HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-29 City Council Summary Minutes
Adjourned Meeting of November 15, 1994, to November 29, 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 11/15/94) ......... 74-225 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. .......... 74-254
11/29/94 74-224
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:14 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), 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 11/15/94) Mayor Kniss asked about Council Member Fazzino's suggestion to leave in Planning Commission "B" recommendations in the Comprehen-sive Plan Update Policies and Programs Draft IV (the Plan). Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff, Planning Commissioners, individual Council Members, and Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) members had all commented on the almost 1,000 CPAC recommendations for policies and programs. The Planning Commission had made a strong effort to reduce the volume and bulk of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan), recognizing that if all policies and programs were adopted, the final Plan would be extremely long and difficult to read and follow. The City would probably be unable to implement such a large number of policies and programs, and the large number would only create confusion and difficulty in determining implementation priorities. The Planning Commission had made recommendations to retain certain CPAC recommendations and place other items into "B," "C," and "D" categories. Items in category "B" were consid-ered important enough to be retained either in an appendix or separate document but not part of the Plan. The concern expressed to Mayor Kniss and other Council Members was that Council at its last meeting had determined to retain Planning Commission recommendations "A" and "B" unless Council deleted a "B" item. Council would consequently deal with a very long list of policies and programs which would expand the size of the document and lead to problems with readability, understandability, and implementation in the future. Council was encouraged to retain the Planning Commission's recommendations, deleting "A" items and including "B," "C," or "D" items, if so desired. Mayor Kniss asked for comments from the City Attorney concerning how the Plan could be dealt with most easily, especially as it related to goals and consistency. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City Council had asked for an
11/29/94 74-225
opinion concerning how consistency, or the lack thereof, affected public initiative and referendum rights, a project on which he was currently working. Regardless of his advice on the law, consistency or inconsistency was a factual issue that the Council needed to deal with. As Council began to deal with consistency, Council was urged to view all goals in one package. Mr. Schreiber said the two-page document entitled "Business and Economics" contained 19 goals under the Business and Economics (BE) section of the Plan which had come out of the CPAC process. A modification had been made to BE-16, "Identify and support distinctive identities for segments of El Camino Real," on the second page which stated "Encourage the evolution of El Camino Real to an economically vital and attractive thoroughfare with nodes of commercial and pedestrian activity." Council Member McCown supported leaving Planning Commission "B" recommendations out of the Plan, confirming that unless Council reinstated a "B" item, staff at some point would determine where the "B" item would be saved, unless Council did not want it saved at all. The Planning Commission had indicated its desire to see "B" items located elsewhere in the document or in some other document. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Planning Commissioner Bernard Beecham said there was a big difference between putting the "B" items in the text or in an appendix. The Planning Commission viewed an appendix as a resource of ideas which was probably good but had not been approved and was not intended as part of the official Plan. The Planning Commission considered it important to place a recommenda-tion either in the Plan or an appendix. Council was urged not to allow staff to decide whether or not "B" items remain in the text, an appendix, or some other document. Vice Mayor Simitian asked about Mr. Beecham's comment to the City Attorney which appeared to indicate that if an item were placed in an appendix, it was not really in the Plan to the extent it was enforceable. Mr. Calonne said consistency was drawn from the four corners of the document. Items placed in an appendix would solve the problem, depending upon how it was characterized and whether or not it was part of the governing portion of the Plan. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether there were alternative locations for "B" items to appear in the Plan other than in the text or in the appendix. Mr. Schreiber said a third alternative was a separate document such as a background report. Mayor Kniss thought a proposal had been made for staff to return with suggestions about how "B" items would be included. Council had agreed the items would not be included in the actual beginning
11/29/94 74-226
portion of the Plan but would be placed elsewhere. Vice Mayor Simitian said there was a difference between talking about goals, policies, and programs and items designated "B" which were worth keeping. The "B" items that remained in the document and had force of law were very different from "B" items placed in a separate document which had no force of law. He might be willing to agree with a scenario which understood the limitations of the number of easily managed goals, policies, and programs but where "B" items would be kept in the Plan. Everyone would then understand the "rules of the road." He might have a different view if staff returned in six months indicating the "B" items had gone into a document which had no force of law. Either the items should be included in the Plan or not. Mayor Kniss said Mr. Calonne had indicated the "B" items not included under the goals, priorities, and programs could contain a preamble indicating exact usage. She queried whether the preamble would also indicate whether or not the materials were part of the governing document. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Schneider said some portions contained only "B" items or less and asked whether it meant the Plan would be left with only a goal and no policy or program in support thereof. Mr. Schreiber said there might be situations where no policies or programs would remain on the page, but something in another section which related could be melded together. If there were no policies or programs remaining, the items would be highlighted. The Council and the Planning Commission could then work with the Plan. Council Member Fazzino wanted to understand the Planning Commission and staff's desire to eliminate "B" items and whether the desire was based primarily on the belief the programs did not belong in the Plan for a variety of reasons or based primarily on the desire to limit the document's size. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission tried to make the document as lean as possible and had been more successful sometimes than others. However, the Planning Commission's reference to "B" items centered around an unsureness about how the items would work out in the long-run and how the items should be retained in the reservoir of ideas for the future. Mr. Schreiber said staff's reasons were both to reduce the size of the document to a more manageable level and its view of the "B" items as inappropriate. Council Member McCown said the Plan contained various types of "B" designations of which Council could not avoid considering. Staff's argument was to begin with the premise that "B" items should not be included unless Council consciously chose to do so. The Planning Commission had provided Council with a tiered
11/29/94 74-227
structure of opinions on the appropriateness of items. Mayor Kniss summarized Council would automatically include "A" items and would not include the "B" items unless it chose to do so. However, "B" items would be included in an attached document which would contain both a positive preamble that meant how it would be used and negative preamble that meant it was not part of the governing document nor should it be used as such. Council Member Fazzino agreed with Mayor Kniss' summation. Mayor Kniss said under the BE section, the goal summary was divided into three sections: Vitality, which dealt with goals BE-1 through BE-8, Balance, dealing with goals BE-9 through BE-10, and Districts, dealing with goals BE-11 through BE-19. Vitality was defined as "Providing a vital and dynamic business environment in Palo Alto." The Vitality goals were read from the goal summary and Council was asked if there were any disagreement. Council Member McCown thought goals BE-1, "Maintain and encourage diversity in commercial, retail and professional services businesses;" BE-4, "Help foster Palo Alto as a prominent business and professional environment consistent and in balance with Palo Alto's sense of community;" and BE-10, "While fostering a balance between smaller and larger businesses, encourage a wide range and diversity of commercial services in Palo Alto," should be consolidated into one goal statement, even though inclusion of goal BE-10 would cause a problem with the three-part structure. Council Member Schneider said goal BE-8 which read "Foster commercial centers that serve neighborhoods (local shopping, groceries, restaurants, bookstores, services)" should include an etcetera to avoid having the goal appear limited to the particular businesses listed. Mayor Kniss asked whether Council Member McCown had formulated specific wording for her suggestion. Council Member McCown said staff had already recommended compres-sion of BE-10 and BE-1, however, BE-4 should also be included. Mayor Kniss acknowledged Council could not wordsmith the entire document, but comments would allow staff to pull together a tighter final draft Plan. Vice Mayor Simitian said he had been anxious since the beginning of the process that the Plan tended to be all things to all people which meant the City Council at some point had to make choices. Over the course of the past few years during informal talks about the Comprehensive Plan, Council Member Huber had expressed the view that it was not a terribly useful document because one could find support in the Plan for any point of view. The Plan should be a set of rules with which the City agreed to and would follow. He said two business issues required discussion and decision by Council, nothing had been articulated as to why it was important for the City to foster new business. Goal BE-8 spoke of fostering
