HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-07 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting February 7, 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Policies/Programs Document Prepared by Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. . 78-174 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................78-190 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m............78-190
02/07/96 78-173
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:23 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 7:49 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown (arrived at 7:49 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider, Simitian 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 January 30, 1996) Mayor Wheeler announced that the City Council would review the Comprehensive Plan Vision of its wrap-up of all previously reviewed sections and there would be one hour of Public Communication at the beginning of the section. Council action would be based on a February 7, 1996, staff report (CMR:129:96), and the staff recommendations would be accepted unless there was a motion to change a recommendation. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the staff report (CMR:129:96) identified many of the inconsisten-cies, conflicts, and gaps found in the material. Staff and the City Attorney's Office would continue to work together on the Draft Comprehensive Plan (the Plan), and any additional areas would be resolved and reported back to the Council. The sections of goals, policies, and programs have been modified to include only the items that Council identified for inclusion in the Plan either as goals, policies, or programs or the "B" category items which were to be included somewhere in the Plan. He noted a letter from the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) dated February 2, 1996, that identified some additions to the Plan that had been generated by the PAUSD which came out of a previous City/School Liaison Committee discussion. Staff had not reviewed the content of the proposals by the PAUSD, and he suggested comments from the public on the item would be appropriate at the beginning of the meeting. Staff asked for additional time to review the proposals from the PAUSD and return to the Council at a future date.
02/07/96 78-174
Mayor Wheeler clarified members of the public could speak to the proposals from the PAUSD, but the Council would not discuss or act on the matter until a future City Council meeting on the issue. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, was delighted there was rhetoric concerning walkability in Palo Alto in the proposed Plan. However, she did not see a connection between automobile usages in Palo Alto and future growth in the Plan. Unless future growth was linked to a measurable decrease in traffic, the encouragement of pedestrians, bicycle usage, and alternate modes of transportation would not happen. Bill Peterson, 228 Fulton Street, objected strongly to the wording of Goal BE-9. The Plan should strongly affirm, not merely consider, the objectives of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study (the Citywide Study). He objected to the proposed treatment of the Sand Hill Road Environmental Impact Report (EIR) study outlined on page 12, Program TR.3.B1. Stanford's goal was to increase the traffic that went by the Stanford Shopping Center, and improving the roads around the Shopping Center would only push the congestion outward. A program should be included in the EIR study to make a new Alpine Road that would bring 30,000 more cars into the corridor. He also objected strongly to the staff's treatment of the airport. There should be a study to check the viability of using the airport land as a parking lot that was tied to the Dumbarton Bridge which would reduce through traffic down University Avenue and eliminate the need for new parking structures. He objected to the fact that he would only have one chance to publicly address the issues of the PAUSD. Robin Bayer, 381 Oxford, suggested the Council address internal inconsistencies in the Plan by subjecting it to an ecological analysis. The benefit of such action would gain information by which to make the Plan internally consistent and would discover ways to conform the Plan to natural laws which govern everyone. Ecological analysis was often deemed politically incorrect, but ecology was the key to separating fact from fantasy. She asked the Council to look for ways to stand more consistently on a viable analysis and honest communication that would further the common good. Susie Richardson, 1322 Martin Avenue, Member of Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Education, , referred to the document from the PAUSD which she felt represented the tangible evidence of the positive collaboration that continued to develop between the PAUSD and the City. She was chair of the City/School Liaison Committee (the Committee) the previous year, and the Committee had an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of the Committee's work and to review the many ways in which the City and PAUSD had been working together and some of the opportunities that existed for the City and the PAUSD in the future. She said on page 2 of the
