HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-12 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting December 12, 1994 1. Closed Session for the Purpose of a Conference with Labor Negotiator ...................................... 74-317 1. Interviews for Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation ....... 74-318 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board recommend approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Downtown Regulations to allow Incentives for Seismic Upgrade and Historic Preservation to be Combined for Commercially-zoned Properties Which Are Both Seismic Category I or II and Historic Category 1 or 2: 401 Florence (office), 456 University (Varsity Theater), 480 University (retail/residential), 661 Bryant (church), 520 Ramona (retail/office), 205 Hamilton (retail/office), 529 Alma (retail), 525 Alma (retail/office) and 232 Homer (retail) ................ 74-319 2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 74-330 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. due to an emergency ................................... 74-342
12/12/94 74-316
The City Council convened at 5:55 p.m. in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room to a Closed Session to discuss the matter listed as Item No. 1 on the agenda. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Simitian CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Closed Session for the Purpose of a Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Susan Ryerson, Jim McGee, Lalo Perez) Public Comment None. Mayor Kniss announced that the City Council took no action regarding Agenda Item No. 1 during the Closed Session that evening. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
12/12/94 74-317
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:42 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Simitian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
12/12/94 74-318
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:08 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 7:14 p.m.), Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding communicating with the public (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, spoke regarding bones of antiquity, artifacts found on Palo Alto/Menlo Park border in the creek over the last 14 years. Council Member Schneider introduced Mary and Paddy Burke, two visitors from Dublin, Ireland, who were staying at her home. Gladys Woodhams, 603 Melville Avenue, spoke regarding historic preservation of homes in Palo Alto. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board recommend approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Downtown Regulations to allow Incentives for Seismic Upgrade and Historic Preservation to be Combined for Commercially-zoned Properties Which Are Both Seismic Category I or II and Historic Category 1 or 2: 401 Florence (office), 456 University (Varsity Theater), 480 University (retail/residential), 661 Bryant (church), 520 Ramona (retail/office), 205 Hamilton (retail/office), 529 Alma (retail), 525 Alma (retail/office) and 232 Homer (retail). (continued from 12/05/94) (Public Hearing Closed) Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest due to the location of her business. Mayor Kniss explained that the public hearing had been closed. The item had been continued until the Council had a full opportunity to examine the letters that were missing from the Council's packet for the December 5, 1994, City Council meeting. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the Council received a staff report (CMR:536:94) with supplemental information that responded to the letters that were inadvertently missing from the packet as well as some additional information on the project. He referred to a letter from Winter Dellenbach dated December 12, 1994, who raised an issue regarding the content of the environmental impact checklist. Contract Project Planner Robert Schubert said Ms. Dellenbach indicated that her comments were based on a version of the
12/12/94 74-319
environmental assessment which had been unanswered. Staff checked the record and found that the environmental assessment was signed on July 21, 1994, and was revised by staff on July 22, 1994, to include responses to the three unanswered questions. All three of the questions were answered "no." July 22, 1994, was the first day of the 20-day review period. The environmental assessment was completed during the entire 20-day review period. Council Member Fazzino asked for further clarification with respect to the three substantive issues that were raised regarding the parking spaces and the historic guidelines. He asked the City Attorney to comment on the issue and whether the City had taken appropriate steps to address the issues raised by Ms. Dellenbach. Mr. Schubert referred to Item No. 12(c), Transportation Circula-tion, "Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or good," and said that question received a "no" answer on the July 22, 1994, revision because there were no proposed revisions that related to pedestrian or traffic circula-tion. He referred to Item No. 12(d), "Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians," and said the parking analysis concluded that there would be an increase of parking demand for about 105 spaces if all of the potential projects were approved. It was a minor increase in traffic, and staff did not anticipate any additional traffic hazards posed. He said Item No. 4(a), "Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)." was checked "no" because the projects were located Downtown and staff did not anticipate any impacts on plant life. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said staff had addressed some of the procedural issues raised and, he did not believe that there had been any substantial loss of the public's opportunity to partici-pate or to give the Council information it needed on the environ-mental issues. The environmental impact report (EIR) had been characterized as an "alarm bell" designed to warn of impending ecological harm. The law stated that if a fair argument could be found that the project might have a significant effect on the environment, then an EIR should be done. It was not clear to him how that fair argument standard had held together through the last round of legislative amendments, but it was a conservative point of view. The factual job for the Council was to consider all the public comment, information, initial study, and statements of staff to determine whether there was substantial evidence that showed a fair argument that the project might have a significant effect on the environment. Many of the words had definitions that were not specifics. It was a judgment call for the Council. Council Member Fazzino clarified procedurally the City Attorney believed the staff had responded to the issues raised by Ms. Dellenbach. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Fazzino clarified there were substantive issues
12/12/94 74-320
that the Council might have to address on a case-by-case basis depending on how it proceeded. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member McCown said the environmental assessment and the comments heard from the members of the public as well as questions from Council pointed out the issue of whether a policy decision to allow the additional square footage might have the potential negative or unattended consequence of actually creating changes to historic buildings that were not in keeping with its historic character. Staff's recommendation indicated that the issue could be mitigated by the requirement that changes would have to comply with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards of Rehabilita-tion and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. She clarified if the Council took action so that any building could have that additional bonus potential and that a historic building had to meet those standards, any proposed change either exterior or interior would go through the City's normal review by the Historic Resources Board (HRB), Architectural Review Board (ARB), and ultimately the recommendations would be appealable to the City Council. Mr. Schreiber said that was the correct understanding of the process. Council Member McCown said the application of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards to the use of the new square footage inside a historic building would also be subject to the review of those bodies and appealable to the Council. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member McCown clarified the Council could make a finding to deny a project if the Council believed the way in which an applicant wanted to use the additional bonus square footage did not comply with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Mr. Calonne agreed if the word "configuration" replaced the word "use." Council Member McCown clarified the word "use" was not intended to imply the type of retail tenant that would occupy the facility but the physical addition of interior square footage. Mr. Calonne said the statement was correct with respect to the exterior. Council Member McCown asked what "with respect to the exterior" meant. Mr. Calonne said the proposed language from the Planning Commission included a staff clarification that the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards were intended to be applied to the exterior only which was based on an effort to clarify the staff's position and also help frame the policy question for the Council.
