HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-02 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting December 2, 1997 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission for a 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan....................................85-303 2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider amendments to the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan85-303 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m............85-343
12/02/97 85-302
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:09 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Kniss
UNFINISHED BUSINESS MOTION: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to combine Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of discussion and action. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. 1. 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 11/18/97) PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider amendments to the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan for properties described as follows: Area 1) 2650-2780 El Camino Real - Change the vacant parcels at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road from Multiple-Family Residential to Multiple-Family Residential with Commercial Hotel Overlay; Area 2) Maybell Avenue property at rear of 4170 El Camino Real - Change Maybell Avenue property (at rear of 4170 El Camino Real) from Multiple-Family to Neighborhood Commercial; Area 3) 491-493 Charleston Road and 4201-4227 El
Camino Real - Change the Rickey=s Hyatt Site from Service Commercial to Multiple-Family Residential with Commercial
Hotel Overlay; and Area 4) 4261-71 El Camino Real/Dinah=s Court - Change parcels at 4261, 4269 and 4271 El Camino Real
and 431 Dinah=s Court from Service Commercial and Multiple-Family Residential to Commercial Hotel. Council Member McCown had reread the Transportation Element and thought it was well written and acceptable. The wording probably would not require a change; however, the Joint Powers Board had a
12/02/97 85-303
more expansive view of how to achieve getting to Downtown than had previously been the case. The wording for the principle was
appropriate for Palo Alto=s Comprehensive Plan and would not require a change. Mayor Huber said Council was being asked to confirm the changes contained in the staff report (CMR:484:97). Council Member Rosenbaum expressed concern about the Noise Element, particularly on Green Page N-23 in the Natural Element. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber suggested waiting until the noise consultant arrived that evening
to discuss Council Member Rosenbaum=s concerns. Council Member Rosenbaum agreed to wait. Council Member Wheeler suggested a change to Attachment A, page 6, White Page T-4, text in first paragraph following Goal T-2, to
delete the word Αplanned≅ from the last line since the third CalTrain Station at San Antonio Road was already under construction. Mr. Schreiber said staff had already planned to delete the word
Αplanned,≅ to say Αa third CalTrain Station is located on San
Antonio Road.≅ Council Member Eakins questioned the additional sentence on Attachment A, page 7, White Page T-20, text following Policy T-35,
ΑWhen conversion from rolled to vertical curbs is undertaken, the
minimum area should be a street block...,≅ querying how the size of a street block was determined in some of the very long blocks. Mr. Schreiber said a street block was described as the area from one intersection to the next intersection. Council Member Eakins said such a measurement could make a block one-quarter of a mile in length. Mr. Schreiber said such blocks probably existed in Palo Alto. Council Member Eakins asked whether the wording was so specific as to require being followed literally or whether it could be the equivalent of a grid block. Mr. Schreiber said Public Works staff had wanted to ensure the reference was not to individual properties, i.e., a block containing a curb that was partially rolled and partially vertical, which would be difficult from a drainage standpoint. The intent was for logical areas. In an extremely long situation, more logical breaks might be possible.
12/02/97 85-304
Council Member Eakins thought one block on Kenneth Drive was at least one quarter of a mile. Vice Mayor Andersen questioned the same issue, particularly the way in which sidewalks had been repaired, wondering how the plan would ever be implemented unless additional indication was given as a priority. As long as only broken pieces were repaired, the City would never have the opportunity to make sidewalks which would conform with one another as described. He would not be upset if there were a phase-in time during which some sections were vertical, even if only in one or two places, as part of the sidewalk repair program. Although aesthetically a problem for a while, unless the City was willing to tear out entire sidewalk areas, the plan would not happen. City Manager June Fleming said staff understood the philosophical approach. However, consideration had to be given to the issues of drainage, liability, enforcement, etc. A break could be made other than a City block except for such considerations. Generally speaking, a full block length was necessary. There were areas in Palo Alto where a block was the equivalent of a couple of city blocks. Usually, going from property to property was impossible. Vice Mayor Andersen gave an example which had occurred on Louis Road around the 2000 block where a significant section of sidewalk had been replaced with the rolled curb in front of at least four or five houses. The work represented a lost opportunity to begin the conversion. Unless some intermediate period was allocated, during which time a combination was allowed, the conversion would not occur. Ms. Fleming agreed about the appearance. Possibly some language
could be included, e.g., Αwhere practical.≅
Council Member Eakins suggested Ms. Fleming=s earlier wording:
ΑWhen conversion from rolled to vertical curbs is undertaken, the minimum area should be in general a street block and not individual
properties.≅
Ms. Fleming thought Council=s concerns were the same as staff=s regarding practicality, drainage, liability, etc. Vice Mayor Andersen said something should be included which indicated the priority to convert, without which the conversion would probably not occur. Page 1, Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:484:97) Policy L-36 text, referred to Middlefield Road and Colorado Avenue as two arterials, which should also be cleaned up.
Mr. Schreiber said instead of the phrasing, ΑThe area serves a number of neighborhoods in the vicinity of its two arterial
streets,≅ wording could be changed to Αbisected by two principal
12/02/97 85-305
streets,≅ since one was a collector street and the other an arterial. Regarding Midtown, the revised wording staff recommended set a somewhat different expectation for Planning in the area. Staff had an outstanding assignment. Council referred the conceptual plan to the Planning Commission a year before. Given what recently occurred in the Midtown area and the change in wording staff suggested, staff concluded the assignment would disappear from outstanding Council assignments, unless otherwise directed by Council, because there was no discernable private property interest in Midtown for undertaking a conceptual plan. If interest appeared in the future, the conceptual plan could be revisited. The revised wording would make it clear the conceptual plan would not be pursued. Mayor Huber opened the public hearing for Item No. 2 Curtis Feeney, Stanford University, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo
Park, spoke in support of staff=s recommendation for a hotel overlay on the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real site. Tenants in the Stanford Research Park had consistently indicated interest in a hotel and conference meeting space as the number one amenity desired for the area. Although other alternatives existed in the Peninsula, the locations were not convenient or workable for companies in the park. The general community had also expressed the need for such a hotel and meeting space. Stanford should be given credit for having taken a strong stand in providing housing. The Sand Hill Road and Stanford West projects would go a long way in the area of housing. Specifically, more below-market rate (BMR) housing would be built than ever before. Council was urged to approve the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether Stanford would support language specifically stating that in order for a hotel to be provided on the site, alternative housing sites would be provided. Mr. Feeney said Stanford would be unable to provide a hard answer to such a specific question at the current time but would not categorically reject such a discussion. At some future time, all discussion would be open. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, opposed the hotel overlay on the site at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, which had had a multi-family zoning use for some time and should be continued. Part of the land had been the Mayfield School site, which had been part of the original Stanford West proposal in 1983 when Stanford had planned to sell the land for $100,000 for BMR housing. The current
Ricky=s Hyatt site could continue to exist with appropriate language in the Zoning Code which would implement the land use plan. More flexibility in terms of the kind of commercial use on El Camino Real frontage and limitations on the other two-thirds of the site for multi-family residential was encouraged. The proposed overlay would permit a hotel on the entire site.
