Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-13 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUMCIL MINUTES CITY of ALTO Adjourned Meeting of May 12, 1986 May 13, 1986 ITEM P A E Item #6, Public Hearing: Downtown Study (Continued 7 1 9 0 from May 12, 1986) Item #8, Request of Councilmembers Patitucci and Sutorius re Seven -Day -a -Week Bingo Games at Fiesta Lanes 7 1 9.0 Return to Item 06, Downtown Study 7 1 9 2 Recess 7 2 0 5 Adjournment: 11:50 p.m. 7 2 2 1 7 1 8 9 5/13/86 Adjourned Meeting of May 12, 1986 May 13, 1986 The City Council of the City of Pelt) Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Renzel, Sutori us, Woolley ABSENT: Klein ITEM #6, PUBLIC HEARING: DOWNTOWN STUDY (CMR:279:6) (Continued from May 12, iT86 ) Mayor Cobb said the public hearing portion of the item was com- pleted and closed. The "shirt -sleeve" session was completed except for final questions or overview comments by Councilmembers. The next item for consideration was the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Council would discuss the FEIR and ask questions, but no action would be taken. Council was requested to make "initial Council decisions" on the Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommendations contained in staff report (CMR:279:6) The City Attorney advised, and the City Clerk would consider, the following language to be implied in all motions that evening: "I move staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council." The City Attorney further advised Council should consider all recommendations separately as numbered in order to clarify the records. If a Councilmember referred to another report, a page number and number reference on the page should be given. The Planning Commission would review the Council directives on May 28, 1986 and final Council action was scheduled for July 13, 1986. COUNCILMEMBER SUTORIUS RE BRINGING FORWARD ITEM #8 SEVEN-DAY-A- WEL`K BINGO GAMES AT FIESTA LANES (Continued from May 12, 19aT Councilmember Sutori us said Council resisted counsiderati on of Item 48 re Bingo on May 12, 1986, and in fairness to citizens attending the Couuncil meeting in connection with the item, he requested a Councilmember on the prevailing side bring the item forward. He believed it could be disposed of rapidly; otherwise, it would be too late to consider. He and Councilmember Pati tucci only intended to refer the matter of Seven -Day -a -Week Bingo Games at Fiesta Lanes to staff for review and analysis. No endorsement was involved. 1lOTIOit TO RECONSIDER: Coeaci member Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, receasideratien of Item DS, Seree -day-a-week Biog. Oases at Fiesta Lams. MOTION PASSED m eaeimeosly, Klein absent. MOTION TO DRUM FORWARD: Corici lseiber Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to brims forward. Item OS, Seires-day-a-week gimps Seams at Fiesta Lanes, NOTION PASSED .o aei-nowsly, Klein absent. ITEM 08 RE VE OF UMCI MlBERS PATITUCCI AND SUTORIUS RE -A-W BST CO LME X LANES MOTION: Consclle sber Setsfiies moved* seconded by Uterine, to refer time ttes[i !f Seette-day-e-woot Siete Oases et Fiesta canes to staff for review med. emei yst s of the issue end to report back to tbs Ctty Ceescf l by site-Jres. 1 1 9 0 5/13/86 City Manager Bill Leiner clarified the assignment was to analyze the subject and staff return with information regarding what was involved in terms of land use, public safety, etc. The budget hearings were about to continence and he requested Council specify by when staff should respond. Councilmerrtber Sutorius said various charitable organizations which examined the process and had preliminary discussions with a lessor and contractor indicated mid -June was crucial in terms of the property lessor. The availability and willingness to enter final negotiations would be difficult after mid -June. Mayor Cobb asked if staff could live with the schedule. Mr. Zaner said the tinting would be difficult. The Police Department needed to be involved as did the Planning Department from a land use position. Staff would do its bests. If problems arose with the mid -June deadline, staff would .provide a status report and perhaps work with the nonprofit groups to assure staff's cooperation and perhaps help the organizations obtain an extension in the negotiation period. He did not want to promise staff would return by mid -June. Councilmember Sutorius appreciated Mr. Zaner's comments in terns of being available to the various nonprofite organizations regarding timing was the best Council could expect. Councilmember. Levy was confused about the motion's specific refer°- e'nce to Fiesta Lanes. He understood the request was for two mod- ifications in the Bingo -ordinance which was easier than an analysis of Fiesta. Lanes. In terms. of making a mid -June indication of interest to. the people pursuing. the matter, he hated to see .Council railroad through something which would take the careful analysis mentioned by the City Manager. He believed amendments to the ordinance could be done much faster and would give a preliminary indication to those engaged in the negotiations for Fiesta. Mayor Cobb supported the referral but was not sure ne would sup- port the item when it returned. Councilmember Renzel agreed. Mr. Zaner said the assignment was extensive. He went through the same type of analyses on the same type of proposals in other cities. They were time consuming, 1'ngthy and complex. If there was a leek of interest in the project Council would do staff a favor by allowing other work to continue which would otherwise have to be put asidte. The assignment would be performed as well as possible if given -but it would not be simple. Councilmeubar Patitucci understood the group premetine the project previously met and discussed the issue with City staff. Some additional work was necessary and "staff could not return with any recommendation until Ccunc;il said it was. important, enough tc review. He was unclear in terns of a complex, time oonsutmirlg project and believed the qusestion of whet'a,er :to look at the issue was independent of how much;. time it ;eight' f ake. Timing might be an issue the groups needed to deal with, but Council owed some response to a legitimate request. • Assistant City. Manager June Fleming said interested citizens met with staff sometime ago. The assignment would require a lot of work on the part of staff and would take a lot of time. There were substantive issues to deal with and the interested parties were advised staff could not take on an -assignment .of such m$gni tulle without Council di re,ctl on. 7 1 9 1 6/13/86 Councilor mbcr Patitucci did not want the iesuc killed. He sug- gested staff return with a date when the analysis Night be completed. Council might then dealewit' proponents of the issue based on its priority. Mayor Cobb asked Mr. Zaner whether a preliminary review or "quick cut" of the matter could be provided before Council went. any further. - Mr. Zaner said no. Council and the charitable groups deserved an honest analysis and appraisal which included comparative work in other places since it was not a now question for cities in California. Staff would do its best to return by mid -June. If it could not be done, staff would work with groups to get an exten- sion of time so they did not "lose their place in line." MOTION TO REFER PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Cobb, Renzel voting *noon Klein absent. RETURN TO ITEM #6, DOWNTOWN STUDY Councilrnerrrber Levy asked about the likely effect of housing on the continuation of CS uses in the CS zone. City Planner Steve Olsen said the questions of the how much housing would be produced given different formulas for computing housing density and the economic impacts of whether housing or commercial use was the most economically attractive :were inter- related. If the developable floor area ratio (FAR) concept was applied, an FAR of ,25 at the lowest and a 40,000 square -foot lot would yield. ten units. If the whole commercial acid t-iit4sin;i FAR of .65 were used, it would yield 26 units which compared to an RM-3 zoned similar sized lot. He deferred the question -of economics to Mr. Schreiber. Director of Planning and C:om+unity Environment Ken Schreibee said staff discussed the feasibility of housing development and, con- cluded it did not have the expertise to provide a response. The economic` geeetion related to the commercial rent structures and property values, and staff did not have a basis to comment. Staff's general sense was similar to Mr. Goldsmith's that it'was Unlikely a great amount of housing :would be built in most of the current CS areas under most densities suggested. Councilmernber Levy clarified a-10,000 square -.foot parcel developed to its maximum for CS use would allow for two additional .housing units in addition to the commercial unit, Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. A lU,000 square -foot lot could have commercial at a .4 FAR and the housing at .25. The housing equalled two units. If all FAR was used, there would: be six units. Those densities at a .65 FAR were similar to an RH-3 density. At a .8 FAR, the densities were close to an RM-4 density. - - Councilmerrber Levy -a clarified the developer had a choice of developing the property for CS use plus two housing -.ui is or six housing units. Staff could not judge which alternative was most likely to be economically the best for the developer and whether CS uses might be driven out of the CS zone. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Councilmember Patitucci clarified Councileember Levy referred- to the areas where the incentive was .-25 on top of - the FAR of .4. Council had five different gradation.S and each referred to the next gradation. The experimental District One with a 1.5 FAR for housing would, at the10,000 square -foot level, produce 15 units. With a housing development only, there would be 19 units in the housing incentive zone. The maps of the original study referred to seven differernt districts each of which had a different housing incentive. The current zoning was CS as the alternative. ;i1 3a� Mr. Schre 1 bet said that was correct. The 1.5 housing FAR plus the .4 for Area. One was a ,s `yni ficantly iriyher densP;y huusiny zone than the existing CS Zone. Councilmernher PaLitucci said in terms of what to add to a .5 FAR, the alternative would be RM-4 rather than RM-3. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. In terms of economics, the question was beyond staff's capability to respond ignoring the 25 percent below -market -rate (BMR) component. Councilmember Levy referred to the .25 and .65 FARs, and said four extra units could be built if a CS use did not exist on the site. Taking an average figure of $200,000 per unit, it meant four units would yield the developer $800,000. If the developer built com- mercial, there could be 4,000 square feet of commercial, and in order to realize $800,000, the commercial space would have to be sold at $200 per square foot. He asked if his comparison was proper. Mr. Schreiber believed Councilmember Levy compared total revenue but not cost of construction. Staff did not have a basis to calculate the profit margin. Councilmember Bechtel referred to the traffic recommendations and said one was to conduct a thorough traffic survey of the Downtown business district and surrounding residential areas. She asked whether it would be part of, or separate from, the City-wide Traffic Study. Transportation Planner Dave Fairchild said the traffic survey of the Downtown business district and surrounding residential areas was not part of the City-wide Traffic Study, but would be similar to the City-wide Study for assessing through traffic for the City as a whole except it would be a smaller area around the Downtown. Councilmember Bechtel clarified the Downtown area was excludes from the City-wide Study. If so, she asked if the analysis would provide new information. Mr. Fairchild said staff would try to find out how much traffic going through the neighborhoods was through traffic to the entire area and how couch was destined to the Downtown. Councilmember Bechtel commended the Planning Commission, Planning Department staff and members of the Downtown Study Committee for en outstanding job. Council definitely needed to make some changes in the Downtown area. She supported the Planning Commission recommendations on the whole but agreed .with Mayor Cobb and Vice Mayor Woolley Council needed to closely monitor the effects on the Downtown area in order to. maintain vitality. The parking recommendations were . commendable. They would not solve the parking problem but worked toward its not getting worse. She believed Council had no alternative but to drastically limit growth Downtown. Some Councilmewbers believed the City would end up with everything the same with a 1:1 FAR and she disagreed because the majority of the Downtown area was already built up. Vice Mayor Woolley said "preserving the quality of life Downtown did not mean no change. Preservation sometimes meant gutting the interior of a building and retaining the exterior or changing the. use from.a school to senior housing or from housing to an office or commercial establishment It meant to retain the "flavor" or "ambiance" which made the place unique. Council was looking to control growth but not el iminte it or stagnate. Council needed to 7 1 9 3 5/13/86 avoid excessive growth and restri ct i cne. Council . needed to bal= ene;e the yuals in Categor=y I conceruirty parkiuy, traffic, and growth with the goals in Category II concerning vitality and des i en. Council would run into . an outright conf l i ct as in Recom- mendation 24, which included in the FAR parking either at or above ground level. It was in direct conflict with housing because it penalized parking required by the housing oy counting it as part of the FAR. Council referred the budget to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee the previous evening and the budget message reflected it would be a tight year. The lion's share of the budget was staff salaries and Council was making more assignments. The study of through traffic in the Downtown area could cost between $4,000 and $7,000 if staff did it and between $7,000 and $10,000 if a consultant did it. Council needed to consider whether it was : wi l l i ng to put that kind of money into the study when the budget was so tight. She also complimented the Downtown Study Committee, Planning Commission and staff for a superb job. The cap on growth and on -street parking were the keystones of the entire mechanism and she realized many other details were added. Regarding parking, Council needed to be more aggressive in impler rnenti ny .the eight -point plan and she fully supported the seve►:tn point which provided a commuter coordinator but believed stroeger support should be given to the third point which was a var.:iable parking fee. She recommended strengths be added to that. ;irovi- sion. Regarding traffic, she did not see the interior par': of the Downtown area to be that much of a problem. She believed University Avenue was made deliberately slow the w?y the: traffic lights were set. Number 36 having to do w th r gnz a could pro- vide some help by directing traffic onto .Hare::ton and Lytton Avenues which were set to move along mo^e r:e`l s:ly, but she wanted a limit on the amount spent for signaye. Regarding the problem at Middlefield and University, she supported residents` request for a widening of Middlefield which was not the Planning Commission „econiwendation. She was open to other ideas concerning the FAR. She was concerned about small businesses and previously made a proposal to study the possibility of financial aid, particularly to those owners of property in the seismic and historic cate- gories. In terms of character and scale, she concurred w1 1 the concept of the retail only district but was concerned about the property owner. She and Mayor Cobb would make e specific proposal regarding a more specific monitoring process for downtown retail only areas. Councilmember Renzel commended staff, the Downtown Study Committee and Planning Commission for hours of work deal my with sometimes conflicting goals and dynamic land use problems which interacted with each other so any one. decision impacted other decisions. It was a difficult proctiss and the results represented a, lot of thought which she supported on the whole. It was time to act and Council had enough i e'formation in terms of land. use Downtown to know it had serious problems. She did not want a '1.0t of tinkerieg unless Council saw an almost certain problem. AS Council began to see necessary fine telling With respect to Downtown, it could be addressed`. The community clearly desired to reign in the traffic protlenrs and there was concern with the scale of buildings. In addition to . the environmental problem of onestreetn parking resulting from the shortage of off-street parking Downtown and to maintain a vital Downtown, it was essential --to- have adequate parking for the existing uses. She suggested the -problem be. dealt with according to the Planning Commission -recommendation. It was naive to think there was no parking problem Downtown. The Council and community