Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-05 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNC1L M lNUTEs Regular Meeting May 5, 1986 CITY OF PAID ALTO ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 7 1 4 7 Approval of Minutes of April 7, 1986 7 1 4 7 Item `1, Appointment of Two Board Members to Mid- 7 1 4 8 Peninsula Access Corporation (MPA) Board Consent Calendar 7 1 5 0 Referral 7 1 5 0 Action 7 1 5 1 Item #2, Designation of a City Representative fir 7 1 5 1 City of Palo Alto Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Item #3, Mosquito Abatement Services - Change Order 7 1 5 1 to Contracts C-4300 and C-4301 Item 04, Downtown Study and Zone Change r Workshop 7 1 5 1 on the Downtown Study Recess 7 1 5 7 Adjournment: 11:30 p.m. 7 1 4 6 5/05/86, Regular Meeting May 5 i 1925 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Cultural Center Auditorium, 1313 Newell Road, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Klein ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Richard Flores, 1247 Cowper Street, spoke in support of the Sanctuary issue and relayed some personal tragedies. 2. Hope Raymond, 639 Arastradero Road, asked Council to agendize a resolution declaring Palo Alto a City of Refuge. 3. Dr. Harvey K. Roth, 3422 Kenneth Drive, spoke in support of legislation addressing labeling of alcoholic beverages. 4. Gertrude Reagon, 967 Moreno Avenue, supported the Sanctuary movement. 5. Peter Faulkner, 775 17th Avenue, Menlo Park, Director of the Summit Youth Program, had made a proposal to the Soviet Vice Counsel to take his lacrosse group and members of his camp on a goodwill tour of the Soviet Union. Indications were that the proposal would be accepted, and his summer camp would need all the facilities possible. He asked Council to agendize the item. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 71 1986 City Clerk Gloria Young submitted a corrected index page. Vice Mayor Woolley submitted the following correction: Page 7038, replace the second paragraph with the following: 'Vice Mayor Woolley agreed with Councilmember Renzel, the issue was not connected with the Downtown Study, but was not sure it was as closely connected to the overall study of traffic in the City. The framework Council should use was the importance of the exemption for hotels as staff recommended from the 0.5 FAR to the 0.75 FAR. According to the July 15, 1985 minutes, as a part of a motion made by Councilmember Fletcher, Council exempted hotels and gave them the 0.75 FAR. About a page further on, Councilmember Bechtel moved the hotel exemption only, and it died for lack of a second. She remembered regretting not having seconded Councilmember Bechtel's motion later on, and believed Council was not thinking at its clearest when it went through the matter last July. She welcomed the applicant giving Council more data as to the appropriateness of the 0.75 FAR for hotels in the CS -zone and therefore would support the motion." Councilmember Renzel submitted the following correction: Pays 7033, 12th paragraph should read; "Councilmember Renzel said, the ratio did not consider the fact that delays on University Avenue left motorists stopped halfway up or down on a small hill." 7 1 4 7 5/05/86 She checked wi Lh Zoning Administrator Bob Brown who had approved i.he following correction: Pdye 7033, last paragraph should read: "Mr. Brown said that special factors such as an underpass were not part of the level of service measurement which was a volume to capacity ratio." Pale 7039, last paragraph, starting with 17th line, should read: "Regarding public benefit, it would be outrageous for Council to allow something like the Holiday Inn income to drive its decisions about land use." Page 7039, second to last line should read, "...under the approved planned community." MOTION: Councilarember Renzel moved, seconded by Mooney, approval of the Ainates of April 7, 1986, as corrected. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent, ITEM #1, APPOINTMENT OF TWO BOARD MEMBERS TO MIDPENJNSULA ACCESS CORPORATION (MPAC) BOARD (PRE 7-3) Mayor Cobb suggested Council vote for two people at a time due to the number of applicants. Counciimember Sutorius would not participate in the voting. While he reviewed the applications, he did not participate in the interview process. Mayor Cobb announced the names of the candidates: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. M r . Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Lichen Wang, Ph. D. William C. Lewis Jeffrey M. Keegan David Michael Josephson David S. G. MacKenzie David Michael Gjerdrum James McGrath Jack C. Gibbany Jill Holmquist Mr. Brian F. George Mr. Stephen Burckhardt Mrs. Sally Valente Kiester Mr. Louis Fein Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. City Attorney Diane Northway said it appointment. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING City Clerk Gloria Young ballot: BECHTEL VOTING FOR: COBB VOTING FOR: FLETCHER VOTING FOR: LEVY VOTING FOR: RENZEL VOTING FOR: PATITUCCI VOTING FOR: WOOLLEY VOTING FOR: Ms. Young appointed. Jack Minkoff Flo Beaudoin David L. Kabakov George Olczak took five votes for an announced the results George, Josephson Lewis, Josephson George, Olczak Burkhardt, George George, Fein George, Lewis George, Kiester of the first said Brian George received five votes and was Mayor Cobb congratulated Mr. George. 