HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-15 City Council Summary Minutes Adjourned Meeting of November 9, 1994, to November 15, 1994 1. Public Hearing: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. 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 direction for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Compre-hensive Plan Update (continued from 11/9/94) .......... 74-133 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to an Adjourned City Council Meeting on Tuesday, November 29, 1994. ................................................. 74-158
11/15/94 74-132
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:17 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler 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 11/9/94) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT PLAN: BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS SECTION Mayor Kniss explained the City's process for discussing the Business and Economics (BE) section of the Comprehensive Plan Update Policies and Programs Draft IV (the Plan). Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, thanked Council for allowing the public to speak prior to each section of the Plan. His perception of what it took to have a business-friendly city was somewhat different from what appeared in the Plan. Many issues were not appropriate for a comprehensive plan. In order to be business-friendly, the City should provide a healthy infrastructure, an efficient government, clear, uniformly and consistently enforced regulations, and advanced services which showed the City was on the cutting edge of business, not the trailing edge. The City could set up a computerized system for necessary permits, etc. by which anyone could find out about doing business in Palo Alto. People from anywhere in the world could log on to the computer, obtain a list of the required documents, review documents on the screen in real time, fill in the blanks, ask questions, and print out a final application directly to City Hall within a few minutes or hours. It was a very business-friendly and efficient procedure. The staff person responding to on-line questions would need not be at City Hall, but could telecommute from home. Traffic would be reduced. The approval could then be returned to the applicant. Although it was not something which would appear in a comprehensive plan, it was something which would sell the City, make it efficient, do the job, and not be controversial. The issue should be viewed as an entire picture, a system. Joe Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, moved to Palo Alto with his wife 34 years ago because of the quality of life it offered. Palo Alto should be given back to Palo Altans. Residents were tired of the heavy traffic, the Bayshore freeway, dense traffic on University
11/15/94 74-133
Avenue, too much commercial development, etc. Palo Alto had been a nice community to live in 20 to 30 years prior, but it had become a major metropolitan city. Council should consider the Plan, consider what had been said in the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) meeting about traffic and other issues in its deliberations. Judith Kemper, 326 Addison Avenue, spoke regarding a California Supreme Court ruling concerning ordinances and regulations which conflicted with the city's general plan, i.e., should various projects be discussed prior to being allowed. She said consider-ation should be given to long-term consequences of such goals as BE-7 which allowed businesses to adapt and expand to meet changing market conditions. She was particularly concerned about the goal to revitalize University Avenue and the Downtown Business District and what it implied for SOFA since, in the Plan, the goal for SOFA was to develop a richly balanced commercial and residential use. "Richly balanced" was an ill-defined term. Council was encouraged to specify a goal for SOFA, not to wait for the study to ensure the goal was in the Plan and had the same weight as every other goal and policy in the Plan. Sales tax revenues had decreased from the previous year from the maximum by 11 percent. Sales tax was 20 percent of the total revenue, so it was only a decrease of 2 percent. The major concern was University Avenue and the specific goals and policies which indicated business would be expanded or the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) area would be developed to compliment businesses on University Avenue. For residents living in or near SOFA, something specific should appear in the Plan rather than waiting for the study. Developers should not be kept in limbo while the City developed its ideas or visions for the area and it was unfair to residents not to have specific details as part of the Plan. Glenna Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, said the idea of Palo Altans doing errands on bicycles was humorous and could not be taken as a serious plan. It was ridiculous that the City would seriously consider riding bicycles as a significant way to deal with traffic congestion. The traffic problem was serious and should be dealt with immediately if it was at all possible. The City had planned for more building and development without determining how to move traffic, which should be the first priority. Michael Feuer, 1310 University Avenue, said there were many good ideas in the Plan, but comments such as "expand Stanford Shopping Center," "expand Stanford Research Park," "expand Stanford Medical Center," "expand Sand Hill Road," and "ignore congestion at intersections" should not appear in Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan. Such proposals, once formulated by Stanford, should be brought before Council and reviewed. Such inclusion in the Plan tied Council's hands, with which he was very much opposed. Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Avenue, agreed with Mr. Feuer that the City was preapproving many things--the Sand Hill extension, expansion of the Stanford Medical Center, Stanford West, Stanford Industrial, and the connection of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real, all of which appeared in the Plan many times. None of the
11/15/94 74-134
mitigating possibilities or creative ideas had been incorporated from the Stanford workshop, i.e., making the Ohlone fields open space and an interpretive center like the Baylands Center. The Dream Team had also formulated the closure of Alma Street and the extension of El Camino Park to San Francisquito Creek. If development was going to be accomplished, the Plan should be more specific regarding some of the mitigating issues. The City should be just as firm and imaginative about incorporating mitigating ideas. He was also concerned about the specificity in the Plan which might remove a citizen's ability for a referendum or initiative if the direction in which the City moved was unaccept-able. The option should be left open to the public as part of the democratic process. The more traffic in the City, the less likely a bicycle would be used as alternative transportation. If developments such as the Sand Hill Corridor were allowed, the City needed a bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian connection from Palo Alto to the foothills which did not breathe exhaust pipes. If Stanford were allowed certain developmental rights, the City could ask for things which would make the community much better and imaginative. Making Ohlone Fields open space, closure of Alma Street, extension of El Camino Park, and a good equestrian bicycle connection to the foothills were bargaining chips which should be specified if the City was going to give in to other things. Kathi Gwynn, 760-A Loma Verde Avenue, President-Elect, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) believed City government should take a proactive role in cooperating with the business community, making the most of Palo Alto's present and potential advantages in attracting and retaining business firms and service activities. Various Chamber groups had spent considerable time reviewing drafts of the Plan. The Chamber applauded statements in the BE vision statement and attachments which acknowledged that the City's budget depended significantly on revenues provided by the business community. It was incorrect to claim, as some had stated, that the City had no fiscal problems looming on the horizon. Taxes and fees paid by and through businesses supported the parks, libraries, public safety, human services, facilities and other amenities which all residents had come to expect. Without taxes and fees paid by business, the community could not expect such services in the future. The Chamber believed there were principles underlying the entire BE section. First, the Plan should encourage, support, and facilitate business vitality rather than merely tolerating it. Everyone favored balance, but balance could be detrimental to business if it resulted in too much process, thus causing delay and uncertainty. The central task in updating the Plan ensured the City's planning process and zoning tools were simple, understandable, and predictable, even as balance was provided. Delay and needless obstacles in the regulatory environment were dangerously inimical to economic vitality. The Plan should also recognize that healthy businesses expanded and contracted in response to market conditions which were competitive by their very nature. The Plan should acknowledge that businesses worth having in the City needed incentives both to locate and remain. It should, therefore, reject micromanagement of private sector decisions. Goals within
11/15/94 74-135