wanted to maintain existing or. a .similar business r ix .Downtown to pre serve retei lers and services comMercial and Council needed to ensure its toning process enabled those busi- nesses to continue- and be competitive with the perceived emoee profitable office uses. On the whole the Commission did an excel- lent:job balancing the considerations and for the most port she supported the Planning Commission recOamendation. I/1 3Y81 Courici lmember° Levy believed all current Counci lmembers publicly dedicated themselves to maintain the character and scale of Palo Alto as it presently existed. The recommendation before Council was a significant comprehensive step An doing so. He complimented and appreciated all work by all participants including the public. He aid not want Council to lose sight of its basic objective to maintain the character of the Downtown area as it now existed. To do so, significant growth was not requirede Bringing the FAR down from 3.0 to 1.0 more or less was a major step <.and any other adjustments would be comparatively minor. Regarding housing, he did not believe Council was obliged to put housing into every square foot of land in Palo Alto which would endanger souse of the services and retail uses. If competition existed between housing and other uses in the Downtown area, it was not necessarily best to have housing overwhelm everything. Parking structures by defi- nition were large and ugly and he cautioned how -Council authorized new parking structures to be built. While Council reduced the size of everything else, it might be counterproductive to put in parking structures which occupied a large amount of above -ground space. The food market took a lot of thought because there might be the same problem of brinying in more traffic and exacerbating the parking problem for a small -benefit. .He concurred with Vice Mayor Woolley, who indicated traffic was not one of the signifi- cant problems. He believed there would be a major traffic problems no natter what and there was no point -in trying to play games with the street process. The street system was old fashioned and would be clogged with traffic. If the streets were opened, it would invite more through traffic. Reyard-iny historic buildings, he was concerned -Council might ask owners of historic buildings to`, -make too rnuch of a financial sacrifice. The value of the historic buildings was broad, and if the community valued the buildings, Council should contribute to some of the cost to keep them in place and should not demand 'the owner pay the full cost. He was concerned about intensifying the use of PC zones throughout town. When Council completed its Downtown Study deliberations, it should onsider. PC zones. He suggested reviewing and prioritizing what Council saw as public benefits to the community and what it would like to have so developers interested in PCs knew what Council valued in the community. Councilmember Sutorius echoed appreciation for the efforts of the citizens, the Downtown Study Committee, Planning Commission and staff. While there were differences of opinion, the process of providing justification or substantiation was conducted at a high level with insight and a sincere commitment to the present and future well being of Palo Alto. He concurred with almost all he read and heard on the subject. Council needed to understand nuances and perceptions and distinguish between them and maintain as long a range of view as possible. He did not question the need for a cap. The cap would not be realized in the near term whether the FAR was 1.0 or a 1.25 or some variation. He believed a cap of 2.0 with certain types of specific planning and urban design would not be violated but miyht be increased without hardship and with some positive effects. .He anticipated Council eould move toward implementation of the Planning Commission recommendations with some modifications. The traffic descriptions overstated or inter- preted to overstate the problem.. Some improvements were offered and could be capitalized on. There was some parking apply prob- lem, but he believed . there was .a ,more serious . problem with -c►:e inefficiency of parking and the lack of anaggressiveand imagina- tive approach. He agreed -with. Counci lmember. Levy ; structure might be overemphasized. Council`heeded to work on the cultural aspects of tha parking problem to distinguish perceptions and expectations from what was realistic. Many experienced some inconvenience, but he did not. Regarding the pipeline perspective, he referred to Sheet 10 of °CMR,27O:6, dated May 2, 1986. The corollary refer- ences were VI(t1), Sheet 11, which contained Table 21 and V1(J), Table 32 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The status of not completed square feet as of. April 1986 totaled 131,632 square feet. The new buildings involved would displace or 7 1 9 a 5/13/86 supplement some 43,664 square feet which existed on the site; in the spr=ing of 1984 and the net change was 88,000 square feet. Unoccupied space represented about 14 percent of the total ground floor area of the pipeline or a little less than 17 percent of the total net change in floor area. Moreover, the ultimate impacts were widely dispersed in that one building was south of University and was a hotel. Two buildings were on different sides and in different blocks on Lytton. One building was in the proposed CN area north of Everett and one was in the proposed CS sub -zone south of Channing. The completed but unoccupied category was reported at 85,000 square feet _and represented the residual unoccupied space of 11 buildings whose ground floor area was 340,000 square feet. Three hundred twelve thousand (312,000) square feet was counted as new or additional space. The category included sites at 400 Hamilton, 101 University, and 301 University, all of which were counted as 100 percent new ground floor area because the buildings which previously occupied the sites were demolished prior to the baseline established in spring of 1984. The vacancy, rates at the time the DEIR and response were prepared ranged from 100 percent to 1.84 percent. The five largest commercial buildings to comprise the category accounted for two-thirds of the ground _floor area with an aggregate vacancy of 10.5 percent. At the time of the study and the data accumula- tion, 20,000 square feet or about 24 percent of the unoccupied space were the unsold and sold but unoccupied residential units at. Lot Q. The pipeline perspective told him a lot of the impacts already occurred and much of the residual yet to occur was not at the heart of the traffic or parking concerns raised. New buildings were being occupied at a rapid rate when considering one building was at a 1.84 percent vacancy rate and one was less than a 3 percent vacancy rate. He concluded a 1.25 FAR in the CC was supportable and concerns about what it would do with respect to the 350,000 square -foot cap were not founded on situations likely to occur. He was willing to advocate a 1.25 FAR but believed there were practical and political realities. He was interested in his colleagues' determinations and if he sensed a 1.25 FAR was not realistic, he could support the 1.0 in the CO zone., However, he would make a motion with respect to various elements including seismic, historic and an amenity situation to allow for some addi- tional floor area ratio if there were something available to the public, pedestrian and the City that would be a reasonable offset for the additional riot. The subject of urban design was raised in the opening comments and he_ believed Palo Alto was fortunate because it did not have to redevelop or revitalize. Council was obliged to safeguard, refine and optimize. Promoting the need for more specific planning, commitment to achieving long range oppor- tunities, more resolve to anticipate future demands and more capability to enhance the urban design were confronted with a laissez-faire, lack -of -confidence vision, will or belief that Council could do soraet ing about the br=i 1 d -out at whatever limited level was set and work for meaningful opportunity . in the kind of environment everyone enjoyed. . Councilmewber Patitucci had a problem with the concept of the 1: 1 FAR but did not have a problem with the ten percent limitation on total development. As the FAR increased, so did the potential for determining the criteria for selecting projects, i.e., a 2:1 FAR would require a process to separate projects rather than first come, first served. He generally supported the proposed limita- tion on structures of 25,000 square feet. He hoped Council would explore a different mechanism .for dealing with the last ten per- cent. He did not believe the 1.25 FAR offered the flexibility. There were opportunities in the last ten percent of development for community enhancement and improving the quality of life, Downtown and Council should look at alternatives. He leaned toward the concept of no growth and a becoty .contest because Pal o Alto was beyond where it could -allocate various zones as = in a new community. He shared Coidci lr ember Levy)s concerns ret'arding housiny and believed Council should clarify whether it preferred housiny. He believed an overlay zone for housinc would provide. a clear alternative to the property owner to stay commercial or go to housing. He concurred with .Vice Mayor Woolley about the parking area. There needed to be more flexibility in the ground floor retail. He hoped the monitoring process contained a formal review point. He used the word "sunset" but was cautioned it might not be appropriate with zoning. Council needed a formal review point in the future to assess the impacts. Mayor Cobb said no one knew the effects of a 1.0 or 1.25 FAR in terms of economic vitality and service businesses, etc. All agreed there needed to be a limit on growth and the FAR was fair and easy to understand and administer,. The "beauty contest" had potential if a mechanism could be found to make it work. He did not understand the big difference between the 1.0 or 1.25 FAR. Council needed easy measures by which to monitor the consequences of its actions. If nothing changed, Council would have effec- tively limited growth without any..ailatorious effects. Downtown vitality was crucial and he was concerned about the loss of ser- vice businesses. Too many housing incentives might place a high economic value on the' land to where service businesses could not survive. He was generally concerned about the loss of sales tax revenue, and the City Auditor suggested Palo Alto already experi- enced loss in sales tax revenue which was important to the tax base. He was concerned about saving historic buildings and the seismic ordinances. The seismic ordinance was expensive and he preferred to provide loan interest loans. The retail only provi- sion was a good idea, but a hardship provision was needed to pro- tect small property owners whose properties did not lend them- selves to retail use. Traffic flow and parking needed improvement before it was too late. It was important to deal with why people did not use available lots. Environmental Impact Report Counci lmerirber Bechtel was impressed by the completeness of the EIR and staff's responses to the various comments. t Mayor Cobb agreed. No ac's for taken. is tin MOTION: Caascilmember Reazel moved, seconded by Woolley, that staff be directed to include in the ordiearrees, resolutions, and ether aatmrial to be provided is our final review, the following recom.endatI#as of the Council: 20. Parkin : New Com reoens i rte Plan Pol i c and Text on Downtown s--� . Approve! ; toe Pleasing Commission recommendations (CM*:279:6) for proposed Comprehensive Plan policy and text preventing increases to Downtown Parking pec i f i is as fa? ltiMs: Trasspsrtatioa Policy 10a:. la the Downtown area, new development should est, increase be . total ,weekday peat parting deficit ey b oid taa ._expected from -development existing and apprs.red taraugh Ore 1946. (.TMe fol lowlrag text, should Abe . added before Transportation prora. b The 1984-86 Downtown Study found in March 1984, a peak weekday parking deficiency of approximately 1,220 parking spaces In the Downtown 'core' area in March, 1984. The City reduced this deficiency by 303 spaces during 1985 with structures built on Lots "J" and "El", but development projects approved prior to June, 1986, will increase the parking deficit by approximately 643 spaces for a total deficit of 1,600 spaces. Councilmember Fletcher agreed new structures would not add to the deficit with all the exemptions in Attachment 2 to the staff report (CMR:'179:6). MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Councilmeiber Renzel moved, seconded by Patitucci, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the .farrowing recommendations of the Council: 21. New Uniform Parking Reguirewent Assessment District Approval of the Planning Coaetssion and staff recommendations as follows: Require non-residential development in the Assessment District to provide one (1) parking space for each 250 gross square feet of new floor area. (Note: This requirement would apply to any additional nonresidential floor area not cerreatly assessed for parking. Resideit•ial 'derelssrment in the Assessment District and all development outside the Assessment District would continue to be subject to the current parking regulation: in the zoning ordinance.) New Comprehensive Plana policy and text endorsing use of Planned Community zoneine for parking structures rs follows: Transportation Policy 1©b: In the Downtown Area, encourage the use of Planning Community (PC) zoning for parking structures. (Text) The purpose of this policy is to eecg.;rege parking in :Downtown Pala: Alto that meets the needs identified in the Downtown Study. The Planned=-Commesity (PC) zone procedures provide extensive opportunitle's for review of the design of the structure. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by- Sutorius, that staff be d $recLard to include in the ordinances, resol et i ons, end other material to be provided ie our final review, the'following recommendations of the Council: 26. .nder9round Parking: Restrictions Below Two` J.evels � � non�r�1� r rrn+.rrw1 .. - - - Apprg_grl of tko Plaaaieg Commission recomiendetlon to prohibit within the CD District ra*dr9round panning deeper thaa.O two (2) levels unless a soils report- or en#.#neerine .nays a demonstrates that replier pumping of subsurface water i1l net be required. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Kiel* absent. 7 1 9 8 5/13/86 MOTIOMOTION: Vice Van) log mov secenfood by setorlus thAt N: 4 -� Meyer.:��v: ��. �j � � ��- - �-� g .iw staff be directed to include in the ordinanccs, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council Olf-Site Parking Authorization: Modification_ _of Exist.ln Pre"vFsTon Approval of the Planning Commission recommendations to modify the off -site parking proeisl0n in time zeeing re'g,ulations allowing the Director 'of Planning and Coaiv.ity Environment to approve off -sits puking: Modify the *Wiwi distance prowi'sidns in the CD district parking revelations -from the current 1aageaee which reads: provided parking is not more than 500 feet fre■ the subject site or, for sites within the Parking Assessment District, not more then 500 feet from the District Ooindary;" to the proposed langvage which would read: 'p.rgrided parking 1s within a reasonable distance frog the subject site or, for sites within the Parkiesg Asses'ssesnt District, within a reasonable distance from the District Nousdary." MOTION PASSED mnaniaaosly, Klein absent. MOTION: Counsi laeaber Sutorf es moved, seconded by Bechtel, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our flea! review, _the fo,l l owl ng recommendations of the Council 23. Exemptions to Parking Negulreaeuts Approval of title flaming Commission and staff exemptions to the proposed Assessment District parkin$ regulations as follows: Pl aril n Commission recoaa endat i on s) Vacant sites that liar a conerieused to ad valorem aassess— aeats for parking would be allowed an exemption equal to 0.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of site area. b) The in -lieu payment provision, which would take effect when (and only ` `when) the Director of r;anni ng and Coamualty Environment determines that the City is committed to Construct a new ° public par king structure intended to laclede space for the is -lieu paysemt program. c) The amount of 'floor, area added under the 'seismic incentive' for Category' 1, II, and III bailldiags, for sites within tlae.Assessaeat District. d) Floor area adsied' (e.ge, for roorooms add elevators) for Title 24 handicapped iaprorements sites -.within the entire CO district: ,staff recoa*end tioe�y r r�r+. rrr���ii �n� r r r d broi e M+adlfy the Plaislsg CoMpissisn' recoaaseNded seismic exeiptiee for, parking so thatthe parklog exesptiens on expansions of St1 swlc Category I, l I., add= I l I bpi ldi ags arm applied to the first 2,04►Q square feet -e€ floor area added er the --first 2$ - percent of existing floor area added, whichever is less, for such bwild ngs within the Assei>i*ebit u i stri tt: 7 1 9 9 5/13/86 MOTION CONTINUED b) Exempt from the parking regulations the aaount of floor area added under the staff proposed "historic incentive" for Category 1 and 2 historic buildings within the Assessment Di.stritt (amount of floor area exemPted `would be identical to above proposal for seismic); and c) Exeept from the, parking regulations the f i rtt ' 2g9 square feet of floor area added 'under the staff proposed "m,iaor expansion exemption' for nod-a'itegory I, 1I, and 'III seismic buildings and non -Category 1 and 2 hivOric buildings within the Assessment District,. Coun :i lmember Sutorius endorsed ' the 'proposal but queried' .a .manda- tory permit purchase plan prior to the in -lieu payment provisions being appropriate. A surface lot with or without attendant could be implemented quickly and 'not require the same detailed engi- neeriny and necessary "get -ready" work as for a structure. Some kind of in -lieu application was reasonable. If Council passed the motion as written, he asked whether the two concepts ruled out any follow-up or -action. If so, he asked where the concepts should be raised as amendments. Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan said if Courici l - passed the motion as written, the two concepts were ruled out. Unless some- thing drastically changed in the future, Item (b) said, "The 'in - lieu payment provision, which would take effect when (and only when) the Director of Planning and Community-Cnvironment 'deter- mines that the City is committed to construct a new public parking structure..." She understood the two proposals were not when the City was committed to construct a pubii.r parking structure. The concepts of investigating a mandatory purchase plan and utilizing a surface lot with 'parking attendant as ways, of ameliorating the parking situation were proper for discussion within' Section 21. AMENDMENT: CouncilMember Setorius moved, seconded by p.atitucci, to include the following: 1. That the concept of a mandatory perking petit purchase plan be investigated for application prier to implteentation of in -lieu payment provisions in paragraph 23(b). Also, investigate a surface lot, With ori without a parking atteadent, with costs to be 'bffsst throisb the permit process pursuant to the in -lieu payment pro -Os -ions Z3(b). Ms. Sloan said without thoroughly investigating the mandatory purchase plan, the -City Attor'ney's office -concluded such a purchase plan would not fairly measure the benefiLreceived by a small sate. An Assessment District -concern was for the parcels to be treated equally. The beeak was so big compared to what other developments, she did not believe IteeaS -feasible. Counci leiember Sutorius clarified the cost of the :_permit process was considerably lower than.the assessment process in, terms of the annual cost to the property -owner. Ms. Sloan said the .permit process weeld cost- considerably less than the in -lieu process which substituted for the assessment process,. Since the Assessment District Was being changed to require :parking on site, the new rules needed to be applied equally." , She deferred to . Pir. Schreiber for further response. - Counciloember Sutorius was not necessarily opposed to 'a structure but preferred to consider facilities which could be surface, underground, above -ground, or a combs nati on. If it' was better to address the utter in the eight -point program, he would withdraw the amendment, but die, not want to lose sight of the approaches. lif3Y8 M _ gehreiber believed Councilmemb.-r. Sutorius' suggestions were proper in the context of the in -lieu provisiose of 23(u). He sensed the plan was seen as an alternative to the in -lieu payment provision which could be effective until such time as a parking structure was available. Councilmember Sutorius agreed with Councilmember Fletcher the process could not get underway until considerable work was done in terms of site specific and engineering. Mr. Schreiber said if the in -lieu payment provision was approved in concept by Council prior to any formal implementation of the concept, staff would be required to return to Council with details of the program and stow a fee would be established. Planning staff and City Attorney's staff discussed alternatives to the tradi- tional concept of in -lieu payment through an Assessment District. Staff was not necessarily optimistic about some of the alterna- tives, but some would involve large payments fairly early in the development process. Councilmember Renzel was intrigued the surface parking could be used in the in -lieu concept, but was concerned that any property owner, with the provision for parking more than 500 feet away which Council just passed, could invest in property for parking elsewhere. There might be some need to share the lot because one small property might not need the whole lot, and some facilitation might be needed to enable property owners to share such lots. If Council looked at a permit purchase price to buy specific lots tied to specific development, it might create special difficulties with the permits already purchased for Assessment District lots. The purchase of the additional lots and the in -lieu lots would compete with Assessment District lots, and the amendment appeared to put into the public arena the creation of a parking lot for which they might charge a fee. She asked if the City allowed private parking to charge a fee. Mr. Schreiber believed so. Councilmember Renzel asked how people who constructed buildings with private parking ensured their employees used the parking and paid the fee. Mr. Schreiber said the City had no monitoring program for any employers whet' .r they had paid or unpaid on -site parking to see if employees used the parking. Councilmember Renzel clarified the City never investigated whether the program provided parking. If people would not pay the fees, the program did not provide parking to keep them, from parking in the neighborhoods. Mr. Schreiber said staff did not investigate the use of paid lots. Generally paid lots were being used but the extent: to which and Whether it was short-term customers et employees were unknown. Councilmember Renzel was -concerned about how the proposal might work and whether it -would be productive for staff to investigate the proposal particularly in light of the City Attorney's comments. Councilmember Fletcher was concerned about achieving a mutually beneficial mechanism for the in -lieu arrangement. It was feasible. for larger projects to provide on -site, parking but the smaller developments, which needed off -site parking and would pay for it when the time came, would not get approval until the parking actual structure was completed. During the approval process for the smaller developments, f she suggested some commituent be made whereby when theparking was provided and costs broken down, the developer would pay into it. 7 2 0 1 5/13/S6 As corrected 6/16/86 AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, staff be directed to explore a mechanise whereby applica- tions for projects too small to permit on -site parking be processed on condition in -lieu parking fees be forticoming-at a time parking foes caa legally be assessed. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO AMENDMENT Councilmember Bechtel understood Councilmember Fletcher's pro- posal, but to solve the parking problem Council needed to either encourage people to not bring their cars or create more parking. An in -lieu mechanism did not create more parking places, but there would eventually be a pot of money to create more parking. The amendment required money from a potential developer to buy employees' permits on existing spots or rent space from an existing lot. She understood the attempt to make it easier for someone to develop a small piece of property but preferred a lot with an attendant as part of the eight -point parking program. It allowed alternatives. She did not support the amendment. Councilmember, Leery clarified under the present in -lieu provision, if someone wanted to develop a small site, the City allowed the development without parking with the proviso that when the City built a new structure, the developer would make a payment towards the appropriate number of spots in the new structure. Planning Commission Chairperson Pat Cullen' said the in -lieu program was essentially not available for the small property owner until the City committed a structure would be built. The money could not be paid in advance for use in the future. Councilmember Levy asked if he could develop a piece of property too small for'on-site parking. Mr. Schreiber said the property could be developed if off -site parking was provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. It would be difficult to develop the site until the City committed to a parking structure per recommendation 23(b). Councilmember Levy clerified the provision denied the small prop- erty owner the right to develop his property until the City took action, which seemed unfair. The amendment allowed the small property owner to develop the property but mandated the developer buy space in existing City parking lots. Councilmember Sutorius said the amendment requested Council address the opportunity at least in two ways, and Councilmember Fletcher added a prepayment plan other than an in -lieu plan which met some of the legal complications of the in -lieu pay..ent plan. The two concepts he suggested were: 1) through the permit process the property owner would, either directly or through the lessor if not owner occupied, find a way to reduce the on -street parking problem through the direct purchase of some parking right; and 2) the Surface lot opportunity expressed the.belief the true in -lieu payment provision could begin functioning immediately. If one acquired or utilized a lot_ , p.ut some asphalt on it, and . put an attendant there, the costs for establishing the lot were known and there was a legitimate foundation for an in -lieu payment ,programs. Ms. Sloan believed Councilmember Sutorius' suggestion re surface lots was covered by the ordinance, The staff report might_ be misleading because it referred to constructing a new public parking structure. Councilmember Sutorius said that was his reason for adding the amendment to change the word "structure* to "facility," 7.2 0 2 5/13/06 Ms. Sloan said the ordinance read, "...in connection with any expansion of the supply ot public parking spaces." It was pos- sible to use in -lieu parking provisions for a surface lot, but she was unsure it would be a considerable savings although it could be done faster. The cost of a parking space in a surface lot might be almost equal to the space in a parking structure. Councilmember Levy clarified the issue was whether Council should have a mandatory parking permit purchase plan failing the ability to purchase some kind of lot or build something. It appeared Council should not because places were taken only from one occu- pant of the Downtown area and given to another. He supported Councilmember Fletcher's suggestion but opposed a mandatory permit purchase plan. In terms of investigating a surface lot, he believed it was already incorporated in point (b) on page 3 and wasp., therefore, unnecessary as an amendment. Vice Mayor Woolley believed both proposals flew in the face of the Keystone. Council supported the idea of the ten percent limit and the on -site parking requirement. If one cculd build on a lot too small to provide on -site parking and provide parking under a contractal arrangement when the City had a -garage, the on -cite parking requirement was removed. If Council said one coula auy permits, the allowance went against the eight -point parking plan where employers convinced their employees to use means other than sleeper -type parking. Council violated its own goals if it passed any of the proposals. Councilmember Fletcher did not believe Council wanted on -site parking on every small parcel on University Avenue with driveways intersecting the sidewalks. The intent was to allow the smaller developer to proceed with ea project without increasing the parking deficit. Where City staff negotiated the purchase of a private lot for parking, the purchase might not occur for six or eight months after the application so the costs could not be allocated until then. Under the language incorporated in the amendment, the developer would get approval but would be committed to provide an in -lieu payment for parking when the coats were broken down. She urged support of the amendment. She agreed with Vice Mayor Woolley that purchasing permits encouraged employees to drive their own cars. Councilmember Renzel concurred with the comments with respect to the permit purchases. Small properties had to be presently vacant: in orderto be faced with a parking requirement. If any property currently had a building on it, presumably with a 1.0 FAR or some- thing similar, the property owner could replace the building if a contribution was made to the Assessment District. Mr. Zimmerman said it was true a building could be replaced with a contribution to the Assessment District, but no increase in "oor area above what was currently assessed was implied. There might be situations where expansion of existing buildings within the Assessment District, under: the proposed Fi.R, would be otherwise limited by the new parking requirement. The exemptions would not necessarily :only apply to new development on vacant sites but could apply to expansions on sites currently developed under the proposed FAR. Councilmember Renzel was concerned an existing structure whose owner paid into the Assessment District might be remodeled, repaired, etc., to the 'same square footage without providing addi- tional parking. The problem occurred where a small property owner had a vacant lot or one with an almost useless structure, Nr. Schreiber said the provision would primarily apply to vacant and substantially underdeveloped parcels and would lead to far more rehabilitation projects than redevelopment or expansion -type projects. The difficulty of providing parking made rehabilitation use of existing space more desirable than expansion. - 7 2 0 3 5/13//96 As correo e 6/16/86 Councilmember Stenzel was concerned Council was trying to solve a problem which might not 'ie major and should wait to see now things worked together_ before attempting to establish a solution. Councilmember Bechtel clarified Mr. Schreiber's comments that if Council adopted the proposed amendment, there would be more rehabilitation of existing structures in the same square footage. If the intent was to make it easier to get parking, why would one rehabilitate instead of expand. Mr. Schreiber said by imposing on -site or off -site parking requirements or in -lieu payment which would be large Ahether a surface lot or structure, the proposed regulations tended to make reuse of existing space more attractive economically than expan- sion of structures or demolition and redevelopment with larger structures where parking did not have to be provided. Councilmember Bechtel clarified if Council did not pass the amend- ment, the City would more likely have rehabilitation. If Council made it easier to provide an in -lieu mechanism, it was more likely to get expansion than rehabilitation. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Councilmember Bechtel believed Council was talking about gross limitations. She was concerned Council agreed to ten percent but now suggested making it as easy as possible to expand rather than to rehabilitate. She asked the amendment be divided because buying permits was not equivalent. AMENDMENT DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING Councilmember Patitucci said Council was trying to create mecha- nisms so in areas identified as pedestrian zones or first -floor retail, there were solutions other than putting parking on --site. It meant new parking spaces because parking had to be identified in some form. The question was what form. The amendments only encouraged Council look at alternative forms from those specified in the recommendation. If that was the case, he supported the amendment because he did not want a lot of curb cuts in those areas where Council was trying to encourage pedestrians, or a lot of parking entrances taking the place of retail space. Councilmember Fletcher clarified the alternatives were included in the recommendations to Council. She attempted to facilitate the smaller- developer to go ahead befote the ten percent limit was reached and he was cut out altogether. Regarding expansions, i f the project was large enough, the developer was required to pro- vide on -site parking. Small developments, where it was not feasible or desirable to provide on -site parking, would have a mechanism to go ahead. Mayor Cobb supported the first part of. the amendment because it might bring employers on board to help solve the problem of sleeper parking. He did not believe it would hurt for staff to explore alternatives to help with the parking problem. FIRST PART of AMEKD!lENT TO INVESTIGATE THE CONCEPT OF A MAI DA-- TORT PARKING PERMIT PURCHASE PLAN AND A SURFACE LOT WITH OR WITH- OUT A rARIIRG ATTENDANT FAILED b ► a vote of 3-5, Cobb, Patitucci, S,*toriu4, voting "aye, • Iloilo absent.. SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT TO DIRECT. STAFF TO EXPLORE A MECHANISM WHIMSY APPLICATIONS TOO SMALL TO PERMIT ON -SITE PARKING SE PROCESSED OR THE CONDITION THAT -IN-LZ$fl PARKING FEES BE FOeCODING AT A TIME PARKING FM COULD LEGALLY - BE ASSESSED PASSED by a vete of S-2, Rensel, Moeller voting "no," Klein. *Utelit. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Klein abut. 7 2 0 4 5/13/86 1 1 COUNCIL RFCFS RO FROM 9:45 pm. TO 10:00 p.m. 1 1 Vice Mayor Woolley believed 308 parking spaces needed to be updated because Council put in more incentives• and needed more parking places. Transportation Planner Dave Fairchild said that was correct. The revised figure was 438 spaces. The number was increased to accommodate increased quantities of parking demand - which would have to be met in the structure in order to meet the known increase in the deficit requirement of the study due to seismic, historic and minor expansion exemptions. Councilmember Patitucci said numbers like "438" implied a level of precision beyond Council's ability to measure. He hoped the numbers could be rounded to "25" and "5n." Mr. Schreiber said the original 308 figure was derived in the EIR and related_ to the anticipated level of development for the vari- ous exemption categories as well as space for anticipated develop- ment which would use the in -lieu program. The number could be updated; however, in pursuit of an actual parking structure, the actual number of parking spaces would relate to the size of the structure and parcel. In the even••Lhe number was somewhat smai- ler,.the first priority of the parking would be for the various exemption spaces and the second priority would be for in -lieu which was consistent with the initial Council policy to' not increase the parking deficit. Council's objectives were exemp- tion space and in -lieu space. Mayor Cobb clarified numbers like 438 would be rounded off t© 450. He clarified staff would ensure such changes were incorporated. Ms. Sloan said yes. MOTION= Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Patitucci, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: 26a. Public Parking: A New Parkin Structure on a Cit Lot Approval of Planning Commission and staff recommendations (CN3i:279:i), revised to read as follows: Direct staff to initiate a site and feasibility study for a new . public parking structure. Such a structure '.should provide at least 450 car spaces to offset expected parking deficit increases resulting from new Downtown development. New Comprehensive Plan program requiring re-evaluation of growth regulations: and parking exemptions for nonresidential development when Oevelopueeat approvals consistent :with the approved exemptions show a potential parking deficit of two- thirds of the 450 spaces identified in the DNlp and the Planning Commission's reconmenda tion (26a) on public. parking. Transportation Progton 26B: ate -evaluate growth regulations and parking exemptions for nonresidential development in the Downtown area when development approvals resulting from approved parking exemptions shore as unmet parking demand of two-thirds (3.00 :spaces) of the 450 spaces identified in the BIN as the minimum am of spaces b.g*ssary fora new p1 is parking structure. 7 2 0 5 5/13/85 Councilmember Fletcher was unclear about how the second paragraph of 26a related to 26b which specified Lots "S," "L," and "F." She asked if 26a would be a structure not on those lots and 26b be a second structure. Mr. Schreiber said \that was correct. Councilmember Fletcher was not sure she was ready to direct staff to plan on two parking structures. Councilmember Levy was concerned about the bulk of parking struc- tures and believed Council should have a policy regarding design of parking structures. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, all parking facility designs should consider maximizing use of under- grounditg and minimum above -ground construction. Councilmember Levy said designs would vary depending upon location and the parking requirements, but the basic overall policy should be to minimize the visual impact of the parking structures in line with the desire to minimize impacts of all construction Downtown. Councilmember Fatitucci asked if evidence reflected whether people preferred to ?ark in .en above -ground or underground structure. Mr. Fairchild said people preferred to park at -grade. In terms of parking down one or up one, people tended to prefer down one. Councilmember Sutorius was uncomfortable with the term "structure" and its singularity. "Facilities" seemed to be a more appropriate term because it offered flexibility\ and did not freeze Council into structures nor overlook an opportunity for- two facilities if they were economically feasible. Councilmember Levy believed wherever Council usede the word "structure" it -should be replaced with "facility." AMF.e1DMENT PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. Councilmember, Renzel said Transportation Program 268 stated `growth regulations be re-evaluated when development approvals, resulting from approved parking exemptions, showed an unmet parking demand of two-thirds or 300 spaces. It was perceived as a warning level for Council to evaluate and she queried whether the language should say when development approvals reached approximately 50 percent of the spaces identified in the EIR. She asked how many cars were on a block face. Mr. Fairchild said about 12 cars. Councilmember Renzel said a lot of residential blocks were 400 feet so there might be 24 cars to the *lock. They were talking about ten block spaces to accommodate the 200 cars if there was no off-street parking. & ADMENT: Comscilarember Menzel moved, soconded by W.olley f to revise Transportation Program 265 to rtiad "Re-evaluate growth regslations that relate to parking exemptions for non-residential development fa the Downtown Area when development approvals resulting from approved parking exemptions show an mast parking dessand of on•- if x225 s ces of the 450 spaces identified identified s t OUR as t e ■ miss ai abet of spaces necessary foe a nor► public parking structure.-' Councilmember Levy asked if *re-evaluate growth regulations" meant go back to the entire concept of the Downtown Study floor area ratios, etc. Mr. Zimmerman said yes. W3,82 As corrected 6/16/86 Council„cmbcr .Lcvy clarified the intent was to f iret build a facility to make up the current deficit of 450 spaces. He asked how policy 26B would be implemented. Mr. Zimmerman said policy 265 was intended to monitor short-term deficits accruing from exemptions for seismic, proposed historic and small sites. When the deficits from the. exemptions reached one-half of the 450, or 225, the entire package of parking exemptions, growth policies and exemptions would be re-evaluated. Councilmember Patitucci believed it might be more appropriate to restate policy 26B as "Re-evaluate yrowth regulations that relate to the parking exemptions..." and delete the word "and," to focus on the source of the increased demand. Mayor Cobb suygested such wording changes be done by staff. Councilmember Renzel was willing to incorporate the change with the understanding that except for the exemptions, Council required parking for everything else anyway. The 225 spaces represented four square blocks with cars all the way around. MAKER AND- SECOND OF AMENDMENT AGREED TO INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE: "RE-EVALUATE GROWTH REGULATIONS THAT RELATE TO PARKING EXEMPTIONS.. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously,, Klein _absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: 26b. Public Parkn A Second Structure of Less than Maximum newt Mxe i Use Approval of Planning Commission reco.meedation to consider a parking structure on Lots S, L, aid,F as part of a mixed use project with ground floor retail including a food market, if feasible. Scale of project should be less than the maximum size otherwise possible. Councilmember Patitucci asked why the recommendation did not apply to all lots not developed into a structure. Mr. Zimmerman said the sub -committee of the Downtown Study Committee realized there were few potential sites in Downtown and the most likely for a mixed use project were lots "S," "L," and "F," which alsoreflected the historic precedent that a previous proposal wasrecommended for the site. Councilmember Patitucci said he might have a conflict of interest on that specific recommendation and would not participate in the. vot i nyi Councilmember Fletcher referenced the possible ()losing of Florence Street and asked if approval of, the mot i qn as . written .implied Council approval of the closing of Florence Street.. Mr, Schreiber said nog the concept would be evaluated. Coueci lmember Fletcher hoped Council rev.i eared the concept before it got too far along. A €N ENT: Counts laember Fletcher oozed, seconded by Levy, that all parking facilities designs should consider mazimiziag the ese of uadergfouadiug and minimizi*g the abeve•groued construction. 