Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-02 City Council (21)TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 16 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment DATE:June 2,1997 CMR:270:97 SUBJECT:COUNCIL REVIEW OF COORDINATED AREA PLAN ORDINANCE FRAMEWORK RECOMMENDATIONS The attached draft ordinance is presented for Council review and comment. Staff recommends that Council review the framework, direct or comment upon any desired changes, and thereafter direct staff to proceed to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the actual Municipal Code revision. BACKGROUND In October and November 1995, Council reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee’s and Planning Commission’s recommendations to establish "Coordinated Area Plans" (CAPs) as an important planning and governance implementation mechanism for the new Comprehensive Plan, particularly in areas of the City where land use changes are desirable. (See attached October 30, and November 6, 16, and 27, 1995 minutes.) Staff described the concept in detail in CMR:295:95 (revised 11/13/95), a copy of which is attached. Staff focused upon three major features of the concept: First, that CAPs should be both acceptable to the community and economically feasible for private redevelopment; second, that the CAP product would be more detailed, visual, and graphic than traditional planning and zoning; and third, that the CAP product would derive from a community- oriented, highly participatory process intended to provide a platform for open and public dialogue and creativity. Based upon Council’s discussions, staff determined that a more specific ordinance framework, including both planning guidelines and a procedural recommendation, should be prepared for Council review. Beginning in January 1996, the City Attorney’s Office prepared and extensively reviewed with staff five progressive drafts of an ordinance CMR:270:97 Page I of 4 framework. This process allowed staffto give more substantive attention to the details of how to implement the novel process and substantive planning elements of the CAP concept. Since 1995, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) has moved ahead with its Urban Lane relocation project. The PAMF development agreement commits the Foundation to participate in a CAP process for the University South/South Of Forest Area. Given the strong community interest in this process, and PAMF’s desire to proceed as soon as possible, staffbelieves that the CAP ordinance concept should be reviewed by Council in the very near term, despite delays in completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Coordinated Area Plan ordinance would implement a policy in the Draft Comprehensive Plan and, as such, is not an adopted policy. However, the Council did commit~ in January 1996, to a CAP in conjunction with reuse of the Medical Foundation property. The ordinance would be consistent with the Council’s policy direction regarding the PAMF site. CAPs necessarily involve a significant degree of delegation by Council to the CAP "working group" and advisory commissions. The ordinance framework envisions Council establishing limiting parameters and objectives for the process at the outset, e.g., the nature of the desired land uses, density limits, etc. Thereafter, however, the process could run without Council intervention until a final product had been prepared. The degree and nature of Council involvement during preparation of a CAP is a significant policy question for Council. DISCUSSION The broad concepts behind CAPs are detailed in CMR:295:95 (revised. 11/13/95). As staff has developed the framework, several highlights worthy of special Council attention have become apparent. Overview of the CAP process The ordinance framework has three key features. First, the framework calls upon Council to initiate the process by defining the planning objectives and parameters, and to appoint a "working group" of property and business owners, residents and other interested persons to guide preparation of the actual plan. Second, the framework directs staff and technical consultants (planning, design, transportation and economic) to prepare the CAP during a series of public meetings and workshops. The CAP is intended to be completed with a maximum 12- to 15-month time frame. CMR:270:97 Page 2 of 4 Third, the framework calls for integration of the City’s capital improvement program with the CAP, so that infrastructure needed to facilitate the desired change can be identified and provided. ALTERNATIVES Council could defer the CAP issue until after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan or decide to have CAPs conducted as special studies without the benefit of an implementing ordinance, although procedures adopted by Resolution would be required.. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the CAP ordinance does not have a direct fiscal impact. However, the decision to undertake a CAP will involve some level of City financial commitment, and the result of a CAP may include a City capital project commitment. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Coordinated area plans will require environmental review. Adoption of an implementing ordinance probably will not require environmental review. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Staff recommends that Council review the framework, direct or comment upon any desired changes, and thereafter direct staff to proceed to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the actual code revision. ATTACHMENTS CMR:295:95 (revised 11/13/95) Ordinance Framework (0051768) 10/30/95, 11/6/95, 11/16/95, & 11/27/95 City Council Minutes DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: / KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:270:97 Page 3 of 4 CC:Planning Commisison Ken Alsman Roxy Rapp Steve Player David Greene Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (Susan Frank) Palo Alto Medical Foundation (David Jury) University South Neighborhoods Group (Pat Burt) CMR:270:97 Page 4 of 4 City City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: AGENDA DATE: CITY MANAGER November 13, 1995 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment CMR:295:95 (REVISED) SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan Update - Staff Recommendations Regarding Coordinated Area Plans The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and the Planning Commission have recommended.use of coordinated area plans as a Comprehensive Plan implementation tool. This staff report provides additional information on the elements of coordinated area plans, as envisioned by CPAC, and identifies areas of the City where staffdisagrees and agrees with the Committee and Commission recommendatiom Staff identifies an approach that would incorporate one (or possibly two) area plans into the next phase of the Comprehensive Plan Update process (preparation of the Draft Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report).. An updated schedule is provided which indicates that incorporation of an area plan into the Comprehensive Plan Update process would likely push adoption of a new Plan into very late 1997 or early 1998. RECOMMENDATIONS The Comprehensive PlanAdvisory Committee (CPAC) and the Planning Commission have recommended that implementation of the Comprehensive Plan include a series of coordinated area plans. These area planning efforts would involve extensive public participation in the creation of more detailed land use plans than traditionally used by the City. The objective of an area planning process is to create land use plans that are both acceptable to the community and economically viable. In some circumstances, the terms "area plan" and "Specific Plan" have been u~ed interchangeably. Specific Plans are an implementation tool allowed under State law and would be one possible way of implementing area plans. The details of implementing an area plan would need to be identified as part of the area plan process. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113195)Page 1 of 32 Staff recommends that: Coordinated area plans are not needed for Stanford Shopping Center and the three (Charleston, Alma, Edgewood) neighborhood centers. A plan for the Stanford Medical Center area should be undertaken by Stanford aa-p~ of-the ant’:clpatcd 1995-96 if they request ~ expansion of the Medical Center’s development potential. Q The City should acknowledge in the Comprehensive Plan that more detailed (than traditional for the City) landuse plans are appropriate and desired for: Midtown; Califomia-Ventura Area; El Camino Real (from Curtner to Charleston); South of Forest Area (including Palo Alto Medical Foundation lands); and the Dream Team Area (lands on either sid~ of University Circle west of the railroad tracks). ~. If the Council wishes to pursue an area plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, it is recommended that the Cal-Ventura area be the focus of the area plan and staff be directed to return to Council witJ~ Comprehensive Plan consultant contract amendments for the area plan work and agreements with major property owners regarding sharing the cost of the work. ~ The Midtown area is being be studied separately, commencing with a property owner-funded master site plan. The approach taken is world-be more property owner-driven than the areawide plan. o If the Council wishes to pursue an area planning approach, either as part of or separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update, it is recommended that staff be directed to return to Council with an implementing ordinance and procedures. POLICY IMPLI TI S The key policy issue is to what extent should the City rely on traditional planning and zoning approaches for areas where either the private market has not functioned particularly well in past decades (e.g., Midtown, neighborhood shopping centers, portions of E1 Camino Real) or the City anticipates and/or desires significant change (e.g., University Train Station/Dream Team area, California-Ventura, Midtown). CPAC and the Planning Commission reeomrnend CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113/95)Page 2 of 32 that the City more actively intervene in areas where change is desired. It is important to stress that the focus of area plans is to facilitate and manage physical change. As such, the product of an area planning effort should be both acceptable to the community and economically feasible for both the private sector and the City. City intervention would involve both process and regulatory product considerations. The CPAC-envisioned process for developing land use plans for desired change areas would involve substantial public participation, organized in a structured problem-solving approach prior to formal City review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The regulatory product would most likely be more detailed and visually oriented (i.e, three dimensional plans, and guidelines and regulations rather than the traditional mapped land use plan and zoning designations). The roles and obligations of the City Council, City staff, directly affected property owners and the general public, including neighbors and other interested parties, would be different with coordinated area plans than with either traditional City initiated land use planning studies or developer initiated proposals. Roles and obligations include: City Council - Establish process and product parameters and expectations including guiding principles; the nature of the public process; product specifications, including plans, guidelines and regulations; time frame; and a decision on the extent of public and private sector financing of the area plan. General willingness to look favorably upon proposed change if the process yields general agreements among the major participants. "General willingness" meansthat Council concerns and possible changes should focus more on significant public policy issues than the details of a proposal. "General agreements" means .that most participants are in agreement but recognizes that 100 percent agreement is neither necessary nor appropriate. -Willingness to commit City resources (dollars and staff time) to the process.. -Willingness to take the risk that a proaetive planning effort may not succeed. City staff- Allocate time and effort to administer consultant contracts and the planning process, including undertaking technical work. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113/95)Page 3 of 32 ~ To the greatest extent possible, given planning, legal and fiscal constraints, allow the process to shape the policy and physical results without interjecting preconceived staff objectives. . Provide education and advice in the planning process regarding urban design and urban planning concepts, area history, existing City policies and regulations, and technical considerations. Provide policy .and .technical advice regarding the outcome of the public process to the City Council and advisory bodies. Commercial/nonresidential and other directly affected property owners - City staff believes that property owners .who stand to gain from the process should be expected to financially contribute to the cost of consultants. Willingness to participate and cooperate in both the planning process and the results (noting again that creation of economically viable results is a key objective).. Public (neighbors and other interested parties) - Willingness to participate and cooperate in an effort to achieve positive results. Willingness to accept results if the process has been open and fair andmost participants concur with a set of recommendations. EXECUTI~ CPAC recommends c~rdinated area plans for the following areas: Midtown (CD Sections, pp. 33) E1 Camino Real (CD Section, pp. 31) California-Ventura Area (CD Section, pp. 14) Dream Team Area (CD Section, pp. 12) Stanford Medical Center (CD Section, pp. 12) South of Forest Area (SOFA) (CD Section, pp. 13) Charleston Shopping Center (CD Section, pp. 36) Alma Plaza (CD Section, pp. 36) Edgewood Plaza (CD Section, pp. 36) Stanford Shopping Center (CD Section, pp. 24 and 25) C1VIR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 4 of 32 Staff recommends that coordinated area plans are not needed for Stanford .Shopping Center and the three (Charleston, Alma, Edgewood) neighborhood centers. Instead, owners should be encouraged to develop and share master plans for the use and upgrading of these sites. Planning for the Stanford Medical Center should be included by Stanford as part of ~ any future Medical Center expansion proposedal-t~d~s~m’&~ in-1-995.,96. Detailed planning for the Dream Team area (i.e., University Avenue train ¯ Station area) can and should wait until after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has identified four of the areas cited by CPAC for proactive planning as being of the highest priority. These areas are Cal-Ventura, Midt0wn, South E1 Camino Real from Curtner to Charleston, and SOFA/PAMF. Cal-Ventura and Midtown have a clear need for attention in the near future. SOFA/PAMF is likely to need to receive attention sometime a4tee-fl~ spring-cff in 1996, When aider the City review process for PAIVIF’s Urban Lane project is amieipnted-t~ae completed. South El Camino Real, while of significant concern, has somewhat less pressing issues than the other three areas. A key characteristic of the four highest priority areas is the close relationship of residential and nonresidential land. Staff concludes that any area planning effort that does not involve the neighborhood(s) early and often in the plan development process has a significantly lower chance of eventual adoption and success. Each of these areas involves difficult physical and economic issues, that should be addressed within a process that offers ongoing opportunities for all stakeholders to voice their needs and desires, hear the needs and desires of others, and learn from technical experts the possibilities and consequences of various courses of action. Key resources in this type of process include neutral process facilitation, professional land use/design expertise, economic expertise, and transportation and other technical expertise, and legal/regulatory program consultation, Adoption of the new ComprehensivePlan is unlikely to occur until thc fall c~r late summer or early fall of 1997. The combination of near-term property owner desires for direction and decisions and property owner and community desires for change lead staffto conclude that it would be better to incorporate plans for the Cal-Ventura area into Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update process (i.e., preparation of a draft Plan; likely to begin in September 1995). An area planning process along the lines envisioned by CPAC and the Planning Commission can be developed for the Cal-Ventura area, focusing primarily on the area bounded by Page Mill Road, E1 Camino Real, the residential areas south of Lambert and the railroad tracks. May 23 and June 12, 1995 staff reports regarding Midtown propose a separate planning approach for the Midtown area. This would result in at least a 3 to 4 month delay in adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan, but the specific timing and process details have yet to be worked out. :1 ^ "~^’-- ’ " CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 5 of 32 1fan areaplan is incorporated into Phase 111, it is important to stress ,t._, ,t.: .....,.._- ¯ based-on several critical assumptions: The current Comprehensive Plan consulting team and Keyser Marston will be used, rather than starting a new consultant selection and contracting process. Major property owners are willing to participate in the planning process. Any approval of a PAMF relocation plan includes both restrictions on what PAMF can do with their current properties and commitments to a future area plarmitig process sufficient to reassure PAMF’s neighbors that they will not be placed in a purely reactive position to a future redevelopment proposal. Staffhas r~ begun to work with the City’s consultants to estimate the costs of doing an area planning study either independently or as part of Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Advice has been sought from the major Comprehensive Plan consultants. The combination of a facilitator, community design resource, economist, and environmental impact, including transportation expertise, is likely to cost approximately $200,000-250,000. In addition, legal/regulatory program assistance to the City Attorney’s Office may be needed. If undertaken at a time when City staff resources are substantially committed to other work, a contract planner to supplement City staffwould be necessary and wouM cost between $50,000 and $75,000 for a 10- to 12-month work period. As a matter of policy, staff concludes that it is a reasonable City expectation that eomrnereial property owners in the Cal- Ventura area, as well as other areas undergoing area plans ~, be expected to pay some percentage of the consultant costs for the area planning efforts. Some other City costs may be offset by a cost recovery mechanism related to future building permits. Since the June 10 staff report was prepared, staff in consultation with Comprehensive Plan consultant Daniel lacofano has developed more detailed aspects of an area planning effort. ~Guidin~ Princit~les Quality design consistent with City and community goals -- An area planning process needs to be conducted within the context of adopted land use and other City goals and policies. Critical goals and policies shouM be identified by the City Council at the beginning of the area planning process. This goal and policy framework will be important in focusing the subsequent work on the area plan. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 6 of 32 A major theme of CPAC’s recommendations is creating better opportunities for a physical and psychological sense of community. Any area planning process is a critical opportunity to do this both through public involvement and the nature of the physical recommendations. Extensive opportunities for public involvement through workshops or other mechanisms is essential. An area planningprocess will have a greater design component than traditional City land use plans. Design and land use needs to be integrated with and compatible with existing residential and non- residential areas surrounding the focus of thb area plan. Economic incentives -- One of the purposes of an area plan is to facilitate desired physical change. To accomplish that desire, the area plan needs to provide enough economic incentive for the private sector to proceed with development. Likewise for the public sector, there must be sufficient assurance that development will proceed to warrant appropriate infrastructure investments. Implementation of an area plan may span a considerable time period. To help facilitate individual investment decisions, the results of an approved area plan need to be structured so that they are a reliable basis for both private and public sector investment decisions. Development feasibility -- The physical development concepts incorporated into an area plan have to be supported by the market in order for the desired changes to occur. Environmental quality and review -- The level of development incorporated into an area plan shouM not overwhelm the resource carrying capacity of both the immediate area and the broader community. The environmental review document prepared for an area plan should be structured to facilitate subsequent implementation of the area plan. Manage the area’s public and private improvement process to facilitate desired changes -- As noted before, an area planning process is intended to facilitate physical change. For the private sector, land use policies and implementation tools need to be oriented to achieve the desired changes. The area plan should clearly identify public and private sector investment expectations. The public sector expectations need to be consistent with City operating and capital budget policies and resources. Provide opportunities for broad and focused public participation -- The area plan effort needs to provide participation opportunities for all members of the public who believe they have a stake in the outcome and focused participation opportunity for those most directly impacted by the plan. Staff envisions use of both open public meetings and workshops and a Working Group of key property owners, CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 7 of 32 representatives of affected groups (e.g., neighborhood and business associations) and members of the broader community (e.g., general public, environmental community, Chamber of Commerce). Process Parameters Work needs to be done consistent with a time line/schedule Integrate’the area plan into the Comprehensive Plan Process needs to be responsive to the needs and constraints of property owners, people living or working in the surrounding neighborhoods, and the broader community Work towardsmaximum community agreement but not require consensus Community involvement and communication should involve both large working meetings involving the active participation of the general public and a Working Group whose members have both a recommending role to the City and a communication and education role to the community The Working Group shouM be a representative group of stakeholders in the immediate area and the broader public Product StTecificati s Comprehensive Plan land use designations Zoning designations - includes, if necessary, development of new zoning tools and amendment of existing regulations :General development standards - design guidelines for the private and public realms that focus on volume and placement of future development and landscape expectations. Guidelines are not intended to be detailed building- specific designs Circulation plan Environmental analysis (assumed to be an environmental impact report) List of public investments and related financing plan. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113195)Page 8 of 32 Staff/Consultant R~ In addition to staff resources, needed consultant resources include." Facilitator Community Design Development-oriented economist Technical - environmental, transportation and perhaps others Legal/regulatory program consultation Time Frame The minimum time needed to have an intensive public process and prepare a draft Area Plan and draft EIR is seven months followed by three to four months for Planning Commission and City Council review. A revised Comprehensive Plan Update time line has beenprepared lfthe Council concludes review of all draft goals, policies and programs by the end of January and all Land Use Map issues by the end of February, adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan could occur in late summer or earlyfall of 1997. 1fan area plan is added to the Plan update process, adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan is unlikely to occur before at least 1998. FISCAL IMPACT Individual area plans will address issues having positive and negative fiscal impacts on the City. These impacts should be addressed in the area planning process. ENVIRONMENTA~ At the current stage of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, the Council is giving direction for items to be incorporated into a draft Plan. Future preparation and review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan, with or without area plans, will be the subject of an environmenta.l impact report. Prepared By: Kenneth R. Sehreiber Nancy Maddox Lytle James E. Gilliland Department Head Review: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 9 of 32 City Manager Approval: CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 10 of 32 SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan Update -- Staff Recommendations Regarding Coordinated Area Plans RECOMMENDATIONS The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and the Planning Commission have recommended that implementation of the Comprehensive Plan include a series of coordinated area plans, These area planning efforts would involve extensive public participation in the creation of more detailed land use plans than traditionally used by the City. Staff recommends that: Coordinated area plans are not needed for Stanford Shopping Center and the three (Charleston, Alma, Edgewood) neighborhood centers. o A plan for theStanford Medical Center area should be undertaken by Stanford ~t-gart , if they request to-exptmd expansion of the Medical Center’s development potential. o The City should acknowledge in the Comprehensive Plan that more detailed (than traditional for the City) land use plans are appropriate and desired for: -Midtown; -Califomia-Ventura Area; -El Camino Real (from Curtner to Charleston); -South of Forest Area (including Palo Alto Medical Foundation lands); and -the Dream Team Area (lands on either side of University Circle west of the railroad tracks). o ~. . lf the Council wishes to pursue an area plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, it is recommended that the Cal- Ventura area be the focus of the area plan and staff be directed to return to Council with Comprehensive Plan consultant contract amendments for the area pIan work and CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 11 of 32 agreements with major property owners regarding sharing the cost of the work. P~a ~ The Midtown area is being be studied separately, commencing with a property owner-funded master site plan. The approach taken is ~ more property owner-driven than the areawide plan. If the Council wishes to pursue an area planning approach, either as part of or separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update, it is recommended that staff be directed to return to Council with an implementing ordinance and procedures. BACKGROUND The City’s approach to regulating land use and encouraging desired design features has been primarily to rely on Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and zoning regulations to establish the expectations for development. Property owners/developers are then encouraged to work ’within the box’ (i.e., within the parameters set by the policies and regulations) with the expectation that adequately-designed projects will be approved by the appropriate City body. There has been significant opposition to a more active planning process that would establish more detailed design and use expectations and requirements for the property owner. The city’s approach has worked very well in the Downtown, Stanford Research Park :and much of the Sand Hill Corridor, especially the Shopping Center, and reasonably well in the California Avenue commercial area. The approach has been less successful for Midtown, sections of E1 Camino Real,. and the neighborhood shopping centers. CPAC has recommended that the City engage in proaetive planning (coordinated area plans) for areas where the City wishes to see extensive physical upgrading and change. It is very important to stress the critical underlying assumption that there are areas where the City wants to see physical upgrading, including likely redevelopment of some properties. Proactive planning, as discussed in this report, is fundamentally about how to facilitate physical change. The key objective is to identify land use changes that are publicly (and thus politically) acceptable and economically viable. The resulting physical change may, and ot~en will, involve more intense levels of development than currently exist. More intense development involves more usable floor area and/or changes in development perimeters (e.g., parking ratios, height, setbacks, use restrictions). Thus proactive planning focuses on areas where CPAC and others believe that current conditions are a problem and continuation of existing policies and regulations does not eneou.rage the upgrading that is desired. Coordinated area plans, implemented through techniques such as specific plans, precise plans, and more detailed zoning regulations, including design requirements, .offer the opportunity to create a new ’box’ of regulations within which developers could have a relatively high chance of gaining approval of specific development proposals. Underlying assumptions behind area planning are that the City’s zoning regulations do not offer sufficient flexibility to induce substantial physical upgrading in areas experiencing problems; CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113/95)Page 12 of 32 parcel and ownership patterns are often obstacles that need to be overcome in part by City incentives and regulations; broadly based increases in zoning flexibility and development potential without detailed design expectations will not be acceptable to the residential property owners and occupants living near problem areas; and creation of a new and expanded ’box’ of regulations will encourage new development. While there are some common characteristics described later in this report that apply to the concept ofproactive planning, there is no universal process that can be applied to all areas. Each area for which change is desired will need to have a specific process created that fits factors such as current use and occupancy conditions, parcel size, configuration and ownership patterns, the strength of existing property owner and occupant organizations and the history of development- related activities in the area. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The key policy issue is to what extent should the City rely on traditional planning and zoning approaches for areas where either the private market has not functioned particularly well in past decades (e.g., Midtown, neighborhood shopping centers, portions of El Camino Real) or the City anticipates and/or desires significant change (e.g., University Train Station/Dream Team area, Califomia-Ventura, Midtown). CPAC and the Planning Commission recommend that the City more actively intervene in areas where change is desired. City intervention would involve both process and regulatory product considerations. The CPAC-envisioned process for developing land use plans for desired change areas would involve substantial public (i.e., nonresidential property owners, residential property owners, merchants, renters, and other interested members of the community) participation organized ina structured problem-solving approach prior to formal City review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The regulatory product would most likely be more detailed and visually oriented (i.e. three dimensional plans, and guidelines and regulations rather than the traditional mapped land use plan and zoning designations). The roles and obligations of each of the major participants in the land use planning and development process would include some changes under proactive planning as recommended by CPAC and the Planning Commission versus more traditional processes. Roles and obligations include: City Council - Establish process and product parameters and expectations, including guiding principles; the nature of the public process; product specifications, including ¯ plans, guidelines and regulations," time frame; and a decision on the extent of public and private sector financing of the area plan. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 13 of 32 General willingness to look favorably upon proposed change if the process yields general agreements among the major participants. "General willingness" means that Council concerns and possible changes should focus more on significant public policy issues than the details of a proposal. "General agreements" means that most participants are in agreement but recognizes that 100 pe.rcent agreement is neither necessary nor appropriate. Willingness to commit City resources (dollars and staff time) to the process. Willingness to take the risk that a proactive planning effort may not succeed. City staff- Allocate time and effort to administer consultant contracts and the planning process, including undertaking technical work. physi.ea~tesu~. To the greatest extent possible, given planning, legal and fiscal constraints, allow the process to shape the policy and physical results without interjecting preconceived staff objectives. Provide education and advice in the planning process regarding urban design and urban planning concepts, area history, existing City policies and regulations, and technical considerations. Provide policy and technical advice regarding the outcome of the public. process to the City Council and advisory bodies. Commercial ;nonresidential and other directly affected property owners - City stafl" believes that property owners who stand to gain from the process should be expected to financially contribute to the cost of consultants. Willingness to participate and cooperate in both the planning process and the results (noting again that creation of economically viable results is a key objective). Public (neighbors and other interested patties)- Willingness to participate and cooperate in an effort to achieve positive results. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 14 of 32 Willingness to accept results if the process has been open and fair and most participants concur with a set of recommendations. DISCUSSION Introduction ¯The CPAC process concluded that for many. areas of the City, more detailed land use planning is necessary thancould be accommodated in the CPAC process. CPAC and the Planning Commission recommended that the City undertake proactive planning (i.e., development of coordinated area plans) for a large number of areas. If the City is to undertake a proaetive planning approach, questions need to be addressed, including: What areas should be focused on, recognizing that detailed area planning is costly and requires significant staff time? What should be the public participation and other procedural aspects and expectations of these studies? Is-there a need or desire to incorporate one or more of these studies into the Comprehensive Plan Update process, rather than waiting until after adoption of the new Plan? Are these studies to be funded entirely by the City or should, at least in some areas, property owners be encouraged or expected to financially participate? The following material is organized in these sections: -City staff’s November 1994 Comments on CPAC Recommendations -General components of an Area Planning Program. -DetailedAspects of an Area Plan Alternatives to Area Planning as Envisioned by CPAC High Priority Areas for Area Plans/Special Land Use Studies The Possibility of Integrating One or Two Area Plans Into the Comprehensive Plan Update Process. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 15 of 32 Ci.ty Staff’s November 1994 Comments on CPAC Recommendations The following observations on CPAC’s Community Design recommendations are from the November 7, 1994 staff report (CMR:496:94) that transmitted staff comments on CPAC recommendations: "CPAC’s recommendations for proactive plans/preparation of coordinated area plans raise critical policy issues. The City’s approach to regulating land use and encouraging desired design features has been primarily to rely on Comprehensive Plan policies and programs-and zoning regulations to establish the expectations for development. Property owners/developers are then encouraged to work ’within the box’ (i.e., within the parameters set by the policies and regulations) with the expectation that adequately-designed projects will be approved by the appropriate City body. There has been significant opposition to a more active planning process that would establish more detailed design and use expectations and requirements for the property owner. The city’s approach has worked very we!l in the Downtown, Stanford Research Park and much of the Sand Hill Corridor, especially the Shopping Center, and reasonably well in the California Avenue commercial area. The approach has been less successful for Midtown, sections of El Camino Real, and the neighborhood shopping centers. "The policy issue for the City is to what extent should the City rely on the traditional planning and zoning approach for areas where the private market has not functioned particularly well in past decades. CPAC has recommended that the City engage in proactive planning (coordinated area plans) for areas where the City wishes to see extensive physical upgrading and change. Coordinated area plans (e.g., specific plans, precise plans, more detailed zoning regulations, including design requirements) offer the opportunity to create a new ’box’ of regulations within which developers could have a relativeiy high chance of approval. Underlying assumptions behind area planning are that the City’s zoning regulations do not offer sufficient flexibility to induce substantial physical upgrading in areas experiencing problems; parcel and ownership patterns are obstacles that can best be overcome by City incentives and regulations; broadly based increases in zoning flexibility and development potential without detailed design expectations will not be acceptable to the residential property owners and occupants living near problem areas; and creation of a new and expanded ’box’ of regulations will encourage new development. Properly done area plans involve business and residential property owners and sufficient process management, planning, economic, and environmental review resources to attain an implementable set of plans. It is important to stress that area CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 16 of 32 planning involves a significant commitment of City resources (on the order of $200,000 each); state law on specific plans permits full recovery of the City’s costs. Also, many area planning efforts result in the need/desire for substantially more detailed land use regulations than the City has used in the past, and City decision makers should be prepared to consider and impose a greater regulatory burden. "Other jurisdictions report that Plans have resulted in greater clarity and simplicity than our current regulations. For example, Specific Plans which are also zoning ordinances remove many physical inconsistencies between code sections by requiring the city to technically solve spatial or design conflicts and inconsistencies prior to adopting regulations and applying the resulting inconsistency to specific areas. Rather than approving regulations in the .’abstract’ that then don’t work, these plans can streamline development. "CPAC recommends coordinated area plans for the following areas: "Midtown (CD Sections, pp. 33) E1 Camino Real (CD Section, pp. 31) California-Ventura area (CD Section, pp. 14) Dream Team area (CD Section, pp. 12) Stanford Medical Center (CD Section, pp. 12) South of Forest Area (SOFA) (CD Section, pp. 13) Charleston Shopping Center (CD Section, pp. 36) Alma Plaza (CD Section, pp. 36) Edgewood Plaza (CD Section, pp. 36) Stanford Shopping Center (CD Section, pp. 24 and 25) "Staff.recommends that coordinated area plans are not needed for Stanford Shopping Center and the three (Charleston, Alma, Edgewood) neighborhood centers. Instead, owners should be encouraged to develop and share master plans for the use and upgrading of these sites. "As noted in the Business and Economics section (pp. 16 and 17, Policy BEo 15A), initial expectations for SOFA are varied and likely to be in conflict. In November of 1993, the City Council directed that there be a planning charette process for SOFA after City Council action on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s Urban Lane redevelopment application. Unless the Council adopts a policy to not consider doing coordinated, area planning and to rely strictly on conventional zoning approaches, thedecision as to the best planning process for SOFA should emerge from Council review of the planning eharette results. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 17 of 32 "The use of a more detailed planning process for the Medical Center assumes that the City is receptive to additional development beyond the current Public Facilities zone 1:1 floor area ratio. If the City is receptive, as recommended by staff, the preparation by Stanford of a Master Plan for City review, modification and approval would be appropriate. A coordinated area plan as envisioned by CPAC for larger multi-parcel/use areas would not be necessary. "The Dream Team area redevelopment hopes and desires are linked to the creation of a carefully planned and integrated multi-use urban environment. Preparation of a coordinated area plan would be a logical extension of the process. "Midtown, El Camino Real south of Page Mill, and the Califomia-Ventura area are the three areas where either the private redevelopment process has not worked well in the 1980s (Midtown and significant sections of E1 Camino Real) or,. for Califomia-Ventura, the CPAC process has identified a significant desire for physical change and upgrading. The issue for the Council is whether change (assuming it is desired) is best facilitated by reliance on the traditional City zoning/private development proposal/City review process approach or whether desired change needs a more active intervention by the City." ..General Components of an Area Planning Pro_re’am as Envisioned by CPAC Area planning efforts, as envisioned by CPAC, reflect widespread discontent, emerging throughout the nation, with traditional planning and development processes. There have recently been a variety of efforts to find a way to develop land use plans, especially for infill development and redevelopment of established communities, that result in both community acceptance and economically viable development regulations. In reviewing the literature on successful infill and redevelopment efforts, some common process characteristics have been identified. The following observations reflect both the emerging nationwide trends and staff observations about Palo Alto’s traditional planning process. Public Participation - There are significant community support and procedural reasons for having a much more broadly based public participation process than has been historically used. The traditional process would have City staff, perhaps with consultant assistance, prepare a proposed one-dimensional land use plan: Plan preparation might involve a small advisory group and one or more public meetings intended to gain community sentiment. The draft plan would be sent to the Planning Commission and then on to the City Council. Public debate would focus on pro and con reactions to the draft plan and take the form primarily of limited time speaker presentations and letters. At the conclusion of the process, there almost always would be a sense of winners and losers. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 18 of 32 A public participation approach that is emerging nationwide and which found strong support within CPAC would focus on a process open to a wide range of "stakeholders" representing property owners and all other elements of the community with concerns about the particular issues. A neutral facilitator and design professional(s) would manage an extensive public process of workshops and meetings, during which all affected parties could present their views, learn the views of others and engage in structured behavior intended to seek compromises that are physically and financially workable and acceptable development solutions. The CPAC one-day workshops were mini-versions of this process. An actual process would be longer and more detailed; with the goal of generating a widely supported, economically feasible land use plan, with a predictable physical development outcome, along with related implementation tools. The traditional Planning Commission and City Council public hearing process would focus on the land use plan and development standards that, if the process is successful, already has significant community, including property owner, support. In many of these processes, the active involvement of some Commissioners and Council Members is provided for in the plan development process. Neutral Process Facilitator - In complex and highly charged public process situations, it is impossible for staff to combine the roles of technical resource and policy advisor to the Commission and Council with being a neutral meeting and process facilitator. This is a lesson that City staff learned in the 1970s and 1980s. Complicated and emotional land use-oriented public meetings are far more likely to be successful if organized and run by someone with professional training in meeting/process facilitation and no stake in the outcome. Professional Land Use/Design Re.sources - To make these planning efforts successful, there needs to be the involvement of creative design professional(s) with the ability to illustrate and communicate solutions. Participants and observes of community- based planning efforts stress that when community members can see, in clear visual form, and then discuss, what is being proposed, there is a much better chance to transcend the NIMBY concerns that plague so many proposed development, and especially infill and redevelopment, efforts. An important assumption is that three- dimensional illustration of proposed land use regulations is more effective than the traditional land use map. Economic Analysis Expertise - Resolution of multiple parcel (i.e., areawide) land use issues inherently involves economies and numerous aspects of potential development feasibility or infeasibility. In the 1970s and much of the 1980s, Palo Alto’s planning processes contained relatively little and oftentime no economic expertise. In the far more competitive environment of the 1990s, the economic feasibility of proposed lane use plans is critical if implementation is desired, especially in the reasonably near C1VIR:295:95 (Revised 11/13195)Page 19 of 32 future. The previously described public process needs to have available a neutral and highly creditable economist. This is another role that City staff, even if the expertise were available, can not fill. Techni.cal Resources - In order to be adopted, the product of an area study needs to have an appropriate environmental review. For larger areas with complex issues, the environmental review will probably be an EIR. For both the public plan development process and the subsequent environmental doeumentation,staff resources will need to be supplemented by technical resources not available within City staff. The type of outside expertise needed will vary, depending on the issues involved with a particular area. In nearly all, if not all, cases, additional resources will.be needed for traffic modeling and forecasting, visual simulation and analysis, site planning and design rexiiew, andassisting staff in preparing the environmental review documents. Another technical resource would be assistance to the City Attorney’s Office in the analysis of issues and development of regulatory tools. There is no one best way to construct the details of an area planning process. Factors individual to an area will influence the specifics of the process. For examPle: Parcel ownership patterns may mean that one or several larger properties become a key focus for an area or the process may need to find a way to establish cooperation among a varied group of smaller property owners. The objectives of key property owners can vary from protecting long-standing family considerations to developer/investor-based objectives of sale and capital gain. The history of a particular area, both in terms of internal factors and relationship to the City, will be an important consideration. The extent to which the City is looked to for financial and physical involvement can vary substantially. If area planning is to be undertaken, a specific process will need to be identified for each area. Identification of the process would most likely be undertaken by a combination of the person who would facilitate the public process and City staff, with recommendations reviewed and approved by the Council. A major and time-consuming City staff activity is the consultant hiring (developing request for proposal and work scope, selecting the consultants, preparing contracts) and consultant work management (i.e., contract administration) effort. It is fairly typical to requke 50 to 200 hours of stafftime over a four month period to complete the City consultant selection and hiring process. Coordination and management of a consultant contract and related CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 20 of 32 administrative work can consume 10 to 50 percent of a staff person’s time per week, depending on the complexity of the contract. With complex area planning efforts often involving more than one consultant contract, a significant part of the available City resources can be consumed in managing the needed.experts. The complexity of the process described above is why staff, after consultation with people who have undertaken these processes, indicated that area planning efforts can cost on the order of $200,000 or more and takel 8 months to complete. Assuming different consultant teams, undertaking more than one of these efforts at a time would be very difficult within existing City staff resources. Using the same consultants working under one contract could mean that two areas could be addressed at one time. Area planning, as set forth in CPAC’s Community Design recommendations, implies major area study efforts after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The City would designate certain areas for future study in the Comprehensive Plan while maintaining the existing land use designations until the study was complete. As part of or after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council would determine priorities and timing for future study areas and the type of planning process desired. Detailed Aspects qf an Area Plan In late summer and early fall of 1995, City staff, in consultation with Comprehensive Plan process consultant Daniel lacofano, discussed more detailed aspects of an area planning effort. These details are in the following discussion of Guiding Principles, Process Parameters, Product Specifications, Staff/Consultant Resources and Time Frame.. These parameters and expectations are critical to establishing an area planning process. A key role for the City Council is setting this framework in place. .Guiding PrinciDles Quality design consistent with City and community goals -- " An area planning process needs to be conducted within the context of adopted land use and other City goals and policies. Critical goals and policies shouM be identified by the City Council at the beginning of the area planning process. This goal and policy framework will be important in focusing the subsequent work on the area plan. A major theme of CPAC’s recommendations is creating better opportunities for a physical and psychological sense of community. Any area planning process is a critical opportunity to do this both through public involvement and the nature of the physical recommendations. Extensive opportunities for public involvement through workshops or other mechanisms is essential. An area planning process will have a CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113195)Page 21 of 32 greater design component than traditional City land use plans. Design and land use needs to be integrated with and compatible with existing residential and non- residential areas surrounding the focus of the area plan. Economic incentives -- One of the purposes of an area plan is to facilitate desired physical change. To accomplish that desire, the area pIan needs to provide enough economic incentive for the private sector to proceed with development. Likewise for the public sector, there must be sufficient assurance that development will proceed to warrant appropriate infrastructure investments. Implementation of an area plan may span a considerable time period. To help facilitate individual investment decisions, the results of an. approved area plan need to be structured so that they are a reliable basis for both private and public sector investment decisions. Development feasibility -- The physical development concepts incorporated into an area plan have to be supported by the market in order for the desired changes to occur. Environmental quality and review -- The level of development incorporated into an area plan shouM not overwhelm the resource carrying capacity of both the immediate area and the broader community. The environmental review document prepared for an area plan should be structured to facilitate subsequent implementation of the area plan. Manage the area’s public and private improvement process to facilitate desired changes -- As noted before, an area planning process is intended to facilitate physical change. For the private sector, land use policies and implementation tools need to be oriented to achieve the desired changes. The area plan should clearly identify public and private sector investment expectations. The public sector expectations need to be consistent with City operating and capital budget policies and resources. Provide opportunities for broad and focused public participation -- The area plan effort needs to provideparticipation opportunities for all members of the public who .believe they have a stake inthe outcome and focused participation opportunity for those most directly impacted by the plan. Staff envisions use of both open public meetings and workshops and a Working Group of key property owners, representatives of affected groups (e.g., neighborhood and business associations) and members of the broader community (e.g., general public, environmental community, Chamber of Commerce). Process Parameters CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 22 of 32 The following process parameters represent some aspects of the Guiding Principles as well as the concern that the land use planning process can take an extensive amount of time and effort. Containing the process within a reasonable (and Council established) time line and stating that the public process does not have to achieve universal agreement (i.e. consensus) are important. Work needs to be done consistent with a time line/schedule. !ntegrate the area plan into.the Comprehensive Plan. Process needs to be responsive to the needs and constraints of property owners, people living or working in the surrounding neighborhoods, and the broader community. Work towards maximum community agreement but not require consensus. Community involvement and communication should involve both large working meetings involving the active participation of the general public and a Working Group whose members have both a recommending role to the City and communication and education role to the community. The Working Group shouM be a representative group of stakeholders in the immediate area and the broader public. The area planning process is intended to be .specific. Establishment of general rules and expectations with the details to be worked out later would not be regarded as a successful planning process. The following product specifications have been identified: Comprehensive Plan land use designations Zoning designations - includes, if necessary,, development of new zoning tools and amendment of existing regulations General development standards - Design guidelines for the private and public realms that focus on volume and placement of future development and landscape expectations. Guidelines are not intended to be detailed building-specific designs. Circulation plan. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 23 of 32 o Environmental analysis (assumed to be an environmental impact reporO ¯List ofpublic investments and relatedfinancingplan Staff/Consultant Resources The preceding part of the June 10 CMR, "Components of an Area Planning Program as Envisioned by CPAC" describes in more detail the resources needed in addition to City staff, for an area plan. The consultant resources include." Process facilitator Community/land use design expertise Development-oriented economist Technical resources for the environmental review Legal/regulatory program consultation Time Frame Staff concludes that for many reasons, a shorter more concentrated area plan process is better than an extended process. As noted before, the process shouM include opportunities for the general public to participate as well as use of a Working Group. A minimum time frame, from the point where consultants are hired and the Working Group is appointed, wouM include four months of Working Group and public meetings, three additional months for completion of the Draft Area Plan and Draft EIR and three to four mbnths for public review of the EIR and Planning Commission and City Council hearings and action on the draft Area Plan. During the four months of Working Group and public meetings, it is envisioned that there wouM be eight evening Working Group meetings and two Saturday public workshops. All Working Group meetings wouM be open to the public but participation would focus on Working Group members. One or more additional Working Group meetings wouM likely occur during preparation of the draft Area Plan. Alternatives to Area Planning as Elavisioned by CPAC A variety of alternatives exist to develop and process land use plans. Three alternatives to area planning include: 1.Staff-directed planning study, using traditional land use designations. Product:Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map amendments and related Plan policies, programs and text, and zoning ordinance amendments, along with other implementation tools. CIVIR:295:95 (Revised 11/13195)Page 24 of 32 Process:Staff-led effort, either with or without a citizens committee, resulting in a set of proposed Land Use Plan Map designations, related Plan policies, program and text, and implementation tools¯ The proposed City actions would be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to City Council consideration. Staff-directed effort to develop one-day workshop results (CPAC or similar process) into Comprehensive Plan amendments and related implementation tools. Product:Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map and other .graphic illustrations, related Plan policies, programs and text, and implementation tools. Process:Similar to process number one, with a range of potential actions. 3.Property owner-led effort to develop a land use planning approach for the area. Product:Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map and other graphic illustrations and related Plan policies, programs and text (and possibly implementation tools). Process:Have a group of property owners take the lead in obtaining the expertise and conducting a community participation process with the objective of identifying proposed land use planning policies for the area. In the immediate future, a proposal could receive an initial review by the Planning Commission and City Council to determine whether it should be reviewed in the Comprehensive Plan’s Draft EIR or subject to a separate environmental review. i h ri ri ea f caP n/ e" I and ie Staff concludes that if the City is to undertakedetailed area planning, the following areas should have the highest priority: -California-Ventura -SOFA/Medical Foundation -South E1 Camino Real (from Curtner to Charleston) A fourth high priority area is Midtown. " " " , ¯ , -- ¯ ^1,.. _,_..,:_ , The Midtown area is being studied separately, with the initial involvement of a working group representing all stakeholders but ha-ciivg-te~ ¯ ......focusing on a property owner- funded master site plan. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 25 of 32 Regarding these four areas, initial process and product observations include: Cal-Ventura: Hewlett Packard’s current closing time for 395 Page Mill Road is ~ late 1995. H-P will likely be looking for a reuse decision in 1996 or early 19.97. Two major property .owners (WSJ-and H-P) are critical and also could help fund an area planning effort. No matter what the Council decides regarding Maximart commercial use extension, near term and long term complicated land use issues need to be addressed. Midtown. Need cooperation among and buy-in from key commercial property owners. City staff’s recently proposed approach for working with the owners of commercial property in the Midtown core area (CMR:255:95, May 22, 1995) is an alternative way of addressing Midtown’s issues. The City should be an active player, in addition to being a neutral resource, primarily because of the City-owned parking lot. Community and City desire to see change occur may not be consistent with waiting until after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted to undertake City action. SOFA/PAMF. One neighborhood organization is developing a "plan" for the area (or a portion of the area). One-day workshop promised by City Council to be held after PAMF relocation proposal decision. Need to maintain decision to separate redevelopment planning from PAMF relocation EIR (current target date for Council consideration of PAMF EIR is ]~areh~Ctp~ January 22, 1996). CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113/95)Page 26 of 32 Unresolved question is how to treat in the Comprehensive Plan and whether redevelopment planning can or should be delayed until after Plan is adopted. South El Camino Real (from Curtner Avenue to Charleston Road) -No dominant property owner(s). -Gradual pace of change. -Area with the most difficult long term parcel size issues. Of the .four areas, this is the lowest priority because the pressure of immediate/near term major land use decisions is the lowest of the four areas. In summary, numerous arguments can be made regarding the priority of each area. Hewlett- Packard’s announced closing of 395 Page Mill Road, now scheduled for Oet-ober late 1995, and whatever decision comes out of the former Maximart site amortization extension issue argue for giving highest priority to the Califomia-Ventura area (and especially the area bounded by Page Mill, El Camino Real, the railroad tracks and the nonresidential area south of Lambert). Midtown is a legitimate community planning concern and existing conditions represent a good argument for that area being of highest priority, but an initial revitalization is under way. Assuming PAMF gains approval of the proposed Urban Lane campus and they decide to relocate, reuse of the existing Medical Foundation site will result in the need for a redevelopment planning process that should also include addressing land use issues for the area west to Alma Street. E1 Camino Real has been of longstanding concern, and there would be strong community support for making this area the highest priority. The Possibili .ty of Integrating One or Two Area Plans Into the Comprehensive Plan Update CPAC anticipated that area plans would be undertaken by the City after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Under the current timing of the Plan update, it is unlikely that a new Plan will be adopted before late ~996--or-em~ summer or early fall of 1997. This schedule is based on the assumption that by/kugust January the Council Will have finished enough-eft the current Phase II review to allow staff to start the Draft Plan preparation process and Council review of Land Use Map issues will conclude by the end of February. Preparation of the Draft Plan and Draft EIR is anticipated to take six months. Ifa Draft Plan and related EIR is available for public review starting in March-August 1996, the public review schedule is likely to go into ~ mid 1997. If the Council wishes to then proceed with an area plan, consultant selection work would start in early late 1997 (at the earliest). CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 27 of 32 Staff has reviewed the issue resulting from the argument that addressing at least several of the likely high-priority study areas shouldn’t wait until after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. A near-term solution that staff identified is to build on the existing Comprehensive Plan and other consultant contracts (Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. for process facilitation, Calthorpe and Associates for site planning and design, Brady and Associates for environmental review, Cambridge Systematies for transportation analysis, and Keyser Marston for economic analysis) and develop one or two area plans that would be ¯ incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. If one or two area plans were developed as part of preparing the draft Plan, staff concludes that the schedule for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan would be delayed a minimum of 3 to 4 months. If the City Council is interested in this approach, the details of integrating the Comprehensive Plan Update schedule with area planning efforts need to be discussed and refined with the City’s Comprehensive Plan process consultant (Daniel Iacofano) before eventual approval by the City Council. approael~r~-v~rk ~hc, uld c~ttcs~" . . Staff concludes that the cost o fan area planning process Will not be significantly lower if incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Introduction identified four questions regarding proaetive planning. What areas should be focused on, recognizing that detailed area planning is costly and requires significant stafftime? Staffhas identified four of the areas cited by CPAC for proactive planning as being of the highest priority. These areas are Cal-Ventura, Midtown, South E1 Camino Real from Curtner to Charleston, and SOFA/PAMF. Cal-Ventura and Midtown have a clear need for attention in the near future. The planning approach for Midtown is ~ moving forward as a hybrid process, involving elements of area planning and more traditional City land use studies. SOFA/PAMF is likely to need to receive attention some time of in 1996 or 1997, when after the City review process for PAMF’s Urban Lane project is a~rtieipated-~-e-~ completed. South El Camino Real, while of significant concern, has somewhat less pressing issues than the other three areas. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 28 of 32 What should be the public participation and other procedural aspects and expectations of these studies? A key characteristic of the four highest priority areas is the close relationship of residential and nonresidential land. Staff concludes that any area planning ’ effort that does not involve the neighborhood(s)early and often in the plan development process has a significantly lower chance of eventual adoption and success. Each of these areas involves difficult physical and economic issues that should be addressed within a process that offers ongoing opportunities for all stakeholders to voice their needs~and desires, hear the needs and desires of others, and learn from technical experts the possibilities and consequences of various courses of action. Key resources in this type of process include neutral process~ facilitation, professional land use/design expertise, economic expertise, and transportation and other technical expertise. Is there a need or desire to incorporate one or more of these studies into the Comprehensive Plan Update process, rather than waiting until after adoption of the new Plan? Adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan is unlikely to occur until ~ ~irr~er late summer or early fall of-t996 1997. " ^’:-- -" ...... "~" "--:--- f~g ’--’~ "’-~ ......’"~- "~-" : .......’d b ~ ~ ~ area pt~ing process along ~e lines envisioned by CPAC ~d the .Pla~ing Co~ission e~ be developed for the Cal-Ven~ra area, focusing pri~ly on ~e ~ea bounded by Page Mill Road, E1 Camino Real, the residential ~eas sou~ of Lambe~ ~d ~e railroad ~acks. May 23 and June 12, 1995 staffrepo~s propose a sep~ate pl~ing approach for the Midto~ ~ea. " ’ " " - If an area plan is incorporated into Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update, it is important to stress "" "several cdtieal assumptions: The current Comprehensive Plan consulting team and Keyser Marston will be used, rather than starting a new consultant selection and contracting process. CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 29 of 32 Major property owners are willing to participate in the planning process. Any approval of a PAMF relocation plan includes restrictions on what PAMF can do with their current properties and commitments to a future area planning process sufficient to reassure PAMF’s neighbors that they will not be placed in a reactive position to a future redevelopment proposal. With preparation of. the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Draft EIR unlikely to start before the end of January 1996, staff has reassessed the time line for completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Our revised time line assumes that the Council finishes review of the six policy areas (i.e. Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, Natural Environment, Community Design and Governance and Community Services) by the end of January and finishes review of potential Land Use Map changes by the end of February. With those assumptions, the Plan update time line wouM be: Staff and consultants prepare Draft Plan and Draft EIR - February to August, 1996. Distribution of Draft documents - August, 1996. Public, Board and Commission reviews - September to December, 1996. City Council review, Municipal. Code-required Planning Commission review of Council-proposed changes and Council final review and adoption - January to late summer or early fall, 1997. Incorporation of an area plan into the Plan update would add three to four months to the Plan update schedule with Council adoption of the new Plan unlikely to occur before the end of 1997. A critical part of the longer schedule is the integration of the draft area plan into the Draft EIR’s Transportation analysis of the new Comprehensive Plan. Are these studies to be funded entirely by the City or should, at least in some areas, property owners be encouraged or expected to financially participate? CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 30 of 32 Staff has trot.begun to estimate the costs of doing an area planning study, either independently or as part of Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Advice has been sought from the major Comprehensive Plan consultants. The combination of a facilitator, community design resource, economist, environmental impact, including transportation expertise, is likely ~to cost approximately $200,000-250,000. In ¯addition, legal/regulatory. program assistance to the City Attorney’s Office may be needed If undertaken at a time when City staff resources are substantially committed to other work, a contractplanner to supplement City staffwouM be necessary and would cost between $50,000 and $75, O00 for adO- to 12-month workperiod As a matter of policy, staff concludes that it is a reasonable City expectation that commercial property owners in the Cal-Ventura area, as well as other areas undergoing area plans, be expected to pay some~ significant percentage of the consultant costs for the area planning efforts. Some other City costs may be offset by a cost recovery mechanism related to future building permits. The conclusion of staff’s comments on the CPAC Community Design section quoted near ¯ the beginning of this analysis is that: The issue for the Council is whether change (assuming that it is desired) is best facilitated by reliance on the traditional City zoning/private development ¯ proposal/City¯ review process approach or whether desired change needs a more active intervention by the City. Staff concludes that a more active intervention by the City is appropriate and elements of that intervention have been described. The above issue should be the starting point and key focus for City Council consideration of potential area plans. ALTERNATIVES The primary altematives (which are not mutually exclusive) to the area planning approach are: Direct staffand the Planning Commission to develop land use recommendations for all areas of the City for consideration in future Commission and City Council Comprehensive Plan public hearings, Where appropriate, designate in the Comprehensive Plan areas for future land use study, and CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 31 of32~ Review proposed land use changes developed by individual and groups of property owners, with or without community involvement, as part of Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendment applications. FISCAL IMPACT Individual area plans will address issues having positive and negative fiscal impacts on the City. These impacts should be addressed in the area planning process. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT At the current stage of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, the Council is giving direction for items to be incorporated into a dratt Plan. Future preparation and review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan, with or without area plans, will be the subject of an environmental impact report. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL The next stage of the Comprehensive Plan Update process is Phase III, Preparation of a Draft Comprehensive Plan and Draft EIR. If the Council wishes to consider further the possibility of incorporating one or two area plans into Phase III, staff will return to the Council with further information on costs and timing implications. TT IT There are.no attachments to this staff report. co:Architectural Review Board Historic Resources Board Planning Commission CPAC CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113195)Page 32 of 32 COUNCIL REVIEW DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.~ ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 19.10 TO TITLE 19 [MASTER PLAN] OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR PREPARATION OF COORDINATED AREA PLANS The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. ~Findings and Purposes. A.The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public .hearing held on , 1997, has recommended that Title 19 (Master Plan) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth. B.The City Council desires to establish procedures for the creation of Coordinated Area Plans as a supplement to existing state and local land use entitlement mechanisms; and C.The City Council finds and determines that these procedures will facilitate orderly development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by providing an opportunity for the public and project proponents to collaborate in the development of area wide plans for use and re-use of property and structures. D.The City Council has determined that these procedures are necessary and desirable to protect the health, safety and general welfare of current and future residents of the City of Palo Alto and the surrounding region. E.The City Council has determined that these procedures are necessary and desirable to assist in implementation’ of the City’s comprehensive plan.’ SECTION 2. Chapter 19.10 is hereby added to Title 19 (Master Plan) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: C~2%PTER 19.10 COORDINATED AREA PLANS Section 19.10.010 Section 19.10.020 Section 19.10.030 Section 19.10.040 Section-19.10.050 Purposes Initiation Procedures Contents of Coordinated Area Plans Coordinated Development Permit Required 970527 ape 0051768 COUNCIL REVIEW DRAFT Section 19.10.060 Development Must Be Consistent with Coordinated Area Plan Section 19.10.010 Purposes. This chapter establishes procedures for preparation of Coordinated Area Plans. This chapter is intended to achieve, and shall be implemented to accomplish, the following purposes: (a) To create enhanced opportunities for building a sense of community through public involvement in planning processes which are designed not only to satisfy constitutional due process requirements, but also to provide residents, and business and property owners with early, meaningful opportunities to help shape the physical components of their neighborhoods and community. (b) To emphasize and enhance architectural qualities, public improvements, and site design by providing a graphic, visual linkage between policies and programs established in the Comprehensive Plan and specific development entitlements and public improvements. (c) To facilitate physical change by each of the following methods: i) Accelerating and coordinating the planning process within selected areas so that private development and re- use can proceed under streamlined City review processes. 2) Encouraging rational private investment by providing specific, dependable information about the design~ requirements, developmentstandards, and uses allowed on a particular site. 3) Analyzing~ and considering the economic environment so that the planning process works in conjunction with the marketplace, rather than independent of it. 4) Coordinating andtiming publicinfrastructure investment to facilitate desirable private land uses. (d) To assure Palo Alto’s environmental quality by using the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report to focus environmental review on area and site-specific issues and changed circumstances. (e) To facilitate orderly and consistent implementation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. 2 970527 ape 0051768 COUNCIL REVIEW DRAFT Section 19.10.020 Initiation. Coordinated Area Plans shall~be initiated as set forth in this Section. (a) Initiation.Coordinated. Area Plans shall be initiated by motion of the City Council, upon its own initiative or upon request .of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission or Council action may be based upon the request of any person or the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Council will consider support or opposition from residents, and property and business owners, but such support or opposition shall not compel or preclude Council action. The Council will further consider whether the area has been identified in the comprehensive plan for coordinated area planning. (b) Minimum area size. Coordinated Area Plans may be prepared for any area that includes more than one parcel. © The City may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements, fees, and such other requirements, administrative guidelines and regulations as will aid in the efficient preparation~and implementation of Coordinated Area Plans. Section 19.10.030 Procedures. Coordinated Area Plans shall be prepared in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Section. (a) Council Goals and Policies. Council will establish goals, objectives, and a schedule for each Coordinated Area Plan at the time the plan is initiated or shortly thereafter. The goals and objectives will be supplemental to existing Comprehensive Plan policies and programs. Council may establish goals, objectives, and a schedule during preliminary review pursuant to Chapter 18.97. (b) Community Involvement. Each Coordinated Area Plan will be prepared pursuant to a" program ~ for city-facilitated interaction between residents, business and property owners, and other interested persons. The program shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements: I) WorkingGroup Formation~ The City Councilshall appoint a__ to member Working Group comprising -residents, business and property owners, and persons representing broader community interests including, but not limited to, * Staff considered Working Group sizes ranging from 3 to 15 members. The Working Group should be large enough to be representative and functional despite a few absences, yet small enough to deliberate and act within the Council’s allotted schedule. 970527 ape 0051768 3 COUNCIL REVIEW DRAFT environmental, community design, and business perspectives.~ The Working Group shall be advisory to the staff, Planning Commission, and City Council. The Working Group shall be assisted by a City- designated facilitator who may be a consultant. 2) Working Group Tasks. The Working Group shall advise staff in preparing a draft Coordinated Area Plan that contains each of the components set forth in Section 19.10.040. The Working Group shall, at a minimum, accomplish each of the following tasks to facilitate preparation of the Coordinated Area Plan: A) Initial Public Meeting. The Working Group shall conduct an initial public meeting to accomplish the following: I) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Establish the general parameters of the plan; Conduct environmental scoping; Identify any known public infrastructure needs and plans; Explain any known private development proposals ; - Introduce staff and consultants to the public; Identify additional important participants; Identify any other relevant constraints and opportunities. B) Regular Public Meetings. The Working Group shall conduct regular meetings. The Working Group may also form subcommittees to meet from time to time to address particular issues or components of the Coordinated Area Plan. All Working Group or subcommittee meetings shall be open to the public, with notice provided to property owners and other persons who have expressed an interest in the matter to the City. C) Community Update Forum. The Working Group .will schedule and notice at least one (i) community update forum designed to keep the larger community informed of progress on the plan, and to seek-the ideas and advice of the larger community regarding the content of the Coordinated Area Plan. c) Schedule. Coordinated Area Plans, including review and action by the Planning Commission and City Council, will ~ The Working Group may include r.epresentatives working on behalf of specific groups, business entities, or other public agencies. 