Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-18 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting January 18, 1995 1. Public Hearing: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee ....................................... 395 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m. ............. 420 01/18/95 74-394 Special Meeting January 18, 1995 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direc-tion for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update (continued from 12/07/94) Mayor Simitian said Council planned to complete its review of the Business and Economics (BE) Section of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Policies and Programs Draft IV (the Plan) at the current meeting without beginning the Housing Section, in deference to the public. The Housing Section would be reviewed at the January 30, 1995, Council meeting. Council had discussed the need to determine how everything fit together after its initial review of the Plan. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Council had already reviewed the first six of ten recommendations in the BE Section which had been made by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and various boards and commissions. There were still many more sections of the Plan for review. In addition to the six elements, there were maps which would require Council review. The Planning Commission had reviewed the maps at the end of its review process but was currently in the early stages of a much more in-depth review of the maps. The Planning Commission would provide additional recommendations over the next few months. After Council had reviewed each of the six sections and the maps, staff recommended Council be given one more opportunity to review everything for consistencies, perspectives, etc., with an objective to identify goals, policies, and programs which would be placed into a draft Comprehensive Plan. No action would be considered final until after the final review of the 01/18/95 74-395 entire Plan. In review of Council's previous dealings with the Plan before it, Council had decided to include only recommendations marked with an "A," unless a specific effort was made by Council to include a "B," "C," or "D" item. Mayor Simitian said Goal BE-13, "Continue to promote and enhance the revitalization of the University Avenue downtown business district as an important retail, restaurant and entertainment center," was on page 13 of the BE Section of the Plan. Council Member Kniss asked whether Council had previously decided to keep Policy BE-12.B, "Extend Sand Hill Road consistent with neighborhood and community interests," as stated or whether it had been changed. Mr. Schreiber said staff's notes indicated no change to the item. Council Member Andersen said his notes indicated the desire to change the policy to "consideration of extending Sand Hill Road." Vice Mayor Wheeler asked about CPAC's intention for Policy BE-13.A, "Encourage new development to proceed in an orderly and acceptable manner, by limiting non-residential in such a fashion as to maintain the unique and vital nature of the district," and what it meant in terms of the City's planning policies or implementation of the policy. Sandy Eakins, Co-Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, said CPAC's intention was to retain the revised Plan policies of limiting non-residential growth in a manner which ensured future growth. Program BE-13.B1, which had become Program BE-13.A2, "Re-evaluate growth regulations for non-residential development in the Downtown Area when development approvals reach two-thirds (235,000 square feet of floor area) of the ten percent growth limit for nonresidential development," was from the existing Plan. Merging Policies BE-13.A and BE-13.B, "To assure that new development proceeds in an orderly and acceptable manner, limit nonresidential development in the Downtown Area to ten percent (350,000 square feet of floor area) above the amount of development existing or approved in May 1986," compressed and cleaned up the policies under Goal BE-13. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified CPAC had attempted to retain the existing policies and the formula in the Plan. Ms. Eakins replied that was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler said people who enjoyed Palo Alto's Downtown Area had noted that, unlike other downtown areas which had attempted revitalization by modernizing, Palo Alto had maintained some of its existing and historic buildings. Such a difference set Palo Alto's Downtown apart from others, yet the Planning Commission and staff had recommended deletion of Policies BE-13.E, "Recognize the importance and contribution of significant historic buildings to the overall vitality of the downtown," and BE-13.F, "Facilitate the re-use of existing buildings," both of which spoke 01/18/95 74-396 to such revitalization. She asked whether the subject was covered elsewhere. Planning Commissioner Chair Bernard Beecham, said the Planning Commission had not disagreed with the idea, which was contained in the City's Urban Design Guide, however, there was no need for the idea to appear in the Plan. A number of new buildings in the Downtown area had maintained the old design. Council Member Schneider recommended the following language for Goal BE-13, "Continue to maintain and enhance the revitalization of the University Avenue Downtown business district as an important retail, restaurant, and entertainment center." Annette Bialson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, said CPAC had gone around on the issue. The word "promote" worked together with the revitalization of University Avenue and was a more proactive thought than merely "maintain." Council Member Kniss asked why CPAC had made the decision to include Program BE-13.G1, "Limit the number of food and beverage businesses." A number of other communities had limited the number of food and beverage businesses with great success. Ms. Eakins said food and beverage businesses were able to pay such high rents, as carefully explained by Jim Baer and if food and beverage businesses took over, surrounding rents would increase and drive retail businesses out. The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) had disagreed with such a limitation, consider-ing it an interference with marketing forces. However, sometimes market forces could run amok, leaving blemishes which could turn into blight. In the interest of the vitality of University Avenue, the majority of the subcommittee had considered some limitation as being good for vitality. Council Member Kniss asked whether the market force had already run amok or whether it was a potential problem. Ms. Eakins said Mr. Baer's predictions and analysis considered it potentially inevitable in the near future. Council Member Kniss wanted to hear more about the subject at a later time. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the City already had a limitation on the number of take-out, fast-food, drive-through, and alcoholic beverage permits. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had also been reluctant to regulate the free hand of the market place, even though the City already regulated it in many places. Another CPAC discussion centered on the strict controls for malls where restaurants were the most controlled. Traditionally, there were very few restau-rants in malls because people who ate did not necessarily shop, and there were great controls on the location of shops. The Planning Commission feared regulating what the market place did, 01/18/95 74-397 especially with the many independent shop owners; but on the other hand, there was a great art or science in the process which, if properly applied, could benefit the Downtown area. The question was how to properly apply the process. Council Member Kniss thought the number of restaurants in the Downtown area was an issue with which Council should be cognizant. More restaurants were entering the Downtown area than any other business. Council Member Schneider said one of the dangers, particularly for Downtown, involved the high rents and leases. If the types of businesses were limited, there was the risk of large empty spaces as landlords waited for an appropriate tenant. There were a number of spaces on University Avenue which had been vacant for some time because property owners did not want restaurants or were waiting for someone to pay a higher rent. Council Member Kniss had spoken with a council member in Burlingame who had indicated the limits had actually revitalized the area. Council Member Fazzino thought Program BE-13.G1 was a great idea which should be revisited. There was concern about the number of food and beverage establishments and the impact on other retailers. Historic preservation, which was an economic benefit and differential, was not best left to other sections of the Plan. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the language in Policy BE-13.E, "Recognize the importance and contribution of significant historic buildings to the overall vitality of the downtown," and Policy BE-13.F, "Facilitate the re-use of existing buildings," be combined and retained in the Business and Economics Section of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, that Programs BE-13.E1, "Reassess provisions of the Historic Preservation Ordinance to protect and assure maintenance and preservation of significant historic buildings in the downtown area," and BE-13.F1, "Work towards minimizing zoning constraints associated with the reuse of existing buildings," also be retained. Vice Mayor Wheeler said if Council were serious about its sensitivity in recent actions about encouraging owners of historically significant buildings to retain the buildings rather than demolish them, the City would need to consider ways which made it easier and more palatable to do so. The concept was contained in the words of Program BE-13.F1. Council Member Kniss asked why the Planning Commission had removed Policies BE-13.E and BE-13.F and Program BE-13.F1. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission vote had been split on Policy BE-13.E, two voting for a higher priority, so there was some support on keeping the policy in the Plan. Program BE-13.F1 had been retained by the Planning Commission as an "A." 01/18/95 74-398 Council Member Andersen asked for clarification concerning the impact and meaning of "minimizing zoning constraints" as found in Program BE-13.F1. Although the City would be attempting to protect buildings and work with property owners to allow their ability to do so without bureaucratic attempts at stopping it, the City should not create unintended difficulties or consequences. Mr. Schreiber said staff was comfortable with retaining Program BE-13.F1. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Council Member Andersen understood Program BE-13.C2, "Establish a Parking Task Force comprised of merchants, Chamber of Commerce, neighbors, and a parking consultant to explore the feasibility of constructing additional parking facilities and to consider reducing parking demand through alternative innovative programs," would be moved to the Transportation Section but asked whether such a level of detail was necessary in the Plan with regard to the structure of a task force and whether a parking consultant was necessary as part of a Plan comment. Such wording appeared to give a level of detail unnecessary for the Plan. Ms. Eakins said CPAC had been asked to be as specific as possible in the programs. The use of the term "parking consultant" had been included to indicate CPAC's desire for something more than technical knowledgeable input from merchants, the Chamber, and neighbors. Council Member Andersen asked whether the parking task force consultant could be a staff person. Ms. Eakins did not recall specific CPAC discussion about who the consultant would be. Council Member Andersen said he wanted clarification of the intent. Given the efforts already underway, he asked whether such a program was necessary in the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said staff's comment concerned a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project in the 1994-95 budget which would address part of the program, exploring the feasibility of constructing additional parking facilities. The work would undoubtedly be completed prior to adoption of the Plan. The program could remain in the Plan and be removed prior to adoption at a later time if necessary. In the 1980s, the Chamber had wanted City staff or City resource assistance to consider ways to reduce parking demand, which the City had never provided other than some casual staff assistance by the City's Transportation Coordinator. The second aspect of Program BE-13.C2 could involve considerable resources to coordinate parking travel demand reductions to the Downtown area. Mayor Simitian asked what was meant by the handwritten note to "move to Transportation." 01/18/95 74-399 Mr. Schreiber said the handwritten notation was a staff recommendation that the entire section, already located in Transportation, be consolidated into the Transportation Section. Ms. Bialson asked whether Program BE-13.G1 or BE-13.G2 would appear in the next draft Council considered which dealt with food and beverage business and the dominance of specific kinds of uses. Council Member Kniss had indicated the possibility of revisiting the issue, she was concerned that CPAC had already spent a considerable amount of time discussing the two issues. If the programs were not included in the next draft Council considered, the issues might be forgotten. The Planning Department had indicated in staff comments that the variety of uses in Downtown needed to create a viable and successful downtown. If Program BE-13.G2 was kept in the Plan, Council would not forget. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to retain Program BE-13.G2, "Periodically review the mix of businesses in the downtown area," in the Comprehensive Plan Update Policies and Programs Draft IV. Council Member Huber asked what would be done if Program BE-13.G2 remained in the Plan. Either something should be done or not, not merely a review. Council Member Kniss said in five to ten years, Program BE-13.G2 could be brought up as a means of reviewing the mix of businesses without involving a complicated agendizing system in order to find out what was going on Downtown. Council Member Huber agreed with Mayor Simitian's point that the Plan was the City's constitution which should do more than just study, but actually do something. Council Member Kniss presumed review meant more than simply study. Council Member Schneider was uncomfortable with limitations and asked what difference reviewing would make if there were already 80 restaurants Downtown. Palo Alto had gone through times of having too many banks or too many office buildings, all of which were market-driven. Restaurants which were successful would remain, unsuccessful restaurants would fold and something else would take its place. There was much apprehension about including a program in the Plan which interfered with market forces. Council Member Rosenbaum said the City had limited the number of banks in the Downtown area because banks were considered deadly. Although he had no problem with having a live Downtown, the City placed itself in a difficult position by limiting a particular business and picking winners and losers. If there was a problem in the future, it should be addressed, but it should not be included in the Plan. Council Member Fazzino said the very nature of city government engaged in the kind of regulation which some were loath to pursue. 01/18/95 74-400 The City had regulated banks, office buildings, established a pedestrian-only zone in the Downtown area, had taken conscious steps to structure Downtown in a way deemed fit and appropriate for the community. Program BE-13.G2 contained very benign language, which could be strengthened. The benign language suggested the City occasionally evaluate what was going on in the Downtown area to determine whether the invisible hand of a market was in some way creating problems or was inconsistent with some very strong public policies contained elsewhere in the Plan. Council was encouraged to support the motion since Council was responsible to periodically evaluate the economic situation to determine whether steps were necessary to ensure the City implemented critically important policy goals. Council Member Kniss said people always asked what Palo Alto had done to create such a vibrant downtown. The usual answer was that if the City knew, it could be made into a software package and sold. In former Council Member Emily Renzel's time, substantial downzoning ensured ground floor retail was not occupied by certain kinds of businesses. More "tweaking" had been done in the Downtown area than most people realized. The language in Program BE-13.G2 was not tough. The ability to keep an eye on Downtown was necessary. Palo Alto was a destination city which would have the largest restaurant stars between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The previous Council that made the 1986 decision should be commended. Council Member Huber asked how much the City monitored the types of establishments and businesses in the Downtown area. Mr. Schreiber said the City's monitoring did not contain any notable information on the use or mix of uses in the Downtown area. Council Member Huber had been on the Downtown Study Committee which had discussed the same issue with regard to the need for grocery stores, hardware stores, etc., and