7 1 4 8 5/05/86 RESULTS or THE fACOND. ROUND OF VOTING Ms. Young announced the results of the second ballot: BECHTEL VOTING FOR: COBB VOTING FOR: FLETCHER VOTING FOR: LEVY VOTING FOR: PATITUCCI VOTING FOR: RENZEL VOTING FOR: WOOLLEY VOTING FOR: Josephson Josephson Burckhardt Burckhardt Lewis Burckhardt Josephson Ms. Young said no candidate received five votes and another ballot round was in order. Vice Mayor Woolley believed cables success in the early stages depended on the outreach of the initial board rather than the quality of production. In the beginning the access portion of cable could not compete with professional tel evl sion._ The appeal of the access portion was its provisionof a lot of information at a narrow interest group level. Success depended on getting people to produce those programs. Council should keep that in mind in the selection process. RESULTS OF THE THIRD ROUND OF VOTING Ms. Young announced the results of the third ballot: BECHTEL VOTING FOR: COBB VOTING FOR: FLETCHER VOTING FOR: LEVY VOTING FOR: PATITUCCI VOTING FOR: RENZEL VOTING FOR: WOOLLEY VOTING FOR: Josephson Josephson Burckhardt Burckhardt Burckhardt Burckhardt Josephson Ms. Young said no candidate received five votes ant another ballot round was in order. RESULTS OF THE FOURTH ROUND OF VOTING Ms. Young announced the results of the fourth ballot: BECHTEL VOTING FOR: COBB VOTING FOR: FLETCHER VOTING FOR: LEVY VOTING FOR: PATITUCCI VOTING FOR: RENZEL VOTING FOR: WOILLEY VOTING FOR: Josephson Josephson Burckhardt Burckhardt Burckhardt Burckhardt McGrath Ms. Young said no candidate received five votes and another ballot round was in order. Councilmember Levy recognized the excellence of the three indi- viduals mentioned on the last ballot. He leaned toward Mr. Burckhardt, who was experienced in television production. Those selected for the M -PAC -Board needed a variety of expertise. People throughout the community wanted to watch cable, and therefore early productions needed to be outstanding. There should be some expertise on the board in the production area el though the board would not directly _.oversee the productions. RESULTS OF THE FIFTH ROUND OF VOTING Ms. Young announced the results of the fifth ballot: 7 14 9 5/05/86 BECHTEL VOTING FOR: COBB VOTING FOR: FLETCHER VOTING FOR: LEVY VOTING FOR: PATITUCCI VOTING FOR: RENZEL VOTING FOR: WOOLLEY VOTING FOR: Josephson Josephson Burckhardt Burckhardt Burckhardt Burckhardt Josephson Ms. Young said no candidate received five votes and another ballot round was in order. Councilme ber Bechtel agreed Mr. Burckhardt was well qualified, but Mr. Josephson served on various boards and at the leadership level. The ability to work well with others on a board to set up bylaws and establish policies was crucial in the start-up phases of MPAC. She agreed with Vice Mayor Woolley the technical aspects were not as important in the initial stages as the knowledge of how a board should function and be organized. She encouraged support for Mr. Josephson. Counci l member Pati tucc i originally voted for Mr. Lewis because he was the only representative of the citizens. He could be persuaded to vote for Mr. Lewis again if enough Councilmembers went in that direction, but it seemed that Council was interested in professional organizers or technicians. In that regard, he agreed with Councilmember Levy technical quality of productions was more important than how well the board operated. Xe opted for Mr. Burckhardt only because there were not enough votes for Mr. Lewis. gic4 Mayor Woolley emphasized the access portion of cable could not compete with professional television. The Access portion would appeal to people because it gave information at a specific level unobtainable from any other source. The person who reached out to the community for producers of specific interest programs would make a difference in the success of cable. RESULTS OF THE SIXTH ROUND OF VOTING Ms. Young announced the results of the sixth ballot round of voting: BECHTEL VOTING FOR: COBB VOTING FOR: FLETCHER VOTING FOR: LEVY VOTING FOR: PATITUCCI VOTING FOR: RENZEL VOTING FOR: WOOLLEY VOTING FOR: Josephson Josephson Burckhardt Burckhardt Burckhardt Burckhardt Josephson Ms. Young said no candidate received five votes and another round was in order. MOTION: CasAci lmeser Pati tecci moved* seconded by Wet l ey, to continue selection of the second appointment o the City Council meeting of Nay 12. 1946. MOTION PASSE© aaanisepsly. Klein absent. CONSENT CALENDAR IIOTIQiI: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded apiereval of the Consent Calendar, Referral None Srtorlus. 