02/07/96 78-175
document was the list of the most significant areas identified by the Committee. The majority of the 15 areas had been addressed in the Plan. However, Areas 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 15 could use some further identification. The cooperative and collaborative efforts that developed over time explained why there were yet new areas to add to the Plan. She said everyone agreed that it made sense for the PAUSD to be a part of the City's Emergency Prepared-ness Plan. Her sense was that collaboration was welcomed, but perhaps there should be a place in the Plan to address emergency preparedness. There was a suggestion that the Committee be codified. City staff and PAUSD representatives agreed that the Committee was a very useful group and had facilitated a lot of the forward movement. The athletic program that the City had developed for the middle schools had become very important to the PAUSD. There was a suggestion that the word "schools" be inserted into a goal statement as being an important piece when looking at community facilities and parks category. An effort had already begun for a collaborative maintenance pilot for some of the school fields to support and augment the City's parks system. The library technology reference was an important future area both as the City prepared its Library Master Plan and as the PAUSD looked at its use of the Measure B funds. As technology became a more intricate part of everyone's life, the PAUSD and the City would have most likely augment each other's effort to make sure the citizens of Palo Alto had equal access to technology. Council Member Andersen asked for further clarification of CD-1.D. Ms. Richardson said the PAUSD was experiencing tremendous growth in its school age population. Former School Board Member Diane Reklis brought one of the most compelling arguments to the table that until the PAUSD completed the master planning process for the Measure B funds, the PAUSD would not be in as sound a position as it should be to evaluate the need for developer fees. The PAUSD wanted to make certain the Plan allowed room for the PAUSD to reconsider the developer fee issue in the future if it desired. Council Member Andersen clarified the School Board would initiate the developer fees if there were space available within the Plan. He asked whether the City would be involved in that process beyond inclusion in the Plan. Ms. Richardson said the PAUSD had begun working on that area. She understood developer fees were instituted by the PAUSD, not the City. However, the PAUSD needed a collaborative process with the City. The PAUSD did not have a clear understanding when an EIR would be required, and she understood schools and school facilities were a part of the EIR if it were required. There were some areas that needed clarification. Vice Mayor Huber asked for clarification of the language "signed mitigation agreement mutually acceptable to the developers and Palo Alto School District and approved by the City" in CD-1.D.
02/07/96 78-176
Ms. Richardson was not prepared that evening to explain that language. City Attorney Ariel Calonne suggested that discussion of the language be continued until the next City Council meeting on the issue. The "prior to" language was not unusual and was similar to the language that he had suggested to the Council in his recent report. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said some South Palo Altans felt there was a difference in service and attention given to the areas north and south of Oregon Expressway and that South Palo Alto was not well represented on the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). She hoped the process and the Governance Section would attempt to bring in people who were renters and other people throughout the City. People from the 94301 zip code dominated every board, commission, task force, etc., except for the Human Relations Commission. She did not believe South Palo Alto had much hope in terms of traffic pollution or noise because the spillover into the neighborhoods from the proposed density would be enormous. She referred to Definitions of Neighborhood Centers on page 8 of the staff report (CMR:129:96) and noted that Town & Country Village did not appear anywhere in the document. She wanted the Council to strengthen the current recommendations to include housing in the definition of the multi-neighborhood centers and to include all neighborhood centers as potential sites for housing. If the definition on page 18 of the Community Design Section applied to all the neighborhood centers equally, Goal CD-18 would be superflu-ous because that was developed when Midtown was classified with California Avenue, Town & Country Village, and University Avenue. She asked that Programs CD-4.E1 and CD-4.H2 be left intact and that Policy CD-11.C be retained (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office).