12/12/94 74-321
Staff's understanding of the existing Ordinance structure was that the Council previously had specifically disclaimed any interest in regulating the historic character of building interiors, except where the interiors affected either the function or visibility of some exterior feature such as a window treatment. He clarified the proposed Ordinance would not regulate interiors unless there was an exterior impact. Council Member McCown said that was a policy recommendation by staff as a part of the package. She asked whether the Council could have the ability to evaluate whether the use of the bonus square footage was affecting any aspect of the historical features of a historical building, including the interior. Mr. Calonne said there could be a cascading effect on other pieces of the Ordinance that might need to be reviewed, but the Council would have that authority. Council Member McCown referred to Herb Borock's letter dated December 12, 1994, which raised a point that one project had a large proportion of the total potential benefit from the zone change. Mr. Borock argued that it was not a general zoning ordinance amendment that affected properties, and one building represented a large percentage of the square footage that could be affected. He suggested a full EIR process should be completed before the Council acted on the change. Mr. Calonne said when an environmental review should be completed at a particular level of detail was one of the more difficult questions with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The law stated that environmental review should happen at the earliest possible stage in the process, which was informed by the idea that potential impacts should not be speculative when reviewed. At the same time enough meaningful information had to be available to prepare the document. It was difficult when there were projects that related to a legislative change. Whether there was an interrelationship between the two was a tough call. Staff addressed the issue by giving the Council an opportunity to delay the zoning amendment until after action on the Varsity Theatre project took place. The proposed Varsity Theatre project without any reference to the proposed double bonus would have a full EIR. He had a conceptual problem with the argument that the environmental review on the legislative change was a short cut because of a project for which an EIR was being prepared. The Council had to ask itself whether more information would be received than was currently available. He did not know how much square footage or how many buildings were Downtown, but each of the figures would go into helping define what was significant for the purpose of the environmental review. Council Member Huber asked whether there was an existing time frame when a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) had to be sold or used. Mr. Schreiber said the improvements to the property which was selling the TDR and the approval of using those rights was one of
12/12/94 74-322
the issues that would need to be investigated if the Council gave staff an assignment to develop a TDR Ordinance. The issue had been handled differently by other jurisdictions. Staff did not have enough information to give the Council a clear recommendation that evening. Mr. Calonne said there was no external legal requirements on how quickly the TDR had to be marketed, and the requirement would have to be local. Council Member Huber said only four properties had taken advantage of the extra bonus, and he asked whether more properties would take advantage of the ability to seismically upgrade if there were an additional 25 percent Floor Area Ratio (FAR) available. Mr. Schreiber said with the double bonus, the projects were limited to nine sites, one of which was already beyond the 3:1 FAR for Downtown CD zoning. Staff had no basis for speculating that the double bonus would or would not trigger change on other projects. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified there were 53 buildings in the Downtown area that were either in the seismic or historical Category I or II, 4 of the buildings had already used the 25 percent bonus, and 49 of the 53 buildings had not used a 25 percent bonus. Of the 49 buildings that had not yet used a bonus, 9 of the buildings were both Category I or II for seismic and Category I or II for historic; and of the 9 buildings that had Category I or II seismic and historic, 1 building had already maximize its FAR. Mr. Schubert said that was correct. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Huber, to direct staff to prepare for Council approval an ordinance allowing separate and cumulative 25 percent Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonuses for both seismic and historic upgrades (for a maximum possible bonus of 50 percent), provided that use of the second 25 percent on-site depends upon City Council approval, with the applicant bearing the burden of showing that: 1) the exterior modifications for the entire project would comply with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 CFR 67, Historic Preservation Certifications); 2) the on-site use of the second 25 percent would meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 CFR 67, Historic Preservation Certifications), with respect to both the interior and exterior of the project; and 3) the on-site use of the second 25 percent would not be otherwise inconsistent with historic preservation of the site. The ordinance would also permit project proponents to transfer the FAR bonus development rights to other sites (Transfer of Development Rights ["TDR"]) in a manner consistent with existing City policies and regulations. Further, staff is directed to develop a more streamlined TDR process and return to Council with necessary documentation.
