Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-21 City Council Summary Minutesi• A CITY COUNCI L Manures Regular Meeting April 21, 1986 CITY OF PALO ALTO ITEM PAGE Oral Communications Approval of Minutes of March. 17, 1986 Consent Calendar Referral Action Item #1, Ordinance re Extension of Downtown Moratorium (2nd Reading) Item #2, Ordinance re Interim Parking Regulations in Downtown (2nd Reading) Item #3, Ordinance Establishing Underground Utility District No. 29 Item #4, Summary Vacation of Public Utilities Casement at 2301 and 2317 Wi l 1 i ams Avenue Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #5, PUBLIC HEARING: Downtown Study - Planning Commission Recommendations on Draft Environmental Impact Report: Comprehensive Plan Amendments; New Zoning and Other Ordinances; and Other Policies, Implementation Programs and Projects Recess Iteff #6, Request of Council :ember . Levy re Oral Communications Procedures Adjournment: 11:05 p.m. 7 0 8 2 7 0 8 5 7 0 8 5 7 0 8 5 7 0 8 5 7 0 8 5 7 0 8 5 7 0 8 5 7 0 8 5 7 0 8 6 7 0 8 6 7 U 9 4 7 1 0 2 7 1 0 3 7 0 8 1 4/21/86 Regular Meet hiy April 21, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Klein ORAL COMMUNICATIONS I. Carol Mullen, 618 Tennyson Avenue, requested Council support for sanctuary for all of the refugees. Central American refugees fled torture and death and were classified as immi- grants so they could be deported. Church members who offered sanctuary were being arrested which was a misuse of the crimi- nal process. When the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acquitted the sanctuary worker and found against the Immigra- tion and Naturalization Service (INS) , she believed the abuse of the immigration process would end but it did not. The same issue was brought to trial in another state and the worker was rearrested. The legal process was too slow and the financial resources were unequal. She referred to the lateness of the acknowledgment of injustice and how incomplete the reparations were to the Japanese -Americans interned during World War II. In 1945 her parents' home became a stopping place for some of the survivors from concentration camps. She did not under- stand much of what she heard, but she remembered in Paris 400 %/omen and children, because they were Jews, were rounded up aid sent to an unheated amphitheater because the Parisians did not want to turn them over to the Germans but did not want to do much for them either. Without food, water, or heat they died, and it frightened her to think how easy it was for indifference and inaction to become involved.. in great evil. The sanctuary movement consisted of ministers, nuns, school. teachers, doctors, businessmen, men like James Brosnahan, a successful corporate attorney from San Francisco who normally billed at $250 an hour but for eight months served at .his own cost in Arizona defending the sanctuary workers. On March 20, Palo Alto's Human Relations Commission asked Council to con- sider its support for the concept of Palo Alto as a;Sanctuary City. To quote Mr. Brosnahan, "It's a black day for the criminal process when our government arrests people who have all the qualities like courage and faith that it should honor." If Council still had any doubts about its responsi- bilities, she requested an opportunity to discuss the issue with Council as a community by putting it on the agenda or by calling a special meeting, 2. Lise Giraud, 2200 Byron Street, spoke on the sanctuary issue and said Stanford students. voted 2,524 to 1,875 to make Stanford a sanctuary. Regarding whether- sanctuary was a local issue, she was disappointed Coueilmembers who saw clearly on the South African divestment issue did not see the connection. The Sanctuary issue was a local one becaikse there were Central American refugees living in their midst. She did not believe a city of some 550000 people could claim its concerns as residents and citizens were bound by Woodland Avenue on one side and San Antonio on. the other which was clearly demon- strated by the 250 people who went to the Council Chambers the night Council was requested to put the issue on the agenda. Sanctuary was a matter of deep concern to Palo Alto residents, There were enough incontrovertible facts published in the 7 0 8 2 4/21/86 papers every day to convihce 'them those refugee '44re seeking sanctuary from persecution and oppression. She admired people who put themselves out to provide aid and shelter to the per- secuted and hunted, and viewed with contempt those who knew and never moved a finger. She joined in the reque.lt. that Council agend a ze the item or call a special towns ' meet's ng on the subject. 3. Jim Wake, 244 Robin Way, had 93 additional Palo Alto residents who signed a petition asking to put the sanctuary resolution on the agenda and hoped Council would be more responsive to those public requests in the future. 4. Rabbi Sheldon Lewis, 920 Paradise Way, Congregation Kol Emeth, hoped the issue of declaring Palo Alto a Sanctuary City could be ayendi zed with the urgency it deserved. He > was proud to be an American because historically `.their country embraced the. oppressed and homeless. Most people were two, three, or four generations away from having been \refugees themselves. He just finished reading Abandonment of the Jews, which told of the failures of their people in the era of the holocaust when hundreds of thousands could have been saved but were not. Central American refugees were at the door, and people had another opportunity to see if they learned any lessons from another era. He looked upon the Sanctuary movement as one of the most beautiful things that happened in their era in the United States for it represented an expression of the heart of their people. One of th`e worst images in The ' hol`'ocaust was the spectator. The Palo Alto City Council had the ability to speak out with forcefulness because it was a respected commu- nity. Passover, the great holiday of freedom, would begin in two nights. At the beginning of the Passave- meal in Jewish homes throughout the world people said, '"Let a:1 1 ` who are oppressed come, sit down, and join us to Oat- together." He hoped they could act on that sacred and treasured sentiment in their own community and with great urgency. 5. Or. Harvey K. Roth, 3422 Kenneth Drive, reported on the Palo Alto Recovery Center. He went before Council four other times, went before the Human Relations Commission, the Santa Clara County Drug Abuse Commission, Alcoholism Advisory Board, and was working with Assemblyman Byron Sher with regard to the funding for the Center. He was gathering support for the Seymour Bill in regard to equalizing per capita expenditures in regard to alcohol and drug programs by the counties of the State of California, and the Hart Bi f l to label alcoholic beverages and packaging in regard to pregnant women and the alcohol fetal syndrome from abuse. He pl.)nned to introduce an alcohol and drug program to and through. the Palo Alto School District, through the public information in cooperation with the professional community as a representative of the committee of Alcoholics Anonymous. He hoped to receive the cooperation necessary to • bring all of those items to fruition. It would be nice if the representatives of the press and radio would give them coverage `in 'their endeavors. 6. Sam Sparck, 4099 Laguna, protested Council's vote the previous Monday to study alternatives to develop school sites for ° com- mercial and industrial use. As a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, he was concerned about what world happen to Gunn High ; as a resident. of Palo Alto, he was concerned because it was a matter of City-wide concern. The school sites involved affected the entire community. Such intense .development would add crowding and traffic to already congested neighborhoods 7 0 8 3 4/21/86 and intersections; would add to the jobs/housing imbalance; would reduce open space and recreational facilities; was con- trary to several provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and made the same mistakes which in the Downtown area gave rise to the problems which led to the current mcratorl um and Downtown Study plan. Some rationalization could be found for any development but Palo Alto's was poor and unbalanced. Palo Alto's problems stemmed from a history of one-sided consider- ation of ,benefits often put forth as a screen for private gain while ignoring the cost. He referred to the, revenue to the City as a result of intensive development of school sites. No mention was made of the side effects of such developments nor of the real costs to the City of such development, i .e . , sewer service which was especially heavy for industrial/commercial use; water service, morer chance of ;industrial, caused aground water pollution in an already' trouble area; and the el ectri city service, especially heavy for industrial and commercial use. He understood Palo Alto had less than a two megawatt allocation of cheap power left. City utilities were a limited resource. In the case of Gunn High; all .ups,treaI ,pav;Fig of the Barron Creek water shed area increase'd the chance of fre- quency of flooding in their neighborhood, and Council knew how sensitive the neighborhood was to flooding based on exper- ience. Commercial development added insult to injury by making the flooding problem worse. When various Council - members campaigned for reelection, he never heard better expressions of enlightened civic -mindedness. He opined the vote the previous week cast a little doubt on some of those words. Council's judgment in deciding to consider those alternatives was poor. He believed Council made a bad call and urged Council recognize it and reverse the action. Petition activity had already started as a reflex action to the vote and could easily intensify because it was a real issue of City-wide concern. 