HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-02 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 2, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ......................................... 77-77 1. Ordinance 4296 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 483 University Avenue from CD-C(GF)(P) to PC .......................... 77-77 2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee ..................................... 77-77 3. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 77-101 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. .......... 77-101
10/02/95 77-76
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:09 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 323 Byron Street, spoke regarding Palo Alto Police Department abuse. Harry Merker, 501 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Police Department. Victor Frost, Telephone Pole No. 1139, spokesperson for the street people of Palo Alto, spoke regarding garden reports (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Jim Dinkey, 2380 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding the ramp metering. Leland Alton, homeless, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Homeless Garden. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. 1. Ordinance 4296 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 483 University Avenue from CD-C(GF)(P) to PC" (1st Reading 9/18/95, PASSED 7-0, Simitian "not participating," Andersen absent) MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian "not participating." UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. The document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs were 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 direction for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update (continued from July 15, 1995) Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
10/02/95 77-77
the Council had completed through page 29 of Community Design (CD) Section, and the next goal for discussion would be CD-16, "Maintain the existing scale and retail orientation of the California-Avenue business district." Council Member Rosenbaum recalled that at the previous Council meeting on July 15, 1995, the question was about whether or not to allow an additional 15 percent Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Stanford Research Park (the Park). The item was continued because there was not a full complement of Council Members and the Council believed it would be helpful to have staff determine how many square feet the percentage corresponded to. He suggested that the issue be considered before the November 1995 election. He asked the status of the item. Mr. Schreiber said staff would normally bring back an information request near the end of the review of a section. The information could be provided to the Council for the October 30, 1995, City Council meeting. Council Member McCown said the Council deferred the California Avenue/Ventura Avenue (Cal-Ventura) Area recommendations because there was not a full complement of the Council present and the City Attorney had advised two Council Members that they should not participate in the discussion. She preferred that both issues be discussed that evening, and then the Council move forward and complete the rest of the CD Section. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the City Council discuss the issues 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 car facilities would be exempt from this floor area limit." and Program CD-6.A1 "In exchange for allowing up to 15 % floor area increase, the City shall and require Stanford to (i) establish an Urban Limit Line and (ii) shall agree to open space protection of lands. outside of the Urban Limit Line." and the California Avenue/Ventura Avenue (Cal-Ventura) Area Plan that evening. Council Member Kniss clarified the data on the Park was not available from staff that evening. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The Council had asked for clarification on some data regarding the Park which was not available that evening but could be provided for the October 30, 1995, City Council meeting. Council Member Andersen preferred that the Council consider the Cal-Ventura Area that evening but not the issue of the Park until the information was available. He asked whether the discussion of the Park could be held on October 30, 1995.
10/02/95 77-78
Mayor Simitian said Council Members might have a difference of opinion about whether or not the information was needed in order to make a decision, and it might be clearer if the Council discussed the issue that evening. If there were more questions that resulted from the discussion that evening, the questions should not wait until another meeting when the Council might discover that there were other questions that had resulted from the discussions. He suggested the Council discuss the issue that evening. Council Member Kniss asked whether staff could provide any valuable information that evening. Mr. Schreiber said staff would have to recalculate site coverage and identify certain parcels in and out of the various definitions of the Park which could not be done quickly that evening. Dena Mossar, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, said there was some confusion over the actual implications of the language. She clarified the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) did not recommend the 15 percent development bonus without the Urban Limit Line (ULL) concept which was intended to prevent urban sprawl into the open space areas. CPAC saw some advantages in allowing some intensification in more parts of the community. Council Member Schneider wanted the information available before the Council proceeded with the discussion. Council Member McCown said the Council began discussion on the issue on July 15, 1995, but stopped even though there were questions on the table. It was a significant issue and one of the biggest items with respect to potential change. She believed the Council should move forward with the discussion that evening and be more specific about the information it needed to vote on the issue. The Council should finish the items that were not completed at the previous meeting; and if there were a further desire to defer the item, it could be done at the conclusion of the discussion. Council Member Huber said the Council's future decision on the Cal-Ventura Area depended heavily on whether or not the Council continued the amortization on Fry's Electronics. Council Member McCown said there had been no previous discussion on the issue and that might be the reason to specially defer any conclusion on changes in that area until the Fry's decision was made. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING 1ST PART OF THE MOTION regarding Stanford Research Park 2nd PART OF THE MOTION regarding California Avenue-Ventura Avenue Area Plan
10/02/95 77-79
Council Member Fazzino understood that until the legal issues were resolved, he could not participate in the Cal-Ventura item. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said neither Council Member Fazzino nor Council Member Kniss would be able to participate on the area plan decision because it involved a Hewlett-Packard property. Council Member Fazzino clarified that regardless of how the Fry's Electronics issue was resolved, Hewlett-Packard had a site in that area that it intended to redevelop so it made legal sense for both he and Council Member Kniss to refrain from participating in the item due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member Andersen recalled that the minutes of the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee meeting were to be made available to the Council prior to discussion on the issue. He would refrain from supporting that portion of the motion until the minutes were available. Council Member Kniss believed that 15 percent might involve Hewlett-Packard. A large portion of the Park involved Hewlett-Packard projects, and she was uncomfortable with participating in the item without clarification from the City Attorney. Mr. Calonne believed it was possible that there could be a political reform conflict with the Hewlett-Packard site. He recalled during the previous discussion that the issue was remote because there was no specific application from Hewlett-Packard for a particular property. The concept was to have a vague percentage increase available in the Park with no implementation. He also recalled that things were not reasonably foreseeable at that point in time. He clarified that Council Member Kniss would be prudent not to participate if she were concerned about the conflict. Council Member McCown recalled that there were six Council Members present in the morning of the July 15, 1995, City Council meeting, and the City Attorney advised Council Member Fazzino not to participate on the 15 percent increase in the FAR which left five Council Members who could participate. The Council decided to defer the issue because it was not appealing for potentially three of five Council Members to make a decision on the issue. Mr. Calonne recalled that the primary focus at that time was the Cal-Ventura Area issue. Council Member McCown recalled at the previous City Council meeting on July 15, 1995, that the Council did not act on the item because there would be only five Council Members who could participate on that day, but the request was that when the entire Council was present at the next meeting, the items would be discussed and action taken. She was disappointed that the Council was not in a position to deal with the questions because staff did not have the information.
