HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-15 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting July 15, 1995 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 76-314 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 76-353 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. ........... 76-353
07/15/95 76-313
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 9:48 a.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 1:07 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian ABSENT: Schneider, Wheeler UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direc-tion for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update 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). Council Member Fazzino had discussed three-car garages relative to Program 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," at the previous Council meeting, to which the word "pedestrian" had been added. However, Senior Planner Virginia Warheit had pointed out after the meeting that individually developed single-family homes were exempt. He asked whether there was an appropriate place within the Community Design (CD) section to address single-family homes. Mayor Simitian clarified Council Member Fazzino's concern was that Program CD-4.G1 spoke to new residential projects, not individually developed single-family houses. Council Member Fazzino clarified that Program CD-4.G1 should apply to individually developed single-family homes. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Program CD-4.G1 dealt with projects involved in design review authority, e.g., projects went to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The City already had guidelines which could be incorporat-ed. Council Member Fazzino said Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle had spoken about standards or guidelines which had been developed addressing the single-family issue in 1988 and 1989. He queried inclusion of a program related to the establishment of guidelines or standards which applied the same criteria to single-family homes.
07/15/95 76-314
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to add a new program under Policy CD-4.G which would establish pedestri-an-oriented guidelines for individually developed single-family homes. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss, Schneider, Wheeler absent. City Manager June Fleming asked the City Attorney and Director of Planning & Community Environment to report to Council with respect to possible conflict of interest issues for Council Members which relate to Hewlett-Packard (HP). City Attorney Ariel Calonne said as early as page 14 of the Plan, Council would enter into discussion of the California Avenue/Ven-tura Avenue (Cal-Ventura) coordinated area planning issue. Council Members Kniss and Fazzino would run into a conflict interest issue which would result in only five Council Members participating. He said HP clearly wanted an opportunity to communicate to Council in writing on its views. Mr. Schreiber said Council would begin its discussion on page 11 of the Community Design Section with Goal CD-6, "The Stanford Research Park will be a compact multi-modal Employment Center." Council Member McCown asked whether the 15 percent of the figure on the table which summarized excerpts from the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study (the 1989 Study) included the Stanford Research Park (the Park) as of 1989 under zoning which showed 1,794,100 square feet of additional potential development. Mr. Schreiber interpreted 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," and the related programs, as a 15 percent increase in the basic floor area ratio (FAR). The FAR for most of the Park was 0.4:1 and part was 0.3:1. A 0.4 FAR increased by 15 percent would increase the FAR to 0.46:1. Council Member McCown asked what the figures translated into in terms of square footage. Of the approximately 1.8 million additional square footage potential in the Park, she queried what the additional 15 percent increase would take the number to. One of the development scenarios in the 1989 Study involved an evaluation of the development potential for purposes of environ-mental consequences, specifically traffic, with existing zoning and smaller numbers, i.e., she thought the City had already analyzed the traffic consequences of additional development in the Park. Dena Mossar, Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Community Design Subcommittee, said one of the concepts was that
07/15/95 76-315
properly developed, increased square footage in the Park could actually reduce traffic. Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) had thought the 1989 Study had not evaluated traffic impacts from the "new age" perspective, i.e., on-site offices, improved pedestrian and bicycle access, etc., could actually limit the amount of traffic. Council Member McCown thought even the lowest amount of development had significant traffic consequences. There had been a series of mitigation measures which had to be part of the Plan as a result, including many of the principles Ms. Mossar had indicated. She challenged the notion that a higher level of development than indicated was conceivably manageable under the present road system and realities. Council Member Fazzino had been advised by the City Attorney not to participate in any issue which might have a specific impact on his employer, Hewlett Packard. Therefore, he would not participate in the item. Ms. Mossar said the CD Subcommittee had only been in existence from four to six weeks, so it had not had the opportunity to carefully evaluate existing development and potential development allowed under the 1989 Land Use and Transportation Study. There had not been a discussion about the additional 15 percent. It was a concept, but Council should not take the wording as a well-thought out, detailed recommendation. Mr. Schreiber said the 1989 Study had not examined a higher FAR. The alternatives in the 1989 Study were either to retain the existing zoning, which for most of the Park was a 0.4 FAR and west of Foothill Expressway was 0.3 FAR, or reducing the FAR to 0.35 for the areas east of Foothill Expressway. The only modifications were related to residential units at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Second, a 15 percent increase would equal approximately 700,000 additional square feet if every parcel in the Park took advantage of the increase. However, not every parcel in the Park could take advantage, given existing levels of development, configurations of space, etc. Staff would become more precise about the figure, should Council so desire. In discussing the Park, both in the CPAC process as well as past discussions at the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee sporadically over the past four years, staff had identified three different possibilities of expanding the FAR in the Park. One alternative was to create additional "wiggle room." There were sites in the Park which were built out and the tenant had indicated a desire for more flexibility to assist in adding needed facilities, etc. The number was relatively small. The second alternative would provide for distinct expansion potential within the Park. The 15 percent was in the range, probably more than would be considered "wiggle room," and would be seen as a moderate expansion in the Park. The third policy alternative was physical expansion of the Park, generally in the areas west of Foothill Expressway. Stanford had indicated that in terms of its long-range planning, parcels were seen in the area as logical parts of the Park. City staff and CPAC had not endorsed such a view. In summary, Council had four
07/15/95 76-316
options: 1) maintain status quo; 2) provide a little bit of "wiggle room;" 3) provide expansion potential; or 4) physically expand the Park. Council Member McCown said of the reduced development scenarios in 1989, the 0.4 FAR which led to the 1.8 million additional square feet was the highest of the reduced possibilities which had been considered. Mr. Schreiber said there had been two FAR alternatives. One alternative was a 0.35 FAR reduction from the existing zoning and the other, which had been considered in 1989, would maintain existing zoning. The difference between the 0.35 FAR and the 0.4 FAR was approximately 650,000 square feet. Council Member McCown said Table 1 from the 1989 Study had different square footages for the different study areas. The existing zoning at the time, which was one of the scenarios that had been evaluated, would have allowed an additional 2.9 million square feet. Therefore, the then existing zoning prior to the changes would have allowed 2.9 million square feet and the 0.4 and 0.35 FAR. The 15 percent increase at approximately 700,000 square feet would take the figure more than half way to the then existing zoning or potentially 2.4 million square feet. In May 1987, there had existed 9.5 million square feet, and the result of the 1989 Study would reduce the additional increment down to 01.8 FAR. Mr. Schreiber said the summary of the 1989 Study had indicated, "present zoning of 0.4:1 FAR, Alternative 2, would permit an additional 1.5 million square feet of new development" some of which would be west of Foothill. The difference probably related to whether the Veterans Administration Hospital (VA Hospital) site was included. Since staff could not control the VA Hospital which was a federal facility, he assumed the difference between the 1.79 million and 2.9 million square feet was the result of the very large size of the site. The right hand column of Table 1 essen-tially reflected current zoning in the Park. Council Member McCown referred to the 1989 Study and the change from the then current zoning down to the 01.7 FAR. Mr. Schreiber said the differences were in definition of the Park. The Park in the 1989 Study included the land along El Camino Real or Area 8, which was Stanford Research/El Camino Real. There had been a variety of service/commercial zoned areas along El Camino Real, including the corner where a gas station had existed which was currently residential, as well as parcels up California Avenue on one side of El Camino Real. The service/commercial zoning had been reduced from a 02:1 FAR down to 0.4:1 FAR. The gap between the 2.9 million square feet of development potential and the 1.794 million square feet was essentially the service/commercial reduction plus the change in designation for 1050 Arastradero Road to multiple-family housing, and for the corner parcels at Page Mill road and El Camino Real to multiple-family residential and taking them out of non-residential. The basic L-M portions of the Park, which most people thought of as the Park between Stanford
07/15/95 76-317
and California Avenues, had not changed other than the rezoning. Council Member McCown asked what the current additional build-out potential would have been in the L-M zoning if nothing were done and how would it compare with the 700,000 square feet of addition-al development if the City agreed to a 15 percent increase. Mr. Schreiber said the additional square footage for new develop-ment in the 1989 Study for the L-M areas, since the service/com-mercial areas had been essentially built out, was approximately 1.5 million square feet. Current zoning would permit an additional 1,493,000 square feet. Since adoption of the 1989 Study, staff had approved approximately 307,000 square feet of additional development in the Park. The maximum expansion in the Park under current zoning was in the range of 1.2 million square feet. Council Member McCown asked about the further language in Program CD-6.A1, "In exchange for allowing up to 15% floor area increase, the City and Stanford shall agree to open space protection of lands," under Policy CD-6.A. CPAC had made an important point that the 15 percent recommendation was tied to an exchange for a commitment of open space protection on other Stanford lands. Stanford's position with respect to whether in exchange for 15 percent additional development potential in the Park, the City would receive permanent open space commitments which it currently did not have, was a critical premise upon which CPAC had made its recommendation. Council Member Huber asked Mr. Schreiber whether the 1989 Study would compare with the City's current situation, i.e., the FAR had remained essentially the same. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. The only changes made in the Park were the removal of 1050 Arastradero and the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. Council Member Huber clarified a few pieces of land had been removed and redesignated. Mr. Schreiber replied yes; however, 1050 Arastradero had since been reinstated into the Park. Council Member Huber clarified that where changes had been made to deal with the potential traffic studies along El Camino Real, reductions had occurred. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Bill Phillips, Stanford Management Company, said Stanford had always considered some degree of flexibility to be in the interest of both Stanford and the City in order to retain the important magnet and other emerging tenants in the Park. Stanford and the City were joint partners in the asset because Stanford's revenue or return from the Park currently was in the area of $2 million per year. The City's revenue return from the Park was between
07/15/95 76-318
three and four times the amount in tax revenues. The Park was not unlike a shopping center, i.e., if an important tenant was lost within the facility, the facility could be brought down and be less competitive. Mayor Simitian asked Mr. Phillips to respond to Council Member McCown's question of whether or not Stanford was interested in limiting the development potential in some areas in exchange for an additional increment of development potential in what was currently considered the Park. Mr. Phillips said flexibility was necessary in order to retain tenants, which was in the interest of both Stanford and the City and it had nothing to do with tying up open space in other areas. Council Member McCown said Mr. Phillips' answer was a legitimate answer from Stanford's perspective. She thought Mr. Phillips was explaining that the need for the additional flexibility of the 15 percent stood on its own merits and Stanford was not prepared to trade the 15 percent in exchange for some potential on other lands. Mr. Phillips said that was correct. Council Member Andersen said the P&S Committee had dealt with the "wiggle room" issue approximately one year previously and he asked where the discussion had proceeded, i.e., the P&S Committee had agreed to some level of flexibility within the Park in order to make expansion into other areas currently open space less neces-sary. Mr. Schreiber said the P&S Committee had had a rather extensive discussion of the issue. The specifics of the issue had been seen as occurring within the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) process. When the discussion had occurred, Council had not begun its review of the CPAC recommendations. Council Member Andersen thought Council should receive the staff report and minutes from the P&S Committee session during which the discussion had occurred. Several issues had arisen at the meeting which needed to be refreshed. One which seemed so contrary to conventional wisdom referred to the comment Ms. Mossar had made earlier with regard to the kind of construction currently occurring in the Park and that the "wiggle room" factor would not necessarily impact increased traffic, which had been a big issue at the time. A simplified model could show square footage increases resulting in more people, however, based on fairly accurate data about the way in which the Park was changing, such an assumption was no longer necessarily the case. Additionally, the flexibility the change would provide would not necessarily mean the kind of square footage figures which were being described in the material Council Member McCown had gone over. Mr. Schreiber thought Council Member Andersen's representation was accurate. Having the minutes and related materials as a means of resolving the issue would be appropriate.
