HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-06 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 6, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 77-204 1. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Adamson Associates for Infrastructure Management System ....... 77-204 2. Budget Adjustments to Reflect Organizational Changes Implemented with the Adoption of the 1995-96 Budget ... 77-204 3. Introduction of the 1994 Editions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, and the 1993 National Electrical Code; and Streamlining Revisions to the Sign and Fence Ordinances; and Setting a Public Hearing for Novem-ber 20, 1995 .......................................... 77-205 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 77-205 3A. (Old Item No. 5) Council Members Fazzino, Kniss, and Rosenbaum re Consideration of a Charitable Contribution Checkoff Box on Utility Bills to Raise Funds to Help Residents with Temporary Economic Hardship Pay Their Utility Bills ......................................... 77-205 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 77-207 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. in memory of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin ....................... 77-231
11/06/95 77-203
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Mayor Simitian recognized the Den 2 Webelos Scouts who were present in the Council Chambers. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Harry Merker, 501 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding Citizens Police Academy (brochure on file in the City Clerk's Office). Kim Maxwell, 1057 University Avenue, spoke regarding Measure R. Don Branner, 200 Waverley, Menlo Park, spoke regarding Measure R. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding 1970-90 Comprehensive Plan Zoning - CN. Judith Maxwell, 1057 University Avenue, spoke regarding Measure R. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, spoke regarding Measure R. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding Measure R late contributions. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding Measure R. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 3. 1. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Adamson Associates for Infrastructure Management System; change orders not to exceed $7,000 2. Budget Adjustments to Reflect Organizational Changes Imple-mented with the Adoption of the 1995-96 Budget Ordinance 4302 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Transfer Appropriations from Various Departments and Funds to Reflect Adjustments Made With the Adoption of the 1995-96 Budget" 3. Introduction of the 1994 Editions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform
11/06/95 77-204
Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, and the 1993 National Electrical Code; and Streamlining Revisions to the Sign and Fence Ordinances; and Setting a Public Hearing for Novem-ber 20, 1995 Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code and Amending Chapter 16.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code" Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 1994 Editions of the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Housing Code, and Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, Amending the Historic Building Code; Amending Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and Making Certain Findings with Respect Thereto" Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various Sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Permit Requirements" Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 15.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Adopting the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code with Local Amendments" Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code and Amending Chapter 16.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code" MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to move Item No. 5 forward to become Item No. 3A. MOTION PASSED 6-3, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler "no." COUNCIL MATTERS 3A. (Old Item No. 5) Council Members Fazzino, Kniss, and Rosenbaum re Consideration of a Charitable Contribution Checkoff Box on Utility Bills to Raise Funds to Help Residents with Temporary Economic Hardship Pay Their Utility Bills Council Member Rosenbaum said the proposal before the Council that evening was more limited than the previous proposal presented to the Council. Palo Alto residents who paid their utility bills were being asked to consider whether they would be willing to make an additional contribution for the sole and exclusive purpose of helping other Palo Alto residents who might be having temporary
11/06/95 77-205
economic difficulty paying their utility bills. He recalled that the previous discussion was a much broader proposal to consider charitable contributions to many worthy causes. Staff had indicated that there was approximately $15,000 in unpaid utility bills each year that could be attributed to economic hardship. He believed the amount of money that would be raised might be on that same order of magnitude. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) had a similar plan which appeared to have worked for many years and it was administered by the Salvation Army. There were a number of other public utilities that also had a similar program. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to refer consideration of a charitable contribution checkoff box on utility bills to raise funds to help residents with temporary economic hardship pay their utility bills to the Utilities Advisory Commission and staff for a recommendation. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said staff had reviewed the proposal and the use of a checkoff box to pay City utility funds would not raise any legal concern. He envisioned other scenarios that it could change into that would raise legal concerns. James Lewis, 1498 Edgewood, was delighted that the issue was before the Council for consideration. He felt the concept of Palo Alto citizens helping other needy Palo Alto citizens was a tradition that had helped make Palo Alto one of the best cities. He understood that citizens would have the option but not the obligation to make a charitable contribution to the program in any amount they wished. PG&E covered about three-fourths of the State of California and offered a similar program--the REACH Program which took in over $2 million. During the previous 10 years, the program had distributed over $40 million to over 260,000 needy and qualified households. Contributions came from over 70,000 PG&E customers. Many cities in the United States had elected to include that program in its municipal building program. He supported the proposal and looked forward to Palo Alto joining many other cities in offering a utility assistance program for families with a temporary economic hardship. Council Member Kniss supported the proposal. There were not many opportunities for that type of checkoff box. Other cities and the federal and state government had similar programs and had raised a considerable amount of money. Palo Alto was a generous community, and the proposal would probably have a positive outcome. She urged the Council to support the referral. Council Member Huber supported the referral and did not support the previous proposal because it was broader than the proposal before the Council that evening. The present proposal related to the billing process and was worth considering. Council Member Fazzino thanked Mr. Lewis for his tenaciousness regarding the issue. As a limited program, it was a stronger proposal. The proposal's goal to provide a self-funded program to take care of the people in the community who could not afford to pay their utility bills was a worthy goal. He supported the
11/06/95 77-206
proposal and the referral. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direc-tion for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update (continued from October 30, 1995) Mayor Simitian announced that the City Council would review the Community Design Section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). If the section were completed that evening, the Council would not begin a new section. He indicated that the Council had not completed its discussion regarding mobile home parks at the previous City Council meeting, and an issue was also raised by Council Member Rosenbaum at that meeting regarding the Town and Country Village. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Town and Country Village area was a multi-neighborhood center and suggested that the area would probably fit into the Plan on page 36 before the Council started its discussion of neighborhood centers. Council Member McCown referred to Herb Borock's letter dated November 1, 1995, (on file in the Clerk's Office) which raised the question about the distinction between multi-neighborhood centers and neighborhood centers, and she asked the significance of categorizing Midtown as one type of neighborhood center versus another. It could be argued as referenced by Mr. Borock's letter that Midtown was more like the Charleston/Alma/Edgewood Plaza area rather than the California Avenue/South El Camino Real area. Sandy Eakins, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, said the consultant cautioned Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) that the Plan would be confusing if there were very fine distinctions about the levels of descriptions for various neighborhood centers. CPAC felt that Midtown was different and it fit between the intensity of California Avenue and the Town and Country Village which the consultant felt was a more regional shopping center than Midtown. The people on the subcommittee reacted to their own shopping habits. There was no desire to make Midtown different. Council Member McCown said Mr. Borock's letter asked whether there was some message being sent about the intensity of development by putting it in one category versus another category. She clarified
11/06/95 77-207
that CPAC felt Midtown had unique characteristics and it had to be placed in one category versus another. Ms. Eakins said Midtown was a continuum rather than a design for a vision that was not currently present. Planning Commissioner Tony Carrasco said the reason the Planning Commission categorized Midtown as a multi-neighborhood center was because it was located in the center of more than five neighbor-hoods. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified a multi-neighborhood center could be defined as a center that was centrally located and attracted people from a broader radius for shopping or the definition could be defined as the intensity and types of uses that were typically found in various shopping areas. If that were the definition, she felt that Midtown was more similar to the Charleston/Alma/Edgewood area than it was to the California Avenue or Town and Country Village areas. Mr. Carrasco said the Planning Commission had a grading plan and Midtown was not a California Avenue type of center. The businesses in the area were more neighborhood serving rather than regional serving such as in the California Avenue area. However, there were many more neighborhoods than any of the other centers. Mayor Simitian referred to Program CD-17.A3, "Preserve the existing mobile home park as a source of affordable housing near both shopping and transit," on page 31 of the Plan, and he asked for a clarification on the program from staff. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there was no legal issue directly implicated by the proposed program. The state law had a number of protections for mobile home park residents which were typically invoked when someone tried to close or remove a mobile home park. The rules could apply to a city if the city were the initiating closure of a mobile home park. There was also a legal morass created by the combination of local rent control laws for mobile home parks and state law governing the closure of mobile home parks which was not relevant for the proposed program. The state law relating to general and comprehensive plans which encouraged the consideration of mobile parks as affordable housing might be relevant. Another provision in state law stated that an applica-tion by a permit or otherwise could be made to put a mobile home park in a city where land was residentially zoned. There were also provisions that did not allow design review discrimination against manufactured housing and mobile homes. There was no direct issue implicated by a policy statement to preserved a particular park. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Program CD-17.A3 had been identified in the Plan as a new policy or program which was incorrect. The existing Housing Element contained Program 29, "Recognize the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park as an important resource for low- and moderate-income housing opportunities."
