HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-27 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting September 27, 1999 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission...........89-35 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m..............89-35 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................89-36 APPROVAL OF MINUTES ........................................89-36 1. Ordinance 4587 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Administrative Code) to add Chapter 2.25 Establishing a Parks and Recreation Commission”.............................89-36 2. Ordinance 4588 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.48.025 (Prohibition on Sitting or Lying Down on University Avenue) to Remove Speech Necessity Exemption (Section 9.48.025 (b)(7))” ..............................................89-37 3. Consultant Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Einarson, Fowler & Watson dba Conor Pacific/EFW in the Amount of $59,000 for Landfill Environmental Monitoring and Consulting Services.......................................................89-37 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and JAT Computer Consulting, Inc. in the Amount of $162,240 for the Lawson Human Resources and Payroll System...........................89-37 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ...................89-37 5. The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of Design and Legal Services; Build out of Lot S/L for a Teen Center and Office Space; and Direction on Design Appearance and Massing for Parking Structures.....................................89-37 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider applications by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department regarding Downtown Parking Structures for the 445 Bryant Street (Lots
09/27/99 89−33
S/L) and 528 High Street (Lot R).......................89-37 6A. (Old Item No. 7) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $50,000 for the City’s Contribution to the Cost of a Sound Wall for Tennis Facility at 3005 Middlefield Road...............................89-44 6B. (Old Item No. 8) Council Members Ojakian and Mossar re El Camino Real Improvements......................................89-44 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........89-59 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.............89-59
09/27/99 89−34
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Schneider SPECIAL MEETING 1. Interviews for Utilities Advisory Commission No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
09/27/99 89−35
Regular Meeting September 27, 1999 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (via teleconferencing), Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Glenna M. Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, spoke regarding reopening Terman School. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government. Emily Marshall, 2330 Princeton Street, spoke regarding College Terrace traffic calming. Paul Lomio, 1467 College Avenue, spoke regarding College Terrace traffic calming. Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding College Terrace traffic calming. David Schrom, 381 Oxford Avenue, spoke regarding neighborhood streets. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding Stanford University, D.C. Powers Lab Site, 1600 Arastradero Road. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of August 9, 1999, and August 11, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Ojakian “abstaining,” Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4. 1. Ordinance 4587 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Administrative Code) to add Chapter 2.25 Establishing a Parks and Recreation Commission” (1st Reading 9/13/99, PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent)
09/27/99 89−36
2. Ordinance 4588 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.48.025 (Prohibition on Sitting or Lying Down on University Avenue) to Remove Speech Necessity Exemption (Section 9.48.025 (b)(7))” (1st Reading 9/13/99, PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Schneider absent) 3. Consultant Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Einarson, Fowler & Watson dba Conor Pacific/EFW in the Amount of $59,000 for Landfill Environmental Monitoring and Consulting Services 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and JAT Computer Consulting, Inc. in the Amount of $162,240 for the Lawson Human Resources and Payroll System MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Vice Mayor Wheeler announced that Item No. 5 would be heard together with Item No. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of Design and Legal Services; Build out of Lot S/L for a Teen Center and Office Space; and Direction on Design Appearance and Massing for Parking Structures (continued from 8/9/99) (Public Testimony Closed) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation $70,000 for Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study Capital Project Number 19530 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider applications by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department regarding Downtown Parking Structures for the following: 445 Bryant Street (Lots S/L: 1) Zone Change from Public Facilities (PF) and Commercial District with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (CD-D (P)) to a Planned Community (PC) Zone and to allow the Construction of a Multi-Level Parking Garage on Existing City of Palo Alto Parking Lots S/L; 2) Tentative Subdivision Map Approval to Remove 19 Underlying Lot Lines and Combine the Lots Into One Lot for the Purpose of the Above Project; and 3) Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report ( FEIR). [File Nos. 98-ZC-11, 98-ARB-159, 98-EIA-23, and 98-SUB-5]
09/27/99 89−37
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Lots S/L and R Parking Garage Projects, and Making Certain Findings Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 445 Bryant Street (Parking Lots S/L) from PF and CD-C(P)to PC 528 High Street (Lot R): 1) Zone Change from Public Facilities (PF) to Planned Community (PC) Zone to Allow the Construction of a Multi-Level Parking Garage on an Existing City of Palo Alto Parking Lot R; 2) Tentative Subdivision Map Approval to Remove 8 Underlying Lot Lines and Combine the Lots Into One Lot for the Purpose of the Above Project; and 3) Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). [File Nos. 98-ZC-12,98-ARB-180, 98-EIA-25 and 98-SUB-6] Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 528 High Street (Parking Lot R) from PF to PC (Public Testimony Closed)