07/15/95 76-319
Council Member Andersen said Council might or might not complete the entire CD Section that evening. He suggested postponing the item until the end of the meeting when a decision could be made concerning continuation. Additional consideration should be given to the issue and a decision made about when to deal with the issue. Council Member McCown was prepared to delete the recommendation but was concerned about a few aspects, e.g., having the exact figures under discussion was important. The numbers had not been available in the material Council had received. Also, the maximum number of Council Members as possible should be present to make a decision on the fairly significant issue. A case had not been made to indicate that Policy CD-6.A was appropriate. Other devices might be possible to assist the Park, but a flat square footage increase created great skepticism. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to continue the discussion of 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," until the next meeting on the Community Design Section. Mayor Simitian said some of Council's discussion had obscured rather than highlighted the central policy issues. Mr. Phillips had begun to provide Council with a persuasive commercial for the importance of the Park, with which he had not disagreed as he was in favor of keeping the Park vibrant and healthy. He was curious to know whether the 700,000-square-foot figure was correct because he had found the discussion of numbers a bit ambiguous. The 700,000-square-foot figure had a significant amount of "wiggle room" and provided a great deal of flexibility. What had not been discussed was locations where the flexibility was necessary, i.e., 15 percent was not necessary throughout the entire Park to provide flexibility to two or three locations. He was not interested in seeing any Park development on the other side of Foothill Express-way, which was the issue which drove the entire recommendation. A policy and political question which had also not been discussed addressed zoning protection on the other side of Foothill Express-way. There was also additional protection in terms of the current agreements. The question then became whether more was necessary to protect the area against Park development or whether the current status was sufficient. If more were necessary, he queried whether it was necessary because the tenor of Council might change at some point in the future and the votes might not be available to protect zoning and the agreements would run out. If the agreements and Council composition had sufficient protection for the sites, he queried why more square footage would be given away. His personal view was that he wanted to provide some flexibility to the Park but 700,000 to 1 million square feet was more than
07/15/95 76-320
"wiggle room," rather than site-specific assistance, and he did not want to see further development on the other side of Foothill Expressway. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 5-0, Fazzino "not participating," Kniss, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Council Member Huber asked about prior discussion concerning Santa Clara County's (the County) General Plan which addressed an Urban Limit Line (ULL) and the City's versus the County's jurisdiction line. Mr. Schreiber said the County's Plan had not contained an ULL. An existing urban service area and areas west of Foothill Expressway were not within the Park and were outside of the urban service area, i.e., not slated by the City for future urban development. Council Member Huber clarified developed areas of the Park and all other areas within the City were either controlled by the agree-ments made in 1972 and/or were zoned agricultural by the City. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Huber clarified the City currently controlled the areas through agreements from lawsuits and the areas would remain zoned agricultural unless rezoned. Everything other than the areas specified were under the County's control. He was in agreement with Council Member McCown and asked whether there was a "wiggle room" area elsewhere in the nonresidential areas of the City which could be examined such as something similar to the home improvement exemption applied to residential. Mr. Schreiber said there were exemptions for design improvement enhancements for commercial areas, but it failed to cover FARs. The only "wiggle room" of which he was aware existed in the Downtown commercial (CD) zone which provided for very small amounts of "wiggle room" related to handicap access, etc. Council Member Andersen said Council had received a letter from Stanford regarding annual renewal of the extension on some pieces of property in the area. If a specified amount of square footage were required, he asked whether Stanford would agree to a specified number of years of extension of the process so the distance of time in which the lands were protected would extend beyond the Comp Plan coverage. He wanted to know how much of a connection could be achieved that way rather than indicating "no development at all." Council Member McCown asked why the change had occurred between the CPAC version to "permit" and the Planning Commission version to "evaluate" in Policy CD-6.B, "Evaluate a hotel/conference center at the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road on the Stanford Research Park property.". Program CD-6.B1, "Change the land use designation and zoning from multi-family residential to a special hotel designation," supported CPAC's version. She asked how CPAC thought the loss of the multi-family residential
07/15/95 76-321
units would be addressed if the change were made and what discussions CPAC had had concerning how the housing units which had been contemplated on the site for many years would be achieved should a hotel be built on the site. Sandy Eakins, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, said although the site had been designated for future housing, the consensus had been that the site was not a good housing site. The location was difficult, not good for services, etc. The other aspect was the fact that the site was a gateway to which housing would not lend itself. CPAC also recognized that since the time the land had been changed to multi-family housing, other sites had become available, so there were replacement sites. Ms. Mossar said CPAC had also been very concerned about encouraging housing in places which were more appropriate rather than large lots of land developed into multi-family housing. Council Member McCown was not supportive of the policy in isolation or the trade-off for the choice being made, e.g., loss of housing, impacts, and the potential of handling such a facility at the location given the insurmountable problems of the intersections. Evaluating the recommendation was difficult unless it was examined along with all of the other areas where changes were being considered in the Plan. A map could be provided which showed all the potential change areas and the direction each would go. The El Camino Real/Page Mill Road site was changing from a multi-family designation to commercial, which might be balanced out in other locations with changes in the opposite direction. With a whole package of policy choices, a determination might be easier to make. Concern had been expressed about whether the change was something the City wanted to pursue. Judgment had to be withheld until a complete and overall picture of where the policy choices were with respect to the level of commercial and housing development and the implications thereof were provided. Mayor Simitian thought some of the issues would be addressed when Council addressed the issue of internal consistency of the document and fitting all the pieces together. If part of the Housing Element sent the City in one direction and a Business and Economics Section went in the opposite direction, some reconcilia-tion would be necessary. Council Member McCown asked for a literal map of the City which showed the change areas resulting from the policy changes so Council would have some comfort about the recommendation being made. Mayor Simitian said such a map should indicate where Council had made policy choices not to allow housing to move forward even though the site was designated for housing. The map Council Member McCown had requested would be a fairly academic presentation of what was theoretically possible. Prior to a map driving his decisions, he would be thinking about what real decisions Council had made about individual sites. Housing opportunities had previously been presented to Council, and
07/15/95 76-322
Council had not been aggressive about either preserving or moving ahead on some of them. It was not merely what was theoretically possible, but what Council had the will to do when presented with it. A map needed to show the real decisions that had been made about other projects which were just as important to the discussion. Council Member McCown said Mayor Simitian's comment was very good. She wanted to know about the vision for the balance of housing and other elements in the current Plan which had been changed incrementally along the way. The new set of recommendations needed to be compared with others so Council would know what direction the City was really headed. The hotel/conference center issue illustrated the difficulty of keeping all the pieces straight in order to correctly articulate Council's direction and philosophy on the balance of commercial and housing development in the community. Council Member Andersen agreed with Council Member McCown and asked how many residential sites were currently designated for the Page Mill/Oregon Expressway site. Mr. Schreiber said the existing Housing Element identified approximately 230 sites, the maximum under zoning. Council Member Andersen said the City had lost a hotel on which housing could be built since the current Council had been elected. He asked how many housing units could be built on the site. Mr. Schreiber said the application for the project, on which staff had just begun an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), was for 84 residential units. Council Member Huber asked for the definition of wrap-up. In a review of staff's compilation of what Council had accomplished in other sections, compared with the CD Section, was the aspect of examining hotel sites, many of which he had voted to consider because he assumed after considering and comparing, a final decision would be made about where Council stood. Mr. Schreiber said the wrap-up, as staff envisioned, would provide Council with an opportunity to examine all of its initial or tentative actions, to adjust to gain internal consistency, and to have an opportunity to rethink some things. Wrap-up would occur after Council had addressed map-related issues. The Planning Commission was in the midst of working on map-related issues that would be brought to Council in the fall which would follow Council's review of the Governance Section. Council Member Huber asked whether staff had any sense of when the wrap-up would occur. Ms. Fleming said staff could not foresee any more meetings prior to Council's vacation. Therefore, Council would need at least two more meetings to finish the CD Section, and three or four more meetings to finish the other section. Therefore, the wrap-up
07/15/95 76-323
would probably occur at the end of the calendar year. Council Member Rosenbaum said Council was currently evaluating the suitability of the site mentioned in Policy CD-6.B for a hotel, conducting massive studies, etc. However, in terms of the Comp Plan, the word "evaluate" was a fine policy with regard to the site. Mayor Simitian agreed. Council Member McCown's evaluation had been that changing the wording in Policy CD-6.B eliminated Program CD-6.B1 which would have inappropriately changed land use designations prior to a determination. Council Member Andersen asked CPAC for the basis upon which Goal CD-7, "Support the Stanford Medical Center's need for flexibility to grow and/or change in the future, provided that change is compatible and integrated with the City's goals," had been proposed. Ms. Mossar had not participated in the formation of Goal CD-7. Ms. Eakins said pages 12 and 13 of the Plan were very general with regard to the Stanford Medical Center (SMC). In the CD Section, CPAC's overall visions and goals dealt with pedestrian access, reducing total reliance on the automobile, etc., which were present in Goal CD-7. CPAC also thought the hospital was an important aspect of the overall Palo Alto environment, so there needed to be a positive way of working with the SMC. Council Member Andersen struggled with the unclear language as to "Stanford Medical Center's need to grow and/or change in the future." He had difficulty with the wide-open door intent. Mr. Schreiber said SMC consisted of land both in and out of the City's limits. Land within the City limits was currently developed to the maximum 01:1 FAR allowed by the public facilities zone for the land. Stanford representatives had indicated the position was a difficult one and any additional physical growth of the SMC would either involve incorporation of additional land within the City and/or growth within the unincorporated County. Stanford representatives had been evaluating, over the past several years, a potential 400,000-square-foot expansion of the SMC. If the growth were proposed within the City, which could not be accomplished within existing zoning, Stanford representatives had made a strong argument to CPAC and staff that having a compact medical center was more desirable than having growth spread into adjoining areas. Such a background was important because Program CD-7.A1, "In exchange for granting new entitlements, the City shall require Stanford to (i) establish an Urban Limit Line and (ii) agree to open space protection of lands outside of the Urban Limit Line," addressed the exchange for new entitlements above and beyond existing zoning and City policy. Program CD-7.A1, although deleted by the Planning Commission, was the crux of the issue in terms of the direction the City should take with the SMC over the next 15 years.