12/12/94 74-323
Mr. Schreiber said the Council had previously asked whether the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards would apply to both the exterior and/or interior of the building. Vice Mayor Simitian said the City Attorney indicated that the guidelines were applicable to the exterior only. Mr. Calonne said the Planning Commission recommended Ordinance was for the exterior. The U.S. Secretary of the Interior's guidelines could apply to the interior. Vice Mayor Simitian said the third criteria that the additional 25 percent should not be inconsistent with the historic preservation of the site was sufficient to give the Council that leverage. He did not want to tie it to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards which might be too strong or too weak in some cases. The burden of proof was on the applicant to demonstrate that the project was not inconsistent with historic preservation. Mr. Calonne referred to page 2 of the proposed Ordinance in the staff report (CMR:522:94) and said staff proposed that the word "exterior" be inserted between any and building. Vice Mayor Simitian said that was acceptable with the understanding that the third criteria could apply to either interior and/or exterior. Mr. Calonne said the third factor was the Council's finding that the proposed project would not be inconsistent with the historic preservation and it was a much broader discretionary standard that Council would reserve to itself. The motion was unlike a motion that included TDRs and could be revised within the scope of what the Planning Commission had looked at and brought back to the Council. TDR would need full scale review. Vice Mayor Simitian said the previous Council enacted the existing Ordinance to provide incentives for seismic upgrade and safety and historic preservation. The incentives were designed to encourage the owners of the 53 buildings that had been identified in the discussion to do seismic safety and historic preservation work because the Council felt the buildings should be safe and not cause either peril to personal safety or to the buildings them-selves and because the Council valued the historic significance of the buildings and believed there should be incentives. The system put in place allowed a 25 percent bonus for either one of those efforts, but a decision was made at the time not to allow the second 25 percent. He believed the minutes clarified why the previous City Council did not provide the second 25 percent. There were two concerns at that time: 1) the potential for overdevelopment of Downtown; and 2) if the buildings were already historically significant, then the Council should be particularly concerned about trying to add not just 25 percent additional floor area into those sensitive buildings but 50 percent which represented an even greater challenge. He asked how well the existing ordinance had served the City during the seven or eight-
12/12/94 74-324
year history in terms of providing the two beneficial results the Council hoped to achieve, i.e., seismic safety work being done to protect the building and the public and historic preservation work being done to enhance the historic significance of the buildings. The incentive had not been what the Council had hoped it might be since only 4 of the 53 buildings in the Downtown had used the incentive. The question was why had it not worked as well as it should have and what could be done about it. The problem was that the 53 buildings were unique. The very uniqueness of the struc-tures meant that it was very difficult to simply take an additional 25 percent FAR and put it into a building where there was seismic or historic considerations. The answer was to compensate the people who did the work and give them the incentive to do the work, but the City should find a way for the people to take advantage of that incentive somewhere else on a site that was less sensitive. The Ordinance made it difficult to use the incentive somewhere else on a site that represented no challenge and had no seismic or historic considerations. An applicant would have to go through the Planned Community process to use the incentive elsewhere, but it was easier to use it in his own building. The Ordinance should give people incentives to take the 25 percent FAR to a less sensitive site and not use it on the site already occupied. He believed the TDR was an important consider-ation, and it should be tied into the discussion about the second bonus. If there were an impediment to the process to try and find a way to use the first 25 percent in a historic or seismic building, then 50 percent was a quantum leap. The Council recognized that in 1987 and made the decision not to allow a second 25 percent. He had struggled with how to craft a single ordinance that provided the flexibility to deal with nine different buildings that had unique characteristics and also provide the safety the Council wanted in terms of ensuring that there was no historic preservation damage done by allowing the use of the additional 25 percent in an inappropriate way. The Council had considered the original proposal that came from staff based on the application of the Varsity Theatre which allowed the second 25 percent bonus as a matter of right, but that raised concerns about historic preservation. The Council considered the other extreme that the second 25 percent on the original site gave a great deal of protection but did not provide much flexibility. The motion attempted to provide both protection and some flexibility. It also recognized the fact that the Council would not be able to solve the problem of a controversial site with a "one size fits all" approach to the particular bonuses. The Council would have to consider the second 25 percent bonus and exercise its judgment on the controversial sites. The proposed motion had the additional benefit of not making a decision about the Ordinance as a way to make a decision about a particular controversial project in the future. He had been frustrated when the Council tried to discuss the Ordinance and there were people who were understand-ably concerned about the Ordinance's impact on a particular project. A particular project would return to the Council in the future, and the Council would make a decision about that particular project on its merits rather than taking a positive or negative action on one particular project without having ever seriously considered the project. He believed the TDR was an
12/12/94 74-325
important focus in connection with the second 25 percent because it gave developers/property owners a vehicle to take the FAR bonus somewhere else. The developers/property owners would make the decision that the use of the additional bonus somewhere as a matter of right was an easy use and was preferable to a 25 percent double bonus that had to be considered by the Council. The TDR made the process more usable, and it substantially reduced the number of applicants that would come before the Council who wanted to use the second 25 percent somewhere where it did not belong. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the part of the proposed motion that related to the TDR for the second 25 percent would retain the other criteria that existed in the Ordinance, e.g., 150 feet from residential zones to a nonhistoric designated receiver property. Vice Mayor Simitian replied yes. When it was discussed the week before, he specifically asked a question about the fact that on page 9 of the staff report (CMR:522:94), one of the four criteria that was set forth for receiver sites had not been included in the staff report. Mr. Schubert indicated that was just an oversight at the time and that it was staff's intention that all four of the criteria applied. The fourth criteria that was not included previously was "shall be subject to applicable downtown project size limits." Staff indicated the intention was to incorporate that. It would be his as well. Council Member Wheeler asked staff how the HRB and the ARB would fit into the process of the TDR application that was directed toward an onsite use of the second bonus. Mr. Schreiber said there was a possibility the Ordinance could be somewhat different. The overall intent was that the HRB and ARB recommendations would be brought to Council. If Council had to approve the use of the second bonus, Council would receive the recommendations from the applicable reviewing bodies. Mr. Calonne clarified the motion was to defer specifics of the TDR program but to move forward with a rule that onsite review would require not only the burden of proof shifting but also the Council review of interior and exterior. Mr. Schreiber said staff needed to develop a program, TDR ordi-nance, etc. Then it needed to be reviewed by the HRB, ARB, and the Planning Commission. There would need to be an amendment somewhere in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The whole process would take about five months before returning to Council. Vice Mayor Simitian said the City Attorney asked for clarification on the issue of the relationship between a FAR bonus of an additional 25 percent and the interest in a revision to the TDR provisions. As a process matter, he was prepared to move that evening on the additional 25 percent bonus with respect to seismic and historic preservation and was willing to accept the fact that the issue of the TDRs would take about five months. He put them in the same motion, however, because he believed the effectiveness
