HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-12 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUNCIL
MINUTEs
Regular Meeting
May 12, 1986
CITY
OF
PALO
ALTO
ITEM PAGE
Ural Communications 7 1 ti 2
Approval of Minutes of April 14, 1986, April 12, 7 1 6 3
1986, and May 5, 1986.
Consent Calendar 7 1 6 4
Referral 7 1 6 4
Item #1, 1986-87 Budget - Refer to Finance and 7 1 6 4
Public Works Committee
Action 7 1 6 4
Item 01, Ordinance re Amending Zoning Code and 7 1 6 4
Subdivision Code (2n` Reading)
Item t3, Ordinance re Skateboards in Parking 7 1 6 4
Facilities , 2nd .Reading)
Agenda Changes, Additions and deletions 7 1 6 4
Item t3 -A, (Old Item 07), Jordan and Garland Open 7 1 6 5
Space Leases
Item it4, Appointment of Board Member to .7 1 6 6
tidpeninsula Access Corporation Board (Continued
from 5/5/86)
Item #5, Downtown Study - Continued Items from the
"Study Session" discussion of Uowntown
Issues/Actions: Neighborhood Protection; Housing;
and Land Use Plan Map Changes (Continued from
5/5/86)
7 1 6 6
Recess 7 1. 7 3
Item 06, Public Hearing: Downtown Study 7 1 7 3
Adjournment: 11:50 p.m. 7 1 8 8
Regular Meeting
May 12, 1936
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.
Mayor Cobb announced a Special Meeting to interview Midpeninsula
Access Corporation Board candidates was held at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Robert Lenox, 3261 Ramona Street, was a representative of the
Palo Alto Airport Association, a group formed for the purpose
of enhancing the airport and its environment. One of their
goals was to work with the various jurisdictions that had a
"say" over the airport ---federal, state, county, local--te-
i ncreese the utility, beauty, and safety of the airport. The
community had a ,jewel by the Baylands that was underappre-
ciated and more than paid for itself. The airport handled a
considerable amount of business, medical, recreational, and
training traffic with minimal noise impact because of its
location and pilot cooperation. The Association's rnernbershi p
consisted of pilots and small business people who.. operated
from the airport. The Airport Association would be pleased
and respectfully requested they be solicited to assist and
provide input to City staff when matters relating to the air-
port arose. The community as a whole benefited from the
presence of that fine facility. Palo :alto Airport helped
local economy by allowing business persons, architects,
engineers, attorneys, and other professionals, the ability to
move swiftly throughout the west in the conduct of their busi-
nesses. Also, critical care and transplant medicine would be
severely impacted were it not for the facilities the airport
provided for air ambulance aircraft, and many residents used
the airport for recreation. He welcomed the airport's new
manager, Jinn Spaulding, - and thanked the oetgoi ng manager, Tony
Guayliardo. Mr. Hank Barbachano recently returned to Palo
Alto Airport dS its Tower Chief, and they welcomed his profes-
sionalism and concern for the community. Recently, two
individuals began. a campaign to close the airport because of
"noise and the danger of little airplanes." They received a
fair amount of press from the Palo Alto Weekly and bought ads
which he characterized as alarmist. Their latest scheme
involved prohibiting aircraft from using a landing pattern on
the west side of the airport. He reminded everyone that
trains, road traffic, lawnmowers, created objectionable noise;
one of the prices paid for living in a modern, urban society.
Palo Alto Airport already moved from a location near Stanford
and El Camino and situated next to the Baylands to reduce
noise impact and allow for growth. The Airport was insulated
from residents by not only the golf course and the office
industriai complexes, but by a very noisy Bayshore. Well over
B0 epercent of the airport's traffic arrived over the Bay or
straight in from overhead Moffett. The normal traffic_ pattern
was established on the eist side to reduce noise over .the
City, even though a_standard, left-hand traffic pattern was
easier for pilots, which was on the .west .side. - Almost all of
the pilots who arrived from over the City flew as high and
quietly as possible. He would not defend the few individuals
who flew insensitively but, on the other -hand, they could not
sit still while residents With _unreasonable demands endangeiied
the airport. They were present -to listen to suggestions and
7 1 6 2
5/1Z/86
legitimate complaints feom the eo muniiy but, likewise, Coun-
cil as civic leaders must recognize a balance had to prevail.
Several years ago a second runway was planned for the airport
and federal funds spent grading a surface, but those plans
were dropped because of the increase in traffic that would
have resulted on the left side. The general aviation commu-
nity had already foregone a major asset in the name of noise
abatement. To ban all traffic patterns on the west side would
ignore the sacrifices already made. That solution would be
uneconomical --wasting time and fuel --and would result in an
increase of aircraft noise over the City because they were
constrained by how far to the southeast they could fly because
of Moffett airfield. If no traffic patteroa were allowed on
the west side during busy times, that problem would he com-
pounded resulting in the tower requesting aircraft to hold
over the City of Palo Alto. Their membership was advised of
the procedures laid out by the Good Neighbor Committee. They
could not eliminate engine noise any more than Southern
Pacific but ;:anted to be good neighbors. He invited the Coun-
cilmembers to a flight over the City.
2. Hope Raymond, 639 Arastradero Road, said Mayor Cobb pointed
out the time constraint Council was under due to the Downtown
Study and requested they not make any presentations that
evening about Palo Alto's becoming a sanctuary city. They
recognized and appreciated the importance of the study and
would cooperate.
3. Michael Rota, 2071 Middlefield Road, spoke in support of
refilling Boronda Lake at Foothills Park. Foothills Park was
made for the fun of Palo Alto citizens and the lake was half
of tile Fun. Animals went to drink at the lake, and ducks and
fish lived in it. He suggested a fund raiser or fair to raise
the money.
4. Peter Faulkner, 775 17th Avenue, Menlo Park, Director of the
Summit Sports Program in Palo Alto, asked the City Council to
remove an earlier request regarding the Recreation Department
Camp scheduled for Palo Alto High School between June 1 7,-20.
He distributed a brochure of a program begun in Menlo Park
involving approximately 400 families, which had since,moved to
Palo Alto, and involved exhibition lacrosse teams at
Candlestick Park, Oakland Coliseum, Stanford, etc. That team
would shortly be inv ted to tour the Soviet Union, and one of
the proposals he would make to Council in future was consider-
ation of recognizing --not sponsoring --the team as an official
Palo Alto team.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 14 1936 APRIL 21, 1986,, AND MAY 5�
1986
Mayor Cobb commented that the Minutes of May 5, 1986, were of the
meeting of the previous Monday and were produced under tremendous
pressure by the City Clerk's office in a very short period of
time. It was not the kind of verbatim sense minutes as in the
past but was a more abbreviated form and therefore less precise on
a word-for-word basis. The effort was extraordinary and required
a good deal of midnight oil on the part of Gloria Young and her
staff to get the minutes turned around so quickly so Council had
the use of them for that evening's continued discussion of the
Downtown. Council should not expect that kind of turnaround
often. He thanked Ms. Young.
MOTION: Mice Mayer Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval of the Ninates of April 14, 1986, April 21, 1986, sod May
5, 1916, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED snaoimessly, Klein absent.
7 1 6 3
5/1.2/86
CONSENT CALENDAR -
MOTION: Coencilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
ITEM 41,1986-87 BUDGET - REFER TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE (FIN 1-1))
Action
ITEM 42,E ORDINANCE RE AMENDING ZONING CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODE
(2Od Reading] (ISLA 7-9)
ORDINANCE 3683, entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
AL0 ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING CODE)
AND TITLE 21 (SUBDIVISION CODE) REGARDING OEFIkITION OF
LOT COVERAGE, COTTAGES 114 Ti( RE AND OS ZONES, INTERIOR
SIDE YARDS AND VERTICAL ADDITIONS IM THE R-1 ZONE,
PROJECTIONS INTO YARDS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES,
SETBACKS IN PC DISTRICTS, NONCOMPLYING FACILITIES, AND
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS' (1st Reading 4/28/86, PASSED 8-0„
Klein absent)
ITEM 432_ ORDINANCE RE SKATEBOARDS IN PARKING FACILITIES (2nd
Reading) (LEG 5.17)
ORDINANCE 3684, entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE Gift 6F PALO ALTO AMENDING PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 1.0.64.240 TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF SKATEBOARDS IN
CITY OF PALO ALTO PARKING FACILITIES' (1st Reading
4/28/86, PASSED 8-0, Klein absent)
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
Councilmember Fletcher suggested roving forward Item 07, Jordan
and Garland Open Space leases, and asked if there was any urgency
on Item 48, Request of Councilmembers Patitucci and Sutorius re
Seven -day -a -week Bingo Games at Fiesta Lanes.
Councili,ember Sutorius said the time urgency on Item 48 was the
charitable organizations attempting to pursue the potent i al of a
Bingo operation needed to negotiate a lease for a Palo Alto prop-
erty. The property owner needed to engage in those actions and
come to some conclusions in the mid -June period. Therefore,
absent any understanding of. Council direction for review of the
proposed changes and feedback to Council for its review and con-
sideration, the time frame was such the charitable organizations
might lose the opportunity,
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, to
bring forward Item 47, Jardae and Garland Open Space Leases.
City Manager Bill Zaner said Item 47 could be the next item.
Councilmember Patitucci suggested including Item 08, Request of
Councilmembers Patitucci and Sutorius re Seven -day -a -week Bingo
Games at Fiesta Lanes, in the motion,
Councilmember Fletcher. said, with the explanation from Council -
member Sutorius, she saw no reason to move Item 48 forward.
City Manager Bill Zaner wanted to speak on Item 47 if pulled for-
ward.
Councilmember Levy asked if any members from the Palo Alto .Unified
School District (PAUSD) were present to address Item 47. If not,
he believed the item should be left in its normal place.
7 1 6 4
5/12/86
Mayor Cobb asked for a show of hands from members of PAUSD. He
noted no one was present, and believed the item could be dealt
with in a short time.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Levy voting no, Woolley 'not
participating,' Klein absent.
MOTION: Coencilmember Patitecci moved, seconded by Sutorius, to
move forward Item #8, Request of Ceencilmembers Patitucci and
Setori es re Seven -day -a -week Bingo Games at Fiesta Lanes.