7. John Joynt, 3589 Laguna, President of the Barron Park Associa- tion ((PA), had petitions which in two days had over 400 signatures. One petition said to rescind the direction of the previous weekof expanding Stanford Industrial Park into Gunn High. The other stated the BPA's positton as reflected over the past year in editorials and direct letters to the Planning Commission and Council, ,to . lea ,e .,the site opelrl n,r, f"nd an alternative use. The 1and "coud ' be used for othe'r al�'terna.- tives rather than high density property or expanding Stanford Industrial Park. They were al ready dealing with toxic prob- lems at a State level and talked with Assemblyman Byron Sher and Senator Becky Morgan and saw some re1 i of r Barrop.. Park also had flood problems and run off in' the 'area. He urged Council consider rescinding its direction to expand Stanford Industrial Rork into Gunn High. He invited Council to the BPA's Annual May Fete on May 18. B. Bob Moss, 4010 0r!me Street, was present when Council oddly voted to study expanding commercial and industrial uses in the school sites, particularly Palo Alto, Cubberley, and Gunn. It was particularly odd because it not only went against stated public policy on the pert of the City Council and Planning Commission to reducedevelopment potential but also violated a number of policies and programs of the 1976 Comprehensive Plan and the 1978 Zoning Ordinance. Schools and Parks, Policy No. I was to cooperate' and . actively' develop with the School District a long-range plan to identify school sites or por- tions of sites to be preserved for community ownership or use. Policy , No. 2 was to give priority to affordable housing, parks, community facilities, and existing community uses in considering future uses of school sites. Policy No. 3 was to provide park facilities within walking distance for .residents 7 0 8 4 4/21/86 1 living within the urban portion of Palo Alto allowing for major physical barriers. Under Policy 3 was Program 6 to acquire and develop district park facilities on one or more sites west of Alma. Council's action to study expanding commercial and industrial uses in the school sites violated the Comprehensive Plan. He askew one Hof_ the five Ccuncllmembers on the prevailing side of the vote or one of 'he eight on the prevailing side of ,the vote regarding iubberley and Paly or both, to reconsider the votes. It was inappropriate to bend over backwards to the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) when it presented its request at 7:30 p.m. Monday night, - The PAUSD made the same request to the Planning Commission which turned them down unanimously. The public who commented on PAUSD's requests unanimously opposed them. It was inappropriate for Council to act in a manner which did such violence to the planning and procedures to which they were accustomed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 1986 MOTION: Corncilmember Smtorins mowed, seconded by Patitucci, approval of. the Minutes of March 17, 1986, as sebmitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Coencilmetber Sstorius moved, seconded by Woolley, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None Action ITEM #I ORDINANCE RE. EXTENSION OF DOWNTOWN MORATORIUM (2nd Readl rig) (PLA 7-14) ORDINANCE 36;0 entitled .'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY DT ALT© EXTENDING THE ORDINANCES IMPOSING OETELOPNENT,MORATORIA IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA' (1st Reading 4/7/04, PASSED 8-0, Klein net participating) ITEM- t2 ORUI$ANCE RE INTERIM PARKING REGULATIONS IN DOWNTOWN (2nd Read n9 P - ORDINANCE 3631 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO Ii.TO EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3582 REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING AND. LOADING REGULATIONS IN A SPECIFIED AEA OF DOWNTOWN' PALO ALTO'S (1st Reading 6/7/+D6, PASSED 0-0, iKleir not particinatfrg) ITEM f3, ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. i9 (2nd Reading)mining 3 OZ **titled °ORDINANCE OF TKE C$ONCIL OF ;THE WY 1F*LI ALTO. AKERUJ 6 SECTION 1t.1i o20 OF C*APTER 12.14 OF TITLE E2 OF TOE PALO ' ALTO MONICIPAL LONE ST ESTAML1SNING ONlERO+NOUNI UTILITY ' DISTRICT NO1 29" (1st R•a ing 4/7/14. PASSED D -O) ITEM 04. SUMMARY VACATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES. EASEMENT AT 2301 AND Staff- recommends Council adopt the resolution ordering the vaca- tion of the Public titi l it,y Easement at. 2301 and 2317 Williams Avenue. MOTION CONTINUED VACATION OF EASEMENT RESOLUTION 6507 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF flit CITY OF PALO ALTO ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF A PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES AT 2301 AND 2317 WILLIAMS AVENDFi MOTION PASSED unanimously,. Klein absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS.. Counciimember Levy added Item #6, re Council policy on Oral Communications. ITEM #5, PUBLIC HEARING: DOWNTOWN STUDY - PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMEtTSL NEW ZONING AND OTHER ORDINANCES; AND OTHER POLICIES, I NTATI N P GRAMS AND PROJECTS Resolution and Ordinance titles to be istednon agenda of May 2 and documents to be available in that packet) (PLA 7-14) (CMR:251:6) Mayor Cobb said the item was complex and would take careful r_nn- sideration by Council. Council was nearing the decision point of a long, involved process which involved tremendous effort on the part of the Downtown Study Committee, Plaiming Commission, City Planning staff, and many interested, involved citizens in the com- munity all of whom participated in getting Council to where it was that evening. That evening there would be a summary presentatio on the study recommendations. Speaking on behalf of the Downtown Study Committee was Ed Arnold, members of the Planning Commission were repreeentec! by Commissioners McCown and Christensen, and com- ments from staff -would be from Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber. The presentations would be :;fol }owed by questions by Coun`ilmembers to the parties, and finally to Public Hearing would be opened. On May 5, 1956, the regular Council meeting would be a "shirt -sleeve" work session of the Council with members of the .Planning Commission, staff, Downtown Study Commit- tee, and whoever .might attend from the public. The meeting would give Council an opportunity to interact with each other and with all of the parties .to discuss the issue in detail and. to .try and understand the complex issues involved. At the end of that evening's meeting, he would ask to continue the Public Hearing to May 12. The May 5 Council meeting would not have ,a public hearing; it world be a work session. The Public Hearing' would be reopened on May 12 by which time the public would have An oppor- tur►;ty to absorb and respond to. the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He cautioned members of the public that since by Council's rules, public spokespersons should speak only once to an issue, if they chose to welt for the "shirt -sleeve" session and whatever further study of the EIR they eight want to undertake, he asked them to save their public comments for the May 12 meeting. If people spoke that evening and wanted to. make subsequent ,remarks, he encouraged the ,remarks be made in writing: to the Council so everyone ; had the _ same; 'benefit. The schedule was designed to pro- vide a good understanding of the issues before Council, which were complicated _ and had long-range, si yni fi cant con,sequences to the City. Ed Arnold, Chairman of the Downtown Study Committee, and : a former mayor of Palo Alto, said almost two years passed li nce the Committee started its deliberations. The Committee pretty much finished its work except to be available along with the. Planning Commission members at the "shirt==sleeve" session in two weeks. The Committee was gerier'al1y satisfied with the report as forwarded to the -Planning Commission. The Planning Commission made modifi- cation.', and Council was presently:working on-. t'lat particular document. Regarding what was happening' in .the Downtuwn, many people felt smothered by traffic and were concerned about parking problems which was what caused him to become active on the Commit- tee in the first place. He was sympathetic to those who said, "Blow the whistle and stop the train." People tried to be as calm and reasonable as possible. The people: on the periphery of Down- town asked -Council t.o take a closer look at some of the recommen- dati ons. They believed the core probl ems were being radiated out to the edge of the study area in ee .unfair manner. It was up to Council to decide but along with all 'the other input, it deserved a reasonable hearing and he knew Council would do so. Planning Commissioner Jean McCown regretted Planning Commission Chairperson Pat Cullen's absence that evening because she played a significant role in leading the Commission through a series of public hearings since January and on to a complete set of recom- mendations. She .knew Council appreciated from viewing the docu- mentation the breadth and depth of consideration given to the sub- jects by the Commission and the extensiveness of the recommenda- tions. The staff reports before Council reflected 42- separate items of recommendation by the Commission to Council. Many of the items were interrelated and interdependent, and staff's most recent report (CMR:251:6) with the matrix showed a lot of that interdependency. She joined Ed Arnold in emphasizing the exten- siveness of the public participation throughout the two-year process, both with the Downtown Study Committee and through the Public Hearings .held by the Commission since January. Council also had verbatim minutes from meetings at the.Commission level which detailed the comments received from the public, the discus- sion and consideration by the Planning Commission of the various matters. She hoped it would all prove useful to the Council in proceeding. On the viewgraph, she showed a summary of some of the key recornteridati ons made by the Commission to the Council with respect to overall projections of growth and growth limitations for the Downtown-. The first and most critical recommendation was the maximum limitation of an additional 350,000 square .feet of development potential Downtown. As Council knew, it' was a deper- ture from the rerem"endaticn from the Study Committee received the previous year which was a "gating" concept, i.e., an annual allo- cation of growth at either 50,000 or 70,000 square feet per year over a period of 5, 7, or 10 years. The Commission concluded because of the difficulty of the process. in implementing such a gating concept, the bureaucracy involved, the establishing of criteria foe eligibility to build under the cb.ncept, on balance, it .made more sense to return to an overall cap and an addition of floor area to get t.o the development restrictions the Commission wanted, to recommend. Accordingly, Item 2 indicated the proposed reduction in floor area. available for de elepment in Downtown, The core CC area .which presently was a 3:1 rfloor area ratio .