11/29/94 74-228
commercial centers which would serve neighborhoods--implicit being provision of service to neighborhoods. But goal BE-2, "Promote Palo Alto's image as a business-friendly community and assume an active role in fostering new businesses," appeared not to have a basis, although it appeared the reason was because the City wanted money. If money were the reason, it should be stated because some businesses did not bring in money but brought only cost with no benefits. Goal BE-2 also raised the issue of "fostering new busi-nesses." The City would be limited in its ability to foster new businesses to the extent it meant significant growth and develop-ment in the community dedicated to business activity. He did not want to wordsmith but said business growth was about a favorable bottom-line impact in the community and there were limits about how much growth and development the community would tolerate, even with a favorable bottom-line impact. The Plan should discuss how existing businesses could contribute more to the bottom line, where possible, rather than incurring the disadvantages of growth and development in a commercial area. Council Member Fazzino said it appeared Council was attempting to reinvent what had already been invented by CPAC and the Planning Commission. He had no problem going back to assure consistency, but it probably made some sense to go through the document first, understand each major concept, engage in discussion and debate, and then return and assure that there was consistency within the document. He feared Council would "bounce around" from subject to subject. Council Member Andersen said he agreed with Council Member Fazzino for the need to stay on task. He said regarding Vice Mayor Simitian's suggestion there were definition issues in goal BE-2. "Fostering new businesses" appeared to refer to new business start-up in the context of newly emerging. Palo Alto was a business-friendly community and wanted to draw in such new businesses. Concern was voiced about the suggestion that closing all of the attorneys offices in town would not affect the City's revenue stream. Council should not fiscalize its planning policies. The community would be very concerned if the City drew up a document which stated its motivation for going forward with any business-friendly attitude was strictly a revenue-stream issue. Council Member McCown thought it would be useful to go through items in sequence; and if someone raised a policy issue such as the one raised by Vice Mayor Simitian, Council needed to arrive at some comfort level as to its intention. There would be times when it would be necessary to move to other levels, because the language was so broad, to gather the intent. Council Member Fazzino's suggestion would be helpful on a first level, illuminating in discussing issues where there were concerns and implications. Vice Mayor Simitian's concern about balance was important, but it should be dealt with in an orderly manner. Council Member Rosenbaum disagreed with Vice Mayor Simitian and agreed with Council Member Fazzino that the goals should be dealt with one-by-one. The goals were truisms, and Palo Alto could be
11/29/94 74-229
replaced by any city in the state and have the same goals. The meat was found in the policies and programs. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had found it was better to understand the policies and programs and then determine whether or not it fit the goal, then a determination could be made as to whether or not there was agreement. Mayor Kniss asked whether Council preferred to deal with the Plan horizontally and consider the goals, policies, and programs together or vertically and consider all the goals and then deal with the policies and programs. Council supported returning to the original horizontal method of dealing with the Plan. Council Member Huber thought the goal summary was very helpful in determining the overall philosophy. Mayor Kniss said staff had planned to provide Council with a goal summary for each section. Council had already dealt with page 3 of the BE section of the Plan at its previous meeting. Council was asked for comments on policies or programs on page 4. Council Member McCown referred to program BE-1.H1 which stated, "Retain a certain percentage of low cost business space such as exists in the San Antonio Avenue/Transport Industrial area," proposed by the Planning Commission to remain, and she said it should be combined with the section on page 19 which discussed San Antonio Road. She queried how the City would retain low-cost business space. The wording should be reconsidered. The later district-type commentary about San Antonio Road would be a better place for the program. Vice Mayor Simitian referred to policy BE-1.G, "Refine zoning to allow expansion of existing businesses where such expansion is compatible with site characteristics and adjacent land uses," and program BE-1.G1, "Remove similar use restrictions," on page 4 of the Plan which, although slated for removal by the Planning Commission, appeared to be planned for merging with programs A, "Support distinct commercial districts or subareas to encourage diversification of the City's commercial base and the retention of needed services;" 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;" and D, "Nurture and support established businesses," on page 3 of the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said the handwritten comment to merge had been placed by staff in the Plan prior to Planning Commission review. The handwritten vertical line on page 4 with the horizontal line pointing to policy BE-1.H was not intended to include policies BE-1.E, "Facilitate the continued use of structures with architectural and/or historical merit;" F, "Increase the attractiveness of accessibility of neighborhood shopping areas;" or G, "Refine zoning to allow expansion of existing businesses where such expansion is compatible with site characteristics and
11/29/94 74-230
adjacent land uses," in the merge. Vice Mayor Simitian asked why the Planning Commission had decided to remove policy BE-1.G. Mr. Beecham thought the Planning Commission was concerned about almost any kind of expansion unless carefully controlled. Vice Mayor Simitian queried whether the Planning Commission considered the wording too broad. Mr. Beecham replied yes. Vice Mayor Simitian asked for the Planning Commission's thoughts on removal of program BE-1.H2 concerning "the use of zoning tools, allow for incubator and other start up businesses to locate in Palo Alto." Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission was concerned about the difficulties of defining a start-up, incubator company and whether it was a company that had just incorporated, was small, had no capital or sales, etc. Mayor Kniss asked how the City would "allow for" such businesses as indicated in program BE-1.H2. The City would certainly not rule out incubator and other such businesses. "Allow" must be interpreted in another way. Mr. Beecham said just because the Planning Commission had removed a certain program did not mean the opposite should be done. The City would not disallow incubator or start-up businesses, but the program to encourage the same should not be included in the Plan. Mayor Kniss clarified the Planning Commission did not want the program encouraging the City through changes in zoning, etc. Mr. Beecham replied yes. Vice Mayor Simitian thought the willingness of the community to accommodate additional growth and development for economic development reasons was limited so there should be priorities about when the City would do so. He agreed with one of the issues that Chop Keenan made that the City should "polish its nuggets" and take what had worked or could work and do its best to help it be all it could be. For example, using incubator and start-up businesses was a good way to pump vitality into the existing Stanford Research Park and should be encouraged and explicitly stated. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to recommend that the City Council with respect to the Comprehensive Plan Business and Economics Section under Vitality, Goals, Program H2, retain the statement "Through the use of zoning tools, allow for incubator and other start up businesses to locate in Palo Alto" be retained in the section.
