HomeMy WebLinkAbout0365.095I •
~
i ~.
TO:
FROM:
--.-..
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Summary Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLtBlliag and
CommBnity Eaviroament
7
AGENDA DATE: July 14,1995 CMR:365:9S
SUBJECT: Chy Staff AllaIysis of Growtla Managemenl of Non-R .. idential
Areas lnitiatl ... Petition
REQUEST
This staff report responds 10 • Council assignment for City staff analysis of the DOW
submitted G<owth Management of Non-Resi<!ential Areas llli'tiative. A companlo<l staff
report prepared by the City Attorney also responds 10 the Counctl assignment
In preparing this response, staffhas tried to anticipate as many situati<ms and questions as
possible. However, it is >-ery likely that, if adopted, tlIe Initiative will have positive and
negative coosequences that are DOC !OreseeD at this time.
RECO~ATIQNS
This n:porI provides analysis but does DO! make recommendatior.s.
PQJJCY IMPlJCAIIONS
TIl<: Initiative meas!.lrC, either if adopted by the City Council or approved by the voters,
woold establish as City pelKy and regulation for the next twenty years (i.e, uno1 December
31,20)5) • series of previous City Council land use planning polkies and n:gulatioos
identified in the measure. Any amendment of tl!ese policies and procedures would require
approval by • vole of the prop!.:. The pof!cies and regulations would need to be inco<porated
in the fonhcoming Comprehensive PIa.'\, a draft of which is anticipated 10 be prepared in
1996.
If approved, the effect of the Initiative would be to restrict the ability of City Councils !Or •
twenty-year period to change residentially-designated land to noo-residentialland use;; on
he' I 0( 15
' ..
..•
. ' -. -~.
the Land Use Map, amend Land Use Map-related policies and programs in tfu,
Comprehensive Plan, and various provisions of the Zoning regulations. Any prorose<l
actions devi<iting from the Initiative measure would need voter approval. This compromises
the Council's ability 10 respond 10 unforeseen circumsta.1CeS. Land use planning issue. and
coocems changed signitkantly from the time of adopting the Zoning Ordinance in 1978 10
completion 0( the Downtown Study in 19S6 and the Citywide Land Use and Transportation
Study in 198<1. In the same way, iI is a safe assurr,ption that len 10 fifteen years in the future,
the City will be addressing land use planning issues that cannot be foreseen !Od.y.
l'h<l City Coun<:i1 would retain the ability 10 create new land use designations and zoning
districts, so long as the oon-residential floo< area ratio (FAR) does not exceed I:!. C.ty
C<>uncil could also adept Planned Community lone< for DOIl-res;dentia I developments
exceeding the I: I floo< are. ratio.
l'h<llnitiative's provisions would be binding on the City but would no( apply to Santa Clara
C<>unty. The Stanford campus, includlng • portion of t.'>e Medical Center, .Dd Stanford
academic reserve land. pr'.mariI)' west of Junipero Serra Boulevard a.nd Foothill Expressway,
would continue under the land use authority of the Coon..<y.
The Initiative appears 10 clearly impact three site-specific land use proposals that are
currently in an application process and/or under discussion in the ComprelJensive Plan
Update process.
1. Stanford has applied, and an environmental impact reporI is being prepared, for •
sen.:. of projects in the Sand trill corridor. The one project that could 00( be
approved without • referendum is the expansion 0( the Stanford Shopping Center by
111, 17() square feet beyood a.e square footage expansion cap incorpo<ated int,> the
Initiative,
2. There has been considerable discussion, in both the Comprehensive Plan Update
process and separately, about redesignation oft.'>. six-ocn: vacant site at Page Mill
Road and EI Camino Real from Multiple FamilY Residential 10 • Commercial HOI.el
la.nd use category_ If the Initiative is approved, this land use change would require
voter approval.
3. Stanford staff have publicly raised the issue of expansion of the Stallford Medical
Center. l'h<l issue has been discussed in the Comprehensive Plan process, but DO
development applications have been filed. Expansic:i of the Center within the
currently zoned PuNk Facilities (PF) area would exceed the Initiative's ma.ximum
OOD-residential fioo< area ratio of 1:1 and would require .'oter approval.
•
.-.-
.. ..
·c .. , ..
. ',.-
. " .
'':..
.. / ,-. . . ..
I" odditioo. it appears that the Initiative prohibits variances <l< design enhancement
exceptions for OOII·reside!ltial bwlding exceed"mg 50 feet. The recently-revised Palo Alto
McdicaI FQUIldatioo campus plan for !be JX"lPO«'d relocal.''''' 10 !be Urban Lane arca includes
one building that would exceed !be SO-foot heigh! limit. IrUle Initiative does proIll1>it 00II
residential buIkfmgs exceeding 50 feet, P AMI' or any other building would need voler
appro"/at
In I broader sense, !be Initiative wooJdliJnit 10 some extent the ability of the communI!)' !o
implement integrated land use planning, <'Specially for areas where existing policies and
regulations bave not resulted in cksirable development Areas of the community that !lOW
ran into 1his category include ~ld1own, portions of EI Camino Real, the Cal-Ventura arca
and perhaps the South of Forest Area. The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee,
Planning Commission and City staff bave recommended detailed area plans for these areas
and a pl8nnlng eflOrt bas been authorized by the Council for MidtOWlL Approval of the
Initiative would curtail flexibility in addressing area issues. Decreased fleXl1>ility would
result primarily from Initiative provisions that iock in the flooc area ratio of existing non
residential land nse categories and zoning districts, lock in the non-residential parking
standards, and prohibit !be redesignatioo of residentially-design.ted land to non-residential
land use categories (even as part of an exchange for noo-residential land).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Specific provisions of!be Initiative include:.
• Conlinuatioo of Ibe Downtown non-residential flooc area caps and """,odmenI
process adopted in 1986;
• Establishment of current Comprehensive Plan flooc area ratio maximums for !he
Neigbbodlood Commercial, Service Commercial, Research/Office Park, Ligllt
Industrial and Major Insti~ial Facilities land \l5C categt.ries;
• Prohibiting I connection of Sand Hill Road 10 Palo Aho Avenue and Alma Street;
• Rcdu<:ing !he maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of!he commercially-zoned !and in !he
California Avenue Business DistrX.1 from Z: I 10 an FAR of 1 : 1 ;
• Prohibiting !he creation of new non-residential land use categories with. n0n
residential floor area exceeding 1 : 1;
. --. , ..
: ...
, .... :.."" " ..
:.. "-" ..
• ConTinuing the expansion limits "" the Stanford Shopping C"oter under which DO
more \han an additiooal 6S,OOO sqUIIN fee( of floor area can be created (of which
16,171 square feet have lIready been created);
• ProIubiting increasing the OOQ-residential floor area ratios in all non-residential zooe
districts beyood that in effect on the date of approval of the Initiative;
• Prohibiting amending Section 18,83.050 of the zoning regulations 10 c!ccrease non
residential pamng ""Iuiremer>ts;
• Prohibiting increasing non-residential zone Iftslrict building heights;
• ProIu"biting any "",,-residential building from exceeding 50 feet in beight; and
• Prooibiting amending the Land u.e Map \0 change any residentially-designated land
to a non-residential land use categO<)'_
The Initiative would limit the ability of the Stanford Me<flCa! Center 10 expand within its
~Public Facilities-zooed, area because the Center isbuil! at. 1:1 floor area ratio. The
Medical Center could expand through development in unincorporated Sonia Clara County
or lhrough C"tty approval of incorporation into the Center of some Welch Road office sites.
The Initiative would not restrict the ability of the City \0 app<ovc extension of Sand HiD
Road from Arboretum \0 El Camino Real and/or widening of the road. so long as DO
coonection is made to Alma Street. Not coonecting Sand Hin Road to Alma is current City
policy. and bas!K)( been proposed by Stanford University.
While limiting the growth of IN: Stanford Shopping C<:nter, the City could amend the zoning
of Town &; CoUntry Village to increase the current FAR of 0.35:1 to as high as I:J.
The ability of the City 10 gran! variaoc.es <l< design enhan<:ement exceptions (DEE) lOr
building height would remain available, except that it appear.; that DO variances or exceptions
could be ~ lOr oon-residentia! buildings exceeamg 50 feet The recently-revised plan.
lOr 1he Palo Alto Medical Foundation', Urban Lane area project would require • variance: <l<
DEE, because ODe of the foot buillfmgs exceeds 50 feet
The Initiative would proIu"bit, ",itbout voter approval, the redesignation of any land identified
as resNlential on the Land u.e Plan Mop \0 non-residential. Since read0p600 of the
eomprcbeosivc Plan ill 1981, cleven sites bave been redesignated from residential to non
residential (see Table 2, attached \0 lhe in-depth staffreport). N"me of the cleven bave been
-
.' .
small sire. (e.g., O:ntury liquor site, Mlddlefidd Road ARCO seni« station, Gamble
Garden Center, Williams House).
In !he current Compn:benslve Plan Update process. ;be only rwesignatioo from residential
10 lIOIH'eSidentialthat has been actively .=sed is the City staff,recommended change of
the approximately six-acre site at Page Mill and EI Camillo Real from Multiple Family
ResideDtiallo a Commercial Hotel designatioo.
Iflhe Initiative is adopted, staffbelieves!hat !'<:Sideatialland could be redesignated 10. new
(and as yet undefined) mixed use land use calegc<y, because mixed use ,.'ould DOl fall under
the Initiative'. definition of Non-Residential land Use (Section 2.0). However, the non
residential compooent of. mixed "'" land use designation and related zoning regulations
would be limited 10 • I: I FAll
Staff can envision situations where future residential development would noI be desired iix
environmental or (IIber circwnstances. or where reccnfiguration oflanc! uses may be desired.
Major impa<:ts of the Initiative's cooversion prolu1>ition would be aMmg cC considerable
uncet<.ainty, lime, complexity and cost 10 the redesignatien of pa.-cels.
F1SCU. IMPACT
For mud> oflhe 1970'S and 19805, CitY pelky was 10 efJe<:tively divorce land use planning
ftom City fiscal considerations. In the later 1980 .. in part bee."", ofbudgel shortfalls, the
City CoonciI began 10 include fiscal issues in the decision making process foe some land use
decisioos. What has aJsc become apparent over the past decade is !hat the City's business
=tors function in very competitive envirorunents, where • decrea..<e in competitive
advantage can result in signilicant economic .!Stress. Business and ecooomic OOservers
generally predict that competitive pressures will become more intense in the next decade and
probably beyond that time. Ifadopted, the Initiative will cO!lS!rict the Council', ability to
respond to ecooomic ccnsideratioo.<, some of which could have severe negative
coosequences iix the City's General Fund. In addition, any land use issues that require voter
approval wiIllrigger delay and an election, both ofwhich bave cost coosequences.
E~OMMPITALA$E~Mna
State envirorunental regulations do no! require environmental assessment of initiatives. No
environmental analysis oflhe Growth Management ofNoo-Residential Areas Initiative will
be conducted.
PREPARED BY: Nancy lytle
Kermeth Schreiber
":..'! . '/"
~.>
. <
, ,
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~ ;( ~~.
TH R. SCHREIBER
Dlreclor of Planning and
Community Environment
ClTYMANAGERAPi'ROVAL: ~~
FLEMING
C .fan_ger
Pac-'''' 15
. ~ :'7--~"~----:-7:::;~'
,-~ . -~ . ~-' . :-;."
..
,r-.
U
........
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
SUBJECf: City Stall A •• lysis or GroWl' Managemut or NOQ-Residentiai Area.
Iaitiativ. Petition
BJTf!MMENPATJONS
This report provides analysis but docs no! make r~tions,
IlACKGROLW
On June 26. 1995. the City Council requested staff analysis of an initiative measure titled
Growth Managemern of Non-Residential Areas being circulated for signa!'.>reS. The
organizers ofdle initiative effort, Citizens roc Affirmative Planning. have since submitted !he
initiative petition 10 the City CIert. While an official verificalioo of signature validity has
not been concluded, it appears lhatlhere are ample signarures 10 qualify !he measure.