Council Member Fazzino said analyses proved that Ms. Chiapella=s statement was not true regarding South Palo Alto, but her statement regarding boards and commissions was accurate. The Council had spent many hours discussing that issue. The Plan showed a heavy emphasis on Midtown, the Ventura area, South El Camino Real, and three areas south of Oregon Expressway. He asked Ms. Chiapella for specifics which would lead the Council to believe that it was not approaching South Palo Alto in an appropriate manner. Ms. Chiapella said her reference was to the South of Forest Area (SOFA). In the rush to put density next to train stations and transportation, the City had lacked the foresightedness to include parks, schools, and infrastructure to serve the people who lived in that area and wanted to have a quality of life similar to other parts of the City. She felt the quality of life had diminished in Midtown with the intrusion of commercial into neighborhoods. People had fought very hard to retain single-family housing in
02/07/96 78-177
Midtown which was proposed for removal. Most of the CPAC members at a recent meeting regarding the mobile home park were unaware it was low income. The committees needed more diversity. The Oregon Green area also had some special needs, but some people did not know what the area was like, so suggestions were ignored. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said prior staff reports had indicated the Draft EIR (DEIR) would be written at the same time as the next draft of the Plan, but the staff report (CMR:129:96) was silent of that fact. The consultant contract provided for public scoping meetings so that the public would be given the opportunity to recommend feasible alternatives to the Plan to be studied in the DEIR. Staff should clarify when the DEIR would be written and early public scoping meetings should be heard before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The suggested order of sections in the Plan reversed the order in which the Council actually studied the Plan. The Council made a decision to define the economic growth strategy of Palo Alto around the Business and Economics Section; therefore, the Plan should have, as part of the introductory section, an explicit statement of what the growth strategy was or the Business and Economics Section should be put first. Emphasis had been placed on three major areas for intensi-fication which was a detriment rather than a benefit to the residents. The comments on the Citywide Study were not site specific and inferred that it was only citywide, but the Citywide Study was actually area specific. In the case of Midtown, no growth in residential and a negligible growth of 5,200 square feet in commercial were chosen. The existing language in the draft Plan was flexible enough to provide for changes in site development regulations in neighborhood commercial zones, including the neighborhood commercial zone in Midtown. Staff should follow the Council's previous decision on Midtown and not change the language. The mixed use statements were loose and sometimes referred to parcel specific, building specific, or neighborhood. The Midtown workshop study had a report on the economic issues and planning parameters for Midtown, and it discussed the problems of intensification. An alternative offered was if reconfigured shopping areas could allow residential development on a separate but integrated portion of the site, part of it could be rezoned from commercial to residential and the neighborhood serving retail areas could be consolidated into a smaller commercial area. That was mixed use, but the staff report focused on site specific mixed uses. Staff recognized the need to widen intersections and how that affected alternative forms of transportation, but alternate forms of transportation had been used as an excuse rather than a mitigation to provide intensification. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, said in 1950, Palo Alto's community services provided a viable harbor, access to the Bay, and ample scope for the youth activities of the Sea Scouts and Mariners. All of that was destroyed by governance in Palo Alto. Planning in the City in previous years usually referenced the
02/07/96 78-178
waterfront and the harbor, but there was never a mention of destroying everything. An estuary was an environmental advantage. The golf course, airport, and the City dump contributed nothing to the environment, and destroying the harbor did not help either. Wetlands were nice, but actual water surface area kept the air pure. He asked why the Plan did not consider the issue of Palo Alto's waterfront and Baylands and what kind of repartition could be made to provide better access to the Bay and a revival of the Sea Scouts' and Mariners' operation. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said there were two areas that were inconsistent within the Plan and within the policies that the Council had approved, including staff's changes. Housing where the Council maintained existing housing stock, not necessarily the buildings, and the ability to build housing units. The Council should actively seek more housing, not removing housing and substituting for it. Goal BE-9, "Maintain the limits of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study...," was the policy instruction the Council gave to staff, and staff provided a report that stated "For most nonresidential areas, the proposed Draft Plan's goals, policies and programs are consistent with the 1989 Citywide Study's nonresidential floor area limits. Modification to the Citywide Study could occur with area and large site plans...and/or specific changes. Staff would not expect the overall Citywide limits contained in the Citywide Study to be exceeded in the life of the next Comprehensive Plan..." That depended on the inertia of a great many properties which could get bigger but did not under existing and potential zoning. Staff also indicated in the statement where changes might take place. She reviewed the areas that were exempted from the 1989 limits and were not proposed for increased density. She agreed with the staff recommendation to delete Program BE-5.B1 which would consider Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increases with the Stanford Research Park. If the first properties received the increased density up to the level of what was contemplated by the Citywide Study, then all the proper-ties that had not availed itself of the Council's generosity would have its density reduced. The Council's decision making thus far had not encouraged proposals along those lines. The statements about preserving the quality of life, not increasing traffic in residential areas, and not exacerbating but slowing down traffic growth were inconsistent with the Council's other decisions. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, objected to the recommenda-tion to convert the Policy TR-3.C, "Reduce traffic congestion without widening streets or intersection..." into a program "widen arterial streets and intersections to address unacceptable levels of congestion, with the Plan text identifying the Citywide Study intersections and the need to balance pedestrian, bicycle and vehicles needs." She understood the policy needed to be changed to resolve the internal contradiction recommendation to widen and extend Sand Hill Road and promote the developments. She felt it contradicted what she believed would be the heart of the new
02/07/96 78-179
Comprehensive Plan which was walkable neighborhoods and promoting the sense of community. Removal of the policy would leave the residents of Palo Alto without protection against increased automobile growth in the Plan. The Plan was the only place for residents to address long-term citywide questions and to ask whether the City's arterial plan needed to be changed, especially if the Council planned to approve more automobile generating developments, or whether the Council wanted to commit increased planning and financial resources to intelligently planning the next generation's transportation system for a slightly more intensified land use city. The staff's recommendation to give serious thought to light rail on El Camino Real was good, and she believed the City needed a rail connection to the East Bay. She wanted language in the Plan that would encourage a new transportation study. The draft Plan did not give the people the faith that the Council was committing enough planning or financial resources to those issues. Council Member Fazzino said he and Council Member McCown recently attended a transportation meeting where light rail throughout Santa Clara County (the County), expansion of CalTrain service, and a longer term East Bay connection had been discussed. There was a strong statement in the Transportation Section that indicated that Palo Alto would be a leader in regional transportation activities and the Council did not feel it was necessary to list the projects that were being worked on. Ms. Kishimoto understood that CalTrain and the light rail would take many years and a lot of resources. If the street capacity were not limited, people would stay in their automobiles. The City was moving toward a more urban transportation system. Joseph Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, said there was communitywide support for development in the City and Stanford University, but the question was how to get people to those facilities. The Comprehensive Plan had some remedial suggestions to calm traffic, but there had to be some innovation about how to handle traffic. He offered suggestions on how to handle the increased traffic and said there had to be another expressway that was tied to Stanford, e.g., Embarcadero Road to Arboretum Drive. Development would not stop, and there had to be some bold ideas for the near term and the long range. Mayor Wheeler explained the procedure for discussing the staff's recommendation beginning on page 9 of the staff report (CMR:129:96). She suggested the Council make a formal motion and take a formal vote only when there was a disagreement with the staff recommendation. Council Member Kniss clarified if the Council did not want to change the staff recommendation for Program CD-4.E1, "Actively search for and develop a park, school site or plaza site in those Residential Districts which lack them," on page 9 of the staff
02/07/96 78-180
report to delete "actively," the Council would not need to make a motion to approve it as stated. Mayor Wheeler said that was correct. The staff recommendation would be approved unless the Council decided otherwise. Council Member McCown referred to the CPAC and the Planning Commission recommendation regarding Policy TR-3.C on page 13 of the staff report (CMR:129:96) that stated "revisions to existing policies because the policies were perceived as being too auto-dominant. Staff concludes that existing policies should be modified to incorporate the CPAC and Planning Commission emphasis." She referred to page 14 of the staff report and asked whether the material in bold type would incorporate the CPAC's and Planning Commission's emphasis with respect to policies being too auto-dominant. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member McCown understood the existing Comprehensive Plan had a strong statement against increasing roadway capacity, and she asked whether that concept had been changed and, if so, how. Mr. Schreiber said the wording of existing Comprehensive Plan as noted on pages 13 and 14 of the staff report was in the convention-al type, and the bold type was the modifications, e.g., the existing Comprehensive Plan had a statement "Avoid major intersec-tion increases in street capacities, but undertake critically needed intersection improvements connected with severe traffic congestion or neighborhood traffic problems or both," while balancing the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists with those of vehicles in the design of identified intersection improvements. Council Member McCown clarified that existing meant prior to the CPAC language. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino referred to Program TR-4.A1, "Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety over vehicle level-of-service (LOS) at intersections," on page 14 of the staff report. After reading the discussion narrative, he still came to the conclusion that pedestrian, bicycle, and auto safety should always be a priority at intersections. He did not believe the need for pedestrian, bicycle, and auto safety as a priority was inconsistent with congestion management plan programs. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to retain the existing language in Program TR-4.A1, "Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety over vehicle level-of-service (LOS) at intersections," rather than the staff recommended amendment.