7 1 5 0 5/05/86 Actinn ITEM #2 DESIGNATION OF A,CITY REPRESENTATIVE FOR CITY OF PALO ALTO ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT-Tyr'7-41 (CMR:256:6) Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution designating the City Manager or his designee as the City representative for State funding of the City of Palo Alto Subregional Advanced Wastewater Plant. RESOLUTION 6516 entitled *RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER CITY REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING STATE GRANT FOR SUBREGIONAL ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT° ITEM #3, MOSQUITO ABATEMENT SERVICES - CHANGE ORDER TO CONTRACTS C-4-300 and C-4301 (ENV b) (EMR:249:6) Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the change orders to existing contracts with Santa Clara County Health Department adding previously budgeted funds to each contract to continue ongoing programs. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. ITEM #4, DOWNTOWN STUDY AND ZONE CHANGE - WORKSHOP ON THE DOWNTOWN STUD an - : � Mayor Cobb said the purpose of the session was to help Council achieve a better understanding of a complex and involved issue. The process was designed to focus on key issues and allow staff to react to their ideas and issues. He recognized attendance of City staff, the Planning Commission, members of the Downtown Study Committee, and members of the public who were available as a resource. He referred to the proposed agenda and asked Councilmembers to add any items they wished. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the Downtown Study was almost a two-year process and Council was undertaking a third major involvement in the process. Council initially reviewed the study objectives and evaluated and selected strategies for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It was time for the final decision -.raking process. Some possible actions were uncomfortable to participants because of the potential_ ramifications. Staff hoped the Downtown Study could be concluded. The Downtown Moratorium had been in effect for one and one-half years and there was a possibility of an additional four to six months. Growth Mr. Schreiber said the goal for Growth was to substantially reduce the amount and rate of new development based on the conclusion the downtown development trends of the early 1980's were unaccept- able. He observed many of the forces shaping potential develop- ment activity in the downtown came from outside Palo Alto and beyond the City's control. Zoning was a tool to establish regula- tions, but often the rate and type of development was Shaped more by outside forces. The 350,000 square -foot limit was a critical regulation which would produce severe reduction in development. potential. Project size limits were primarily a character and scale issue and also served as growth _ control. The seismic and historic exemptions were meant to be a financial reward for upgrading, but staff was unsure the exemptions were large enough to be effective. Handicapped and minor expansions exemptions had a greater value to the property owner and tenant by allowing flexibility to remodel. The City could have regulations to require and encourage retail uses, but its ability to regulate the retail mix was much more limited. 7 1 5 1 5/05/86 Councilmember Levy added Density Transfer and the Downtown Food Market to the agenda. Vice Mayor Woolley added Monitoring under Growth. Carl Schmitt, Downtown Study Committee member, said the Downtown Study Group concluded rapidly the infrastructure in the downtown area, related to panting and traffic, was stretched to the limit. Those issues tended to drive the study. Regarding Mayor Cobb's question, there was a lot of negotiation between the different fractions within the downtown area and the ten percent growth limit evolved through that process. Councilmember Bechtel heard members of the public who said the 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) recommendation was not enough and others commented there was still a lot of growth in the pipeline. She asked about the percentage of approved projects still under construction. Planner Steve Olsen said 35 percent. Councilmember Bechtel clarified 18 percent of the approved projects' floor area was unoccupied or not completed. She asked the Planning Commission about the recommendation for a 350,000 limit with a review of the limit at a two/thirds build -out phase. Planning Commissioner Jean McCown said the Downtown Study Comma ttee looked at ten percent above the existing growth potential, plus the pipeline percentage. The Planning Commission did not ignore the percent for the pipeline projects at all and the ten percent level could be accommodated : above the existing pipeline projects. The Planning Commission chose the 1:1 FAR rather than the 1.25:1 FAR because with the FAR chosen for the CS area it would achieve close to the ten percent figure. The FAR was set slightly higher than ten percent but within that limit was an absolute cap of 350,000 square feet. Roxy Rapp, Downtown Study Committee member, said the Committee decided on a 2:1 FAR. It was the staff who changed it to a 1:1 FAR. If the Committee knew staff wanted a 1:1 FAR, it would have generated more discussion on architectural concerns, etc. Planning Commission Chairperson Pat Cullen said Mr. Rapp was