HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-10 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting June 10, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ......................................... 76-96 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee ..................................... 76-96 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. ........... 76-141
06/10/95 76-95
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 9:45 a.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 9:49 a.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 9:49 a.m.), Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the Midtown Market Analysis and related traffic issues scheduled for discussion on the June 12, 1995, Council Agenda. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding the Midtown Market Analysis scheduled for discussion on the June 12, 1995, Council Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 Mayor Simitian announced that the City Council would review the Community Design (CD) Section of the City of Palo Alto Comprehen-sive Plan Policies and Programs Draft IV (the Plan), and there would be one hour of public communication at the beginning of the section. Sandy Eakins, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Co-Chair, gave a slide presentation which showed the history of the Community Design process. When the 47 members of Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and the alternates had first met, the shared interest was in planning for Palo Alto's future by ensuring the City was a good place for families as well as individuals. CPAC had met with elected officials on a regular basis, and CPAC had been urged to press on, as the job was important. By the beginning of Phase II, CPAC had completed its visions and goals and had begun the work of developing policies and programs. Two tracks had been developed; community design had come from the second track. CPAC had to balance and integrate the two tracks: 1) citywide issues, e.g., transportation, housing, business and economics, natural environment, and governance; and 2) physical design and land use. The City had been broken down into sections, with each CPAC member serving on a citywide committee and a section committee. Six sections had been built by integrating an understanding of the characteristics of land use, circulation, special features, etc., of each section. Fourteen change areas
06/10/95 76-96
had also been identified by the six sections, of which Cal-Ventura, South El Camino, and Midtown had been studied in three community design workshops in Spring 1994. As the workshops had proceeded, comments from the stakeholders and the consultants were put on wall charts. In each workshop, there had been plenty of education and orientation on the collaborative designing exercise. The result of all of the CPAC work was a City Structure Map with colors designating areas from the most intense commercial and employment districts to residential to civic centers to open space areas. Palo Alto was a built-out, mature city. CPAC had to make careful distinctions among the various kinds of districts, which had resulted in a rainbow chart which was far more complicated than most cities would want to use but which had worked for CPAC. The City Structure Map became the guide for the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Julie Maser, Chairperson of the Architectural Review Board, continued the slide presentation of the Community Design Section as developed by CPAC. Palo Alto was a vital place in which to live and work. The housing, community design, and workplace options supported affordability and diversity in all of its aspects. Palo Alto was an interdependent system based on the concept of walkable neighborhoods; a variety of building density types and uses would afford choices in both residential and commercial environments. The City was defined by its boundary as well as its physical features. Open space systems framed the community, circulation corridors provided connections to neighbor-ing cities, and streets within the City defined the character of the community and neighborhoods. Major goals and policies for the City included maintaining the residential character of the community; creating a fabric of walkable neighborhoods; strengthening the City's gateways; maintaining pedestrian and bicycle connections; protecting the hillsides, the baylands, and creeks in natural state; and protecting important view corridors. The City was made up of a series of distinct districts, defined by walkability, identity, and land use. Identity evolved from the public gathering spaces such as parks, schools, civic facilities, shopping areas, and streets. Residential districts were groupings of residential neighborhoods. The policies for such areas included the preservation of the existing character of residential design and the encouragement of alternative design housing forms, increased density, and provided a diversity of housing opportunities. Policies also included the protection of the public gathering spaces, the encouragement of housing designs which provided inviting faces to the street, and the allowance of suitable and compatible small commercial buildings within residential districts. Employment districts were areas dominated by employment uses. Policies for the employment districts included the creation of walkable destinations within the district to minimize auto use. Centers were the gathering places of the community, forming the primary identity of the district. Primary goals and policies for all centers included the rehabilitation of aging retail areas, the concept of mixing residential uses in commercial areas, the provision of public amenities such as street trees, public art, kiosks, and the control of visual clutter and signage. Major centers were places of citywide significance with
06/10/95 76-97
a mix of shopping, office, and some housing, of which University and California Avenues were examples. Primary goals and policies for such areas included maintaining University Avenue as the central focus of the City, maintaining the existing scale and retail orientation of the California Avenue retail district, and improving the connections between the Caltrans station and the Stanford Shopping Center. Mixed use areas had a diversity of uses within a pedestrian-oriented fabric. The South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) area, Ventura area south of Oregon Expressway, and south El Camino Real were examples. Goals and policies for mixed use centers should continue to allow a variety of uses within SOFA, support efforts within the Ventura area to develop as a mixed use center, and encourage the evolution of south El Camino Real as a mixed use center. Neighborhood centers typically focused on the grocery store or supermarket and included a variety of smaller retail shops and office uses. Midtown, Charleston, and Edgewood were all examples. The goals and policies for neighborhood centers included encouraging centers which adequately served the neighborhoods. Civic centers included public facilities, schools, parks, and meeting halls which represented the public gathering places within residential districts. Civic centers should provide the City with access to public art and cultural facilities, public spaces such as parks and community gardens, and public spaces which encouraged the quality of the pedestrian experience. Public ways were the travel paths and the living room of the community. Streets should be comfortable and safe, and the use of tree landscaping between streets and sidewalks should be encouraged, along with the strengthening of the street tree system, creation of small parks and plazas, reduction of the impact of paved surfaces by introducing more landscaping, and acceleration of the undergrounding of utilities. The design and placement of buildings defined the scale and character of a place. Security, stability, and pride were also communicated in the way buildings were designed. The goals and policies called for protecting and enhancing such qualities which made Palo Alto desirable by encouraging quality design and diversity of architectural styles, but only to a point, the upkeep and restoration of historic buildings were encouraged, and alternatives to surface parking lots would be encouraged to allow alternative designs to take place. Peter Calthorp, consultant residing in Berkeley, continued with the slide presentation. The shift seen in the Design Section was not just a semantic piece of window dressing. Beneath was found a fundamental change in the way general plans were considered. If nothing else came out of CPAC, the idea of moving away from general plans, which were based on zones which was an aggregation of zones, toward the notion that a city was made up of a series of places, whether districts or neighborhoods, was unique. Some of the complexity was trying to reflect the uniqueness of a mature city which had already evolved toward a very large spectrum of places. The real inadequacy in the way general planning had been conducted in California and across the country for the past 40 years was the way the idea of a zone tended to make a single-use area which denied the diversity and mix which inherently should be in place in order to have healthy places. Also, the way zones
06/10/95 76-98
tended to separate and the connection, which was the vital part of making communities and towns, were lost between the cracks as a result. Most documents went into great detail about individual zones and individual uses within the zones and fell short, except for its circulation element which was always about the automobile, in examining how the connections between places were made. The idea of moving away from zones and circulation elements and into a map of districts, neighborhoods, centers, places, etc., was fundamental to a large shift across the country. People were no longer satisfied with the underlying proposition of a euclidean land use system and facing the dilemmas which had been created. Another semantic issue was the substitution of "public ways" for "roads" in the circulation elements. There was a whole range of corridors and pathways which were not just reflective of streets for automobiles. The myopic quality of always identifying roadways as pathways for vehicles was an attempt to sweep away another layer of adding the mix. CPAC had worked long and hard to come up with the nomenclature seen in the Plan and was a very radical notion. There might be zoning elements beneath the Plan, but the way the town was conceptualized required a fundamental re-thinking. Having lived in Palo Alto as a child, he knew the City had not changed all that much but had matured and improved. The fundamental nature of Palo Alto had not changed in 30 years, which was healthy, and the current Comp Plan was viewed as an evolution of an existing plan which was already healthy. CPAC sought to enhance the qualities which already existed in Palo Alto in the Comp Plan and involved some substantial changes in the way land use planning would be handled in the future. Diversity, community, walkability, human scale, etc., were all words people used all the time. However, when translated into policies and goals, they became very meaningful. Such qualities of diversity and community already existed in Palo Alto. The fabric of diversity of building types, even though leveled by home values, age groups, and family types still existed. The Plan sought to enhance the diversity. So much of Palo Alto had been built out before the age of the automobile. The tree-lined quality and respect for the place of the pedestrian was still in place and had been enhanced and expanded over time, e.g., bicycle routes in many areas. The commercial districts in Palo Alto were models which many places around the country were struggling to emulate. University Avenue's pedestrian and human scale had real meaning and was part of what people loved about the area. California Avenue had a similar quality at a slightly lower scale. The fundamental notions of diversity of use, mixed use, pedestrian scale, human scale, walkability, etc., were all key elements which had already evolved into many neighborhoods and districts. New development on Loma Verde showed how a standard piece of commercial in-fill around a neighborhood could be turned into not only a commercial enterprise but also a neighborhood focus. The recent renovations at Charleston were another great example of how some of the old fabric could be woven into a powerful community. There were hardly any civic centers in Palo Alto. There was a subject of great pride, and it would be difficult to miss continuing policies to maintain and expand such facilities, all of which were contained in the Plan. Some of the civic centers had lost the notion of the human scale. Another mistake which had
06/10/95 76-99
been made was along El Camino Real, even though there were areas which had evolved to create a sense of place and mixture in real terms. The Plan began to focus on such areas, but not to the neglect of the residential neighborhoods which were already very stable and should not undergo massive changes of any kind. There were areas which required much attention, which was where the Plan focused its energy and ideas. El Camino Real was a huge challenge, Midtown was already underway and was a wonderful challenge, the Cal-Ventura area was a huge opportunity as major pieces could be transformed and receive more richness. Stanford was a sensitive topic, and the Stanford Shopping Center, which would be changing, represented real opportunities. Projects around the country were shown representing dramatic and fundamental shifts from areas centered around the automobile into more human scale, pedestrian, mixed-use elements. One such project in Florida was symbolic of a commercial development which had replaced a 1970s mall in a suburban area with a mixed use and very highly successful commercial project which combined housing and office over retail. What made the project work was a grand public human scale, pedestrian place. The anchor was not the commercial use but the public space which was extraordinary and became a draw to the surrounding area. On both sides was ground floor retail, but above and one side was residential and office. Day time office users used the commercial and public spaces, and in the evenings, residential use existed. The project was the most successful commercial project in the state of Florida in the past five years. The public amenities were the anchor, not the huge department store. Another slide revealed a looped street which segregated the pedestrian and the automobile, which was a sensitive design issue often poorly handled. The automobile had to be maintained, but the pedestrian aspect had to be reinstated. The fact the two could be mixed and be compatible involved design criteria which was contained in the Plan, e.g., civilizing the automobile without giving the car free reign. The balance between the automobile and pedestrian/bicyclist created success. Mixed-use zones created the economic synergy desired in new developments. Another sign of changing times was a standard shopping center in Cape Cod where the anchor grocery store remained with an in-fill of a whole street/city grid of mixed uses. The automobile was still present but had not displaced the pedestrian. One of the dilemmas was the attraction of higher-income residential, which created an agent of gentrification. The difficulty was how uncomfortable areas could be transformed into more pedestrian human scale areas and kept from being exclusive enclaves. The key relationship in the Plan between neighborhood and commercial centers was critical. Commercial centers should not stand alone. A stand-alone commercial center in Princeton without neighborhood/residential fabric had been a complete failure. The ultimate ingredient was not mixed use alone but included the set of connections which were established with the neighborhood. One project in San Diego which had called for mixed uses in development was found on an old Sears site of approxi-mately 13 acres. The result had been a wonderful project with housing, housing over retail, offices over retail, and the anchor grocery store which had broken all the rules of commercial developments, e.g., not visible from the arterial, had little
06/10/95 76-100