the BE section which were most important and which the Chamber strongly supported included BE-2, which declared that City government should promote Palo Alto's image as a business-friendly community and assume an active role in fostering new business. The Chamber was also completely in agreement with Goal BE-7, which stated Palo Alto needed to modify and simplify City regulations to allow businesses to adapt and expand to meet changing market conditions. The Chamber thanked the City for encouraging its participation in the Plan process. Margaret Feuer, President of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association, 1310 University Avenue, read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which dealt with entitlements to Stanford University, citing recent California case law that dealt with comprehensive plans of certain cities and gave specific rights or entitlements to developers. Certain language in the BE section was, therefore, requested be eliminated from the Plan. Cathy Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which objected to the overwhelming emphasis on making Palo Alto a regional, national, and international business center. The necessary development would engulf the City in traffic and carbon monoxide, and overstep the delicate balance between a vital economy and the quality of life. Development should be tied to a transportation plan and infrastructure. Objection was made to some of the language in the BE section of the Plan. Emily Renzel, 1065 Forest Avenue, read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which dealt with the Sales Tax issue, noting that the performance of Palo Alto's sales taxes had less to do with local land use than it did with the economy generally. The policies and programs which remained in the Economic Resources Plan (ERP) should be carefully evaluated, especially policies and programs which called for raising Floor Area Ratios (FAR) and creating zoning incentives. Certain sections of the BE section were recommended deleted. Ruth Lacey, 2340 Cowper Street, Representing, League of Women Voters (the League), 457 Kingsley Avenue, read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which urged balance between supporting businesses, maintaining the residential character of Palo Alto, and preserving the environment. The League strongly supported encouraging employers to provide family and child care facilities by expanding the use of zoning tools and coordinating with child care providers. Other goals and programs were supported, noting it was important that measures to streamline and coordinate not come at the expense of weakening or losing regulations addressing environmental concerns or protecting the environment. Mark Sabin, 590 Colorado Avenue, said it was encouraging to see efforts being made in terms of investigating economic viability of the Midtown area. However, an effort should be made to better streamline the permitting and review process in the City, particu-larly in light of Midtown. Whatever businesses went into Midtown would probably be small. Small businesses and others wishing to
11/15/94 74-136
locate to Midtown should have a reasonable idea of what would be expected, otherwise it would come at a cost of being a viable business. Changes in traffic flow in the Midtown area should consider its economic vitality. If decisions were made on Middlefield Road to impede traffic flow, it would have an impact on businesses and traffic direction in the Midtown area, which would be an egress to residential areas and remove business opportunities. Bill Phillips, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, said the BE section was very important in the Plan. When the process had begun, everyone participating saw that because Palo Alto was a mature, developed, and successful community, the process would be far less one of deciding on land uses and far more one of developing a strong practical vision for the quality of business, home, and recreational life the City could provide its residents, workers, and visitors. The BE section was, therefore, particularly important since it specified that a healthy local economy, like a good education, was an essential ingredient in providing choices regarding quality of life. Stanford endorsed CPAC's three primary strategies for maintaining and enhancing an economic vitality: maintaining competitiveness of principle commercial areas, encouraging revitalization of older business areas, and maintaining and improving the public realm. Affecting such strategies was the key to unlocking CPAC's choices for its overall vision. Council had a very difficult job ahead because CPAC had provided so much excellent input. While excellent input only came after investing much time, intelligence, and creative energy, the hardest part was weighing the input and making decisions which could be afforded. Susan Laitin, 1160 Welch Road, #631, Legislative Advocate for Santa Clara County's Committee for Green Foothills (CGF), 3921 East Bayshore Road, read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) urging Council to restore BE-9.A1 which maintained non-residential FAR requirements and supporting BE-4.A which maintained the current scale of the City's business and commercial areas. CGF objected to language which allowed an exception to Stanford Medical Center and a hotel at El Camino Real. The City's ERP should be separate from but subject to the City's Plan. The Plan should be general and conceptual, not focusing on proposed changes at specific sites. Betty Meltzer, 1241 Dana Avenue, wanted to address two issues, both of which were generally discussed in various sectors of the Plan, particularly the BE section. The first had to do with neighborhoods, Palo Alto, and Stanford. Some of the CPAC priorities, as stated in the Planning Commission review, included: 1) maintain and enhance existing neighborhoods mentioned twice by the Planning Commission summary; 2) reduce negative impacts of traffic on neighborhoods with some traffic calming; and 3) recognize the unique relationship with Stanford, and work with Stanford. The issue was whether or not the three were compatible priorities. Stanford's medical and shopping center expansion plans continued to reflect its world class ambitions in both arenas. Stanford would logically strive for whatever
11/15/94 74-137
infrastructure accommodations it could get from surrounding communities to facilitate traffic flow to and from the shopping and medical centers. However, because of Palo Alto's position between East Palo Alto and Stanford, both having ambitious growth plans, Palo Alto would continue to receive much of the extra traffic generated from such growth on its residential streets. The question was whether the priorities of preserving Palo Alto's neighborhood streets and working with Stanford were compatible. The key word was "with," which was a reciprocal term. Working with Stanford meant Stanford would work with Palo Alto as well. As Council worked with Stanford toward a mutually agreeable and exciting future, residents needed Council's assurance and support about its concerns. Other questions included what Stanford was doing with its own internal street system to absorb the traffic it generated. Such questions required concrete answers to demon-strate Stanford's willingness to work with Palo Alto. The second issue focused on the CPAC priority of balancing business, environ-mental, and residential needs which incorporated the priority with urban planning. CPAC recommended an analysis of infrastructure requirements prior to beginning development which was a logical approach to good planning. Another logical suggestion which lead to good planning was the coordinated area planning. Such an approach focused on an early exchange of ideas between developers, neighbors, and the City which would lead to conceptual understanding and hopefully more agreement before the costs of drawing up specific plans were incurred. John Benza, 3745 La Selva Drive, Chairman of the Community and Business Relations Committee for the Barron Park Association (BPA), said many comments Council had heard were echoed in the document which Mr. Moss had earlier presented on the Community Association of Neighborhoods. Many of his fellow residents had echoed many of his own thoughts. Council was applauded for the daunting task before it. Council, staff, and CPAC had demonstrated a commitment to the City and to the very goals and ideals residents cherished. He enjoyed and appreciated Palo Alto. He had worked in BPA for almost a year and had worked with businesses along El Camino Real. Neighborhood commercial was alive, although not as well as desired, particularly in South El Camino Real. Neighborhood commercial needed the City's support. He agreed with Mr. Moss' comments about infrastructure, effective government, simplified regulations, consistent implementation of regulations, and most importantly recognizing the economic factors and market forces. Beverly Nadine, 459 Homer Avenue, appreciated the opportunity to contribute and thanked the Planning Commission for its review of the CPAC product; however, there were several strong themes throughout the Plan which had been deleted or noted as having only some merit, but were issues which should be included as part of the Plan. First, the need for both a new hotel/conference center and redevelopment of existing hotel facilities was important for business in the community. The need for additional hotel facili-ties had been mentioned in several sections, including BE-4 and BE-11. Second, there was a need for participation as a cornerstone of the Governance (GV) section and showed up in BE as
11/15/94 74-138