12/12/94 74-326
of the vehicles was linked. He was comfortable about insisting that the applicant bear the burden of proof on the appropriate use of the second 25 percent if Council could find another way to provide incentive for the applicant on the second 25 percent through TDRs, even if he or she could not use them on the site. There was a policy linkage, but from a process standpoint, he was comfortable with moving ahead that evening after 10 months on the issue and giving both the applicant and the members of the public some clarity about where the Council was on the density bonus issue and he would wait on the TDRs until there was time to do the review. Council Member Huber clarified that Vice Mayor Simitian suggested that Council approve the 25 percent and second 25 percent that evening but defer the issue of the TDRs. Vice Mayor Simitian replied the 25 percent bonus was contingent upon Council approval for onsite use of the second 25 percent. Council Member Huber clarified the review process on that second 25 percent would be a standard that would determine whether or not onsite usage would comport with historic preservation. Another standard would be the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's exterior and interior standards. Vice Mayor Simitian replied a standard but not the only standard would be the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's exterior standards. One of the other standards would be that the Council would determine that the additional 25 percent was not inconsistent with historic preservation of the building, including both interior and exterior standards, but the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards would not apply in that case. Council Member Huber said when the issue came before Council several months earlier, he thought about why he should vote for the extra square footage. He believed it made sense to encourage both seismic and historic renovation, which was expensive to do, but he was concerned that by encouraging it the preservation might be destroyed. He believed Vice Mayor Simitian's approach, which made it discretionary and a potential TDR to sell and raise money to preserve the building, was very appropriate. He would not have supported an additional 25 percent without seeing what it would do with the historic aspects of the building, both interior and exterior. Council Member McCown said there were some points not mentioned in the motion. She understood the standard was whether the environ-mental document prepared and the analysis done were sufficient to help evaluate the potential impacts, and whether there were reasonable mitigations available if some were identified. She believed the issues and the potential impacts of the change were very well analyzed. The two potential impacts identified by the changes were: 1) the impact on the historic buildings and the goal of preserving them; and 2) parking. The mitigations for the impacts on the goals of historic preservation and on historic buildings were included in the motion to have a method of review
12/12/94 74-327
so that Council looked at the consequence on the unique proper-ties. With regard to the parking impact, the staff report (CMR:522:94) pointed out that if all square footage available were used by the buildings in question, the Downtown parking deficit would increase by 105 spaces, which was not a trivial number. The whole concept of the zoning ordinance already had in it that Council would be creating certain deficits because there were other policy reasons. The set of bonus ideas in the Zoning Ordinance was consciously put in the 1986-87 changes to Downtown regulations to recognize that Council would allow certain special properties to be developed without providing parking spaces. Unreinforced masonry/seismically at risk buildings and historic buildings were two categories that the City had as a policy matter made eligible for changes without meeting the parking require-ments. The City was in a better position in 1994 than in 1987 because the parking deficit was down overall from what it was previously. She believed the construction of the Cowper/Webster Garage had helped the deficit. The City had finally implemented a major set of parking policy changes currently underway that were contemplated in 1987. The City would be evaluating the necessity of a new parking structure in the Downtown. The staff's analysis of the mitigations took into account the potential maximum 105 additional deficits. Council was consciously seeking devices to encourage investment in upgrading certain buildings with particular challenges in the Downtown. Seismic upgrading and historic preservation involved an economic challenge to any building owner. It was physically difficult to make improvements to meet modern code without losing square footage that was previously available. The issues had been tied very closely to the people's concern about the ultimate tenant of the Varsity Theater. Any owner of that site, whatever the ultimate use of that space, would be very interested in having the additional flexibility available. If the building were to be reconstructed for a viable economic 1994 use consistent with historic principles and consistent with seismic upgrading, the additional flexibility could be very helpful and was reasonable to make it available. It was a good compromise which might be effective in encouraging more property owners to do upgrading. Council Member Rosenbaum knew that many people were there that evening interested in how the proposed Ordinance would affect Chop Keenan's ability to eventually secure the double bonus and what the timing might be. He referred to the staff report (CMR:522:94) which said that the City Council hearing on Mr. Keenan's Varsity Theater application, which only included the single 25 percent, was tentatively scheduled for April 10, 1995. If Mr. Keenan wanted to pursue the double bonus, he asked staff how the request would be incorporated into what was currently scheduled. Mr. Schreiber said an EIR had to consider a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The EIR process would include the double bonus option as an alternative so when the project ultimately reached Council, one of the options would be approval of the project with two bonuses. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified if Mr. Keenan desired to pursue
12/12/94 74-328
the double bonus, the EIR currently being prepared would be sufficient to take care of that contingency. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Andersen asked whether the motion assumed that the 25 percent would come before the Council even if the TDR were not in place. Vice Mayor Simitian emphasized the bonus 25 percent would require discretionary review by the Council if the applicant wanted to use it on site. He clarified that the additional FAR of 25 percent was being granted. The Council was conditioning on discretionary review the use of it at that site. There already was a TDR process in place, which was worthless from a practical standpoint. The Varsity Theatre applicant would look at whether or not Council would make that TDR process more usable as a result of action taken on a TDR at a later date. The only threshold question for Council would be whether or not the application could satisfy the standards for onsite use. Mr. Calonne said the Ordinance language would include a reference to the existing TDR program. The five-month process would be the cleanup of that program, but use of it would still be authorized. Council Member Andersen said the current system had not brought about the intended changes that were hoped for in 1986. He was deeply concerned about seismic upgrade on the other properties. The motion provided flexibility both for seismic upgrade and historical protection of the properties involved. He would support the motion. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He believed it provided adequate flexibility and continued emphasis on historic preservation. It was important to address the policy issues on a case-by-case situation. He had toured the Varsity Theatre with several operators of performing arts venues in the Bay Area. The operators' reactions were: 1) the facility was in a significant state of disrepair; 2) based upon their analysis, the facility was not large enough to operate a viable performing arts facility from a good economic perspective; 3) they believed unanimously that dramatic renovations were necessary to create something viable in that facility; and 4) they all concluded a financial miracle was necessary to preserve that facility as a performing arts venue. He wanted to see if there was any way to preserve the Varsity Theatre as a performing arts center. Based upon conversations with the operators, he believed efforts had to double in the next few months to identify individuals who might have an interest in preserving that facility. Based upon the costs necessary to renovate that facility, it was very unlikely that someone would step forward to make an economic investment in the facility to preserve it as a performing arts center. Vice Mayor Simitian raised a POINT OF THE ORDER Vice Mayor Simitian had two concerns. The first was a Brown Act