parking, and put shops out on the street. The local destination anchored by the grocery store put the grocery store at the focus of the neighborhood rather than as the focus of a parking lot. The anchor store was not a huge giant box but had been integrated into a mini-main street in a fairly sensitive manner. The quality of architectural design played a huge role in accomplishing such goals, not densities, set-backs, parking ratios. Out on the arterial, rather than the typical huge parking lot, the grocery store had just one sign with office/retail above. Parking was only about three per thousand with a special ramp designed to avoid losing control of the grocery cart. Even after all of the financial investments, the grocery store was the most successful per square foot of all in the large chain. In Boulder, Colorado, a Safeway store had sought a project not unlike the uptown project with a recessed store, with parking screened from the major streets with an office over retail, with a civic element. The entire project included housing, daycare, village green, library, in-line shops, the major anchor, and some live/work housing. The idea of lining streets to become reasonable for pedestrians was key to all such projects. The main street concept of bringing buildings out and maintaining the architectural character was all part of the plan. Some considered such a plan nostalgic, but it was really a return to fundamental values which had been lost long ago. The way small pieces were in-filled could also reinforce and create such environments. California Avenue, the Ventura area, or even El Camino Real contained possibilities. In Rockridge, a main street had been added without damage. Many had seen Market Hall, where a very sensitive in-fill could be seen, much denser than the rest of the street, which greatly enhanced the neighborhood. A mix of offices, restaurants, and food stores had a great street presence and helped focus the neighborhood. Dryers Ice Cream, rather than moving out, had found a way for the rest of the town to become elastic around it and fit in nicely with the street. There had been some question about whether such mixed-use areas made a difference in traffic. A recent study had gone through different neighborhoods around the Bay Area, correlating the vehicle miles traveled per household per year revealing that mixed-use diverse areas generated less traffic than single-use zoning. Danville was an extreme, but in some ways Stanford Research Park was not unlike the area. The Rockridge area with a fairly complex mix, not unlike many sections of Palo Alto, averaged around 15,000 vehicle miles per household per year, and Danville averaged 32,000. The population in California had increased by 40 percent since he had lived in Palo Alto, but the vehicle miles traveled had increased by over 100 percent. Growth did not drive the congestion, but the fact was the population drove 2.5 times as many miles per year than 1970. To create environments where walking was no longer an option was a huge variable. Returning walkable places to the community not only solved traffic problems but also resulted in stronger, healthier, and better communities. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Council had received a memorandum which provided a table. Staff had reviewed what Council had accomplished in the Business and Economics (BE), Housing (HS), Transportation (TR), and Natural
06/10/95 76-101
Environment (NE) sections of the Plan to identify all of the "A" items (items Council had tentatively identified for inclusion in the Plan) and "B" items (items which might end up as text or in the appendix and retained), correlating the Community Design policies and programs by number and page number in chronological order with actions which had already been taken. In large part, Community Design (CD) was the integration of much of the entire Plan and what CPAC had been about. A tremendous number of correlations existed. Council had also received a staff report (CMR:294:95). Coordinated Area Plans (CAP) were a critical concept in the CD section but also were directly related to many of the concepts in CPAC's presentation. Worth emphasizing was the concept of CAPs which grew out of the sense within CPAC that there were areas within the community which had not performed well over the past few decades and for which the community and Council desired physical change and upgrading, which was a very important statement in terms of desiring physical change and upgrading. The purpose for many areas, as identified by CPAC, was to find a way to have a planning process which could bring about change. The area planning concept was fundamental to managing change. To the extent change was not desired in particular areas, the area planning process was not appropriate. There were also areas not appropriate for the area planning process because the properties involved, as identified by CPAC, were either individual ownership or small numbers of ownerships in relatively isolated problem situations. For example, Edgewood Plaza and Alma Plaza both involved two owners and relatively distinct land-use issues which might require property owner and neighborhood involvement but might not be appropriate for a significant investment of City time and financial resources for an area planning concept. Staff had identified areas where area plans were unnecessary, e.g., Charleston, Alma, Edgewood. Staff also considered an area plan unnecessary for the Stanford Medical Center; however, Stanford was encouraged to consider the entire area in its planning. Staff had also identified five areas where more detailed land use plans, traditionally used by the City, would be more appropriate and desirable, i.e., Midtown, Cal-Ventura, El Camino Real from Curtner to Charleston, SOFA, and the Dream Team Area land on either side of University Circle west of the railroad tracks. Staff considered the areas as combining a desire for physical change and upgrading with the level of complexity in terms of land uses, ownership patterns, design issues, traffic issues, etc., which would warrant a significant undertaking by the City. The Midtown area had been addressed in separate staff reports, the last of which had appeared in Council's packet the previous day and was an agenda item for the following Council meeting. In the staff report on area plans, staff had indicated as inappropriate modification of the comprehensive planning process to incorporate into the next phase development of a draft plan. In creation of the Plan, staff had identified the California-Ventura area as having a set of circumstances which would be worthwhile to amend the process to slow Phase III to add an area plan. Although not necessarily in favor of slowing the Comp Plan process, staff thought there were issues which were very intense and near term and would not go away. The best way to deal with the issue was within an area planning concept. In the staff report
06/10/95 76-102
(CMR:295:95), staff had identified some role issues for Council. Mayor Simitian asked about the time frame for the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said if Council were interested in pursuing the issue, a meeting would have to take place with the process consultant, Daniel Iacofano. The process would probably be extended by three to five months. More work would be necessary, should Council determine the issue was worth pursuing. The process would include development of a draft Plan, placing California-Ventura temporarily on hold, putting a draft plan into public circulation, and creating an area plan for the California-Ventura area over the course of three to four months while the draft Plan went through the public review process, which would probably be intensive and extensive. Staff hoped to have the area plan finished so it could be moved into the public review process, all of which would be tied together at the end of the process. Mayor Simitian asked when staff estimated completion. Mr. Schreiber said without the extension for the California Avenue area plan, staff estimated adoption of the Comprehensive Plan sometime in early 1997, assuming Council completed the CD section and a review of all sections prior to its vacation in August 1995. A draft plan would be available in March 1996; the original called for the review of the draft Plan, including a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), with adoption to take six months. Given the range of issues and the fact the Planning Commission had been rushed through Phase II, six months was unrealistic for public review and Council review. Nine to ten months would be necessary to move the draft Plan through Council and the public. If the area planning process were included, the time would be stretched to the Summer or Fall of 1997. Mayor Simitian clarified staff anticipated a tentative completion date of early 1997, if everything remained on schedule. Mr. Schreiber estimated early 1997, unless the issue of area planning was included which would add an extra three to four months. Council Member Kniss said the CPAC group had been appointed in 1992, so with a completion date of 1997, the total time for the Comprehensive Plan was five years. Extensive discussion had revolved around the fact staff time impacted other areas of planning attempted in the City. Comments had often been made that as soon as the Comp Plan was completed, staff would be able to move on to other issues. Council had also stated that while in the midst of the Plan, there should be no moratoria on certain kinds of planning, but the current discussion appeared to be a moratorium of sorts. Mr. Schreiber had addressed three different issues: 1) an extension in timing, 2) allocation of resources beyond time resources, and 3) what would be done about other types of issues. Issues in the Comp Plan were being discussed as having an impact on other affairs within the community.
06/10/95 76-103
Mr. Schreiber said Phase II had taken longer than had been anticipated, which was understandable given the range of issues and the time Council had appropriately put into the Plan. Time was a concern, however. Staff had indicated Phase III, without modification, could follow the original schedule; but given what had occurred during Phase II, staff anticipated the Phase IV public review process would take longer, which was a concern for staff. At the same time, six months for public review of the document was not realistic. The Planning Commission, as well as the other boards and commissions, would require a notable portion of time to examine the Plan. As the process proceeded, staff resources were taken, but the process had to be maintained. Staff had diverted resources over the past month to conduct a number of projects, pulling staff away from the Comp Plan. However, August and September would again require staff on a full-time basis. A moratorium was not a concept which staff had endorsed nor advocated in terms of the process. The concern with Cal-Ventura was Hewlett Packard (HP), which had indicated a desire to move ahead on 395 Page Mill Road and a desire for direction from the City in the Comp Plan process. The City could decide to maintain its current direction for land use policies, or the City could decide to do something more detailed after adoption of the Comp Plan. Such a decision would push the decision out to mid-1998 before direction would be seen. There were other issues in the area, i.e., the Maximart issue had generated much discussion and interest from a variety of property owners in terms of the detailed plan for the area. His preferred option was not to introduce an area of plan into the Comp Plan update process. The more staff had considered how to give the public and property owners direction, particularly for the area of Maximart/Cal-Ventura, the more staff concluded that delaying any detailed planning process until after adoption of the Comp Plan was a worse alternative than trying to plug something into the Comp Plan update process. There were trade-offs and pros and cons, one of which was the stretching of the Comp Plan process. City Attorney Ariel Calonne advised Council Members Kniss and Fazzino not to participate in discussion of the Cal-Ventura area, as seen on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:295:95) which recommended initiating a process for Cal-Ventura directly involved with HP. In addition to what had been discussed earlier about Council Members Kniss and Fazzino's not participating in the substantive planning issues for the area, participation in the procedural decision and action should also be avoided. Mr. Schreiber said the staff recommendations in the staff report (CMR:295:95) related to the entire CD section of the Plan. The staff recommendation related to the various issues Council would confront as it went through the Plan. Item 4 on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:295:95) would be addressed when Council discussed the issue in the Plan. Mr. Calonne suggested Council not take action that day. Mr. Schreiber said the Cal-Ventura recommendation was found on pages 14 through 17, Goal CD-9 of the Plan which contained staff
06/10/95 76-104
comments. Staff had identified some role issues of staff, Council, property owners, and the public in the staff report (CMR:295:95). If Council were interested in pursuing the area planning concept, staff thought there were notable role issues. The in-depth staff report attached to the summary provided staff's understanding of the area planning process of the components as put forth by CPAC. The objective of the area planning process was to bring about physical changes in parts of the community, and the change was assumed to be both publicly acceptable and economically viable, which was an underlying assumption throughout. The owners of non-residential properties for which change was desired were critical players in any type of area planning process. Also critical was the availability of outside, independent, neutral, economic expertise. All participants needed to be advised of the economic reality of particular proposals, needs, and desires, which was one of a number of components in an area planning process very critical both in terms of the objective of economic viability as well as the availability of resources. Council Member Huber asked whether the suggestion of adding Cal-Ventura into the Plan and extending the process would have some cost and, if so, how much. Mr. Schreiber said staff would need to work with the consultant. In terms of making everything work in a reasonably quick manner, staff would need to use the Comp Plan consultants or consultants currently under hire to the City. Staff would not go out for a new consultant selection process, which was very time consuming. Staff would need to sit down with the consultants to put together some sense of the process to determine cost estimates. Council Member Huber understood Mr. Schreiber hoped to finish the review process before mid-August 1995 in order to facilitate presentation of the final Plan to Council in 1997. Mr. Schreiber said one section could be postponed until Fall 1995. The Planning Commission had not taken up recommendations on the Land Use Map. The two sections after CD were Governance and Community Service. After Council had acted on all of the sections, a wrap-up session would be necessary for Council to review everything which had been done to determine consistencies. If all three were completed before mid-August, the map issues would be taken up in September 1995. Council Member Huber asked whether the wrap-up would be similar to what staff had presented to Council in comparing the BE to the CD sections or whether it would be more readable. Mr. Schreiber said a significant part of the wrap-up would emerge from Council's review of the CD section and when Council had reviewed what had been done in other sections. It might take up a significant part of the issues which normally would be part of the wrap-up process because of potential inconsistencies which would surface. Council Member Huber clarified once the wrap-up phase was complet-
06/10/95 76-105
