Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-30 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting January 30, 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 78-115 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. ........... 78-132 01/30/96 78-114 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:08 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 7:15 p.m.) Wheeler ABSENT: Rosenbaum UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. 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 direction for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Compre-hensive Plan Update (continued from January 17, 1996) Mayor Wheeler announced the City Council would review the Compre-hensive Plan Vision as the first part of its wrap-up of all previously reviewed sections. City Attorney Ariel Calonne referred to his Report from the City Attorney dated January 25, 1996, entitled City Authority and Responsi-bilities With Respect to Development-Related School Enrollment Impacts and advised that the report responded to a general discussion about school fees and school impact authority that the Council might have and it was timed to help facilitate the Palo Alto Unified School District's (PAUSD) response back to the Community Services Section of the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber did not recall a formal discussion of the Vision in the 1976 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The Vision consisted of five major proposals that were identified in the 1976 Comp Plan and in the current staff report. When the Council began the Comprehensive Plan review process in November of 1994, there was considerable discussion and interest in terms of what was the Vision of the Plan. Part of those discussions was the importance of returning to the Council after the review of all the various sections to touch base with the issue again because the introduction of the Plan should set out a Vision for Palo Alto. From notes and comments that were made during the review of the November 1994 Plan, staff believed there was one overarching policy theme that emerged from the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) work, which was that City policy should, in a coordinated way, seek to protect and enhance a stronger sense of community in Palo Alto. Traditionally, Palo Alto had a stronger sense of community than most suburban areas. He speculated that part of it was historic in terms of the founding of the community and attitudes and feelings about it, and another part was the PAUSD. Post-World War II, the PAUSD was critical in maintaining a sense of community and perhaps now the PAUSD was not in a position to do as much as it did in 1950 01/30/96 78-115 in terms of establishing, encouraging, and extending a sense of community in Palo Alto. The CPAC identified the theme and gave a variety of actions, policies, and programs to address the issue from walkable neighborhoods to residential arterials to incorporation of the business community as an active part of the community. The staff report (CMR:127:96) included some commentary on the various sections in the Plan after going through the Council's discussions and actions in its review of the Plan, and pages 5 and 6 identified staff's suggestion of the Vision Statement which was formed in a brief introduction. The Vision Statement included seven points which were not the most important points but were the most dominate of all themes in the material being reviewed that evening. Staff requested that the Council review the material and provide staff with any changes and directions, noting that the material would be edited further by a professional editor. Precise wordsmithing was not the critical concern that evening but focusing on the concepts, the board outline, and agreement or disagreement. He noted that one item of importance for many parts of the community was transportation and traffic. He referred to a statement in the staff report, "Reducing the growth in traffic continues to be a key component of the City's approach to Transportation issues." An important note for the next Compre-hensive Plan, as well as for the 1976 and 1981 Comp Plans and the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, was that reducing the growth in traffic did not mean reducing traffic below current levels. While some traffic levels had dropped in the past five years, it had been primarily because of larger economic and population distribution factors which the City had no notable control over. It was not realistic to expect the City to have either the regulatory control or the financial resources necessary to bring about a notable drop in traffic levels, but he felt there were parts of the community that wanted reduced traffic as part of the City's Vision. However, the City could take actions to slow the growth in traffic and reduce the negative impacts of existing and future traffic. Sandy Eakins, Past Co-Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, thanked the Council for all of its good will and patience throughout the process. She referred to Mr. Schreiber's comment regarding sense of community and recalled the second general meeting of the CPAC where the Plan was a very intangible concept to its members. After long discussion and wish lists, the spark that finally infused the CPAC Committee was a comment made by Bob Woods, "I want us to do things so that people will be able to talk to each other in this community." It was spoken so simply that it was not forgotten and it brought the CPAC around full circle to what Mr. Schreiber described so eloquently that evening. Council Member Kniss said the seven elements in the staff report (CMR:127:96) were good. She asked whether staff's concept of what the Council's Vision was was for the Council to put something together or make comments and staff would then wordsmith it into a real Vision. She asked if staff wanted the Council to be specific. Mr. Schreiber said staff wanted the Council to be as specific as possible in terms of agreeing, disagreeing, or modifying what staff had provided. Staff would take the results of the discussion and prepare part of an introduction to the overall Vision of the Plan. 01/30/96 78-116 Council Member Kniss said Element No. 4 on page 4 of the staff report (CMR:127:96) was the most interesting, "Recognize Palo Alto's businesses as important members of the community, providing vital community services." The City always walked a fine line with respect to whether Palo Alto was a growth community or not, and she felt it was not. At the same time, Palo Alto was thought of as business supportive which was an important part of the community and being well balanced in all the different areas was also important. Over the past three or four years, the Council had looked at business and what it provided for the community in a very different light; not only providing jobs and an income stream but recognizing the Downtown as a social gathering place as well as a place to buy goods and services. She heard more than anything else from people that it was fun to go Downtown which she felt was very positive. She knew there were people who felt parking was impossible, but it was a lot better than she recalled it being 20 years earlier. Recognizing that it enhanced the income stream and provided jobs, it was the vitality that was exciting which was something she wanted to see included in the Plan. Council Member Andersen referred to Mr. Calonne's comments re PAUSD enrollment impacts and said the PAUSD had not responded as yet. He asked when the PAUSD was scheduled to respond. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle replied next week. Council Member Andersen asked if the issue would be discussed at the next Comprehensive Plan meeting. Ms. Lytle said that was staff's goal. Mr. Calonne noted that time for public comment was not specified on the section and that it might be an opportunity to interact with the PAUSD and staff at the next opportunity. Council Member Andersen many families wanted to move into Palo Alto in order to be in the PAUSD. At the same time, there were fewer facilities available than there were 10 years earlier as a result of the selling off several school sites and there was very little land available for building new school facilities. He thought the issue needed to be addressed in detail because there were major issues that could develop and to what extent the City should be involved needed to be considered as well. Council Member Simitian said the PAUSD had ample space for a substantial increase in enrollment because the school sale positions that were made were made with that eventuality in mind. There was always the issue of whether or not the space was conveniently or proximately located with respect to the areas where the enrollment growth increased. The decision that was ultimately made was to keep two middle schools and two high schools in operation, notwithstanding the fact that Jordan Middle School, for example, housed 1,475 students but presently housed 750-800 students. There was substantial room for additional enrollment growth at the four secondary school sites along with the Cubberley site and numerous elementary school sites which still belonged to the PAUSD but were currently being rented 01/30/96 78-117 because the PAUSD decided they were surplus sites. For example, the Fremont Hills site, the Garland Elementary School site, the old Ohlone School site, and the Greendale site, which had a large classroom capacity. He felt that Council Member Andersen's concern was legitimate, but he did not want to leave the topic with some sense that there had not been a substantial additional capacity retained. He felt the concern should not be overstated. Council Member Kniss said she and Mayor Wheeler attended a City/School Liaison Committee meeting and there had been extensive discussion about enrollment, etc. Most teachers currently stated there were far more needs within the schools currently then there had been previously for things like computer labs, etc. While she would not disagree that those schools had the kind of enrollment Council Member Simitian alluded to, few of them could accommodate the larger numbers any longer. From the discussion at the City/School Liaison Committee meeting, the anticipation was that within the next five years the enrollment would increase to 10,000, which it had not been for a very long time. Also, there would be approximately 600 students from the Tinsley program, primarily from the Ravenswood School District, which included interdistrict transfers. Also, under the Allen Bill, children of people who worked in the PAUSD were allowed to attend. All of those things pushed the figures up substantially over what they were previously. There were also many other special programs that did not exist before and the existence of the sixth through eighth grades as the middle school offering had changed as well. The PAUSD was meeting with the Council on a regular basis. Additionally, the PAUSD was moving ahead with its plans to use bond issue money to remodel the schools and was collaborating with the City which was extremely important and very welcome. The City would be hearing from the PAUSD at some point, and she felt that one of the positive things that had happened currently was that the City Manager and the Superintendent of Schools James Brown continued to work closely together. She had never seen a time when the City and the PAUSD had worked so closely together. Mayor Wheeler recalled that at the City/School Liaison Committee meeting the PAUSD had a list of topics within the Plan that it thought were germane to the PAUSD. It was determined at that time that the PAUSD would work closely with Ms. Lytle to get something back to the Council so that during the wrap-up phase the Council would have some material from the PAUSD. She was assured that the material would be forthcoming. Council Member Fazzino said it was a fascinating issue but he was confused about how it related to the Plan. Mr. Calonne said his report stated that if the Council wanted to get into the school impact mitigation business, the Plan was the essential first step in putting some policies in place to do that. If the Council chose not to, it should not hamper the PAUSD in using its own devices to mitigate school enrollment impacts. Council Member Andersen said when the Council looked at a 20-year document, some issues went beyond the planning that went into some of the decisions that provided additional school space. He was 01/30/96 78-118 particularly concerned about elementary grade levels. He felt there was sufficient facilities for secondary levels, but he was concerned that if Palo Alto were going to have the walkable kind of community relationship that had been largely enhanced through the elementary school sites, then the Council needed to think more about what, if anything, the Council should do to enhance that. In order for that to occur and before the Council could even discuss it, he wanted to see what the PAUSD had in mind. The issue from his perspective was largely the elementary schools and whether or not the PAUSD would continue to provide the kind of relationship with the neighborhoods that it had in the past. Mayor Wheeler said Mr. Schreiber stated there was an overarching statement on the bottom of page 5 of the staff report (CMR:127:96) and seven suggested elements of the Plan on page 6. She suggested that the Council start with each of the seven elements and make sure they could be embodied into a general statement. She read Element No. 1, "Maintain and enhance all of Palo Alto's neighborhoods." Council Member Fazzino was concerned about a larger issue but was not sure whether to deal with it under Element No. 1, 3, or 5. He said there needed to be a stronger statement with respect to Palo Alto's interest in regional issues. What differentiated Palo Alto in the current time and place as the Plan was being developed was its heightened awareness of the City's role as a small community within a much larger community. A lot of specifics in the document related to regional cooperation and leadership. He wanted to see a specific statement that related to Palo Alto's leadership on regional issues as one of the priorities. MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the essence of Element No. 1, "Maintain and enhance all of Palo Alto's neighborhoods," as written in the January 29, 1996, staff report (CMR:127:96), Comprehensive Plan Overall Themes and Vision. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent Council Member McCown said it was helpful for the staff to begin the staff report (CMR:127:96) with the broader Vision Statement by showing the short simple statements that were in the existing Comp Plan as the five major proposals. Her hope was that with that level of directness, whether it be five, seven, or ten items, if someone on the street wanted to know the ten most important things Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan called for, that it could be expressed easily in ten simple points. The seven elements on page 6 of the staff report expressed ideas which she felt many of the Vision points were but it somehow needed to be distilled down to the core ideas that staff was trying to communicate; the overall framework of what the Plan was doing for the community. That was an overall statement of where she hoped the Council could eventually get to. She tried to condense the elements to a shorter version and with respect to Element No. 1, she could not find a way to capture the idea which she felt was important. The critical change was the focus that it had on all neighborhoods as opposed to single family neighborhoods which was an important difference of perspective that the document had as compared to the prior Comp Plan that she supported. She would share 01/30/96 78-119 her other five points which were more direct statements of the other elements and the emphasis she wanted to see on them later that evening. Mr. Calonne said when the Council looked at the Plan, the 26 meetings would be gone and what it would show would be the changes from the existing Comp Plan. He said it would be a useful interpretative aid when someone used the document in the future if the Council could explain, editorialize, and amplify on the differences, that. He suggested it would be a helpful tool when Council Member McCown pointed out the distinction between the old Comp Plan and the new Plan. Vice Mayor Huber understood the information on page 6 of the staff report (CMR:127:96) was essentially an aid distillation of what the general themes were in the Plan and not that those points would be bullet headings for anything. He asked if he was correct. Mr. Schreiber said staff envisioned the Plan to include some bullet points that raised the key aspects of the Plan from the Council's perspective. The information on page 6 was staff's attempt to identify what the seven most important overarching elements were of the Plan. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the language in the staff report (CMR:127:96) would not go into the Plan in that fashion but would identify the seven key elements. Mr. Schreiber said staff was suggesting language to that effect which would go into the introduction or forward to provide the reader with an overview which would help establish the framework for the actual Plan document. Council Member Kniss said staff had identified major differences on pages 2 through 6 of the staff report (CMR:127:96). She asked staff what were the three major differences. Mr. Calonne had commented that one of the most important things were the changes after everything had been reviewed and discussed from the 1976 and 1981 Comp Plans. Certainly, the element she had addressed first, the business aspect, slowed down employment growth, had changed, and perhaps the regionality had changed also. It was not as clearly identified in previous Comprehensive Plans. She asked staff what other subtle things should be identified within the Plan. She was interested in staff's observations as the staff report came together. Mr. Schreiber replied that in addition to the Business and Economics Section of the Plan and the change in the perspective of the business community, the next area to stand out was Community Design which included walkable neighborhoods with a greater emphasis on fitting the various residential and nonresidential pieces that formed neighborhoods and trying to actively protect what strength there was in that. It amounted to more neighborhood physical cohesion. Council Member Kniss asked whether that was reflected in any of the seven elements. She asked staff to point out changes to the Council where those changes were reflected in Element Nos. 1 to 7. For example, Element No. 4 was very different, but where did staff see walkable neighborhoods. 01/30/96 78-120 Mr. Schreiber said walkable neighborhoods was part of Element No. 3 but it was not as clear as it had just been discussed. Another change from the 1976 and 1981 Comp Plans was the Community Facilities Section which was being approached very differently in the draft Plan. Essentially, in the 1976 and 1981 Plan there was a Schools and Parks Section. Currently, there was an effort to look at a much broader range of community facility centers, libraries, family resource centers, etc., as legitimate parts of the Plan. The essence was for Palo Alto to have a broad and extensive range of community facilities serving the full spectrum of the population. Mayor Wheeler added there was an emphasis in the Plan that was not in the 1976 and 1981 Comp Plans on the processes for dealing with planning changes and the concern for spelling those out and ensuring a large and significant role for the community to participate in those processes. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct, but staff was still somewhat on the edge of it since the Council and the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee had not yet engaged in the Governance Section discussions. The Council had engaged in the discussion of coordinated area plans which was a notable change from the past Planning documents. Mayor Wheeler asked if there were any other comments on Element No. 1. Council Member McCown suggested it might be easier to make overall comments on all seven elements rather than going over them one by one because they were somewhat related and different ideas might appear in different elements. Her first point related to Element No. 2, "Protect existing housing and provide new housing opportunities for all income levels," on page 6 of the staff report (CMR:127:96). She wanted to reaffirm the policy of protecting housing resources and continuing to pursue opportunities to provide more housing. The Council discussed the concept of no net loss which was a different idea than what was in the existing Comp Plan. There might be opportunities to move the pieces around and change some housing designations to nonhousing designations if a situation presented an opportunity to build in a more realistic and feasible situation. In the context of re-emphasizing the commitment in the Plan to protecting and providing more housing, the Council needed to focus on the idea that it was committed to not having any loss of housing opportunities and to figure out ways to build more housing. Her second point related to Element No. 3, "Actively provide the community with convenient, attractive, and competitive alternatives to the automobile, and reduce the negative effects of vehicles on the community." In the existing Comp Plan there seemed to be a greater emphasis on reducing the flow of traffic. Currently, that was a strong commitment which resulted from the Council's discussion of the Plan and the CPAC and community input to aggressively go after potential physical changes that would lessen the negative impact of automobiles and provide pedestrian and bicycle alternatives. Her third point related to Element No. 4, "Recognize Palo Alto's businesses as important members of the community, providing vital community services," which was different and new and emphasized a healthy business community and a strong and diverse business sector which 01/30/96 78-121 gave Palo Alto employment opportunities and contributed to the City's revenues and all of the services the City provided. She felt that emphasis was significant. Her fourth point was different than anything staff had outlined. It related to reaffirming a commitment to maintain the current balance of residential/nonresidential zoning. It would express to the community that even though the City was bringing a new emphasis to the business community, it was not suggesting that it would be seeking significant rearranging of the relative percentages to the business zoning versus residential zoning. She felt that was an important more specific point to make. Her fifth point related to Element No. 5, "Protect and enhance our land, air and water resources, including foothills and bayland open spaces and urban assets," and No. 6, "Protect and enhance community centers, libraries and other facilities." Element No. 6 was slightly new as a priority but it was an important principle because of the challenge that would be faced in the next decade that was not there in the 1980s when finances were different. Finally, with respect to Mayor Wheeler's comment with regard to the Governance Section, she supported those principles being included in the document, but she was not sure she would elevate it up to one of the top proposals in the document. She felt governance was more of a evolutionary change of emphasis than was radically different than what had been done in the past. Historically, there had been a lot of processes that involved public participation, so it was not a revolutionary idea for the community. However, she felt it deserved more attention and discussion in the Plan than had been done in the past. Council Member Andersen supported Mayor Wheeler's view on the public process issue being included at the top level. One of the changes was where the public felt a sense of being involved. Currently, there was a difference that had not been there ten years prior in terms of how the document read and he felt that needed to be encouraged. One area he did not see referenced in the seven elements was anything specifically related to historic preservation and he wondered if it should be included. It was implicit in a couple of statements, but the Council had taken a strong view of maintaining some historic integrity in some structures and areas and he asked whether it was emphasized enough in the staff evening. Council Member Fazzino supported Council Member Andersen's point about historic preservation and he felt Element No. 1 could be strengthened. He referred to the third sentence, "Retain those features that are valued, and improve upon those features which need strengthening," and said value could be related significantly to historic preservation. To be more specific with regard to Element No. 5, he asked what was meant by urban assets. He wanted more specific reference to trees in the bold language of the element, i.e., trees or urban forests. He felt everything in Element Nos. 1 through 7 were urban assets. Mr. Schreiber said the use of the term urban asset was a fallback option used to pull together parks, creeks, public land in terms of parks, parkways, trees on private and public property, and the public realm. Council Member Fazzino thought urban assets should be called urban forests. 01/30/96 78-122 Mayor Wheeler said urban forests was too narrow. Urban forest could be added along with urban open space or urban parklands. Council Member Simitian wanted to resist the temptation to include so much into the document that the Council would end up praising and acclaiming nothing. It was beginning to sound a little like the balance statements the Council candidates filed that indicated all of the things that made Palo Alto special which they would preserve and enhance during their four years in office. The Council needed to step back and look at the larger picture or it was going to get down to naming every item each Council Member felt was important and including it on the list. There were many areas which were particularly important to him, but he wanted the Council to resist throwing everything into the document that would make Palo Alto a nice city because that was not the purpose of the seven elements. He supported adding the urban forest wording because trees were one of the things that made Palo Alto different from other communities. Vice Mayor Huber felt Element No. 7, "Physical changes will be managed through a variety of processes involving extensive community involvement," was one of the more dramatic changes with regard to community involvement and something he wanted up front in the new Plan document. It had not been included in the existing Comp Plan, and he felt it was extremely important to emphasis it in the new Plan. He felt that Element Nos. 1 through 6 could be found in some form in the existing Comp Plan but Element No. 7 could not. Council Member Simitian was not sure that "extensive community involvement" was desirable. He felt the public sometimes wished to be less involved. He did not support Element No. 7 in its present form. There had been immense community involvement in the Plan process which produced one of the more divisive ballot measures that had been seen in some time. Not to put blame or fault on the Council, the body that did the work, or the group that put the initiative on the ballot, but extensive community involvement was not an end in and of itself. He asked if it produced a community that people felt better about living in or involved in a larger or better collection of urban assets. If the seven elements captured what kind of place Palo Alto was, the point was that Palo Alto was a town where people were heard and what people thought mattered, which was reflected in the decisions that the Council made. If that were a standard the Council wanted to maintain or perpetuate, that was what separated Palo Alto from other communities. He wanted it to take a different direction emphasizing product more than process and not just physical changes but community involvement in decision making that affected a wider range of issues. Council Member McCown agreed with Council Member Simitian's comments. She said perhaps the thing to do was to let the P&S Committee complete its assignment of going through the Governance Section of the Plan and from that procure what the core idea was and why that language should be different in the Plan than what had been done in past Comprehensive Plans. The P&S Committee could return with a headline sentence of why the Council wanted to comment on that element of the Plan or to hold off on Element No. 7. 01/30/96 78-123 Council Member Schneider agreed with Council Member Simitian's comments and said she wanted more emphasis in the Plan on respectful collaboration among citizens and people in City government in planning the City's desired future. Mayor Wheeler endorsed Council Member McCown's suggestion that the P&S Committee return with recommendations and emphasis on the wording that should be included with respect to Element No. 7. Council Member Kniss disagreed with Council Member Schneider and said looking back 25 years, she felt the community collaborated better and was more respectful and said more than anything in good part she would credit staff with being willing to listen. Certainly the Plan process was documentation of openness and collaboration. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to refer Element No. 7, "Physical changes will be managed through a variety of processes involving extensive community involvement," to the Policy and Services Committee so it could provide appropriate wording. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, that Element No. 2, "Protect existing housing and provide new housing opportunities for all income levels," reflect the concept to maintain the level of housing so there was no loss of potential housing units. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to reaffirm its commitment to maintain the current balance of residential to nonresidential land use, specifically that "the City should enhance existing commercial and employment areas where change is desirable without radical increases in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR)," and there is no receptivity to the physical enlargement of those areas into undeveloped non-urban areas or areas developed with residential uses." Council Member Simitian asked how the wording could be constructed so that when a change needed to be made, the City would be protected from someone saying it was not consistent with the Plan unless there was an offsetting piece of property somewhere else in the jurisdiction. The goal that he shared with Council Member McCown was that over five or ten years, the Council did not want to take the current ratio and make it contrary to what it currently had and the Council would not look at individual cases, it would look at a particular application that might make take it in a different direction. He asked if someone wanted to make commercial property into residential housing, whether the credit was being kept track of somewhere. It was a compliance issue in terms of how it would actually work and he asked the City Attorney to respond. Mr. Calonne said with regard to housing, no net loss was an incomplete thought without a time element. He felt it would be helpful for the Council to put a time element on it if only for guidance to staff 01/30/96 78-124 in looking at how other policies and programs fit with the no net loss concept. For example, the current law had housing elements cycled on a five-year basis, and no net loss meant something different over five years than it did over one year. Council Member McCown asked where the language was in the Housing Section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan that no net loss was being referred to. Mr. Schreiber referred to page 5 of the Housing Section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan, HS-1.C, "The City should discourage conversion of lands designated as residential or nonresidential uses," and said what had been added was "... unless there is no net loss of having potential on a community-wide basis." Council Member McCown recalled that the concept would not have to be a literal one, but it would be over some longer planning cycle where there would be some system of keeping track of the pluses and minuses. Mr. Calonne said under current state law the Council would be forced to comply on a five-year basis anyway. The regional fair share numbers would tend to force the City to redesignate property to housing if there had been conversions during the preceding five years. Council Member Simitian said that regional fair share numbers had not meant anything in the past 20 years, half of the jurisdictions were not in compliance at any one time, the system did not work. He wanted to be more meaningful about no net loss than regional fair share. It made sense as a timely mechanism to make the Council more accountable, but he did not want to look to the regional fair share system that had not worked in the past to work for Palo Alto. Mr. Calonne said failure to get the Housing Element certified was usually accompanied by a letter that read like a petition for a mandate copied to the blue ribbon list of housing advocates in the Bay Area. From his standpoint, it was extremely undesirable to be sitting out there with an uncertified Housing Element. He advised that Palo Alto would be in a more vulnerable spot without complying with state law every five years. Council Member McCown wanted the Council to articulate again at the top level in the Plan a commitment to balance commercial and residen-tial development in the community. It was not that changes could not be made but rather reaffirming a commitment to that basic balance that existed as of the date the Plan was adopted and that the Council would not radically diverge from that. It needed to be done to make it meaningful that the City was still committed to the housing side, and to not scare the community that supporting the business community meant that high rises were suddenly going to be built in Downtown Palo Alto. She wanted the balance described at the beginning so the community knew what the Council was saying. Council Member Simitian agreed. Mr. Calonne had said it succinctly when he said that no net loss was an incomplete statement unless there was a time frame associated with it, whether it be the life of the 01/30/96 78-125 Plan or whether it was on some more frequent basis. He felt the community was unduly scared by the discussions over the past four years of the City being business-friendly. As he had commented when speaking about the Fry's Electronics issue, being business-friendly did not necessarily mean that the City would expand the areas in which business was done, but it meant that the City would do a better job of attracting and keeping business and making business more efficient and effective in the areas designated. Council Member Kniss found it difficult to remember all of the decisions that the Council had made over the last 16 months. After the general discussion was completed that evening, she strongly supported the P&S Committee reviewing the Council's comments and determining what the Council actually agreed on could be documented and whether that supported what was in the Council's statements that evening. She would then like it to return to the Council. Mayor Wheeler asked if Council Member Kniss were giving the P&S Committee a new assignment. Council Member Kniss said no. She asked what the terminology was for when the Council reviewed and remedied any outstanding conflicts in the Plan. Mr. Calonne said it was called internal consistencies. Mr. Schreiber said the Council would have a staff report on Friday, February 2, 1996, for the following Wednesday, February 7, 1996, meeting. Council Member Kniss clarified that at that point, the Council would be able to tell whether or not the overall review actually meshed with what the Council said over the past 16 months. Mr. Calonne felt that when the Council discussed the report it could not happen in one interval. The Council should expect that it would be iterative when brought into internal consistency and staff would find things with the editor as they reviewed it. His hope was the next report would eliminate the big pieces. Council Member Andersen said with respect to the no net loss issue, it would not prevent development that was appropriate at a given time. If the Council made a statement in the document, it was committed to the state mandate that those statements should be considered something more than just window dressing and the City was committed to maintaining the housing responsibilities that were set up in the context of the state requirements. That would be a way of providing the commitment that Council Member McCown commented on and at the same time provide the flexibility that Council Member Simitian had referred to. Council Member McCown suggested that on page 5 of the staff report (CMR:127:96) under Business and Economics, "While the City should enhance existing commercial and employment areas, there is no receptivity to the physical enlargement of those areas into currently undeveloped non-urban areas or areas developed with residential uses," 01/30/96 78-126 that part of the idea she was trying to describe needed to be added up front so people would not get concerned about what the City was being supportive of the business sector meant. The language she wanted to be more specific was, "... enhancing existing commercial and employment areas ...," which did not mean quadrupling the floor area potential within those areas. There were two concepts: not to lose the residential zoning in areas in the community overall; and not to relate business enhancements and support in a way that would radically change the amount of potential square footage for that development in the community. She wanted to see specific language that attempted to capture those two concepts as the context of the statement at the beginning of the philosophy of the document. Council Member Andersen agreed. He said currently a former hotel site was being reviewed as a housing area, and he suggested that the Council would be willing to consider approaches where land that was formerly identified for commercial or some other purpose be utilized for housing as a way of reaching that objective. Mayor Wheeler clarified that Council Member McCown's intent from the document was in terms of the enhancement of existing business areas. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to add the "urban forest" to the care value statement expressed in Element No. 5, "Protect and enhance our land, air and water resources, including foothills and bayland open spaces and urban assets." MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the concept of historical preservation being incorporated into the major elements. Council Member Simitian asked whether historical preservation was such an overarching issue that it needed to become one of the seven most important elements of the entire 20-year future of Palo Alto. People moved to Palo Alto for its schools more than historic preserva-tion and schools had not been made one of the seven elements. Council Member Fazzino did not agree. Trees and historic preservation were two themes which had been consistent in terms of people's articulation of why they were a part of the community. What made Palo Alto special was its commitment to historic preservation, and he had no doubt that a special sensitivity to the need to preserve Palo Alto's historic structures and reflect on its historic heritage had resulted since the Centennial which had emphasized Palo Alto's historic values. Council Member Simitian asked whether it was more central than schools because if not, schools should included as one of the seven elements. Mayor Wheeler said schools would make the list. 01/30/96 78-127 Council Member Simitian asked where public art was listed. Council Member Fazzino said it was included in Element No. 6. Council Member Simitian said he would not vote against historic preservation, but he did not feel it belonged among the seven key elements. He felt the Council was headed in the wrong direction. Council Member Kniss said historic preservation was important and she was not sure it needed to be called out precisely but it could be an inherent piece of one of the seven elements. The other issue was that Council had not come to terms with what it wanted to do with regard to historic preservation. She reminded the Council that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) was still struggling with historic preservation. The Council would continue to struggle with historic preservation because it was not seen by everyone in the same way. Housing could be discussed and looked at in a relatively measurable way, but historic preservation was pretty tough. Council Member Fazzino wanted the concept of historic preservation included in an appropriate way in the seven elements. Council Member Andersen said the Plan was a 20-year document and as Palo Alto continued to get older, there would be more feeling of commitment toward the issue of historic preservation. If historic preservation were not included as one of the seven elements, it would be an omission that would be startling if thought about in the context of the point in time at which the City was. He felt there would be more interest as the Council preceded along, and therefore, he was looking to the future as the past was recognized. He endorsed Council Member Fazzino's comment that Palo Alto was a community that had a tremendous interest in historic preservation and the Council had been quite ambivalent about it for reasons he agreed with. Since the Plan was going to reflect the future, the Council had to acknowledge that, and perhaps a future Council would have to deal with the issue and its own ambivalence. At the current time, the Council could not leave historic preservation out of the document. Mayor Wheeler said people were attracted to buying housing in the community and the ads for the Professorville District always called out historic professorville which enhanced the value of those houses. One of the reasons that the Downtown had become successful was because of the way it looked, and it looked that way because the Council had been very insistent upon the preservation of historic structures in the Downtown. She agreed that it might be subtle, but it was very important with regard to what made Palo Alto distinct from its surrounding communities. Reference to historic preservation and community historic character belonged in one of the seven elements. Council Member Schneider said historic preservation was referred to several times in the Community Design Section of the Plan, but she felt that historic preservation needed to be listed somewhere among the seven elements because it was not getting the significance it deserved. 01/30/96 78-128 Council Member Simitian said a part of it had to do with historic preservation but part of it was about sense of place. When people referred to the Downtown, they were not referring to historic struc-tures. It was about Downtown design guidelines, and many new or renovated structures that had unique character, the avoidance of the cookie cutter design in other communities, and the strip mall look along El Camino Real. As he looked at the seven elements, preserving some sense of place in a unique character for Palo Alto was more of a recurring theme in terms of what people valued than historic preservation as an important piece of sense of place. If the Council called out the theme of a unique community identity of which historic preservation was a part, that would be an overarching theme. Historic preservation was just a part of that, as was public art. When one saw the art work showing robbers coming over the bank building, that was not historic preservation, it was a new piece of public art which gave the community a sense of charm and place. Maybe there was a way to blend the two pieces together if the Council were prepared to acknowledge not just historic preservation but the things that defined a community visually as a particular place rather than the one in a string of suburban communities. Council Member McCown agreed. Staff had not been given specific direction as to exactly how to fit it in, but she agreed with Council Member Simitian that the Council did not want to go from seven to eight elements. If anything, the Council would want to go in the opposite direction. Council Member Simitian suggested the motion include a sense of place in unique characteristics including historic preservation. Historic preservation was only one element of creating a unique identifiable distinct sense of community through community design which included public art, architectural standards, Downtown guidelines, and the notion of a diverse group of housing types. Council Member Fazzino was comfortable with Council Member Simitian's addition of historic preservation in the language, although he argued that sense of place was really incorporated throughout the seven elements. Mr. Schreiber clarified that it would not be a new element but something to be incorporated into the language. Mayor Wheeler said that was correct. Council Member Simitian was not comfortable with the casual attitude the Council had taken toward sense of place. There was a reason people paid a fortune to buy or rent in Palo Alto which was because they thought there was something special about living in Palo Alto. The Council could be self-congratulatory, but he felt the Council should not shy away from the notion of sense of place as defining what a Comprehensive Plan was supposed to be about. He hoped that the document staff reproduced called out the desire of the community to maintain and/or create a place which had unique and special characteristics. He did not want it to be taken for granted, and it should be a central element of the Plan. 01/30/96 78-129 Council Member Fazzino accepted everything Council Member Simitian had articulated, and Council Member McCown had pointed out that staff did an excellent job of capturing the theme in the language on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report (CMR:127:96). He felt the Council already had a Vision Statement before it which needed to be shortened to some degree, and he agreed with Council Member Simitian that the fundamental reason why people enjoyed Palo Alto was because of Palo Alto's sense of community and sense of place. He felt it was an appropriate overarching value statement and vision for the community. Council Member Andersen said a sense of safety was another element that drew people to Palo Alto which had not been discussed. He was not sure it should be included in the document, but he had not seen it referenced in the Plan and felt it was one of the elements of the community that should be enhanced. Palo Alto had a feeling of safety and that feeling should be continued. Council Member Fazzino said there was no direct reference in the seven elements to City services and Council Member Andersen's comment about safety was correct. Many people were attracted to Palo Alto because of the quality of City services and public safety services. He asked if there were a way to incorporate outstanding City services into Element No. 6, "Protect and enhance community centers, libraries and other facilities." Mr. Schreiber said in working with Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen and his staff on the issue, they discussed the distinction between a Comprehensive Plan dealing with land use oriented issues and its relationship to the physical facilities versus a document that dealt with human services and community services. He cautioned that it could lead to extensive discussions that really belonged in the Human Relations Commission area. The issue was very important, but traditionally in Palo Alto and in most other communities, it had not been viewed as something to be incorporated into the Plan because fundamentally it was a land use document. Mayor Wheeler said the broader statement was embodied in pages 2 and 3 of the staff report (CMR:127:96) and staff's attempt to distill that was on page 5 under Suggested Elements of a Comprehensive Plan Vision, "City policy, in a coordinated way, will protect and enhance Palo Alto's sense of community and undertake new efforts to create a stronger sense of community." She asked Council if it wished to endorse that as the overall theme. Council Member McCown said the language on page 5 was too short, but the content on pages 2 and 3 under staff's November 1994, Observations on the Proposed Planning Goals, Policies and Programs was too long. She asked what were the components that went into the language "sense of community." As Council Member Simitian had commented, it was a physical sense of place, the historic character of the community, community facilities, etc. It was something that tried to create what "to enhance a sense of community and build a stronger sense of community," meant. She said the seven major elements were the core proposals of the Plan which contributed to that maintenance and enhancement of a sense of community and built an even stronger one. She wanted to see a combination of the shortness of the sentences 01/30/96 78-130 on page 5 and the slightly flushed out version from pages 2 and 3 and what that meant. The Council had discussed physical and service components, historic preservation, and the vitality of the commercial and business community, and there should be a way to create language which illuminated what went into making a sense of community. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the overall global theme which encompasses a stronger sense of community should include the following elements: physical sense of place, historic preservation, public art, architectural standards, a vital business/commercial community, community services, etc. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. Mayor Wheeler asked whether the Council had given staff enough information. Mr. Schreiber said yes. It was sufficient information to bring back to Council a revised draft as part of the wrap-up. Staff would rework the wording based on the discussion that evening. Council Member Andersen did not disagree with Mr. Schreiber's notion that services and safety were land use decisions, but he was convinced that land use decisions when improperly carried out had a very serious effect on the safety of the community and in that context, a reference could be made. He encouraged as part of that sense of community, that it was an issue that needed to be expressed in some manner. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to continue the City Council's review of the Comprehensive Plan Vision to the Special City Council Meeting on Wednesday, February 7, 1996. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Error!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. 01/30/96 78-131