11/06/95 77-208
Mayor Simitian felt the language in Program CD-17.A3 meant that the Council would mandate in the Comprehensive Plan that the site would always be a mobile home park. The site was currently zoned residential in the existing Comprehensive Plan and there was a big difference between "mandating" and "recognizing" the site as a mobile home site. He asked whether the proposed program recommended that the residents would own a mobile home park in perpetuity. Mr. Calonne said CD-17.A3 was designated as a program, but he felt the language should be at a policy level. Mayor Simitian asked whether a development in the community had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Calonne said yes in many instances but not generally. Mayor Simitian asked whether the language would prohibit someone from building an apartment complex on the site. Mr. Calonne did not believe it was program implementation language. Mayor Simitian asked what CPAC wanted to achieve through the language. Will Beckett, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, said the concern was that the people who lived on the site would not be able to afford to live on the site if the mobile home park were removed and a new building were constructed. CPAC wanted to make sure that a place was offered for people who did not have the income to afford a home elsewhere in the City. The only way that could be done was to preserve the mobile home park. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Council could legally demand the property owner to retain the site as a mobile home park. Mr. Calonne said yes if it were a economically viable use of the property. Council Member Kniss said the current situation might allow it to be economically viable but she asked what would happen if in the future it no longer became economically viable. Mr. Calonne said the courts' phrase was that "economic viability had to take into account the reasonable investment back expecta-tions of the owner." If the land use designation remained residential and there were Comprehensive Plan language that either strongly urged or required preservation of the mobile home park, a new buyer would not have a reasonable investment back expectation that he/she might develop something more valuable. He would never advise the City Council to impose only one land use designation for a piece of property but it was not unlawful. He emphasized that he did not believe it was program language. The City had
11/06/95 77-209
zoning regulations, not a preservation ordinance. The proposed language would have to be implemented through a series of programs. Council Member Kniss believed the site should remain residential but it was quite different to preserve the site's exact use as a mobile home park. Mayor Simitian said the staff comments, "Note that the preservation of the mobile home park is a change from current policy which reserves the site for housing but not specially for a mobile home park," clearly stated that the purpose of the language was to preserve the site as a mobile home park. Council Member McCown said the existing Comprehensive Plan language, "Recognize the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park as an important resource for low- and moderate-income housing opportuni-ties," referred in the text to opportunities for the City to explore means to preserve the park, including assistance in obtaining any state funding for resident opportunities to purchase the park should that be deemed feasible and desirable. There was language in the current Comprehensive Plan that left the multi-family zoning in place but had a policy concept that the City should be active in continuing to allow the site to be a mobile home facility as opposed to another type of housing facility. If the existing policy were continued, the site would continue to be multi-family zoning but there would be a policy desire that encouraged the City Council to take steps to maintain the site as a mobile home park. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to retain the original language in the existing Comprehensive Plan which reads: "Program 29: Recognize the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park as an important resource for low- and moderate-income housing opportunities." Council Member Kniss was troubled by the use of the word "preserve" and supported the retaining the existing language. Council Member McCown clarified the language indicated the original existing philosophy. Council Member Schneider clarified that CPAC's intent was to maintain the existing mobile home park. She supported retaining the language in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Huber asked whether any aspect of the law regarding mobile home parks required relocation assistance if the status of a park changed. Mr. Calonne said the state law required a property owner to give at least 15 days notice to residents that he/she would be appearing in front of the city. It also required 6 months notice of termination after the owner received a permit; or if no city permit were required, the residents were entitled to 12 months notice.
