HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-15 City Council Summary Minutes Adjourned Meeting of October 6, 1997, to October 15, 1997 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission for a 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, including goals, policies and programs for six elements (Land Use and Community Design, Transportation, Housing, Natural Environment, Community Services and Facilities and Business and Economics); creation of new land use designation categories and street classifications; a modified Land Use and Circulation Map; and a Governance chapter which is not an element. The Final Environmental Impact Report analyzes potential environmental effects and impacts of the new Comprehensive Plan, mitigation measures for reducing environmental impacts and responds to comments received during public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. (continued from 10/6/97)...............84-407 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.............84-449
10/15/97 84-406
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 3:55 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 4:30 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission for a 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, including goals, policies and programs for six elements (Land Use and Community Design, Transportation, Housing, Natural Environment, Community Services and Facilities and Business and Economics); creation of new land use designation categories and street classifications; a modified Land Use and Circulation Map; and a Governance chapter which is not an element. The Final Environmental Impact Report analyzes potential environmental effects and impacts of the new Comprehensive Plan, mitigation measures for reducing environmental impacts and responds to comments received during public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. (continued from 10/6/97) Mayor Huber said the public hearing was completed, and Council would review the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Draft Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). He asked the City Attorney whether Council could proceed on a consensus basis until the end when a formal wrap-up motion would be needed. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said yes. The City Council should certify the EIR before discussing the Plan. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether staff had any comments regarding the letter dated September 30, 1997, from the City of Menlo Park. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the issues identified in the letter were received previously from Menlo Park. Many issues were about the Sand Hill Road Corridor, and a response was sent then. Menlo Park sent another letter that was answered in the Final EIR. Therefore, staff did not feel the need to respond to the September 30, 1997, letter. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether there was an issue staff wanted Council to give additional consideration to.
Mr. Schreiber said staff did not identify any part of Menlo Park=s
letter that it felt was necessary to bring to Council=s attention as an issue. Council Member Wheeler asked what the Santa Clara County Deficiency Plan process was and what it would accomplish for the City of Palo Alto.
10/15/97 84-407
Mr. Schreiber said state law in 1990 established the Congestion Management Program (CMP), which identified requirements for local jurisdictions to fix level of service (LOS) problems on the regional and subregional network, i.e., the freeways, expressways, and state routes in Santa Clara County (the county). The state law was subsequently amended because the requirement to fix the problem had the unintended consequence of pushing most new development to the outskirts of urban areas where the roads had capacity. Those roads would then move down the LOS scale from A to F. LOS F indicated extensive delays and congestion. The law was amended to allow local jurisdictions to fix a problem or take other actions to offset congestion and air quality impacts. In Santa Clara County, the obligation was difficult and extremely cumbersome for each jurisdiction because many of the problems crossed jurisdictional boundaries, and the result would lead to a wide variety of programs and requirements. Therefore, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board decided to put together a County Deficiency Plan. Each jurisdiction would fulfill its obligations under the law by participating and taking on certain actions to improve air quality and reduce congestion. The County was reviewing the draft Deficiency Plan, which would come to the City sometime in early 1998. Council Member Wheeler asked whether there were examples of activities that local jurisdictions had to enter into. Mr. Schreiber said in developing the Deficiency Plan, efforts were made to find land use and transportation measures that local jurisdictions could implement that would have discernible positive impact. Measures ranged from high occupancy vehicle lanes at the County level to carpool preference parking at the local level. Part of the draft Deficiency Plan included a countywide fee for new construction, which was controversial. The fee for new construction would be used for physical solutions to congestion issues raised by development. Developing more information on the fee system was what delayed City review of the Deficiency Plan. Council Member Wheeler recalled discussions on market-based solutions such as charging for parking at significant employment sites. One of the issues discussed was that such solutions would be difficult for one jurisdiction to implement because companies might move to the next jurisdiction that did not impose conditions. She asked whether such solutions and issues were being discussed within the planning process. Mr. Schreiber said discussions did not extend beyond the issue of a fee on new residential and nonresidential construction. The Deficiency Plan did not consider road fees, tolls, etc., because they needed to be looked at beyond the County level. Road pricing was discussed in terms of the process of developing the draft Deficiency Plan, but because of technical reasons and the need to
10/15/97 84-408
go beyond the County level, it was not possible to pursue road pricing at the current time. Council Member Wheeler said some intersections were horrendous, particularly in the southern part of the City. She asked whether there was a relationship between the citywide development cap numbers and the impacts on intersections. She also asked whether the City could do something within the Comprehensive Plan policies to move the development potential around so that there was less impact on intersections or whether the intersections would deteriorate regardless of what the City did in terms of allowing numbers or locations of square feet. Mr. Schreiber said staff had difficulty distinguishing between the development alternatives in terms of impacts. The growth was a small increment. Staff did not believe individual property decisions would have notable impact. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said impact became difficult to influence. The increment being added was limited compared to what was already there. When spreading the growth increment around, existing traffic would adjust itself to the resultant conditions. The other part was the number of dwelling units being added relative to what was there.
Council Member McCown understood the EIR=s analysis, there was
almost no difference between the project and Αno project≅ alternatives with regard to the way the circulation system, intersections, and traffic volumes would perform. The negative
side of that was that it meant the Αno project≅ alternative was bad at some locations. The City did not have a way to mitigate LOS F on a number of key intersections and traffic volumes. She clarified that the incremental additional development did not seem to make much difference because of the existing relative congestion. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Some intersections that staff monitored were at LOS E and F. The EIR assumed the worst case situation. When the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study (Citywide Study) was done in 1989, the worst case situation was assumed. Staff monitored and reported to Council annually the actual results of traffic change, which was not growing at the anticipated rate of the worst case. The LOS was for the peak hour in the evening, not noontime traffic. Traffic was becoming worse and would continue. Mr. Schreiber said traffic should not be viewed as the primary decision point in a particular set of land use decisions because there would be difficulty in doing anything. The system was heavily congested and would continue to be heavily congested. There was nothing the City could do that would notably reduce the level of congestion. Other policy needs, desires, and objectives
10/15/97 84-409
needed to be weighed carefully in the process. Council Member McCown said at the macro level of assumed square footage, there was a mix of development components such as commercial and residential. She asked whether there would be a difference in the way the transportation system performed if some of what was presently aimed at commercial development were moved to housing development. Mr. Schreiber said housing development should not be done to reduce traffic impacts because sometimes greater impacts might result. Most of the time drivers would not notice the difference. There was already a level of congestion, and the perceived impact of incremental changes would be very small.
Mr. Overway said staff=s modeling tools could not pick up the small nuances because of the amount of development. Promoting bicycling did not seem worthwhile because it did not show up in a global environment. However, bicycle programs gave people a choice and helped certain locations. Council should not make land use decisions based on the traffic consequences because there were too many other things that influenced traffic. Council Member Kniss said there was discussion on the difference in numbers of trips that people took. She noticed that ever other car had a child in it, and it seemed to be considered unsafe for kids to walk or ride bikes. She clarified that in the last few years, the City did a study on additional number of traffic trips in town. Mr. Overway said the City did not have analytical survey data that demonstrated the same conclusion. The number of trips generally came from census data, but much of the travel data was only work related. Other reasons included the economic status of and the availability of cars to younger people and women, more women in the work force in the 1980s, and the booming economy. Council Member Kniss did not recall, for example, that there were designated parking spaces in the high schools 15 years prior. The number of trips seemed to be different from 20 years before. Traffic and parking were major issues. She observed that the community was doing more short-term driving, and most of the driving was probably not too far out of Palo Alto. A study on number of trips would probably be relevant to determining what to do about traffic, red lights, etc. Mr. Schreiber recalled the City had done a license plate survey of
Αthrough traffic≅ around 1987. The survey showed that most trips in Palo Alto originated in Palo Alto with a destination in Palo Alto. A small percentage started outside of Palo Alto and ended outside of Palo Alto. Palo Alto was the generator for most of the traffic. Council Member Kniss said approximately 9,000 children in the
10/15/97 84-410
school system had little or no busing. There were many trips because parents felt it was unsafe for the children to cross busy streets. Mr. Schreiber said whether a student had a license or not, it was
Αcool≅ to arrive in a car, not on a bike or bus. In a broader perspective, it was desirable for an individual to drive, even for short trips. Council Member Kniss said it would be intriguing for the community to analyze its own habits and perhaps reduce its own trips. Mayor Huber believed that citizens complained about traffic and wanted cars off the road so that they could drive their cars faster. Council Member Wheeler referred to the list of combining districts
on page 64 of the Draft EIR and asked whether the ΑS≅ designation of single-family overlay zone belonged on the list. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Schneider referred to the staff report (CMR:433:97) and asked what the differences were between the noise policies in the existing Comprehensive Plan and the proposed new policies. Richard Illingworth, Illingworth & Rodkin, Noise Consultants, said Illingworth & Rodkin drafted the noise section of the EIR and assisted in the development of policies. The statute required the use of a metric different from what was used in the existing Comprehensive Plan. There was not a significant difference in the noise environments as measured by the two metrics. In terms of how a project would be approved, the new compatibility guidelines were more restrictive, included more types of land uses, and set specific limits. Council Member Schneider asked how the more stringent requirements would be enforced. Mr. Illingworth said when an application was made and the project was in the high noise zone, Planning staff asked for a noise study describing exactly what the noise levels were and what would be done in the project to meet the standards, which could include site planning, sound walls, setbacks, etc. Council Member Schneider asked whether that was different from what currently existed. Mr. Illingworth said no. Council Member Schneider clarified that the noise standards were more stringent in the new Comprehensive Plan, even though the City
10/15/97 84-411
was building denser housing closer to intermodal transit. Mr. Illingworth said it had to do not with the stringency of the standards but with the mitigation measures. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Planning Commission decided that in the interest of ensuring it could place high density housing along the railroad tracks, it wanted to include a statement which said the City could ignore the noise ordinance. He asked what that meant, especially in the context of the fact that the City currently had housing along the railroad tracks. Mr. Illingworth believed the Planning Commission did not want to be restrictive so as not to be able to have housing next to transit stations. The two standards for residential were outdoor and indoor noise environments. For example, when putting multi-family housing next to a high noise level transit, there might not be outdoor areas next to the transit facility, or the outdoor areas might be located on the other side of the housing facility. The indoor standards did not change, but buffers might have to be put in, such as better walls and windows. Council Member Rosenbaum said housing had been placed next to railroad tracks, and he had not heard of any projects that had not moved forward because of noise constraints. He asked what it was the Planning Commission thought should be different in order to ensure what the City had been able to do all along. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission wanted to have more flexibility in ways to meet standards and not get into a situation of EIRs based on narrowly worded language. Planning Commissioner Kathy Schmidt said exterior patios were often required in some housing. Noise requirements for exterior patios were hard to meet. There was a project next to Page Mill Road that had to have an 8-foot sound wall with exterior patios on the other side. The purpose of trying to make that project more attractive was defeated. In some other communities, there were no noise requirements on the exterior patio areas because it was difficult to meet them. Mr. Illingworth believed there was a statement in the planning guidelines that said in situations with a requirement of an excessively high sound wall but the need to have housing, the Planning Commission and the Council could always make a determination that it was appropriate to allow higher noise levels. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that if he were interested in not worsening the conditions in new housing with regard to exterior places, pools, patios, etc., he should be concerned about what the Planning Commission proposed in part of the General Plan.
10/15/97 84-412
Mr. Illingworth said that was correct. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said a tension existed between whether or not the City would put housing closer to transit systems and roads. The greatest problem with noise in the community was the traffic. It was one of the most serious problems the City did not mitigate. Noise pollution from roads was not discussed when air pollution was. The Planning Commission tried to develop something flexible with some considerations so the tension could be eased and the City could get public transit. Council Member Rosenbaum saw housing built along the tracks and did not feel there was any impediment. It seemed as if there were something occurring in the interest of high density housing that would make life unpleasant for the residents in those projects. Ms. Cassel said there were newer rules, and the Planning
Commission=s intention was for the City to be able to do what it did before the newer rules. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that Ms. Cassel suggested the
new guidelines drove the Planning Commission=s proposal. Ms. Schmidt said the Planning Commission wanted to see more flexibility because the exterior sound requirements made it difficult to put housing in transit corridors. Mr. Schreiber said over the years, the EIR process stressed the establishment of clear, quantifiable standards of significance. Approximately 10 to 15 years before, EIRs had greater flexibility in developing more qualitative standards of significance, and the issues were not addressed as rigorously as in the present. A small project could be subject to the EIR process when standards of significance were not met. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures, the only way to avoid the process was to do an EIR with overriding findings. The Planning Commission responded to a desire for greater flexibility so that tradeoffs could be made between public goods, such as housing near transit stations, and putting many projects through EIRs to get them around a significant City standard. Council Member Fazzino asked whether, with the recommended Planning Commission change, the City began to view itself more as a small city, not a residential suburb. He also asked whether comprehensive plans in larger cities, such as San Francisco, would
be different from Palo Alto=s with respect to noise. Mr. Illingworth said Southern California tended to have less restrictive standards primarily because of more freeways and development. Most of the cities in the San Francisco Bay Area were very similar. Council Member Fazzino clarified that large cities such as San Jose
10/15/97 84-413
and Oakland were included. Mr. Illingworth referred to the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment table on page 203 of the Draft EIR, and said the standard for residential was 55 day/night noise level (LDN). The standard was not reasonably attainable in most areas. However, some cities were rural enough to apply the standard. Council Member Fazzino clarified that was true, even though such cities had a stronger commitment than other smaller cities to the juxtaposition of transit and housing. Mr. Illingworth said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino asked what the Planning Commission suggested as to what kind of community the City was becoming. Ms. Schmidt said Palo Alto was in the middle of the Peninsula with 6 million people, was on a rail line, and was the top location of Silicon Valley. It was difficult to call it a suburb. The City had to have a vision for transportation that included having enough housing density to support public transportation. Ms. Cassel said at Stanford and in the City, there were more employees than residents. It was difficult to call Palo Alto a suburb, but it did not mean the City did not want to be a comfortable and pleasant community to live in, although there were not any areas that were distinctly suburban in nature. She recalled that approximately 2 percent of land was multi-family and 40 percent or more of the residents lived on the 2 percent of the land. Council Member Fazzino said people still wanted to view the City as a community with a placid, suburban environment. Ms. Cassel said nationally, a small city was defined as 50,000 people. The City received federal benefits because it was above that number. Mr. Calonne said when reviewing the Natural Environment Element of the Draft Comprehensive Plan, Council should compare Policy N-33A,
ΑEncourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise
environments. Use the guidelines described in the table >Land Use
Compatibility for Community Noise Environment= to determine
compatibility,≅ on Green Page N-23 with the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment table on White Page N-24. He questioned what policy expression would be pursued legally between the unacceptable noise standards in the table and the flexibility that was in Policy N-33A. Council Member Eakins referred to page 4 of the staff report
10/15/97 84-414
(CMR:433:97), second paragraph, third sentence, ΑThe State of California has mandated that noise elements use noise measurements
that include day-night average levels such as Ldn.≅ She clarified the City had to change its method. Mr. Illingworth said that was correct. Council Member Eakins clarified the Planning Commission recommended more flexibility with standards but the City had to change its quantitative measurement guidelines. Mr. Illingworth said that was correct. The metric had to be changed, but the Planning Commission wanted flexibility in applying specifically the outdoor noise standards. Council Member Kniss referred to Project Description on page 1 of
the Draft EIR, second paragraph, last sentence, ΑThe forecast year
for the Comprehensive Plan Update is 2010.≅ She clarified that by 2005, the City would start the Comprehensive Plan process over again. She asked whether that was a state mandate. Mr. Schreiber said the state mandate for updates applied to only the Housing Element, which was a five-year cycle. The end year for the Comprehensive Plan was 2010, and major updates along the way would extend the end year. The Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1976 went to 1990, and the major 1980-81 update extended it to 1995. Because there were so many area studies and changes that occurred, the City did not do the major overall update to push the Comprehensive Plan to 2005. A redo of the Comprehensive Plan would be needed, which he did not anticipate within the next 10 or 15 years. Council Member Kniss clarified that 2010 was when the Comprehensive Plan would be updated next. Mr. Schreiber said 2010 was the year that was looked at in terms of traffic impacts, noise, air quality, etc. Council Member Kniss asked whether the next update would be done in the same depth as was currently being done. Mr. Schreiber said no. The 1980-81 update was approximately six months and did not involve as much work as in a total redo. Council Member Kniss said it was misleading because she thought the Comprehensive Plan would be in place through 2015 or 2020, with a minor update before then. A five-year cycle drained staff and Council. There was the adoption, and the implementation would probably take most of 1998. There needed to be clarity on how long the Comprehensive Plan would stay in place.
10/15/97 84-415
Mr. Schreiber said a total redo was different from a major update. Future minor and major updates would have their own environmental reviews and would push the time frame out. Council Member Kniss asked when the next major redo would take place. Council Member McCown said in 1981, Council did a major update which involved making specific, limited changes on an existing
document. The current process was comparable to the Αstart from
scratch≅ process done in the mid-1970s, approximately 20 years prior. Mr. Schreiber said a 20-year time frame was a good estimate that in 20 years the City would be dealing with the same Comprehensive Plan issues. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Land Use Assumptions on page 30 of the Draft EIR. What was assumed might be developed came up to within 1 percent of the limit that was in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. He asked what assumptions were made relative to the maximum that might occur. Mr. Schreiber said the 3.2 million square feet that was inserted into the Comprehensive Plan came out of the Citywide Study starting in 1989, which was less than the High Development Alternative. The square footage also involved Stanford square footage that was not part of Citywide Study. The Land Use Assumptions and Comprehensive Plan numbers were coincidentally close but not planned or designed that way. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that certain assumptions in different areas were made as to the percentage of maximum that was likely to occur by 2010. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. He referred to Table 40, Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR Proposed Land Use Alternatives, on
page 401 of the Draft EIR, which included Αproject,≅ Αno project,≅
Αlow,≅ and Αhigh≅ alternatives. Staff went through the community and tried to estimate what would be a reasonable high or low level of development. The environmental impact process needed to have a range of alternatives. The numbers were estimates based on what staff believed was possible in an effort to try to create reasonable alternatives.
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified there was no Αworst case≅ number. In the Citywide Study, staff looked at what might happen if things were built out according to the zoning, which came out to be a very large number, and there was a downzoning. He did not see a similar number in the Draft EIR.
10/15/97 84-416
Mr. Schreiber said given the amount of downzoning that occurred with the Citywide Study, there was not as much flexibility in creating the scenarios as there was with citywide. While the City went through a major downzoning with the Citywide Study, not much of it was real development potential. About 7 million square feet was in the Stanford Shopping Center. Floor area ratio (FAR) times acreage yielded a number. It was not based on actual development possibilities or potential. In the current case, the zoning was much closer to what was allowed, and thus there was not the range or spread. In other words, if the City took every parcel in town and multiplied it by its zoning maximum, there would be a higher number, but every analysis done over the last ten years indicated that they were not real numbers for many parcels because small parcels did not tend to develop out to the maximum. For larger areas, such as the Stanford Research Park, staff assumed a level of development that was relatively close to the maximum allowed by the zoning. Council Member Rosenbaum said the existing Comprehensive Plan for the Research Park showed 600,000 square feet, whereas the proposed Comprehensive Plan showed 800,000 square feet. He asked what accounted for the additional 200,000 square feet. Mr. Schreiber said in terms of traffic level, there was probably no
difference, but he was not sure why the Αno project≅ was at 600,000 square feet, not 800,000. Council Member Rosenbaum said empty land based on a FAR of 0.4 would correspond to 40 to 50 acres of vacant space. He asked where the City would have 600,000 or 800,000 square feet. Mr. Schreiber said there were large sites developed well below the zoning maximum with a FAR of about 0.25 where 0.4 was allowed. The large sites had a significant amount of the currently unused development potential in the Research Park, and smaller sites had the rest. Some of the sites might be redeveloped with higher density consistent with the existing zoning. Council Member Schneider said on page 430 of the Draft EIR, there
was a reference to Planned Community zone at Hyatt Rickey=s. However, on page 2-37 of the Final EIR, the reference was removed. On page 409 of the Draft EIR and page 2 of the staff report (CMR:433:97), the Planned Community zone reference remained. She asked whether the Planned Community zone was part of the hotel overlay. Mr. Schreiber said the references should have been removed. The assumptions were incorrect because a Planned Community zone, a new Combining District, a modification of the existing one, or other alternatives could be involved. Council Member Schneider clarified that reference to Planned
10/15/97 84-417
Community zone on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:433:97) should be removed. Mr. Schreiber said approval of a hotel project on a site would require adding the zoning designation of Hotel Combining District or approval of a Planned Community zone. A project beyond the 0.6 FAR for a hotel would require a Planned Community Zone or a modification in the Hotel Combining District. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) including the Draft EIR dated December 1996 and the Final EIR dated September 1997. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mr. Calonne said after the Planning Commission finished its work on the proposed Comprehensive Plan, the California Supreme Court addressed what could not be done in terms of downzoning. The issue was relevant to the proposed language regarding the foothills, and Council should address it when reviewing that part of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Huber said the Green Pages of the 1996-2010 Comprehensive
Plan reflected the Planning Commission=s revisions. Council Member Eakins referred to Green Page I-3. She suggested
that ΑGovernance and Regional Leadership≅ should be changed to
ΑProviding Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership.≅ Council Member McCown said on page I-3 in the fourth sentence under
ΑMeeting Residential and Commercial Needs,≅ Αprivate≅ should be
changed to Αcommercial≅ because Αprivate≅ was too narrow. There were other types of enterprises that contrasted to residential
neighborhoods, and Αcommercial≅ was consistent with the heading. MOTION: It was duly moved and seconded, to approve in concept revisions to the Introduction Section, Green Page I-3, to revise
the last theme title to read ΑProviding Responsive Governance and
Regional Leadership,≅ and in the theme titled ΑMeeting Residential
and Commercial Needs,≅ to revise the wording as follows: ΑPalo Alto is well known as a desirable residential community and a City with a healthy, competitive business community. Meeting the demands of each community is a major theme of the Plan. The Plan establishes the physical boundaries of residential and commercial areas and sets limits where necessary to ensure that business and housing remain compatible. It encourages private commercial
enterprise, but not at the expense of the City=s residential neighborhoods. The City is committed to retaining existing businesses, maintaining vital commercial areas, and attracting
quality new businesses.≅
10/15/97 84-418
MOTION PASSED 9-0. Vice Mayor Andersen referred to the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page L-5, Policy L-1, and said concerns were expressed about the consistency between Santa Clara County and the
City with regard to the County=s exclusion of libraries and churches in terms of open space. He clarified that staff would be meeting with the County to reconcile issues. Mr. Schreiber recalled Nonette Hanko of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District commented that the City should not assume total incorporation of the County zoning because the County zoning might have a variety of land uses and activities that were inappropriate for Palo Alto. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit referred to the staff report (CMR:396:97) and said that staff recommended changing the last
sentence of Policy L-1 to ΑRetain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low intensity development consistent with the open space
character of the area≅ instead of referencing County zoning. Council Member McCown referred to Green Pages L-5 and L-5A and believed that under Program L-0A, there was too much detail about the 1985 Land Use Policies Agreement. She asked whether there was a way to put the details in an appendix. Also, because the details focused on the agreements with Stanford, she thought the original
heading of ΑExtent of Urban Development≅ was no longer correct. She asked whether the heading could be changed to reference the specific, unusual, and unique relationship with Stanford. Mr. Schreiber said the policies addressed future urban development in the foothills area. Part of the issue was that some of the area was owned by Stanford, and it might not be easy to pull the Stanford material cleanly out of the details. Council Member McCown said Policy L-1 addressed everything west of the foothills, but everything in the policies and programs within Policy L-1 had to do with Stanford. She did not object to having a
reference about the significance of Stanford=s lands from an urban versus open space boundaries perspective. However, she believed a different meaning had been pulled in under the original Policy L-1. Council Member Kniss asked whether Council Member McCown was suggesting rearrangement of the details for readability rather than for content. Council Member McCown said yes. Her suggestion, starting on Green
Page L-5, was to keep Policy L-1, except change the heading ΑExtent
of Urban Development,≅ keep Policy LA, under Program L-0A, keep the
10/15/97 84-419
main program sentence, and from L-5A on, tighten up and not have all the details. Mr. Schreiber said the Green Pages included Planning Commissioner
Schmidt=s suggestion of putting the details in a box so when reading the actual text, the box could be skipped or returned to. Council Member McCown agreed with the suggestion, but she believed the thread of the policy and program was lost by having too much detail. Council Member Wheeler said Policy L-1 on Green Page L-5 of the Land Use and Community Design Element mentioned an urban growth boundary and that everything west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra would operate under different rules. She clarified that it was an appropriate time to discuss the issues that the City Attorney mentioned earlier about recent California Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Calonne said the Court would see urban growth boundary as a policy statement to preclude development. Implementing zoning would cause compensable damage because all use of the property
could not be precluded. Regarding the County=s agricultural zoning, the law in California was that downzoning was unconstitutional only when it deprived the landowner of substantially all reasonable use of the property. When use changes were made where buildings existed, the City allowed amortization so that the invested value could be drawn out of the property. In August, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in a rent control case that was favorable for the Santa Monica rent control ordinance. However, the Court disclaimed it ever held that the law was not to deny substantially all reasonable use of the property and said it was a side part of the decision because five single-
family homes could be built on the five-acre parcel. The Court=s
decision gave a standard Αdeny all substantial use≅ test which meant that people did not waste time going to court, and there was no litigation incentive for every legislative action by the Council to be tested. Council would not cause damage by adopting the Plan, but implementing zoning would. As to the foothills piece of the Plan, he advised Council to provide clear reasons why Council wanted to change what existed. The Courts upset the balance between local government and property owners on development issues so that the City would bear an expensive litigation burden anytime a use was changed that negatively affected the value of a property. There were brand new rules with no written analysis of them. Council needed to bolster the reasoning for what the Planning Commission had in mind on three items: 1) what Council meant by an
urban growth boundary, 2) what the County=s reference to agricultural zoning meant, and 3) why it was important that the foothills worked the same way as with the County.