07/15/95 76-324
Council Member Andersen asked how much latitude Stanford had from the County's perspective if the City prevented additional expansion and directly sought the County's support. Mr. Schreiber said the unincorporated medical center areas had a relationship both with the campus use permit and separate use permits, e.g., the psychiatric facilities along Quarry Road had been developed under a separate use permit. Any further growth in the area would probably require a new use permit from the County. He knew of no other obstacles within the County's planning or zoning regulations which would not be surmountable in terms of gaining a use permit. Council Member Fazzino asked why CPAC had called for growth, to which he was not necessarily opposed, rather than seeking the possibility of flexibility to adjust, e.g., "Support the Stanford Medical Center's need for flexibility to adjust to changes in the delivery of health care." Although specific growth proposals might not be opposed, depending on the impact, concern was expressed for supporting growth. Flexibility should be associated with health care delivery's changing nature over the coming years. The City was in the position of working with Stanford and others to provide health care and should adjust accordingly. Ms. Eakins said CPAC had probably not thought of the more appropriate wording suggestions. Council Member Fazzino said more focus should be placed on the changing nature of health care and the fact the community should be in a position to adjust. If a sudden major merge occurred between Stanford and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), the City might want to rethink the potential for growth at Stanford as opposed to potential growth on El Camino Real of the new medical foundation. Ms. Eakins said CPAC's discussions about growth had not been about employment growth but about increased square footage, height, etc., that medical facilities might require which was an unknown factor. Growth in employment implied growth in traffic, the issue which drove most anxiety, but that was not the case. Square footage was not tied in a linear sense to increased transporta-tion. Council Member Fazzino understood certain medical procedures or delivery systems would intensify over the following years and others would become less intensive. Mayor Simitian asked whether Council Member Fazzino had referred to the regionalization of tertiary care, i.e., expensive equipment all placed in one location. The question then would become where the location would be. Council Member Fazzino thought "adjustment" was a better term than "growth," recognizing the need to be as flexible as possible when it came to health care needs in the community, which involved both SMC and PAMF. Although more politically correct, the term was
07/15/95 76-325
closer to the truth. The City might want to deintensify certain medical uses while intensifying others. Mr. Schreiber said the issue of adjustment to future conditions was an important factor from the City's standpoint. Staff viewed the SMC and the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital as very important local, sub-regional, and regional facilities. The provision of medical care was changing very rapidly. The number of employees within the larger medical center had decreased dramatically since 1987-88. At the same time, square footage had increased, so the link between employment and square footage was a tenuous one. The ability of the facility to respond to market and other forces should be an important City objective. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff would have a problem with the term "adjustment" rather than "growth." Mr. Schreiber said no, but it was also important to remember the FAR and existing zoning, which were at a maximum within the City. If adjustment meant more square footage, it would be translated into some kind of modified regulation within the City, incorpora-tion of more land within the City, or spreading out of the City into more unincorporated areas. Mayor Simitian shared Council Member Fazzino's concern but had struggled with the word "support." Staff was already persuaded concerning some of the needs. Growth was what Stanford sought, i.e., 400,000 square feet of potential for the SMC and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, which was a significant amount of adjustment. Although not ready to support such a change, he was willing to evaluate or consider the need for adjustment and additional space. Council Member Fazzino said although 400,000 square feet was a significant amount of adjustment, he saw the possibility of significant developments over the following years in how health care was delivered. Mergers and other changes were possibilities in the future, and the City had to consider the reality of that possibility. Health care economics were such that mergers were absolutely necessary. Rather than advocating a specific amount of growth, the City should be in a position of understanding the current economic environment with respect to health care and making decisions accordingly. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to revise Goal CD-7 to read: "Support the Stanford Medical Center's need to adjust to changes in the delivery of health care that is compatible and integrated with the City's goals," and direct staff to revise the related policies and programs in light of Council's discussion of Goal CD-7. Mayor Simitian asked whether "adjust" meant the possibility of growth. Council Member Fazzino replied yes.
07/15/95 76-326
Council Member McCown thought Council Member Fazzino was headed in the right direction. The City could clearly not designate a specific square footage number but should determine the policies it wanted to use with respect to medical center development and to evaluate proposals which might be made to the City with respect to changes. The City knew Stanford anticipated changes and might think 400,000 square feet was necessary. The goal of the CD Section in the Plan should delineate the criteria the City would use as a policy for evaluating what was appropriate. The flexibility to adjust to changes in the health care field was one criteria the City might want to use as a basis for evaluating requests. The other issues were compact development, non-auto dependency, not having an unacceptable impact on overall traffic in the area, etc., which would be included from a policy and planning perspective which would be the guidance from the Comp Plan's general level to whatever Stanford might bring forward. Council had been addressing the need to address the issue in a coordinated manner with everything else which was occurring in the area. The coordinated plan idea was appropriate in dealing with the issue that any future development had to be done in the context of an overall plan for how the entire area worked. Council Member Fazzino's change was supported, but she also supported a revision to define more clearly what the policy parameters should be for the SMC. Mayor Simitian wanted five issues addressed: 1) Stanford should explain why it needed, not wanted, to exceed 50 feet, i.e., the medical rationalization for exceeding; 2) to extent there was a desire for additional square footage, the need for the facility to grow to the requested size should be explained; 3) how the change would work in terms of transportation issues which had been described; 4) the impact on the jobs/housing imbalance; and 5) what the community benefit would be, i.e., if limits were to be exceeded, the benefit to Palo Alto should be illustrated. Council Member McCown said staff should recast the CD Section to define for the Comp Plan the basis on which Stanford proposals for change would be evaluated. The Comp Plan should speak to what the City would seek with respect to the criteria listed by Mayor Simitian and others. The CD Section was too general and did not specifically delineate what the City sought with respect to SMC changes. Council Member Rosenbaum shared similar concerns and had considered proposing simply eliminating "growth and" from both Goal CD-7 and Policy CD-7.A, "The City shall work with the Stanford Medical Center to plan for growth and changing facility needs, provided that these plans respect the larger context of the campus, community, and environment." However, Council Member Fazzino's motion addressed the concern. Palo Alto enjoyed a great benefit in having a world class medical center. To some degree, it was like the state of its economic resources. The City was a very fortunate community with a great deal of economic activity, putting up with a lot of traffic and continually sought a balance between the level of economic development and the traffic imposed. The same was true with the SMC. In the 1980s, when growth of the
07/15/95 76-327
medical industry was thought unlimited, Stanford was competing, trying to grow as much as possible without a great deal of concern about the traffic. There was some advantage to the City in improved, modern medical care, however, it had to deal with increased traffic. The difficulties which had been cited were the two qualifying phrases in Goal CD-7 and Policy CD-7.A. A mention about the City's interest in not increasing traffic in the Sand Hill Road corridor as a result of the changes might be a more di-rect way of dealing with the community's concerns. The five items outlined by the Mayor would include the concern. A staff report which discussed the five points would be helpful in making the CD Section more definitive. Council Member Huber had seconded the motion because he agreed with Council Member Fazzino's concept. He had wanted to delete "growth" and just use language which would ensure quality medical care. Using "growth" implied entitlement. The Comp Plan should not suggest the City was buying into growth. The field was changing so dramatically, the end result might be less square footage and better medical care. There was concern about the tremendous amount of medical care in the community, querying exceeding the already one doctor per six residents in the communi-ty. The City needed to incorporate the entire Stanford process as it related to Sand Hill Road. A mention had been made concerning expansion of the medical school, located in the County, all of which created impacts. Everything which could occur should be delineated. Mr. Calonne said the existing Comp Plan language focused primarily on traffic in the Sand Hill Road corridor area. The existing Comp Plan program would reduce traffic congestion on Sand Hill Road. Council would deal with the issue of consistency at wrap-up. Council Member Andersen suggested a sixth point for Mayor Simitian's list. One of the issues in discussing growth was not just in terms of square footage or employees but patients and the number of individuals using the facility. Although the increase might not be significant in terms of the total number of people on the streets of Palo Alto, but a significant increase should include patient growth consideration as well. Mayor Simitian asked whether the maker and seconder of the motion were comfortable incorporating into the motion direction to staff to recast the CD Section with a criteria for evaluation. Mr. Schreiber said Stanford should have the lead, rather than City staff, with regard to the SMC, i.e., many of Mayor Simitian's questions should be addressed by Stanford. Staff was willing to recast and comment on whatever Stanford came up with, but staff would look to Stanford to provide answers to the questions Council had raised. Council Member McCown clarified the recasting involving putting in the document what Council wanted, i.e., the City's criteria for evaluating what Stanford would do.