Assuming enoogb qualified sigcalUreS, 00 AUgust 7. !he City Council will have an agenda
item 10 eilber proceed ... ,11\ adc¢oo of die Initiative or place the measure 00 the November
1995 ballot .
This staff repon respoods 10 the City Coonci! asoignment 10 anal}"Ze Ibe Initiative from a !and
use planning perspective. A companion staff report ~ by the City Allomey also
responds 10 the Council assignment.
In prep&ring this response. staff has tried 10 anti<;ipate as many situations and questions as
possible. However, it is very h •• ly thai if adopted, the Initiative will have positive and
neglltive cocsequtn<:eS thai are oot foreseeu at this time,
POI,rcy IMPIJCATJONS
The Initiative measure. either if adopted by the City Counctl or 8pprO\/ed by the voters,
would establish as City pOOcy and regulalioo roc the next twenty years (i,e. until December
31. 2015) • series of jlI'eVious City Cooncil !and use planning poIjcies and regulations
identified in the 1IJCIlSUR. Auy amendment of these polkies and procdures woold require
BpprC",aI by a vote oflbe people, The policies and regulations would need \0 be inc<Kporated
he< 1 0(15
.--,~-.----~---.-----
.. -.. '
" .
, ,
. -
,
. --~ ",
-.' .-.~ .
o o
in the focthcorning Comprebensive Plan, a deaft 0( which is anticiJlated 10 be prepared in
1996.
If """,,,'ed, the effect 0( the Initiative would be 10 restrict the ability 0( City Councils for a
twenty-year period 10 change residentiany-designated land to non-residential land uses on
!he Land Use Map, amend Land Use Mop-related policies and programs in the
Comprehensive Plan, and various provisions 0( the Zooing regulations. Any proposed
actioos deviating from the Initiative measure would need voter approv.l. TIlls compromises
the Council', abillly 10 respond 10 nnforeseen circ!llJ1Staru;es. Land use planning issues and
concerns changed significantly from the time 0( adopting the Zooing Ordinance in 1978 10
completion o(the Downtown Study in 1986 and the Cilywide Land Use and Transportation
Study in 1989. In the same way, i! is • safe assumption that len 10 fifk-en years in the futu!".
the City will be addressing land use planning issues that cannot be foreseen today.
The City Counctl would retain the ability 10 create r,ew land usc des; gnations and wninll
districts, so Ioog as the non-residential /klor area ratio (FAR) does not exceed I: 1_ City
C<lWlcil could also adopt PliInlled Communily 20nes for non-residential devel<lpments
exceeding the I: I iloor area ratio.
The Initiative', provisions would be binding 011 the City but would no! apply 10 Sant. Clara
C.ounty_ The Stanford campus, inc!uamg a portion 0( the Medkal Center, and Stanford
academic reserve land, primarily west of Junipero Serra Boulevard and f oothlll Expressway,
would continue under the land use authority 0( the County.
The Initiative. appears 10 clearly impact three site-specific land usc proposals that are
cwnmtIy in an applkation process and/or under alSCUSsion in the C<>mjlrehensive Plan
Update process.
'1"" .51-[ il'J'!
I. Stanford has appUed, and an environmental impact report is being prepared, for •
series of projectS in the Sand Hill C<Xridor. The one project that could DO! be
approved v.ithout a referendum is the expansion o(the Stanford Shopping Center by
) 11,110 square lee! beyond the square footage expansion cap incO!]lOflited into the
Initiative.
2. There has been considerable a!SCussion, in boIb t..'>e C<>mprebensive Plan Update
process aod separately, about redesignation 0( the six-acre •• Can! site at Page Mill
Road and EI Camino Real from Multiple family Residential 10 • Ccrmnercial Hotel
land use category. If the Initiative is approved, this land use change would require
voter approval.
......10115
L
•
-,-' ,
o
3. StanWrd staff bave pub/Kly raised the issue of expansion of the Stallion! Medical
Center. TIle issue bas bee .. cflSCllSSe<I in the Comprehensive Plan process, but DO
development applications have been filed. Expansion of the Center wi!hio the
currently z.ooed Publk: Facilioo (J'f) area would exceed the Initiative", maximum
non-msidential floor area ratio of I: I would require voter approvaL
!n addition, it appears !hat the Initiative prohibits vari:mces or design eoharu:emeot
exceptions fOC IIO!I-residential building exceeomg 50 feet. TIle recently-revised Palo Alto
Medical Foondatioo campus plan fOC!he proposed relocation 10 the lIrban Lane area includes
one butld"mg \hat .... ouId ."ceed the SO-foot heighllimit. l{the initiative does prohibit non
residential builamgs exceeding 50 feet, P AMF or any other bmlding would need voter
approval.
DlSCIm10N
The following discussioo identifies land use planning-re:ated aspects and impacts of the
Growth Managerneut Initiative. City staff identifies 1i:Jur overan comments followed by
spedfie impacts of \he Initiative.
Overall Cotnments.
I. AwIk.hililJ 10 l1njncoIlX!!l!ted Areas -Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan includes
land in unin<:oIporated Santa Clara Coonty. Most aftheunin<xJlpora1ed land is owned
by StanWrd University, including the Campus. • poItioo of the Medical Center,
faculty and staffbous'Jlg areas and academic reserve land, primarily west of Junipero
Serra BouIevlIrd and Foothill Expressway_ Santa Clara County retains land use
control fOC the uninco<pOr01ed area. As such. the Initiative would not be biOOmg on
the County's land use decisioo making process.
2. Ci!y R""ll"'&' 10 1 Tnf(l[P;S!;PIJ cmrnstanoo; -The Initiative substantially lim its the
City's ability 10 respond 10 unforeseen c~ b~ requiring voter approval of
actions outside the limits of the Initiative. Of histOOcaI nate is !hat a significant
number of Jar.d use density regulations developed .. part of the 1978 Zoning
Ordinance (and based on the 1976 Comprebensive Plan) were regard<:d by many
members of the pubfic as unaccep!able ~ the early and ntid-19&0s. It is • safe
assump60n dllIl ten and fifteen years iD the future, the City will be addressing land use
planning issues !hat cannot be fureseen lOday.
3. CitY Response Ig In!'~ed Ana. PlappiDIl -The Initiative would limit to some
extent the ability of the ~ommunity 10 implement integrated land use planning.
especially fOC areas where existing poIi<:ies and regulations bave no! resulted in
.... ''''15
: .~-
· .
o
desirable development Areas of t.'Je commur.ity that new Can inlo .. "is category
include Mid:own, pcwtions ofE! Camino Rea~ the Cal-Ventura area and perhaps the
South of F ores! Area. The Comprebensive Plan Advisory C<;mmjtlee, Planning
Commission and City staffbave recorrar.ended deWled area plans lOr these areas and
• planning effort bas been autb<Jri2ed by the Council lOr Midtown. Approval of the
Initiative would c:urla.I11lelribility in addressing area issues. Decre=d flexibility
would result pr'.manly from Initiative provisions that lock in the floor area ratic of
existing noo-residential !and use categories and zoning districts, lock in the 00<1-
residential parking standards, and prellibit the redesignation of residentially
designated /and Ii> DOll-residential land use categories (own a.< part of an .xchange lOr
oon-residentialland).
4. ImPac! of Initiative Awrova! on Staff Resources -Section 4.B. of the Initiative
requires that "WJlhin 180 days of the effective date of this inltialive meosure, the City
Council shall adopt such resolutions or ordinances as are necessary to acbieve
consistency with all provisions of !his initiative measure.~ If necessary, fol)Qw-up
City actions will be subject 10 normal precessing and review procedures, including
Pla!llling Commlssion review of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Or<fmance
amendments and environmental review analys" and do.;-.Jmelltation of an actions. If
the Initiative is approved, an as-yet-undetennined amount of Planning Division and
City Att<>mey's OfIke staff resources will bave to be de\·oted '" the implemenlation
effOrt. Of particular coocem is implementing the C.rilOrnia Avenue arca rezooing
trom • 2':1 '" a I: I FAR Foc the Planning Divi.<ion, this implementation effOrt would
require shiiting staff from ~bensive Plan Update and O!her special .tudy wOO<.
The 180-day time period is quite short, and t\'en with • major commitment of staff
time, it is cooceivable that ODe or more development appIjcation moratoriums will be
ne=;sary.
Comments on Specific Aspects of the IrJti.tive.
I. crmrtjnn ofNew Land Use QesiWJatjonS and Z.9J)jn& Districts -The City could create
and apply new land usc designations and zoning <f!S!ricts, SO long as the non
residential floor are. ratio does nolexceed 1:1 (Section B.2.).
The City could create and apply new ZO<'Jng d',str'.cts within the floor area ratio (FAR)
ranges and maximums lOr land use designations identified in Section A.3.
(Neighborhood Commercial. maximum FAR of 0.4:1); Section A4. (Service
Commercial, maximum FAR of 0 .4: I); Section A.5. (RescarchQffice Park, maximum
FAR at 0.5:1); Section A6. (Light Industrial, maximum FAR of 0.5: I); and Section
A 1. (Major InstitutiooslSpecial Facilities, ma.ximum FAR of I :1). Nearly all land
currently baying one of these land use designations is zoned at the maximum
..... 1.0115
~, f
..
'.
. .
t:'., -' ...
I
I
I 2.
" -, -.
. '
. '-'."
identified FAR exceptIO< ResearchIOt'flcc Park areas (e.g, We<! BayshCl<e F rootage
Road, Stanford Research Park) which are gene!'ll/ly zontd at a 0,4:1 FAR rather than
the ma,.imum 05: 1 FAR of !he Researchi()ffice Park land use category
Amemtmen! oftbe Land Use MIIP and ZoojD Ii MIIP· The Initiative would DQ( restrict
the ability of the City Council 10 amend the Land Use Map and rezone properties,
exceptIO< !he prohibition of changing ""Y residenti'l11y-designated land 10 • non
residential land use calegO<)' 3Ild the prohibition of non-residential floor area ratics
greater than [: I. The Initiative defines Non-Residential Land Use as a use that
·con:esponds 10 Neighlx><hood Commercial, RegionaJiCommunity Commercial,
Se~ Commercial. ResearchlOffke Park, Light Industrial, and Major
InstitutionslSpecial facilities" (Section 2.D.).
3. Planned CommlWjty 700es -City Cooncil-adopted Resolution 7151 aDows the City
10 appro,'e Planned Community zones with floor area ratios above !he maximum
ratios identified Jbr land nse categories. The Initiative would 00( cbange this aspect
of Resolution 7151. Thus, Planned Community ZODes CO\lld exceed the 1:1 fAR limit
in the Initiative.
4. QownIPWJl The Initiative incocporates !he 1986 Dewntown Study floor area caps
(Section AI) and modification procedures (Section A2.) <ootained in Zoning
Onfmance Se<-'tion 13.94, Commercial Dewntown Districl Regulations. Any future
modificat'oo. of Downtown zoning regulations woold bave 10 be consistent with •
maximum FARofl:l •
. 5. Sand Hill Road The Initiative would DOl restrict the ability olthe City 10 approve
extension of Sand Hill Road from Arboretum Road I<> EI Camin<> Real andIoc
,.i<lening of Sand Hill Road, so Ioog as 00 connection is made to Alma Street (Section
A.S.).
6. S!anford Medical Center -Stanford Medical Center iDcludes land within the City
limits as weD as land in uninCO<porated Santa Clara County. Medical Center land
within the City limits is currently developed .t • I: I FAR. Under !he provisions of
the Initiative, any expansion of the Medical C"nter would involve expansion olthe
Medico! Center', area within the City (e.!~ incorpocation into the Center ofsotD<;
Welch Road office sites) aruliCl< developmcnt of ne .... facilities in "".incorporated
Santa Clara County (O.B. lands south of Quarry Road, lands west of Pasteur Drive).