(FAR) would be reduced to a 1;1; the CS zone and the CN zones which were 2:1 would • be reduced clown to 0.4:-1. She explained for the audi - ence the CC zone was the Core Commercial zone Downtown, basically University Avenue and off to the sides to Hamilton and Lytton. The CS zone was a=Service:Commercial zone in the area of the Down- town principally south of Hamilton stretching down High Street paral tel to Alma. The CM zone In the Downtown area was pri nci pale l -y on the north side of Lytton: at : it .existed at :present. The new designations were CDC, iwhere the Core Commercial would be. re- labeled CDC to reflect a special Downtown Commercial zone; CDS was the new designation for the Service.Commerciel zone; and CAN was the- new designation for the Neighborhood Commercial zones. The concept was .the whole Downtown area would have ee overall downtown 7 D 8 7 4/21/86 zone within which the sub -zones with many of the characteristics of the existing zoning would continue. Within.* t ,e reduced floor areas proposed, there would be an exemption for additional square footage necessary to meet the new handicapped requirements, Title 24 of the California State code, and a proposal whereby buildings identified as seismically hazardous would also be allowed an addi- tional amount of square footage, either 25 percent. of the present square footage o,r 2,000 square feet, whichever was less, to be used in connection with seismic upgrading of the property. The additional square footage could be built notwithstanding the reduction in FAR being proposed. Under no circumstances could the additional square footage exceed the 3:1 which was the present floor area limit. The next major proposal to limit growth Down- town would limit the size of any project to a total square footage of 25,000 square feet or a net additional square footage of 15,000 above the existing square footage on a property whichever, number was greater. All must be done within the limit of the recommended floor area ratio in Item 2. Office development in the CDS, Ser- vice Commercial Zone, and CDN, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, Down- town would be limited to a maximum of 5,000. square feet for office. Regarding specific rezoning proposals, Item 5, ?Mentioned many areas where the recommendation was to rezone from a variety cf cvuunerctal zones to multi -family zones. Item C was to also consider the vezoning of multi -family rental uses presently located in the CD zone to RN and included residential hotels in the Downtown area. There were some specific recommendat i ons to change the zoning from the CC, Core Commercial, to a Neighborhood Commercial type uses which recommendations were principally .to.. the north side of University north o( Lytton and in a few locatOins south. Where rezonings were recommended either to multi -family or neighborhood commercial, the Commission recommended there be a broad grandfather clause to permit all of the existing businesses in those areas to continue regardless of the change in zoning to multi -family use. It meant the businesses would be deemed con- forming uses, could continue the physical structure in which the business was located, could be rebuilt in the event of destruction by fire and the use could continue notwithstanding zoning was changed to one which in the future might not permit the use. Planning Commissioner Ellen Christensen said under the parking strategies, _ it was important to remember the goal was to accept the parking deficit and the parking already occurring in the neighborhoods both north and south but to not allow it to worsen. The most important concept was ail of the new development above existing development would have to provide its own parking at a new uniform, blended rate of one space for each 250 square feet of nonresidential use. It would allow a developer to choose any use for the property including retail and not a particular use which might be a traffic user like retail to be discriminated against in terms oftprovid ee more parking. The exception would be current vacant sites would receive credit for ;3 spaces for each 1,000 square feet in existence and the seismically hazardous buildings which upgraded would be exem :ted from the parking requirements for the 25 percents additional floor area ratio or the 2,000 square feet. It was a one-time only addition and exemption. The Commis- sion recommended at least one new parking structure be built to provide some relief for the parking deficit and allow the deficit to not increase by •the seismic or handicapped exemptions floor area. It -would also allow sltee too small to have parking in their own right to buy into the parking :structure and provide park i ny for the new development. The third recommendation. related to off -site parking and allowed' the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve off -site parking where there was 1 a possibility to do so within a near distance and where a guaran- tee could ensure the maintenance of parking in the long term. The fourth recommendation was a eight -point parking management program to try and make better use of the parking already existing in the Downtown as follows: 1) separate the short ana long-term parking spaces by parking facilities; 2) reduce all day use of the short- term parking spaces; 3) provide a variable feed parking at selected parking facilities to reduce all day parking by lowering the time limit on the parking in certain locations from two hours to one hour; 4) discourage parking in the' surrounding neighbor- hoods; 5) promote high occupancy vehicle use of public parking spaces; 6) a traffic coordinator- work with Downtown employers to try and improve or reduce the number of people driving into the Downtown; 7) involve employers in the parking management and get them to work with their employees on buying permits and developing better carpooling arrangements. Review existing parking lots recommending redesign and striping where circulation or improved capacitycould be provided; and 8) City staff to study vacant lots currently being used for parking with the possibility of the City's purchasing those vacant lots. Regarding traffic related to parking, the Commission believed the key recommendation was the City to hire a transportation coordinator to work with the various employers Downtown on reducing the numbers of cars going into the Downtown. Beyond the recommendations, there were not many more traffic improvements to recommend, The Commission suggested no new signals along Middlefield or Alma north of Lytton, and no new signals on Middlefield south of Channing to discourage people from turning into the residential neighborhoods before they got to the Downtown Streets. It was also recommended there be no parking on University Avenue and left turn lanes be prohibited at University and Guinda, and improve!_ the Middlefield and Willow intersection by adding a lane and removing the island'. The Commission was split on whe her to add a. lane at Middlefield and University by acquiring the right-of-way and removing the trees so there was no recommendation on the particular traffic improvement from thp rani - mission. Ms. McCown said there was a recommendation for e ground floor retail only zone for the core of the Downtown area on university Avenue from the circle to Cowper Street and extending on to the side streets towards Hamilton and Lytton. If the vacancy rate in a building reached 7.5 percent for six months at a time, there was an exception procedure where property owners would ` have an option to'•.lease .property to nonretail arses in the ground floor retail zone. The Commission also recommended specific housing incentives in certain areas surrounding the Downtown. The concern was with the substantially reduced .flour area recommended for commercial development, if it also applied to housing development, housing would not be pursued. For example, if the CDS zone was an 0.4 FAR, it seamen unlikely there would be any opportunities to pursue housing. The Commission considered incentives and recommended a graduated additional floor area ranging from an 'additional square footage of 0.25 to an additional 0.75. For the CDS on the north side of Lytton and south CDS zone the recommendation ,was for a higher housing ` incentive FAR of 1 .5 : 1 . The area was specified as the east side of ` Alma and east and west sides of High ° between Forest and Channing. She clarified it was the Peninsula Creamery operations yard, the Palo Alto Week., Reath Fytness, and the old 8ekins storage building located on the east side of High. It was basically a block and one-half where the property owner in addi- tion 'to the. 0.4 FAR available for commercial use .would be per- mitted to build an additional 1.5;1 FAR if it was built in housing. There would be a higher requirement for below market rate housing --25 percent rather than .10 percent which applied elsewhere in : the City --and site and design review for any such 3 089 4/21/86 project. It was recommended the ARK develop special setback and open space requirements for projects which might be proposed in the one and one-half block area; The Commission's concept was in the sense of a pilot program where it could be tailored by the City as to what it would like to see developed in the area. Regarding historic preservation, the Commission passed on to the Council the recommendation of the Historic Resources Board (HRB) in terms of a possible transfer of development rights. After the HRe recommendation was received, the Commission acted on the seis- mic exemption and the provision of some additional fluor area. A question was raised as to whether historic properties should have an incentive similar to the incentive for seismic. The Commission did not act on the question and it was left for Council consider- ation. Additional _study items included an historic preservation ordinance which she believed had already returned from the ARB; further controls on the abilities to merge and split parcels as another element of controlling growth limitations; and a request for specific guidelines for housing whichs might be built in the CDS area south of Hamilton. ee Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff fundamentally concurred with the Planning Commission recom- mendations with a few modifications. Twelve years ago when he began work for the City of Palo Alto, the City wes -trying to facilitate investment, development and a general sense of vitality in the Downtown. The proposed downzoning recommended by the Com- mission and endorsed by staff was more severe than any other non - initiative downzoning staff could find for a downtown of corres- ponding or greater complexity and size. Staff could not predict the medium and long-term impacts of the zoning changes and other regulations and policies on economic vitality, investment deci- sions, and the overall urban character of the Downtown. In the short-term, the City could be facilitating the escalation of rents, but the short term economic impacts were unclear. It was important to emphasize the Downtown would continue to change because as they went through public hearings and discussions, the objective seemed to be to try and stop change which was impos- sible. Change would continue partially in response to the City's policies and regulations and other actions and partially in response to local, regional, national and international forces. For those forces, staff had little knowledge and less under- standing. Staff believed the .Planning Commission recommendations were an accurate reflection of the community's hopes and desires for the Downtown area. For the question period, staff hoped Coun- cilmembers would identify any desired additional environmental information. Receiving those questions would allow staff to respond in writing prior to the May 12 conclusion of the public nearing; and, , if possible, staff would respond prior to the May. 5 workshop. Mayor Cobb urged questions which might generate staff research be raised that evening in order to allow staff to respond for the workshop session. He was concerned about preserving economic vitality in the Downtown. At the same time, the City did the kinds of necessary downzoninge. He asked about ways in which to logically monitor the economic .vitality. Mr. Schreiber said staff preferred to respond to the question in writing. The ramifications on ,staff;. time could oe great. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the ten percent limit an growth and the point at which ,the ten percent got reviewed was directly related to the recommended FAR, i.e., if the new FAR was complete- ly built out in the new zones, would it equate to the ten percent or was the ten percent considerably less than the build out. If se, he asked about the orders of magnitude. 7 0 9 0 4/21/86 Ms. McCown believed the total build out . would be 500,000 square feet. If every property built out to the maximum level, it would be a total of 500,000 square feet. Councilmember Patitucci asked about a map which showed site poten- tial. One problem with maximum build out was if one site was at 80 percent, it assumed 20 percent would be added. Adding 20 per- cent aright not be practical unless the building was torn down and replaced. If there was a map which showed how much potential there was per site, one could then wander around Downtown and see what actually might happen versus what was calculated to happen. Acting Chief Planning Official George Zimmerman .said staff pre- pared a map showing build out under some original Study Committee recommended FAR' s, which might have to be modified to reflect the current. Councilmember Patitucci referred to the 25,000 square foot limit, and asked on how many sites the 25,000 ' square feet was a con- straint. Regarding the grandfather clause, he believed it was implied the existing businesses could :'continue. If the grand - fathering clause was as broad as it seemed to be, it meant the City could always expect those businesses to continue. He queried what triggered a different use. Regarding the parking and the assumption there would be no worse deficit than the current one, he asked how the use of private parking tied into the existing deficit. If private parking was eliminated, would the problem be exacerbated. He asked if the Committee or Planning Commission looked at potential incentives to reduce the deficit. Councilmember Levy commended everyone involved in the process on the excellent job. Although Council had several pounds of materi- al, its organization was good. Regarding the degree of housing incentive, he was unclear about how effective the incentives would be in actually producing housing and what kind of housing it would produce. Who would likely live in the housing in terms of age, income and demographics, family size, -children, etc. In relation to parking, it was recomrended the City acquire the vacant l-ots and it seemed to -be a good idea if .there were any. He was ieteE •- ested in the City's ability to acquire vacant i:;_te en terns of costs and legalities. =He had a p, obl ern di ge ,ti,ng the parking. information which indicated all of tt►e Present- parking was fully used and yet it indicated some vacanci es.e A; he looked at the new parking facility on Lot' J," he saw a l.ot= ef vacancies. If there was. such a tremendous shortfall of parking as was described, he would think people would be waitina =in line to use Lot "J." Regarding the definition ef- existing;oosiness to be grandfathered, he was unclear as to !sew narrow or.oroad the definition of what.an existing business was. For exarr3p: e, if the existing business was a laundry, he asked if it rneant only a laundry could be in the location or would it be extended -to some broader category. Mr. Zimmerman said as currently interpreted, it would be extended to the broad category in which o specific use would be defined within the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Levy referred to the overlay of a retail zone, and was surprised it stopped at Cowper on university. The two blocks from. Cowper to Webster, particularly on the south side were prac- tically 'all retail uses and even on the north side it seemed the area lent itself to be included in the retail zones. -He asked if there was a specific reason for stopping the retail overlay at !owper at least on University. Mr,,Zimmerman said along University, the retail overlay extended toward Webster on the south side and included all of the retail. 7 0 9 1 4/21/86: Cuunciimember Sutorius asked about the "modeling approach," the process to determine the method by which current square footage versus build out at various alternate levels was calculated. He requested staff comment on the probability associated with any number produced in any one of the scenarios. No ene expected pre- cision down to the last square foot, but he was curious as to what was used in the way of data to establish a starting point, and how staff built from what was in the physical inventory up to how staff considered what could be added on and under what circum- stances. He recognized the Commission moved away from the "gate" concept, and in doing so, he asked if the Commission moved away from the concept of some kind of a construction -in -progress gate which Council included as its recommendation 1(e). The concept was to recognize the impacts of construction at whatever allowable level of construction there might be could be both unsafe or present inconveniences or cut into parking situations if there was multiple construction activity within the same block. He asked if staff included situations where there was a high degree of change which would influence square footage situations. For example, 529 Bryant ras zoned PF presently. The likelihood was° it would not remain PF any longer, and he was curious as to what weight was given to the building and the potential impacts it would have. Councilmember Fletcher referred to the staff recommendation to modify the housing element of the Planning Commission recommenda- tions suggesting the constraints were a little too severe in Area 1, She asked For an explanation about why it would be more of a disincentive in Area 1 than in the other areas. She also referred to the comment in the staff report (CMR:251:6) that the in lieu parking fees would not become effective until after the City made a firm commitment to build a new parking structure so the in lieu provision would not contribute to the perking deficit until there were firm plans. She asked about th.e impacts of the. lag time from when ;he development went through the process before- there was a firm commitment to provide a parking structure. She was concerned if it happened again once the parking structure was planned, each time there would be a lag which would cumulatively add to the parking shortfall. Councilmember Renzel referred to the previously projected and cur- rent parking deficit, and clarified just the pipeline projects approved in the last year used all the capacity of Lot "J" and "Q" parking structures and added an additional 400 spaces of deficit. Transportation Planner Dave Fairchild believed the deficit was slightly less than .400 spaces, but Councilmember Renzel was cor- rect. Councilmember Renzel clarified the 643 spaces offset the 303 new. ones and took the City to a 1600 space deficit. Mr`, Fairchild said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel referred to the discussions of carbon monoxide, and understc:od the situation would get worse no matter what. City Planner Stephen Olsen said the modeling done by the con- sultant showed a deterioration of ;air quality under all scenarios. However, the information provided fro the City-wide Study ':sug- gested those estimates were overly ` conservative and emission ievels of vehicles were decreasing. Staff believed the City was in a better condition than the .modeling presented. Councilmember Rerizel clarified the carbon monoxide (CO2) levels experienced tended to be elevated at intersections with lower levels of service. 