HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-21 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting June 21, 1995 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 76-206 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 76-233 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. .......... 76-234
06/21/95 76-205
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 7:30 p.m.), Kniss (arrived at 7:11 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum (arrived at 8:19 p.m.), Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direc-tion for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update 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) but would not start a new section that evening. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the CD Section was one of the few areas where staff considered important a comment in writing on the draft. Pages 5 and 5a of the Plan contained some fairly extensive comments from the City Attorney's Office. Particularly of importance was the manner in which the Plan restated the current Urban Limit Line (ULL) concept which already existed as a matter of policy. In particular, his office had been concerned about page 11, which was closely related to page 5, with the direct exchange proposed between Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the Stanford Research Park and open space protection elsewhere. The concept was not defensible as currently set out. The City Attorney's Office, as well as the Planning Commission, had done some editing. Council Member Schneider asked about some of the history related to the ULL and the controversy surrounding the issue. Dena Mossar, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee member, said the CD Subcommittee of Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) had included a number of policies and programs in the CD Section which were related to development proposals, specifically with regard to Stanford University (Stanford). Time had been spent discussing total growth potential beyond the projects cited in the CD Section. The CPAC sought to provide some certainty regarding potential growth on Stanford lands predictable to the community so the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) would not allow one set of developments to be followed unnamed and into more developments. A conversation had ensued concerning the area between Foothill Park and the City, currently open space and owned
06/21/95 76-206
by Stanford, and CPAC's desire to preserve the open space linkage between, i.e., open space continuing all the way to Skyline Boulevard. The ULL concept had become increasingly in vogue and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and various organizations in the Bay Area had come to endorse it. The CD Subcommittee had determined that the ULL was a vehicle, when drawn as mapped by staff, that would provide the community with more certainty about future development in areas both in and outside of the ULL. Council Member Schneider asked whether Santa Clara County's (the County) agreements were sufficient. Ms. Mossar said the CD Subcommittee had held a series of meetings with Stanford representatives to discuss the County's agreements. The consensus in conversations with the Document Rewrite Committee was that the County's agreements were uncertain and the protections were inadequate. It was important to continue to endorse the ULL concept. Council Member Schneider asked whether CPAC still felt as strong about what the City Attorney had written. Ms. Mossar replied yes. CPAC felt very strongly about the subject. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber suggested, because of the three-party agreement between the City, Stanford, and the County concerning Stanford's growth and development issues, drawing Stanford representatives into the discussion because of the strong feelings involved. There were four terms which tended to flow in and out of discussions of areas appropriate for urban development and areas appropriate for non-urban uses. Part of the murkiness of the issue involved the terms which were used and applied in Palo Alto which tended to be somewhat differently understood in other parts of the County. The first term was "urban service area," defined by the County as an area anticipated by a municipality to serve with urban services and contain urban development within a five-year period. The City had used the term essentially as an ultimate urban area in terms of planning horizon, dropping the five years from the use of the term. The second term was "sphere of influence," defined by the County as the boundary into which the city would ultimately expand. Palo Alto tended to use the term as a co-term with "urban service area." The areas of greatest interest were along Junipero Serra and the edge of the Research Park, Coyote Hill, and areas along Grassmare Road. Staff had intended to use the term "sphere of influence" interchangeably with "urban service area," so ultimate and short term would be the same. The third term was "urban limit line," which had been used by CPAC and in numerous discussions over the last years. For the County, ULL was interchangeable with "urban growth boundary," which was defined as a 20-year projection of where a city would expect to expand. Therefore, urban service area was five years, urban growth boundary 20 years, and sphere of influence was the ultimate. From Palo Alto's perspective, which was why so much of the discussion
06/21/95 76-207
was merely semantics and not a discussion of significant policy issues, the 1976 Comprehensive Plan had had a very clear under-standing that in terms of both the Baylands and the foothills, the areas which would be subject to urban services, short term, intermediate, and long term, was the same for every time frame. Urban services would not be pushed beyond Junipero Serra Boulevard or the upper foothills, which City zoning and planning policies had reflected. From staff's standpoint, neither CPAC or the Planning Commission had proposed any change to City policy regarding the areas which should be available for urban develop-ment. The County's general plan in its use of the terms and recognizing the urban service area boundary and sphere of influence boundary, would recognize the areas outside of which were not appropriate for urban development. Mayor Simitian asked whether CPAC considered the Plan as recommending any change in existing City policy. Ms. Mossar thought CPAC's understanding was slightly different. If the Coyote Hill area was used as an example, west of Junipero Serra, there were a number of open space agreements that would expire early in the following decade which potentially left the lands open for development and possible expansion of the Research Park. CPAC's intent was to preserve the Coyote Hill area in its current condition as open space. Stanford also held lands west of Foothill Expressway which were governed by a use permit with the County. CPAC understood the terms of the use permit would include development in the foothills of certain types which caused potential concern. The intention was to clearly limit development to the west of the urban growth boundary. Council Member Kniss questioned the areas indicated for the hospital. Mr. Schreiber said the boundary between the land within the City on the second map was the white area. The shaded areas were lands outside of the City boundaries. In the case of the area near the two hospitals, Stanford Medical Center and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, part of the Medical Center was outside the City's boundaries on unincorporated County land and the bulk of the hospital was within the City limits. The jurisdictional line ran through the complex. Agreements had been drawn in the 1950s and 1960s regarding the relationship between the Stanford Hospital to the old City hospital in terms of what would be in the City when Stanford University took over the City's hospital. The second was the long-standing policy that academic uses should be located outside of the City limit and that non-academic uses should be annexed to the City. The medical school, being an academic use, was seen as not needing to be annexed to the City, which was the basis for the line. Council Member Kniss was interested in further background informa-tion when Council discussed the hospital in relation to the Comp Plan. Council Member McCown wanted to understand the differences in the
06/21/95 76-208
choices for language in the Plan and what would be conveyed. The staff report of November 7, 1994, (CMR:496:94) on page 24 made the point that CPAC's ULL was "consistent with and does not change long-standing City and County planning policies for the Foothills and Baylands...If Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation to not include an Urban Limit Line in the draft Plan, clear direction should be given as to whether or not the action is meant to convey any change in City land use policy, particularly as it relates to geographic expansion of the Research park into the area between Coyote Hill and Page Mill Road west of Foothill Expressway." The wording included in the Plan should be the right terminology for the City to use and a definition should be included concerning the boundary which ensured there was no change with respect to City policy regarding areas referenced between Coyote Hill and Page Mill Road west of Foothill Expressway specifically. Ms. Mosser appeared to raise the question as to what would happen to Coyote Hill if it were left out of the Plan. Staff and Stanford needed to explain whether inherent or implicit behind the words was some change in policy with respect to Coyote Hill once the legal easements ended. The Plan needed to address such questions and what affect the language had on the questions. Mayor Simitian shared many of Council Member McCown's concerns, however, the current meeting should not be consumed in a long conversation about the meaning of words. The Council should come to some conclusion about what it wanted the Plan to say. Council Member McCown agreed and was unsure what was even being recommended from the different perspectives, e.g., CPAC, Planning Commission, and staff, with respect to potential policy changes. Mr. Schreiber said staff intended that Coyote Hill, which was incorporated into the City, and the adjacent unincorporated areas not be included in any urban development but remain designated as open space controlled development in the Plan, zoned as agricultural. The current lack of easements would not change the underlying policy. Staff did not anticipate or recommend any change to the current policy unless Council had some interest in expanding the Research Park. Council Member Kniss queried why an agreement existed if no change would occur once the agreements expired. Mr. Schreiber said the agreements to which he had referred were open space easements which had been entered into in 1968 as a result of a lawsuit, Committee For Green Foothills vs. City of Palo Alto and Stanford, regarding development in the Research Park. The settlement of the lawsuit involved identification of a number of properties for open space easements, which had eventually been established. A number of the easements, which had varying time lines, would expire within the next five to seven years, some thereafter. The City's land use policies were not based on the easements. If the easements expired, there was no right of urban development. The Comp Plan would have to be changed to do so. Some people in the community feared once the easements expired, the lands would be open for development.
06/21/95 76-209
However, the easements were a totally separate vehicle from City zoning and land use designations. Mayor Simitian clarified the Coyote Hill area was within the City limits. Mr. Schreiber said the area indicated by staff as the Coyote Hill area was partially within the City's limits and partially outside. The land between Page Mill Road and the creek was unincorporated County land. From the creek up the flank of the hill to the top and across was within the City. Mayor Simitian asked whether the land in the foothills was subject to land use regulation by the County was the land to which CPAC had referred. Ms. Mossar replied yes, as well as north of Page Mill Road. Mayor Simitian clarified the land CPAC had expressed concern about in terms of potential development capacity was the area indicated by Ms. Mossar as well as the area indicated in red (which was the unincorporated County land), all of which was in the jurisdiction of the County. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Mayor Simitian said there were some fairly basic questions: 1) exactly which property was being discussed; 2) who regulated the property; 3) what the City thought its entitlements were or not under the Comp Plan and zoning ordinances; 4) what Stanford thought its entitlements were under the Comp Plan and zoning ordinances; and 5) what impact the easements had. David Newman, Stanford University Associate Vice Probost for Planning, said Stanford considered its entitlements were subject to the appropriate governmental regulating agency and, appropriate to Palo Alto, the areas in white were zoned and regulated by Palo Alto. Appropriate to the County, the areas in grey were regulated and zoned by the County. The area which had been pointed out by Ms. Mosser was currently zoned as open space agriculture and was allowed for low-intensity use, as defined by the 1995 General Plan in Santa Clara County as being residential, all non-residential buildings below 5,000 square feet, and any residential units other than caretaker units. The only options Stanford had for the area were caretaker housing units, of which there was one, and the ability to build facilities like microwave dish monitoring stations, etc. Mayor Simitian clarified the area was under the jurisdiction of the County. Mr. Newman replied yes. The other areas were zoned by Palo Alto and currently zoned in the Research Park accordingly. Mayor Simitian asked what the use of the word "accordingly" meant in the current context.
06/21/95 76-210
Mr. Newman said "accordingly" meant whatever the definition of the zoning was in the Research Park. Mayor Simitian clarified Mr. Newman considered the Coyote Hill area part of the Research Park and was appropriately zoned as part of the Research Park. Mr. Newman said the Coyote Hill area was not part of the Research Park. The white area in the Research Park was appropriately zoned. The areas in green were designated as open space and were also subject to the conditional agreements which had been signed in the 1960s. Mr. Schreiber said the zoning was agricultural. The land zoned Limited Manufacturing was the developed land on the flanks of Coyote Hill along Hillview and Arastradero. Mayor Simitian asked whether the lands subject to the easements previously mentioned were zoned open space. Mr. Schreiber said in Palo Alto the areas were all agricultural. Some of the areas were outside the City limit. So lands in the County's jurisdiction were hillside zoning which allowed agricul-tural and grazing, parks, low-density recreational uses, land in its natural state, wildlife refuges, and other uses which required remote rural setting or supported recreational appreciation of natural environment. Mayor Simitian asked whether the open space zoning on the land in Palo Alto had been in place at the time of the lawsuit. Mr. Schreiber said the zoning was agricultural and the Comp Plan designation was open space. The point of the lawsuit, in part, had been the appropriate designation of the properties. Mayor Simitian thought the central issue was the land, which currently had nothing on it. There were people interested in making sure the land remained without anything on it. There appeared much controversy about whether there might eventually be something on the land. People wanted to know what could be done to make sure nothing was on the land if so desired. Council Member McCown said the map staff had provided Council, where Palo Alto's existing sphere of influence line was, the existing urban service area line, and CPAC's proposed ULL, were totally in concurrence all the way along Junipero Serra, thereby excluding from urban uses the entire dish area. The only place there appeared to be a distinction was around Coyote Hill in terms of existing urban service and sphere of influence lines on which the City relied and which CPAC had considered. The County did not have any similar designation since the County's position was that all urban development should occur in the cities, i.e., the County did not have a similar ULL within the County plan because the assumption was that urban development would occur in the cities, not in the County.
06/21/95 76-211
Mr. Newman said the County had "urban growth boundaries." Council Member McCown asked whether the urban growth boundary was applicable in the area under discussion. Mr. Newman said Stanford believed the urban growth boundary was in place. Council Member McCown asked whether the urban growth boundary was identical with the urban service area. Mr. Newman replied yes, with the exception previously noted. Council Member McCown thought the only area which was a point of difference was the small area around Coyote Hill. Mr. Newman said ULL could mean something different. Stanford's position was that the meaning made no difference and had only the possibility of making more confusion which was principally why Stanford's position was that if the current policies, absent the discussion about Coyote Hill, were made clearer in the new Comprehensive Plan, Stanford would be satisfied and would give the assurance which already existed. Stanford was not asking for change but did not want more confusion. Council Member McCown said the Coyote Hill should be an area of non-urban development, wherever the line was drawn, just as all other sections in the area. The Coyote Hill area should be brought into conformity with the remainder of the areas which were excluded from urban development. Council Member Kniss asked whether Council Member McCown thought the area bordered by Hillview, Page Mill, etc., according to Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Newman, were all protected but in different ways. One appeared to be protected by Palo Alto in open space and one area protected by the County in the hillside regulations. Council Member McCown said the map appeared to indicate the sphere of influence and urban service area lines were not identical. The urban service area line protected everything except the last little piece. Everything between the hash marks and Hillview was already developed. The x's on the map, where CPAC wanted the ULL extended, would pick up the remainder of Coyote Hill, which she supported, and would extend the urban service area line to exclude urban development for the rest of Coyote Hill. Council Member Schneider thought the area was already in a protected agreement. Council Member McCown said the area was in a 25-year easement, but for purposes of the Plan, the assumption had to be made that the easement would end and whatever land use designation and Plan designation Council thought was necessary should be made. Mr. Schreiber said existing City land use policies for the lands
06/21/95 76-212
discussed were not part of the Research Park, not designated for urban development, and were agriculturally zoned. In the staff report (CMR:496:94), staff had indicated that if Council concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation to delete the CPAC program on urban growth boundaries, clarification should be made regarding the intent for any change in the policies so the new Comprehensive Plan would reflect and state as clearly as possible that the lands should not be used for urban development and were not part of the Research Park, whether or not the easements were in place. Council Member McCown asked why the very slight variation between the current urban service area boundary line and what CPAC had recommended could not be conformed, regardless of the necessary labels which would be used later for the concept. Mr. Schreiber thought perhaps the difference was simply a mapping error because the area under consideration along Arastradero Road, behind the developed parcels was under the easement. He suspected the scale of map error might be the issue. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle concurred with Mr. Schreiber. The intent of both of the lines was to gerrymander around the existing development which had occurred on the flank of Coyote Hill, and for no further development to encroach over the hill. Council Member McCown asked which line was the correct line. Ms. Lytle said the urban service area line was shown correctly and the other was the line which CPAC had drawn, but there might be a scale problem or mapping error on the part of CPAC. Ms. Mossar said the issue of open space had been very important to CPAC. The CD Section considered the entire community from a design perspective. CPAC had evaluated the pros and cons of allowing additional developments in certain parts of the community which had potential benefit for the community. In that discussion, the CD Subcommittee and the Document Rewrite Committee had come to an agreement that if the Plan were to allow in principle increased development in certain parts of the City for a specific reason, it was equally important for the Plan to address the issue of future growth and where it potentially could occur. Will Beckett, CPAC Member, said everything Ms. Mossar had said was true. His concern was that the purpose of future growth was driven primarily in community design by people strongly in favor of improving the traffic situation. The idea of allowing certain flexibility in terms of growth was for the purpose of finding mixed uses which would reduce the traffic situation in town, specifically in the Research Park. CPAC wanted to find some way of offering flexibility in the Research Park. Council Member Schneider asked whether CPAC thought the small area was the result of misdrawn lines or whether CPAC was attempting to protect one little area.
06/21/95 76-213
Ms. Mossar was sure CPAC was not attempting to protect one tiny corner. Most CPAC discussions had centered around the fact Stanford had given notice that it would not renew the easements on the lands. CPAC knew the community had changed zoning before and could do so again. Council Member Andersen was unclear about the implications of the "sphere of influence" when transferred outside the City's bound-aries and asked whether CPAC's intention with the ULL was to draw into areas outside of City boundaries an influence and, if so, whether it was merely through the influence of the County's Plan or beyond. Ms. Mossar said CPAC had been asked to dream, which it had done, recognizing the line went through areas which were not within the specific jurisdiction of the City. CPAC had discussed the need for a mutual agreement between the City, County, and Stanford. CPAC thought the ULL was compatible with the policies in the new County Plan. Council Member Andersen queried whether the City needed the concept in its own plan since the County's plan appeared to have responded to the concerns. Ms. Mossar said having the concept in both places would not hurt and the concept had come up in the context of allowing additional growth in other parts of the community and providing assurances to the community for future potential negative impacts. Council Member Andersen said Mr. Calonne's comments in the Plan were rather strong with regard to compensated property. If the City entered into the concept as described by CPAC, he queried whether the City would put itself into jeopardy. Mr. Calonne said the City was not far enough along to put itself at risk. The point Ms. Mossar tried to make was something that the staff had been attempting to reinforce also. The words in the Plan contained much more than open space protection. There was a fairly specific tradeoff in mind with several adjunct policy objectives mixed in. For the purposes of Council, the CD Section of the Plan reached beyond planning and went to implementation. Mr. Schreiber had said the way the City had implemented its current Comp Plan was through agricultural zoning, which allowed a fairly restrictive range of uses. The CPAC proposed a more formal exchange of development potential which was complicated from a legal standpoint. There were many other ways other jurisdictions had described what was being referred to as ULLs. The language in the Plan had suggested the phrase "rate and timing." The growth equation comprised not only how much, but how soon, where, and in which order. One of the policy areas which was unclear was whether the expression was one which growth was not necessarily bad but where and when it occurred. If the objective of CPAC in the policy were to compact and compress growth into the Research Park in order to preserve the foothills, there were ways of doing so through rate, timing, and sequence regulations which would not forbid doing anything in the hills but required something else be
06/21/95 76-214
done before. The difficulty arose when the policy objectives of CPAC were interlaced with some fairly complicated implementation tools. It was doing a good job, but needed to continue to be unwound. Council Member Andersen asked whether the City would have a tighter or looser Plan than previously if the Planning Commission's "C" designation remained for Policy CD-3.D. Mr. Calonne understood staff's reaction would be to leave the existing implementation, i.e., agricultural zoning, in place. A change in the private restrictions was forecasted in the form of easements or acts of agreements which would cease within the life span of the Comp Plan. The Planning Commission recommendation would leave in place the existing form of urban growth limits. Mr. Schreiber said Mr. Calonne was correct. Staff intended the Comp Plan to more clearly state the Baylands and foothills policies which were currently not easily found. Staff would call out the policies specifically in the Comp Plan. Mayor Simitian asked how the City had become involved in a lawsuit with resultant easements if the lands were so thoroughly protected. Mr. Calonne would need to research the history in order to respond. Council Member McCown thought the impetus of the lawsuit was a specific land use development proposal by Xerox to build in the location where currently located. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said a developer, Jack Wheatley, had subdivided some Stanford land into four parcels and resubdivided the four parcels into four parcels, thereby avoiding the subdivision map act. A suit had been brought by the Committee for a Green Foothills regarding the illegal subdivision, clearly intended to subvert the public process of the Subdivision Map Act. The result was a settlement which resulted in the open space easements. The Xerox proposal had been fed into the settlement because Xerox agreed to do a certain kind of development which left parcels open. Council Member McCown thought the Xerox project had been challenged legally. Ms. Renzel was unsure about Xerox, but the original open space easements had been a result of the illegal subdivision. Mayor Simitian clarified the easements had been placed on property which had been the subject of the illegal subdivisions. Ms. Renzel said an out-of-court settlement had been made because the illegal subdivisions had been a criminal act. Mayor Simitian clarified the easements were on the property which
06/21/95 76-215
had been proposed for subdivision previously. Ms. Renzel said some of the easements were located on property previously proposed for subdivisions. Mayor Simitian asked whether some of the easements were on property which were not part of the subdivision process. Ms. Renzel said all of the easements had arisen out of the lawsuit. The Xerox proposal had been somewhat of a compromise. Council Member McCown asked where CPAC was headed with the proposal. Currently, City land use designations and City zoning were on certain parts of the area and County land use designations and zoning on others, all of which were proposed to be consistent with the City's current policy outside of the urban growth line or ULL, i.e., no urban development. Ms. Mossar and Mr. Beckett had brought back into the discussion the considerations CPAC had had about trading or considering the possibility of greater protections in a negotiated situation with Stanford for the lands in exchange for something else. Ms. Mossar appeared to imply that simply putting the line on the map, signifying outside an urban growth line or ULL, was not sufficient protection because all that was being relied upon was zoning, either City or County, which could change in the future by policy makers. CPAC appeared to advocate other elements to negotiate tradeoffs where other development would occur in exchange for more enforceable or permanent non-zoning limits. Ms. Mossar said Council Member McCown was correct. Mr. Calonne's comments were well-spoken. She and Mr. Beckett thought CPAC's intention was not that a ULL be drawn on a map, but the intention was to obtain a mechanism or guarantee in the Plan, if the precise implementation was dealt with at a later time, at least there was a guarantee that if one set of developments occurred, another set of developments could not. Council Member McCown felt that the entire discussion about what the line was called was not the point. Everyone was in agreement that the line could only accomplish as much as was currently the policy. Beyond that, the question was whether there was something more which could be done to provide greater assurance. In terms of the policy, the Planning Commission considered the line already drawn, and other issues as to whether there might be some negotiated tradeoffs would be dealt with as a different matter and policy. Ms. Mossar said the policy arose again and again in Community Design for which Council could, every time it was seen, use as shorthand for the larger conversation. Council Member Andersen thought the Plan required some polish by staff, particularly the City Attorney's Office, regarding ways in which the effort could be implemented. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there had been any CPAC
06/21/95 76-216
discussion about the effectiveness of the sphere of influence concept in protecting areas outside the urban limit lines and whether there had been any discussion about possible annexation of Stanford lands in order to provide the City with more control. Ms. Mossar replied yes. There had not been great confidence that the City had enough influence in its sphere of influence to change County policy, which had been pretty clearly accepted by CPAC as a whole. CPAC had thought the City could not do much to prevent something from happening which it did not want to happen, which had been very key to CPAC. Council Member Fazzino asked whether CPAC had gone beyond concern to discussing options to either strengthen the sphere of influence concept or consider annexation. Ms. Mossar said the CD Subcommittee had had the opportunity to meet for approximately one month. The closest it had come to discussion was the concept of ULL which meant to CPAC strengthening the sphere of influence. Council Member Fazzino asked who had told CPAC that annexation was a "dicey" proposition. Ms. Mossar thought staff had mentioned something about it and possibly Stanford. Mr. Schreiber had spoken with Mr. Newman for 45 minutes that day as a result of which he had reexamined the recently adopted County General Plan. Clearly, a county had the same zoning and planning authority as cities, and some counties approved extensive urban development on unincorporated areas. Santa Clara County had had a fairly consistent policy for a long time of not doing so. The recently adopted plan contained some very strong statements which were applicable and were much stronger than anything the County had adopted in the past. For example, a policy for lands outside cities' urban service areas under the County's land use jurisdic-tion stated "only non-urban, low-density uses shall be allowed." Another policy stated, "urban types and levels of services shall not be available outside of cities' urban service areas from either public or private sector providers." Text leading into the statement included, "There may be occasion to particular circumstances where the public interest is served by permitting a specialized unique land use which would otherwise not be considered consistent with overall land use and rural unincorporated areas. In allowing some limited flexibility for accommodating unique situations, the General Plan should not be misconstrued to encourage applications for fairly routine land uses which seek a location outside the city's jurisdictions but which are not consistent with the overall land use policies and zoning districts for rural and unincorporated areas." The County had some very strong policies. The County, if it wanted to allow what the City would consider urban-type uses on the lands, would have a mighty task before it in amending not just the Stanford section of the County's General Plan, but overarching policies and principles that applied to the entire County, which was a
06/21/95 76-217
different circumstance than when the plan was adopted earlier. He was much more comfortable after having read the General Plan. Council Member Fazzino asked whether Mr. Schreiber disagreed with the CPAC conclusion about sphere of influence. Mr. Schreiber said the 1980 County General Plan, which had been in effect until just a few months before, was much softer. The current plan was much stronger with regard to sphere of influence and offered much stronger protections. Policies were arising throughout the plan and would have to be amended for internal consistency if some type of urban development in an unincorporated area was desired. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought in the beginning of the discussion Mr. Schreiber had attempted to clarify that in Palo Alto's terminolo-gy, urban service area and sphere of influence were basically the same. Palo Alto had interpreted the terms to mean forever. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler said part of the discomfort about the Coyote Hill area existed because the sphere of influence and urban service lines diverged. There was a much greater area, including Coyote Hill, contained within the sphere of influence boundary which implied that there was some difference of interpretation between the two and would envisage ultimately some form of urbanization or less than open space which currently existed within the area where the two lines diverged. Mr. Schreiber said there was land outside of the urban service area but within the sphere of influence. Over the course of years, the urban service area had been linked with the sphere of influence terminology and the urban service area boundary had been interpreted as a very long-term, if not ultimate, approach. Never had the urban service area boundary been interpreted as a five-year expansion plan. Vice Mayor Wheeler queried whether the current open space configu-ration was the solution to prevent the urban service area and sphere of influence lines co-terminus if that was what the City meant to retain in the Coyote Hill area, etc. Mr. Schreiber thought the reason the lines were separate in the Coyote Hill area was because the City thought it would have more clout with Santa Clara County if the area were within the sphere of influence but outside the urban service area. The deviation had been a calculated deviation, not accidental. If the land were outside the sphere, the City thought it would be easier to argue that it did not have a long-term interest. A sense of greater City interest would then exist in the Coyote Hill and lands along Page Mill Road. Vice Mayor Wheeler understood why CPAC had wanted a line which stated there would not be development beyond.
06/21/95 76-218
Mr. Schreiber thought there was no disagreement between staff and CPAC in doing so, but the question was one of wording. Mayor Simitian understood Mr. Schreiber to vocalize it was politically expedient for the two lines not to mean the same thing in the particular area but ordinarily would. Mr. Schreiber thought Mayor Simitian was correct in his assessment of the actions of 15 years before. Mayor Simitian had indicated in the past that he had an open mind about Stanford development plans along Sand Hill corridor and would continue to have an open mind. Sympathy and interest was also expressed in seeing a hotel on the site which had been identified, if possible consistent with traffic mitigation, which was no small task. He did not want to see the lands currently under discussion developed and wanted to make sure the City's Comprehensive Plan did everything it possibly could to make sure such development would not happen, consistent with the property rights of Stanford University. Whatever set of tools staff in its professional judgment thought were most effective in preventing development in the area should be used. He thought most of his colleagues felt the same way. He asked whether staff required some kind of policy direction from Council in order to make the desire manifestly clear. Mr. Schreiber said unless the rest of Council disagreed, Mayor Simitian had made the point very clear. Mayor Simitian asked whether there was agreement or disagreement. Council Member Kniss agreed but could not help but think the protection already existed which the Planning Department had explained. She was comfortable with the designation which had been put forth. Mayor Simitian clarified the unanimous view of Council was to support efforts to prevent development in the Coyote Hill and Page Mill Road area. CPAC had appeared to indicate that if staff determined, in order to ensure no development beyond Junipero Serra occurred long-term, the necessity of finding some transfer of development rights, CPAC did not want the tool to be lost. CPAC seemed to have indicated the City should pull the line back in on the Research Park and do what was necessary in the newly drawn line to ensure no problems. Council Member McCown said the problem was that the line was not being pulled back in, which was different from the current protection. She wanted to reaffirm existing policy and was not sure something had to be traded in a transfer of development rights to reaffirm existing policy. The statement should reaffirm existing policy. Later, the issues of whether there should be some change in development rights on other land should be discussed as a separate matter, not related to reaffirming the open space policy.
06/21/95 76-219
Council Member Fazzino concurred. Protection of Coyote Hill was current policy which Stanford would assuredly follow. There was no need for horse trading or quid pro quos on the property. He might be willing to discuss other open space areas, but not with Stanford as far as trying to continue to assure protection of Coyote Hill. The battle had been fought years before. Stanford was intelligent and would continue to retain Coyote Hill as open space. Mayor Simitian said Stanford, within the past five years, had started the clock running on termination of the easements. Presumably, Stanford had started the clock running because Stanford thought it had some development rights when the clock finished running which it currently did not have for which there was a reason. CPAC appeared to believe there was a certain amount of protection currently in place. The City might be able to garner additional protection by using the tool and, if so, CPAC had considered it worth doing. Council could disagree but should not act like there was no change in the policy. The question was why the easements had initially been put in place. Council Member Kniss asked about the agreements. Mayor Simitian thought there were five parcels, including Coyote Hill. Mr. Newman said the red and green areas of the map were the areas under discussion. Council Member McCown asked how the urban limit line had anything to do with the easements. Where the line was had nothing to do with it. The document should merely reaffirm the policy with respect to where urban growth occurred and where it would not. Mayor Simitian thought there was consensus on his first observation but not for his second observation. Council Member Fazzino agreed with Mayor Simitian's point of view that absolute protection was needed. Disagreement could occur about specific properties and whether more should be done to assure protection. Agreement was voiced with Mayor Simitian's general view. Mr. Calonne assumed the phrase used by Mayor Simitian of "no development" was synonymous with the development permitted under agricultural zoning. Mayor Simitian replied yes. Ms. Mossar thought Council understood what CPAC had said. Page 5 of the Plan discussed open space because the goal was about natural areas. Further in the document, urban areas would be discussed. CPAC's intent had been to reflect CPAC and community concerns that the Plan be full-proof and give assurance, i.e., trusting the County would not do anything and ensuring a designa-tion between urban and open space was clearly indicated.
06/21/95 76-220
Mayor Simitian clarified no Council changes had been proposed for any of the goals, policies, or programs under Goal CD-3. Mr. Schreiber said Council had been provided with a document which related to Program CD-4.B1, "Provide incentives to property owners (such as flexible floor area ratios and modified setbacks), to develop duplexes, townhouses, ancillary units, and high density single-family housing types within Residential Districts in a manner that preserves the neighborhood's overall character." Mayor Simitian struggled with the visual aspects of the Plan. Council would need better visuals to have an intelligent discussion about what was occurring and Council had not had the necessary tools to do the best possible job. Staff was asked to do whatever it could to provide visual tools. The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) had been a significant cost to the City. City Manager June Fleming said putting maps on screen from the GIS program was impossible with the current equipment. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to revise the language in CD-4.B1, "Provide incentives to property owners (such as flexible floor area ratios and modified setbacks), to develop duplexes, townhouses, ancillary units, and high density single-family housing types within Residential Districts in a manner that preserves the neighborhood's overall character," with the proposed language in CMR:322:95 for CD-4.B1, "Consistent with the preservation of existing neighborhood character, modify zoning ordinance regulations and develop design guidelines to permit duplexes, courtyard housing, townhouses, cottage units, and smaller lot single-family housing types within certain Residential Districts and/or neighborhoods in transitional commercial dis-tricts." MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. Mr. Schreiber clarified the Planning Commission had given Program CD-4.B1 a "B" rating while the staff recommendation would move it to an "A" rating. Mayor Simitian thought Council understood. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought Program CD-4.D1, "Study the location of existing local commercial centers to understand how they serve their neighbors. Identify which neighborhoods have the least access to everyday services," could be interpreted to mean the intent was to open up new commercial areas within residential neighborhoods which had been identified as lacking such services. Ms. Mossar thought CPAC had considered such an interpretation; however, after considering the City maps and neighborhood commer-cial areas which currently existed, CPAC came to understand that with improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit/shuttle access, there were very few places which did not have easy access to neighborhood commercial services.
06/21/95 76-221
Mr. Beckett said there was a fairly large piece of property on Louis Road which could have had a local grocery store or something within walking distance because there was nothing else close by. Unfortunately, the property had already begun to be developed and was no longer an opportunity. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought the current wording was open to interpretation and was, to some extent, why the Planning Commission had placed Program CD-4.D1 as contextual rather than a policy or program. The health of the City's already existing neighborhood service commercial areas should be encouraged, making it easier for people to access already existing areas by means other than single-occupant vehicles. Tony Carrasco, Planning Commission Member, said the Planning Commission had discussed the issue of having to rezone small lots within the walkable radius in the Land Use Section and had determined not to do so but rather to reinforce the ability to access existing commercial areas. Mr. Beckett said the support for Program CD-4.D1, to assure that within one-quarter of a mile walking distance people could pick up daily needs, went along with the understanding that most of the traffic generated in Palo Alto was local traffic going across town to access conveniences. If the conveniences could be placed close enough, traffic would be reduced. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the City currently had a sufficient amount of commercially zoned property. Mr. Beckett said Vice Mayor Wheeler was correct, but sometimes it was a mix thing, encouraging certain things, etc. Some of the early presentations made to CPAC included alternatives like day care centers with post offices and substations for the Police Department at the centers which ultimately attracted and encouraged gatherings. If not attractive, people would go for price rather than atmosphere, etc. Vice Mayor Wheeler agreed with the Planning Commission's interpre-tation and hoped the Plan would so reflect. Council Member Fazzino thought Vice Mayor Wheeler had addressed most of the issues. He would have been concerned if CPAC had proposed rezoning of residential or other uses to commercial in order to achieve the objective. At the same time, he recognized the importance of preserving existing neighborhood services. He also recognized the importance coming up with alternative forms of transportation so people could access services which might not be in the immediate neighborhood but were accessible by forms of transportation other than the single-passenger vehicle, which would be a correct assumption of CPAC's intent. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the intent of Program CD-4.B1 on page 7 of the Plan, which spoke of residential districts, referred to multi-family zoned areas of residential districts as
06/21/95 76-222
opposed to single-family areas. Ms. Mossar asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum had asked whether CPAC intended to have single-family residential zones converted to denser zones. Council Member Rosenbaum replied yes. A residential district could be either single or multi-family. Mr. Schreiber said from staff's perspective, there were areas currently zoned single-family (R-1) in which there were lots and parcel sizes which would not fit within the existing zoning. Some areas might exist where a smaller lot, single-family might be appropriate, e.g., duplexes, etc. The application would not apply across the board to residential districts but only in selected locations where it would fit within the fabric of an existing neighborhood and would help to preserve the neighborhood. Some areas were best kept with smaller lots than to have zoning facilitate larger lot creation and larger houses which were out of scale with the neighborhood. In no way was the change intended to modify zoning in established single-family neighborhoods of basically 6,000- to 8,000-square-foot lot patterns. Ms. Mossar said CPAC concurred. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether there were certain R-1 neighborhoods where staff would consider such changes. Mr. Schreiber said nothing would be imposed rapidly or precipitously. The concept would fit into areas such as Downtown north, College Terrace, part of south of Forest area, etc. Ms. Mossar said CPAC acknowledged there were neighborhoods, even neighborhoods zoned R-1, where single-family was not the predomi-nant living pattern. The program would provide an opportunity for increased housing across the City, negating the need for monstrous housing projects in one or two locations. Council Member Rosenbaum was inclined to attempt to limit the change to multi-family zoned areas of residential districts. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to modify the new Program CD-4.B1 to make it clear that the special types of housing would be built in multi-family zoned areas as opposed to single-family zones. Mayor Simitian said the issue raised by Council Member Rosenbaum was very important as it was the heart and soul of a major debate which had not yet blossomed, i.e., between people with a very traditional view of the "integrity of the City's R-1 neighbor-hoods," who believed R-1 meant single-family on conventional sized lots with a white picket fence notion versus people with some of the views and visions articulated during the CPAC process for a new suburban ethic which lent a somewhat different "funkier" mix of housing. Much of what had been described was engaging but very threatening to a number of people.
06/21/95 76-223
Council Member Rosenbaum said a residential district was not a zoning term, but an area of the City. Program CD-4.B1 should only apply to multi-family zones as opposed to single-family zones. He agreed with the more traditional view of single-family neighbor-hoods remaining much as they were. Any of the "funky" types of housing were appropriate and should be considered, as opposed to traditional apartments or condominiums, in multi-family zones. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought Mayor Simitian's reference to "funkier" types of developments and areas was covered by the phrase "and/or neighborhoods in transitional commercial districts," i.e., areas currently with the more urban-type mix ranging from single family to some form or density of multi-family and were areas where she thought by choice or design people would want primarily to establish such "funky" developments. On the other hand, in her own or Mayor Simitian's neighborhood, such a development would not be welcome or appropriate. Much discussion had been centered around preserving neighborhood character which was important and had been important in Palo Alto. The wording contained in the Plan, particularly as modified by Council Member Rosenbaum, made it very clear where the developments would be allowed. Mayor Simitian said there were housing developments on what had been designated as surplus school sites which often had the large- house-on-a-small-lot-problem based on public reaction, but among the properties developed were duplexes in very expensive neighbor-hoods surrounded by very large homes in very typical R-1 neighbor-hoods. No hue or cry had been heard about duplexes which were Below Market Rate (BMR) units and questioned whether such would be appropriate. Vice Mayor Wheeler said "duplexes" in City terms were actually single-family. Ms. Lytle said the City also had an R-2 zone which was a single-family underlying designation and an RD&P zone which, in some of the funkier areas, was multi-family designated. Ms. Schreiber said the basic R-1 zone did not allow duplexes. Mr. Lytle said each time such a product was attempted in an R-1 area, a PC zone was required, i.e., even with a duplex, a PC was necessary. Other neighborhoods where it might be appropriate, which had been heard in public hearings throughout the years, were neighborhoods where small lot patterns prevailed. There were sections of College Terrace and Downtown north where neighbors would rather not see consolidation of lots and 6,000-square-foot properties developed because there were much smaller properties historically. The residential guidelines defined such areas as the eclectic single-family neighborhoods, to which staff had meant when it said "some neighborhoods," where the prevailing neighborhood was not the suburban 6,000-square-foot pattern. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought Ms. Lytle's clearer definition of the type of area to which Program CD-4.B1 referred made her more
06/21/95 76-224
comfortable than just the noting phrase "certain." If possible, she would be more comfortable with some tighter bounds around the definition of what neighborhoods or types of neighborhoods would be considered. Council Member McCown agreed with Ms. Lytle's comments. It was a Comp Plan policy calling for ordinance definitions and design guidelines. She would rather not have the narrowing in the manner proposed by Council Member Rosenbaum. The language did not apply across the board to all standard R-1 neighborhoods. The wording in Program CD-4.B1 was acceptable. Council Member Andersen agreed with Council Member McCown. The City should not limit the creative potential of such an approach. There were new kinds of family structures and certain inefficien-cies which came about with the existing kinds of land uses and in some areas would work. Inefficiencies should not be encouraged in terms of the limited scarcity of land. If limited to multi-family zoning, there was a concentrated effect on multi-family areas and there might be an unintended consequence. Council Member Schneider did not support motion. Some of the most innovative housing recently seen occurred in single-family neighborhoods with large homes. In Crescent Park, for example, duplexes, small multi-family housing, etc., surrounded the area on little streets which were charming and added to the character of the neighborhood, not detracting from residential districts. Council Member Kniss did not support the motion but was glad Council Member Rosenbaum had raised the issue. Council had struggled over the past three years with the question of how to acquire more housing, especially low-income housing, in Palo Alto. Concerned was expressed with the PC zone and the City's dependence upon it. The PC zone had been seen as a special zone for special developers, which was troubling. The City was headed in a direction of wanting something more certain and, although it was not exactly sure where it should be or what it should look like, it was looking nonetheless. Some alternatives should be offered, particularly for younger people and older people wanting to move into the Downtown area. The City needed to consider and begin to flush out areas where some discrete changes or more definitive changes were desired. Council Member Rosenbaum appreciated the discussion. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to add the words "school sites" after "parks" and "park" to Policy CD-4.E, "Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within Residential Districts and ensure that each Residential District has public gathering spaces, such as parks and/or plazas," and Program CD-4.E1, "Actively search for and develop a park or plaza site in those Residential Districts which lack them." MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent.
06/21/95 76-225
Council Member Andersen asked why Program CD-4.F1 on page 8 of the Plan, "Identify primary pedestrian/bike routes within and between each Residential District that link to local destinations such as parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities," had been given a "B" rating. Mr. Carrasco thought the item had been covered under transporta-tion, but he was unable to recall why voting had gone the way it had. The bicycle routes had been discussed in other sections. Council Member Andersen asked whether the issue had been addressed in the Transportation Section to staff's satisfaction. Mr. Schreiber said Council should give the item an "A" rating; if there were any doubt, staff would remove any redundancy later. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to change Program CD-4.F1, "Identify primary pedestrian/bike routes within and between each Residential District that link to local destinations such as parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities," to an A rating. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there was some way to incorporate the concept of defining the design of residential streets under Policy CD-4.G on page 8 of the Plan, "Residential streets should be considered both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Residential streets should have continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, and amenities, such as benches, that favor the pedestrian. Residences should provide entries, gates, and other inviting features that face residential streets to help create a sense of community and improve safety." Some very important language was contained on page 42 of the Plan regarding public ways and the need to slow traffic and adopt traffic calming devices. Mr. Schreiber said staff intended to pull everything together in the final Plan, so the final document would not be in the same order as the Plan. There were numerous other similar situations. Mr. Carrasco said there were two aspects to public ways. One was the public way itself and the other, contained in the CD Section under discussion, was the way buildings were designed to address the public way. Living spaces could be placed closer to or away from the public way. There had been a debate and discussion at CPAC and the Planning Commission, where the tendency was to want to make the public streets more public, e.g., land use and building designs related more to public streets. Council Member Fazzino agreed but argued that something could be far more accessible to public use by keeping traffic off or reducing traffic significantly from the streets, incorporating traffic calming devices which some might view as building-like in nature. He appreciated Mr. Schreiber's comments, which was an
06/21/95 76-226
important task for the CD Section. Council Member Rosenbaum thought Program CD-4.G2 on page 8 of the Plan, "Provide flexible standards and incentives, such as flexible floor area ratios, modified setbacks, reduced parking standards, and streamlined permitting, for those willing to retrofit their houses with features that activate the street, such as porches, visible entries, and street-facing windows," was a pandora's box. A real live example had occurred with Mr. Migdall's project which had a porch or entry way. Staff should not be placed in a position where something entitled one to a larger house. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, to delete Program CD-4.G2, "Provide flexible standards and incentives, such as flexible floor area ratios, modified setbacks, reduced parking standards, and streamlined permitting, for those willing to retrofit their houses with features that activate the street, such as porches, visible entries, and street-facing windows." Council Member Fazzino thought a number of people were excited about the prospect of having interesting porches and visible entries and windows but queried whether there was a way of accommodating attractive, unique designs without sacrificing some of the critically important City standards related to FARs, parking, etc. Mr. Beckett said Council should examine what was currently being built in the City and the subsequent question, "why is it happen-ing." The current restrictions were specifically defining to the style of house which was being built in the City. The restrictions needed to be reversed to result in a building which was very attractive and fit the neighborhood. Program CD-4.G2 had been CPAC's meager attempt to do so. There might be better ways. There were four houses within his own neighborhood where the daylight plane and setbacks defined the houses. There had to be a better way to build a house. Sandy Eakins, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Member, said the Planning Commission had treated Program CD-4.G2 with an immediate dislike until Mr. Carrasco had spoken about offering people ways to improve entries and street frontages but could not. Program CD-4.G2 was about retrofits, not about maximum buildouts which a specific house had. One way to ensure better looking buildings was to have more sample drawings which were guidelines. Mayor Simitian asked what Mr. Beckett had tried to convey. Mr. Beckett said the four houses within his immediate area clearly defined the current regulations. In fact, he had thought one had encroached on the daylight plane but there had been a change to the daylight plane since he had done his building. The regulation allowed an encroachment of 16 feet into the daylight plane and the house had taken 15.5 feet. Clearly, if all of the limit lines could be drawn, the house was immediately within the limit lines. A particular garage had been built in the back of the lot right
06/21/95 76-227
after the daylight plane had come in which was a second building built within the guidelines which had the roof clipped off at the appropriate places to enable it to fit within the restrictions. The garage was hideous. Mr. Carrasco said the Planning Commission felt leaving some flexibility was appropriate. However, the general concern was how much flexibility was appropriate. A discussion concerning how much flexibility would be necessary when the zoning ordinance occurred. In south Palo Alto, most of the living areas were oriented toward the back with garages forward. The tendency to want to live more out on the street, sharing yard work rather than repairing automobiles, was the natural tendency. Flexibility to add a porch might assist in the neighborly interaction. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the area under discussion was the right place to discuss discouraging hideous garages which faced the street and dominated residences. The issue had been discussed extensively. Having garages in the front of houses was poor design and negatively impacted ones' sense of community by dominating a house with a garage or two or three. He queried discouraging such garage design. Ms. Lytle said staff had debated the issue extensively in the R-1 regulation update which had occurred in the late 1980s over a five-year period. Three-car garages which faced the street had been prohibited. There had been great discussion about incentives for subsidiary garage design so the architecture of the building would be the predominant street feature, e.g., human architecture, windows, doors, etc. More than 50 percent of the neighborhoods in Palo Alto were built with a balanced design with garages as a predominant street-facing element which made loading regulations against an incredibly large segment of the community unfair. At the time, discussions about rear-yard garage bonuses had been dis-cussed. The Planning Commission had debated the issue with balsa wood models and a determination had been made that some of the neighborhoods, particularly Eichlers, would be destroyed if people put garages in the rear yards. Rewarding such behavior in such neighborhoods would damage the architectural style. Therefore, the concept had been thrown out. At the time, there was no proclivity on anyone's part to set up different standards for different districts, which was a level of sophistication that went beyond what anyone was willing to deal with or design review. The City had a home improvement exception process which accomplished all of the things Program CD-4.G2 discussed with remodels. CPAC had been concerned the process would require engaging in notifica-tion of neighbors, etc. Council Member Fazzino asked whether Policy CD-4.G and Program CD-4.G1 provided the City with the opportunity to be creative in working through the zoning ordinance portion of the process and design incentives to address some of the mega-realities and ideas which had been considered back in the 1980s. He was not interested in retrofitting. Eichlers and other homes in the community were extremely attractive, but a hideous example existed at the old well site on Bryant Street which somehow had been
06/21/95 76-228
started prior to adoption of the regulations. He wanted to find a way to encourage new development and architects associated with more attractive new development as far as garages were concerned. Ms. Lytle said some of the language from Program CD-4.G2 could be pulled forward. Council Member Fazzino was discussing pulling more pedestrian scale in new residential design and having it less designed for auto scale, which she thought was what the end of Program CD-4.G2 was trying to get at, i.e., more windows, porches, doors, etc., built for human beings at a pedestrian level rather than a house which looked like it was built for the ease of an automobile. The wording could be combined and expanded on the garage issue for new development. Council Member Fazzino wanted to provide Council and staff with sufficient flexibility to encourage such design at the same time not creating some of the problems Council Member Rosenbaum had properly addressed under Program CD-4.G2. Ms. Lytle's use of the term pedestrian-oriented design was very good and might be the way of addressing his concern. Council Member Andersen had given thought to houses which had had to comply with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regula-tions and were incredibly ugly. He asked whether Program CD-4.G2 would provide some creativity, more scale, and more sense of place. One particular house on Loma Verde was unbelievably ugly. A little more done with the frontage would have greatly assisted. Ms. Lytle thought the flood plane issue, which addressed raising the floor plane height above the flood plane, had not been discussed extensively, although porch features could help soften the transition from sidewalk to house, if well-designed. Council Member Andersen thought anecdotally saying the City had had a bad experience with one particular developer created concern was wrong. All developers were trying to maximized square footage. The issue was whether or not ways could be found to help the buildings be a little less unattractive. Mr. Beckett's comments were well-taken. People would take advantage of every square foot possible and the question was finding ways which would soften it a bit. He was more inclined to try to create the flexibility. He understood some of the concerns that had been expressed. If the language was retained, direction would be given to specifically indicate areas where Program CD-4.G2 would not work well, i.e., Eichlers, etc. Staff had been asked whether it would be sufficient to satisfy the concerns of some of his colleagues rather than striking the program completely. The creativity and flexibility potential should be retained so there could be some softening of some of the massive, ugly buildings which were truly defined by the existing legislation. Staff could specify certain inappropriate areas as a means of avoiding the problem. Vice Mayor Wheeler was concerned that Program CD-4.G2 might be appropriate for some areas; however, the City already had an appropriate way of dealing with such questions in the home
06/21/95 76-229
improvement exception. Much thought had been given to the process, which was not extremely onerous for people to go through. She could not imagine that such changes would be out of character with an Eichler neighborhood. The process should not be made any easier than the current processes permitted to create little pimples on Eichlers or houses constructed in the Eichler mode which were out of character with the development. A very careful screening process should be gone through to screen out incorrect applications. Mr. Beckett said one of the very strong messages which had come out of CPAC was to retain the individual character of each neighborhood in Palo Alto. One of the things which had been noted was that the character was changing through the development currently underway. CPAC wanted to retain the character. Program CD-4.A1 found on page 6 of the Plan, "Map specific neighborhood areas and create design guidelines for R-1 zoned areas that vary by neighborhood and reflect the existing and desired character of each area," had been designated "D." Ms. Mossar said Program CD-4.A1 was the foundation upon which the policies and programs which followed were built. If Program CD-4.A1 was in place, one would know where garages could be placed, where front porches were compatible, etc. Without Program CD-4.A1, one guideline for the entire community would have to be written, which was impossible. Council Member McCown had seconded the motion because a process already existed. Program CD-4.G2, said to do the things which although desirable in many neighborhoods, would give people incentives. The Planning Commission, Council, and the community had spent five years working on the current set of R-1 standards. Many houses had been built under a different set of rules. Some of the relatively new and relatively bad examples of garages in the front, etc., had not been built under the current zoning guidelines. There were also recent projects in her own neighbor-hood which met the criteria in terms of pedestrian-friendly street scape built under the current rules. No matter what rules were put in place, there would always be some designers and land owners and ultimate users whose motivations were oriented in a way which considered the relationship to the street and other people who would do what Mr. Beckett had discussed. There was no set of rules which would solve the problem. No case had been made to require Program CD-4.G2, given the home improvement exception, which was a sufficient way to handle the encouragement and opportunity of someone wanted to pursue it. The additional incentives were inappropriate. Mayor Simitian spoke against eliminating Program CD-4.G2. The Migdall example on College Terrace was not a good example, but a case where someone wanted to put another house in their own front yard and wanted the porch of the second house to be six feet from the sidewalk, which took pedestrian friendly to an in-your-face extreme which had not been anticipated. A drive down Palo Alto's suburban streets and track developments, showed that were it not for the magnificent tree plantings, the streets were dominated by
06/21/95 76-230
double-wide driveways. There was nothing pedestrian-friendly, nothing community-building, nothing aesthetically or architecturally appealing about such driveways. Mr. Beckett was correct. The City had created a system which designated limits and people had gone to the maximum of the limits. The result was a Berlin Wall effect up and down setback lines. The question was whether anything could be done about it through incentives. Instead of giving people so much, a system should be created so if someone wanted something, the City could require something which created a little better street scape. People would ask for more and the people would do the thing the City was trying to give the incentive to do. The program gave the City a little more flexibility along its streets and sidewalks to create the kind of neighborhood interface which all thought was desirable. Council Member Schneider asked whether Program CD-4.G2 would regain additional staff time. Ms. Lytle said Program CD-4.G2 was merely a statement. Implementation would have to be defined. If flexible standards and incentives were being provided, a zoning ordinance revision would be necessary. Council Member Schneider would not support the motion. MOTION FAILED 3-5, McCown, Rosenbaum, Wheeler "yes," Huber absent. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Simitian, to add the word "pedestrians" to line 4 of CD-4.G1, "New Residential projects (not individually developed single-family houses) should be designed to orient buildings to streets and public parks, where feasible." MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to reinstate Program CD-4.A1, "Map specific neighborhood areas and create design guidelines for R-1 zoned areas that vary by neighborhood and reflect the existing and desired character of each area," to "A" status. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to add to Program CD-4.G2, "Provide flexible standards and incentives, such as flexible floor area ratios, modified setbacks, reduced parking standards, and streamlined permitting, for those willing to retrofit their houses with features that activate the street, such as porches, visible entries, and street-facing windows," the words "where compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood." MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. Council Member Andersen asked about what was meant by Program CD-
06/21/95 76-231
4.H4 on page 9 of the Plan, "Redefine the city's Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Service Commercial (CS) zone requirements to address transitional issues." Mr. Carrasco said the CN zone, described the new idea of Cowthorpe's that buildings should be close to the sidewalk so people could observe the merchandise. Currently, the City's CN zone had a 20-foot setback which was in no man's land, neither landscaped nor park, which was the reason for the suggestion in the CN and CS zones be considered in the new terms. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by x, to support Program CD-4.I2, "Create and apply a new Live/Work zoning designa-tion that permits housing, office, retail, and light industrial uses to co-exist, provided that the scale of buildings is compati-ble and performance standards related to potential impacts such as noise, air quality, glare, traffic, parking, and use of hazardous materials, are established and adhered to" as long as the language was clarified to pertain to non-residential zones. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. Council Member Andersen asked whether it was difficult to put in small, independent businesses operating in bedrooms with computers, etc. Ms. Lytle said such uses were allowed in residential districts as long as they met the home occupation requirements, which meant not consuming more than 25 percent of the floor area of the residence and not to employ outside employees, etc. Mr. Calonne said the City's home occupation requirements were fairly liberal. Council Member Fazzino asked about the recommendation in Program CD-5.E1, "Zone boundaries should be placed at mid-block locations, rather than along streets so that buildings facing each other are compatible and transitions between uses are gradual," on page 10 of the Plan. Ms. Lytle said the best example of where it had not worked was along the edge of College Terrace and the Research Park where there were single-family homes across from Research Park type development. The transition was very poor. The line across the back of the property should be drawn, rather than facing one another. Council Member McCown asked whether areas other than the Research Park had been considered in Policy CD-5.C, "Provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths within Employment Districts," on page 10 of the Plan. Ms. Mossar said employment districts also included the Stanford Hospital and Stanford Shopping Center. Mr. Schreiber said the employment district in the Baylands along
06/21/95 76-232
Embarcadero Road probably did not have sidewalks. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked why an incentive had been used in Program CD-5.C1, "Provide incentives for employers to build sidewalks and pedestrian paths as part of renovation and expansion projects," rather than a requirement and queried the kind of incentives under consideration. Ms. Eakins said Program CD-5.C1 covered existing conditions as well as future conditions. In future conditions, requirements could be used. However, existing conditions which could use a bicycle path or connection, an incentive was a better means of acquiring. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified the program discussed someone coming in with an application. Ms. Eakins replied no. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Program CD-5.C1 said "as part of renovation and expansion projects," so the person would be coming in asking the City for some kind of change. Ms. Eakins agreed, the change could be made into a requirement. Mr. Schreiber cautioned, especially with the Research Park, many of the expansions and renovations were such that the size might make a nexus between the activity or application and the cost and ramifications of putting in a sidewalk system which could be very expensive. He was not sure with many renovations a sidewalk could be required. Vice Mayor Wheeler said if the application under discussion was such a minor thing, she asked what kind of incentive could be given. Incentives were a red flag word which seemed to imply that something would be given to people beyond the normal entitlements in order to achieve something. Mr. Schreiber said for any number of the sites without sidewalks, such an incentive would be necessary. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether additional FARs were considered. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. The City already certain aspects in the zoning ordinance for other uses, e.g., childcare facilities on site not counting toward the FAR because of the benefit to the overall functioning of the area. Implementation would have to sort out the incentive aspect, but might be an area was that the tradeoff was worth it to obtain the exchange. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the Community Design Section of the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council meeting of Saturday, July 15, 1995. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Huber absent.
06/21/95 76-233
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding placement of Oral Communications on Special Meeting agendas. Lynne Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the Planning Commission report containing land use maps and suggested adding the underlying zone designations. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:00 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.
06/21/95 76-234