Chief Planning Official Eric Riel, said regarding Council Item No. 6, that the application was submitted for review to the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) beginning January 1999 through July 1999. The Planning Commission completed its preliminary review in January 1999 and completed a subsequent review in July 1999. The Planning Commission’s recommendation included conditionally approving the staff recommendation for a finding that the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was adequate and recommended that the Council find that the EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission recommended the Council make a statement of overriding consideration for one finding of significant and unavoidable short-term impact, that being the temporary loss of parking during construction of the two parking garages. Two separate motions were made regarding the Planning Commission zone change and both motions resulted in a split-vote of 2-2. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the waiver for the required parking in-lieu fee for the new square footage of the proposed Teen Center which was located on Lot S/L and also recommended approval of the tentative subdivision map. The Planning Commission recommended denial of “Scheme B” architectural design because the overall design was too large, and suggested a reduction of one above-ground floor on both garages indicating that the compatibility with the surrounding structures was not maintained within the area. The garages should be background buildings and more supportive of the human scale and engage
09/27/99 89−38
pedestrians on a street level. The ARB recommended approval of the ordinance, denial of the architectural Schemes B and C for the parking structures, a reduction in the mass and scale in relation to the neighborhood context, removal of one floor, and other design changes. The HRB reviewed the design applications for informational purposes only. The HRB recommended a reduction in the height and a review of the context of the buildings relation to the surrounding area. A Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission and the ARB. The DEIR was made available for public review for a 30-day period and was extended to allow additional time for review. Three comments were received and those comments were addressed in the final EIR. The final review period for the EIR closed on March 10, 1999, and staff provided the final EIR on September 13, 1999, for public review. The Council was required to certify the final EIR by resolution. The resolution contained a recommended mitigation measure for the overriding consideration which would require the development and implementation of a short-term parking management plan. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said staff recommended six items for Council action (CMR:341:99). Staff recommended to: 1) proceed with the design review of Lot S/L as presented in the EIR in accordance with design Scheme B; 2) proceed with the design review of Lot R as presented in the EIR; 3) approve proceeding with the design of two floors for office and Teen Center use in the non-parking area adjoining the garage at the corner of Bryant/Lytton Avenues; 4) approve the concept of providing areas for potential Automatic Public Toilets (APTs) at each garage; 5) approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $70,000 for additional design-related services; and 6) approve and authorize the Mayor or his representative to increase the contract change order authority with Watry Design Group for contract C6076145 from $34,100 to $119,100. Scheme B was a building style consistent with the conceptual previously given to staff by the Council. There were alternatives available, design Scheme C provided a more traditional open garage-style structure and design Scheme A was more historical in nature. Design Scheme B would maximize available parking in Lots S/L, replace the current 109 spaces with 646 new spaces, and provide seven levels of parking. The Lot R design scheme was a building style exterior which would maximize available parking resulting in a net gain of 156 spaces with five levels of parking. The proposed Teen Center site would replace the existing Teen Center building which had to be removed for the construction of the new Lot S/L parking structure. The structure would provide approximately 9,000 square-feet of space on two floors and would be paid for separately from the Assessment District financing. The concept of APTs was discussed by the Council at prior meetings. Staff was asking for the Council’s conceptual direction to provide for the future inclusion of APTs in the parking structures should the APTs installed Downtown prove to be successful. The BAO provided for $85,000 in total. Of the $85,000, the City provided $15,000 as a credit against prior contract amounts resulting in a net increase of $70,000. Staff
09/27/99 89−39
was requesting the Council’s direction on: 1) the exterior appearance of the structures; 2) the height of the structures; 3) use of the non-parking areas; and 4) the provision of public restrooms. It was possible to make minor adjustments to the architecture if the Council desired, as long as adjustments stayed within the basic context. However, adjustments would result in schedule and cost increases. He noted that adjustments to the design would also have an unknown impact on construction costs. Planning Commissioner Owen Byrd said the parking structures seemed to be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and objectives. The Public Works Department’s understanding of the overriding objective was to maximize the number of parking spaces. The Planning Commission looked at the overriding objective from the standpoint that structures should be consistent with the various Comprehensive Plan objectives of fit, scale, and reduction of auto use, and within that context, maximize the number of parking spaces. An ambiguity existed in the mission that was given and he believed that it would behoove the Council to clarify the fundamental goals in the structures. The Planning Commission observed that the parking structures would be two of the four largest structures in the entire Downtown area. The structures would be defining structures. The Lot S/L structure would be second in size to 525 University Avenue which was considerably larger than the City Hall building. The Planning Commission had difficulty in appraising the appropriate scale and size of the structures given that some related issues such as the residential permit parking program would influence the matter. There was opposition to approving the Planned Community Zoning (PC Zoning) by four members of the Planning Commission because the need for some form of additional parking in the Downtown area would exist based upon the problems of residential parking in the neighborhoods and would become a necessity if there were residential permit parking. The EIR evaluated alternatives to the parking structures individually. The Planning Commission found the EIR did not provide an analysis combining the different alternatives to decrease the demand for Downtown parking that might reduce the necessary size of the parking structures. Without such an analysis, the Planning Commission could not make a clear analysis of what size reduction of the parking garage should occur. The Planning Commission wanted to emphasize the merits of the garage design f the parking structure on Cowper Street. Vice Mayor Wheeler opened the Public Hearing. Chop Keenan, Chair, Chamber Subcommittee on Downtown Parking, 700 Emerson Street, said the two structures were an integral part of the 13-point parking plan approved by the Council. The structures addressed the 1,400-car daytime deficit and the newfound evening demand. The Downtown area had reached “build-out” in terms of square footage and net new space. The structures were one way to achieve moving cars out of neighborhoods. The two sites were determined by a study to be the most suitable for multi-layer structures. Lot
09/27/99 89−40