Councilmember Patitucci believed Councilmember Sutorius' comments
favored dealing with the item quickly because it was a request to
modify the ordinance which required a fair amount of time to,
implement.
Councilmember Levy said that moving an item forward should only be
done for extraordinary reasons. In the case in question, the only
reason to do so was if members of the public were inconvenienced
by being present until late in the evening. He believed the item
should be taken in its normal course. If any members of the pub-
lic wished to speak to Item #8, they would be shocked to find it
being considered at 7:45 p.m.
Mayor Cobb asked if there were any members of the public present
whowished to speak to the Bingo issue. He noted three people and
said if the item was not moved forward, they were unlikely to see
the item until the following evening or, Thursday, depending on how
long the Downtown Study deliberations took.
Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Levy. Since
that particular item could be dealt with the following evening and
Council had a public hearing on Downtown which people were told
would be on the agenda that evening, it was more appropriate to
deal with the subject item, which might be controversial, at its
proper course in the agenda.
Mayor Cobb preferred to deal with the item in its normal course
and would oppose bringing it forward.
NOTION FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Patitecc1, Setor'ius voting
'aye,' Klein absent.
ITEM #3-A, (OLD ITEM #1 ), JORDAN AND GARLAND OPEN SPACE LEASES
TWIR -6-2) (CMR:2r2:6)
Vice Mayor Woolley said she would not participate in the item due
to a potential conflict of interest.
City Manager 8i11 Zaner called Council's attention to the memo
placed before them (on file in the City Clerk's office) amending
the budget amendment (CMR:272:6), adding $1,644.66 to the amount
for a total of $62,753.60.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval of the ordinance as amended to include the $7,634.60
rebate for a metal appropriation of $62,753.60.
ORDINANCE 3685, as amended, entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE
- CITT OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 1,85-06 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
APPROPRIATION TO LEASE THE JORDAN AND GARLAND SCHOOL
SITES.
NOTION PASSED by a vete if -7 .0, Woolley ° not participating,! Klein
absent.
7 16 5
5/ 12/EV:
ITEM al_i__ -AP'OINTriENT OF BOARD MFA1ER TO MIDPENINS !ILA ACCESS
CORPORAfJON BOARD (Continued from 5/5/86) (PRE 7-3)
Mayor Cobb said in the shirtsleeve session on May 5, 1986, Council
became deadlocked and unable to reach a decision on the matter.
The two people over whom Council was deadlocked were interviewed
again by Council.
RESULTS OF THE SEVENTH ROUND OF VOTING
City Clerk Gloria Young announced the results of the seventh
ballot:
BECHTEL VOTING FOR:
COBB VOTING FOR:
FLETCHER VOTING FOR:
LEVY VOTING FOR:
PAT I TUCC I VOTING FOR:
RENZEL VOTING FOR:
SUTORIUS VOTING FOR:
WOOLLEY VOTING FOR:
Josephson
Josephson
Josephson
Burkhardt
Burkhardt
Josephson
Josephson
Josephson
Ms. Youno said Mr. Josephson received six votes and ,as
appointed.
Mayor Cobb congratulated Mr. Josephson. He hoped Mr. Burkhardt
would apply for other things where Council could make ,use of his
talents. There were excellent applicants for the position.
ITEM #5, DOWNTOWN STUDY - CONTINUED ITEMS FROM THE "STUDY SESSION"
DISCUSSION OF DOWNTOWN ISSUES/ACTIONS: NEIGHBORHOOD PR6TECTION;
HOUSING; AND LANG USE PLAN MAP CHANGES (Continued from 5/6/86)
(PLA 7-4) (CMRT y
Mayor Cobb said on May 5, 1986, Council completed the discussions
on the subjects of Growth, Parking and Traffic, Character and
Scale, and Economic Vitality, leaving discussions of Neighborhood
Protection, Housing, Land Use Plan Map Changes, and whatever over-
view and general comments Council wished to make before getting
back to the regular process. The Public Hearing continued from
the meeting of April 28, 1986. It was his intention that Council
complete the Public Henring that evening, and he expected the
meeting would be continued to the following evening when Council
would start its action,
Neiaghborheod Protection
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber
described the goal of the neighborhood protection item as limiting
traffic, parking, and building size and design and other impacts
of downtown development so as to protect and preserve the residen-
tial qualities of adjacent and other neighborhoods. Four comments
related to the items on the agenda under that topic: first, the
policy toward on -street parking impacts was to not have the cur-
rent situation worsen rather than to shift significant numbers of
cars off residential streets. Second, the traffic concerns
included both downtewn traffic using residential streets and
through traffic being pushed onto residential streets because of
downtown congestion,: Third, regarding the item entitled "Commer-
cial Height Limits, Setbacks," as a generalization the modified
regulations followed the principle of having the commercial regu-
lations mirror the residential regulations in the adjoining prop-
erties, although there were some exceptions. Fourth , housing
densities were scaled to have the lowest densitfes near
residential areas. That was a critical part of neighborhood
protection, especially in terms of bulk and scale of new
development.
7 1 6 6
5/12/86
i
1
1
Councilmember Levy was interested in disrnureging parking in sur-
rounding residential neighborhoods, which was point four of the
eight -point plan: He did not see that happening very satisfactor-
ily in the study and would be grateful for elucidation from staff
or the Planning Commission as to the plans afoot to discourage
parking in the neighborhoods.
Planning Commissioner Ellen Christensen said the 'neighbors
throughout the process indicated their willingness to live with
the parking already there if the alternative was a permit system
for parking in front of, their own houses. That was why the
Planning Commission accepted the existing "deficit". the way that
was.
Mr. Schreiber said to move the cars off neighborhood streets
involved one or more of several actions. One was the development
of alternative parking more convenient, attractive, and desirable
than the on -street parking. The second action was to actively
discourage on -street parking which could be done through a number
of devices. In any event, a supply of alternative parking was
needed. That was not to discount the idea of mov iug people from
drive -alone to multiple -occupancy vehicles, but even an aggressive
program in that area would not substantially reduce the number of
cars. If the structures were not located in the downtown area,
they needed to be located either close enough so people could be
encouraged to walk or be shuttle bused. Those alternatives were
very complex. Structures in the downtown area tended to run up
against the objectives and policies coming out of the study
regarding discouraging major physical change and increase in bulk
and mass of structures_ Considerable expense was also involved.
Councilmember Levy clarified the peugr=am council looked at would
only discourage parking in an indirect way, i.e., more parking was
created closer to the places of business, but the program would
not reduce the deficiency. The neighborhoods would have as a min-
imum the same amount of parking intrusion they presently had.
Mr. Schreiber said that was a fair assessment.
Councilmember Levy commented that made Item 4 of the eight point
plan misleading.
Councilmember Sutorius said Council discussed off -site parking and
the potential for in lieu fees, and the mechanics were Council
needed a structure defined and sufficiently engineered so it could
be identified as a specific plan before in lieu fees could be
applied. He asked what was necessary for such a requirement.
Council assessed the property a fee related to one space per 250
square feet which would be equivalent to the purchase of a monthly
parking permit.
City Attorney Diane Northway deferred an answer to that question
until the next evening. She said staff had been talking about
different aspects of in lieu parking.
Councilmember Sutorius was "piggy -backing" on the concern
expressed by Councilmember Levy. In the last meeting staff
indicated an aggressive enforcement program affecting the neigh-
borhood areas would be a difficult effort. Maybe . the combination
of an aggressive but imaeinetive approach could ameliorate the
situation. Referring to the specific recommendations under Neigh-
borhood, the present zoning ordinances contained upwards. of 30-40
pages of parking regulation description and requirements, and
within each of . the CN, CS, and CC a lot of specific provisions
were built in as to how those properties might be developed when
adjacent or across the street from a residential zone of any char-
acter. The recommendation was to keep the existing regulations in
the newly created zones.
Planning Commission Vice Chairman John Northway said that was
correct.
Councilmember Sutorius asked if the Planning Commission could
amplify on their analysis of the needs and benefits that came from
the additional two protections: The street setback would need to
match the residential district setback if the property was within
15U feet of a residential district, and the building height like-
wise would take on the most restrictive height of the abutting
residential zone. He asked how those protections were viewed as
necessary in light of the existing protections.
Planning Commission Chairperson Patricia Cullen said they were
fortunate to have present Pam Marsh; a member 'of the Downtown
Seedy Committee who also lived in a district impacted by that par-
ticular regulation.
Pam Marsh, member of the Downtown Study Committee, said one of the
goals set up for the Downtown Study was to preserve the existing
neighborhoods, and to continue their stability and vitality. The
Committee believed there were a number of problems in the downtown
that potentially threatened the existing neighborhoods, e.g.,
rarkiey and traffic. One was the effect of the urban design of
large buildings within the downtown on the existing periphery
"transitional" area where the neighborhoods met commercial zones.
The Committee believed the existing regulations were not strong
enough to guarantee what was built within those transitional zones
actually provided a transition appropriate into the residential
neighborhood. Height and setback were issues the Committee iden-
tified. eTo arrive at that point, the Committee took a walking
tour of both the north and south neighborhoods looking at areas
where commercial buildings abutted residential areas, and those
were the two problems they identified and believed could be
addressed in the regulations.
Councilmember Sutorius understood "abut" to mean adjacent to or
contiguous with. The proposal was 150 feet for the two specific
protections, and he needed to know how far away from the residen-
tial zone the Downtown Study Committee believed those additional
controls were appropriate.
Ms. Marsh said the 150 feet was already in the regulations in
terms of whatever existed for commercial near to residential
development. In setting up the new regulations, the Committee
simply borrowed the 150 feet from the existing code. It was most
critical where commercial development was right next to N-1. In
the north the commercial district came next to an i'MD district,
and in the south the problem was potentially a more serious prob-
lem next to low-lying R-1 cottages.
Ms. Cullen said basically it affected approximately a half a block
to a third of a block of neighboring residential districts.
Councilmember Patitucci referred to parking and asked if Council
did nothing to alleviate the actual deficit, they would be
creating a new problem by puttingg restrictions on where people
presently parked by forcing them to drive around aimlessly. If
Council took actions to force people out of the adjacent neighbor-
hoods, where would they park.
7 1 5 8
5/ 12/86
Mr. Zimmerman said the intent of the Downtown Study Committee and
subsequent Planning Commission recommendations was to make the
deficit no worse in the short term and address the existing
deficit in the long-term.
Councilmember Patitucci said the recommendations dealt with long-
term concerns. He believed what Council wanted was some fairly
strong indication to see the long-term parking deficit reduced and
the impact of parking in the neighborhood equally offset. He
wanted to see a plan that addressed a specific. period of time as
opposed to e long-range plan.
Ms. Christensen pointed out the Planning Commission made a recom-
mendation for an additional structure to allow for handicapped and
seismic exemptions, and to provide the possibility of in lieu
parking for lots too small to develop. To do anything further
about the deficit, Council was talking about one additional struc-
ture beyond the additional structure recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Councilmember Patitucci said parking in the immediate neighbor-
hoods should be restricted while long term usage patterns in the
various lots were created. If a serious parking problem existed,
he wanted action taken with associated costs imposed on the bene-
factors.
Mr. Schreiber did not believe the Citye experienced a "major
uproar" from the neighbors regarding the parking problem. In
1981, staff pursued a Parking Management Program which restricted
on -street parking and included shuttle lots and buses. Council
rejected the program partially because of a demonstrated lack of
support by citizens. The lack of support evidence was fed into
the objective of not increasing the deficit but not necessarily
reducing it either.
Councilmember Bechtel supported the Parking Management Program
when it was discussed by the Council. She referred to a group of
neighbors east of the Palo Alto Clinic, outside the study area,
whose recent petition expressed interest in doing something to
protect their neiehborhoode She asked why the Planning Commission
did not recommend a restriction on all day parking within the
study area.
Ms. Cullen said there was no support from people who lived in the
area to restrict on -street parking. The opposite was true. The
citizens liked their proximity to the downtown vitality and did
not want to upset the applecart. On the other hand, they did not
want parking to get worse.
Councilmember Bechtel referred to Councilmember Patitucci's con-
cerns about protecting neighborhoods, and believed the eight -poi ntiti
parking proposal s :ggested by the Downtown Study Committee and
recommended by the Planning. Commission was a start toward using
existing parking more efficiently. For the neighborhoods who
wanted parking permits, Council should explore that possibility.
Sht saw many parked cars at 6:30 a.m. beyond the two or three hour
restricted zone inside of Channing or Homer and on the opposite
side of Lytton. Those people did not use the parking structure
because they would rather _walk two blocks than pay to park.
Councilmember Levy did not believe a deficit existed but rather
people desired to park for free. During the noon hour that day,
Lot "Pi was over 50 percent vacant. • if people wanted to park in
the garage all day, there was no problem. All day parking in
neighborhoods needed to be specifically discouraged or prohibited.
otherwise the problem would remain status quo. He asked why the
specific .discouragement or prohibition was not addressed. If the
1 6 9
5/12/86
neighbors were not interested in City intervention, Council should
not get involved. If the existing Lot "J" was over 50 percent
vacant, an intensive marketing program was needed to point out its
advantages. ,It might be the City was charging too much and the
market would not accept it. It was risky to have a plan which
called for the construction of Many parking structures if the ones
presently available were vacant.
Mayor Cobb agreed there were parking spaces available in Lot "J"
for a fee but people preferred to park for free. Some employers
made it easy for their employees to move their cars every two
hours and part of the "marketing" program should be to work with
employers downtown to avoid that situation.
Mr. Schreiber said the present parking situation in the downtown
area did not cause enough discomfort for employers, employees, or
neighbors to warrant significant change.
Vice Mayor Woolley referred to No. 7 of the eight -point program
which said "involve employers in the parking management." The
recommendation was for Council to approve the implementation of
the eight -point program. She sensed Council wanted more teeth in
the implementation. She agreed with a letter from Cheryl Lathrop
(on file in the Clerk's Offoce) which suggested Council work with
the businesses downtown to get their employees to park in the per-
mit parking.
Councilmember Patitucci referred to the parking situation and said
there was a major effort toward no growth Downtown. He queried
whether there would be such a major response toward growth if
there was not a major problem with parking.
Councilmember Renzel said it was suggested the existence of
parking spaces downtown reflected no problem. She asked whether
there would be any vacant spaces if all of the cars parked in the
neighborhoods parked Downtown.
Mr. Schreiber said there would be far more cars than spaces in the
downtown area.
Councilmember Renzel clarified without significant growth restric-
tions the City would end up with more cars in the neighborhoods.
Ms. Christensen said the neighborhood accepted the existing situ-
ation but expressed unwillingness to live with it getting worse in
terms of parka ny moving further into the neighborhoods or more
traffic on their streets. The Planning Commission addressed its
parking recommendations to new developments so the parking situa-
tion Downtown would not get worse.
Retaiaq
Mr. Schreiber said the Comprehensive Plan Housing Objectives were:
1) maintain character and quality of residential neighborhoods;
2) maintain diversity of housing opportunities; and 3) increase
housing especially for households of low and moderate income and
households with children. There were many references to housing
incentives and he did not believe the word "Incentive -s" was war-
ranted because the 25 percent Below -Market -Rate (BMR) requirement
on the development of four or more units would have a discouraging
effect on the devel opn ent of new housing. It appeared the actual
cdr truction costs, including underground parking, were higher
than the BMR price levels. Under the current situation, some
costs were passed along to the market rate units in the develop-
ment with the percentage of market rate units falling from 90.
percent to 75 percent. With the BMR program applied to smaller
developments there was less flexibility. for shifting construction_
7 1 7 0
5/12/86
costs. Further, the Downtown Study would probably result in a
greater premium for commercial space with higher reets. The best
trade off of profit and risk might well be 100 percent commercial
space with surface parking especially in the CD -S and CO -N with
0.4 FAR rather than some type of mixed use development which might
trigger having some or all of the parking underground. Regarding
housing incentives for sub -area one the risk, delay, and complex-
ity resulting from the site and design requirements for housing
could substantially encourage commercial -only projects regardless
of whether they were new developments or rehabilitations. Based
on staff's experience, mixed use projects almost always had
greater construction and management difficulties for the private
sector than 100 percent commercial or housing projects. Those
factors were also' fed into reluctance on the part of many property
owners and developers to pursue housing in or adjacent to the
Downtown core area.
Councilmember Fletcher asked whether Mr. Schreiber opined the 25
percent BMR requirement would be a detriment to new housing in the
entire City or just sub -area one.
Mr. Schreiber clarified his comment regarding sub -area one related
to site and design requirements which added a substantial length
of time and uncertainty to the applicant. Regarding the 25 per-
cent BMR, the objectives in the Comprehensive Plan spoke to main-
taining diversity of housing opportunities, especially for house-
holds with low or moderate income. While the 25 percent BMR
requirement might well be app aapri ate, its economic impacts might
discourage individuals and developers from pursuing housing.
Councilmember Fletcher asked about a BMR percentage which would
not be a disincentive.
Mr. Schreiber said no. He did not believe staff had detailed
enough knowledge of the intricacies .c►f housing finance to respond.
Preliminary indications were the 1986 tax bill might have signif-
icant impacts on the overall financing of housing.
Ms. Cullen clarified the Planning Commission recommendation
regarding the 25 percent BMR, 1.5 FAA and the Site and Design
Review was only intended for area one. The rest of the area was
left with varied incentives for housing, no BMR requirement and no
site and design review.
Lou Goldsmith, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), believed pro-
posed restrictions and restraints for the Downtown contained many
factors which would increase the cost of any housing. Site and
design review took time and caused uncertainties, and cutting the
allowable housing by as much as 50 to 80 percent from what was now
allowed by the zoning in and of itself was a major negative factor
in terms of housing costs. Requiring more parking for a mixed use
development Downtown than would be required somewhere else in the
community would force underground parking sooner than otherwise.
He referred to the question of counting covered parking at or
above grade level as floor area. The April 3, 1986 staff report
stated the provision would apply to all covered parking visible at
grade. He queried the definition of "visible" and what happened
if parking was one foot below grade. If any parking for h .sing
below grade on a mixeduse site counted as floor area, there could
not be as many units and the cost of construction went up. The
Planning Commission was mainly concerned about possible construc-
tion of large -private parking structures. He saw no rationale
which said the provision of below grade parking as floor area.
should be applied to a simple low density development where only
.4 commercial could be built and as little as .25 to ,5 housing
could be built. Regarding the likelihood of obtaining 8MR units,
the chances were virtually zero because small lots would not
accommodate enough housing at a .25 to .5 FAR to get up to ten
units.
Councilmember Bechtel asked about the differences in the amount of
housing to be produced with the existing mechanism as opposed to
the developable floor area mechanism proposed.
Mr. Zimmerman said the concept under existing regulations was
based on site area. A FAR of 1 :1, which was the site area, was
the amount of units possible depending on the formula. If the
formula allowed 44 units per acre, an acre of site area or a 1 :1
FAR would provide 44 units. A developable floor area (DFA) con-
cept was based on allowable floor area. A FAR for housing greater
than 1:1 would provide more units. The formula recommended by the
Planning Commission was one unit per 1,000 square feet of floor
area; therefore, a one acre site with a 1.9 FAR would provide
approximately 75 dwelling units compared to the existing highest
density of 45 dwelling units.
Mayor Cubb referred to a prior comment if the housing incentive,
especially in sub -area one, was enticing enough, it might make
housing the highest economic use of the land.
Mr. Schreiber believed one of the objectives was to try to pre-
serve the service commercial businesses. If those were to be
replaced by redevelopment, and particularly redevelopment with
housing, there should be substantial community benefits from the
housing. The 25 percent BMR concept came out of the desire to
have a major public benefit from new housing in the area --a "pub-
lic benefit" being defined as "units less than market rate prices
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." In combination, the
relatively low commercial square footage and the strong desire for
as much BMR as possible should work to discourage redevelopment
and replacement of existing facilities and, if they were replaced
with housing, there would be a major public benefit.
Mayor Cobb asked if it was likely that would make housing the
highest economic use in sub -area one with the ext:a incentives.
Mr. Schreiber said staff did not have economic knowledge to
respond with great precision, however, he doubted much c `.' that
area. would turn over in the foreseeable future to new deveropment
with a large amount of housing. There was too much economic
utility in the existing •structures, or the existing amount of com-
mercial square footage was above what could be achieved: through
redevelopment.