11/06/95 77-210
Council Member Huber clarified no assistance was required. Mr. Calonne did not believe assistance was required but explained that he had not researched the issue extensively. Council Member Huber clarified that Palo Alto did not have any regulations that would compel that situation either. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. There was a provision that required a closing report to be done that analyzed all of the issues and the consequences of closing a mobile home park. Mr. Schreiber clarified that the language in the motion included the program but did not include program responsibilities or action. Council Member McCown said the intent was that some comparable language to implement that same policy statement would be needed in the future. Mayor Simitian clarified the implementation language was not included in the direction to staff, but a direction to provide implementation language was included in the motion. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Simitian asked staff to describe what a coordinated area plan would be for the Midtown area. Mr. Schreiber explained that a coordinated area plan had extensive public involvement and used considerable planning and other technical and facilitation resources to develop a land use plan for a particular area. He highlighted the fact that for areas such as Midtown where significant revitalization and upgrading were recommended that the involvement of all property owners and other commercial and residential tenants in the planning process was a highly recommended procedure of CPAC. Staff currently had an assignment through the Economic Resources Plan to work with the group of commercial property owners and other stakeholders in the area, including members of the neighborhood, to provide some land use planning concepts for a portion of the Midtown area. Staff used the term "area plan" to recognize that the Midtown area needed concentrated attention to promote both the public and private sector. The term "coordinated area plan" might indicate less importance in that area. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought of Midtown not in terms of its geographical location but rather in terms of the types of businesses that the community wanted to continue to exist in the area and the scale of the development of that particular shopping center. She believed those things preserved the current designa-tion of Midtown as a neighborhood shopping center. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to move the Midtown-related Goals, Policies, and Programs in Section CD.18 to
11/06/95 77-211
the Neighborhood Centers portion of the Community Design Section which begins on page 36 of the CD Section. Council Member Rosenbaum did not object to the motion but pointed out that because of Midtown's geographic location, it probably served a considerable portion of the City which should be consid-ered in the logical scale of the development. Council Member McCown referred to page 18 of the Plan and said the definition of multi-neighborhood centers versus neighborhood centers was almost identical. Midtown might meet the criteria that a multi-neighborhood center served more than one neighborhood, but the distinction was the other centers that would be included in the category. She believed Midtown was closer in character, even though it served multiple neighborhoods, to Charleston, Edgewood, and Alma than it was to California Avenue. It was more in keeping with the Council's and the neighborhood's expectations to have Midtown in the neighborhood center category rather than the multi-neighborhood center category. Council Member Schneider asked whether any of the business or property owners had an opinion about whether Midtown should be a multi-neighborhood center or a neighborhood center. Ms. Eakins said the business owners participated in the workshop and the distinctions followed the workshop so the terms were not discussed at that time. Council Member Schneider was concerned about the effect that the category would have on the new businesses that had recently opened in the area. She queried whether there were economic advantages to being categorized as one center over the other center. Mayor Simitian asked whether there was any difference between defining Midtown as one center or the another. Mr. Schreiber did not believe it made a difference. He could not recall any proposal during the CPAC process that would have changed the Midtown zoning to a more intensive commercial category. Everyone viewed Midtown as having a neighborhood commer-cial-type zoning, but the area clearly served multiple neighbor-hoods. The category was not an effort to upgrade the zoning to allow higher density development. Mr. Carrasco said the Planning Commission graded the neighborhood commercial centers from an intense "red" to a light "pink." The Midtown center was in the light pink category, not the intense red of California Avenue. The center would continue to function under the existing zoning. Council Member Andersen said the Midtown area served a large number of people and the change in the category would acknowledge and reinforce to the community that the Council was not interested in allowing a large supermarket in the area. He supported the motion, but the Council needed to recognize the need to discuss at some point in the future what should be done about inadequate
11/06/95 77-212
grocery facilities in the community. More people in the community were becoming regional in their shopping for groceries. Mayor Simitian asked whether approval of the schematic change that would put Midtown in a category of a neighborhood shopping center would suggest that the Council wanted to close one of the two grocery stores and perhaps two of three video stores. Council Member Andersen said no. He felt the intent of the change was to not allow an increase in the square footage of the existing supermarkets. Mayor Simitian opposed the motion. He felt Midtown was different and had more activity than the other three centers, and the neighborhood wanted even more activity. Midtown was designed to serve a multiplicity of neighborhoods which made it functionally a different place. He did not want a message being sent about the size or quantity of grocery stores in the area. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Simitian "no." Council Member Kniss asked whether the direction to prepare a coordinated area plan would differ from what the Council had already embarked upon with Midtown. Assistant City Manager Bernard M. Strojny said the current approach being taken in Midtown was not the same as the coordinated area plan process that would occur in other parts of the City. A master site plan would be the original product that derived from the process that was currently underway and it would not be an area-wide plan that had been described by staff in previous reports. Council Member Kniss asked how much money had been spent on the current study. Mr. Strojny said approximately $38,000 plus staff time was committed to the process that was currently underway. There was also an earlier market analysis done which included an additional cost of approximately $20,000 to that figure. Council Member Kniss clarified the cost to date was approximately $60,000. Mr. Strojny said that was correct. Council Member Kniss asked how the proposed coordinated area plan would change what had already been done. Mr. Strojny said the language in Program CD-18.A1, "Prepare a coordinated area plan for Midtown with the participation of local businesses, property owners, nearby residents, and the City that addresses: the plans that emerged from the Community Design Workshop; the findings of the Midtown Economic Study; construction and financing of a central plaza/green; design standards for new
11/06/95 77-213
buildings; appropriate mix of uses; incentives for re-use and redevelopment of existing retail buildings; buffering adjacent residences; landscaping and reconfiguring parking lot, including reconfiguration of the City's public parking lot; phasing strate-gies; and feasibility of incorporating day care," would place the Midtown approach in the same context as the area-wide planning efforts that had been proposed by staff for other parts of the City such as the California Avenue/Ventura Avenue (Cal-Ventura) area. It would not be as extensive as the area-wide planning process which was a master site plan prepared by the property owners as well as a traffic study funded by the City as a proforma analysis. Council Member Kniss was still concerned about the cost issue. Mr. Schreiber said a major factor in Midtown was that property owners of some of the key commercial properties had been histori-cally quite reluctant to either cooperatively work together to come up with multi-parcel solutions and to engage in substantial planning discussions with the City and the neighborhood for that area. The area was similar to parts of El Camino Real than to some of the other areas in the community where the parcels were smaller and the property owners were independent thinkers. The effort currently underway would try to bring the key commercial property owners together and try to facilitate an integrated plan for their area in cooperation with members of the neighborhood. The process, if successful, could lead to some simple zone changes or it might lead to something larger. It was uncertain at the present time what kind of environmental review would be needed. The outstanding issue was what would be done by the remaining commercial area. The Safeway Market was not part of the focus or the sites on the other side of Middlefield Road, and there had been no discussion about how to integrate those areas into a broader plan. A broader planning effort would probably not be successful if the major property owners were not willing to participate. Council Member Kniss was concerned that Program CD-18.A1 was too far reaching since the City had already spent $60,000 on the area and future costs might be excessive. She would be more comfortable if the coordinated area plan were done in small incre-ments. Mayor Simitian said the coordinated area plan and other things that had been discussed by the Council would be done over the life of the Plan. The program was a vision of what the Council wanted to happen in Midtown. Everything would have to be done on the list to realize the vision articulated in the Comprehensive Plan, and he believed everything would be done incrementally. None of the plans would amount to anything unless there were some implementation measures that brought accountability to the process. Council Member McCown recalled that the language was written before the Council had authorized a specific study that was currently underway. The current study would incorporate many of
11/06/95 77-214
the elements listed under Program CD-18.A1. Since the Council would receive the current study before it finalized the program language, she felt all of the program language should be continued until the Council had the benefit of the interim study that had already been funded and authorized. The Council could then determine more specific program implementation language that should be included in the Comprehensive Plan. The coordinated area plan had been superseded by the previous steps taken by the Council to authorize a different type of approach. Council Member Kniss concurred with the comments of Council Member McCown. Council Member McCown asked whether the timing would work if the programs were continued. Mr. Strojny said the study should return to the Council by February 1996 which would be before the Council finalized program language in the Plan. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to continue the following programs: Program CD-18.A1, "Prepare a coordinated area plan for Midtown with the participation of local businesses, property owners, nearby residents, and the City that addresses: the plans that emerged from the Community Design Workshop; the findings of the Midtown Economic Study; construction and financing of a central pla-za/green; design standards for new buildings; appropriate mix of uses; incentives for re-use and redevelopment of existing retail buildings; buffering adjacent residences; landscaping and reconfiguring parking lot, including reconfiguration of the City's public parking lot; phasing strategies; and feasibility of incorporating day care"; Program CD-18.B1, "As part of the coordinated area planning process, develop site-specific zoning and architectural standards that preserve the scale and multi-neighborhood-serving focus of Midtown"; Program CD-18.C1, "Study, map, and rezone the area east of Middlefield as appropriate for Mixed-Use (Retail and Office)," until after the results of the current Midtown study or conclusion of the comprehensive planning effort depending on which occurred first. City Manager June Fleming clarified that approximately $50,000 had been spent on the current Midtown study which was a focused area study and not as broad in concept as the plan for the other areas. The plan for the other areas would probably cost more than $200,000. The results from the Midtown study would only provide guidance, and she was not convinced that it would serve as a prototype for other areas. She agreed with the comments of Council Member McCown that the study would provide information and that it would return to the Council in time to apply to the discussion of other areas. The difference between the work done in Midtown and the Cal-Ventura area was the Council's involvement and principles and guidelines that needed to be set out before the studies began. She emphasized that the program was written before staff had had an opportunity to work out the details.
