott! for the berlefit of everyone
present that this is Car~l Jansen's last meeting, She is taking a year's
1eave of absence at the John F~ Kennedy School of Government it Harvard,
and we ~ish ~er well. This is an appropriat! way for her to feel very
good about being somew~ere else]
Ms. Jansen: Anytliing is :3 judgment ,all when talking abOIJt design
excellence or economic use of land or anything else. I can ol'!ly tell you
that it w~uld be fair1y easy to use language like that to deny a project
when the cOlTlTlissian and c.ouncil ,1 early thought it was not an economic us!:!
of land. rt;s language right out of the Sunnyvale ordinance for Planned
Community zones and their equivalent. rt would just be another piece of
evaluative language th~t you would ha~e in the regulations in order to
review a PTa~ned Community zone. I have i little concern about tne PC
zone not realTy having any of that in it~ It is a dlscretiQnary approval,
and the only thing It says is that you ~naTl have public benefit. It does
not talk about much else besides that.
COmmissioner Beetham: fs th~t to say that one of the public benefits is
economic and efficie~t use of land?
Ms. Jansen: No. None of this was intended to be public benefit. We are
not talking about pub'l ic benefit in Uis. We are simply saying that w{)uld
be one of the criteria that you wo~ld e¥aluate in a Planned Commu~itl zone
appl icatlon.
CCrJ'n1;ssicner Beecham: Car. you ghe me examp1es of how it would aPPlY?
Ms. Jansen: What if you had a PC application for something that you
considered to b. substantially underdeveloped? If you had praperty that
was--zoned multipl e-family~ and it came in at 12 or 15 {Jnits to the acre-of
townhouses~ and you felt it was not an economic use of land that had
higner and b€tter us~ potential? That is an example 1 can tliink of
quidly.
Commissioner Cullen: Wouldnrt that kind of development come in under t~e
regular lonin9? They would n{)t need i PC.
Ms. Jansen: rt might, and it might not.
Reller project, came in ~nder a PC zone.
proposal but it had to come in under a PC
of tnat project.
L
06/17/90
·33 -
The senior citizen projectl the
It had to. It was a residential
lon~ because of ~arious aspects
-
(~!l~.r--t.lJB.t!1: But that was ;I maximum use of hnd. not minimum.
Ms. Jansen: It was in reverse. Yes, r would agree.
Chainnan Chand) e:r: Ooes anyon~ support any of thf!se changes?
.~.21m:liHi_oner )o\ars.,h: I actuall), t!'!ink it 'lrIouTd be va1uable to put in
someth ~ regarding innoYative design and design excellence. 1 am not
sure about t~e other two, beca~se ] am not sure ~~at they mean, but the
ARB has indicated , time aft~r time, that it is helpf'Jl to them ~n various
kinds of Teyi~s to have verbiage t~ere that they can 100k at an~ refer to
for 5tandards to which t~ey can hold applfcants. That has come up when
they looked at transitiDnal zOl1es. and we put in sCtme transitional
language so that they c~u1d look at that. It has CGme up 1r other
instances~ is well, so it just seems to me that if they can leok at the
ordinance and saJ that they ar! supp~s@d to be requiring innovative design
and design excellence, thzt g' es them i!i little m.ore leverage in reviewin9
an application. As long as it is very clear that this is nDt t~ take th~
Dlace of a"y kind of public benefit. but rather, a standard that a project
is elpected to meet, it seems pretty harmless and potential1y helpful.
Chairman Chandler: I do not see situations whpre the ARB is going to say.
This has outstanding public benefit, it is ~ great project~ but it ;s
truly ugly, SD we are g01 n9 to turn it down. I think th~ cons1derat ions
should be taken together. I feel tnat it is already part of the revie~,
for all intents and purposes, and pro\iiding another justification for a PC
should not be what we are doing. I think. that is what would it come down
to.
Cmrmissinner Marsh: .... hy would it provide justification for a PC? 'We are
being very clear that it is nct i justification. It 1S a requirement of a
PC tnat already has public benefits to justify it. !t is simply
institutionalizing the practice.
Commissioner Huber: I have I question for Sue CaSE. Does the
Architectural Review Board need language 1 ike Hi s in order tc require
superior ind iT'no\'atille deSign?
Ms. Case; No, they nave quite a fe~ guidelines in their own chapter
already.
Commissioner Chr1stensen: My concern Is how this would bump up against
the-prfservation of ~istor;c structures, as Co~1ssioner Hirscn
suggested. They certainly are not conSidered innovative. and ·"hether they
are consldered super;~r or exce11ent, I de nat know, either, but a lot of
us like them and would l;k.~ to retain them. That is my concern about
sticking in language like this, and the economic and efficient use of
1 and, becausf! 19a1 n, hi storie structures are usuallY Mt an econcomic or
efficlent use of land, in a lot of cases. So that is my concern about
sticking it in. It could be used against us rather than for us.
COmmissioner Marsh: To p1ay devil's advocate I you could say that the
Bryant Street project that we just rev;f~ed, where you had historical
buildings that were bei~g upgraded, could be examples ~f a PC that had
design excellence because they were retrofitting and improving a
06/17/90
·34·
historical stru~t~re.