a nonprofit group or consortium of merchant associations to assist in the revitalization of neighborhood centers. Both BE-1 and BE-10 addressed the issue of communication and assistance within certain commercial segments of the community. Third, there was a need for lower cost incubator start-up space in Palo Alto, fundamental to Palo Alto's reputation in the high tech community. It was important to recognize small businesses contributed to the success of several companies within the Stanford Research Park in working with community designs. In discussing areas within Palo Alto to zone for lower cost commercial space, the Big Lots concept was not as appropriate for Palo Alto as the small, high, and low tech businesses which contributed to the high tech industry. Palo Alto should pursue policies and programs which increased the FAR in the Research Park and other zoning tools. Fourth, with regard to high technology and biotechnology, it was very important to develop a strong, specific business recruitment for businesses of the future. Such recruitment should include a marketing piece in conjunction with the Chamber. Fifth, throughout the CPAC product was government-friendly customer service or a one-stop review process. Knowing what to expect was extremely important for businesses. Sixth, the idea of higher density where appropriate, e.g., transportation corridors, which was also a theme repeated throughout the document that applied not only to residential, but commercial as well. BE-9 had several policies and programs which urged the inclusion of higher densities. Seventh, although there would be a study of the SOFA area when the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) moved, Council was urged to include the recommendations of CPAC as it related to the area. The policies and programs reflected a great deal of community input on the general guidelines to be used in an area-specific study. Finally, the issue of good signage to a business was an important detail. The acknowledgement that good signage was vital to a successful business confirmed to the business community their importance in Palo Alto. Council had the difficult task of sorting through the nearly 1,000 recommendations. CPAC represented the broad community and the ideas reflected by the general community. Mainstream business communities were not so much about runaway growth as remaining competitive and vital, both of which were important to the quality of Palo Alto. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, had previously suggested to CPAC that it include language which repeated adopted Council policy for the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study and the 1988 Multi-Housing Study. He was surprised the language repeated in the Plan had resulted in such controversy. The 1989 Citywide Study had resulted in development potentials for each of the study areas, which had been reported in a memorandum on development potential. Reports had already been received concerning the potential in the Downtown area which had already been used. Before removing such language from the Plan, it would be interesting to see how much of the development potentials had already been used. Final approval of the Plan after the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified could be jeopardized by trying to do too much or by trying to have all areas of the City receive the same economic growth and increase in land value when it should be concentrating on the major business
11/15/94 74-139
areas and incorporating the proposals along Sand Hill corridor. Even Stanford would not want development in the Research Park jeopardized by not having a valid Plan simply because it was being held up waiting for final resolution of the Sand Hill corridor issues. By having the Sand Hill corridor issues in the Plan, the EIR for the Plan could be used instead of the one for which Stanford was supposed to pay for its development proposals. Therefore, it would be wise to eliminate such proposals from the Plan. The kind of necessary growth was unknown, e.g., whether an extension would be necessary as far as El Camino Real or, for the increased development proposed, all the way to the Dumbarton Bridge. The Sand Hill corridor EIR should stand alone. In choosing between which areas to provide increased economic growth and increased land value, one had to recognize there were limited resources. Two of the limited resources were in transportation improvements and the decision as to where to place increased housing. There were insufficient funds for the transportation mitigations currently necessary at Oregon/Middlefield. Many areas designated for housing were proposed for change to commercial such as the former Maximart site. However, there were vacant, unused areas in Midtown which could be used for housing, replacement of the commercial zoning, and consolidating commercial zoning onto one block. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said Palo Alto had struggled with growth for decades and it would struggle again. Only ten years before, in the mid-1980s, the Planning Commission had recognized there was too much development Downtown. The Planning Commission had suggested a recommendation for a cap on development in the Downtown area to about 20 percent, which was the first time such a cap had been proposed. Very soon thereafter, over 5,000 residents had signed a questionnaire indicating a desire for far less than 20 percent growth. Of the 5,000 people questioned, two-thirds had indicated a desire for no development for five years. The top issues with residents in Palo Alto were land use zoning, traffic congestion, protection of neighborhoods, and keeping Palo Alto largely as it was. In Mayor McCown's 1993 State of the City speech addressed to CPAC, she commented, "we don't want major changes. We have a good Plan. It is working well. Don't fiscalize our natural resources. Zoning is not for sale." She suggested improvements around the edges, but we are not looking for major changes. She asked how the City had reached the point of a complete about-face on its long-standing philosophies and policies about growth. There was still growth, but she queried how many changes were being seen. The problem had been overstated. If the Plan approved anything similar to what was proposed, Council should expect its voice to be drowned out by the din from residents. Residents had sent the same message for years with the same top concerns. Some things never changed. The pressure for development never changed and residents' resistance to development never changed. People on Council had indicated everyone was a residentialist; it was a new world. If Council was residentialist, it should vote residentialist, to question development, and to think long-term. Tom Wyman, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) Member and
11/15/94 74-140
member of the Business and Economics Subcommittee, gave an overview of the nature of CPAC's discussion and an analysis of some of the tensions which had been heard. The BE Subcommittee had had quite a task with eight active members, all of whom represented a broad and diverse group. Interests ranged from Magic to the Chamber, both interests having been represented. Meetings had been numerous and there had been good participation. Discussions had been lengthy and negotiations heated at times, but no one side had prevailed 100 percent of the time. From the process had emerged an overriding and recurring theme--balance. Balance between encouraging business and maintaining the residen-tial qualities of Palo Alto. The beginning was the vision to promote and enhance Palo Alto's business vitality while preserving the quality of life people valued so highly. The vision embodied three basic principles, the encouragement of commercial vitality with an emphasis on promoting the stability and function of each of Palo Alto's business districts consistent with residential and environmental interests. Large businesses had the staying power, but a smaller business might not, so it was something about which the City should be mindful as the CPAC process progressed. The Genesis had been BE-7.A, streamlining City administrative and regulatory processes. The public had addressed the various points which had concerned CPAC members as to the deletions which had been made by the Planning Commission and the corrections which should be made to such actions. CPAC wanted to see the objective moved forward in a coordinated manner but business should never dominate or be promoted at the expense of the residential community. Bern Beecham, Vice Chairperson, Planning Commission, said because the Planning Commission had been faced with going through nearly 1,000 programs and policies in the Plan, it decided to try as soon as possible to determine whether it agreed or disagreed. The voting procedure had been: "A" meant agreement to keep in the Plan, "B" meant it was a nice idea, did not approve, but was kept in as an idea, "C" meant it might be a nice idea but not necessary to the Plan, and "D" meant disagreed. There was little rationale for how the Planning Commission had handled the process. The entire Commission believed a healthy business environment was necessary for many things in Palo Alto. Although most people considered a healthy business environment necessary for money for the budget, in addition, Palo Alto had a higher proportion of people both living and working in Palo Alto. The jobs were provided by a healthy environment. Additionally, the survey results had shown that 90 percent of respondents indicated the desire to keep neighborhood services within walking distance of the neighborhoods. Business provided many conveniences and daily necessity for Palo Alto which, if gone, would mean a major loss of quality of life. The importance of business was three-fold and melded very importantly into the entire balance of the community. The main strategy was to work on flexibility and cooperation. Cooperation was necessary in public/private partnerships, discussions with Stanford, working with the Chamber, talking with businesses to determine what was needed, and flexibility was necessary to enable getting the job done while keeping the balance in daily and residential lives, all of which boiled down to
11/15/94 74-141