12/02/97 85-306
Mayor Huber closed the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 2. City Attorney Ariel Calonne encouraged Council to describe what it had in mind for the hotel overlay. Discussions Mr. Feeney alluded to having would depend upon who had what rights and when. He was unsure of exactly what staff had in mind regarding an overlay. The mitigation package at 1050 Arastradero Road resulting from the Alma Place project had been the result of Comprehensive Plan policies which had indicated conversion of a housing site to a nonhousing use required mitigation. He was unsure of how an overlay would work, so Council should be clear whether it intended to give up leverage associated with the housing policies when applying the overlay or whether staff would be asked for further investigation on the issue. Council would leave significant ambiguity with the concept of an overlay and what it would mean with respect to the housing mitigation policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Wheeler appreciated Mr. Calonne=s comments with respect to the hotel overlay zone. The proposal for a hotel at the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real intersection appeared to indicate flexibility would be given to the land owner rather than the City. Council had begun to speak about hotels on the site when the economic climate in the City had been very different. In the meantime, since it had taken some time to work through the Comprehensive Plan, numerous things had changed. At that time, the hotel site at the Cabana Hotel was to be lost, but time had proven
otherwise. Ricky=s Hyatt had stated its intention to retain a hotel presence in the community and a new hotel had recently been approved at the current Holiday Inn site. The Cabana would bring back hotel rooms, as well as meeting and conference facilities. The greater need remained affordable housing in the community. Significant sites had been foregone which Council thought would be housing sites but had not become housing. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page T-4, text in first paragraph following Goal T-2 be revised as follows:
ΑPalo Alto is serviced by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA),
CalTrain, Dumbarton Bridge Bus Service, and Stanford=s Marguerite Shuttle. All of these services converge at the university Avenue/Downtown Multi-modal Transit Station. The California Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station serves as a secondary transfer center,. and aA third center CalTrain Station is planned on San Antonio
Road near the Mountain View border.≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Transportation Element, White Page T-
12/02/97 85-307
20, text following Policy T-35 be revised as follows: ΑVertical curbs prevent drivers from parking on sidewalks, a common and undesirable practice in areas where rolled curbs are not separated from sidewalks by planting strips. When conversion from rolled to vertical curbs is undertaken, the minimum area should be in general a street block and not individual properties. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Land Use and Community Design Element, White Page L-26, text following Policy L-36 be revised as follows:
ΑMidtown is unique among Palo Alto=s Neighborhood Centers, as it is comprised of over 25 parcels with nearly as many individual owners. The area is bisected by serves a number of neighborhoods in the vicinity of its two arterial principal streets -- Middlefield Road and Colorado Avenue -- making traffic circulation and pedestrian safety important planning issues. Midtown should retain its fabric of small-scale, primarily local-serving commercial uses. Future decisions on public and private improvements should seek to have Midtown be a vibrant center to the surrounding neighborhoods. Owners of commercial property, working with the neighborhoods and the City, need to be active proponents
of any needed additional parking.≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the staff recommendation for Recommendation No. 4 of the staff report (CMR:484:97) with the exception of the first bullet item as follows: 4. Review and tentatively approve the Land Use Map and the four land use designation changes as follows:
! Apply a Commercial Hotel Overlay land use designation to the Stanford-owned lands on the northwest corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real;
! Change the property fronting on Maybell at the rear of 4170 El Camino Real from Multiple-Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial;
! Change 491-493 Charleston Road and 4201-4277 El Camino Real
(Hyatt Rickey=s) from Service Commercial to Multiple-Family Residential with Commercial Hotel Overlay; and
! Add the Commercial Hotel Overlay to the Service Commercial and Multiple-Family Residential designations at 4261-4271 El
12/02/97 85-308
Camino Real and 431 Dinah=s Court (Dinah=s Garden Court Hotel).
Vice Mayor Andersen concurred with Council Member Wheeler=s comments. He had appreciated and supported the placement of a hotel at the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road site, which he had not given up as a possibility for the future. However, it would come about as part of a PC, part of which should include comparable housing locations that would make the site available for a hotel. To provide such a legal right at the current time to Stanford failed to make sense. He was more interested in seeing a commitment to provide housing for which the site was currently zoned. The only leverage the City had was to proceed in the manner suggested by the motion. Council Member Schneider had spoken with a few hotel owners over the past few days regarding use of the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real site with a hotel overlay. The hotel owners were in favor of the hotel overlay, which was surprising since most hotel owners were normally fearful of competition. Although the property had been zoned for housing for many years, Stanford University had clearly indicated it would not build housing on the site. Housing mitigations should put the hotel overlay in place, querying the
City=s flexibility. Mr. Calonne said staff had used the concept of an overlay; however, there was no precedent to describe such a concept. The overlay, as Council Member Wheeler had suggested, gave the property owner the ability to proceed either way, which would almost certainly undercut mitigation efforts. If Council wanted an overlay in place, specifications should require the overlay contain mitigation. The concept mentioned by Vice Mayor Andersen was such a concept. If Council provided staff with input about what should be the conditional nature of the overlay, staff could develop language which would affect the policy. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the staff recommendation for Recommendation No. 4, including the Commercial Hotel Overlay at Page Mill Road and El Camino Real which included a mitigation to require a provision for housing on the site.
Council Member McCown supported Council Member Wheeler=s motion and opposed the substitute motion, although she appreciated the concept of the mitigation requirement. By making the overlay designation at the current time, the City made a step forward in saying the site would be in play, i.e., subject to potential change. While she understood the perspective that the underlying land zoning designation would not change, etc., which was a very subtle distinction sending policy direction in a manner which was inappropriate for the current time. The reasons for leaving the site alone included concerns about the greater area to which the
12/02/97 85-309
site related, e.g., the four corners of a major, disastrous intersection and the expectations for change, particularly in the Cal-Ventura area. Looking into the future, there was probably a finite level of development potential in that greater area which affected all of the parcels, including the parking lot at Page Mill Square, Linus Pauling to housing, converting the Maximart site to housing, proposal for the Hewlett Packard (HP) site at 395 Page Mill Road, all of which the intersection would be unable to handle.