11/29/94 74-231
Council Member Rosenbaum opposed the motion and agreed with the Planning Commission because of the open-ended phrase "through the use of zoning tools." Apprehension was voiced to whether or not the City should increase Floor Area Ratios (FAR) or allow greater ground coverage just because a business happened to be a new business or start-up. The traffic implications of existing and new businesses was the same, and it was not appropriate. Council Member Andersen was unclear as to why policy BE-1.G would not also be included if program BE-1.H2 was included since it also appeared to "polish nuggets." Vice Mayor Simitian thought Genencore was a good example in the incubator and start-up area. Genencore had attempted to create incubator space but had withdrawn its attempt because it had been so difficult to find the space. Such circumstances separated facilities like the Stanford Research Park from facilities elsewhere which were without such incubator space. There was a big difference between allowing a 20,000 square foot building to expand to 30,000 square feet just because it wanted the extra space. The City would be given added value for the space. Council Member Andersen asked Vice Mayor Simitian to respond to Council Member Rosenbaum's comment concerning the risk associated with the use of zoning tools. Vice Mayor Simitian said just because the City had such wording in its Plan did not mean it had to comply with whatever methodology was requested or proposed. A decision had to be made to give-and-take a little. If the City were going to give a little, it should do so when something could be given back to the community, whether in the form of revenue, neighborhood services, or giving the City a cutting edge on business issues. There would be something in the Plan which was understood in advance if the City wanted to do something because it would be to its advantage or would do something for the community. Council Member Wheeler opposed the specific motion both for the reasons Council Member Rosenbaum had stated about being uncomfort-able about the "use of zoning tools" and because the concept contained in BE-1.H2 could be accommodated through other proposed programs and policies, such as BE-1.H1 which referenced the San Antonio Road area where affordable spaces would be available for incubators. Also, BE-2 specifically addressed identifying and assisting new businesses under which an incubator-type business would fall. There were enough things in the program and motion as worded to cause discomfort. The same thing could be accomplished within other programs and policies. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion because of its emphasis on small businesses, cutting-edge businesses, research-oriented businesses that in many cases would have a special relationship to academics and Stanford University which was a real asset, and businesses with small numbers of employees. Preference should be given to providing more opportunities for the emergence of such small businesses, most of which were technology
11/29/94 74-232
businesses, rather than providing opportunities for large companies to locate within the community. The City should promote and encourage the opportunity for small companies to emerge. The incubator concept was very exciting and worked well in similar university communities across the country. Council Member Schneider supported the motion. Over the years, the number of large businesses had grown in Palo Alto and smaller businesses had fallen off. The Plan should encourage small business development and growth, not only for technological companies but across the board. Council Member McCown agreed with Council Member Wheeler. There was a place for the idea but program BE-1.H2 was not the place. The words "start-up business" were too general and the term "zoning tools" was a concern. If people wanted a Plan policy which encouraged small businesses, a better definition should be found. If the emphasis on fostering new business under BE-2 focused on small businesses, wording could be incorporated therein. The Planning Commission was correct in its instinct to remove program BE-1.H2. Council Member Huber agreed with Council Members McCown and Wheeler, but Council Member Fazzino's comments about describing a business were appropriate and should be worked into the following section or the section which dealt with the Stanford Research Park. MOTION FAILED 4-5; Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider, Simitian "yes." Council Member Rosenbaum said staff's comment concerning program BE-1.H1 was appropriate. Council Member McCown said a similar reference was found on page 19 of the Plan, policy BE-19.A read, "Recognize the San Antonio Road district as a highly diverse industrial area suitable for start-up businesses and other activities which need lower cost space and which may serve wider areas" which staff, and she agreed, indicated be merged with BE-1.H1 and H2. Council Member Wheeler clarified the wording in program BE-1.H1 would be replaced with some other wording. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. The same would probably be the case in any number of programs. Staff wanted the prerogative of working with an editor to clean up the wording. Council Member Wheeler agreed. The wording had given her great discomfort. The concept, however, good. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had agreed with staff's comments which, although reflected in the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, was not reflected in the Plan. Council Member Andersen said because the Planning Commission minutes were not before Council, on occasions when issues were
11/29/94 74-233
under discussion and debate, the Planning Commissioners should provide some sense of its consideration. Council Member Huber said since the Plan had been created by CPAC, CPAC involvement should also be encouraged. Sandy Eakins, Co-Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), said staff's comments on the Planning Commission's comments on page 18 of the staff report (CMR:496:94) were most helpful and restored some balance. Mayor Kniss referred to page 5, goal BE-2, which stated, "Promote Palo Alto's image as a business-friendly community and assume an active role in fostering new business." Council Member McCown thought what it meant to foster new businesses should be articulated in goal BE-2, whether a small business definition, diverse business, start-up business, etc., which would indicate the City's priority if it were to pursue an active role in encouraging new businesses. Regarding Vice Mayor Simitian's comment about the revenue-driven purpose, Council had had a previous debate about whether the City could be vital and not grow and whether vitality was defined as always getting bigger. The concept of fostering new business was the City's way of saying there was a balance. The City could not be vital by merely increasing its boundaries, nevertheless, it was believed vitality related to change, the ability to respond to change and be at the cutting edge, and encouraging new enterprises. Fostering new businesses would serve the purpose. In Palo Alto, many of the vital cutting-edge change opportunities were start-ups, which had brought success to the area. Wording which focused on the opportunity for the start-up company on the cutting edge should be provided to the community. International, global headquarters could not be provided for every business that wanted to be in Palo Alto but what it could provide was an opportunity for the start-up generation of opportunity and enterprises. Mr. Beecham thanked Council Member McCown for her explanation which reflected the Planning Commission's feelings. The Planning Commission wanted a City which was dynamic and vital, not static and dying. The desire was to find new revenue sources for the City to ensure a good flow of ideas as space was made available. Vice Mayor Simitian asked for a definition of dynamic and vital. Mr. Beecham thought it meant having companies which offered the newest services available, as opposed to old services, and companies which continually focused on citizen needs as the world changed. There were many computer stores around the Bay Area which had not existed ten years before. In the future, if the City had more wireless communications, the services should be made available and not the same set of services which had been available 50 years prior. Vice Mayor Simitian asked why it was important or valuable to have businesses in the community which were dynamic and vital.
11/29/94 74-234
Mr. Beecham said the residents benefitted as individuals by having the services available. Vice Mayor Simitian thought Mr. Beecham was saying the City should have businesses which were community-serving. Mr. Beecham said a network of companies was necessary to provide businesses which were vital and dynamic. Ms. Eakins said CPAC had extensively discussed the issue of encouraging start-up businesses. Most of CPAC's decision had been based on the fact that much of what Palo Alto was was in a large part due to new businesses and start-ups which added to Palo Alto's reputation and made it an exciting place to live, that brought innovative and interesting ideas to the community, and sparked other community-serving matters. It added to the community's reputation and attractiveness to other businesses and was viewed as something which the City would want to continue by way of reputation. CPAC saw new businesses as revenue generation but it was less an issue than it had been on other points. New businesses were seen more as an amorphous, energy-based concern. Mr. Beecham said old businesses eventually died, even major businesses. Southern California had been hit badly by the changes in the defense industry. Major computer companies had recently shrunk. Therefore, it was important for the City to have a variety of different kinds of companies which were seated in the area to fill the spots. Ms. Eakins said CPAC wanted to avoid becoming an Atherton with restaurants. Council Member Andersen said at one of the policy meetings during which Council considered the Stanford Research Park development, a point had been made that many start-up companies were reluctant to come into the area because the potential for growth was not available should it exceed a certain point. Businesses started up in areas where there was the potential for growth. Although not a growth advocate, he recognized that start-up companies would not be very excited about coming into an area with limited potential for growth. He struggled with how such companies could be accommodated while struggling with the balance issues. Council Member Wheeler thought she read the set of goals, policies, and programs differently from her colleagues. Most of the programs currently associated with goal BE-2 appeared more in the nature of an attitudinal approach rather than specific ideas on tools to use or how the City would actually get from "A" to "B" and achieve the goal. Many had come from elements in the recently adopted Economic Resources Plan (ERP) but were very small steps toward what was a fairly aggressive goal. Council should flush out a series of tools which could be used to reach the goal. The programs were a little thin. More specific programs should be spelled out. The programs in the Plan did not necessarily achieve the goal.