has concluded the City should not force but allow the market to play where it would. Economic Resources Planning Manager Carol Jansen said staff was in the process of completing a Downtown land use survey which was being conducted by a student in conjunction with Wilbur Properties. The survey would provide an apples-to-apples comparison of use changes in the ground floor retail area from the 1986 adoption of the regulations to date. The survey would provide the City with a forum by which to bring back some of the issues that related to changes in use and the serious market effects of some of the regulations which placed limitations on businesses such as Burlingame. Vice Mayor Wheeler agreed with Council Members Huber and Schneider. The wording of the policy gave the City permission to, at any time in the future, embark on either a one-time or regular review without it being spelled out in a specific program. If a need was identified in the future, Council would have the permission to review and reconsider. Stronger language in the 01/18/95 74-401 program would extend the debate. Mayor Simitian supported the motion because it was worth having a program in place which called on the City to periodically review the risk of the dominance of specific kinds of uses. The success of Downtown was very fragile and had been taken for granted in recent years. The number of forces which played into the Downtown's success were great and complex. There was value in considering the issue periodicaly to determine whether or not the City was at risk or whether there was any role the City might play. To pick and chose the number, type, and locations of specific businesses, as seen in Program BE-13.G1, would require a very sensitive and intuitive feel about Downtown which was very difficult and might be something Council would not want to do. The fragility of Downtown success merited an occasional revisiting. Council Member Andersen supported the motion. In spite of the fact that Downtown had an extraordinary number of restaurants, the restaurants were successful as a result of the dynamics of the residents in the area and for which he was not overly concerned. The market would take care of the issue. The language in Program BE-13.G2 was innocuous, so it would not throw the City too far along. MOTION FAILED 4-4, Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian "yes." Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said Council had indicated any goal, policies, or programs in grey would remain in unless specifically removed by Council, unless marked with a "B," yet mention had been of Program BE-13.B2, "Continue to monitor downtown development and keep Planning Commission and Council advised on an annual basis," which appeared to be both deleted and retained. Mr. Schreiber said the process had remained the same, and Program BE-13.B2 had been retained in the Plan. Mayor Simitian clarified Program BE-13.B2, Policy BE-13.G, and Program BE-13.G3 had all been retained. Council comments or questions concerning Goal BE-14, "Encourage the evolution of the California Avenue business district as an area serving both commercial and retail needs," were sought. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to page 15 of the Plan concerning Policy BE-14.A, "Maintain the existing scale and retail orientation of the California-Cambridge Avenue business district," and Program BE-14.A2, "Create regulations which allow for the replacement or rehabilitation of the smaller buildings in the area, yet prevent new buildings that are out of scale and character with the existing buildings," and the staff comment which read, "The existing zoning regulations in the California Area are out of kilter with the intention of this policy and program. The CC(2), Community Commercial Combining District zoning of California Avenue was not included in the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study and the allowable floor area ration 01/18/95 74-402 of 2:1 (and up to 3:1 for mixed commercial/residential) is higher than any other area of the City. It was recognized at the completion of the Citywide Study that there was a need to re-evaluate the floor area regulations in the California Avenue Business District." A new Program BE-14.A1, the old program of which the Planning Commission had left out, could simply revise zoning so the development potential in the California Avenue (CalAve) area would be comparable to other areas, as specified in the 1989 Citywide Plan. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to add a new Program BE-14.A1 to read: "Revise zoning so that the commercial development potential was comparable with other areas as, specified in the 1989 Citywide Land Use Study, while retaining substantial residential development potential." Council Member Huber asked whether, if the motion passed, the City would have to go through the same steps it had gone through concerning the pieces the City wanted to deal with and whether there was a formula with the Citywide study which could be applied to the CalAve area to accomplish the goal. Mr. Schreiber said the issue was more complicated than a reduction in CalAve's Floor Area Ratio's (FAR's) to be comparable to the Downtown area. At the same time, staff had previously been concerned that CalAve's zoning was totally out of synch with the rest of the City's commercial areas. Eventually a project would come forward which would create a fervor. Mayor Simitian asked whether the motion represented a 50 percent downzoning. Mr. Schreiber said the motion represented at least a 50 percent downzoning. The Downtown FAR was the highest in the commercial areas, so CalAve would be reduced at least to the Downtown area and possibly lower. Council Member Fazzino asked about the impact of downzoning on housing in the CalAve area. There was greater possibility of housing over retail in the CalAve area which, given the design of buildings, that provided a greater opportunity for such a vision. Greater development of housing was being encouraged in the area, particularly since the area was served so well by alternative transportation systems. Mr. Schreiber said the issues raised by Council Member Fazzino were a very good example of why CalAve would not be a simple zone change. There was significant residential potential in the CalAve area which should not be lost. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the motion could differentiate between residential and commercial. Mr. Schreiber yes, but it was not worth the level of detail because when zoning was changed, additional issues would be raised. A reference could be made in the program to retain 01/18/95 74-403 substantial residential potential. Council Member Fazzino was concerned about the residential potential of the program in the CalAve area and asked whether staff could evaluate some of the intended and unintended conse-quences of such a policy action prior to taking action. Mr. Schreiber said staff could provide some observations, if not by the time Council's current review was completed at least by the time the draft Plan was before Council. Council Member Andersen was interested in Council Member Fazzino's suggestion with regard to the implications of taking such action. Before any final vote was taken, the impact of the program should be known concerning the rents of commercial properties which provided services, e.g., shoe repair and low-margin operations, and how a significant rent increase would impact certain kinds of services in the community. Rental implications and effects on the market place should be received prior to a final decision. He would reverse his position if the impact on the neighborhood was negative. Council Member Kniss asked Council Member Rosenbaum, the liaison to the CalAve area, whether there was a great need for downzoning or whether the motion was merely preventative. Council Member Rosenbaum saw the motion as preventative and would not have offered the motion if he had not seen some success with a similar program in the Downtown area. Council Member Kniss asked about the legend concerning downzoning in the Downtown area. Mr. Schreiber said the legend was that former City Manager Bill Zaner looked out his office window and saw six or seven high-rise cranes working at the same time a City Council election campaign was being waged and had considered it something which would be an issue in the near future. Council Member Kniss asked whether there were actual problems in the CalAve area, why downzoning had not been addressed previously if it were necessary, and whether someone had looked out and seen many high-rise cranes and considered it a problem. Council Member Rosenbaum said the CalAve area was not in the same position as the Downtown area had been in 1986. The motion was for prevention and uniformity. Council Member Kniss asked why CPAC had not woven downzoning into the CalAve area. Ms. Bialson said CPAC had not been apprised of the issue. Council Member Huber said the CalAve area had been slated for a study after completion of the Citywide Study, not abandoned for reduction in growth potential. The intention was to eventually do 01/18/95 74-404 the same thing in the CalAve area that had been done with Downtown, but it had not happened. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission, in its haste to complete its review within Council's time frame, had not thought about the CalAve issue. If the Planning Commission had taken the time to consider CalAve, it would have wanted consistency. Regardless of how the Policy was stated, the process would be a thorough process which applied the 1989 Citywide Study language to the CalAve area and studied the details of the area. The motion before Council would initiate the process over which it could go through the analysis when it came up. Council Member Schneider asked Council Member Rosenbaum whether he had had conversations with business and property owners in the CalAve area regarding consistency. Council Member Rosenbaum replied no. Clearly, business and property owners would be heavily involved in conducting the analysis and study. There would be public hearings, but he had not had specific contact with any of the property owners. Council Member Schneider asked whether staff was aware of any projects in the future which the motion would affect. Ms. Lytle said there were no projects in process which the motion might affect. Mayor Simitian supported the motion, as amended, but underscored Mr. Schreiber's comment about the goal of a Comprehensive Plan to define exactly what the City wanted to do in terms of land use. The fact that there was no problem was the good news. The City needed to take a different view than what was suggested by the current Plan and zoning ordinances, rather than waiting until a developer presented the City with a project. The goal of the process was to avoid the ad hoc, politicized land use battles, and allow the public the pleasure of relying on a positive Plan. Staff should contact the CalAve Area Development Association, since the group was not visibly in evidence, to communicate Council's actions. Ms. Eakins said there had been frequent discussions about the overflow of commercial-related parking in surrounding residential neighborhoods at the transportation workshop. Council was urged to consider the issue in a proactive sense, even though CPAC had not caught the inconsistency. Developer "chit-chat" about the CalAve area was a concern. Ms. Bialson said individuals had mentioned CalAve as an area which could relieve some of the "pressure" from University Avenue if allowed to develop, and interest had been expressed about acquiring more property in the CalAve area. Council Member Kniss said one of the most obvious developments which could occur in the CalAve area was a hotel on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. If a hotel were developed, 01/18/95 74-405 CalAve would suddenly have a very different value, to which people would look for various types of business development. Landowners could be caught off-guard if what they thought had one kind of value suddenly had another. Every time the City altered zoning in any way, someone's pocketbook was altered. The motion was worth supporting, but it might surprise CalAve merchants or property owners in the area if the City moved in a very definitive direc-tion. Council Member Fazzino said unless the City acted, new buildings in the CalAve area could look very much like the "monstrosity" built on the corner in the mid-1980s. The building was a hideous gateway to California Avenue. He was concerned about the possibility of developers taking action in the area and asked staff how long it would be before Council's action took effect. Mr. Schreiber said given the high level of development activity the City was experiencing in development applications, staff workload, the Plan process, and assignments, it would be consider-able time before staff would undertake a major study implementation program. Council needed to establish priorities in terms of the areas on which staff should focus. After adoption of the Plan, the study could be implemented. Mayor Simitian said if staff had the time and resources, the matter could be brought to study, but he cautioned taking action as if it was, in fact, a new component of a Comprehensive Plan. Decisions Council made during the evening were only preliminary decisions about what would be included in a draft Plan which would then be discussed with the community and ultimately acted upon. In fairness both to the public and developers in the community, the City had a Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances in force. Just because Council had started down a path on any given evening did not suggest the City had a different Plan policy or different zoning ordinance. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Council Member Kniss asked whether Program BE-14.A3, "Formulate an urban design guide for the district that considers form and scale; include merchants, residents, property owners, and City representatives in the planning process," which had received a "B" rating from the Planning Commission, would be similar to the Downtown Urban Design Guide. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Kniss asked why the Planning Commission had deleted the program, since it appeared appropriate for CalAve. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission vote on Program BE-14.A3 had been split. Mayor Simitian asked for clarification on retention of a "B" item. Mr. Schreiber said "B" items would be retained as a good idea in 01/18/95 74-406 some form or another but would not be part of the adopted Plan. Council Member Kniss thought, in light of Council Member Rosen-baum's motion and the consensus for CalAve to maintain consistency with the rest of the community, Program BE-14.A3 would be an equally consistent plan. Because of the time the Downtown study entailed, it did not appear too early to move ahead with a CalAve study. Mr. Schreiber said the idea of a CalAve study was positive, but in all likelihood, it would not be an extremely high priority item and might be in the out-years of the Plan. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to retain Program BE-14.A3, "Formulate an urban design guide for the district that considers form and scale; include merchants, residents, property owners, and City representatives in the planning process," which would allow formulation of the design guide for the California Avenue District to be consistent with the rest of the Downtown area. Mayor Simitian asked whether anything in the language of Program BE-14.A3 required going through the same process through which the City had gone with the Downtown Urban Design Guide, which had been a very polarizing process. Mr. Schreiber said the latter part of the process had been very painful, but the CalAve study did not need to function in the same manner and could operate in a much smoother fashion. Council Member Fazzino thought the process of the Downtown Urban Design Guide had been polarizing for only two people. The process had been invaluable and had worked very well for the Downtown area. The City had established it as a guide, not law, and could repeat the outstanding effort in the California Avenue area, learn from mistakes, and involve the two or three developers most concerned early in the process. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Council Member Huber said the programs under BE-14, to discourage intrusion into residential neighborhoods, should re-include Program BE-14.B3, "Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density and improve the transition between the California-Cambridge Avenue area and single-family neighborhood of Evergreen Park," which seemed to follow the others and was a worthwhile program. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Fazzino, to retain Program BE-14.B3, "Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density and improve the transition between the California-Cambridge Avenue area and single family neighborhood of Evergreen Park." Council Member Kniss said Program BE-14.B3 made very good sense if it incorporated other ideas. The Evergreen Park neighborhood was a very sensitive neighborhood which was uncomfortable about 01/18/95 74-407 parking issues which arose as a result of CalAve. Mayor Simitian clarified that a "B" rating by the Planning Commission indicated Program BE-14.B3 involved no disagreement on the fundamental concept, just a question of priority and placement. Mr. Beecham said that was correct. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Mayor Simitian asked for comments and questions concerning Goal BE-15, "Encourage the development of the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) area as a richly balanced business and residential area." Council Member Kniss asked about the long row of "D" ratings on the programs under Goal BE-15. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had anticipated the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) move from its current location. Whatever took the place of the PAMF would significantly affect the SOFA area in the future. It was premature to anticipate what would replace the PAMF. The Planning Commission wanted to wait to assess what would occur at the PAMF site prior to determining the fabric of SOFA. Council Member Kniss said although it was difficult to presume the PAMF would move without a definitive answer, the issue could be dealt with in a few years. Mr. Beecham agreed. However, there were increasingly more open spaces in the proposed site down El Camino Real and the probability appeared imminent. Council Member Fazzino asked how quickly the issue could be addressed without leaving blank spaces in the Plan and whether more specific references should be made to uses in the area during the interim. Policy BE-15.A could be made as specific as possible to take the City through the Plan process short of a final decision by the PAMF to vacate the site. Mr. Beecham said automotive uses in the SOFA area were at risk on the short term. A policy which took immediate steps to protect automotive uses might be appropriate. Most of the other programs were more generic. Vice Mayor Wheeler said previous Councils had made clear its intent to preserve automotive uses in the SOFA area. The present Council had continued to give assurances to existing automotive businesses that there was still a place to locate and exist happily in the SOFA area. The Plan should specifically mention that Council desired to retain some automotive business services in the SOFA area. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to retain in some form Program BE-15.A5, "Preserve an automotive service 01/18/95 74-408 business district." Vice Mayor Wheeler said over the years of involvement since the early to mid-1980s, indications had been made about the City's interest in retaining automotive businesses in the SOFA area. Automotive businesses were the type of business that each Palo Altan was very dependent upon. More had been done over the years to squeeze such businesses either out of town altogether or, more recently, to locate on San Antonio Road. Discussions of CalAve and the Downtown areas had revealed that regulations tightened in one part of town squeezed into another location. Automotive businesses were necessary Citywide and should be located in more than one part of the City, which Council had a promise to uphold. Mayor Simitian had not promised or committed to retain automotive businesses in the SOFA area and wanted to hear more about why Council Members believed it was imperative. Previous discussions had dealt with letting the free market reign. There were other locations which, from a land use standpoint, were more cost-efficient and more appropriate in terms of compatibility of uses. He was reluctant, without some real information, to reach the conclusion SOFA was a location which should, in perpetuity, accommodate automotive uses. The issue was not that automotive uses were not valuable or handy. From a land use and economic standpoint, no Council Member had made the case that that particu-lar use should be a sacred cow at the SOFA area location. Council Member Kniss had heard the issue discussed many times. Of all uses, automotive use was among the least popular. When El Camino Real had been discussed, automotive uses were encouraged out. While it might not be clearly articulated, in many ways Palo Alto had deviated from being a full-service community. There had been a number of discussions in the past referring to the fact there were no places in Palo Alto to purchase washers, dryers, etc. Most Palo Altans, regardless of the emphasis on public transportation, were very car-dependent. Having to take a car a long distance for service was not only inconvenient, but cut down on the kind of community Palo Alto was and the kind of amenities it could offer. Occasionally decisions were based on the fact that convenience had real value. Vice Mayor Wheeler said a very important component of the Downtown study had addressed issues to which Council Member Kniss had alluded regarding the type of area Downtown had become, the type of city Palo Alto was becoming, and the need for the City to very forcefully retain some of the uses which were less glamorous, less high rent, but which served, were necessities, and were convenient to residents of the City. At the time, statements had been made about a very appropriate area in SOFA for automotive uses for which the City would encourage such retention. Council Member Andersen had spoken favorably in the past concerning retention of automotive uses in the SOFA area. Automotive businesses were concerned about whether the City would do something to amortize them out. From a market viewpoint, automotive businesses were very successful and would not 01/18/95 74-409 voluntarily leave Palo Alto because of a failed business. The question of whether or not the City should protect such businesses was not the issue. Over the past five years, Council had expressed a willingness to not run automotive businesses out-of-town, however, earlier there had been mixed messages. In addition to being compatible with other parts of the Downtown area, automotive businesses had been very compatible with the neighbor-hood. Even though he had generally heard mixed feelings, the neighborhood had not strongly objected to automotive businesses. More concern had been expressed concerning the development of office space in the SOFA area. He supported the motion, considering it a recommitment to a position which had been established in the past. Council Member Huber had understood Vice Mayor Wheeler's motion was not to reinstate Program BE-15.A5 but that whatever the City did in the SOFA area should make reference to the automotive industry. Vice Mayor Wheeler was not concerned about the exact wording in Program BE-15.A5, but for purposes of discussion, the motion had referenced the program. Staff should return with a program which wove the concept into the wording concerning a study of the SOFA area with a vision toward preserving automotive uses. However, the one use should not be given undue emphasis in the SOFA area. Mayor Simitian said a case had been well made that the City should retain such uses in the community, but he had not heard anyone articulate with clarity, specificity, or persuasively why SOFA needed to be an automotive service business district. Until so persuaded, there was not enough to work with. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Simitian "abstaining", McCown absent. Council Member Andersen struggled with staff's desire to wait for an area-wide study prior to including specifics in the Plan. If the City waited, giving only limited direction in the Plan, timing might become an issue and the area might experience a massive movement because of market forces resulting from the closure of the PAMF, shifts and changes inconsistent with the items marked "D" in the Plan. He was more interested in taking a proactive approach than was reflected in recommendations made by both the Planning Commission and staff. If dynamics inconsistent with programs listed under Goal BE-15 began to arise or Council retained some of the programs in the Plan, he asked to what extent any area-wide study would be limited. Ms. Jansen said market forces in the SOFA area were very different from the Downtown area. Zoning was different and there was no parking assessment district or other provision for parking, therefore, a blended rate for uses could not be used. The zoning issue had been the most inhibiting factor for retail land use changes in the SOFA area and was the reason many existing uses had been able to remain. If the parking issue was ever resolved, pressure for more intensive retail would increase in the SOFA area and might affect existing automotive services. Council Member 01/18/95 74-410 Andersen was correct that automotive services were profitable and automotive services had requested more assistance in expanding. There was not much competition for automotive service in Palo Alto. There were some very different forces in the SOFA area, even with the improved change in retail, that centered around the lack of parking. The few retail uses located in the SOFA area had had unique experiences, e.g., the Whole Foods Market with a lot across the street available for parking. Mr. Schreiber said