Mr. Zimmerman said during the Planning Commission deliberations,
Ms. McCown acknowledged that the recommendations for area one
responded to conflicting objectives --on the one hand to retain
existing service business, and on the other to encourage housing
in an appropriate higher -density corridor along Alma. Both the
Planning Commission and staff acknowledged they did not know how
effective the housing incentive would be.
Mr. Hirsch pointed out the .Commission was not uniform. He voted
against the housing proposal because of its impact on parking and
traffic.
Councilmember Patitucci agreed with Mr. Hirsch's remarks. It was
not clear a housing use had a different traffic pattern and
parking requirement than commercial. Development of housing down-
town was desirable from that standpoint; more people added vital-
ity and patronized the service commercial businesses. He asked if
there was a clear view of the simple question of whetner it was
desirable or not in light of the traffic and parking problems.
7 1 7 2
5/12/86
1
i
Ms. Christensen believed traffic and the parking situation were
favorable for housing. The Planning Commission heard a strong
sentiment voiced from the community to preserve services business.
If there was housing in addition, that housing should be aimed at
the primary goal of the Comprehensive Plan which was low/moderate-
income, family -type housing.
Councilmernber Levy voiced a concern regarding procedure. He
recognized Council's need to get to the public, however, the item
on Land Use Plan Map Changes was complicated. He suggested staff
give an overall review of the Land Use Map Plan Changes.
Mayor Cobb proposed Council set aside the "shirtsleeve" session at
that point, complete the public hearing, and then finish the land
Use Map Changes and whatever overall remarks they wished to make
that evening, and save formal actions until the following
evening.
Councilmember Levy: asked staff to briefly summarize the Land Use
Map Plan Changes to clarify what was proposed.
Mr. Schreiber said in regard to the first two changes to Neighbor-
hood Commercial, they were not particularly controversial. The
public conveyed a general sense for both of the changes for the
areas north and south of the CC district to reflect the commer-
cial activity and the retention of that activity. The change on
High Street to Multiple Family Residential reflected an existing
situation, and the changes on Aima and Addison frofeeService Com-
mercial to Multiple Family Residential received relatively little
publi-c input during the Planning Commission process. The south
side of downtown was the one area where commercial extended sub-
stantially into ,a residential area` and into a single fami ly resi-
dential area. The objective of the change was to pull back the
commercial land use boundary coterminous with Other areas,
COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:05 p.m. to 9:20 p.m.
ITEM #6t PUBLIC HEARINGL DOWNTOWN STUDY (PLA ►-4)
A. Planning Commission recommendations on Draft Environmental
Impact Report; Comprehensive Plan Amendments; new zoning and
other ordinances; and other policies, implementation programs
and projects. (Continued from 4/21/86)
B. Historic Resources Board recommendations on changes to the
Historic Preservation Ordinance.
C. .Planning Commission recommendations re: Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map Change and Zone Change for property located at
657 Alva Street,
Mayor Cobb declared the Public Hearing reopened.
Cyanne McElhinney, 666 Tennyson Avenue, Palo Alto, a life-long
resident of Palo Alto saw many changes occur in the town. During
the 1950s and 1960s, the residents of Palo Alto were greatly
saddened at the exodus of shoppers from downtown to the sur-
rounding shopping centers, and they were excited and pleased: by
the downtown revitalization during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Now, however, the Pl enni ng Commission looked closely at the down-
town and made its recommendations to the Council, and she was
pleased witi those recommendations. She wanted to limit the
amount of development in the downtown area and protect the retail
establishments and service -oriented businesses She expressed
concern about traffic and parking. She asked the Council to keep
density down in the downtown area so the residents could enjoy
shopping locally.
i
7 1 7 3
5/12/86
Ed i 1restoue, 771, Guinda Street, commented on one of the traffic
mitigation proposals in the staff report which could adversely
affect a residential neighborhood, specifically VI.J.3.(a) in the
DEIR. As always in Palo Alto, a balance must be struck between
those interested in development and the impact of the proposed
development on the ne1 ghborheods a He and his neighbors were con-
cerned about the impact of potential mitigation measures and the
effect on the neighborhood south of University Avenue and east of
Middlefield. Traffic flow on University Avenue was heavy and, as
a result, the Downtown Plan recommended an additional lane be
added to the westbound approach of University Avenue for through
traffic. Since there, did not appear to be any way to reduce the
total traffic flow downtown, the one thing that had to be avoided
was an additional traffic burden on the residential area. There-
fore, streets which already carried most of the traffic, like
University Avenue, should continue to carry that traffic.
Diverting traffic to areas where children played was not a wise
idea. Consequently, he and 115 of his neighbors signed a petition
requesting mandatory steps be taken to avoid adding an extra traf-
fic burden to their neighborhood. There were three alternatives
listed in the EIR: 1) to widen University Avenue; 2) to encourage
traffic flow off University and onto Guinda and associated
streets; and 3) to do nothing. He opined neither of the last
alternatives was advisable. To shift traffic onto Guinda or to do
nothing at all would, according to the report, have exactly the
same effect --a much greater traffic flow into a residential neigh-
borhood. They believed the only safe alternative for their child-
ren was to add an extra lane to University Avenue westbound. He
presented the petition to the City Clerk (on file in the City
Clerk's office.)
Mary Carlstead, 147 Walter Hays, said there was great concern
throughout the community that Council was more concerned about
people who did not live there as opposed to those who did. There
was a great deal of talk about the need for the job/housing im-
balance as if that was some sort of holy eleventh commandment that
could not be disputed. There was no legal, civic, or moral obli-
gation for Palo Alto to increase its population and compromise the
quality of life of those people who already lived there. If Coun-
cil carried the job/housing balance theory to its logical conclu-
sion, they would have to say, °If you live here and you don't work
here, you ` ve got to leave. If we provide you with housing to live
here and work here and you change jobs, you've gat to give up your
Housing." If every blade of _grass available in the community was
built on, there would still be a tremendous desire by people who
did not live in the City to do so. She read Councilmembers'
statements on the ballots when they ran for office. °Counci 1 -
member Levy: Protect the character of the residential neighbor-
hood." "Vice Mayor Woolley: I have come to appreciate the people
and forces that shape Palo Alto development through researching of
history and participating in civic organizations. This knowledge
and experience gives a special respect for the community and a
desire to preserve its finest aspects." "Councilrnember Renzel:
In the next few years, we will be making crucial choices. Will
Palo Alto allow office development and traffic to escalate or will
we protect our neighbor=hoods and our quality of life? I stand
firmly for the latter. We must retain a human scale downtown. We
must slow down excessive growth, employment growth which creates
pressure for high density condominiums." "Councilnrember Bechtel:
Protect the special qualities of Palo Alto's neighborhoods.°
"Councilmember Fletcher: I have strived for comprehensive
approaches ,iEo housing, environmental, transportation, and neigh-
borhood issues, and I have supported efforts to protect our envir-
onment and use or our resources efficiently." 'Councilmember
5utorius: Pursue land use planning that precludes unacceptable
zoning potential." "Councilmember Klein: Qualified to maintain
Palo Alto as a marvelous place to live and work." Council could
not have it both ways and must make the choice. If they built and
built, they violated the trust they ran on when they ran for
office.
7 1 7 4
5/12/86
Thomas Culligan, President of a newspaper headquartered at 245
Lytton Avenue, spoke about the value of people who went into their
community each day from other communities, who worked in the
buildings under discussion, and who: added substantially to the
social and cultural fiber of their communities during the hours
they were there each day. Of the 350 employees who worked at his
company, approximately 15 percent lived in Palo Alto, but all were
involved with issues of the community; making contributions to
that community even though they did not live there. He referred
to the limitations being considered and their effects on the
particular building that housed their newspaper. The building was
designed as half office and half manufacturing facility and cur-
rently had 77,000 square feet of space on 88,000 square facet of
land. Due primarily to the advance in electronics, in the five
years the manufacturing part of that business would occupy 10-15
percent of the total space, where ten years previously that part
occupied 50 percent. There -were many options for that marvelous
structure on that key block on Lytton Avenue, and he encouraged.
Council to look at creative solutions to dealing with their objec-
tives and deal in <.,takiny those 15 points and putting then into the
measures in order to solve some of the problems.- There was a mar-
velous lot behind the building that could be utilized for multi-
story parking, and there was no reason why they could not have
commercial, both service and retail shops in the front part of
that building nor why they could not offer housing above that
building. They needed the creativeness brought by a_ratio greater
than 1:1, greater than 1:2.5, or perhaps 2.1. He encouraged
establishment of ratios that allowed Council to accomplish their
objec ives,
Mike Morris, 999 Alma Street, President of Don L. Morris Auto
Parts, opined the downtown study proposal would preserve many
services that 1) were important to the downtown community; 2)
would remain in town and not force the public to go elsewhere for
services; and 3) would eliminate additional traffic created if the
public had to drive out of downtown to those services. The
proposal also changed the land use map and created some zoning
changes. Those changes would let businesses remain in almost all
of the existing areas. He was concerned about the proposed change
from commercial to residential in the southern most part of the
downtown area known as 1019-1027 Alma, and 112 Addison. His
letter (on file in the City Clerk's office), indicated those
parcels had a long history of commercial use: auto repair, bicycle
repair, etc. Those parcels were always in use and were a benefit
to the local community. If the City rezoned those parcels to RM-2
from commercial, Council should be aware the City would lose a
bookstore, a bicycle repair shop, an auto repair facility, a
stereo repair stop and, most importantly, a private parking lot
used by not only those four businesses but other businesses in the
local area, thus keeping vehicles off the already -crowded streets
during the work week. He firmly believed in the idea of rezoning
certain parcels of property from commercial to residential, and
that was necessary when there was either a large vacancy rate in
available commercial properties or the commercial property became
a menace to the neighboring residential area. In .the case of the
properties in question, neither circumstance was relevant. The
current businesses there were not made for large office complexes
and had a vied relationship with the residential neighborhood.
The alley between the commercial buildings and the residential
houses acted as a buffer, and the years of coexistence proved that
business and residential properties could live and work together
i that area. He urged Council to take a second look at that part
of downtown.
Mayor Cobb asked if Mr. Morris owned the parking lot.
Mr. Morriss said yes.
Mayor Cobb asked about Mr. Morris' long-term plans for the
property if the zoning change did not go through.