ed, the Plan would be taken back to staff and then to the Planning Commission. Mr. Schreiber said the product would return to staff with the consultants. Staff estimated putting together a draft Plan and EIR would take six months, after which the Plan would be submitted for extensive public and boards/commissions review to return in late Fall of 1996. Council would then go through the document once more. Council Member Huber asked whether CPAC would have any formal role in the process after conclusion of the initial review. Mr. Schreiber said the original schedule adopted by Council indicated there would be two CPAC meetings involved with the draft Plan. CPAC's role was not 100 percent finished as the group would cease as a formal body as soon as the Plan had gone on to the boards/commissions review. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked about the interrelationship between the proposal to incorporate an area plan for Cal-Ventura into the Comp Plan process with the decision before Council related to one of the significant sites in the area. Mr. Calonne advised Council Members Kniss and Fazzino to excuse themselves from the meeting because of the nature of the discus-sion. Mayor Simitian suggested holding the topic until later in the day. Council Member Andersen wanted to at least deal with the initial question which had been asked. Council Member McCown agreed the issue should be held until the end of the day. Vice Mayor Wheeler was concerned about the extent to which the staff report (CMR:295:95) raised concerns by members of the public. To the extent the City Attorney had indicated no action would be taken on the issue of area planning within the context of the day's meeting, her questions could wait until later in the day. Council Member Rosenbaum would ask his questions later in the day. Council Member Kniss said Mr. Schreiber had given Council a cost figure at one point. Mr. Schreiber said staff had given an estimate of $200,000 to $250,000 for a full, stand-alone area process. Staff's sense was that by attaching the area plan to the Comp Plan process, the cost would be reduced. However, staff was unable to quantify how much less. The $200,000 estimate was based on staff discussions with jurisdictions which had conducted area plans. There was no one model process which could be used automatically. As the nature of a particular process became formulated, the needs which drove the
06/10/95 76-106
cost could increase or decrease. Council Member McCown said Council had received a letter from Emily Renzel indicating the CD section would be the portion of the Plan which constituted the land use element as a matter of state planning law. If correct, a reminder should be given as to what was required in the land use element to assist Council in evaluat-ing whether the Plan was sufficient or not. Mr. Schreiber had not seen Ms. Renzel's letter. The State Land Use zone would emerge from the CD section, from some actions Council had taken in other sections, and from other map related issues which had not yet been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Council Member McCown asked how Council would evaluate what was proposed for the Plan as the land use element. Mr. Schreiber said the specific structure and text of the element was something which staff and the consultants would draft after Council had completed a review of all of the different policies, programs, and land use map issues. Staff had indicated that Council had not received a draft of the Plan yet. The policies and programs which had been reviewed would not necessarily return to Council in the same format, organization, or wording. Staff anticipated the organization of all of the different policies and programs would be made in a way which made the most sense, given the need for state-mandated elements and the need to address how Palo Altans viewed the community. Staff had tried to avoid making comments or commitments concerning where or how certain items would appear in the Plan. Staff wanted to know exactly what Council wanted in the Plan before a decision could be made concerning where the items should appear. Council Member McCown asked whether a summarized list of the key policy decisions which came from separate Council actions and which constituted the land use blueprint that would go into the draft Plan could be provided at the wrap-up session. Being able to summarize and pull together in a coherent way the key land use decisions implicated by the various policies was difficult to determine. Mr. Schreiber said staff could provide such a summarization, acknowledging that when the Planning Commission finished its work and Council had taken up certain hot issues, not the map issues, the summarization might be modified after reviewing policies and programs. Council Member Andersen asked whether the charter city issue separated Palo Alto from the consistency requirement since Palo Alto was a charter city which currently had no consistency requirement. Mr. Calonne said yes and no. The issue had been addressed in a report he had provided in Council's packet. A precursor to a consistency requirement had appeared in CPAC's proposed policies. In Fall 1994, Council had begun a discussion of what that would
06/10/95 76-107
mean. Currently, there was no legal requirement that the zoning code be consistent with the Comp Plan, i.e., in the 1050 Arastradero Road, a residential comprehensive plan designation and some different kind of zoning occurred for which Council was not bound. A state law required the comprehensive plan to be internally consistent, i.e., if the land use element resulted in "x" number of automobiles, the circulation element had to acknowledge and accommodate the element to some degree. The internal consistency requirement existed for chartered cities as well as non-chartered cities. Staff had not begun to analyze whether all of the dozens of policies were internally consistent, and he suspected there was inconsistency. Mayor Simitian said Mr. Calonne had indicated that as a charter city, Palo Alto's zoning ordinance did not have to be consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. If so and if there were an inconsis-tency, he queried which rule would prevail. Mr. Calonne had not examined the issue. There were some consis-tency requirements in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), e.g., the conditional use permit, tentative subdivision maps, Planned Community (PC) zoning. Mayor Simitian asked what the public could rely upon when trying to push a project through and seeking to protect a neighborhood, if the zoning ordinance said one thing and Comp Plan said another, i.e., if the inconsistency between the two documents meant neither prevailed, one prevailed, or either could prevail, etc. Mr. Calonne thought the zoning ordinance would prevail; however, he would respond in writing. Judy Ann Edwards, 231 Chestnut, member of CPAC, reminded Council of the value of the walkable neighborhoods concept, especially germane to the Ventura area. As a resident of the Ventura area, bordered by El Camino Real, Oregon Expressway, Alma Street, and the railroad tracks, she recognized the great need for services and commercial ventures which were accessible by foot. There was a substantial senior population, and as of the 1990 census, some 20 percent of all children in Palo Alto lived in Ventura, and the number continued to increase. A close examination had already been made of Ventura in two neighborhood workshops during the CPAC process. Hundreds of people throughout the neighborhood and Palo Alto had attended the meetings which had considered all of the issues and solutions. In the western El Camino Real and northern Cal-Ventura areas, CPAC had considered employment of walkable neighborhoods, which served commercial, public meeting places, and mixed-use commercial. Having a venture like Fry's Electronics surrounded by residential, even though parking and other problems would exist, involved tearing up streets but could result in a win-win situation for all involved. Such a solution would be very acceptable to the neighborhoods. Many neighborhood residents had put many hours into examining the issues and hoped Council would keep the neighborhoods involved in the process and plans. The California-Ventura neighborhood appreciated having had the Mayor's State of the City Address in a room of the Ventura School
06/10/95 76-108
community center, which had been refurbished for the event. Residents in the Cal-Ventura area desired mixed-use commercial and residential with more affordable housing along with attention to traffic problems which included consideration of seniors and children. Andy Coe, Director of Community Relations, Stanford University, said Stanford was in general support of the direction of the CD Section and the Dream Team. Portions of Stanford's letter (on file in Clerk's Office) regarding the urban limit line concept were read. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the CD Section was unwieldy, redundant both internally and with respect to other sections, and completely inappropriate as a guide for land use for a 15-year period. Her letter was read (on file in City Clerk's Office) with details concerning the section. Joseph Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, said the EIR was key to the entire CD Section as it would open up many interesting cases as to whether some of the non-residential development would be of economic benefit to Palo Alto (letter on file in City Clerk's Office). Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton Drive, appeared on behalf of the Public Art Commission (PAC). The CD Section was the mother section of the Plan and was the section which contained art and culture. The most vital and interesting places to live in were areas in which art and culture were integrated with commerce such as public art sculptures and murals. Council was encouraged to retain all aspects of the Plan which included art and culture. Natalie Wells, 3259 Alma Street, urged Council to consider page 29 of the CD section, particularly the goals and policies related to art. Council was encouraged to retain Policy CD-15.C, "Encourage additional public and private art in the Downtown area" in the Plan. The word "art" had not appeared anywhere in the current Comp Plan, but the new Comp Plan should contain the word "art." Council was reminded of testimony heard on May 22, 1995, by Arnie Hillis, who had spoken as a Mountain View resident concerning the Plan which stated that the future of Downtown Palo Alto was found not only in retail establishments but also in its being a regional center for dining and entertainment. Council was encouraged to include a statement in the CD section on page 29 as a new Policy CD-15.F, "Encourage performing arts complex or center," which would relate to Goal CD-15, "Maintain and enhance the University Avenue area as the central focus of the City, with commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses." The cultural use would include not only art, but also a performing arts or cultural center. Council's commitment to Cubberley and developing Cubberley into a performing arts center was appreciated, but Cubberley was not in the Downtown area where such a center was necessary to maintain a healthy economic mix. Council Member Fazzino thought specific reference to a performing arts center in the Downtown area had already been included in
06/10/95 76-109
another section of the Plan. Mr. Schreiber agreed. Chet Dilauro, 4131 Park Boulevard, said his neighborhood suffered from an excessive amount of noise from CalTrain horns, which had become offensive to the area. The decibel levels had increased to intolerable levels, especially for children and seniors, to approximately 110 decibels when children were crossing at Meadow and Charleston on their way to school. The Charleston Meadow Association submitted a petition (on file in the City Clerk's Office) encouraging the adoption of a "control ordinance prohibit-ing the use of train whistles at all gate protected grade crossings except for averting immediate threat to life or proper-ty." At least a quieting of the horns should be adopted, making engineers aware that the blowing of horns at such decibels could be harmful. Mayor Simitian asked staff where there was another mechanism besides the Comprehensive Plan that Mr. Dilauro could pursue to discuss the issue of the train noise and find a resolution. City Manager June Fleming said staff had discussed the issue with several Council Members, more consistently with Council Member Huber. Council would soon be receiving a memo from its colleagues requesting approval to direct staff to follow through on the issue of train noise. Council Member Kniss stated that she would not participate in the current issue because of a possible conflict of interest that related to her husband's employment with Hewlett-Packard and her relationship with Sun Microsystems. Council Member Fazzino stated that he would not participate in the current issue because of a possible conflict of interest that related to his employment at Hewlett-Packard. Marcel Cohen, 3000 Hanover Street, Real Estate Manager for Hewlett-Packard, said Hewlett-Packard (HP) had been planning redevelopment of its office and manufacturing sites for several years at 395 Page Mill Road, which it had owned since 1947. All current operation was being relocated or sold. The outdated building would be demolished. The soil remediation program had been approved and would follow the site plans. HP intended to hold and divide up the property for its very long-term use and to present a plan for a more modern site design and flexible new facility which would enhance the surrounding area. A conceptual plan would be presented to Council which would set the stage for the formal design site approval. Council was asked to adopt the revised version of the Comp Plan wherein Policy CD-9.D, "Evaluation of redevelopment alternatives for the Hewlett Packard site at 395 Page Mill Road should contain a mix of office, retail, and residential uses that fit with the scale and character of the surrounding area," should remain. HP wanted the EIR to allow continuation of its site intensity with administrative, professional office use designation. HP was fully aware of the
06/10/95 76-110
desire of many in the community for some form or combination of mixed uses in the Cal-Ventura neighborhood. HP hoped to accommodate the flexibility and creatively to an appropriate degree; but HP was constrained by the site's own limitation and because HP was an electronic company with particular business needs. HP was not a real estate developer and could not build whatever the market dictated. HP had carefully listened to the viewpoints of many interested citizens, officials, and institutions and was confident it could accomplish its objective in a way in which all of Palo Alto could appreciate. Some mixed uses could be incorporated into the design. Landscaping would allow for bicycle and pedestrian access to the property, composed of a plaza and courtyard from which everyone would benefit and enjoy. Dave Wetzel, 3981 El Camino Real, was the son-in-law to Mr. and Mrs. Chin who owned a family business at 3981 El Camino Real. In November of 1994, the family had written a letter to Council and the Planning Commission and had appeared before the Planning Commission to voice concerns about the Comp Plan update's CD section and suggestions regarding the property at 3981 El Camino Real. The Plan update suggested the property be designated as a public use site, which contradicted the current Comp Plan for the property and the City's long-term goal to enable more housing along the corridor. His family had worked for many years with the City to create beneficial housing development on the site, but the actions suggested by the Plan update would set back the progress which had been made. A community focal point for the neighborhood was a good suggestion, for which the City already had an excellent property adjacent to 3981 El Camino Real which could become a community center. The Ventura playground buildings could become a center with a significantly smaller expenditure by the City. The City would obtain much greater success by improving the existing Ventura center as a community focal point. Council was asked to leave the zoning and long-term plan for the property as it existed. The Plan had been well-thought out for ten years. The family's November 9, 1994, letter requested Council safeguard the progress which had been made over the years without changing the current zoning designation of the property. Council Member McCown clarified the material which was attached to the Chin family's letter was based on the design workshop conducted in the area and asked staff whether anything in the CD section proposed any change to the property or whether the only place where the issue had arisen was at the design workshop. Mr. Schreiber thought the only place the issue had been addressed was at the design workshop, but he would go through the CD section to confirm. Council Member McCown clarified any action to make a change to the property would require going through the Planning Commission with the map stage it was about to address. Mr. Schreiber replied yes.