R had 71 spaces, half of which were short term with permit parking comprising the other half. Lot R would add an additional 156 spaces, with no less than all of the ground level becoming short-term spaces. Lot S/L contained 109 spaces, all of which were short term. The new structure would add 537 spaces for a total of 646 spaces. Concern was expressed about the architecture of both structures. The Chamber Subcommittee on Downtown Parking (the Subcommittee) received feedback that indicated a quieter approach to the architecture, a lowering of the massing, a greener and simpler architecture, less shadowlined with quality materials, and involvement with the Public Arts Commission in the early stages of the design. He urged the Council to certify the EIR and approve the PC with a caveat that the architecture needed more development. The Richard Elmore and Tony Carrasco project was an interesting concept of dividing the structure into three buildings and scaling it down more in the context of other buildings in the immediate neighborhood. He was impressed with the “greening up” of the back building on Lot L, the retail building on the corner of Bryant and Lytton Streets, and introducing the idea of taking the high elevator tower and moving it to the middle of the project, which would lower the mass at the corner. The structure on the corner of Lot L went from two stories of subterranean parking to one story. The two stories of subterranean planned were exclusively on Lot S because of the configuration. The Subcommittee suggested one story of subterranean parking Lot L and taking away one story of above-grade parking on to lower the mass at the corner. Parking spaces would not be lost and the cost per parking stall might not increase. Regarding Lot R, Mr. Elmore produced a design that was proven not to be feasible because there would be no subterranean parking due to the adjacent building. Council Member Kniss asked what architectural period the structures were. Mr. Keenan said the back building on Lot L was “green” and was supposed to disappear in a mass of vegetation, the corner building was consistent with the architecture of Downtown, and the third building was “Venetian” in style. Council Member Kniss asked how the Council could come to a decision about the design without having the additional information about to the engineering and cost of the structure. Mr. Keenan said the three buildings were one structure with three different looks. He was confident the City could have attractive buildings that were cost-effective. Council Member Ojakian asked whether Mr. Keenan knew of other lots in the Downtown area where parking structures could have been placed. Mr. Keenan said six months were spent on an initial study of 13 lots in the Downtown area. Some lots because of size, others because of prescriptive-type easements were all limited. The two lots
09/27/99 89−41
suggested were chosen for size and proximity to the parking deficit. The other lots were prohibitively expensive to achieve any kind of parking structure. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the 1,500 deficit in parking spaces was an accurate number. Mr. Keenan said the number was probably accurate. There was a period when the number was unknown when the City restructured the parking structure at City Hall. New counts would be done after the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) moved and the parking structures were finished. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the new parking structures filled half of the deficit, and what the next move was. Mr. Keenan said there was a deficit near the PAMF; however, when the PAMF moved, the numbers could change dramatically. The 13-point parking plan was successful, and he was convinced that the new parking structures would be an integral part of the solution. Council Member Mossar said if the parking structures were approved, there was a known issue of a interim parking situation Downtown. She asked what the comfort level was and what parking would be like during the two years of construction. Mr. Keenan said parking would be a challenge. The availability of replacement parking was a “just in time delivery” type of situation because parking availability was an unknown. He did not know what the availability was going to be or the timing of the PAMF relocation and reuse of its property. Council Member Mossar asked whether some assurance as to whether the City could handle the interim parking situation was an important decision point for those voting on the Assessment District. Mr. Keenan said yes, he believed so. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether there was any significant change in the massing or were things just rearranged. Mr. Keenan said that height was decreased on the Lot L structure by eliminating one floor and adding one subterranean level. Mass was addressed by having three distinct architectural looks on one structure. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether reducing the floor-to-floor height was considered. Mr. Keenan said no. Council Member Eakins asked whether a 14th point was being considered
09/27/99 89−42
for restaurant workers. Mr. Keenan said the Subcommittee was close to resolving the parking issue through a lease at 525 University Avenue. The Subcommittee was not successful at obtaining the lease, but it was high on the priority list. The issue was not an additional point but was inclusive in the 13 points, particularly addressing how to accommodate the parking needs of the entry-level wage worker. Council Member Eakins said part of the appeal of the Carrasco design was the lettering effect. She asked whether any thought was given for an initial recommendation as to what the lettering should be. Mr. Tony Carrasco said the idea was to get an artist collaborating with the architect during the design phase to put a graphic on the building. The graphic was on a metal screen. Council Member Eakins said the content of the graphics appeared to be lettering. Mr. Carrasco suggested lettering; however, it could be any graphic. Mayor Fazzino asked for an explanation of the floor-to-floor height. Michelle Wendler, Watry Design Group, said the floor-to-floor height was an issue for two reasons: 1) the designs provided accessible parking on all floor levels to distribute parking near the elevators on all the floors which was the most efficient for parking layout design; and 2) the additional floor-to-floor height was needed, especially on Lot R, to make the openness calculation. The parking structures were designed to be an open parking structure, which meant there would be open stairways that were not enclosed by walls and did not require mechanical ventilation. Mayor Fazzino clarified that changing the floor-to-floor height would result in a more closed building. Ms. Wendler said that was correct. The provisions of the code had to be worked with. There were a few technical measurements that needed to be taken to calculate the openness. Mayor Fazzino asked whether including a higher percentage of compact spaces had an impact on the design. Mr. Keenan said there would be no impact to the facade. Ms. Wendler said the designs used unistalls, which were the same size, and standard and compact stalls. The standard and compact stalls which were part of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) were a different calculation and layout. Switching to a higher percentage of compact spaces could theoretically provide more stalls in the same square footage but not as efficiently or effectively.