10/15/97 84-420
Mr. Schreiber said in the staff report (CMR:396:97), the staff recommended removing the reference to County agricultural zoning in Policy L-1. Council Member McCown recalled that the staff had made a wording
change in Policy L-1, which supported Ms. Hanko=s argument that Council be more precise in the future as to what the Council wanted to do for Palo Alto in the foothills area. MOTION: It was duly moved and seconded to approve in concept revisions to the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page
L-5, Policy L-1, to reflect the following: ΑContinue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed land within the urban service area by establishing an urban growth boundary at the same location as the boundary of the urban service area. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for development
based on the County=s agricultural zoning very low intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area;
and retain undeveloped Baylands east of Highway 101 as open space.≅
Further, to direct staff to replace the section heading ΑExtent of
Urban Development≅ with a new heading indicative of the content of the section. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Planning Commission had another reason for bringing in the County regulations instead of very low intensity. If the Planning Commission had no problem with the motion, she would support it. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct staff to revise the text following Policy L-1, Policy LA and Program L-0A, to simplify the wording and perhaps include a text box. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Wheeler said San Jose adopted and other cities were contemplating an urban growth boundary. She asked whether the
cities were following San Jose=s model and whether the phrase
Αurban growth boundary≅ or Αurban limit line≅ had a specific meaning or different meanings for other cities. Mr. Schreiber said the Santa Clara County General Plan defined urban growth boundary as the boundary beyond which urban growth was not anticipated. Between the urban growth boundary and the actual urban area, there was an urban expansion area which might have various time phases. In Santa Clara County there was an emphasis on respecting the foothills, unlike in Contra Costa County, for example, where it was different in terms of unincorporated and open space areas. There had been repeated efforts made, especially in cities with hillside areas, to push the boundary of the urban area 10/15/97 84-421
out quickly. County staff established clear urban growth lines within the current Plan, which led to discussions with San Jose, Cupertino, Saratoga, and Milpitas. It was less of an issue for Palo Alto because the City had policies in place since the 1970s. There had not been a problem in the City regarding where the line should be. Mr. Calonne said if the City did not clearly say what it meant by an urban growth boundary, it was possible that someone would fit it into a theory that the City infringed on a constitutional interest of the property owner. The change should not be done for something
as trivial as Αconsistency with the County.≅ There was not enough justification to warrant the risk of changing something that worked. He advised that Council should explain why it was necessary. The changes at Coyote Hill might fit. The urban growth boundary was designed in San Jose and other counties to prevent municipal marking of flag pole shaped property miles away and to prevent the need for expensive service extensions. Coyote Hill had urban services. If the Planning Commission were trying to deal with Coyote Hill, the Council should deal with it directly, not indirectly. Council Member Rosenbaum said it was unnecessary to make the proposed zone change. The Council 25 years prior established the open space zoning of one house per ten acres, which had been successful in maintaining the open space character of the area. There were very few properties that had any development potential. The public policy purpose of the need for consistency with the County was slim. The City had something that worked. He wanted some discussion to see if people were sympathetic to the idea of leaving the ten-acre zoning alone. He referred to White Page L-9, Open Space/Controlled Development, where he believed was the first place the density range of 20 to 160 acres was referenced as opposed to one house per 10 acres. Mr. Schreiber said there was a distinction between the use of the
term Αurban growth boundary≅ or Αurban limit line≅ and the issue of the appropriate density in the foothill areas. They were closely related issues, but one could exist without the other. Council Member Eakins said in areas where there was pressure for development on farmland, boundaries were established for 20 years at a time and had a very different function. She was more comfortable with the urban service area idea in which Council would reaffirm a limit rather than use a line or boundary concept. Council Member McCown recalled that during the first round of discussions on the Draft Comprehensive Plan, Council talked about the same issue in some depth. She did not remember what the specific vote was, but Council decided to keep the current urban service area boundary. She spoke with Planning Commissioner Owen
Byrd, who was aware of Council=s history, and asked him what the
10/15/97 84-422
substantive policy change was. Mr. Byrd indicated consistency of terminology but acknowledged that it was not a change of policy. She was concerned the City was adding confusion rather than clarity if there was not an intended substantive change in policy. She preferred not to make the wording change that used the terminology
Αurban growth boundary.≅ Regarding Council Member Rosenbaum=s point, she clarified that the change to a 20- to 160-acre minimum size rather than 10-acre minimum would affect 9 properties in the foothills. Ms. Warheit said there were 14 parcels. Council Member McCown clarified that the 14 parcels, under the present zoning, had multiple development opportunities, which would be removed by the change. Ms. Warheit said yes. The parcels were 20 acres or greater, which meant that under the existing regulations, they might expect to have two or more parcels.
Council Member McCown asked what the City=s valuation was of the nature of the properties in terms of their potential likelihood to have subdivisions pursued. Ms. Warheit said most of them had very little likelihood. Staff could provide more background on the parcels. Mr. Calonne said the properties were required by state law to be noticed, and Council would be conducting public hearings on them in the near future. Council Member McCown said if the policy change would not make a big practical difference, then it seemed the message from the change was not desirable for the government to send unless the Council felt there was an important public need and public interest at stake because of an imminent threat. She wanted enough background to understand the policy arguments on whether or not the change should be made. Mayor Huber asked whether there was a need to do a notice if the Council did not make the change. Mr. Schreiber said there was a difference between the urban limit line discussion and the issue of the appropriate density in the Open Space/Controlled Development land use category. If the Council wanted to pursue modifying the density from one unit per 10 acres to one unit per 20 to 160 acres, then the Council had an obligation to do a notice. Mr. Calonne said if the density were not changed, then a notice did not need to be done.
10/15/97 84-423
Ms. Warheit said there were three non-institutional properties that would be affected. The more institutional owners included Stanford University, City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Hills Golf & Country Club, First American Title Guaranty Company, and Kaiser Cement. One of the parcels was Alta Mesa Memorial Park. Council Member McCown clarified that the properties were in the hands of institutions such as government, Stanford University, or other major entities except for three. Ms. Warheit said yes. In addition, there were three other parcels with private owners.
Vice Mayor Andersen referred to the City Attorney=s earlier comment about setting the boundary fairly low and asked how it would apply to the overlay issue on the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real site. Mr. Calonne referred to page 2 of the staff report (CMR:433:97). He did not know how to analyze whether hotel versus residential was more valuable. The Court hinted that it would listen to arguments that benefits provided through zoning regulations on surrounding properties would offset any reduction in value. On the hotel or housing site, the limit did not have to be lowered to preserve any flexibility. Council Member Schneider said the urban limit line was a popular concept that began several years before when Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, adopted urban limit lines to protect development. The City had the OS District which worked well, and not changing it was the best advice. She supported eliminating the urban limit line. Council Member Kniss clarified the reason for the Planning
Commission=s recommended wording was for consistency with the County. Ms. Schmidt referred to page 24 of the March 19, 1997, Planning
Commission minutes and said Mr. Byrd=s comments included reasons for the recommended wording. Council Member Kniss said if the City attempted to maintain its regionality and consistency with the rest of the County, the City
should keep the wording. She supported leaving the phrase Αurban
growth boundary≅ in. She also agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum regarding the zoning. Council Member Wheeler said if other cities understood the phrases
Αurban limit line≅ or Αurban growth boundary≅ to mean the same and if what the City was doing and had done in the last 20 years were consistent with the understanding that everybody else had, then she
had no objection to including the phrase Αurban growth boundary.≅
10/15/97 84-424
However, if each city were making its own unique interpretations, then she would not be as supportive unless the Council was very explicit about what it meant and why the Council was including it. Earlier discussion of the issue was on the recommendation of the
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). In CPAC=s proposal to the City Council, the urban limit line or the urban growth boundary was tied explicitly to the idea of allowing incremental additional square footage within Stanford Research Park to encourage Stanford University not to develop Coyote Hill but take the allowable density instead and transfer it into the already developed Stanford Research Park and flatlands. When Stanford University said it was not interested in that concept, the City let the idea go. She did not think it was that the discussion revolved around the urban limit line per se, but it was the nexus between the urban limit line and the proposal regarding expansion at Stanford Research Park. Council Member Kniss recalled the discussion Council Member Wheeler mentioned and was troubled with the issue at the time. She
supported Αurban growth boundary≅ for the reasons Mr. Byrd articulated at the March 19, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. There was good reason to stay consistent with the County. Stanford
University did not agree with the wording, but it was the City=s Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Huber clarified that whatever words Council used, the Council needed to do what it did in the past to be safe.
Mr. Calonne said Council needed some substantial reason for Αurban
growth boundary.≅ Consistency with the County was not a basis. Mayor Huber asked whether it mattered what the phrase was. Mr. Calonne said no. If there were no intent to convey a different
meaning with the phrase from what the City=s existing law was, Council could add a separate sentence that said the City dubbed its existing policy an urban growth boundary. He did not know what other cities were doing with the phrase. Mayor Huber said what he understood from other Council Members was that Council wanted to continue doing what it did before, but it could make some people happier if it called what it did before an
Αurban limit line.≅ Mr. Calonne said Palo Alto created the concept, and other people were doing something similar. Council Member McCown said she did not know whether or not what other cities were doing with their phrases was the same thing that Council was discussing. If the Council wanted to make a comment as
a policy matter that the City=s existing policy to limit future urban development to developed lands within the service area,
10/15/97 84-425
otherwise known as an urban growth boundary, was the continued policy of the City of Palo Alto, she would support it. Council was
ratifying the continuation of the City=s policy. Mr. Schreiber referred to Green Map L-2 which showed the urban service area as a dotted pattern. The urban service area was the same as it was 20 or 25 years before, and the urban growth boundary was coterminous with the urban service area. There were no changes or deviations. Council Member McCown said there were significant differences of meaning. Other communities, such as San Jose, had an urban service area that was not conterminous with urban development. For those cities, she believed the urban growth boundary was actually a line inside the historic urban service area. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that staff be directed to revise further the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page L-5, Policy L-1,
as follows: ΑContinue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed land within the urban service area by establishing an otherwise known as the urban growth boundary at the same location as the boundary of the urban service area. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for development
based on the County=s agricultural zoning very low intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area;
and retain undeveloped Baylands east of Highway 101 as open space.≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page L-9, Open Space/Controlled Development definition be replaced with the original wording of the section reflected on
White Page L-9 as follows: ΑLand having all the characteristics of open space but upon which some development may be allowed. Open space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential densities range from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre and population
densities range from 0.1 to 2 persons per acre.≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member McCown said the staff report (CMR:396:97) referenced three other policies in the Natural Environment Element that dealt with the same issue. When discussing the Natural Environment Element, Council would need to keep Policies N-4, N-4A, and N-4B consistent with the Open Space/Controlled Development definition on White Page L-9. RECESS: 6:20 p.m. - 7:10 p.m.
10/15/97 84-426
Council Member Eakins said the Planning Commission eliminated Program L-8, but it had been discovered in recent months that restaurants could be identified as a source of some Downtown problems. She asked whether there was a way to work restaurants into Program L-7 on White Page L-7. Council Member Schneider said attempting to legislate the number of restaurants in the Downtown area was risky. Council Member Eakins said number was not the issue. The question was whether or not restaurants should be included because restaurants were recently identified as a source of Downtown parking and traffic problems. Because of the blended parking requirements, the City did not have a way to deal with them. She wanted to include restaurants in the monitoring, not control them. Council Member McCown asked whether the concept was to track the restaurants along with retail. Council Member Eakins said yes. Council Member Wheeler thought eating and drinking establishments were one of the categories. Mr. Schreiber said they were in Program L-7 as one of the ground floor retail uses. Council Member Eakins asked whether there was a way to look at making restaurants an exception for parking requirements. The concern was identified with the last Downtown PC that went through. Mr. Schreiber cautioned against moving in that direction too quickly because the blended rate was a result of much discussion and effort. Over the past 11 years, there was notable turnaround in the mix of uses. Also, it was not so much the square footage as it was the attractiveness and success of restaurants. Council could address the issue in the Comprehensive Plan as matter of policy and then later on address restaurants in a different manner. Council Member Eakins asked whether there was enough in Program L-7 to have a connection. Mr. Schreiber said the restaurant issue could be placed on the agenda when the Council received the annual monitoring report on Downtown activity. The Council could also raise the issue of Downtown restaurants separately from the report. He did not believe a Comprehensive Plan program was necessary to pursue the issue. Council Member Kniss recalled discussion that other cities in the Bay Area, such as San Carlos, had done some monitoring that
10/15/97 84-427
designated what kind of retail should exist in some parts of town. She believed the Council decided not do such monitoring. Mr. Schreiber was cautious about the ability of a municipal government to effectively regulate the mix of retail uses in an area. Uses changed over time. Council Member Kniss said Stanford Shopping Center controlled its mix of uses, but she presumed a private shopping center had measurements to define what should be there. Mr. Schreiber said the management of a private shopping center was radically different from the management of a municipal governance of a Downtown or commercial area. Council Member Schneider said it was not the uses but rather the intensity of the uses of the Downtown. The restaurants currently provided the most intense use in the Downtown area. For example, the amount of parking required was based on square footage. She had a building that was 2,500 square feet and was required to provide a certain number of parking spaces. If she did not, she had to pay in-lieu parking fees, which she paid. A restaurant was held to the same parking standard, even though a new restaurant with 280 seats generated far more traffic than a 2,500-square-foot store. She asked whether the Comprehensive Plan was the place to address such an issue. Council Member Eakins referred to Policy T-45 on Green Page T-24 of the Transportation Element, which mentioned providing sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue Business districts. She believed that was the place in the Comprehensive Plan to connect to regarding the exception for more intense uses. Council Member Schneider asked whether she and Council Member Eakins were moving in the right direction. Mr. Schreiber said staff concurred that the issue was more effectively addressed in the Transportation Element portion that Council Member Eakins referred to. Council Member Fazzino heard concern from the community about the issue. The concern also existed in other parts of the City. The
City=s parking regulations were an issue when a small retail establishment was required to provide the same amount of funding for parking spaces as a 280-seat restaurant. The City had to focus on the intensity of uses and the kind of parking and traffic impacts that certain uses created. The issue was of significant concern and should be addressed in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. If not, Council would be hearing about it in the years ahead.
10/15/97 84-428
Council Member McCown said Policy L-7 on White Page L-7 had no proposed changes by the Planning Commission. However, she noticed
the implication created by the last phrase, ΑSuch additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900 maximum, or may count towards a
higher number if the Council amends the Comprehensive Plan.≅ It was implicit that Council could always amend the Comprehensive Plan, but the Council needed to say that there was a limit of
3,257,900 square feet. Program L-5, Α...If the rate of growth reaches the point where the citywide development maximum might be
reached...≅ weakened Policy L-7, which tried to establish a limit. It opened the door so that Council could move the limit up. The Council should set a cap, define it as a goal, and reevaluate it when it seemed the City was pushing at the edges of the cap. Council Member Kniss asked where the City currently was with the development cap. Mr. Schreiber said since 1989, development within the nine planning areas was about 907,000 square feet, which represented 28 percent of the 3,257,900 square feet. The largest part in the last two years was the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). Council Member Kniss said she would have thought that the largest part was in the Downtown. She asked where the City was with the Downtown cap. Mr. Schreiber said the Downtown number was approximately 65,000 square feet of the 350,000-square-foot cap. Council Member Kniss said there probably was not much new development added, unless it was added outside of the Downtown rather than within the Downtown. It was more common to tear down and rebuild. Mr. Schreiber said since the adoption of the Citywide Study, a great majority of square footage was outside of Downtown. Council Member Kniss clarified that the reason for allowing a higher number was to expand areas such as California Avenue. She wanted to put the cap into context because Council Member McCown said the number should not go higher. She wanted to know whether that made sense in terms of the whole Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Schreiber said in 2010, the City=s reaching the 3.2 million square-foot number was unlikely. The City probably would stay well below it. The last phrase in Policy L-7 came out of the March 1996 Policy and Services (P&S) Committee discussion and was approved by the Council in April 1996. Discussion was within the context of recognizing that if the City neared the cap, perhaps areas such as Midtown or an unusual use should not count. It was also recognized that the Council could amend the number anytime.
10/15/97 84-429
Council Member Kniss clarified that to allow the number to go higher probably did not make a whole lot of policy sense because it was unlikely to happen.
Mr. Schreiber said that was staff=s assessment. At the same time, it was not possible to identify the unexpected. If there were an unusual use that generated little traffic but required a significant amount of square footage, the number could be amended. He added that there was testimony about how the 1989 Citywide Study established limits for each of the nine study areas, which was not true. The Citywide Study was not a development cap or a set of limits for each of the areas. Even while the Citywide Study was in the process of being reviewed by the Council in 1989, decisions were made on several land use applications that were different from and beyond the numbers assigned to a couple of the study areas. Mr. Calonne said the last phrase in Policy L-7 seemed to say what had already been done had to be counted if a new cap were set. He was unsure what Council tried to do by approving the phrase. Mr. Schreiber recalled that Council tried to create an acknowledgment that flexibility might be needed by future Councils. The discussion followed directly on Measure R of the 1995 election. Mayor Huber clarified the phrase could be added to all the Programs and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan because any Council could change it anytime. Council Member McCown believed the phrase sent the wrong message and should be deleted. Council Member Rosenbaum said Policy L-7 mentioned the nine planning areas. He clarified that staff said the numbers listed in the Citywide Study were not intended to be limits for each of the areas. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The Citywide Study was not proposed or discussed as a development cap. The numbers listed were based on reasonable zoning buildout for the different areas. By the time the Citywide Study was adopted, at least one of the areas had received Council approval for development that went beyond the numbers cited. Also, the Citywide Study did not include all the nonresidential development in Palo Alto, e.g., the PAMF site south of Downtown. Council Member Rosenbaum said the 19 areas in the Comprehensive Plan did not correspond to the 9 areas in the Citywide Study. In the EIR, there was an estimate of expected growth in each of the 19 areas. He asked whether it made sense to include something in the Comprehensive Plan which indicated that in order to prevent traffic
10/15/97 84-430
effects in a particular area, limits should be recognized in each of the areas. Mr. Schreiber said the Citywide Study was not structured to recognize limits. Since 1989, at least three of the areas had more development approvals than what was contemplated in the Citywide Study. A different type of analysis would have to be done to develop a cap in some of the areas. Mr. Calonne said the reason Council would recognize limits was if Council wanted to justify mitigation fees. From a legal perspective, having development pay its way would make a difference. As Council became more precise about each parcel, it was easier to make the nexus connection between the property and its impacts. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element,
White Page L-7, Policy L-7, be revised as follows: ΑMaintain a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential development for the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City Council may make modifications for specific properties that allow modest additional growth. Such additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900 maximum, or may count towards a higher number
if the Council amends the Comprehensive Plan.≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Fazzino referred to Green Page L-5, Program L-0A, and clarified the language allowed the opportunity to renegotiate an agreement with the County and Stanford University and did not commit the City to the specifics of the current 1985 Land Use Policies Agreement.
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct because the words Αupdate as
appropriate≅ were included. Mr. Calonne recalled there was a policy direction associated with the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor projects. Council Member Wheeler said the caption next to the photograph on White Page L-15 needed minor changes. Also, she referred to White Page L-31, Policy L-47, and said it would be more appropriate to
add Αwhere it is consistent with neighborhood character≅ in the second sentence because in some neighborhoods, porches and bays in the front of the house were not fitting. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that in the Land Use and Community Design Element, on White Page L-15, the text next to the picture depicting
10/15/97 84-431
PACCC be revised as follows: ΑFormer Ventura School provides community services such as the Palo Alto Community Child Care Center (PACCC) and a public gathering place for the Ventura
neighborhood.≅ Further, that on White Page L-31, Policy L-47 be
revised as follows: ΑDesign buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays, and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level;
and include human-scale details and massing.≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Green Page L-10 and expressed
concern about the Planning Commission=s addition of the land use
designation called ΑTransit-Oriented Residential.≅ Almost at the last moment of the five-year Comprehensive Plan process, the Planning Commission added language that called for 75 units per acre. He did not believe there was evidence that a significant number of people in housing located next to transit would make use
of it. He suggested removing Α75 units per acre≅ and adding language that indicated greater density was possible. When discussing a specific zone, the City should look at performance requirements to guarantee the people living in the units used transit. If parking were not provided in the building and in the neighborhoods, people would find it very difficult to have a car and would use transit. Otherwise, the City was asking for increased congestion and more traffic. If the City worried about mundane items such as the level of traffic on University Avenue or the level of service at Middlefield Road and University Avenue, he could not see the possibility of 75 units per acre and wanted to propose modification to the definition of Transit-Oriented Residential. Mayor Huber asked where the 2,000 feet of walkable distance from two multimodal transit stations was. Mr. Schreiber said 2,000 feet was chosen to include specifically Town and Country Village from the University Avenue train station. The Planning Commission discussed the reasonable distance to expect people to live from a transit station. A quarter mile was reasonable. One-third of a mile pushed it. There was not much evidence beyond one-third of a mile. Mayor Huber asked where the 2,000 feet was at California Avenue.
Mr. Schreiber said the 2,000 feet included Fry=s Electronics on Park Boulevard and the Page Mill Road and El Camino Real intersection. Council Member McCown clarified that Council Member Rosenbaum did
10/15/97 84-432
not want to remove the land use category of Transit-Oriented
Residential but wanted the specificity of Α75 units per acre≅ changed to a broader comment that higher densities might be developed and insert the idea of performance criteria relative to
the development=s ability to demonstrate the use of transit. Council Member Rosenbaum preferred to remove Transit-Oriented Residential. However, if people did not agree, he proposed
removing Α75 units per acre≅ and looking at performance
requirements when the zoning was done that would guarantee people=s use of transit. Council Member McCown preferred not to drop Transit-Oriented Residential. She was not sure about choosing a numerical standard of how large a project could be. When the specifics of the zoning were developed, it seemed to her that the goal was what Council Member Rosenbaum suggested, which was to look at performance goals for projects to meet so that there was significant synergy back and forth between transit availability and transit users.
Council Member Eakins referred to ΑMultiple Family Residential≅ on
White Page L-10. The last sentence was ΑDensities higher than what is permitted by zoning may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be compatible with the overall
Comprehensive Plan.≅ In reviewing the Planning Commission minutes, she could not find a discussion of the parking or car problems. If the cars could disappear, the high density would not be a problem. The problem was cars, not the number of people or changing the character of the town. She wanted to see transit-oriented development, but the dilemma was storage of cars. Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission discussed the example of the successful Abitare in Downtown Palo Alto, which was approximately 50 feet high, had parking underneath, had mixed use, and had approximately 75 units. The number of cars needed depended on the size of the units, which were smaller than 2,000 square feet. In general, the Planning Commission was concerned about parking, but the Abitare was an example of what had already been done. Council Member Rosenbaum believed the City did not know how many residents of the Abitare used public transit. If the City were to build more housing at such high densities, the zoning regulations should be structured so that parking would not be provided and people would not drive their cars. Ms. Schmidt said the people who found that type of housing attractive were the many young urban professionals in the various computer hardware and software industries. They liked to live in Palo Alto because it was a good central location and took transit
10/15/97 84-433
to San Francisco and San Jose. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission discussed higher density housing. Increasing density would not have a corresponding increase in transit. The Transit-Oriented Residential land use designation and the broader issue of encouraging higher density near the train stations were seen as a City effort to develop housing in areas that were able to absorb the housing and as a long-term effort to support transit. For rail transit to be successful, enough residential and work locations were needed. The City already had the work locations. Council Member Rosenbaum was correct that the Transit-Oriented Residential land use designation should not be assumed to generate a decrease in traffic and parking. Council could build in performance measures, but a
performance measure that had a Α75 units per acre≅ project
generating less traffic than a Α25 units per acre≅ project was unrealistic without an upgraded transit system.
Ms. Cassel said Α75 units per acre≅ was the maximum, not the minimum, density. The City had a difficult time having anyone build near the maximum densities. Council Member Fazzino preferred to live in an area where he could walk to services and had access to transit. The addition of housing in the Downtown and California Avenue areas had a huge impact over the last 25 years. He believed more people used transit and walked to basic services. The City made significant progress at the regional level in creating alternative transportation systems. After Measures A and B were completely implemented, there would be a good transit system for a suburban environment. Transit-Oriented Residential should remain and could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Calonne said there was no area map for Transit-Oriented Residential; therefore, the Council retained control over whether and how it would be used. Council Member Fazzino clarified the Council was not obligating itself to acceptance of a proposal. Council Member Kniss wanted to know how many areas were left within the quarter mile. She clarified that increasing the density to 75 was worthwhile for a builder because the zoning and the value of the property increased. Mr. Schreiber said around the two train stations, there was not much vacant land. Whether 75 units per acre was more valuable than a lower density depended upon the economic market. The densities below what the City allowed were the most successful in the market. Council Member Eakins asked whether a phrase could be added to the language of the Transit-Oriented Residential definition that
10/15/97 84-434
indicated parking should not spill over into adjacent neighborhoods. She asked whether shared parking worked at the California Avenue train station where condominiums shared parking. Assistant Planning Official James Gilliland said it was very successful. Council Member Schneider supported Transit-Oriented Residential housing. A density of 75 units per acre was not too dense. She was in favor of as much density as possible, particularly near multimodal transit stations. The City needed to think about that
type of housing in regard to the PAMF=s new site because there would be additional employees looking for living space close by. There would also be additional employees at Stanford Hospital with its additional 400,000 square feet of space. Council Member McCown supported Transit-Oriented Residential development. With higher density levels, the developer would need
to Αunderpark≅ the projects. Council Member Rosenbaum cautioned that at the same time, the City needed to see that there were opportunities for significant increased transit use or that people were looking for places to live where they did not want or need a
car. If that did not happen and was not part of the City=s explicit understanding of what it was doing, then either the developer might think that without providing full parking, projects would not be successful, or the projects might be built with unhappy consequences. There were many balancing elements. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved to approve in concept that on the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page L-10, Transit-Oriented Residential Section, third sentence, be revised to
read as follows: ΑDesign and parking performance standards will be prepared to ensure that development successfully contributes to the
street and minimizes potential negative impacts.≅ Council Member Kniss said Downtown North had a parking problem because there was no parking supplied. She did not see how the City could require the resident not to own a car. Young professionals liked to walk, but not many people who earned that amount of money did not have a car. Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission did not recommend providing no parking. In the Abitare arrangement, there was shared parking. Council Member Rosenbaum suggested no parking. Parking was needed and could be underground. She believed that with a density of 75 units per acre, the units would be smaller because there were other constraints, such as height, FAR, and design review. People who paid high rents for 2000-square-foot units had high incomes and more cars. The City needed housing for people, but the City kept building large, not small units.