02/07/96 78-181
MOTION PASSED 6-1, Andersen "no," Schneider, Simitian absent. Mayor Wheeler said Mr. Peterson suggested the airport be eliminat-ed, and she asked what was the relationship between the City and the County on the airport. She understood the airport was on City property, but the airport did not belong to the City. Mr. Schreiber said there was a lease through the Year 2009 between the City and the County under which the County operated the airport. The County operated the airport as part of a three-airport system, and if the City wanted to recapture the use of the airport, the City would have to negotiate a modification or termination of the lease or wait until the lease expired. Mayor Wheeler clarified it would be appropriate to address the issue within the proposed Comprehensive Plan because the lease would expire before the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said the issue could be addressed, but it would be a major issue that would have to be carefully studied with the County because the ripple effects on other airports in the County would be notable even though the airport did not operate at the level of intensity that people 15 years prior thought it would. The airport still had a notable number of training and conventional flights that used the facility. The City could not eliminate the facility and easily relocate the airplanes or the flights to other facili-ties in the area. Mayor Wheeler asked whether the policies and programs that staff had put forth were consistent with the City's current policies of airport activity. Mr. Schreiber said the existing policies focused on not increasing the level of activity at the airport or limiting it to a single runway. There were two existing features of the Airport Master Plan that staff found difficult to deal with. First, was the issue of the fixed-base operators. The existing Baylands Master Plan had a policy of "there shall only be two fixed-base operators at the airport." The level of activity was the issue, and that could be dealt with separate from having a fixed-base operator limitation. Second, was the limitation in the current lease with the County on the number of aircraft tie-downs that could occur at the airport. It was a definitional issues in terms of what constituted a tie-down. Staff decided not to put a policy that would address the number of tie-downs because the physical layout of the airport would not be expanded. Mayor Wheeler clarified a single runway would limit the activity which was the object of the existing Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Schreiber said the single runway was the governor on the level of activity at the airport. In addition, there was no space for notable physical expansion because of the configuration of the land
02/07/96 78-182
use surrounding the airport. A significant expansion of the airport would have to be approved by the City through the lease process and the zoning process. Staff felt the single runway limitation was appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan, and the tie-downs could be regulated by the lease. Mr. Calonne was concerned about the airport issues because airport land use planning was an area of relatively persuasive state regulation and to some degree federal regulation. If the Council wanted to consider major policy shifts in that area, he would want an opportunity to review those policies against changes that had been put into state land use planning laws in the previous four years. Council Member Fazzino said he had not heard of any state involve-ment in discussion of the future of the Reid-Hillview Airport. Mr. Calonne clarified he did not mean the state would be involved as an entity, but the state legislature had active airport land use planning rules that were implemented at a county level. The City had not tested those policies against changes in the state law. Council Member Fazzino agreed the Council should not take any different action that evening. Council Member Kniss referred to page 17 of the staff report and request from staff for Council direction on the use of the term "denser" in Program HS-1.A3. Mr. Schreiber referred to the wording of the Program HS-1.A3, "Develop a Planned Development process without requirement for a public benefit finding for denser uses that encourage the construc-tion of affordable smaller lot single-family and multiple-family housing units," on page 16. Staff had seen in the previous year and a half a desire to use the Planned Community zone process to have a smaller lot development which was not necessarily denser than what an underlying multiple-family zoning would allow, e.g., the Times Tribune site. An RM-30 zoning might be a small lot single-family product that was 17 units per acre. Staff felt the word "denser" might mean that if an RM-30 zoned property wanted a Planned Development (PD) zone at less than 30 units per acre, it would not qualify because it was not denser. Staff wanted to know whether the word "denser" was relative to standard single family or to underlying zoning. Staff's concern in terms of the PD approach and the way the market currently functioned was that the City would end up with products that were not denser than underlying higher density multiple-family zoning. Staff suggested that in the development of the PD zone, there should be in some instances a minimum density requirement. If the PD zone replaced a RM-30 or RM-40 zone in which it was appropriate to have denser housing, there should be some type of a minimum density requirement, e.g., 75 percent of the original zoning. If the PD zone replaced a R-1
02/07/96 78-183