09/27/99 89−43
Council Member Huber asked whether both structures would be built in unison. Mr. Keenan said the City would get better pricing if both buildings were done together; however, it would depend on the available parking in the lots around the Downtown area at the time of construction. MOTION Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Ojakian, to bring Item Nos. 7 and 8 forward out of order for continuance to become Item Nos. 6A and 6B. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked City Manager June Fleming whether she preferred to continue the items indefinitely. City Manager June Fleming preferred that the Council continue Item No. 6A to the City Council meeting of October 4, 1999, and Item 6B to a date uncertain. 6A. (Old Item No. 7) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $50,000 for the City’s Contribution to the Cost of a Sound Wall for Tennis Facility at 3005 Middlefield Road Amendment No. 4 to Option Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating, Inc. to provide for the City’s Contribution to the Cost of a Sound Wall for Tennis Facility at 3005 Middlefield Road MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to continue Item No. 7 to the City Council meeting of October 4, 1999, as Unfinished Business. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 6B. (Old Item No. 8) Council Members Ojakian and Mossar re El Camino Real Improvements MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to continue Item No. 8 to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 6. Vice Mayor Wheeler opened the Public Hearing. Paul Wright, 1900 Embaracedero Road, Suite 204, said he had three perspectives as: 1) the current Chairman of the Palo Alto Chamber
09/27/99 89−44
of Commerce’s Board of Directors (the Board); 2) a business owner and employer in Palo Alto; and 3) a frequent customer of Downtown and Downtown area parking. He urged the Council to move ahead as far along as was realistic and feasible. He was struck by how the issue was viewed as a Downtown versus neighborhood. The issue of parking affected both the Downtown businesses and neighborhoods in a detrimental way. He believed the parking structures were a set of solutions that helped the businesses in Downtown and also gave the City the capacity to move forward, whether or not it was through residential parking permits, to make it a positive for both residents and businesses. Cornelia Pendleton, University Art Center and Chair of the Downtown Marketing Committee, 267 Hamilton Avenue, said the University Art Center (Art Center) had thousands of customers over the years that had commented about the lack of parking. The Art Center passed out color zone parking brochures to its customers and employees, tried to direct customers where to park, and carried customers packages to cars, regardless of how near or far the customer was. Many Art Center employees had alternative means of transportation; however, over 50 people worked at the Art Center and had no other way to get to work other than driving. Some employees refused to work and customers did not bother to shop because parking was a hassle. A safe place was needed for employees to park with an easy and safe access to businesses. She read an article that stated the cost of the parking structures could put smaller merchants out of business. She believed the cost of the structures would not put the smaller merchants out of business, but the loss of customers would. Barbara Gross, Garden Court Hotel, 520 Cowper Street, spoke on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. There were approximately 1,500 people on the waiting list for parking permits. The wait-listed people needed a place to park and were not parking in existing permit facilities. People were willing to pay $280 a year to buy a parking space and would welcome the opportunity to work with a commute coordinator to explore alternatives to driving a car to work; however, the commute coordinator could not solve the entire problem. The people on the parking permit wait list and employees of the Downtown area, contributed to the vitality of the community. She urged the Council to approve the parking structures. She observed that parking structures were only a single component of a comprehensive solution to a complicated problem. Structures helped the employee needs of companies that provided services for the community, the neighborhoods which were overburdened with the parking situation, and the consumers frustrated by the unavailability of parking. Jim Burch, 177 Hemlock Court, previously lived on Homer Avenue near the Downtown area, and experienced guests not being able to park near his home because others had parked there in order to access Downtown. He spoke with people in Palo Alto who agreed that traffic was a major concern. The traffic was different from eight years prior. He believed the parking structures would only increase
09/27/99 89−45
traffic in Palo Alto instead of solving the problem. The City was building massive structures Downtown, and was concerned Palo Alto would turn into some of the other cities on the Peninsula. Elaine Meyer, President of University South Neighborhoods Group, 609 Kingsley Avenue, suggested the Council not make long-term commitments with respect to parking before completion of the Coordinated Area Plan (CAP), reduce the scale and the mass of the building to sizes more appropriate for the neighborhood, and wait to see the effects of instituting the shuttle and the reduction of thousands of daily trips when the PAMC moved. Redefining PC Zoning was a difficult task and had been put off. She hoped the Council would avoid PC Zones until its effects could be evaluated. Faith Bell, Bell’s Book Store, 536 Emerson Street, spoke on behalf of 16 Downtown merchants, business owners, managers, and landlords. She attended most of the public meetings over the prior years regarding the proposed new parking structures. She learned that the City intended to dedicate the structures primarily to permit parking. At a cost to the Assessed District of over $22 million with ten newly constructed levels of parking filling over half of two City blocks, the structures would achieve no gain in public parking spaces. The City would not be building public parking lots but subsidized permit parking lots. Initially she was happy to lend her support to the new structures on the assumption that her personal share of the cost, over $100,000, would provide her customers with parking nearby. It was reasonable to ask local businesses to help provide parking for customers Downtown; however, it was unreasonable to bankrupt the businesses in order to put all-day parking in an area with the most expensive real estate in the City. She polled her neighbors Downtown and spoke with the owners and managers of businesses, and without exception everyone was dismayed that the City would consider building lots that did not provide for additional public parking. Although Mr. Keenan said it was a consensus process and others felt it was a public/private partnership, she found it significant that no one knew about the cost. Many of those responsible for meeting the payments were those with double- or triple-net leases. She was interested in the ethics and legality of not allowing a vote to those who through their lease agreements were still required to pay the cost. The theory was if local workers were given permit parking, on-street parking could be freed up for customers; however, City figures showed that 1,200 Downtown workers were currently parking in the residential neighborhoods which the City had proposed to implement residential permit parking. Seven hundred spaces would be built and 1,200 residential area spaces would be taken away, leaving the City with 500 fewer space. She requested that the Council or staff give the community insight as to the reasoning behind the arrangement that left those who did not benefit to suffer the loss and those who did benefit with no fees to pay. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, said traffic was the biggest concern among residents which was reflected in the new Comprehensive Plan
09/27/99 89−46