07/15/95 76-328
Mr. Schreiber said staff did not have a good handle about why Stanford wanted more square footage. Mayor Simitian clarified the answers would not come as part of a Comp Plan draft effort, but as part of a particular application from Stanford. Mr. Schreiber said the clarification was significant as issues would need to be addressed as part of an application. Mayor Simitian said including the issues as part of the Comp Plan was necessary so when discussing willingness to consider the need for flexibility for adjustments, the criteria would be used when considering the flexibility or adjustments. Council was not asking staff to provide the answers to the questions to fold into the Comp Plan. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Mayor Simitian asked for comments regarding Goal CD-8, "Maintain and enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA)." Ms. Eakins said the origination of the mixed-use designation had come from CPAC's early practice of walking in neighborhoods to see what was really in place. CPAC was also aware of the controversies surrounding amortization which had taken place over the years and where changes had been forced in the interest of a certain philosophy of zoning which had been a strict segregation of uses. CPAC, in discussing the issue, had seen that mixed-use was an acceptable reality. People living in mixed-use areas liked the variety, realizing it contributed to a special character and special way of life in certain parts of town. Council Member McCown asked about implementation. The goal and policy statement were excellent, but the implementation mechanism had been recommended for deletion to be replaced with a new program in the Business and Economic (BE) Section, Program BE-15.A1, "Retain the existing commercial boundaries of SOFA consistent with existing service commercial zoning." The staff comments on page 16 of the BE Section mentioned a study of the area after the PAMF relocated. She asked whether the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council was that it replace preparing a coordinated area plan. Council Member Huber asked for a definition of SOFA. Mr. Schreiber said in the context of the CD Section, SOFA included the land from Alma Street and Forest Avenue up through the PAMF properties, i.e., the mixed commercial and residential area along with the PAMF properties. Council Member McCown clarified the planning would include a study of the reuse of the PAMF site. Mr. Schreiber replied yes.
07/15/95 76-329
Council Member Huber had not had a conflict in voting on the old PAMF proposals, so he assumed he would not be impacted by the current discussion. Council Member McCown asked about the difference between the new Program BE-15.A1, which indicated a study of the area after the PAMF relocated, as opposed to the language in Program CD-8.A1, "Prepare a coordinated area plan for SOFA that addresses land use compatibility, transitions and adjacencies between residential and commercial uses, the desire for a park/public gathering place within the area, and the need for urban design guidelines," i.e., whether the change specified that the City would not conduct a coordinated area plan. Mr. Calonne said he was aware of one difference. The study staff had discussed at the time he and Mr. Schreiber recommended Council not conduct a one-day workshop for the area was a charette-style brainstorming session rather than a coordinated area plan. There was a marked difference in the scope. The PAMF had agreed to help and participate in the smaller version study. Mr. Schreiber said staff had observed that the SOFA and the PAMF area were linked from a land-use perspective and addressing one really involved addressing the other. There had also been a wide variety of public and City statements regarding objectives for the area, some of which were conflicting or diverging. Staff sensed that trying to address the details of the area outside of a study of the area was not the best approach. Staff had commented to the Planning Commission to have the issues in the area resolved in a detailed study rather than incorporating SOFA policies, recognizing the City was unable to address details of the PAMF portion of the area. Hence a "D" recommendation from the Planning Commission for Programs CD-8.A1, CD-8.A2, "Create and apply a new Live/Work zoning designation that permits housing, office, retail, and light industrial uses to co-exist, provided that the scale of buildings is compatible 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," and CD-8.A3, "Evaluate existing zoning designations at periphery of mixed-use areas to provide gradual transitions from commercial to single-family residential areas." Council Member McCown clarified the real difference between the language recommended by the Planning Commission and staff made an explicit connection between the study and the PAMF issue. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. The new wording in BE-15.A1 was to study the area after PAMF relocated. Mr. Calonne said the manner of study was a detail which would have to be resolved before the City would be in the position of granting entitlements at Urban Lane. The issue would be wrapped up prior to completion of the Comp Plan. Council Member Huber asked whether staff recommended a study of the area after PAMF relocated, not a coordinated area plan.
07/15/95 76-330
Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Council Member Huber clarified the study could be anything from a study to an area plan. A decision could be made at the time. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Council Member Huber asked what would occur if the PAMF did not relocate. Mr. Schreiber said Council Member Huber's question was one of the reasons staff had suggested studying the area. If PAMF did not relocate, a different context was created. Better wording might be "after a decision was made regarding relocation." MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to replace the language of Policy CD-8.A with the language of BE-15.A1 with the addition of addressing the decision regarding the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's relocation. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Mayor Simitian asked why Programs CD-8.A1 through CD-8.A3 had been eliminated. Mr. Schreiber said there were conflicting objections regarding the area, and staff thought it was premature to come to specific recommendations regarding live/work designations, co-existing uses, etc., without having more analysis and public involvement for the area. Mayor Simitian said part of the process was designed to provide staff with information to pull together a document which reflected Council's thinking and underscored the comments by CPAC members about the ability to integrate uses and seeing the lack of segregation as a plus rather than a minus. He was frustrated sometimes by the fairly traditional notions about R-1 zoning, which did not mean traditional notions should not prevail in other neighborhoods. The neighborhood was great in part because of the mixed uses, and it should continue to work. The Plan should reflect the desire to continue to have it work rather than homogenize that particular neighborhood. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to continue Goal CD-9, "Encourage the Cal-Ventura Area to evolve into a Mixed-Use District with strong pedestrian links to California Avenue," to the Council's next discussion of the Community Design Section. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Mayor Simitian asked why Program CD-10.A1, "Correlate the city's zoning map with the City Structure and Land Use Diagrams. As part of this review, identify the edges and transition zones, as well as primary pedestrian/bike connections for each Center," had been
07/15/95 76-331
dropped. Staff had commented on Program CD-10.A, "Delete, should be in Comprehensive Plan Implementation section," querying whether staff thought the program too specific as an implementation measure to be included in the Comp Plan. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Council Member McCown asked whether the details in both Policy CD-11.A, "Encourage a mix of uses, buildings with at least two stories, streetwall forms, and rear parking," and Program CD-11.A1, "Create and apply new zoning standards for Mixed-Use (Office and Retail) designation. This designation would permit either retail shops or office space at the ground floor provided the building comes to the sidewalk and has street-facing windows and entries," although excellent design ideas, should be included in the Comp Plan since it implied preference for such a design solution. Planning Commission Tony Carrasco said general consensus was that the pattern of older towns through the history of development of commercial centers revealed buildings which came right up to the sidewalk, continuity of which was important to establish. Such consistency created vitality for the pedestrian relationship with the window wall and artifacts behind the wall. Council Member McCown had difficulty visualizing the staff comment on Program CD-11.A1, "Centers where the new Mixed-Use (office/re-tail) zone designation may apply are Cal/Ventura and El Camino Real and Midtown, and also the future study areas at East Meadow Circle and SOFA," on El Camino Real and questioned the level of recommendation or specificity, which was not seen in other areas of the Plan. Ms. Eakins said CPAC wanted such specificity in the Plan because the ideas were not always remembered, even though when discussed everyone agreed at the time. Ideas not included in the Plan might be difficult to remember. Council Member Huber said several places contained similar language, i.e., Programs CD-11.A1 and CD-11.A2, "Create and apply new zoning and building standards for Mixed-Use (Residential Above Retail) designation. This designation would permit retail shops at the ground floor and residential units on upper floors provided the building comes to the sidewalk and has street-facing windows and entries," which read as a mandate, i.e., bringing buildings to the sidewalk, which, if applied to areas where nothing came to the sidewalk, would not work. The idea should not be a mandate. Council Member Andersen suggested putting the item to level "B." Mayor Simitian thought even if the item were placed to level "B," it would still be a mandate. Mr. Schreiber said it would acceptable for Council to reconfigure the guidelines. The concept should be addressed in the Comp Plan if acceptable, desirable, or worth pursuing, preferably in a
07/15/95 76-332
program with supporting text. Otherwise, at the design review level, there would be nothing to evaluate in terms of something Council had adopted. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said staff had had difficulty in the past communicating what was meant by "pedestrian-oriented gathering spaces." The attempt was to define what made a place pleasant for pedestrians. Parking lots along places where people were expected to gather would not result in a pedestrian-oriented place. Policy CD-11.A and Program CD-11.A1 attempted to articulate for people who were non-design people, the specific things which composed pedestrian spaces. There were very specific characteristics of zoning which had to be upheld in order to create a very pleasant place through the CD Section. Ms. Mossar said the concept was not onerous. On University Avenue, buildings came right up to the sidewalk and was a very popular place for pedestrians. Council Member McCown said there was no question about the merit of the idea. The question was whether the idea should be included in the Plan in a way which created the impression that any time there was retail over ground floor, the building had to come out to the sidewalk. Mayor Simitian asked CPAC whether it was bad to not have mixed-use on the sidewalk and, if so, why. He sought the downside to encouraging or allowing mixed-use at a location where buildings were not out to the sidewalk. Ms. Eakins said CPAC would probably want people to argue for wanting parking in front instead of staff having to argue the parking lot belonged behind, if pedestrian orientation were encouraged. Most mixed-uses involved pedestrian orientation, i.e., places where people were willing to walk. The most desired standard should be stated. People could argue in favor of having a parking lot in front. CPAC thought the standard should be delineated in the CD Section because it was what the physical design section, the three-dimensional section, of the Plan was all about. Ms. Lytle said mixed uses were an encumbrance to a project designed around a parking lot, which was not nearly as desirable for residential upper story than being located on a street. A street was considered a very pleasant public space with street trees, seating, street furniture, etc. People did not generally want to live adjacent to a parking lot. Mr. Carrasco understood Council Member McCown's point. The intent was not to have building walls right up to the street but to have more pedestrian uses close to the sidewalk. The word "building wall" could be modified to "pedestrian uses" as opposed to parking lots. On University Avenue there could be a pocket of tables set inside a pedestrian sidewalk, which was as pleasant to walk by as a storefront window.