simplifying the processes. The process should be simplified when small changes were needed. Many firms continued to work on improvement, making small changes frequently, so as not to be too far behind where they should be. The City should ensure the process was simple enough to prevent too much City overhead, making small changes consistent with the overall permits and scope of what was done. The Planning Commission had also discussed maintaining a scale in the City, however, staff had pointed out that facilities such as the medical center, shopping center, and a possible hotel, were all large in scale. A view which had not been accepted was expansion. The only place in the BE section where expansion was found was for family and child care services, primarily in business areas, to make it more convenient for employees to take children. A few sections had spoken of allowing expansion with site/adjacent land uses, but had been deleted because there was far more to be considered in any expansion than merely the immediate site or immediately adjacent facility. The FAR cap had also been maintained in the Downtown area. The Planning Commission had not recommended to keep BE-9.A1 in the Plan as written. The intent was for small changes to stay in conjunction with some of the other policies. Some of the policies included family and child care in business areas, convenience-oriented commercial services in the Research Park, and the third policy and program referred to flexibility and simplifying processes. The intent in not keeping in the Plan was not to say it was not appropriate, but it needed small changes to be compatible with other issues. Encouraging the reuse of existing facilities, especially historic, required flexibility and simplifying the process to encourage and enable businesses to do so. Fostering neighborhood centers included discouraging intrusion into adjoining residential areas around the districts. In the BE section, districts were mentioned far more often than neighborhood design and what could or should be done. Some specific issues which were district-oriented included a force with Stanford Shopping Center and Sand Hill Road. The Planning Commission recommended Sand Hill Road be implemented as long as it was in keeping with neighborhood and community interests. However, it would be difficult because there would be many compromises as Stanford/Sand Hill Road came up in other sections; no options had been prejudged. Much work was required, but in general it was not a Stanford problem, but a Palo Alto problem. Congestion caused a problem for the entire area and required resolution. Regarding the expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center, wording had been changed to say the objective was to enable the shopping center to remain competitive. Whether or not it would require expansion would be determined. A case would need to be put forward to the City which showed expansion was necessary to retain its competitive status with other major facilities in the area. Although Stanford had once been the best in the nation, conditions changed and such changes had to be kept in mind. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the Planning Commission had considered whether or not square footage should be increased at the Stanford Shopping Center simply because it would create more money for the City, even if it was unnecessary to increase the square footage to keep the facility competitive.
11/15/94 74-142
Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had not discussed the issue in light of Vice Mayor Simitian's question. A question had been asked in the survey as to whether or not economic impacts should be considered in land use planning. Approximately 70 percent of the respondents had indicated to some degree it should. Regarding the Stanford Research Park, cooperation, flexibility, etc., was applied. For the hotel/conference center, the Planning Commission used terms such as "evaluate" and "facilitate." On the University Avenue Business District, emphasis was placed more on cooperation. One issue with which the Planning Commission had not agreed was to limit food and beverage facilities Downtown. Another program which had been kept in the section which applied more to Citywide than Downtown was to monitor fast food facilities for impact on neighborhoods. On both El Camino Real and SOFA, the Planning Commission had basically punted. The Plan had not yet provided a solution for El Camino Real. Because the PAMF was moving, the entire SOFA area would go through major changes. Whatever was done should be consistent with what was planned for the medical facilities. Other smaller issues included small, locally-owned business, either supporting to varying degrees or prejudices toward small businesses. The Planning Commission agreed with supporting small, locally-owned businesses, but could not go so far as to having any bias toward them as it was inappro-priate. The last item was facilitating the performing arts center. While the Planning Commission had considered the Dream Team's suggestions as intriguing and deserving of more evaluation, it was not willing to facilitate doing so. Mayor Kniss explained the various documents which were important to the discussion at hand. She said the current evening's meeting would consider the Vision Statement and the Business and Economics section. Council was asked that unless a Council Member disagreed with something the Planning Commission had suggested, it not be discussed in detail. Vice Mayor Simitian was not optimistic about Council's ability to deal with one element per meeting in a manner which was responsi-ble, given the number of proposals which had been received, the significance of the proposals, and the number of responses received from members of the public and the Planning Commission. Although everyone was anxious to move the process along, the fact was CPAC had had two years to create the document and to suggest the entire Business and Economics section of the Plan could be finalized in a way which would suit the City for ten to fifteen years in two hours would be a disservice to everyone who had been part of the process, the community, and the end product. The same was true of almost all of the elements. Council should focus on a schedule which involved a target of two nights per element as a method of ensuring more appropriate pace. While the product was actually CPAC's, everyone who had spoken had directed comments to Council as the responsible party. Mayor Kniss had discussed the issue with Director of Planning & Community Environment Ken Schreiber, agreeing that any less than two meetings per element would short-change the community and
11/15/94 74-143
Council. However, Council was urged to be succinct. Because the Plan had taken on a very different look from former comprehensive plans, it would probably take Council some time to go through it. Council should listen carefully to colleagues to determine where the group was heading, even if wordsmithing was not precise. Council Member McCown suggested as Council went through the Plan page-by-page, stating whatever concerns and comments presented itself, Council could deal with the Plan in a similar manner in which the Finance Committee approved a budget, e.g., approving department-by-department subjects to a final wrap-up concurrence. Staff could make notes of modifications, additions, deletions, etc., and in conclusion Council could see an annotated copy, giving the ability to know how each element was acted upon and that it was consistent. Mayor Kniss said Mr. Schreiber had already agreed to track comments as carefully as possible. Council Member McCown said although the process was very daunting, in a sense Council was doing work which would expedite the process of going through the final Plan after the EIR had been conducted. Council was going through the Plan in a way which would produce a final draft for environmental review. With the EIR and final public comment, Council would have the proposed final version before it in nine to ten months. The work conducted in the next few months would, hopefully, flush out many questions which would otherwise occur in the final review. The City Attorney was asked about a point raised by a number of speakers concerning the level of specificity in describing properties, projects, extension of Sand Hill Road, etc. Language that made a policy or recommenda-tion which would become a specific land use process should not be one by which Council cut off the rights of the community for referrending specific land use decisions in the future. If the law had changed, the language should be different, it was important to have such information before beginning. Council should not make decisions in the Plan which would preclude the right of the citizens to referend specific zoning decisions in the future. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said because of the importance of the issue, he would provide Council with a written report on the issue. There were several concepts blended into Council Member McCown's question and what he had heard from the public comments. The first had to do with the level of specificity contained in some of the recommendations in the Plan and the second had to do with how such a level of specificity or other features interrelated to the initiative and referendum rights generally reserved for the people. Regarding specificity, there was nothing to preclude having the Plan be at whatever level of detail Council desired. The check and balance would come out of the EIR process. The more specific the Plan was, the more specific the EIR supporting the document would need to be. As to initiative and referendum, cases had dealt with general law or chartered cities which had self-imposed consistency requirements between zoning and general plan, which Palo Alto did not currently have. There was
11/15/94 74-144