7 0 9 2 4/21/86 Mr. Olsen said it was generally the case but staff found the car- bon monoxide levels were not as directly related to traffic counts as the modeling techniques generally assumed. Councilmember Renzel said one of the tables showed the High and University intersection, at the circle to be at levels of service "C" and "D" and possibly getting worse if the City went to a heavy duty scenario. There was then a dotted line which said the level of service was sometimes at "E" because of backups due to the various turning movements and stacking which occurred at High and University. She referred to the occasional level of service "E" and asked how the intersection got a level of service "C." Mr. Fairchild said the level of service methods were averages for a whole hour. During a typical peak hour in the Downtown the particular intersection occasionally had the characteristics described in the report. For the whole hour, the intersection operated acceptably at "C" level. Councilmember Renzel followed up on the response to Councilmember Levy's question regarding the definition of existing businesses being yrandfathered. As she understood the response, it sort of generically grandfathered the use and she asked how staff would measure the difference between a laundry and a restaurant or a laundry and an auto repair. Mr. Zimmerman said staff would identify the sites where uses would otherwise become nonconforming and making a determination at that time into what general zoning use category the specifi'- business fell. Councilmember Renzel clarified at the time of grandfathering, the information would be available as to the extent to which various properties were being grandfathered. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. It was essentially the same procedure staff used in administering the zoning ordinance for other grandfather situations. Councilmember Renzel was unaware subsequent other uses could also be 'permitted. Councilmember Sutorius clarified in addition to the zone changes and grandfathering which occurred, in the zone change from CS to RM-2 for 1019 to 1027 Alma and 112 Addision grandfathering was not proposed and there would be an amortization of the existing uses. He asked if it was the only proposed zone change without grand - fathering. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct. 1 Councilmember Renzel referred to the recommendatiol; for a slightly elevated FAR for provision of day care which she supported. Since it permitted an additional structure to be built, she asked if it would be coupled with some sort of requirement for contractual arrangement with a day care operator or something to be sire over the long terra it continued to be used for day care and did not end up as a warehouse. Commissioner McCown said in the Commission's final action, it was not recommended there be any additional incentive for child care. 7 0 9 3 4/21 /86 Mayor Cobb said the business community was concerned a .25 FAR might significantly impact economic vitality. He asked about evi- dence tosupport the concern. Mr. Schreiber knew of none. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:05 p._m. TO 9:20 p.m. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Irwin Kasl e, 265. Lytton Avenue, referred to rezoning apartment houses Downtown to prevent conversions to uses other than residen- tial. His concern was about 488 University Avenue, the President Apartments. The President Apartments could only provide housing for a narrow sector of the population due to its location and the structure having been built originally as a hotel. The City's long-term terms might be better served if ultimately the building had increased_ commercial use. The building was in a unique loca- tion in the Downtown business area and it was a limited residen- tial utility. Seismic safety improvements to the building might be costly but whatever seismic improvements were made would be beneficial to the City. It was unwise not to keep options open to convert space to commercial use. Housing needs were important to Palo Alto but satisfying tfose needs should be balanced and should not outweigh other needed functions a Downtown 5usiness area pro- vided a city. He did not dispute the benefits of having mixed use including residential in the commercial downtown district, and believed continued residential use in the particular building might not be as beneficial to the City as some commercial uses in the future. He referred to the Planning Commission minutes of March 6, 1986, which reflected he said, "70 of the 85" units were small units, and it should read, "70 out of 75 units." Vice Mayor Woolley believed the apartment represented a supply of lower cost housing in the City. Mr. Kasle did not believe it was lower cost per square foot. The people who lived in the President Apartments were mostly young, aspiring, unmarried people. Five years ago Seniors in the building represented 60 percent of the tenants, and it was presently down to 15 seniors. J. Brian Hennessy, 165 Channi ng Avenue, said the Downtown Study produced a lot of data, discussion, and proposals to resolve the impacts of growth, traffic, and parking on the University Avenue corridor. He acknowledged the effort and expense by the Downtown Study Committee, Planning Commission, City Planning staff, City Council and Community Service Business Association, but believed the information, conclusions, and proposals in the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report (DEIR), dated December 5, 1985, were defi- cient and could not be used as a basis for actions which would affect the health of Downtown Palo Alto for years to come. The objectives were inconsistent and poorly articulated. Project definitions and goals were ,unclear and proposed solutions diverted to areas outside the Downtown core. Most solutions for growth, traffic, and parking as proposed by the DEIR were directed to the peripheral commercial service business areas bounded by Alma, Hawthorne, Wav er1 ey, and Lytton Avenues to the north and the .core. area of Alma, Hamilton, Ramona, and Addison Avenues to the south. The DEIR did not deme strafe how solutions in the peripheral areas would correct the core problems. There was no assessment of the impact of proposed zoning and FAR actions on existing commercial and service businesses operating within the peripheral areas identified. There would be reduced future financial return from the peripheral commercial service businesses to pay for the core area problems generated by its expansion. The lack of .defined goals created an inconclusive plan potentially detrimental to the overall economic health in the Downtown community. The Study Com- mittee proposed to balance the inherent conflicts of Category 1 goals to restrain development, parking, and traffic with the goals in Category 2 for economic variety and vitality, but the DEIR did not respond to th.e balance. The DEIR and related documents failed to acknowledge the existence of a vital, non -retail, commercial, and service business community which contributed to Palo Alto business and residential well-being for decades. The DEIR and Downtown Study inadequately analyzed data in arriving at objec- tives and proposals. The lack of coherent direction for the Study Committee and Council resulted in a DEIR with inconclusive data and inadequate analysis. It contained "quick -fix" solutions with little evidence to indicate future success in resolving the prob- lems of growth, traffic, and parking in the Downtown core area while maintaining a healthy, active community. Mayor Cobb asked Mr. Hennessey what he believed was missing from the document. Mr. Hennessey provided Council with a second proposed environ- mental impact report. The congestion issue in the Downtown University Avenue core was a philosophical problem which stemmed from a belief the area could not be viably considered a bedroom community. There was a major problem in the Downtown core as far as traffic and parking because the traffic flow design did not complement the size of the community. If the City grandfathered the service industry, it might as well grandfather everyone because change was inevitable. `di ryi rii a Neuhof , f , 1027 Bryant Street, referred to overall devel op- ment, and said a majority of Palo Alto residents wanted to stop excessive growth, i.e., the proliferation of large, t bulky_ buildings whether commercial or residential which increased traf- fic and: parking problems. Palo Alto already underwent excessive growth and currently struggled with the problems. The City needed to turn its energies to. creative, long-term solutions for reduced traffic congestion, the parking deficit, and designing structures with the kinds of services to preserve Palo Alto as a unified com- munity. Palo Alto could pick and choose the kind of development it wanted. She quoted from Richard Carlson of QED Research, Inc., in a Palo. Atlo Weekly interview, "We were essentially unphased by the Silicon Valley slump. .A number of individual people and individual companies had trouble, but overall we weren't touched. There's nothing on the horizon that would reduce Palo Alto's potential .for growth." Palo Alto needed to extend the moratorium except as it related to undeveloped parcels and concentrate on developing and testing mitigations `to handle the problems created by the development already. approved, including what was in the pipeline.= She disagreed Palo Alto was obliged to provide housing for those People who worked in Palo Alto. Palo Alto already had excessive commercial development and an equal amount of residen- tial Would only compound the problem. Housing should have the same height limits. and FARs as commercial projects. Roger Kohler, a local architect, stated FAR would not necessarily reduce visual bulk Palo Alto -needed an ordinance to address the size and ehape of buildings. All of Palo Alto's buildings should be designed. to include setbacks, open space, daylight planes, staggered facades, and everything else which made. a building able to merge into the City scape. Palo Alto needed to prevent parcel mergers and splits to avoid one big, bulky structure or several smaller structures side by. Ode which looked the same. Palo Alto was a unique cdmrru- nit, with .beautiful nei gh,borhoods , diverse cultural organizations a.nd secia,l. services,, a physiee Layout that encouraged a sense of coamuniiyt by not having major arterials- running through the Down- tOwnd neighborhoods, It_ was worth preserving and developing intelligently, She hoped Council, as the represantati gives of the residents of Pailo Alto, would .use their energies wisely. 7 0 9 5 4/21/86 Steven Bernier, 303 Sheridan, said the recent moratorium allowed a lot of growth ;h11e it was in effect. Many huge monolithic struc- tures went up Downtown and Council was discussing another 350,000 square feet of development before the effects of the -previously approved buildings were known. Dennis Briskin, 925 Waverley, #101, favored limiting development and considering the aesthetic qualities of Downtown development as well as FARs or setbacks. He. urged' Council seriously consider an urban design plan. People opposed the visual quality of Downtown development. Ten percent was probably too much increased growth. He favored a wait -and -see attitude with regard to the -effects of what was already built plus what was coming. He agreed with Mr. Schreiber about the uncertainties of the economic situation both;. locally, regionally,' nationally, and internationally. He referred to an article by Wallace Stegner of Los Altos Hills, a Pulitzer Prize and National Award winner which appeared in the April 13 issue of This World magazine contained in the Sunday Examiner- Chronicie, entitled "How the West Was Lost" and its relationship to parking and traffic. Lou Goldsmith-, 467 Hamilton Avenue,. represented the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), and referred to its letter of, April 17, 1986 (on file in the City Clerk's office). The PAHC was interested in housing and the potential for affordable housing in the Downtown area or anywhere else in the City. PAHC prepared a chart to show the comparative amount of housing which might be built under existing zoning in terms of what. was proposed by the limitations before Council. Presently in thet0owntown CS and CM zones, one could build 2:1 FAR commercial and then put roughly 1:1 FAR of housing on top, or around, if that much total FAR 'could be squeezed onto the site. In some areas in the: new proposals not only would this_, commercial be reduced by 80 percent from 2.0 to 0.4 FAR the housing would also be reduced by as much as 50 to 80 per- cent, which meant the City would make little or no progress in redressing the imbalance between commercial development and the housing for people who work in it. If one built 4,000 -square feet of commercial on a 10,000 square foot site, it equated to approxi- mately 11 employees using the City's factor of. 350 square feet per employee, and 1.8 employees per household would take approximately 6 housing- units to accommodate. If the City had an 0.4 commercial building tolerance, it should have 0.6 housing to go with 'it_,_ for a total of 1.0, which was still only one-third of what was presently allowed. Referring affordability of any housing that might be built, PARC suggested the Below Market Rate (BMR) con- tribution be increased to 25 `percent for four or more units versus the present 10 percent requirement for 10 or more units. At the same_ time, anybody who wanted t'o build housing in lieu of commer- cial FAR shoui stay with the old formula. The Planning Commis si on recommended adoption of the 25 percent BMR requi ree nt for just the one area along High Street, Area No. 1, and PAHC recom mended the 25 percent and 4 units be applied also to all of the other areas with a so-called incentive for housing. The City's I ndust ri r) ari t i get i on formula assumed 31 percent low/moderate income empl"oyees, so 25 percent fell slightly short. Many people were concerned about whether those kinds of restrictibros would severely restrict development,' and he believed the primary purpose of the whole exercise was to ' reduce devel op rent , ' and the property Would be far less valuable if one could develop it for 'anything to only one-third the extent or less of what -one used to do. The main, issue fro the economic standpoint was the .underlying value of the land which oftentimes was highly inflated. in: Palo Alto because of the high densities allowed. If densities were cut, the ;,and was not worth -as much, If .. Council set the rules, the economies would adjust. themselves to whatever ;was feasible. He had not been able to figure out the advantage f� of a- 'developable FAR. A . ter'* to describe housing as ` 1.000 square :feet of floor area seemed arbitary. 7 0 9 6 4/21/86 Counciloiamber Pdtitucci referred to the boundaries for the incen- tive zone and asked if the PAHC proposed them. He asked Mr. Goldsmith's perception of why the zone was not made generally available in Downtown. Mr. Goldsmith said PAHC queried whether there should be any kind of a housing bonus in the core. area Downtown which was recommended to be 1:1 FAQ for either commercial or any combination of commer- cial and housing. PAHC saw no reason why the bonus feature should not also be allowed in the core area. Housing would be just as acceptable in certain parts of the area as it would a block away. He never received a clear answer as to how the various ratios were determined. He had not seen much analysis of what would be allowed by the various FARs and the relationship between the com- mercial and the bonus. There was a table but he did not know how it was derived. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the pattern of use of the square footage or FAR for housing as opposed to commercial was signifi- cantly different. He believed the question might- be addressed in the "shirt -sleeve" session. Councilmember Levy asked if PAHC ran numbers as to the kind of housing it believed likely to evolve particularly in the incentive area where the additional FAR would be 1.5:1 and a 25 percent BMR. Mr. Goldsmith said if the land value was taken up by the commer- cial and housing was regarded seri ctly as a bonus or add-on, like the BMR units, there was no land value involved in any of the housing. The actual cost of average 1,000 square -foot unit ranged from $60,000, $70,000 to $80,000 plus parking needed to go under- ground, with two spaces per unit, or another $20,000.. The housing would cost about $100,000 a piece, and would be sold for ,a minumum of $130,000. The difference in cost represented $30,000 per unit, including the BMR which went first toward the developer profit and whatever he needed to develop, and the remainder went to purchase the land site. Councilmember Levy asked Mr. Goldsmith to respond to two alter- natives. Alternative one provided no BMR housing directly in the Downtown area but allowed enough in lieu payment for the City to buy an equal number of BMR units in another part of town where it was better to raise children. The second concept was instead of having a 25 percent BMR, or a 10 or 15 percent BMR, where the units were priced at $70,000, $80,000, $90,000, $100,000, have a lower BMR contribution but have the BMR unit priced at $30,000 or $40,000 so it could be affordable by the lowest income -producer in the community. 1 4r. Goldsmith said both concepts were allowed under the present BMR program. The number might be somewhat different in the 10 percent deal versus the 25 percent deal, but it was possible to have fewer units at a greater discount be accepted. He deferred to Mr:. Schreiber. The idea of having the units located somewhere else was also already allowed and could be worked out if the developer preferred. Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash Street, represented the Palo Alto civic League, opposed further development Downtown because residents were strongly opposed to further growth. The steering committee took the general position of no additional growth until at least 7 0 9 7 4/21/86 six months following 8b percent occupancy of recently -built and pipeline developments. During the six -month -lag period, impacts of all recent development on traffic, parking, utility capacity, pollution, and City services should be studied. Council would then be prepared to analyze the data and reconsider its position if warranted. The Civic League opposed conversion from residen- tial to commercial; supported retail -only zone Downtown; supported the parking and pedestrian provisions with the exception of hiring a half-time commuter coordinator because it did• not believe the pay-off was worth the investment; and disagreed with the recom- mendation t change two-hour parking to one -hour because of its possible impacts on the vitality Downtown. The League supported neighborhood protection programs with the exception of hiring a consultant because it believed there was a proliferation of con- sultants already on the City payroll. It opposed the extension of Sand Hill to El Camino and recommended deferring the traffic study as proposed already. The League supported staff recommendations for traffic mitigations at three intersections. Many studies were done over the years and staff should look at previous projections and compare the actuals for parking and traffic, etc.. Betty Meltzer, 1241 Dana, complimented the Planning Department and Planning Commission for its responses to public inquiry. Many Palo Alto residents cared about the City's development And events of the past year showed Council gave priority to Palo Alto as a town. The conclusions of the Downtown Study, the subsequent mora- torium, the results' of the EIR from the Planning Department, and the recommendations of the Planning Commission substantiated the conclusion that existing zoning, if unchecked, allowed too much commercial development for a' town of such size and layout. Palo Altans expected their elected Council to assure preservation of the City's ambiance, beauty, 'and balance in the future. Rare justification -existed to diminish the privacy and safety of resi- dential streets with additional traffic from calculatedly - increased commercial growth. A stated goal of the Downtown Study, and approved by Coonci i , was to keep traffic out. of the neighbor- hoods. If Council approved the additional 350,000 square feet recommended by the Planning Department and Planning Comi sst on, a result would be a 10 to 15 percent increase it traffic along University and at the University/Middlefield intersection. One of the Planning Department's recommended mitigation was to widen University up to Guinda and remove:five magnolias. It 'provided a left -turn lane onto Middlefield; a right -turn .lane and a through lane to University. The less expensive alternative was tel restripe University to eliminate left -turns onto Middlefield southbound and provide through lanes to University and at right turn onto Middlefield northbound. If Council voted to restripe, it would save money but according to the Traffic Department, it would also stimulate 21 percent more traffic on Hale, Seneca, Lincoln, and Guinda because of the increase in cars turning onto those streets es ° a result of the lost opportunity at Middlefield. Council knew how important privacy and safety of residential streets were for those who lived there. Council rehould also impose --significant restrictions on lot mergers and'splits because existing regulations could result in large structures for commer- cial and residential uses or for.. a prix. Present opportunities along Alma were -significant since the Planning Department eand Planning Commission suggested greater FAR allowances ranging to 1.5:I to encourage the building of housing, some with - BMA units, and to accommodate parcel merger and etplit regulations. Consequences- of inadequate I ieoi Lotions nen parcel mergers were obvi ov;s with the Wei i s -building. Although its FAR Was _h -33_1L there 'ways sti l l massiveness due to, the merger of fivefieen lots with the building spread,over the -property. He urged Council to have vision, courage, and to remember_ they individually represtrted the residents of Palo Alto. 7 0 9 8 4121/86 Naphtail i Knox, 1025 Forest Avenue, ,poke as a citizen and busi- nessman who leased space in the Downtown area. In January's San Antonio Road downzoning, the original objectives were partially to retain in the area those existing businesses which serviced the community and to prevent offices from going in and taking over the district. Council's action now forced out the very businesses it wanted to keep because it drew the FAR noose so tightly the busi- ness had no chance to expand and had no choice but to move. Regarding Downtown, he found it impossible to trace back the original goals. The issue areas were explicit in the latest staff report, but clear objectives were not. Two objectives carne through in the last paragraph on page 11 of the April 3 staff report (CMR:232:6), and buried in the text related to policies was the first objective to minimize traffic and parking problems resulting from new growth. The second objective was for the Downtown to retain its special character by offering the community a blend of retail activities, eating and drinking establishments, business services, and professional and financial services. If those were two of Council's goals, he agreed with staff's comments on page 7 of the April 17, 1986 report (CMR:251 : 6) , the growth restrictions as recommended by the Planning Commission would place a premium on existing usable floor area leading to increased rents which would push out the bui nesses the City wanted to maintain to keep the present mix. He opined it was enough to reduce the FAR, and complicated recommendations and programs were overkill, e.g., if Council reduced the FAR --and he personally would not want the FAR reduced below 1.25:1 --Council did not also need to limit non- residential growth to 350,000 square feet. Staff noted in a January 17, memo to the Planning Commission, a 490,000 square foot build out was unl i kely to be reached within a foreseeable time frame. He queried what happened to project selection systems staff proposed for downtown projects --were Downtown projects going to be approved on a first -come first -served basis to a total of 350,000 square feet and then everything stopped. Mayor Cobb invited comment about how Council might keep obvious escalation of development under control and simultaneously not chase away the service ousinesses, etc., they wanted to keep. it was a difficult dilemma. Mr. Knox believed recommendations to keep parcel sizes small and retain the present fine grain urban scale would help solve the dilemma. In 1972, the Wells Fargo building was supposed to be a 13 -story building, but parcel assembly permitted smaller parcels to be placed into a larger one. Developers were interested in assembling parcels, but the business people worked within the buildings and shores, did not develop, and were not interested in making bigger parcels. He believed Council needed to land on the side of the people who tried to do business and provide services in Palo Alto. Mayor Cobb said there was a significant difference of opinion between a FAR of 1.25 and 1.00, and he asked how the minor difference in FAR was so significant. Mr. Knox :referred to tlae San Antonio parcel ,'and said his client was downzoned from a 1:00 FAR to a 0,5.. He requested 0.75, and could have stayed in business at 0.64. Every parcel was different and Council had to look at the _build out of each, whether it was. built on at all, and whether the additional increment would : make a difference. He._ believed Council pulled the noose too tight in the San ;Antonio case and would rue the day. Council would also rue the day in Downtown because its planning reacted to what was seen and economlcr ` of the day. Mr. Schreiber pointed out what the Downtown looked like in 1974. The economists forecasted a big downturn in 198R. All the programing would hit the . fan just about the time o4 a recessionary period, and Council would have an audience howling to do something to make Downtown better. 7 0 9.9 4/21/86 Mayor Cobb invited Mr. Knox and others to comment can the differ- ences between the 1.0 and 1.25 FAR to provide a better understanding of how the 0.25 made a difference. Counc ilmember Levy agreed. He believed the analogy of the noose was wrong and Council was trying to tailor the jacket not tighten the noose. Earl Schmidt, 201 Homer Avenue, was pleased to follow Mr. Knox because he identified the crux of Palo Alto's problem was the dif- ference between developers and property and beEsiness owners. Mr. Goldsmith implied rezoning to residential forced reduction of property values. One owned property and depended on ft for income. He and his wife attended every Planning Commission hearing and were impressed by the excellent work of the Planning Commission to arrive at recommendations. The Planning Commission analyzed with detail all of what Council heard that evening. There were four or five people who represented residential areas in Palo Alto who participated in all of the Planning Commission meetings but there were no Downtown core property owners. He urged Council to think in terms -of the entire City, to follow the sound advice their Planning Commission took many hours to-i velop, <_ and reach a solution to protect the people of Palo Alto and enable them to continue to enjoy the service businesses. He cautioned Council ;o- carefully guard use of the "PcC" development. Many of -Council's problems in the past few years rested with people convincing Council they had a community service PC community development purpose to avoid all of the other standards. Proper zoning, planning, and limitations on property combinations and splits, would not require misuse of the PC zone. Mayor Cobb clarified Mr. Schmidt believed if the Planning Commission recommendations were followed, the service businesses, at least in the south of University area could survive. Mr. Schmidt said yes, with the - recommended yrandfatherir:ci. The Planning Commission did a comprehensive study. Councilmember Sutorius believed Mr. Schmidt's concerns were abated by the recommendations. Mr. Schmidt said yes because his original concerns stemmed from the original Downtown Study recommendations of almost a year before to permit continued large-scale growth in the core Downtown area. Joe Yarkin, 152 Homer Avenue, frequently walked around the neigh- borhood and enjoyed it because the buildings were of low height and there was a good mix. He referred to CDS Area 1, the housing incentives FARs, and a recommendation for a 1.5:1 housing FAR. He was concerned because it meant on an acre. approximately 40,000 square feet, there could be approximately 60,000 square feet