correct. However, when the Committee recommended the 2:1 FAR, it was within the same number of square feet and there was also a recommendation for a gating concept. The Planning Commission believed a 2:1 FAR and a gating mechanism would be used up so rapidly it would not be equitable across the whole study area. If Council went to a 1.25:1 FAR in the CD -C area, the CS and CN floor area ratios needed to be reduced. Councilmember Pati tucci said the relationship between the overall ten percent development limit and the FAR was one where the Planning Commission determined it would be easier to issue the development rights within the 350,000 square feet. Mr. Schmitt said the Planning Commission went to the FAR concept to avoid the "beauty contest" concept. Much of the testimony queried who could make FAQ decisions. The government should not be in the position to play judge. The Downtown Study Committee was not comfortable with the *beauty contest" concept, but it was a way to achieve some element of urban design. Planning Commissioner Joseph Hirsch said the position summarized by Planning Commissioner McCown was not. unanimous. He and one other Planning Commissioner favored lower growth limits. He specifically favored no additional growth. He believed the full objectives of the Downtown, Study were not realized. 7 1 5 2 5/05/86 Vice Mayor Woolley asked if Mr. Hirsch disagreed with the calculations Ms. McCown noted. Mr. Hirsch said during the interim period of the Downtown Study, parking deficit went from 1220 to 1600 parking spaces, and the traffic circulation system was not changed. To the extent these problems which caused the Downtown Study Committee to be established in the first place were not corrected, no further growth was warranted. Ms. McCown referred to staff's blind model and said it was true different numbers were used during the course of the process. Some numbers were established based on actual calculations of specific projects. A Council goal of the plan was to not allow the parking deficit to get any worse, but there was no prerequisite that before additional growth was permitted, there needed to be an actual decrease and improvement in the parking deficit. Vice Mayor Woolley asked how it was decided which FAR would produce the desired amount of low growth or a reward for a desired amount of growth. Ms. McCown said staff factored into their projections what would likely happen to properties already developed to a certain percentage of the total development possible under the new rules. Councilmember Sutorius referred to Mr. Schmitt's comment regarding the 'beauty contest" concept and asked why it was not considered. Mr. Schmitt said Council removed the urban design concept from the Downtown Study Committee review. Councilmember Sutorius asked Chop Keenan to elaborate on his proposed model so the Council could understand how a particular FAR creating X number of square feet might not be realized if viewed on a lot -to -lot basis. Chop Keenan, developer, said staff chose 12 random parcels in the blind model to see what results might occur. The first parcel was the Dare, Brewer, and Kelley's office site. There were about 29,000 square feet in the lot and 10,000 square feet in the building, i . e. , presently on FAR of 0.3:1. Staff's model called for an incremental 15,000 square feet potential build -out for a total of 25,000 square feet. The 10,000 square foot building at $2 per square foot of rent attributable to the space equalled $24 per year of rent per foot. At a ten percent yield, it meant $240 per foot of economic value. The $240 figure divided by the 25,000 square -foot build -out projection equalled a raw land cost of approximately $100 per square foot which was also $100 per square foot of rentable area under the 1.0:1 FAR. Additionally, $65 per foot for building in four per thousand parking resulted in a total of $165 per foot. The blind model, with the exception of one, ignored the economic vitality to many of the properties which staff identified as potentially developable. The blind model was so flawed in concept it would result in a flawed premise and conclusion. Mr. Schreiber responded staff never indicated the model was a projection. Staff's model was a computerized way to calculate a modest square footage for a particular parcel at a particular FAR. The model assumed properties with 75 percent of the FAR would not be expanded. Mayor Cobb asked Mr. Keenan to respond to his suggestion of. a 1.25:1 FAR rather than 1.0:1 FAR because the 1.25:1 FAR would change the economics and some buildings might be bulldozed. Mr. Keenan said there were two sides to the issue of growth, and the appropriate FAR to achieve the growth. 7 1 5 3 5/05/86 Covnr__ilmemher Levy referred to the 1,0:1 FAR and the 1:25:1 FAR, and asked how much square footage was likely to be built during the next five or ten years. Mr. Keenan guessed the square footage build out for the 1.0:1 FAR would be 250,000 to 300,000 square feet. Rents were one-third higher in Palo Alto than any community three miles on either side. As for the 1.25:1 FAR, there would not be much difference. Councilmember Levy asked what difference it should make to the Council if there was not much difference in FAR. Mr. Keenan said most of the construction would be redevelopment and, because of the parking requirements, the 1.25:1 FAR was necessary for viability. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the Planning Commission considered the mechanism and process of absolutely no growth. Commissioner Cullen said one alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DLIR) was no growth. The Planning Commission did not consider the mechanism, but she assumed there would be a moratorium as was the current situation. After the Planning Commission worked through the Downtown Study, it believed the "no -growth* alternative was not in the best interests of the community. Mayor Cobb asked City Attorney Diane Northway to comment on the rules of the Council enacting a policy of no growth. City Attorney Diane Northway said she was concerned about a mechanism to address vacant lots. She was unaware of how many developed parcels there were but in order to not have taking under Inverse Condemnation, the property owner needed to be allowed some reasonable return an his investment. Property not developed once the freeze was implemented could not be developed at all. Councilmember Levy referred to growth versus no growth with the 350,000 square -foot limit and said the City would quickly come to the end of any allowable growth. Council could either stop growth then or allow a density of 1:1 FAR. He asked what difference it made whether Council put the no growth cap on then, and whether ultimately the position would be no growth. Mr. Rapp said the high demand for space would increase rents. The result would be good quality merchants replaced by fast food or discount operations. Councilmember Levy asked if the Stanford Shopping Center rates were higher than downtown. Mr. Rapp said yes. Councilmember Levy said it appeared the question of high rents was not the same as the the question of viability. Palo Alto had the highest rents around and Stanford Shopping Center had higher rents. Increesed density and a less desirable area would bring rents down, but the citizens did not want to make the trade off. Mr. Rapp said the Stanford Shopping Center provided many amenities to its lessees. He believed a no growth mode would hurt Palo Alto aId would change the whole character of the downtown area. Councilmember Bechtel asked staff to explain their recommendation on the variety of site development which might occur. Acting Planning Official George Zimmerman said staff recommended adding a comparable incentive for buildings in the Historic Categories 1 and I1 to allow minor expansion similar to the one the Planning Commission recommended for seismic .categories. The 7 1. 5 4 5/05/86 exemption for historic properties would allow an expensi ors of 2,000 square feet, 25 percent above the existing FAT, -or above the new FAR, whichever was less. For historic properties well below the FAR, the exemption would allow the first 2,000 square feet to be added or 25 percent above the existing floor area would also be exempted from the parking requirements. The seismic categories had an additional recommendation from the Planning Commission that expansion be allowed above the proposed FAR at 2,000 square feet or 25 percent above the existing amount of FAR, whichever was less. Staff suggested the parking exemption for seismic be modi- fied to be the first 2,000 square feet added regardless of whether it was affected by the FAR limit. Councilmember Renzel asked if, under the proposal as recommended by the planning Commission and modified by staff, providing parking would be required to modify an existing building without adding any aquare feet. Mr. Zimmerman said no. Ccuncilmember Renzel asked how much downtown rents were influenced by the rest of the City's rents, or whether rents determined the land prices. She opined there might be some assumptions which might not pertain to a real life situation. David Jury, Downtown Study Committee member, said rents drove values and values drove rents. Downtown Palo Alto was a popular place to locate. Counci lmember Renzel referred to the floor area and growth issue and clarified there were not many places left other than vacant lots where there was any additional retail space. Mr. Rapp said there was no vacant retail space in the downtown areas, but a lot of buildings could be changed to retail. He noted a second floor area was possible if elevators were installed for handicapped use. As a merchant, he would not go to a second floor retail use. Mayor Cobb said there was clearly a lot of concern about office growth and a need to encourage retail. He asked if any considera- tion was given to treating the growth equation differently from growth which generated more retail service uses. Commissioner Cullen said the Planning Commission looked at a 0.7:1 for the CC area and 0.5:1 for the CS and CN areas. There was concern about the relationship between how those FARs drove up the amount of development potential and the Commission believed keeping the CS