10/02/95 77-80
Council Member Kniss believed that it was inconsistent to allow some Council Members to participate on some things and not others. Council Member Fazzino recalled that the City Attorney's concern was that when the Council discussed something as specific as FAR, there was the potential of a significant impact to Hewlett-Packard since it had significant amount of square footage in the Park and could benefit from the Council's decision. The City Attorney had indicated that he could participate on broad policy issues with respect to the Park. RECESS: 7:55 P.M. - 8:05 P.M. Mr. Calonne said his review of the minutes of the July 15, 1995, City Council meeting indicated that he had advised Council Member Fazzino not to participate on the 15 percent issue in the Park. His advice at that time had been that there was not a conflict of interest on the 15 percent FAR increase. A review of his notes did not indicate an assignment to do an opinion; therefore, his advice that evening would not be different from his advice at the July 15, 1995, City Council meeting. He believed it would be prudent for Council Members Fazzino and Kniss not to participate on the 15 percent increase issue. It was not clear to him that the concept of FAR increase made it foreseeable that Hewlett-Packard would be affected. Mayor Simitian asked whether the City Attorney's opinion applied to the procedural vote that the Council was prepared to take. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Kniss said she would not participate on the issue that evening. Council Member Fazzino said he would not participate on the issue that evening. 1st PART OF THE MOTION PASSED 5-2, Andersen, Schneider "no," Kniss, Fazzino "not participating." 2nd PART OF THE MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Fazzino "not participat-ing." Council Member McCown recalled that she had asked Mr. Schreiber at the July 15, 1995, City Council meeting what the 15 percent number was. She understood that CPAC's recommendation was a coupled recommendation that had to do with getting some permanent open space protection via the ULL concept. The Council's discussion at its previous meeting indicated that Stanford University was not interested in any different arrangement from what was presently in place with respect to potential urban expansion. Stanford University was not willing to agree to the idea of a new permanent open space commitment. She recalled that the representative from Stanford University indicated that Stanford was not the initiator of any request that there be a 15 percent increase in FAR in the Park. She believed the numbers of how the 15 percent would be
10/02/95 77-81
calculated would be important, but she no longer felt she needed to know those numbers in order to decide that the flat 15 percent increase was an idea that the Council should pursue further. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to delete 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 Program CD-6.A1, "In exchange for allowing up to 15 percent floor area increase, the City shall and require Stanford to (i) establish an Urban Limit Line and (ii) shall agree to open space protection of lands. outside of the Urban Limit Line." Council Member Andersen was interested in the Council's previous discussions with Stanford University. He was not interested in approving the 15 percent element but was interested in the Council's considering the "wiggle room" issue in the context of flexibility, but not in the context of expansion, and the need for increasing the FAR in some areas where there would not be an increase in traffic or intensification. It would be a way to allow for the new industries and businesses in the Park. Mr. Schreiber recalled that three potential change scenarios were identified for the Park. One was physical expansion of the Park, with inclusion of lands that were not presently part of the Park. In the Council's discussion of the CD Section and other sections, there had been no notable support for physical expansion of the Park. There were two other concepts within the existing Park boundaries--to allow additional development that would facilitate the conversion of sites, etc., and the "wiggle room" concept which would allow small amounts of square footage to facilitate adapta-tion of sites to meet current regulations and other minor changes to facilitate its use. The "wiggle room" concept was surfaced by staff in the 1991 Stanford Research Park Study because there was a number of sites in the Park that were built out to the maximum. When staff talked to representatives in the Park, it received feedback that the strict application of a 0.4 FAR rather than a slightly higher ratio had caused some distress on some of the older already developed sites. There was a request for a small amount of "wiggle room" versus larger expansions but the request was never quantified. Council Member Andersen believed the Council should discuss whether it supported the "wiggle room" concept, but if there were some latitude, it should be reflected in the draft. Mayor Simitian also encouraged that dialogue as well. Council Member Schneider asked what the genesis of the 15 percent concept was since neither CPAC, staff, nor Stanford University recommended it.