language in the Plan which looked like a consistency requirement. With a consistency requirement, any zoning ordinance had to be consistent with the Plan. In what was not very clear reasoning but had been consistently the case since the mid-1980s, the courts had moved in the direction of precluding the people's ability through the reserved powers of initiative or referendum to do anything inconsistent with the comprehensive plan much as the City would be precluded if it had a consistency requirement. Such ruling was strange because most considered a referendum as undoing something rather than doing something affirmatively. The distinc-tion had not been meaningful as far as the courts' analysis. What the courts had focused on was the overriding concern with consis-tency in general law or chartered cities with consistency requirements, viewing consistency as a value unto itself which needed to be protected. At whatever level of detail the Plan was, if the City had a consistency requirement, subsequent actions of the City or the people through initiative or referendum would need to be consistent with the Plan. One could argue that if the City had a consistency requirement, more detailed project style approvals in the Plan would effectively preclude meaningful initiative or referendum rights down the road once the Plan was adopted and in place. He was unsure how it would work with the concept of internal consistency. When dealing with a general plan there were two kinds of consistency: consistency between the general plan document and the zoning book and consistency within the document itself. The cases which had precluded initiative or referendum based on consistency had not dealt with internal consistency initiatives, a subject with which he would respond at a later time. In summary, no external requirement on how specific Council got with the Plan, but the more specific it got, the more specifically it would have to be analyzed and studied in the EIR. Secondly, if there was a self-imposed zoning general plan consis-tency requirement on Palo Alto as a chartered city or otherwise, it could get into a situation precluding where initiative or referendum rights which had previously existed would be precluded. There were many ways to fix the problem when and if Council wanted to work on it. Council Member Fazzino said Mr. Calonne's response clarified issues with regard to EIRs, initiatives, and possible judicial action. The third aspect was legislative. He asked whether the proposal in the Plan which extended Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real was a de facto legislative approval of the concept. Mr. Calonne hesitated because there was more involved in building a road for a city--the Plan permitting such an extension was necessary, but there were funding and other administrative actions which would follow. Speaking off the top, all further actions would be administrative and not subject to referendum or initia-tive. By taking the basic legislative act, Council would compel a referendum on that portion of the Plan. If it did not occur, there would not be further legislative acts. Council Member Fazzino thought Council would consider any project on its own merits. But from a de facto perspective, if Council approved or endorsed the concept of a Sand Hill Road extension in
11/15/94 74-145
the Plan, he asked whether Council could then go back from a legislative perspective and turn down a proposal which did exactly that, i.e., would a rejection of a Sand Hill Road proposal constitute legislative inconsistency with the Plan. Mr. Calonne thought Council Member Fazzino's suggestion would never occur because an amendment to the Plan would be included to cover the issue. Council Member Fazzino clarified Council would create some level of obligation by including such a specific endorsement in the Plan. Mr. Calonne said procedurally, the level of information necessary for an EIR for such a decision, if it was not included in the Plan, ought to be the same at the Plan stage if in fact Council was improving the development at some other stage. He assumed if such language remained in the Plan, the environmental analysis would go through the pros and cons, impacts, and other issues. The real issue would become how it interrelated to the public initiative and referendum rights. Council Member Huber asked whether one of the issues was the fact that a citizen would have to act on the Plan, if indeed there was a statement in the Plan like the Sand Hill Road extension, or whether the citizen could act on the project when it came forward. Mr. Calonne said a citizen would need to act on the Plan. Council Member Huber asked what would occur if lawyer language was applied to issues like Sand Hill Road in the Plan, e.g., evaluate, study, etc. Mr. Calonne said as a practical matter, Council would reduce some of the level of detail required in an EIR. It was important for the EIR to study realistic scenarios, so Council would not reduce the practical burden by injecting ambiguity in favor of a sound policy which had Council support. The transportation and land use elements were so tightly related and integrated, particularly in a built-out community, that there was the potential for inconsistency internally if the transportation needs driven by the land use objectives were not addressed squarely. If the EIR indicated Sand Hill was or was not necessary, it would be very important information not only from a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standpoint, but substantively from an internal consistency standpoint. Information in the EIR became substantive as a planning requirement because of the internal consistency rule for a comprehensive plan. Chairperson Huber asked what would happen to initiative/referendum aspects of the Plan as opposed to a project which ultimately came forward, e.g., if the words "evaluate" were used instead of "connect." Mr. Calonne said if there was a consistency requirement, it became more of a judgment call. There was much soft language which had
11/15/94 74-146
been argued in court cases which established policy. Council could not write a savings clause at the end of the Plan which stated, "If anything is inconsistent, this piece prevails." The courts had not let cities "get away with" inconsistencies which could not be resolved by saying, "If there is a dispute, land use wins over transportation." The internal consistency issues had to be resolved. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Council tended to focus on the Plan's text, but there was also the Plan's Land Use Map. The existing Plan's Land Use Map, using Sand Hill as an example, showed Sand Hill Road connected from Arboretum to El Camino Real. The connection also appeared in the Plan adopted in 1976 and 1980; the connection had been part of the Land Use Map. In preparing a draft plan for environmental and public review in 1995, the draft Land Use Map had to show something regarding Sand Hill Road, either it extended from Arboretum to El Camino Real or it did not. The map was inherently site specific and showed land use for the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. Council could show residential or hotel on the draft map, but no draft map ever showed question marks. Occasionally a map would be adopted with a study area, but it was very unusual for the draft map to identify numerous study areas. As staff followed Council's action on the text, it would return with maps just as staff would appear before the Planning Commission with a review of the CPAC map recommendations. Staff had separated the map review from the text review to allow for organization of the text so the Planning Commission would have a good grasp of what had been accomplished in the text after which recommendations could occur. The same process would be utilized with Council. The maps were an integral, critical part of what would become the Plan. Mayor Kniss clarified the maps would be definitive, not likely to indicate study areas, but exactly where Council was going with the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said Council could indicate study areas and question marks, but the general practice in Palo Alto and in most communi-ties in California was to have few or no study areas and question marks. The plan was intended to establish fundamental land use policy for the community, which did not mean automatic approval of a project. Project approval involved a different level of detail and activity than the overall policy approval. Vice Mayor Simitian said historically in the State of California and as stated by the City Attorney, a zoning ordinance had to be consistent with a comprehensive or general plan which was why the comprehensive plan was often referred to as the bible or constitu-tion of land use for a community. The issue was to live by the same set of rules by which general law cities had lived for years and by which many charter cities had chosen to live. If something was put in the general plan, it should be something Council intended to be there because an applicant or a zoning change expected Council to mean what it said at the time the Plan was drafted. Such a process was good for everyone. It was good for a developer because the developer would then know what to do and
11/15/94 74-147