11/29/94 74-235
Vice Mayor Simitian expressed frustration. The discussion about being business-friendly had not been a function of business boosters. Calvin Coolidge had said, "the business of America was business," an assertion which would last about five minutes in Palo Alto. There should be something in the goal for Palo Alto. The starting point of some goal was not to be business-friendly because it was warm and fuzzy but because of what was in it for Palo Alto. He was not ashamed to say that what was in it for Palo Alto was revenue. He had paid attention when Mr. Schreiber indicated 15 percent of the City's revenue came from Stanford Research Park because it paid for all of the programs which the community valued so highly and which no one wanted cut. It was not inappropriate to want neighborhood-serving businesses because it was what neighborhoods needed. There was a benefit to Palo Alto in having the goods and services it needed in close proximity or, as Mr. Beecham mentioned, more vital and dynamic businesses so people in Palo Alto had access to things which were new, current, and not just the old way. At some point Council had to admit that the reason for some of the goals was to pay the price of things which were valued in Palo Alto. The starting point was to describe why a program or policy was important. Business-friendly was not an end in itself, but a means to an end in order to gain all the things Palo Alto valued, e.g., services in close proximity, the latest available products, bright ideas which came with people in cutting-edge businesses, and money which paid for services. If some of the goals could be achieved in a way which involved less expense to the community, it should be done. The people from Magic had indicated each of the issues involved environmental costs, etc. Costs had to be weighed against the benefits. Council should discuss what it wanted to derive from the Plan to determine whether or not the Plan produced it. The issue was not merely fostering new businesses, but fostering businesses which provided the City with the things it wanted, which the Plan should state. He was not interested in new businesses which provided the City with things it wanted but at too great an expense. Mr. Schreiber said fostering or having a business-friendly environment related to: 1) the provision of local services, whether Midtown, Downtown, California Avenue, etc.; 2) the physical upkeep and renovation of the community, since Palo Alto was not a young community and had many structures which required upgrading and maintenance; 3) overall community vitality, which was difficult to define but involved the quality of people attracted to Palo Alto, the type of environment available, a business opportunity, the interesting neighbor down the street, etc., which attracted people to Palo Alto; and 4) municipal revenue, which was very different from what it had been in 1974 or 1980. All related to maintaining competitiveness. Palo Alto was in a very competitive environment, especially for commercial activities. Maintaining competitiveness related to permit streamlining, the attitude of City staff, the processes of the City, and the way things went through the system. If a city had a competitive environment, it would more likely attract local services, necessary physical upgrades, vitality, and more
11/29/94 74-236
municipal revenue. Municipal revenue was, in part, more involved in maintaining the current base and expanding, but maintaining the base was a legitimate goal in and of itself. Ms. Eakins said CPAC had gone through a multi-year process to come to the conclusions Mr. Schreiber had described. Vice Mayor Simitian said goal BE-2 should be revised by staff to indicate the goal was to assume the role of fostering new businesses which would result in generating desirable services, physical advancements, vitality, and municipal revenues, which were sensible things the City should achieve. If a business wanted to locate in Palo Alto but could not demonstrate it would deliver the four points or deliver at a cost which was not counter-balanced, he was not interested in fostering the business. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to revise Goal BE-2, "Promote Palo Alto's image as a business-friendly community and assume an active role in fostering new businesses," to reflect the City's active role in fostering new business be predicated upon providing improved local services, providing for physical enhancements, maintaining and improving community vitality, and/or increasing municipal revenues. Council Member Fazzino thought Vice Mayor Simitian's motion was important but wanted to merge the motion with Council Member McCown's proposal. Both sets of goals were extremely important. One related to why business made a contribution, but it was important to remember that people needed jobs. Palo Alto was a much more middle-class community than the popular press would indicate. A statement that related to jobs for community members should be included. Vice Mayor Simitian disagreed. Palo Alto had a jobs/housing imbalance. Bringing new business into Palo Alto because it brought in jobs was not one of the criteria. A strong case could be made that if businesses were only brought into Palo Alto to provide jobs, it would aggravate the jobs/housing imbalance, not help. Council Member Fazzino queried the need for new businesses for current residents lacking jobs. Ms. Eakins thought inclusion of such a fine point was unnecessary. Times changed, businesses went out of business, etc. New business was a broad statement which was not just for someone coming in asking for their first occupancy permit ever. As Mr. Schreiber had indicated, it was to maintain the base. Council Member Fazzino said quality of life began with a job and there needed to be reference to such a fundamental need. Council Member Andersen had made a comment regarding incubators and new businesses. As a person who had been involved to some degree in economical issues in a variety of states, there were two very different sets of development decisions. A small, emerging business had a particular set of needs. When a business was in a
11/29/94 74-237
position of expanding and needed to hire significant numbers of employees, in most cases, the company would make a decision to move elsewhere. There were very different needs to accommodate an expanding business. The potential problem was not created by a 10-person company becoming a 3,000-person company by providing additional opportunities for 10- to 20-person companies in the Stanford Research Park community. Council Member McCown's suggestion was correct. A statement regarding the kinds of new business which the City wanted the program to emphasize was important. Based upon the unique assets the area had, particu-larly Stanford University and the academic departments, meant the City had a significant opportunity to grow small technology-based, cutting-edge companies which made far more sense for the City to attract. The City did not have the land and based upon various priorities with respect to providing recreational opportunities, preserving open space, and providing housing, it did not make sense for the City to attract another Hewlett Packard or Varian. The objective should focus on the need to attract smaller companies. Council Member Schneider supported the motion. The important aspect was the promotion of Palo Alto's image as a business-friendly community. The perception in the larger regional area was that Palo Alto was generally not business-friendly and not just to technological companies. A specific definition of the types of businesses was unnecessary. The nature of businesses would develop and change over the years. The goal should not be more specific but less. Council Member McCown said Vice Mayor Simitian's proposed language attempted to describe the "why" of the goal to be more business-friendly. Businesses in Palo Alto were part of the community and had the same reasons for Palo Alto to be successful as other residents. Therefore, it was important to have a goal that was supportive and friendly to businesses in the community. Her point was not an answer to the "why" question but whether the goal could be further defined as to the kinds of businesses upon which the City should focus. The Plan should not be too specific. Smaller, start-up, cutting-edge businesses were another issue. Palo Alto's future would not necessarily be based on an expanding business environment, but it should focus on new opportunities from the current to the future. Such was Palo Alto's opportunity. Suburbs should not be expanded to allow the building of another Stanford Research Park, but Palo Alto should try to be as smart as possible, encouraging change, new opportunities, and new business-es as a redevelopment-type concept. Focus should be placed on the small, start-up business rather than merely "new" meaning additional growth and jobs. Palo Alto could not expect much more and maintain the balance referred to elsewhere. Vice Mayor Simitian said the "why" led to a "which." The "which" business to whom Palo Alto should be business-friendly were businesses which brought some of the benefits to Palo Alto. Agreement was voiced with the issue pertaining to not being too specific about a particular kind, size, or age of business. Businesses which generated the benefits described were the
11/29/94 74-238
businesses toward which the goal should be addressed. Council Member Huber was unclear as to how the Plan related to the ERP because much of what was being discussed was found in the ERP, He asked whether the ERP should be written into the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said as a broad policy issue, Council's comments were very appropriate for Plan discussion. Staff's recommendation on page 5 of the BE section of the Plan were levels of detail which did not necessarily need to appear in the Plan. Staff had suggested programs BE-2.A1, A2, B1, B2, and C1, be substituted with a single program which related to having the City implement an ERP effort. All of the details in the ERP need not appear in the Plan, but the Plan should set out the broad, philosophical policy perspective upon which the ERP was based. Council Member Huber said language in the Comp Plan, such as suggested by Vice Mayor Simitian, about a particular kind of business for particular reasons, the specific business, who decided, or which particular reason would dominate in a given situation would not be spelled out. Mr. Schreiber thought Council need not address the issue specifi-cally in the Plan, although when Council reviewed sections of the CPAC and Planning Commission recommendations which dealt with specific areas or sections of the community, it would be appropri-ate to look at a more fine-grained policy and program approach. Priorities for particular areas such as Midtown or the Research Park could be called out in the Plan. From the standpoint of the overall programs on page 5 which related to ERP efforts, staff considered such a level of detail unnecessary. Council Member Huber was interested in Vice Mayor Simitian's proposal but was not necessarily satisfied with the language. The City had gotten itself into a situation of having too many jobs, fairly stable community, high land prices, etc., by doing essen-tially nothing. Palo Alto was a strong community compared with others and the specificity in the promotion aspect might not be favorable. Palo Alto was basically in a replacement-mode and should not be involved in planning situations that were too narrow. Vice Mayor Simitian said the language to which he referred limited the goal because the goal, as currently stated, spoke of simply a broad-based mandate to be business-friendly and to assume an active role in fostering new businesses. The City's policy would only be able to do so in cases where the businesses generated the benefits as enumerated in the motion. The policy would be limited rather than expanded. Council Member Huber said many businesses could move into Palo Alto without its approval and queried whether some businesses would be discouraged from moving into the City. Vice Mayor Simitian said policies and programs had been identified in support of the goal which would not be granted to a business unless it provided the benefits as articulated in the motion.