970527 ape 0051768 4 COUNCILREVIEW DRAFT generally be completed within twelve (12) to fifteen (15) months of the initial public meeting of the Working Group. (d) Public Hearings. The Coordinated Area Plan shall be considered at public hearings before the planning commission and city council prior to adoption. Notice of the public hearings, initial meeting and community update forum(s) Shall be given in the same manner required by law for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (e) .Planning Commission and other Board and Commission Advice and Recommendation. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the citY council upon each Coordinated Area Plan. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may seek advice of any other City board or commission if such advice is deemed desirable. (f) Adoption. Coordinated Area Plans shall be adopted by ordinance upon a determination of the city council that the public interest, health, safety and general welfare will be served by the plan, and that the plan ±s consistent withthe Comprehensive Plan. The city council shall also consider the manner in which the proposed Coordinated Area Plan will integrate with and be implemented by the Capital Improvement Program. The city council may approve, ~reject or modify all or part of the Coordinated Area Plano (g) Amendments. An ordinance adopting a Coordinated Area Plan may establish procedures for amendments of the plan, including but not limited to procedures authorizing minor amendments by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. (h) Fees. As part of the ordinance adopting a Coordinated Area Plan, the city council may impose a Coordinated Area Plan fee upon persons seeking governmental approvals which are required to be consistent with the Coordinated Area Plan. The fees shall be established so that, in the aggregate, they fully recover but as estimated do not exceed, the cost of preparation, adoption, and administration of the Coordinated Area Plan, including costs incurred pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The fee charged will be reasonably prorated to take into account the applicant’s relative benefit derived from the specific plan~* It is the intent of the city council to charge persons who benefit from Coordinated Area Plans for the costs of developing those plans which result in savings to them by reducing the cost of ** The fee provisions are conceptual, and represent the framework of a cost recovery system similar to specific plan fee authorization under State law. 5 970527 apc~ 0051768 COUNCIL REVIEW DRAFT documenting environmental consequences and advocating changed land uses which may be authorized. The city council may require a person who requests adoption, amendment, or repeal of a Coordinated Area Plan to ¯ deposit with the city an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparing the plan, amendment, or repeal prior to its preparation° Section 19.10.040 Contents of Coordinated Area Plans. Each Coordinated Area Plan shall contain at least the following components. (a) The distribution, location, and extent of land uses, including, but not limited to, industrial, office, commercial, residential, public facilities and open space, within the area covered by the plan. The land uses established by the plan ~may be supplemental to or different from the uses permitted and specified in the city’s zoning districts. For retail commercial and .professional office designations, the Coordinated Area Plan shall also include the preferred and allowable uses, their respective orientation, articulation, and floor area ratio. For housing~ designations, the Coordinated Area Plan shall also include density, floor area ratio, orientation, setbacks, and graphical design prototypes. (b) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major .components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other public improvements proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed.to support the land uses described in the plan. (c) A program of implementation measures including development regulations, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the plan. This program shall be specifically coordinated with the City’s Capital Improvement Program ("CIP"), and may include CIP revisions necessary to implement the plan. (d) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, if needed. (e) Specific architectural and site design objectives and requirements, including but not limited to the scale of streets, building orientation, placement and design of public and private parks or plazas, courtyards, arcades porches, walls, fences, trellises, sidewalk treatments, and parking configuration. Design guidelines that are specific to the conditions of the area shall be included to address each land use type, streets, parks, and .any public facilities. Specific objectives and requirements may be adopted in addition to, or in lieu of, existing zoning and 970527 ape 0051768 6 COUNCIL REVIEW DRAFT design requirements. The Coordinated Area Plan shall include preliminary elevations and information regarding facades, roofs and building materials. (f) A determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan with specific analysis of market place factors and incentives and disincentives to the desired development product, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of public infrastructure investments and projected economic benefits to the city and community. (g) Environmental review, provided that to the maximum extent feasible the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report shall be used as a master or tiered EIR in order to streamline and focus environmental review of the Coordinated Area Plan. Section 19.10.050 Coordinated Development Permit Required. A Coordinated Development Permit shall be required before any building or structure is erected, constructed, enlarged, altered on the exterior, placed or installed on any site located within an area subject to an approved Coordinated Area Plan."~ Section 19.10.060 Development Must Be Consistent with Coordinated Area Plan. No Coordinated Development Permit shall be issued, nor shall any building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered on the exterior, placed, installed or moved within an area subject to an approved Coordinated Area Plan except upon a finding that the resulting building or structure is consistent with the Coordinated Area Plan.~ SECTION 3. Environmental Review Findings. ~ The Coordinated Development. Permit is conceptual only. Staff may ultimately conclude that permit streamlining and public convenience are better served through other mechanisms. The concept is here to illustrate staff’s desire to avoid the problem created by Coordinate Area Plan properties being left subject to "ordinary" permitting processes after having gone through an extensive public review process. ~ Council may wish to considerwhether some form of interim zoning is appropriate at the time a Coordinated Area Plan is initiated. This would encourage property owners to participate, and prevent owners from thwarting the area planning process by attempting to obtain vested rights which might be inconsistent with the ultimate plan. 970527 a!~e 0051768 7 COUNCIL REVIEW DRAFT SECTION 4. This ordinance shall .be effective on the commencement of the thirty- first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment http://www.city.palo-n~.o.mutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govemment~minutes/1995/30OCT95 .TXq Special Meeting October 30, 1995 i.Interviews for Public Art Commission ...... ....77-179 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ...................77-180 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, AND OCTOBER 2, 1995 77-180 Amendment of Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Vision Service Plan to Allow for the Conversion from a Fully-Insured Vision Plan Contract to a Self-Funded Vision Care Plan. . . ~ ...............77-180 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Advanced Systems Group for Marketing Information System Applica- tion Software .................... 77-180 Member Resource Marketing Project Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Northern California Power Agency for Marketing Surplus Electric Power ......... 77-180 Confirmation of Council Priorities ..........77-180 Resolution 7550 ’entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Denying an Appeal and Approving the Design of a Project to be Located at 375 Arboretum Road77-181 Request from Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc. (Cable Co-op) for a Public Hearingon the Approval or Disapproval of the TCG San Francisco, Inc./Cable Co-op Facilities Agreement ........77-181 i0. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation that the Mitchell Park Dog Run remain in its present location, with modifica- tions, and that Council approve the mitigation measures associated with the noise and odor problems ..... 77-181 The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council removal of the Percent for Art Ordinance from the list of pending items which had been referred to the Policy and Services Committee ............. 77-181 Ordinance 4301 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 22.04 [Park Use and Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages at Boulware Park . 77-181 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS .........77~181 10A. (Old Item 12) Council Members Andersen, Huber, and Kniss re Request for Status Update on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones in Palo Alto . 77-181 ii.PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies .and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee ..................77-182 13.Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements. .77-201 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m ......77-202 Special Meeting 1 of 21 5/27/97 9:58 AM http://www.eity.palo-al..inutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/eity/govemment/rainutes/1995/2OOCT95 .T2~, October 30, 1995 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6~:20 p.m. PRESENT:Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, S±mitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, McCown SPECIAL MEETINGS I. Interviews for Public Art Commission ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. The City Council of the City of Palo A!to met on this~date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT:Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, McCown SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 323 Byron, spoke regarding police abuse. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth, spoke regarding honesty in governmen~ (letter on file in the City Clerk Office). Harry Merker, 501 Forest Avenue No. 302, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Police Department. Judith Wasserman, 751 Southhampton Place, Co-Chair of the Public Art Commission, spoke regarding public art. Debbie Mytels, 2824 Louis Road, spoke regarding Measure R. Eric Gilbertson, 215 Oakhurst Place, Menlo Park, spoke regarding his concern for the growing use of high-tech traffic signal programs. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, AND OCTOBER 2, 1995 MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of September 26, and October 2, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, McCown absent° CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 8 and I0. i.Amendment of Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Vision http://www.eity.palo-al...inutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/30OCT95 .TXq Service Plan to Allow for the Conversion from a Fully-Insured Vision Plan Contract to a Self-Funded Vision Care Plan Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Advanced Systems Group for Marketing Information System Application Software; change orders not to exceed $3,000 Member Resource Marketing Project Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Northern California Power Agency for Market- ing Surplus Electric Power Confirmation of Council Priorities Resolution 7550 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Denying an Appeal and Approving the Design of a Project to be Located at 375 Arboretum Road" Request from Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc. (Cable Co-op) for a Public Hearing on the Approval or Disapproval of the TCG San Francisco, Inc./Cable Co-op Facilities Agreement The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation that the Mitchell. Park Dog Run remain in its present location, with modifica- tions, and that Council approve the mitigation measures associated with the noise and odor problems. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council removal of the Percent for Art Ordinance from the list of pending items which had been referred to the Policy and Services Committee. i0.Ordinance 4301 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 22.04 [Park Use and Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages at Boulware Park" (ist Reading 10/16/95, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 1 - 7 and I0, Huber, McCown absent MOTION PASSED 5-2 for Item No. 8, Andersen, Schneider "no," Huber, McCown absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 9, "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting and Authorizing Execution of Program Supplement No. 007 to the Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for Federal-Aid Projects, Relating to the Proposed Traffic Signal Timing and Controller Repl~cement Project," had been removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Rosenbaum and would be agendized for a future City Council Meeting. Mayor Simitian announced that Item No. 12 would be moved forward to become Item No. 10A. 10A. (Old Item 12> Council Members Andersen, Huber, and Kniss re Request for Status Update on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones in Palo Alto Council Member Andersen said that at the last Town Hall meeting, 3 of 21 5/27/97 9:58 AM nttp:iiwww.elty.palo-al...mutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/eity/government/minutes/1995/300CT95.TXq the Council received several inquiries from residents living in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) area regarding the status of FEMA-designated flood zones in the Palo Alto. The City needed to communicate with FEMA in Washington, D.C. to deterntine to what extent deregulation was applicable to the strenuous expecta- tions that FEMA had placed on the Palo Alto community because Palo Alto needed reconsideration. Council Member Kniss recalled discussing the flood zone problem extensively with former Congressman Tom Campbell in Washington, D.C., in 1989. At that time, there was a considerable amount of disagreement between the Army Corp. of Engineers and FEMA as to how much flood zone should be established. She had been approached by several residents that were affected by the flood zone. She felt a fair amount of time had passed, there had been changes in FEMA and in the elected bodies in Washington, D.C., and it was now an appropriate time to communicate with FEMA in Washington, D.C. Gil Eakins, 3493 Greet Road, member of the Palo Verde.Neighborhood Association, said the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association (the Association) had established a flood committee several .months prior and had been talking with a number of agencies that were involved in the flood zone matter. It appea~ed there was nonconformihy in Washington, D.C.’s understanding of the issue and also there was a change in the status of officials in Washington, D.C. It was not just the issue of insurance monies, but what could be done with houses in the flood area if there were a disaster. The Association felt Palo Alto needed reconsideration because there was a strong possibility that something could be done differently if a disaster should happen again. He estimated that at least $5 million had gone into that insurance fund from the Palo Alto area; there were 4,000 houses paying approximately $250 per year for flood insur- ance. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to direct the City Manager to have staff communicate with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Washington, D.C., regarding the status of the FEMA-designated flood zones in Palo Alto, and then p~epare an information report to Council outlining the current status of flooding potential and FEMA-designated flood zones in Palo Alto and to outline what would have to be done to remove Palo Alto from the FEMA flood zone designations. Council Member Andersen encouraged the City Manager to communicate with the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association as the Association had done some excellent work. He recommended staff find out what had .been accomplished before formal communication was made to FEMA. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, McCown absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS II.PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit- tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto’s future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transpor- tation~ and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direction for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master EDvironmental Impact Report (EIR) durin (continued from October 2, 1995) 4 of 21 5/27/97 9:58 AM http://www.city.palo-al...inutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/government~minutes/1995/30OCT95 .TX-1 Mayor Simitian announced that the City Council would review the Community Design (CD) Section of the City of Palo Alto Comprehen- sive Plan Update Policies and Programs Draft IV (the Plan) but would not start a new section if that section were completed that evening. Couhcil Member Rosenbaum referred to a memo he authored at places regarding Town and Country Village. Because ’two Council Members were absent that evening, he suggested that the item be dealt with the following week assuming the CD Section was not finished that evening. He asked that staff make sure the memo got into the packet for the next week and that Planning Commission and Compre- hensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) members were aware of what he wanted to discuss. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the next goal for Council discussion would be on page 30, CD-16, "Maintain the existing scale and retail orientation of the California-Avenue Business district." Council Member Schneider referred to staff’s comment "Include policy and program relating to use air space over city-owned parking lots for housing," and said the issue of putting housing over city-owned parking lots was brought up several years prior with regard to the University Avenue area and it was not well received by people in the Downtown community. The reasons were that the present lots that had housing or office space above them were not well utilized, and the factor of not being able to go up another level with parking. She-asked what California Avenue had" that University Avenue businesses did not have with respect to parking and how University Avenue could become more like California Avenue. Mr. Schreiber said California Avenue had larger rectangular surface lots, and staff felt that at least one of the lots could be made available for housing along with retention of the existing parking. The difference between California Avenue and the Downtown area was the size configuration and location on the edge of the commercial area of the lots in the California Avenue area. Council Member Schneider asked what CPAC’s comments were with regard to the item because it had not been included in CPAC’s~ recommendations. Planning Commissioner Tony carrasco said CPAC had talked in general about adding housing closer to the business area to make it more vital. He did not believe the specific issue of air sPa~e over city-owned parking lots was covered. Council Member Schneider confirmed that the recommendation was from staff and not from the CPAC or the Planning Commission. Dena Mossar, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, said that was correct. Mayor’Simitian asked for an explanation of the staff’s comments on page 7, Program HS-I.DI4, "Develop site specific incentives to encourage multi-unit housing on top of below grade parking lots. Create incentives for owners of existing large parking areas to develop such projects." Mr. Schreibem said Program HS-I.DI4 did not refer to public or private lots, it only referred to larger lots. 5 of 21 5/27/97 9:58 AM http://www.eity.palo-al...inutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.oity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/eity/govemment/minutes/1995/300CT95.T~i Mayor Simitian recalled Council Member Fazzino asking about housing over commercial in terms of mixed use on California Avenue. Mr. Schreiber recalled that some Council Members wanted to preserve the opportunity for floor area devoted to housing in the California Avenue area, even when the California Avenue area’s zoning was changed to reflect a lower nonresidential floor area. Council Member Fazzino said he had been frustrated that even though the Council had raised the issue as an important priority fifteen years prior, there had not been much progress and he had indicated that the potential was significant in the California Avenue’area to achieve the objective. Council Member Schneider said city-owned parking lots over which housing would be allowed, had not worked in the Downtown area, and she felt the Downtown community would continue to fight against it in University Avenue public lots. There were differences in the California Avenue area because of the size of the lots. She was uncertain whether the reason was good enough to be included in the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). Council Member Andersen said as the City became more limited in spaceand attempted to reach objectives with regard to housing,creative methods needed to be used. He did not want to see Program HSI.DI4 taken out of the Plan. When a preliminary project came before the Council, if there were specific problems with a proposal, the Council could decide against it at that time, but he encouraged creative housing approaches. There were a lot of empty .parking lots which he felt was poor land use and how to accomplish better land use should be examined. He felt the Palo Alto community would find parking structures to be an acceptable method of parking because as land became more limited, there would.be no more room for the suburban parking lot. Council Member Kniss said she did not recall the City’s air space being used in such a way. She asked staff where it was used in PaloAlto. Mr. Schreiber replied in Downtown Palo Alto in the late 1970s, the Arbitare housing development was placed over a City parking lot which was changed to an underground parking structure. Council Member Kniss asked how successful it had been. Mr. Schreiber said the housing had been occupied and reasonably- successful. There had not been an economic analysis, but staff was not aware of any unusual vacancy rates. Council Member Kniss confirmed that the parking had gone to Arbitare. Mr. Schreiber replied that some of the parking was a City parking garage and some of it was part of the Parking Assessment District which had replaced the surface parking. Some concerns in the Downtown area were that the public parking in the structure was somewhat difficult to use because of size constraints which partially related to it being a small, size parcel that was located in the middle of the block which made it different from some of the parcels in the California Avenue area. Mayor Simitian was familiar with the parking since his lawl office nttp://www.clty.palo-al...mutes/I~3/~Utgcd 193. l .,X. 1 http:llwww.city.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govemment~minutes/1995/30OCT95.TXq used the garage for permit parking. Some of the initial problems for long- term parking had been related to the fact that the site had a peripheral location, was not well signed, or easy to find. In addition, because of its proximity to the railroad tracks, there had been problems with homeless people who were occupying the space, the garage was not well lit, and not a secure location. In the past couple of years, the Council had taken action to make some radical changes in terms of the nature of the space. The parking garage was now well lit, painted and cleaned up, patrolled regularly by security, the permit space was now had a waiting list, and the night use had picked up substantially. Some of the concerns that Council Member Schneider alluded to arose because the space had not been well presented in the early stages. The spaces were now heavily used for parking. Council Member Kniss supported Council Member Schneider’s comments.’ At some point, the feeling of being crowded materialized. The parking lots might not be attractive, but they.offered open space within the City. She was aware that there was a continuing search for more housing developments and she recognized that a balance needed to be kept. While the City might look at using air space on an individual basis, she would not want to make it a policy that air space always be considered for housing. She supported eliminating the air space item from the Plan. Vice Mayor Wheeler said that during the Business and Economic Section discussion of the Plan, the Council had approved wording that stated,. "Revise zoning so that the commercial development potential is comparable to other areas as specified in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study while retaining substantial residential development potential." She heard the concerns expressed by Council Members’ Kniss and Schneider, and felt that evaluation of development over a parking lot on a minimal basis should be left in as an option with regard to air space over a parking lot. She believed the possibility of having a unique potential for the use of that type of site should not be eliminated, and that staff did not mean it should be for every parking lot. Given the concerns expressed that evening, staff could bring back a policy and program which would indicate that while air space over a parking lot was not being encouraged, it should be examined on a special case-by-case basis. Council Member Schneider thought it was a good compromise, She would not suggest for additional housing, but her concerns would be¯ satisfied as long as it was clear that examination of the use of air space would be done on a case-by-case basis. Mayor Simitian felt it was a concept worth preserving and, while it might not be desirable in every case, given the limited number~of housing sites in Palo Alto it would be unwise to eliminate it. In keeping with Council Member Fazzino’s issue regarding the Califor- nia Avenue area and the potential for preserving mixed-use possibilities in terms of zoning, he believed the California Avenue area had tremendous potential, particularly with the changes being driven by the market in Downtown Palo Alto. The businesses serving Palo Alto were likely to relocate from the Downtown area where rents had changed in recent years to the California Avenue area. Mr.Schreiber said the Council approved that aspect in the Business and Economics Section of the Plan. Mayor Simitian felt it was a Community Design issue with respect to what kind of design should be brought to the California Avenue area 7 of 21 5/27/97 9i5g AM http:/iwww.city.palo-al..inutes/1995/300CT95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/300CT95.T~ and should be incorporated as such. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to incorporate language into the programs and policies in Goal CD-16, "Maintain the California-Avenue business district," to encourage potential for mixed-use residential development. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, McCown absent. Mayor Simitian said the next goal for Council discussion would be on page 31, Goal CD-17, "Encourage South E1 Camino Real to evolve into a Multi-Neighborhood Center." Council Member Schneider confirmed with respect to a policy regarding the.E1 Camino triangle, that the property was privately- owned. When privately-owned land was being considered for use as a central public plaza, it indicated it was publicly-owned and not privately-owned. She asked how the property could be dedicated as public space when it was privately-owned. Mr. Schreiber said it was a question of timing. The Comprehensive Plan did not effect any change in property rights that would require compensation, so the language alone would not .compel the Council or its successors to acquire the property. If the language meant the City had to acquire the property, it would have to be condemned in the future. Council Member Schneider asked the City Attorney whether the City would have a problem in 15 or 20 years with that type of a project, e.g., the zoning on E1 Camino Real had caused major problems. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said no. With specific l~nguage regarding a particular piece of property, if the Council ended up with a consistency requirement, it would preclude use of the triangle as anything other than a public plaza. ¯ Council Member Fazzino asked which of the policies would best address the problem of empty lots and continued inactivity on South E1 Camino Real. Under Policy CD-17.A, "The South E1 Camino Real area should be well-designed, compact, and economically vital Multi-Neighborhood Center witha diversity of local-serving commercial and residential uses, a fabric of one to two story buildings, and a network of interconnected and pedestrian-oriented streets and ways, using¯the conceptual map prepared during the Design Workshop as a starting point," staff was trying to revital- ize E1 Camino Real. In communicating it to the public, he wanted a guarantee that the City was adopting policies which addressed a pervasive problem. Mr. Schreiber said the two most important programs that addressed Council Member Fazzino’s concerns were Program CD-17.A2, page 31, "Encourage and provide incentives for a mix of retail and profes- sional office space along E1 Camino Real. Create and apply new zoning standards for Mixed-Use (Office and Retail) designations. This designation would permit either retail shops or office space at the ground floor provided the building comes to the sidewalk and has street-facing windows and entries. Real entries from parking lots are also encouraged," and Program CD-17.BI on page 32, "Apply more flexible applications of parking standards that allow shared parking among property owners and count on-street spaces." Council Member Kniss said it incorporated a number of issues the ¯ Council had been struggling with for a long time. In discussions 8 of 21 5/27/97 9:58 AM http://www.eity.palo-al...inutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govemmentJminutes!1995/30OCT95.TXq with Vice Mayor Wheeler during field trips to that area, they talked about incentives that could be provided which also included the parking problem. The lots along South E1 Camino Real were awkward lots and made the area a very tough planning area. Mr. Schreiber said obstacle for redevelopment in the South E1 Camino Real area was the current City requirements for new buildings to provide full parking which many of the current sites could not provide. The sites were developed prior to the current regulations. Current regulations required that any demolition or replacement provide full parking; on-street parking did not count toward required parking, which was a built-in an incentive to keep the existing building. In a retail study done by Gruen and Gruen for the City several years prior, it was noted that in areas along E1 Camino Real, property owners kept the existing buildings, put in minimum maintenance, and allowed the buildings to slowly deterio- rate. There were reasonable rates of return with low maintenance and low cost. The biggest incentives to overcome that obstacle would be to loosen up the parking requirements and the stringency of a number of City regulations regarding retail~ on the ground floor and limitations on offices. If a site could be redeveloped to a pedestrian-friendly front exterior that had offices, it was better than retaining it in its current condition which might be a poor quality retail or a vacancy. Those types of use and parking issues needed to be worked with to try to create incentives.He did not know whether or not additional floor area ratio was necessary; but if it were, it would require additional parking which could wipe the economics out because of the cost factors. Council Member Fazzino was not convinced that the actions the Council took that evening would be ~irectly connected to possible actions taken by the property owners to renovate their properties. Mr. Schreiber said the actions taken by the Council during the Comprehensive Plan process would not change any regulations or adopted policies, but the regulations needed to be structured to achieve the Council’s wishes. With regard to area planning opportunities, the South E1 Camino Real area was a low priority in comparison to areas like Midtown where work was currently being done, the Cal’ifornia/Ventura area with the Hewlett Packard site and former Maximart site, and the South of Forest area Palo Alto Medical Foundation which all had a higher priority because of severe problems or some significant near-term opportunity.Staff felt it made more sense if City resources were going.to be expended, that the resources be put into areas that were likely to have a more immediate impact. The problems with South E1 Camino Real were very entrenched and were not helped by the fact that the area was dominated by smaller parcels and property owners, small family retail, and not developers which made it more difficult in terms of an economic and design process. Council Member Fazzino confirmed that it ’would be some time before any significant changes would be made in the South E1 Camino Real area. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Assessing the various factors on City resources, money, and staff time over the next few years, it would be a reasonable length of time before staff would get to the South E1 Camino Real area. Council Member Fazzino asked if property owners were identified who wanted to move more quickly, what were the three or four issues that Council would need to address in order to give them the http://www.eity.palo-al..inutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.oity.palo-alto.ea,us/palo/eity/govemment~minutes/1995/30OCT95,TX incentive to take action on their own to bring about the changes the Council desired. Mr. Schreiber identified parking and loosening up restrictions on retail and office uses in terms of types of use and current disincentives to assembling property. When there were size limits on a wide variety of office and retail uses, it discouraged assembling property. There would be more redevelopment if larger groups of land could be assembled. Larger areas created more flexibility and opportunities than individual parcels. Mayor Simitian ask if there were some middle ground between the "big box" suggestions from Gruen and Gruen in the study three and one-half years prior and the existing uses that were currently problems. Mr. Schreiber said most of the land along E1 Camino Real would not work for the "big box" retail users who needed 5 to 10 acres. There was very limited opportunity for "big box" retail on E1 Camino Real and staff was not supportive of "big box" retai! because it brou@ht with it a very heavy traffic impact that would be difficult to accommodate. If the "big box" issue were put aside, it would leave the smaller parcels that were a mix of office and retail uses which was on a much smaller scale than what was envisioned by the "big box" developers. Council Member Fazzino referred to the redesign of E1 Camino Real with ~he possibility of four lanes and two-lane frontage roads which had been given a "B" designation. He asked whether the proposal would have any impact on bringing about the kind of moderate development that Mayor Simitian had suggested. Mr. Schreiber noted on page 17 of the Community Design Section that Council had already deleted a similar concept in a previous review. He referred to page 32, Program CD-17.CI, "The City shall undertake a study of the feasibility of re-designing E1 Camino Real so that the number of through travel lanes is reduced from 6 to 4 and create a 2-1ane frontage road on the eastern side that provides diagonal parking, wider sidewalks, and the ability to develop a more intimate, pedestrian-oriented space. At a minimtun, provide strong safe pedestrian .crossings at key intersections." Staff did not see a realistic chance of narrowing E1 Camino Real from six lanes to four lanes in the South E1 Camino Real area. Traffic volumes in the range of 50,000 vehicles per day would not work on a four-lane road without creating overwhelming congestion. There were other areas where it might work, but not with the volumesin the areas south of Page Mill Road. Council Member Fazzino said reducing the lanes down worked in Burlingame and north San Mateo where six lanes were reduced to four lanes. He asked why it would not work in Palo Alto. Mayor Simitian asked assuming that action was taken, where would the E1 Camino Real traffic go. Menlo Park had reduced the lanes on E1 Camino Real down with disastrous traffic consequences. He asked whether the traffic would move to Alma Street, Highway I01, and up to Foothill Expressway off of E1 Camino Real because that was the direction he felt Council Member Fazzino was leading up to. Mr. Schreiber said the major shift in traffic would be to Alma Street because that was a parallel route and in close proximity. Traffic that wanted to go longer distances already used Highway i01. Only extreme congestion would induce traffic to use Highway n ttp : / / www.clty.palo-al.. .mutes/ l ~9 3 / 3 00C T9 5 . TXT http://www.oity.palo.alto.ea.us/palo/city/government/minutes/1995/300CT95.TXS i01. Essentially the primary shift of traffic would go to Alma Street, and traffic would filter to other routes as people became desperate to find some way to move up and down the Peninsula. Most people were not moving far enough distances suitable for Highway i01. Council Member Fazzino was searching for ways to create a more attractive environment that would encourage some moderate scale development in the Smuth E1 Camino Real area. He asked what steps could be taken in the short term to improve the situation with respect to South E1 Camino Real given the fact that South E1 Camino Real had been identified as a low priority. Sandra Eakins, member of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, agreed with Council Member Fazzino that traffic congestion on E1 Camino Real in Menlo Park was not a disaster, but it did not have the intensive employment area that South E1 Camino Real was in Palo Alto. CPAC members had observed during its deliberations on the issue that it could be either a high speed, high capacity street or an attractive shopping street; not both because they were incompat- ible. It was CPAC’s intention to do the best with what was available under the conditions on either side of the street and not try to make the two sides of the street appear the same. Council Member Kniss referred to the coordinated area plan that had been discussed for a significant period of time and asked what the cost range was and what it entailed. With respect to the Planning Division Work Plan, it sounded like an additional impact on the Planning Division. Mr. Schreiber said it would be a significant impact on staff.In terms of cost. staff came up originally with an estimate of $200,000 to $250,000. The difference primarily was related to whether current City staff could handle the staff load or whether the staff load would have to be supplemented with contract staff. The underlying technical consultant needs: a facilitator, design expert, economist, traffic modeling expert, air quality expert, etc., would be in the range of $200,000. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said that while there were several area plans that were of higher priority than South E1 Camino Real, the area was not likely to turn over quickly with opportunities which could be taken away in the near future; therefore, budgeting the staff’s time into the future and getting to the area eventually was not a bad strategy. Her recommendation was that if the Council wanted to do something quickly, the best thing to do that would have a positive effect on E1 Cam/no Real would be to give parking a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) relief for incentives, and have well-landscaped, pedestrian-oriented building design. Something needed to be set up that would give a good bonus in parking in FAR such as parking in the rear, a two-story building at the sidewalk, retail at the ground floor, and a lot of trees. Council Member Kniss asked how it could be incorporated into the Plan so it could be done more quickly. She asked what Policy CD-17.E, "If and when alternative sites should be found within the South E1 Camino Real area for the community center and day care," meant. Mr. Schreiber replied that when the Plan was being prepared one and one-half years .prior there had been some reported discussion that the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) was considering reacquiring and reopening Ventura as an active school site, but it was not an active issue at present. 11 of 21 5/27/97 9:58 AM http:i/www.eity.palo-al...inutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/eity/government/minutes/1995/30OCT95 .TXq Council Member Kniss clarified that the City owned the Ventura site. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. The Ventura site was leased to Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC). Council Member Kniss asked whether selling the Ventura site back to the PAUSD had been previously considered. Ms. Fleming said it was just a discussion and it was fortemporary use of the Ventura site while other sites were being prepared. During the temporary use, there was some peripheral discussion about ways in which the City and the PAUSD could work cooperatively in programming at the Ventura site. Council Member Kniss suggested removing Policy CD-17.E on page 32. Mayor Simitian suggested that language be retained that community center and day care use be preserved within the South El’ Camino Real area. It would then be clear that the area needed those uses and it would finesse the question of who would own, lease, and manage the Ventura site. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Kniss, to modify Policy CD-17.E, "If and when the Ventura Elementary School is-re-opened, alternative sites should be found within the South E~ Camino Real ar~a for the community center and day care," to read "Sites should be retained within the South E1 Camino Real area for community center and day care uses." Ms. Fleming said the concept of the use of the former Ventura School site that PACCC had fostered and the City had supported was a community center concept, but it was not a real community center as the City had in other locations. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Wheeler ’,not participating," Huber, McCown absent. CoUncil Member Kniss asked what incentives could be provided for the South E1 Cam/no Real area. Ms. Lytle said what she had referred to was embodied in Program CD-17.A2, "Encourage professional space along E1 Camino Real. Create and apply new zoning standards for Mixed-Use (Office and Retail) designation. This designation would permit either~retail shops or office space at the ground floor provided the building comes to the sidewalk and has street-facing window and entries. Keep entries from parking lots are also encouraged." The incentives Council Member Kniss alluded to could best be found in the Zoning Ordinance under Parking and Relief along E1 Camino Real prior to Program CD-17.A, "Prepare a coordinated area plan for the South E1 Camino Real area that addresses land use compatibility, transitions and adjacencies between residential and commercial uses, and the need for Urban Design Workshop as a basis for preparing this plan," which would be idea!. If Council wanted to proceed more quickly, it could make Program CD-17.A2 and also Program CD-17.BI, "Apply more flexible applications of parking standards that allow shared parking among property owners and count on-street parking spaces," a short-term implementation to begin immediately. Council Member Kniss asked whether Council needed to make any changes. http://www.oity.palo-al..inutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/¢ity/govomment/minutes/1995/300CT95 .TXq Ms. Lytle said the incentives would come as a result of undertaking some of the other things articulated in the other policies and that was to have well landscaped, pedestrian-oriented design so the buildings that were getting the bonuses would put their parking in the rear, build two-story volume with the store front right on the sidewalk with interesting ground floor uses, etc. Council Member Andersen clarified there were other areas in the community that had similar exemptions, not just~along E1 Camino Real. Ms. Lytle said currently the only incentive zoning was the Planned Community (PC) zone. which was used in the Downtown and primarily the California Avenue area. Council Member Andersen clarified that the current manner in which the City had been operating along E1 Camino Real, unless a property owner demolished their building, the property owner would have to fall back to a much lower FAR as a result of the parking restric- tion. Therefore, it was a disincentive to do anything. If the property owners could be assured of the same FAR which was similar to that which was done in other areas, the parking was not driving the formula and the formula stated the same FAR. Mr. Schreiber said the only place in the City where a property owner was allowed to demolish a noncomplying building that was larger than the FAR allowed and then rebuild it with the same square footage in a different configuration was in the Downtown area. It was a significant incentive to redevelop sites in the Downtown area. Council Member Andersen clarified it was only in the Downtown area. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Andersen saw it as a disincentive to do any new construction if square footage would be lost. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The disincentive to redevelop in other areas such as E1 Camino Real was the original square footage could ~not be recaptured if current parking standards had to be met, which was a reflection of City regulations that had been driven more by parking.concerns than by use and design or redevel- opment encouragement concerns. He noted that for E1 Camino Real and many other neighborhood and community-serving commercial areas, where neighborhoods were in close proximity, it was a very real issue in the sense that the.old use might be okay but a new use with more vitality, activity, and the same amount of parking as the old use was often regarded as meaning there were going to be more cars parking in the residential areas within a block of the commercial areas. Council Member Andersen asked whether the suggestion made by Ms. Lytle differed from the kind of exemption that was in the Downtown area. Mr. Schreiber said the Downtown area had the Downtown Parking Assessment District so the major provisions for parking were pooled through the.parking lots and structures.’ The Downtown regulations came out of two considerations: I) the City’s substantial downzon- ing from a 3:1 to I:I FAR in 19.85; and 2) the desire to maintain the retail commercial vitality of the Downtown area. When the 13 of 21 5/27/97 9:58 AM htt p://www.eity.palo-al...inutes/1995/30OCT95 .TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/eity/govemment/minutes/1995/30OCT95 .T~ regulations were created in the 1980s the concern was that the City may have gone too far in the downzoning which in hindsight the City had not. There were a lot of sites in the Downtown that were already over the i:i FAR and if those were going to be locked in place, it would end up in a situation such as stipulated in the Gruen and Gruen study where there was incentive to retain older buildings but not maintain them very well. There was a concern that there needed to be some incentive for people to upgrade and redevelop property in the Downtown. Ms. Lytle said another issue was the parking standards that applied everywhere but in the Downtown and California Avenue areas where there were suburban parking standards, and as redevelopment occurred, the buildings were grandfathered in in terms of floor area which usually met resistance from the people along E1 Camino Real. The kind of redevelopment staff had seen go through had been small retail fast food outlets with a large parking lot pattern which were what suburban parking lot standards would yield, but were usually objected to in hearings and not what people wanted. The Council needed to review the parking ratios and decide whether it wanted to accept a less suburban standard along South E1 Camino Real which had the impacts mentioned by Mr. Schreiber of people using on-street parking. If a coordinated area planning process could not be worked out or parking among multiple property owners, then the potential as a zoning incentive was done for a short term to create impacts in some areas where there would be some instances of.potential impacts being created as properties turned over and utilized the incentives.~ The advantage of doing it in a coordinat- ed area plan process was because staff could work with an area, determine what some of the problems were, and find solutions that could be applied to more than one property such as shared access or shared parking with narrow properties on E1 Camino Real which was a difficult thing to make happen on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Council Member Andersen asked whether Council should give a direction to allow for some flexibility in parking, then the City could move quicker than going through some of the procedures both the’ Plan and the area-wide plan would require. He asked whether it was workable or whether it was something too radical for Palo Alto. Mr. Schreiber said one ~of the purposes of an area planning process was to gain the input, .understanding, and concurrence of not only the peripheral property owners but the nearby residents. The problem he .foresaw was that a "quick fix" would not be a simple public process. The problem was to put in place regulations that would have a notable parking impact in residential areas. If the regulations were successful, more of a parking problem would be generated than was there today, and if they were not successful, then the parking would not get worse. Council Member Andersen referred to the staff comment on Program CD-17.A3, "Note that the preservation of the mobile home park is a change from current policy which reserves the site for housing but not specifically for mobile home park." He felt the Council was in agreement to keep the moderate-priced housing concept available in that area. He asked if Palo Alto were losing potential housing by limiting the zone to a mobile home park and would there be additional housing units available if the zone were left alone. Mr. Schreiber replied it would be very unlikely to lose potential housing because the density of the mobile home park was quite high. 14 of 21 5/27/97 9:58 AM http://www.eity.palo-al.:.inutes/1995/300C~95.TXT http://www.oity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govemment~minutes/1995/300CT95.T~ Mayor Simitian asked what Program CD-17.A3, "Preserve the existing mobile home park as a source of affordable housing near both shopping and transit," meant, what was the current designation, and what designation would it become. Mr. Schreiber said the land use designation was mobile family residential and the zoning was RM-15. He was not sure what designation it would become. Some type of mobile home designation would have to be created. Mayor Simitian .~larified in that event, the City would advise the property owner that he/she had just become the owner of a mobile home park in perpetuity where a housing site was presumed to be. Mr. Schreiber said yes. He had two concerns: i) the regulation of mobile home parks was a complicated area under state law and other regulations, and 2) that facility was under code control by the State of California. The State preempted the City from an inspection role. If a rigorous inspection was done regarding electrical connections, utilities, and sewer, etc., that area would probably have a lot of problems. From his standpoint from previous experience, it was best to leave the areas lie quietly for fear of what type of consequences the City might get into if it got into more active regulation. Mr. Calonne said he could report back the following week on a mini-survey of what th sion. It was a heavily regulated area. Will Beckett, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan .Advisory Commit- tee, said that CPAC’s purpose in addressing the mobile home park was to preserve something the neighborhood felt very strongly about in Germs of low-income housing. It was a well-loved area despite the feeling most people had about mobile home parks. The bottom line was that it actually served a very valuable service in the neighborhood. Mayor Simitian asked from a process standpoint whether the property ownership had offered any opinions-on the topic during the course of the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Schreiber replied that he was not aware of any opinions. Mr. Beckett said that the property’owners valued the mobile home park too. When put in a position of either abandoning the entire thing or making minor changes, things were left as they were so that state approval was not lost. Mayor Simitian suggested that conversation occur between staff and property owners. He did not want to move forward on a ~ajor limitation on property rights without comments from the property owners. He would also like to hear from the City Attorney regarding the implications with respect to Program CD-17.A3 (mobile~ home parks). Mr. Schreiber said staff would contact the property owners and inform them of that evenings discussion and the likely continuation of the discussion the next City Council meeting. If the~property owners were in attendance, the Council could ask questions. Council Member Schneider referred to Policy .CD-17.B, "Use the E1 Camino Triangle as the centerpiece to the neighborhood by creating a central public plaza and encouraging new Mixed-Use (Retail and Office) buildings around it and link the Ventura Neighborhood to E1 15 of 21 http://www.city.palo-al...inutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemment!minutos/1995/300CT95 .TY7 Camino." She recommended that the City not make any reference to specific properties such as the E1 Camino Triangle. She had spoken to two of the property owners who had very successful businesses and intended to pass the property down to their children. She felt it was unwise for the Council to make determinations on specific properties to become a central public plaza when the property was privately-owned. Ms. Eakins said the subject had surfaced several times and when CPAC referred to "public" it meant public access and not public ownership. Council Member Schneider understood, but the E1 Camino Triangle property was privately-owned and divided up into a number of successful businesses. Ms. Eakins said that the CPAC recommendation meant that the entire area bounded by the roads become public pedestrian-oriented. Council Member Schneider said a central public plaza implied a plaza which would be publicly-owned. Ms. Eakins said the CPAC’s intention was public access, not land taking. The goal was street friendly, pedestrian-oriented. Mayor Simitian said he took it to mean that it would be "a happening place." Council Member Schneider reiterated that she spoke to two of the property owners in the E1 Camino Triangle who were very concerned because they read it as somewhere down the road, the property would be bought by the City and made into a public plaza. The wording needed to be such that it would assure that private property would not be condemned by City in the future and used for a public plaza. Ms. Eakins said "access" or "happening place" could be inserted. Mayor Simitian asked if the word "plaza" could be changed to "focus. " Mr. Calonne suggested striking the word "public" and inserting "publicly accessible." Council Member Schneider said "publicly accessible" sounded better. Council Member Kniss said the real question was whether there was an easily accessible public area because in some instances that might not be the case. Ms. Lytle said the composite diagram that came out of the workshop showed that the best place for a public space was at the terminus of Meadow Drive. It would actually provide a terminus to that street and a little public space which was currently privately owned. The intent of that type of planning was that the property had to be budgeted for and purchased or there would not be a plaza but some kind of public access or something less than a plaza.The intent of that type of exercise was that the City would trade, incentive or somehow compensate for the land. Council Member Kniss said staff seemed to be headed in a very different direction. She asked whether how the City would make it publicly accessible if there was no publicly accessible land. Mayor Simitian said a neighborhood was publicly accessible, it was not a plaza nor was it a park, it was publicly accessible and it nnp://www.c~ty.palo-al...mutes/1995/30OCT95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/eity/government/minutes/1995/300CT95.T)~ had a number of plazas and focal points in it which were also publicly accessible. Council Member Kniss understood the discussion about redesigning someone’s property so that it could become publfcly accessible and that was what she heard Council Member Schneider was objecting to. The question was, whether the City could tell property owners that when they redesigned their property should it be made publicly accessible. Mayor Simitian asked staff whether Walgreen’s in Downtown Palo Alto was publicly accessible.¯ Mr. Schreiber said yes. Mayor Simitian said the point that CPAC and the language was making was that there was a triangle of land which sat in the middle of an area, and the City wantedand try to create some type of focal point; a place where things happened and would be accessible to the public in that area. It did not have to be a particular parcel, it could be anywhere within the triangle and could be entirely privately-owned and operated. It was all perfectly appropriate and was not inconsistent with any individual property owner’s private property rights. Council Member Schneider repeated that she had spoken to two property owners from the area that were very concerned about the issue and they wanted some assurances that in 15 years they would lose their businesses or that their businesses would not be compro- mised in some way. She was responding to their concerns. Vice Mayor Wheeler said it was an area she had felt bad about after the last Comprehensive Plan was done almost 20 years prior. There had been a great vision for E1 Camino Triangle in that Comprehen- sive Plan and the concept was to make those properties as they redeveloped over the 20-year life of the plan to face in toward the neighborhood and create a neighborhood-serving function. To accomplish that, some of the buildings would have had to be reoriented, some of the lots would have had to be redrawn, and there would have been no access in that vision to E1 Camino Real, the access was to have been from E1 Camino Way. UnfortunatelY, if the Council were not willing to indicate up front that it was going to take governmental action, i.e., spend public monies to acquire public space, there was.no way that asthe properties came up on a one-by-one basis for redevelopment that the Council could demand the properties be developed in a certain way and that was what had happened. There was nothing wrong with the vision 20 years prior; the problem was the City did not put up the money where it’s public mouth was. As individual properties came up, the City could not force the property owners to realign the property the way the City wished. There had to be access onto E1 Camino Real and there were legal lots that could be developed. She felt the Council needed to commit up front that it was going to somehow acquire that public space and make it happen. Council Member Kniss said when the Council got into the issue, it was going to have a focus. The City could not ask a landowner to donate some of their property here and there along the way. Mayor Simitian was baffled, he did think that was what was being said. One minute the Council was indifferent about the City directing a property owner that had a multi-family site that he/she had a mobile home park in perpetuity, but when it was discussed 17 of 21 5/27/97 9:58AM " http ://www.city.palo-al...inutes/1995/30OCT95 .TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/governmentdminutes/1995/36OCT95 .TX~] that the City was going to exercise its responsibility to zone and amend the Comprehensive Plan to say it would be nice to have some focus in the neighborhood, everyone thought that was the taking of private property. Council Member Andersen Said the answer was that there were no incentives to do that and the Council had just discussed the kinds of incentives that might very well cause some of the property owners to agree that it was a great idea. The property owners would like it to be a "happening place," and if the City were able to provide an incentive such as flexibility in parking and if there were some way that flexibility could be arrived at in that area in exchange for appropriate landscape and design, he felt things would happen. He suggested that staff be encouraged to look at some incentives to make that a possibility. Mayor Simitian said the language in Policy CD-17.B should be amended to read, "Encourage use of the E1 Camino Triangle as the centerpiece to the neighborhood by creating a Publicly accessible focal point and encouraging .... " It now indicated the notion of encouragement, incorporated the idea of incentive, and instead of using "central public plaza" which was the phrase of concern, the phrase "publicly accessible focal point" could be used which could either be private or public and with no particular parcel identi- fied. From a design standpoint, the Council should encourage the area to serve that purpose. Council Member Schneider said staff-should return to the Council with someincentives and then it would be palatable. Mr. Beckett said for a long time, the business owners had been tossing around ideas about how to revitalize the E1 Camino Triangle area and were now in a situation where they were trying to work with the community to do that. He saw it as being very much like that situation where the business owners would come together and with that vision do things such as have a public eating space between two restaurants as a starting place, and as it developed, try another eating place in the future. The idea was the ability to use the space between the buildings as gathering areas to enhance two restaurants for outside eating in the future. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Plan was general and the discussions had been about general things which might well have implications for property owners and no public hearings were being held on individual pieces of land. He clarified that before any change would occur, there would, be a public hearing, property owners would appear before the Council, and the Council would make some final decisions. He asked why the Council was suddenly getting upset about one of the general policies. Mr schreiber said it was true that before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, there would be public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Council and if there were any area-specific, site-specific zone changes, there would also be public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Council. Council Member Schneider said verbiage without the incentives would alleviate a lot of the anxiety, and adding the incentives would make more sense, but she was comfortable with the verbiage. Mayor Simitian thought that was the type of language some of property owners would like to see in the document. A property owner could bring in a proposal which was consistent with the nttp:i/www.c.y.pato-a~...mutes/tW~)/.~uut~ l ~3.1AI http://www.c~ty.palo-alto.ea.us/pato/city/govemment/minutes/1995/30OCT95.T~ language in the Comprehensive Plan, the City would encourage it rather than impede it, and then if the City wanted some kind of focal point in that area which was publicly accessible, the property owner could ask the City to lighten up on some of the standards. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to modify Policy CD-17.B,~"Use the E1 Camino Triangle as the centerpiece to the neighborhood by creating a central public plaza and encouraging new Mixed-Use (Retail and Office) buildings around it and link the Ventura Neighborhood to E1 Camino," to read "Encourage use of the E1 Camino Triangle as the centerpiece to the neighborhood by creating a publiclylaccessible focal point and encouraging new Mixed-Use (Retail and Office) buildings around it and link the Ventura Neighborhood to E1 Camino;" Council Member Kniss thought it was a logical approach to the issue. What Mr. Beckett said was true, that if the property owners could come together and the City encourage that, a spirit of cooperation could be achieved which would hopefully pervade the Comprehensive Plan in general. She. appreciated Council Member Schneider’s comments regarding her conversation with the two property owners. It was good to hear from the property owners who would be affected by the policy. MOTION PASSED.7-0, Huber, McCown absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to Program CD-17.AI, and asked whether the term "coordinated area plan" meant something specific that would lock the Council into a $200,000 study by using that term in the Comprehensive Plan or could it be feathered out. There had been some discussion that evening as to what might be learned from the Midtown experience that could potentially be applied to the area, and she did not want to commit to a study by using the term "coordinated area plan" if it were not necessary. Ms. Mossar said the CPAC came up with the most innoxious, nondistinct phrase possible which was substituted everywhere where other phrases could be interpreted as a specific planning tool. "coordinated area plan" was CPAC’s intent for doing planning in an area, but she did not know what the legalities of the use of the term might mean. Mr. Schreiber said that staff’s understanding of CPAC’s objectives was that CPAC wanted to see planning to go on in a number of areas of difficult physical planning in such a way that the community was involved and physical change could be encouraged as part of the process in an economical and publicly acceptable and feasible way. Staff defined "coordinated area plans" in a June 10, 1995, staff report (CMR:295:95). Staff’s sense was that in the past, the City had included in the Comprehensive Plan or the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, a~list of study areas which had never been defined other than a few areas on a map. While there were a variety of ways to approach a "coordinated area plan~" if the bottom line was that the Council wished to have an intersection of extensive public involvement and economic feasibility, it could not be done quickly and cheaply nor could it be done with only City staff resources because there was not the expertise needed to really make the process successful. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked that Program CD-17.Cl on page 32 be reinstated as a "B" designation and reworded to read,. "The City shall undertake a study of the feasibility of redesigning E1 Camino 19 of 21 5/27/97 9:58 AM http://www.city.palo-al...inutes/1995/300CT95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemmentJminutes/1995/3OOCT95.TX" Real to provide wider sidewalks, strong safe pedestrian crossings at key intersections, and tree and streetscape improvements." Mayor Simitian clarified that the Council had deleted the program, but what the Council had attempted to delete previously was the concept of eliminating two lanes, and what Vice Mayor Wheeler was saying was it had been agreed not to eliminate two lanes, but she wanted to use Program CD-17.CI as a vehicle to discuss improvements along E1 Camino Real independent of lane elimination. He felt it was a distinct issue which stood on its own independent of the two-lane issue. Mr; Calonne pointed out that if the Council were going to modify Program CD-17.CI on page 32, it might want to modify Program CD-9.GI on page 17 also Council Member Andersen said the only way the redesigning could happen was if the City gave private property owners an incentive to make a shift in their property that would allow them to do so. He did not object to the idea, but the pragmatic problems that would be created needed to be recognized if it were left by itself. Council needed to acknowledge that there needed to be some motivation on the part of the property owner to do something that would provide that type of aesthetic improvement which would probably be centered around some of the d±sincentives the property owners currently had. He wanted to see property owners bring forward suggestions and hoped that staff would encourage that. Council Member Kniss asked if there were a realistic way to go about the study. Mr. Schreiber said the realistic way to go about the study would be to take some.cross sections to see whether there was enough space in the cross section to make some changes. Staff’s sense that evening was that there probably was not,. but it was something that could be looked at rather easily. Council Member Kniss said if it could be looked at easily, she would support it. Mr. Schreiber said he would not want a lot of staff time spent on the study unless the initial cross sections~indicated to the Council that the study was something it wanted to spend more time on. At the beginning stage, it would be kept very simple. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Simitian, to maintain Program CD-17.CI, "The City shall undertake a study of~the feasibility of redesigning E1 Camino Real so that the number of through travel lanes is reduced from 6 to 4 and create a 2-1ane frontage road on the eastern side that provides diagonal parking, wider sidewalks, and the ability to develop a more intimate, pedestrian-oriented space. At a minimum, provide strong safe pedestrian crossings at key intersections~" as a "B" designation and revise the language to read, "The City shall undertake a study of the feasibility of redesigning E1 Camino Real to provide wider sidewalks, strong safe pedestrian crossings at key intersections, and tree and streetscape improvements." Council Member Fazzino felt that the possibility of reducing the number of lanes and alternative transportation should not be rejected. Four lanes worked in Menlo Park and in other parts of E1 Camino Real, and he believed it should be considered. It might not be feasible, but he was not ready to reject it at that point. He accepted the remainder of the language and the intent behind it. http://www.eity.palo-al...inutes/1995/30OCT95 .TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/300CT95 .TXq MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to replace the words "undertake a study of" with the words "give consideration to." SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved to include language toread: "The City shall undertake a study of the feasibility of redesigning E1 Camino Real so that the number of lanes are reduced from 6 to 4." SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MAIN MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, McCown absent. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the Community Design Section to the Regular City Council meeting on November 6, 1995. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Huber, McCown absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Simitian announced the dates and times for Storm Drain Public Outreach Program: Wednesday, November i~ 7:00 p.m., Cubberley Community Center, Room A-2; Thursday, November 2, 7:00 p.m., Hoover School Multi-Purpose Room; Wednesday, November 8, 7:00 p.m., Palo Verde School Multi-Purpose Room; Thursday, November 9, 7:00 p.m., E1 Carmelo School Multi-Purpose Room; and Wednesday, November 15, 7:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers. Council discussed a procedural issue regarding a future agenda item, the former Maximart site, scheduled for the Regular City Council meeting on November 13, 1995, and the issue of reopening the public hearing. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to indicate on the agenda for the Regular City Council meeting of November 13, 1995, that the public comment would be limited to people who had not spoken previously to the item. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating," Huber, McCown absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 21 of 21 5/27/97 9:58 AM http://www.c~ty.palo-al...inutes/1995/06NOV95.TXT http://www.oity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/O6NOV95 .TX’I Regular Meeting November 6, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. ; ............. .....77-204 Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Adamson Associates for Infrastructure Management System .77-204 Budget Adjustments to Reflect Organizational Changes Implemented with the Adoption of the 1995-96 Budget . 77-204 Introduction of the 1994 Editions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, and the 1993 National Electrical Code; and Streamlining Revisions to the Sign and Fence Ordinances; and Setting a Public Hearing for November 20, 1995 ............ 77-205 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS .........77-205 3A.(Old Item No. 5[ Council Members Fazzino, Kniss, and Rosenbaum re.Consideration of a Charitable Contribution Checkoff Box on Utility Bills to Raise Funds to Help Residents with Temporary Economic Hardship Pay Their Utility Bills .................... 77-205 PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee ............ ......77-207 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. in memory of Prime blinister Yitzhak Rabin ............. 77-231 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT:Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF.THE DAY Mayor Simitian recognized the Den 2 Webelos Scouts who were present ¯ in the Council Chambers. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government (letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office). Harry Merker, 501 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding Citizens Police Academy (brochure on file in the City Clerk’s Office). Kim Maxwell, 1057 University Avenue, spoke regarding Measure R. Don Branner, 200 Waverley, Menlo Park, spoke regarding MeasUre R. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding 1970-90 Comprehensive Plan Zoning - CN. Judith Maxwell, 1057 University Avenue, spoke regarding Measure R. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, spoke regarding Measure R. 1 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM l~ttp://www.c~ty.palo-al...mutesi1993/O6NOV95.TXT http://www.oity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/06NOV95.TXq Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke~regarding Measure R late contributions. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding Measure R. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION:Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Adamson Associates for Infrastructure Management System; change orders not to exceed $7,000 2.- Budget Adjustments to Reflect Organizational Changes Imple- mented with the Adoption of the 1995-96 Budget Ordinance 4302 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budg.et for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Transfer Appropriations from Various Departments and Funds to Reflect Adjustments Made With the Adoption of the 1995-96 ¯Budget" Introduction of the 1994 Editions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, and the 1993 National Electrical Code; and Streamlining Revisions to the Sign and Fence Ordinances; and Setting a Public Hearing for Novem- ber 20, 1995 Ordinance ist Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code and Amending Chapter 16.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code" Ordinance ist Reading entitled ~’Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 1994 Editions Of the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Housing Code, and Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, Amending the Historic Building Code; Amending Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and Making Certain Findings with Respect Thereto" Ordinance ist Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various Sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Permit Requirements" Ordinance ist Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 15.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Adopting the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code with Local Amendments" Ordinance ist Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 1993 Edition of the National Electrica! Code and Amending Chapter 16.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code" MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to move Item Noo 5 forward to become Item No. 3A. 2 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM http:!/www.oity.palo-al., inutes/1995/06NOV95 .TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/eity/government/minutes/1995/O6NOV95 .TX MOTION PASSED 6-3, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler "no." COUNCIL MATTERS 3A.(Old Item No. 5) Council Members Fazzino, Kniss, and Rosenbaum re Consideration of a Charitable Contribution Checkoff Box on Utility Bills to Raise Funds to Help Residents with Temporary Economic Hardship Pay Their Utility Bills Council Member Rosenbaum said the proposal before the Council that evening was more limited than the previous proposal presented to the Council. Palo Alto residents who paid their utility bills were being asked to consider whether they would be willing to make an additional contribution for the sole and exclusive purpose of helping other Palo Alto residents who might be having temporary economic difficulty paying their utility bills. He recalled that the previous discussion was a much broader proposal to consider charitable contributions to many worthy causes. Staff had indicated that there was approximately $15,.000 in unpaid utility bills each year that could be attributed to economic hardship. He believed the amount of money that would be raised might be on that same order of magnitude. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) had a similar plan which appeared to have worked for many years and it was administered by the Salvation Army. There were a number of other public utilities that also had a similar program. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Rosenbaummoved, seconded by Kniss, to refer consideration of a charitable contribution checkoff box on utility bills to raise funds to help residents with temporary economic hardship pay their utility bills to the Utilities Advisory’ Commission and staff for a recommendation. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said staff had reviewed the proposal and the use of a checkoff box to pay city utility funds would not raise any legal concern. He envisioned other scenarios that it could change into that would raise legal concerns. James Lewis, 1498 Edgewood, was delighted that the issue was before the Council for consideration. He felt the concept of Palo A~to citizens helping other needy Palo Alto citizens was a tradition that had helped make Palo Alto one of the best cities. He understood that citizens would have the option but not the obligation to make a charitable contribution to’the program in any amount they wished. PG&E covered about three-fourths of the State of California and offered a similar program--the REACH Program which took in over $2 million. During the previous i0 years, the program had distributed over $40 million to over 260,000 needy and qualified households. Contributions came from over 70,000 PG&E customers. Many cities in the United States had elected to include that program in its municipal building program. He supported the proposal and looked forward to Palo Alto joining many other cities in offering a utility assistance program for families with a temporary economic hardship. Council Member Kniss supported the proposal. There were not many opportunities for that type of checkoff box. Other cities and the federal and state government had similar programs and had raised a considerable amount of money. Palo Alto was a generous community, and the proposal would probably have a positive outcome. She urged the Council to support the referral. Council Member Huber supported the referral and did not support the 3 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM http://www.oity.palo-al...inut¢s/1995/06NOV95 .TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.oa,us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/O6NOV95 .TX" previous proposal because it was broader than the proposal before the Council that evening. The present proposal related to the billing.process and was worth considering. Council Member Fazzino thanked Mr. Lewis for his tenaciousness regarding the issue. As a limited program, it was a stronger proposal. The proposal’s goal to provide a self-funded program to take care of the people in the community who could not afford to pay their utility bills was a worthy goal.He supported the proposal and the referral. MOTION TO REFER.PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit- tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto’s future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transpor- tation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direction for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update (continued from October 30, 1995) Mayor Simitian announced that the City Council would review the Community Design Section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). If the section were completed that evening, the Council would not begin a new section. He indicated that the Council had not completed its discussion regarding mobile home parks at the previous City Council meeting, and an issue was also raised by Council Member Rosenbaum at that meeting regarding.the Town and Country Village. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Town and Country Village area was a multi-neighborhood center and suggested that the area would probably fit into the Plan on page 36 before the Council started its discussion of neighborhood centers. Council Member McCown referred to Herb Borock’s letter dated November i, 1995, (on file in the Clerk’s Office) which raised the question about the distinction between multi-neighborhood centers and neighborhood centers, and she asked the significance of categorizing Midtown as one type of neighborhood center versus another. It could be argued as referenced by Mr. Borock’s letter that Midtown was more like the Charleston/Alma/Edgewood Plaza area rather than the California Avenue/South E1 Camino Real area. Sandy Eakins, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit- tee, said the consultant cautioned Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) that the Plan would be confusing if there were very fine distinctions about the levels of descriptions for various neighborhood centers. CPAC felt that Midtown was different and it fit between the intensity of California Avenue and the Town and Country Village which the consultant felt was a more regional shopping center than Midtown. The people on the subcommittee reacted to their own shopping habits. There was no desire to make Midtown different. Council Member McCown said Mr. Borock’s letter asked whether there was some message being sent about the intensity of development by 4 ot"26 hrtp://www.oity.palo-al...inutes/1995/06NOV95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/oity/government/minutes/1995/06NOV95 .TX" putting it in one category versus another category. She clarified that CPAC felt Midtown had unique characteristics and it had t.o be placed in one category versus another. Ms. Eakins said Midtown was a continuum rather than a design for a vision that was not currently present. Planning Commissioner Tony Carrasco said the reason the Planning Commission categorized Midtown as a multi-neighborhood center was because it was located in the center of more than five neighbor- hoods. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified a multi-neighborhood center could be defined as a center that was centrally located and attracted people from a broader radius for shopping or the definition could be defined as the intensity-and types of uses that were typically found in various shopping areas. If that were the definition, she felt that Midtown was more similar to the Charleston/Alma/Edgewood area than it was to the California Avenue or Town andCountry Village areas. Mr. Carrasco said the Planning Conmlission had a grading plan and Midtown was not a California Avenue type of center. The businesses in the area were more neighborhood serving rather than regional serving such as in the California Avenue area. However, there were many more neighborhoods than any of the other centers. Mayor Simitian referred to Program CD-17.A3, "Preserve the existing mobile home park as a source of affordable housing near both shopping and transit," on page 31 of the Plan, and he asked for a clarification on the program from staff. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there was no legal issue directly implicated by the proposed program. The state law had a number of protections for mobile home park residents which were typically invoked when someone tried to close or remove a mobile home park. The rules could apply to a city if the city were the initiating closure of a mobile home park. There was also a legal morass created by the combination of local rent control laws for mobile home parks and state law governing the closure of mobile home parks which was not relevant for the proposed program. The state law relatin’g to general andcomprehensive plans which encouraged the consideration of mobile parks as affordable housing might be relevant. Another provision in state law stated that an applica- tion by a permit or otherwise could be made to put a mobile home park in a. city where land was residentially zoned. There were also provisions that did not allow design review discrimination against manufactured housing and mobile homes. There was no direct issue implicated by a policy statement to preserved a particular park. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken schreiber said Program CD-17.A3 had been identified in~ the Plan as a new policy or program which was incorrect. The existing Housing Element contained Program 29, "Recognize the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park as an important resource for low- and moderate-income housing opportunities." Mayor Simitian felt the language in Program CD-17.A3 meant that the Council would mandate in the Comprehensive Plan that the site would always be a mobile home park. The site was currently zoned residential in the existing Comprehensive Plan and there was a big difference between "mandating" and "recognizing" the site as a mobile home site. He asked whether the proposed program recommend- h ttp://www.eity.palo-al...inut.es/1995/06N’OV95 .TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/eity/govemment/minutes!1995/O6NOV95 ed that the residents would own a mobile home park in perpetuity. Mr.Calonne said CD-17;A3 was designated as a program, but he felt the language should’be at a policy level. Mayor Simitian asked whether a development in the community had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Calonne said yes in many instances but not generally. Mayor Simitian asked whether the language would prohibit someone from building an apartment complex on the site. Mr. Calonne did not believe it was program implementation language. Mayor Simitian asked what CPAC wanted to achieve through the language. Will Beckett, C0-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit- tee, said the concern was that the people who lived on the site would not be able to afford to live on the site if the mobile home park were removed and a new building were constructed. CPAC wanted to make sure that a place was offered for people who did not have the income to afford a home elsewhere in the City. The only way that could be done was to preserve the mobile home park. Council" Member Kniss asked whether the Council could legally demand the property owner to retain the site as a mobile home park. Mr. Calonne said yes if it were a economically viable use of the property. Council Member Kniss said the current situation might allow it to be economically viable but she asked what would happen if in the- future it no longer became economically viable. Mr. Calonne said the courts’ phrase was that "economic viability had to take into account the reasonable investment back expecta- tions of the owner." If the land use designation remained residential and there were Comprehensive Plan language that either strongly urged or required preservation of the mobile home park, a new buyer would not have a reasonable investment back expectation that he/she might develop something more valuable. He would never advise the City Council to impose only one land use designation for a piece of property but it was not unlawful. He.emphasized that he did not believe it was program language. The City had zoning regulations, not a preservation ordinance. The proposed language would have to be implemented through a series of programs. Council Member Kniss believed the site should remain residential but it was quite different to preserve the site’s exact use as a mobile home park. Mayor Simitian said the staff comments, "Note that the preservation of the mobile home park is a change from current policy which reserves the site for housing but not specially for a mobile home park," clearly stated that the purpose of the language was to preserve the site as a mobile home park. Council Member McCown said the existing Comprehensive Plan language, "Recognize the Buena Vista Mobile’Home Park as an important resource for low- and moderate-income housing opportuni- ties," referred in the text to opportunities for the City to http://www.city.palo-al...inutes/1995/06NOV95.TXT http://www.city,palo-alto,ea.us/palo/city/government!minutes/1995/06NOV95.TX" explore means to preserve the park, including assistance in obtaining any state funding for resident opportunities to purchas~ the park should that be deemed feasible and desirable. There was language in the current Comprehensive Plan that left the multi-family zoning in plac should be active in continuing to allow the site to be a mobile home facility as opposed to .another type of housing facility. If. the existing policy were continued, the site would continue to be multi-family zoning but there would be a policy desire that encouraged the City Council to take steps to maintain the site as a mobile home park. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to retain the original language in the existing Comprehensive Plan which reads: "Program 29: Recognize the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park as an important resource for low- and moderate-income housing opportunities." Council Member Kniss was troubled by the use of the word "preserve, and supported the retaining the existing language. Council Member McCown clarified the language indicated the original existing philosophy. Council Member Schneider clarified that CPAC’s intent was to maintain the existing mobile home park. She supported retaining the language in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Huber asked whether any aspect of the law regarding mobile home parks required relocation assistance if the status of a park changed. Mr. Calonne said the state law required a property owner to give at least 15 days notice to residents that he/she would be appearing in front of the city. It also required 6 months notice oftermination after the owner received a’permit; or if no city permit were. required, the residents were entitled to 12 months notice. Council Member Huber clarified no assistance was required. Mr. Calonne did not believe assistance was required but explainedthat he had not researched the issue extensively. Council Member Huber clarified that Palo Alto did not have any regulations that would compel that situation either. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. There was a provision that required a closing report to be done that analyzed all of the issues and the consequences of closing a mobile home park. Mr. Schreiber clarified that the language in the motion included the program but did not include program responsibilities or action. Council Member McCown said the intent was that some comparable language to implement that same policy statement would be needed in the future. Mayor Simitian clarified the implementation language was not ~included in the direction to staff, but a direction to provide implementation language was included in the motion. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Simitian asked staff to describe what a coordinated area plan 7 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM nttp://www.c~ty.palo-al...mutes/1995/06N OV95 .TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemmentJminutes/1995/O6NOV95 .TX’] would be for the Midtown area. Mr. Schreiber explained that a coordinated area plan had extensive public involvement and used considerable planning and other technical and facilitation resources to develop a land use plan for a particular area. He highlighted the fact that for areas such as Midtown where significant revitalization and upgrading were recommended that the involvement of all property owners and other commercial and residential tenants in the planning process was a highly recommended procedure of CPAC. Staff currently had an assignment through the Economic Resources Plan to work with the group of commercial property owners and other stakeholders in the area, including members of the neighborhood, to provide some land use planning concepts for a portion of the Midtown area. Staff used the term "area plan" to recognize that the Midtown area needed concentrated attention to promote both the public and private sector. The term "coordinated area plan" might indicate less importance in that area. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought of Midtown not in terms of its geograph- ical location but rather ih terms of the types of businesses that the community wanted to continue to exist in the area and the scale’ of the development of that particular shopping center. She believed those things preserved the current designation of Midtown as a neighborhood shopping center. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to move the Midtown-related Goals, Policies, and Programs in Section CD.18 to the Neighborhood Centers portion of the Community Design Section which begins on page 36 of the CD Section." Council Member Rosenbaum did not object to the motion but pointed’ out that because of Midtown’s geographic location, it probably served a considerable portion of the City which should be consid~ ered in the logical scale of the development. Council Member McCown referred to page 18 of the Plan and said the definition of multi-neighborhood centers versus neighborhood centers was almost identical. Midtown might meet the criteria that a multi-neighborhood center served more than one neighborhood, but the distinction was the other centers that would be included in the category. She believed Midtown was closer in character, even though it served multiple neighborhoods, to Charleston, Edgewood, and Alma than it was to’California Avenue. It was more in keeping with the Council’s and the neighborhood’s expectations to have Midtown in the neighborhood center category rather than the multi-neighborhood cente Council Member Schneider asked whether any of the business or property owners, had an opinion about whether Midtown should be a multi-neighborhood center or a neighborhood center. Ms. Eakins said the business owners participated in the workshop and the distinctions followed the Workshop so the terms were not discussed at that time. Council Member Schneider was concerned about the effect that the category would have on the new businesses that had .recently opened in the area. She queried whether there were economic advantages to being categorized as one center over the other center. Mayor Simitian asked whether there was any difference between defining Midtown as one center or the another. 8 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM http://www.oity.palo-al...inutos/1995/06NOV95 .TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/eity/government/minutes/1995/O6NOV95 .T2~ Mr. Schreiber di~ not believe it made a difference. He could not recall any proposal during the CPAC process that would have changed the Midtown zoning to a more intensive commercial category. Everyone viewed Midtown as having a neighborhood commercial-type zoning, but the area clearly served multiple neighborhoods. The category was not an effort to upgrade the zoning to allow higher density development. Mr. Carrasco said the Planning Commission graded the neighborhood commercial centers from an intense "red" to a light "pink." The Midtown center was in the light pink category, not the intense red of California Avenue.The center would continue to function under the existing zoning. Colncil Member Andersen said the Midtown area served a large number of people and the change in the category would acknowledge and reinforce to the community that the Council was not interested in allowing a large supermarket in the area. He supported the motion, but the Council needed to recognize the need to discuss at some point in the future what should be done about inadequate grocery facilities in the community. More people in the community were becoming regional in their shopping for groceries. Mayor Simitian asked whether approval of the schematic change that would put Midtown in a category of a neighborhood shopping center would suggest that the .Council wanted to close one of the two grocery stores and perhaps two of three video stores. Council Member Andersen said no.~ He felt the intent of the change was to not allow an increase in the square footage of the existing supermarkets. Mayor Simitian opposed the motion. He felt Midtown was different and had more activity than the other three centers, and the neighborhood wanted even more activity. Midtown was designed to serve a multiplicity of neighborhoods which made it functionally a different place. He did not want a message being sent about the size or quantity of grocery stores in the area. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Simitian "no." Council Member Kniss asked whether the direction to prepare a coordinated area plan would differ from what the Council had already embarked upon with Midtown. Assistant City Manager Bernard M. Strojny said the current approach being taken in Midtown was not the same as the coordinated area plan process that would occur in other parts of the City. A master site plan would be the original product that derived from the process that was currently underway and it would not be an area,wide plan that had b Council Member Kniss asked how much money had been spent on the current study. Mr. Strojny said approximately $38,0’00 plusstaff time was committed t~<the process that was currently underway. There was also an earlier market analysis done which included an additional cost of approximately $20,000 to that figure. Council Member Kniss clarified the cost to date was approximately $60,000. Mr. Strojny said that was correct. http://www.oity.palo-al...inutes/1995/06NOV95 .TXT http://www.city.palo-alto,ea.u~/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/O6NOV95 .TXq Council Member Kniss asked how the proposed coordinated area plan would change what had already been done. Mr. Strojny said the language in Program CD-18.AI, "Prepare a coordinated area plan for Midtown with the participation of local businesses, property owners, nearby residents, and the City that addresses: the plans that emerged from the Community Design Workshop; the findings of the Mi~town Economic Study; construction and financing of a central plaza/green; design standards for new buildings; appropriate mix of uses; incentives for re-use and redevelopment of existing retail buildings; buffering adjacent residences; landscaping and reconfiguring parking lot, including reconfiguration of the City’s public parking lot; phasing strate- gies; and feasibility of incorporating day care," would place the Midtown approach in the same context as the area-wide planning efforts that had been proposed by staff for other parts of the City such as the California Avenue/Ventura Avenue (Cal-Ventura) area. It would not be as extensive as the area-wide planning process which was a master site plan prepared by the property owners as well as a traffic study funded by the City as a proforma analysis. Council Member Kniss was still concerned about the cost issue. Mr. Schreiber said a major factor in Midtown was that property owners of some of the key commercial properties had been histori- cally quite reluctant to either cooperatively work together to come up with multi-parcel solutions and to engage in substantial planning discussions with the City and the neighborhood for that area. The area was similar to parts of E1 Camino Real than to some of the other areas in the community where the parcels were smaller and the property owners were independent thinkers. The effort currently underway would try to bring the key commercial property owners together and try to facilitate an integrated plan for their area in cooperation with members of the neighborhood; The process, if successful, could lead to some simple zone changes or it might lead to something larger. It was uncertain~ at the present time what kind of environmental review would be needed. The outstanding issue was what would be done by the remaining commer- cial area. The Safeway Market was not part of the focus or the sites on the other side.of Middlefield Road, and there had been no discussion about how to integrate those areas into a~broader plan. A broader planning effort would probably not be successful if the major property owners were not willing to participate. Council Member Kniss was concerned that Program CD-18.AI was too far reaching since the City had already spent $60,000 on the area and future costs might be excessive. She would be more comfortable if the coordinated’area plan were done in small increments. Mayor Simitian said the coordinated area plan and other things that had been discussed by the Council would be done over the life of the Plan. The program was a vision of what the Council wanted to happen in Midtown. Everything would have to be done on the list to realize the vision articulated in the Comprehensive Plan, and he believed everything would be done incrementally. None of the plans would amount to anything unless there were some implementation measures that brought accountability to the process. Council Member McCown recalled that the language was written before the Council had authorized a specific study that was currently underway. The current study would incorporate many of the elements listed under Program CD-18oAI. Since the Council would receive the http://www.city.palo-al.,.inutes/1995/06NOV95.TXT http://www.oity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/eity/govemmentJminutes/1995/O6NOV95.T)7 current study before it finalized the program language, she felt all of the program language should be continued until the Council had the benefit of the interim study that had already been funded and authorized. The Council could then determine more specific program implementation language that should be included in the Comprehensive Plan. The coordinated area plan had been superseded by the previous steps taken by the Council to authorize a different type of approach. Council Member Kniss concurred with the comments of Council Member McCown. Council Member McCown asked whether the timing would work if the programs were continued. Mr. Strojny said the study should return to the Council by February 1996 which would be before the Council finalized program language in the Plan. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded ~by Andersen, to continue the following programs: Program CD-18.AI, "Prepare a coordinated area plan for Midtown with the participation of local businesses, property owners, nearby residents, and the City that addresses: the plans that emerged from the Community Design Workshop; the findings of the Midtown Economic Study; construction and financing of a central plaza/green; design standards for new buildings; appropriate mix of uses; incentives for re-use and redevelopment of existing retail buildings; buffering~adjacent residences; landscaping and reconfiguring parking lot, including reconfiguration of the City’s public parking lot; phasing strategies; and feasibility of incorporating day care"; Program CD-18oBI, "As part of the coordinated area planning process, develop site-specific zoning and architectural standards that preserve the scale and multi-neighborhood-serving focus of Midtown"; Program CD-’IS.CI, "Study, map, and rezone the area east of Middlefield as appropriate for Mixed-Use (Retail and Office)~" until after the results of the current Midtown study or conclusion of the comprehensive planning effort depending on which occurred first. City Manager June Fleming clarified that approximately $50,000 had been spent on the current Midtown study which was a focused area study and not as broad in concept as the plan for the other areas. The plan for the other areas would probably cost more than $200,000. The results from the Midtown study would only provide guidance, and she was not convinced that it would serve as a prototype for other areas. She agreed with the comments of Council Member McCown that the study would provide information ~and that it would return to the Council in time to apply to the discussion of other areas. The difference between the work done in Midtown and the Cal-Ventura area was the Council’s involvement and principles and guidelines that needed to be set .out before the studies began. She emphasized that the program was written before staff had had an opportunity to work out the details. Council Member Kniss said the City Manager’s comments clarified the direction of the issue that evening. Mayor Simitian clarified the Council would receive less than the level of detail that was indicated in the Plan. If, and when, the Council wanted that additional level of detail in the program implementation language, it would still be available for reconsid- eration because.the programs were continued rather than being http://www.city.palo-al..inutes!1995/06NOV95.TXT http://www,eity.palo-a|to.ea.us/palo/city/government/minutes/1995/O6NOV95.T~ replaced without any possibility for reconsideration. Council Member Huber asked how the current work being done in Midtown would relate to an area plan, i.e., was it usable and would it reduce the cost of $250,000 to $300,000 for an area plan. Ms. Fleming said it might reduce some of the costs, but she was uncertain whether it would be a significant amount since the scope was much larger. Steps might be saved by some of the procedures that had already been done. Council Member Huber would support the motion. He believed an area plan Was needed in Midtown but it was appropriate to wait until the Council received the current study and continue the programs until that time. Council Member Andersen wanted the property owners to participate in the process and did not want to move forward until the Council knew the level of commitment from the property owners in response to the things that were being discussed. He looked forward to the completion of the study. At that point, the Council could make a decision on how a specific direction could be implemented. Mr. Calonne was concerned that the Council action did not address what would happen if the Midtown study was not done before the Council took action on the draft policies. Mayor Simitian clarified if the issues were unresolved prior to action on the Comprehensive Plan, the items would return to the Council for consideration. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. Mayor Simitian asked what was meant by the language "maintain the scale and local serving focus of Midtown., Mr. Schreiber said "local serving" meant serving the local residential community in that area and it was broader than one neighborhood. The scale an~ focus would continue to be maintained. The area primarily served a central part of Palo Alto but had a multi-neighborhood focus° Mayor Simitian clarified "local serving" meant that the area would continue to serve multi-neighborhoods. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Policy CD-18.C, "Create a public plaza and green as a central focal point to Midtown. As shown in the conceptual map prepared during the Design Workshop,. new mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail and offices above should be placed around the plaza. Entries, windows, and outdoor seating areas should line the space." He was concerned about the mention of mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail and offices above and the parking requ±rements. The language gave the general feeling that a neighborhood or multi-neighborhood center was a retail area and that the offices ~had their own parking requirements which would cut down on the retail ~owner’s parking availability. Mr. Schreiber said CPAC’s thrust for Midtown, as it was for a number of other areas, was that existing conditions were such that substantial physical change.and upgrading of the area was desired. Some design element would be needed for that type of physical change, i.e., renovation, rehabilitation, which would be acceptable to the surrounding neighbors. It was like a redevelopment’ process 12 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM lattp:i/www.e~ty.palo-al...inutes/1995/06NOV95 .TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes!1995/O6NOV95.T~ in some jurisdictions, but the City did not have a redevelopment agency so it had to use incentives. The language referred to mixed-use buildings, reconfiguring existing parking lots, and planting trees, etc., which were in the category of incentives. The design items were in the category of future development that was acceptable to the neighborhood so that change could be brought about in a positive way. The specifics were less important than the fundamental policy question which was whether the Council wanted Midtown to change. If the Council wanted Midtown to change, it would have to do something to spur the private sector to bring about that change because the existing zoning regulations had not brought about much of a positive change. Change generated concern, opposition, and problems and a process was needed to handle that concern. Council Member Rosenbaum was concerned over the parking require- ments associated with the office space. The four acres where Bergmann’s and the Midtown Market were located could have 2 acres of retail and 2 acres of parking. If the entire area were in the form of ground floor retail with offices above, there wouldbe 40,000.square feet of retail, 40,000 square feet of office, and 2 acres of parking. There would be the same amount of parking but half the retail. The Council needed to decide whether it wanted to keep the shopping center retail. The Council recognized that something had to be changed because the private sector at the present time was not working. He asked why it was necessary to bring in the office factor. Mr. Schreiber explained the ratio would be 1 acre of retail and 3 acres of parking if the area were only retail. Retail land seldom developed with more than 0.2 to 0.25 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) because the rest of the land had to used to satisfy the parking needs. That was a suburban parking lot oriented vision. CPAC’s vision was a more intense vision that involved multi-story buildings that might require parking underground or a combination of things and some relaxation of parking requirements to facilitate that type of change. Currently, the neighborhood commercial zoning was very restrictive on office uses. The policy’s language was that office uses might need to be encouraged to provide an economic incentive to bring about the physical change that CPAC thought was desirable in that area. Chief Planning Official~ Nancy Lytle said the workshop did not anticipate structure parking. Theintensification .that came out of the workshop would have been accommodated by another proposal, which had been controversial, that the on-street parking would have to be created through the narrowing of Middlefield Road. The number of spaces that were created in that narrowing process~would offset that intensification. If the road were not narrowed, the only way to achieve a pedestrian-oriented design concept was the slight intensification of mixed-use, two-story buildings which would hopefully provide an incentive for upgrade and amenities to the area. Another structure would need to be found if it were not taken from the street. One aspect of Midtown that was.currently considered an asset for a pedestrian oriented design was that the parking was located for a large part of the segment that was under study to the rear of the buildings. Council Member Rosenbaum did not have a vision of a parking structure in Midtown, and he suspected the neighbors of Midtown did not have one either. He was also uncertain whether the narrowing on Middlefield Road to allow parking on the street would be acceptable. 13 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM nttp://www.clty.palo-al...mutes/ lg~3/OONt) V95.T~Vl http://www.city.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/governmenttminutes/1995/O6NOV95 .TXq MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to delete the second sentence of Policy CD-18.C, "Create a public plaza and green as a centra! focal point to Midtown. As shown in the conceptual map prepared during the Design Workshop, new mixed-use buildings with placed around the plaza. Entries, windows, and outdoor seating areas should line the space." Council Member McCown said it made sense to delete from the policy the second sentence which specifically referred to a particular design idea that mixed-use building with ground floor retail and office should be placed around the plaza. Council Member Kniss said the Council had previously continued its discussion regarding the construction and financing of a central plaza and green, and she felt the Council should also continue its discussion of Policy CD-18.C. Mayor Simitian understood the previous motion continued specific program language, but that did not mean that those issues had been continued as part of the policy discussions. Mr. Schreiber said the motion specifically continued Programs CD-18.AI, CD-18.BI, an Ms. Fleming said the public process would present a design and the Council’s discussion would indicate what the Council wanted before the process was completed. Council Member Huber said he philosophically agreed with the motion, but the current process when completed might indicate that the neighbors agreed that there was some component of office space that would be appropriate. He opposed the motion because he would rather wait until the current process had been completed. Council Member Kniss said the motion indicated the Council had ruled out something for the future, and she asked whether~ it was part of the coordinated area plan. Mr. Schreiber replied that the plaza concept came out ofthe one-way Midtown land us would be pursued during an area planning process. There was a great deal of support at that time for some type of public plaza gathering point to help unify and focus the Midtown area. CPAC raised it to the level ~of a policy because of the support heard for that type of concept. Council Member Kniss opposed the motion, however, that did not mean she was in favor of the language. The Council was looking at a coordinated area plan, a plan that had not been completed, and something that related to the design workshop. Council Member Andersen believed the motion.was premature, and he wanted to wait and review the dynamics of the current plan that was underway first. He was not enthusiastic about a lot of office space in Midtown, but he understood there was a need for a particular critical mass in order for the businesses to operate. Council Member McCown believed the first and last sentence of the policy statement was a good policy direction because it encouraged a public plaza or green as a central focal point to Midtown and the uses around that public plaza and green should include entries, windows, and outdoor seating areas. She said the second sentence was too specific about a combination of mixed-use buildings with ground floor and retail or offices. Her support of the motion was 14 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM http://www.¢ity.palo-al...inutes/1995/O6NOV95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/O6NOV95.T~ not an indication of a lack of support for offices, but she felt the Council should not define in the policy statement exactly what the right combination of uses might be around a public plaza. She wanted to leave the first and last sentence in place in the policy and delete the second sentence. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue the discussion of the second sentence in Policy CD-18.C, "As shown in the conceptual map prepared during the Design Workshop, new mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail and offices above should be placed around the plaza," until the other issues associated with Midtown are discussed. Council Member Fazzino was uncertain that the substitute motion would do anything different than suggested by the original motion. Mayor Simitian replied that the original motion deleted the sentence, but several Council Members .indicated that he/she might want to preserve their options. The substitute motion would allow the Council to preserve that option for future discussion. He preferred to associate himself with Council Member McCown’s comments that the language was too specific and somewhat inconsis- tent with the Council’s previous direction on the area. He did not believe it precluded the opportunity for the Council to revisit the issue upon discussion of the coordinated plan. He supported the original motion. Council Member Kniss preferred that the Council be consistent and continue its discussion of that policy as well. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she could support both motions. The parts left in the original motion were more similar to the understandings of Council Member McCown than to Council Member Rosenbaum interpre- tation. Her intent was similar to Council Member McCown’s interpretation. The Council needed to consider during its discussions that there were many things embedded in the set of policies; and if the Council accepted the notion that there would be a certain amount of building development on the parcel, then it would also have to accept a different way to treat the automobile in that area. She urged her colleagues to make their votes consistent between and among the various policies that would be discussedthat evening. Council Member Andersen said flexibility and parking would drive the issue, not mixed-use or offices. He did not want to send a message to staff that the Council did not want to hear anything about office buildings. He wanted to know if office buildingsmade it work, then he could make a decision based on issues that allowed for the flexibility and the .parking. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Fazzino, McCown "no." RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:35 P.M. Council Member Andersen referred to Program CD-18.E2, "Retain existing housing sites along Colorado Avenue, but consider increasing the density to allow townhouses, co-housing, and/or housing for the disabled," and he-asked about the portion and distance of Colorado Avenue that was referred to in the program. Ms. Lytle referred to a composite diagram from the Midtown workshop results, and said the area that could afford some intensification according to the workshop results were the first five lots on lattp://www.c~ty.palo-al...mutes/19~/0ON OV 95.’1 XI http://www.eity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/government/minutes/1995/O6NOV95.TX’j Colorado Avenue on both sides of the street toward Ross Road. Council Member Andersen asked whether the location was behind the Safeway Store. Ms. Lytle replied yes. Council Member Andersen said Policy CD-18.F, "Improvements should be made to Middlefield Road in Midtown only to slow traffic, make the street pedestrian-friendly, and draw the east and west sides of the commercial area together. The existing right-of-way could be configured to widen sidewalks, reduce the number of travel lanes from four to two, enhance on-street parking, incorporate bike lanes, add a median in the center of the street, and add street trees to improve the area’s image," referenced the reduction of travel lanes from four to two lanes. He had spoken to many people in the areawho had indicated concern about that kind of design change which would have a significant effect on traffic in the surrounding area, particularly the Cowper Street area. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to revise Policy CD-18.F, "Improvements should be made to Middlefield Road in Midtown only to slow traffic, make the street pedestrian-friendly, and draw together. The existing right-of-way could be configured to widen sidewalks, reduce the number of travel lanes from four to two, enhance on-street parking, incorporate bike lanes, add a median in the center of the street, and add street trees to improve the area’s image," and delete any reference to the reduction from four to two lanes. Council Member Andersen appreciated the fact that CPAC was trying to create additional parking, but there was traffic from the southern part of the region that used Middlefield Road as well as the traffic during the school hours. It might be a good design policy but he felt certain it was not. a good traffic policy. Mr. Beckett said it was important not to consider it as a narrowing of Middlefield Road. It was not simply a reduction of through lanes, but it was a transportation change in front of the Midtown area. It was a combination of things. The flow in the Midtown area, especially the right-hand lanes, turned typically into the many curb cuts that went into different parking lots in that area. CPAC envisioned a reduction of curb cuts, parking behind the stores that would be accessed’by the side streets, with left-hand turn lanes to service those areas. The through lanes would not stop in Midtown because of the reduction of curb cuts. The flow would improve compared to the present situation and it would make the area more walkable. If that could not be achieved, then the area would need to be reexamined. CouncilMember Andersen asked whether the bus routes along that area were considered. Mr. Beckett said the bus routes were not discussed. The hope was to improve the flow in Midtown and create a walkable area. Planning Commissioner Kathryn Schmidt said the design consultant believed that that type of circulation would work. The Planning Commission felt that if the items were~the draft Plan, the items would be evaluated in .the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Other neighboring cities could be looked at that had existing situations, e.g., Willow Road from Middlefield Road’to Highway I01 had two lanes and a commercial area near the freeway. 16 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM nttp:~/www.clty.pato-at...tnutcs/l~/ooNt) V 93. IAI http://www.ctty.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/eity/govcmment/mmutes/1995/O6NOV95.T)~. Mr. Carrasco said it was noted during the workshop that people drove slower on Middlefield Road north of Oregon Expressway because of the two lanes and sidewalks and parked cars on either side. South of Oregon Expressway the cars traveled at least i0 miles per hour faster, and pedestrians felt less comfortable even though it was a commercial area. The Council needed to choose between a quieter, smaller scaled pedestrian area versus an automobile throughway. If the Council chose a throughway, Midtown would have less of a chance of becoming a center where people felt comfortable walking. Mayor Simitian asked whether people would have to move slower north to south and south to north or would the traffic be pushed to Alma Street, Highway i01, or nearby adjacent residential streets if the Council made that choice and the area ceased to be a throughway. Mr. Carrasco said if the number of cars in the area remained the same, the alternative would be that the traffic would move onto Louis Road or Cowper Street. People would probably not travel on that street as much if they had an intolerance for time. The true impact of two lanes, three lanesi or four lanes was unknown, and he felt it would be better to continue the issue and discuss it with the rest of the issues regarding Midtown. The Council might come to the conclusion that University Avenue in the Downtown carried the same volume of traffic as Middlefield Road at the Midtown location. Mi. Fleming believed the issue was being considered as a part of the Midtown study. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue the discussion of elements of Policy CD-18.F, "Improvements should be made to Middlefield Road in Midtown only to slow traffiC, make the street pedestrian-friendly, and draw the east and west sides of the commercial area together. The existing right-of-way could be configured to widen sidewalks, reduce the number of travel lanes from four to two, enhance on-street parking, incor of the street, and add street trees to improve the area’s image," that relate to the reduction from four to two lanes until the other issues associated with Midtown are discussed. Council Member Kniss recalled that there was a substantial cost regarding that issue. She asked whether the information would return to the Council with the study. Ms. Fleming did not believe the study would indicate how much it would cost to make the physical changes but it would indicate whether the changes were possible. A rough cost estimate could possibly be done at that time. Council Member Fazzino clarified if the Council approved the continuance, it would retain the possibility of narrowing Middlefield Road based upon the information that the Council received regarding its impact on neighborhood streets and other related concerns. Mayor Simitian said that was correct. He clarified the substitute motion to continue was limited to the reference to reduce the number of travel lanes from four lanes to two lanes and the remainder of Policy CD-18.F would remain in the document. Council Member Andersen said that was correct. He said many of the 17 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM nttp://www.elty.palo-al...mutes/1995/06NOV95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.oa.usipalo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/O6NOV95.TXT issues might have to be evaluated and assessed at a later date. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-1, Kniss "no." Council Member Schneider recommended that the phrase "should be permitted" be changed to "would be desirable" in Program CD-18.GI, As a part of the preparation of a coordinated area plan, prepare a detailed list of the types of local-serving retail uses that should be permitted within the Midtown area,"~and also change the designation to "A." MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to revise the language in Program CD-18.GI to read as follows: "As a part of the preparation of a coordinated area plan, prepare a detailed list of the types of local-serving retail uses that should be permitted would be desirable within the Midtown area," and to make it an "A" designation. Council Member Andersen asked that the motion be divided for the purposes of voting.He was not comfortable with making the program an "A" designation. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING Council Member Andersen said Midtown currently had three video rental stores in the area which concerned the existing merchants. The area had become a regional center for video rentals. Because of market forces, he did not discourage th~ businesses but it was ridiculous to have so many video stores in a center. He asked whether the City could do anything regarding the situation. Mr. Schreiber said the City did not want to regulate nor did the City have the expertise to regulate the number of a particular type of use in commercial areas. He would hesitate to do anything to discourage business owners from starting or upgrading a business in Midtown given the rather tenuous economic environment in that area. Ms. Lytle said as an area beganto upgrade, a collaborative marketing plan could be implemented by property owners and marketing associations for the centers which had been done in other communities. It ~was one way for an economic resources program to encourage, not through zoning tools, the same coalition that was being developed through the planning processes currently underway to understand what made a healthy center and what the City found desirable. It was a public/private collaboration rather’than a requirement. Council Member Schneider said that was one reason she wanted Policy CD-18.GI elevated to an "A" designation. A list of the types of businesses that would be desirable would encourage diversity within the center. There were very few areas she would support allowing anything but market forces dictate what type of business belonged in an area. Marketingthe area with a list of desirable businesses would only improve the area more rapidly. Council Member Huber asked what would be done with the list. Council Member Schneider said the list would send a clear message about what was desired in the area. ~There was a strong desire on the part of the members of CPAC and the people from the Midtown area to have specific types Of local serving businesses in the area. As the area became updated, there was a better chance of getting a mix of businesses. 18 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM nrtp://www.elty.palo-al...mutes/1 ~’3/00Nt) V 9~. 12k I http://www.city.pato-alto.ea,us/palo/city/government/minutes/1995/O6NOV95.TXq Council Member Huber clarified that was part of the.preparation of a coordinated area plan. Council Member Schneider said that was correct. ist PART OF THE MOTION regarding the revised language to delete should be permitted and to add would be desirable. Ist PART OF THE MOTION PASSED 9-0. 2nd PART OF THEMOTION regarding A designation. 2ND PART OF THE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Andersen, Wheeler "no." Mayor Simitian said it was the appropriate place in the Plan to discuss the issue of the Town and Country Village Shopping Center. Council Member Rosenbaum felt the Town and Country Village Shopping Center (Town and Country Village) was an attractive shopping area but it might be an area that was under pressure. The ownership would eventually change, and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) would probably build a facility next door. He believed it was important to maintain the character and ambience of the area. He emphasized that his proposal would not require that there would be no changes because the configuration of the area could change. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to add a new Goal CD-18-A, "Maintain the existing scale, architectural character and community-serving retail orientation of the Town and Country Village Shopping Center"; and Policy CD-18.A-A, "Any future development plans or efforts to add residential or other land uses to the Town and Country Village Shopping Center should seek to preserve the existing amenities on the site, i.e., a variety of community-serving fetaL1 shops and grocery stores; native oak trees; Hacienda-style buildings, walkways and outdoor spaces; and authentic random-colored barrel tile roofs." Vice Mayor Wheeler asked what had been done in the previous sections, i.e., Business and Economics, with respect to the Town and Country Village and whether there was anything in those sections that was inconsistent with the proposed motion. She said the language on page 26 of the CD Section indicated a different potential vision for the Town and Country Village than had been enunciated in the motion. Mr. Schreiber said the reference on page 26 of the CD Section was under the Dream Team which spoke about the feasibility of placing housing on a portion of the site. The intent was to either have it included as part of the redevelopment of the site, if and when that happened, or to be done as an adjunct to the existing center or a renovated center. A more substantive program in terms of change addressed Town and Country Village as a potential hotel site which had been deleted by the Planning Commission and the Council. Council Member Andersen said that type of shopping center had almost disappeared in other areas of the state. He asked whether the. owner of the property still owned a similar site in Sunnyvale. Mr. Schreiber said the owner previously owned the San Jose Town and Country Shopping Center and might still own the shopping center in Sunnyvale. Council Member Andersen was correct that those types of shopping centers had disappeared over the previous 5 to 10 years. 19 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM http://www.eity.palo-al...inutes/1995/06NOV95 .TXT http://www,eity,palo-alto.ca.us/paio/eity/governmentlminutes/1995/O6NO¥95.T~ Council Member Andersen asked why the City still had that type of shopping center. Mr. Schreiber said a site such as the Town and Country Village had a high land value and a low building value. When a site was sold, the economic return off the buildings did not usually match the sale price so the desire was to build new contemporary buildings that were viewed as better suited to today’s market.The Town and Country Village had not changed for 35 plus years.. Council Member Andersen asked what was the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the site. Mr. Schreiber said the FAR was approximately 0.25. Council Member Andersen asked whether the proposed program would mandate a style. He was concerned about the legality of such a proposal. Mr. Calonne explained that there was no implementation set out in the proposed program. The planning document would not have any actionable impact on the property rights. Some issues might have to be dealt with when the rezoning was implemented. Nothing was insurmountable or unique about the proposal, and that kind of planning happened frequently. Council Member Andersen asked how the Town and Country Village compared with.other retai’l areas in the City. He did not believe it was a major economic development because of the size of the site. Mr. Schreiber said his sense of the economic activity at the Town and Country Village over the previous I0 to 15 years was that it had not kept up with the Downtown or the Stanford Shopping Center. The sales revenue had probably not kept up with inflation. Council Member Andersen asked whether the proposal preclude~ the use of the rear parking lot. He felt the land use on the site was inefficient. He asked what was meant by the phrase "maintain the existing scale." Council Member~Rosenbaum said Policy’CD-18.A-A, "Any future development plans or efforts to add residential or other land uses to the Town and Country Village Shopping Center should seek to preserve the existing amenities on the site...," related to that issue. There was some wasted space at the rear of the site which could be used for something else, but he wantedto maintain the character of the area. The proposal would not prevent or preclude additional construction. Council Member Andersen asked whether it would be acceptable for an owner to present a proposal that added additional FAR but main- tained the existing amenities and style of the site. Council Member Rosenbaum said the goal and policy as stated would allow that type of proposal, but there was existing limits that would not allow a great deal of expansion over the current FAR. Council Member Huber said the Council reduced the FAR on Town and Country Village in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study and he asked what was the current FAR’for the site. Mr. Schreiber said the existing FAR was in the range of 0.3. The ht~p://www.city.palo-al...inutes/1995/06NOV95 .TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/O6NOV95.TX zoning allowed approximately 20,000 square feet of addit±onal expansion. He clarified there were no direct references to the Town and Country Village in the Business and Economics Section of the Plan. Council Member Huber clarified approximately 20,000 additional square feet could be added to the site. Mr. Schreiber said’that was correct. Council Member Kniss clarified the proposal would perpetrate the type of character and ambience of the center. However, there was a possibility of change if the ownership of the center changed. Mayor Simitian referred to Goal CD-18-A and said he recalled that there was a fair amount of office use on the second floor of site. He asked whether the proposed language had any impact on that use. Council Member Rosenbaum wanted a retail center but said that the phrase "retail orientation" in the goal would continue to allow the existing second-story office use. Council Member McCown supported the motion. She felt the proposal was the kind of policy statement that the Council should make in that situation and it did not define exactly what the future mix might be. The policy direction would be defined as to how the site would be reused if additional proposals or redevelopment of the property came forward. She felt the proposal was exactly the guidance that the Comprehensive Plan should provide without indicating what the FAR might be in the future. Council Member Fazzino reminded the Council that the development in the late 1950s replaced one of the most historic structures in Palo Alto history--the John Lucas’ Greet home. He agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum’s intent that the site retain the current scale and intensity of use. He believed it was.particularly important given the location of a high school and the entrance to Stanford University on three other sides of the intersection. He enthusias- tically supported the motion. Council Member Schneider said the Town and Country Village had less turnover of tenants that any of the other neighborhood shopping center in the City. Many of the businesses had been at that location since the center opened. She believed retaining the existing architectural’style of the site would be compatible with the proposed architectural style for the PAMF’s ex.pansion. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Andersen "no," Kniss absent. Mayor Simitian suggested that Midtown be added to Neighborhood Centers on page 36 of the Plan. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to revise Policy CD-19.A to read: "Identify Charleston Center, Edgewood, and Alma Center, and Midtown as Neighborhood Centers." MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Huber said the Policy CD-18.B, "Maintain the scale and local-serving focus of Midtown and enhance ~the economic vitality of the area," could be generically used for all of the neighborhood centers. nt~p://www.city.palo-at...mutes/ l~3/ooNtgVS~. I.AI http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.usipalo/ctty/govemmentlmmutes/1995/O6NOV95.T)~ MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Simitian, to include the language from Policy CD-18.B, "Maintain the scale and local-serving focus of Midtown and enhance the economic vitality of the area," under Goal CD-19, "Encourage local commercial centers that serve neighborhoods. (local shopping, groceries, restaurants, bookstores)," as a reference for all neighborhood centers. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Andersen asked whether the proposed language would not allow further expansion of the grocery stores in those areas. Council Member Huber did not believe the generic statement about economic vitality spoke for or against such an expansion. Mayor Simitian said Edgewood Shopping Center also served East Palo Alto and he asked whether the language about "local serving" included East Palo Alto. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member McCown clarified that the possibility of area plans for those centers was contemplated in that section. The staff’s comments on page 36 recommendedan alternative to CD-19.A2 which did not need to be in the document at the present time. When the Council received the results of the study from the Midtown area, there might be some expanded g~nerically applicable programs that could put in the Plan for the other neighborhood centers. She asked staff to note the possibilities for other neighborhood centers when the Council discussed the programs in the Neighborhood Center Section of the Plan after the Midtown process, She asked whether there was a direct discussion analysis and recommendation one way or the other from CPAC on the issue of grocery .store size. Council Member Schneider referred to Policy CD-20.B, "Add small local-serving retail to Civic Centers, and Program CD-20.BI, "Encourage the provision of small cafes, delis, or coffee carts in Civic Centers," and said there had been some discussion about placing local serving retail at Civic Centers, particularly the Civic Center Plaza. There was a number of coffee shops in the general area of Civic Center Plaza and those businesses could .be negatively impacted by a coffee cart in the area. The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and a number of business owners had brought the matter to her attention. The people who owned the carts did not pay the kind of rents that the local businesses had to pay in order to maintain their businesses. The Cultural Center was an example of an area where there was no local businesses close by no businesses were impacted by a coffee cart. She suggested the program’s language be more specific regarding whether there were local businesses to serve the public within a certain distance. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to revise Program CD-20.BI to read: "Encourage the provision of small cafes, delis, or coffee carts in Civic Centers, where local serving businesses were not nearby." Council Member McCown asked whether coffee carts were permitted in Civic Centers. Mr. Schreiber said a civic center was defined as public facilities, schools, parks, meeting halls, or public gathering places, including City Hall, post offices, Cubberley Community Center, libraries, the Cultural Center, high schools, etc. The City did 22 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM http://www.city.palo-al...inutes! 1995/06NOV95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca,us/palo/city/govemment/mmutes/1995/OONOVg~.TXl not have a procedural mechanism in place to allow vendors on Civic Center Plaza. The City did allow push cart vendors in a number of locations in the Downtown area. Council Member McCown asked how the language would change what was currently being done. Mayor Simitian clarified it would encourage a process to be put in place that would allow small cafes, delis, or coffee carts in a greater number of locations than was currently accommodated. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. The program came from the effort toput those amenities in Civic Centers where it was the only walkable destination for large segments of the community. It was discovered that there were some neighborhoods in the community that only had a civic center that people could walk to. Council Member McCown was uncertain how the Council could distin- guish one site as~off limits and then allow another site to have a~ cart on the sidewalk. Ms. Fleming explained that the term ,civic center" was used to describe certain areas and did not refer to just Civic Center Plaza. She said Council Member Schneider’s effort was to indicate that the amenities should not compete with local businesses. Council Member McCown said there were other locations in the Downtown where similar types of uses would compete with local businesses. It did not make sense for the Council to make the distinction that it could not be done on Civic Center Plaza. Council Member Fazzino clarified the proposed motion’s position was against the municipalizing of the coffee cart industry in Palo Alto. He understood the intent of the motion, but he was concerned about establishing a p~licy that prohibited the Council from doing something. He was uncertain that there was a great need for coffee carts in front of Civic Center Plaza given the proliferation of coffee shops in the Downtown area. At the same time, the Council might decide at some point in the future to allow a person to run an espresso franchise at the Civic Center Plaza to serve City employees and the public. He agreed that in places such a Cubberley Community Center and the Cultural Center that providing those kinds of services were important to Palo Altans. He felt the policy language addressed the concerns that Council Member Schneider had about interfering with private businesses in the Downtown area, but at the same time, he felt creative steps could be taken to provide those kinds of services in areas where they were needed. Council Member Andersen said some people preferred to stand outside and eat, and he did not believe those businesses competed with the retail establishments in Palo Alto. He would oppose the motion. Vice Mayor Wheeler was concerned that the motion would adversely impact the Farmer’s Market which was temporarily located on a civic space and was composed of small carts that sold products that other merchants in the Downtown sold. She would not want to put that institution in peril either. She would oppose the motion. Mayor Simitian said the Civic Center section of the Plan was more important than people realized. One of the themes that ran through the entire process was the desirability for and the need to create community spaces. It was a function of Community Design to create 23 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AlVl nttp://www.ctty.palo--al...mutes/1995/06NOV95 .TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/eity/govemment/minutes/1995/O6NOV95 .TX’] spaces that reinforced the City’s notion of community that brought people together and gave them an opportunity to interact. The reason there had been the proliferation of little places to gather in the City on a commercial level was because the community had a tremendous desire for gathering places. When the community had 22 elementary schools, the schools served as neighborhood centers where people gathered. The discussions regarding E1 Camino Rea! and Midtown were about the same thing. He hoped as the Council continued its discussion that it took every opportunity to reinforce rather than resist anything that gave people a place to find some sense of community. He noted the use of the Civic Center Plaza since it had become lighted. Public spaces needed certain things to make them work, and vendors would make that multi-million dollar public space a genuine public gathering point. Anything that could be done in the City along those lines was worthwhile. Council Member Schneider emphasized that she was not opposed to public gathering places. She had been approached by coffee shop owners, particularly the ones that surrounded ClVlC Center Plaza, who were concerned about the lost of business. Mr. Calonne said the Council’s discussion was a subject that Went beyond the Comprehensive Plan. The First Amendment regulations went along with a successful Downtown.. He referred to a conversa- tion he had with a colleague from Santa Monica who indicated that if a city did not have a detailed plan to deal with street vending and other First Amendment issues in a downtown, then it meant the city did not have a downtown. The issue went beyond planning. MOTION FAILED 2-6, Schneider, Rosenbaum "yes," Kniss absent. Council Member Huber believed it was a good idea to encourage churches and other facilities to be neighbor oriented, but some of the facilities were in the middle of a residential area and because of their religious nature offered many things that often irritated the neighbors. He offered revised language for Program CD-20.C2. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to revise Program CD-20.C2 ’to read: "The City shall develop incen- tives (and remove barriers) to encourage religious and private institutions to offer facilities in a way that promotes a sense of community within the neighborhood where the institution is located." Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He might want to go even further and promote activities which brought about impacts which were consistent with ordinances related to residential areas. Neighborhoods did not want excessive traffic, parking, and noise. Most of the situations were social service programs which took place in churches. Council Member Huber clarified that that situation probably fell under the ageous of religious and was protected. Mayor Simitian recalled the Council’s discussion on the compatibil- ity on Colorado Avenue, and Council Member Fazzino was vehement that the Council should be more flexible, notwithstanding the concerns about compatibility with residential character. It was easy to have one view generically but it was more difficult when it was on a case-by-case basis. Council Member Fazzino believed there needed to be some language related to compatibility with the residential neighborhood. He 24 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM http:iiwww.eity.palo-al...inutes/1995/06N OV95.TXT http:/iwww.oity.palo-alto.ea.us!palo/etty/governmentlmmutes/1995/O6NOV95.TX~ felt that the previous proposal for St. Mark’s was compatible with the neighborhood. He asked whether the Council was precluded from taking action in that area because of First Amendment issues. Mr. Calonne was not concerned about the planning language statement to encourage, but he was concerned when the Council’s discussions were about providing incentives because there was a California Constitutional concern that might have rule. The Council had the ability to take action if the Council stayed in the land use arena. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION "The City shall encourage religious and private institutions to offer facilities in a way that promotes a sense of community within and is compatible with the neighborhood where the institution is located." MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Fazzino supported Policy CD-20.C, ."Seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities in neighborhoods that are not close to existing cultural and community centers." He said the intent of Program CD-20.CI, "Identify specific school sites which could serve neighborhoods lacking adequate public gathering places," went beyond the policy recommended in Policy CD-20.C. Program CD-20.Cl did not limit the need to provide access to art and cultural facilities in neighborhoods throughout the City and suggested that school sites could be used as public gathering places for arts, cultural, and other activities. He asked staff to review the program and make sure it related directly to the policy. Mr. Schreiber responded to Council Member Andersen’s earlier question regarding grocery stores. He said on page 18 of the Business and Economics Section,~ Goal BE-17, "Promote and enhance revitalization of Midtown," and the Policy BE-17.A, "Review the effect of size caps, parking requirements, and other land use restrictions on viability and competitive advantage of Midtown and other neighborhood commercial shopping centers," which was the only reference to the size cap issue. The term "grocery store" was not used but it clearly referred to all the different uses that had size caps and grocery stores were a major use. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded byWheeler, to continue discussion of.the Community Design Section to a Special City Council meeting on Thursday, November 16, 1995. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. in memory of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating.the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are 25 of 26 5/27/97 9:59 AM nttp://www.cJty,palo-al...mutes/19~5/O6NOV95,TXT http://www.oity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/oity/govemment/minutes/1995/O6NOV95.T~ 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. 26 of 26 ,5/27/97 9:59 AM http://www.oity.palo-al...inutes! 1995/27NOV95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/eity/government~minutes/1995/2TNOV95.TX Regular Meeting November 27, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ’. ..................77-345 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 1995 ..........77-345 Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C3037944 between the City of Palo Alto and Roberta Enterprises, Inc. for Temporary Agency Services ................... 77-345 Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Gainer and Associates for Used Oil Recycling Program Development ................ ¯ ...... 77-345 Resolution 7555 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the "Consolidated General and Special Municipal Elections Held on Tuesday, November 7, 1995. . . ~ ......... 77-345 Ordinance 4310 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.31.040 of Chapter 2.31 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Disposition of Unclaimed Property Other than Vehicles77-346 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS. ........77-346’ 4A. (Old Item No. 6) Status Report and Recommendation to Extend the Site Option and Timing of the Single Room Occupancy Project at 725-753 Alma Street ...... , 77-346 PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee ...................77-349 Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ....77-375 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. in memory of Dr. Barney Oliver .................. 77-375 Regular Meeting November 27, 1995 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT:Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown~ Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding the exciting conclusion to the sweeping saga of the big beer can caper. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding Tammany Hall in Palo Alto (letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office). Irvin Dawid, 3886 La Donna, spoke regarding prioritization of transportation modes. 1 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM ,lttp://www.oity.palo-ai...mutes! I VV.~/27N O V93.t X’I http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us!palo/city/government/minutes/1995/27NOV95.T?< Joseph Violette, 95 Crescent Street, spoke regarding traffic (letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office). APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of October 16, 19954, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION:Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C3037944 between the City of Palo Alto and Roberta Enterprises, Inc. for Tempora~ry Agency Services Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C3037893 between the City of Palo Alto and Wollborg Michelson Personnel Services, Inc. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C3037888 between the City of Palo Alto and Kelly Temporary Services, Inc. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Gainer and AssoCiates for Used Oil Recycling Program Development Resolution 7555 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Consolidated General and Special Municipal Elections Held on Tuesday, November 7, 1995" Ordinance 4310 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.31.040 of Chapter 2.31 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Disposi- tion of Unclaimed Property Other than Vehicles" (ist Reading 11/13/95, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to bring Item NO. 6 forward to become Item No. 4A. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. ORDINANCES 4A. (Old Item No. 6) Status Report and Recommendation to Extend the Site Option and Timing of the Single Room Occupancy Project at 725-753 Alma.Street Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney, called the Council’s attention to the supplemental report from the City Attorney Office dated November 22, 1995, which included the latest version of amendments to the option and purchase agreement for the subject property. There were two substantive changes between th~ report the Council received in their~packets and the one at Council’s places that evening. On page 3, Section 4, there was an amendment to the purchase agreement which essentially simplified the timing 2 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM nttp:i/www.clty,palo-a|,..mutes/I~93/27NtAV~3. IAI http:/iwww.clty.palo-alto.ea.us/palolcity/govemment/minutes/1995/27NOV95,TX’l for the close of escrow to be within i0 days. Also, on page 4, there was new language concerning the remediation of soil contami- nation as the seller of the property completed a remediation effort that he was obliged to undertake. It also gave the City as the buyer, until the option was assigned to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), reasonable access to the property during the 9ption period should the buyer wish to further investigate. Should the option be exercised, it would allow the ability to do a clean up or terminate the option’if something were found. Staff did not feel that would be necessary, but it was important for the option to be available. She also called attention to a typographical error in the title of Attachment 2, the Budget Amendment Ordinance, in.the City Manager’s Staff Report (CMR:494:95), on the last line, the word "occupance" should be "occupancy." Council Member Andersen referred to pages 4 and 5 of the November 22, 1995, Report from the City Attorney. He asked if it were discovered that a substantial amount of unanticipated clean up became necessary than was anticipated at the time the agreement took place, would the City be fully responsible for any future clean up or was there a way to back out of the agreement. Ms. Cauble said the option and purchase agreement as amended would give the City or the PAHC~the ability to do further investigation if deemed necessary and if conditions were discovered that indicated there was contamination, which was unknown to the City and would be costly to clean up, the City would not have to follow through on the purchase of the property. Council Member Andersen clarified that there was no condition for the seller to be responsible for clean up; it was the City’s responsibility or the deal would be forfeited. Ms. Cauble said that was correct. The seller’s obligation for clean up had always been limited throughout the transaction and he had fulfilled the responsibilities included. The documents before the Council that evening did not make any changes but gave the City the right for additional investigation during the extended option period and to terminate the transaction if it chose to. Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Paio Alto H~using ¯ Corporation, 540 Cowper Street, said if Council supported the motion it would make the PAHC’s application for tax credit financing stronger and it would be in compliance with the new tax credit requirement due December II, 1995. The results would be become available in approximately 60 days. There were two main objectives: I) to provide the PAHC, as sponsor of the project, with site coDtrol as defined under the new Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plan which required an option extension and that the option be assigned to the PAHC so there would be no question that the PAHC had site control upon the date of apblication; and 2) to commit the local funding which was a requirement of the tax credit program. She pointed out that the Budget Amendment Ordinance committed a maximum amount assuming that Other subsidies were not forthcoming. She said the affordable housing grant had been recommended for approval for at least $350,000, depending on the interest rate at the eventual time of closing. The PAHC was optimistic that Palo Alto would get the Home Investment Partnership Programs (HOME) money. The last HOME grant was used very rapidly and effectively for the Barker Hotel. The PAHC remained cautiously optimistic about tax credits because, as the Council was aware, the tax credit program had changed over the summer. Palo Alto remained very competitive. The maximum allocation for Single Room Occupancy 3 of 28 5/27/97 10:00AM nttp://www.¢tty.palo-al...tnutes/1995/27NOV9iTXT " http://www.eity.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/governmentiminutes/1995/27NOV95.TX’I (SRO) was i0 percent of the credit; however, the project would still score well without any major adjustments, particularly with competition and affordability of the targeted population at 35 percent of the area median income. The PAHC made a strategy decision upon the advice of its tax credit financial consultant and marketing consultant, in conjunction with the City staff, to lower the rents somewhat which would make it even more competitive in the affordability pool of the tax credit competition. It wouldcost the City more in the subsidy but was the best chance ~for the PAHC to get the other major funding. Without that funding, the PAHC would not be able to accomplish the project. The PAHC had become more cautious about operating costs and reserves so the project would be and always would remain an asset to the community. If those two objectives were accomplished that evening, the PAHC could move forward to the next stage and continue to work toward making the project a reality for the City. Council Member Fazzino said the staff report (CMR:494:95) indicated that the new rating system adopted by the Tax Credit Allocation Committee improved the City’s chances for approval. Yet, it had been stated by Senior Planner, Housing Cathy Siegel and Ms. Prendergast that SRO’s were a less favored housing type. He asked what was more favorable about the rules. Ms. Prendergast said there was nothing more favorable, it was that the expectation was for the new rules to be disastrous and they were not. The finite amount for SRO’s could be problematic and that was the basis for the PAHC’s decision to lower the rents because of the way the benchmarks were controlled. It only slightly would beat out those areas which were most likely to be presenting SRO’s into the system. Council Member Fazzino clarified that to have the project score well under the new rating system might be too optimistic a conclusion. Ms. Prendergast said the project would probably score well, but it was a question of how many others, from where, that might be a tenth of a point better. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to an editorial in The San Jose Mercury News on November 26, 1995, that suggested tax credits were in danger due to a proposal in Congress to end tax credits. He asked whether that would apply to the PAHC’s current application or was it something that might happen in the future. Ms. Prendergast said she had not seen the editorial, but it had been discussed frequently during the past six months. Her understanding of the bill before Congress was that it would apply in 1997. Council Member Rosenbaum asked Ms. Prendergast how often she anticipated those tax credit awards to be made. He said if the project were not awarded in the current round, could there be another round consistent with the length extension of the option that was being proposed. Ms. Prendergast said yes. There should be another application made in April 1996 and the results of that would be known in June 1996. If that occurred, the PAHC would have to look realistically at why the tax credits were not awarded and whether it was hopeless or something could be changed or fixed. 4 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM http:/iwww.eity.palo--al...inutos/1995/27NOV95.TXT http://www.oity.palo-alto.ca.us!palo/eity/govemment/minutes!1995/27NOV95.TXq Council Member Rosenbaum confirmed’ that the project could fail on the first application but would still have an opportunity to be awarded a tax credit. Ms. Prendergast replied time wise, yes. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to: I) approve the Second Amendment to the Option Amendment and Purchase Agreement extending the option to purchase the 725-753 Alma Street property to December 31, 1996, and modifying provisions concerning site remediation as negotiated by staff; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment to the Option Agreement and Purchase Agreement in substantially similar form, and direct the City Manager to administer the provisions of the agreements as amended; 3) adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to appropriate $32,501 in Commercial Housing In-Lieu Funds to pay the option extension costs through May 31, 1996 as amended to revise the title to read "Occupancy" instead of "Occupant"; 4) approve the Assign- ment of Option Agreement to assign the amended Option Agreement and Purchase Agreement to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation; 5) authorize the Mayor to execute the Assignment of Option Agreement in Substantially similar form, and direct the City Manager to ’administer the provisions of the Assignment of Option Agreement; and 6) adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to appropriate $2,400,000 in Commercial Housing In-Lieu Funds to set-aside the maximum amount of local subsidy funds projected for the acquisition of the site and the development of the SRO project. Second Amendment to Option Agreement and Escrow Instructions and PurchaseAgreement Proposed Assignment of Option Agreement to Palo Alto Housing Corporation Ordinance 4311 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Six Additional Months of Payments for the City’s Option to Purchase 725-753 Alma Street for Single Room Occupancy Housing" Ordinance 4312 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide Funding. for the Alma Single Room Occupancy Housing Project at 725-753 Alma Street" MOTION PASSE~ 7~0, McCown, schneider absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit- tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto’s future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transpor- tation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direction for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update (continued from November 16, 1995) The City Council reviewed the Governance portion-of the Governance and Community Services (GV) Section of the Comprehensive Plan and 5 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM iattp:/iwww.ctty.palo--al...mutes/1995/27NOV95 .TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govomment/minutes/1995/27NOV95.T~¢ there was one hour of public communication at the .beginning of the section. Bob Kirkwood, ChairpersOn, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, Governance and Community Services Subcommittee, focused on four points. He said several people had asked why there was a GV Section in the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). It had been suggested to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) Governance and Community Services Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) that Other cities had included those sections’ in their comprehen- sive plans which had provided a useful base for longer term planning beyond land use. A task force formed and received information from two cities, Pasadena and Mountain View, whose comprehensive plans had such sections, and two significant land use items emerged: participation and early involvement in the planning process for more specific projects. Two additional points in the services area were the concept of leverage: working with other jurisdictions, government agencies and private sector groups, and the area of quality which was really a mind-set to be more customer-oriented and to think about process improvement. Those ideas were also being considered by other government agencies with some value, and the thought was to try and encourage Palo .Alto, which was already very community-oriented, to go a little further in that direction. Another area that staff had discussed at length was the idea of electronic communication. The idea was that Palo Alto should be a leader in the field of electronic communications and that items such as providing access for the general public who could not afford equipment or a network connection at home needed to be explored. The Subcommittee put some specifics into policies and programs which would capture the idea and if the specifics did not hold up, it would at least encourage thinking beyond that. The participation element broke down into two areas: First, the Planning Commission and consideration of enhancing the Planning Commission’s ~ole and looking at the need for more commissions in specific areas. In many .jurisdictions, planning commissions were normally the final decision maker on many land use decisions subject to appeal to the Council. The Subcommittee felt that giving the Planning Commission the stature of final decision maker subject to appeal to the Council would have considerable merit in terms of reducing repetitive presentations, potentially reducing the number of items brought to the Council, and would be an appropriate direction to go in strengthening the role of the Planning Commission and broadening its effective participation in the City’s decision making. Second, was encouraging engagement of people through the strength of neighborhood groups. It would not transfer power to a particular neighborhood group b~t would encourage neighborhoods to have more effective participation in the life of their neighborhoods. Some people found it difficult to get engaged at a city level but could get involved if it meant planting trees in their neighborhood, setting up a citizen watch, earthquake preparedness, etc. The tendency in discussions was to i~ediately think about the most controversial or planning issues and assume that was the core of the proposal. Neighborhood groups got engaged in controversial land use issues when the issues involved their own neighborhoods and did so effectively and constructively. The. Subcommittee felt that neighborhood organizations should be encouraged and suggested some specific approaches to allow a connection to the City that many people might find more attractive than the present options available to them. On the planning front, he felt that the staff comments caught the essence of what CPAC wanted and did’a good job of relating it to known processes in the City. CPAC wanted to reinforce the idea of coordinated area plans’ with major areas in town which would likely warrant significant 6 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM http://www.city.palo-al...inutes/1995/27NOV95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/government/minutes/1995/27NOV95.TXq well staffed efforts and the possibility of constructively having neighbors brought into discussions around specific sites ~and also the in between area of small areas and large sites where a signifi- cant redevelopment might occur. He hoped there could be new ways to streamline the process that would make it possible to facilitate something that was fairly light in process and reasonable for developers to use at the time of decision which would engage the neighbors in the discussions to determine how the land should be used. It would be helpful if there were a way to allow developers to .receive feedback that would include some City involvement. Encouraging neighborhood interest at the time of the actual building design would not preclude people from speaking later on in the process, but by drawing .people out early on, ideas could be heard and explanations given as to why they could or could not be accommodated. The hope would be to reduce the degree of conflict over any given site and go forward on good design. Sandy Eakins, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit- tee, had heard a comment at one of the earlier Public Hearings that she wanted to add, "The GV Section was conceived and supported to do work like bridging the gap between government and folks." Keeping the folks in mind and building a trust in government was a concept that needed nurturing; to have trust and collaboration with the community. Planning Commissioner Bernard Beecham said the Planning Commission agreed with staff that perhaps the CPAC overestimated the value of what could happen with it in terms of streamlining the government, etc. The Planning Commission changed the wording from "most land use decisions" to "more land use decisions" should be delegated to the Planning Commission. Currently, there were no land use decisions made by the Planning Commission. As staff noted, appropriate land use decisions might be Zoning Administrator appeals, subdivision maps, and some site and design reviews. Benefits to the Council could be up that Up to one-quarter of the Planning issues that went before Council might be eliminated and one-quarter of the applicants might not have to go through the process. Staff also indicated that a Charter change would be required to delegate those responsibilities to the Planning Commission. He referred to Goal GV-2, "The Council will use advisory commissions of citizens to review and clarify issues coming to the Council," and said using the prototypical CPAC as an example, benefits included an incredible amount of work, broad community involvement, and many new ideas. On the negative side, it was extremely staff consuming, did not guarantee bringing the community together for a decision, and stretched out the time frame. Putting aside the much talked about Library Commission or Utilities Commission, and speaking on an ad hoc basis, there were uses for advisory committees in Palo Alto, but they needed to be well defined, well controlled, and well specified in terms of objectives and lifetime. He referred to Goal GV-4, "Palo Alto residents are effective community citizens and their neighborhood organizations are strong and contribute to a sense of community," and Goal GV-9, "Planning policy changes and some implementations . are preceded by public outreach scaled to the magnitude of the change," and said Goal GV-4 would encourage and facilitate neighborhood organizations. There were some organizations in Palo Alto that were well organized, had a good staff, provided valuable input, and were trusted resources. There were cases where support- ing and working with neighborhood organizations could make it more efficient for the City to find out what the neighborhoods wanted and work out a consensus within those neighborhoods. Goal GV-9 provided for a quasi-formal neighborhood preview which the Planning 7 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM nttp://www,clty.palo-al...mutes/19~3/21NOV93.fX’l http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/government/minutes/1995/27NOV95.TXq Commission recommended eliminating. Implications were quasi-formal reviews by quasi-formal organizations and approvals. The Planning Commission felt that if it went that level, the City would be required to be involved with those quasi-formal organizations, such as by-laws, elections, etc. Supporting and enhancing those organizations was fine. The Planning Commission did not have a way to resolve the issue, but in some cases the term "neighborhood organization" could be replaced with "neighbors and residents." He felt staff could find additional ways to get neighborhoods more involved. The basic idea worked, but he asked how the City could make it to happen or better support it. ’Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber¯ referred to staff report (CMR:509:95), and noted staff’s suggestion that the issues of Governance and the issues of Community Services be separated. Staff felt the Council should begin consideration of the issues of Governance, and Community Services could be addressed at a later date with another opportunity for the CPAC, Planning Commission, and public to participate. The Council also received a revised version of the staff report (CMR:295:95) dated November 13, 1995, regarding coordinated area plans which was a concept brought forward by CPAC as part of the GV Section discussion, The staff report provided significant detail that was developed after the work by CPAC and Planning Commission had been completed. Staff’s thoughts on area planning had evolved from cautious support to a conclusion of much stronger sympathy with area planning in certain areas of the community and the value of it. Contrary to the other materials the Council had reviewed, governance was not required by state planning law or guidelines and was an optional area as far as the Plan was concerned. Staff was concerned with incorporating the GV Section into the body of the Plan. If a governance related policy- and program-type document was desired by the Council, the Planning Department concluded it would be best done as a separate document rather than incorporated into the Plan. He complimented CPAC for raising the governance issue; it was not part of the initial work program. CPAC had responded to a lot of public input and had done a good service in providing the Council with B variety of issues and policy and program material that staff concluded should be the basis of a productive and valuable public discussion. Council Member Fazzino referred to staff comments with respect to delegating items to the Planning Commission. He was surprised at the negative conclusion that only 28 to 32 percent or fewer planning applications would end up before the Council. He viewed the percentage as a fairly significant reduction and wondered why staff did not. Mr. Schreiber.said it was unfortunate if staff had come across as negative. Staff was responding to a perception that a majority of the planning items could stay at the Planning Commission level. There were a number of types of applications that had to go to the Council by law. Staff wanted to be cautious that it was not a delegation from the Planning Commission, which might be a good idea, but not a cure all for the amount of time the Council spent on planning issues. There would still be many planning items that dealt with development applications. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Council would spend 28 to 32 percent less time on planning issues as a result of delegating those issues, or whether there would not be an appreciable reduction of time spent on planning items at the Council level based upon the need to bring ~ number of items before the Council, 8 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM http://www.city.palo-al..inutes/1995/27NOV95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto,ca.us/palo/city/governmentJminutes!1995/27NOV95,T)C as well as the likely controversial nature of a number of items. Mr. Schreiber said the items that were logical to the staff and Planning Commission were usually not controversial, and the more controversial items would tend to go to the Council or would likely be appealed in order to get the decision beyond the Planning Commission. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the CPAC thought there would be a significant reduction in time and energy devoted by the Council to planning issues if CPAC’s proposal were adopted. Mr. Kirkwood said when he sat on a city council for another city, it was exceptional to see a land use matter. Only the most controversial issues went before the Council, such as variances which were required by state law. It would depend on the confi- dence established between the Planning Commission and the Council and whether the Council supported the Planning Commission’s deci- sions. Mr. Schreiber said if smaller jurisdictions, 25,000 to 30,000 population or less, in the Bay Area were looked at, nearly all planning decisions, variances, use permits, etc., went before the City Council. In larger jurisdictions like San Jose, relatively few decisions went before the City Council. In San Jose, staff had greater decision-making authority and subdivisions did not go to the Planning Commission unless appealed. Palo Alto was in the raiddle from a population and size standpoint where there were expectations reasonably accessible to the Council and at the same time an activity volume, such as almost all issues went before the Council in Saratoga or Los Gatos. Variances and use permits stayed with staff unless appealed, design review stayed with the Architec- tural Review Board (ARB) which was technically a staff decision, and appeals, subdivisions, etc., went to the Council. It was a matter of where in that spectrum the City felt the most comfort- able. There was no magic answer, and if the Council so desired, there could be a movement toward greater delegation to the Planning . Commission. Planning Commissioner’Phyllis Cassel said for those people who had noncontroversial items, it could mean a sa~ings of one or more months in time. If people came to a negotiated agreement before applying to the Planning Commission, they would not have to go on" to Council level, but sometimes there was no point in making a negotiated agreement at the Planning Commission level because the item would have to go to Council anyway, which lost the ability for the Planning Commission .to help negotiate. If the extra step was not made, it meant money saved for preparation for the Planning Commission and time saved for the Council and the .applicant. Mr. Beecham added that if the Planning Commission actually had potential final authority, for other than an appeal that went to the Council, the Planning Commission would be more motivated to find and explain solutions to both sides of any issue, so hopefully both parties went away feeling their concerns had been taken care of. Council Member Andersen said there was an interest in making the process more participatory and at the same time taking out a level of participation. He asked whether it would be possible for something to’slip by people more easily as a result of streamlin- ing, whether it would make it less likely for people to be aware of a change, or whether there would be some resentment on the part of 9 of 28 ’5~7~7 !0:00 AM http://www.city.palo-al...mutes/1995/27NOV95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/government/minutes/1995/27NOV95.TX the public for having the process end at the Planning Commission level. He asked for responses from both the CPAC and the Planning Commission. Mr. Kirkwood said a comment he heard during the CPAC process was that maintaining neighborhood interest until the last hearing was a problem. People were reluctant to participate early in the review because the neighborhood interest would not be sustained until it went to the Council. He sensed that issues that attracted participation were known early on in the process and people would go to the Planning Commission, especially if the Planning Commis- sion became the final decision maker in more instances. He felt the Council would want the Planning Commission’s role to be a serious one that people were vitally interested in and wanted to become engaged in. There were some features that could be considered streamlining but that was not the primary motive. It would change the positioning and what the City Charter said about the role of the Planning Commission, and it was a very attractive way for broadening the base of decision making in the City. Ms. Cassel had not noticed a difference between the people who attended Planning Commission and City Council meetings. If it were a controversial issue, it would go to the Council regardless. Mr. Schreiber said the most extensive noticing was~done for the Planning Commission hearing; cards were mailed to every property owner within 300 feet, etc. When the item came out of the Planning Commission, the notice for City Council hearings was just a newspaper ad, properties were not renoticed. The notice for the first hearing would stimulate people that were interested. He did not feel it would reduce, participation or that people would get lost in the process° Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to the issue of the Council, an"elected body, delegating some of its ultimate responsibilities to an appointed body and the issue of that body’s responsibility toward the citizens of Palo Alto versus the Council’s responsibility. She asked for responses from both the CPAC and the Planning Commission. Mr. Kirkwood replied that the irony in Palo Alto was the amount of .responsibility delegated to the staff when there was essentially no delegation to the Planning Commission and the reservation of all other decisions to the~Council. When he originally reviewed the Charter, he was astonished at how much was delegated to the staff which in some other communities would be dealt with by the Planning Commission. The Council needed to exam where decisions should be placed in the three-way balance. Mr. Beecham said the decisions or responsibilities that were being discussed that evening were not policy-making decisions. The policies would still be set by the Council and the Planning Commission would be implementing those policies. Council Member Kniss said the bottom line was what was anticipated by people in the community as far as holding someone accountable. If the Council made enough wrong decisions, Council Members would be voted out of office which could not be done with the Planning Commission nor any other commission. The balancehad to come between the threesome and that might be an area that needed to be considered more carefully. She asked about the law and the responsibilities of the Council, Planning Commission, Planning Department, etc., and whether too much was being delegated to the Planning Department’s staff. 10 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 A_~ nttp://www:o~ty.palo-at...mutes/1935/27N OV 9~.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes!1995/27NOV95.TYS Mayor Simitian said with respect to the recommendations before the Council that evening, anything that would be delegated to the Planning Commission would be appealable by any single citizen. He asked to what extent would the Council abdicate its responsibility by failing to consider items which had not generated disagreement through the Planning Commission process but which the Council might have a different point of view. Council Member Kniss said the Council was making a judgment decision, there was nothing that said precisely how it would be done. Mr. Schreiber said part of the balance in Palo Alto related to the fact that it effectively functioned as a larger city than its population inferred. Palo Alto’s daytime population was 120,000 which was a nonresidential base and was significantly larger than many cities with a 55,000 populace. The number of variances, use permits, home improvement exceptions, etc., processed through the Zoning Administrator function were substantial and totaled approximately i00 applications a year, which constituted about 3 percent being appealed per year. The process was working well and the Zoning Administrator public hearing process allowed an opportunity for input, informal give and take, and for staff to negotiate solutions between neighbors. The proof of success was the low number of appeals. There was much to be said for having the items that. CPAC identified as being handled at the Planning Commission level, but his issue was whether it was worth the effort of initiating a Charter amendment, ballot measure, etc. The bottom line was that a relatively small amount of items would not go to Council. There was no right answer, it was a judgment call. If it involved a special election with all of the costs entailed, he would suggest it not be done. If it could be done without being of notable cost to the City and the Planning Commission was the final decision maker with the exception of appeals, he would not object. In his tenor, Planning Commissions listened and followed the Council and knew City policy. He agreed with Mr. Beecham’s comments that if the Planning Commission were the final decision maker, there would be even more vigorous appl±cation of policy~and understanding. Council Member Huber asked whether the Council could treat items the Council might want ~to consider but had not been appealed, like an agenda item, and request that it be brought to the Council. Mr. Kirkwood said he was not familiar with any such process but presumably, the Council Members were still citizens and could appeal or use a fiduciary approach to pull an item off that the Council wanted to consider. He sensed it would be unusual.to have a desire to delve into a decision the Planning Commission had made and appeal anymore than someone wanting to appeal a decision that staff had made. He clarified that all appeals from staff decisions currently went directly to the Council. Mr. Schreiber said all of the appeals from the Zoning Administrator went through the Planning Commission, and the only appeals that went directly to the Council were appeals from the ARB. Mr. Beecham said an item might be on the Consent Calendar which would imply that if someone had an item on the agenda, they would have to be at the meeting in case the item was taken off and discussed in order to present their point of view. It would also extend the time frame for the applicant and process time was 11 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM hrtp://www.o~ty.palo-al...mutes/1995/27N OV95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemmentlminutes/1995/27NOV95.T2~ something CPAC had hoped to save. Council Member Huber said his suggestion was. that if there were items at the Planning Commission level, not appealed, in effect a Council Member could request that the matter be brought to the Council but not as a Consent Calendar item. Council Member Fazzino said the Subcommittee proposed expanded use of the voluntary commission concept and every time the idea came up, staff expressed grave concerns about increased use of staff resources. Yet, at City Hall one could find minutes from the Library Commission, Recreation Commission, Community Center Commission, Board of Public Works, and Board of Public Safety which were voluntary commissions in place in Palo Alto from 1909 to 1950. If one looked at the minutes, they would discover that the notes were taken by commission members and very little staff resources were used in those days. He asked if the City had changed that much as a species in 40 years that expanded use of voluntary commissions required additional staff resources and he asked whether there was any way around that concern. City Manager June Fleming said times had changed from the time referred to by Council Member Fazzino. Staff now received requests for more staff support for existing boards, commissions, etc.She did not want that to be interpreted to mean those boards and commissions were not valuable, and therefore, they were diminished in their services depending upon the kind of support they needed, but the issues that were dealt with tended t6 be complex and had record requirements for things to be maintained. There were a few groups that did their own minutes, but the groups were not satisfied with that and wanted more support. That was why the last time adding another board or commission was considered, staff asked that the Council let them examine how those advisory types of boards were staffed, functioned, what they felt their needs were, and how they could best serve the community. Some functioned very well without a lot of staff support but others did not. Staff experienced that with the addition of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) because it required a great deal of staff support but the City also received from the UAC invaluable benefits in return~ Mr. Kirkwood said it was a matter of examining in each instance what would be gained and the cost to gain it. There. was no question that times had changed because legalities had worked their way into all processes even if only advisory, and it. was a fundamental turn off to citizen participation. It was important to keep in balance not only what the City would gain from the volunteers that were serving, but it would require a degree of some Council oversight to be sure on an ongoing basis that any given commission was continuing to serve £n a manner that served the City well. Terminating a commission once it was established was not going to be an easy political matter. He understood in 1950 there were quite a few commissions that were discontinued, and he asked whether the pendulum had swung too far at that point and whether the City was ready to review on a selected basis, creation of one or two new commissions. It should not be general policy, but what CPAC suggested was for Council to take a hard look at whether there were some areas in which having a commission of dissolving a commission already established would make sense. Council Member Fazzino clarified what Mr. Kirkwood was proposing was a specific set of criteria to determine whether or not a commission was justified. 12 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM nttp:i/www.c~ty.palo-al...mutes/1995/27N OV95 .TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/government/minutes/1995/27NOV95.TX[ Mr. Kirkwood was not sure it could ever be captured in written guidelines or a set of criteria, but the suggestion was that there were some things that Council would want to have in mind when weighing the merits and costs while considering the establishment or disestablishment of any particular commissions. Council Member Kniss said there was no question that the Council welcomed the input that the boards and commissions provided. The question was one of balance, and she asked, without requir±ng another bond measure, what amount of resources needed could be determined because whenever additional City resources were used, resources had to be taken away from somewhere else. She asked what Ms. Fleming’s quesstimate was as to what the costs might be, and if the Council added a commission that required staff support at the meeting and subsequent staff support, would it mean another staff member would need to be added. Ms. Fleming said it varied depending on the commission and the assignment given. The City Clerk had given her an estimate of $5,000 for just meeting notices, publications, etc. That would be a minimum cost for any group and then when minute transcription time was added, it could rise to $15,000 to $20,000.for some groups and exceed that for groups like the UAC because its needs were different. At a minimum, it would cost $15,000 to $20,000, but she did not want to put any judgment value on that amount. The one thing that made Palo A~todifferent was the way it was organized. For example, Palo Alto had a Community Services Department which most cities in California did not have so there were some economies that could be realized around commissions that existed because it was a larger group and the purpose was to have disciplines work together, so maybe the cost would not be as much there as it was in some places. It was hard to determine the cost, but she felt that was not the final way to judge whether or not any board or commission was really needed. Council Member Kniss said while it may not be the final way, it needed to be one way because during the budget those choices had to be made. She recalled recently a rather exact figure that was put out when the Historic Resources Board (HRB) was reviewed and she asked what that figure was. Ms. Fleming said she could not recall the figure but it was a good example of a group that~was really undersupported by the City. It needed more staff support, more resources, etc., and was struggling to do the very best it could. Council Member Kniss said it was a tough judgment because the City wanted communihy support and involvement but at the same time resources were limited~ When more was put onto City staff, it would take away from another program unless another source could be found. Council Member Fazzino said at some time during the process he would appreciate an analysis by the City Attorney’s Office regarding the current laws with respect to electronic communica- tions and what was and was not allowable under the Brown Act. Obviously, the Brown Act when adopted in 1953 could not have anticipated the kind of electronic media that was currently being used. That kind of analysis would be very helpful to the Council. Ms. Cauble said the City Attorney was the expert in that area, particularly issues related to electronic communication. She 13 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM http://www.city.palo-aL.inutes/1995/27NOV95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/27NOV95.T~ suggested the Council advise her of 9ny specific issues or concerns, otherwise she would take it as a general desire to have more of a briefing on the issues. Mayor Simitian said it would be helpful if the City Attorney focused his comments on both the possibilities and problems that were articulated in the GV Section. There were very specific references to possibilities and the staff had raised a number of problems associated with that. Council Member Fazzino addressed making Palo Alto government more accessible to the public. He was’surprised that there had been no discussion of possible physical changes to the Council Chambers, which he considered to be very intimidating for members of the public. He wondered if CPAC had any discussions regarding altering the Council Chambers so the Council could look directly at the public and not sit high above the public looking like a Supreme Court. Mr. Kirkwood said CPAC had not had any formal discussion on the issue, but he had heard side comments that the Council Chambers was not as welcoming as it might be nor as comfortable. Ms. Fleming said when staff reviewed the GV Section of the Plan, they were aware that staff as well as Council Members had received comments from CPAC members individually and citizens about the Council Chambers. Staff felt the issue could be dealt with internally and did not need to be included in the Plan, and staff had begun to move forward on the project. The Council Chambers was designed 20-plus years prior when government had a different atmosphere, and appropriately was in need of some alterations. Council Member Huber asked Mr. Schreiber to elaborate on why the GV Section should not be a part of the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said staff’s primary concern was that the City had and was continuing to move toward with more refined analyses of findings of conformance and consistency with the Plan. The~Council currently made those types of findings on zoning changes, appeals, etc., but the issue was becoming more specificin detail. If a GV Section were included in the Plan that was reasonably detailed in terms of public process expectations, procedures, etc., staff was concerned that. it would be a fertile ground for challenging City actions on the basis that the finding of consistency~and confor- mance with the Plan was invalid because something in the procedure of the review did not fit some aspect of the GV Section. If the Council desired the GV Section to be included in the Plan, staff would recommend that it be more general and more useful to the ’Council in order to ensure that errors did not occur inadvertently in reviewing projects as they.went through the system in making those findings. Ms. Cauble described Mr. Schreiber’s comment as the legal implica- tions of including the GV Section in the Plan. Even though it was not a mandatory section, once it was contained in the Plan it would be subject to both internal consistency and vertical consistency requirements with certain other decisions, which fortunately in Palo Alto had not been a "hot bed" of litigation, but it had been in other communities. The City would not have those issues if a separate policy document were created that was not subject to the myriad of date statutes and judicial decisions that would otherwise apply. In terms of legal implications, there would be a procedural implication with respect to amending the document because it would 14 of 28 5/27/97 I0:00 AM hrtp://www.city.palo-al...inutes/1995/27NOV95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/27NOV95.TY7 be part of the Plan and would be required to go through a dual process of Planning Commission and City Council review and, depending on the level of specificity in the document, the Council might not want to go through that kind of process. Mr. Kirkwood said when the Subcommittee went through the process, it was not clear how much of a mandate was required for including a GV Section beyond self invention. The Subcommittee had contem- plated three possibilities: I) that a GV Section would be included as part of the Plan; 2) t~at the GV Section would be part of a forward or annex that would accompany the Plan and begin to establish the idea of long-term planning beyond the sphere of land use; and 3) whether the Council chose to act on the issue of governance or not, at least discuss it in a context separate from the Plan. The Subcommittee felt that all of the ideas were sufficiently meritorious and warranted attention. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked if the Council determined that it would be better served by a document separate from the Plan for embedding the concepts, what kinds of legal force would a policy similar to the already existing policies and procedures have, and would the document be a meaningful tool which would ensure the public of attempting to achieve the goals that Mr. Kirkwood commented to earlier in terms of increased public participation and involvement in a lot of the City’s processes. Ms. Cauble said specific suggestions for inclusion into a gover- nance document, if the Council chose to approve them, would lend themselves to code changes without being included in the Plan or other policy document. If the Council decided it wanted to change the development review process, it could be done through a code change. In terms of policy documents, the Council would be the best judge of what it had followed over the years and its commit- ment to follow it. The Council could put something into its Policy and Procedures Manual, it could be a.separate vision document that read like a comprehensive plan but stood separately and could be referenced in various Council approvals, or elements Could be included in ordinances and become law and the other aspects could stand alone in a policy document that Council set the tone for as to whether or not it was followed. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked to the extent that the GV Section was included in a policy document as opposed to being codified, what kinds of legal implications were there for an omission where the procedural rules were violated. Ms. Cauble did not envision any legal implications unless the Council mandated through a code requirement, through the Comprehen- sive Plan, or through a condition on something that was complied with as policy. It would be the political repercussion that would ensure conformance rather than the legal repercussion. Council Member Andersen. concluded that the reason behind such an approach would be to make certain that a more participatory process would be assured with future councils. He asked if the GV Section were not included in the Plan, whether a separate document would have the same influence on future councils in a similar manner. In terms of making the broadened participatory process certain rather. than getting too technical from a legal standpoint, he asked whether the Council could achieve the objective the CPAC had recommended effectively through another process. He was interested responses from the CPAC and staff. 15 of 28 ....... ,~ ...... http://www.eity.palo-al...inutes/1995/27NOV95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/2"~2qOV95.TX" Ms. Fleming said what the Council wanted to accomplish in terms of having broadened participation could be realized. If that were Council’s direction, staff and the City Attorney’s Office might have to think through the actual document for the title, code, etc. Council Member Andersen said the present Council had been very responsive in wanting to bring about greater participation in the process. Assuming that theCity had a future council that did not want to utilize that participatory process in the future and the City had that type of separate document being described, he asked whether that document would still have an influence over a future Council or would the future Council be able to change it. Ms. Fleming said it was her understanding in a City Manager form of government, that any seated Council could make any policy changes it desired and there was very limited ability to bind one Council to another. The control generally came from the public, and if the public did not like what the Council was doing, there were ways of making that known, even Charter Amendments could be put on a ballot and changed. She believed that the prevailing influence was the community, who would speak clearly about the way in which they wanted to be governed. Once any seated Council made a decision in the City Manager form of government, it was the duty, responsibili- ty, and obligation for the City Manager to see that those policies were executed and, if not, the Council had the authority to deal with it. Council Member Andersen clarified that if a GV Section was included as part of the Plan, then the future Council’s behavior would be inconsistent with that Plan. Mr. Kirkwood said that was true until the Plan was amended, so any Council could change any policy. He felt if policies were not embedded in the Plan, there were different ways of dealing with different policies. Acting on the ~lanning Commission’s delegation issue would start a Charter Amendment process, review of commis- sions might go into the Policy and Procedures manual, and the .social service delivery portion might be viewed as the beginning of a long-term planning process that guided the annual budgeting. There were a lot of different ways to look at different parts of the Plan and where the Council might wish to place them in terms of ~he tools available might differ from item to item. The bottom line was to get the issue before the Council and encourage the involvement of more people in the review. Council Member Huber referred to Ms. Cauble’s comment about the GV Section being an.appendix to the Plan and clarified the Plan document itself would be attached to the Comprehensive Plan in some~ fashion with a governance or some other section if the Council chose not to have it legally included as part of the Plan. Ms. Cauble said how it was packaged would need to be looked at. Typically, an appendices to a general plan was actually part of the plan but read better if the technical types of analyses, policies, or data were included as an appendix rather than in the body of the general plan. She referred to Mr. Schreiber’s earlier point that if the Council were inclined to include governance policies in the Plan, he would recommend that the policy be more general in nature to avoid getting hung up over small things in the future which might mean using it as a forward or broader policy rather than detailed goals, policies, Programs, etc., the way the required elements were done. 16 of 28 nap://www.c~ty.palo-a|...mutes! 