12/12/94 74-329
concern that Council was having a discussion about a specific application which had not been agendized. The agenda item was a generic text amendment, and there could be some parenthetical references to that. The second concern was that, if and when the Varsity Theatre issue came before Council, it was quasi-judicial action and Council was having a conversation that evening on an unnoticed item. He believed Council should keep the conversation focused on the generic text amendment. Mr. Calonne did not believe there was a Brown Act concern. The comments were being made in the context of debate on the proposed Council action. As to Vice Mayor Simitian's second concern of whether there was bias or other predetermined feelings being expressed, the courts had been very protective of elected officials' ability to speak on issues related to legislative matters. He believed it would be appropriate for Council Member Fazzino to confirm whether he had some predisposition as to the pending application. It was a subjective test on the second issue, and he did not believe there was a Brown Act concern. Council Member Fazzino believed it was important to share what he had been doing during the past few months and to address some of the issues included within the comments made by his colleagues. In his experience with individuals who might have an interest in operating the Varsity Theatre and in using good economic analysis, the maximum amount of flexibility was necessary as Council moved forward with respect to use of that property. Mayor Kniss said Council Members Huber, McCown, and Wheeler had a great wealth of background on that particular item. Council's attempt to make it easier for historic preservation or seismic upgrading had been difficult. Council had discussed the Varsity Theatre as the focus point on what had been happening during the past months. The true issue was how to protect the community seismically, how to allow for historical preservation, and how both could be done in buildings where both needed to be done. Santa Cruz still had not fully recovered from the 1989 earthquake. Los Gatos had taken a great deal of funding from within the community and outside sources. The discussion that evening was an attempt to prevent that from happening in Palo Alto. One of the ways was to allow development rights on other sites in other buildings, which meant an owner could move ahead with seismic upgrade and have the funding to do so. The church across the street was historically lovely but needed seismic upgrading. A church group would find it difficult to support seismic upgrading. Council's aim was also toward allowing preservation of some other buildings in the Downtown. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider "not participating." RECESS: 8:40 P.M. - 8:50 P.M. 2. 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
12/12/94 74-330
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 12/07/94) Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the Action Agenda of the December 7, 1994, City Council meeting and after Council deleted Goal BE-9, he made a motion to "Maintain the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study." The motion said to have a new goal BE-9, but that was not the intent. The intent was to maintain the 1989 study somewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. The motion continued with "and direct staff to bring back recommended modifications to the study that staff believes are necessary..." He asked whether staff would bring those recommendations back while Council was reviewing that part of the Comprehensive Plan. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said yes. In Council's final decision of the draft Comprehensive Plan, all of the numbers would change as materials became reorganized. The reference to BE-9 in the Action Agenda was primarily placed there to give it a page reference for future use. Mayor Kniss explained that the Council would continue its discus-sion that evening with Districts on page 12 of the Business and Economics (BE) Section of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Policies and Program Draft IV from September 8, 1994. Council Member Schneider asked at what point the Council would be able to reconsider issues, specifically BE.4A. Mayor Kniss said the Council would review the section both from a consistency angle and the overall goals at the end of each section. At that point the Council would entertain any motions about reconsideration of any item. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said at the conclusion of the meeting that evening, it was any Council Member's privilege who voted in the majority to move to reconsider which would effectively erase that motion. Mayor Kniss said if the Council completed the BE Section that evening, it would not begin the Housing Section until the following meeting. Council Member Wheeler said the Council had agreed when it started the process that it would give the public an hour's worth of testimony opportunity before the Council began to address a new subject. Council Member McCown referred to the staff's comment on BE-11, "Support Stanford Research park in maintaining its prominent position as a business and professional center." to merge the goal, policies, and programs with BE-5, "Recognize and foster the
12/12/94 74-331
unique relationship between the local business community and Stanford University," on page 7. She understood that part of the section was to call out certain business districts and identify particular policies respectively. She asked whether the rest of the districts would be mentioned but not Stanford in that section. Mr. Schreiber said no. The Stanford Research Park would be left among the districts. The effort was to highlight the fact that there was a great deal of overlap between the material in BE-11 and the earlier material in goal BE-5 in terms of the relationship to the Research Park. Staff recommended the material be moved together no matter how the final Comprehensive Plan (Plan) was structured. Council Member McCown agreed the material needed to be compressed. She clarified the language with respect to the hotel conference facility that appeared under the earlier BE-5 goal was proposed to be deleted in BE-11 because the Planning Commission left it in the earlier section. Council Member Huber believed the incubator start-up language was to be included in that section. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. He said on page 7, Program BE-4.B1, "Consider Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increases for incubator space within Stanford Research Park, " the Council left the program in place but eliminated the words "for incubator space." MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to request that language be included in the District section which encourages the creation of incubators within the Stanford Research Park. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Kniss said the Council indicated it wanted to reconsider the language regarding the hotel and conference facility. She asked whether the language belonged back in the other section which dealt with Goal BE-4. It would support the goal to foster the City as a prominent business and professional environment rather than supporting the goal of maintaining the Stanford Research Park in its prominent position even though it appeared that it supported both of them. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission eliminated duplicate wording, but staff cautioned against that because sometimes similar wording appeared in different parts of the text and could be related to different goals. The "D" was identified because of the earlier identical wording that was recommended for inclusion by the Planning Commission. Mayor Kniss asked the Planning Commission to comment on the reason for the "D" identification for BE-11.C1, "Evaluate the location of a hotel/conference facility along El Camino Real at the northwest corner of Page Mill Road/El Camino Real."