and the CN FAR low would better maintain present services. Planning Commissioner tl l en . Christensen believed the blended parking rate gave an incentive for retail particularly. Commissioner Hirsch said the Planning Commission recommendation included housing incentives which would. add 465,000 square feet. The proposal essentially had one component of 350,000 square feet but a total increased development potential of something in excess of 800,000 square feet. paErkialTretftc Mr. Schreiber said the goal of the parking/traffic area was to keep the parking deficit from getting worse and to limit the increase in traffic generated by downtown activities. It was i mvortant to not the parking efforts did not include a strong likelihood of a significant reduction in the amount of on -street parking. The parking in lieu program was to allow the development of smaller parcels that could not provide on -site parking to participate in a buy -in process. He indicated Lot J and Lot Q 7 1 5 5 5/05/86 were not in fell use and at the same time there was ; steely recom- mending the possibility of two additional parking structures. The study also characterized -a lack of an aggressive effort to remove parking from on -street areas. Councilmember Levy said the concept of a parking deficit implied motorists could not find a place to park, and parking places were available in Lots J and Q. More parking structures would not address the parking deficit satisfactorily. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission addressed the issue of removing cars from on -street parking, but there was a lack of support. The on -street parking situation had not generated' any outcry to get rid of the cars. Taking an aggressivo,effort to move the cars from the on -street areas into lots and structures would be difficult. Councilmember Fletcher confirmed with staff expansion of an existing development only required added parking for the differ- ence between the old and new square footage. She was uncomfort- able about the mechanism for collecting the in lieu fees for future parking and if larger projects would be approved which pro- vided on -site parking, the 350,000 square feet would be used up before the smaller projects could take advantage of the in lieu program. Mr. Schreiber said it could happen. Councilmember Bechtel asked if adequate sigaage for Lot J and Lot Q structures existed, and how many of empty spaces were permit spaces as opposed to short-term spaces. - Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said all spaces in Lot Q were permit spaces, and four floors in Lot J had permit spaces as well. A lot of parking spaces were added, but it took time to make the fact known. - Transportation Planner David Fairchild said the public floor in Lot J was about 75 percent occupied. Mayor Cobb asked if the ;growth limit tended to be set by the existing infrastructure and whether it was connected .to the ten percent. Mr. Fairchild said the ten percent ceme from the timing because, at that level of growth, traffic at the key gatewayintersections crossed over from acceptable to unacceptable and needed to be mitigated. Councilmember Patitucci said one mitigation not mentioned was to encourage parking of the vehicles outside of the area, i.e., a Park and Ride lot. Commissioner Christensen said the Planning Commission did not con- sider Park and Ride lots because the issue went to the Council and, after extensive study, was not pursued. Emphasis Nis toward working with employers to reduce the number of vehicle trips into the downtown area. The Planning Commission recommended the City hire a transportation coordinator to work with employers in the downtown area to achieve similar results to those achieved in the Industrial Park of reducing vehicle trips. . Councilmember Patitucci said none of the measures appeared to force the Council to consider significantly different alterna- tives. Ms, McCown ° said there was not enough data to support radically different proposals because they would not decrease the traffic enough to justify more than a maximum of ten percent growth. 7 1 5 b 5/05/86 City Manager Bill Zaner said no evidence showed the parking structures built to date accomplished their intent. Lot J would probably be filled by future development. Before there was a move toward consideration of an additional parking structure, Council needed to ensure other steps were considered, i .e. , an incentive to use existing parking lots. RECESS: 10:00 10:10} p.m. Mr. Sam Sparck said some mitigations for traffic and parking were possible, but the Palo Alto Downtown core was approaching its maximum reasonable build -out. Parking and traffic placed hard caps on possible growth. Character and Scale Mr. Schreiber said character and scale goals contained three elements: 1) desire for smaller new developments; 2) nature of mixed uses; and 3) desire for an overall pedestrian orientation. The importance was the role of the Planned Community (PC) zone as a mechanism to gain flexibility as zoning regulations became more restrictive. Staff was somewhat concerned about the rare ff cats ons of rushing