or R-15 zone, staff was not concerned about the minimum density because it would be as dense. If the PD zone replaced commercial zoning, staff felt since the City wanted to encourage residential use of nonresidential land, it should not be encumbered with a minimum density. Staff felt the minimum density would only be appropriate when the PD Zone replaced higher density multiple family. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle clarified another circumstance where staff recommended a minimum density be applied was in the current RM-30 or RM-40 zones even if a PD zone were not replaced because the City was currently getting substantially lower densities in those districts than expected. Staff felt that trend would continue and the City would not achieve nearly the number of housing units that it wanted unless a minimum was established. Mayor Wheeler clarified the minimum density requirement would be applied in those areas where the community already had an expecta-tion and acceptance of a denser housing product. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The market trend was for a smaller lot, detached single-family product. The RM-30 and RM-40 lands were a valuable resource, and the concern was that the usability of that resource could be undercut by having lower density products in those areas. Council Member Kniss was concerned that if the market changed, the City would have a difficult requirement. The Council was enthused about the Times Tribune site because the market was enthused about the site. It was important for the language to have some flexibil-ity for the future especially with larger sites such as the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) site. Mr. Schreiber said when the Council discussed an implementation ordinance, the 75 percent figure was used as an example for minimum density, but it might not be the right number. Some studies would have to be done in that area. Ms. Lytle explained the number was selected based on what the market yielded for minimum density in the City of Sunnyvale. That minimum density threshold was working in the City of Sunnyvale to produce housing. Council Member Rosenbaum said Mr. Schreiber mentioned the trouble with the City's zones was that it was not what the market wanted, and one reason was that of the FAR restrictions. If a developer attempted to build 30 or 40 units to the acre with the given FAR, the units were very small, and the market indicated that small units were not desirable. He believed staff's suggestion was to change the FAR which would produce bulkier buildings. He was uncomfortable with the entire section, and he recalled that the Council had spent a great deal of time on that area previously. He
02/07/96 78-184
was uncertain whether the Council came up with something previously that either the CPAC or staff was happy with. He was concerned that the discussion was being moved along too quickly for that program as well as Goal BE-9. He did not believe there was sufficient detail before the Council that evening to tell the staff what should be in the Comprehensive Plan. He preferred to delay action on those issues until further detail could be provided by staff. Council Member McCown said the staff's discussion and the element of the recommendation clarified the intent of Program HS-1.A3 that Council approved. Staff wanted an explanation of the word "denser" so that it could move forward. She agreed with the staff's discussion and the conclusion drawn about what the Council was trying to accomplish in that program. However, Council Member Rosenbaum point was correct about how the minimum density worked, and she did not recall a previous discussion on that issue. It might be more of an implementation piece that needed some addition-al discussion, and perhaps the Council should not endorse that concept that evening. She believed Council could give staff the direction that the concept of "denser" meant one thing for the highest multiple-family zones, and another thing for single-family zones and commercial zones. She concurred with Mr. Schreiber's explanation, but she could not endorse the implementation concept that evening. Council Member Andersen was enthusiastic about a minimum figure and felt it was necessary in order to prevent the developer from building much larger units than were necessary. The City would lose a number of housing units if a minimum were not built into the requirements. The renter's market was a compatible issue when considering the number of units. There should be more encourage-ment to provide additional housing units in the community. He believed the smaller units would sell, but the developers received higher prices per square foot for larger units. He would support the staff recommendation; but if the Council wanted more time to discuss the issue, he would support a delay. Mayor Wheeler agreed with the comments of Council Member McCown that the Council would review the implementation when a PD ordinance was before the Council rather than as a Comprehensive Plan policy. Council Member McCown said the Council had not devoted much discussion to all the implications. She felt endorsing that particular technique to achieve that policy would not be a good idea that evening, but the Council should continue to support the policy statement and staff's clarification of the direction. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to delete references in Program HS-1.A3 and related plan text to establish minimum residential densities. Further, the policy and
02/07/96 78-185