12/12/94 74-332
Planning Commissioner Bernard Beecham said the "D" identification was to cut down the bulk of the document. Mayor Kniss was troubled the hotel/conference facility was not incorporated in Goal/Policy/Program BE-11.C1 as part of Support Stanford Research Park and maintaining its prominent position as a business and professional center. Council Member McCown clarified the Council previously approved the language under 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." She believed the ideas could be merged into one set. Mayor Kniss understood from Mr. Schreiber's comments that it supported rather different goals. She asked why it was included in both places. Annette Bialson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Member, said it was included in that section because there was an interest in having the entrance to the Stanford Research Park upgraded. She referred to BE-11.C, "Encourage the upgrading of commercial properties on El Camino Real near the Research Park with the primary objective of improving the physical appearance of El Camino Real and also encouraging commercial activities that complement the Park," and said the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) felt a hotel/conference facility would help create that gateway and was concerned with the physical appearance. There were similar programs in two sections, but it was more important in BE-11 than in BE-5. A hotel/conference facility at El Camino Real/Page Mill Road would meet the requirements of both the Stanford Research Park and the other businesses of Palo Alto. It would not meet both if it were only in BE-5. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to recommend retaining Goal/Policy/Program BE-11.C1, "Evaluate the location of a hotel/conference facility along El Camino Real at the northwest corner of Page Mill Road/El Camino Real," which would be a gateway for the Stanford Research Park. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Sandy Eakins, Co-Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, encouraged the Council to use the staff's wording of "encour-age." Vice Mayor Simitian said in the original language, it was "encour-age in connection within close proximity to the Stanford Research Park." MOTION REVISED: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to recommend retaining Goal/Policy/Program BE-11.C1, "Encourage at close proximity the location of a hotel/conference facility along El Camino Real at the northwest corner of Page Mill Road/El Camino Real."
12/12/94 74-333
Council Member Schneider said the wording in Goal BE-4.B was changed to "Evaluate" and she felt it should remain "Facilitate." She asked how the language could encourage in one section and evaluate in another section when it was the same location. Mayor Kniss said BE-4.B "...served the needs of local businesses, including those in Stanford Research Park," but BE-11.C1 was more explicit and supported Stanford Research Park rather than being a general support of Palo Alto as prominent business and professional environment. Council Member Huber asked what the wording "evaluate" and "encourage" did to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) require-ments. Mr. Calonne said "evaluate" might give the City some basis to do less in the Plan EIR. Encourage meant the City should get more specific discussion in the draft EIR. Vice Mayor Simitian was concerned about the specific reference to the northwest corner of Page Mill Road at El Camino Real regardless of the use of the word "encourage." He believed it was too specific to encourage a particular facility at a particular location. He wanted to encourage a hotel/conference facility in close proximity to the Stanford Research Park as part of the business and economic component of the Plan, but it was too specific to pinpoint that site in the absence of more information. Council Member McCown said when the Council received the edited merged results of its discussion, she queried whether the program was needed in both places. The earlier program had the advantage of being worded more broadly although it stated that it should include the Stanford Research Park. BE-11 was more targeted to the Stanford Research Park. MOTION REVISED PASSED 9-0. Council Member Andersen asked the rationale for Goal/Policy/Program BE-11.C2 "Identify opportunities to create a concentration of commercial services along El Camino Real to serve Park employees," and the "B" grade. He struggled with the vagueness but was persuaded that it might be an appropriate program for BE.11. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission did not believe in was inappropriate in that program, but it wanted to keep the size of the document down. There was similar wording in one or two other locations. Ms. Eakins said the CPAC discussion centered around some of the surveys done of the tenants at the Stanford Research Park who felt cut off from commercial opportunities and services. CPAC tried to suggest a way to both benefit El Camino Real and also meet the needs of the tenants.
12/12/94 74-334
Council Member Andersen asked whether the area was between California Avenue and El Camino Area. Ms. Eakins said there were some successful businesses that served the Stanford Research Park at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Council Member Andersen asked whether the program was incorporated sufficiently in the document at the present time. Will Beckett, Co-Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, said some of the discussion looked at the services being walkable, and CPAC wanted to see services not just on El Camino Real but also in the Stanford Research Park. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to include Goal/Policy/Program BE-11.C2, "Identify opportunities to create a concentration of commercial services along El Camino Real to serve Park employees." MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Fazzino said the goals/policies/programs on page 13 contained two potentially controversial issues--the Sand Hill Road extension and the expansion of the square footage of Stanford Shopping Center. He asked if the Council decided to support the language, whether the language should include a caveat that related to the conclusions of an EIR or whether it would be more appropriate, based on the fact that an EIR had not been done, to soften the language so that the Council had a blank slate when it made a decision. Mr. Calonne said the BE-12.B, "Extend Sand Hill Road consistent with neighborhood and community interests," language would take a very detailed discussion and a draft EIR. There was an application pending that would have that kind of detailed discussion in it already. The EIR for the Plan would have to be made consistent technically and conceptually with that document. He did not believe the legal issues were controlling, and it was a judgment call for the Council on whether it wanted information from the EIR. From a legal standpoint, it was a shame the Council did not have the technical data from the EIR while it was considering the policies. One argument in favor of more detail in the document was that the Council would get worse case information back in an EIR. City Manager June Fleming said Council Member Fazzino had raised a legal issue. Mayor Kniss said there was also a policy issue as well. Mr. Schreiber said with the present process, the Council was putting forward the issues that it wanted to consider further in the draft Plan, but nothing would be adopted. There would be alternatives in the draft Plan, and the Council was recreating the structure of that document. A draft Plan would need to address the issue of the connection of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real.