11/06/95 77-215
Council Member Kniss said the City Manager's comments clarified the direction of the issue that evening. Mayor Simitian clarified the Council would receive less than the level of detail that was indicated in the Plan. If, and when, the Council wanted that additional level of detail in the program implementation language, it would still be available for reconsid-eration because the programs were continued rather than being replaced without any possibility for reconsideration. Council Member Huber asked how the current work being done in Midtown would relate to an area plan, i.e., was it usable and would it reduce the cost of $250,000 to $300,000 for an area plan. Ms. Fleming said it might reduce some of the costs, but she was uncertain whether it would be a significant amount since the scope was much larger. Steps might be saved by some of the procedures that had already been done. Council Member Huber would support the motion. He believed an area plan was needed in Midtown but it was appropriate to wait until the Council received the current study and continue the programs until that time. Council Member Andersen wanted the property owners to participate in the process and did not want to move forward until the Council knew the level of commitment from the property owners in response to the things that were being discussed. He looked forward to the completion of the study. At that point, the Council could make a decision on how a specific direction could be implemented. Mr. Calonne was concerned that the Council action did not address what would happen if the Midtown study was not done before the Council took action on the draft policies. Mayor Simitian clarified if the issues were unresolved prior to action on the Comprehensive Plan, the items would return to the Council for consideration. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. Mayor Simitian asked what was meant by the language "maintain the scale and local serving focus of Midtown." Mr. Schreiber said "local serving" meant serving the local residential community in that area and it was broader than one neighborhood. The scale and focus would continue to be maintained. The area primarily served a central part of Palo Alto but had a multi-neighborhood focus. Mayor Simitian clarified "local serving" meant that the area would continue to serve multi-neighborhoods. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Policy CD-18.C, "Create a public plaza and green as a central focal point to Midtown. As shown in the conceptual map prepared during the Design Workshop,
11/06/95 77-216
new mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail and offices above should be placed around the plaza. Entries, windows, and outdoor seating areas should line the space." He was concerned about the mention of mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail and offices above and the parking requirements. The language gave the general feeling that a neighborhood or multi-neighborhood center was a retail area and that the offices had their own parking requirements which would cut down on the retail owner's parking availability. Mr. Schreiber said CPAC's thrust for Midtown, as it was for a number of other areas, was that existing conditions were such that substantial physical change and upgrading of the area was desired. Some design element would be needed for that type of physical change, i.e., renovation, rehabilitation, which would be acceptable to the surrounding neighbors. It was like a redevelopment process in some jurisdictions, but the City did not have a redevelopment agency so it had to use incentives. The language referred to mixed-use buildings, reconfiguring existing parking lots, and planting trees, etc., which were in the category of incentives. The design items were in the category of future development that was acceptable to the neighborhood so that change could be brought about in a positive way. The specifics were less important than the fundamental policy question which was whether the Council wanted Midtown to change. If the Council wanted Midtown to change, it would have to do something to spur the private sector to bring about that change because the existing zoning regulations had not brought about much of a positive change. Change generated concern, opposition, and problems and a process was needed to handle that concern. Council Member Rosenbaum was concerned over the parking require-ments associated with the office space. The four acres where Bergmann's and the Midtown Market were located could have 2 acres of retail and 2 acres of parking. If the entire area were in the form of ground floor retail with offices above, there would be 40,000 square feet of retail, 40,000 square feet of office, and 2 acres of parking. There would be the same amount of parking but half the retail. The Council needed to decide whether it wanted to keep the shopping center retail. The Council recognized that something had to be changed because the private sector at the present time was not working. He asked why it was necessary to bring in the office factor. Mr. Schreiber explained the ratio would be 1 acre of retail and 3 acres of parking if the area were only retail. Retail land seldom developed with more than 0.2 to 0.25 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) because the rest of the land had to used to satisfy the parking needs. That was a suburban parking lot oriented vision. CPAC's vision was a more intense vision that involved multi-story buildings that might require parking underground or a combination of things and some relaxation of parking requirements to facilitate that type of change. Currently, the neighborhood commercial zoning was very restrictive on office uses. The policy's language was that office uses might need to be encouraged to provide an economic incentive to bring about the physical
11/06/95 77-217
change that CPAC thought was desirable in that area. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the workshop did not anticipate structure parking. The intensification that came out of the workshop would have been accommodated by another proposal, which had been controversial, that the on-street parking would have to be created through the narrowing of Middlefield Road. The number of spaces that were created in that narrowing process would offset that intensification. If the road were not narrowed, the only way to achieve a pedestrian-oriented design concept was the slight intensification of mixed-use, two-story buildings which would hopefully provide an incentive for upgrade and amenities to the area. Another structure would need to be found if it were not taken from the street. One aspect of Midtown that was currently considered an asset for a pedestrian oriented design was that the parking was located for a large part of the segment that was under study to the rear of the buildings. Council Member Rosenbaum did not have a vision of a parking structure in Midtown, and he suspected the neighbors of Midtown did not have one either. He was also uncertain whether the narrowing on Middlefield Road to allow parking on the street would be acceptable. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to delete the second sentence of Policy CD-18.C, "Create a public plaza and green as a central focal point to Midtown. As shown in the conceptual map prepared during the Design Workshop, new mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail and offices above should be placed around the plaza. Entries, windows, and outdoor seating areas should line the space." Council Member McCown said it made sense to delete from the policy the second sentence which specifically referred to a particular design idea that mixed-use building with ground floor retail and office should be placed around the plaza. Council Member Kniss said the Council had previously continued its discussion regarding the construction and financing of a central plaza and green, and she felt the Council should also continue its discussion of Policy CD-18.C. Mayor Simitian understood the previous motion continued specific program language, but that did not mean that those issues had been continued as part of the policy discussions. Mr. Schreiber said the motion specifically continued Programs CD-18.A1, CD-18.B1, and CD-18.C1. Ms. Fleming said the public process would present a design and the Council's discussion would indicate what the Council wanted before the process was completed. Council Member Huber said he philosophically agreed with the motion, but the current process when completed might indicate that the neighbors agreed that there was some component of office space
11/06/95 77-218