10/02/95 77-82
Ms. Mossar recalled that the language came loosely from Stanford University and City staff to CPAC. Council Member Huber asked whether a certain amount of square footage available in the Park was built into the concept of "wiggle room" and whether there would be less square footage to use elsewhere if it were used in a place that was 100 percent built out. Mr. Schreiber said the "wiggle room" concept or a minor expansion could be done by taking the existing remaining square footage available in the Park and allocating some percentage of that as a "wiggle room" component. That concept would be similar to the Downtown regulations which had a cap that was allocated to small changes, handicapped access, etc. Another option would be to allocate space to sites above the existing FAR and not deduct the space from other sites. When City staff talked to Stanford staff about the idea of setting up a pool of floor area that would be drawn upon, Stanford expressed concern that eventually there could be a situation in which there would be no more square footage in the Park even though a particular site was not fully developed under the Zoning Ordinance. Council Member Huber clarified there was approximately 1.2 million square feet left that could be developed in the Park under current regulations. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the 15 percent was in addition to the total potential square footage in the Park or 15 percent of the increment that remained. Mr. Schreiber said it would be 15 percent of approximately 10 million square feet of maximum development in the Park. There were various definitions of what constituted the Park, e.g., the existing office buildings at Page Mill Road/El Camino Real corner. The 15 percent would be approximately 1.5 million square feet. Mayor Simitian clarified the issue of "wiggle room" or 15 percent was a function of the fact that the FAR limits were applied on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mayor Simitian clarified in order to provide "wiggle room" or flexibility to deal with the issue of a mature company that had outgrown its site but wanted to stay in Palo Alto would be the simple transference of FAR from the adjacent parcel to the other parcel which might solve that company's problem. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mayor Simitian clarified if the FAR allowance were subtracted from the adjacent parcel and given to another parcel, there would be no
10/02/95 77-83
net increase of the FAR between the two parcels. The company would be given the FAR it needed to grow and have some flexibility. Mr. Schreiber said it was a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) concept. Stanford's staff had indicated to the City staff that it did not believe that was feasible in the Park. Mayor Simitian believed there was value in retaining, apart from the issue of the 15 percent and "wiggle room," the notion that the provision of employee services such as small cafes, convenience retail, public gathering spaces, and child care facilities would be exempt from the floor area limit. He was uncertain whether the facilities needed to be exempt, but he believed that modest increases could end up being net reducers of traffic, i.e., if the facilities were on the site, it would discourage people from driving. Mr. Schreiber explained that child care was already exempt from the FAR. Mayor Simitian suggested a friendly amendment to the motion that while the Council was eliminating the 15 percent, it would be willing to consider some sort of TDR within the Park in order to provide flexibility for the Park. He would also be willing to consider some discussion of the other items receiving special treatment if the items were traffic reducers rather than traffic generators. Council Member McCown clarified the Council would be open to a program in which there would be no additional floor area potential above the current allowable FAR but the square footage could be moved from one site to another. She wanted some flexibility with further exemptions in addition to child care. Mayor Simitian suggested the use of the words "consider" and "traffic reduction seems obtainable." Council Member McCown said the Downtown area worked because there was a small number of applications for exemptions. Mayor Simitian said he was not prepared to approve the other items in addition to child care but it would be good to find a way to keep the Park traffic within the Park during the day. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that staff be directed to consider the possibility of some flexibility with respect to the transfer of development rights (TDR) or some other mechanism for flexibility within the Stanford Research Park (the Park) which would not result in a net floor area ratio (FAR) increase within the Park; and that the potential for additional employee services/amenities within the Park be reviewed with the proviso that the services/amenities shall result in traffic reduction rather than traffic increases. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transporta-
10/02/95 77-84
tion Study (the 1989 Study) clearly indicated further expansion of the Park presented a carrying capacity problem. At that time, the Council selected a level of expansion which the community could tolerate. People had become enchanted by the fact that the uses in the Park had changed over the previous seven years and had evolved into using more space for fewer employees and presumedly generating less traffic. Unfortunately, there was no assurance at the present time that in the future there might not be a return to the types of uses that were previously in the Park or some different use which would increase the level of employment. It could be troublesome if the Council encouraged development of more square footage in the Park than was contemplated in the 1989 Study without the ability to control employment growth. When the 1989 Study was done, Council talked about how it could track and limit the number of employees in the Park, and Mr. Schreiber assured the Council there was no way to do that without using some very draconian measures. The Council should not put itself into a position where it needed to enact something that was seen as too burdensome and difficult for the businesses to implement and citizens and staff to monitor. Council Member Andersen asked how the TDR could be transferred when there was one owner and the businesses leased the properties and there was no marketable exchange between two lessees. Mayor Simitian clarified if there were 10,000 square feet on parcel A and there was an excess of 10,000 square feet on parcel B, the 10,000 square feet could be moved to parcel A. There was no net loss or gain and there continued to be an equal value between the two parcels. The property owner had achieved some additional gain because of the flexibility to do something on a site that was not possible previously which had tangible value. Council Member Andersen said during the P&S Committee meetings, Stanford University had an opportunity to informally discuss issues. He believed it was appropriate for Stanford University to make some comments regarding the recommendation. Mayor Simitian explained that there had been an opportunity for members of the public to comment at the outset of the Comprehensive Plan process as well as at the outset of the CD Section process. Mr. Schreiber said under the City's existing policy two additions to the floor area limitations could be approved in the Park as part of the development review process: 1) resource conservation, code compliance, or public health and safety, and 2) employee amenities oriented toward reduction in vehicle use, e.g., recre-ation facilities, credit unions, cafeterias, and day care centers. Mayor Simitian clarified the notation of new policy or program (npp) in Policy CD-6.A was correct for the 15 percent but not correct as to the "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."
10/02/95 77-85