06/10/95 76-111
Council Member McCown asked whether any action had been taken to make such a change was being recommended to CPAC or the Planning Commission. Mr. Schreiber said staff had recommended dropping the concept since staff understood it had emerged during a time when the potential conversion of the Ventura center site back to an active school site had been discussed. Staff thought the emphasis should be on the Ventura center rather than on an expansion of the public plan toward El Camino Real. Council Member McCown thought staff should clarify exactly what would be recommended to the Planning Commission. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the portion of the CD section recommending creation of a new category called multi-neighborhood centers happened to be the three workshop areas which were chosen for the CPAC process and fit into what the Director of Planning referred to as "managing change." Examining the kinds of uses which were being proposed for the three workshop areas was necessary. Midtown had been designated in the current Comp Plan as a neighborhood commercial area and had changed over time because there had been too much commercial land to support what was needed in terms of neighborhood serving retail uses. The draft Plan attempted to create the workshop areas as de jure rather than de facto office and service areas for the larger community, which was a mistake, at least with regard to Midtown. Appropriate treatment of Midtown would make the neighborhood commercial center area smaller, which other neighborhood centers were trying at Alma and Edgewood, with the remainder of the area as residential. Although area wide plans were being recommended for other areas, area wide plans were not being recommended for Midtown because of the time required to involve and educate the neighbors as to the results of the proposed plans. By the time zoning changes went into effect, it would be too late for effective input from residential neighborhoods surrounding Midtown. However, an area wide plan for Midtown, with a short amortization schedule, could transform the Midtown area into a true and vital neighborhood/commercial rather than an office center. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said Midtown should be neighborhood commercial, not a multi-neighborhood commercial, i.e., all neighborhood commercials were actually multi-neighborhood commercial in that the areas served three or four small surrounding areas. Edgewood Plaza served East Palo Alto and the Garden district as well as Palo Alto West Bayshore, Crescent Park, and local areas. Midtown was a very small area very near residential. Some of the proposals put the trash, parking, lights, backup truck beepers, etc., at the rear of property no larger than 10,000 square feet in a residential area. Some Council Members had received a letter from a resident, Lillian Chernan, who lived just behind one of the locations which operated all evening. Council was requested to consider not putting the 24-hour activities directly on back fences of residents. Increased development only brought about increased noises and
06/10/95 76-112
activities in the late night. Buffers, which had not been provided in any of the neighborhood commercial, should be considered for residential areas. Regarding trees, the letter from the Tree Task Force discussed shade standards for paving which were crucial to the success of street trees and parking lot landscaping. Program D-1 should be included to ensure sufficient soil volume and soil quality to support trees. As setbacks were reduced, the volume of soil was reduced. Trees were only growing to one-third or one-half the normal size for the species of tree, so there was not as much shade in the parking lots. One of the most recent examples in Palo Alto of parking lot shading was at Sun Microsystems, which should be the model for the City for how shade and trees in parking lots should be handled. The City needed to landscape chain link fences, which were required next to residential areas and parks, with vines or trees. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, Community Association of Neighborhoods. read from a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) that emphasized the inappropriate aspects of the Plan, especially in light of the large number of projects which had been proposed, approved, and constructed on El Camino Real in 1994 in comparison with all other commercial districts in Palo Alto combined. Council Member Andersen asked about Community Association of Neighborhoods (CAN). Mr. Moss said CAN was a group of people from 15 to 20 neighborhoods throughout Palo Alto, e.g., north Palo Alto to south Palo Alto, which had been proposed by a former Council Member. The goal of the group was to coordinate neighborhood-related issues. Since the Comprehensive Plan touched every neighborhood in the City, CAN had been meeting to discuss the Plan fairly extensively and regularly. Although the meetings were a little more effective than communicating through e-mail, they were not as effective as a regular neighborhood association like Barron Park, which met regularly with focused attention. Council Member Andersen asked whether Mr. Moss' letter represented the group or his own response. Mr. Moss said the letter represented a group of people who had met on Thursday night and had gone through the Plan. Council Member Andersen asked for the names of some of the people in the group who had discussed the recommendation. Mr. Moss said CAN included people from all over town. The list of group members would be released if the group so allowed. Council Member Kniss asked staff to provide information concerning Mr. Moss' statement that there had been more development proposals approved on El Camino Real than any other part of the City in 1994. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, said Council would be
06/10/95 76-113
discussing three types of issues in the CD section of the Plan: 1) the City's vision, for which she agreed with the walkable neighborhoods, but as a mature and built-out city, discussions should center around restructuring rather than expansion; 2) how to manage the change, acknowledging everyone would want some flexibility which was why the concepts for the area plans were good in general; and 3) who would take the risks and who paid the price when a plan did not work. When Stanford Research Park had been built, the public had not been informed that Oregon Expressway would be necessary. When the Stanford Shopping Center had been built, Willow Expressway had not been approved. A fourth generation economy and community could not be stuffed down into a second generation transportation system and exactly the right transportation system for every small change in economic development. The draft Plan discussed approval of a major regional center with an arterial center of 66-foot four-lane roads without any visible means of support. There were no arterial systems of 66-foot wide non-residential arterials between Stanford and Highway 101 and no serious transportation alternatives. Shuttles were a very good idea but only solved 10 percent of the problem. Increasing cross-city traffic and the pollution from the new proposed regional business centers might completely dominate the effects of all the efforts being put into neighborhood and area plans. Sufficient consideration was not being given to the cross-city traffic aspect. Residents should not take all the risks and pay the prices for mistakes which had been made in the past and might be made in the future. Bonnie Packer, 768 Stone Lane, member of CPAC, supported the design concepts in the CD section of the Plan. Having a community design approach in a comprehensive plan was very exciting and hopefully would not be lost in the world of state requirements. Coordinated area planning was also a very good idea. The design workshops were a wonderful exercise in democracy and civic participation. There was a real chance for public participation at a meaningful level where property owners, residents, and decision makers could have real dialogue. CPAC had included Policy CD-4.I, found on page 9 of the Plan which stated, "Allow small commercial buildings within Residential Districts, provided that they are able to meet clear performance and architectural standards that respect the neighborhood's overall character, its level of activity, and traffic and parking conditions," because of "Mom and Pop" retail, the impact of which should be considered. People in residential areas were already giving swimming lessons or dance lessons. There were suggestions in Goal CD-23 on page 40 regarding outreach to the public or having more processes and procedures which gave the public opportunities for meaningful input in the immediate surrounding areas. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura, agreed with Mr. Moss in his reference to being appalled at the explosion of commercial development proposed in the Plan with not only its impact on traffic but also the unacceptable impact on the housing market, an issue which had not been addressed. She queried rushing the Cal-Ventura study through and whether the area plans would also be rushed through to accommodate HP's speculative office building. A
06/10/95 76-114
decision should be made on the amortization of the Fry's site prior to any other decision. Palo Alto's neighborhoods were mixed but would change toward offices. Palo Alto had the most walkable residential possibility on the Fry's site, which already contained residential zoning, shopping, transportation, jobs, and buses and would be given away to another large commercial venture. All of the ideas which had been introduced as broad brush had suddenly become concrete and were being voted upon, which was not right (letter on file in City Clerk's Office). Mayor Simitian clarified the City was nearly two years from completion of the Comprehensive Plan process, and although people might be unhappy with what had been proposed by CPAC or the Planning Commission, Council still had many decisions about what it would send in draft form to staff, after which staff would return with a draft form proposal which would be the subject of debate by Council and the community. Pat Burt, 1419 Byron Street, President of the University South Neighborhoods Group, focused his comments on support for the staff recommendations regarding the coordinated area plans which pertained to the Palo Alto map and South of Forest Avenue redevel-opment process and the intention to incorporate full proactive participation of neighbors in the process. Early commencement of the process was anticipated with the hope for participation. Concern was expressed over the cumulative traffic impact of the major developments embodied in the Plan and emphasized the apparent contradiction between the proposed developments and many other elements of the Plan. Support was given to Council to provide the public with a more clear indication of its intentions concerning the developments rather than deferring to the EIR for resolution of the critical and potentially divisive issues. Council Member Andersen asked whether University South Neighbor-hoods Group (USNG) had been involved in the CAN group. Mr. Burt said some USNG members had attended some of CAN's past meetings but had not been involved in the last meeting. Christine Shambora, 236 Tennyson, member of the CD section of the CPAC process, was a lifelong resident of Palo Alto with no developer interests. Approximately six citizens had worked on the CD section, with the assistance of staff and other professionals, never with the intention to result in what many had accused. Palo Alto was a wonderful City for which the CD section would improve in the ways about which she had been educated through the CPAC process. As a lay person appointed to CPAC, she had never considered herself as having an artistic eye but had received as part of the process a wonderful education. Included in her learning experience had been the importance of design in city planning, how things like human scale and behavior were impacted by how cities were designed, and how important it was to reassert the balance between pedestrians and the automobile in a community. An effort had been made to visit other areas to see what had happened through planning changes. A visit had been made to Uptown, described by Peter Calthorp, where she had been enchanted
06/10/95 76-115
and was ready to move. Recently she had visited Seaside in Florida, which was a wonderful place. Palo Alto had the opportunity to bring such positive changes to its own community, and it was what the CD section was all about. Mention had been made that Palo Alto was a built-out city, but Palo Alto was an old built-out city containing many places where renewal should take place. Such renewal should be done correctly, not just slapped together in a haphazard fashion. The public was agitated about the fact the process had taken so long to unfold, with many years to come; however, it was important to take the time because of the far reaching implications. The process was caught in the middle of a philosophical change in city planning and design. People were just beginning to really understand the impact the automobile had had on the quality of life. Time should be taken to do the right thing, even if beyond what had originally been anticipated. Margaret Feuer, 1310 University Avenue, thought the public had been making comments in an attempt to assist Council in the decisions it would make. Although the Plan was not at the end of the process, decisions made would create the universe for future decisions. The fact the CD section purported to substitute a critical land use element of the Comp Plan was troublesome. For residential neighborhoods, the CD section destroyed the traditional assurance of R-1 zoning through its proposals for increased densities and uses. For developers, the CD section offered no real guidelines but presented endless possibilities for increased Floor Area Ratios (FAR). All references to density bonuses for developers, increased densities, and reduced parking requirements should be eliminated. As a resident of Crescent Park, she objected to all specific references to Stanford lands which allowed for yet more massive development. References included the Stanford Medical Center on page 3A, Stanford Medical Center and CHAS on page 4, the Stanford Shopping Center on page 5A, the Stanford Research Park on page 11, and Stanford Medical Center on page 12. All items called for increased densities but were silent on the twin issue of increased traffic. Residential neighborhoods could not become more walkable if residents were unable to cross the street. With regard to traffic and walkability, implications on page 12, CD-7, and page 27, CD-14 that the traffic resulting from Stanford's development be shunted towards Downtown University would result in making residential University the de facto Willow Expressway. In the discussion on page 24 concerning the Dream Team, reference had been made to high density housing, region serving businesses, and improved auto connections. The original concept of the Dream Team had been to make public transportation more accessible. None of the areas had discussed what to do with the traffic Downtown once it hit the residential section of University Avenue. The Urban Limit Line was agreed to in theory but not staff's support of deal-making or trading off expansions at another Stanford project, which was poor policy and legally questionable. The issues were separate and should be evaluated independently with the public. The CD section was an inappropriate land use element which did too little to preserve residential neighborhoods and too much to increase traffic and development.