7. &anfocd SbQWipii' CenteI -In 1989, the City Council amended the Z<llling
Ordinance 10 establish. 65,OOO-square-fuoI expansion cap Jbr!he Stanfo<d Shopping
Calter (Section 18.43.05O(gXI) of the ~lt)" zoning regulations). During the .doption
Page 11 0115
, : .-~,:
~ , ,
,
.. '.-... . -~
o
process. some FWuting Commissioners and City Coun<:i1 Memben advocated the
floor area cap as an interim measure pending resolution ,,{ Sand Hill Corridor traffic
problems. OIher decisIDn makers advocated the col' ir.espective of ",,,.t lraffi<:
improvements were made in the Sand Hill Conidor (see attached cllnutes). The
Initiative in<:oq>oratcs the 65,OOO-square-fOQ( ""p. Currently. 16,171 square feet of
the available 65,000 square feet bave been coo.stru."\ed.
8. Iown &: Coun!o' vma~ -In 1989, the City Cooncil amended the Zoning Ordinarn:e
10 cstablislla 035:1 FAR lOr Iown 8< Country Vtllagc (Section 18.43.05O(g)(2) of
the City zoning regulations). The Initiative does !lOt address this speci1ic limitation.
The In.~ative establishes. FAR range of 035:1 10 1:1 lOr the RegionollCommunity
Commerdal land usc categO<)' (Section B.l.). Thus, under its current land use
designalion, the lloor area ratio lOr Iown & Country Village could be increased 10 •
maximum of I: I. .
9. Calif.omi' Avenue -The Initiatiye reduces the maximum FAR oftbe (,alifornia
Avenue Community CommerciaI-zooed areo trom 2: 110 I: I (&ctioos 8.1. and B.5.).
City staff is assembflllg lloor area information lOr Ibe CalilOrnia Avenue area that
sbould he aVaJlab1e by the July 24 City Council meeting. If the lOla.! existing 0011-
residential fJoor area is close 10 or exceeds a I: I FAR lOr the RegionallCooununity
Commercial-designaled CalilOrnia Aveoue area. implementation of this proo.isioo will
encoooter significant difficulties.
10. Pamna requirements -The Initiative would prohibit the City from reducing curren!
oon-resideotia! parl<ing requirements (Section B.6.), but the City could adjust
residential parking requirements and could creole new mb,ed use (residential! n0n
residential) parking requirements. Existing lands<:ape deferral and 0Iber parking
ad")USImeot IIlCChaoisms contained in Section 18.83.120 of !be zooing regulations and
parking exceptions such as those in the Do .. ntowo Oxnmercial District would remaio
in effect (see atta<:hed Sections U.49.IOO and IU3.l2O).
II. Hejght limits -The Initiative would probibit modification of existing height limits
and prohibit any non-residential building exceealllg SO feet in height (Section 8.7.).
The abiliIy of !be City 10 grant variances 0( design eMlIDCemer.l exceptions (DEEs)
lOr building height would remain avallable. except it appean thai DO variances or
DE.Es rould be granted lOr oro-residential brnlamgs excceamg SO feet. Staff
concludes that mixed use (residential!commercial) and residential buildings could
receive variances or DEE. lOr execeaUlg tile 5O-foo( height limit. Attached Iable I
identifies the fOur projects (three noo-resideotial projects and one mixed use project)
that, in the pasl1eo years, have received approval 10 exceed the 5O-foo( height limit.
The only dcvelopmenl appfication currently under review that would need a variance
I'ac> 12 d IS
-:---"------
..
".:--"
or DEE because oCthe 5O-rOQ( height limit is !be Palo Aho Medkal FOUIldation'.
Udn", Lane area =pus. In order to accommodate two levels 0( undergmund
parking. one o(the lOur buildings exceeds !he 5O-rOQ( height runit.
12. CQnyersjoo 0( resident;al land to OOO-residenlW -The lnltiative would prohibit
, changing !he land use designation 0( residentially-designated properties to a non
rcsideotialland use designation (s.ctioo g".) unIe..s approved b~ a vole o(!he people
(Section S.). Since 1968, • major thrust 0( Comprehens.'ve Plan land use designatjon
cbanges bas been changes 0( properties from non-residential to residential Ian<! use
designations, Atta<:bed Table 2 identifies !he resi<!entiaI to ncn-residentiaI land use
designation cbanges thai have occurred since readoption o(!be Comprehensive Plan
in February 1981. Of !be eleven changes, two wore v<>led on by !be puhli<: (3005-
3009 Middlefu:1d Road -!he \\i-we! Lodge and !be 1991 Palo Aho Medical
Foundation cbange foe a portion of their campus).
In !he current Comprehensive Plan Update process. !be only redesignation from
residential to llOII-residential that has been actively <f1SCUSSed is !he change 0( Ibe
approximately .b'-a<:re site at Page Mill and fJ Camioo Real from Multiple Family
Residential 10 • ~.mercial Hold designation,
if !he Initiative is ad<>pted. staff believes thaI residential land could be redes1gnoled
to a new (and as yet un<Iefined) mixed use land use catego<)', because mixed use
woold QQI fall under !he Initiative', detinitioo ofNoo-Residential Land Use (Section
2.0).
Staff can envision situations where residential development is not desired for
environmental or other circumstances, or where re<:onfiguration 0( land uses may be
desired. Major impacts o(!be Initiative's conversion proIubition would be adding 0(
coosiderable uncertalnty, time, complexi..-y and C<lst 10 !he redesignatioo of parcels.
ALTERNATIVES
Regarding !he Initiative, !be Council has three ahematives:
• AcIop! !be contents 0( Ihe initiative;
• Place !he initiative 00 !he balklt; or
• Place !he" Initiative on !he ball<>t along wiEh a City Council-spo<l5Of'ed ahernative
measure.
.--' .-:-"
>,
.. ~.
-. ' ... '
:-'Yr--'·· .
-: ".~-:~) ~~ ~ "':.~ '-
,.
o
fiSCAL IMPACI
For mocl! of the 19705 and 1980s, City policy was to effectively <fiverce land usc planning
from City fiscal eoosiderations. In !he later 1980s, in part because of budget shortfalls, the
City Council began 10 include fiscal issues in t!le decision making process b some land use
decisions. What has also become apparent over Ihe past decade is !hat the City's business
sectors ~ in very competitive environments, where a decre ... in competitive
advantage can result in signifi<:anl economic distress. Business and ecooomic observers
gcneraIIy predict tIurt competitive pressures ... ilI ~ more intense in the next decade and
probably beyond tIurt time. If adopted, the Initiative win constrict !he C<luncil's abilily to
respond to economk considerations, some {J( which coold have severe negative
consequences lOr !he City'. General Fund. In addition, any land use issues thai require voter
approval will trigger delay and an election, both of which have cost consequences.
ENURONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
State environmen!al regulations do oot require environmental assessment of initiatives. N"
enviroomentaI analysis of the Growth Management ofNoo-Residential Are .. Initiative will
be conducted
STEPS FOLWWJNG APPROYAI,
This staff reporI has been prepared lOr !he purpose of CoonciI review and discussion. No
actioDs are recommended lOr Council approval. As noted in the Bacl<groond section,
assuming enough qruilified signatures, on August 7, !he City Council will have an agenda
ircm 10 either proceed with adoption of !he Initiative or place !he measure 011 !he November
1995 ba/loc
AlTACHMENTstt:XHIB1TS
Initiative Petition, Growth Management ofNoo-Residential Areas.
Table I: Projects that havereccived~ 10 the SO-fOOt beigbtlimit in the pasllO years.
Table 2: Residential to non-residential land use designation change., 1981-1995.
Planning Commission and City Council 1989 Minutes reganfmg Stanfonl Shopping Center
Expansion Cap.
Sections 13.49. 100 and 18.83.120 of the Zoning Ordinance (P AMC).
cc: Planning Commission
Comprebensfve l1an Advisory Committee
Citizens lOr Affirmative Planning (Emily Renzel)
Neigbbodlood Organizations
':--------------
""'-~ , ". ,.
:-~~~:;--"-~~-~ i '_-.
Staofocd Univ .... lty (Andy Coc, David Neuman)
S~focd Management Company (Curtis feeny, Bill Phillips)
Chamber oC Commerce
California Avenue Area Development Association
Pac-IS " 15
' .. --
-:,
'!4~'!.."l'"'It!Ic4ift',,.J'HI!' P.~,~ W'~~1:" ~"': -', ",', :". (' :'
~}!,hetc.t)y &i~ _or_t!~ in~liorl_ ()r lllC pcIlOllS ,_WOOSC l!artkCS,OIPpear ~ 10 " _
,TalC ~f11ni!iaG~ peqliofl .. '!~n 11ie City of Palo AlilJ fl)(' ~ 'rW'pCse ,of Jirn.~tI-", ;~
lentUI ,oon--residcrl_tiaJ imwIR ind' liaffk. A mlemcflt: of the reL'lons fottl\e proposed
: '011 as cooU':nlptatCd m said pctilioa is M fonows:
Tbi!-iniWluve ~n: is inlC~ to limn IloQu·rcsidcnlia! growtiJ in onkr h:I
,prOlect P;l1o ~o FCSicScf:" from increase" Vtl[fic cOtlgc_~n('ln. ~i<!~ ai.r and
Mist po!1utbn, almir.Ll11CA or property nhx,'l>. dcp:eGon of Eand Vw'bk'b 'WiIoLlld
or?\crwi~ cx.'nl rWLJIC: 10 !he Ct<y·, Ilcu,.'o;in,g Sl.Irpty. che cx."ausGon or ~-IC Otf.s
"" IUI:(URllCS?un.:es._ t1Ie ,inCreased oocd fcr, expcndiiJ.l!:"C$ fur .streets, pllbIic .set\'ices
" ':~ ~ a'ti~ities,. <1M. ,the ~1Cri~tion. oqrlC-q,uamy or life i;J. Pilla • .tJto,
':--i-" E~.il;"M,R~_~ J ,'::
qUZtn.5 r~ A!lirmatl~C ~l~U1g
Oft' OF lAlOAlI0 INITLAllVFMEA5t;RE __
-GROWTH MANACEMEJ''IiIT Of .NO~-RfSI OCNTIAl_ .... REA$
THE PEOPLE OFTHEOTYOF rALOAlTO 00 O~DAIX AS roll 01'\1'5:
-_ ....
1'... lnadf.'<Iuatery (On!ronC'd llon·rcsldemLi'tl: ","vck1pml'Jlt wilJ imp.1ir the pubf>e he"lth~
safely, .md wctf<lr-E of tI'k.' rcsidcn!s of ral0 Alto toy Glou.'l-Ing incl1.';;.scJ tr.lffic con6>t'stJcn.
~l'?d. air i';nd noTs.!-ponution.. d:lminutic-r'I of pruperty y<l1u~ dep1ehon 01: land. W11kh
would otherw'"LSI! cl)Jltribute 10 me Clty's bousing supply, .and tIlE exl\austJo(l c-i-tIle City's
natural resour~. Suc'h c:lU:t'SSIve deveIol'ffi('tlt would eycnt LJ<l rly resuit in rna-eased
e'lICpenditu~ tOr pubn.c Btf<'1!t5" otmtics, a.ttd St'l"~ and wooM ('\il!llruilny deteriorate tIlE'
que.ra.ty of tife for the residents r1 Palo Alio.
B. The: ,o.t)"S Comprc!lC'TIsivc 'GcnI..>-rat M.1Lt .. dUj.lt:.".l r"hru.-wy 2, 1981,.IS iU1'l<en&d
UU'OUgb. June 1,. 1995, ccnlail'.s va."iou! loud U,o;o.' f'vr .... -io.."S whk"h pr.'itCC: the Gty and ~
residents from UU: OIdv","rso! effet.15 of e-,",~sjve n(10-t:..'S1,j·.'lJliaT dc"dup~'1Jt. lnt-se potldio5
wen: ad"optcd after an extensive DoWTIlown study completed in 1986, t1~ Citywide lAnd U~
and Transport.;rticln Study c-amptctcd in 1989. an.1 OOl€'r studi .. "&.
