HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-16 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting November 16, 1995 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee....................................77-283 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m............77-302
11/16/95 77-282
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 9:00 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Kniss UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transpor-tation, 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 November 6, 1995) Council Member Andersen asked the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) whether there had been interaction with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) staff since Goal CD-21, "Use schools and other community facilities to deliver individual, family, social and other services," involved the PAUSD rather significantly, and asked why the Planning Commission had rated the goal "C." Sandy Eakins, Planning Commissioner and Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee member, said Susie Richardson, PAUSD trustee, served on CPAC and representatives from the Committee 2000 met with CPAC. She said Goal CD-21 appeared to follow the Committee 2000's goals at the time. City Manager June Fleming said specific sections of the Comprehen-sive Plan (the Plan) which impacted the PAUSD had been brought to the attention of the City/School Liaison Committee. Staff had put together a very comprehensive package for the PAUSD. The PAUSD indicated it would present a comprehensive report to the City Council when it discussed the Governance Section. Council Member McCown asked what the Planning Commission's recommendation meant, i.e., proposed deletion of the entire goal while rating some of the policies and programs with "B" ratings. Ms. Eakins said Goal CD-21 involved a split vote of the Planning Commission with two in favor of retaining and three voting "C" ratings. In general, discussions centered around not having a specific goal. Some of the other policies and programs could be included elsewhere.
11/16/95 77-283
Council Member McCown asked what staff would do with the policies and programs if Council made no changes to the recommendations. Director of Planning & Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the staff comments on the Community Design (CD) Section which had been prepared during the summer of 1994, prior to any contact with City/School Liaison Committee, noted that Goal CD-21 should be retained to support the policies. Staff also recommended retaining Policy CD-21.A, "The City will encourage the use of local neighbor-hood schools as community gathering places," Program CD-21.A2, "Identify infrastructure improvements needed to make school sites available for evening and weekend use (i.e., better lighting, improved security)," and CD-21.A3, "The City shall continue to study the use of sharing of resources between the City and the School District and its sites such as child care, libraries and recreational facilities (e.g., library and weight room at Gunn)," with the understanding all items would be edited, less wording, more merging, etc. Staff recommended deletion of Program CD-21.A1 because it duplicated Program CD-20.C1. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to retain Goal CD-21, "Use schools and other community facilities to deliver individual, family, social and other services;" Policy CD-21.A, "The City will encourage the use of local neighborhood schools as community gathering places;" Program CD-21.A2, "Identify infrastructure improvements needed to make school sites available for evening and weekend use (i.e., better lighting, improved security); and Program CD-21.A3, "The City shall continue to study the use of sharing of resources between the City and the School District and its sites such as child care, libraries and recre-ational facilities (e.g., library and weight room at Gunn)." Council Member Andersen supported Program CD-21.A3 and some of the sharing of resources. Even without Goal CD-21, there would be sharing. Currently, there were more students attending adult school at Palo Alto High than there were day students. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian absent. Council Member Schneider asked about public spaces or gathering places which offered financial or development incentives. Ms. Eakins said using incentives and zoning "give," would inspire property owners and developers to provide public gathering places. CPAC considered more public parks beneficial, particularly pocket or small parks. Garden space had been an idea of several CPAC members. Council Member Schneider asked why the Planning Commission had tossed out the idea.
11/16/95 77-284
Planning Commissioner Kathryn Schmidt said the Planning Commission had agreed with the staff comment on CD-22.B1, "Two problems with this program are: 1) Traditional amenities become the basis for development incentives; 2) Public park or garden space becomes a City maintenance and enforcement responsibility. Design guidelines would need to be developed to assure that such spaces are well designed, easily maintained and useable public amenities. Preparation of the guidelines would require funding and/or allocation of staff time." Council Member Huber gathered staff was indicating the traditional amenity was a governmental extraction for such things which often had to be provided irrespective of an incentive. Mr. Schreiber said either the open space requirement was a governmental requirement or the type of amenities provided by developers as part of a particular type of development involved an argument by the developer that he/she needed some special benefit. Staff wanted to avoid a situation where traditional amenities became the basis for giving more development incentives and wanted to raise concerns regarding the potential for a public park to be interpreted as a City-maintained facility, which had a variety of budget and staffing impacts. Council Member Huber said a very large piece of property was being developed in the City which neighbors had already mentioned would be appropriate for a pocket park, and he asked whether a goal or program would be necessary to do so. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City would be hard pressed to get park land out of a traditional exaction program. Palo Alto had very high numbers of parks in comparison to the rest of the state. There was a counter argument that the numbers were good in that the burden of new development was even greater to maintain the high degree of park access. Garden space would be more difficult. He was unsure the City would be replacing a traditional exaction because he was unsure whether "park" would apply to garden spaces. Mr. Schreiber said another example was the Stanford West proposal. The residential component along Sand Hill Road contained a five- or six-acre village green area, described in some of the material as a public recreation area. Clearly, as the City moved through the process into the administrative draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and into the public review process, the park would not be maintained by the public. Staff was concerned with the wording and opening the door for someone to offer a portion of the land for a park while expecting the City to maintain the area. "Public" often meant two different things, e.g., an amenity for the site available to the public using the site or an amenity maintained by the City for the general purpose of the City.