7 5/12/86
Mr. Morris planned to expand the auto parts operation currently at
999 Alma Street, move some of the retail operation to the 112
Addison/1019 property, and continue to utilize the parking lot not
only for his employees but for customers and other businesses in
the area.
Counciirnember Bechtel understood during the Planning Commission
hearing on the item; Mr. Morris did not object to allowing the
other side of Addison to be rezoned to residential.
Mr. Morris said that was correct.
Councilmember Bechtel asked if he had changed his mind.
Mr. Morris said at the initial Planning Commission hearing he
feared more for his business future than for the parcel across the
street. The people that owned 1027 Alma Street contacted him and
presented positions in regard to those properties. After thinking
about it, he agreed with them.
Simon Cintz, 1626 Wilshire Drive, Aptos, drew up in Palo Alto and
his parents resided in the downtown area on Ramona Street. He
spoke to the rezoning of properties owned by Mr. Morris and prop-
erty his family owned at 1027 Alma Street. The downtown plan pro-
posed to rezone the strip of ]and approximately 150-200 feet on
Alma Street from commercial to residential. His family owned the
property for 35 years and opposed rezoning. The Minerva'.Bookstore
operated on the property for six years. He attended the previous
week's Council work session and realized the property should
remain commercial. To preserve the character of the local neigh-
borhood and retail commercial establishments he believed the prop-
erty at 1027 Alma Street and the adjoining property should remain
commericial. Their property was zoned and used commercial for
approximately 40 years. The property was successful because it
was small, located on Alma Street, and attracted small businesses.
A letter from the owner of the Minerva Bookstore said commercial
property values in downtown Palo Alto increased and it was diffi-
cult for a small merchant to maintain a business if located on
University Avenue or the area immediately adjacent. It was impor-
tant there be other lower -cost locations for small businesses and
Council should make i t economically feasible for small businesses
to exist Uowntow,n. He urged Council retain the commercial zoning
on his family's property.
Don Klages, owned 281 University Avenue and Wideman's Men's Store,
and spoke on his own behalf. His business :tarted Downtown in
1959 and he continued to work to solve probems the Downtown
experienced through the years. Customers were displeased about
parking but were generally pleased with the Downtown's develop-
menc. There , were nice restaurants and the bleak buildings no
longer existed. Retailers were concerned about the seismic ordi-
nance and the downzoning 1: 1. Being required to rebuild his
structure because of the seismic ordinance without being able to
recoup the expenses would mean hundreds of thousands of dollars to
be recaptured. It was a Catch 22 situation because if he could
not increase the value of his property, his business might be
forced to relocate. Council restricted first floor usage so if he
was forced to sell, it was impossible to sell to anyone other than
another retailer. ler. If he could not survive Downtown, few retailers
could. He needed the flexibility to sell the property to a
commercial use, bark, savings and loan or someone who might afford
to rebuild a building and recapture its value on a 1:i ratio.
Counci lweaber -Pat i tucci asked how many stories and the FAR of Mr.
Klages' building. If Mr. Klages built and added a second story,
he asked who could occupy the space.
Mr. Klages said his building was one and one-half stories in
height but there was only the downstairs. The current FAR was
3:1, with 7,50U square feet on the first floor and in the
basement. Professionals, realtors, advcrtisine agencies, etc.
would occupy second story office space. The people Uowhtuwn who
used the services provided the retail vitality. Downtown survived
after Stanford Shopping Center was built because many lawyers and
other professional people walked into stores during the noon hour
and bought shoes, clothing and ice creem cones. Those people
would occupy the buildings and also be clients and customers.
Vice Mayor Woolley appreciated Mr. Klages reference to the Catch
22 situation and asked for comment regarding the Planning
Commission recommendation that businesses with the seismic problem
receive a 2,000 square -foot incentive, including eight exempt
parking spaces.
Mr. Klages said on a 7,500 square foot building, 2,000 square feet
was meaningless because it would be difficult to add such a small
area compared to the entire store. There would be a much larger
area to rebuild, and it probably would not be enough to be eco-
nomically feasible.
Vice Mayor Woolley queried the second floor.
Mr. Klages did not believe it would be economically feasible to
put the 2,000 on the second floor because of the additional cost.
When Mr. Rapp rebuilt his building, his figures reflected one
entire floor. Even with the entire floor, he had a negative cash
fl
ow.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked for comment regarding DEIR and Committee
consideration of a lower cost loan program for rehabilitation.
Mr. Klages said it would help. He was concerned about small busi-
nesses being forced out.
Urew Young, 3190 Mackell Court, said his family bought 849 High
Street in Palo Alto for P1,000 in 1945. It was originally Palo
Alto Auto Wreckers. The property was currently National Auto Club
and Towing Service. He believed all rights granted his family to
continue to serve the community should remain. All service busi-
ness owners deserved their fair share in the sweat equity they
worked two to t=free generations for. The Downtown Study and the
"grandfather" clause would make it possible for him to succeed in
the nature process of change.
Teresa b.ourke, 610 Coleridge, was concerned about the. building
explosion Downtown and in the neighborhoods over the past five
,years and its associated problems. She applauded Council efforts
to hear and discuss the citizen's concerns about traffic and
parking Downtown and take steps to change zoning and limit growth.
:`(growth should be limited in commercial developments to five per-
cent rather than the ten percent recommended by the Planning
Commission. Some buildings were in the process or construction or
were approved but had not yet begun construction. She urged
buiidlnee be completed and occupancy habits reviewed before moving
ahead with more building.. She wanted Council to protect the
interests of residents and businesses from eager developers. She
encouraged limitsi on the size .of any new construction. Palo Alto
shod.ld sot limits and create asesthetically pleasing new buildings
with space for attractive landscaping. In the Urban Redevelopment
Area of Los Angeles, she observed a lot of open space for outdoor
planting and sitting in the New Muserm of,Modern Art complex still
under -construction. Palo Alto could put more effort toward
landscaping and planning. She encouraged Council support the
diversity of retail shops Downtown. It was sad to see lore time
retailers close but healthy and attractive shops and- restaurants
remained. She encouraged the , balance to create, a continuingly
healthy and aesthetically pleasing Downtown area.
7.1 7 7
5/1.2/86
Linda Ross, lab North California Avenue, spoke as President of the
League of Women Voters (LWV) of Palo Alto. During the past year,
the LWV reviewed the Employment, Housing and Transportation
portions of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan and agreed the basic
goals of the sections were valid. The LWV was concerned current
zoning in many areas did not clearly reflect the goals and should
be changed. Current zoning Downtown permitted an amount of
development the LWV believed would generate unacceptable levels of
traffic, exacerbate parking problems and produce many undesirable
changes in the character of the community. Mezeures to reduce the
employment potential Ly limiting the overall growth or reduced
FARs were important steps to ameliorate the problems. The LWV
recognized the need for more housing if Palo Alto was to meet its
goal to maintain a di vers ity of housing opportunities and lessen
the ,lobs/housing imbalance by increased housing supply. It was
important some future development in the'Downtown area consist of
housing units and the LWV supported the Planning Commission recom-
mendations for a higher FAR for projects partially or entirely
housing. -The pilot program wherein additional FARs would be
awarded to a project if at least 25 percent of its units were
affordable and within the City's OMR Program seemed appropriate.
The LWV supported incentives to encourage developers to build more
housing rather than offices; measures to keep needed and/or
desired businesses and services from being forced out of the City;
and the recommendation of a ground floor retail zone in the
Downtown area. An ayeressive traffic management program was also
needed if the City was to achieve any significant improvement in
Downtown's traffic and parking problems. The LWV supported
actions by the City to reduce commuter and general public depen-
dence on the private automobile. It might be time for Palo Alto
to adopt an ordinance similar to the City of Pleasanton whicf
required employers to offer incentives and other programs to pro-
mote car pooling, van pooling, the use of public transportation,
bicycling and walking. A transportation coordinator could assist
employers to reach targeted significant reductions in one person,
one Car trips for the benefit of all who lived, worked and shopped
in Palo Alto. The LWV appreciated the time.and effort invested in
the Downtown Study. She urged Council take ;the necessary steps to
control growth and associated traffic and parking problems in Palo
Alto's Downtown area.
Chop Keenan, 400 Hamilton, was not in conflict with the basic goal
of ;350,000 square feet over the next 10 years. Historical and
seismic incentives were gratuitous at best. Regarding subsidized
loans as additional incentives, Palo Alto would soon be a net
borrower not a net lender and since net borrowing would not be
attainable under Proposition 13, the high level of City services
demanded in Palo Alto would have to be reduced. He urged Council
refocus on a buy -in parking- grogram which would be required with
the 750 to 1,000 new City parking spaces Council would create a
market for. He heard no second to the motion for a second parking
garage much l*ss another 1,000 space parking garage within the
Downtown., The ."beauty contest" concept would assure Council and
citizens that 350,000 square feet would be built. Council had
control and needed a realistic FAR to go along with it. The FAR
had to be consistent with the Council goal of 350,000 square feet
but not radically reduce the land values in Downtown Palo Alto.
It was not necessary for the last .25 to occur to meet Council's
basic goal of 350,000 square feet, but if he believed a 1:1 FAR
would have adverse consequences on the land values.
Sylvia Porter, 93t Hamilton Avenue, said according to the
Transportation Department, the Planning Commission recommendation
of 350,000 square feet of additional commercial space meant a 10
to 15 percent ,increase in traffic. One suggestion to restripe
University Avenue and eliminate the left -tun! signal at university
and Middlefield would create about 21 percent additional traffic
into the residential area. She wanted to preserve the quality
life and hoped Council would be more concerned about those who
lived in Palo Alto than those who commuted in.
Wad
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said the Palo Alto Civic League submitted
letters to the Council (on file in the City Clerk's office)
regarding its position on the Downtown Study generally similar to
those expressed by Linda Rosy fur the LWV. He referred to
Downtown development over the past two years and said if develop-
ments were allowed to continue at such a pace, the Downtown
vitality would be destroyed by uncontrolled growth of offices,
increased rents and the loss of retail establishments. Parking
would be impossible and traffic would be eridlocked, He believed
a 2:1 or 1.25:1 FAR was excessive and development would reach the
350,000 or.500,000 square feet allowed. A 2:1 FAR would allow
developers to get in as much as possible before the window closed.
Once the buildings were up, there would be arguments about whether
to go to a .5 or .75 FEAR on the remaining lots to ameliorate the
additional traffic and parking problems, additional jobs, and
growth Downtown. A 1: 1 FAR was excessively generous but could be
accepted on an interim basis. Regarding whether too low a FAR
would restrict the design flexibility and produce many small
cubes, a five -story height limit with an FAR of .3 tended towards
buildings three, four or five stories hiyh with a similar appear-
ance. On the other hand, five stories with an FAR of 1.0 could
only cover L0 percent of the land. A one story building could
build to 100 percent of the lot coverage with a lot of possible
developments in between. The Architectural Review Board (ARB)
reviewed and _could reject unattractive designs and buildings.
Council could charge the ARB with not allowing any cubes. -He did
not object to the basic concept of mixed use commercial and resi-
dential with the incentives suggested but strongly objected to the
Director of planning and Community Environment forgiving up to 20
percent of the parking normally required on those types of sites.
He requested no relaxation in the Downtown area because parking
was t i yhtly restricted. The condominiums across the street from
the Downtown Library were allowed to build with less than the
required parking with the idea they would use the library parking
lot at ni yht. However, the parking overflowed onto the streets.
Mr. Keenan said if the FAR was reduced, land values would drop.
Offices did not pay taxes and based on $200 per square feet to
build, on 350,000 square feet of development, the City would get
$70,000 per year total property taxes. Based on Proposition 13,
the City only received one -tenth of one percent of the value of
the bindings. Regarding parking, the short-term spaces were hard
to find. Council might consider reducing permit parking spaces
and allowing more short term parking in those lots while moni-
toring the amount of overflow parking into the neighborhoods from
the reduction in the permit parking. If after six months, people
were driven into the neighborhoods, the situation could return to
the status quo., The City did not know the effects of development
in the pipeline and he urged Council not allow further development
until all pipeline projects were built and occupied at the 85 per-
cent level.
David Schrow; 302 College Avenue, said thousands of Council con-
stituents did not believe commercial and industrial development in
the City over the last five years resulted in a net improvement in
the quality of life. for Palo Alto. 1 He queried how the City could
fairly stop the process and was concerned aoout the people who
spoke reyardiny their businesses and commercial interests. The
City did not know where it was in terms of land use in order to
plan for the future nor did it know where it was at any time in
the past. The buildings already -approved and constructed but not
occupied might have a substantial impact on the quality of life in
the community, quality of services the City provided, and the
revenues to the City to provide them. To plunge forward and agree
to accept another 350,000 square feet of industrial and commercial
construction in a town which bemoaned the imbalance of such con-
struction for decades was foolhearty. Externalities did not
appe r on anyone's balance because costs were widely distributed
and it did not pay to keep track of then or the people affected
did not regard them as something they could personally control.
7 1 7.4
5/12/86
He referred to the 1,200 space parking shortage in the Downtown
area. He understood a parking space Downtown cost about $25,000,
so 1,200 spaces were worth about $30 million. At current rates of
return, the federal government could only borrow at about six
percent. Assuming a fair rate of return on $30 million was $1.8
million, then the $2 million someone wrote was being contributed
to the public treasury by the commercial enterprises Downtown was
90 percent offset by the $1.8 million subsidy the enterprises were
extracting from the neighborhood residents to tolerate the traffic
and parking down the streets and in front of where they lived.
Jean Rarnacciotti, 959 Waverley, referred to election promises in
1983 when the theme "Preserve Palo Alto" ran through most of the
platforms. Downtown Palo Alto improved from 15 years prior. She
requested Council differentiate between progress for a few and
progress for many. Progress for the small number of builders and
developers usually meant obtaining the most profit out of a piece
of land. Progress often disregarded the environmental effects of
the community and sometimes disregarded the consideration of the
surrounding neighbors. She believed progress for most Palo Alto
residents meant d drastic reduction in the rate of building both
commercial and condominiums.
Paul Smith, 1336 Webster Street, supported the staff
recornmendatice for a FAR of 1: 1 and commended the intensive review
of the problem and the creative way proposed to control growth in
the Downtown area. He commended Council's resolve in preserving
the integrity of the Downtown area. The ,question was how much
growth, if any, was needed in Downtown Palo Alto. If Council did
not decrease FARs in the Downtown area, there would be more
intensive development of tee land; the construction of l aryer
conrrneecial buildings! increases ine jobs'fhousing imbalance;
increased parking problems associated with those additional
commute parking needs in the downtown area; and increased traffic
congestion. An objective of Section 6, "urban Design," of the
Comprehensive Plan was to promote the orderly, harmonious
development of the City to attain the most desirable land use and
improvements through the review of new development. Section 7
dealt with the environmental resources which was conservation of
scarce resources. He queried the drain of a 50,000 square -foot
commercial structure on those vital energy resources of Palo Alto
and how many residents might have to pay in some form for those
services. Section 3, dealt with employment. He continually saw
references to the jobs/housing imbalance which would get worse if
the Job growth exceeded new housing. The objectives in the
Comprehensive P:lan.yave some guidance. The Transportation Section
of the Comprehensive Plan said the programs which aid the most to
reduce employment increases were those which reduced site coverage
limits antd established floor areaareae regulations in the zoning
ordinance for nonresidential development.
Michael Carton, 734 Guinda, said the traffic mitigation proposal
.for University and Middlefield had the potential of -increased
traffic --on Guinda. One proposal was to widen University Avenue;
one was to redirect traffic into Guinda and other subsidiary
streets; -and'one was to do notning. The widening of University
Avenue involved a choice of whether to spend a few extra dollars
or save some mature Magnolia trees, He feared for his children's
safety if Council chose to save the Magnolia trees. Every morning
between 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. he ran his dog from- his house to
It i ncanada over to Eleanor Pardee Park and back and .every day he
saw children from within his area and _outside the neighborhood
traveling down Uuinda, Seneca, Floater, and other, streets in the
area to schools of Addison, Palo Alto High School and Walter
Hayes. Additignal traffic on the streets was repugnant to him and
represented_ a serious threat to the children outside his immediate
-area.-- Children used streets such as tluinda, Hamilton °, Forest,
Seneca and Boyce to avoid traffic on University and Middlefield.
He did not. want to ignore and -endanger the silent and iieature
minority to save -a few Magnolia trees.
Robbie Hill, 925 Hamilton Avenue, lived at her address for 18
years and supported widening University Avenue;westbound rather
than having commercial traffic spill into the residential areas.
She was concerned Council preserve the variety of services in the
Downtown. She feared if commercial growth was not limited, lend
costs would continue to escalate driving out the small retailers.
She urged Council limit growth more drastically than ten percent.
She supported the 1:1 FAR and believed it would encourage more
creative designs, some open space and variety.
Tatiana Van Houten, 600 Marion,Avenue, was absent iron Palo Alto
from 1977 to 1983 and. was shooed at the increase in traffic in
Downtown and -throughout the e.esidential neighborhoods. She was
concerned about the impact of Downtown development on through
traffic in residential neighborhoods and neighborhoods which
adjoinedrmajor traffic arteries which fed Downtown. Marion Avenue
adjoined Middlefield which was a major traffic road connecting
Midtown with Downtown. According to the Traffic Study being done
by the City, the average through traffic density for Palo Alto as -
a whole was. I0 to 15 percent. According to the traffic study in
the Midtown area, the average spillover through traffic for Marion
Avenue was 36 percent, which was almost three times'ethe average.
More traffic in the Downtown area would aggravate an already bad
situation. She urged Council stop Downtown development until its
impact on traffic throuyhoet all -of Palo Alto's neighborh000ds
were considered. She was concerned about the high density housing
springing up everywhere especially in the Midtown area. Midtown
was assuming the character of a highly urbanized city with massive
buildings and little landscaping. She urged Council consideration
when making its decisions regarding Downtown development.
Gene McDaniel, 943 Scott Street, lived within the peripheral study
area and signed a petition to have parking restricted in his
neighborhood. He signed the petition because he was sick of all
the cars. He be'ieved the problem was density of people and ars.
He was not Opposed to change and did not c r a how Gourrci 1 limited
density. The solution was to not make any decision except to not
allow any more development for a while. Current development was
not completed, and in terms of the quality of his life, he already
paid for }part of the development which occurred and more was still
to come. He wanted Council to be careful with its decisions.
Phyllis Munsey, Z361 Santa Ana Street, said per family owned two
historic buildings at 520 and 535 Ramona Street, and recently
seismically and structurally refurbished them. They were affected
by many of the proposed ordinances. Monday morning did not have a
lot of bustle and bustle in Downtown Palo Alto but on Thursday,
Friday or Saturday, the situation was different. Reyardiny the
retail -only clause, some ground floor spaces were not conducive to
retail -only use. Several spaces did not front on a major street
but were tucked on a courtyard or back. Even though the build ass
might be on the street front, the spaces themselves did not have
good frontage and it took a special type of retail to survive at
all. The smaller spaces did pot hurt as much if they remained
vacant, but they had one space which was 2,000 square feet. They
needed $4,000 per month -rent to meet costs, and if that space was
vacant for six months awaiting permission to put in a coilrnercial
space, they would not be able to meet their financial obligations
in Connection with the remodel, which meant economic disaster for
her, Council needed'. t,o have parking solutions in place before
requiring people to put retail spaces in because if the -parking
was not there for the cost' mers to use the retail, it was diffie
Cult to ask the retail to survive or ask the property owners to
support retail. In all the meetings she attended- regarding the
Downtown Study, there did not seem to be any conclusive evidence
of an existing. problem She believed the Urban Design Plan should
be further discussed And:a plan in. place before many -ordinances
ordinances
were passed. Once the. plan was in place and the City knew where
it was going, then ordinances could be passed to get there. Cur-
rently, she was afraid the City did not know where it was going.
7 1 8 1
5/12/86
Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said Palo Alto Tomorrow,
appreciated the process and staff, Council, Planning Commission
and Downtown Study Committee were open and helpful. Palo Alto
Tomorrow saw five key goals! 1) drawat i ca l l V limit t Downtown
/ - � / / � / / /11 i Y
development; 2) help Downtown retain its scale and character; 3)
protect retail and services; 4) save old structures to the extent
possible; and 5) reduce the housiny incentives in order to not be
left with oversized structures. Palo Alto Tomorrow recommended 12
percent growth --seven percent from the pipeline, and an additional
five percent. Five percent would give the traffic and parking
situation time to stabilize and protect the retail uses and
rejuvenate Downtown. The five percent growth was fair to all. If
too much growth was permitted, the small property owner got lost
in the shuffle. Five percent growth would encourage remodeling
rather than bulldozing older structures which could provide the
character, architectural variety and interest she heard discussed.