of housing which, at 1,000 square feet per unit, was 60 units to the acre. Council was trying to cut back and control the commercial development . but was providing an area where there would be an intense housing use. Forest and High Streets had an intense use of housing .and commercial. It was unappealing to him and not a good place for people to live or walk. He urged Council to con- sider Area 1 and perhaps go to a lower housing FAR similar to what, was done in Areas 2 - 1. Peter Taskovich, 751 Gallen Avenue, believed traffic and transpor- tation were the most important parts of the study. He believed build out to lower growth to reduce traffic was the: indirect approach end while it was valid, the traffic problem needed to be tackled head on. Palo Alto's transportation : system in Downtown had not changed or been improved since 1940 when the underpass was built under the railroad tracks. Palo Alto had the sane amount of streets, and Downtown in the 1900s ,was not the same: as in the 1940s. Council needed to improve the traffic flow Downtown. He suggested improving the actual physical flow of cars and transit. University was not meant to be a through street and he suggested Lytton and Hamilton be one-way streets and each increased to three lanes going opposite directions because a left -turn lane would not be needed. It would reduce cars .and signalized traffic lights would provide an incentive to get cars off University Avenue, and go eastbound on Hamilton Or westbound on Lytton. The people on University Avenue would be. shoppers. The same suggestion was proposed in 1969 but was unpopular with the business community. It was no longer the 1969, there were more traffic problems, and people would be willing to make thofie streets one way between Middlefield and Alma as a good mitigation effort. Too many people drove with only one person per car. Downtown was served well by transport for people who lived in Palo Alto. There was no easy, direct way by bus or train to get to Downtown Palo Alto from Mountain View. It required many transfers and took four times as long by transit. The responsibility for Palo Alto's transporta- tion lay with the Council, and County transit should be directed to focus on Palo Alto. The County had a huge surplus of money. He suggested some form of 1 ight rail , especially in the Dumbarton corridor. Council should start talking to East Bay communities, Newark, Union City, and Fremont and vet some information in terms of 1 ight rail public transit, more than an AC 1 ine, between the two points of the East Bay and West Say. Frank Riddle, 310 University Avenue, was Area Manager for Pacific Bell and past President of the Chamber of Commerce, and applauded Council's decision to extend the meetings over two public hearings plus the work session. Naphtali Knox talked a lot about some con- cerns on the restrictiveness of the 1.0 FAR. He al so preferred a 1.25:1 ratio. Inherent in a build out were certain costs, i.e., seismic hazards compliance; handicapped services compliance; and parking. To restrict the development to 1.0:1 did not provide enough floor space to increase the revenue stream to pay for the costs of complying with those con:litions. The extra 0.25 allowed enough floor space development to generate revenue. Most lending institutions and text books talked about the earnings per square foot which measured the ability to earn enough on the invested base to make a profit. The 1.25 square footage of usable retail or business space would generate the income to pay off the costs of compliance. The true interests of Palo Al tans were a inix of business and residence. Variety was important but size reduction did not provide variety; creativity provided variety and creative solutions required cooperation. compromise, and coordination in the planning and reasonable costs of doing business to provide services and needed housing in Palo Alto. The Chamber suggested Council chart a careful course between the large FAR in the pres- ent zoning end the proposed changes because between them was a solution to help businesses continue vitality and help the resi- dential community by providing the services the residents needed and wanted. Mayor Cobb said Mr. Riddle was the final speaker for the evening. He did not formally close the Public Hearing because it would be continued until May 12. Vice Mayor Woolley requested . an update on the number of square. feet still in the pipeline, on the number of square feet of new development still unoccupied, and what percent of the total square footage in the study area it represented. Councilraember Renzel asked whether staff would provide any back- ground information to some of the. questions raised by members of the public before the May 12, 1986, meeting, or whether Council needed to specifically retluesx them. Mr. Schreiber said comments directly related to the EIR and its adequacy would be responded to. Many of the comments addressed a project rather than the EIR and if there were specific points to which Council wanted a response, they should be called out. 7 1 0 1 4/21/86 Councilmember Henze' was more concerned about questions regarding the EIR. Mayor Cobb referred to service businesses --laundries and businesses of that type. He asked about the extent to which Palo Alto was still in danger of losing them, driving them away through whatever actions, and possible alternatives to preserve them with- out opening up the noose described earlier to the kinds of development Council did not want to take place. Counc i l memecr Levy requested specific comment on the parking situation, the use of parking facilities and suggested disincen- tives for peripheral parking, on the public streets. MOTION: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to continue public hearing to Council meeting of May 12, 1986. NOTION ION PASSED raaaimoosl y, Klein absent. Mayor Cobb thanked staff, the Planning Commission, and the Downtown Study Committee on behalf of Council for an excellent job. ITEM #6, REQUEST OF COUMCILMEMSER LEVY RE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PROCEDURES (COU 3-51 Councilmember Levy wanted Council to discuss the question of Oral Communications during the period between then and when the proposed ordinance might tae affect,' which was 45 days from the following Monday. He suggested an interim motion to deal with Oral Communications so it did not get out of hand. MOTION: Cesoc11m .ber Levy moved, seconded by Petitecci, that for 45 days from Moeda', April 28, 1986, Council limit Orel Cvramorei cat i on s to 30 ■1 netes following the plan of the proposed ordinance being prepared, and the policy be clearly prieted for the public on all agenda so they were aware of the policy being followed with regard to Oral Communications® Councilmember Levy believed the concept of limiting Oral Communications to a reasonable amount of time was proper, and he saw no reason not to put the new pol icy into effect quickly. It was important for Council to notify the public on all agenda of the policy. Ceuncihmember Renzel said since the motion passed by Council the prev i ous week was to prepare are ordinance, could Council take, an action such as was proposed without an ordinance. City Attorney Diane Lee said yes. The rules were Council's own and in a sense the Council could .suspend those rules in a certain particular manner. Councilmember Renzel asked why the item on the agenda the previous week was done by ordinance. Pis. Lee said the feeling was, to awake the action permanent and memorialized because Council had a provision in the Palo Alto Municipal Code related to Oral Communications. She assuaged it was the feeling on the part of the Councilmerebers who pro$sel the ordinance to have the Code reflect the change. Councilmember Fletcher did not believe it was appropriate to act on the ite0 that evening. The -item Was on the. --agenda the p►revrious week and interested people attended the Meeting.. Citizens were i nfor ed , ::council about when tPe act ion *401d' be pub._ into _effect. awed It_ was -unfair 0 the public, after. saki ng the Ore-- - nouncements, to change the rules 7 1 0 2 4/21/86 Councilmeinber Renzel _ _concurred with Counci lmember Fletcher. She opposed.the change in the rules and believed in every case Council should err on the side of heari-ng from the public. 1 1 Mayor Cobb voted for preparation of the ordinance, but was not sure he would vote for the ordinance when it returned because he was having second thoughts. He was increasingly disturbed by the attempts to filibuster Council into putting something on the agenda which so far no one wanted to do. He was concerned about restricting the public's ability to go to Council and speak spon- taneously. He would vote against the motion and would work on a mechanism to deal with the problem. He hoped Council could come, up with a better and less restrictive answer to the public. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, wanted more time under Oral Commu- nications. He wanted to speak to an item under Oral Communica- tions at a previous meeting which was not spoken to by anyone else that evening. He listened on the radio and realized his item was about something happen iiy inat week. He realized there were two items under. Oral Communications --one on Sanctuary City and one on Gunn High School --where several people spoke, and Dr. Roth spoke on the same subject many times. He tried to get to the meeting in time to tell Council there was a traffic study presently going on in the Midtown neighborhood. He sympathized with the problem. Even if Council agendized the Sanctuary . issue and voted it down, there was no guarantee it would stop people from speaking under Oral Communications. He submitted it might be better to simply handle the Sanctuary issue. MOTION FAILED by a vete of 3-5, Levy, Patitucci, Woolley, voting 'aye,` Klein absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:05 p.m, ATTEST: APPROVED: _AIL640.41411-1" C ty C erk Mayor 7 1 0 3 4/21/86