12/12/94 74-335
The existing adopted land use plan map showed it connected to El Camino Real. The program in the existing text of the Plan was vague on the issue, but there was an assumption about addressing the Sand Hill Road corridor traffic issues. The Plan EIR would need an overall base project decision about whether Sand Hill Road was connected or not, the alternatives of the project, and whether one alternative should be the opposite. If the Council left it out, the base plan would show that Sand Hill Road was not connected to El Camino Real and an alternative would be to connect it. If the Council wanted to put it into the draft Plan now as a policy issue, then the draft Plan would show it connected and the alternative would show it not connected. The assumption was that the process would stay ahead of the Sand Hill Road corridor process. The process could change over the next five or six months, and if it did change substantially, then the draft Plan might change also. Mr. Calonne quoted one of the purposes of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) "to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the environmental consequences of a decision have been considered" which could not be done if the Council did not take positions. Positions might need to be moved away from in light of bad environmental information, but the CEQA process from a legal perspective was designed to show the public what the City was doing. Council Member Fazzino clarified if the Council had any interest whatsoever in exploring the issues and wanted to test the impact of the actions, it would be more appropriate to include them rather than exclude them. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. It was more efficient to do it now rather than at the end. Council Member Fazzino clarified the Council was not committing itself to a vote for or against either of the actions by moving forward and including the language that evening. Mayor Kniss asked whether the Council would get more value for the money spent now rather than later. Mr. Calonne said it would cost more if the Council added specificity later. Mayor Kniss clarified Council's specificity now would be tested out by the EIR. Council Member McCown said the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study did a lot of transportation analysis which resulted in some land use changes. She believed the shopping center cap came out of that analysis and a requirement at that some point additional traffic mitigation in the Sand Hill Road area would be necessary. She asked whether the traffic analysis at that time assumed that it would be connected or would not be connected.
12/12/94 74-336
Mr. Schreiber recalled that the City looked at both cases, but not to extend the road lead to the policy of limiting the shopping center's expansion pending resolution of the traffic and parking issues in that area. Council Member McCown said another issue raised was whether the way the wording was placed in a plan affected later actions to implement a particular policy which were then found to be either consistent or inconsistent with the Plan and whether that affected the right of voters who wanted to preserve their right to referend some decision on the ballot. Mr. Calonne said absent a consistency requirement which the City did not currently have, there was not issue of affecting the public's right to do a referendum. Council Member McCown clarified if the City were a general law city, it would have a requirement that every zoning action or further permitting action had to be consistent with the Plan. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member McCown clarified under the new litigation cases that had come down if a city had a certain policy decision in the General Plan that it wanted certain types of development and when the development came forward and was consistent with the policy adopted in the General Plan, it was too late in some of the cases for the voters to referend the project's specific decision because it had been adopted as a policy in the General Plan. That issue was presented by the other legal opinions. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. It was a non-issue in many instances because people circulated a document to amend the General Plan at the same time. Council Member McCown asked whether that happened in those cases. Mr. Calonne said no. In the Walnut Creek case, it was not clear whether the General Plan was implicated. In the Irvin case, the people circulating the document were not well advised. He referred to the Community Design Program A-1, "Review the City's land use map to ensure that site specific land use designation are consistent with the city's structure map." He was uncertain whether that was designed to create a consistency requirement. Council Member McCown was uncertain whether the City should or should not have a consistency requirement. The City had never had one. She supported the idea that there should be a logical way to connect Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real. The Council should make a preliminary recommendation as a policy matter which direction it wanted to go. The Council would then have the benefit of that analysis before final action on the issue. She favored that language rather than the opposite language provided the City Attorney could assure her that the Council would not be abridging the rights of the citizens if they wanted to referend the final decision on the project.
12/12/94 74-337
Mr. Calonne said it would be a multi-element process. The Council could suspender that through policy direction in the document. Council Member Rosenbaum preferred to leave the discussion of BE-12.B until the Transportation Section and the Council had the City Attorney's opinion on the legal ramifications. MOTION TO DEFER: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, to defer discussion of Goal/Policy/Program BE-12.B until the discussion of the review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan Transportation Section. Mr. Calonne said his opinions would give advice on the risks as far as the initiative or referendum but would not resolve the issue of Sand Hill Road extension for the Council. Council Member Fazzino could not support the motion because he believed there was a direct relationship between the issue and the business viability of Stanford Shopping Center. He believed it needed to be explored as part of the BE Section as well as part of the Transportation Section. Vice Mayor Simitian said the Council was so wrapped up in the process and procedure that it was afraid to put in the Plan what it wanted to do. The Plan was the premier land use document for the City of Palo Alto. There was a consistency requirement so that everyone knew what the rules were and how to follow them. The City Attorney advised the Council previously to indicate what it wanted to do but to be mindful that there were some cautionary notes as it went through the process. The EIR would look at what the Council wanted to do and evaluate the impact. He wanted to extend Sand Hill Road if it improved the traffic, but if it did not, it should not be done. The EIR should be done and then the Council could figure out whether it improved traffic or not. The Council should tell the staff, public, and property owners what it wanted to and then evaluate the impact. Council Member Wheeler said the program associated with the policy related to the Stanford Shopping Center not to transportation and it would not help to defer the discussion of the issue to Transportation Section. SECOND TO THE MOTION WITHDRAWN MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Rosenbaum said Stanford University had just gone through a long process in soliciting the public input and had submitted a plan to the City. He understood the plan would be thoroughly reviewed with an EIR and then by the Council. At the end of that process, the Council would make a decision about Sand Hill Road. He did not believe, based on the sketchy information which CPAC had provided, that the Council was in a position to make that decision that evening. The Council could not indicate that it wanted to extend Sand Hill Road and then indicate to the
12/12/94 74-338
public 18 months later that it would make a decision on whether or not to extend Sand Hill Road. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, to revise the Goal/Policy/Program BE-12.B to read "Consider extending Sand Hill Road consistent with neighborhood and community inter-ests." Ms. Bialson said CPAC went through the various iterations and came up with the "extend Sand Hill Road" language because it took the position that the City Attorney and Vice Mayor Simitian had stated. Mayor Kniss said the question had always been how to extend Sand Hill Road. She did not object to the word "consider" but could not support it at the present time. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved to recommend that Goal/Policy/Program BE-12.B be revised to read "Extend Sand Hill Road if extension results in a net improvement in traffic impacts." Mayor Kniss said the motion spoke to the transportation issue rather than to the high quality regional shopping center. Vice Mayor Simitian was prepared to provide for the extension of Sand Hill Road as a aide to the viability of Stanford Shopping Center if it resulted in a net improvement of traffic impacts. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member McCown asked about the wording in the Transportation Section J-2, page 2, and Community Design Section CD-12.B, page 25, recommended by staff and the Planning Commission for consistency. Mr. Beckett said the wording specifically extended Sand Hill Road. Council Member McCown clarified the wording read "Extend Sand Hill Road." Mr. Beckett said that was correct wording in the Transportation Section. Mr. Schreiber said B-1 read "Extend Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real." Mayor Kniss clarified the Transportation Section read "Extend Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real" without qualifiers. Council Member McCown asked whether the Community Design Section's wording was the same. Mr. Beckett said no. The Community Design Section was more detailed.