10/15/97 84-435
Council Member Kniss said if the Council were to weave into the language that sufficient parking worked and the review required parking for residents, she could support the 75 units per acre. Mr. Schreiber said the motion did not presume no parking. There might be cost factors tied into it that would discourage the use of automobiles and encourage occupancy by people who were less auto dependent. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Mayor Huber said people in the City complained about traffic and parking and did not care whether it was commercial or housing. He supported Transit-Oriented Residential but did not support high density residential with full parking. If the City could not get less cars when people used transit, then he did not want the larger projects. He agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum to remove the density of 75 units per acre and to prove that people would use the transit. Council Member Rosenbaum said the idea was to allow higher density,
eliminate Α75 units per acre≅ from the statement, and require that when it was time to design the zone, performance standards be added to guarantee that a significant fraction of the residents would use transit. Mr. Calonne said state law required a specific density to have the land use classification. He recalled that in 1993, densities and intensities were added to bring the Comprehensive Plan in conformance with state law. Council Member McCown said The Sheridan development was 51 units
per acre and was fully parked. She suggested adding Αup to 50
units per acre≅ but still have the concept that more was allowable if performance standards were developed to show that more could be handled. Council Member Kniss asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum meant performance standards to be some type of Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Council Member Rosenbaum said no. He meant some combination of underground parking and parking restrictions in the neighborhood. If there were 50 units per acre, and 25 parking spaces to the acre were provided and there were restrictions on parking in front of a house, then residents would not drive their cars. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page L-10, Transit-Oriented Residential section be revised as
follows: ΑAllows higher density residential dwellings in the
10/15/97 84-436
University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers
within a walkable distance, approximately 2,000 feet, of the City=s two multimodal transit stations. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of public transportation and especially the use of Caltrain. Design standards will be prepared to ensure that development successfully contributes to the street and minimizes potential negative impacts. Individual project performance standards will be developed, including parking, to ensure that a significant portion of the residents will use alternative modes of transportation. Net density will range up to 75 50 units per acre, with minimum densities to be considered during development of new City zoning
regulations.≅ MOTION PASSED 7-1, Kniss Αno,≅ Andersen absent. Council Member Wheeler was concerned about the Mixed Use category on Green Page L-10 and said the Planning Commission recommended significant FAR bonuses for the development of Residential/Office mixed use. She generally supported encouraging that kind of use. Twice before, the City granted PC zoning to a couple of projects which promised Live/Work or Residential Above/Retail uses. After the structures were built, the developers returned to Council and asked for relief of the responsibility to use the living space as residential. She felt cheated the two times it happened and would feel worse if the Council gave a FAR bonus of 3:1 instead of the
normal 1:1. It was a matter of stating Council=s intent in the policy contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Implementation of the Mixed Use was the way Council would have to address the requirement that when promised, housing had to be delivered. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to page 7 of the staff report
(CMR:433:97), in which staff mentioned adding a phrase Α...with the
increased FAR to be used predominantly for residential purposes.≅ The original staff report called for FARs of up to 2.0. He did not know that Planning Commission approved, based on a five-minute discussion, a recommendation by Planning Commissioner Jon Schink that the FAR should be 3.0. The example used was along South El Camino Real, where the City had difficulty getting something to happen. He thought of limiting the FAR to 2.0 but making a provision to allow greater than 2.0 along South El Camino Real if it turned out to be necessary or helpful in securing desirable development without allowing a 3.0 FAR everywhere in town. Council Member Eakins asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum would substitute underutilized areas for a specific street because in five years South El Camino Real might blossom. If the new Public Safety Building, for example, became the center of something that flourished, then there might be a rush to the 3.0 FAR bonus. Council Member Rosenbaum said at the last meeting, he did not feel
10/15/97 84-437
he had enough information to do something definitive. The one underutilized area that came to mind was South El Camino Real. If it were to blossom, it presumably would not be necessary to have the additional FAR. Council Member Eakins suggested defining the area as underutilized or underdeveloped as well as being South El Camino Real. She wanted it limited somehow.
Council Member McCown said the phrase Αalong transit corridors or
near multimodal centers≅ in the Mixed Use language was limiting. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page L-10, Mixed
Use section be revised to indicate that Αa FAR greater than 2.0 be
limited to the South El Camino Real area.≅ Council Member Wheeler said several years before, Council discussed the SOFA area and what kind of bonus the City would offer to have people put in either housing or housing above commercial. Discussion was about a 2.0 FAR, not greater than 2.0. Council was
unsuccessful in Αincentivizing≅ people with that type of density bonus to create what was hoped for. Council had to be realistic about what kind of incentive to put in place. It should not be a
Αfeel good≅ policy that would not result in development Council tried to encourage. If economically it did not work at 2:0 but did at 3.0, then it should be 3.0. She also cautioned about calling out specific areas of the City. There were areas on South El Camino Real that could handle a 3.0 FAR, but she did not believe the Barron Park residents who lived a block away from El Camino Real in single-family houses would be excited about the concept. Council Member Kniss said the housing development across from the Palo Alto Weekly was mixed use and was doing well. She asked what the FAR was and what the name was of that particular development. Mr. Gilliland said it was called the Palo Alto Plaza. He did not know what the FAR was. The density was 44 units per acre. It was a good example of a mixed use project. Council Member McCown asked whether staff concurred with the change from a 2.0 to a 3.0 FAR. In the Planning Commission minutes, Commissioner Schink, who suggested the 3.1 FAR, conceded that a 3.1 FAR would produce a very massive, dense building. Mr. Schreiber said staff concurred as long as the additional square footage went toward residential. Staff was concerned that additional square footage might end up becoming nonresidential,
which was why staff suggested adding the phrase Α...with the
increased FAR to be used predominantly for residential purposes≅ to the definition.
10/15/97 84-438
Mr. Gilliland said the suggested phrase would apply to the increase from 1.15 up to 3.0 FAR, not from 2.0 to 3.0.
Council Member McCown supported staff=s suggested phrase. She would leave the 3.0 FAR in for future development of the concept as a policy goal. MOTION REVISED: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, Green Page L-10, Mixed Use section be revised as follows:
ΑThis category includes Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development. Its purpose is to increase the types of spaces available for living and working to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain areas, and to encourage the upgrading of certain areas with buildings designed to provide a high quality pedestrian-oriented street environment. Mixed Use may include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. Live/Work refers to one or more individuals living in the same building where they earn their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Design standards will be developed to ensure that development is compatible and contributes to the character of the street and neighborhood. Floor area ratios will range up to 1.15, although Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near multimodal centers will range up to 3.0 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas resistant to revitalization. The FAR above
1.15 will be used for residential purposes.≅ MOTION PASSED 7-1, Huber Αno,≅ Andersen absent. Council Member Kniss referred to the Single Family Residential
definition on Green Page L-9, ΑIncludes one dwelling unit on each lot as well as conditional uses requiring permits such as churches and schools. Specific areas may be zoned to allow second units or duplexes where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and not create traffic and parking problems. The net density in single family areas will range from 1 to 7 units per acre, but may rise to a maximum of 14 units in areas where second units or duplexes are allowed. Population densities will range from 1 to 30
persons per acre≅ and asked if it was similar to Program H-4 on
Green Page H-7, ΑEvaluate the provisions for second dwelling units in single family areas with the intent to increase unit production by provideing additional flexibility, including reduced parking
requirements.≅ Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Kniss asked whether the two provisions canceled each other out.