into a major, traditional urban design plan. Character and scale were important for historic preservation and protection as highlighted in the May 1, 1986, staff report (CMR:267:6). Staff noted low public participation for noticed meetings regarding historic preservation. The Planning Commission would clarify the scope of recommendations regarding housing. Commissioner Cullen referred to the Planning Commission minutes and clarified the Planning Commission intended to impose site and design regulations only where the housing incentive was 1.5 FAR, which included about six block faces in the Forest -High Street area, but when the vote was called, the entire housing incentive package became part of the site and design. Another correction to the Planning Commission minutes concerned the area north of University Avenue along Alma Street. Discussion was for a larger FAR than what was decided. The Commission's intent was a higher incentive than what was in the recommendation to Council. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if the Architectural Review Board (ARB) had ideas for a more specific work plan with regard to the recommendation hero 42, that Council approve the direction to the ARB and staff to continue exploration of a possible Urban Design Study. Architectural Review Board Vice Chairman Jonathan Schi nk said the ARB had no c made much progress since the joint meeting with Council but expected a plan would be transmitted through staff to Council in the next month and a _half. Vice Mayor Woolley was concerned the budget hearings were approaching and it might be necessary to crank in funds for the study. She asked about the status of the report from the intern who worked on the project last summer. Mr. Schink was waiting to get a final copy of the report, and said it would be helpful to developers i f guidelines were developed for commercial structurs in tr°ansitibn areas. Councilsaember Sptorius appreciated staff's concerns and cautions. He said Council should take advantage of the creativity and enthusiasm in the community, and asked if there was an opportunity for urban design exploration without a time frame or cost associated with it. Planning Commissioner John Northway said yes. An ad hoc committee of architects and designers was formed at the beginning of the Downtown Study and could be reacts vi ted. He suggested a group of 12 to 15, composed of architects, designers, people associated 7 1 5 / 5/05/81 with Downtown, members of the Pl anrimy Commission, ARB and affected neighbors. The Downtown Study was a good start. If there we's direction with the use of an Urban Design plan, the remaining ten percent could be utilized to result in a Downtown of which everyone could be proud. Councilmember Renzel asked how the "beauty contest" type mechanism could be avoided. Mr. North lay was unable to give an answer because the plan would have to define how mechanisms would be executed. The qualifica- tions for the contest would be spelled out before hand. Downtown Committee Member Anthony Carrasco. , agreed with Mr. Northway regarding the formation of a committee to shape two dimensional regulations into three. Mr. Schreiber said staff anticipated far more applications for remodelings and rehabilitations than for new development. Councilmember Levy was concerned about economics. Recommending a 1:1 FAR, a reduction by two-thirds, provided less economic incentive to build. At the same time suggestions were made for increased restrictions on what a developer could do. He was uncomfortable with raising the FAR, and asked if there was any other way to work out the problem. Councilmember Sutorius believed it made sense to raise the FAR higher than 1.0 if some open space was created. Floor area was not increased only rearranged. He encouraged creative ways to describe to the private property owner the direction Palo Alto wanted to go. Counei 1 member Levy was uncomfortable with the major risk of trading for higher density and preferred to remain with the 1.0 FAR. Councilmember Patitucci thought character and scale were the heart of the whole issue. He was not convinced the recommendations would correct all the historical mistakes. He believed the con- cept of Urban Design, rather than the tool of the FAR, would get what was wanted for the ten percent. Mr. Jury agreed with Councilmember Patitucci. Even though many PC's could occur along University Avenue, the City still had control through the ARB process. CouncilraeWeer Renzel commented the decisions by property owners on what they chose or when they chose to do .something were beyond Council's control. In the interest of having a stable market place, it was simpler to have a known set of criteria and hope the ARB worked to achieve other amenities. The kinds of projects that came in could not be changed no matter what kind of criteria was in place.. Mayor Cobb asked whether the 1.0 FAR was likely to result in a series of "cheese boxes" of the same size. Mr. Carrasco replied yes, it was the most economical way to build. Councilmember Levy asked why that would differ from a 2.0 FAR having a two-story building