1995/27NOVg~,TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us!palo/city/goverrtment/minuter~1995/271qO~195.T~ Council Member Huber asked how such a section could be solidly~ emphasized as being part of the Plan but not a part of it. Ms. Cauble said one possibility that might be explored would be to have a simple broad statement included in the Plan e.g., "Community participation is vital for the review of development projects.The Council shall adopt a policy to ensure that such participation occurs . " Council Member Huber was interested in something that had more of what was already contained in the Plan traveling with that plan so if there were a legal concern, the consistency would not’have, to be dealt with but it was still physically there. He understood the generalization she had mentioned which would be easy to do, but he was thinking more specifically that it was there because the Plan was a vision and governance was part of that vision. He .asked if he wanted the GV Section to be with the vision and if there were a legal consistency argument, how could it be dealt with so it was still physically there. Ms. Fleming said the statement Council Member Huber had just made was the type of direction that needed to be heard. If what he had articulated was a consensus of the Council, that gave staff the kind of direction it was seeking. Council Member Kniss said there were a number of semi-command verbs in the Plan and she asked what they meant or did it depend on what they were being tied in with. She saw words such as help, facilitate, encourage, enhance, etc. Mr. Kirkwood said the CPAC was given instructions on how to write the goals, policies, and programs. One of the instructions at two or three different stages was to use action verbs, and the CPAC tried to identify action verbs that sounded appropriate. Council Member Kniss said the verbs sounded appropriate but asked what they meant. What would "facilitate communication," mean versus "helping residential areas, .... work with neighborhood organizations," etc. If a neighborhood organization were to. approach the City in a year or so and convey that it was stated in the Plan that the City would work with neighborhood organizations, She asked whether that meant provide staff support. She asked what was the CPAC’s view when it used the "helping" verbs. Mr. Kirkwood said that teach of the verbs would have to be discussed as they got to each of the sections. Again, it would be a question of balance, particularly with neighborhood organizations. He asked how the City.would go about encouraging neighborhood organizations to be formed without people starting to feel as if the City was trying to dominate them, how much could be drawn from new staff time, and how much could be done in a way of restructuring some of the existing staff liaison efforts. Those questions were not so varied in many of those operative words. It was not for the CPAC to reach a conclusion, it was ultimately for the Council to. reach a conclusion. Council Member Kniss felt it was one of the areas that needed to be concentrated on. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the magnitude of the .direction change already signaled by the Council’s previous actions 17 of 28 5127/97 10:00 AM http://www.eity.palo-al...inutes/1995/27NOV95 .TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/government/minutes/1995/27NOV95.TX7 on the other elements of the Plan was alarming, and a widespread review of land use and zoning would be a serious disservice to the public to tamper with long established procedures.. The myriad of zoning reviews, coordinated area plans, and land use changes already gave the Counci! imprimatur in the review process and it would be virtually impossible for citizens to keep up with it. The present Council would probably not be around when they came into being and the public reacted. She asked the Council to consider~ carefullybefore streamlining and to make. the process more predictable for applicants (letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office). With respect to the discussion of responsibility of the Planning Commission, by initiative, the Planning Commission had direct first responsibility for preparing the Comprehensive Plan. Susie Thom, 753 Maplewood Place, addressed the issue of a combined Community Services Commission and referred to a letter dated July 3, 1995, from the Council of the Arts which indicated there was no discernable support among the arts constituency, and the entire Palo Alto community could not be well served with one commission being an advisory for the arts, community services, etc. There was widespread desire for encouraging fuller participation in govern- ment which could be done through the GV Section of the Plan. It seemed regressive to establish a Community Services Commission which would be a small group covering an extensive domain and could not properly represent the arts or any of the other entities which were part of the Community Services Department. She referred to Program GV-I.A6, "Sponsor an annual opportunity for all public and non-profit organizations serving Palo Alto to provide information about themselves and recruit participation in delivery of and use of their services," and said she believed the nonprofits in the community were equally as important as the neighborhood associa- tions because they served the entire community. Such an event would serve to bring the nonprofits closer to the community and give the City an opportunity to promote and advocate the various organizations. The City could play a role either sponsoring an event such as the nonprofit showcase during the Centennial or facilitate it for the benefit of the community. Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett, former CPAC member and GV Subcommittee member, said accountability and trust were the biggest issues with government. Measure R was a prime example of some of the erosion of trust. When she was on the. Subcommittee, she was very committed to the process and took her responsibility serious- ly, but in the past year, she had become increasingly discouraged and concerned about the CPAC process. Inconsistencies were permitted in the content which was a critical blow to the account- ability of the CPAC members. There needed to bereal limits to the GV Section that were non-negotiable and could not be bargained away. She strongly recommended that Council take on some limits that might have been discussed as part of the Measure R process, which the City would not go beyond over the next 20 years. There needed to be a substantially different accountability process for large projects that went beyond a specific set of parameters. Measure R failed, but she felt it sent a clear message to the Council that one in three people in Palo Alto voted for it because they believed the CPAC process had gone awry, and that the growth in the proposal had gotten too liberal. It was an important opportunity for the Council to consider some of the voters concerns expressed during the Measure R process within the Plan. The Council was ultimately responsible to the citizens of Palo Alto, and she felt there were things that could be done in terms of process to make it more consistent and more participatory which was critical to the future of Palo Alto during the next 20 years. 18 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM lartp:i/www.o~ty.palo-al...mutes/1995/27N OV95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/paloieity/government/mmutes/1995/27NOV95.TX Mayor Simitian said Measure R could have been one of two things; either a vote on growth and development in Palo Alto or a vote about process. He did not believe that more than 70 percent of the people that voted against Measure R did so because they supported substantial changes in Palo Alto’s patterns of growth and develop- ment or wanted to see the community become substantially commer- cial. He believed that the 70 percent vote reflected a view brought out in the polling process with regard to the process and the public’s trust or lack of trust in that process. That was his conclusion and the conclusion he shared with the press because after the election, the~ Council was frequently asked if that meant a "green light" for commercial development in Palo Alto. He assured the press that it was not a "green light" in his view but did not want to suggest that there was no room for improvement in the process because there was. He clarified that the 70 percent vote suggested that people had some respect in and trust for the process in place and did not mean that the 70 percent vote wanted substantial commercial development. Ms. Ward-Dolkas agreed but felt there was a large group of people who felt the CPAC process was too pro-growth and had concerns over it not being accountable to all opinions. Although it needed to be a creative ad hoc process, by nature it was not possible to make it completely accountable but some balance was needed. She believed people voted against Measure R because they wanted to see the CPAC process concluded, which was why the GV Section was so critical. Claire MacElroy, 641 Forest Avenue, said there were three points she wanted to make; posting blame, seduction, and vagueness. With respect to posting blame, she referred to the empty red seats in the Chambers and asked why so members of the community were not present at the meeting. It was easy to post blame as to why the public was not informed of important issues. She had only recently been advised by Emily Renzel about the Plan and found it to be a very complex issue. She asked why the Council had not worked harder to attract her attention to the issues. With respect to seduction, she felt the Council should be ~areful when people said they would save time or reduce the workload because soon the City would become downsized and outplaced. With respect to vagueness, she was concerned with increased density which appeared in the Plan. She would like to see increased density spelled out clearly in the’Plan, and she planned in the future to read the text carefully to get a better understanding of what the Councils intentions were with regard to housing density in certain areas. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, disagreed with the staff recommendation in the staff report (CMR:509:95) that the GV Section did not belong in the Plan. He felt it was appropriate to have a satisfactory GV Section when the Council adopted the Plan. He referred to the staff comments on page 1 of the GV Section and agreed with Council Member Fazzino that the percentage was a significant number. The Council should decide whether it felt comfortable with that large of a reduction. He referred to the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 2, under Participation and said that a single Community Services Community was too broad and there needed to be three or four commissions. With respect to the cost of having commissions and staffing them, he felt the benefits were signifi- cant. He referred to Program GV-I.AI, "Employ a program of city/ neighborhood liaisons, electronic communications and print communications to inform the residents of coming issues and to facilitate their comments to the council and staff as policies are developed," and said it would not be necessary to have one staff 19 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AIVI http:i/www.city.palo-al...inutes/1995/27NOV95.TXT http://www.¢ity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/government/minutes/1995/2"~NOV95.T~ member for each neighborhood, it could be a group of neighborhoods. He referred to the staff comments regarding making citizen groups advisory to the City Manager and said that had happened in the past a number of times, sometimes on an ad hoc basis and sometimes with specific direction. He referred to Program GV-I.A6, and said the City could either expand its World Wide Web Page and allow each organization to have one or two pages or the City could work with the Palo Alto Weekly and have an annual insert published about various community organizations and nonprofits to explain what they did and how people could become involved. He felt the staff comments Policies GV-3.AI and GV-3.A8 lacked vision. He felt there was no reason for not having an expanded electronic communication presence in the community, and there were a number of ways the City could expand electronic access to the community. He referred to the comment that only the sophisticated developers talked to neighborhood associations which was not true, his neighborhood association had done it for I0 years. He felt it was beneficial to all sides which should be encouraged and carried forward. Bonnie Packer, 768 Stone Lane, encouraged the Council to embrace the philosophical concepts in the Goal GV-4, Palo Alto residents are effective community citizens and their neighborhood organiza- tions are strong and contribute to a sense of community." She felt Mr. Kirkwood’s comments were to the point. Neighborhood associa- tions promoted a sense of community, provided a vehicle for essential safety programs, empowered a broader range of citizen involvement in their respective communities, and helped build a stronger democracy. She felt it was important for the City to encourage the creation of neighborhood associations for neighbor- hoods which were not represented by an association. The City could sponsor or support an annual conference where the organized ex±sting neighborhood associations could attend and help others with ideas about forming, new associations where there were none. With regard to process and citizen participation, the oral communications process was not conducive to citizen togetherness because it was input from individuals in random order and the public did not talk with one another. She suggested a model used by the California Public Utilities Commission where all of the parties interested in a particular issue came together, talked to one another, and learned to listen in a workshop environment. Council Member Andersen struggled with the issue of neighborhood associations’ relative ’strengths and weaknesses and how that problem was approached. Many associations were created as the result of a particular issue that came about and when that issue was resolved, the group faded away and did not become active again until another issue came along. He concluded that what Ms. Packer had in mind was more consistent and ongoing, but he did not get a connection as to how it could be accomplished by the City as opposed to withinthe neighborhoods. He asked Ms. Packer if she had any additional comments. Ms. Packer said neighborhood associations should be autonomous and independent of the City, but felt the City could show support for the idea by co-sponsoring an occasional conference with some neighborhood associations to get ordinary citizens involved without feeling ’threatened by the process. Council Member Kniss asked about the thrust rather than the existence of neighborhood associations, and the previous comment to bring together neighbors with respect to a common problem. She felt it was very defined areas that brought neighbors together whether there was an issue or not. She asked whether Ms. Packer nttp://www.c~ty.palo-al...mutes/1995/27NOV95.TXT http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/govemment/minutes/1995/27NOV95.TX thought it should be the staff’s job to identify for the residents what the neighborhood should be and then to motivate them to get together or whether it was a passive kind of Situation where it happened only if a neighborhood desired it. Ms. Packer thought she the City should not prejudge where there was a sense of neighborhood. Council Member Kniss added that it was great to belong to a neighborhood association but sometimes those who fell outside the boundaries could not bel~ng and felt somewhat left out. Ms, Packer said there was nothing to prevent the people in the areas that did not belong to do something of their own, and there were associations that were fluid and did not have boundaries. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. RECESS: 9:45 P.M. - 9:55 P.M. Council Member Rosenbaum thought there were a lot of substantial ideas in the GV Section, but there were items he’did not have a¯ strong opinion about because he did not feel he had enough informa- tion. There were items that normal~y would be included in a staff report, along with some public testimony, but he did not see that time available in the Planprocess as i~ would not leave the Council in a position to make comfortable decisions on ma~y of~the issues. Some of the issues had been before the Council previously, i.e., having additional advisory commissions; community services, library, or parks and recreation commissions. He did not believe. the Council was prepared to make a decision or to discuss anything specific as part of the Plan process. While recognizing the effort that was put in, he believed an appropriate step for a variety of ideas would be to refer it to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee for discussion about the individual components and then make some recommendations which would be outside of the Plan process. Council Member Kniss concurred With Council Member Rosenbaum’s suggestion to refer the GV Section to the P&S Committee. She was concerned about the substantial ideas and costs involved. Also, the Council had not dealt with governance before, and it was going to require some time and thought. Ms. Fleming agreed that the Council needed to. understand what implication governance had with the Plan. She asked if the intent was to move forward with the Plan and refer the GV Section to the P&S Committee’to deal with it later and not be a part of the Plan or was the intent to refer it to the P&S Committee to have it return to the Council for discussion.as part of the Plan and then the Council make a decision which would delay the process. Staff’s concern was the process. Mayor Simitian said there were two different issues. First, whether the Council wanted to establish the commissions or whether it wanted to go through a new process. It could be debated fairly in the P&S Committee and brought back to the Council. Second, whether the Council should make decisions about what should be done and whether it should be an attached document,~ an appendices of, or incorporated into the Plan. He asked whether the Council desired to have a discussion of greater length in a separate forum and could it be done without slowing down the Plan process. He assumed it could be done without seriously disrupting the Plan process, 21 of 28 5/27/97 I0:00 AM http://www.city.palo-al...inutes/1995/27NOV95 .TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemmentJminutes/1995/2?NOV95 .TX regardless of whether the Council returned with an action to include the GV Section as part of the Plan or whether it be done as a separate policy. Ms. Fleming said it would depend on how long it would take the body the GV Section was referred to to deal with it and the process chosen to do that. Staff needed guidance on whether the Council wanted to do it in one night or if there were a desire to have more public involvement. Mr. Schreiber referred to the revised staff report (CMR:295:95) regarding coordinated area plans, and said that staff had indicated from a scheduling standpoint, if the Council could complete the six sections of the Plan and the wrap-up by the end of January 1996 and Land Use in February 1996, staff could return a Comprehensive Plan document to the Council hopefully by late summer or fall of 1997. That schedule was set out to provide some framework and, if the Council desired to have the GV Section as part of the Plan, it needed to work within that time frame and to have whateVer review that needed to occur fit into that schedule. If the Council desired the GV Section to be a separate document or added on to the Plan later, that could be done. Mayor Simitian asked if that would return to Council a year and a half later. Mr. Schreiber said it would take approximately six months to draft the Plan and do an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which would take until August 1996, so the formal review of the Plan would start in the fall of 1996. The.boards and commissions could take three or four months which would make it early 1997 before it returned to the Council. By Palo Alto Municipal Code requirement~ once there was a set of Planning Commission recommendations, any changes made by Council needed to go back through the Planning Commission. Once the Council started its review in 1997 andit went back through the Planning Commission and back to the Council, that process would take until~the sunder or fall of 1997. Mayor Simitian thought the comments made by Council Members Kniss and Rosenbaum had merit in terms of a way to have a more. thoughtful discussion about the governance issues.. He asked with regard to the issue of both ad hoc and formal commissions, what were the benefits of having those groups and what was beingderived from having a particular commission. It might vary from group to group, as was the case of the UAC where the Council was looking for expertise. He was troubled by the fact that sometimes the different commissions became advocates for a particular special interest, which might be a legitimate interest, but was that what the City really needed or sought out. The HRB were advocates of historic preservation and the Public Art Commission were advocates for public art, which he felt was a different role than was seen with the Planning Commission. He raised the issue because if the Council was going to discuss whether or not there should be a Community Services or Library Commission, then what did the Councii want from those groups and would it want expertise from a Library Commission or would it be more effective in the role of advocate. It was a generic question, but it had more to do with what would be derived from those particular groups. He asked Mr. Kirkwood to comment. Mr. Kirkwood referred to an earlier question that if the Council made a decision to severe the GV Section from the Plan and he said it was important how the Council chose to do that and how the nttp://www.oity.palo-ai...mutes/lVV3/,ZnNt)VV~.tAt http://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/city/government/minutes/1995/27NOV95.T~ content was dealt with during the process. There was nothing in the GV Section that required an EIR or a change in the process, and delegation to the Planning Commission would require an EIR so it would not have to be packaged with the Plan for that purpose. If governance was delegated to a committee and people got the idea that it would disappear because of that, there would be a substan- tial number of people who would feel it would get lost in the process. If it were delegated to a committee to work parallel with the Plan and the Council made sure the issues were addressed and focused on in a coherent manner, it would be better received by the people as it was being looked at in a different light but the same substantive issues were being addressed~ He agreed with Mayor Simitian that there were different roles for different commissions. Advocacy in the community was just as important as with the Council. One of the arguments made by the group that supported the Library Commission was that Palo Alto was the only city in the State of California that had libraries and did not have a Library Commission. He did not know how much weight that carried but he suspected it had to~do with rallying support for libraries from the larger community and not just from the Council. He felt the Council needed to examine each comntission individually and decide what needed to be accomplished by the particular commission. Ms. Fleming said from her experience, there were different reasons for each group that had been established, and the important ingredient was for the Council to look at the commissions purpose and what could better be accomplished by each. She did not feel there was an all inclusive set of rules and regulations that staff could make to apply to each. With regard to Mr. Kirkwood’s comment about the Library Commission, she could not say that Palo Alto was the only city without a Library Commission, but it was the only city with a population of 57,000 that had six libraries. One might then ask what the purpose of a Library Commission might be, and the people supporting it would probably say it was to maintain what Palo Alto already had, which up to now had never been threatened. The Council needed to look at establishing new commissions carefully being mindful of the costs and the staff available to support them. She felt it bespoke more .of the concern on the part of residents to be involved rather than a need for commissions. Council Member Fazzino said with regard to the concept of City . commissions, some of the suggestions: advocacy, expertise, building a sense of community, were all important criteria but most important was the .concept, the vision, and ~he principal of pursuing community participation for its own end. It was a principal that had guided Palo Alto since its founding in 1894 and if for no more important reason, the concept should be included within the GV Section. There were some specific criteria beyond that which.could be applied to various commissions. In the case of the UAC, it was expertise, experience with Utilities issues, technical background, etc., and that commission had been invaluable- to the City. In the area of Community Services which involved both City and school services, it might be a group that helped build support for a particular program. Mayor Simitian agreed to some extent to the value in participation, but he did not believe that participation was an end in and of itself. There should not be a lot of make-work activity that kept people engaged in busy work without any real product. People walked away disillusioned when they participated for no good purpose. People needed to be engaged in genuinely constructive activity, and he asked what that constructive activity was that the Council would want the people to put their talents~into because it 23 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM nttp://www.ctty.palo-al...mutes/199~/27NOV95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/city/govemment~minutes/1995/27NOV95.TX needed to be articulated up front or he would not be interested in engaging them on that particular commission. Council Member Fazzino was not sure that could be done. He agreed that people should not meet just for the sake of meeting. It was not enough and overtime could lead to anxiety toward the City. At the same time, assuming that there were clear reasons as to why a commission needed to be formed, he felt that the concomitant building of a sense of community could be beneficial in the long run to the members of that committee as well as to the City government. Mayor Simitian clarified that Council Member Fazzino agreed that every committee should have some clearly defined purpose before being established. Council Member Fazzino said yes. .Mayor Simitian said one of the undercurrents of discussion in the document that was heard that evening and also at some of the CPAC discussions was that there were a number of groups that were "friends" groups that somehow felt they would be better positioned if they had some greater official status. He asked for clarifica- tion of that statement. Mr. Kirkwood said he was only aware of the one group that had approached the CPAC~ but he felt it was in the Charter that was written for that particular commission. Whether it was permanent or temporary was an issue that had not been discussed. If the Council specified what it desired and a Charter was written to that effect, that would help with the staff not to respond to every request that was not within that Charter. He felt that was a very important piece to what the Council did° Mayor Simitian asked based on what was in the Plan and what had been heard, what people were missing from their public participa- tion role that they felt they could provide by a different structure or role in the organization. Mr. Kirkwood said the general undercurrent the CPAC received was along the lines that a commission could be more effective in generating private support for the libraries as a commission than as a "friends" group. Ms. Fleming felt there were a number of perceptions as to why a commission should be formed, but the Library Commission was a typical one with a range of perceptions that individuals had as to why there should be a commission. The difficulty came when every commission wanted to maintain exactly what they had despite the fact that resources might be decreasing. She did not mean there was not a role for the Library Commission, but she believed the Council needed to look cautiously and carefully at what it wanted to get out of any commission concept that it considered, and then apply that and the particulars to each commission that was considered and in some way establish some fairness and evenness around how they would be staffed and supported. The City did not do that currently and that was why some groups left very frustrated and cynical about their effectiveness. The Council needed to decide whether or not those commissions that were already estab- lished needed to be perpetuated and a policy needed to be drawn up as to what the future needs might be. She felt a friendly approach to government was not a satisfactory approach for establishing a commission and that was not what people were asking for. 24 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM tfftp://www.clty.palo-al...mutes/1995/27N OV95.TXT hrtp://www.eity.palo-alto.ea.us/paloicity/government/mmutes!1995/27NOV95.TX Council Member Andersen said earlier on he had been an advocate for an environmental comntission and a majority of the Council felt at that time that it was not a good idea. He had learned to appreci- ate the wisdom of his colleagues and had become aware of some of the complications that arose when groups were created. He was a firm advocate of the UAC and was pleased with its outcome. Mr. Kirkwood had made an interesting point with regard to "disconnect- ing," and he wondered what would happen in the future when either the P&S Committee or the Council suggested that a commission be eliminated. He sensed .there would be a room full of people stating all of the reasons why the City should have that vital organization that served the community in such a great way. If the Council moved forward on any assessment as to whether or not an additional commission was needed, the Council had to evaluate each commission individually for the purpose that was intended and how it would best serve the community. Then the Council would have to determine whether or not the commission should be continued, mergedr established, etc. As Counci! Member Rosenbaum had commented, when the Council decided to do that, it needed to be thoroughly evaluated and for that reason he strongly supported referral of the item, as long as it did not slow down the Plan process. He felt it could be done concurrently and still accomplish the intentions of the CPAC, exploring it in a much more appropriate manner than the Plan document allowed. He felt that it had been difficult for the CPAC to present innovating ideas in a way that the structure lent itself to, and he was sure that the CPAC would like to have an opportunity to do a more comprehensive analysis. Referring the item would give the CPAC that opportunity and at the same time allow staff to move on with the remainder of the Plan. If the Council decided later that the GV Section should be a part of the ’ Plan or an appendix to the Plan, it could always be included since it was not connected to an EIR. Mayor Simitian agreed with Council Member Andersen intellectually that if the Council suggested to the boards and commissions that they were going to be reviewed for possible termination, there would be a fire storm of reaction and self-preservation from each board and commission, which would eliminate the possibility of discussing the potential for new commissions and what role they might play. Council Member Andersen said his reason for suggesting that approach was that it would be difficult for the Council to recommend additional approaches of inclusion and advocacy without determining whether or not what was already in place was working. Ms. Fleming reminded the Council that staff was currently working on an.assignment to do exactly what .Council Member Andersen had articulated. As staff talked to groups to gather information, the groups first concern was when the report was going to Council and that they hoped their commission was not being recommended for termination. Staff was working on the report and if Council referred the item to the P&S Committee, it should go with that item. Council Member Huber believed that the GV Section belonged with the Plan. For legal reasons maybe not "in the Plan," but physically the vision as to how the Council wanted the City to be a participa- tory type of government needed to be in a prominent place within the Plan document. He had no problem with a paralleI track, but he wanted the Council to commit that something resembling the GV Section would be "in the Plan." 25 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 AM http://www.oity.palo-al...inutes/1995/2TNOV95.TXT http://www.~ity.pa~-a~t~.~a.us/pa~/~ity/g~verrmaent/minutes/~995/2.’~V95.T)-~ Council Member Kniss referred to a comment made by Ms. Ward-Dolkas with respect to the lack of citizen participation at the Council meeting that evening and informed Mr. Kirkwood ~hat if the GV Section was referred to the P&S Committee, it would provide a better opportunity for the public to comment. She had heard an indication from him that the public might think it would get lost in the process, but the committees tended to move the items along. It would give the public an opportunity to have a more casual interaction which might bring about more citizen participation than was evidenced that evening. When something new was being incorpo- rated into a plan, the committee route would be a wise way to approach the problem. Mr. Kirkwood said the intent~of his earlier comment was that if the Council submitted governance to a committee with no.guidance, he felt people would be disappointed, but if a parallel process were used and when completed would in some way be associated with the Plan, people would see it as a serious undertaking. It would also be a way to air some of the ideas thoroughly. Council Member Fazzino supported the inclusion of the GV Section within the Plan. Its appropriate purpose was to maintain and enhance the tradition of community involvement, and he was particu- larly impressed by suggestions of ways in which community involve- ment could be manifested through new technologies. The document struck a nice balance between Citywide and neighborhood specific community participation opportunities. He liked the concept of delegating more noncontroversial items to the Planning Commission, despite some of the concerns. He supported the concept of additional City commissions and said Palo Alto had fewer co,omis- sions than many other communities in the area. He felt Palo Alto did not a~ail itself to enough opportunities to r@ly upon the expertise of a very remarkable and talented constituency and should do so more often. He was intrigued by the proposals to increase predictability in decision making, recognizing that democracy could not be made predictable. It was appropriate, whether one be a project applicant or a citizen, that there be a fair amount of predictability built into the process so individuals were not surprised by the actions of a city body. He supported the referral of the GV Section to the P&S Committee. He disagreed that the item would get buried in the process if referred andfelt it would provide an opportunity for an open discussion of the proposals. Council Member Rosenbaum agreed with Council Member Fazzino’s comments on the possibilitY of having more citizen commissions. Many communities with a fraction of Palo Alto’s resources had more commissions than Palo Alto. One problem that had not been acknowledged was the level of Council involvement with the commissions, e.g., the interview process, annual meetings, etc., which might be a bigger burden. It would behoove the Council to see how many other cities with more commissions operated, there was probably a different level~of interaction between council and commission. With~ regard to the concern about governance being buried, he believed it would be appropriate to establish a placeholder for a GV Section and refer the material to the P&S Committee for consideration and eventual recommendation to the Council for possible inclusion in the placeholder. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Rosenbaummoved, seconded by Kniss, that the City Council: i) provide a placeholder for the Governance portion of the Governance and Community Services Section, i.e., Governance Goals GV-I through GV-10, in the httpi~/www.eity.palo-al..inutes/1995/27NOV95 .TXT http://www.oity.palo-alto.ea.us/palo/eity/govemment/m’mutes/1995/2TNOV95 Comprehensive Plan product; 2) refer the Governance portion of the Governance and Community Services Section, i.e., Governance Goals GV-I through GV-10, to the Policy and Services Committee for its recommendation to the City Council regarding inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan; and 3) retain the services and quality portions of the Governance and Community Services Section, Goals GV-II through GV-15, for future discussion by the City Council. Mayor Simitian clarified that some of the Council Members spoke to the desirability of inclusion in the Plan to accompaniment rather than it being a formal or legal inclusion. He understood that staff had some concerns about the legal inclusions and not about the fact that it would be an integral part of the Plan. He asked whether flexibility would be left to the eventual determination of how that linkage might be made and with the understanding that the Council saw it as being an integral part of the Plan product. Council Member Rosenbaum said yes. Council Member Fazzino wanted to make sure that the council establish a time schedule which allowed the Council to bring the language and GV Section back into the process at the appropriate time. Mayor Simitian clarified that if the decision of the Council were to have the GV Section attached to but not legally incorporated into the Plan, then many of the time considerations were not as severe as if it were incorporated into the Plan formally and staff had to do a consistency analysis to integrate the document into the Plan. If the Council decided that within six months it wanted the GV Section to be an important document that accompanied the Plan but not incorporated as part of the Plan in a legal way, a year might be spent on it but it would not be a deterrent from moving forward. On the other hand, if the Council decided that it wanted the GV Section included in the Plan, it would be a different matter in terms of timing. He felt the most important thing the Council could do would be to let the P&S Committee decide early on with respect to where the GV Section belonged; and if what needed to be accomplished could be done without being formally included in the Plan, it would give the P&S Committee greater latitude in terms of time and also the opportunity to discuss the issues at greater length. Council Member Fazzino asked whether it should be a policy issue for the full Council. Mayor Simitian replied that the P&S Committee could take the issue up as one of the first items of business and return to Council for a decision on the issue. CouncilMember Kniss asked for clarification on whether the motion included Governance only or did it include Governance and Community Services. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified it included Goals GV-I through GV-15, both Governance and Community Services, but noted that staff had separated i0 of the goals. Ms. Fleming said staff incorrectly assumed the Council was referring to the Governance Section of the element only and not the entire element which included Community Services. Staff saw the two as entirely separate distinct pieces. She asked the Council for clarification. http://www.c~ty.palo-al...inutes/1995/27NOV95.TXT http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/palo/eity/govemment/minutes!1995/27NOV95/FX Council Member Kniss said she would feel more comfortable if the. Council referred only the Governance portion to the P&$ Committee until the Community and Services portion could be discussed at greater length. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that the Governance portion would include only GV-I through GV-10 and the Community Services portion would include GV-II through GV-15. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the services and quality portions of the Governance and Community Services Section, GV-II through GV-15, to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 7.Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Fazzino said Dr. Barney Oliver, former Vice President of Research and Development at Hewlett-Packard, and former President of the Palo Alto Unified School District School Board, had passed away. .ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. in memory of Dr. Barney Oliver. ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The.City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 28 of 28 5/27/97 10:00 ~