Small increases would encourage quality remodeling and permit the
seismic and handicapped improvements. She saw the Urban Design as
totally unnecessary and <a waste of time and money. Most of what
existed Downtown was attt ctive and was beoeming more so as people
became aware of the opportunities and importance. If Council
went for an Urban Design, she hoped it wuuiu be used later to
finetune the ordinances passed and not hold up the process.
Regarding economy and retail vitality Downtown, residents were
beginning to rediscover Downtown and liked it. Residents wanted a
Downtown oriented to residents as well as office employees. The
retail rent depended on how many shoppers there were. As the
office uses were limited and the traffic and parking answers were
found, more residents would rediscover and yo Downtown. A key was
for Council to find ground floor retail limits which worked. If
two or three major property owners Downtown decided to ask out-
rageous rents, she envisioned property standing vacant for some
time. More hoesiny was needed, but a 1.5 incentive was too much.
If Council reduced the number of jobs, it did not need that many
housing units. She was told by City staff there were 10 new jobs
for eeery one new dwelling unit from 1980 to -early 1984. Palo
Alto would never have enough housing no matter how much was built
and she saw no point in ruining the community by adding more when
it would never be enough. Many eouncilmembers and staff believed
housing was sacrosanct; that it was not questioned or touched.
She urged Ccuncil find out what their friends and neighbors
thought about housing. Many Palo Altans wanted "affordable family
housing" which meant not luxury. It did not necessarily mean BMR
or subsidized housing. "Family" meant not in huge structures,
something that would be inviting for a family' to. live in. The
Planning Commission said ten percent and she heard Council's goal
was 350,000 square feet. It was important to not push the infra-
structure to the limits. Assumptions .were never 100.percent right
and she sugyested Council airs low.
Warren Thoits, 156 University Avenue, said a letter submitted by
Downtown property owners (on file in the City Clerk's office),
contained suggestions worthy of Council consideration. He hoped
Council would address the problems of traffic, parking And zoning
or development separately because they existed apart from the
yrowth problem. Sound solutions must be mode outside the purely
no -growth atmosphere. He hoped Council would not solve the
problem of growth by discouraging or prohibiting improvement and
enhancement of the Downtown area in terms , of its development and
appearance and hoped Council would analyze and evaluate the true
basis of the problems beiny blamed on growth and address them
positively. The Downtown was only part of the community but it
needed to partially contribute to the quality of life. It could
not if its economic vitality and attractiveness were limited. He
urged Council use the project to be positive and creative.
Downtown and the community it served deserved it. He urged
Council take the time necessary and provide the leadership and
statesmenship , to rise above purely: political considerations and
come up with .a solution .best for Downtown and the community as a
whole.
(fie
5/12 8,
Barbara Newton, 1585 Edgewood Drive, was concerned about the
future of Palo Alto and particularly that Council might consider
an increase over the Planning. Commission recommendation regarding
the proposed FAR allocations for the Downtown commercial zone.
The recommended limit of 3511,000 square feet in conjunction with
FAR limits was designed to eliminate unfair allocation of square
footage. Citizens wanted pedestrian amenities, courtyards, open
space, gardens, etc., but she wondered if Council considered the
possibility an increase in the FAR might result in unfair dis-
tribution of square footage.. Larger FARs attracted large
developers disproportionately. The small property owner who was
not ready to immediately expand might never get the chance. One
day growth limits would have to be revised and eepanded again.
She urged Council consideration.
Don Mullen, 618 Tennyson, owned a building in the Downtown area.
He sensed a desire to be fair and urged Council consider the addi-
tional restriction on historic buildings. The downzoriiny of those
buildings by refusing the possibility of office rental and forcing
them to become retail -only, could be the straw that broke the
camel's back. The restriction flew in the opposite direction to
the traditional way of preserving buildings across the country and
abroad, which was becoming more flexible in their use, e.g., the
building he owned used to be the post office and then became a
store. If his building had the possibility of being other things
in the future instead of just a store it would be easier to save.
The restriction affected few buildings but could be dramatic.
Elizabeth Kittas, 1643 Edgewood Drive, an Historic Resources board
(HMO member, summarized the proposed historic preservation incen-
tives. The neneral Plan encouraged historic preservation, and the
Downtown Study group included that as one of its goals. A series
of recommendations came out of that group, was approved by the
Planning Commission, and proceeded to Council. What came about in
the early process was the importance of the contributions of those
significant buildings to the character and scale of the area, and
their contribution to the continuity ,f the history of Palo Alto.
Those resources were unique in the greater surrounding area.
There .was nothing of similar character or quantity ih Los Altos or
Menlo Park. As such, buildings 'contributed t ;i the larger com-
munity as well as being part of the community good. The need to
further encourage their preservation through incentive arose from
the realization that redevelopment pressures --the pressure of the
seismic upgrading process --could further endanger them) and the
wish was to prevent further losses. Over the past nine months,
much research was done by staff, the HRB, and the legal depart-
ment, and she assured Council the proposals currently before them
had sufficient legal precedent. The Plannning Commission sup-
ported their LIR proposals. The'ARB reviewed and unanimously sup-
ported all the items, and further recommended a higher FAR for
Cateuory 1. and 2 buildings. There was a light .turnout at the
Public Hearing, but generally a positive sentiment. The concerns
for sufficient support and incentives from the City to accomplish
the proposals were also discussed at a Downtown Coordinating
Committee meeting, and the retail -only exemption came out of that
meeting. The proposals were unanimously recommended by the HRB
and Jim Stone, a member for the first four years, in a letter to
the HRB and to liaison Gail Woolley. The changes to the historic
preservation ordinance and the transfer of densities rights in the
Comprehensive Plan were meant to encourage the preservation of
those buildings and prevent their unconsidered deaviso. The
package included a process to prevent the demolition of Categories
1 and 2 buildings in the Downtown without due consideration.
Maintenance, review of structures, and the extensionof the mora-
torium were intended to encourage historic preservation but had to
go along with support to allow those buildings to remain viable
and flourish.
7 1 B 3
5/12/86
Bob McIntyre, 1200 Bryant Street, said when his family moved to
Palo Alto in 1946 it was'a sleepy, college town of 11,000 people,
and one drove through miles of orOards and open space to reach
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Saratoga, and past dairy farms on
Embarcadero Road to the duck pond. Palo Alto was still an oasis
surrounded by a Bay Area which grew and commercialized beyond any-
one's wildest dreams. Palo Alto .improved its quality of life by
adding Anany parks, creating an Interpretative Center' at the
baylands, maintaining a Junior Museum and a Cultural Center that
was the envy of most towns, and by citizens committed to keeping
the City a pleasurable place to live, raise children, enjoy cul-
tural stimulation, and be good neighbors. The 1921 Sinclair Lewis
novel, Babbitt, noted similarities in civic boosterism, progress
without reyard to human values, and rampant commercialization
which plagued the Bay Area. If two zeros were added to the home
prices in that novel, one felt right up to date. He hoped Council
did not want that to happen in Palo Alto. The Downtown Study and
EIR forcasted traffic congestion, parking problems, air pollution,
noise pollution, and the deteriorating quality of life -under any
scenario which permitted continued development in the Downtown
area, whether it be five or ten percent yrowth, etc.- The Planning
Commissioners, Cou;icilmembers,-and Downtown developers seemed to
agree development needed to stop not just slow down. If the City
allowed the ten percent, he predicted another assembly in 1991
with developers pleading for more room to maneuver. Downtown
weathered the storm created by Stanford Shopping Center, added
interesting shops, office space, many outstanding restaurants,
liquor licenses, and was a vibrant, hub of activity day and night.
More development decreased the quality of life and added to con-
yestion and parking problems. He implored Council to stop growth
at the present point. Palo Alto had heart and soul and its way of
life should be preserved. He urged Council heed the voice of its,
constituents who lived in Palo Alto. It was a special community
williny to do special things to make it a great community. Any
decision to delay, limit, or stop growth could be reversed, but a
decision to allow growth was irreversible.
Mayor Cobb declared the Public Heari n9 cl,osed.
Mayor Cobb suggested Counci 1 return to the "shirt -sleeve" agenda.
Land Use Map Plan Changes
Counci 1 u ember Levy wanted information on the economics of certain
recommendations. Lou Goldsmith had some analysis on the effect of
the various recommendations on housing in Downtown.
Mr. Goldsmith said if Council allowed some housing, it was impor-
tant to analayze what the housiny alight look like. Any time only
0.25 to 0.5 FAR housing was allowed on top of 0.4 FAR commercial
there was not much housiny, especially with small lots. If a
10,000 square foot lot were developed with 4,000 square feet of
commercial and 2,500 square feet in housing, it would result in
only two units which was more of a nuisance than it was worth. It
became more practical with larger parcels. There would be little
affordable housiny under the program because the cornbioation of
small parcels with a.1:10 i3 MR ratio, would not result in ten units
unless there was a 40,000 square lot at a 0.25 ratio or a 20000
square foot lot at 0.5. With smaller lots there would not be ten
units unless the FAR for housing was increased. One exception was
the proposed 1.5 Area No 1 in the CD -S zone. PAHC suggested a
good balance would be four tenths commercial and six -tenths
housing. Many people were worried about the economics of the
housiny, or housiny versus commercial. Com'sercial would take
precedence over housing -pit cost less to"build and was worth more.
The royrars as presently envisioned would probably result in few
housiny units. If the cost of housing increased, it would be more
difficult to build any kind of housing, let alone 1AR units.
/}2f8i
Councilmember Levy clarified that Mr. Goldsmith was recommending
that Council adopt a policy of 0.4 commercial and 0.6 residen-
tial.
Mr. Goldsmith was not recommending any kind of zoning parameters
because that was not PAHC's responsibility. Council would not get
affordable housing unless they had enough of a ratio to warrant
the costs involved, and would not yet BMR units unless the BMR
requirement applied to a smaller number of units than ten. He
suspected most of the projects would be below ten units; there-
fore, no BMRs were., required. That was why PAHC suggested going to
25 percent BMfs and applying the requirement to four units or more
anywhere that applied in Downtown.
Councilmember Levy said a number of other elements were suggested
to eliminate because they added cost and therefore made housing
more difficult. He asked for Mr. Goldsmith's comments.
Mr. Goldsmith said one element was counting covered surface
parking as allowed FAR, which distinctly cut down the number of
units or added to the cost. It was difficult to get affordable
housing in the Downtown area. To try to figure out what someone
would do was unproductive. The main thng was for Council to
decide how much development of what kind was tolerable, and then
let the private sector, the PAHC, or any other developer do what-
ever came naturally. The land prices and property prices would
have to adjust to allow whatever development made sense, otherwise
there would be no development.
Councilmember Patitucci focused on the RM-3 and RM-2 zones immedi-
ately adjacent to the area being rezoned, in the general
neighborhood of Horner Avenue, Bryant Street, and Emerson Street,
and asked what kind of housing could be developed and what the
densities could be in that zone.
Mr. Schreiber said from the upper teens to the raid -20 uinits per
acre.
Councilmember Patitucci asked to what kind of FAR that equated.
Mr. Schreiber said local family zones had no FAR. Staff could try
to calculate the FAR, but there was no maximum. There would be
approximately a 35 percent site coverage, maximum of three
stories, so in that sense it could be approximately a 0.9 FAR.
Other constraints would keep the FAR less than that.
Councilmember Patitucci asked if that was RM-2 or RM-3.
Mr. Schreiber replied RM-3.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified RM-3 was approximately 0.9 FAR.
Mr. Schreiber said the figure was the theoretical maximum.
Councilmember Patitucci asked about the area outside the study.
Ms. Cullen said between Forest Avenue and Channing Avenue was RM-3
on the eastside of Ramona Street. below Channing Avenue shifted
to R-2 along Ramona Street. That was the area adjacent to Areas 3
and 4 in the zoning reap changes in the southern area. On the
westside of Ramona Street below Channing Avenue was also R-2.
Councilmember Patitucci believed there was a sufficient amount of
RIB -3 adjacent to the zone, e.9., Area 3, which was in the block of
Emerson Street between Forest Avenue and Homer Avenue, that would
have a 0.8 FAR if the whole incentive was used, and across the
street would be 0.9.
Mr. Schreiber said theoretically that was as high as 0.9, but the
density there was governed by unites not square footage, and there
i/i298
would probably OA be that much square footage because the units
would end up being extremely large.
Councilmember Patitucci found the housing incentives to- -be very
_complex. There were many little zones and little incentives with
the gradation. If all of the way down Homer Avenue was reasonable
to zone five or six blocks RM-3 and two or_three blocks RM-S, if
Council wanted housing incentives, he asked why it could not have
an alternative zone of RM-3. In order words, if someone owned a
property, he had a choice between commercial and housing, and that
housing was related to one of the existing zones where people knew
what kind of_thing could be built, rather than the build-up
process which was difficult to understand.
Mr. Zimmerman said the Housing Committee was concerned if just
existing residential densities were used in those commercial
districts, the only thing increases would be the size of the units
but not the cumber of units.
Councilmember Patitucci asked whose idea it was.
Ms. Christensen said with more units there was the option to
either create fewer larger units or increased smaller units. flee
Planning -Corrtrni ss i on did not want to make the housing incentives o
great people chose housing over existing businesses. The point of
the gradation was the Planning Commission believed it was
important An the area to preserve existing service commercial
businesses.
Councilmember Levy referred to the nob on South Alma --the IMO
block --and said he understood there was a grandfath, ring of -struc-
tures
Ms. Wheeler said the Planning Commission did a lot of grand -
fathering in areas where they went from one commercial zone to
another, but in the block where they proposed rezoning to a resi-
dential use, there would be no yrandfathering of the commercial
uses, which would be amortized.
4r. Schreiber said there was an important distinction between use
and structure. In that area, the recommendation was for no grand-
fatherine but to amortize the uses and thus eventual elimination
of the uses. Zoning regulations did not require demolition of the
existing structures. When uses were amortized, many structures
might or might not be suitable for reuse for the new use allowed
by the zoning, which was multiple family in the subject case.
Councilmember Levy asked whether the length of the amortization
was 15 years.
Mr. Schreiber believed that area would be the minimum amortization
period of 15 year;.
Councilmember Levy said statements were made there had been no
complaints from the adjacent residences about the commercial uses
in that area, and asked if that was the case.
Mr. Liurmerraan was not aware of any complaints.
Ms. Cullen said the Planning Commission recommendation was not
based on the hick of complaints from the neighbors or the presence
of complaints, but on a good, long-range planning decision of an
area immediately adjacent to the R -x where the Planning Commission
believed ,:the line should have been drawn in 1978.
Councilmember Fletcher referred to the Alma Street Properties
which wood be amortized, and clarified those businesses were not
being erandfathered because there should be a clean zone as it was
adjacent to residential. If those businesses were grandfathered,
they would not be able to expand. She asked if the uses had to be
the same if yrandfathered.
7186
5/12/86
Mr. Zimmerli -alai said according tu the re{;ofuHenddt1o,l fur L.he other
areas, the yrandfatheriny applied to zone categories and not
specific use. For example, if a blueprinting shop on a specific
site was grandfathered in a new CO -N area, any service commercial
use could locate on that particular site. It need not remain as a
blueprinting shop.
Councilmember Bechtel referred to the recommendation presently
rental to multi; -family housing and asked if that meant a structure
like the President Apartments could not go back under that recom-
mendation to being a hotel.
Ms. Cullen understood if the structure was multi -family, it could
not become a hotel which was a commercial use. The zone change
for that particular property would go from CU -C to MF.
Councilmember Bechtel clarified that, was the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
Ms. Cullen said not yet, there had to be a public hearing, but
that would be considered and the Commission world decide after all
of the input. She believed that recommendation applied to two
other properties downtown.
Overview/Summary/Conclusion
Mayor Cobb referred to downtown retail and asked if there was the
six-month provision for property standing,, vacant with a certain
vacancy rate before some use other than retail could be sought
after what was the real -world likelihood of the large property
owners holding onto a piece of property until they got the office
use, especially considering they orly had a`five-year lease with-
out a renewal provision.
Mr. Jury said Council also had to bear in mind that investors in
most properties were looking for a return. Very few large prop-
erty owners owned property outright, but usually had limited
partners or some other types of investors who would be very dis-
satisfied with the return if there was a vacancy for six moral -1i.
It was always possible, however, that Council was setting up the
scenario where a large property owner with staying power could
outlast the six-month time, where a small property owner simply
could not last.
Mayor Cobb asked if he was correct that if one offered up a lease
for five years to a typical tenant for an office lease with no
renewal provision, that would limit the kinds of leasing.
Mr. Jury said absolutely.
Councilmember Sutorius understood the proposal was for the combi-
nation of a seven and one-half percent vacancy rate within the
ground floor area combined with that specific property being
vacant for six months. One scenario was the property itself could
be vacant,., but the ground floor vacancy rate was less than 7.5
percent, ergo, no exception. Six, nine, twelve, eighteen months
went by and no exception applied until the combination of those
two existed.
Mr. Jury said that was correct. Close to 100 businesses fronted
on University Avenue in the seven block area. Ironically, that
worked out to,. about one business per block to be vacant in order
for the seven percent to kick in. That was a drastic situation
and, if there was a seven percent vacancy rate, there would be a
lot of places vacant for .much more than six months.
Mayor Cobb said _ Mr. Hirsch made a request to present the minority
viewpoint of the Planning Commission.
7 1 8 7
5/12/86
Mr. Hirsch said they spoke about a parking deficit that increased
from 1,200 to 1,600 spaces; a 33 percent increase since the
beyinniny of the study. No parking spaces were created and traf-
fic circulation was the same. The problems at the beginning still
existed but were worse. If the Planning Commission recommenda-
tions were accepted, it was not 350,000 square feet but 760,000,
of which 350,000 was commercial development equal to ten percent
of existiny plus pipeline, plus 366,000 housing development. He
believed the non -controversial part was the 69,000 square feet
north of University Avenue,'•but the pilot area south of University
Avenue was almost 300,000 square feet. If the pilot program was
suitable and acceptable over ae longer period of time, adding
another 99,000 square feet, the total development was not 350,000
but added up to 815,000 square feet or \almost 25 percent of
existiny plus pipeline development. The proposal that commercial
development to be drastically reduced was laudable, but was not
reduced far enough._ Unfortunately, if that ever happened almost
13 percent would be replaced by housing development, a significant
proportion of which would be high-priced condominiums, and not
even the PAHC supported expensive condominiums in an effort to yet
a very minimal number of affordable units. Council heard the
recommendation before: Approve no further commercial development
until basically the pipeline development was all built out, find
out what the problems really were, assess them at that time, and
determine what could be tolerated once the situation was
stabilized -if a new parking structure could be put in to briny
the existing deficit down to something manageable.
Councilmen er Levy was intrigued by Councilme:nber° Petitucci's line
of questioniny regarding the CS versus the RM-3 concept. He asked
staff to clarify, in the existing CS zone at what density could
resiiential units be built.
Mr. Zimmerman believed the number was 45 to 47 dwelling units per
acre.
Counc i lmecnher Levy asked if that was RAM -5.
Mr. Zimmerman said that was approximately RM-5.
Councilmember Levy said if Council allowed the existing CS density
they allowed RM-5 in that area. There was something to 1?e said
for having a CS zone with RM-3 density permitted. It might be
stealer than the overlay presently under consideration, except it
would allow a little larger FAR. He asked if that would be an
incentive for housing, or would Council be giving an incentive to
housing that would also be an incentive to remove the CS use cur-
rently there,
Mr. Schreiber deferred response until the following evening.
Mayor Cobb commented that if any Counci lmembers planned to make
motions that were substantially or subste tively different from
those of the Planniny Commission and/or staff, he urged them to
contact staff during the following day to work out language.
NeT1 OIt: Mayer Cobb Barred, seconded by Levy to ca t 1 cue Items iii
Downtime Sturdy, to . Mar 13, 19$* Council meeting at 7: 3O p. m.
*OT1O4 PASSED seanimossly, Klein absent.
AUJOURHMENT
Council adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
ATTEST:
7 1 8
5/12/8