11/29/94 74-239
Council Member Rosenbaum said Calvin Coolidge might well have been correct in the context of the current discussion. The importance of business was self-evident. The original concept of emphasizing revenue-generation, with which he disagreed, was a sensible point on which to debate. The motion attempted to be a laundry list that did not include every possible aspect, which was unnecessary. He preferred keeping the broad statement. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved that the benefit of jobs for Palo Alto residents be referenced in Goal BE-2. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Mayor Kniss supported the motion since it harmonized with why the City would promote businesses. There were many other businesses that would come into the community which would not provide the benefits listed in the motion but such service-oriented businesses would not be promoted by the City. It was hoped businesses which provided the City with the benefits as listed in the motion would be promoted. Council Member Huber supported the motion but expressed concern about the terminology. Vice Mayor Simitian queried whether the City should support a new business if it failed to produce any municipal revenue either directly or indirectly, did not contribute to vitality, did not enhance the infrastructure, or did not offer a desirable service. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Rosenbaum "no." Council Member McCown believed an emphasis should be placed on start-up, small, incubator-type businesses under either policies or programs as the types of businesses the City would want to foster. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to add a revised or new policy under Goal BE-2, "Promote Palo Alto's image as a business-friendly community and assume an active role in fostering new businesses," providing an emphasis on the concept of inclusion of small start-up, cutting edge businesses. Council Member Andersen supported the motion. Council would need to allow for some "flexibility" for people such as the Stanford Research Park. Council Member Schneider did not support the motion because it and was too specific. Cutting-edge technology companies might not be what the City wanted in 15 to 20 years, and other industries might be limited by the policy. Council Member Huber supported the motion because the City needed to indicate where the Council wanted to be more specific. Stanford Research Park was a logical place for incubators. Goal BE-2 was the general section and offered encouragement but more
11/29/94 74-240
specificity would be necessary when dealing with Stanford Research Park or other areas. Council Member Wheeler thought the intent of Council Member McCown's motion was not to exclude any other kind of business, and the City would just adopt the policy. The goal merely placed special emphasis on a specific type of business for which Palo Alto had felt a special affinity over the years. The City had been an incubator of technologically advanced companies before which did not mean the City did not also have very successful retail operations as well. The intention was not to exclude other possible businesses. The emphasis was very "Palo Altan." Mayor Kniss asked how the current motion differed from the previous motion concerning incubators. Council Member McCown said Council Member Wheeler had not wanted to leave BE-1.H2 in its original location because it was better placed under Goal BE-2. Council Member Wheeler said the motion had also eliminated the use of the term "zoning tools." Council Member McCown said the motion attempted to wrap into the concept of fostering new businesses a much broader statement than using zoning tools and would place an emphasis on start-ups, incubators, technology-based, and smaller companies, which had previously been successful in the community. The change should be under the goal of BE-2, worded simply as foster or identify and assist rather than the use of zoning tools. Mayor Kniss supported the motion. Council Member Schneider would support the motion but reserved the right to edit. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member McCown asked whether the Planning Commission had endorsed staff's recommendation to place programs BE-2.A1, "Initiate a business recruitment program for targeted business, including promotional materials; this program shall be undertaken by a designated office within the City in cooperation with various business associations;" A2, "Actively participate in regional economic strategic efforts, including joint marketing programs that would attract desirable businesses to the region, including the City of Palo Alto;" B1, "Establish a regular City forum to promote City/business community discussions on economic issues of mutual interest. Such forums could be business/City breakfasts, regularly scheduled and publicized;" B2, "Encourage the renovation and reuse of long-term vacant buildings;" and C1, "Create and support an ombudsperson/resource role, either as part of City Staff or within a private organization such as the Chamber of Commerce, to facilitate and advocate business and economic development activities in the City," on page 5 of the BE section of the Plan into a single program which would be implemented into
11/29/94 74-241
the ERP. Mr. Beecham thought the Planning Commission had not explicitly articulated its support of staff's recommendation, but he was cautious to differentiate between the Plan and the ERP. He was unsure whether the consensus had been on the record. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to support the staff suggestion on page 5 to delete programs Al, "Initiate a business recruitment program for targeted businesses, including promotional materials; this program shall be undertaken by a designated office within the City in cooperation with various business associations;" A2, "Actively participate in regional economic strategic efforts, including joint marketing programs that would attract desirable businesses to the region, including the City of Palo Alto;" B1, "Establish a regular City forum to promote City/business community discussions on economic issues of mutual interest. Such forums could be business/City breakfasts, regularly scheduled and publicized;" B2, "Encourage the renovation and reuse of long-term vacant buildings;" and C1, "Create and support an ombudsperson/resource role, either as part of City staff or within a private organization such as the Chamber of Commerce, to facilitate and advocate business and economic development activities in the City, and substitute a single program to be implemented as a part of the City's Economic Resources planning effort." Mayor Kniss thought condensation of the programs would dilute the program. Council Member McCown said the motion kept a program in the Plan which collapsed the concepts into one but referenced implementa-tion through a City ERP without the level of detail in the Plan which was already contained in the ERP. It was not diluted but integrated into the ERP. Ms. Eakins said CPAC had included specific programs under specific policies and goals because CPAC had been told the programs would assist in the interpretation of exactly what was meant in the goals and policies. Some of the programs had been created for just such a reason. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had recommended the staff suggestion. Council Member Andersen supported the motion but expressed concern about providing such a level of direction in each instance. Council's agreement was implicit if nothing were stated. Council Member McCown said if the Planning Commission had confirmed it agreed with staff's recommendation, she would not have made a motion. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Simitian "no." RECESS: 9:15 P.M. - 9:25 P.M.
11/29/94 74-242
Mayor Kniss referred to page 6, Goal BE-3 which read "Encourage public/private/non-partnerships to provide community benefits which would not otherwise be available." Annette Bialson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Member, said CPAC had attempted to design a method which would not impact public funds. The important concept was to leverage public funds. Mayor Kniss asked Mr. Beecham about the Planning Commission's lack of support for policies and programs BE-3.B2, "The City should consider utilizing public/private funds to provide landscaping and public spaces within commercial areas;" BE-3.C1, "Identify suitable sites for a performing arts center, based in part on a location that will support and attract businesses to the adjacent area, and will be accessible to public transit;" and BE-3.D, "Assess the possibility of providing a shuttle service between major employment centers and business districts." Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had moved the policies and programs BE-3.B2, BE-3.C1, and BE-3.D into the Urban Design (UD) section so it would be evaluated along with plans which came out of the Dream Team effort and never indicated the policies and programs should be facilitated. Council Member Andersen asked about the effectiveness of encourag-ing child care and referred to policy BE-3.A, "Allow employers to provide family and child care facilities when consonant with environmental and commercial conditions," on page 6 of the BE section of the Plan. A more active approach would encourage with incentives. If the City were considering "public/private partner-ships to provide community benefits," motivation was necessary through incentives for child care. Increase in the number of child care facilities during the past ten years had not been significant. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to revise Policy BE-3A, "Allow employers to provide family and child care facilities when consonant with environmental and commercial conditions," to read "Encourage employees to provide incentives for families and child care facilities when consonant with environmental and commercial conditions." Mayor Kniss strongly agreed with the motion but asked Mr. Beecham about providing family facilities. Ms. Eakins said CPAC had discussed the necessity of care for elderly parents and others in the family, not just for children. Mayor Kniss said the League of California Cities (LCC) had indicated a number of care facilities in various cities which had been difficult to monitor and were actually monitored by the counties. Problems also currently existed in Palo Alto. She was concerned how it could be interpreted. "Family" could be construed as adult care and adult care facilities, a major issue in San Jose and other large cities which had attempted to
11/29/94 74-243
legislate the number for facilities. Council Member McCown thought the goal could be edited at a later time. Ms. Eakins said program BE-3.A1, "For those entities desiring to provide family and child care, expand the use of zoning tools, e.g., floor area ratio exemptions and coordination with child care providers," referred to employers providing such facilities on site, not free-standing facilities. Council Member Wheeler understood CPAC's vision of child care was related to the day care concept which was envisioned as a day care program for seniors, not residential, overnight, or permanent living facilities. Ms. Eakins replied yes. The program only included employees and day care. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Fazzino wanted assurance that the issue of the performing arts center was satisfactorily addressed in another section of the Plan. Ms. Eakins thought the Community Design (CD) section dealt with the performing arts center issue, but it might not be worded as strongly as program BE-3.C1. Mr. Schreiber said the performing arts center was more clearly stated under program BE-3.C1. Council Member Fazzino had been troubled after reading the Human Relations Commission (HRC) minutes regarding the issue of the performing arts center. For some reason, a few members of the HRC had had a problem with the issue. Historically, Palo Alto's commissions had not pitted one set of City services against another, a practice in which the HRC had engaged which was quite troublesome. He supported both a performing arts facility as well as Human Services and other programs. The wording should be changed. Evaluation and facilitation of the development of a performing arts center was a logical public/private nonprofit partnership which should be explored by the community. Palo Alto's arts community was currently engaged in discussions regarding the issue and would return to the City with information. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to add a Policy under Goal BE-3 which recommends evaluation of the concept of developing a public/private partnership for the development of a new performing art center. Council Member Fazzino said emphasis should be placed on the public/private aspect, rather than placing emphasis exclusively on the City to provide performing arts funding and resources.
11/29/94 74-244
Mayor Kniss asked Ms. Eakins where the issue should be dealt with in the Plan. Ms. Eakins said CPAC had thought the performing arts center was a linchpin for supporting and attracting businesses in adjacent areas and supporting available transit. The Dream Team had included a potential site. The appropriate program would identify a suitable site to meet the criteria, therefore, it fell most logically in the BE section. Council Member Andersen thought keeping the performing arts center in the BE section was acceptable, but the words "financially viable" should be removed. Mayor Kniss suggested only "financially" be removed. Council Member McCown was prepared to single out a performing arts center as a policy statement in the Plan ahead of a myriad of other public/private, nonprofit partnerships. The concept of the goal was agreed upon and should be encouraged, but it should be broadly stated in the Plan. She was unprepared to single out a performing arts center specifically as a Plan policy. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 8-1, McCown "no." MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to reinstate Program BE-3.B2, "The City should consider utilizing public/private funds to provide landscaping and public spaces within commercial areas." Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had not disagreed with program BE-3.B2 but had thought it not important enough for inclusion in the Plan. Vice Mayor Simitian thought program BE-3.B2 was potentially a valuable tool in leveraging private dollars in upgrading infra-structure throughout the City. Both the City and private interests could work in tandem to create a win-win situation. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Wheeler "no." Mayor Kniss referred to Goal BE-4, "Help foster Palo Alto as a prominent business and professional environment consistent and in balance with Palo Alto's sense of community" as found on page 7 of the BE section of the Plan. Ms. Eakins said CPAC had worked on the goal for some time and it had included almost every subcommittee member's opinion. Mayor Kniss asked whether there were definitive differences between goals BE-9, "Assure a broadly acceptable balance between business development and the maintenance of the residential character of Palo Alto," and BE-4, since both appeared very similar.