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The 15 percent went beyond what was envisioned by the existing City regulations and policies both in terms of the potential uses and the amount of square footage. Mayor Simitian clarified the language proposed by CPAC in Policy CD.6-A, "Allow...Provision of employee services..." was new and would be allowed under the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) if the finding of traffic reduction could be made. Mr. Schreiber said all of the services could be allowed with that finding. Mayor Simitian asked whether a dry cleaning service would be allowed. Mr. Schreiber said yes, if the objective were to reduce the number of employees who drove vehicles during the day. Council Member Andersen asked for Stanford University's response to some of the suggestions proposed. Bill Phillips, Stanford Management Company, said the most important point for the Council to make in its deliberations was to not believe that TDR with respect to the Park would solve any flexibility problem. There was a big difference between tenants on long-term ground leases and tenants in a Downtown area who were on five- to ten-year retail leases. For example, if Hewlett-Packard were adjacent to Varian and Hewlett-Packard was at its maximum in terms of FAR and Varian had some significant amount of FAR left in development potential and both tenants had 50 years remaining on their leases which allowed the tenants to develop up to the City allowed FAR, the transaction was not between Stanford University but between Hewlett-Packard and Varian. The transac-tions were typical TDR Downtown types of transaction and were very hard to execute. Mayor Simitian asked how many parcels in the Park fit the example described. Mr. Phillips said approximately 115 parcels. Mayor Simitian asked if the leases were on the same duration and came due at the same time. Mr. Phillips said the leases were divided between 99-year leases and 51-year leases, although the actual number was probably heavily on the side of the 51-year leases. Mayor Simitian asked whether the termination dates would come due at the same time. Mr. Phillips said no. Most of the major development in the Park was between 1953 and 1968. Mayor Simitian asked whether any leases would reach a termination
10/02/95 77-86
date within the next 10 to 15 years. Mr. Phillips said yes, probably the leases closer to El Camino Real and some of the smaller sites. Mayor Simitian asked whether FAR allocation could be borrowed from one of those sites to send to another location and whether the transaction could be negotiated and bought from one parcel and given to another parcel. Stanford would receive value at the second location and could afford to pay for it at the first location. Mr. Phillips said it was possible that Stanford could find itself at the termination of the leases in a position of being an owner of the properties with shorter term leases that could be more easily negotiated among the tenancies. Ultimately, the determination would be left to Stanford; but it would not give the Council any help in terms of immediate flexibility of a major tenant that the community might want retained in the Park. It was possible that Stanford could help facilitate some of the TDR transfers between the tenants who had an interest in the FARs, but it could probably not be done quickly and along the time lines of somebody who needed an answer promptly. Mayor Simitian asked whether all the tenants who had leases on the 115 parcels wanted to expand in the foreseeable future. Mr. Phillips said no. Mayor Simitian asked what the impediment would be to the parcel A tenant who had no desire to expand in the foreseeable future if the parcel B tenant offered cash to tenant on parcel A to make the sale. Mr. Phillips said there was no impediment under the hypothetical scenario described. For example, Hewlett-Packard could ask Stanford to help facilitate a transaction with Varian, but ultimately, the transaction was between the two parties. Mayor Simitian asked whether Hewlett-Packard could negotiate with any of the 114 parcels that had excess capacity. Mr. Phillips said a tenant would have to be willing to give up the excess capacity for the rest of the term of the lease which was probably many years past their long-term business plan. It was unlikely to find a business willing to give up that capacity for the dollars involved for another tenant's immediate need for expansion. Mayor Simitian was not persuaded that that did not mean there was an ability to make a TDR system work given the fact that there were leases which would expire on a variety of anniversary dates and given the fact that there was a number of lessees who had surplus capacity which they might or might not be willing to make available for another parcel. He believed the concept had potential.
10/02/95 77-87
Council Member McCown clarified the marketplace within the Park would determine whether there was the ability to move the FAR around. Presently, there was no mechanism in place, but the Council was talking about an enabling concept that would allow Stanford and its tenants to use that kind of idea if the situation arose. Mr. Phillips said the Council should look at other models before putting in TDR. TDR was a good concept and it could work at certain times and under certain conditions, but it would not produce significant flexibility within the Park for important tenants at a specific time. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION RESTATED that staff be directed to review the possibility of some flexibility with respect to the transfer of development rights (TDR) or some other mechanism for flexibility within the Stanford Research Park (the Park) which does not result in a net floor area ratio (FAR) increase within the Park; and that the potential of additional employee services/amenities within the Park be reviewed with the proviso that the services/amenities shall result in traffic reduction rather than traffic increases. Council Member Huber asked whether the approximately 1.2 million square feet was excess square footage on build-out parcels or whether there was one large empty parcel. Mr. Phillips was not up to date on the figures. Council Member Huber asked how long the 1.2 million square feet had been unused. Mr. Phillips could not provide the answer that evening. Mayor Simitian asked whether any portion of the 1.2 million square feet was in the area around Coyote Hill. Mr. Phillips did not know the answer that evening. Mr. Schreiber said the 1.2 million square feet did not include any of the lands that surrounded Coyote Hill or the immediate areas that were not zoned limited manufacturing. The sites zoned limited manufacturing, other than 1050 Arastradero Road, were occupied by buildings. There were no other vacant sites. Mayor Simitian recalled that the Council approved a project at 1050 Arastradero Road, and he asked whether the project used all of the allowable FAR on the site. Mr. Schreiber said yes. He said the square footage fell into two categories: 1) 50,000 square feet or less at various sites in the Park that were regarded as build-out sites that could not accommo-date the combination of FAR, parking, landscaping, etc., to maximize the square footage, and 2) larger sites with more than 100,000 square feet of FAR. He said 40 percent of the 1.2 million square feet was in either the Watkins-Johnson site or the Lockheed
10/02/95 77-88
site. Those sites were fully developed with buildings, parking, and landscaping, but the buildings were old and one story. If the parcels were redeveloped into two-story buildings, there would be an opportunity to add notable amounts of square footage. There were a number of sites with substantial amounts of square footage, many sites with small pieces of square footage, and another category of sites that had no square footage allowed. Council Member Huber clarified that Policy CD-6.A and Program CD-6.A1 would be deleted, and there would be no net increase. Mayor Simitian said the original motion would have the addition of the consideration of a TDR concept and other measures that provided flexibility and there would be no net increase in allowable FAR within the Stanford Research Park. Council Member Huber supported the motion. He participated in the 1989 Study and felt the square footage allowed was more than sufficient. The CPAC had tried to lock Stanford into a ULL and had suggested some increased square footage, but Stanford was not interested in a ULL so the reasoning for the increase was no longer valid. Ms. Mossar said Planning Commissioner Tony Carrasco suggested that the Council might want to limit the amount of extra FAR that a given parcel or project could take from the pool, such as 15 percent of the pool, to eliminate massive development in one part of the Park and minimum development in other parts of the Park which would optimize opportunities from a traffic and provision of employee amenities standpoint. Council Member Andersen suggested that the motion include a direction that the P&S Committee have an opportunity to review some of the alternatives prior to the Council's review of the final draft document. Council Member McCown said the document would go through a much more detailed process than the Council's discussion that evening. It might be appropriate for the P&S Committee to review the alternatives, but she wanted to wait until the Council was at that level of detail. The idea might not survive the process since the document still had to go through environmental review and many other things before being finalized. Mayor Simitian agreed with Council Member McCown's comments but it would need some additional review of the details by a Council vehicle in the future. Vice Mayor Wheeler concurred with the comments of Mayor Simitian and Council Member McCown. She believed the comments of Ms. Mossar were also an implementation measure that the Council should consider if the larger policy item remained in the document. Council Member Schneider supported the motion but recalled the P&S Committee meeting when the issue was discussed very closely with Stanford University. Stanford's arguments were very rational
10/02/95 77-89
which she supported at the meeting. Mayor Simitian clarified the Council wanted to give some flexibility to the Park but it had no interest in a 15 percent increase. If staff came up with a different way to get to those twin goals, the Council would be pleased to hear about it. He was frustrated when the Council had a discussion about being "business friendly," and it was misperceived by the community as being synonymous with growth and development. The Council had identified the Stanford Research Park, Downtown, Stanford Shopping Center, and neighborhood business districts and the discussion was not about growth or development but how to make the most of what the City already had. When Stanford University asked the Council for flexibility to make sure that it could staff competitively at the Park, he was interested in trying to accommodate that request because the Park represented 15 percent of the City's annual budget. If Stanford University asked for a 15 percent increase in allowable FAR, he would indicate that he had absolutely no interest whatsoever in accommodating that kind of growth in the Park. He would rather work hard to make sure that Stanford did better with what was already defined which should be the underlying principle of most of the Council's discussions. He agreed with the worth of following up on the suggestion that there needed to be a "percentage cap" in the allowable level of TDR to make certain the Park did not end up with an overconcentration. The Council should remember that the reason the CPAC brought the issue forward was to try to contain the development of the Park in a manageable urban center and try to protect the area in the lower level foothills. One of the reasons he was not willing to pursue the issue was that he was not convinced that 15 percent needed to be given away in order to protect the foothills. The Council's economic strategy should be about improving what the City already had. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating." RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. Council Member McCown recalled that the Cal-Ventura item was continued to the next City Council meeting for the same reason as the Stanford Research Park item. Mayor Simitian clarified all the items beginning on page 14 through page 17 under Goal CD-9, "Encourage the Cal-Ventura Avenue to will evolve into a Mixed-Use District with strong pedestrian links to California Avenue," would be discussed that evening. Council Member McCown referred to Program CD-9.A1, "Prepare a coordinated area plan for the Cal-Ventura Area which 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. Use the land use map from the Community Design Workshop as a starting point in preparing this plan," and she said the Cal-Ventura Area was one of the first areas identified by the CPAC as a potential use of an area plan. She did not believe all
10/02/95 77-90
of the areas mentioned by the CPAC could be pursued, but the Cal-Ventura Area was a high candidate and tied into the Council's previous discussion with the Planning Department about its work program. It also tied into a companion item that related to the amortization decision regarding Fry's Electronics. The area would provide an excellent use of the area planning idea. She suggested the Council endorse the idea as referenced in Program CD-9.A1., build from the work done in the Community Design Workshop for the area, and keep that concept in the document and delete the area planning idea in other areas. Mayor Simitian said there had been some implication that it might be premature to act on the item in the absence of final determina-tion on the Fry's Electronics site. He said regardless of what the Council decided on the Fry's site, the area was a jumble of land use planning; and the Council would be well served whatever happened in the Fry's decision with a coordinated area plan for the Cal-Ventura Area. He asked whether there was any downside with moving forward on a coordinated area plan for that area without Council action on the Fry's site. Mr. Schreiber believed the decision on the coordinated area plan was a valid option no matter what decision was made on the Fry's site. Staff had previously suggested that the Cal-Ventura Area was an appropriate area for an area plan; and if the Council were interested, staff would try to find a way to integrate it with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan process. The other option would be to wait until the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, but he would not recommend that option since it was well known that Hewlett-Packard was moving toward closure, clearance, and redevelopment of its site at 395 Page Mill Road. Mr. Calonne asked how the different steps described would be sequenced. For example, whether the previous discussion about creating a live/work zoning designation and the outcome of the Hewlett-Packard site would depend on the results of the coordinated area plan. Ms. Mossar said the CPAC took the primary concepts from the one-day study session and included that language in the document. CPAC's intention was not to dictate the results of the area-wide plan. She agreed with the City Attorney that the study needed to be done first and then the conclusions made. Mr. Schreiber concurred with the comments of Ms. Mossar. It would not be appropriate at the outset to get into the details, but if an area plan were desired by the Council, staff would want to create a process and return to the Council at the beginning to get a qualitative approach in terms of the objectives, timing, and content of the product. Staff had identified four areas that were the highest priority for area plans: Cal-Ventura, Midtown, Palo Alto Medical Foundation(PAMF)/South of Forest Area (SOFA), and El Camino Real to Charleston Road. Staff believed one or two area plans could be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan update process. The other two areas would have to be done differently or have to be taken up after the Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
10/02/95 77-91
Staff believed the Cal-Ventura Area, because of the Hewlett-Packard issue and the importance of that site, would be the highest priority area. If the PAMF's Urban Lane relocation project were approved, it was conceivable that the PAMF would want to trigger some type of area plan for the adjacent SOFA in 1996 which would be the second area considered in the Comprehensive Plan process. Council Member Huber was concerned about discussing the item before there had been a decision on the Fry's Electronics site. He asked whether the Hewlett-Packard activity drove the area plan rather than the former Maximart site. Mr. Schreiber said the Hewlett-Packard site was the driver from a time standpoint. Hewlett-Packard had met with staff and wanted some direction from the City in the reasonably foreseeable future and would not want to consider the area after the Comprehensive Plan had been adopted. Both WSJ Properties and Hewlett-Packard had expressed strong interest about doing an area plan but Hewlett-Packard wanted to move more quickly. Council Member Huber asked whether the area plan changed if the former Maximart site became residential rather than an extension of the amortization. Mr. Schreiber said WSJ Properties, the owner of the former Maximart site, had indicated that the long-term objective was retention of the residential zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation for that area and the residential redevelopment of that area. It was a question of timing, not ultimate objective. The decision on Fry's would affect the content of the area plan. A process would not begin before the Council took up the issue of the commercial uses at the former Maximart site. It would be one of the key issues that the Council would set some direction on for that area. Staff would not want to begin an area plan without Council direction for that area. Mayor Simitian clarified the plan would not change but the timing of implementation of certain pieces of the plan changed. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Council would be discussing its priorities in a few weeks and he was certain that the majority of the Council would want to finish the Comprehensive Plan during the next two years. He found it difficult to believe that the Planning staff and/or the Council could seriously undertake an area plan which had estimated costs at approximately $250,000 without seriously interfering with the probability of the Council finishing the Comprehensive Plan within the next two years. Mr. Schreiber said staff had done some initial investigation of that work and felt it was doable to incorporate the area plan in the process; but it would only be doable if the Council set some timing parameters for the area plan that would be clearly followed by staff and the public in bringing a product back to the Council.