square out. Mr. Carrasco said a two-storybuilding allowed more flexibility in design and utilized a street better. Mr. Schmitt said white density transfer was an interesting concept, there was no market tomakethe system work. 7 1 5 .8 5/05/88 Commissioner Chri stersen said everyone's idea of nice was different even in terms of an Urban Design plan; _ Ms. Kittas said the uniform FAR concept was based on the relative ease in writing and administering an ordinance. While the uniform FAR had its drawbacks, use of an Urban Design plan also required careful attention. Councilmember Levy was concerned about the HRB's recommendation to limit demolitions in Historic Categories I and II, and issue no permits unless buildings completely lost their economic value. The restriction discouraged maintenance, and he asked whether there were incentives other than those reported. Mr. Zimmerman said the only incentive was within the limited scope of the density transfer program which prompted the recommendations for some expansion allowance above the existing FAR for buildings at or above the new FAR and an exemption for the first few thousand square feet added from parking requirement. Mr. Jury requested the section concerning historic preservation be discussed separately since the recommendations were not the result of the Downtown Study or Planning Commission discussion. Ms. Kittas said the Downtown Study group looked at 22 unique buildings. Financial incentives were an important part of the study, were before Council a year ago but were not brought forward in a report. Bond issues or setting aside a particular general fund were vehicles discussed with the City's financial personnel, Ecomeei c Vitality Mr. Schreiber quoted from the Comprehensive Plan, "Retail Vitality means the ability of business districts to maintain sales volumes and profits. Older retail areas lose their vitality quickly when a number of sites become vacant or are occupied by a vacant building." Council needed to know the appropriateness of t►he ground floor mechanise* concept which included no reversion to office use of retail space for properties in the GF zones unless an overall vacancy rate of seven and one-half percent existed, and the space was vacant for six months. Staff needed •clear direction from Council on what information to track and measure. Mayor Cobb was concerned the GF retail formula for non -reversion could be onerous for small property owners; the public would not be pleased if a result was the loss of more service businesses; and ft was essential to track and measure things like vitality closely and frequently. Vice Mayor Woolley asked how sales tax might be used as a tracking device. City Auditor Mike Northrup said sales tax information related only to taxable retail sales and did lot •include service sales. Information could be received quarterly of an overall, aggregate amount for certain areas, for example, block by block. Councilmember Levy asked whether there was a recommendation for a Downtown market. Commissioner Cullen said yes, in connection with the second parking structure. Councilmember Levy was concerned the goal of a Downtown market might destroy other objectives. Reduced scale meant not wanting ■ore parking structures, and the concept of a market in the down- town area went against what was being sought. He suggested items a downtown market normally provided might be spread out sarong several stores. A market would attract large numbers of people, particularly from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. when traffic was most severe. He was concerned it might be a mistake to insist on the concept of a market 7 1 5 9 5/05/86 Commissioner Cullen said the analysis done by a Downtown Study sub -co „mi ttcc lacked a straightforward recommendation for a Downtown mar=ket. Words 11::e "i f feasible" were used because the feelings were tinurh the same as Ceuncflmember Levy expressed. Mr. Jury believed there should be some exemption for CF space that was not really retail space. Mr. Carrasco cited an example of a space in the back of a courtyard which was difficult to lease. Courtyards, which mdde a place more pleasant, should be encouraged by some incentives. Vice Mayor Woolley asked about data concerning vacancy rates. Mr. Zimmerman said staff, a group of property owners and merchants monitored ground floor vacancy including new buildings, and it ranged between five and ten percent_. The last time staff prepared data, new development was calculated separately and the rate was five percent. Noosing Counci lme—ber Levy suggested Housing and Land Use Map Plan be continued to the beginning the next meeting. Mayor Cobb invited "participants back although the setting would not be as convenient. The suggested procedure was to finish the discussion before the public hearing was opened. It was clear next Monday's Council meeting would be continued to Tuesday night. MOTION: C.oacilneeber Fletcher maned, seconded by Bechtel, to centfnen the meeting to May 12, 1OO6. MOTION PASSED una*lmemsly, Klein absent ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:30 p.m. APPROVED: