HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-09 City Council Summary Minutes
Adjourned Meeting of November 7, 1994, to November 9, 1994 1. Public Hearing: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee ..................................... 74-64 2. Mayor Liz Kniss, Vice Mayor Joe Simitian, and Council Members Ron Andersen and Micki Schneider re Report on League of California Cities Conference held October 23-25, 1994, in Long Beach, California (continued from 11/7/94) ............................................... 74-92 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ........... 74-92
11/09/94 74-63
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 8:20 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, McCown UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direc-tion for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update (continued from 11/7/94) Patrick Burt, Member, University South Neighborhood Association, 1419 Bryon Street, commended the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) for its talent and effort in producing the proposals presented to Council. The new Governance & Community Services (GV) and Community Design (CD) sections of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policies & Programs Draft IV (the Plan) were particularly insightful and deserving of support. In an era of decreasing revenues and increased complexity, a more participatory model was essential for effective community govern-ment. Palo Alto should make full use of resources within its community. The vision statement expressed in the GV section of the Plan was supported. It was hoped a community would be built in which residents, Council, business, commissions, staff, neighborhoods, and other organizations could work as allies in collaborative efforts. The goals stated in the GV section would foster innovative programs which could tap existing community resources currently underutilized. It would encourage Palo Altans to embrace an active role in the development and maintenance of its community. As members of the University South community, which included the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) area, there were many concerns related to the Business and Economics (BE) and Transportation (TR) sections. Goals GV-2, GV-3, GV-4, GV-9, GV-10, BE-15, and CD-8 were of great importance. In such a mixed-use neighborhood, which included residences, businesses, and public services, it was imperative to establish procedures which emphasized the proactive and collaborative exchange of ideas between developers, neighbors, and the City, as stated in the Preamble of the Plan. Such procedures would provide a vehicle by which Council could hear the opinions and concerns of neighbor-hoods before it made decisions on issues, rather than, as had been true in the past, receiving input from neighborhoods at the tail end of a long, detailed action. Since Downtown, CalTrain Station, and three residential arterials bordered his neighborhood, quality of life was very much impacted by transportation policies. The
11/09/94 74-64
concept of reorienting the community toward a design to encourage greater walking and bicycling as found in TR-1, was supported. Calming automobile traffic on both local streets and residential arterials so it could coexist with other modes of transportation and less disruptive to neighborhood life, per TR-2 and TR-3, was also supported. In addition, comments made by the Human Resources Commission (HRC) on the proposed Plan were supported. Carol Bruillet, 4060 Verdosa Avenue, understood approximately $700,000 had been spent to consult the community about what it wanted and $15,000 had been spent on a survey. Council should examine what residents wanted and respond to it by creating a plan which reflected it, rather than moving in a direction diametri-cally opposed to the wishes of residents. She had moved to Palo Alto from Los Altos Hills because Palo Alto allowed one to walk everywhere. She had spent much time, energy, and money on environmental peace and justice issues. It was when her family had considered purchasing a home after the birth of their third child that they had recognized the values of the family as including good schools, bicycle paths, libraries, parks, proximity to Stanford, great bookstores, and the lively intellectual and international community. Her family had been unable to find a four-bedroom house for under $600,000. Woodland Hills, the community where she grew up, had been destroyed by improvements. There was a similarity between the Silicon Valley and the San Fernando Valley. Palo Alto should learn from the mistakes of other cities like Los Angeles and the myriad of positive examples of cities in Europe. A book entitled Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns--Better Living With Less Traffic, by David Enwick, spoke of cities in Europe eliminating cars. One town in Germany even had a five kilometer car-free zone. Some of the finest cities in Europe had been built when populations were only 40,000 and many in the medieval times enjoyed a higher standard of living than most people currently enjoyed. The majority of people wanted less traffic, less noise, less pollution, and cleaner air. A simple trolley system from Charleston and El Camino Real to the Stanford Shopping Center to Downtown along Alma and Middlefield would reduce the need for cars. An excessive number of vehicles on streets became barriers to children, bicyclists, and the elderly. Traffic could be reduced on El Camino Real to one or two lanes, opening up bicycle lanes on either side to allow people to bicycle. Elementary schools also had a problem because parents would not allow children to walk or ride bicycles because of too many cars. It should be made easier for people not to have automobiles. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, hoped Council would read her comments, submitted earlier. Council was urged to restore Housing (HS) Goal HS-1.C on page 5 of the Plan to a program. It had been studied in depth, much time had been spent on it, and it had been referred to earlier as an "analysis." It was very important and was at the heart of the City's commitment to housing. Program HS-1.D17 on page 8 of the HS section should be restored to a program, not the text, if the City was serious about preserving the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. The housing element for the City was questioned since the remainder of the Plan was geared to massive
11/09/94 74-65
increases in commercial development and was on a collision course with all of the City's housing goals. The remainder of the Plan eliminated any real effectiveness the housing element might have had, a depressing thought both locally and regionally. Every city in the Bay Area was sacrificing housing to commercial development, which was the Bay Area residents' responsibility to examine. The policy alternatives for providing housing in Palo Alto was a shocking and embarrassing response to the housing crisis and the real suffering people were experiencing with regard to housing shortages. Nothing useful had been expected from the Economic Resources Department on housing. It was incomprehensible, smoke and mirrors, and downplayed the only real incentive for housing. Housing would appear on land zoned for housing, and for which there was no policy alternative. Program H1 on page 4 of the Business & Economics (BE) section of the Plan, which recognized the San Antonio Avenue/Transport Industrial area, should include El Camino Real as a small business district. Any reference to a specific business being recruited for a specific site as seen on page 7 of the BE section should be eliminated, as it was not good planning. Any reference to El Camino Real on page 12 of the BE section, particularly BE-11.C, should be moved to the El Camino Real section, not in the Stanford Research Park section. El Camino Real was not an adjunct to the Research Park. Program BE-11.C2 should be eliminated entirely. Program BE-16.B, which established regional zoning on El Camino Real, should be eliminated. Zoning on El Camino Real was so well-balanced that regional local uses which were compatible with neighborhood commercial and residential district naturally located in the area already. The assumptions on page 6 of the staff report (CMR:488:94) should be seriously questioned. Increases in floor-area ratio (FAR) in commercial development did not necessarily relate to increased competitiveness or increased viability or vitality. Down-zoning did not decrease viability and had nothing to do with limiting options. There were many options on El Camino Real which should be more closely examined. Concern was expressed that policies and programs had found their way into the Plan and were in the process of being concertized with nothing more than a once-over pass which was very superficial thinking. It appeared every neighborhood in Palo Alto would be protected and preserved except the Ventura Neighborhood. There was a large concrete swath plan for the single-family housing on Olive Avenue. Small businesses were being discriminated against which had been amortized out. Special treatment was being given to Frys Electronics because it was bigger, which was unfair and probably illegal. Much housing would be lost on the site if residential zoning was let go. Class discrimination attitudes were in the neighborhoods, which was ugly. Palo Alto was, if anything, very nice. Offensive attitudes and comments should be ended, e.g., assumptions without foundations. There was much value in El Camino Real, regardless of the assumptions to the contrary just because it was not as attractive as the rest of Palo Alto. Anne O'Neill, 130 Bryant Street, said a homeless person had handed her a copy of the CPAC report. Just as language and communication was more than a collection of words and a set of grammatical rules, community was more than houses, gardens, and trees. While
11/09/94 74-66
many could not afford housing, quite a few people could not afford to use basic sanitation facilities. There was no basic public sanitation facility anywhere in metropolitan areas. It showed a basic lack of understanding of biological principles involved in the maintenance of public health. Regardless of income, one was subject to disease, etc. As a substitute teacher in East Palo Alto, she had been especially caught by the page headed "Separated by a freeway, a creek, a county line..." It was apparent to any observer that there were communities all across the country separated by de facto racial and economic apartheid. Walls, specific laws, etc., were not necessary, e.g., Los Altos had chosen not to participate in providing affordable housing, and had been subsequently sued for not complying with State or Federal regulations. In looking at the walls which divided economically, socially, racially, etc., one of the bottleneck entrances to Palo Alto up University Avenue from Palo Alto was an unsightly and dangerous freeway overpass which was of special concern for children getting to school and people coming into the City to purchase items in the stores. Ever since integration, the only change in black communities across the country was a loss of the most enterprising individuals. Everyone had to go uptown to shop, losing the vital capital necessary for economic development. If anything, people in Palo Alto should be concerned about helping establish and maintain small businesses in areas like East Palo Alto. Palo Alto, in all of the Bay Area, had the most egregious reputation for such phenomena, largely made fun of and ridiculed and put down. She had once seen a white policeman arresting two young black boys on bicycles, being treated as no white children would have been treated, forced to empty pockets and be frisked. Such issues had recently been raised in San Jose and championed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). There were more middle class families in San Jose, better suited and better prepared to complain about such issues. Hilary Hug, 381 Oxford Avenue, had been in Palo Alto since 1987 except for two years spent in Indonesia and worked with Magic Sustainable City Project. During her two years in Indonesia, she had run across the concept of "chickoban" which meant "enough." After Indonesians finished letters, etc., it was ended with enough. It was contrasted with American's obsession with more, bigger, better, faster, etc. Council was asked to consider how much was enough in Palo Alto. There was enough pollution, enough people, enough restaurants, enough buildings, enough alienation, enough crimes, enough cars, enough pavement, enough jobs, etc. However, there was not enough open space, trees, cooperation with bicyclists, people riding bicycles, etc. The CPAC survey agreed with her own conclusions. The end of growth was inevitable. The current draft Plan was a blueprint for growth. The suggestions put forth by the Minority for Poor for Business and Economics Committee by Robin Bayer for no net increase and growth in commercial and industrial floor space was a very conservative step for Palo Alto to take, but also a step on which the City could lead. It was important to leave something behind for future generations. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, said oral communications was
11/09/94 74-67
not oral communications, but oral announcements since there was no real communication between the public and Council as demonstrated by the fact that no answers were ever received. The same applied to CPAC which was essentially a sham. The show was run by an employee of the City, Nancy Lytle. Nothing was accomplished against Ms. Lytle's will. He had spoken with CPAC with the same results. He had written a letter to Ms. Lytle and had received no response. The problem with the commercial development stemmed to a large degree from Proposition 13 whereby the way to get money was to get someone else's money by collecting sales taxes from someone somewhere else. A solution would be to convince enough people to carry their own weight using parcel taxes, etc., to generate revenue for the City instead of getting it from the pockets of people out of town. Things done incorrectly by previous Councils should be integrated into a Plan to correct. On the basis of false premises, a viable harbor had been destroyed from Palo Alto. In its place was a rather useless pier and float. Mr. Harrington, one of the favorite mouthpieces of the establishment, was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as saying people went to the Baylands to see people launch boats, which was another lie since there was no way to launch boats. The City did not permit the launching of boats, for which no one in the City could offer a rationale. Many people had done good things on CPAC, providing good analyses, etc., but what was adopted would be something which suited the establishment. He was still waiting for someone on the Council to provide justification for its attitude of destroying and failing to re-provide access to San Francisco Bay. Margaret Feuer, 1310 University Avenue, President of Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (CPNA), said that during the past two years the CPNA had been urged by staff and individual members of Council to participate in the CPAC process. Like lambs, CPNA had acquiesced. CPAC forums and subcommittee meetings had been attended. CPNA promoted and participated in the transportation workshop. Specific recommendations had been made regarding traffic and the need to limit development which increased traffic and further detracted from the quality of life in Palo Alto. The impression, after reading the Plan and after having listened to the Planning Commission videos, was that once again, like lambs CPNA was being led to the slaughter. The Plan did not represent the best interests of Palo Alto residents. Rather, it read like a developer's manifesto. For example, in Goal BE-9.A1 of the Business & Economics (BE) section, the deletion of the development cap passed by Council in 1989 as a result of the Citywide land use and transportation study was strongly opposed. CPNA also strongly objected to the deletion of the results of the 1993 random sampling of 400 Palo Alto households from the vision statement in the BE section. The very fact the statistically valid survey results were contradictory to developer's fantasies made them valuable because it clarified the first sentence of the vision statement, "The need for Palo Alto to become more business-friendly, while balancing this objective with other priorities such as maintaining the residential character of the City, preserving the environment and limiting traffic congestion." The Planning Commission easily approved idealistic and perhaps
11/09/94 74-68
unattainable goals, policies and programs in the Transportation (TR) section of the Plan such as light rail, electric cars, and the use of bicycles and feet by all Palo Altans instead of automobiles. However, when it came to implementing pragmatic suggestions put forth by the neighborhood association and others to relieve traffic congestion, CPAC either watered it down or deleted it. For example, Council was urged to support the original CPAC language of TR-3.E1 on page 10 which stated clearly "create a new category of arterial street called the 'residential arterial.'" It was essential for the new Plan to deal with the reality of the traffic congestion which currently existed and which would increase over the following 20 years. It also seemed odd that staff saw fit to stress the cost of traffic mitigation measures while neglecting to mention the huge cost of items such as the development suggestions, e.g., extension of Sand Hill Road and the Dream Team plans. Council was asked for a commitment to infrastructure changes in the Plan such as calming devices on residential streets, collectors, and residential arterials. Throughout the proposed Plan, wherever reference was made to the potential of Stanford's development, it was inappropriate for language to say "extend Sand Hill Road." It should read "evaluate the effect of extending Sand Hill Road." It was not a foregone conclusion and was a highly divisive issue with potential dramatic traffic consequences and consequences to the quality of life of the neighborhood. She was pleased Council had decided to include public commentary before each element of the plan. The Planning Commission had allowed public commentary only on the first night. Perhaps that was why during the five nights of voting, the PC seemed only to remember and refer to the public comments made by the Chamber of Commerce. It was hoped that the method of public participation chosen by Council would make Council more acutely aware the proposed Plan represented the dreams, desires, and interests of 56,000 Palo Alto residents and not just the 800 members of the Chamber of Commerce. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, said two years before, she had attended a neighborhood coffee for Vice Mayor Simitian and Council Member Huber. When asked about what could be done about traffic on University Avenue, Vice Mayor Simitian, with Council Member Huber's agreement, advised the neighborhood to become involved in CPAC's due process. In the last election, at another neighborhood coffee, the CPAC process was promoted as the community's recourse to control the levels, speed, and type of traffic in the University neighborhood, the entrance to both Downtown and Stanford. Members of the neighborhood organization had attended numerous CPAC meetings and had taken an active part in trying to develop reasonable traffic calming measures to assist in coping with the ever-increasing demand for University Avenue. The neighborhood organization had been one of the original promoters of the transportation workshop which had been well-attended, but whose most important and far-reaching ideas, like the undergrounding of Oregon Expressway or a second road from Stanford to Highway 280, had not been included in the CPAC recommendations. While concentrating on the transportation element, it was obvious through staff summaries, more time should have been spent on the Business & Economics (BE) section. The
11/09/94 74-69
strong expansionist shift away from the policies of the previous Plan was not in the best interest of Palo Alto's quality of life. A vital business community was less dependent upon peer growth than on the mix. Vitality did not need to depend upon expansion, rezoning, and exceptions to development caps. The Plan was setting Palo Alto up as a regional center. The terms "region" and "regional" had been used many times throughout the Plan. She queried where the vision would lead Palo Alto and whether it was the desire of residents to be third under San Jose and San Francisco. She asked whether such an expansion was truly necessary to maintain services, suggesting instead that it would drain services. One of the items deleted after the Planning Commission review was the development cap set in the 1989 land use and transportation survey, which was absolutely unacceptable. The Chamber of Commerce and Stanford would perhaps state that CPAC had been too specific. But specificity was the residents' only weapon and defense. Residents wanted to know when development went beyond the bounds of the infrastructure, when it affected lives, and wanted to have public review on major projects. The two major development areas noted in the 1989 land use survey were the Stanford Research Park and the north end of Palo Alto comprised of Stanford/Sand Hill, Urban Lane, and Downtown. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) had already planned a regional facility in the Urban Lane area and Stanford already wished to develop well-beyond its caps. Commuter traffic was not necessarily the issue, though often discussed. Access, transportation to proposed development, and the type and hours of traffic such development created was. Restaurants created a different pattern from office space and outpatient clinics created a different pattern from research institutions. Stanford wanted to attract more shoppers and develop housing which would create a significant increase in Palo Alto's population. Both Stanford and PAMF wanted to bring in more patients. Stanford wanted to extend Sand Hill Road, creating a more effective east/west corridor, all without affecting the residential arterials of Embarcadero and University Avenue. If Stanford were allowed to go beyond its caps, the footage had to be traded from elsewhere along the same corridor. Vice Mayor Simitian was quoted in the Monday, November 7, 1994, San Jose Mercury as saying, "Let's have the conversation now and get it into the Plan instead of hearing the same debate on every project." She agreed it was a good vision for the community when it came to the walkable neighborhood concept and neighborhood centers. She disagreed when it came to major development and regionalization of Palo Alto neighborhoods. Residents would all agree, Palo Alto would not be a beautiful place to live in 20 years if it was drowned in traffic. Stephen Player, 1874 Guinda Street, was concerned about the City's future vitality. Revisions were made to comprehensive plans every 15 to 20 years because times, needs, and directions changed and comprehensive plans were never allowed to stagnate. It was important to examine the issues and conditions which impacted cities and communities and the economic viability of the community. The needs, concerns, etc., expressed when the Plan was revised in the mid-1970s, were again being expressed. However, the 1970s were different times from the current time, and the
11/09/94 74-70
relationship between the business and residential communities was considerably different, and the need for a continuing, growing, and interesting partnership between the business community and residential community was not as great. The 1970s cried for "jobs, housing, and balance," which phrase had not appeared in the revised Plan. The need for different kinds of controls, changes in zoning were different. He congratulated CPAC for the hours of work put into the revised Plan in so many aspects, not only the BE section, but in the unique, far-reaching, far-viewing sections of the revised Plan. The Planning Commission was also thanked for the work conducted on the revised Plan. Council was thanked for the work it had begun to do in trying to examine the massive document to make it something which could be a living document to take Palo Alto into the next century. The Chamber of Commerce had studied the Business & Economics (BE) section and other sections of the revised Plan and would be submitting specific recommenda-tions it thought were necessary for the Plan. CPAC had discussed the unique sense of community in Palo Alto, but "community" meant all aspects of the community, including the business community. The business community had attempted to be a good neighbor and had been a significant factor in the growth and well-being of Palo Alto. The mission of the Chamber, to represent business in a balanced way in the community, indicated its full support of balance in Palo Alto. A very positive aspect of the CPAC plan and of the more recent developments between the City and the Chamber and business community was a positive approach and recognition of the need that if the City was to be a healthy community long-term, it had to have a healthy, vital business community. CPAC's plan covered every service a person would ever want in a community, but in order to have such services, there had to be a furnace producing sales tax dollars and revenue which allowed the kind of community envisioned in the revised Plan. The Economic Resources Plan and an implementation plan had recently been adopted which set certain goals about vitality and creating certain businesses, examining specific areas of the community. Muriel Gravina, 130 Fulton Avenue, said she had come to a city renowned for its tree-lined streets and its connection with Stanford University. However, Palo Alto's trees were dying through neglect and its connection with Stanford University was hardly harmonious due to disputes over land use and road access. Mention had been made during the November 7, 1994, meeting that CPAC viewed growth in Palo Alto as inevitable; a comment with which she strongly disagreed. Growth was not necessary for the well-being of the City. The effects of uncontrolled growth over the past 27 years was an insidious degradation of the environment, e.g., too much traffic and noise, enormous houses replacing attractive older houses, too many banks, big stores replacing family businesses, the disappearance of local grocery stores, neighborhood elementary schools, young families from many areas of Palo Alto, and clean air to breathe, and contamination of the local water table by local industries. The question was when to draw the line. It could be drawn at the current time or after the wealthy had fled for healthier climes and property values had slumped. Not one more inch of Palo Alto land should be converted to concrete.
11/09/94 74-71
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said she was stunned by the policy reversals presented in the CPAC draft plan after having spent nearly 20 years of her life in Palo Alto on planning issues. CPAC members had been very committed and had worked very hard on the materials which had been presented to Council. However, the plan before Council almost totally ignored the good planning from the 1980s in the Downtown Study, the 1990 Housing Element, the California Avenue Study, the 1989 Citywide Land Use & Transporta-tion Study, and the Golden Triangle Study. Instead, it basically cut loose the Stanford Research Park, PAMF, the Stanford Shopping Center, and the Sand Hill corridor in an overzealous attempt to be business friendly. Council was urged to reinstate program BE-9.A1 on page 10 of the Business & Economics (BE) section to maintain the nonresidential site coverage limits and FAR requirements adopted in 1989 as a result of the 1989 Citywide Land use and Transportation Study. Council did not need to be reminded of the long-standing citizen concerns about traffic and neighborhood protection. Lipservice to such issues would not overcome the very real impacts of 400,000 additional square feet at the PAMF, increased square footage in the Industrial Park, and rezoning of the Maximart and school sites at Page Mill from residential to nonresidential, not to mention the many density bonuses and FAR incentives liberally sprinkled throughout the draft Plan. Traffic would increase and there would continue to be increased pressure on housing stock. Smog, noise, parking spillover, and escalation of housing prices would increase. No matter how much growth capacity in any zone, there would always be developers and speculators desiring to exceed the capacity, which was a reality. There were several processes in place to deal with such issues, including Planned Community Zones (PC Zones) and variances. A myth had been perpetrated that Palo Alto was not friendly with businesses and its biggest business, Stanford Land Management Company, which was untrue. Staff met regularly with Stanford representatives, perhaps too regularly. Staff had worked closely with a number of developers for innovative projects Downtown and elsewhere. Very few, if any, projects had ever been turned down. If one played by the rules, Palo Alto was a good place to do business; it was generally friendly and almost always profitable. It was much easier to maintain existing zones and make exceptions where warranted than to give it all away and be powerless to address the adverse consequences. Term limits would most assuredly mean some future Council would be stuck with the mess and the public would have no recourse. The five major proposals in the 1975 Comp Plan should have been used to build from rather than ignored. The major proposals were: 1) maintain the general low-density character of single-family areas; 2) slow employment growth; 3) maintain existing housing and provide some new housing for low, moderate, and middle-income households; 4) reduce growth of auto traffic; and 5) change the appearance and function of El Camino Real. Such proposals were not laden with conciliatory language, obscure references, and backpedaling. Each was clear and for the most part had been achieved. Palo Alto had survived and thrived. At the time the goals were established, there were many residential neighborhoods with single-family homes but multi-family zoning, particularly around Downtown. Fire Zone 1 rezoning
11/09/94 74-72
had brought stability to the neighborhoods, which were thriving. In the late 1980s, new single-family zoning regulations had brought additional stability and predictability. The Citywide Land Use & Transportation Study and the Golden Triangle effort reduced the growth potential but had not stopped growth. It should be maintained. In addressing low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing, there had been a number of incentives, but not enough. Many sites had been zoned for multi-family, including Traynor, Silver, McElory, Thain, the school site at El Camino Real/Page Mill Road, and Maximart. With the exception of the last two, housing had been developed on all sites. The commercial zone had been amended to allow housing and several mixed-use develop-ments had resulted. Many innovative programs had developed, e.g., Below-Market Rate (BMR), in-lieu payments, rental housing acquisi-tion fund, etc. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) had been supported in its many projects. The City had not been as competent at slowing growth or traffic, however, it had tried. Between Page Mill and San Antonio Roads, 40 percent of the land had been vacant or undeveloped at the time the 1975 Comp Plan was written. A number of major housing projects had been built, a number had been approved but not built, and the vacancy rate of existing structures had declined. El Camino Real might never be beautiful, but it was much stronger and healthier than it had been in 1975 and continued to improve. She concurred with Ms. Lehrberg and the Committee For Green Foothills, and many other speakers who had addressed the problems associated with the Draft Plan. Susan Frank, Executive Director of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, complimented CPAC and Council for the hard work which had and would be done on the Plan. Many of the previous speakers had suggested that Council might eventually take an unpopular position by supporting some of the policies and programs recommended in the CPAC documents. The Chamber argued otherwise and had commented to the Planning Commission in October regarding concerns about degree of detail and problematic site-specific planning. The main focus of the comments was to remind the City that Palo Alto's business vitality and its quality of life were not values in tension with each other. It was acknowledged in the BE vision statement that the City's budget depended significantly on revenues provided by the business community. Taxes and fees paid by and through business supported parks, libraries, public safety, human services, and other services and amenities Palo Alto residents had come to expect from City government. Previous speakers seemed to envision Palo Alto's future with plans for uncontrollable growth and development. The vision taken from the same CPAC documents as the Chamber had studied extensively showed, for the most part, a healthy and frequent mention of the importance of business vitality. Much of City staff recommendations were in concert with the Chamber's previous recommendations. The Chamber would argue and comment further during the review of the BE section, that some of the business-related policies and programs could and should be even more proactive. Everyone favored balance and the BE vision statement spoke of balancing the objective of a business friendly City and what some saw as competing priorities, such as environmental protection and traffic management. The City should
11/09/94 74-73
keep in mind that the process by which the goals were balanced might itself be distinctly and friendly to business if balancing resulted in delay, complexity, and uncertainty. If balance meant too much process, balance stopped being a good thing. To the credit of the current Council and City staff, the perception that Palo Alto could be needlessly unfriendly to business had begun to change. The central task in updating the Plan was to ensure the City's planning processes and zoning tools were simple, understandable, and predictable, even as it balanced the City's needs. The update should recognize that healthy businesses would expand and contract in response to an intensely competitive market condition. It should acknowledge that businesses worth having in the City needed incentives to both locate and remain. It should reject micro-management of private sector decisions. In many specific areas, the draft Plan moved from the planning framework to the realm of policies and programs. While the City should recognize the relationship between good planning and successful programs, the update should not tie the hands of future Councils with mandates for programs which might be costly and cumbersome when put into practice. The Plan should encourage, support, and facilitate business vitality rather than merely tolerate it. Shannon McEntee, 410 Sheridan Avenue, No. 216, had come to California 22 years prior and had remained in Palo Alto because of its beauty. She was committed to a good and sustainable life style which included clean air, a peaceful environment, and a beautiful and cared for city; but Palo Alto had deteriorated over the past 22 years. Although times were different, some things such as the need for clean air, pleasant surroundings, and a safe community for everyone remained exactly the same as it had been 20 or 100 years prior. The City had already surpassed acceptable limits and she was opposed to any net growth of business, commercial, and pavement in the community. Living on a main arterial was extremely unpleasant and the amount of traffic and noise was unacceptable. Some of the results of the huge growth over the years included alienation of the youth, crowding, traffic, air pollution, etc. It was possible for Palo Alto to be a leader and put a stop to growth in the community, demonstrating to the rest of the country that a city could manage its resources better. A terrible outcome of increased traffic was the resultant neighborhood disputes. Council was challenged to represent the community in a way which would ensure no net increase in commercial and industrial floor space or pavement and adopt the no net increase proposal Robin Bayer had spent over 1,000 hours preparing and to which she brought great intelligence and care. The City could be in control, rejecting the suicidal trend of racing forward with incredible consumption. Council needed to listen and recognize Palo Alto could be different without taking such suicidal course. Palo Alto had an abundance of intelligent people and science which could lead it to a better future. Ginger Fry, 1125 Marcussen Drive, Menlo Park, had just finished her PhD in Environmental Engineering at Oregon State University and had come to Palo Alto for post-doctorate work at Stanford University. As a bicyclist, it was apparent the City was overrun with automobiles. A comprehensive plan should look at what the
11/09/94 74-74
community wanted and figure out how the City could give such a future to its residents, which the proposed Plan did not appear to give. Very little effort had been put into finding out what the people wanted. Although a survey had been taken, it had not been taken into consideration. Greater effort should have been made to determine what the people wanted. Less than 5 percent of the budget had been spent on finding out what the people of Palo Alto wanted. The plan appeared to merely serve special interest groups, calling for an increased Stanford Shopping Center, while more than 70 percent of the community indicated it did not want more specialty or bulk retail stores. The plan called for Stanford Research Park to be increased, but 75 percent of the community did not want more office development. The plan called for a hotel and conference center, while 65 percent of the people indicated it did not want it. A number of people had congratulated CPAC and Council on the number of hours spent on the project, but if she had spent the same number of hours and could not come up with a solution, she would be laughed at and would not be given any money. Council was urged to adopt Robin Bayer's proposal for no net increase in commercial and industrial floor space. Palo Alto was a wealthy city and its money could be used to set an example for other cities to set up a quality of life. She questioned increase growth in Palo Alto, asking when enough was enough. Palo Alto's reclamation project had indicated Ozone levels had already surpassed acceptable levels in the Redwood City area. Ryan Phelan, read a letter written by his mother, Joan Phelan, 449 College Avenue, which said that "as she reviewed the new Comprehensive Plan for Palo Alto, she was deeply saddened by its emphasis on growth. She said that one of Palo Alto's first mayors, Joseph Hutchinson, was her great granduncle. She urged the Council to adopt the no net increase proposal in commercial and industrial floor space. Jesse Wilson, 134 Park Avenue, said the lively, intellectual, and affluent could afford the $.5 million homes that had expanded the City's prosperity but with it came increased smog, congestion, and number of bland chain stores at the expense of local businesses. Palo Alto was not like most cities in the Bay Area which were evolving into another Los Angeles but it could be. Unfortunately, such environmental degradation would encourage the lively, intellectual, and affluent citizens which provided the backbone of Palo Alto's prosperity to leave. The City did not need more stores, more cars, more noise, or more pollution. Council was asked to plan for no net growth. Jeff Hook, 302 College Avenue, had been in Palo Alto since 1974, during which time noise and air pollution had increased. As an avid runner, he preferred the open spaces. To continue to add artifacts, buildings, pavement, etc., to get the plumb of increased tax revenues eventually became self-defeating. When the growth issue had become apparent in the 1960s, tensions had arisen between residential and business interests. That was the time when the necessity of limiting the amount of growth should have been seriously analyzed and a determination made as to whether the
11/09/94 74-75
extra tax revenue dollar cost more than it brought in. Increased tax revenue brought increased traffic. A goal of reducing the growth of overall traffic resulted in a sense of defeat. Growth of traffic should not be reduced, traffic should be reduced. Such goals appeared progressive, but it was merely a lie. An improve-ment was not being made. Instead the increase of something bad was merely being slowed, which was not an improvement. He supported the sustainable City program of Magic, Inc. and the proposal not to add another square inch of commercial building or pavement in the City. The CPAC document should contain some analysis and comparison and contrast of historical and other studies of cities across the nation which had taken a path to add more buildings and pavement after a certain point compared with cities which had decided to stop growth. Nothing was mentioned in CPAC's work. Such research was extremely important in development of a new plan. Judith Bhushan, 3838 Mumford Place, said the public participation in the Plan process was a veritable ground swell which Council could not ignore. As a new small business owner and as part of Bay Area Action, an environmental group at 711 Colorado, she fully supported the proposed amendment of the minority report submitted by Magic, Inc., and Robin Bayer. Housing, human solutions, more affordable housing, public transportation, and not more commercial expansion was needed. Everyone had heard the familiar native-American expression, "We must consider the impact of our decisions and actions to the seventh generation." The expression referred to a period of over 500 years and should not be taken lightly. Palo Alto had a great opportunity to which Council would rise to meet. The genius of the ideas of Ms. Bayer and Magic, Inc., of no net increase of the urban footprint was a simple and democratic idea. The idea of no net growth of commercial development cured and controlled urban ills and quality of life was improved. As a small business owner, she respectfully disagreed with the Chamber's viewpoint that the addition would hurt business. There were no downsides to the proposal. The details could be smoothly sorted out. The process of circulating businesses in and out would improve the City's businesses' long-term health. She joined with the majority of speakers in support of the Bayer amendment to CPAC's goal BE-9, "by allowing no net increase in commercial floor space or pavement in the Palo Alto planning area." Council would allow the inclusion of the amendment because when it came time for elections, it would be political suicide to ignore what had been heard during the course of one week. Jason Ulibarri, 4025 Laguna Way, had lived in Palo Alto for six years, before which he had travelled the world including Southeast Asia and South America. Much time had been spent in little villages not desirous of tourists and businesses. As a writer for a local software company, he was able to live anywhere in the world but had chosen to live in Palo Alto because of what the City had to offer, the unique aspects of which would be lost. In the future, many people would be able to telecommute. As the society became more mobile, cities would need to emphasize what appealed to residents. If time was spent cultivating a business atmosphere for Palo Alto, pouring more concrete, building more streets to
11/09/94 74-76
accommodate the greater number of cars, eventually the people the City was trying to please with services would live in other cities. Council needed to consider how the needs would be changing and plan for such changes. Council needed to think about the broader picture and broader services which provided a more livable place for people, not just businesses. He supported Magic's project and the proposal for no net commercial and industrial growth. Lynn Stewart, read a letter from Kent Don (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which suggested that the Plan be rewrote from scratch. He said that the challenge was to learn to live within limits. He said "no" to more business and "yes" to more parks and open space in Palo Alto. He endorsed the proposal put forward in the minority report. Sally Probst, President, League of Women Voters Palo Alto, 735 Coastland Drive, read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which said that the League of Women Voters Palo Alto (LWVPA) strongly supported affordability and diversity of housing opportunity and a variety of housing options for low- and moderate-income families and individuals. The LWVPA strongly endorsed the recommended policies and programs which encourage collaboration between governmental entities. Robin Bayer read a letter from Hal Chapman, 101 Alma Street (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which said that during the past 25 years, he had seen a gradual deterioration in the quality of life in Palo Alto. He supported Magic's plan. He did not feel that it was too late for Palo Alto to retain its beauty and uniqueness. David Schrom, 381 Oxford Avenue, said at the Monday night meeting that one of the Planning Commissioners had referred to a comment by former Commissioner Pam Marsh made at the time the Plan review was begun. Former Commissioner Marsh said something to the effect she hoped the plan might be a vehicle for the expansion of the community's values. He shared and extended Ms. Marsh's hopes. He wanted the new plan to embody the community's values and wanted the values to evidence the community's concerns not only for itself but others, including people beyond Palo Alto's borders and people who would follow. The values should reflect Palo Alto's appreciation of the earth itself. Early in the CPAC process, people from Magic, Inc., had put before it a vision rooted in such values as health, cooperation, and stewardship. It was the vision of a city to be emulated rather than enviable, i.e., a city whose residents lived on a fair share of the earth's resources so others might live similarly. The vision was summarily dismissed. The vision, the sole alternative generated at the initiative of ordinary citizens, heard not so much as a "no thanks" let alone serious evaluation to determine whether it was more practical or more consistent with Palo Altan's values than the official vision. He supported the vision. It was a vision focused on people, on how people experienced everyday life, not on buildings and machines. Perhaps it was the reason for failure. Perhaps staff, the consultant, CPAC, and Council were more concerned with what
11/09/94 74-77
the City would have in the future than what it would be. A famous teacher once said, "What does it profit a person to gain a whole world and lose a soul." Palo Alto was losing its soul. When it planned for more business not because it was coping with unemployment or because it could not find goods and services nearby but because it wanted the illusion of free services funded by business taxes, it lost not only its soul but its mind. There were many banks in Palo Alto, none in East Palo Alto. Palo Altans had two jobs per worker, East Palo Alto had ten workers per job. He queried whether it meant Palo Alto was a good neighbor. Business was not a free ride. Tax dollars were easy to measure but noise, traffic, and pollution were more difficult to assess, at least for a while. Home owners in Barron Park living atop a toxic plumb should be asked how they felt about turning the valley of the hearts delight into the valley of the super fund site. He wanted more nature in Palo Alto, more community gardens and orchards, not more buildings or more housing. There was more housing per capita than ever before in the City's history, yet it also had more homeless. The two simple facts reflected not a shortage in housing but a shortage of intelligence and heart. It was foolish to pretend that building houses in Palo Alto at $100,000 per person was a wise use of natural resource or money capital. The same amount of resource or money almost anywhere else on earth would house 10, 100, or 1,000 fellow humans. As to affordability, it was an issue of heart. The sickness by which 1,000 square feet and a private bathroom was demanded by each individual was all that stood between Palo Altans and affording the housing which existed in Palo Alto currently. To build little boxes, each with its own little stove, refrigerator, sink, toilet, shower, water heater, etc., was pandering to that sickness. It should be made easier for people to share. One could not build its way to happiness. The changes the City needed would come from within. Ms. Marsh, whose hopes for a value based plan, might have seen all of it, decided she could not change Palo Alto's values, and wanted no more. It was perhaps the reason halfway through the CPAC process, she left with her family to Oregon, to live in a place with less building and perhaps more heart. An article which recently appeared in the New York Times mentioned 2,500 scientists, all highly respected experts in diverse fields, were convened by the United States to sort the facts about global climate change. The scientists stated under no uncertain terms the earth would be warmed by the middle of the next century as much as it had warmed since the depths of the last ice age. Immediate drastic action might spare the earth the worst but it was a political and economic impossibility. Palo Altans could adapt, given a chance. It could lead the charge, providing a far greater service than it would by the next round of biotechnological or computational virtuosity. Council had the power to lead and should give the community the kind of planning it deserved. He suspected Council knew in its heart that to grow more was to grow worse. If it acted on such knowledge, it risked the consequences. The person who sacrificed an ounce of principle for a pound of influence made a bag bargain. Dave Muffly, 381 Oxford Avenue, had moved to Palo Alto in 1984. He left the area and returned a year later because of the quality
11/09/94 74-78
of life. He returned with an aim to give and serve so he could feel good about the privilege of living in such a place. He aimed to serve three groups of people, the first two of which had little to say about Palo Alto's matters. One was the people with whom the earth was shared did not live in Palo Alto. Another group included people who might inhabit Palo Alto in the future but would be profoundly affected the by the consequences of the City's actions. The third group he sought to serve, as Council also did, were Palo Altans of the present and near future. In the Plan update survey, 600 Palo Alto residents had been asked what was desired. In the response, 55 percent rejected more convenience retail and personal service businesses, 75 rejected bulk retail stores, and 72 percent rejected more specialty retail stores. The conclusion drawn from the survey was that most Palo Altans were content with the amount of retail business it currently enjoyed. According to the CPAC document, the people were not being served even though it was the majority. The document paved the way for more growth, the kind people had indicated it did not want. Council should heed the desires of the majority, querying whether it was a democracy or an illusion. Council Member Fazzino had asked for constructive comments. He supported the position put forward by Robin Bayer and the minority report. Goal BE-9 of the Plan read, "Assure a broadly acceptable balance between business development and the maintenance of the residential character of Palo Alto" to which should be added "by allowing no net increase in business and commercial floor space or pavement in the Palo Alto planning area." Such a simple addition had been chosen as a change which might maintain the quality of life of people living in Palo Alto and at the same time serve other current and future people, worldwide, by reducing ecological impacts. An analogy could be drawn to people sitting down to eat and coming to the point of having had enough. Council could understand the principle as part of being a healthy person, but many people did not understand. The process which had occurred on Monday, November 7, 1994, was troubling, especially with regard to the order in which people who submitted cards were asked to speak. For years he had heard stories about people in power systematically suppressing opposing views. He had never felt the anger at being suppressed until Monday night. The views of people supporting no net growth were being systematically suppressed, although not totally. He asked why Council was afraid of the ideas. Heather Scott, 243 Oxford Avenue, said changes should be managed. There were needs which surpassed whatever other changes occurred through the decade. She asked what Council thought a community was, how it thought Palo Alto was changing, what kind of changes Council had seen in Palo Alto and CPAC thought should be analyzed and focused upon, and where Council thought Palo Alto should go in the future. Strong ideas of community should be expressed in a new, from scratch, Comprehensive Plan. Joan Schwan, 381 Oxford Avenue, said everyone was subject to natural laws. Laws determined the limits of what was possible. To plan successfully, it was important to learn how laws complied to the City. In studies at Stanford, and later at Magic
11/09/94 74-79
Sustainable City Project, she had researched scientific literature to find clear explanations of how the principles of ecology applied to community planning. Her colleague Robin Bayer had submitted dozens of items to CPAC, Planning Commission, and Council which demonstrated the connection. Her submissions had included writings by internationally respected scientists, economists, and planners. In one of the writings, Herman Daily, Senior Economist of the World Bank wrote unequivocally, "Sustainable growth is impossible." Yet Monday evening, a CPAC spokesman had identified continuing growth as the first of four central principles of the draft plan. In another writing, Monique Miller, Executive Director of the Caring Capacity Network, reported, "High density living will be only one of many management strategies which promote denial of the facts." Yet the same CPAC spokesperson had indicated increasing density was another central tenant of the draft plan. The idea that the community could be made better with growth and density were serious delusions contradicted by scientific fact. After two years of meetings and hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds, for CPAC to persist with such central themes in the draft plan was astounding. She hoped Council would ask what other scientific facts about growth and density had been suppressed and why such facts were absent from the voluminous CPAC output. It should have been central to the earliest discussions when foundations for the plan were laid. She queried why the community was being asked to consider a plan rooted in misunderstanding of natural law. At least one regular participant in the process, Ms. Bayer, repeatedly brought such views forward, substantiating them with reference to the science and literature. Yet for nearly two years, numerous City staff, an expensive consultant, and dozens of citizens charged with serving community interest had all but ignored them. There was a methodical repression of dissenting views, views based on scientific understanding, similar to the repression Galileo faced when the Catholic Church forced him to confess his error that the earth travelled around the sun. She hoped Council would ask what could be done to discover the facts and live by them. Council and constituents deserved the opportunity to fully examine well developed alternatives for growing, for maintaining at current levels, ever shrinking the amount of buildings and people in Palo Alto. Everyone deserved to see the rationales behind each alternative, put forward by competent and wholehearted advocates. Paul Erlich had said, "nature will not be fooled." The people who had written the draft Plan could agree with each other, but unless the plan was rewritten to end net growth and net increases in density, it would be nothing but a means for eroding the quality of life in Palo Alto and elsewhere. For 30 years, planners had sold suburban sprawl and auto-based living. Currently, infill was being put in public transit. Sprawl and infill were two equally pernicious manifestations of the same underlying problem--addiction to material growth. There was an alternative to the addiction of adding buildings and people to Palo Alto. The decision was in the hands of Council--addiction or recovery. RECESS: 9:10 P.M. to 9:35 P.M.
11/09/94 74-80
Dan Wyman, 228 Fulton Street, read a letter from Bill Peterson (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which said that he observed the CPAC process and the energetic efforts put in by the volunteers and staff, but that he was appalled at the draft document submitted to the Council. He agreed with Ms. Bayer that the document seemed to be emerging from the CPAC process as a marketing tool to justify growth for its own sake. He felt that the most egregious specific change in the Plan was the elimination of all of the work and controls that were part of the 1988 land use and transportation study. Trisha Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Street, was a member of CPAC and had been involved in the process from the beginning. Every CPAC member she had spoken with after the Planning Commission review had a common feeling; whether or not the person agreed with the content of the results that many things had been tossed from the proposal without much thought or discussion by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had spent many hours examining two years' worth of work but it was impossible to take everything which had transpired and synthesize it into something intelligently. She was very upset at what had been removed from the Governance section, as it was the section on which she had worked. Many of the visions which had been approved had no policies or programs to sustain the vision. The basic idea of relationship of people, quality of life, and trust was central to what CPAC had tried to accomplish; the sense of community. In the Governance section, CPAC had tried to address the process approach and from the point of view of leverage and change the paradigm, moving from a confrontational approach to one which was more collaborative. Yet the section no longer held a concrete method of doing so. CPAC had wrestled with it and, although it had not come up with a good concrete method, she was concerned there would not be the opportunity to wrestle with the real content in order to develop a concrete method. Other CPAC members had had the same concern in other sections. The fact it was such a huge task and given the current situation, it seemed a different process would be necessary in the future to be able to evolve ideas, engage the public, and return with something concrete which people could buy into and own rather than feel it had been pushed upon them. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, had lived in Palo Alto since 1985 and had grown up in Walnut Creek. Walnut Creek had changed from a city with two stop lights to a massive development with many high rise buildings and almost unbelievable traffic problems. The same thing should not happen to Palo Alto. During the past ten years, traffic had increased, air quality decline, more noises heard, and people felt threatened. Palo Alto had been chosen because of the lifestyle it offered with pedestrian, bicycles, and public transit as primary modes of transportation. There were already two jobs in Palo Alto for each resident. More jobs meant more traffic. Council was asked to examine the contradictions found in the CPAC proposal. If business and traffic were increased, the area would not be "walkable." She no longer felt safe getting off the train at 11:00 p.m. and walking home because there were changes in the character of the area in which she lived. Palo Alto had always been a forward-looking community with its City-owned utilities,
11/09/94 74-81
aggressive tree planting program, neighborhood curbside recycling, etc. Palo Alto had always been a leader in terms of community policy and had always developed new procedures and ways of coping before other communities even realized a problem existed. The same leadership role should be continued with no growth. A vital business and residential community did not require growth. Palo Alto could develop a new paradigm. Residents had asked for no more businesses in the community and Council should listen. Andy Coe, Director of Community Relations, Stanford University, said as a participant and observer of CPAC, Stanford wanted to acknowledge its appreciation for the tremendous amount of time and quality effort which had been given to the Plan process by CPAC members. It was hoped Stanford had been viewed as a helpful participant in the process, as that had been its intention. While Stanford did not agree with all of the currently proposed goals, policies, and programs, much was supported in the draft documents before Council. Stanford agreed with the extension of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real and with the importance of maintaining and enhancing the viability and economic vitality of the Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Research Park as important community resources. The inclusion of a goal in support of Stanford Medical Center's need for flexibility in plans for the future was encouraging. Stanford saw it was important to have a policy which provided for a consistent, reasonable setback from the San Francisquito Creek and other such creeks in order to protect and preserve the natural environments. Stanford looked forward to specific sessions on specific sections of the plan and would make further comments at a later time. Stanford was ready and willing to work with the City, CPAC, and staff on the process in whatever ways were appropriate. Mary Carey Schaefer, 742 DeSoto Drive, thanked the people who had worked on the report and Council's response to it. She was concerned about the Palo Alto Planning Commission's reaction, particularly regarding noise and staff's comments. CPAC, the Planning Commission, and staff's notes eliminated all sections referencing noise in the report. The City Manager's comments indicated the necessity of considering a noise ordinance and the fact noise could not be ignored in the environment. The fact that sound could be heard from two miles away should be a concern. A solution should be describable and used when there was a problem. Palo Alto had coped with the Edge, the restaurant on El Camino Real, and the Winter Lodge, all in an attempt to be sensitive with an agreement which would be good for neighbors as well as businesses. Palo Alto had gone through another year with Shoreline Amphitheater and an analysis with being recorded at the Main Library. Palo Alto had never done a public analysis of what it had and what it knew; the City had the computer power to track complaints and make the information known to the public. Julia Bott, Chapter Director for the Loma Prieta Sierra Club, 3921 E. Bayshore Road, said over 2,200 members of the Loma Prieta Sierra Club (the Chapter) resided in the Palo Alto/Stanford area. In the beginning of the process, the Chapter had been impressed with the calibre of people chosen to work on the Plan. It was
11/09/94 74-82
thought the Plan would be one of vision with the promise of sustainability. However, the Chapter was concerned about the quality of the Plan, especially considering recent deletions by the Planning Commission. The proposed policies were less protective than San Jose and Santa Clara County proposed General Plan. The Chapter believed Council would understand the importance of many of the deleted policies and programs and have them reinstated. Council had heard much during the evening's discussion about the impacts of increased commercial development and providing continuity between passed Comp Plans and the current Plan. Such comments deserved Council's attention. In addition, the Chapter offered other recommendations. Urban limit lines and joint planning agreements should be included in the Plan. Such policies should be consistent with proposed policies in the County's revised General Plan, about to be adopted. If Council was concerned about the way in which policy CD-3.D was written, to force Stanford into an agreement in which it might not be able to participate, possible language was "The City shall work with Stanford and Santa Clara County to establish an urban limit line and to establish jointly planned policies for the protection of open space lands outside of this urban limit line." Regarding program TR-1.F2 on page 4 of the Transportation (TR) section which referenced a BART-like system circling the Bay, Council was urged to support upgrades to the existing transportation systems instead. Language should be amended to support upgrades to CalTrain which would make it more efficient, quieter, with quicker headways, and increased connections. A new system brought its own problems. Locating such systems could disrupt entire communities and there were significant construction impacts and enormous public expenditures, e.g., controversies surrounding BART into the airport. Council was also urged to replace and strengthen all language designed to increase commuting by bicycle. Specifically, programs TR-1.H8 and TR-1.H9 on page 5 and 6 should not be deleted. Further, bicycle commute plans should be included in efforts to address parking problems associated with Downtown employees. Council was urged to include CPAC's original setback for Riparian corridors, specifically policy NE-1.B3 on page 4 of the Natural Environment (NE) section, which was probably one of the most important additions to the Plan. The Chapter could not understand why it had been deleted for "lack of priority." Council was urged to include policy NE-1.F1 on page 6 of the NE section regarding recommendations of the Tree Task Force. The Chapter could not understand why it had been deleted, also for "lack of priority." Judging from the calls to the Sierra Club office about trees being removed, people believed that protection to urban trees was a very high priority. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, acknowledged and thanked the efforts of CPAC, various citizens who had been involved, Planning Commission, and staff for the very lengthy and extensive task. Some of the comments made by the Chamber of Commerce were inappro-priate and should be dismissed, i.e., page 7 of the Chamber's letter dated October 5, 1994, regarding Goal BE-8. Page 10 of the Business & Economics section stated the City "should recognize that neighborhood commercial zoning has failed on El Camino south of Page Mill Road." The Chamber was unable to tell the difference
11/09/94 74-83
between failure and success. Neighborhood commercial zoning on El Camino Real was an excellent example of a zone doing exactly what it was intended. Earlier previous testimony had indicated the vacancy rate on El Camino Real and the area between Arastradero and Page Mill Roads at 44 percent in 1976-77, prior to establishing the neighborhood commercial zone. It was currently approximately 15 percent, half of which were properties being amortized out and vacant due to City activities, not normal commercial activities. It was a very low vacancy rate compared with other areas in the City. El Camino Real was a vital and successful commercial area. Secondly, reference to Goal BE-6 on page 6 of the Chamber's letter indicated the City should "avoid involvement with a technology" for advanced communications which was an extremely shortsighted attitude. If the City was not involved in advanced telecommunications, telecommunications would surpass the City. In the entire document, far more policies and goals were supported than opposed. BE-1.C and D on page 3 of the BE section were opposed because it was unclear how the City could accomplish such goals and pick and choose which businesses it would nurture or support, which was inappropriate. Program BE-1.F2 on page 4 of the BE section, which the Planning Commission had downgraded to a B, should be upgraded to an A, since it was a very worthy program and should be retained. El Camino Real should be added to "retain a certain percentage of low cost business space such as ... the San Antonio Avenue/Transport Industrial area" of Program BE-1.H1. Low-cost retail along El Camino Real would benefit the entire community. Programs BE-2.A1, A2, B1, B2, and C1 should be deleted and Goal BE-2 should be revised to add "which are compatible and complimentary to surrounding communi-ties." Business should include the neighboring communities. The staff comments on page 5 of the BE section regarding BE-2.A1, A2, B1, B2, and C1 were supported. The recommendations on page 5A that the general public pay higher rates if it benefited business-es, made by the Utilities Advisory Commission, should be deleted since it was a hidden tax on residents and was unconscionable. Policy BE-3.B and program BE-3.B1 found on page 6 of the BE section should be deleted. Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, a CPAC member, said Program BE-9.A1 on page 10 of the BE section, which proposed maintaining the nonresidential caps adopted by Council in 1989 as a result of the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, was a cornerstone issue. CPAC had included the program as the result of public input as a caution and in recognition of the need for balance between development and residential community interests. Very real thought had been given to the issue. When CPAC voted on various questions, program BE-9.A1 on page 10 of the BE section had received strong, overwhelming support both in terms of its being a high priority issue and one which should be given immediate attention. No time lap should be granted in observing the caps. As the study indicated in 1989, traffic volumes were high and without the caps, traffic volumes would become excessive. Traffic congestion had been very bad even at the time of the study and it could become intolerable. Removing the caps would be tantamount to removing the traffic speed limits on streets and arterials, the results of which could be tragic. It was something
11/09/94 74-84
which could not be condoned. Without the existing caps adopted in 1989, it was questionable whether an EIR could be conducted which would support the new Plan because of the very serious consequenc-es of removing the caps. CPAC had been very cognizant of the economics and vitality in its work in the BE section. CPAC had worked very hard to balance both economic and vitality and the preservation of the community values which everyone appreciated. It was important to be careful not to allow development to drive and ultimately devastate the community. If someone approached an organization with a development which exceeded the caps in the view of CPAC, it was incumbent upon the developer to demonstrate why the organization should allow exceeding the caps which were spelled out in a comprehensive plan. It was incumbent upon the developer wanting to develop beyond the caps to show good reason why it should be done and the mitigating circumstances involved. Council would make a serious mistake if it followed staff's proposal and deleted the section since it was fundamental to the rest of the plan and the community. Pat Marriott, 960 Dennis Drive, lived in Midtown and had one of the dying trees on her property. The entire block had been lined with white blossoms every spring, but currently, only three trees remained. An article had appeared in the July 6, 1994, issue of the Palo Alto Weekly, discussing the CPAC meeting, which stated the consensus was for Middlefield Road to be narrowed to two lanes to make the street pedestrian-friendly. As a result, she had written a letter to Council, the Planning Commission, and CPAC and had received a handwritten response from Council Member Fazzino. Planning around Midtown was rather schizophrenic, and the goals of building up businesses and cutting down on traffic were incompati-ble. There was enough room for pedestrians in Midtown. There was plenty of space to plant trees on the sidewalks, and a center strip for planting trees was not needed. Louis Road and Bryant Street already had bicycle lanes and most people would probably not want to ride their bicycles down El Camino Real or Middlefield Road. She preferred to drive her car down such roads. Balance was needed. Pedestrians and cars could coexist in different places. El Camino Real in Menlo Park was a bottleneck. Cars were a fact of life. Everyone would not become a bicycle commuter. It was important to have more bicycles and less traffic, but the main arterials in the community should not be throttled. She agreed with a previous speaker who had indicated the Plan would not pass as a business plan. No cost-benefit analysis or market research had been conducted. Rather, the Plan was a wish list and vision statement. If the residents were the customers for the Plan, she queried how residents could vote. She was unsure everyone would get a fair vote. Ms. Renzel and Robin Bayer had both spoken of a 1975 Comp Plan. She asked what the City had learned from it. A famous quote by a famous historian was "If we don't learn from history, we are going to be doomed to repeat it." Susan Shields, President of Midtown Merchants Association (MMA), had sat through the last five meetings of the Planning Commission and had assisted in the preparation of the recommendations for Council. She had also attended many CPAC and Council meetings. Much hard work had gone into the proposed Plan, and the people
11/09/94 74-85
deserved appreciation for their commitment to produce the document whether or not everyone agreed on each point. MMA would bring Council its list of goals, policies, and programs, particularly when Council discussed the elements of the Business and Economics and Community Design (CD) sections. CPAC and the Planning Commission had indicated in the CD element strong support of the use of a coordinated area plan for Midtown. She urged Council to support the adoption of specific or coordinated area plans as a general tool for facilitation of planning for areas of Palo Alto, anticipating change and evolution in the short term including the Midtown district. Several weeks before, during a study session for budget priorities, Council had chosen to support a teen center. She had spoken as an individual resident of Palo Alto in appreciation of the benefits her daughters gained by utilizing and participating in theater arts and dance activities for children, which Palo Alto had supported for many years. At the time, she had urged Council to extend the concern to the funding of a teen center. It was also Council's priority and had been adopted along with the budget priorities. Several days later the Planning Commission did not give it the priority she hoped it would. Council should reinstate program GV-11.E2 on page 11 of the GV section to "develop one or more teen activity centers." Staff indicated an effort was underway to develop a teen center but also indicated that it did not need to be included in a comprehensive plan, which she disagreed with. If Council thought it was necessary to establish a youth curfew in the Summer of 1994, it was clear the children of Palo Alto were not currently well provided with a sufficient diversity of places to enjoy each other's company. It was necessary to specify the establishment of a variety of teen activity centers and activities as an ongoing policy and program for Palo Alto. There were a number of excellent activity centers, but the perceived need for a youth curfew obviously indicated a significant number of Palo Alto's young people were not finding a place to go which met their needs. The inclusion of a specific program to clearly state and hopefully guarantee Palo Alto's commitment to provide a climate wherein the social needs of Palo Alto's children were given a high priority would allow Council to recall the curfew it had earlier set. The curfew was an unfortunately negative comment on teenagers' need for each other's company. Council should offer a message which celebrated and supported teens enjoyment of each other. There was an extraordinary amount of intelligence and concern on the part of Palo Alto's young people, many of whom were moving out of Palo Alto. She urged Council to listen to what had been spoken since it was, in large part, the concerns of the young people in Palo Alto. It was important to nurture and keep the calibre of young people in Palo Alto such as those who had spoken during the evening. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, had been searching for a cohesive plan in the Planning Commission packet which envisioned how Palo Alto would look in 2010 to get some feeling for what the words said and the way Palo Alto would look, but it was not found. The picture was that the most protected neighborhoods and residential would probably remain protected but the mixed areas and more densely populated areas would get more noise, pollution,
11/09/94 74-86
and traffic. Red areas on the map had all been slated for additional development without accompanying noise, pollution, or traffic reduction policies. Council needed to provide the leadership and vision for 2010. Council was being asked whether it wanted the town to be greener with more hills developed, which was what she wanted. The City could not handle more development if it could not handle existing traffic. All parts of Palo Alto would benefit from reductions in noise, traffic, and pollution, not just some areas. It should be a consideration in any project or development. She was very concerned about the environment. The oak forest was dying, urban forest aging, green areas replaced with wider streets to accompany traffic at a faster rate, parking lots, utility boxes, underground vaults, and cement channels which at one time were seen as riparian habitats and creeks. Pictures were shown demonstrating the point. The riparian habitat which existed in the Arastradero preserve in 1993 was gone because a utility road had eaten through the wetland--the wetland might or might not return. Trees did not grow or mature in parking lots, even though there was technology that made it happen which had not been utilized. There was a 40- degree difference between the surface of a parking lot and the ambient temperature, which would become more exacerbated as more areas were developed with enormous amounts of roof and parking lots with no mitigation. She recom-mended a complete reevaluation be conducted on parking lot structures to mitigate the problem. Patrick Siegman, 592 Alvarado Row, Stanford, worked in transporta-tion planning for Stanford University, but spoke as a private citizen. It was disturbing to hear so many people say the way to reduce traffic was to cap development. If the best of the cities were examined, it would become apparent that a square foot of development did not mean another car. Capping development would not reduce net traffic through Palo Alto. In Portland, a direct approach had been taken in 1972 with a cap on the number of parking spaces in downtown. After over two decades, more housing and jobs had been added without adding more traffic. The waterfront freeway had been removed and made into the city's most heavily used public space. The main parking lot in front of the courthouse had been removed and made into another wonderful park. It could be done, but it took a willingness to examine the policies. Bellevue, Washington, another rapidly growing suburban downtown, recently considered dropped minimum parking requirements from five per thousand square feet to two per thousand square feet, or by 60 percent. The key was to offer the same financial incentives to take anything except an automobile downtown. The previous policy had offered free parking to employees downtown, forcing businesses to provide parking, which had been changed. Rather than forcing businesses to pay higher taxes to build parking structures, it began to ask every business to provide an equivalent cash allowance as the value of parking which was often cheaper than building additional parking structures. It worked dramatically. Los Angeles County employees had been given a $75 monthly commute allowance to leave vehicles at home, which was substantially less than the cost of a parking structure at over $120 per space. The result was that 40 percent of the parking demand disappeared. It also created the funds for shuttles and
11/09/94 74-87
more frequent public transit service. Such policies were difficult and involved spillover parking into neighborhoods which would also require a policy. There was skepticism that it would work and businesses needed to be shown that it could be done cheaper. If the City were willing to take the bold step, the needs of growing business could be satisfied without the kind of horrendous traffic volumes everyone expected must be the result of another square foot of development. There was also tremendous potential in traffic calming. In the Netherlands, traffic fatalities had been reduced by 70 percent over the past few decades while the United States had remained constant. There was much skepticism about the potential of things like slowing traffic on Middlefield Road and reducing its lane widths. It had been done elsewhere. The City should examine what had been done elsewhere and realize it could be done. Jean Olmstead, 240 West Charleston Avenue, lived in the Charleston/ Meadows neighborhood. Many of the people from her neighborhood had been reluctant to attend the meeting because it was thought it would not accomplish anything. The limits on height, density, FAR, and zoning which had been important to residents should not be tossed out in the Plan. Although the proposed ways to deal with the traffic problem were positive, she was afraid that the Citywide Transportation Study would be undone. There should not be a tendency to accept things in the proposed Plan as final. Examples included exceptions for height limits for a hotel and planning for Stanford. Such issues should be discussed and handled in the usual procedure. The Plan should be a policy document, not a Plan with everyone's wishes in it and the issues evaded until later. David Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, said the Planning Department, as it had gone through the drafts from CPAC, had eliminated some very important things. Policy HS-1.C on page 5 of the Housing (HS) section, was very important and should be reinstated. It was not a good idea to remove housing, which was so precious, and put in something else. Council had already quantified how many housing units were needed in the City. If it quantified how much commer-cial were needed, the numbers could be compared and a decision made as to which was more important. Program BE-9.A1 on page 10 of the Business and Economics section, which established site coverage limits and FAR requirements which came out of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, should not be deleted. People in Palo Alto needed limits. Steven Ross, 134 Park Avenue, had been in the Palo Alto area since 1986. The main question of the Plan should be what would yield the greatest benefit for members of the Palo Alto community. Residents could be proud of Palo Alto as it had received the status of a model community to others and people had chosen to live in Palo Alto because of its quiet, treelined streets as well as the ability to walk to unique shops on areas like University Avenue. There was a concern about market, noise, and traffic increases which had been seen during the past decade. Creative problem solving could continue by addressing the problems but Council needed to listen to what the citizens had stated as their
11/09/94 74-88
desire for the future to reduce the noise and traffic. In the Comprehensive Plan Update survey, three out of every four said "no" to more office development, 55 percent said "no" to additional convenience retail and personal services, three-quarters said "no" to both more retail stores, 72 percent said "no" to more specialty retail stores, more than two-thirds said "no" to a new hotel and conference center, and more than two-thirds said "yes" to more parks and open space. David Shapiro, 252 Stanford Avenue, had recently purchased a home in Palo Alto and, realizing his long-term commitment to the City, examined both the proposed Plan and the 1980 Plan. The vision statement on page 1 of the Business & Economics (BE) section contained an amazing nonsequitur in the third or fourth paragraph. Paragraph four related the results of the survey of the population, which clearly came out in favor of no additional growth. The very next paragraph indicated the need to accommodate conflicting goals to reach some balance between growth and achieving quality of life. He queried where the conflicting goals came from, whose goals they were, what justification had placed them in the Plan, and what reasons were given for giving them credence or credibility. No such discussion was contained in the Plan. The problems the Plan tried to address were basically problems created by commercial growth and development. The burden of proof should be on the group in favor of additional growth and development to show why it would be of net benefit to the City. If the only justification was that which had been stated by the City Planner that the additional and current growth and development would raise additional tax revenues for the City, the City could use the revenues presumably to do good things for the population. However, development was not necessarily a net benefit and additional tax revenues might not necessarily result in additional net benefits to the population as a whole. There were two ways in which tax revenues could be generated. The population could agree to pay the taxes directly to the City to provide the services, for which a great deal of enthusiasm had not been seen. Commercial development, although it seemed to be a free ride, was actually a hidden tax. It was a tax on the quality of life. It was a tax he was not willing to pay and he suspected the majority of Palo Altans were not either. Three things should be included in the Plan which he had not seen. The first was an analysis of the success and failures of the 1980 Plan. There were numerical predictions in the 1980 Plan about the anticipated growth in traffic, population, jobs, etc. A comparison of the predictions should be made with the current reality, an analysis of what worked and what did not. It seemed incumbent on the City to provide such an analysis prior to proceeding with the Plan. There should be measurable standards included in the Plan. The standards ought to be ones which, when exceeded, would set up a trigger for additional controls or measures not necessarily needed to begin with. There also should be disclosure up front of the anticipated rate of growth of the Plan and the probable affects. There was much fairly vague language in the Plan such as the vitality of business or commercial or residential neighborhoods. Such language could conceal a variety of sins. By putting in measurable standards for the goals which the Plan tried to
11/09/94 74-89
achieve, the City could better compare performance over the years to what actually occurred and take additional steps, as necessary. The growth anticipated in the Plan was unjustified. It ought to be disclosed up front so the community could anticipate the rate of growth and the additional measures previously mentioned be included. David Vick, 569 Manzanita Avenue, had moved to Palo Alto in 1969. Vice Mayor Simitian had been quoted in the newspaper as saying the Plan would keep Palo Alto beautiful for 15 to 20 years. He hoped the Plan could recapture the beauty of Palo Alto he had experienced when he had first come to the City. The beauty of Palo Alto had diminished and would further diminish if growth was encouraged. Growth might be a false idol. Just as the Communists had had trouble in recent years with some of the tenets they had followed and the false philosophies they had, growth might not be as desirable as had been previously considered. Council should be thoughtful and moral and responsible in its consideration of the Plan. For 25 years he had occasionally attended Council meetings and had always disliked the podium for citizens to speak in the middle rather than at the side so the speaker's back was not to the audience. Council Member Andersen said the representative from the League of Women Voters made a reference to an educational component required by the state in the Plan, and he asked whether that component was required and whether extra work should be done. City Attorney Ariel Calonne was unaware of any educational component requirement stated in the state laws. Council Member Andersen asked whether other comprehensive plans had something of that nature and whether it was correlated with the districts in the communities. He asked whether there needed to be additional follow up. Mr. Calonne said the Plan could take into account school needs. Mr. Schreiber said the Plan could as the 1976 and 1980 plans did address school site issues. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified there would be an hour for people to speak to each element item as it came before Council. Mayor Kniss said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether it was possible to clarify ahead of time that people would get five minutes to speak; however, if there were too many people to accommodate in a one-hour period, the time may be reduced to four or three minutes based on the number of cards. Mayor Kniss clarified that the Council would 1) limit the time for speakers dependent upon the number of cards submitted; 2) give time to the people who had not spoken previously; and 3) if there were several cards which were clearly from the same source, that
11/09/94 74-90
the group would be asked to designate a speaker. City Manager June Fleming said the CPAC Chairpersons had requested an opportunity at the beginning of each section to give an overview. Mayor Kniss said additionally, the Planning Commission would be present at each meeting with a representative who would speak at the beginning of each section of the Plan. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said there would be one or two Planning Commissioners present. Vice Mayor Simitian requested that the Mayor work with the City Manager and City Attorney to provide a process for the one-hour public testimony, recognizing that members of the public who had previously spoken may be requested to gracefully defer to people who had not spoken. Mayor Kniss said that Council would vote on each part of the element as it was discussed. Mr. Calonne clarified he and the City Manager would prepare a summation of the procedural suggestions from the last meeting, as well as that evening's suggestions, and would propose guidelines for Council to adopt at the next meeting. Vice Mayor Simitian said Council had discussed previously that the Comprehensive Plan, by law, needed to be an internally consistent document. If the first element Council examined were Business and Economics, Business and Economics had to be consistent with the last element. Council would not know if consistency had occurred as it voted on the items in the first element until it got to the items in the last element. He asked staff to comment on how to allow Council an opportunity to ensure consistency. He believed it should be a policy issue as well as a legal one. An item he might support in one element might be contingent on a policy in another area. For example, the extent to which additional economic development could be accommodated might be related to the extent to which affordable housing could be provided to people who worked in that development. He asked staff to ensure that the process was consistent. He asked what the process would be once Council had completed each element. Mr. Calonne said there were some limitations on consistency. Some consistency would be quantifiable and would come out of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Staff would use its best judgment and give advice on consistency as Council went through the elements, recognizing that there would be a detailed analysis when the draft EIR was completed. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the City Manager had stated the review process identified the ingredients that would go into the Comprehensive Plan. What was before Council was a selection of potential goals, policies, and programs. He believed there would be an opportunity for staff to
11/09/94 74-91
not only provide Council with what it had done but to also provide commentary on potential consistency issues, recognizing that the ultimate determination would occur when the draft Plan was completed. The draft Plan would become the subject of a draft EIR, and the package would go through the public review process sometime in mid-1995 and return to Council in late 1995 when Council would consider and adopt a draft Plan. The Council had already suggested when the first four elements were completed, and before the Community Design Element was discussed, that staff summarize the Community Design element because of the overlap with earlier elements. Mr. Calonne said Council would vote individually on the elements, but there would be a final vote on the whole package. Vice Mayor Simitian said presumably when the later vote was taken on the whole package, if there were a problem with a particular component because issues that were related had not been resolved, a motion could be offered to amend. He clarified that the votes on individual items were not final decisions. He viewed the process as an integrated process and reserved the right to reshape what didn't work. Mr. Schreiber clarified at the end of that part of the process, the Council would direct staff to put items into a draft Plan, but the Council would not adopt anything. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Planning Commission had a vote on every policy and program and asked if the procedure would be the same for Council. Mayor Kniss said unless a more artful way were determined, the process would be the same. She was open to suggestions. Ms. Cassel suggested time be taken to look at the broad issues of a section before looking at individual goals and policies. She further suggested voting on an entire section of policies and procedures where possible. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission moved through the specific items and spoke of a vision at the conclusion. Council might want to begin by talking about vision, go through the details, and then go back to vision to match the earlier discussion with the actual actions. He believed a broader discussion was important. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Simitian, to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, November 15, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. and continue the public hearing of Item No. 16. MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSED 9-0. 2. Mayor Liz Kniss, Vice Mayor Joe Simitian, and Council Members Ron Andersen and Micki Schneider re Report on League of California Cities Conference held October 23-25, 1994, in Long Beach, California (continued from 11/7/94)
11/09/94 74-92
No action taken. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
11/09/94 74-93