plan text should clarify the intent to encourage greater residen-tial densities near transit centers and along transit routes and encourage residential use of commercially designated properties. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Simitian absent. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the Draft Comprehensive Plan's treatment of trees and the Tree Task Force's recommendations stress the Council's high priority of replenishing the urban forest. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Simitian absent. Council Member Fazzino referred to Program NE-5.B1 on page 19 of the staff report and said he understood that the decision to eliminate the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) provision was the result of conclusions reached by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Board and others that the requirement would impact congestion, not air quality. The staff report pointed out an inconsistency. Mr. Calonne said the staff recommendation identified an area for additional study. Mr. Schreiber said an example was the PAMF proposal. The Council had put a new condition in the use permit regarding maintenance of the TDM program, and staff concluded the Council had the authority to do that based on traffic and parking reasons, not air quality. The legislation spoke to the issue of air quality. Staff would clarify that further and make certain the language in the Plan was consistent. Council Member McCown referred to Goal BE-9 and recalled the Council voted to retain the policy statement of the limits of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, but if there were to be specific proposed changes that the Plan required, the changes would be brought back to the Council for evaluation. She assumed that meant specific areas where the result of something in the document would cause the Council to need to include language or make some modification to the 1989 standards, it could decide to do that or not. The reference to a very long list of potential change areas, some of which had already been discussed, e.g., if Stanford Medical Center's numbers were 400,000 square feet, it was a significant change. To handle the staff's new proposed policy language to deal with the possibility of changes in that many areas and with the potential breadth of the changes by policy language that relegated 1989 Citywide Study to something that would be considered as an objective was going in the wrong direction. She was concerned that it would create a lack of clarity and specifici-ty. She did not disagree that all the areas mentioned were areas that the Council had discussed and wanted changes to happen, e.g., Cal-Ventura, Midtown, Stanford Medical Center. The potential for change had been discussed, but the Council could not make the
02/07/96 78-186
decision to set aside the standards of the 1989 Citywide Study to make them objectives. The 1989 Citywide Study attempted to state that there was a relationship between potential build-out and traffic congestion, and the Council would set some build-out figures. She opposed the nature of the language recommended by staff. Council Member Rosenbaum shared Council Member McCown's concern. He recalled the Council discussed possible inconsistencies, e.g., adding space to the Research Park for child care as part of buildings and maintenance which would require a modification to the 1989 Citywide Study, but to be presented with a large list and the suggestion that all of the areas might violate the 1989 Citywide Study limits was surprising. He suggested the item be referred to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee for review. He wanted the 1989 Citywide Study document before the Council which had lists of anticipated development in a number of areas. He also wanted to know how each of the proposed area studies would fit in and where staff thought the development associated with those proposed projects would exceed those area limits. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, to refer Goal BE-9, "Maintain the limits of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study," with a notation that "staff is to bring back modifications to the Study necessary to have a consistent Comprehensive Plan," to the Policy and Services Committee in order to evaluate the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study to determine into which area each proposed project/area study fits and where staff thinks the development associated with the proposed projects/studies exceed the area limits. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Simitian absent. Council Member Fazzino referred to Policy BE-7.A, "Streamline City administrative and regulatory processes," and said he did not accept the premise that a policy to streamline City administrative processes could be in conflict with the proposals for additional regulations. Streamlining meant establishing predictability in the process; it was not a question of having a certain number of regulations. He rejected the language because it left one to conclude that since the Council might add several regulations related to tree management, it would be inconsistent with the broader objective of streamlining. The staff had done fine work with respect to permit streamlining, but he had not seen the elimination of many regulations but rather the establishment of predictability and timelines for consideration of projects. City Manager June Fleming said in some instances it was a little of both, but the basic policy would not change. Council Member Kniss was sympathetic with the comments of Council Member Fazzino, but she felt comfortable with it based on the City
02/07/96 78-187
Manager's comments. It was a semantics matter rather than conveying a different way of handling it. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to continue the City Council's review of the Comprehensive Plan wrap- up, for the purpose of considering recently received recommenda-tions from the Palo Alto Unified School District, to the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 20, 1996. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Schneider, Simitian absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the Arastradero Preserve. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding Arastradero Preserve Citizens Advisory Committee. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:25 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.
02/07/96 78-188