have some certainty. It was good for neighborhood activists because the rules of the game would be known without having to fight developers every time there was a controversial project. The decision would have been made at the front end and put into the Comprehensive Plan the way it was supposed to be. The City Attorney had merely indicated there was more accountability because of case law and Council needed to be prepared to live with accountability for what was put into the document. If Council meant that Sand Hill Road would be extended no matter how badly designed or proposed it was and it was in the Plan, there would be a problem because anything proposed would have to be approved. If Council said Sand Hill Road would never be extended and was so written in the Plan, no one could propose such a project. If Council said there should be an extension if it was done in a manner consistent with certain articulated criteria, the articulated criteria would have to be met. Council Member McCown's question about referenda and initiative, while a bad way to make land use law, was an important right which Council should preserve. The City Attorney was merely stating that if the City had a consistency doctrine, Council could not say one thing in the Plan and move in a different direction by way of initiative at some later date. Once the rules were set in the Plan, just as Council would be prohibited from departing from the Plan, the public through the initiative and referendum process would also be prohibited from doing so. The question then was when to take action. If Council put something in the Plan which was bad or wrong or with which the public had a problem, then it should be referended at the time the Plan was proposed. If Council put something in the Plan with which the community had a problem, that was when the community should indicate its concern rather than waiting two to five years until the project was in process. The whole goal was to move away from the ad hoc political basis for land use decision making which had plagued Council and get to the point where Council could look at a Plan, if it said what it meant and had real guidance on project applications. Council Member Wheeler said Vice Mayor Simitian's sweeping, philosophical statement was very good and perhaps wise as well. However, situations had occurred over the past several years where, regardless of what the community in all good intent had put into its Comprehensive Plan, things changed, situations changed. A future Council and future citizenry should have the ability to amend a comprehensive plan. She queried whether a change could never be made or could not be done by an initiative or referendum process and had to be done by a legislative process. Mr. Calonne said until the City had a requirement for consistency between zoning and the Comprehensive Plan, which it did not have, it was probably not an issue. Council was probably not risking any initiative or referendum rights of the public. Council Member Wheeler clarified that as a charter city, Palo Alto could chose not to have the consistency requirement imposed upon itself. Mr. Calonne replied yes, although the City did impose for various
11/15/94 74-148
use permits. A comment had appeared in the Planning Commission staff report about comments and what had been done. Council could trust the City Attorney's Office and the rest of staff to brief it on "unintended consequences." Staff's objective was not mislead the or the public to be mislead into decisions which would have unintended consequences. The delicate issue was to determine when he should speak up and when to let the policy course lead before speaking up. Staff had read the document closely and the issues were framed. He offered assurance to Council and the public that he took very seriously the decisions not be made in a blind manner. As things came up, he would speak up. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the Plan could be amended by initiative if a consistency standard was adopted for the City. Mr. Calonne replied yes. Council Member Wheeler asked how the EIR for Plan adoption would differ from an EIR for an applicant proposing a project if Council were more specific in its policy recommendations for the Plan such as the extension of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real. She also asked whether the work would be redundant and who would pick up the costs. Mr. Calonne said there would be substantial overlap. Many of the issues which would be raised at a project-specific level would be raised in the Plan and the City would pay for the EIR. Without wanting to get in the middle of a policy debate, if Council read the State planning law as a whole, the idea was to get some of the decisions analyzed and studied. It was no easier to make a decision on an issue such as Sand Hill Road at the time of the Plan than it would be at the project stage. Council did not discount the information or analysis necessary for the decision. If there was any implication from public comments that there was an analytical loss, it was not born out by environmental law and planning and zoning law requirements. There was no way to make such a decision without analyzing all of the issues it would raise. It was merely a question of whether it would be dealt with during the Plan or at the time of a specific application. Council Member Wheeler asked whether specific decisions made in the Plan could have a major impact on the budget, since the City had a specific budget for the Plan process. Mr. Schreiber said decisions could have an affect on the budget, but not necessarily. The consultant's EIR for traffic work on the Sand Hill project would be closely coordinated by City staff with traffic work which would be conducted by the Plan's EIR consul-tants. Staff would attempt to ensure that data would not have to be developed several times, there was a shared data base, and work would be efficiently tied together. Although the level of detail for a comprehensive plan EIR for a project such as Sand Hill Road would be less than the specific project approval which might come forward for the project, it would all be coordinated. It was also possible Council would become more specific in other areas, so it was difficult to determine whether the budget would be exceeded.
11/15/94 74-149
For several years, staff had anticipated it would need to tie all traffic environmental work into the Sand Hill Road project to have compatible information in the various environmental documents. Mayor Kniss asked for a clarification of the consistency and amendment questions. It seemed that as long as the Plan was consistent throughout and Council wished to amend at another time, Council was covered under charter law. Mr. Calonne replied yes, with the detail of housing densities. Mayor Kniss clarified overall Council was headed in the right direction if it said it was the general tenet. Mr. Calonne replied yes, unless a consistency requirement was added. Council Member Andersen said a comprehensive plan was not worth much if it had so much waffling that it could be taken anyway, depending upon the reader. At the same time, there was an interesting encouragement to do so if Council thought it would be locking out some group from being able to object to something at some point in the future. He appreciated Vice Mayor Simitian's comments on the issue. Council needed to be certain it created a document which was worth the money put into it, which meant the Plan had to be as specific as possible. If the plan were waffled, would the courts give the City a break or would it be nailed down. Mr. Calonne said the issue was virtually a policy call. It was good to hear Council discuss such a foundational issue, but it was a policy call. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the budget for EIRs for the Plan. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the budget for EIRs in the Plan was approximately $100,000. Council Member Rosenbaum thought the amount suggested for the cost of the EIR in connection to Stanford's application for the road and shopping center was closer to $.5 million. Mr. Schreiber said Council Member Rosenbaum was generally correct. There would be a much greater level of detail and specificity with an application which dealt with specific parking structures at the shopping center, specific layout of housing at Stanford West, hospital sites, road configurations, etc. The greater level of detail in part related to the difference in cost. Staff and CPAC had also been preparing a considerable amount of background work which would need to go into the EIR, all of which would be fed to the environmental review consultant for incorporation. In addition to the $100,000 mentioned by Ms. Lytle, another $100,000 would cover the traffic modeling work. Council Member Rosenbaum said regarding Sand Hill Road, Stanford had gone out to the public, had a number of hearings, developed a
11/15/94 74-150
plan, and would file an application with the City. The City had been telling the public that a $.5 EIR would be conducted after which Council would evaluate the evidence and make a decision, a reasonable expectation by the public. The City would not by the end of January or February 1995 be in a position to have the information. There was no way in which Council could make a decision in the Plan which would reflect the wealth of information it expected in the 18-month process. Council clearly had a problem. It was hoped the City Attorney could offer Council a path on which to follow if it did not wish to make a binding decision on Sand Hill Road until the 18-month process had been completed, unless Council wanted to find itself in a position of making a premature decision. Council Member Huber understood the more specific Council was on any significant land use change, the more specific the Plan's EIR would need to be. Mr. Calonne replied yes. Council Member Huber asked whether the City could recoup money it spent to do what was required for the Plan. Mr. Calonne said staff could attempt to figure out a vehicle for specific plans which would be an interesting assignment. Council Member Huber said the more specific Council became, the more expensive the Plan would become, and the less specific, the less expensive, at least for an EIR. Mr. Calonne said there might be ways to work out cost recovery on an EIR. From a CEQA standpoint, there was an ongoing statewide battle between what some alleged was a misuse of EIRs to stop projects versus the need to generate information sufficiently early so the public could really determine councils' values on issues. The idea of moving up in time the point of debate so more prudent investment was made by whoever was trying to do economic work was consistent with the conflicting State policies found in CEQA. It would be pretzel-logic if Council attempted to avoid making specific decisions in order to avoid an EIR. Council Member Huber asked whether a Plan could be amended at any time or at what point a Plan could not be amended. Mr. Calonne replied yes, unless the City had a vesting tentative map application, development could be controlled until sticks were actually in the ground and good faith reliance had been placed on the permits. Vesting tentative maps altered the rule. RECESS: 9:30 P.M. - 9:50 P.M. Mayor Kniss asked Council for comments on the Business and Economics Vision Statement, "Palo Alto will promote and enhance its business vitality while preserving the quality of life that people value so highly."