,kOlmljssjoner Hirsch: But it may ~ot ~ave h.;!.d inno .... atiOl1.
whether a classic Birch Clar~ design wo~ld meet th~t. It
excellence, but probab1y not ;nn{lvat ion.
1 qJJestion
might be d€~igf1
CQlTIJ!issione-r Marsh: At th:s level of' semantics. J think we should mov.e en
to tne next item.
Chairman ~harldle.r: The-next itel!! is eliminating the non-'~xistent
inspections.
C2rm1issioner Chri.st§!nsen: a~ suri! 'tie all agree with Commissioner Huber
tnat we lJIIould lik.e to see them enforted rather than eliminiiting them. It
is frustr.ating tllat they have made an agreement with us, and then, we do
nothing about making sure they fol1o~ through.
CammiS5i{ln~r Hirsch~ r thfnk the PC applic.ant really asks for someth~n9
oyer and above the then current zoning. and it is not too much for the
C1ty to subject them to inspections, and if nec!ssary, i fee on that
application should be applied t~ ensure that the inspections are provid~d
to protect the public interest.
Commissioner Beecham: [would like to see staff interpret the council's
direction to find ways of Simplifying the application review process, and
somehow to interpret tnat directiVe .as finding ways to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of inspections and enforrement.
Cnairman Chandler: Wen, we tert.ainl) could make a recommendation that
inspections be reinstituted and appropri.ate funding provided for it. Does
anyon2 want to propose that?
tommjssjoner Cullen: I do not want to propose tnat, because we know what
has happened with the budget, but I do not want to e1iminate this, because
t~e budget situation could change from year to year. Once we eliminate
this, we have to go through the whole process of putting the inspections
baCK in. So let's leave the inspections in~ and ~ope that the money
matr.rializes for it. Co;:missioner Hirsch has suggested that we i!'1clude a
fee to finance it~ and that ~ay be a w~y of working that out. We do need
the inspection process in there as the t~~th in tMe PC.
~sioner Huber: Ms. Case, is tnere any method of bonding Dr someho~
ensuring that tne PC requirements are followed, short of filing suit?
Ms. C&se~ Not unless you had someone who st{lod by on a daily basis and
made sure that thin9s got done that were sUPPOSEd to. We do, to som€
extent, until the building is sigraed ()ff by the building irlspectors. As
soon as that ;s done. we do not have any kind of w3rranty bonas, for
instance, except perhaps on city streets~ etc.
COmmissioner Huber: That is exactly ~hat I mean. You put it in, you pass
the test, .and tnsn it all di~s_
Ms. Case:
there wi 11
followed.
To the extent that environmental mitigations are required,
be mitigation monitoring to make sure that those measures are
That is now state law, but to make sure that the use is not
06/27/90
'35-
-
:,)
changed fhe years do .. rl the track., things 1 i k.e tl1at, there i s re~' 1y
nothing short of litigation th~t can be done. I would also add th~tt
contrny to j)opulir th'Ought, there is no underlying zone in a PC. so there
is n.o .utOl"llatic reversion or anj obligation of reversion. Once it is
zoned PC. it is a PC, l.Jntll thi': c iti rezones it. Sc it; s not 1i ke tnt:
city ~avin9 the ability to revoke a use permit. There;s no ~bilfty to
revoke il PC. 'tou would simply rezo:H! it.
Chairman Chandler: Tnat brings us to havin9 to determine how to ~ove
forwird with this. We ",IV!! mdde one rt!corrmendation to modify the PC
review process so that ~ariances can be considered simultaneously. The
stilff has given us. choices. as to hOIll to prcc~ed, ranging fram dirfct1ng
stiff to prepare a drift ordinance to returning it to us to asking the
staff for additional infonJI,ation rfgardtng that to treating a !:.ubcolm'litt-ee
to look further at it, and finally, not directing the staff to proceed,
which applies to the other items we considered. 00 we want to ask that
they brinSl forward draft 1 i!.ngtJage, or do we want them to come up with
additional information or create I subco~;ttee?
MQIlQfi: Commissioner Huber: I ~ove that
the ordinance cha~ge that we referenced.
everything else is a No.
SECOND: By Commissioner Hirsch.
we !$~ the staff to come up wit~
There was only one, and
(ommiss;oner Beecham: I thought .~ had a more favorable consideration of
Item 3 for the conceptual process.
Chairman Charldler: No one was willing to make a motion to support it, and
I believe the majority indicated they were opposed to it.
"'PIlON PASSES; Chairman Chandler: Js th~re ar~)' further discussion on
this MOtion? The motion is to ask staff to rft~r~ with draft language
regarding tht variance process in pes, and to not pUT5ue any of the Qther
changes. All those in favor, say Aye~ All opposed? That passes
un.animously.
ConrnissipnEor Marsh: 1 would simply note that we did state that some of
this discussion we had tonight would be app~opriate for discussion lIIith
the city council at i joint meeting.
Chairman Chand]gr: Right, and I ~ote that I oppos~d the change in the
variance procedure, as did Commissioner Christensen. My motivation in
voti~g is that I think this is the apprDp~iatf wa) to ha~dle the matter
that we did wote on, from a procedural standpoint, and that is why r
support this approach.
L
06/27/90
-36-