10/02/95 77-92
An area plan offered an opportunity to become submerged into the process. Staff's intent was to have a streamlined process that did not reduce the quality and not delay the Comprehensive Plan or area plan process. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the large property owners would pay the costs for the area plan. Mr. Schreiber said staff had had indications from both WSJ Properties and Hewlett-Packard that because of the amount of property they had in the area, they saw themselves as having some financial participation in the process. Mr. Calonne said if a policy were created to define the area plans before Council did them, he was confident that a cost recovery mechanism could be written into whatever policy was created. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked for a definition of the boundaries proposed to be included in the coordinated area plan for the Cal-Ventura Area. Mr. Schreiber said there was a primary and a secondary study area. The primary study area was bounded by Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, the Lambert residential area, and the railroad tracks. The primary study area would be large enough to encompass the issues but it would not be so large that it would be impossible to deal with. The secondary study area would include California Avenue, the edge of the Stanford Research Park, and the single-family residences in the Ventura Avenue area. Secondary study areas were important in terms of integrating the primary area, but they were not the focus of a detailed land use study or change. He had begun calling the area the Page Mill Road/Lambert Area rather than Cal-Ventura Area. Mayor Simitian said Mr. Schreiber made frequent references to the plans and desires of the two property owners in the area, but he clarified that the Council's decision about what it needed to plan for in that area was a function of what the City's needs were, not the interests of individual property owners. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the placement of the live/work language in Goal CD-9 might be confusing, but it was picked up from the earlier introductory section of the CD Section. She understood that staff would eliminate the duplication in the editing process. If it misled people to have it stated under that goal, it could be left out of the discussion entirely because it existed in the basic overall introduction of the CD Section. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to delete Program CD-9.A2, "Create and apply a new Live/Work zoning designa-tion that permits housing, office, retail, and light industrial uses to co-exist, provided that the scale of buildings is 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," in that location since it was reflected in Program CD-9.A1, "Prepare a
10/02/95 77-93
coordinated area plan for the Cal-Ventura Area which 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. Use the land use map from the Community Design Workshop as a starting point in preparing this plan." Mayor Simitian asked whether the deletion of Program CD-9.A2 from the program would make it less clear that the Council wanted to see the live/work possibility in the Cal-Ventura Area. He believed the Cal-Ventura Area was a prime area for live/work. There was a lot of resistance to breaking down the barriers of traditional euclidean zoning and CPAC had presented some ideas that would make the City work in ways that were traffic reducing. He wanted to be certain that if the Council went with the generic approach, the concept would not be lost. Mr. Schreiber referred to the last sentence in Program CD-9.A1, "Use the land use map from the Community Design Workshop as a starting point in preparing this plan," and he said the live/work issue was a prominent part of the land use map. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating." Mayor Simitian asked for an explanation of the written notations on page 15 of the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission deleted Programs CD-9.A3, "Encourage a mix of retail and professional office space along El Camino Real. 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 pedestrian amenities including street-facing windows and entries. Rear entries from parking lots are also encouraged," and CD-9.A4, "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," because of duplication in the Business & Economics (BE) Section. Mayor Simitian asked whether the CPAC wanted those ideas to be given consideration in the Cal-Ventura Area. Ms. Mossar said yes. As long as there was an understanding that the starting point was the Community Design Workshop for the area, nothing would be lost if the language were removed. Mayor Simitian asked whether staff viewed that the language in Program CD-9.A1, "...Use the land use map from the Community Design Workshop as a starting point in preparing this plan," also incorporated the language in Programs CD-9.A3 and CD-9.A4. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the information in CD-9.A2 was about the scale of the buildings and performance
10/02/95 77-94
standards related to the buildings and it was not incorporated in the land use map that was referenced in CD-9.A1. Vice Mayor Wheeler's motion deleted the language since she maintained that it had been adopted earlier in the document. Mayor Simitian clarified the language in CD-9.A3 and CD-9.A4 was also proposed for deletion. Ms. Lytle said there was more information about what the mixed-use designation implied and the position of buildings than what was currently contained on the concept map referred to in CD-9.A1. Mayor Simitian asked if the Council used the language in CD-9.A1 which was to use the land use map from the Community Design Workshop as the starting point in preparing the plan, whether it would give staff the clarity about what the Council wanted to do in Program CD-9.A3 which was to "Encourage a mix of retail and professional office space along El Camino Real. Create and apply new zoning standards for Mixed-Use (Office and Retail) designa-tion..." Ms. Lytle said no. The language in Program CD-9.A3 was more detailed than the map referenced in CD-9.A1. Council Member McCown understood the suggestion was to put in the Planning Commission wording from BE-16.A, "Identify key opportunity sites for the development/redevelopment of attractive pedestrian centers that provide neighborhood-oriented commercial (retail and office) services," and BE-16.A1, "Engage in an economic analysis to determine incentives needed to create the changes required to arrive at the goal." Ms. Mossar said the problem with using the BE language in the CD Section was that the BE language was about business and economics but the language in the CD Section was about the way the buildings interfaced and the design of the community. Frequently, the BE language would not be appropriate in the CD Section. Planning Commissioner Tony Carrasco said the retention of the language clarified the aspect of design and made the map clearer. He concurred with the comments of Ms. Mossar regarding the language in the BE Section. Mayor Simitian asked why the Planning Commission made the recommendations. Mr. Carrasco did not believe it was discussed. Council Member McCown was unclear in that context whether that degree of precision, given the starting point that the Community Design Workshop provided, was needed in the document. Ms. Mossar said if the intent of the area plan were to include not only goals but also detailed implementation, then the area plan would generate the specific language for that implementation. She asked whether it would be implemented if the language were not in
10/02/95 77-95