07/15/95 76-333
Council Member Andersen thought what CPAC had done in the CD Section in conveying a philosophy was one of its major efforts. To pull it out would not accomplish a great deal. CPAC's efforts should be reinforced along with what had been accomplished. Mayor Simitian was sympathetic with Mr. Carrasco's suggestion, e.g., substituting "pedestrian uses" for "building wall," which would convey the sense of Council while retaining the strength of the CPAC effort. Mr. Calonne suggested the second sentence of CD-11.A1 be included with Policy CD-11.A as a policy, while the direction for implementing zoning was all that was necessary. Council Member Andersen asked about the intent of Program CD-11.A3, "Encourage owners to upgrade their commercial properties through development incentives, for areas where redevelopment is desired, such as reduced parking requirements, counting on-street parking toward parking requirements, and/or increased floor-area ratio." In an earlier discussion concerning Midtown, Council had discussed the 0.4 FAR as opposed to 1.0 FAR, and he asked whether the program would address the disparity between Downtown property. Mr. Schreiber said clearly Program CD-11.A3, which in the staff comment indicated would be primarily for "Midtown, El Camino Real and Cal/Ventura," was an effort to address the constraints within existing zoning where the combination of FAR and all other requirements tended to inhibit the type of upgrading of properties people wanted to see. Council Member Andersen thought the need for flexibility was so apparent in the City's centers, which Program CD-11.A3 helped addressed, it should be retained. Council Member Huber assumed staff's comment limited Program CD-11.A3 to the Midtown, El Camino Real and Cal-Ventura. He asked whether Council could chose the place in Plan. Mr. Schreiber said Council might wish to identify others. Staff thought Midtown, El Camino Real, and Cal-Ventura stood out as high priorities for such encouragement. Council Member Huber was uncomfortable with the incentive aspect, parking, etc., in resolving the problems, but he queried whether staff had any suggestions. Mr. Schreiber thought the details would vary from area to area. Program CD-11.E1, "Count on-street parking toward a commercial or mixed-use building's parking requirements," which had been deleted by the Planning Commission, had attempted to provide some incen-tives and flexibility within the regulations. The specific regulations in an area would come out of examining each area to determine what was desirable or acceptable. In some areas, there might be more or less emphasis on parking requirements versus other development parameters.
07/15/95 76-334
Ms. Lytle said in pedestrian-oriented districts, vehicles parked on the street were additional protection between the pedestrian on the sidewalk or outdoor seating and moving vehicles, which made the space feel more comfortable. Yet, not counting on-street parking toward the development ratio parking, would not provide any incentive for organizing the patterns of development. Pedestrian-oriented districts with patterns of organized development were preferable. The City's regulations encouraged putting parking into a lot rather than distributing in such a manner. Often, on-street parking would not be used in such a development pattern, preferring to use a lot closest to the shop as opposed to on the street. Council Member Huber clarified the proposal was severely limited to areas the City sought redevelopment which had existing parking constraints. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. The objective was to encourage and provide incentives to upgrade areas where the City thought upgrades should occur. Ms. Lytle said rarely would anyone see a car parked along the street at the All American Market on El Camino Real. Instead, the area behind the market, where neighbors wanted a neighborhood commercial feeling which could be walked to, was a very large cement parking area. Council Member Andersen asked whether the restriction had initially been intended to prevent autos from entering neighborhoods. He asked whether the deletion of Program CD-11.E1 discouraged counting on-street parking, if not particularly stated. Mr. Schreiber said staff's preference was for Program CD-11.E1 to be included, rather than deleted, as it sent a message to pursue such a concept. Council Member Andersen asked whether Program CD-11.E1 would impinge on residential neighborhoods. Ms. Lytle said an area plan or further study was recommended in every instance where staff recommended Council consider the designation. There were instances where parking could be relaxed and would not impinge on neighborhoods. There were many examples where there would be a concern and Council would need to consider how parking was handled and might need to be accompanied by some other type of parking control to keep from impacting neighborhoods. Midtown might be an example where parking would spill back if not prevented through some discouragement. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved to designate Program CD-11.E1, "Count on-street parking toward a commercial or mixed-use building's parking requirements," to level A. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
07/15/95 76-335
Council Member McCown thought Program CD-11.A3 might be better choice as a policy statement, rather than a program. Some kind of implementation program could then be associated, whether an area planning device or something which said the examples of development incentives, including counting on-street parking, would be implemented through some process which would take account of individual circumstances. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to move Program CD-11.A3, "Encourage owners to upgrade their commercial properties through development incentives for areas where redevelopment is desired, such as reduced parking requirements, counting on-street parking toward parking requirements, and/or increased floor-area ratio," to a policy status and develop programs to support the policy. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Council Member Fazzino recognized in Policy CD-11.B, "Retain and encourage small-scale local businesses," there were people and policies in place in the City to encourage certain businesses. He wanted a way to encourage companies such as Genencore to locate in Palo Alto without making a statement in the Comp Plan concerning the need to support small-scale local businesses. Council Member McCown believed the wording in Policy BE-1.I stated, "recognize the importance of independent small business-es." Council Member Fazzino said much of what was contained in the CD Section was contained in other sections. Although he wanted to see the idea included in the CD Section, staff's comments had been so negative, he had been surprised it had been included based on staff's suggestion. Council Member McCown thought the concern was whether there were design tools that could be utilized as opposed to some other business philosophy. Council Member Fazzino thought there were design tools which could be used to encourage small businesses to locate in Midtown. Ms. Mossar said the policy and program spoke to her daily life as a resident of the Downtown area. Residents should be encouraged not to use their vehicles, services should be available to residents in the community, and the community should ensure small businesses were the ones which would benefit the community. A mix of retail services was necessary to meet the needs of residents and visitors to maintain the tax base. Ms. Eakins said CPAC had, in its walks of the community, seen and liked the occasional small store, i.e., the little SOS Market which had been included in the slide presentation. CPAC's failure had been not being unable to appropriately explain its thoughts, which had resulted in sounding like there was a need for more strip centers in R-1 zones, which was not the intent. Rather, a
07/15/95 76-336
little corner market would make a previously bland environment more appealing with a small shop where coffee and a newspaper could be purchased. CPAC intended what Andre Dranus called "something that should look like it was designed by Ralph Lauren and run by a local eccentric." Mayor Simitian thought the problem was with Program CD-11.B1, not with Policy CD-11.B. Staff's negativity in its comments went mostly to the program. The issue of mix, which was different from small-scale and local, were three different things. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to retain Policy CD-11.B and revise it to read, "Retain and encourage an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses," and delete Program CD-11.B1, "Review and consider revising the list of allowed land uses within commercial zoning designations so that, as feasible, existing small-scale local businesses are retained." Mayor Simitian said the great, mostly unspoken issue was what was going on around the City. When people spoke of the malling of Downtown or chain stores, the problem CPAC and the community had was the fact people used labels which were either inaccurate or nondescript. He had raised the question whether Printers Ink was a chain because there were more than one, i.e., what made a store a chain. There were three issues, part of which was the mix in town. There was much tucked away in one small sentence, which was an incredibly complex, difficult, and not very well-discussed or understood set of issues in spite of its importance. He queried what would be necessary in order to get some discussion about what people valued and how it could be manifested in policies, programs, and implementation measures. Part of the staff comment was the frustration that there were not many good tools in the planning field to deal with some of the issues. Ms. Schreiber said Mayor Simitian was correct. The strength and vehemence of the staff comment regarding the program, which discussed revising the list of allowable land uses, was a box which staff would not recommend the City get into, i.e., trying to evaluate the tone or occupancy on the basis of ownership. Staff was unaware of any good tools, but it was an issue which could be investigated further. He had no problem retaining Policy CD-11.B, because Mayor Simitian was right, but the implementation was the problem. Ms. Lytle said generally, such issues were not addressed through zoning in other cities but through the economic resource planning function, i.e., when a large business shut down, small business owners would be contacted to assist in finding tenant space elsewhere in the City. Los Altos promoted a local cable channel television program which went from business to business educating residents in the community about the kinds of services available among the small businesses in town to encourage shopping and use. Mayor Simitian thought the City had addressed the issue to some extent in terms of financial institution limitations which had been in place in Downtown area, i.e., retail use requirements,
07/15/95 76-337
restrictions on location of banks. Ms. Lytle said the City had ground-floor restrictions Downtown which did not permit financial institutions and other types of uses on the ground floor. The City also had take-out restrictions and alcohol beverage serving distance limitations, so some restriction of uses had already been implemented. Other communities sought to define the issue. There was an initiative petition being circulated in Los Gatos to prevent Starbucks Coffee from locating in Los Gatos. The issue was not just the City's. Burlingame had adopted ordinance language to restrict certain kinds of chains. Mayor Simitian said part of the issue might be to maintain a sense of place unique to Downtown or Midtown, achieved through design, signage, and architectural restrictions which allowed a less local and non-unique user to be in a particular location. Something could be incorporated into the design and architectural element which was more appropriate to the local environment. Council Member McCown thought Ms. Lytle's comments were well-taken and the principle should be contained in the BE Section. The City might be unable to find design tools to specifically address the issue, allowing the City to look more to the economic development side as the device which could be used. Some people in Midtown might want a Walgreens, viewing it as an important anchor for the eventual redevelopment of the area. The City might not want a policy which restricted such a development. The issue was very complex from a design standpoint. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Council Member Huber assumed as Council moved through the various areas, similar comments such as the one made by Mr. Carrasco concerning definitions would be provided. He asked what Policy CD-11.E, "Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots," meant and how anything would be accomplished. Mr. Schreiber said Policy CD-11.E related to Program CD-11.A3 on page 20 of the Plan, which Council had moved into the policy category. The new policy would probably also require additional program wording. Council had asked staff to identify a new program. Mr. Carrasco said there were two people on CPAC who felt strongly about not encouraging above-grade parking lots within retail areas. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to delete Policy CD-11.E, "Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots," as a policy and merge the language into Policy CD-11.A3. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss, Schneider, Wheeler absent. RECESS: 12:30 P.M. - 1:05 P.M.