11/29/94 74-245
Council Member McCown said the goal statements for BE-4 on page 7 seemed to relate to both goals BE-1 and BE-2, which discussed business and professional environment and related to goal BE-9. However, the underlying policies and programs below had different emphases. Council should do as the Planning Commission had done and delve into the more specific detail, with staff possibly compressing the goals together in the future. Ms. Bialson agreed with Council Member McCown. The essence of the two goals was found in the policies and programs and could be blended at some point in the future. Vice Mayor Simitian assumed goal BE-4 had initially been to "Help foster Palo Alto as a prominent business and professional environ-ment." Someone indicated later it should only be done if it were "consistent and in balance with Palo Alto's sense of community" which had been inserted at the end of the sentence. Council Member McCown was correct. There was a big difference in the emphases which were revealed in the policies. Council Member McCown said the core of Goal BE-4 dealt with hotel uses which did not appear elsewhere. The Planning Commission had indicated it would leave policies BE-4.A, "Maintain the present scale of the City's business and commercial areas and avoid projects with a massiveness, height or density which would overwhelm or be out of proportion with existing development," and BE-4.B, "Evaluate the development of a hotel(s) with conference facilities to serve the needs of local businesses, including those in Stanford Research Park," with the exception of evaluating rather than facilitating the development of hotels, and endorsed modification of the policy to acknowledge the Stanford Medical Center (Center) and a hotel at El Camino Real as exceptions to the present scale language. Mr. Beecham said Council Member McCown's evaluation was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian said staff's modification to policy BE-4.A was "would be" and "could be," which were very different. Council Member McCown agreed. Staff's comment was that the Center "would" be an exception and hotel at El Camino Real "could" be an exception to the requirement that there not be massive, too high, or too dense projects. Mr. Schreiber clarified the use of the words. CPAC had received sufficient information from Stanford University staff that clearly indicated a desire for a level of development at the Center that led staff to indicate it would be an exception from the policy. Staff did not have any designs regarding the hotel at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road and was not in the position of indicating it would be an exception, but only that it could be an exception. Staff simply did not have sufficient information to definitely support an exception. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the Center was already an
11/29/94 74-246
exception. Mr. Schreiber thought the Center had not been regarded as an exception since it was consistent with zoning. Clearly, the location helped the Center not be an exception since it was located in close proximity to single-family neighborhoods and might be regarded as an exception. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified Mr. Schreiber had indicated CPAC had heard enough from the Center that CPAC, staff, and the Planning Commission all agreed the Center would be an exception to the rule. Mr. Schreiber said Stanford University had indicated that the thrust of the Center planning would concentrate facilities on the existing site, seek an increase in zoning density beyond the 1:1 FAR currently the build-out of the site, and most likely favor future design of structures which exceeded the 50-foot height limit which was consistent with medical facility buildings in Santa Clara County. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether Council had taken any policy action which would indicate it was prepared to view the exceptions as an acceptable policy as unavoidable. Mr. Schreiber replied no. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the term "could be" could be used for both rather than "would be" if he did not want to concede the issue because it had not yet come before Council. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. The Council would then have more flexibility. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to revise the staff comments with respect to Policies BE-4.A, "Maintain the present scale of the City's business and commercial areas and avoid projects with a massiveness, height or density which would overwhelm or be out of proportion with existing development," to read "Maintain the present scale of the City's business and commercial areas and avoid projects with a massive-ness, height or density which could overwhelm or be out of proportion with existing development." Council Member McCown said without regard to staff's comment, the policy to "maintain the present scale of the City's business and commercial areas and avoid projects with a massiveness, height or density which would overwhelm or be out of proportion with existing development" was a good policy statement which did not rule out Stanford as a project which might exceed the 50-foot height limit. The staff comment could not be endorsed at the current time, although she agreed with Vice Mayor Simitian that leaving out the staff comment did not ruling it in or out. Policy BE-4.A was a good policy for the Plan as it stood. Vice Mayor Simitian was prepared to leave the staff comment in,
11/29/94 74-247
which had the support of the Planning Commission, as long as the word "could" was substituted for "would." Council Member McCown thought the City should have a policy which indicated it did not want projects which overwhelmed or were out of proportion with existing development. Vice Mayor Simitian thought staff and the Planning Commission wanted flexibility with the Center or a hotel on El Camino Real. Council Member McCown appeared to indicate flexibility and elbowroom was one thing but massiveness in height or density which overwhelmed or was out of proportion to existing development made it difficult to approve an exception. The terms "could be" rather than "would be" were more acceptable. Flexibility did not allow something which had massive height or density and be out of proportion to existing development. The staff comment could be deleted if additional comments, consistent with the policy, were added to indicate Council might be willing to consider a greater measure of flexibility for the two projects. Council Member McCown asked whether the City had exception procedures which allowed a project that was technically beyond existing standards for density but which allowed Council to evaluate whether it overwhelmed if the policy language remained, with no particular reference to issues which might be exceptions. Mr. Calonne said policy BE-4.A gave Council flexibility. The zoning mechanisms might include a variance or something else. The staff comment would cause some environmental review of specific issues to, in effect, facilitate the process at a later time. The language could avoid precommitting the City but would facilitate it by causing an environmental review. Council Member McCown clarified the Plan process would require an environmental review of the possibility that the Center and a hotel would exceed the limits. Mr. Calonne replied yes, as it related to massiveness, height, density, and the possibility of overwhelming. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Simitian, that the City Council remove from the Comprehensive Plan the staff comment on page 7 with respect to Policy BE-4.A. Vice Mayor Simitian asked staff to return with language which indicated consideration of flexibility on the two sites, if acceptable to the maker of the motion. Council Member Rosenbaum supported Council Member McCown motion. The Plan should not mention specific sites, regardless of how moderate the language. Council Member Andersen was more comfortable with the language as specified by Vice Mayor Simitian but saw some advantage to
11/29/94 74-248
agreeing with Council Member McCown's motion. The City had a medical foundation which was also stirring intensity, to which Council had not referred. Any language which recognized exceptions in a general way should not be as specific as "the Stanford Medical Center." Two giants had to be considered whether or not the City agreed. He asked what occurred with future Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) if the Council supported the motion and whether it complicated EIRs for future projects. Mr. Calonne said no. The removal of the language did not make future EIRs easier, but the motion would not make the process better or worse. Council Member Andersen asked whether EIRs for future projects would be easier when the EIR was performed for the Plan if the language were retained. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Andersen opposed the motion. There was enough flexibility in staff's comments. Council Member Wheeler supported Council Member McCown's motion, not only for the reasons enunciated, but also because of something Council Member Schneider had said. The Plan was a 15-year plan. The two specific projects had been mentioned in the community but were not real projects. Within the next 15 years, there might be other very viable projects which might be exceptions to the policy. The policy should not be so specific on projects not even before Council. By indicating the projects were the two potential exceptions it might leave the City in a quandary about other projects which could not be foreseen. The basic policy was a sound one and should remain. Vice Mayor Simitian said he had seconded Council Member McCown's motion, and he asked whether Council Member McCown would agree that staff should return with language which indicated how to obtain some flexibility on issues if so desired. Council Member McCown said Mr. Calonne had indicated the City had, as an implementation matter, zoning tools which allowed flexibili-ty. Vice Mayor Simitian said the only zoning tool which had been indicated was a variance, the legal requirements of which were very tight and one of which was not obtaining adequate value. Both of the sites in staff's comments under policy BE-4.A on page 7 would have a difficult time making an argument they could not get value from the property without going past some of the zoning ordinances. He asked the City Attorney what would occur to the City's ability to give either a medical center or hotel on El Camino Real additional flexibility at a later date if Council approved policy BE-4.A and deleted the staff comment altogether. Mr. Calonne said the tool of choice was the Planned Community (PC) zone. As to height, a variance was the mechanism; nothing in the
11/29/94 74-249