the document. Council Member McCown believed that if an area plan were to be done, then that level of specificity would not be needed in the Comprehensive Plan. She recommended that Programs CD-9.A3 and CD-9.A4 be deleted not because the programs were bad ideas but because the programs were not needed in that level of detail. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Huber, to designate Program CD-9.A3, "Encourage a mix of retail and professional office space along El Camino Real. 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 pedestrian amenities including street-facing windows and entries. Rear entries from parking lots are also encouraged," and Program CD-9.A4, "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," as a "B" category which would preserve the ideas recommended in some manner (e.g. text, implementation section, appendix, separate document). MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating." Mayor Simitian asked for an explanation of the shaded areas and written notations in Policy CD-9.B, "Connect the Cal-Ventura Area with California Avenue and the CalTrain station by providing strong pedestrian connections and encouraging a continuous fabric of streets and buildings," Program CD-9.B1, "Complete Ash Street and improve the streetscape along Park Boulevard," and Program CD-9.B2, "Amend the conceptual map from the Community Design Workshop to extend Birch Street through the Maximart site and connect with the Ventura neighborhood." Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission recommended Policy CD-9.B be retained; that the language in Program CD-9.B1 "Complete Ash Street" be deleted but the language "and improve the streetscape along Park Boulevard" be retained; and that Program CD-9.B2 be deleted. Mayor Simitian asked the Planning Commission rationale for not completing Ash Street and deleting the reference to extending Birch Street. Mr. Carrasco said at the Community Design Workshop, people talked about Birch Street going through. He believed it was a good idea to keep it consistent with the idea of new traditional planning and not allowing large blocks of areas without public streets. Mayor Simitian said a "D" designation recommended an item be deleted/disagree with policy/program, but the staff's comments indicated it was not so much a disagreement but a notation that staff would look at the issue in another way at another time.
10/02/95 77-96
Mr. Schreiber said there were two parts to the issue: if the area plan were done, the issue would arise again; and there was doubt raised about encouraging the use of Ash and Birch Streets because of the difficulty of crossing Page Mill Road. The combination of those two factors led to the deletions. Mayor Simitian clarified it was a future planning issue, not a judgment by the Council, to make a statement on Ash and Birch Streets. Council Member Huber asked how the description in Policy CD-9.C, "The Maxi Mart site should be used primarily for housing and include a park/open space component. New streets and pedestrian connections should complete the street grid and create a more walkable scale," related to the current zoning designation on the site. Mr. Schreiber said the entire former Maximart site was zoned RM-30. Council Member Huber said the word "primarily" implied some cutback in the residential usage. Mr. Schreiber was comfortable with the language within an area planning context because there was a corner between the channel and Park Boulevard that was Cable Co-op's headend facility. He suggested the language "primarily residential" rather than "explicitly residential" would allow some flexibility, and the area planning process could work out the details. Mayor Simitian said the language raised a sequencing question. He said the policy related to the eventual use of the site. He asked if the Council chose to allow an extension of the amortization on the Fry's/Maximart site, whether the language would be inconsistent with that or whether the language should state, "The Maximart site should eventually or ultimately be used primarily for housing and include..." in order to give the Council the flexibility to go either direction at that point. Mr. Schreiber said the Council's decision on the former Maximart site would have been made by the time staff actually drafted the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council's action would be incorporated into the specific wording as the document was edited. If the commercial use were extended beyond the life of the Comprehensive Plan in the Year 2015, it would be reflected in the document. It would be refined even further if there were an area plan. Mr. Calonne concurred with the comments of Mr. Schreiber. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the same answer applied to the yet unformulated fictitious Program CD-9.C1, "A program should be developed addressing the use of the Maxi Mart site in the next 15+ years, including the continuation of retail activity (Fry's Electronics)."
10/02/95 77-97
Mr. Schreiber said yes. Mayor Simitian recalled when the Council previously considered the issue, he suggested that it need not be a win/lose situation and that there was some potential for mixed use that would allow the continued retail activity to exist while moving forward on housing. Unfortunately, the Council Members who were present that evening were not willing to consider that possibility. He wanted to resurface the issue in anticipation of the fact that the Council would be discussing the issue in the near future. He clarified the handwritten notations on Policy CD-9.D, "Evaluation of redevelopment alternatives for Hewlett Packard site at 395 Page Mill Road should contain a mix of office, retail, and residential uses that fit with the scale and character of the surrounding area," represented the wordsmithing of the Planning Commission. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. He suggested that Policy CD-9.E, "Maintain the former railroad right-of-way that extends through the Ventura area as an open space buffer and potential future transportation corridor. Surface parking is an acceptable interim use, provided a landscaped buffer visually screens the parking from adjacent residences," went beyond the general concepts and should be worked out in the area planning process. Mayor Simitian asked whether "railroad right-of-way, parking allocation, and landscape buffer" did not rise to the level of policies for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Schreiber said it might be premature to continue the policy and have it interpreted as a Council direction to move forward rather than have it explored in the area planning process. Mayor Simitian asked whether the CPAC or the Planning Commission had a view on leaving the issue open. Mr. Carrasco said the idea was good, but the overall plan might dictate a different kind of use on that strip. However, he suggested the policy be moved to a "B" category. Mr. Calonne said if the Council began an area-wide planning process before the Comprehensive Plan were adopted, it would not matter. He assumed that the Planning Commission would need feedback on those kinds of policies at the time an area plan was initiated. Ms. Mossar concurred with the previous comments. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, that Policy CD-9.E, "Maintain the former railroad right-of-way that extends through the Ventura area as an open space buffer and potential future transportation corridor. Surface parking is an acceptable interim use, provided a landscaped buffer visually screens the parking from adjacent residences," be designated as a "B" category. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating."