C 11lE' pU!J>"Sl."S of this :nitial::i ... ·e !l~oilrun' al"e I) to lim!!: l[;; me growt1-.. 2) ~o ensure
that \ands desi!;11iftc"~ !lOW OJ: in O1e future" fur rHJo-n."Sidc:-.liru d~-<'lc>pfru>nl: will not be
develDped. redev~loped. or C'oIHlel'tl:.'d to densitic5 which woold de-grade Palo A!l:n":!j present
en~.rorunent. and 3) In rc:>Strkt ,"mveI'SiOIl 0' Itlnru d"-"Sign.aled f'lf rcsidenHal use 10 non
resio,,"I'II'iaJ n5e..
A. fM..IQ..ll..ItQ....Crr.q;PJcl~!1<;'-~~Lr~_n mearus the Pato Aha ComprcllCnSlve Piau
198iJ..-95 adO!')J:N and amended ptlrs;.1OlI1t 10 Tlite 19 of the P.I!O Alto Mw-u.:'p!ll Code and
PUfliUaJlt to Cati f\.lm ia GovC'nunenta1 COd'l' SI'.>dion 5..100 ct seq. re-q .. iiting the City 10
prep&1';. adopt Imd alnCnd oil cllmpron..mslvc, Iong-tc-rm &m'-'r~ pl.lll Me tIli!' rhysk-.:J
dev;J.oplI ... nt of the city.
II. £!.::!m:_An:i!...Ri!fig mt:'lIilS the nl<Ixlmum ratio of gr.">S.S .floor afeil on a site to tIlC total
silt> .. .-elL
C. InitiallY<' Lff.a:;tJ.E:. mc.lnS a pmpos.:h L'Y Jhe quanf1l.·d and rL?g-istcwd e-led'OfS of t1-.e
cily p~nted to Iftc GtJ Council I~lucsting th."It t1-.e prop;.-.,sa1!x, l\oopted by the Cll}'
COW1di1 "I'itilo,tlt aIu>rntion or submitted to a vote of the elc<.."1aratf' of the GrJ in accard"ance
widl Articfe \'1, ~iOD 2 aI flU" P!lTo Aha Charter. v,'hMl enacted:. 80 init!ati .... e! tlleasu-rl!
beco:nes .. lIa!id .and bincfing ordlnimce of tlu: Oty.
o. NoD~_""_<;;nlii!l ___ Liln<:f __ U_~ n'\C<lJ16 a l<lnd usc within the City Wnits I,Jf rilfo Al!o
whidl C'{)r~sponds to Neighborhood Ccrnme-rcial. Rl-gionaVComml!flity Commerdi!;,
~ Com.'!\eT:::1a1. ResearcJ.1!Off~ Park" [jght Industrial, and MoljOC lnstihldons/SpE'ciJl
-"",-'~'-~~-.-. ----, .~,-'-0-,:;~:t;' .~:~~ :::1:, ' , :'".
"-.
. i> -, -
F&(')litit>l (JIlego:ies dcscr~d in tlW!' P.lo.Alto Com}-'ITt'TwmslvC' PL. .. !'\; but d.,..!S fhll include
the rt;..,ldcnUallaod 1.1.5e ca:L>gC1r1Cfi ,"t the .:atCSOfic'!i r:I l'uL-,tidy Owned COHscf\l,.tian land,
Pubr1( PJ~ 5chool District !ands. Streamside C\.lCn Spare. and Open Spaa.Xontroned
De-ile10pmenf •
.E. Ru2hll.ismmeans ... kgisblive a(t e-vidE:nCi'd in .. writin& and ac1'optPd by thl! City
Council _I..s u.<:.t'd he~u. ~!\ltion indud'e:s OrdlnanO!.
A. This inir.ath·~ meastl.r1!' hl-r ... t.,. affirms .nd re-adop!".jj; t!w roDawing Reso!utions, or
pcruOfl.! iNreoi. wnkh eU"'oeJ'ded the Pille A1I-o CrJmp~heMve Genera! Plan ~een
hbr.lIL-"Y 2. 19B1 and ]u:ie 1. 1995, and which shalJ remain in eff~.'~ un-fJ DecP.mber 31. 2015
un!e.5S a.me-nded by • \lote of the pe.:-p'le::
\. ~ Olrrent ~ximum growth for non-residential dl ... ·ek,pm.:.·nt in the downtown
illt'iI 8!, .. U f<.'!l\i'lln Umtt .. d tt'l b.'ll po.'Cc..·I\t f.'6O,C'lDO 1I<.1UDi'C fed ul floor art-'Ilj ~bo ... -e thoe amount
of devetopment exisling N approved: In V.q 1986 a5 pro\-ided L-'l SKtjon 9 of City Council
ResolutIon No. 6515 CUnanimously adopted July 1-4. 19S6~
2. GrowtIt ceg.lltatlons fO£ noa.·residential development in the 00W".1town Area s..'taJ.1.
bE :re--£VaJoated w'hen devdopmenr appt'DVaYs reach two-thirds (235,000 square £eel of £roar
a."E'iI) of the tim ~ent gt"0\0'01h Emit a:os pnnri.ded in Sectbn 9 of City Council. Re$0Iution
No. £S;lS. 'Pnanimously adopted Ju!), 1(, I9&';
3. The "orTeN maximum anowable nun-residential floor area ratio for the
Neignboffiood Cor:runerdal land' "SO: C<rtego!)' shall contIrn)1! tc 'be limitc-d 10 ".4.:1 a5
provided in Sco:lon ztd} r4' Oty C{luno1 ~'utioo No. 1151. ~Jn ... njmous.1'y ildr>ptcd
Octob;r19 .. 1992);
.t. ihecuITenl 1Jl;l')(imum atl(1W<1ble noo-n"Sl&nli.l! fl('!(l:" arL·,. ratio fIX the Scrv.i.ce
Commercia1 land lOUlC' c.lt~ sh ... n continue to he limfu:>d to d..t:1 itS providl'd in Section 2(fJ
of City CO'.mdl. Re.iOtution No. 7151. (Urumi;nau!Jy ad'optl"d OctrJbe-r 19, 1992"
5. 1be .current rn.1xfmllm a1ti>W1tbie 1'\ocH'~identiaJ flooc: iUH r.nTo 10f the
Reseiu'.::J:t.'~ rad!: Jand usc category s'hali contmue 10 be Iunited to • rangt! of 11.3:1 to
O5:t as provlded in Section 2(gJ or CIty CounciiiI Pe$Obtion No.. nSl. {Unarumous!y
adoptl!d October 19.. 199Z,r
6. The curreru maximum anow>1bte tloo-residcnn.l floor ~rt'a .ratio (i,1C tile Light
Industriillllmd use Ciltegory sh3ll C'Ol'ltinue 10 be limited te @5'.t iIS provkiecl In Section 2 (hJ
of City CounciJ ResolUlion No. ?iSl. (UnanImoosly a!.1opled Ocwber 19, 1992~
7~ The CUIT.ent maximum aIlowi'lbl.e llo(,Hl;sidenhal Floor area ranD for lh! MajOr'
Instihlticlfis I Special FiK11i:'ies land tl5e c-"Iegu:y .shirl continue to be limiled: to 1:1 as
provided in Section 2,'k) of City Cmmd Rc:-solutkm N,l. 7L=;1. (Unanimously ad0ptt'4
OctotJer lCJ. !'J92);
B. 'Ill!;' current rn",hibita"J1:l {If 41 ("11I1('ction of Sand ltID R['1i1d ID ralo Alto Avenue &:
.Alma Street shan be U\dIr.taln~d as ~ided in Section 5 of Ol:y Council Rc.s.o!utiuo No.
~lS. tuMJ'llmously .dop!ed July 14. 19&).
I. Tn addition to reaffirming and fea&o .. >ting d\e aro .. "'t! prorlsior.s of lhe Pale Ana
CNnprehenswe Gene:-aJ ~n. thls initiative trIl'asure hercby &!!"ICnds tN 1'alo Aho
Compre1'oeruive GelU!raI Pliin to add the ronDWlng provisions to remain in ef'Fed: until
Derembet' :n~ 201..c, or 1!I1le$ AI'I'"If'f'.dcd by , vnte of the t'€rJple:
1. 1be rurr .. nt m.1Urnum a now.1bte non-residen!ial: fl·:~ ~n'il ratio for the
Jtegionat/Ctlmmunily Commcrd;:tll&lnd tlse Glt<>gory shiln be rcd-LH'e<! fn:tIT. I rilT'lge of ~.3S;t
to 2:t to II range of 0-15:1 to ~'l. lj''X'teby a:mencfmg ~-criOtlll(') of OtJ Council Rc!ofuUon
No. nli1. tu~nlmous'l'y adoptl.>d Octolx'r 19, 1~2&
2.. No new nC)IH'eSdenliill !and use a.tegory creOl!",d 8ft~ the efu.-ar\'e date of this
irtitWfve sfun furve • noc-residenti<11 floor are.! M;;~6mg 1:1.
21 ,<; lid z-t:i1f So
~~y ;;:-s;-.. -.. -,--... -~~------
, >
:l lbe current m~xim ... m .nowabTE I'lonercsilkntial t100r aru fot Stanford Shopptng
Center sru.D (G1'\l'U1.ue to ~ limil~ l~ the m,ndmum whidl physlca tty extst~:d on August 1~
:t98'9~ pl"us ~ adcfiborH:·1 65,O{lO ~lilaTe reet as provk'fed for ir1 5t>ction S of Gty CounciJ
OnftMnCt' No. 389Q ~t1 an(moL:.!ty ad<lpted August 1, 1989)
4. Th.;o lnohimum lIt1:nl"abl.l!' I')Nl-rt!'l.idcnti.!l flClOC" an.'a Tiltios in lin I1on·r.e.iidentia!
'Zone distr;ds shall not exceed the current Ino1:xIO'lUmIi e.JIa't1l'shed ttl tJ,~ 2.Ol"Ie cf"1SUict.s l!>
of the effEctive d.1ti!!" of rhf5. mltiatlv~
!J.. Notwithstanding any otr·..c-r prcJVisicfls of this initliltl\·e., tlle milxim,Jm fiinlt of
.. llo-,,'aN!! l:IDn-resictt'1:ltI..al fl~·I",r .an:-... r .. tio fOt" ~\I: "ClIlifomi<l-Cambrl1ge Avenue Bus'iru:ou
Dis::rid shall be rN"uC"!d from 2:i to 1:1 thereby al1"lendln,g Oty CaunOl Resolution No. 62..16.
(U'nantmoos1y ado-pled March U. 19'84.)
'-The mir.[n-.um number of required paddrlg IIpaces for ~n: rl0:o·resi.1entw U~ as:
descrhd in Palo Alt.c Munidpal Code $cd~on 18.8J.05O as 01 the-efh>cthre date d dlis
initialive shal! corttlnue 10 be &.~ mfuimum number of r-equired: pan-.mg spaa.-s for those
0 ....
7. The C1alC.UtlUrn aDo\.Viilb1e "bLd1ditlg ·helghts for aD m)n-residential zane distrb..""'ts shan
not exc:ew.-d t.1le milxIrmun aDowiibli!-buM!!1t; :f:eights e.~labIis1led for those zone dis!Tias as
of flore e-ffect.t ... ~ date r::A!his "i:'.ilia~ ive arid in no <ase shal! ttl\! height of anJ !\Or\~teSlde.."\tla\.
bui!omg e'XCN'd 50 ~
It No fund dcSignilltoo in tT,c r~lo Al!O (""om.mo.hNlsr\,c-GeneraT Plan Land Usc "Map for
resid'.:-nuOlJ use as of trlC C-ff('CIivt: d.1t1,' p( th~ O(d"irwnCl!" 5111\11 t:c r.."d;;signJt~ for no n
r~)dcnLi.u U5t'_
A.. Upon enacuneut 01. this ini.tiaHve l!\I!asl~ It s1-;alt be deecr.ed insonted in the land
U$Ie Element of the Palo Aho CompI"'!l\eI1sive General P1.an of the Cky ol Perc Alto as an
atroendment t"hemo£.
"1_ .Any pro~;·isi.Jn5 of the City Zorung: Cooe or any otJoer ordinan(:e or tesolution of the
City incons!"stent with this iniLi.nfve mea5Uft' .sl\all nl1 be enl\."·n:ec! !c file extent of t11t'
inronsistency. Within lEO days of 1111: effective dati:' of tIli$ :initiative m<,asure. the Oty
Council shan ... aopt sum resoTulions or or,;fLtlances " are nc-~SSilry 10 ach1evf! ronsistency
.... ilb aD prcwisions of thIS ini.tiativ~ measure.
C. £JU:ept i1S ot!wrwi5e clo(('mptcd. upon tlu;-enactlTk'nI of 1'1i5 initioitiYe measu re all
gene-ral pTan .&;nendments. rezonint;s. _o;.vedflC rtans., teiltJtiyc-arid final sobdh'"Loioo maps.
p.;.rceI maps,. or Cond""rtiOHill use permili. foe U$CS not yet approved DI" is.."'Ued sl\a!! net be
appI'OVt'd or is.su.pd unless cor.sIste-nt ",·i.th the poncies and rr;.J"\·!.sJons of this ir1 itialive
measure-.
D. TIle provisfuru of this mit! tllive measure herein !ihilD be in effect until D:-a>rrh!r 31,.
2015lInleSS amended.Of :rept'..a!cd bY;ll vole aft"e: people.
lbilliroiti6five measure sh.aD net appl'y to any dt.-vclop1l"".,{'nt rrojtc'ct .... ·hkb has obttlined.
prior to !1~ date of enal'tIJli!nf.. one or ~OrE of t!h~ IoliowIr:g:
A A ftsted right pursuant 10 State or f"<'<.il'ral tn.o-; or
B. A validly itppi"OVt'd: and fully ~ted development ol{;n.'emenl with the city; or
C. An ilpproved v1!Sting tentilljvl! rru:p; or
D. lep! non-oonformiClg use slirtl.l& P\lO!;mf, to ~isti!\g Oty C("lde1>.
SfCfJQN i. SO'E-.-M:f!,.!.!ITl
If a:ny portion of this initi;tt;ve JJlefl5'.1 rt' is d"edamd irw.1f1d by. c.-.urt. til{' reffia;mlng
portions are ID be con.o;fcfcred vafld md in fuU fi:x'CC and eff.-ct.
s!;.crIQ~Nli.>@J!J;r~
Th~ ~2f.3e Pl~ay be-amenc1e-d orrepeawd on1yby. 'Vole of t'he resisafc"red Iln,i
qUillifK.a votelll 0 LJv City of P.JtoAJto.
~'," V,i) ~ .~·:":~l:' ,'. I \..1
i·, 'r' . l • ~ ...
iF
-.
\.~"....-' .. "'-.
" .... ; ,
Table 1
V ARlANCES AND DESIGN ENHA1"fCEM:ENT EXCEPTIONS
APPROVED BY THE CITY
FOR BUILDINGS EXCEEDL"'IG A HEIGHT OF SO FEE']'
1985-1995
I. 725 Welch Road. A variance was spproved for the Packard Children's Hospital
allowing. roof garden guard rail at • height of 51 feet, 8 irlche<. The guard rails ... = necessary;o allow use o(the rvoCes. garden and childr.n', play area.
(Apprcwed 01] March 13, 1987.)
2. 3932 Fabian Way. A variance was approved for • seis~ b<acing addition
cootaining useable floor area 10 an existing building (O<aIpied by Sun
Miaosystems) -..ith a heigh! of 79 feet. 9 irlches for the seismic b<acing structure
ar.d 82 feet, 9 inches for a mechanical penthouse. (Apprcwed "" November 17,
1988.)
3. 250 ! 'giversity Avenue. A variance was approved for the retail/office building for
heights of 62 feet. 6 inches fur the corner tower, 53 feet foe roofs; 60 feet, 6 inches
foe the stair lOwer; and 61 feet. 6 inches for the elevator penthouse. (Approved OIl
Angust 3, 1989.}
4. 725-i 53 Alma Street. A design enhanc"menI exception (DE£) was approved fa.
the Singk Room OccupaIl(:y residential and oftke mixed use building proposed by
the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The DEE allows a heighl of 54 fret.
(Approved 00 1ul!e 26, 1995.)
. < ..
--. ~ -~:;'.-"'; ..
Table Z
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE PUN IIIAP CHANGES
RESIDENTIAL LAl'I1> CHANGED TO
A NON-RESIDENTIAL lAl'ID USE DESIGNATION
1981-199S
Sita..YfdlsjD tI" City J ,imN
1. 3163-3192 M"!!l4lefjeld Road. Tho Century Liquor Store site "as changed from
Multiple Family Residential 10 Neighborhood Coolmercial (City Council approval
on December 2Q, 1982).
2. S04s Middlefield Road The South Peninsula Emergency Veterinary Clinic site
was changed from Multiple Family Residential 10 Neighborhood Commercial
(CityCouncil approval on February 27. 1984).
3. 125 Welch Road. The future Packard Cluldren's Hospital site was cbanged from
Multiple Family Residential I<> Major Ins-.itutionlSpecial Facilities (City Council
approval 00 My 2. 1984).
4. 143 I Wavert.:y Sl;eet. The Gamble Garden Center site was cbanged from Single
Family Residential I<> Major lnstitutionlSpecial Facilities (City Counctl approval
on Marcb 24.. 1986).
s. 2995 Midd!rfield Road The ARoo Gasoline Station site was changed from
Multiple Fmuly Residential 10 Neighborhood Commercial (City Council approval
on October 2Q, 1986).
6. 3005-3009 M"><kllefjeld Roil!!. The Wmter Lodge Ice Skating FacilitylChuck
Thompson site was changed from Multiple Family Residentlall<> Majo<
InstitutioolSpecial Facilities (City Council approval on June 19, 1989).'
1. Portion ofblpck W'rttkdby Ikyant/BamonalfJJaDDjn&JHomer. A portion of the
Palo Alto Medical Foundation site was changed from Multiple Farruly Residential
to Majo< InstitutionlSpecial Facilities (City Council approval 00 July 22, 1991).'
• Items 6 and 1 were approved in City eiections.
Page I
. ,
I. 151 Homer Aygme. The Williams House site donated 10 Ibe Cky was changed
from Single Family Residential 10 Major InstitutioolSpecial Facilities (City
Cooncil approval 00 September 29, 1992).
'. --" ~ ... <:":':.i
9. 26SQ EI Cam;"" Real. A portion of the fonn<::: Mayfield S<:boo! site, as part of an
even land IIR' exchange with 620 Page Mill Road, "'as changed from Multiple
FamiI) Residcntiallo R=arcblOffice Park (City Council approval on February
16,1993).
10. 1050 Arvrrad<mRnad. A vauontsite located betweeD Hillview Avenue and Deer
Oeek Road was cbanged from Multiple Family Residential 10 Researt:bIOffice
Park (City Council approval 00 October 25, 1993).
SIt. Outside or tb. Qey UmiU
I. Slanfurd Ca!lJll'lS. A portion of !he Stanford Campus developed "ilb congregate
student housing was cbanged from Major InstitutionlSlngle Family Residential 10
Major InstitutionlUniversity LandslCampus Edu<:ational facilities 10 achieve
amsistency with other student housing portions of!he campus (Cky Council
approval 00 August 16. 1982).
Pagel
, T "": ~. •
, p--"", ~-:·~'::\i~ .~;~r' ~:~:(-,
'. . '::.." ';~:'
. :-:".:.
' ..
Jex\ \s It.~ four. the CS(3)
-.".-"
E¥Cf~ Planninq Comrn. ... ssion
=1:l.nutes of December 14, 1988 ~
lone. Vher. Is the t~(3) zone?
Sor,b Cheney: It I. ,long San AntoniO Road. T~.t I. the onll tloc ••
Cba1rman Hir§t); Consensus on t~ls? {les)
Itea fl.e. the tt zone.
~sloner aarsll: I woold like to .eparote out To"" • Country frOll
St.nfor~ Shopping Center.
(ha1rman Hirsc': AnI disagreement wft~ the two comme~ts fOT Town I
tountry? (None) The. we ~ave con'ens's on it. .
The third portIon dea's ~\t, a 50,000 square·foot development ceiling for
Stanford ShoppIng Center untIl !~. S,od Eill CorrIdor extension and
related improvements ar! resolved.
COflllthsion2T Jitarslt: 1 do 'have I p-roblell with this one. Fint ef all .. J
do not want to approve anything contfDgent upon th! extensfon of t~e Sa~d
~ill Road corridor, as noted earlier t~ls even~ng. I fee' we have to ~ake
the •• decisions fndepe06ent of whether or not that will ~appe.. r do not
t'lnk .e want to sent out any ~essages that an extensIon ~oQ1d tmpll a~
increase 11 developmetlL Having said Ulat, I flave beeA looling it the
shopPlng c~ter ~u~bers to see what 1 feel is an appr~priate expansion for
t~at co.tor. I am not comfort.ble with t~e SO,OOO square feet. fou have
a s'hoPP'ng (:eRter t~ere: that is 1.3 million square feet r1-gl'lt ncw. (~en
some sHgl'lt wriggle roOOl Dr InOdertiz,ztfon cC!ull1 harcll,-be accor.vnodated for
withil I 50.000 square-foot cEilfng on i project t~at size. ~J preference
would be t. e1fai.at. t~at portion of this recommenda!!o, that not.s the
Sand Hill Road corridor~ It t~e same time, expand}~g the d~v!lopment
ceiling to per~.ps 200.000 square feet. whlc~ would be ,bout IS percent of
their curr!nt square footage. That ~~ld accommodate some reasonable
modor,lzattoD. Stanford asked for 300,000·500,000 .quare fe.t.
Coorniss1pne. C.l1 •• : I thinl the Stanford Shopping Cent,r is almost
grldloclod. eve. without the Christmas se.son. The id •• of going ahead
and approving the new parkifig FTan ~thout ~a~ing tne circelaticn f. Flace
was a terrlble .ista~e. ) don~t thlnk we s~o~ld encourage anI more
development unt~l some solution t~ the cfrcul.tioD takes ,lace. A whole
~ew store there, whic' fs ~at they want, (even I 81ocmfngdale's~ as much
as I woa1d lIke one) would t~ro~ , ~uge stone io t~e WlY or what fs
already very bad. I would like t. P"t the~ on hold anti! $om.t~ing comes
Upr I a~ ~ot even sure they need much wrIggle room, sa 50,000 square feet
estatlfsbes a good tril) exchange .. indicatfng ve are not going tl turl
blind eyes to problems~ but we ITe Dot going to allow anyt~ing SUbstantial
.ntll t~. other proble. Is solved .. So t'. afraId I must ~i .. gree vit~
CommfsSloner ~arsh_
Commissioner Christgn5e~; I agree ~t~ Commissioner ~arsh about removing
the f~lfc.tlon that the e,teRsion or S.nd Hill Road and re1.ted
improvements might i~ll that a 8100.ingdal.'. would be .Iewed favor.bly.
I agree that 50.000 square fe.t is probabl, too s.al1. and 300,000 square
feet is too big. Eve. lOO.OOO square feet ,s toe big.
Chainn" Hirsco: [s the I.) .lllion square feet cited by CommissIoner
12{l4jea
-35·
, I
" . ,
,.
,
,'-.. ,., ~ ",,,,,,,",."",~,,~:;::.: _.> J:.:..._ -~:_~ __ -:. ___ : __ ,_~~'::.> .. >~
Marsb the correct f1~YTe?
Hr. scbreiber: Tes.
o
Commissioner C.l1en: How ~ch is left tD be developed?
Nr. schreiber: The s~~ppfng center is approxfmatelJ 1,340,000 square
feet. I am not awar. of -'I approva', "utstanding t~at have not bee.
built. The zon1n9 vou'd ."o~ .n"t~er olne ~illion square f •• t.
Chai.,., Hirsc~, I ~.s thln\lng ,'ong the Iln.s of 5 percent of What they
have no~. Whlc' wo.ld be .rou,d 65,000 square feet. I tend t. agr.e with
Commissioner CllJ!~~ [f IOU go over there at busy times$ you ~annot find
• p.rk'ng space at .11. So I am not i. fa,er of appro'ing anything near
200,000 square feet.
COmmf$sjDner Wheeler: I did ~y share of boos\fng the slles ta~ revenues
for the Cltl of Pa'. Alto by ~oing • 1.t of shopping at Stanford Shopping
Center II t~l$ lol" seaSon. I a. confused enough .ith the nu.ber of
anc~~~ stores that are there rlg~t ~OW~ and I reall] do not see the need
t. add anything .s large is • !loomlngd.le's. Cert'i.l, It is .n
extremel, vibrant center It this poiat. and [ agree ~olehearted11 t~at ~e
sbould not consider any addition that appro.cnes a 300,000 sQuare·foot
anchor store until we ~a¥e an adequate cfrc,llticn pia~. The ~ig9'e roo~
cG~ept, ~s far is I am concerned. is on1, fair and eq~ltab1e~ and we ha~e
allowed t~at for any commertiall, zoned area w~ere we ~a¥e t;~ntfa'11 put
I lfm1t on develDpm€~t. The figure ~f 10 percent is one t~at ~ ~ave
applfed il ct~er areas. Staff can (orrect ~e on that figure if I am not
correct. That wo'uld be 111 recorrmem:Jat'ior'l: here. If it has bee !"I 5 'percet)t~
t~eA 5 percent ~ul~ be my rec~endation. ~e shocld be as evenhan~ed is
we ~an fl matters lite t~fs~ and it ~uld be the least co~f~slng if ~e
applied the same percentages fer wriggle r~om i~ the downtown area cf Pila
Alt. as we hive do it StanfDrd Shopping Center. I would like t. see tne
percentages comparable~ whatever they are~ ind t~at is what I .ould like
to ,lace as a ceil log on developmEnt it Shnford Shopping Center.
contfngent upon aD improwed cfrCdlatfon ,lan and the concurreDt pbysical
Improvements tnol woald bring tnal plan aboul.
Chairman Hirsch: Staff~ ~at was the percentage for do~~town?
Ms. Janse~: Mr. Schreiber and] were just dl$CY5S;~9 tkat. and I do not
believe. t~ere was .nl percentage of wriggle room. Somet~lng that might be
belpf.l t. you, however. Is that 50,000-6S,OOO square feet would allow fer
expansion of existing majors or new sate11it!s. but no new majors could
come. Te~ percent, Qr J30,OOO sq~ar! feet would allow for one new ~ajor
store. Stanford' is supposed to be flea ... y on llajof'S, so the 1 U:el ihood (If
it ~al be relatl,el, sll~. ~.jor$ need about 100,000 square feel.
~. Schreiber: Wieman·~arcws was right around 120,000 s~uare feet.
Chairman "irsc~! As yeu ~entioned7 tney rea1l, de not need anot~er ~ajor
il there. Perbaps something OD the order Df 5 percent woul~ be more t~an
adeQuate~ Along ~t~ any new major that came 1R, the~ would nave to solve
all t~e ot~!r probTe~s lssociit~d with t~at are~. So I f~el 10 percent or
130,000 square feet weald be too gre.t. I will go fer S ~ercent on t~e
basis t~at it fs ap?forimatel] 6S~OOO square feet.
. " "
~;, -" \
12/HjSS
-36-
•
CommissIoner C.llec: J would be villing to go up to 65,000 s~uare f.et.
VheA .feman-"arcGs ca.e 1B, t~ey did. indeed, ~ave to put ie tne 9arage.
s. if t~ey come up with another ~.jor store, they will ~aye t. put f.
somet~fn~. Not bolding the. to doing som.thing .~ut parking is goin9 to
gfve the. carte blanche ta co~ fw with ~cre constructlon t (or example, on
the Mobil .ite.
COmmissioner Marsh: I would ho~e that Stanford ~oul~ consider comfcg
forwa~, Whe. t~fs Iteo §oes to the citl counCil. wit~ more detoil. on the
lInd of expao.ion need. that they ~ave. ,. their letter, for example,
they note that a SO,OOO squart-foat ~ap is so restrictive that it does ~~t
provide for adequate incre.se for storage s~ace for e~i~tlng operations.
I .. sure that If, fl fact, they vanted to put .11 of that .Q.are footage
lRto storage space~ those of us 'itti~9 ~e~e .ight a~ree t~ increase that
n~r. So our ~ess'ge t. t~e shopping center folt, that When tkfs goes
to the c\ty council, come forward ,rod tell ~s more spetiffcil1y w~at Jour
square footage needs_ .re .0 th.! the council will have the n .. ibflit, to
look at those Dumbers and tt1 to meet some of those needs fa I re,sonable
flsh!on.
(~ajrman Hirsc~: What would ~appen if eventualT~, Stanford wa~ted to come
11 for additfonal sQuart foota~e ifter this ~umber of £5,000 WJS adcpted?
What would be the process .t that time?
~. Sc~rtlbeT: I i5sume t~i5 wilt be ift t~e zoning ordinance, and it
woul~ be • lone change.
COmmls$fcner Christensen; [do not fuTly understa~d ~~it Commissioners
C611e~ and ~~eler ~as talting about fA terms ~f 3 (irc~latfon plan. I
assume you were not talti~g about tJing it to t~2 S~nd Hill t~tension.
Commissioner C,11eG: I was agreeing with CommiSSioner MarshTs remo~il of
that language. The fact is l~at there is still a cfrCdlation proble~, a~d
I do not know bow tbey are going t. sol •• ft. but it needs t. be s.lv.d
before any .dditlonal sQu,r. footeg. fs put fo tber •.
Chalrman Hirsc~: As I understand it, the way it reads now, ·Establisnes a
65,000 square-foot deve10pment cell log for tbe Stanford S~opping C.nter.'
Do we ~ave consensus on that? (Yes)
Tbi "figs us to the eN lOn!. I ~ave a COI'lC.2r:1 regarding the statement
that brl Pages 10 .nd II. That onl, pro~ibits bousing il tne C~
parcels 11 th ~ town aru. Why was"~t that expar'lded t~ also cover t~e
Char12ston (enter? eel it should be. Ther! was slgr.lficant concerJ by
tb. nearby resideots t~ bey r •• ll, did oot want to have housing at the
'harl •• t •• Center. wantfng tail that .s a loc.} neighborhood shopping
center.
19mmfssiDner ell len: J think the concerl he
that ceot.r. The Re.all drug store bas shut do
large r.cnit~._
Commissioner Wheeler:
of months.
12/14/88
·37·
. ,
... --' . '--~-
stanford Shopping Center
. -'-.
zxc~~~~ City Council
:~ind: _~ of ~arch 6. 1985.
Council 'MeJllber Cobb referred to t.he current ~oratoriU1l 'Wit.h. respect
to the ShOpping center expansion and he asked about the Associated
square footage.
~x. SCbreiber said the i~terl. regulations allowed for an
additional 5-0" 000 square feet from the point of adoption .. and about
25,~~ square feet had been built.
Council Member Cobb believed the 65,OOO-square-foot li.itation was
a little low particularly in light of what was happening in terES
of ~be City·s revenues, tbe qrawth of Valley Fair in competition
with Stanfor~ Shopping center, etc.
HO'l"IOIi. council l!ember Cobl> IlCVed, seconded by Woolley. to raise
the devel~eDt ceiling tor Stanford Shopping Cer.ter to lOO.~
square teet witb any further additions beIng tied to improvements
on Sand Bill Road.
Council Member Cobb was concerned about the healtb of the Shopping
Center since it was the sinqle most important eoonoDic qenerator
in the city. The 65,000 square feet might not give Stanford the
opportunity to respond to some of t.he bUsi.r.ess challenqes it faced.
He did not belIeve the city shoUld give too much until ~r unless
Sand 8jl1 Road was improved; but on the other hand, sales tax
revenues were not increasing and th~ City ~as t~cing major budget
cuts.. Based on hIs investigat.ions, Valley Fair 'Was boollinq'
partially because many ten.ants who had been. at Stanford Shoppinq
Center vere lured away by a better package. There were caseS 'When
it WaS necessary to look at the connection between planning and
economic decisions for the economic health and future of the city.
council Member Woolley agre.ed with the iaportan-ce of t.hi! economic
health of the stanford Shopping Center. The city ~eeded to ta~e
care to ensure that area of its resources remained healthy. She
did not believe additional space at the Stanford Shoppinq Center
~as necessayily a traffic 9~ner~tor.
Council Me~r Renzel believed the Planning Commission limitation
was expr-essed as a liaitation if and until Sand Hill Road vas
C:Of'h'1eeted ..
PlanniD<) Commissioner-Ellen Christensen believed the limitation was
specifically not tied to whatever happened at Sand Hill Road. The
commission did not want to hold out the hope that there alqht be
another 200,0'00 square feet available if the Sand Bill .Road
problems were solve~. The ~~,O~ square feet vas believed to be
a reasonable amount of squ~re footage to be allowed at Stanford
Shopping center.
" -'.
61-161
3/6/89
•
.' ..
r.
,
",
, ",;;.' ,; -------'-" ..
o
Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch said the 6S10~ square ~eet was
roQ<J1l1y 5 perce.nt of "bat was currently there. The fiqure 'Vas
carefully selected so it would not approximate the site of anothe~
department store. Neiman Marcus was approximately 100,000 to
120,<>00 square teet. The 65,()OO square teet 'Would be signifi.cantly
.aaller and there would not be another large buildinq.
council Member Renzel believed tbe 65,000 square feet was an exces
sive llIItatiOl!. It va. foolhardy for council to again expand the
sand Bill Road e<>rr ldor. She would n<>t support the lI<>t1on.
Cour.cil Kember Sutorius asked about the difference in traffic
gene-ration between 65,00-0 and 100,0.00 6q'J.are feet, and whether such
an estimate included an increment of added square footage realizinq
it was not what ~ould be generated if it was a new shopping center. -
Steve Pickrell, Fehr and Peers, Transportation Consultant tor the
City of palo Alto.. said incremental square footage added to an
existinq center generated less traffic per unit of area than would
the same amount of space in an entirely new center or added to a
smaller center.. There was a declining marginal rate of trip
generation.. The difference between 60,000 square feet and 100,000
square feet 'Would potent,lally be significant, bUt it depended
en~!~ely upon the type o~ uses ..
Cou,neil xe:mber Fletcher opposed the motion because it implied that
once Sand Hill Road was cut through to El Camino Real. the ceiling
,ouid be raised again.
Council Kember Cobb intended tl:.at no furtber additio-:-..,s could be
consIdered until the improvements to Sand Rill Foad occurred.
Council l(e1iber fatitucc.i cli<S. not believe 1000,000 square fee.t was
an unreasonable number.. Regarding tbe general planning of the
Shopping center a~ea~ it vas unfortUnate the City council had not
accepted its own res~sibility for the problems in the corridor.
It 'Was every bit as respot"~sible. for t.he t.ypes of development
occurring there as Stanford.. If Council wanted to develop some
long-tara solutions, Stanford and Menlo park would pr'*>ably be
'Willill9' partners.. If Council had nine opin.ions 90inq in nine
different directions~ there would continue to be prOblems.
<:ouncil Member Levy opposed the motion because it l1eant council had
to start "playing-Planning cODlllission. The Commission worked on
the Cit.yvide Land Use aDd: Transportation Study for over a year, and
came up with 65,000 square feet as a figure.. He did not believe
Council had the background or perspective to raise the figure to
10'0,0-00 square feet. t'he proposal vas made under tbe assumption
that larqer si7.e meant qreater health.. He did not believe that was
61-162
3/6/89
"
.,-"',
. ~';,~
1",':' . --~ .