10/15/97 84-439
Mr. Schreiber said no. The Planning Commission removed the wording
Αnot create traffic and parking problems,≅ which was consistent
with the phrase Αreduce parking requirements≅ in Program H-4. Council Member McCown referred to White Page L-14, Policy L-11,
ΑPreserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood
and adjacent structures.≅ On Green Page L-14, the Planning Commission recommended deleting the text block that followed Policy
L-11 and replace it with one sentence, ΑDesign compatibility is intended to accept change but to remain sensitive to the scale and
general character of the neighborhoods.≅ The Planning Commission struggled with it because of where the City was on the residential compatibility issue and the 1940 house issue. She did not feel it was the way the Comprehensive Plan should be left for the next 15 years. Policy L-11 with the one sentence following seemed to suggest that something was wrong. Policy L-11 should be dropped and perhaps put back into the Comprehensive Plan after the residential issues were further developed in the community sometime in the next year. Mr. Schreiber said the same issue was with Programs L-53, L-54, and L-57 on Green Page L-32 because of historic preservation. There were policy issues related to the whole area that was in transition. Council Member McCown asked whether it would be better to have the early 1998 version of the Comprehensive Plan state that policies were under development and the City would further define or amend the Comprehensive Plan in 1998 or 1999, if it were known that there would be adoption of more specific policies under certain areas such as Policy L-11. Mr. Calonne believed, from a legal perspective, that it was best to include a factual statement about what the City had been through and that it was uncertain what the City would do. Council Member McCown thought it would be better to leave the text after Policy L-11 on White Page L-14 and drop the first sentence,
ΑPalo Alto has a tradition of allowing single family property owners to express their architectural tastes without City
intervention.≅ It signaled that the City was in the middle of discussions about design compatibility. Ms. Cassel suggested putting text in a box that provided history or background. The Planning Commission also tried to avoid phrases
that had the word Αrecently≅ because in five years, the Comprehensive Plan would be out of date. Consistently, the
Planning Commission dropped the Αrecently≅ sentences and tried
10/15/97 84-440
something more constructive. Ms. Schmidt said in some cases the Planning Commission put in a small box or section that explained what was happening. It did not become policy; it was just an explanation.
Council Member McCown said the City Attorney=s point was to add factual wording that described where the City was as of the anticipated date that the Comprehensive Plan was printed and the section would be changing in the future.
Ms. Schmidt said in the ΑDesign compatibility...≅ sentence, she tried to relate that design compatibility did not just mean it had to be a historic structure. It meant that a change could be accepted and remain sensitive to scale and general character. Council Member McCown said adding a factual statement would be the wiser thing to do. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, White Page L-14, wording under Policy L-11 be revised as follows:
ΑPalo Alto has a tradition of allowing single family property owners to express their architectural tastes without City intervention. Non-mandatory gGuidelines that encourage certain design patterns and components were provided to all interested builders, contractors, and residents. These guidelines are used in approving Home Improvement Exceptions. Recently, howeverIn 1996, the Council adopted interim measures which require design compatibility for alterations or demolitions of residences, constructed prior to 1940, found to have historic merit. The community has also initiated discussions about design compatibility
in neighborhoods throughout the City.≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the definition of Commercial Hotel on White Page L-11, which mentioned that the FAR would range
up to 1.5. The Hyatt Rickey=s site was 600,000 square feet on 14 acres. When a FAR of 1.5 was applied, the figure was 900,000
square feet, which did not make sense. He asked what staff=s response was. It might be appropriate for the hotel, but the City was not looking toward a hotel on the 14 acres sometime in the future. Mr. Schreiber said the important phrase in the Commercial Hotel
definition was that the ΑFloor area ratio will range up to 1.5.≅
For the Hyatt Rickey=s site and for any other site with the Commercial Hotel Overlay, the assumption was that there would need to be some future zoning action to implement the land use designation. At that point, the FAR would have to be set, which
10/15/97 84-441
might be less than 1.5 or 1.5 for a portion of the site. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether it would be appropriate to add wording that the 1.5 FAR would apply to portions of the site used for the hotel.
Mr. Schreiber said if Council wished to change the phrase to ΑFloor
area ratio will range up to 1.5 for the hotel portion of the site,≅ it would be consistent. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, White Page L-11, Commercial Hotel section be revised as
follows: ΑThis category allows facilities for use by temporary overnight occupants on a transient basis, such as hotels and motels, with associated conference centers and similar uses. Restaurants and other eating facilities, meeting rooms, small retail shops, personal services, and other services ancillary to the hotel are also allowed. This category [sic] can be applied in combination with another land use category [sic]. Floor area ratio
will range up to 1.5 for the hotel portion of the site.≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the last four lines of Goal L-3 on the bottom of White Page L-13 and recalled that the Planning Commission had trouble with the concept of limiting certain neighborhoods to single story. Missing in the text was
that in addition to Council=s approval, Council tended to look for a deed restriction in existence in those areas. Council might want to add in the text that it was one of the conditions for approving the Single Story Overlay. One of the criteria was that the area had been subject to a single-story deed restriction when it was built. Mr. Schreiber was not sure there was a statement in the guidelines
for ΑS≅ Overlay about having the prior deed restriction in place. Unless the deed restriction was in place, it was unlikely to have an area come in for that Combining District. Council Member Rosenbaum said if the guidelines mentioned the deed restriction, it would be appropriate to add into the Goal L-3 text. Council Member Wheeler asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum said that in the future, if a substantial majority of a neighborhood came with a request and the neighborhood had not been subject to a prior deed restriction, Council would automatically turn down the request. Council Member Rosenbaum believed the prior deed restriction was a guideline. If it were not, then there would be no basis for
10/15/97 84-442
putting it in. Council Member Wheeler thought that it was not included as one of the criteria a neighborhood had to meet prior to submission of an application. Mr. Schreiber said the City Attorney had checked the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC), and it was not mentioned in the ΑS≅ Overlay. Therefore, it was not part of the formal Council adoption of that provision. Council Member Rosenbaum withdrew his suggestion. Council Member Kniss said on White Page L-16, the Palo Alto Chamber
of Commerce made a suggestion to Policy L-16, ΑEncourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix
of small-scale local businesses≅ and asked for staff reaction. Mr. Schreiber said with mixed use, there was a potential for conflict, e.g., residential next to an auto shop or a restaurant. Mixed use situations were not all necessarily desirable. He was not sure what the Chamber meant by providing for Housing Overlays.
The City had housing as a permitted use in the City=s basic commercial and industrial zoning. The City did not have separate Housing Overlay zones, and he was not aware of discussions about coming up with specific Housing Overlay zones. Currently, the market had sorted that out. The current regulations did not encourage mixed use because of some restrictions. It was existing policy that did not need to be changed, but it was more clearly stated. Policy L-16 was not intended to require mixed use, but it provided the opportunity to let the market work. Council Member Wheeler clarified that housing was a permitted use in commercial zones and that anyone could choose to build housing instead of a commercial use in a commercial zone. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler clarified it was equivalent to a Housing Overlay. Mr. Schreiber hesitated to equate it because overlay zones would be
like the ΑS≅ Overlay in which a specific second zone was applied to an area. The City had not done that with housing, and the issue was not raised during the Comprehensive Plan process. Council Member Eakins understood that in the Midtown neighborhood commercial area, housing was not permitted. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct.
10/15/97 84-443
Council Member Kniss referred to White Page L-18, Program L-17,
ΑSupport implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide≅ and asked what staff thought implementation meant. Mr. Schreiber said implementation involved two different items. The first was that it was the Downtown Urban Improvement Project and Process that developed street furniture design information, etc. The second was that the City had been supportive of having Urban Design Guide concepts emerge as public benefits as part of Planned Community zones. It was not a requirement, but it was the type of support that had been demonstrated. Council Member Kniss asked how the City would indicate that in ten years, it was still a guide, not regulations. Mr. Schreiber said language could be added for clarification. Mr. Calonne said if the Council did not want the Downtown Urban Design Guide implemented, Council should get rid of it. Making it mandatory and supporting its implementation were not synonymous. He did not know what was meant by supporting implementation, but it did not equate to making it law. It seemed that the Chamber
interpreted the word Αimplementation≅ as mandatory.
Mr. Schreiber said the Chamber=s comment was that the Downtown
Urban Design Guide Αhad been put on the shelf and that it only
existed as a reference guide,≅ which was not correct because with the Downtown Improvement Planning Process, it was not on the shelf and it was not only a reference guide. Council Member Kniss clarified it was not a regulation guide. She wanted language added to Program L-17 that indicated the City would use the Downtown Urban Design Guide which had great value, but people did not have to have the Guide in their hands when designing. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element,
White Page L-18, Program L-17 be revised as follows: ΑSupport implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The Downtown Urban Design Guide is not mandatory but provides useful ideas and direction for private development and public improvement in the
Downtown area.≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to adjourn the meeting to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 1997. The City Council will continue its review of the Land Use and Community Design Element.
10/15/97 84-444
MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/15/97 84-445