10/02/95 77-98
Council Member Andersen referred to Program CD-9.G2, "If feasible, identify the El Camino Real improvements in the City's Capital Improvement Program and identify alternative funding resources for street tree and streetscape improvements," and asked why the program received a "C" designation. Mr. Schreiber said the staff's comments were part of an effort to reduce the volume of material generated by the CPAC. Staff looked for implementation items that would flow out of other actions and did not need to be stand-alone programs. Council Member Andersen said Program CD-9.G2 seemed to be consis-tent with Program CD-9.G1, "The City shall undertake a study of the feasibility of redesigning El Camino Real so that the number of through travel lanes is reduced from 6 to 4 and create a 2-lane frontage road on the eastern side that provides diagonal parking, wider sidewalks, and the ability to develop a more intimate, pedestrian-oriented space. At a minimum, provide strong safe pedestrian crossings at key intersections," and suggested CD-9.G2 be changed to a "B" designation. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Simitian, that Program CD-9.G2, "If feasible, identify the El Camino Real improvements in the City's Capital Improvement Program and identify alternative funding sources for street tree and streetscape improvements," be designated as a "B" category. Mayor Simitian said the point being made was that there was a connection between the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and some of the community design proposals, and the CPAC encouraged the Council to make that linkage between the CIP and community design. He believed it was a good idea, and a "B" designation was appropriate. Vice Mayor Wheeler said during rational moments, she tended to agree with the staff comments, "It is highly unlikely that Caltrans would agree to reduce El Camino Real (State jurisdiction) from 6 lanes down to 4 lanes unless it was in conjunction with the provision of a Light Rail or similar type transit system within the right-of-way that offered some substantial volume carrying capacity." However, when she traveled in Menlo Park where portions of El Camino Real narrowed to 4 lanes, it was not a pleasant experience. The major difference between El Camino Real in Menlo Park and in Palo Alto was that there was no other major north/south route through Menlo Park that was within reasonable distance from El Camino Real to tempt a person to cut off El Camino Real and avoid the congestion. In Palo Alto, there were several east/west routes. If the City reduced the number of lanes available on El Camino Real and did not provide more public transit options along El Camino Real, it would displace the traffic from El Camino Real onto other north/south arterials such as Alma Street and Middlefield Road which already had complaints about too much traffic from residents on those streets. She did not believe any problems would be solved and only new ones would be created. She would not support including Policy CD-9.G, "At
10/02/95 77-99
retail nodes make El Camino Real more pedestrian friendly and strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along its frontage," or any programs associated with the policy unless it was clear that either one of the things were being studied in conjunction with the provision of Light Rail or a similar type of public transit system along the El Camino Real arterial. Ms. Mossar said the CPAC's intent was to study the feasibility of narrowing El Camino Real in the context of extending the Light Rail into Palo Alto along El Camino Real. The language existed elsewhere in the document. Mr. Schreiber said under Program TR-3.A1, the Council deleted the reference to "work with Caltrans to evaluate alternative lane configurations for portions of El Camino Real in conjunction with provision of Light Rail." The Council felt at the time that the language was too speculative. The difference between Palo Alto and Menlo Park was that El Camino Real carried significantly more traffic in the Cal-Ventura Area. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Schnei-der, to delete Policy CD-9.G, "At retail nodes make El Camino Real more pedestrian friendly and strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along its frontage"; Program CD-9.G1, "The City shall undertake a study of the feasibility of redesigning El Camino Real so that the number of through travel lanes is reduced from 6 to 4 and create a 2-lane frontage road on the eastern side that provides diagonal parking, wider sidewalks, and the ability to develop a more intimate, pedestrian-oriented space. At a minimum, provide strong safe pedestrian crossing at key intersections"; and Program CD-9.G2, "If feasible, identify the El Camino Real improvements in the City's Capital Improvement Program and identify alternative funding sources for street tree and streetscape improvements." Council Member Andersen agreed with Vice Mayor Wheeler's comments regarding the reduction of lanes on El Camino, but he felt that the Council needed to consider CIPs along El Camino Real. Policy CD-9-G would include in the Comprehensive Plan some commitments to the CIP connection on El Camino Real. The Council needed to do something about the aesthetics and pedestrian issues in that area. He would support the motion but wanted the Council to make a commitment that CIPs were needed in the area. Council Member Schneider clarified that Policy CD-9.G2 was made a "B" category which meant that it would be retained in the program. Mayor Simitian understood that Council Member Andersen's desire was to make Program CD-9.G2 a "B" designation which would keep the concept in the Comprehensive Plan but not in the text. Vice Mayor Wheeler had some reservations about the entire program, particularly Policy CD-9.G1, and her motion deleted the entire program/policies. He suggested that Policy CD-9.G be retained, that Program CD-9.G1 be deleted, and that Program CD-9.G2 be raised to a "B" level. The document would agree to pay attention to the need to make items pedestrian friendly, would get rid of
10/02/95 77-100
the El Camino Real things that bothered Vice Mayor Wheeler, and would state somewhere in the document, but not in the language of the text, that the City would know what the CIP was doing. Vice Mayor Wheeler was uncertain whether Program CD-9.G2 flowed well from Policy CD-9.G, but she did not have a conceptual problem with that suggestion. She trusted staff to make it a more logical connection between the wording of a policy and a CIP that related to the design and streetscape improvements on El Camino Real. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO RESTATE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION to retain Policy CD-9.G; delete Program CD-9.G1; and designate Program CD-9.G2 as a "B" category. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating." MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the Community Design Section to the Special City Council meeting on Monday, October 30, 1995. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating." COUNCIL MATTERS 3. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Simitian announced that he would participate in the Santa Clara County Aids Walk and that all of his Council colleagues and the Council Appointed Officers had agreed to donate funds to support his efforts. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/02/95 77-101