The City should not commit that the Αnext piece in place,≅ a hotel above other things in the area, should be saved for the longer term, the development potential for the greater area for whatever Council determined was the highest policy for the area. The hotel overlay concept moved into the area of shaping and giving precedence and priority to where the development potential would be used, which was not a wise decision. The site should be left alone. If Stanford did nothing with the site, so be it. The City could use breathing room for a period of time where every parcel in town was not on the table for development. She would rather leave it alone and at some future time, determine what would happen next. Council Member Eakins agreed with Council Members Wheeler and McCown. At times she thought there had to be a way to place a hotel and conference center at Page Mill Road and El Camino Real, but after seeing all the models, she realized the site was too small and too tight. The intersection was so heavily impacted, too much would be committed at once. The multi-family designation was acceptable. The door could be left open. After the surrounding parcels were more committed, a clearer course of action would be revealed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 2-5, Rosenbaum, Schneider Αyes,≅ Fazzino, Kniss absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission held a considerable number of discussions on the noise issue. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the second and third bullets on Green Page N-23, under Policy N-33A which appeared not to correspond. Richard Illingworth, Noise Consultant, said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established average reasonable levels to protect the health and safety of people. Many times, however, the maximum instantaneous noise level from noises such as traffic, e.g., truck or airplane noise, might exceed the levels. The bullets attempted to indicate if a certain threshold was exceeded, the maximum levels should be examined, not just the average.
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the bullets were Αadditives,≅ and not inconsistent.
12/02/97 85-310
Mr. Illingworth replied no. The two built on each other. Council Member Rosenbaum asked why the second bullet failed to
contain the language indicated in the third bullet..., ΑInterior noise levels in units exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater,≅ which suggested a difference between bullets two and three. Mr. Illingworth said state law required the 45 Ldn standard for multi-family dwellings, which would not apply to single-family homes. The suggestion was to apply the standard to single-family homes in addition to controlling maximum levels.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the qualifier, Αresidential
units exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60,≅ applied equally to both bullets or whether the qualification was necessary. Mr. Illingworth said a typical house with the windows open reduced the outdoor noise levels by 15 dB, plus or minus a few, i.e., if the level was 60 dB outside and windows were open, the dB level inside would be 45. Therefore, noise levels below a certain level outside would not exceed noise levels inside. If the noise level was higher outside, improvements to windows or provisions for air conditioning would be necessary so windows could remain closed. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the 60 dB applied to bullet two or was redundant. Mr. Illingworth said if the noise level were below 60 dB outside, the second bullet would have been met. Theoretically, state law indicated if over 60 dB a study was required, other issues would kick in. The desire was not to recreate state law, but to indicate the cutoff limits. Procedurally, a site among single-family homes would be examined. If the level was 65 Ldn in the backyard area, the developer would be asked to show how the noise levels would be reduced to 60 dB outside and 45 dB inside. The construction of a six-foot fence might reduce levels sufficiently, or windows on a second floor might require additional noise reduction techniques. Council Member Rosenbaum asked why the mention of an Ldn of less than 45 in bullet two had not been included in bullet three regarding the maximum levels of noise of passing trucks. Mr. Illingworth said the two bullets could be combined; however, the two were different matrix. One was a 24-hour average, and one was the loudness of an individual event. An attempt was made to meet the average. Although on an average individual events might be lower, it might be what was disturbing people. The goal was to bring noise levels in bedrooms to the place where people could sleep.
12/02/97 85-311
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the Ldn of 45 applied regardless of whether the noise level was more or less than 60 dB. Mr. Illingworth replied yes. Council Member Rosenbaum said when he asked about the change which occurred between what the City had and what was being proposed, since housing was built along transit corridors and the railroad
tracks and why the change, staff=s response in the staff report
(CMR:484:97) indicated very little had changed. ΑThe flexibility would allow the City to approve housing development in locations that are above the 60 dB standard if the necessary mitigation is considered to be undesirable (e.g., excessively high or unsightly noise walls) or where the outdoor areas affected by the higher
noise levels are not intended for extensive use.≅ After looking through the text and the policy, nothing limited the exception to
Αincidental outdoor areas.≅ Green Page N-23 stated, ΑSuch locations often have background noise levels above that which is normally desired for residential yards, patios, balconies and other
similar exterior spaces...≅ which suggested that any exterior space had no protection, regardless of whether there was a swimming pool, picnic area, or a balcony, as mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Schreiber read bullet one on Green Page N-23, Policy N33-A
regarding maximum levels, ΑThis level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single-family housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close
to the standards as feasible through project design.≅ The existing Comprehensive Plan had not established a clear standard, but had evolved in the sense that in the Environmental Review process, more and more emphasis was placed on having a clear standard establishing a significant impact. When the noise element was viewed, staff had not found flexibility in the language proposed in Policy N33-A. Without flexibility, staff confronted situations. One such situation Council was aware of was on Page Mill Road near El Camino Real where staff tried to meet the Comprehensive Plan. If unable to meet the Comprehensive Plan, an EIR was used to get around it, which led to the conclusion that the only way to meet the standard was a wall, which everyone agreed was aesthetically undesirable but the only way to avoid an EIR with the project. The language would provide the City with greater flexibility in such instances as a guideline, rather than a hard and fast law. That
12/02/97 85-312
was the biggest difference between the existing noise policies and programs and the proposed noise policies and programs, i.e., creating flexibility in areas where ground noise was already high. Such areas were typically heavy traffic and/or train areas. Council Member Rosenbaum asked where in either the text or the policy it said the flexibility would be limited to the incidental recreation areas, such as a balcony, which was stated in the first paragraph, last sentence, page 5. Senior Planner Brian Dolan agreed explicit language was not contained in the text or policies. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Natural Environment Element, Green Page N-23, text in second paragraph following Goal N-8 be revised
as follows: ΑThe City is committed to the location of higher density housing near transit stations and routes. Such locations often have background noise levels above that which is normally desired for residential yards, patios, balconies and other similar exterior spaces associated with residential use. However, the City is willing to tolerate higher levels of exterior noise at these locations if where the outdoor areas affected are not intended for extensive use and interior standards can be achieved. While the noise compatibility guidelines shown below represent the desired conditions for housing, unsightly noise walls are undesirable along El Camino Real, Alma Street and other highly visible travel routes Sound walls required to meet guidelines should be attractive either
through landscaping or other means.≅ Planning Commissioner Schink explained how much time he had spent pushing for the program, which came from his experience managing multi-family housing developments. In the Palo Alto Central project 12 years prior, during the early stages, the architects had found the necessity of massing the project with the three story-element to shelter the interior portion of the project from the noise from the railroad tracks. A great deal of debate ensued
among the design team that the community=s interest might better be served by two-story buildings along the Alma frontage and greater mass in the central part of the project. Such a design approach, however, prohibited the acoustical criteria in place at the time, which became more stringent over time. Often projects came forward where the architect was forced to place the mass on the street to block the noise. Unfortunately, the mass was then imposed on the community to keep a quieter interior portion. The variables should be considered.
Council Member Rosenbaum said Commissioner Schink=s comment illustrated the tradeoff which occurred between community interests, the aesthetics of a development, and the comfort of residents. It made sense to place the mass of the building between
12/02/97 85-313
the noise source and the recreation areas intended for residents. Given the balance, he tended to side with residents of the units rather than with the aesthetic concerns of people driving by on major corridors or on the train. The issue had been nicely expressed and he wanted to see his language included.
Mr. Illingworth said Council Member Rosenbaum=s comment made sense. The intention when writing the policy was that the ancillary areas were not used a great deal and fell under strict interpretation. However, he would not recommend allowing all backyards to be over 60 dB just because the high sound wall was undesirable. The 60 dB standard was intended for areas which would get a great deal of use. Council Member Rosenbaum spoke regarding sound walls. During the Page Mill project, the Planning Commission was concerned about unattractive sound walls. In response, he mentioned the nicely landscaped sound wall on the Mayfield project. Mountain View along Alma contained sound walls, some which were attractively landscaped and some which were not. However, in weighing his pleasure as he drove along Alma Street against the concerns of residents living in the projects, he was clear where he would come out. He suggested a requirement for sound walls to meet guidelines for attractive landscapes. Council Member Eakins suggested moving beyond landscaping to include treating sound walls in other attractive or well-designed ways. Council Member Rosenbaum agreed with the additional language. Council Member Schneider said Palo Alto needed to be aware of how unattractive an excessive number of sound walls appeared along highly travelled roads in the Southern California area, no matter how nicely landscaped. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. Council Member McCown asked whether the level of detail in the Comprehensive Plan was as necessary, or whether it could be addressed in zoning ordinance changes, etc., i.e., the process in the future for amending the Comprehensive Plan as opposed to the detail of regulatory content. Mr. Calonne said most of the noise regulations were imposed by state regulations. The noise concern was a significant component of the community sentiment about development standards which, from that perspective, fit into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Schreiber said staff was comfortable with the language contained in the proposed Comprehensive Plan, in part because of some of the problems with the more generalized wording in the
12/02/97 85-314
existing Comprehensive Plan, which pushed the process toward more details. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, and it was duly seconded, to approve in concept that the Natural Environment Element, Green Page
N-23B, Program N-53 be revised as follows: ΑCollaborate with Caltrans Encourage the Joint Powers Board to establish pursue technologies a program to reduce train-related whistle noise in
Palo Alto communities served by CalTrain.≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent.
Mr. Illingworth agreed with Council Member McCown=s suggestion. There were new technologies, e.g., stationary whistles placed at the intersection which only affected the areas people were crossing and not for a mile in each direction. Council Member McCown said the federal government governed the area, which would supersede the Joint Powers Board. Telling the Joint Powers Board to adopt a program not to blow whistles was not meaningful. Council Member Rosenbaum said clearly there were other devices triggered by the train approaching, such as gates, etc., and he asked why that had not been adopted in intersections in cities. Mr. Illingworth understood the idea was new and had not been used. Changing railroad policies was difficult and the Federal Railroad Administration had not changed its policies either. Instituting a whole new way of handling grade crossing warnings would raise large issues of liability, etc. Changes came slowly. Once there was experience with the one set up in Missouri, there might be some momentum. Mayor Huber asked whether the subject of leaf blowers would be dealt with during ordinance changes. Mr. Calonne said Council would see an implementation document at which time priorities would be assigned. The overall updated Noise Ordinance would spread further and wider than what was contained in the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the staff recommendation for Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the staff report (CMR:484:97) as follows:
1. Confirm the Council=s tentatively-approved changes to the Planning Commission-Recommended 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan as follows: INTRODUCTION
12/02/97 85-315
Green Page I-3, text under heading ΑMeeting Residential
and Commercial Needs,≅ revise the wording as follows: Palo 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. Green Page I-3, revise the last theme title to read: Providing Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership. LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN Green Page L-5, Policy L-1, revise as follows: Continue 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. Green Page L-5 and L-5A, text following Program L-0A to be replaced with the following and placed in a text box: A 1985, three party interjurisdictional agreement with the City, Santa Clara County and Stanford University, sets the land use polices for lands owned by Stanford and located within unincorporated Santa Clara County.
Stanford=s General Use Permit, issued by Santa Clara County, establishes building area, population limits and some mitigation measures for development of the unincorporated lands; and, identifies four sub-areas with special land use controls (See Map L-3). The special area limitations are: Area A (Campus frontage along El Camino Real): No development.
12/02/97 85-316
Area B (South of Sand Hill Road between Pasteur Drive and Junipero Serra Boulevard): Until 2021 limited to academic and recreation fields and related support facilities. Faculty, staff or student housing may be proposed in a portion along Campus Drive West. Area C (West of Junipero Serra between Alpine Road and Deer Creek): Low intensity academic uses that are compatible with the open space qualities of the area. Development of any structure over 5,000 square feet requires a use permit from the County. Development for income producing purposes, or sale or lease for nonacademic purposes, would require annexation to the City. Area D (Arboretum area along Palm Drive and the Oval): No development. (Note: Leave sidebars) White Page L-7, Policy L-7, be revised as follows: Maintain 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. Green Page L-9, Open Space/Controlled Development definition be revised as follows: Open Space/Controlled Development: Land 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, but may rise to a maximum of 2 units per acre where second units are allowed, and population densities range from 0.1 to 2 1 to 4 persons per acre. White Page L-9, accept the original White Page definition of Single Family Residential as follows: Single Family Residential: Includes 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
12/02/97 85-317
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. Green Page L-10, Transit-Oriented Residential definition be revised as follows: Transit-Oriented Residential: Allows higher density residential dwellings in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within a walkable distance, approximately 2,000 feet, of the
City=s two multi modal 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. Green Page L-10, Mixed Use definition be revised as follows: Mixed Use: This 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 multi modal 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.
12/02/97 85-318
White Page L-11, Commercial Hotel definition be revised as follows: Commercial Hotel: This 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 can be applied in combination with another land use category. Floor area ratio will range up to 1.5 for the hotel portion of the site. White Page L-14, text following Policy L-11 be revised as follows: Palo 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. White Page L-15, the text next to the picture depicting PACCC be revised as follows: Former Ventura School provides community services such as the Palo Alto Community Child Care Center (PACCC) and a public gathering place for the Ventura neighborhood. White Page L-18, Program L-17 be revised as follows: Support 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. Green Page L-21, Program L-28 be revised as follows: Establish the following unranked priorities for redevelopment within the Cal-Ventura area:
∃ Connect the Cal-Ventura area with the Multi-modal Transit Station and California Avenue.
12/02/97 85-319
Provide new streets and pedestrian connections that complete the street grid and create a walkable neighborhood.
∃ Fry=s Electronics site (300 Portage): Continued retail activity is anticipated for this site over the next 15 years. A program should be developed for the future use of the site for mixed density multi-family housing and a park or other open space.
∃ Hewlett Packard: Mixed office, residential, and possibly retail uses that fit with the scale and character of the surrounding area. Uses that are compatible with the surrounding area and a site plan that facilitates pedestrian use of Park Boulevard. White Page L-28, Program L-39 be revised as follows: Make improvements to Middlefield Road in Midtown that slow traffic, make the street more pedestrian-friendly, and unify the east and west sides of the commercial area with consideration given to traffic impacts on the residential neighborhoods. White Page L-31, Policy L-47 be revised as follows: Design 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. Green Page L-32, Program L-53A be revised as follows: Encourage salvage of discarded historic building materialsfor re-use by the community. White Pages L-35 and L-36, Programs L-64, L-65, and L-68 be merged into a new Program as follows: To help satisfy present and future community use needs, coordinate with the School District to educate the public about and plan for the future use of school sites, including providing space for public gathering places for neighborhoods lacking space. White Page L-42, Program L-78 be revised as follows: Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility wires, especially in commercial areas. Minimize the impacts of
12/02/97 85-320
undergrounding on street tree root systems and planting areas. TRANSPORTATION White Page T-3, Policy T-2 be revised as follows: IncorporateConsider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. White Page T-4, text in first paragraph following Goal T-2 be revised as follows: Palo Alto is serviced by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA), CalTrain, Dumbarton Bridge Bus
Service, and Stanford=s Marguerite Shuttle. All of these services converge at the university Avenue/Downtown Multi-modal Transit Station. The California Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station serves as a secondary transfer center,. and aA third center CalTrain Station is planned on San Antonio Road near the Mountain View border. White Page T-5, Policy T-4 be revised as follows: Support continued development and improvement of the University Avenue and California Avenue Multi-modal Transit Stations and construction of the proposed San Antonio Road Station as important transportation nodes for the City. White Page T-6, Program T-13 be revised as follows: Evaluate the extension of a light rail line along El Camino Real from Mountain View through Palo Alto to Menlo Park. White Page T-6, text following Program T-13 be revised as follows: Light rail is perceived positively by residents and has been enjoying a renaissance in many parts of California. Santa Clara County light rail is expected to reach Mountain View in 2000, and a logical extension would be north along El Camino Real to Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The extension would provide more stops than CalTrain and would provide access to many destinations not served by CalTrain. White Page T-8, Policy T-10 be revised as follows:
12/02/97 85-321
ImproveEncourage amenities such as seating, lighting, and signage at bus stops to increase rider comfort and safety. White Page T-10, Program T-20 be revised as follows: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard into Mountain View. White Page T-11, text next to the second photograph be revised as follows: When the Stanford Research Park was built in the 1960s 1950s, automobiles were seen as the only sensible way to travel and streets were designed without sidewalks. Today, many employees walk to work and exercise at lunch time, but they must do so in the traffic lanes. White Page T-18, Program T-38 be revised as follows: The following roadways are designated as residential arterials. Treat these streets with landscaping, medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to reduce traffic speeds.
∃ Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road)
∃ University Avenue (between San Francisquito Creek and Middlefield Road)
∃ Embarcadero Road (between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road)
∃ Charleston/Arastradero Roads (between Miranda Avenue and Fabian Way) White Page T-20, Policy T-34 be revised as follows: Reduce neighborhood street and intersection widths and widen planting strips as appropriate when street modifications are made. White Page T-20, text Following Policy T-35 be revised as follows: Vertical curbs prevent drivers from parking on sidewalks, a common and undesirable practice in areas where rolled curbs are not separated from sidewalks by planting strips. When conversion from rolled to vertical curbs is undertaken, the minimum area should be in general a street block and not individual properties.
12/02/97 85-322
White Page T-23, text following Goal T-8, first paragraph be revised as follows: Parking is allowed on most streets in Palo Alto, and large tracts of land in commercial areas are devoted to parking. The City regulates parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts. Public lots in these areas are paid for by property owners through annual assessments levied by the City.
Most public and private parking is provided >free= to drivers, although most business owner costs are ultimately passed on to consumers in the pricing of goods and services. In 1995, the total cost of each new parking space in a parking structure averages $160 per month, including construction, financing, maintenance, insurance, and enforcement, but excluding the cost of land. Based on a 1996 feasibility study completed for new parking structures in Downtown Palo Alto, the cost of a net new parking space is approximately $26,000 $26,500, including design, construction and financing, plus an on-going annual cost of approximately $220 per space for maintenance and enforcement. White Page T-24, text following Policy T-46 be moved to follow Policy T-45 as follows:
Palo Alto=s policy in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue areas is for most new development to provide its own parking, as the existing demand exceeds the existing supply. Under certain circumstances, some development is allowed to pay in-lieu fees instead of actually providing parking spaces. The fees are used to provide future public parking spaces. White Page T-28, Program T-54 be revised as follows: Encourage Santa Clara County to Rrelocate the terminal building away from the Runway 31 clear zone, allowing for construction of a new terminal. Map T-4 be modified to eliminate the representation of the extension of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard into Mountain View. HOUSING White Page H-7, Program H-4, modify original Program H-4 wording as follows: Evaluate the provisions for second dwelling units in single family areas to provide additional flexibility,
12/02/97 85-323
determine how additional units might be provided,
including reduced parking requirements.≅ White Page H-7, text following Program H-4 be revised as follows: Second unit cottages can provide additional rental housing that is both desirable and unobtrusive. The current cottage regulations should be evaluated to determine how additional units might be provided through increased flexibility in the regulations such as . In addition to reduced parking requirements, the City might consider further limiting the maximum size of the unit, allowing for attached units, and reducing the minimum lot size requirement. Appropriate development controls and review procedures should ensure compatibility with adjacent properties. White Page H-11, add new Policy H-11A following Goal H-3 as follows: Provide for increased use and support of tenant/landlord educational and mediation opportunities. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT White Page N-3, Program N-2 be revised as follows Examine and improve management practices for natural habitat and open space areas, including the provision of access to open space for City Fire, Parks, Public Works, and Utilities Department vehicles and equipment, to ensure that natural resources are protected. Green Page N-4, Policy N-4 be revised as follows:
Recognize the importance of Preserve Stanford=s lower foothill property predominantly within the City, and act as an advocate to Santa Clara County for the preservation of the open space link between the urban area and the foothills. Green Page N-4A, Programs N-5A, N-5B, and N-5C be deleted as follows:
ΑProgram N-5A: Revise the regulations in the Open Space zone district and/or the Site and Design Review combining district to provide standards for determining maximum allowable density based on a minimum parcel size range of 20-160 acres depending on slope and other visual and
ecological factors.≅
12/02/97 85-324
ΑProgram N-5B: Consider revisions to the Open Space zone district regulations that would further limit the amount of impervious surface and the intensity of development
allowed.≅
ΑProgram N-5C: Consider revising the Open Space zone district regulations to establish a maximum allowable
house size.≅ White Page N-7, Program N-7 be revised as follows: Participate in a San Francisquito Creek Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) process with adjacent cities. White Page N-7, Program N-9 be revised as follows: Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Ddevelop a comprehensive riparian corridor restoration and enhancement program that identifies specific stretches of corridor to be restored, standards to be achieved, and sources of funding. Include provisions for tree planting to enhance natural habitat. White Page N-9, Program N-12 be revised as follows: Continue Re-establish celebration of Arbor Day in Palo Alto. Green Page N-9, Program N-12A be revised as follows: Establish a program or ordinance to offset trees lost by development or when it is impractical to install required trees onsite. Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees, lost to new development and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical to locate them onsite. White Page N-9, Program N-13 be revised as follows: Develop and implement an enforceable plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement of trees in parks, parking lots, and City rights-of-way. White Page N-12, Program N-22 use original wording as follows: Implement incentives for the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and recycled water for landscape irrigation.
12/02/97 85-325
White Page N-15, Program N-31 be revised as follows: Complete improvements to the storm drainage system
consistent with the priorities outlined in the City=s 1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan provided that an appropriate funding mechanism is identified and approved by the City Council. White Page N-15, add text following Program N-31 as follows: Additional City Council policy decisions are required related to the storm drainage system capacity. The City is committed to repair and improvement of the system as necessary. White Page N-17, Program N-36 be revised as follows: Support legislative programs that result in the removal of the oldest and dirtiest vehicles on the roadway. White Page N-19, Program N-43 be revised as follows: Continue sponsoring a monthly regular household hazardous waste collection event. White Pages N-21 and N-22, Programs N-48 be revised as follows: Continue to develop cost-effective source separation programs for recyclable solid waste materials for all waste generators residential and commercial customers. White Page N-21 and N-22, Program N-50 be moved to follow text after Program N-48. White Page N-22, add the following text to follow relocated Program N-50: In the future, it may become more effective to rely on centralized solid waste separation and recycling rather than having each solid waste generator carry out a separation program. The city will continue to seek the most effective combination of source and centralized separation programs. White Page N-22, Program N-49 be revised as follows: Maintain and expand the use of the a Rrecycling Ccenter
at the City=s refuse disposal area.
12/02/97 85-326
Green Page N-23, text in second paragraph following Goal N-8 be revised as follows: The City is committed to the location of higher density housing near transit stations and routes. Such locations often have background noise levels above that which is normally desired for residential yards, patios, balconies and other similar exterior spaces associated with residential use. However, the City is willing to tolerate higher levels of exterior noise at these locations if where the outdoor areas affected are not intended for extensive use and interior standards can be achieved. While the noise compatibility guidelines shown below represent the desired conditions for housing, unsightly noise walls are undesirable along El Camino Real, Alma Street and other highly visible travel routes Sound walls required to meet guidelines should be attractive either through landscaping or other means. Green Page N-23B, Program N-53 be revised as follows: Collaborate with Caltrans Encourage the Joint Powers Board to establish pursue technologies a program to reduce train-related whistle noise in Palo Alto communities served by CalTrain. Green Page N-23B, add Program N-56A following Policy N-35 as follows: Evaluate changes to the Noise Ordinance which reduce the impact of leaf blower noise. Green Page N-25, Policy N-38 be revised as follows: Continually evaluate and revise forecasts for electric power demand. Pursue adequate low cost supplies to meet this demand by participating in cost-effective programs offered by the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) and exploring or other supply and transmission sources that are consistent with City policies suppliers and marketers of energy. Green Page N-25, Program N-58A be revised as follows: Encourage establishment continuation of public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency. White Page N-27, Policy N-43 add text following:
Palo Alto=s utilities, public safety and other City infrastructure improvements need to be carefully designed to minimize negative environmental impacts. This applies
12/02/97 85-327
throughout the City with special attention given to the Baylands and Foothills, where improvements should generally be located as close as possible to access roads. Green Page N-28, Program N-67 be revised as follows: Contract with Require preparation of a report from an engineering geologist to that reviews geologic, soils, and engineering reports for developments in hazard areas. Establish appropriate fees to cover the cost of this review. White Page N-29, Program N-68 be revised as follows: Retain a qualified geotechnical engineer to Review and update as appropriate City code requirements for excavation, grading, and filling so to ensure that they conform to currently accepted standards. Recover the cost of this work through grading permit fees. White Page N-29, Program N-69 be revised as follows: Establish a standardized process for evaluating the impacts of development on the storm drainage system. Require mitigation for increases of storm runoff into this system. White Page N-31, Program N-75 be revised as follows: Initiate public education programs that ensure strongly encourage that each household in the City is prepared to be self-sufficient for 72 hours after a major earthquake.
Update and distribute the City=s earthquake preparedness
guide, ΑLiving with Our Faults.≅ COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES Green Page C-2, revise chart on Capacity vs. Enrollment as follows: 1997 Capacity
1997 Enrollment
2010 Projected Enrollment Elementary School 4077(1) 4406(1) 4200 Middle School 2,359 2,087 2258 High School 2,869 2,842 3346
12/02/97 85-328
TOTAL 9,305 9,335 9804
(1) 1996 White Page C-7, text under Goal C-1 be revised as follows: Delivering high quality City services with limited finite fiscal resources is not easy. A high degree of and requires efficiency and coordination is essential, along with a recognition of changing community needs. Demand for services like day child and senior care, education, and recreation continue to grow and change. Technology has revolutionized the way many services are provided, but has also added a new level of complexity. At the same time, the service delivery system itself has changed. Services that were once exclusively provided by the City may now be provided by another public entity or by a nonprofit agency or private company. The result of this trend has been a growing emphasis on partnership and coordination. The only way to achieve maximum efficiency in City service delivery is to collaborate with other jurisdictions, avoid duplication of efforts, build coalitions with the Palo Alto Unified School District, and enlist the assistance of businesses and volunteers to supplement City resources. White Page C-8, Program C-1 be revised as follows: Collaborate with the Palo Alto Unified School District to
establish a >Children and Family Services Program.= This Program will use existing public and private agency resources to promote education at home and in school.In cooperation with existing public and private agencies and the School District, develop a service program that will coordinate the efforts of agencies providing services to families and youth in Palo Alto. White Page C-8, Program C-5 be revised as follows: Identify the operational improvements needed to make schools available for weekend and evening use.Work with the School District to determine ways that schools can be made more available to the community for weekend and evening use. Green Page C-10, Program C-10 be revised as follows: Continue to Bbudget for and train City staff training in quality customer service-oriented management skills and techniques. White Page C-14, Program C-17 be revised as follows:
12/02/97 85-329
Program C-17: ΑInvest in plant, equipment, and human resources to assure the continued availability of infrastructure. Develop improvement plans for the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of community facilities and keep these facilities viable community
assets by investing the necessary resources.≅ White Page C-14, new text added following Program C-17 as follows: Examples of such plans include the Infrastructure Plan, Golf Course Master Plan, and the Cubberley Master Plan. Green Page C-14, Program C-18A be revised as follows: Assign priority for street and sidewalk repairs to areas with highest usage. Incorporate as an additional criteria used in prioritizing sidewalk repairs, a criterion related to the level of pedestrian usage. White Page C-14, Program C-19 be deleted:
Program C-19: ΑPrepare improvement plans for community facilities and implement these plans over time. Examples of community facility plans include the master plans for the Palo Alto Golf Course and the Cubberley Center. Green Page C-14, text under Program C-19A be revised as follows:
The City=s existing performing arts facilities are dated
and would be difficult to retrofit to meet today=s standards. The City may could consider a joint venture with Stanford University to construct a contemporary state-of-the-art performing arts center. This partnership would allow the cost of the facility to be shared and would maximize its potential use. Such a center should also include exhibition space. White Page C-14, Program C-21 and text following be revised as follows: Preserve El Camino Park as a recreational resource for the community at a reasonable cost. El Camino Park is owned by Stanford University and is leased by the City through the year 2013 June 2033. The City hopes to establish a more affordable long term
arrangement with the University that ensures the park=s continued availability.