the SOFA area had been discussed repeatedly over the past decade, but with no agreement about fundamental policies. While there was much sympathy for retention of the automobile service uses, there were also segments of the neighborhood and community arguing for different land uses along Alma Street on the basis of urban design perspectives, entry to the Downtown, etc. There had also been arguments that SOFA should be designated a medium- and higher-density residential area, and staff's concern was that once the issues was opened, it would not be easy. There were conflicting strains. Some automobile uses were owned by the occupant; others, however, were on leases where the perspective of land owner and tenant were different. Attempts to resolve policies for the SOFA area in a planning sense was a process to bring everything together. When staff had experienced conflicts, the tendency was to back off, recognize existing zoning, and agree with the need for and appreciation of automotive services. Staff did not want to entertain the idea of a zoning classification which limited the use of properties to automobile services and uses. Property owners wanted the options for housing, office, etc. Council Member Andersen asked about the timing of when an area-wide study relative to some of the decisions being considered within the Plan and where such a study would be folded in. Mr. Schreiber said CPAC had recommended SOFA as one of the areas of focus for a community workshop. Staff had recommended SOFA not become one of the areas because of the PAMF, backfill, and reuse of the site issue which would create some strains and problems in terms of the PAMF Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Council had decided against a workshop in the SOFA area but made a commitment that once the PAMF's EIR process was completed and a decision had been made, the City would be obligated to hold a workshop in the area. A workshop would not be an area study, but a weekend event. For the PAMF properties which would be redeveloped if relocation were approved, some combination of the PAMF and the City would need to undertake a rather extensive neighborhood community planning process since the properties were interwoven into the midst of the neighborhood and contained a series of land use issues. The question would then become whether the PAMF could be separated from the rest of SOFA. Although to a certain extent it could, staff had been reluctant to do so, wanting to see decisions about integrating assessment and the reuse of PAMF properties with decisions about the remainder of SOFA. Assuming the PAMF project was approved, all would likely occur as early as 1996. Staff anticipated PAMF's EIR would be presented to Council by early Fall 1995. Once approved, it would be several years before the PAMF 01/18/95 74-411 vacated the properties, providing an opportunity during 1996, 1997, and 1998 to review the issue. Council Member Andersen said Council had already considered the possibilities for the immediate future for the SOFA area, but it had been put on hold. He wanted to sort out what the City was appropriately taking on, both in the context of the Plan as well as issues which had arisen on the short term. Ms. Bialson said Goal BE-15 had contained the greatest number of programs because CPAC had taken a great deal of time studying the area, not as a blank sheet, but as an important area because of PAMF's move. The issue involved not only the vacating of certain buildings but PAMF building. Issues related to entries into the new area as well as the SOFA area required Plan discussions and direction to PAMF and other property owners, especially given the state of the medical field and the possibility that anything could happen. CPAC would consider it a great loss if all of the programs were deleted. Other programs having to do with businesses other than the automotive services could be helpful both to PAMF and adjacent property owners. CPAC understood PAMF was interested in not leaving much of an entrance between its new site on Urban Lane and SOFA. It was necessary to convey a message about the importance of maintaining a pedestrian connection. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to retain Programs BE-15.A1, "Retain the existing commercial bound-aries of SOFA consistent with existing service commercial zoning;" BE-15.A2, "Consider special zone overlay districts to retain desired uses and encourage new neighborhood-serving uses;" BE-15.A3, "Encourage and provide incentives for the preservation and/or remodeling of existing buildings;" BE-15.A6, "Encourage the location of neighborhood retail and personal service uses in areas convenient to adjacent residential areas;" BE-15.A7, "Encourage mixed use development (retail/office/residential) in locations that complement surrounding land uses;" BE-15.B1, "Encourage a sense of place by allowing sidewalk seating, open windows, inviting storefronts, and distinct public lighting, street signs, and landscaping;" BE-15.B2, "Develop a small neighborhood park/open space around which shops, businesses and small offices can locate;" and Policy BE-15.B, "Encourage amenities that enhance pedestrian-oriented commercial activities," designated as "B" items and subject to alteration after the area-wide study and re-evaluation of the policy and programs. Council Member Andersen said the SOFA area was vulnerable unless the City took proactive action to provide tentative direction. It was subject to change after more community input and there was the potential for something to occur which the City would not want to see, given the dramatic shifts which were occurring. Council Member Kniss asked how far along the City was with PAMF's application. Mr. Schreiber said staff anticipated having an administrative draft EIR for staff review in March 1995 and having the EIR 01/18/95 74-412 available for public review starting in the latter part of April 1995. The Planning Commission review would occur in the summer with the final EIR and project before Council in September 1995. Council Member Kniss asked whether the PAMF was behind schedule. Mr. Schreiber said both the City and PAMF had been working very hard to define the project in a way suitable for an EIR. Council Member Kniss said even though the PAMF was a project in motion as Council worked through the draft Plan, more should remain in the Plan. Ms. Eakins said that when the Planning Commission went through the Plan, a new Program BE-15.A1, "Study the area after PAMF relo-cates," should be included and strengthened. A commitment had been made about conducting an area-wide study. Council was asked to make a strong statement in the Plan about an area-wide study. Council Member Andersen said his motion had specified that after the area-wide study, the programs would be reconsidered. Ms. Eakins suggested all programs designated as "D" items be made into "B" items to reduce the dilemma of having too much specificity which could cause some future entrapment. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Council had already taken action which directed that any PAMF action would include appropriate conditions of approval to begin the area-wide study. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the programs in the motion be designated as "B" items, and not included in the Plan, but contained in other documents. Mayor Simitian asked whether Council Member Andersen intended to include Programs BE-15.A4 and BE-15.A5 in the motion. Council Member Andersen saw duplication in the two programs and was hesitant to make the recommendations, since sufficient protection already existed for automotive services. A greater degree of protection for the SOFA area was necessary until after the area-wide study had been conducted which provided some direction for people seeking opportunities. Council Member Huber was interested in preserving the items without actually including them in the Plan, clarifying the items which would remain in the Plan as Goal BE-15, Policy BE-15.A, and Program BE-15.A5. Mayor Simitian thought the remaining program was a combination of Programs BE-15.A4 and BE-15.A5, with nothing remaining of Program BE-15.A4. Council Member Andersen was willing to discuss the inclusion of Program BE-15.A4, if necessary, but had considered Program BE-15.A5 as having already been voted upon and included in the 01/18/95 74-413 Plan. Mr. Beecham had understood Council's action on Program BE-15.A5 was not to include the program but for staff to reference automobile services in the policy. Mayor Simitian agreed. Council Member Schneider supported the motion, however, would not have supported the motion if the programs had all been retained in the Plan. Council should not make decisions early in the process which would tie its hands at the end of the process. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. RECESS: 9:15 P.M. - 9:20 P.M. Mayor Simitian asked for Council comments and questions concerning Goal BE-16, "Encourage the evolution of El Camino Real to an economically vital and attractive thoroughfare with nodes of commercial and pedestrian activity," with the Planning Commission's modified version. Council Member Kniss asked for input from the Planning Commission and CPAC about the number of "D" designations. Mr. Beecham said in spite of all the studying and planning efforts, the Planning Commission thought there was no real solution to El Camino Real. A number of studies had indicated the number of small parcels, so a program had suggested a combination of parcels. However, the parcels would still be small and create problems with parking. Incentives had not been identified by which to encourage changes. Policy BE-16.C, which stated "Encourage the adaptive and beneficial reuse of properties along El Camino Real by minimizing unnecessary and potentially obsolete land use regulations," was perplexing because identifying potentially obsolete land use regulations would be difficult. Discussions had occurred regarding consolidation of commercial areas, shrinking what had been retail and commercial areas to work as pedestrian, however, it was unknown which areas would be which. The Planning Commission might consider the ideas as good, but the set of ideas would not revitalize El Camino Real. As difficult as it was to consider studying again, adopting the proposed policies and programs would not take care of the problem. The strong belief was that there was no solution for El Camino Real as yet and it was best to study the issue further. Council Member Kniss had attended a few Saturday meetings, querying which of the ideas in the proposed policies and programs had come from the meetings. Ms. Bialson was unable to determine the origination of each policy or program, however, most were a consolidation of thoughts CPAC had come up with after the workshop. While no one claimed to have the answer to some of the blight which existed on El Camino Real, ignoring it and not addressing the problem was not the way to go. 01/18/95 74-414 A great number of programs had been listed and had been considered "A" items. Something needed to be done to address El Camino Real. Mr. Beecham said the recommendations were possible solutions, but the Planning Commission wanted to confirm how the possibilities fit into an entire package with incentives to bring about change. Even though the ideas were good, the entire package was necessary to lead El Camino Real to the place the City sought. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to retain Programs BE-16.B1, "On shallow parcels, allow a full range of commercial services, subject to adequate buffering from adjacent residential uses;" BE-16.B2, "Encourage the consolidation of parcels where appropriate, in order to create parcels of sufficient size to be economically viable;" BE-16.B3, "Encourage new commercial uses with frontages on the street, with adjoining parking that is sufficiently bufferred with landscaping from adjacent land uses;" BE-16.C, "Encourage the adaptive and benefi-cial reuse of properties along El Camino Real by minimizing unnecessary and potentially obsolete land use regulations;" BE-16.C1, "Review height, bulk and parking regulations for the El Camino Real area which may restrict the density (and therefore economic feasibility) of residential development;" BE-16.C2, "Where commercial uses are not viable, rezone for residential development;" and BE-16.C3, "Work with property owners to remove constraints to the reconfiguration and redevelopment of parcels along El Camino Real for commercial or residential purposes," as "B" designations and held in abeyance during the life of the draft Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Simitian clarified items designated as "B" items, as designated in the Key to Codes "would be preserved in some manner (e.g., text, implementation section, appendix, separate document)," so it would not be part of the Plan, but retained in written form somewhere. Council Member Andersen thought the "B" issue required further clarification. Mr. Beecham said the intent of the Planning Commission, which would be implemented as explained by Mr. Schreiber, was that a "B" item was an idea which would be kept and might or might not be implemented but was not part of the official Plan and would not necessarily result in any action. Council Member Andersen interpreted Mr. Beecham's statement that a developer with a certain intent inconsistent with one of the "B" items would not in any way inhibit the developer from proceeding with the proposal. Council was, therefore, not accomplishing what it intended to do and he was no longer comfortable with just "B" designations. Mayor Simitian asked what force of law or applicability a "B" item would have if, as indicated in the Key to Codes, it was preserved in an appendix to the Plan. 01/18/95 74-415 Mr. Schreiber said Mayor Simitian's question was the reason he had cautioned against the use of the word "appendix" because of the confusion which could be created between having an adopted Plan and something in the appendix which was not adopted. Staff's intent for items designated "B" would be retained, not as an appendix, but a document physically separated from the Plan so there would be no confusion. Mr. Calonne said on the one hand someone might argue that by putting the items in the appendix, the item was specifically designated as not being part of the Plan and were not binding, yet Council's intent appeared to indicate the desire for items to be influential in interpreting the rest of the document. Items moved to an appendix or text, earmarked as items Council wanted influencing the interpretation of the actual policies and programs, would not rise to the force of a policy or program. Council Member Andersen had asked about the effect of the policies and programs in the draft Plan during the pendency of the Plan. Council Member Andersen had hoped the draft Plan would provide direction both during the process of being developed as well as after adoption. The previous motion, and probably the current item, would see the Plan in place before studies of either SOFA or El Camino Real, which was the reason for wanting it for discussion. Mr. Calonne said the programs and policies in the draft Plan would not be appropriately used until the Plan was adopted. Council should indicate to staff if the items were to be used as explanatory supplements in the Plan, which could be drafted into the Plan. Mayor Simitian said prior to Council resuming its discussion of the Plan, the City Attorney and Planning Department should clarify the issue of "B" items. The language in the Key to Codes appeared to indicate that something in the text of the Plan or an implementation section or an appendix to the Plan was actually in the Plan. Something in a separate document was in a separate document and was not part of the Plan. The fact that others might interpret the language differently revealed the need for clarity about the designation when staff reviewed Council deliberations. If a Council Member wanted something in the Plan, not as a goal, policy, or program, it should be so designated. Mr. Calonne said motions should make it clear Council's desire not to reject an item about which Council was still unclear. Council Member Kniss said the Plan was still a draft. The purpose of her motion, in part, was to avoid rejecting items too quickly. If there was some way to agree to keep it in, Council should be able to do so, otherwise it would be gone and could not be brought back. She questioned whether the Plan would return to the Planning Department and be reviewed by CPAC at some point. Mr. Schreiber said the Plan would return to staff who would put 01/18/95 74-416 together the actual draft Plan. The draft Plan would then be reviewed by CPAC, the Planning Commission, all other boards and commissions, and would then return to Council. Mayor Simitian clarified for the current evening, a "B" designation would be an item which would remain in the Plan but not as a goal, policy, or program unless the mover specifically indicated removal from the Plan and was contained in a separate document. The previously designated items from "D" to "B" would be subject to such interpretation. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that Program BE-16.B1 should read: "On shallow parcels, allow a full range of office and retail services, subject to adjacent buffering from adjacent residential uses." Mayor Simitian said Council had previously gone through a process dealing with people with appeals along El Camino Real who were upset about the amortization of properties. Council had rejected the appeals on the basis of Council action taken 15 years before. The study suggested there might be more economically advantageous ways to proceed, but the City had not been interested. Programs BE-16.B1 and BE-16.C1 might contain something which was inconsis-tent with the amortization of 15 years before and the door would be opened to uses not currently acceptable. He asked whether it signaled a redirection of policy. Mr. Schreiber said the staff suggestion on Program BE-16.B1, which substituted office and retail for commercial was along the same lines. "Commercial" had a connotation of a broader range of uses, including service, commercial, auto repair, etc. Nothing in Program BE-16.C1 indicated a redirection. Mayor Simitian said the limitation to residential development had quelled his concern. Council Member Rosenbaum appreciated all of CPAC's efforts but was convinced the Planning Commission had the better argument. The subject was very complex and he was not prepared to adopt as programs or possible programs the specific list of issues under Goal BE-16 and was satisfied with the substitute goal and Program BE-16.A1 as identified by the Planning Commission. Mayor Simitian asked how the City's Planning staff viewed the issue, given the Planning Commission's argument was that the goals and policies were well advised but were unconvinced the identified programs would solve the problem. Mr. Schreiber said staff doubted the identified programs offered any type of comprehensive addressing of the problems along El Camino Real. In a staff report in Fall 1994 which addressed the issue, any effort to upgrade El Camino Real commercial areas would require a coordinated effort which addressed economic, design, and zoning issues. While there might be good ideas contained in Programs BE-16.B1 through BE-16.C3, staff did not know enough to provide any firm assurance that the list was as extensive as it 01/18/95 74-417 needed to be or was necessarily workable from an economic perspec-tive. SECOND WITHDRAWN BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSEN Council Member Andersen said the arguments made by Mr. Schreiber as well as the recommendations by the Planning Commission were sufficient to accomplish what he thought the City hoped to accomplish. The flexibility and the latitude provided in Program BE-16.A1 went to the heart of what the City wanted to accomplish. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Kniss withdrew the motion but still supported what CPAC had provided. Mr. Schreiber said staff's comment regarding a substitute Program BE-16.A1 which read "Encourage in an Economic analysis to determine incentives needed to create the changes required to arrive at the goal," should read, "Engage in an economic, design, and zoning analysis of El Camino Real commercial areas to determine incentives to create the changes required to arrive at the goal." Unless the economic, zoning, and design issues were linked, the chances of coming up with an implementable, doable solution was not as good. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to retain the revised language as modified by staff for BE-16.A1, "Engage in an economic, design, and zoning analysis to determine incentives needed to create the changes required to arrive at the goal." MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Mayor Simitian asked for Council comments or questions regarding Goal BE-17, "Promote and enhance revitalization of Midtown." Council Member Andersen asked for clarification of what CPAC had intended for Program BE-17.B2, "Redesign Middlefield Road through the midtown commercial area for better pedestrian access and safety." Ms. Eakins said CPAC had not intended a reduction in the number of lanes on Middlefield Road, but the issue needed to be addressed. Mayor Simitian asked for Council comments or questions regarding Goal BE-18, "Encourage the evolution of San Antonio Road as a distinct business district with a unique identity," which under the current analysis would not be included in the Plan. Ms. Eakins said Attachment III, 1993-94 Sales Tax Revenues by Area, showed San Antonio Industrial and University Avenue were both at 13.3 percent. Therefore, it made sense to give the San Antonio area some attention, since it represented a fair amount of sales tax revenue for the City. A goal of paying attention to San Antonio Avenue warranted an "A" rating. 01/18/95 74-418 Council Member Andersen said the percentages in such an area were largely the result of two businesses. The area was highly diverse and should be dealt with as an entire area, not just the two businesses. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Huber, to retain Goal BE-18, "Encourage the evolution of San Antonio Road as a district business district with a unique identity." Vice Mayor Wheeler said Policy BE-18.A, "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," contained a notation that it had been retained in the Plan as an "A" item in another area. Since Policy BE-18.A was the most meaningful of the items in BE-18, it was all that was necessary. Council Member Kniss agreed. Council Member Rosenbaum concurred. Mayor Simitian had been persuaded by Vice Mayor Wheeler's earlier comments about the emergence of different businesses on San Antonio Road. Something was occurring in the area as a result of market forces rather than design and the City would be wise to stay ahead and be aware of it rather than to just let it happen. The City had come up short in other areas of the community. There were multi-family residential uses along the corridor to which the goal should make reference. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that Goal BE-18 read "Encourage the evolution of San Antonio Road as a distinct business and residential district with a unique identity." Council Member Huber thought most of the goal was directed to one area on San Antonio Road. Ms. Eakins clarified the goal was directed to the entire San Antonio area. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Kniss "no," McCown absent. Mayor Simitian asked for Council comments or questions on Goal BE-19, "Support local medical facilities and medical research complexes," which had received a "C" designation. Mr. Beecham clarified a "C" designation did not mean the Planning Commission was opposed to medical facilities and research complex-es, but thought the issue should not be contained in the Plan. The City already had a very strong, vital, and centrally located medical foundation. Stanford Medical Center was not at risk. Therefore, it was not an issue which should be in the Plan. Council Member Kniss asked why CPAC had included Goal BE-19. 01/18/95 74-419 Ms. Eakins said given the priorities which had to be recognized in coming up with a manageable Plan, CPAC had wanted to see support for local medical facilities. The goal had appeared last because CPAC recognized it was not a burning issue. Council Member Fazzino agreed with the Planning Commission. He suspected the reason CPAC had included the goal was the timeliness of the issue of PAMF and its future, but one could argue for the need to support gas stations or support any other kind of service important to life in Palo Alto. There was a need and it was important to have medical facilities in the area, but the area would remain a world-renowned center of health care innovation and services without the City encouraging it in the Plan. Mayor Simitian said Council had reached the end of the Business and Economics Section. Vice Mayor Wheeler thanked the CPAC members for helping Council through the process. Mr. Calonne had received an assignment out of the Plan review that had to do with initiatives and consistency and there had been many other Council assignments. He queried Council's expectations. Mayor Simitian asked when Mr. Calonne's written response might be forthcoming. Mr. Calonne was concerned about Council getting too far into Housing Section without having his response. Mayor Simitian agreed. Council needed to know what constraints it would or would not impose on the community by making some deci-sions. Will Beckett, Co-Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee asked for a series of dates which could be provided to CPAC members. Mayor Simitian provided the dates of January 30, 1995, February 13, 25, and 27, 1995 for the Plan. There had been some discussion of the possibility of a full Saturday in lieu of three evenings. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff had any Saturdays in mind. City Clerk Gloria Young said the Council had not been pooled to determine availability. Staff merely wanted to know whether Council Members were amenable to a Saturday meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor 01/18/95 74-420 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. 01/18/95 74-421