staff comment or the Plan proposed some new implementation mechanism. Vice Mayor Simitian understood the PC did not allow a change to the height limitation but a variance would. Mr. Schreiber said Council could amend the zoning to allow for a specific use on a specific site of a height greater than the current 50-foot limit. Council had included an implementation program for the current year in the ERP which involved an assign-ment for a model and analysis for potential physical issues related to a hotel at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Staff thought facilitating, not evaluating, a new conference-level hotel in Palo Alto was a good thing to do. The site at Page Mill Road and El Camino Real was clearly the most appropriate site; and when it came to the land use map portion of the process, it would be necessary to do something with the corner. Staff, at that point, would recommend a hotel designa-tion. A hotel with conference facilities would exceed 50 feet in height and a FAR beyond current limitations. Therefore, the use would be large. In the Plan process, staff wanted to establish as a policy the desire for a hotel at the location. To the extent the draft EIR could be used for the Plan to put the policy in place and examine some of the associated issues, especially incorporating some of the massive model work ERP would put into the EIR, staff could facilitate a later process to have a hotel at the site, which was the fundamental issue of a hotel at Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. Regarding the Center, there was a clear desire for expansion. Stanford University planners had indicated a preference to increase the height, staying compact, rather than spreading out into the unincorporated Santa Clara County land. Staff agreed, since it would be more efficient from a medical provision standpoint, made more sense from a design standpoint, and staff thought the Plan EIR process was the appropriate process in which to consider some of the initial ramifications of the action. Again, it was a policy issue. SECOND TO THE MOTION WITHDRAWN MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to recommend that the staff comment on page 7 with respect to policy BE-4.A, "Modify policy to acknowledge that the Stanford Medical Center would be and Hotel at El Camino Real could be exceptions," be deleted. Vice Mayor Simitian opposed the motion but supported the staff comments with the words "could be" for both the Center and hotel at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road to give the City the flexibility it needed without committing to either. Mayor Kniss was concerned with how the word "would" would be interpreted and opposed the motion. Council Member McCown said the staff recommendation to modify the
11/29/94 74-250
language was not a CPAC recommendation. When Council discussed BE-4.B, which related directly to the hotel and which the Planning Commission recommended be evaluated rather than facilitated, it was the mechanism, if there were flexibility needed for height, mass, or density, which would be used as part of the development of a hotel. Greater mass, height, and density was possible without overwhelming or being out of proportion with existing development. The basic policy statement should not be watered down. There were other mechanisms for flexibility, e.g., PC zones, specific zoning, etc., all of which would be part of evaluating a hotel site with respect to the Stanford Research Park. Moving forward with the Plan, anticipating exceptions for the two sites, was not the correct level of detail for the Plan. Mr. Beecham said part of the Planning Commission's concern was the wording which said, "out of proportion with existing development." There were no large developments around Page Mill Road, unless Palo Alto Square was included which was not that large. Also, there were no comparable buildings around the Center which made it difficult to avoid making the new development larger than existing development. Council Member Andersen thought the policy was excellent. All that was being considered was an exception which, from the perspective of the community and the City, was minimal. If the City were interested in exploring the possibility of a hotel in the area, barriers should not be set up which made it more difficult to accomplish the end. When various hotel operations explored Palo Alto, consideration would be given to all of the obstacles over which it would have to go. There was no sense in setting up barriers if there were a general interest for hotels to come into the community. New hotels would not come into the City with new structures consistent with the current limits. The motion was strongly opposed. Language was necessary which sent clear messages and positive signals to businesses interested in such a development. MOTION PASSED 5-4, Andersen, Kniss, Fazzino, Simitian "no." Vice Mayor Simitian asked about the rationale for deleting policy BE-4.C, "Actively recruit and encourage emerging and high technology businesses such as telecommunications, electronics, biotechnology and medical science," and program BE-4.C1, "Develop a business recruitment program targeted to high technology businesses," on page 7 of the BE section of the Plan. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission's rationale had been similar to the rationale for a similar goal and policy regarding fostering developing industries. While the Planning Commission wanted to encourage being vital and dynamic, it would not explicitly call out incubators and new businesses. Therefore, specific businesses should not be called out as was seen in policy BE-4.C which targeted or referenced high technology businesses versus emerging businesses which were synonymous with new businesses. The Planning Commission considered it difficult enough for private industry to pick winners, much less the
11/29/94 74-251
government to pick winners. Council Member Fazzino suspected that as a result of Council Member McCown's motion, policy BE-4.C was somewhat captured in the previous section. Council Member McCown agreed. Council Member Fazzino did not want the City to be in the position of choosing winners and losers. However, it was logical, given the strength of certain Stanford departments which conducted research in medical science and biotechnology, to focus on said disciplines and the emergence of start-ups out of such laps. Council Member McCown had captured the thought in the previous motion. Mayor Kniss referred to goal BE-5, "Recognize and foster the unique relationship between the local business community and Stanford University," on page 7 of the Plan. Council Member Wheeler asked for staff or one of her colleagues on the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee, as a part of the overall presentation, to indicate whether or not any of the specific policies and programs were in conflict with what had been presented regarding the Stanford Research Park Strategic Plan to determine whether or not it would be appropriate for inclusion in the Plan. Ms. Eakins said the policies already existed, not in the Plan. The rationale for goal BE-5 was similar to the rationale for goal BE-4, especially with regard to the hotel at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Stanford Research Park was not as robust as desired. CPAC had sought ways to encourage vitality and outreach, working together with Stanford to develop the Research Park to generate revenue which was beneficial to the City, recognizing the resource the City had in Stanford University. Mr. Beecham said goal BE-5 had a different tone than BE-4.C. BE-5 discussed working with Stanford University to facilitate growth as opposed to actively recruiting. Also, BE-5.B, "Ensure that policies affecting Stanford Research Park do not unnecessarily impede its ability to be responsive to changing business and market conditions," would not necessarily impede the ability to change but would encourage cooperation, change, and flexibility. Mayor Kniss clarified the Planning Commission had ruled out programs BE-5.A1 and BE-5.B1 and suggested merging policy BE-5.B with BE-11 on page 12 of the Plan. Council Member McCown said merging goal BE-5.B with BE-11, into which the hotel site issue referred in policy BE-4.B, appeared as a program in BE-11.C1 for evaluation of a location of a hotel. All of the issues related to the Stanford Research Park and the business relationship with Stanford University could be consolidated. There should be some acknowledgement of the City's openness to consider possible FAR increases, found in BE-5.B1
11/29/94 74-252
which referenced incubator spaces. Although the Planning Commission had rejected program BE-5.B1, it should be incorporated in the Plan, without limiting the increase to incubator space only. Part of the Strategic Plan was Stanford's desire to discuss the potential increase. The number which had been discussed at the P&S Committee level was 15 percent. There might be a place for consideration in the Plan consistent with the Strategic Plan. Ms. Eakins said CPAC had recommended a 15 percent increase as a tradeoff for open space protections. The increase under program BE-5.B1 was in addition to the 15 percent. Council Member McCown clarified the only place a general openness to FAR increases for the Research Park was found in the Community Design section and not in the BE section. Ms. Eakins replied yes, with regard to the 15 percent increase for Stanford, which made economic sense for Stanford to be able to do all the things it needed to do, including renegotiate leases, generate income, etc. The specific addition for incubator space was in direct correlation to Stanford's needs in the Park. Council Member McCown preferred having the 15 percent increase under the BE-5 goal without any specificity about incubator space. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to revise the Program B-5.B1, "Consider Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increases for incubator space within Stanford Research Park" to read "Consider Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increases within Stanford Research Park." Vice Mayor Simitian asked about the merging of goals BE-5 and BE-11 because it was important to acknowledge in the document that there was more to Stanford University's unique relationship between the local business community than simply the Stanford Research Park. The melding or blending should not lose the reference to the businesses outside the Stanford Research Park. Ms. Eakins had indicated the FAR increase, which appeared later in the Plan as 15 percent, was specifically linked to open space protection. Above and beyond the 15 percent, or entirely apart from it, a separate view was for FAR accommodations for incubator space. No matter what happened to the other 15 percent, Council wanted to acknowledge the value of incubator space and a willing-ness to consider FAR increases. Council Member McCown did not mean to rule out incubator spaces as a candidate for FAR increases. The other concept from the Community Design section should also be mentioned. She would accept the language if it were tied to open space. If it were acceptable, she would be willing to bring the language from the CD section into the BE section and leave open the possibility of FAR increases for incubator space. Council Member Andersen said Council Member McCown's motion reflected the concerns which Stanford had expressed in the P&S Committee meetings.
11/29/94 74-253
MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Huber said most of the information had been presented to the P&S Committee, the general idea of which was to provide flexibility to the Stanford Research Park, in particular, to stay competitive. Council should also consider the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), as stated as a Planning Commission "C" item B-11.B2, as not much different from the incubator situation and all part of a flexibility program or goal. Planning Commissioner Jon Schink clarified program B-11.B2 was an "A" item by the Planning Commission. Council Member Huber understood it would be merged in with another and was not removed from the Plan. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Simitian, to adjourn the meeting of November 29, 1994, to December 7, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 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.
11/29/94 74-254