that would be appropriate. He opposed the motion because he would rather wait until the current process had been completed. Council Member Kniss said the motion indicated the Council had ruled out something for the future, and she asked whether it was part of the coordinated area plan. Mr. Schreiber replied that the plaza concept came out of the one-way Midtown land use workshop. The intent was that the concept would be pursued during an area planning process. There was a great deal of support at that time for some type of public plaza gathering point to help unify and focus the Midtown area. CPAC raised it to the level of a policy because of the support heard for that type of concept. Council Member Kniss opposed the motion, however, that did not mean she was in favor of the language. The Council was looking at a coordinated area plan, a plan that had not been completed, and something that related to the design workshop. Council Member Andersen believed the motion was premature, and he wanted to wait and review the dynamics of the current plan that was underway first. He was not enthusiastic about a lot of office space in Midtown, but he understood there was a need for a particular critical mass in order for the businesses to operate. Council Member McCown believed the first and last sentence of the policy statement was a good policy direction because it encouraged a public plaza or green as a central focal point to Midtown and the uses around that public plaza and green should include entries, windows, and outdoor seating areas. She said the second sentence was too specific about a combination of mixed-use buildings with ground floor and retail or offices. Her support of the motion was not an indication of a lack of support for offices, but she felt the Council should not define in the policy statement exactly what the right combination of uses might be around a public plaza. She wanted to leave the first and last sentence in place in the policy and delete the second sentence. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue the discussion of the second sentence in Policy CD-18.C, "As shown in the conceptual map prepared during the Design Workshop, new mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail and offices above should be placed around the plaza," until the other issues associated with Midtown are discussed. Council Member Fazzino was uncertain that the substitute motion would do anything different than suggested by the original motion. Mayor Simitian replied that the original motion deleted the sentence, but several Council Members indicated that he/she might want to preserve their options. The substitute motion would allow the Council to preserve that option for future discussion. He preferred to associate himself with Council Member McCown's comments that the language was too specific and somewhat inconsis-tent with the Council's previous direction on the area. He did
11/06/95 77-219
not believe it precluded the opportunity for the Council to revisit the issue upon discussion of the coordinated plan. He supported the original motion. Council Member Kniss preferred that the Council be consistent and continue its discussion of that policy as well. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she could support both motions. The parts left in the original motion were more similar to the understand-ings of Council Member McCown than to Council Member Rosenbaum interpretation. Her intent was similar to Council Member McCown's interpretation. The Council needed to consider during its discussions that there were many things embedded in the set of policies; and if the Council accepted the notion that there would be a certain amount of building development on the parcel, then it would also have to accept a different way to treat the automobile in that area. She urged her colleagues to make their votes consistent between and among the various policies that would be discussed that evening. Council Member Andersen said flexibility and parking would drive the issue, not mixed-use or offices. He did not want to send a message to staff that the Council did not want to hear anything about office buildings. He wanted to know if office buildings made it work, then he could make a decision based on issues that allowed for the flexibility and the parking. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Fazzino, McCown "no." RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:35 P.M. Council Member Andersen referred to Program CD-18.E2, "Retain existing housing sites along Colorado Avenue, but consider increasing the density to allow townhouses, co-housing, and/or housing for the disabled," and he asked about the portion and distance of Colorado Avenue that was referred to in the program. Ms. Lytle referred to a composite diagram from the Midtown workshop results, and said the area that could afford some intensification according to the workshop results were the first five lots on Colorado Avenue on both sides of the street toward Ross Road. Council Member Andersen asked whether the location was behind the Safeway Store. Ms. Lytle replied yes. Council Member Andersen said Policy CD-18.F, "Improvements should be made to Middlefield Road in Midtown only to slow traffic, make the street pedestrian-friendly, and draw the east and west sides of the commercial area together. The existing right-of-way could be configured to widen sidewalks, reduce the number of travel lanes from four to two, enhance on-street parking, incorporate bike lanes, add a median in the center of the street, and add street trees to improve the area's image," referenced the
11/06/95 77-220
reduction of travel lanes from four to two lanes. He had spoken to many people in the area who had indicated concern about that kind of design change which would have a significant effect on traffic in the surrounding area, particularly the Cowper Street area. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to revise Policy CD-18.F, "Improvements should be made to Middlefield Road in Midtown only to slow traffic, make the street pedestrian-friendly, and draw the east and west sides of the commercial area together. The existing right-of-way could be configured to widen sidewalks, reduce the number of travel lanes from four to two, enhance on-street parking, incorporate bike lanes, add a median in the center of the street, and add street trees to improve the area's image," and delete any reference to the reduction from four to two lanes. Council Member Andersen appreciated the fact that CPAC was trying to create additional parking, but there was traffic from the southern part of the region that used Middlefield Road as well as the traffic during the school hours. It might be a good design policy but he felt certain it was not a good traffic policy. Mr. Beckett said it was important not to consider it as a narrowing of Middlefield Road. It was not simply a reduction of through lanes, but it was a transportation change in front of the Midtown area. It was a combination of things. The flow in the Midtown area, especially the right-hand lanes, turned typically into the many curb cuts that went into different parking lots in that area. CPAC envisioned a reduction of curb cuts, parking behind the stores that would be accessed by the side streets, with left-hand turn lanes to service those areas. The through lanes would not stop in Midtown because of the reduction of curb cuts. The flow would improve compared to the present situation and it would make the area more walkable. If that could not be achieved, then the area would need to be reexamined. Council Member Andersen asked whether the bus routes along that area were considered. Mr. Beckett said the bus routes were not discussed. The hope was to improve the flow in Midtown and create a walkable area. Planning Commissioner Kathryn Schmidt said the design consultant believed that that type of circulation would work. The Planning Commission felt that if the items were the draft Plan, the items would be evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Other neighboring cities could be looked at that had existing situations, e.g., Willow Road from Middlefield Road to Highway 101 had two lanes and a commercial area near the freeway. Mr. Carrasco said it was noted during the workshop that people drove slower on Middlefield Road north of Oregon Expressway because of the two lanes and sidewalks and parked cars on either side. South of Oregon Expressway the cars traveled at least 10 miles per hour faster, and pedestrians felt less comfortable even
11/06/95 77-221