11/15/94 74-151
Council Member McCown asked whether the explanatory text under the Vision Statement was intended to be included in the Plan or not. Mr. Schreiber said the Vision Statement was only the bolded text, with the remainder provided by way of explanation. The Plan itself could contain some explanation, but not necessarily the text which appeared in the draft. Council Member McCown said consideration should be given to language in terms of how it would appear in five to ten years. Comments about "fiscal reality...with the downturn in California economy..." should be more carefully considered to determine whether or not it would be meaningful or relevant. Although currently relevant, there was concern about any language in the Plan which was so temporal and immediate in its focus that it became meaningless within a short time. Mr. Schreiber explained that the Vision Statement included only the bolded text and the three bolded subtexts on the two pages: vitality, balance, and districts. Mayor Kniss asked whether any text between the first sentence and the three categories would be included. Mr. Schreiber replied no. Mayor Kniss clarified staff comments on the right side dealing with sales tax revenues would not appear in any final document. Mr. Schreiber said almost undoubtedly not. Staff needed to see how the text all fit together. Council Member McCown asked whether the vision statements in each of the elements were the same and unchanged from the vision statements which had been presented to and reviewed by Council in Fall 1993. Sandy Eakins, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), said some of the vision statements had remained the same as the statements which had been presented to Council and some had not. The Governance Vision Statement had been changed, the Transportation Vision Statement had remained the same, the Business and Economics Vision Statement had remained the same, the Natural Environment Vision Statement had remained the same, and Community Design had not had a vision statement. The explanatory comments had been written after CPAC had gone through, at the invitation of the Planning Commission, trial looks at policies and programs to date. The work had been done between Drafts II and III. The explanations had been written to orient material for such discussions and had been retained for the same purpose but not necessarily to be carried forward unless there was something Council wanted retained. Council Member Schneider asked whether vision statements in other sections were approximately the same length and consistent with one another.
11/15/94 74-152
Ms. Eakins said the Document Review Committee (DRC) had attempted to make the vision statements consistent. Council Member Schneider clarified Council would be removing a large section of informational verbiage in each section. Ms. Eakins replied yes. Council Member Schneider asked about the shaded, handwritten note at the top of the page. Mr. Schreiber said all of the shaded areas indicated Planning Commission comments. Council Member Schneider asked to what the text referred specifi-cally. Mr. Beecham said the comment referred to the five paragraphs which the Planning Commission had not wanted included as part of the Vision Statement. The suggestion was for it to be reworded, be more positive, and be included in the text of the document and not in the Vision Statement. Council Member Schneider clarified the five paragraphs would be eliminated altogether, rather than rewritten. Mr. Beecham understood the following page would write the document and contain the glue and text which tied it all together where the five paragraphs would be included. Council Member Fazzino suggested the Vision Statement be reworded to read: "Palo Alto will promote and enhance its business vitality while preserving its residential quality of life." A number of comments had been made about the importance of residential quality of life. Mayor Kniss thought Council Member Fazzino's comment was "word-smithing" and unless there were many lights to support the comment, it should be put down as an interesting comment and if there was a great deal of support in the future, a change would be considered. She asked Council for any comments on the three categories below the Vision Statement. Vice Mayor Simitian supported Vitality and Balance. Council Member McCown recommended a review of the language associated with Balance after going through the specifics of the section, since the issue of defining Balance was very important at the inception and which could better be defined after having gone through the details. Mayor Kniss clarified Council would return to the Balance issue after its review of the BE section. Anything in a shaded area with no letter had been drafted by CPAC and approved by the Planning Commission to remain in the Plan.
11/15/94 74-153
Council Member Andersen said several references had discussed "commercial" which would be interpreted as "office." He asked what benefits Palo Alto achieved through additional office space and to what extent recommendations in the BE section for additional office space would be seen, i.e., whether the City would have increased the number of office and commercial spaces and increasing traffic and, if so, to what extent it would occur as a result of accepting the kinds of recommendations made in the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said Jim Musbach, the economic consultant who worked with CPAC, made an observation in the memorandum attached to the back of staff report (CMR:496.94), that it was difficult to find good quality office space in Palo Alto in small increments; 5,000 to 7,000 square feet. Members of the public and others had also stated there were larger spaces in Palo Alto but it was a very competitive market, especially for smaller spaces. The sense was that many office functions which might be seen as serving the community, doctors, and professional services struggled at times to find appropriate office space. The extent to which the City was likely to see such office space was a function of the private sector. The BE section attempted to break down some of the dividing lines which had been established in the past between retail and office spaces. Actions in the past had revealed the two were opposed to one another. Council Member Andersen asked whether program BE-1.B2, "Initiate business recruitment efforts for retail businesses," on page 3 of the BE section (the Plan) would encourage additional office space. He was unsure there was great benefit in doing so. Statements regarding office space should be modified. Council Member McCown asked whether the Planning Commission had concurred with staff's recommendation on page 3 of the BE section (the Plan) to merge programs BE-1.B2 and BE-1.B3, "Explore ways to encourage niche retail opportunities in Palo Alto that are not available in adjacent communities," with other programs on page 5 "into a single program to be implemented as part of the City's Economic Resource planning effort." Mr. Schreiber replied no. The Planning Commission had indicated it wanted to keep program BE-1.B2 as a good idea, but not as part of a future draft Plan, with a negative vote for program BE-1.B3. Mayor Kniss asked whether the Planning Commission had made comments after CPAC and the DRC group but before staff had made comments. Mr. Schreiber replied no. Staff's comments had been made before the Planning Commission had made its comments. Council Member McCown clarified the Planning Commission could either accept staff's comments or not, in which case the Planning Commission had agreed to merge but removed some things.