. ' , .
true. The Shoppinq Center had expar.ded vith at. least one large new
store during the past lour years. The he.alth of the Shopplnq
center related to its overall ~arketinq and the overall strength
of the stores. If one store did veIl, all the stores di~ well.
Re did: not believe it was a fu~ion of adding a few thousand extra
square tep.:t ..
Vice Mayor Bechtel concurred vlth Council Member Levy.
MO'I'IOB I'AILiD 3-5, Cobb, Pat itucc i .. Woolley ·aye,· J(lein ·not
participatinq."
ld
11 Member Sutorius was concerned about the impact of
ndinq a lIultl-f .... Uy designation for a site he believed
m.erite qround floor retail along the El CaDino trontage~ Beyond
the grou. floor, there should be both multi-t .... Uy housing and/or
bote I in frontage ar@i!l and the major portion of the sIte Ilulti
family.. He nted to ensure the cost of the associated hOlJslnq in
the area youl be kept as reasonable as possible by the offset ct
a revenue produ ng stream at the frontaqe throug~ the retail or
potentially bote esignation~
Commissioner Cbriste
tives of affordable
would be throuqh a PC zo
good examples of _lxed z
of evidence that the actu
project.s, other than the on
affordable. The commercial ba
~be hoosinq. In two of the proj
t.he longest in being rented out
camino Way still had primarily empt
en believed the only liay to handle the objec
on the site combined with commercial
She did not believe the City had seen
on a site, and she bad not se~n a lot
bousinq units associated with the
Which went into bankruptcy, were
not really beld down the cost of
ts, the commercial sections took
sold off. Ibe project on El
commercial space.
Stanford Research Park
council Member Levy referred to a lette from the Santa Clara.
Xanu.facturinq Group (on file in the city c rk's OfficeJ. 'Which
reflected a telephone conversation with Kay klein 'Wbere the
ManufacturIng Group recommended the City not hay a Transportation
Demand Management (TOM) policy for the Stanford search Park as
it would be simply a piece of .. and possibly at odds "th, the basIc
TDH process beinq implemented by the Golden Triangle Task Force.
He queried whether it ...auld be vise to postpone deali vith the
TDM pending further analysis of the Golden Trianglers po ·tion.
Hr. SChreiber said if the city wished to pursue a separa
Program for the Research Park, it would take at least a year 5
the process would need to involve the firms in the Research Pa
. "
61-}6)
)/6/89
---------------~--'---, ~
. , .. -.
'"-,<. :.-,' .. -.-
~~~~~~~~;."<. --
11.49.100
EXCERPT of Downtown
C~ial Oistrict
Regulations
1I.n.l00 Parklnl n"'Ia& ....
The provisions or Cllapler 11.1) .. garomg
roadiD, le.quirements. 'bic},cte taciT",,),
~pII!UJJ ~formidemial
..... on<! pII!UJJ ~mcots for ooorcsideDtial
uses outside a parDoe MSCwnert! district.. formed'
and assessed under Bond PLan G fmanc:ing
punwonIlD T* 13. shall opply ill iii< ro disIricL
However. witJI rupect to o.n-nte and off-sire
parlcing space requirements for DO!lRsidcntiaI
.~s witll in III usessmenl dis!rict wben::ia
propertlc ......... secI onc!er • Bood P\aD G
fioanciDll"""WlI 10 TJtIc n. !he foDowin:
""",-._ sbaII apply iD IIIe ro diIIri<:\ in 6e<I
orllle t<qUin:_ orCl!ap«s 11.1):
(a) OD-m. pakinJ. Any DO ... development"
uJ .. additioa Of' ea1.uJemeat of existing
c5evelopm<nO. tt ."y we or lilly floor IOIU 1hat bas
DeYe.r bee_ assesSed ll00er an, Bond Plan Q fioaDcln, _ 10 TJtIc 11. dial! "",Vide ODe
pukin, space for eacl two hunclrecl fifty cros.
square Ieet at ftott ..... U«pIas IDI)' be e=J¥
from _II '"'Iuheme .. by iii< provisioas or
IIIJb<ecOOo (b) or !his -. The purpose of lIIis
_ is 10 ... ~ iii< .umber or pamn,
""",os equiJe<L RequireJ11e1J15 for the oize ODd
OIber deslgo crireri.l to!' parldn, 1p1Ce> &boll
CODtinn< 10 be governed by iii< provisioas or
ChapIor IS.n.
(bJ EAceptions.. 1bc :requlfcment for oo-sit~
parking provided m sub.sectIoll (a) arlhis sectioc
man me apply in IN following instance.i:
0) Squ,," foo<age roc w }t~lcappcd access which 40es DOl:
increase me a.sabrc: floor a.rea, IS determined
pw>IWll '" Sectio, JI.49·060(bXI):
(S} An increase iII square lOOlaie in
conjOJoctiOD with seismic rebabi1iWion. punuar.t.
'" SeenOD IMH)60(b)(2).
(C) Historic: structures in C .. ~gorie5 I
and !. Each historic otru<:tI1r< io Calegorit. I one!
2 may tab ad"an~ of dJe ranowing e lcepbOns
during "'" 1ik cf "'" buMmS'
(i) An inaus< in oquarc rootage or.
hi;toric building in CaleJories 1 and 2. pul'SUlI'II
10 Sectioo I U9.060(b)(l) and
(ii) A coove~oc 10 coaunercia) lise d
I historic buildIng ill Categor-id. J and 2 Olaf: is
fifty fl:et or Jess ill !leigbt Ind that: has most
r«:cntly bee. 1D. residential u~~ if sue.
cooversioo is daDe ill conjunction with uterior
bistori< lIObabilitatioo opprovod by !he d"uocwr or
planning and communiI)' environmeot upon the
~oo of'tM.lI'.:hitecwral rt-vie ... board
iIl.:onmltation .. ith me: historic: .fC'.5OUrccs. board.
Sue:' coovemoa musI: DOt elimiMte any u"iSting
oo-W pIIIiing;
(D) A mar inc-use or two bundre(l
square fet'.t or 1e5.5, pursUatlt 10 Se,,--tioo
IU9.060(b)(4};
(E) AJ 0< ,bove Sr.d< par1ting. !hoo,.
inc:ludc4 iD the FAR cakulaiions. as SCl forth in
Sectioo 18.49.060(.) shall 0'" be w!>ject '" iii<
oo-sito partin8 legulouOllS of subsectioa (a) or
1his1CCtioo.
(2) V"""", parock shall be ... mpt from IIIe
requirements of oubsoctioo (I) at !his "",lioo or
Ihe: time ..-hel dudopmeDt occurs as provlded
beRia. 50<;10 cleve1opmoDl dial! be "empl '" ~
exte'" or pad:io& spaces fo< .Vet)' ooe thousand
squat< fed of site.,... provided !Ilor me. "",,,"Is
wen:: • some time assessed lor parkin.(! under a
Ikllld I'WJ E financing pursuWll 10 Cb>pIU 13.16
(II" wen: subjl:ct Ie oilier ad' valorem assessments
for parting.
1192 Re •. o.d.Sapp.3J9S
.... :.;
.. .:\,
-....
..
. ,-. -~
.. ' ... "",.:.
." ,',. .'. -~-"
;;,--
,,
-.
o
'.-" .
. :-: -.
-'
ZONL'IG 18"49"100
(3) No .... pa<Idng spacc$ will be required
for • sire in conjanctioa wilh lhe developmem or
replacemcm: of the .amowH of floor IlU a.sed ror
Roo:resldelltill 'lISe ~ to the amount of adjusted
sq~~ footase foc tlu: sile iho.D on the
engineer" '"POrI far fuca! year 19S6-S1 far Ow:
latest bond pleD: G rmancin, roc parkins
..:quisitioo or inpovement& iLl ~ certain area of
Ow: c~ dcliDeal.ed co Ow: map of Ill< Unhenily
A v~nD~ partins u.sessmeDl district entitled..
"Proroscd' Boundaries of University A""CnDC
OIf-Strm Parltin, Proje<l .'~l Assessmon<
DisIrict. City of Palo AIIo. COOIlIy ci San .. Clan.
State of Cafu<lf!Ua,· da<ed 0cI0ber JO. 1978, and
on filc with chc eN)' ~kr1.. However, sq~an:
footage wbkl was developed for IIOOTCsidcoli.ol
purpose, or whic'h .as bee. lIsed for
~JKIlPIl"'S bill wbicl;, 001 u=I for
sue. pwpose5 due 10 vl<aIlCY II Ow: lime of Ow:
.ngineef. '"POrI sItalI be iDcluded m !he amown
of floor "'" qualifying for this ... mptioa No
exompcico parting-RqUircmenU; maD be availablo
wbe:n=. teSidcoiia1 usedwJges 10 a ~tiaI
..... xccpl punIW>! 10 subdivlsioo O)(C) of this
subsection..
(c) Off-<ite parkin,. Par\lo, RqUiIed by this
cbapter may be pro.;ded by off-.ite parkin"
providecllha< sue. off-site parkin, is withi. a
' ... OIlabk cIisIancc of Ow: rite IS"" " or, it the
riU: is wilhm an use£S1DImI: di&tric::t. withia •
reasooable dis!ancc of tbc ..... """1lI d'lS!rict
boundary and approved in wrlIilI& bY the d'U'eCI<lr
of p1aJminS and commumty I:Dvironmcnl 'Ibc
IfIJ'eClor wn ISSIJfe 1hal sufficient e-ovcn.mfs IIDd
suaranteel are provided to ensure • .se and
maintenarrcc of SId parkin, facilities, includin,
"" cnforccable _"'"'" a.. any clcveloj> ......
occurring 011 the rite ~ partin. is provided
shan DOl resah ia I net redoctiOD of parkins
.pac .. provided. cDl1SiderlJl1 bod> Ihc parking
JH<vioasly providcd and l!lc parting rcquiIed bY
the proposed ....
(d) In-!ie'o parkin, provisioas. In coonection
.,illl any expan,ioa of tbc SIlpply of pubfic
parking Spa<:C:S within the-CD commett:ial
cIowmoWII district, !he ~ sIlall aIIOCIIC a rnunbcr
1193
of spaces for us.: as -in·ileD parking-spaces Ie
alIo .... de ..... etopment lO OCCW' 00 sites ... hick ..,auld
otherwise be precluded frOi!! de\lelop~nt due: In
parking constrairm. imposed b)' this c-baptt!r, 00-
site parking OD sucb site.§. nL!y be: prtwided' b.)'
payment or an ill-lieu moDetar) contributioo lei the
<:il)110 dcrr.lY the cost of pro ..... lding suell parkin!.
Cootributi ons for ucl! required parting space:
shaD equal lbe incrcmeotaJ cOSI of providing. nt1
DeW parking s'pace iD an assessment cflstricl
project plus cost for che administr.ltioo of lhe
program. .n as determined pursuant k) Chaptc
1651 of l"nIc 16 of this code, by !be 4=torof
planning and community CBVironmc!1t. .. boiC:
decisioo shaJl be: frnaI. On!)' sites satis.fying one
or more of the roGowing criteria, as dtLeIm.ined
by L'le di:r~1Of of ptanning and communily
environmtot. shaD be I:Iigiblc: lO participak: in Ebe
jo.li<u parlcing program;
0) Constru..-uoo of OIl-site parking ..,auld
DeCeSSitas:c: dtsuuctioo or substantial demulicioo of
a cIes'.pa!cd historic structure;
(2) The site an:a is Jess mao teD thousand
square r.... and ir would DOl be pbysically !casi1>l<
10 provide !he required oo-site parking;
(3) The site is ~lcr than U:a lbousand
square-feet" but of $loX' an unusual confi~tion
!hal: I: WO'Jid 1101 be pby.skany feasible 10 provKle
1Ilc rcquiro<I oo-si .. parking;
(4) 1b<.~ is I<>c>Ied in an .... wh= ciIy
porky precludes curb cuts or otherwise pre ..... ents
use oflbe site for oo-silC parting;
(5) 1'hc: site has other pbysica1 constnints.
sue'h as. hill! groundwater tabl~ ... bicll preclude
provilion of on-site parkiDJ "itbolJl
c~expensc.