that encouraged reduction of auto use. Fifty years ago, traffic engineering said that adding capacity, widening freeways, and building parking lots would solve the traffic problems; however, experience taught the community otherwise. The proposed structures would be traffic generators not solutions. When an EIR was done, there was a provision for mitigation of the negative effects. She asked where the mitigation was for the traffic that would be generated by the structures. There was discussion about alternatives to the automobile; however, $20 million could be found for a parking structure but only $100,000 for traffic calming and a similarly small amount for a shuttle. She asked the Council to reconsider whether the structures were really needed, and if so, some mitigation was needed for the traffic that would be generated by the parking structures. Georgie Gleim, President, Gleim Jewelers, 140 Island Drive, was in favor of building the parking structures. Twenty-one people were employed in the University Avenue store. Seven of the employees used alternative transportation, and permits were purchased for the other employees. The increase in the daytime permit spaces provided by the garages would allow many Downtown employees to move out of the on-street customer parking or out of the neighborhoods. Palo Alto benefitted greatly from a thriving Downtown retail business. The biggest complaint she heard from her customers was about traffic and lack of parking. It was important to create a retail environment that welcomed not discouraged customers. The garages would not attract more traffic, but would free up on-street parking for the customers. The project which was part of the 13-point parking plan was years in the making. She urged the Council to move forward and allow the building of the two parking structures and help Downtown continue its thriving environment. The Cowper parking garage was successful because the parking was needed, and was located in Downtown as both proposed structures would be. Ellen Fletcher, 777 San Antonio Road, believed the City should look into alternatives before constructing more parking facilities. The City would have an excellent shuttle service that people would use if the money was spent on the shuttle. Chris Storer, 536 Emerson Street, said only a few people would benefit from the parking structures. Permits would be provided at one-tenth the cost of the spaces. He did not feel it was equitable for a smaller business to pay the same price as a larger business. The costs had to be either divided equally or have the individuals who benefitted pay. Edward R. Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, said the problem regarding the over abundance of automobiles in Palo Alto was not being addressed. He urged the Council to stop providing parking facilities to accommodate more automobile traffic. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, said the Council had to ask who would be parking in the parking structures. The $280 per year parking
09/27/99 89−47
permit cost less than taking the bus, and was counterproductive. To require the merchants to pay to subsidize employee parking was unfair. She believed the Council should consider the shuttle program in the context of the parking structures. There was no excuse to provide parking on the most expensive real estate the City had for all-day parking for employees. The only reason for a parking structure was for the merchant’s customers. There were areas in the out-lying parts of town parking garages could be built at a much lower cost. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the Council was addressing the wrong problem when discussing constructing two parking garages Downtown. The Council should view the issue as a transportation system issue and look at what the most effective and useful function was for the most valuable property in the Bay Area. By constructing parking garages in the Downtown area, the City was sending people the wrong message that driving automobiles into the heart of Downtown was a good thing. Valuable assets were being wasted that could be used for revenue production. Too much money was being spent to park automobiles all day for employees who should be parking on the fringes of town and bussed in on the shuttle. The $22 million the City was spending on the parking structures could buy many bus trips. He believed the City should spend the $22 million determining how to transport people, especially employees, and keep the property available for useful purposes. Two advisory bodies, the ARB and the Planning Commission, stated that the structure was too big, inappropriate, unattractive, and out of scale. He suggested the Council send the issue back for study as a portion of an overall traffic and transportation problem. Ken Alsman, 1057 Ramona Street, believed that parking for Downtown business was past due. The deficit was understated. Any Downtown business building would be required to provide certain parking standards for its customers and employees. If the standard were applied to the square footage in the array of uses Downtown, one would find that 1,500 spaces was a conservative number. Downtown parking was essential to serve customers. Instead of creating traffic problems, congestion would be solved. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said a Downtown parking study was performed in the 1970's or early 1980's which determined there was a 1,600 space deficit for parking in the Downtown area. She studied the surface parking lots Downtown and discovered that 40 percent of the surface parking at that time was privately held, which was when the City had an exclusive Assessment District so people could build on the property without providing any parking. As a result of the findings, the City started requiring new structures provide parking. The scale and mass of the structures needed to be addressed. There were fundamental land use issues at stake. When the Assessment District was first formed, it was intended as a retail tool, because retail parkers came and went. It was a way to keep the retail frontage and provide parking for customers within easy
09/27/99 89−48
distance of the shop. As the use of Downtown converted to more office, restaurant, and uses that required all-day parking, the Assessment District became an anomaly. Before major parking decisions were pursued, it would be instructive to find out how many people worked in the buildings that were built in the prior ten years and how many spaces were provided. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, said the parking deficit would not decrease as long as parking was free or 90 percent subsidized for employee parking. There might still be a deficit even if parking charges were brought up to actual cost. She suggested the City request that CalTrain increase service from once an hour to three times an hour. She reminded that the Comprehensive Plan’s major themes were to build communities and neighborhoods, maintaining and enhancing community character, and reducing reliance on the automobile. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, believed the parking structures were not compatible with the neighborhood. If the parking structures were built as planned, the City of Palo Alto would be an abuser of the PC Zone. She suggested that the City look into the use of privately owned garages that were empty at night. She favored increased funding for the shuttle and a smaller scale parking garage. Vice Mayor Wheeler closed the public hearing. RECESS: 9:45 to 10:10 p.m. Vice Mayor Wheeler said staff required guidance from the Council in the areas concerning 1) height and mass of the proposed parking structures; 2) style of the parking structures; 3) the use of areas on Lots S&L not going to be used for parking, such as the Teen Center; and 4) issue of the garages should contain public restroom facilities. Mr. Keenan and Mr. Burke raised an overriding issue concerning the extent the Council intended to use the parking structures to reduce the parking deficit. Council Member Kniss asked what other process the Council could follow if discussion did not conclude before 11 p.m. City Manager June Fleming said the item could be continued to Unfinished Business at the October 4, 1999, City Council meeting. Council Member Huber asked whether the extent of the Assessment District would be the same as it currently existed if the parking structures were approved and what impact would Proposition 218 (Prop 218) have on the parking structures in regard to benefits and burdens. Mr. Roberts said all discussions to date were centered around keeping the Assessment District boundaries the same. A benefit assessment formula would be done under the provisions of Prop 218 that required the City Engineer to certify that there was an appropriate benefit spread made. The benefit spread would have to be brought to the
09/27/99 89−49
Council for confirmation. Discussions to date centered around utilizing the current benefit spread based upon parking demand. The current formula used a blended parking ratio of four spaces per 1,000 square feet of space Downtown. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Prop 218 did two things: 1) specified the requirement before obtaining majority approval; and 2) eliminated the use of general benefit. A special benefit was required for all cases which meant a direct benefit to each of the properties, not some more community-wide benefit accruing from the improvement. Council Member Huber said the theory of the structures was that employees would park there and slots employees currently utilized on the streets would be open. Chief Transportation Official Joe Kott said the estimate of the deficit was based upon surveys. People would use the structures if available which would open up parking in the neighborhoods. Council Member Huber asked whether results could be seen in the neighborhoods. Mr. Kott said there would be some gaps; however, some cars would continue parking in the neighborhoods. Ms. Fleming said two things the Council would want to consider with regard to the deficit and the difference that parking structures made was that the City had in place a better Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and a more progressive pursuit of commute alternatives with businesses, and the other related to growth in businesses. If the City reduced numbers and allowed more growth in businesses with employees, the gain would be negated. Council Member Huber asked how staff planned to respond to people who presumed parking was for their customers. Mr. Roberts said no decision was made regarding the issue Council Member Huber presented. The final allocation of spaces for the public and permit spaces would be discussed with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Parking Subcommittee. The staff recommendation was forthcoming. Generally, there were principles agreed to such as the City would try to maximize the number of permit spaces without degrading the amount of public spaces. Council Member Mossar asked why the issue was PC Zoning. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel said one of the reasons the matter went through the PC Zoning process was the increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as well as for the reduction of setbacks. Council Member Mossar asked whether the structures could have been processed as public facilities.
09/27/99 89−50
Mr. Riel said no, not with the increase in the FAR. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff discussed and concluded on using attended parking in two ways: 1) without parking garages and increase the number of parking spaces downtown as was done on the surface lot on Lot S and 2) using attended parking such as the City Hall parking garage. Mr. Roberts said there was some discussion regarding attended parking. Staff’s primary goal was to serve the mid-day peak, specifically the lunch-hour crowd and employee parking. Attended parking was difficult to structure for the short duration peak. Getting people in and out in that period of time did not work well and for that reason attended parking was not pursued to serve the primary peak. Valet and attended parking might be feasible for evening use; however, he did not believe it would be viable for daytime use. Council Member Mossar said in the past, the Comprehensive Plan included a discouragement of massive single uses. She asked whether the discouragement of massive single uses was still in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Riel did not believe the requirement was still in the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff knew how many people worked Downtown. The City did not require business licenses; therefore, it would be hard to keep track of how many people worked in the Downtown area. Ms. Fleming said staff did not know how many people worked Downtown. Council Member Mossar asked whether, in theory, the Council could take action at a later date if it wanted to change the terms of an Assessment District so some of the funds collected paid for alternative forms of transportation, or change the pricing mechanism for employee parking permits. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Mossar said there was no opportunity before the Council to manage future growth and change in the Downtown area. She asked what leverage the Council had if it approved the parking garage. She was uncomfortable with making important decisions without knowing what the results of the decisions were. City Manager Fleming said the matter regarding future growth and change to the Downtown area was not the issue before the Council that evening. The matter would have to be agendized and discussed separately. The Council needed to decide whether it wanted to
09/27/99 89−51
discuss the matter before approving the parking structures. Council Member Mossar asked whether there was activity in the Planning Department that would bring the issues to the Council’s attention for discussion. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf understood that the Council wondered whether staff was looking at any other uses in the Downtown area that may lessen or mitigate the need for additional parking in the future or would the issue regarding the lack of parking spaces arise in the future. The City’s work program did not address the question specifically. He noted the first floor retail requirement often ended up as restaurants rather than traditional retail. Restaurants impacted both the lunch hour and evenings, while retail stores impacted during the day. Mayor Fazzino asked whether the Council could control parking uses or change parking standards. Mr. Gawf clarified that Mayor Fazzino asked whether there was a way the Council could regulate parking uses Downtown to achieve some broader objectives and whether the issue could be done as part of the consideration. The Council could review different parking requirements for different uses. There were differences in parking requirements between restaurants, which were usually based on a per seat requirement, versus retail space which was based upon square footage. There were questions regarding how parking was calculated Downtown; what were the uses, and how were parking requirements calculated should a building expand. A study would be large because the implications were significant. He noted that despite the fact that restaurants had a high parking requirement, one of the reasons the Downtown area was successful was because of the number of restaurants. He cautioned the Council to carefully balance things so one change which had unintended consequences affected something in an adverse way. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Council was proceeding on an assumption that the parking garages would exist and asked whether the Council would be required to vote on that issue before proceeding to discuss height, mass, and style. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the item for discussion was with regard to parking garages. Council Member Kniss wanted to address the height, mass, and style of the parking structures. The Council was making a major decision to add parking spaces and a garage that would dramatically alter the appearance of the Downtown area. She asked how much of Lot S/L could be reduced if a reduction was decided on. Mr. Roberts said if one level was removed, Lot S/L would lose 102 parking spaces and Lot R would lose 45 spaces.
09/27/99 89−52
Mr. Gawf said one issue was whether the parking garages fit into the Downtown area. Staff discussed whether the structure should look like a parking garage or a building. He believed the structure should recede into the background. Part of what staff was struggling with was that the parking structures could be seen and the charms of Downtown Palo Alto was that existing parking structures could not be seen such as the Webster-Cowper and High Street parking garages. The goal would be to design the new parking structures to recede into the background. Council Member Kniss said the Webster-Cowper and High Street parking garages were in “fringe” areas. She asked how high the Senior Coordinating Council building was and whether it reached 50 feet. Mr. Gawf said the Senior Coordinating Council building was approximately 45 feet high. Council Member Kniss said with regard to massing, she wanted to avoid the feel of walking down a corridor. She asked how staff intended to handle mass, height, and lighting so the parking garage was not a daunting area to walk at night. Mr. Gawf said staff intended to have some sort of night activity such as retail activity at street level. Council Member Kniss addressed the style issue. Mr. Gawf believed there were many different approaches to treat the exterior of the building; however, the issues regarding height, mass, and street level activities were key. If staff could identify the three, staff could proceed to the next point of making sure the materials and exterior reflected what the City wanted Downtown. Council Member Kniss asked what the total number of spaces were if the parking garages were lowered. Mr. Roberts said Lot L would not lose spaces because one level was proposed to be added below-grade. Council Member Kniss asked how many spaces would Lot S/L lose if parking spaces were retained in Lot L, with two levels aboveground and two underground, and Lot S was reduced by one level. Mr. Roberts said the scheme was not viable because if Lot S was reduced one level, then the top level of Lot L would not be accessible due to the interior circulation pattern. If both Lots S and L were reduced a level, 102 spaces would be lost. The total spaces of the original scheme of Lot S/L was 646 spaces. Reducing Lot S/L would result in a reduction to 544 spaces. The net would be 535 additional spaces. Council Member Kniss asked how many spaces Lot R would lose.
09/27/99 89−53
Mr. Roberts said Lot R would lose 45 spaces from a total of 227 spaces with a reduction to 182 spaces or 111 net. Council Member Kniss asked what the total number of net would be if Lot S/L and R were reduced by one level. Mr. Roberts said the net would be 546 total spaces. Council Member Kniss said she liked the style altering from building to building. She would be in favor of changing the “skin” of the buildings if it did not result in dramatic cost changes. Mr. Roberts said the ARB believed the Spanish-style theme was over done in the Downtown area and directed staff to pursue an alternative. The range of costs for the different styles was not a major “make or break” issue in the overall cost of the project. The different themes resulted in only minor variations to the total project cost. Staff had flexibility in the overall project budget to look at different styles of “skins.” Council Member Kniss was in favor of the APTs existing in the schemes if it were constructed and installed the same way the Council had discussed. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked what the cost per parking space impact was on losing 147 spaces. Mr. Roberts said the cost per space would increase. Staff estimated that the cost would increase from approximately $25,000 per space to $30,000 per space. Even though the total construction budget would decrease, the cost per stall would increase. Mayor Fazzino believed the Downtown area needed more parking structures, but only as part of a broader, meaningful Transportation Management Plan. There was the implication that significant progress was made with the Transportation Management Plan; however, he did not see the progress. He wanted the Council to act on other parts of the Transportation Management Plan including the shuttle, establishing incentives for employees in the Downtown area, new parking standards related to uses, and a neighborhood parking permit program. He suggested eliminating one level on Lot S/L because of its massiveness for the Downtown area and include a higher percentage of compact car spaces. He preferred the structures look like buildings rather than parking garages. Council Member Eakins asked what street parking would look like in the Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods if the deficit were completely removed. Mr. Kott said there would be no long-term parkers in the neighborhoods; however, there would still be some cars in on-street parking.