06/10/95 76-116
Betty Meltzer, 1241 Dana, agreed with Ms. Shambora's comments on taking time to do the Comp Plan right. Too much time had been spent on the process. Much had been learned, and many good things had come out of the Urban Design Committee and CPAC. She also agreed with much of what Ms. Feuer said. Stanford needed to take more responsibility for the impacts of its developments. The communities surrounding Stanford absorbed most of the traffic consequences. An aspect of "deal-making" and the Urban Limit Line was not quite right. Agreement was also given to Mr. Schreiber's suggestion concerning dealing with the coordinated area plan more extensively in certain areas of Palo Alto's development. Having served on the Downtown Urban Design Committee and realizing the benefits which came from such an approach, people's communicating with each other and understanding each other's points of view, was very worthwhile. Jim Lewis, 1498 Edgewood Drive, said it was important to remember that Palo Alto was not an island but a part of a larger area. Palo Alto was affected by what when on outside of the community (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). RECESS 12:45 P.M. - 1:35 P.M. Mayor Simitian clarified the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Draft IV dated November 3, 1994, had gone through the Planning Commission, with shading indicating areas to be included in the final draft Plan pursuant to the Planning Commission's action. Mr. Schreiber said shaded areas consisted of "A" items, not identified with a "B," "C," or "D" notation, and were to be included in the final draft Plan. Items marked "B" would be retained in some manner, but not necessarily as plans, policies, or programs, e.g., text, appendix, or related materials. Mayor Simitian thought "B" items would definitely appear somewhere in the document. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Council Member McCown said Peter Calthorp's comments had been very helpful as she had attempted to understand what was different about the current approach from the traditional approach, e.g., the focus on the integrated concepts of districts or neighborhood centers. Initially, she had struggled with exactly why the plan had been so organized. She asked whether CPAC had seen examples of other communities or whether Palo Alto was first in trying a comprehensive plan in such a manner. Mr. Calthorp had pointed out the differences between the Plan and the traditional manner in which to deal with policies and zoning tools to define. Ms. Eakins said Pasadena, Mountain View, and San Jose had all tried similar approaches. Council Member McCown clarified CPAC had had a copy of Pasadena's comprehensive plan as an illustration of such an organizational
06/10/95 76-117
tool for ideas. Ms. Eakins replied yes. Council Member McCown had already begun to be comfortable working in the suggested approach because of what it could achieve different from the existing Comp Plan. Ms. Eakins said Mr. Calthorp's description of a city being a series of places probably had best captured for most CPAC members what was being done. Therefore, CPAC had started with big ideas rather than conventional structure. Mayor Simitian had inferred from Mr. Calthorp's presentation that the point of the Comp Plan was not to view a city in terms of zoning but in terms of planning a city. Dena Mossar, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Document Review Committee member, believed the public had emphasized the fact that "one-size fits all" zoning did not work. Council Member Huber believed many months before, Council had reinstated the 1989 Citywide limitations and asked what impact, if any, the restrictions in the Citywide Study would have on some of the areas in the CD section of the Plan which spoke of increases or suggested increases in FARs. Mr. Schreiber referred to a November 15, 1994 staff memo to Council which transmitted a number of pages out of the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study summary. Of the three attached pages, the first was a map of the nine areas considered in the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. The second was a comparison of the commercial and industrial potential for the nine areas, the existing square footage before the Citywide Study in May 1987, the development potential previous to the Citywide Study, and the development potential in terms of what came out of the Citywide Study. The last page contained areas where the FARs had been reduced as part of the Citywide Study. No changes had been proposed for Area 1, recognizing that the SOFA and Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) areas had been identified for future study. In Area 2, the policies and programs included reference to the potential relocation of the medical center into the area which would be a potential change. Area 3 had been identified by CPAC for an area study. In the second page, the amount of additional square footage identified for Midtown was very small, at 5,200 square feet on an existing base of 43,000, which was consistent with the community feedback in the Citywide Study to lock Midtown in place, not allowing additional development. Nothing had been suggested in CPAC's recommendations which would affect Area 4, East of Bayshore Freeway. In Area 5, there was a recommendation for a future study of the East Meadow Circle area, but other than that, nothing would change the square footage in the area. Area 6 had been identified for an area study, not south of Arastradero but between Charleston and Arastradero to Curtner. The Ventura area had been only partially considered in the Citywide Study. Area 7 involved an area study with potential changes. Area 8 had
06/10/95 76-118
been identified by CPAC for additional square footage possibili-ties. In Area 9, the major changes in square footage were related to the Stanford Shopping Center's expanding beyond the current 65,000- square-foot cap adopted as part of the Citywide Study and the potential for square footage at the Stanford Medical Center. Off the edge of Area 2 was the Dream Team area which had been identified as a future study area, but the Dream Team concept would have additional development as part of redesigning and reconfiguring the area. Vice Mayor Wheeler said out of the Citywide Study was the potential to develop close to 1.8 million square feet in Area 8, the Stanford Research Park, and she asked whether the 15 percent referred to by CPAC was in addition to the 1.8 million or was in effect the 1.8 million, or 15 percent above the existing square footage. Mr. Schreiber was not sure the question or issue had been refined precisely. In discussions concerning the Research Park within the CPAC process and staff's discussions with Stanford at the time, Stanford staff had been reluctant to see a shifting of square footage which would result in a reduction of square feet on some sites in order to provide some development flexibility on other sites. The essential issue in the Research Park was whether there should be additional development potential on some sites to provide flexibility for sites currently built out as a small amount of "wiggle room." Stanford had been reluctant to agree to provide flexibility by removing something from one site and adding to another. The concept could still be incorporated if Stanford were willing as a property owner to pursue so. While the Citywide Study identified 1.8 million square feet, the reality which everyone recognized was that not all of the square footage would be developed. There was a number of sites which were built out but still had additional square footage under the zoning. The square footage could be transferred around but it would take the active cooperation of Stanford to create such a transfer program. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Mr. Schreiber's answer was a good answer to a good question but did not address her question. Mr. Schreiber did not believe the process had been precisely worked through. As long as Stanford had indicated an unwillingness to see a shift in square footage from one site to another, the next option was to increase the amount of square footage in the zoning to allow the flexibility. The other option was not to provide any flexibility. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the 15 percent indicated in Policy CD-6.A, "Allow up to 15% more floor area within the Stanford Research Park provided that new development intensifies existing developed properties, that the amount of impermeable surfaces is not significantly increased, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements are provided. Provision of employee services, such as small cafes, convenience retail, public gathering spaces, and child care facilities would be exempt from this floor area limit," represented 15 percent more than the
06/10/95 76-119
existing plus the 1.8 million or 15 percent more than existing. Mr. Schreiber understood the 15 percent would be above and beyond current zoning. Ms. Mossar said the 15 percent was for the flexibility. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified the figure was 15 percent more than current zoning plus 1.8 million. Ms. Mossar said the increase was one of the trade-offs for the Urban Limit Line. Council Member Huber asked whether it was possible to achieve the general sense of the community design program without increasing the square footage. He was on the Downtown Design Committee, had discussed much about spaces and places, and had some concern about the increases, especially with what was available. Ms. Eakins said understanding and appreciating the need for a small increase involved the shift away from bench, assembly, and high intensity employment in the Research Park to the need for more lab space where people worked in larger square footages and where an increase in square footages was not directly related to an increase in vehicle use. CPAC had begun to see a separation between the increase in square footage and the community burgeoning of increased traffic. There was a separation, not a straight line square footage for car use which was noxious. Ms. Mossar said CPAC was also concerned about the open space lands to the west of Foothill which were contiguous with the Research Park. CPAC had been interested in finding a mechanism which preserved the lands as open space and still gave Stanford the flexibility for the redevelopment necessary in the Research Park without greatly increasing traffic and number of employees. Mayor Simitian warned his colleagues against becoming involved in detailed discussions about particular parts of the Plan rather than broader conceptual questions. Council Member Huber said there were several areas throughout the Plan which spoke of increases, not all of which were located in the Research Park. His fundamental question was whether the City could conduct the conceptual design aspect without adding more square footage. Mr. Schreiber thought in many cases the answer would vary from area to area, unless there was a policy decision to not allow additional square footage. One of the results of the area plan workshop process, both in terms of the mini-versions which had already been conducted and full-fledged versions which had been conducted in other communities, was that in an interactive process people in a community could be receptive to more square footage, if there could be a sense of what the change would look like rather than just approval of a number. One of the objectives of the urban design process was to present an economically viable way
06/10/95 76-120
of changing an area, which might require additional square footage to facilitate and encourage private property owners to pursue the type of change the community desired. How the process would play out would vary from area to area, given the underlying zoning, development patterns, etc. The possibility that there might need to be some modest increase in square footage should not be ruled out to create the incentive for property owners to undertake the expense and debt burden of redevelopment. Ms. Mossar said another aspect of the increase involved allowing the potential for some mixed use development within the Research Park so employees did not have to leave the work site to drive around at lunch to accomplish many things. Vice Mayor Wheeler said much of what had been seen in the Research Park over the last several years in terms of the evolution from a manufacturing environment to a lab environment had basically occurred within the same shells which had existed for 20 years. Some of the concern which had been expressed in the community about allowing increased FARs arose out of a concern that the trend over the past ten years might shift again resulting in additional shell space which would allow an intensification of the use to greater degree than had existed ten years before, resulting in allowing adverse impacts of the traffic and jobs/housing imbalance. She asked whether there were mechanisms which could address the concern. Mr. Schreiber said what had been seen in the Research Park over the last decade was less employment than existed 10 to 15 years before, which was in part related to more sites being used for biotechnological uses which had significantly more square footage per employee. He had made an argument in a jobs/housing imbalance memo that the labor supply within a reasonable commute distance from Palo Alto was not expanding much and the housing policies of the various surrounding cities would not result in a tremendous increase in the amount of labor within a reasonable commute. Staff concurred with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that the employment level in Palo Alto in the Year 2000 would likely be less than in the Year 1990. ABAG concluded that in the Year 2010, there would be less employment than in 1990 because there was insufficient labor supply, even with sufficient square footage, to draw the labor force. A scenario which resulted in notable increases in square footage was unlikely. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether there was any mechanism which could be used to ensure the ABAG outcome. Mr. Schreiber did not believe that was so. The only jurisdiction of which he was aware which had tried to regulate employment by site was Sunnyvale 15 years before. The enforcement mechanisms could not be established to control the sites. No jurisdiction had been able to successfully pursue such a policy. Ms. Eakins said one mechanism was to reduce the amount of available parking. Not increasing impermeable surfaces making structured parking necessary because it was more expensive was a disincentive to using extra shell space for more employees should
06/10/95 76-121
patterns change. CPAC wanted to see what had been discussed in Transportation, separating business vitality from car usage. Council Member Andersen asked how property owners would be affected, taking into account the struggles the City had had with the European Health Spa and similar problems with Bergman's. He asked whether the current procedure basically said that if a person wanted to tear down a building with a 1:1 FAR, the size of the building would have to be reduced considerably. Mr. Schreiber replied no. Current zoning allowed one to take a non-complying building beyond the FAR for the zone, demolish it and rebuild. The catch was to rebuild while observing all other zoning regulations, e.g., setbacks, height, and parking requirements. The owner could rebuild but with great difficulty. Council Member Andersen asked whether the recommendations from CPAC addressed the issues Mr. Schreiber had specified. Mr. Schreiber thought CPAC had not specifically addressed the issue of parking ratios on an across-the-board basis, which might be part of the flexibility which would result from an area plan. Council Member Rosenbaum said the comments from the public had indicated two issues had been mixed in the CD Section--a land use element and an urban design element. Mr. Schreiber had indicated staff would prepare a land use element and asked where the rest of the material contained in the CD Section would appear. Mr. Schreiber said staff assumed there would be an urban design or CD Section. How the element would be integrated with the other elements, especially the land use element, was something staff had not worked through and was waiting until Council had indicated the direction it wished to go with the issues. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether there was something labeled "urban design." Mr. Schreiber said the current Comp Plan contained an urban design element. Mr. Calonne clarified that while the City had to have as a mandatory element a land use element, there was nothing which said it had to be bundled in any particular way. The initial concept of the CD Section was a merging of a couple of issues, which was acceptable. All of the pieces had to be present, but there could be a blending. Council Member Rosenbaum thought some members of the public had had difficulty with the blending. There was a feeling that land use elements tended to place limitations on what could be done in an urban design in which hidden in the veneer of the community or urban design were modifications to the existing limits which were perhaps difficult to pick out in the 54 pages. He asked whether staff could identify elements which contained the potential for increased development relative to the current status of the City as Council reviewed the document on a page-by=page basis.
06/10/95 76-122
Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Kniss had discussed with Mr. Schreiber many times in the past about areas like Town and Country Village which were underdeveloped. Mr. Schreiber clarified Town and Country Village had been substan-tially underdeveloped until the Citywide Study, after which zoning in the Town and Country Village had been reduced to not much more than what currently existed. Council Member Kniss asked whether CPAC's bottom line was that the City would limit itself in many cases if it did not allow for some flexibility within whatever it was being examined for a specific plan. When discussing the CD element as community design rather than zoning, everyone wanted to know how it was different Mr. Schreiber thought the way CPAC had approached the CD Section was that if there were areas of the community where change were desired, the nature of the change would be viewed in a three-dimensional sense rather than a flat map sense which only indicated different zones. The three-dimensional concept put a plan together with a sense of mass, bulk, and appearance which could result in a community desire for more flexibility than could be achieved by a flat set of zoning regulations. CPAC had been advocating an interactive community process in which such issues could be sorted out waiting for the reaction which might or might not come and might or might not be perceived as desirable to the community. Council Member Kniss thought the problem was how to get "from here to there." The struggle was with the inherent possibilities within the process which could either increase traffic or in some way impact the community in a negative manner. Staying with status quo was tempting because the community already considered it had enough traffic. Mr. Calthorp had approached the issue by saying that in some of the designs, traffic could be controlled and behavior could be altered. The process of moving from the current status to the next would be difficult. Mr. Schreiber agreed. In a particular location, 3,000 vehicles going 35 to 40 miles per hour (mph) might be totally unacceptable, while 4,000 vehicles going 20 mph with a significant amount of pedestrian amenities might be acceptable because the feel would be very different. The level of acceptability might be much higher than less traffic traveling much faster. Council Member Huber asked whether the area wide plan would lead to some type of zoning. Mr. Schreiber said the area plan would lead to a set of land use regulations which would probably involve some combination of zoning, design guidelines, and perhaps some elements of a precise or specific plan which were more precise per property, the mix of which was related to whatever came out of the area planning
06/10/95 76-123
process. One solution would be more apropos in one case than another. The terms "area plan" and "specific plan" sometimes became mixed, but the two were not the same. A specific plan was defined in state law and might be the result of an area plan, but an area plan might go in a different direction and yield a different set of tools, given what came out of the interactive community design or economist process. Mr. Calonne said Mr. Schreiber's memo regarding the coordinated area planning contained a number of very significant assumptions and recommendations about process which overlapped into governance. Council should closely read the memo to see the process suggestions since it was part of the road map from "here to there" as Mr. Schreiber suggested. Council Member Kniss said the change was dramatic from a zoning perception into a different type of perception, with which all would probably struggle. However, if decisions were made in isolation, she presumed the end result would be a coordinated effort throughout the City. The struggle was how to get to that point in a built-out city. Mr. Schreiber said the struggle was perfectly acceptable. His comments in the November staff report indicated that if Council wished to pursue the area plan, certain things should be consid-ered and certain things should be done which was part of his own struggle with the material. Council Member McCown said there had already been a considerable amount of change. The slide show had revealed that changes had occurred in very positive ways which the community liked and could be held up as good examples, all of which had occurred under the existing rules. There were areas where the existing rules had not produced the good examples. After having reached the conclusion as to why such had occurred, some other technique could be determined which would emulate the successes which existing zoning had achieved but might require different zoning techniques. The slate was not as blank or frightening as it sounded because what was being attempted with an area plan or a midtown planning effort was an emulation of things which had been done before which were models of success such as Downtown Palo Alto but knowing the current rules could not be used because of the oddball situations such as Bergman's. The City did have a blueprint for where it wanted to go with the process and was not launching down a path without any concept of what the result would be. There was a concept but there might need to be an entirely different method of getting there than what had been used in the past. The area planning technique would not need to be used on a wholesale basis across many different parts of town. Once everyone was more comfortable with how the process would work, the idea would not appear as radical as currently considered. Mayor Simitian asked about the extent to which it had been necessary to use the Planned Community (PC) to achieve some of the things which were considered desirable.
06/10/95 76-124
Council Member McCown said everyone had talked as though existing zoning was all the City had had and was what had provided the protection and care of the community. However, reality was that many good things had occurred because the City was willing to allow some variance from the zoning. The City already had a tradition of allowing changes. If area plans were handled in a manner similar to the way in which PCs had been used in the past, as a different technique but with the same kinds of principles, Mayor Simitian was correct. Mayor Simitian asked whether an area plan was basically a proactive PC or anticipatory PC. Staff had expressed concern, as had some members of the Council and the public about the "make it up as you go along" approach which sometimes accompanied a PC application. Mr. Schreiber was hesitant to draw a direct connection between a PC zone process and the area planning process. The PC process was almost always developer-initiated with a specific proposal, usually limited to one site or a small group of sites, not an area. The process of developing the content was not an open, interactive process with the community. At the same time, the area planning process would try to achieve some of the flexibility the City almost always had to rely upon in PC zones except the area was much larger. It was very important to emphasize that for 90 percent of the flat land parcels in Palo Alto, neither staff nor CPAC was proposing any notable change over what had existed for the last 15 to 20 years. All of that related to relatively small numbers of parcels in areas of the community which could be identified for change areas. The relationship had to be kept in mind that the discussion was not for area plans for the entire community. Mayor Simitian said frequent reference had been made to the fact the City was a "built-out community," which missed the point. There was still much activity, one of the reasons of which was the recent activity in sites which had been undeveloped. The challenge was all the greater because of the fact the City was a relatively built-out and mature community. The process would be interesting but very easy if there were a blank canvas upon which to work. The challenge the City faced as a built-out community was that everything had to be done within the constraints of what already existed, some of which were sensibly imposed constraints and some were idiosyncratic and the result of accidents of history in the City of Palo Alto or bad decisions by prior Councils. The message which he drew was that given the fact everything already existed, instead of forcing something which met all the rules but did not serve the community particularly well or ugly once it met all the rules, something could be found which worked really well and was aesthetically attractive by finding some flexibility. He was not interested in a whole lot more of Palo Alto. Most Council Members were not interested in doing more. If, in some places and in order to achieve something desirable and a little more was necessary, he might agree as long as he was persuaded there was a net benefit as a result. He would prefer not doing any more as long as there was trade-off elsewhere which was the reason he
06/10/95 76-125
liked the idea of TDRs, e.g., obtaining benefits without imposing additional space where inappropriate. Given what the City had to work with, it wanted to exercise some creativity and flexibility without being rule-driven, yet put together a set of rules which people could follow. Mr. Schreiber said Mayor Simitian's statement captured the essence of the situation. Staff was not seeking a great amount of additional development, as it was not realistic or feasible. The objective was to obtain stability. The sense which had come out of CPAC was that if one wanted to achieve flexibility for certain parts of the community, after identification of the areas, it was necessary to commit to a process where the community was heavily involved. A process which had an objective of achieving an economically viable solution whereby people were intensively involved changed the roles of the citizenry, property owners, City staff, and Council, which had been addressed in the staff report. The process had to be turned back to the community, including commercial property owners, because if not, the number of ways of blocking and stopping change was so many and so effective that people wanting to invest money would determine that it would be easier to develop in another community other than Palo Alto. Mr. Calonne said the issue was one of process. Most of the legal issues with land use involved giving everyone the chance to participate. Mr. Schreiber had fundamentally described a social dynamic underlying the legal rules, e.g., people would allow flexibility if there was some trust in what was being done. Having trust required being able to participate. Mayor Simitian said Mr. Calonne's comments related to why the PC process was substantially more involved. Council Member Kniss said when PCs had been discussed, she had been troubled that the PC process was considered in some way to be unfair. She hoped the new process would result in a more fair way to deal with an issue which had existed for the past several years. The City was headed into uncharted waters which was the reason for the question about whether the process had been tested elsewhere so the City would not be blind-sided. Planning Commissioner Tony Carrasco said his sense of the Planning Commission's intent was exactly as Mayor Simitian had described. The document was neither a design element nor a document which spoke or proposed much changes in FARs of land use. It asked for the flexibility necessary to shape buildings in a three-dimensional way which caused people spaces which the community appeared to desire. The Planning Commission had not sensed that zoning was not working in that aspect of zoning which could be flexible in the last 10 percent. The Planning Commission had not discussed how to arrive at that point; however, most things were working. The only missing aspect was the flexibility which would create a better city. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought Mr. Carrasco's response to Council Member Kniss was relevant to a concern she had heard expressed
06/10/95 76-126
about the areas which had been targeted for specific plans or area plans in terms of changes in the areas. There was also a great deal of language in the CD element about the City's current residential neighborhoods not slated for special area plans and there were policies and programs permitting things to happen within the districts which were not permitted under the current zoning designations. She could understand the concerns which had been expressed. Some months before, comments had been made about how the two concepts had been brought together, allowing flexibility but providing certainty. She asked whether staff had reached the point of understanding how the two would be brought together and how it applied to some of the suggestions which had been made in the CD element related to the R-1 neighborhoods. Mr. Schreiber was not sure anything CPAC had presented would be endorsed as significant changes in R-1 neighborhoods. References had been made to better integration with commercial areas, but there was no great deviation from existing policy for single-family areas. The deviations which provided for more commercial had not been endorsed by either staff or the Planning Commission. The issue of certainty and flexibility was probably not applicable in the R-1 zones, because it was a continuation of existing policies with some enhancements, not flexibility versus certainty. As to the change areas, the best way to achieve flexibility and certainty was to have a process which was very open and receptive to design-oriented and economically viable solutions. Once the solution had been achieved with much community input, there would then be a high degree of certainty regarding implementation of the product. If the desire was for a particular thing, once the process had run its course, that part of the implementation had a great deal of certainty. One of the attractions to commercial property owners was that out of the process, developers would be able to achieve greater flexibility with greater certainty at the end of the process, and it was one of the reasons to work the process and become active with the community, because the alternative was current zoning which might not meet the needs. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked Mr. Schreiber to examine page 7 of the Plan prior to Council's review of the page and explain how it did or did not apply to R-1 neighborhoods. Council Member Huber concurred with Council Member McCown's comments. To the extent Council was being asked to put something in a comprehensive plan which was a little broader than the usual PC without being able to examine what it really was became a little frightening and was similar to the conceptual work which had been done on the medical clinic with a bunch of boxes. One of the assumptions was that there would be increases, not a decrease, in square footage. Theoretically, there could be decreases, but the reality was that that was probably not the case. As soon as increases were seen, opposition would arise because of the difficulty in controlling traffic. Council Member Andersen said some of the suggestions as to how to integrate services and commercial activity were interesting. One
06/10/95 76-127
of the slides had been of an area on Loma Verde and Middlefield Road where the neighborhood members had asked a previous Council to save the building rather than zone it out, but was currently viewed as what had previously been desired. Part of what he hoped would be seen when discussing community involvement, particularly with the residential zones, was community-initiated involvement. When a developer indicated what was desired in a residential zone, there could be a problem, but if a community desired something in its area which could provide a certain service, a whole different dynamic was seen. There was some concern about how it was expressed unless the community was involved in the initial stages. If a neighborhood association approached staff or Council requesting something in a residential area which would serve the community's needs and creative effort began in that regard, the picture would be completely different from a developer's wanting to put something commercial in a residential zone. Council Member Kniss asked Mr. Schreiber whether in comparison with the PC regulations the new process would allow more predict-ability but retain flexibility and the ability of the developer to have less direction or new direction. Mr. Schreiber thought Council Member Kniss had caught the differ-ences. With the new approach, the increased predictability and flexibility were achieved based on the level of community involve-ment and buy-in to the product. Council Member Kniss thought there would be more control than what currently existed. For the right people there had been trade-offs and for others there had not, which had been troublesome, even though frequently the outcome was desirable. Everyone had been somewhat troubled at having too much decision making residing with Council or staff. The new process appeared to provide a firmer set of guidelines and, perhaps, more input from the public. Mr. Schreiber said one of the keys for people who had been successful with the existing PC process had been the ability to work with relevant portions of the community to minimize objections which often resulted in a variety of design and use changes and compromises which resulted prior to even beginning the public process. The less successful were people reluctant to get into the process or who did not understand or want to go through the process. One of the changes in the area planning process was a commitment on the part of City staff to not go into the process with a preconceived notion of how it would end up. Rather, City staff's role would be administrative, e.g., contract management or facilitation of the process in event planning, and would not attempt to direct how many units or how many square feet. Ms. Mossar said one of the keys was the big difference of develop-er-initiated PC and community-initiated. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether or not the completion of the Comp Plan should be delayed in order to conduct the coordinated area plan for the Cal-Ventura area.
06/10/95 76-128
Council Member McCown thought the discussion was conceptual about using the area planning idea for some areas. Staff had seen two areas recommended be folded into the Comp Plan process, i.e., Midtown and Cal-Ventura. The current discussion was not necessarily which areas but how the concept changed how business would be conducted in the future if area planning approaches were used for some areas where the City considered changes should occur. Council might not be ready to make a decision about whether California-Ventura as a specific area should be included as part of the process, until more of the content of where the whole idea fit in was determined. The area planning idea was found at the beginning of the CD Section. Council could spend some time working on that aspect and at the next session give staff direction on whether or not it was inclined to do the area planning for Cal-Ventura. Mayor Simitian agreed. Action on the item would be deferred until Council had made a little progress through the document. Council Member Rosenbaum thought the intent of the earlier discussion was to put the issue off until the end of the current session so the affected Council Members could leave. Mayor Simitian had thought Council would have at least dealt with page 1 and beyond by the current time. Council Member McCown thought Mr. Calonne was uncomfortable with Council's taking any specific action on the item at the current meeting. Council Member Kniss thought the second paragraph of the Vision Statement on page 1 of the Plan, "Palo Alto will be an interdepen-dent system based on the concept of 'walkable neighborhoods,' each with its own housing, shopping, services, schools, and public spaces that are accessible without using a car," could be changed or eliminated because the term "walkable neighborhoods" was not a workable statement. The original urban village theme, which was almost impossible in some of the City's neighborhoods, was more appropriate. Council Member Fazzino shared Council Member Kniss' concern, but liked the concept. His definition of "walkable" was different from Mayor Simitian's definition. At the same time, he liked the idea of accessibility to services through either walking or alternative forms of transportation without using one's car. He queried an artful phrase which could capture the concept and move slightly beyond walkable. Mayor Simitian thought the basic thrust, which he supported, was to minimize reliance on the automobile wherever possible and create walkable neighborhoods whenever possible, given the existing strengths. Council Member Fazzino said accessibility to major services for all residents of the community was an important aspect.