12/02/97 85-330
White Page C-14, text following Policy C-23 be revised as follows: Palo Alto is committed to the maintenance of its facilities to maximize their potential life and avoid the costly effects of deferred maintenance. The City also is committed to on-going improvements that make facilities more welcoming to the public. These improvements, such as those completed at Civic Center Plaza and in the lobby at City Hall, could allow public buildings and spaces to
truly function as >community centers.= Reinvestment could include modernization of existing facilities to add computer systems, electronic communication equipment, and other improvements changes that improve access to services and increase operating efficiency. White Page C-15, Program C-23 be revised as follows: Actively search for and develop In conjunction with new development proposals, pursue creation of park, plaza, or other public gathering places in those residential neighborhoods that lack themthat meet neighborhood needs. Green Page C-16, text following Program C-23A be revised as follows: New technology and changes in our public and private facilities have moved people with disabilities from the confines of their homes into the community at large. As people with disabilities become more mobile, we have become aware of additional impediments not anticipated in our earlier changes. It may be possible to take a bus, arrive at a place of business and then not be able to enter because the door is too heavy or too high. Continued awareness and planning will facilitate seamless
participation by all members of our community.≅ BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS White Page B-1, Revise the first paragraph in the Introduction as follows: The Business and Economics Element addresses business-related policy issues at the citywide and subarea levels. It is an optional Comprehensive Plan element but its goals, policies, and programs are equally important to those in the mandatory elements. The Element has been specifically prepared to ensure that the needs of Palo
Alto=s residential neighborhoods are balanced with those of its business community. Its goals emphasize compatibility, diversity, growth, and flexibility.
12/02/97 85-331
Implementation of this Element will take place over time and will utilize the available planning and regulatory tools, such as the Zoning Ordinance, Coordinated Area Plans, growth limits and design review. The other, more traditional elements of the Comprehensive Plan, provide more on the programs to implement the policies in this Element. White Page B-3, text in second paragraph under Retail Sales be revised as follows:
These numbers represent the one percent City=s one percent share of the 8.25% sales tax collected on local
sales. The Αother≅ category includes businesses in the San Antonio Road corridor, the Bayshore area, and other remaining businesses throughout in the City. White Page B-5, Policy B-1 be revised as follows: Use a variety of planning and regulatory tools, including growth limits, to ensure that business growth change is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods. White Page B-7, Program B-4 be revised as follows: Develop the City Council-approved a fiber optic ring around the City as recommended in the 1996 Telecommunications Strategy Study and as approved by the City Council and evaluate and implement enhancements to the system. White Page B-9, Policy B-16 be revised as follows: Where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties through incentives such as reduced parking requirements, credit for on-street parking, and increases in allowable floor area. Use such incentives only where they are needed to stimulate redevelopment or contribute to housing or community design goals. White Page B-10, text following Policy B-19 be revised as follows: The University Avenue/Downtown area is a regional retail and entertainment attraction, and a professional office and service commercial center for Palo Alto. Its historic buildings, architectural variety and public improvements contribute to its economic success. In the
past, the City has taken steps to maintain the area=s strong retail function by limiting the amount of first
floor office space. To protect the areas=s scale and
12/02/97 85-332
character, the total amount of non-residential floor space allowed is also regulated. White Page B-10, delete Policy B-20:
Recognize the contribution of Downtown=s character, including its historic buildings, to its economic success. Green Page B-10, Policy B-21 be revised as follows: Maintain an economic role for uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complements the Downtown business district, provides allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses, and serves the needs of nearby
neighborhoods.≅ Green Page B-13, revise the text at the top of the page (following Policy B-27, page B-12) as follows: Neighborhood Centers include Midtown, Alma Plaza, Charleston, Edgewood Plaza. The primary concern in these Centers is revitalization, particularly in Midtown. In the mid-1990's, Midtown has recently experienced the closure of a department store, a grocery, a pharmacy and two banks. The City wishes to increase the economic competitiveness and vitality of these areas and is willing to examine regulatory changes and public improvement programs to achieve this objective. This could involve the use of tax or assessment districts to finance necessary improvements. GOVERNANCE White Page G-1, text under Form of Government be revised as follows: Palo Alto was incorporated as a Chartered City in 1909. The City has adopted a strong City Council/City Manager form of government. The City Council is comprised of nine members who each serve four-year terms. The mayor and vice-mayor are elected to one-year terms by their fellow Council Members. The City Council has two standing committees: the Finance Committee and the Policy and Services Committee. In addition to their legislative duties, Council Members represent the City on a variety of local, county, regional, and statewide boards, commissions and other organizations. These include the Santa Clara County Cities Association, the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, among others.≅ Green Page G-4, Policy G-1 be revised as follows:
12/02/97 85-333
Delegate appropriate decision-making to the Planning Commission, with an appeal process to the City Council, to simplify and shorten the project review process for non-controversial certain types of projects. White Page G-5, text under Policy G-1 be revised as follows: The City has made a commitment to will consider changes to the City Charter that would delegate more responsibility for land use decisions to the Planning Commission. Many land use decisions now require both Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Delegating more decision-making to the Planning Commission, subject to appeal to the City Council, would streamline the application process and relieve applicants of numerous unnecessary proceedings. White Page G-5, Program G-1 be revised as follows: Initiate a charter amendment for the ballot that would delegate specific final decision-making authority decisions to the Planning Commission, including appeals of decisions by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Director. White Page G-5, text under Policy G-2 be revised as follows: Many residents are interested in being more effectively engaged in and connected to the civic affairs of the community. The City Council is committed to delegating more responsibilities to existing boards and commissions. and The creationg of new advisory bodies by either the City Manager or City Council, when a particular expertise or broader base of input is required, would allow people who are interested to be more effectively engaged in and connected to the civic affairs of the community. Green Page G-5, Program G-2A be deleted: Create a standing forum to address citizen traffic and transportation issues. Green Page G-5, Program G-2B be revised as follows: Hold an annual public Use design workshops or charettes to address design issues within the City. White Page G-7, add text following Policy G-6 as follows:
12/02/97 85-334