09/27/99 89−54
Council Member Eakins clarified that a no deficit goal would be continued usage of on-street parking. Mr. Kott said the policy rationale was to shift the location of long-term parkers and to accommodate the parkers rather than have them spill over into the neighborhoods. The City Manager was also committed to the TDM program in the Downtown through the proposed commute coordinator, which could reduce the demand by 300 or more long-term parkers. Council Member Eakins said the cap on growth in the Downtown was 200,000 square feet. She asked how much was in the Parking Assessment District. Mr. Gawf said there was approximately 200,000 square feet in the Downtown cap. He was not sure how many square feet were in the Parking Assessment District. Staff produced a report in December 1998 that showed that use over the prior years was minimal. The Downtown cap was 300,000 square feet and there was still a significant portion left. Council Member Eakins said there was much discussion regarding the Downtown cap, but she was unsure as to who made the decision about changing the blend inside the assessment district. Mr. Roberts said changing the blend was a Council policy decision which was a joint staff recommendation with the Public Works Department, the Administrative Services Department, and City Attorney’s Office. Council Member Eakins was interested in the height of the proposed garage for Lot R. Mr. Roberts believed Lot R was 12 feet higher than the adjacent building. Council Member Eakins asked whether the adjacent building was south and ran from High Street to Alma Street. Mr. Roberts said the building was on the north side. Council Member Rosenbaum said lowering the parking garages by a level might destroy the economics of smaller projects in terms of net spaces. It was important for staff to return to the Council with estimates regarding the financial impact in terms of cost per space. The Council needed staff, based on that evening’s discussion, to list the issues that needed specific decisions from the Council. Council Member Ojakian asked whether employee parking would be lost if the parking structures were reduced by one level. Mr. Roberts said the answer was a Council policy decision. Staff’s
09/27/99 89−55
recommendation was to reduce parking proportionately and not penalize one group, but make a proportional reduction in both public and permanent parking. Council Member Ojakian said employee parking would be on the upper levels since the stalls were the least used. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. Staff’s intent was to provide public parking on the ground level and the extremities for permit parking; however, if the parking structures were reduced, then staff would look at reducing parking proportionately. Council Member Ojakian asked what the City would do to assure that people would park in the parking garages. Mr. Roberts said the residential permit parking was one of the bigger issues that would encourage people to use the parking garages. The parking permit availability was a secondary consideration. Staff could not make guarantees, usage depended upon the economy and the health of the Downtown area. Council Member Ojakian said it was typical that people used surface level parking and as a last result used the upper or lower floors of a parking garage. Mr. Roberts believed what Council Member Ojakian said was true; however, the existence of the color zones and the adoption of a resident’s parking permit program would be strong influences to get people to park on the upper levels. Council Member Ojakian clarified that parking garages had to be done in conjunction with another program to ensure that both worked together. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. Council Member Ojakian asked what was the potential deficit of parking in the Downtown area. Mr. Roberts said if there were another 200,000 square feet and the four spaces per thousand feet (four per thousand) figure was used that would produce another potential additional 800 spaces in demand. Mr. Gawf said the calculations were more complicated. The Downtown parking situation was shared parking, and people shopping Downtown did not make one stop. The four per thousand calculation was based upon a single stop or trip. What the Downtown area experienced was multiple trips which made the parking demand more complicated to calculate. He observed several downtown areas throughout the country and did not see a successful downtown area that did not have a parking deficit. There would always be a parking deficit because the area attracted people. He believed it was important to keep
09/27/99 89−56
in mind there was a parking need, but hesitated to get too concerned to quantify the deficit down to the final few stalls. He believed there was a need for additional parking in Downtown in the near future; however, the question was whether the City could do it in a way that complimented the Downtown which would determine how many stalls could be obtained from the parking structures. Council Member Ojakian said at one stage someone took the blended rate of four spaces per thousand multiplied by the actual square footage Downtown and determined that subtracting the spaces that already existed from the number of potential spaces needed would show a significant deficit. Mr. Gawf said a shared parking formula would have to be used rather than free standing buildings that had parking only for its use. The benefit of common parking was that parking could be shared by all the uses Downtown, and multiple trips could be made with one parking stall. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the four per thousand blended rate was a realistic formula. Mr. Gawf said the blended rate was a blending between commercial office use parking need and a specialty need such as restaurants. He believed the four per thousand was high, especially for a downtown environment. Restaurants would be based on a per seat calculation. Mr. Roberts said there were two contexts, the parking demand for Downtown and the Assessment District. He believed it was a legitimate basis for performing an assessment spread, there were other alternatives as well. Council Member Ojakian said the cap was set at 350,000 square feet. He recollected that 83,000 square feet were used to date. He asked whether the parking structures applied against the cap. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. Council Member Ojakian said the City had a car pool program and provided the employee with a free space. He heard that 10 to 15 vehicles used the program per day. Mr. Gawf said the number was slightly higher. Council Member Ojakian asked with the difficulty in parking and the large number of people on the waiting list, why there were not more people carpooling. Mr. Kott said there was a fall in the rate of carpooling. One of the reasons for the decrease was there was an overall decline in gas prices. From census to census since the 1970s there was a marked decline in carpooling.
09/27/99 89−57
Mr. Gawf said it was convenient not to car pool. There was more flexibility with a single occupant vehicle. As long as free parking was provided in the Downtown area, there was more flexibility for people to drive ones own car. Ms. Fleming said carpooling might be down; however, use of alternative means of transportation in terms of City employees had increased. She reminded the Council that it allocated additional funds to encourage alternative uses of transportation. Council Member Huber recalled that the Council asked for a structure that did not look like a parking structure, which maximized the number of spaces. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. Council Member Huber said the Council was going against what staff was directed to do if the parking structures were cut back by one level. Vice Mayor Wheeler said staff indicated that if the Council was interested in a redesign option rather than the staff recommendation, the redesign would take a period of six to eight months to return to the Council. Mr. Keenan indicated that the “skins” and not the structural engineering, would be a quicker process. Mr. Riel said a suggestion was made to secure an additional architect if the City wanted to take another look at the “skin,” which would require additional time. Timing would also depend on the type of review process the Council wanted. The redesign would need to be reviewed by the ARB, the Planning Commission, and the HRB, hence, the six to eight month period. Vice Mayor Wheeler requested staff make up a list of major issues that the Council needed to address. She said Ms. Bell had asked the City Attorney about the voting on the Assessment District for those people that had “triple net” leases. Mr. Calonne said that Prop 218 was a property owner vote. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified that the Council did not have the ability to change Prop 218. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Mossar, to continue Item Nos. 5 and 6 to the October 18, 1999, City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent.
09/27/99 89−58
9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Mossar spoke regarding citizens’ concerns about College Terrace traffic calming. She requested that staff respond to residents regarding the College Terrace traffic issues. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
09/27/99 89−59