though it was a commercial area. The Council needed to choose between a quieter, smaller scaled pedestrian area versus an automobile throughway. If the Council chose a throughway, Midtown would have less of a chance of becoming a center where people felt comfortable walking. Mayor Simitian asked whether people would have to move slower north to south and south to north or would the traffic be pushed to Alma Street, Highway 101, or nearby adjacent residential streets if the Council made that choice and the area ceased to be a throughway. Mr. Carrasco said if the number of cars in the area remained the same, the alternative would be that the traffic would move onto Louis Road or Cowper Street. People would probably not travel on that street as much if they had an intolerance for time. The true impact of two lanes, three lanes, or four lanes was unknown, and he felt it would be better to continue the issue and discuss it with the rest of the issues regarding Midtown. The Council might come to the conclusion that University Avenue in the Downtown carried the same volume of traffic as Middlefield Road at the Midtown location. Ms. Fleming believed the issue was being considered as a part of the Midtown study. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue the discussion of elements of Policy CD-18.F, "Improvements should be made to Middlefield Road in Midtown only to slow traffic, make the street pedestrian-friendly, and draw the east and west sides of the commercial area together. The existing right-of-way could be configured to widen sidewalks, reduce the number of travel lanes from four to two, enhance on-street parking, incorporate bike lanes, add a median in the center of the street, and add street trees to improve the area's image," that relate to the reduction from four to two lanes until the other issues associated with Midtown are discussed. Council Member Kniss recalled that there was a substantial cost regarding that issue. She asked whether the information would return to the Council with the study. Ms. Fleming did not believe the study would indicate how much it would cost to make the physical changes but it would indicate whether the changes were possible. A rough cost estimate could possibly be done at that time. Council Member Fazzino clarified if the Council approved the continuance, it would retain the possibility of narrowing Middlefield Road based upon the information that the Council received regarding its impact on neighborhood streets and other related concerns. Mayor Simitian said that was correct. He clarified the substitute motion to continue was limited to the reference to reduce the number of travel lanes from four lanes to two lanes and the
11/06/95 77-222
remainder of Policy CD-18.F would remain in the document. Council Member Andersen said that was correct. He said many of the issues might have to be evaluated and assessed at a later date. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-1, Kniss "no." Council Member Schneider recommended that the phrase "should be permitted" be changed to "would be desirable" in Program CD-18.G1, As a part of the preparation of a coordinated area plan, prepare a detailed list of the types of local-serving retail uses that should be permitted within the Midtown area," and also change the designation to "A." MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to revise the language in Program CD-18.G1 to read as follows: "As a part of the preparation of a coordinated area plan, prepare a detailed list of the types of local-serving retail uses that should be permitted would be desirable within the Midtown area," and to make it an "A" designation. Council Member Andersen asked that the motion be divided for the purposes of voting. He was not comfortable with making the program an "A" designation. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING Council Member Andersen said Midtown currently had three video rental stores in the area which concerned the existing merchants. The area had become a regional center for video rentals. Because of market forces, he did not discourage the businesses but it was ridiculous to have so many video stores in a center. He asked whether the City could do anything regarding the situation. Mr. Schreiber said the City did not want to regulate nor did the City have the expertise to regulate the number of a particular type of use in commercial areas. He would hesitate to do anything to discourage business owners from starting or upgrading a business in Midtown given the rather tenuous economic environment in that area. Ms. Lytle said as an area began to upgrade, a collaborative marketing plan could be implemented by property owners and marketing associations for the centers which had been done in other communities. It was one way for an economic resources program to encourage, not through zoning tools, the same coalition that was being developed through the planning processes currently underway to understand what made a healthy center and what the City found desirable. It was a public/private collaboration rather than a requirement. Council Member Schneider said that was one reason she wanted Policy CD-18.G1 elevated to an "A" designation. A list of the types of businesses that would be desirable would encourage diversity within the center. There were very few areas she would support allowing anything but market forces dictate what type of
11/06/95 77-223
business belonged in an area. Marketing the area with a list of desirable businesses would only improve the area more rapidly. Council Member Huber asked what would be done with the list. Council Member Schneider said the list would send a clear message about what was desired in the area. There was a strong desire on the part of the members of CPAC and the people from the Midtown area to have specific types of local serving businesses in the area. As the area became updated, there was a better chance of getting a mix of businesses. Council Member Huber clarified that was part of the preparation of a coordinated area plan. Council Member Schneider said that was correct. 1st PART OF THE MOTION regarding the revised language to delete should be permitted and to add would be desirable. 1st PART OF THE MOTION PASSED 9-0. 2nd PART OF THE MOTION regarding A designation. 2ND PART OF THE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Andersen, Wheeler "no." Mayor Simitian said it was the appropriate place in the Plan to discuss the issue of the Town and Country Village Shopping Center. Council Member Rosenbaum felt the Town and Country Village Shopping Center (Town and Country Village) was an attractive shopping area but it might be an area that was under pressure. The ownership would eventually change, and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) would probably build a facility next door. He believed it was important to maintain the character and ambience of the area. He emphasized that his proposal would not require that there would be no changes because the configuration of the area could change. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to add a new Goal CD-18-A, "Maintain the existing scale, architectur-al character and community-serving retail orientation of the Town and Country Village Shopping Center"; and Policy CD-18.A-A, "Any future development plans or efforts to add residential or other land uses to the Town and Country Village Shopping Center should seek to preserve the existing amenities on the site, i.e., a variety of community-serving retail shops and grocery stores; native oak trees; Hacienda-style buildings, walkways and outdoor spaces; and authentic random-colored barrel tile roofs." Vice Mayor Wheeler asked what had been done in the previous sections, i.e., Business and Economics, with respect to the Town and Country Village and whether there was anything in those sections that was inconsistent with the proposed motion. She said the language on page 26 of the CD Section indicated a different potential vision for the Town and Country Village than had been
11/06/95 77-224
enunciated in the motion. Mr. Schreiber said the reference on page 26 of the CD Section was under the Dream Team which spoke about the feasibility of placing housing on a portion of the site. The intent was to either have it included as part of the redevelopment of the site, if and when that happened, or to be done as an adjunct to the existing center or a renovated center. A more substantive program in terms of change addressed Town and Country Village as a potential hotel site which had been deleted by the Planning Commission and the Council. Council Member Andersen said that type of shopping center had almost disappeared in other areas of the state. He asked whether the owner of the property still owned a similar site in Sunnyvale. Mr. Schreiber said the owner previously owned the San Jose Town and Country Shopping Center and might still own the shopping center in Sunnyvale. Council Member Andersen was correct that those types of shopping centers had disappeared over the previous 5 to 10 years. Council Member Andersen asked why the City still had that type of shopping center. Mr. Schreiber said a site such as the Town and Country Village had a high land value and a low building value. When a site was sold, the economic return off the buildings did not usually match the sale price so the desire was to build new contemporary buildings that were viewed as better suited to today's market. The Town and Country Village had not changed for 35 plus years. Council Member Andersen asked what was the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the site. Mr. Schreiber said the FAR was approximately 0.25. Council Member Andersen asked whether the proposed program would mandate a style. He was concerned about the legality of such a proposal. Mr. Calonne explained that there was no implementation set out in the proposed program. The planning document would not have any actionable impact on the property rights. Some issues might have to be dealt with when the rezoning was implemented. Nothing was insurmountable or unique about the proposal, and that kind of planning happened frequently. Council Member Andersen asked how the Town and Country Village compared with other retail areas in the City. He did not believe it was a major economic development because of the size of the site. Mr. Schreiber said his sense of the economic activity at the Town and Country Village over the previous 10 to 15 years was that it had not kept up with the Downtown or the Stanford Shopping Center.