07/15/95 76-338
Council Member Huber asked that redundancies be reviewed. Mr. Schreiber said staff would go through the document to ensure there were no duplications. Council Member Andersen was unsure whether Program CD-11.J1 on page 23 of the Plan, "Identify priority street improvements, such as widening sidewalks, narrowing travel lanes, creating medians, restriping to allow diagonal parking, planting street trees, and/or introducing benches, kiosks, and public art, that would make a substantial improvement to the character of Centers," should be an "A" or "B" designation because of the degree of specificity. Ms. Eakins said CPAC thought inclusion of the specificity in the Plan would result in a greater likelihood of occurrence. Council Member Andersen said the aspect of obligating someone who was developing an area to include public art was troublesome. As much as he wanted to see more public art, he was uncomfortable using the Comp Plan as a leverage point. Ms. Eakins said Program CD-11.J1 had more to do with public spaces than with obligations in private development, although it could go both ways. CPAC saw the list as a menu from which one could chose. Council Member Huber asked whether the City currently had something in place which dealt with transitional issues as stated in Program CD-11.M4, "Redefine the city's Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Service Commercial (CS) zone requirements to address transitional issues," or whether something different was contemplated. Mr. Schreiber thought Program CD-11.M4 addressed concerns about existing provisions in the two districts affecting the height and location of buildings between commercial and residential zones which had not been as effective as desired. The intent was to reexamine the zones. Ms. Mossar said there were many hard edges between CN and CS zones which should be examined to ensure measures were put in place which, when changes occurred, removed the hard edges and gave some transitions. Council Member Huber clarified Program CD-11.M4 was designed to improve the transition. Ms. Mossar replied yes. Council Member McCown understood staff intended to compress and merge the level of detail, noting deletion in the CD Section the language which spoke to studying "the feasibility of depressing the rail tracks" currently in Program CD-12.C1, "As part of the preparation of a coordinated area plan, study the feasibility of depressing the rail tracks and/or moving the CalTrain station to
07/15/95 76-339
the terminus of University Avenue," because the issue had already been addressed and would not be part of any development. In merging the idea into a much shorter set of policies and programs, an attempt should be made to focus on the big elements of the concept without a lot of detail. The right mix of uses was difficult to determine in Policy CD-12.D, "Develop an intensive mix of shopping, housing, office, medical, and hotel uses on Dream Team site consistent with a coordinated area plan," but the key elements of the Dream Team idea involved making a better connection between University Avenue, Stanford Shopping Center (the Center), and the entrance to Stanford, creating the idea of a civic center plaza, along with some associated development which would compliment. No greater detail was useful in the Plan. Council Member Huber concurred with Council Member McCown. He had identified the words "intensive" and "underutilized" as unnecessary in the Plan which were difficult to define and suggested loading the area. Part of any development was the concept of being near transit, which ideally should reduce and not increase automobile usage. He was concerned about increasing the focus to an area which would result in even greater traffic congestion. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to delete the word "intensive" in Policy CD-12.D so that it would read: "Develop a mix of shopping, housing, office, medical and hotel uses on Dream Team site consistent with a coordinated area plan," and delete the word "underutilized" in Program CD-12.A1 so that it would read: "Prepare a coordinated area plan for the Universi-ty/Avenue/`Dream Team'/Stanford Shopping Center Urban Center. As part of this plan identify strategies to improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections; create a grand civic space in conjunction with the CalTrain Station; and infill current parcels with a mix of uses." Council Member Kniss thought it had been a very complex and carefully thought-out plan for which a great deal of support had existed. She asked whether the Program would undermine what had been planned if "underutilized" and "intensive" were removed. Mr. Carrasco agreed the area was very complex, and he preferred to stay with the large concept described by Council Member McCown, which connected the Stanford Shopping Center with the Downtown's appropriate uses. The appropriate uses were unknown and there were an enormous number of uses which could be examined. He agreed with deleting Policy CD-11.D, "Develop an intensive mix of shopping, housing, office, medical, and hotel uses on Dream Team site consistent with a coordinated area plan," and not restricting or allowing the uses. Council Member McCown believed there was not the level of focus on the land use changes that Council Member Kniss thought the language suggested. The language had been very general and not anywhere near as specific as suggested. The mix for the future was unknown.
07/15/95 76-340
Council Member Kniss said with concurrence with staff, she had no objection. Council Member Andersen asked how realistic Program CD-12.C1 was. Depressing rail tracks had been ruled out as a possibility; and if the University CalTrain Station was designated as an historic site, he queried the possibility of relocation. Mr. Schreiber said, whether designated historic or not, the building could be moved under certain circumstances. If the area were reconfigured, moving the building might make sense. Depress-ing of the rail tracks had been ruled out. Council Member Andersen thought the phrase "depressing the rail tracks" should be removed. Mayor Simitian clarified the discussion was not about moving the building, but removing the function. Mr. Schreiber agreed. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Council Member Fazzino was interested in the concept under Policy CD-12.E, "Retain City control of El Camino Park at little or no cost to the City." If there were interest in retaining control of El Camino Park at a reasonable cost to the City and if it were viewed as an integral part of the Dream Team concept in terms of use of the area, he queried the best way to accomplish the goal within the Comp Plan without interfering with negotiations which would need to occur. Mr. Calonne said the City had an application pending for a development agreement in connection with the Stanford Shopping Center's proposed expansion. A development agreement would have the effect of giving early and sustained vesting of property rights to the property owner, "sustain" meaning the vesting would last for some period of years. In order to justify a development agreement, a finding not dissimilar to the City's own PC zoning would be required, e.g., a finding that the early and sustained vesting provided some extraordinary public benefit was required. Typically, such a finding was accomplished through structure improvements, public dedications, exactions, etc., which could not be achieved through the typical exercise of police power. Therefore, that was probably the best vehicle. His comments regarding additional justification necessary to support a policy requiring dedication of the park had been designed to indicate that if Council were interested in a police-power based exaction, separate and apart from the development agreement, would require a study, somewhat similar to a nexus study, to determine what impacts caused by Stanford might justify additional park land. Any kind of park land exactions could be quite a reach in Palo Alto. The City already had 200 times the Columbia Act requirement for park land, which made it difficult to justify. On the other hand, the City already had a very high level of service which made it easier to protect the level of service from degradation by new
07/15/95 76-341
development. The City's high standards were both beneficial as well as a constraint. He suggested adding language which would direct a study to determine the basis and the police power. Otherwise, the development agreement application was a possibility. Council Member Fazzino did not believe Mr. Calonne's suggestions should be adopted through the Comp Plan. He asked whether a general statement of support for preservation of El Camino Park as a recreational resource at a reasonable cost to the City would be a reasonable objective or policy. Mr. Calonne said language could be included in the Comp Plan which discouraged or made an effort to preclude land use designation changes for the park for some period of time but would not solve the cost problem. Council Member Huber asked when the City's lease ran out on the property. Ms. Fleming thought the lease ran out in the Year 2015. Council Member Huber thought the lease could be renegotiated. Mr. Calonne said the City could certainly ask for a renegotiation of the lease, unless Stanford sensed there was no basis to reopen the lease. Council Member Huber said the City's policy could be to at least offer. Mr. Calonne thought the City could not easily or properly connect such an offer to development decisions without having either a study or development agreement request. Mayor Simitian summarized the issues which had been addressed concerning retaining City control of El Camino Park: 1) the City could call Stanford and ask to renegotiate the lease on the land; 2) the City could have a conversation about the topic in the context of a development agreement; or 3) generate a finding of a relationship between park land in the additional development which had been generated by Stanford, assuming a nexus between the development and the need for park land. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, that a policy be developed that would preserve El Camino Park as a park and recreational resource to the community at a reasonable cost. Council Member Fazzino said steps could then be taken outside the Comp Plan process to advance one or more of the suggestions offered by the City Attorney and the Mayor. Council Member Kniss asked why the Planning Commission had deleted Policy CD-12.E. Mr. Carrasco said Program CD-12.E1, "The City shall enter into
07/15/95 76-342
negotiations with Stanford to retain City control of El Camino Park at little or no cost to the City," was abstract and contained too much detail for a clear policy. Council Member Kniss said the issue had been addressed several times in the past, and she believed the amount was $500,000 per year which, with escalation in appraised land value, fluctuated and increased fairly substantially. The long-term goal had always been how to acquire the piece of land. Mr. Calonne had mentioned legalities, staff had mentioned complexities, but if the Comp Plan were not the correct way to acquire the property, she queried what was the correct way. Mr. Carrasco said the Planning Commission's understood that the City wanted to retain El Camino Park. The question was how to do so, but Policy CD-12.E was not the correct way. Council Member Kniss asked how the Comp Plan could address the City's intent to be released from the rather onerous lease, e.g., exchanging for something else. Mr. Calonne said the best alternative was the development agreement negotiation. He had been working with Mayor Simitian to find an appropriate means of attaining policy direction which Council would hear about in the future. There was no problem with expressing, as a program, something similar to what currently existed, namely a policy direction which staff should seek to reopen the lease to reduce the cost. The development agreement was probably the City's best vehicle without getting into nexus studies. It was unknown if the City would be able to tie it to Stanford West or something else. A nexus study would be necessary. Council Member Rosenbaum said Council policy since January 1993 had been to direct staff to negotiate with Stanford on the issue with the application for changes to the Center. He had not been concerned about whether the issue was addressed in the Plan because it already was Council policy. However, the City would not want to suggest to Stanford that by deletion the City was no longer interested in pursuing El Camino Park. Council Member Andersen concurred with Council Member Rosenbaum. He had often wondered whether there was any flexibility with the lease arrangement to allow for some other area as open space. The real estate was fairly expensive and the way the lease arrangement was connected suggested if there were another way in which some appropriate park or open space area, in the interest of the City, it might be appropriate to consider as a trade-off. Staff should be given as much flexibility as possible in any negotiation or discussion. Council could always reject any suggestion, but the area should at least be considered to find some other beneficial method by which the issue could be resolved. Council Member Huber agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum, but the goal was for the City to retain the area as recreational, even if the Center did not come through. The goal was very simple.