Palo Alto should regularly review the benefits of providing and/or sharing resources, including financial assistance, with the East Palo Alto Police Departmentneighboring communities upon request and where the City of Palo Alto feels that it is feasible. Green Page G-7, Program G-9A be deleted: Palo Alto should regularly review the benefits of providing and/or sharing resources, including financial assistance, with the East Palo Alto Police Department. White Page G-8, Program G-10 be revised as follows: Establish aContinue and expand programs to enhance opportunities for volunteer assistance. White Page G-8, Program G-11 be revised as follows: ProvideContinue and expand opportunities for public and nonprofit organizations serving the City to provide information about themselves to the public. White Page G-8, Program G-12 be revised as follows: Establish aContinue the program to publicly recognize the efforts of individuals, groups, and businesses who provide volunteer services within the City. White Page G-9, Program G-17 be revised as follows: Initiate aContinue and expand customer-oriented process improvement efforts. 2. Incorporate the staff-recommended changes related to Midtown as follows: Green Page L-26, Policy L-36 be revised as follows: Revitalize Midtown as an attractive, compact Neighborhood Center with diverse local-serving uses, a mix of one- and two-story buildings, adequate parking, and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets, and ways and gathering
places. Encourage retention of Midtown=s grocery stores and encourage additional specialty food shops a variety of neighborhood retail shops and services. White Page L-26, text following Policy L-36 be revised as follows:
Midtown is unique among Palo Alto=s Neighborhood Centers, as it is comprised of over 25 parcels with nearly as many individual owners. The area is bisected by serves a
12/02/97 85-335
number of neighborhoods in the vicinity of its two arterial principal streets -- Middlefield Road and Colorado Avenue -- making traffic circulation and pedestrian safety important planning issues. Midtown should retain its fabric of small-scale, primarily local-serving commercial uses. Future decisions on public and private improvements should seek to have Midtown be a vibrant center to the surrounding neighborhoods. Owners of commercial property, working with the neighborhoods and the City, need to be active proponents of any needed additional parking. Green Page L-26, Program L-36 be revised as follows: Prepare a plan for Midtown with the participation of property owners, local businesses, and nearby residents. Use Consider the Midtown Economic Study and the land use diagram prepared concepts identified during the 1994 Community Design Workshop in developing the plan. The plan should have a special emphasis on public improvements, including parking, street furniture and signage. White Page L-26, text following Program L-36 be revised as follows: The Midtown Plan should address the construction and financing of public improvements, design standards for new buildings, the appropriate mix of buildings, incentives for re-use and redevelopment, buffering of adjacent residences, landscaping and reconfiguring of parking lots, inclusion of services such as child care, and phasing strategies appearance and location of private development, but focus primarily on improvements to the public areas, including parking, street furniture and informational signs, and address the phasing, construction and financing of improvements. Green Pages L-27 and L-28, remove Programs L-37 and L-38 as follows: PROGRAM L-37: As part of the Midtown Plan, prepare: (a) a detailed list of the types of local-serving retail uses that would be desirable within Midtown; (b) site specific zoning and architectural standards that preserve the scale and neighborhood focus of Midtown; and (c) a program for public improvements that includes parking, street furniture, and signage. PROGRAM L-38:
12/02/97 85-336
Create a landscaped public plaza as a central focal point to Midtown. Reconfigure existing parking lots to create the plaza site. As shown in the land use diagram prepared during the Community Design Workshop, place new mixed use buildings with ground floor retail and upper floor offices around the plaza and line the space with entries, windows, and outdoor seating areas. Green Page L-28, Program L-39 be revised as follows: Make improvements to Middlefield Road in Midtown that slow traffic, encourage commercial vitality, make the street more pedestrian-friendly, and unify the east and west sides of the commercial area with consideration given to traffic impacts on the residential neighborhood. Green Page L-28, remove Program L-40 as follows: PROGRAM L-40: Study, map, and rezone the area east of Middlefield Road as appropriate to encourage new Mixed Use (Retail/Office) development. Green Page L-28, Program L-41 be revised as follows: Support bicycle and pedestrian trail improvements along a restored Matadero Creek within Hoover Park to improve circulation between Midtown and nearby neighborhoods. Green Page L-28, Policy L-37 be revised as follows: Maintain existing residences residential uses within the Midtown area and encourage additional residential development. Green Page L-28, remove Program L-42 as follows: PROGRAM L-42: Rezone the west side of Middlefield Road for Mixed Use (Residential Above Retail). Buffer nearby existing housing from new development. 3. Incorporate the staff recommended changes related to Stanford Shopping Center as follows: White Page L-18, Program L-21 be revised as follows: Re-evaluate the existing expansion caps on the Stanford Shopping Center, provided that the potential environmental impacts of expansion can be mitigated. Maintain a Stanford Shopping Center development cap of
12/02/97 85-337
80,000 square feet of additional development beyond that existing on June 14, 1996. White Page L-18, text under Policy L-24 be revised as follows: Stanford Shopping Center is a major regional retail center, encompassing 70 acres and containing 1,330,000 square feet of floor space. The Center has been expanded and remodeled several times since its opening in 1956. While the Center has had many positive economic benefits, it is primarily auto-oriented and is not as well integrated into the fabric of the community as it might
be. Any development at tThe Shopping Center=s parking lot redevelopment and building expansion plans approved in 1997 should incorporate improved pedestrian and transit connections to University Avenue/Downtown, the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station, and nearby housing. 5. Forward the Council-proposed changes to the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map to the Planning Commission for review and comment on the changes, with a stipulation that the Commission review, comment, and report back to the Council by February 1, 1998. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. Mr. Schreiber said staff would forward to the Planning Commission
all of Council=s changes at which time it had the opportunity to review and comment. Tentatively, the meeting was scheduled for the second Wednesday in January 1998. The Comprehensive Plan would then be brought back to Council in February for certification of the EIR, EIR actions, and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Eakins thanked everyone involved in the Comprehensive Plan process, which had been of tremendous value. Everyone who had worked on it deserved tremendous thanks and appreciation, especially all of the backup work which had kept staff very busy.
Council Member McCown concurred with Council Member Eakins= comments. The process had started in 1993. The schedule Council had set for itself was kept by everyone in the process except Council. What Council had hoped back then was that once the Comprehensive Plan went through the final review by the Planning Commission, the process would be rifle shot. Even though it had taken several Council meetings to accomplish, it had progressed well. The document was something everyone would be proud of when issued.
12/02/97 85-338
Council Member Eakins asked how much of the Comprehensive Plan could be on the web. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:25 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.
12/02/97 85-339