06/10/95 76-129
Council Member McCown believed the emphasis should be on strength-ening existing districts and centers. No misimpression should be given that the City wanted to create new commercial areas. Mayor Simitian summarized Council was fundamentally in support of the staff notion that there was no intention to create new commercial civic centers in order to achieve the vision articulated on page 1, and Council supported some language change to the Vision Statement which acknowledged the realities of working to minimize reliance on the automobile and maximize walkable neighborhoods and availability of services where possible. Council Member Andersen fundamentally agreed, with the exception of the Ventura areas where there might be the need for civic services not currently available. Thought should be given to areas where less services were provided than might be desired in the future. Mayor Simitian asked whether Council Member Fazzino's comment was that there were some areas already walkable but which might not have sufficient services within the walkable area. Council Member Fazzino replied yes. He asked whether the last paragraph of the Vision Statement, "Various building densities, types and uses will exist in the community in a way which expands the ranges of choices in residential and work environments," should indicate a reference to densities, types, and uses which were consistent with other elements of the Comp Plan or whether it was assumed. Mr. Calonne said the Vision Statement suggested there would be flexibility in the regulations as applied throughout, which was difficult to determine at the current level. He thought the statement implied the desire for ways to adjust to virtually any regulation, depending on the circumstance. Council Member Fazzino wanted to return to the issue after Council had worked through the specifics of the document. Will Beckett, Co-Chair of Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, said one of the things with which CPAC had been concerned when it created the vision was the ability to be more flexible in both residential and commercial areas along with some mixing. One such example was small "Mom and Pop" stores in the residential neighborhoods. The ability to place a small commercial store in a walkable neighborhood, allowing people to avoid driving, led to flexibility. Council Member Fazzino was supportive of Mr. Beckett's example; however, there were some concerns about the possibility that parts of the document and the CD Section were, in some way, inconsistent with other sections which had already been or would be approved. Mayor Simitian said Council Member Fazzino's comment raised an interesting issue. The issues had been based too much on the
06/10/95 76-130
typical concerns about zoning, density, size, etc., moving away from a discussion of the interests of the neighborhoods or the interests of businesses in a particular location. There was an entire collective bargaining model based on interest-based bargaining. If the interests of the neighborhood were traffic, and there was a way to meet the interests both in terms of traffic livability and safety, zoning was of little concern. Discussions about varying the types of densities and uses, breaking away from the traditional R-1 mind-set which had served as a legitimate protection but had also limited the options and asking what the R-1 neighborhoods had produced for people which were valued and whether such things could be replicated in another environment, would focus on the interest of the people instead of the structure which met the interests in the past. Focus should remain on whether or not the interests of the community were being met rather than whether the density, size, or zoning was being met, which would serve the City well and should drive Council. He had been pleased to see the range of opportunities specifically called out, but it could not be inconsistent with the interest people had expressed in the discussions which had been made manifest in other parts of the document. Council Member McCown assumed that the document before Council would be recast in the draft Plan and that page 2, which described the format of the Community Design Section, was merely for Council to understand the organization of the document. Ms. Mossar said people had had difficulty understanding the organization of the document, so a table of contents had been created. Council Member McCown clarified Council did not need to spend a lot of time working on the language on page 2 of the Plan as though it was something proposed for the draft Plan. Council Member Kniss said Council would come across the term "walkable neighborhoods" throughout the document and rather than discuss every page, Council should assume that wherever reference was made to "walkable neighborhoods," staff would attend to the issue. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Huber clarified the Planning Commission had not reviewed the City structure map, which had been seen by Council earlier in the day. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle replied yes. When staff had plotted the centers on the map, mapping walkable distances which was what defined "walkable neighborhoods," very few portions of the community had not been within the radii. The language had been easily misinterpreted because CPAC had been asked to write statements in proactive ways about the future to make it sound like more than it was. Vice Mayor Wheeler hoped there would be a move away from words
06/10/95 76-131
which denigrated a large portion of the community that had been developed, i.e., "that was all wrong and we won't repeat that mistake in the future," and hoped that the City would not fall into the trap of saying the only good house had a front porch. Mr. Schreiber agreed. Council Member Andersen thought the issue was whether or not the community space was used properly. The concept which had been prevalent in the 1950s should be altered. He considered his own home as being one which had not been creatively designed. Council Member Schneider thought the reference was to new buildings as opposed to existing buildings. After reading the document and hearing what people had said, she was prepared to take down the bushes in front of her house which hid the front door so it was more open to the street. Council Member Huber said one issue which had been discussed was compatibility. The description could be applied to many neighbor-hoods, but at the time Council did not want any dramatic change to the sense of the neighborhoods. There were even some neighborhoods in the community with garages way in the front which would look very strange if the garages were placed elsewhere. Unless compatibility was being tossed out, it should not apply to residential. Mayor Simitian thought in terms of the issue of private enclaves and revitalized streets and public spaces, the choice was not "either/or." Very few residences or businesses wanted to sacrifice privacy for the greater public good. There were ways to provide privacy which still connected both residential and commercial structures with the streetscape, and there were ways which in effect constituted a brick wall message which was not particularly desirable from a design standpoint. The City should not allow itself to be pushed into making a choice. The fundamen-tal premise of a connection between the streets and buildings lining the streets was sensible, but did not mean everyone had to live in a fish bowl, sacrificing privacy, nor that commercial structures had to be comparable. Council Member McCown said the words might never be seen past the process, but the whole idea was to encourage design which acknowl-edged and reinforced the public places. A false dichotomy suggested that private enclaves by definition did not do that, which was not the case. There were many streets where the houses did not have front porches which were no less vital streets. The main idea was the design direction to have builders consider the streets and public places. Mr. Schreiber said the chart which Council had received had identified policies and programs previously acted upon by Council which related to such items. Council Member McCown said page 3 of the Plan which introduced the idea of districts and centers was not clear on what utility the
06/10/95 76-132
labels really had in the document. She understood the big picture concept meant thinking of the City in terms of districts and centers and neighborhoods in a manner different from what had been done in the past, for which there was great value. However, in looking at the document, she queried whether many labels would be put on a map with districts and centers. Mr. Carrasco thought the discussion related much more to the way Council had earlier described the idea of structuring. The programs, policies, and goals had to be customized through the map process. Some of the words might disappear through the process as staff's comments described, i.e., the basic structure of Palo Alto would not change as a result. Council Member McCown agreed but thought a variety of nomenclature was just being invented. Ms. Mossar said the characteristics of the different sections were different from each other. The same vision could not be written for residential areas as an employment district. Each was very different. Council Member McCown understood but queried the big introduction section which discussed dividing the community into districts and centers. Ms. Eakins said CPAC just wanted to be organized in its thinking. Council Member McCown agreed. CPAC was trying to organize the way people thought about the City by making preamble declarations that areas would be called districts and centers. Ms. Eakins said areas would be more easily recognized by being given a name which identified the existence of the area, so the community could better understand the interrelation among each other. Ms. Lytle said the point of understanding centers and which watershed of neighbors was being served could also focus staff efforts. If capital improvements were made and dollars were spent as a City in the centers as opposed to being broadly distributed, Council would not know whether the area of clientele had benefit-ted. Currently, when improvements were made, staff did not necessarily think in such terms. Having the construct could help with investing staff time and efforts so the efforts became more available, noticeable, or useable. Council Member McCown had some reservations about whether the taxonomy was actually a useful way of organizing the ideas which fell below in the end. Council Member Kniss said some of the aspects of the document were acceptable, and Council reserved judgment. Council Member Huber asked about the staff comments which had been highlighted on pages 3a through 4a.
06/10/95 76-133
Mr. Schreiber thought the Planning Commission wanted to call staff's comments to Council's attention. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked how the staff comments related to the Medical Center at the very end of page 3a would play in the draft Plan, i.e., whether the comments related to Council's willingness to consider intensification of the Medical Center. Mr. Schreiber said the staff comments would not be incorporated into the Plan and Council would deal with the specifics of the Medical Center on page 12 of the document. Council Member Huber asked for a definition of "potential for change" in Program CD-1.C1, "Establish a coordinated area planning program that studies and major areas with the potential for change on a regular basis," on page 3 of the CD section. Mr. Schreiber said there were two questions as Council went through the CD Section: 1) whether Council wanted to pursue an area planning program of some sort, and if yes 2) which areas. Staff had given recommendations. All future Council actions would affect how the program actually became finalized in the Comp Plan. Council Member Schneider asked about the connection between neighboring cities and walkable neighborhoods in Policy CD-2.E, "Balance the need to maintain efficient circulation connections to neighboring cities and the region with the goal of creating a fabric of 'walkable neighborhoods' within Palo Alto." Ms. Mossar said Palo Alto was located in a region where people traveled between cities and across the Bay, creating the necessity of acknowledging circulation which was not just inter-city. Mayor Simitian thought Policy CD-2.E referred to areas like Oregon Expressway which was not walkable and divided the community between north and south. Although it could be argued Oregon Expressway was not as bad as some nearby suburbs which had been divided by expressways, clearly anticipating the areas were not walkable, the fact was that while Oregon Expressway presented problems in terms of dividing the community, a child could still walk across the street from Jordan Middle School to the Round Table Pizza and still feel it was a modest journey as contrasted with the way other communities were divided elsewhere. The City would be pressed for demands to accommodate regional circulation and would need to determine whom to accommodate the legitimate demands with the goal to maintain walkability. Mr. Beckett said there was a strong opinion in the Transportation Section that the City continue to use the arterial system which went along with Mayor Simitian's comments. The City did not want to lose the strength of the arterial system. Council Member Fazzino was concerned about what was meant by character of the community in Goal CD-2, "The character of the community, including neighborhoods, commercial areas, and public facilities, will be protected preserved and enhanced," especially
06/10/95 76-134
as it related to the term "enhanced." The verb "protect" through-out policies and programs was acceptable. Programs calling for an action which enhanced, some specific aspect or quality of the community was being fairly specific. He queried potentially calling for actions which were inconsistent with other parts of the Comp Plan document. Mayor Simitian understood Council Member Fazzino's question to be what the word "character" meant, asking for a restatement of potential inconsistencies. Council Member Fazzino was most concerned about the character of the community, including commercial areas, which would be enhanced. Mr. Beckett said regarding the question about the character of a commercial area, the character of California Avenue was different from the character of Downtown. The character of each should be enhanced as opposed to making the two the same. Mr. Carrasco said there were some 1950s apartment buildings in Downtown Park north which did not fit the character of the small scale aspect there. When the apartments were redeveloped, the goal was to maintain the small scale character. Council Member Fazzino thought the examples were excellent but suggested the wording "the character of the community" was not sufficient, suggesting "the character of the community as supported by the public or was embraced by the public would be protected and enhanced." Mr. Calonne said Council could add a sentence which described what character meant, e.g., the values which went into it. Mayor Simitian thought scale was only one thing which contributed to character. Other aspects included architectural type and combination of uses. Council Member Fazzino wanted to get at qualities or characteris-tics which had in some way been affirmed by the community, which were the qualities the City wanted to protect and enhance. Mayor Simitian said the character of the community was not desirable in every location of the community. There were some areas where the character might not be something which should be perpetuated. To the extent the City should freeze Palo Alto in areas where it was not particularly desirable was a bad idea. Council Member Fazzino had seemed to want the valued character of the community maintained. Ms. Eakins said Goal CD-2 should be loosely interpreted. CPAC did not want tight design controls over everything. Flexibility and individuality were values about which CPAC cared highly, not trying to make everything so pretty. Council Member McCown said the existing Comp Plan used language
06/10/95 76-135