11/16/95 77-285
Planning Commissioner Tony Carrasco had not interpreted Program CD-22.B1 as strictly as Mr. Schreiber had described, with the park being public in the sense the City's park system was viewed, but had interpreted parks the way Pasadena's guidelines had. Houses would be built around public spaces resulting in better building because of definition given to the public space rather than fitting a building first, then a garden spot. Program CD-22.B1 could easily be changed to remove the words "incentives" and "public park" to read "Provide zoning changes, as needed, for developers to include garden space as part of their commercial or residential development." Council Member McCown said the Planning Commission had recommended removal of the words "provide incentives and zoning changes," but on page 39 (CD Section), Policy CD-22.C, "Encourage the development of public spaces and mini-parks in neighborhood commercial areas," and Policy CD-22.D, "Create public spaces that enhance the quality of the pedestrian experience," still addressed the issue of parks. The idea was to find ways of encouraging the sense of public and garden spaces. The Planning Commission had responded to staff's comment that the programs might be too intertwined with the regulatory structure. The concept in the entire section for encouraging the inclusion of public spaces in the design, whether commercial or residential projects, would maintain the concept in the Plan with the exact method of implementation to follow. Council Member Andersen said Mr. Carrasco's description would not necessarily require the City to become involved in maintaining property but would encourage an approach which allowed for such space. Without making a motion, he requested staff to include the concept. Developers should be encouraged to create open spaces within designs as a basis or starting point. Council Member Huber felt that considering incentives for public spaces was broad enough to include a public park, depending upon the development. The language of public spaces was good enough and incentive language was appropriate to encourage parks, either privately or publicly maintained. Mr. Schreiber said if Council wanted to see a program or incentive to encourage development of public spaces, privately or publicly maintained, some type of program should be included out of Council's discussion which went along with the policies, unless the direction was for staff to craft a program based on the discussion and policies. Mr. Calonne said the phrase "provide incentives" should be more focused on the product Council sought, e.g., "revise zoning ordinance to include and provide incentives," because the language might cause an argument in any number of contexts which Council had not expected. Council should "think product."
11/16/95 77-286
Council Member McCown said the Planning Commission had not liked many of the programs but had accepted all of the policies. If a new set of programs were necessary, staff should be directed to take the policy direction of encouraging the development of public spaces in a private as well as traditional public context and develop whatever additional programs were necessary. Council Member Schneider wanted to make sure residential areas were not left out of the goal. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to direct the staff to take the policy direction of Policy CD-22.C, "To encourage the development of public spaces and mini-parks in neighborhood commercial areas," and develop policies to meet the policy intent as revised to include both privately and publicly maintained spaces. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian absent. Council Member McCown thought Goal CD-23, "Ensure safe, well-designed and well-maintained parks, school playgrounds and public spaces that encourage day and evening use" was identical to the preceding Goals CD-21 and 22 except perhaps for the safety focus. If the safety issue were the only difference, the three should be folded together. Vice Mayor Wheeler agreed, especially since the policies and programs under Goal CD-23 had been reduced to a lesser than inclusionary status. Ms. Eakins said CD-21 dealt with services and some future uses, CD-23 dealt with the physical status, maintenance, etc. There was no reason for the two to stay separate. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to direct the staff to fold Goal CD-23, "Ensure safe, well-designed and well maintained parks, school playgrounds and public spaces that encourage day and evening use," into Goal CD-21, "Use schools and other community facilities to deliver individual, family, social and other services," and Goal CD-22, "Create and increase public spaces, open space and community garden space which encourage and support pedestrian traffic and person-to-person contact." Council Member Huber said the City had to be very careful about neighborhood expectations when referring to evening use, especially with regard to schools, as indicated in Goal CD-23. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought the same would hold true with neighbor-hood parks. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian absent.
11/16/95 77-287
Council Member Huber believed a state law allowed 12 or less children without City control but 13 or more required a use permit. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Huber asked whether the same state law also applied to the elderly. Ms. Lytle said the state law applied to both children and adults. Council Member Huber asked how the care section in the neighbor-hoods would interact with the state law if the City encouraged something over and above what the state permitted. Mr. Schreiber said if the City wanted wording which would not preclude establishments of over 12 individuals, the use permit requirement would be maintained, but the effort was to establish a policy basis for reviewing and, when appropriate, approving such facilities. The goal recognized what already existed. Within the review process, there was a lot of facilitation and assistance provided by City staff to potential applicants for both child care and elder care facilities. Council Member Huber said over the years, large child care centers had been "hot button" issues and had required much time. Mr. Calonne said Council should at least be cognizant of a problem the City had not encountered with half-way houses, group homes, etc. There was an increasing body of law which would not permit regulation of group homes differently than single-family homes. "Child" and "elder" should be stricken from Goal CD-24, at least in Council's thinking, assuming whatever policies were applied at child and elder facilities the City would need to apply to any kind of care facility. He was unsure there would be a legal way to distinguish a group home from a child care or elder care facility. Notwithstanding the City's inability to distinguish the facilities as a factual matter, there was a whole body of antidiscrimination laws which would compel the City to treat all facilities the same. Council Member Huber asked whether the issue would be one of use permit or whether it would merely be treated as a residence. Mr. Calonne said the facility would be treated as a residence. Council Member Huber clarified control would be with the building codes, etc. Mr. Calonne said there could be occupancy limitations, but the occupancy numbers were one person per every 70 square feet. Council Member McCown said Goal CD-24, "Support having child care and elder care facilities in neighborhoods and work centers,"
11/16/95 77-288
discussed support for facilities, but the policies and programs were much more focused on neighborhood commercial areas. There had been issues in other communities concerning the issue of child care facilities in research park-like settings. In the development of the specifics of a policy, the issue should be closely examined, i.e., whether the City was really trying to encourage parks or not in commercial zones which were more intense research park and industrial park zones. The goal should probably be reworded so it would not talk about just generalized work centers, but focus on neighborhood commercial, if such were the policy intent. Also, Policy CD-24.C, "Inclusion of child care or elder care facilities in any plans for development or redevelopment of residential or neighborhood commercial shall be strongly encouraged, along with measures to help protect the residential character of the neighbor-hood," was not just residential character. The same issue applied to commercial businesses where the concern about a child care facility being located close by would then be criticized for the impact on child care facilities. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to revise Policy CD-24.C to read: "Inclusion of child care or elder care facilities in any plans for development or redevelopment of residential or neighborhood commercial shall be strongly encour-aged, along with measures designed to mitigate conflicts with surrounding uses." Council Member McCown said a decision had to be made to determine whether the uses could go in any type of commercial district as opposed to certain specified commercial districts. Staff would need to analyze how to merge and refine the language to be more specific about where the activity should be encouraged. Council Member Andersen queried whether the City would move away from the original goal of supporting child care and various care facilities in neighborhoods and work centers if the City provided a mitigation concept in the document. He was concerned that by providing such mitigation relief, whether in residential or commercial areas, the City should not remove the original intent of the goal itself. Council Member McCown appreciated Council Member Andersen's comments. There had to be a balance. If the City were considering a neighborhood commercial area where there were many existing neighborhood commercial uses, the enormous fear would be that it seemed like a good idea and the child care facility was established but in five years someone would begin to complain about the effect of the commercial use on the neighboring child care facility. The concern would be for the City to be sure it was thinking ahead about how to avoid conflicts between a use in a neighborhood commercial zone with a new encouragement of uses. Council's responsibility was to mitigate the conflicts. The child care
11/16/95 77-289
facility would not be responsible but had to be encouraged in a way which was not unfair to uses already in existence. Council Member Andersen said part of his concern was with regard to some of the state legislation and some of the restraints placed on the City. Some of the adolescent facilities, half-way houses, etc., were so unnoticeable one would not even know of their existence in residential neighborhoods. Concern was expressed for major problems created for neighborhoods which was not the message the City wanted to send. Council Member McCown thought Council Member Andersen's point was not to worry so much about making the facility compatible with residential neighborhoods but her greater concern was encouraging the facility in commercial areas and the impact thereof. Council Member Andersen said his concern was not limited to residential impacts. The biggest problem was not so much the child care center fearful of going into a certain kind of area but that the area would not want the facility. Council Member McCown felt the City could not retain the goal without acknowledging the fact issues would arise. A car dealer-ship located on El Camino Real, with residential zoning directly behind, could raise concerns about how residential development occurred in a way so the commercial use was not criticized as unfairly impacting the residential neighborhood. She said that encouragement language should not be cut back, but an acknowl-edgement of the consequences should be noted with the City taking responsibility for balancing the two issues. Ms. Lytle thought that Council Members McCown and Andersen were speaking of two different uses. Council Member Andersen had referred to the small care homes which were being preempted by the state from being allowed in residential neighborhoods. If small enough to be residential in character, by state definition, the City would not regulate, which should be supported with policy and language as well. Council Member McCown had raised the issue of facilities which went beyond the defined limit of a residential care home into a center. Centers could exceed the number resulting in more significant adjacent land use conflicts. In such a situation, the accompanying language should mitigate impacts to surrounding land uses. She said language distinguishing between centers and care homes should be included. Vice Mayor Wheeler agreed and said based on personal experience, child care centers already existed in or near to very busy commer-cial areas, which tended to be near retail commercial areas and were fairly successfully integrated into such areas. In Palo Alto, as well as Mountain View, the areas of greater concern were industrial areas, where great care should be taken about what, if any, encouragement should be given to the creation of child care
11/16/95 77-290
centers within industrial areas and parameters. Mountain View had recently worked out some agreements which allowed the location of centers in industrial areas, which were the more problematic areas than the regular retail commercial areas. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian absent. Council Member Rosenbaum asked how staff interpreted Program CD-24.C1, "Create incentives (such as increased floor area or reduction in parking requirements) for developers who include child care or elder care facilities in the design of new housing and commercial buildings," since parking requirements were not an arbitrary burden placed on development but often related to the need for parking. Mr. Schreiber said an exemption existed in the limited manufactur-ing zones for child care facilities exempted from floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. Council Member Rosenbaum said certain uses existed which might be standard requirements providing for excess parking, but there were many other uses. If sufficient parking were not provided, cars would go elsewhere. Mr. Schreiber concurred with Council Member Rosenbaum's caution regarding parking requirements, especially since the program related to new housing in commercial buildings. If commercial were interpreted as retail, with child care or adult care centers, parking and related drop-off areas became significant issues in reviewing the proposals. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, to revise Program CD-24.C1 to read: "Create incentives (such as increased floor area or reduction in parking requirements, where possible) for developers who include child care or elder care facilities in the design of new housing and commercial buildings." MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked about the very last phrase in CD-24.B, "Support and encourage the establishment of small to medium sized child care and elder care facilities in neighborhoods and local neighborhood commercial areas and design those facilities to encourage day time visits." Ms. Eakins said the physical layout would allow parents to walk easily to visit children closer in proximity to working locations and, perhaps, the physical design of the center itself would allow easier access. The facility should not allow just anyone to walk in without proper documentation. However, there might be ways to accommodate parents for easier visiting, especially for newborns.
11/16/95 77-291
Vice Mayor Wheeler supported the concept but hoped the purpose would be more apparent in the final language. Council Member McCown asked whether the concept found in Policy CD-25.B, "Residential arterials should be landscaped in a manner similar to a 'boulevard,' (e.g., tree-lined medians and side-walks)," was found elsewhere in the document since the Planning Commission suggested deleting the policy entirely. The principle of potential changes to arterials to create some of the traffic calming was important for the Plan to contain. Will Beckett, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, thought the issue had been coupled with a section in the Transportation (TR) Section which discussed the definition of boulevards where the reference might have appeared. Council Member McCown said staff had indicated on page 42, "see also more extensive comments, TR-3.E3, pp. 10 and 10a." Mr. Schreiber said Program TR-3.E4 on page 10 (TR Section), "Treat RA's with landscaping and other visual improvements so that drivers know when they are part of neighborhoods," and Policy TR-3.E1, "Analyze creation of a new category of arterial street called the Residential Arterial (RA). Designate Middlefield Road, University Avenue (between Woodland and Middlefield), Embarcadero Road (between Alma and West Bayshore) and Charleston-Arastradero as residential arterials," was not as specific as the boulevard wording in the Community Design (CD) Section. A new policy had also been established, Policy TR-3.E, "Reduce impacts of commuter and/or through traffic on residential arterial streets." Council Member McCown said the staff comment on page 42 (CD Section) complimented the idea and the benefits but indicated the cost was too high. The idea should be pursued in the Plan. If Council were comfortable that the language in the TR Section was sufficient, she would not object to having Policy CD-25.B removed. Council Member Andersen said the only issue in staff's comments regarded money and whether Palo Alto was sufficiently committed to adding such amenities and was willing to support bonds or various assessments. The issue was money, and Council would have to be persuaded by the people to do something. He wanted to make certain Policy CD-25.C, "Develop street design and traffic flow that allows for use of a variety of alternative routes to minimize traffic loads on any one street," was consistent with the use of arterials in the City's master transportation plan. Policy CD-25.C should not be interpreted to mean the City would move traffic off arterials into neighborhood areas to alleviate the problem which had been designed for the particular segments of the transportation system.
11/16/95 77-292
Mr. Schreiber interpreted Policy CD-25.C first in light of Program TR-3.E2, "Redesign residential arterials so auto traffic is slow and steady, not stop and go," and Program TR-3.E3, "Change four-lane residential arterials to two lanes (plus a center turn lane), unless it contradicts a demonstrated safety need or severely congested conditions. Maintain existing signalled intersection widths to accommodate peak hour stacking and/or dedicated turn lanes," which had been deleted. There had been a sense of caution as to how far the City would go in reducing the traffic carrying capacity of residential arterials. He interpreted Policy CD-25.C as recognizing that the City had a variety of streets carrying significant amounts of traffic and should not try to shift traffic around so one or two particular streets became overloaded and carried more than a fair burden. Council Member Huber thought a statement should be contained in the CD Section concerning landscaping arterials, which was absolutely appropriate and should not be lost in the TR Section. Council Member McCown said residential arterials should be landscaped, but the City should consider landscaping only where it could be accommodated, without the City being committed to do so. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to revise Policy CD-25.B, "Consider landscaping residential arterials in a manner similar to a 'boulevard,' (e.g. tree-lined medians and sidewalks)." MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian absent. Council Member Schneider said that the responsibility for side-walks, as found in Program CD-26.H1, "Review the City's current street and sidewalk cleaning and maintenance program and determine if additional efforts should be made in Centers," and the attached staff comment, "Consider involving merchants and business owners in sharing responsibility for washing the sidewalks in front of their stores. Determine why this is not being done and what the city might do to encourage it," was already contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Ms. Lytle said the City had never clarified to merchants or private property owners about the responsibilities of the City and the property owners through any kind of education campaign. City regulations interfered with washing the sidewalk in front of stores, e.g., water conservation, non-point source pollution, restrictions on cleaning agents, etc., which no one realized. Many complaints had been received from merchants that the City should be cleaning the sidewalks. Council Member Schneider asked what staff recommended.
11/16/95 77-293
Ms. Lytle said an education program could expand on the program for merchants, streamlining through City regulations, or additional enhancement language to strengthen the ordinance. Council Member Schneider asked what kind of enforcement was available to the City if such language were added. Mr. Calonne said rather than enforcement, the City should seek an education program. Program CD-26.H1 was already the law in the City. Many businesses were probably already aware of the ordi-nance. Ms. Fleming said staff's opinion was divided. The basic property owners already knew the ordinance. Sometimes property leases turned over and information was not passed on. There was no problem, but it was probably good to remind owners and leasing parties about the responsibility. Where responsibility was placed was unclear. When the City stepped in to help clean up the sidewalks, confusion just increased. Over the past few years, meetings had been held to discuss the responsibility. Council Member Schneider said there had been complaints concerning street improvements with different materials being used over the years. She queried whether the program identified such issues with the idea of maintenance as the next step and whether the City was looking for ways of improving sidewalks, ultimately caring for sidewalks. Ms. Fleming said the City's intent was not to take over the care of the sidewalks. Staff believed it would be better to identify ways sidewalks could be more appealing, attractive, and uniform rather than the City taking responsibility for the sidewalks. Various designs had been implemented over the years. An enhancement in the minds of some designers involved putting in different kinds of pavement and brick. Although wonderful when installed, the City was unable to match what had been done, which then became a problem. Council Member Schneider asked whether the sidewalks in front of businesses belonged to the City. Ms. Fleming said yes. Council Member Schneider said as buildings improved, designers wanted to brick, pave, or slate sidewalks. She clarified that the designer decided on a particular type of material on City property and the City was then unable to repair the sidewalk because of not being able to match materials. The City then asked the lessee to clean the sidewalks. Ms. Fleming understood the City asked the owners to clean the sidewalks, but the City was responsible for repairs. However, the
11/16/95 77-294
City was usually unable to repair the sidewalks with similar materials, so standard materials were used which were not attrac-tive. Mr. Schreiber said the City was unable to maintain the appearance, as seen in Policy CD-26.H, of "Maintain[ing] the appearance of the city's streets and sidewalks, particularly within Centers, through an aggressive cleaning and litter removal program." The appearance of the City's sidewalks was not what it should be, and he queried whether there was some way the City could strengthen the language of the Plan for a goal. Ms. Fleming said any decision would be a Council policy decision. A definition of "maintenance" would be necessary, i.e., restoring and keeping sidewalks safe was the City's responsibility, but if maintenance meant keeping sidewalks clean, the merchants were responsible. Language would be necessary which separated the two. On University Avenue, in many areas, the sidewalks were both a sidewalk and roof of the basement of many of the businesses. If the City repaired sidewalks, roofing would be disrupted. Mr. Schreiber said the intent of Policy CD-26.H was to focus on aggressive cleaning and litter removal. If Council wished to move beyond such language, another policy or program should be input to address maintenance in sense of repair and upgrade of facilities. Council Member Schneider indicated interest in such an addition. Council Member Andersen said part of the problem appeared to be between the owner and lessee not being informed of the responsi-bility of sidewalk maintenance. If the lessee were not performing the function, the owner should take responsibility. He asked whether there was a plan for an educational effort on the part of owners and lessees to clarify ways sidewalks could be maintained in a positive message which showed environmentally sensitive methods. With regard to maintenance, perhaps the City should consider modifying its ordinance so when there was an alteration to the sidewalk, the owner would be clearly responsible for the mainte-nance in order to avoid any government issue. Ms. Fleming said Council Member Andersen had made several good points. The ordinance merely discussed keeping sidewalks free of debris, although staff had always interpreted the ordinance to mean more than merely debris. Staff had no problem with distributing pamphlets about appropriate cleaning agents and ordinance require-ments. Staff encountered difficulties in two areas: 1) having whoever was leasing property sweep sidewalks regularly; and 2) cooperatively cleaning on a regular basis, renting equipment or contractors. Council Member Andersen thought there had been a great deal of effort to be cooperative with the Chamber of Commerce in the Downtown area and many things had been done to improve the area.
11/16/95 77-295
If merchants were not taking responsibility, staff was encouraged to use "strong enforcement" language. Council Member Huber asked whether or not the Urban Design Guidelines included something regarding sidewalk treatment. Ms. Lytle said the Urban Design Guidelines encouraged special treatments. The Public Works Department had expanded its list of approvable special treatments stockpiled for Downtown use. The Town Architect had worked with the Public Works Department over the past six months to expand the selection of materials allowed and, through encroachment permits, people had put in other materials with the agreement to take responsibility for the maintenance. The responsibilities could become problematic over time with tracking and reminders, but there had been an expansion of special paving treatments and an expansion of the areas where such treatments would be permitted. Formerly, the only area which allowed special paving treatments was the Downtown area. With the expansion, almost all Centers showed up for allowable special pavement treatments. Council Member McCown said one of the points of confusion in Policy CD-26.H and Program CD-26.H1 was the lack of clarification about who was responsible for the "aggressive cleaning and litter removal." MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to direct the staff to revise Policy CD-26.H, "Maintain the appearance of the city's streets and sidewalks, particularly within Centers, through an aggressive cleaning and litter removal program," to clarify who, in particular, would be responsible for the aggressive cleaning and litter removal program, e.g., private, public or
private/public," and to revise Program CD-26.H1 to read: "Review the City's current street and sidewalk cleaning and maintenance program and determine if what additional measures should be pursued in Centers." Ms. Eakins said Carl Schmidt had previously recalled involvement with a Downtown committee prior to formation of the Urban Design Committee when a strong effort had been made to form a sidewalk cleaning assessment district, and he had hoped the effort would be reinstated in the Plan. CPAC had not captured that detail, but she wanted to pass along the suggestion. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian absent. Mr. Schreiber said Council Member Schneider had commented on Policy CD-26.H regarding repairs and the use of special paving treatments. He suggested a change of "enhance the appearance of the City's streets and sidewalks, particularly within Centers, through an aggressive repair program and use of special paving treatments."
11/16/95 77-296
Staff was unclear who would pay and be responsible for what, i.e., public or private responsibility. Council Member Schneider asked whether something like the lighting and landscape district discussed in the Finance Committee could include sidewalk repairs. Ms. Fleming said staff would look into the issue since the City Attorney was unsure. Council Member Andersen said the owner should be required to maintain the sidewalk in the context of any repair work if a modification had been made by the owner to the sidewalk in a way which was nonstandard or dissimilar to Public Works Department's description. However, if the City were able to provide three or four surfaces from which owners could make a selection, the City should be responsible for repairs. Mr. Schreiber said Council Member Andersen's description was the City's current position. An ongoing effort had been underway for a decade to expand the palette of materials which fit into the standard category, working with the Pubic Works Department, which had been reasonably successful. If an owner wanted to move beyond the expanded categories, the encroachment process was available. Council Member Andersen assumed part of the expansion was the result of trying to get within the envelope of owners with sidewalks already installed. Owners should not expect an expanding list with any future development. Mr. Schreiber said the expansion had been both in response to the list of proposals as well as the response from the gentle, but persistent, pushing of planners in the Public Works Department. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Andersen, to supplement Policy CD-26.H, to address enhancing the appearance of the City's streets and sidewalks through an aggressive repair program and the use of special pavement treatment. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian absent. Council Member McCown asked whether any policy or program existed in the existing Plan similar to Program CD-28.B2, "Where feasible, encourage below-grade or above-grade structured parking as an alternative to on-grade parking. Gardens, public spaces, housing or mixed-use buildings should be placed above sub-surface parking, where possible," and queried why the program had been given a "B" rating. Mr. Schreiber said in terms of existing regulations, the use of above-grade structured parking was discouraged in the zoning ordinance. Underground parking was generally not addressed or seen as a notable problem.
11/16/95 77-297
Ms. Lytle said the only exception existed in single-family districts where below-grade parking was strongly discouraged. Council Member McCown was unsure the City should advocate encourag-ing structures since there were many other associated consider-ations. On the other hand, she was unsure language which discour-aged structures should be included either. Keeping the language in as a commentary, rather than a program, was acceptable as long as the City was not discouraging the pursuit of a parking structure concept as an alternative to surface parking, which was the premise of the original goal. Serious pursuit of alternatives to surface parking lots was impossible without seeking an opportunity for structures. A neutral statement was acceptable because there were many negatives associated with structures. The program could be endorsed as long as there was a neutral principle with respect to the desirability of parking structures. Council Member Huber asked why Program CD-28.A2, "Support parking lot landscaping requirements in the zoning ordinance and encourage existing lots to come into compliance whenever possible," had been given a "B" rating. Mr. Carrasco said the Planning Commission vote had been very close. Landscaping would not fit all public slots, and there were urban lots next to Whole Foods without landscaping that still worked well as a public plaza. One urban lot behind Chop Keenan's office had no landscaping but looked very well in an urban area. Council Member Huber said Program CD-28.A2 had indicated "whenever possible." MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to reinstate Program CD-28.A2, "Support parking lot landscaping requirements in the zoning ordinance and encourage existing lots to come into compliance whenever possible." MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian absent. Council Member Schneider said the Utilities Department had indicated the desire for undergrounding to be located under boxes rather than underground and asked whether the issue should be acknowledged in the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said the Utilities Department was in the process of drafting a policy placing new transformers aboveground. The issue would come before Council with a recommendation from the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) for adoption, a recommendation from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for rejection, and a recommenda-tion from the Planning Commission for adoption if there were a design process along with the policy that improved the design and appearance.
11/16/95 77-298
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
revise Policy CD-30.B to read: "Expand on the existing bike and pedestrian network connecting open spaces and linking with local destinations, such as Centers, parks, schools, and community facilities." MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian absent. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to revise the designation of Policy CD-30.C, "Connect dead-end streets with pedestrian and bicycle paths," to an "A" designation with the inclusion of the staff comments, "Staff recommends that this policy
be limited to new developments and to existing neighborhoods where it is desired by the residents." MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian absent. Council Member McCown referred to the use of the word "should" in Goal CD-31, "All private buildings should contribute to a cohesive city 'fabric' and reinforce the overall goal of creating 'walkable neighborhoods,'" and asked whether the goal and the related policies and programs would be implemented in the form of regula-tions or guidance. Mr. Calonne said the use of the word "should" shifted the burden to the applicant to attempt to avoid, if so desired. The default selection was an arbitrative selection. In some ways, the language was deceptively strong in contrast to "shall" being mandatory and "will" being directory. "Should" generally meant something more stringent than "will." Council Member McCown said the underlying program implementation for the entire section would examine the zoning ordinance to identify additional architectural standards which would deal with the issue. Exactly how regulatory, as opposed to guidance, was something to be determined when the actual zoning ordinance language was examined. Council Member Andersen asked about Program CD-31.A2, "When a coordinated area plan is prepared, require it to include architec-tural standards that address building configuration and design." Mr. Schreiber said part of the concept behind coordinated area plans was for the regulatory product to be more than the tradition-al zoning regulation wording, while including design guidelines with a stronger and clearer sense of how buildings could and should appear. Often, translating the traditional zoning ordinance into appearance was difficult. Many times the ordinance could not be translated into appearance. When dealing with an area wanting to encourage change, which was part of the coordinated area plan approach, one of the ways to achieve community buy-in of change was
11/16/95 77-299
for people to have a better understanding of the product which would result. In order to do so, architectural standards would be necessary, and building configurations and design models have to be addressed. Such standards were one of the key ways of creating a level of comfort which allowed people to accept the regulations which would be effective in bringing about change. Mr. Calonne said presumably there would be a pay-back in the form of faster, less expensive architectural review at the tail end of the project. Council Member McCown asked whether "residential" in Policy CD-31.D, "All new primary residential buildings should front onto a street or public way and provide a 'semi-public' feature, such as a porch, balcony, or entry," meant multi-family. Mr. Schreiber said Policy CD-31.C, "Entries and entry sequences should be designed to give each resident of a multi-family building a clear relationship to the public street," referred to multiple family; however, Policy CD-31.D referred to all residential including single-family. Council Member McCown asked about a prior decision made by Council concerning porches. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought when Council had dealt with the Housing (HS) Section, front porches were to be consistent or compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Council Member McCown said Program CD-31.D3, "New residential projects (not individually developed single-family houses) should be designed to orient buildings to streets and public parks. The design review process should require applicants to demonstrate how they satisfy this policy," appeared to be inconsistent, and she would be concerned if Policy CD-31.D was intended for single-family houses. Mr. Schreiber thought Council would want to pursue modifications because Program CD-31.D3 implied the City would not enforce design review of individually developed single-family houses or remodel-ings. However, design review of new single-family and multiple-family residential projects existed in the City. Even though the program had been deleted, Council should clarify whether it wanted the idea to apply to new single-family projects which went through design review at the ARB level. Council Member McCown said Mr. Schreiber's description was the distinction which had been used by definition as going through design. Therefore, she was comfortable if the designation were maintained.
11/16/95 77-300
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to add language to Policy CD-31.D to read: "Where possible all new primary residential buildings should front onto a street or public way and provide a 'semi-public' feature, such as a porch, balcony, or entry," and clarify that this policy does not imply design review of individually developed single-family houses. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. Mr. Carrasco said design for some residential projects was difficult, i.e., making the entrances of all residential buildings front the street or public way. Some flexibility should be considered when not possible. Council Member Schneider asked whether Mr. Carrasco's reference was to houses which had been built on a flag lot. Council Member McCown gave the example of the Jacob's Way Project, where some entries were not ideally designed to be on the front of the street. Mr. Schreiber asked whether Council wanted to add "where possible." Mr. Beckett said in terms of different styles of houses, with garages on the front or the back, there had been a long conversa-tion about consistency and styles of neighborhoods continuing. New houses were being constructed in certain areas of town clearly outside the neighborhood consistencies. Adding language which addressed such issue would be helpful. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought Council had done something back in the HS Section which addressed the issue, e.g., a compatibility clause. Mr. Schreiber said by not making a clarification about new construction such as garages facing the street, fronting the sidewalk or dominating the facade of the house, etc., more complaints would be heard. The intent was to establish ideals such as pedestrian friendliness, street liveliness, etc., to diminish the dull effect of the two-car garage dominating an entrance. Council Member Andersen said because the City had restricted itself from design review with single-family housing, many cookie-cutter applications, which were very distressing, had appeared in many neighborhoods. The City should discover ways to address the issue. Whether or not the answer was design review, he was very interested in hearing options. Since Palo Alto was a built-out community, many more tear-downs would appear with new construction in neighborhoods which would be incompatible unless the issue was addressed. The way of addressing the issue had to be examined in much greater detail, not in the Plan process. Unless the City made a change, the problem would continue. Council was encouraged to determine whether a recommendation should be made to staff.
11/16/95 77-301
Developers should not be able to design the community in a way totally inconsistent with what had existed in the past. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to revise Program CD-31.D4 to be the same as Program CD-4.G2, "Provide flexible standards and incentives, such as flexible floor area ratios, modified setbacks, reduced parking standards, and stream-lined permitting, for those willing to retrofit their houses with features that activate the street, such as porches, visible entries and street-facing windows where compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood." MOTION PASSED 7-0 Fazzino, Kniss absent. Council Member Huber understood Council Member Andersen's comments, however, after having lived through the Planning Commission hearings on large houses, he knew it was almost an impossible task. Council Member Andersen believed the City needed to address and examine how other communities handled the issue. Assistance and direction should be requested from staff. Council Member McCown agreed with Council Member Huber. Trying to get into either design review or design specification for single-family housing was extremely difficult, in which Palo Alto had never involved itself. There were always fashions, changes, ebbs and flows. Sometimes people made bad decisions and sometimes people made excellent decisions. Program CD-31.D4, which was a new concept of some flexibility and incentives, might be a good concept to give some encouragement and bonus for homeowners pushing garages to the back. In some instances, garages had been pushed to the front because of the perception of the current rules forcing the situation. The idea of either design review for remodels or individually developed properties or trying to figure out how to describe how things should look was very difficult. Council Member Andersen understood and respected his colleagues' experience. At the same time, disincentives for doing something totally inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood should be considered. Designs would always be established to maximize square footage. Unless there was something established as a disincentive for being inconsistent with a neighborhood, nothing would be changed. A statement of design desire was insufficient. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved that Council revise Program CD-31.D4, "Provide flexible standards and incentives, such as flexible floor area ratios, modified setbacks, reduced parking standards, and streamlined permitting, for those willing to remodel their houses with features that activate the street, such as porches, visible entries, and street-facing windows," to include the consideration of disincentives when plans were inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods.
11/16/95 77-302
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member McCown said Goal CD-32, "Promote quality design and diversity of architecture that is compatible with surrounding buildings and public spaces," and the associated policies and programs, was very "motherhood and apple pie" and very general, i.e., Policy CD-32.A, "With regard to the built environment, protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto desir-able." Although the information might not be all that useful, some of the programs were somewhat more specific. Program CD-32.A5, "Allow flexibility to accommodate creative design solutions which respond effectively to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan," was very general. Staff was asked to examine the entire section during the tightening down process to determine whether the section was too vague or general to be helpful for guidance purposes. Council Member Huber believed a portion of Program CD-32.A2, "Identify methods to design duplexes, townhouses, ancillary units, and small lot single-family housing types so that they fit with the character of existing single-family neighborhoods," had been addressed in another section where Council had been willing to allow it in the single-family area. Concern was expressed about what the City was attempting to do with duplexes in R-1 neighbor-hoods. Ms. Eakins said Program HS-1.D8 on page 6 read "Encourage the development of small clusters of single and multifamily units around courtyards." Vice Mayor Wheeler said HS-1.D9, "Permit smaller sized residential lots and smaller units on those lots when compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Allow development of smaller units on lots of less than 6000 square feet," had been promoted to an "A" status. The cottage zone had been reevaluated in Program HS-1.D11, "Provide zoning flexibility for development of second living units as accessory structures or as part of existing structures in R-1 zones. Allow for the reduction of parking requirements for second units." The HS Section contained statements about compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Mayor Simitian wanted to underscore support for what he thought was the fundamental premise, the City valued and encouraged diversity in housing types. Architecture was one piece of the diversity, referenced as a way to make a diversity of housing types acceptable to R-1 neighborhoods. Fundamentally, the City would not be able to address affordability through rewriting the laws of economics in Palo Alto. The only way to maintain economic diversity was through housing stock. The message of "motherhood and apple pie" had been around some of the design issues but really the City thought it could insist quality design while providing a diversity of housing types, which was an important statement to keep in the Plan. If
11/16/95 77-303
anything, the point should be made clearer. The diversity of housing types was an important element to maintain. Council Member McCown thought the broad policy statement which was implied throughout the programs should be elevated to the front of the CD section. After very detailed, specific items, the section appeared to restate the obvious, i.e., the section might be out of place in the order and should be used as the opening statement with detail following. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue discussion of the Draft Comprehensive Plan to the Regular City Council meeting on Monday, November 27, 1995. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:15 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.
11/16/95 77-304