07/15/95 76-343
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Council Member Kniss asked about the "B" designation of Policy CD-12.F "Maintain views of the foothills from streets in the existing developed portions of the city." Mr. Carrasco said San Francisco had enforced view easements, which became very complicated. The Planning Commission thought view easements should not be imposed in Palo Alto if complications resulted. Council Member Kniss was unaware of any issue surrounding the policy. Mr. Carrasco said a property owner could not build on their own property if it blocked a neighbor's view of the foothills. The Planning Commission did not want to put such a burden on Palo Alto's land uses. Ms. Mossar clarified Policy CD-12.F did not refer to neighborhoods but urban centers, and the views were from "streets," not proper-ties. CPAC had felt strongly that the concept of a view corridor was very important. As one walked around public centers in the community, the view of the foothills was a critical part of the experience. Council Member Kniss asked for an example. Ms. Mossar said looking down Hamilton Avenue, one gained a beautiful view of the East Bay foothills. There were several places from Downtown where the foothills behind Stanford were visible and beautiful. The visual connection was very important, but CPAC had spent a lot of time writing language throughout the document which acknowledged that the urban areas were connected with the more natural open space areas. The City should not do anything which divided and removed the interconnectedness. Council Member Kniss said CPAC had made a good point and asked whether staff had anything which indicated the views were already protected in some way or whether something should be included. Mr. Schreiber said staff had no objection to including Policy CD-12.F in the Plan at the same time. Staff had tried to find things to move from the larger document. Major obstructions of views would most likely be associated with some large development. In the environmental impact process, the issue was legitimate. The issue would arise during the environmental review for developments which would cause such an impact. Council Member Kniss asked whether Policy CD-12.F should be reinserted into the Plan because of the relevance to staff when plans came before the City. Mr. Schreiber said having the policy in the Plan would make it more feasible to get a handle on the issue.
07/15/95 76-344
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by McCown, to retain Policy CD-12.F, "Maintain views of the foothills from streets in the existing developed portions of the city." Mr. Calonne said the language in Policy CD-12.F was fairly absolute. To the extent consistency would be required for a PC, especially in relation to the Dream Team, the Center, etc., Policy CD-12.F would preclude obstruction of foothill views from the streets. Council Member Andersen objected to Policy CD-12.F, even though he appreciated the intent. He was not prepared to see the policy locked into the Comp Plan, which would create some very real difficulties when making policy decisions concerning additional housing units and intensification which might result. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Andersen "no," Schneider, Wheeler absent. Mayor Simitian asked how Goal CD-13, "Encourage infill and intensification of the Stanford Shopping Center site," worked together with the notation to substitute Goal BE-12, "Support retaining Stanford Shopping Center's status as a unique, high-quality, regional shopping center." Council Member McCown said Program BE-12.A1, "Where traffic is likely to impact adjacent neighborhoods, consider establishing a shuttle service, increasing public transportation service, or other alternative traffic/parking solutions in order to provide safe, convenient access to Stanford Shopping Center," had also been proposed for insertion. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission had attempted to obtain consistency of wording, noting the BE Section had already been reviewed, and preferred the wording in the BE Section rather than the CD Section. Council Member McCown said the area which was different in terms of the concept contained in Goal CD-13 and the concept in the BE Section was that the CD Section appeared to address the idea of encouraging shopping center development to infill within the Center to use existing parking lots, which was really a design and infill issue. She was uncomfortable with the word "intensification," and supported the change to Goal BE-12. The idea of the shuttle was common to the BE Section, but the other element, not picked up by transferring over the wording, was the idea of infill development within the current confines of the Center, which was a good concept from a design point of view. The wording from Goal BE-12 could be combined with the concept of infill in the goal. Mr. Carrasco recalled the Dream Team vaguely discussed the areas so the Downtown and the Center were better connected. Ms. Eakins said CPAC had liked the idea of infill on the Center site. The Planning Commission's discussion of the BE Section was
07/15/95 76-345
about whether or not the Center would need expansion beyond that which was already allowed in order to remain competitive. The BE argument was that growth or flexibility for growth would be required for maintaining a competitive position, and the BE Section language said "maintain the vitality." Mayor Simitian asked about the issue of keeping the Center competitive, which appeared to be driving some of the discussion. No one had made a compelling case that the Center was at risk of not being competitive. His anecdotal, visual observation indicated it was not an imminent threat. The issue of whether the Center should be pumped up to be more successful both for Stanford and the City in terms of tax revenue was a very different issue from a policy standpoint than maintaining competitiveness. He asked CPAC whether it was convinced to keep the Center competitive. Ms. Eakins had tried to reconstruct the BE Section and how the Planning Commission had made alterations, substituting its version of Goal BE-12, and in the process leaving out the physical. CPAC's BE Subcommittee probably did not believe it was their job to make Stanford's argument. The general principle had been that flexibility was a good idea and that was the reason for writing the BE goal in that way, but the Planning Commission had taken a different view. CPAC thought infill, perhaps "for any intensification," was what it should be rather than "infill for intensification of the use." Mr. Carrasco said competitiveness was an economic issue and infill was a physical design issue. The Planning Commission addressed only the design aspects of infill in the CD Section as being better than putting a new center elsewhere and disconnecting from everything. Council Member McCown said the point raised regarding the substitution of BE-12 was that the City was in effect using BE language for the CD Section. If the goal wanted to achieve a certain look, feel, and street scape, that was fine. If it did not have anything to do with the Center and created some linkage between different retail areas which were separated by El Camino Real, that was fine. The conversation should occur irrespective of shopping center cash flow issues, which were perfectly legitimate issues, but were another set of issues. Ms. Mossar said the CPAC wanted Council to use CPAC's language or some version thereof and not accept the Planning Commission's substitute language for the goal. Mayor Simitian clarified the mention of intensification was not a desire to have a more intense shopping center; but where there was intensification, it should be done as infill. Ms. Mossar said that was correct. Council Member McCown said Council Member Rosenbaum had raised the issue of whether there was anything other than infill that could
07/15/95 76-346
be done at the Center. Usually the concept of infill was to keep it on an existing site, not expanding the site. She queried whether the Center could expand to a larger amount of acreage. Mr. Schreiber said the early Stanford Shopping Center leases contained references to expansion of the Center across to the south of Quarry Road for parking and other uses. The land was unincorporated and the area surrounded the former gas station site. City staff over the course of several decades had reiterated that the City would not endorse expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center across Quarry Road into that area. That was probably the only physical expansion possibility over the past 20 years. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to revise Goal CD-13 to read: "Encourage infill for any intensifica-tion of the Stanford Shopping Center." Mayor Simitian asked Council Member McCown what her motion would do to Policy CD-13.A. Council Member McCown thought the issue was independent. The first sentence was consistent with the goal, but the second specifically addressed housing which should be the subject of a separate discussion. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to reinstate the first sentence of Policy CD-13.A, "Identify opportu-nities for infill and reuse of existing surface parking lots." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Council Member Huber believed Program CD-13.A1, "Stanford's Shopping Center planning efforts should identify strategies for infill currently underutilized parcels and improving pedestrian connections," suggested intensification and underutilization and should be softened as well. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to revise CD-13.A1 to read: "Stanford's Shopping Center planning efforts should identify strategies for infill and improving pedestrian connections." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Mayor Simitian asked about Policy CD-13.B, "Strong pedestrian and shuttle connections should be provided from the Stanford Shopping Center across El Camino to the CalTrain station and University Avenue," which was slated for substitution by Program BE-12.A1. Council Member McCown said the language from Program BE-12.A1 was a more complete statement of the principle and she believed there was no significant difference.
07/15/95 76-347
Mayor Simitian asked about the "D" designation on Program CD-13.B1, "In exchange for granting new entitlements, the City shall require Stanford to (i) establish an Urban Limit Line and (ii) agree to open space protection of lands outside this Urban Limit Line." Mr. Schreiber said staff's comments on page 5 of the CD Section of the Plan had indicated staff thought there should not be a linkage between open space protection outside the area and Stanford Shopping Center decisions. Council Member Huber observed the Urban Limit Line (ULL) had been deleted every time it had arisen in the Plan. In each instance, it appeared to have been a trade-off for some possible intensification of use. Council had modified appropriately through the Medical Center, the Stanford Research Park, and the Stanford Shopping Center to account for the fact there would not be such a thing. Council Member Kniss said the City of San Jose's Vice Mayor Trixie Johnson had mentioned to her that ULL was used extensively in San Jose's new open space district which Ms. Johnson considered as a future mechanism that could be used extensively. She referred to the second bullet in Policy CD-14.A, "the roadway alignment should not encroach on existing open space along the creek," and asked whether the item could be found elsewhere in the document. Ms. Mossar said Policy CD-14.A, "If the connection of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real is made, the following considerations
should be incorporated into its design: ! two or more smaller roads are preferable to a single wide road as Sand Hill approaches
El Camino; ! the roadway alignment should not encroach on existing
open space along the creek; ! numerous street and pedestrian crossings should be provided from Stanford West housing to the
Stanford Shopping Center; ! the road, intersection, and frontage along El Camino, including all infrastructure, should be designed
to provide a beautiful and gracious entry to the city; ! the roadway and intersection with El Camino should be designed so that it is safe and inviting for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross;
and ! the presence of the creek should be highlighted with special features, such as riparian plantings or bridge details, to call attention to this natural city boundary," was the only place the language occurred. It was the only design considerations should the Sand Hill Road extension go through to El Camino Real. In the Transportation (TR) Section, the road was discussed but nothing was mentioned concerning design except for pedestrian, bicycles, shuttles, etc. Mr. Schreiber said Policy TR-3.B stated, "Participate in design and implementation of a comprehensive solution to traffic circulation problems near Stanford Shopping and Medical Centers," and Program TR-3.B1, "Extend Sand Hill Road to El Camino," had a comment to "Continue consideration until the City Attorney provided an opinion on consistency."
07/15/95 76-348
Council Member Kniss believed Policy CD-14.A should be reinstated in order to protect San Francisquito creek. Mayor Simitian understood staff believed the issue would be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was the appropriate forum. However, he shared Council Member Kniss' concern regarding knowing the rules of the game prior to beginning the process. The language was a little imprecise. If read literally, any enlargement of Sand Hill Road which went to the north rather than the south would constitute an encroachment on the open space. Goal CD-14 was laudable as stated, but the de facto being that the alignment had to be on the south side of existing Sand Hill Road made no sense. The buildings could then be right up against the San Francisquito Creek with a building between Sand Hill Road and the building itself. Ms. Mossar said Council Member Kniss was correct. There were creek protection in the Natural Environment (NE) Section, but all the bullets beneath Policy CD-14.A were design issues which did not exist elsewhere in the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said staff had recommended deletion of Policy CD-14.A with the understanding nothing was being adopted at the present time. The issues would be addressed in the Sand Hill Road extension and the EIR, which would be before Council prior to adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Kniss asked whether there was a more permanent way of protecting the creek rather than a motion which stated if it were not covered in the EIR, the roadway alignment should not be encroached. Mr. Schreiber said since Council was not adopting policy but only identifying items which might go into a future draft plan for further public review at the time of wrap-up, Council actions at the present time would only create more confusion, especially at the level of detail since the project was already in the review process. The City should continue with the Sand Hill Road Corridor process; keep the issues under Policy CD-14.A in mind; and after conclusion of the process, the draft Plan could be modified to amend whatever resulted from the Sand Hill Road process when Council took action to adopt or modify. There would be a better basis at that time upon which to make decisions about the Sand Hill Road Corridor. Council Member Fazzino was troubled by the use of the words "beautiful and gracious entry" associated with the Sand Hill Road connection in bullet four on page 28 of the Plan. He had supported the concept of a connection in the past, and the Sand Hill Road connection should not be a beautiful and gracious entry to the City. It should stop people at El Camino Real who traveled north or south. If a beautiful and gracious entry to the City were considered, it should be at University Avenue, Embarcadero Road, or Oregon Expressway, not Sand Hill Road. He was troubled by the use of the language in Goal CD-14, "a clear sense of
07/15/95 76-349
entering the city, and asked what was meant by the language. Ms. Mossar said the language was wonderful. It was very difficult to know when Sand Hill Road entered the City's boundaries. CPAC intended for people to know they had entered Palo Alto with tasteful, appropriate entries. Because Sand Hill Road traveled along San Francisquito Creek, the entry should acknowledge the presence of such an important City resource as the creek. Mayor Simitian believed Council Member Fazzino had been discussing something down by El Camino Real, while Ms. Mossar appeared to discussing the entrance closer to the Oak Creek Apartments. Council Member Fazzino said regardless of what was done with the Sand Hill Road connection, Sand Hill Road should be a beautiful, gracious, and appropriate entry to the City. The other part which he did not completely understand was whether there was a distinc-tive identity which included an awareness of the creek. He asked about the purpose of the language and whether there could be a stronger statement between the relationship of the road and the creek. Ms. Mossar said the CPAC would not object to such language. Mayor Simitian asked why it was desirable to announce the presence of San Francisquito Creek. It might be better to keep the creek a secret, and not over burden the creek's bankside. Ms. Mossar said CPAC had done a lot of work on the creek, and it was amazing the number of people who did not know it existed. To get public support for preservation of resources, it was very important for people to understand the existence of the resource and its value. Mayor Simitian asked whether Ms. Mossar feared it would become a picnic ground for the Peninsula which might damage the creek. Ms. Mossar said there were no picnic grounds. Council Member McCown said obviously CPAC's intent was to suggest design criteria to Sand Hill Road if changes occurred that related to the creek. There were a number of bullets she supported, some she did not. The issue staff had raised was whether the policy pronouncements should be made about the Council's design wishes in the Plan or when the EIR was received. The policy might be that the roadway alignment should not encroach the open space along the creek. The choice could either be made at the present time, during the EIR, or Council could decide not to make a choice. The dilemma was whether the design suggestions should be included. A problem could result if Council began a debate on the various items. The problem was whether to put the language into the document. Council Member Kniss said her major goal was not to lose the language.
07/15/95 76-350
Council Member McCown said staff indicated all of the issues would be policy choices and discussion for Council through the EIR process and the specific application which would be presented. Mayor Simitian asked whether staff needed direction by Council to return with the items, if and when, action was taken on the Comp Plan prior to any action on a Sand Hill Road project. Mr. Schreiber suggested Council give staff direction to address the items in the Sand Hill Road Corridor EIR and related staff reports. Mayor Simitian said if Council received the Comp Plan prior to action on Sand Hill Road, the direction would also be that the items return to Council for further discussion and consideration. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Simitian, to direct staff to address in the discussion of Sand Hill Corridor/El Camino Real and related staff reports, the six items included in Policy CD-14.A, "If the connection of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real is made, the following considerations should be incorporated into its design:..." Council Member Huber said while the City could not function in a vacuum, the City had to assume it might not receive anything from Stanford University, and that Sand Hill Road might still be there. The City might want to do something distinctive with the entry. Mayor Simitian said if the intent when dealing with the layout of the road were to make sure everything was done to maintain and maximize as much of the open space as possible, not placing the road any closer to the creek than possible, he would have been fine. However, the specific language appeared to indicate no open space could be encroached upon, and it might be necessary to move the road two feet in terms of the overall layout. There were many ways to realize some of the goals. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Mr. Calonne suggested the Council clarify to staff that the Sand Hill Road and Sand Hill Road/El Camino Real connection issues would still be addressed in the EIR of the draft document. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Simitian, to consider the consequences of the Sand Hill Road extension in the Comprehensive Plan environmental review. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Council Member Andersen asked whether anywhere in the document was a reference to not connecting Sand Hill Road to Alma Street. Mr. Schreiber could not find any reference in the document, although it was an existing Comp Plan policy since 1986. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to
07/15/95 76-351
add a policy and program to CD-14 to indicate that the City would not connect Sand Hill Road to Alma Street. Mayor Simitian confirmed Council Member Jones from Menlo Park had a contrary view on the position. Mr. Schreiber confirmed Council Member Jones' desire was for a connection between Sand Hill Road and Alma Street, indicating the lack of a connection generated notable traffic impacts within the City of Menlo Park. Policy CD-14.B, "If Sand Hill Road is extended to El Camino Real, Alma Street should be closed before it crosses the tracks," had been deleted by the Planning Commission, which was different from not connecting Sand Hill Road. The staff comments had indicated that the "closure of Alma would be incorporated into the Sand Hill Road EIR as an alternative." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Council Member Fazzino asked whether Policy CD-14.B had any future in the EIR. Mr. Schreiber said the issue would be evaluated in the EIR. Council Member Kniss asked why Goal CD-15, "Maintain and enhance the University Avenue area as the central focus of the City, with commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses," had chosen University Avenue as the central focus. Ms. Mossar said Goal CD-15 had been added by the Planning Commis-sion when the visions and goals had been under discussion. The general knowledge of cities was that cities had a central downtown. There might be other areas which were important, but there was a central downtown. Council Member Kniss asked whether Goal CD-15 meant putting resources into that area. Mr. Carrasco said when Cowthorpe had defined his map of Palo Alto, he had identified several hierarchy of centers. Goal CD-15 merely stated that University Avenue and the Downtown was the most intense of the hierarchy of centers and the most important of Palo Alto's centers. Council Member Kniss said the next few pages went on to focus on a few other areas, identifying specific focus points which should be in the other areas as well. Council Member Fazzino was troubled by the use of the word "focus." He did not mind University Avenue as a central business district. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to revise Goal CD-15 to read: "Maintain and enhance the University Avenue area as the central business district of the City, with commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses."
07/15/95 76-352
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to reinstate Policy CD-15.A, "Support implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Mayor Simitian asked whether there was a way to make the earlier discussion about encouraging a desirable mix of small locally-owned businesses fit into University Avenue in Policy CD-15.D, "Encourage local and small retail businesses to remain in the Downtown area." Part of what the City's Downtown area provided was a range of goods and services which people needed and part of what it provided was a unique location toward which people were drawn. The City had a vested interest in trying to create the right mix and obtaining some small shops which gave the area personality or charm and had local roots that were responsive to local people. Mr. Schreiber said the staff comment was to delete and incorporate it into economic resource planning efforts as part of the BE Section. The BE Section included a program which recognized the importance of independent small businesses. Staff recommended it was more appropriately addressed in the BE Section as a citywide issue rather than in commercial areas around the City. Mayor Simitian thought the issue had to do with the look and feel of the area, i.e., he would not feel strongly about Policy CD-15.D in the Stanford Shopping Center but felt strongly about it on University Avenue in terms of what was created or maintained. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to develop a policy and program that spoke to attracting and maintaining a mix of small and local retail businesses in the Downtown area. Council Member McCown thought the motion was consistent with what had previously been discussed and brought into focus staff's comments that the design or land use tools were very difficult mechanisms and possibly not a good idea. The traditional design zoning was difficult tools to use. However, the City still wanted to have as a policy matter the principle. She would have a problem going in the direction of creating zoning incentives. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Wheeler absent. Mayor Simitian asked why the Planning Commission had deleted bicyclists in Policy CD-15.B, "Ensure that University Avenue is comfortable for pedestrians." Mr. Carrasco believed it was because of the heavy pedestrian traffic and mixing bicycles would become dangerous. Mr. Schreiber thought the conflict between the angled parking, pedestrians, and the amount of traffic with bicycles became a
07/15/95 76-353
concern which should not be encouraged. Ms. Mossar asked Council to consider changing the language to include "accessible" because of the inconsistency with the rest of the planning that had been discussed previously concerning transportation issues and to not include in the document accessi-bility to one of the primary commercial districts by bicycle. Council Member Huber said the City required bicycle racks with any development along University Avenue. If the City were going to have racks, the bicyclists should be made comfortable. Mr. Schreiber said staff's concern was not to prohibit bicyclists from University Avenue. The concern was with the wording about ensuring bicyclists were "comfortable" on University Avenue. Trying to achieve comfort within the environment of traffic, parking, pedestrians, etc., became a very difficult task and created considerable conflicts with many of the other transporta-tion systems. Ms. Mossar suggested changing the word "comfortable," leaving in the bicycles, and changing to University Avenue area rather than just University Avenue. Mayor Simitian clarified Policy CD-15.B would recognize the need to be pedestrian friendly with accessibility to bicycles. Ms. Mossar agreed. MOTION OF CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the Community Design Section to the Regular City Council meeting of October 2, 1995. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding the parking zone requirements. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 2:45 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
07/15/95 76-354
office hours.
07/15/95 76-355