11/15/94 74-154
Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had agreed almost universally to merge in an effort to shorten the document, making it more concise. The record of what had been done was contained in the minutes but not reflected in Draft IV, so neither he nor Council could determine what the Planning Commission had done with regard to merging. Council Member McCown supported the idea of merging the two programs which referenced implementation through the ERP. Mayor Kniss clarified staff comments had followed the DRC comments and before it went to the Planning Commission. The grey shaded areas indicated items the Planning Commission wanted to remain and if nothing was marked in the grey areas, it meant everyone agreed. If there were no staff comments and no mark out to the side, it was assumed the item was acceptable to everyone, if "merge" was indicated, Council would not know what it meant unless it asked. Mr. Schreiber said staff had commented after the release of the CPAC recommendations on September 8, 1994, after which it had been provided to the Planning Commission at the end of September 1994 for review in October. The comments on the right side were staff comments and handwritten comments such as "merge" had been provided by the Planning Commission. In almost all cases, the Planning Commission accepted suggestions for a merge, whether shaded or not. On page 3, for example, CPAC, staff, and the Planning Commission concurred on Goal BE-1, "Maintain and encourage diversity in commercial, retail and professional services businesses," Policies BE-1.A, "Support distinct commercial districts or subareas to encourage diversification of the City's commercial base and the retention of needed services," BE-1.B, "Encourage a mix of commercial and retail services within the City that results in a broad variety of services including industrial suppliers, commercial and retail support services, as well as high tech manufacturing and basic industries personal and professional services," BE-1.C, "Create zoning and permit regulations which encourage rehabilitation of aging retail areas to promote economic vitality," and BE-1.D, "Nurture and support established businesses." The Planning Commission in one way or another had deleted all of the programs on page 3 by indicating either a "B," which meant the idea was good but should not be in the Plan, "D," which meant it was a bad idea, or "C," which meant it was a good idea but very low priority and not worth preserving. Any program marked with a "B" had been shaded since it would have received a much stronger level of support by the Planning Commis-sion than a "C" or "D" item. Council Member Fazzino understood the A, B, C, and D codes, but asked for clarification on the shaded versus nonshaded areas. He wanted to understand what exactly was before Council and whether Council needed to take action on the nonshaded areas in order to preserve the language. Mr. Schreiber said Council had the Board and Commission recommendations, almost all of which were Planning Commission recommendations. The operating assumption was that Council was
11/15/94 74-155
working from a Planning Commission recommendation. If no action was taken by Council, for example, on page 3, staff would assume the goal and four policies would appear in the Plan, but the programs would not. Council Member Fazzino clarified anything marked with a "B," "C," or "D" would not move forward unless Council took action. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Mayor Kniss said Council would need to indicate a desire to include text which had been marked by a "B," "C," or "D" if it wanted it retained in the Plan. Council Member McCown understood from the description of the codes that the "B" codes were ones which the Planning Commission wanted retained but wanted it in the appendix, text, etc. but not as a policy or program as defined. Mr. Beecham said the "B" coded items would be retained as a good idea of which the Planning Commission did not necessarily approve but wanted kept for follow-up in the future, perhaps, as an appendix to the Plan. Mayor Kniss clarified it would not be part of the Plan. Mr. Beecham said it would not be part of the approved Plan. Council Member Wheeler said the current Comprehensive Plan was a collection of goals, policies, and programs to implement the policies. She asked what would return to Council if it deleted the programs which were listed and whether the professional editor would come up with new programs since there would be many goals and policies with no programs to implement. Mr. Beecham said sometimes it was useful to have a policy to indicate the direction in which to move, even if there was no active program implementing the policy. Some programs had been approved by the Planning Commission. Mayor Kniss welcomed suggestions for making the process of going through the Plan smoother. Mr. Schreiber explained that after Council had finished its entire review, staff would take all of the material and create a draft Plan. The organization, sequencing of items, etc., might remain the same. Wording would be edited. There might be goals and policies related to other goals and policies in other sections which would be blended to create a fabric. If there were areas with a goal and policy but no programs, staff would do its best to point out to Council that something was missing. If staff presented a recommendation, it would not be part of the Plan but part of a staff recommendation. The draft Plan would be built on the goals, policies, and programs Council directed be put into the draft Plan. No new programs or policies would be created by staff.
11/15/94 74-156
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved (no second required) that the Council follow the key code for reviewing the document, retaining the Planning Commission's A and B recommendations but automatically removing any items marked with a C or D, unless voted otherwise. Mayor Kniss took a straw vote and noted that the City Council was in support of Council Member Fazzino's suggestion. Any recommendations of individual Council Members would be voted on by Council using individual voting buttons. Council Member McCown supported the merger of the two elements, folding into a single program reference to implementation of the ERP. Policy BE-1.C which read "Create zoning and permit regula-tions which encourage rehabilitation of aging retail areas to promote economic vitality," was the exact language of the current Plan. As pointed out by Ms. Renzel, the policy should read something more like, "Through the use of zoning and permit regulations, encourage rehabilitation..." since it was something the City had already created. More could be accomplished, but the policy should be restated to capture current policies as well as potential future policies. Mayor Kniss said if no Council Member objected to comments made by colleagues, staff would record the language and incorporate into the draft Plan. Vice Mayor Simitian thought program BE-1.B3, which appeared to have a "D" had been suggested for retention and merger. If the program would not be retained and merged, he wanted the language retained. The program had value. As the City spoke of maintaining a unique community, ensuring there were unique, special retail opportunities, the program created a sense of "place." MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved (no second required) that the Council retain program BE-1.B3 in the Comprehensive Plan Update Policies and Programs. Mr. Beecham said program BE-1.B3 involved difficulties with surveying neighboring communities to determine which retail markets were desired and then to find people in niche retail markets which were uncommon, pull them into Palo Alto, and tell them where to go. It seemed a rather difficult scheme to successfully implement. Council Member Andersen wanted an example. If there was a niche which had not been covered in the Bay Area, he wanted to know what it was. At the same time, he had no problem taking one which was already covered and doing it more. Uniqueness was great, but he wanted an example. Council Member Rosenbaum thought the City should not be in the business of picking winners in the market, but should leave it to the private sector. Program BE-1.B3 should be left out of the
11/15/94 74-157
Plan. Council Member Fazzino disagreed. It was not a matter of winners and losers but a question of availability of services. The entire region would benefit and it would fit into efforts to build the economy in East Palo Alto. If East Palo Alto had a particular retail outlet which met the needs of both Palo Altans and East Palo Altans, it did not make sense for Palo Alto to push for the same kind of retail use. It was an important, regional economic evaluation process and was a reasonable suggestion. Council Member McCown thought there was too much detail in the wording of the program to be included in the Plan. The merge of elements would return with a single program. Mayor Kniss thought the program would be deleted. Council Member McCown said staff comments indicated seven programs would be merged, including some on page 5, into a single program, and one sentence would pick up all of the ideas about promoting business opportunities into a single program described in the Plan and implemented as part of the ERP. Until the wording of the single program which would combine all seven programs was present-ed, Council should not say the one program had to be maintained. Retaining the one sentence was too much specificity. MOTION FAILED: 4-5, Simitian, Kniss, Fazzino, Schneider "yes." City Manager June Fleming gave Council the dates for dealing with the Comprehensive Plan, which included November 29, December 7, and December 12, 1994. Council matters would be dealt with on December 19, 1994. Staff would do the best it could to make the meeting on December 19, 1994 matters which absolutely had to be dealt with before the end of the year. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Simitian, to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, November 29, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. and continue the public hearing of Item No. 16. MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to an Adjourned City Council Meeting on Tuesday, November 29, 1994. 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
11/15/94 74-158
available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
11/15/94 74-159