11/06/95 77-225
The sales revenue had probably not kept up with inflation. Council Member Andersen asked whether the proposal precluded the use of the rear parking lot. He felt the land use on the site was inefficient. He asked what was meant by the phrase "maintain the existing scale." Council Member Rosenbaum said Policy CD-18.A-A, "Any future development plans or efforts to add residential or other land uses to the Town and Country Village Shopping Center should seek to preserve the existing amenities on the site...," related to that issue. There was some wasted space at the rear of the site which could be used for something else, but he wanted to maintain the character of the area. The proposal would not prevent or preclude additional construction. Council Member Andersen asked whether it would be acceptable for an owner to present a proposal that added additional FAR but main-tained the existing amenities and style of the site. Council Member Rosenbaum said the goal and policy as stated would allow that type of proposal, but there was existing limits that would not allow a great deal of expansion over the current FAR. Council Member Huber said the Council reduced the FAR on Town and Country Village in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study and he asked what was the current FAR for the site. Mr. Schreiber said the existing FAR was in the range of 0.3. The zoning allowed approximately 20,000 square feet of additional expansion. He clarified there were no direct references to the Town and Country Village in the Business and Economics Section of the Plan. Council Member Huber clarified approximately 20,000 additional square feet could be added to the site. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Kniss clarified the proposal would perpetrate the type of character and ambience of the center. However, there was a possibility of change if the ownership of the center changed. Mayor Simitian referred to Goal CD-18-A and said he recalled that there was a fair amount of office use on the second floor of site. He asked whether the proposed language had any impact on that use. Council Member Rosenbaum wanted a retail center but said that the phrase "retail orientation" in the goal would continue to allow the existing second-story office use. Council Member McCown supported the motion. She felt the proposal was the kind of policy statement that the Council should make in that situation and it did not define exactly what the future mix might be. The policy direction would be defined as to how the
11/06/95 77-226
site would be reused if additional proposals or redevelopment of the property came forward. She felt the proposal was exactly the guidance that the Comprehensive Plan should provide without indicating what the FAR might be in the future. Council Member Fazzino reminded the Council that the development in the late 1950s replaced one of the most historic structures in Palo Alto history--the John Lucas Greer home. He agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum's intent that the site retain the current scale and intensity of use. He believed it was particularly important given the location of a high school and the entrance to Stanford University on three other sides of the intersection. He enthusiastically supported the motion. Council Member Schneider said the Town and Country Village had less turnover of tenants that any of the other neighborhood shopping center in the City. Many of the businesses had been at that location since the center opened. She believed retaining the existing architectural style of the site would be compatible with the proposed architectural style for the PAMF's expansion. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Andersen "no," Kniss absent. Mayor Simitian suggested that Midtown be added to Neighborhood Centers on page 36 of the Plan. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to revise Policy CD-19.A to read: "Identify Charleston Center, Edgewood, and Alma Center, and Midtown as Neighborhood Centers." MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Huber said the Policy CD-18.B, "Maintain the scale and local-serving focus of Midtown and enhance the economic vitality of the area," could be generically used for all of the neighborhood centers. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Simitian, to include the language from Policy CD-18.B, "Maintain the scale and local-serving focus of Midtown and enhance the economic vitality of the area," under Goal CD-19, "Encourage local commercial centers that serve neighborhoods. (local shopping, groceries, restaurants, bookstores)," as a reference for all neighborhood centers. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Andersen asked whether the proposed language would not allow further expansion of the grocery stores in those areas. Council Member Huber did not believe the generic statement about economic vitality spoke for or against such an expansion. Mayor Simitian said Edgewood Shopping Center also served East Palo Alto and he asked whether the language about "local serving" included East Palo Alto.
11/06/95 77-227
Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member McCown clarified that the possibility of area plans for those centers was contemplated in that section. The staff's comments on page 36 recommended an alternative to CD-19.A2 which did not need to be in the document at the present time. When the Council received the results of the study from the Midtown area, there might be some expanded generically applicable programs that could put in the Plan for the other neighborhood centers. She asked staff to note the possibilities for other neighborhood centers when the Council discussed the programs in the Neighborhood Center Section of the Plan after the Midtown process. She asked whether there was a direct discussion analysis and recommendation one way or the other from CPAC on the issue of grocery store size. Council Member Schneider referred to Policy CD-20.B, "Add small local-serving retail to Civic Centers, and Program CD-20.B1, "Encourage the provision of small cafes, delis, or coffee carts in Civic Centers," and said there had been some discussion about placing local serving retail at Civic Centers, particularly the Civic Center Plaza. There was a number of coffee shops in the general area of Civic Center Plaza and those businesses could be negatively impacted by a coffee cart in the area. The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and a number of business owners had brought the matter to her attention. The people who owned the carts did not pay the kind of rents that the local businesses had to pay in order to maintain their businesses. The Cultural Center was an example of an area where there was no local businesses close by no businesses were impacted by a coffee cart. She suggested the program's language be more specific regarding whether there were local businesses to serve the public within a certain distance. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to revise Program CD-20.B1 to read: "Encourage the provision of small cafes, delis, or coffee carts in Civic Centers, where local serving businesses were not nearby." Council Member McCown asked whether coffee carts were permitted in Civic Centers. Mr. Schreiber said a civic center was defined as public facili-ties, schools, parks, meeting halls, or public gathering places, including City Hall, post offices, Cubberley Community Center, libraries, the Cultural Center, high schools, etc. The City did not have a procedural mechanism in place to allow vendors on Civic Center Plaza. The City did allow push cart vendors in a number of locations in the Downtown area. Council Member McCown asked how the language would change what was currently being done. Mayor Simitian clarified it would encourage a process to be put in place that would allow small cafes, delis, or coffee carts in a greater number of locations than was currently accommodated.