12/12/94 74-339
Council Member Andersen asked what happened to the EIR process if the qualifiers were put into the language as suggested by the motion. Mr. Calonne said staff would evaluate the opposite from what the Council suggested as an alternative. The analysis would be complete and might be a mirror image of the project versus alternative depending on the Council's action. Council Member Andersen asked what would happen if the wording remained unchanged. Mr. Calonne said the EIR would indicate the consequences of the extension. Ms. Eakins referred to page 27 in the Community Design Section, Goals/Policies CD-14.A, "If the connection of Sand Hill Road to El Camino is made, the following considerations should be incorporated into its design: two or more smaller are preferable to a single wide road as San Hill approaches El Camino; the roadway alignment should not encroach on existing open space along the creek," and Program CD-14.A1, "Develop a coordinated area plan that includes design standards for Sand Hill Road and its intersection with El Camino Real," which was more specific than BE-12.B. Council Member McCown asked staff's intent when it recommended that the wording be consistent with the wording in the Community Design Section and the Transportation Section. Mr. Schreiber said staff's comments on the Community Design Section recommended the reference in the Community Design Section be replaced with the Transportation Section wording. Staff noted in the Community Design Section that the good ideas should be addressed in the Sand Hill Road EIR. Council Member McCown clarified the wording was to "extend Sand Hill Road to El Camino." The language in BE-12.B read "extend Sand Hill Road consistent with neighborhood and community interests" and the motion would "consider extending..." Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino said based upon the City Attorney's comments, the Council was in a far stronger position of considering any and all alternatives and their environmental impacts if the Council truly tested the concept. MOTION FAILED 3-6, Huber, Rosenbaum, Wheeler "yes." Ms. Bialson asked the Council to consider returning to the original language in Policies BE-12.A, "Work with the University to facilitate Center expansion for activities that do not signifi-cantly contribute to peak hour traffic demand." CPAC looked at language similar to the Planning Commission recommendation which read "enable sustained competitiveness while discouraging peak
12/12/94 74-340
hour traffic and neighborhood traffic," but CPAC felt the issue of the expansion Stanford University wanted to facilitate to sustain its competitiveness should be dealt with. Mr. Schreiber said staff had made the recommendation as CPAC to return to the original wording. Council Member Wheeler asked how the program related to expansion caps and whether the caps would be lifted. Ms. Eakins said CPAC did not encourage expansion but to facilitate if it were necessary. The language in B1 had been altered to reevaluate the existing expansion. Council Member Wheeler said the caps were tied to the issue of transportation, circulation, and parking around the shopping center. Policies BE-12.A did not tie those things together. She asked whether the intent was to go beyond the caps that presently existed. Mr. Schreiber said CPAC recommended BE-12.B1, "Re-evaluate the existing expansion caps on the Stanford Shopping Center contingent on and after approval of plans to mitigate the various impacts of the expansion." It had to go beyond that program in order to implement the policy. Ms. Eakins felt it addressed the traffic and parking issues by adding the words "do not significantly contribute to peak hour traffic" after considering the mitigation of various impacts of expansion. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission's objective was to enable Stanford University to be competitive with the other shopping centers in the region. The method might not necessarily be expansion but layout or an additional keystone store. The Planning Commission's discussion did not default to expansion as the method of being competitive. Council Member Huber said peak hour traffic and neighborhood traffic were different. Mr. Beecham said that was correct. Menlo Park was concerned about traffic filtering through not only at peak hour but throughout the day. Council Member Huber supported the Planning Commission's wording which suggested a more competitiveness aspect rather than an emphasis on expansion. Council Member Schneider referred to BE-13, "Continue to promote and enhance the revitalization of the University Avenue downtown business district as an important retail, restaurant and entertainment center," and said the Downtown Marketing Committee and Downtown businesses had been quiet regarding that item which spoke well to the ability of more than one economic center to co-exist and prosper. She strongly supported BE-12 and BE-13.
12/12/94 74-341
Mayor Kniss said BE-13 had a number of other policies and programs which had been deleted or had an indication that it should be placed in another part of the document. She referred to page 14 which supported BE-13. Council Member McCown said staff recommended retaining Policy BE-13.D, "Actively pursue implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide," contrary to the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Beecham said during the discussions, acceptance, and approval of the Downtown Urban Design Guide, great effort was taken to ensure that it remain a guide. The Planning Commission had difficulty understanding how a guide could be implemented with the concern that it, therefore, turned into requirements. There was a very clear desire at the time the guide was done that it only be a guide. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to revise BE-13.D to read: "Promote the community's use of the Downtown Urban Design Guide." MOTION PASSED 9-0. Vice Mayor Simitian suggested that Program, BE-13.D1, "Pursue the formation of public/private partnerships to accomplish recommended improvements," should not be removed from the section. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Simitian, to continue discussion of Agenda Item No. 2 to the Tuesday, January 18, 1995, Special City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. due to an emer-gency. 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.
12/12/94 74-342