<c} Uode:ra:rouDd parkjng. Undcraro(.lD6
pulcini deeper rItan twe levels below grade >IIaIl
be prohibited anless a soils report or enginet:ring
analysis demonstrates chat: regular pumping of
subswface ... ater ,..ill DOt be requiJed.
(Ord. 4256 I 2. 1995; 0nI. 3896 15, 1989'. 0nI"
3736 if J, 2. 1981; Ord" 3696 ,I iParI). 1986)
,,' ...
.-
. -; . . ~; . . "
'. n.13.120
EXCERP'l' from Pa.rJtinq ~9ulatio,ns Chapter
. of the City Zonin9' Regula.tions
1'.11.12:' Alllj-gsfmenrS lo requ!nmenls
bl the dII"eclor Clr planninl and com~
mu nir1 auirClDrMn L
Aotomabile"" b>:yde parong ~quit<ments
p ... ::ribed b,11lis chapter.,., be ldjuS!e~ by !he
4i~ or p\Jnnl.'1, m.1 comm.UI»l)' envIronment
in !he IODowi!l, ins'.mw and in lCCool .. ilh !he
smscnOed limitations.. "1lIbcll in NS/het optruon
1UG1I adjustment will be in accord with the pu_ ollhis cIIlIpca ItlI! .,ilI 001 CR:3le undue
Impact 00 uiOlin, C< """'mill ..... <fJOining It",
site orin (he _r.Il riclnily.
(oJ Sobsolru""" of bicycle f.dliole.s for
Rqu1m~ vehicle (adDu... £ish< aas. [ bicycle
parong (acilil, 5pICtS in additiotl 10 minimum
bicycle RqUirements may be .. botiIUI.~ lor on<
nquir<d vehicle poJtinc rulI. .p 10' m,,umwn
0I~ .. JlI"=C of!he.ehic1e SI.1Il$ RqUlred.
(b) OD~site tIDptoj'ee ameniUcs. Square
footage or cotnmeFCial CIt industrial tlSCS 10 be
1&1(50.5 Rev. Ool. Supp. 3192
.:~.'
o
ZONING II.83.!IO
used for an on-site cafC1eria. recreational facility.
lOO/Df ,:ay .are ta<:lli'". 10 be provid.~ 10
employees or ""' .. ~ and DOl ope. to Ihe
gencl1ll pub!ic.I!l1Y be extmpl«l from "'" JlOIldni
requl:omenu of !his titk. ,.ben, in Ibe Ju<lgment
of "'" dIl<ctor or plannlns and eommunlty
envlronmenl. "'" provision of lilt r.cmti .. " "'"
pi""" of e",pIoymelll. .. iD reduct tralllc 10 and
Cro .. Ibe iii .. and wiD reduce !he number or
pod:ins 1IaIIs __
NotiO< or aD) adjwm>enl made pursuanl Ie !his
subsection shaD. be aiV:D in accord' with the
P'O"'-of 0I3p<u IU3. AIly auneved or
alfecto4 J'e""" -1 appeal an .djustment made
pursum 10 &his su'bsecl:ion in ICCOrd' with abe
provisions or Otaplet 11.Sl3. Unless S'JCh an
IjlpeaI !s fiJed wilhio "'" time spec,fied "",,,,roc.
!he dtcision of !he director of planrtir., and
=unity envimnmenl sbaI! _ finaI.poe
1bo explruion or .... d lime perloc1
(c) Ioin! ... pat1dnJ ra..-mties. For any "Ie
or lila o11h mulllple ...... be", !he applicatloo
of !his duple< ~ I IDtaJ of Ihln, or DlOre
spaces. !he lOla! Illlmber of spaces initially
~ by app'".x:a500 of !he sdledIJle may be
_ by "'" more IIwI IW<nIy """,,"'lI .. !>ere in
!he J1idgm<ne or !he d"lll:CIOr of p!>nninsor>d
cocruallllir7 enviroruDtIII !he jOiDI rllC11ity wiiI
serve III oxisIinJ. pnlIlOSed. and poIenlial use. IS
_ely and CO<lVUliondy as 'IIOIlld S<panle
pIItirla flc:ililieo fereodlu .. or "le.
NotiO< of 1Il11d",.."".". made pursuanl to Ihis
IUbseetiod IllalI be .iveo in accon! .. ilh !he
provisions of OlapIU 11.93. AIly 'ggriev<d oc
IlWcIed J'e""" may oppealan Idjusunenl made
pursuam Ie Ibis JUbsectlon in accord with lhe
provisions of Olapler 11.93. Unless suell In
appeal is fiJed wi.'lln 11" .. ~me specified ""'It [D<.
!he decisioa of lb. d"U"eClOr of planrtinS and
rommunHyenviromnent man become final llpaD
"'" upinIloIl or laid lime periocl.
(d) ~ fer "'" ,!d,dy. The total numbel"
of IpIClCO requlred may be .. dUCO<l by no< mo ..
Ihao filly J'e""'" _ in !he lodgment of "'"
clin:etororplannin, and communily envltoomtnl,
sue. reduction 'ItIill be (ommWSUf3te 'im lhe
","""ed plllkin, demand C1Uled by !he bouslng
tacility. incIucIinJ ¥isi1OlS and iIC<OSSOI)' faciliIles.
Nociot of any Idj_ mode pursuanllI> Ihis
subsection shall be givca in KCOrd wit.'; the
provisions o[ Olajlter 11.93. AIly aggrieved or
affec!td person may Ippeall!! Idjustm<ru m.~e
pursuant 10 this subsection iD accord with 0:1;:
provisions of Olapler 1!.93. Unless sucb III
Ipj:el! is flleJ wilhln "'" Urn, specified """"for.
!he dtci,ioo of !he d"rrector of plUlJlin, Ind
community erM.1>IImCDI1halJ become final upon
"'" nplmioo of said lime perlOO.
«) Def,traI of me.un, full R:quil<menl
WbcR: "'" expecl«l Deed forolf--.s paztklg or
l>iC)'de facilities [or. panlcul", use1s uneer-.ail!,
due to III nl:cown Dr 11 ouSt! II opera tin,
dw'actc:ristics of the usc and urla'll&llabait, of
companbl, dala II> eoubfisb need. 1bc clireclOl of
plannIn, and eommunitl eDlI ironment.. upon
.eeorome,1d1Olon of"'" an:lli=nl ..mew boar.!,
may IUtbotize that consuuction aM' prD\IWon of
"'" mo .. Ihao Uy peO<enl or !he requlred off
..,... poddn, SIBI!3 and DO! mo,.1IwI twenl]I-five
pe=nt or "'" I>i<y<le parun, spICeS be c!efetred.
The number of biC)'de paIkin, spa«< c!efened
.shan be apportioned by clUJ in the same
peR:e!1llges IS indicate.1ln Table I of Section
11 ,13.050. The dlrtC10l of plUlJling L,d
communiI)' envirtmmt:N: may set sud! condidof13
IS necessary 10 JU.arantee pro\li$iOD of suck
dt[erred spa«< -... "'" d"LteCIIlr of planninS
and' comm'Wliry envin:.amenr: de~ines Ihe Deed
to exist. Land area lequIre-I! Jot provision (l(
c!tfem:d parkins or bjcyc~ spaces shall be
maintained in ~~ ana sh.aII be landscaped
pUmlW 10 • pI"" "PI""ved by "'" an:rulCC1Ur1ll
J1:view board 6cmollSU'aling that uhima::
pro\! isioD oC Ole de~rred spaces will meet aD
Jtquit1:m<nls orlhis cbcjlter.
(I) TranspotUuoo and palking thematives.
Upon demonstTollioo '" !he cfumo< o[ pI",,"",
and community ecvironmeru that effecfivc
aitema.tl'ves 10 ~lDmOtIile access m in etfcd. 1be
cfU'CCIOr of ~anrU", .and ettmmuruty environmeru
may dt(er by I10l .. 01< Ihao tw<nt)' peIOOnI !he
pat<ln& "''l"irement 0IheNis< prescribed roc lOy
18160.7 Rev. Otd. Supp. 3/92
'.-"
.' ,
'.
-. I!.I).O)() PALO .. .LTO MUNICiPAL COOl!
1I.Se~ or combinatioo. of use. OD 1he same or
Idjoir.inl sires.. to an mmr: Q)mmerl$Jra!e with
lbe pcnnlMnce. dfcctivenes.5, aDd the
demonstnted ~d~ctiOtl or otr·stn:ct parkins
clcmmcle!fedua1e4 b7 sucllallenWiv< P"'S'""oIIllS.
Land m,1O<jUllt4 [0< provision of deferred
ptJIdn, stolIs oha!I be 1lainUin<4 in _"" and
sIIalI be bndsoaped ~ ... plan 1/IIl""'"
by the ,n,hite<:!Unll ,",ie'" _ clemonsttatiDj'
CUt 1Illim ... proIIision ofdle defem4 sun. will
mee: all ~ oC,", cIUpIer.
The If=to< of pllMinJ and .ommunity
eQvironment shan Sd ludl coDditiOIl! U
necessarJ '" ""'-l""vision oClUd! dcIen<4
stIlIs _Vet dle bulIaml oIlieiai c!=ines
. .he oee4 II> exist.
AhemaIlve l""""'" whicII "'" be conslde:e4
by 1he cIi .. C1OC of plannin, and communit)'
enviroa-IIICIlIlDI<Ier1lU provisioo irx:Iude, bu! II<
noc 1lm;z.! 1D Iho illlowinJ:
(1) Immedia:c proximir, 10 pubic
transpo_ facilities servinl' signiJicaDI por
lion of..siden!s, empI<>yees. anc!(or c:ustoIIl<rs;
(2) OperatioD of efTec:UYC: private or
c.m~an, eupcot. Vl!lp«>!. bus, c< slmiIU
Ir.IIISpOItaDoD proanms; .
(3) Evide2n 1I>at. pmpon;co of JtSiderlIs.
employoes, IIl4IOr amcmen lIIiIize, <Xl • JegUiIr
basa. ~cIe 1nnspO_ alternatives com
_wi"'_jlIIkinf~
(g) Oif-si'" paron,. E.<upc ill palklng
we=enI .,.... Iho dire<:Iot of pIannin, and
~:mj11 euvimnaletx DlI'11U1borize aD. or •
portiO!I oflhe J'O<jUim<I paIkln, for • use '" be
Ioca~ CDIhe site bOt more !baD 152.4 Ole..,.
(SQO reet) Iiom !be siIe oflho use foe whicIl sudl
p31tiD, is requiJod. wbe .. in his juc!amem, SU<:~
IIllho<iuIlc&l will be io ~ with Iho l"'<p05CS
oflhis ~_ WIIhin paI"..inJ: ..... smelll mas.
!he dinoC1O< of pllllIlinB and communit,
environme!lIt may _ all 0<' ponion oflho
""lUi...t paddn. foe ..... '" be \oCIIecI co the iii'"
'lridlitllhe paIk..in8 ISSCSSDlcnl &Ra or ilO( Inore
!baD 152.4 me!en (SOC Ites) from the bo<Indaries
oflhe ~ wber< dle zonin, of sudl site penn;",
paron, as ..... Tho din: .... of plonnin, and
communi[), c:nvironmcnt sball Rq,ulrc sueb.
CO\"enants JIId .. ....,.... IS deemed ""C<SSaJ1 .,
ensure 1Q5e and' maintenance 01 suck paztin,
r.cililies.
(Ord _; 14 (pan), 1992)
18\60.1 Rev. On!. Supp. li'll
,.-