11/06/95 77-228
Ms. Lytle said that was correct. The program came from the effort to put those amenities in Civic Centers where it was the only walkable destination for large segments of the community. It was discovered that there were some neighborhoods in the community that only had a civic center that people could walk to. Council Member McCown was uncertain how the Council could distin-guish one site as off limits and then allow another site to have a cart on the sidewalk. Ms. Fleming explained that the term "civic center" was used to describe certain areas and did not refer to just Civic Center Plaza. She said Council Member Schneider's effort was to indicate that the amenities should not compete with local businesses. Council Member McCown said there were other locations in the Downtown where similar types of uses would compete with local businesses. It did not make sense for the Council to make the distinction that it could not be done on Civic Center Plaza. Council Member Fazzino clarified the proposed motion's position was against the municipalizing of the coffee cart industry in Palo Alto. He understood the intent of the motion, but he was concerned about establishing a policy that prohibited the Council from doing something. He was uncertain that there was a great need for coffee carts in front of Civic Center Plaza given the proliferation of coffee shops in the Downtown area. At the same time, the Council might decide at some point in the future to allow a person to run an espresso franchise at the Civic Center Plaza to serve City employees and the public. He agreed that in places such a Cubberley Community Center and the Cultural Center that providing those kinds of services were important to Palo Altans. He felt the policy language addressed the concerns that Council Member Schneider had about interfering with private businesses in the Downtown area, but at the same time, he felt creative steps could be taken to provide those kinds of services in areas where they were needed. Council Member Andersen said some people preferred to stand outside and eat, and he did not believe those businesses competed with the retail establishments in Palo Alto. He would oppose the motion. Vice Mayor Wheeler was concerned that the motion would adversely impact the Farmer's Market which was temporarily located on a civic space and was composed of small carts that sold products that other merchants in the Downtown sold. She would not want to put that institution in peril either. She would oppose the motion. Mayor Simitian said the Civic Center section of the Plan was more important than people realized. One of the themes that ran through the entire process was the desirability for and the need to create community spaces. It was a function of Community Design to create spaces that reinforced the City's notion of community
11/06/95 77-229
that brought people together and gave them an opportunity to interact. The reason there had been the proliferation of little places to gather in the City on a commercial level was because the community had a tremendous desire for gathering places. When the community had 22 elementary schools, the schools served as neighborhood centers where people gathered. The discussions regarding El Camino Real and Midtown were about the same thing. He hoped as the Council continued its discussion that it took every opportunity to reinforce rather than resist anything that gave people a place to find some sense of community. He noted the use of the Civic Center Plaza since it had become lighted. Public spaces needed certain things to make them work, and vendors would make that multi-million dollar public space a genuine public gathering point. Anything that could be done in the City along those lines was worthwhile. Council Member Schneider emphasized that she was not opposed to public gathering places. She had been approached by coffee shop owners, particularly the ones that surrounded Civic Center Plaza, who were concerned about the lost of business. Mr. Calonne said the Council's discussion was a subject that went beyond the Comprehensive Plan. The First Amendment regulations went along with a successful Downtown. He referred to a conversa-tion he had with a colleague from Santa Monica who indicated that if a city did not have a detailed plan to deal with street vending and other First Amendment issues in a downtown, then it meant the city did not have a downtown. The issue went beyond planning. MOTION FAILED 2-6, Schneider, Rosenbaum "yes," Kniss absent. Council Member Huber believed it was a good idea to encourage churches and other facilities to be neighbor oriented, but some of the facilities were in the middle of a residential area and because of their religious nature offered many things that often irritated the neighbors. He offered revised language for Program CD-20.C2. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to revise Program CD-20.C2 to read: "The City shall develop incen-tives (and remove barriers) to encourage religious and private institutions to offer facilities in a way that promotes a sense of community within the neighborhood where the institution is located." Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He might want to go even further and promote activities which brought about impacts which were consistent with ordinances related to residential areas. Neighborhoods did not want excessive traffic, parking, and noise. Most of the situations were social service programs which took place in churches. Council Member Huber clarified that that situation probably fell under the ageous of religious and was protected. Mayor Simitian recalled the Council's discussion on the
11/06/95 77-230
compatibility on Colorado Avenue, and Council Member Fazzino was vehement that the Council should be more flexible, notwithstanding the concerns about compatibility with residential character. It was easy to have one view generically but it was more difficult when it was on a case-by-case basis. Council Member Fazzino believed there needed to be some language related to compatibility with the residential neighborhood. He felt that the previous proposal for St. Mark's was compatible with the neighborhood. He asked whether the Council was precluded from taking action in that area because of First Amendment issues. Mr. Calonne was not concerned about the planning language statement to encourage, but he was concerned when the Council's discussions were about providing incentives because there was a California Constitutional concern that might have rule. The Council had the ability to take action if the Council stayed in the land use arena. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION "The City shall encourage religious and private institutions to offer facilities in a way that promotes a sense of community within and is compatible with the neighborhood where the institution is located." MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Fazzino supported Policy CD-20.C, "Seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities in neighborhoods that are not close to existing cultural and community centers." He said the intent of Program CD-20.C1, "Identify specific school sites which could serve neighborhoods lacking adequate public gathering places," went beyond the policy recommended in Policy CD-20.C. Program CD-20.C1 did not limit the need to provide access to art and cultural facilities in neighborhoods throughout the City and suggested that school sites could be used as public gathering places for arts, cultural, and other activities. He asked staff to review the program and make sure it related directly to the policy. Mr. Schreiber responded to Council Member Andersen's earlier question regarding grocery stores. He said on page 18 of the Business and Economics Section, Goal BE-17, "Promote and enhance revitalization of Midtown," and the Policy BE-17.A, "Review the effect of size caps, parking requirements, and other land use restrictions on viability and competitive advantage of Midtown and other neighborhood commercial shopping centers," which was the only reference to the size cap issue. The term "grocery store" was not used but it clearly referred to all the different uses that had size caps and grocery stores were a major use. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue discussion of the Community Design Section to a Special City Council meeting on Thursday, November 16, 1995. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0.
11/06/95 77-231
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. in memory of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. 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.
11/06/95 77-232