where there was an attempt to put labels or words to what were considered the positive characteristics. She asked whether attempts to define what was being sought had been retained in the Plan. The CD section of the Plan would attempt to define the character which was desirable to preserve and enhance. The opening statement indicated there were characteristics which should be preserved and enhanced, which the document would define. Everything would not be loaded into the first sentence. Program CD-2.A1, "Continue to evaluate the Zoning Ordinance and land use designations in order to protect preserve and enhance those qualities which made Palo Alto's neighborhoods and commercial areas especially desirable," should be reworded. The Zoning Ordinance and land use designations should be written in such a way to preserve and enhance the characteristics of the community, not to continually be evaluating, which conveyed a misimpression. She asked whether Program CD-2.C1, "When a major physical, economic and/or use change is proposed, the City and surrounding business owners and residents should have the opportunity for early conceptual stage review to evaluate the impact of such change on the neighboring areas and the City at large," was intended to describe the process which Council had already put in place for the prescreening process or some private process. Staff comments regarding CD-2.B, "Staff believes that a hotel at the corner of Page Mill Road/El Camino and the Stanford Medical Center (i.e., Stanford Medical School, Hospital, Clinics and Packard Children's Hospital) should be recognized as exceptions to the policy of discouraging 'massive single uses,'" had been previously debated. She continued to have reservations about having the Plan call out something as an exception from such an important design policy ahead of time. When Council eventually voted on the language, she would not support such an exception for the previously specifically enumerated instances. Mayor Simitian asked whether there was general agreement that it would be helpful to have staff consider the language of Goal CD-2, so Council would know more about what it was discussing. He understood Council Member Fazzino to indicate the desire to make sure it was something the City wanted to preserve before getting into the business of preservation, which was consistent with the notion of not taking a snapshot of Palo Alto in 1995 and keeping the City exactly that way in every neighborhood. Council Member McCown was not in favor of the two exceptions to two pieces of property described in the staff comments; however, he was not in favor of putting language into the Plan which prohibited the City from doing either one of the two projects if, in the future, the City so desired. He was fairly open minded to a hotel on the Page Mill Road/El Camino site, and in terms of the Medical Center, Stanford had the burden of proving why it was necessary to exceed five stories or an additional 400,000 square feet. The questions of what was in it for Palo Alto and what would be done to mitigate the impacts of an additional 400,000 square feet in terms of traffic and housing would need to be answered prior to any receptivity. He also agreed, however, not to call out in a way which indicated pre-approval of certain projects. On the other hand, he did not want anyone precluded from being able to do so in the future. He queried the kind of language which would allow the
06/10/95 76-136
City to finesse the pair of issues and perhaps others. Mr. Calonne said a definition of "massive single uses" would be helpful, i.e., whether the big office building on University was a single use although there were multiple tenants. The language was soft enough to allow Council to interpret on a case-by-case basis, particularly when considering Policy CD-2.B, "Maintain the present scale of the city and avoid land uses and buildings which by their massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable while allowing for appropriate change," and Program CD-2.B1, "Discourage massive single uses through limitations on height and density to protect surrounding uses and community values," anticipated changes in the scale of the City might occur. Program CD-2.B1 was not a "shall not" but was to "discourage." The policy basis for discouraging or the limitation on discouraging was to protect surrounding uses and community values which was also fairly soft. A project at Page Mill/El Camino could be consistent with such language without special exceptions being called out. Mayor Simitian said the issue raised by Council Member McCown, as identified in the staff language, appeared to suggest a recommendation for specific exceptions for the two projects. Mr. Calonne said the problem was what staff was asking for in exceptions whether it was from the protecting surrounding uses and community values or from the massive single use. Mr. Schreiber said when staff had prepared the comments on the CPAC recommendations in Fall 1994, staff had been aware and supportive of two development concepts which could be interpreted as inconsistent with Program CD-2.B1, which wording went back to the 1976 Comp Plan. The concepts about which staff was aware and supportive of and concerned about were the hotel at Page Mill and El Camino, which staff in various parts of the document had indicated support of, and the expansion of the Stanford Medical Center, which staff had also indicated was an appropriate concept. Staff wanted to avoid a situation where the wording proceeded yet having the later issues be interpreted as inconsistent. How the specifics would be handled was probably less important than the fact the issue had been highlighted and could be worked. If flexibility were available in the sense that going above 50 feet at both Page Mill/El Camino or going above a certain square footage at the Medical Center would not be inconsistent with Program CD-2.B1, then staff could live with Program CD-2.B1. Staff did not want to let the issue slide along, knowing the two projects were things in which the City had high interest. Council Member McCown said Council had engaged in such a debate during its discussion of the Business and Economics (BE) Section. Program CD-2.B1 should be retained in the document as a supporting explanation of Policy CD-2.B. If a hotel project, on the one hand, or a Medical Center proposal on the other, came before Council which was a massive single use which had a negative impact on surrounding uses and community values, she would not support it. On the other hand, Program CD-2.B1 did not appear to indicate that all massive single uses would be ruled out, provided
06/10/95 76-137
it were done in a way which protected surrounding uses and community values. By retaining Program CD-2.B1 and Policy CD-2.B, neither the City endorsed a "massive single use" nor were there circumstances in which something could be approved which was a massive single use. On the other hand, a policy position was being stated which was very important that the City would not support or encourage massive single uses if there were negative impacts. The language should not be removed as it continued to be an important policy. However, she could envision projects which Council might support which could otherwise be characterized as a massive single use. Mayor Simitian said Council Member McCown's comments went back to his earlier issue about the difference between particular uses and interests. If two words were added, "discourage massive single uses through limitations on height and density as needed to protect surrounding uses and community values," he would have no problem with the statement remaining in the document because it would not say a large single use, per se, was a bad thing. Rather, such a large single use would have to be discouraged if it had negative impact on surrounding uses and community values. Council Member McCown agreed. The point she still wanted to insist on, however, was that the document should not determine ahead of time whether or not a hotel or the Medical Center would meet such a standard. Therefore, such specificity should not be contained in the document as an exception because it was an unknown as to whether the criteria would be met. Mayor Simitian agreed, as long as the notion was that the large single uses were to be discouraged or prohibited where there was in fact identifiable community interests which were adversely affected. Then the impact, rather than the designation of the use, would be considered to determine whether or not the project was something the City wanted to pursue. Mr. Schreiber said Council had given an "A" rating to a program in the BE Section which said "maintain the present scale of the City's business and commercial areas, and avoid projects with a massiveness, height or density which would overwhelm or be out of proportion with existing development." Council Member Andersen appreciated Mayor Simitian's comments and support to add "as needed." Vice Mayor Wheeler said the document spoke of the City's goals and aspirations for planning and community design throughout the community and was not designed to resolve the problems or address two particular, potential applications which Council had not seen or might never see. The Comp Plan document should express the community ideal for future developments throughout the community, not try to make the document fit two projects which were not even real. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to reinstate the stricken language "and avoid land uses and buildings
06/10/95 76-138
which by their massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable" in Policy CD-2.B, "Maintain the present scale of the city and avoid land uses and buildings which by their massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable while allowing for appropriate change," and upgrade Program CD-2.B1, "Discourage massive single uses through limitations on height and density to protect surrounding uses and community values," to an "A" status. Mayor Simitian asked what was meant by "by their massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable," although he was personally against overwhelming and unacceptable. Council Member McCown said the City would not rebuild 525 University Avenue because it would be a project which would be overwhelming and unacceptable in its impact on Downtown. Mayor Simitian thought the language was too conclusory. If people were asked whether they liked Palo Alto because it was charming or because it was impressive, most people would like the part which was found charming. The short-hand layman's value of Palo Alto was that it was a charming community which was valued. Vice Mayor Wheeler said if people were asked for an example in Palo Alto of something massive and overwhelming, 525 University Avenue would be given as an example. Council Member McCown also included the Civic Center as an example of something massive and overwhelming. She queried using the same language Council had approved in the BE Section, which was a slight variation of the words contained in the CD Section. Mr. Schreiber said Page 2 of the staff report stated, "Maintain the present scale of the City's business and commercial areas and avoid projects with a massiveness, height, or density, which would overwhelm or be out of proportion with existing development." Policy CD-2.B, as modified by CPAC, ended with the words "while allowing for appropriate change," would be in addition to existing policy. Such phraseology would provide some maneuverability with the policy. Mr. Calonne said Council was appropriately but selectively switching between thinking staff would go off and write a Comp Plan. He assumed it meant Council expected to leave in tact the existing Comp Plan language, hence the additional effort at wordsmithing. In Program CD-2.B1, the words "Discourage massive single uses" at the very beginning drew attention. He suggested turning the wording around, "Use limitations on height and density to discourage massive single uses which are incompatible with surrounding uses and community values." The question was whether the emphasis was on discourage or not. Mayor Simitian said the addition of "as needed" had worked for him. Council Member McCown thought Vice Mayor Wheeler's point in trying to restore Policy CD-2.B was to keep in the policy statement the
06/10/95 76-139
concept of discouraging massiveness. Council should not wordsmith exactly, but she agreed with Vice Mayor Wheeler in the concept which the policy and program were attempting to address. Council Member Andersen hoped the maker and seconder could either take the language of the City Attorney or the Mayor as needed. He supported inclusion of the language which had been removed from Policy CD-2.B, simply because without the language, too much flexibility was left. AMENDMENT: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to add the words "as needed" to Program CD-2.B1. Mr. Calonne said height and density were two pieces of the picture, suggesting it might be height and density or other development standards. The change made a big difference in how the program would be applied at a later time. If Council sought broad discretion to control massive buildings, height and density were not the full picture and might have a narrowing effect on what could be accomplished. Mayor Simitian asked if Program CD-2.B1 were upgraded and there was no amendment to the language which indicated the policy would be applied when necessary to protect surrounding uses and community values and if the language were restored in Policy CD-2.B, whether Council would still be in the position of being able to approve the kind of Medical Center or hotel referenced or whether Council had strengthened the language in Policy CD-2.B and upgraded Program CD-2.B1 that Council no longer had the flexibility it attempted to achieve. Mr. Calonne said the point of reading the words was to give effect to the intent of Council. If in Council's discussion it was made clear Council's intent was to retain flexibility, which was inherent, the "as needed" language worked fine. The reason he had offered the alternative language was to test whether the impact of the sentence was coming from the phrase "discourage massive single uses" or whether Council was driving at the means in which one measured the problems created. Mayor Simitian was interested in results. In an attempt to find a middle ground, the addition of the two words added flexibility which he thought Council was attempting to achieve. Council Member Fazzino tended to accept Council Member McCown's logic and believed that the City could at one time discourage massiveness, too much density, and too great a height and at the same time allow for the occasional exception, based upon other community needs. He did not have a problem with Vice Mayor Wheeler's language but probably would prefer use of the word "discourage" rather than "avoid" in the policy as well as the program. If Council decided to use "discourage," he was concerned that use of the words "as needed" created too large a loophole. If the words "as needed" were added as caveats to the entire document, it would destroy the effect of the entire Plan. He understood Mayor Simitian's point and understood the public policy
06/10/95 76-140
objective he sought, but as far as the kind of flexibility, the proposed language allowed did not need the addition of the words "as needed." Council Member Huber would not support the amendment. One had to choose whether to encourage or discourage massive uses. He thought it should be discouraged and should be said at the very start by using "discourage." The use of the words "as needed" just cut back. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-5, Simitian, Andersen "yes," Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. Council Member Andersen suggested using the language found in the BE Section as a substitute. Vice Mayor Wheeler suggested leaving in the phrase "while allowing for appropriate change." Mayor Simitian supported the language of the main motion based on the assurances he had been given that it was designed to provide the flexibility to consider projects at the two sites which the City Attorney had indicated was an important matter to get on record. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Rosenbaum absent. Council Member Huber was uncomfortable with the way the commercial and residential was wrapped up. Somehow it did not seem the two were dealt with together very well and suggested the two be separated out. Policy CD-2.A, "Maintain the primarily residential character of the community with its vital commercial areas and significant public facilities," sounded like two different statements. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
06/10/95 76-141