6/13,°86 AMt$DMtNT PASStU by a vote of 5-2, Refuel, Woolley votlfig Patituccl "not participating," Klein bsent. Vice Mayor Woolley referred to "scale of project," in the motion and understood the intent was to read "scale of parking project." Mr. Zimmerman believed the Planning Commission was concerned the scale of the project --not just parking --be less than maximum and did not want to recommend even tie concept of a structure similar in scale to the original Lot S and L proposal. Vice Mayor Woolley asked what was maximum for PF zoning. Mr. Zimmerman said the Planning Commission did not specify, but he believed the intent was for something smaller in scale for the total project even if it was mixed used, i.e., coaxing out at 50 feet in height. Vice Mayor Woolley said if Council went through with the growth proposals, the surrounding zoning would be 1:1. To have a project less than 1:1 incorporate parking, a market, and have another development subsidize the market was an unrealistic goal. Mr. Zimmerman believed the Planning Commission assumed the project would go in as a PC. HO, Mr. Schreiber said his interpretation of the Planning Commission minutes of March 6, page 3z, was the Planning Commission referred to the entire structure, not only parking. The reference was 'the mixed use structure." Vice Mayor Woolley believed it was unrealistic to go in with less than a 1:1 FAR and supply the existing parking, plus parking for a market, plus the market, plus- some other space toy subsidize the space taken up by the market to enable the market to be rented out at a lower rate. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Cobb, to change last sentence of 26b to read, "Scale of project should be less than former proposals.' AMENDMENT PASSED eaanimously, tatitucci .Isnot- participating," Klein absent Counci lmeinber Levy asked if the purpose of •the recommendation was to get a food market in the Downtown area. Mr. Zimmerman said the purpose was •to consider the feasibility of a food market with a second structure. The intent was the first structure should be parking only because of the concern about addressing the in -lieu and the existing deficit. When it was appropriate to consider a second structure, it would be time to consider a food market. Counci lmember Levy concurred there should be some way to provide groceries in the Downtown area, but to focus on a parking structure as the mechanism was too narrow. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Cowacilmembsr Levy moved, setoaded by Rem], to examine the mechanism for providing find products nowbtora, particularly fresh meats Jed predece, without exacerbating Dewnteun park 1 erg and traffic problems. Councilrsember Levy said the substitute motion was not intended to foreclose the possibility of a parking structure. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if Counci laember Levy intended. to replace 26b with the substitute motion, : 1 1 7 2 0 8 5/13/86 Councifincmbcr Levy said yes, if Council could provide a ieerket or iuerkei alternative -in enviher ways- it could return to the basics on Lots S, L, and F and develop the facility. Vice Mayor Woolley said Council then lost the directive= -to staff to look at a second parking facility. She did not object to an a l ternat i ve way of pro"i d i ny groceries Downtown. Councilmember Levy wanted to disconnect parking lot and foodstuffs. Vice Aaydr Woolley Suggested the substitute motion be in addition to 26b. Councilmember Levy had no objection to another motion to -look at a second parking facility. Councilmember Renee' supported the substitute motion. Using parking to• accomplish 'the market 'focused tdo narrowly and put a burden on the- City's narking supply. Being in the process of purcheeing the Board of Realtors building, parking lots S, L, and F were identified as a location- with enough -land to provide a structure. If Council accepted the substitute motion, she asked whether procedurally it meant Council dealt with the issue, or whether Council could speak to the, -structure as -a separate issue. Mr. Zaner saw no prob]`er with Council readdressing the subject. if Council wanted to disassociate the parking structure from the market, he suygesteia,striking the Word market" and deal with the market as a separate issue. - Councilmember Sutorius believed; Mr. --Zaner's. solution was better than his- He would vote against'the motion but would consider the market when Council reached the food section of the Downtown plan. Councilmember Levy said if the substitute motion passed, he intended to offer another motion to consider a parking facility on Lots 5, L, and F. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-4, Fletcher, Levy, Menzel voting "aye, Patitucci "not participating," Klein absent. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Menzel moved, seconded by Levy, to revise first sentence to reed, `Consider a parking structure on Lots 5, L and F. Councilmember Renee] said tying the food market to the, structure in the -one location where it eras -:possible to build a significant facility was too narrow and pet a tremendous burden'on the parking facility. In. order for a food 'market- to be successful 'Downtown, 10,000 square feet was needed, -- She believed it took. about 350 square feet for a parking space which wa.s.' apprdxiuiately 35 ,parking s_paces.. The market would generate a need for some 40 or 50 parking spaces. to be successful. ' Wh'en Counci l _ spoke to 12 cars to a block face, knew people already parked in the` neighborhoods six to eight blocks away, and up to four square' =b1 ocks- `of block aces with exemption parking on them might exist, the problem was s;eriuus for` the' neighborhoods surrounding' Downtown. She preferred to see Council deal with the food market in seeee'other fashion. Vice -Mayor Woolley said the words "if 'feasible' were in the proposal .as _written and thereforee the market did not have to go forward. She believed it was possible using the three lots to get about 400 parking. places or a siynificant-gain "The project could concei drably work. A lot of thought went into the concept and she preferred the language remal n. 7 2 0 9 5/13/86 AMEND'El1T PAssr D by a vote of 6-1. Woolley voting "no," Patiti:zccl "not participating," Klein absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Patituccl "not participating," Klein absent. MOTION: Coeacilaeober Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, had of her material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of Council; 24. At or Above Grade Covered Parking Counted as Floor Area Approval of Pianiiny Commission recommendation to count as floor area covered parking located at or above grade within the CD District.- Provision would apply to all covered parking that is visible at grade. AMENDMENT: Counci lmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, to amend sentence to read, 'Count as floor area covered parking located at or above grade for nonresidential developments within the CD District...' AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Levy voting "no,' Patiturcl, not participating, Klein absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION; Counc1lareMber Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: 21. Purchase Vacant Lots for Parir i_ng The Planning Commission recommendation revised to read, "Direct staff to survey existing Downtown vacant lots and prtvete surface parkin lots and assess their suitability as parking structure sites, either directly or in assembly with other City -owned parcels. For vacant lots, staff showld be directed to explore Purchase or leasing arrangements with the lot owners. MOTION PASSED unaalmowsly, Klein absent. Councilmerber Bechtel referred to Item 28a, and said the word "selection" in point three should read "selected." MOTION: Counci lsembe.r Path .ucci Moved, seconded by Reaael , that staff be directed to include in the o edlnances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review; the following recommendations of the Council: 28a. Eleven tolnt Public Perking Pr raa Approve E l eves Point Public Parking Program with Planning Commission recommendation revised to include points -9, 10 and 11, to direct staff to 1) Separate short- and long -term parking apace by parking facility, 2) Reduce all day apse of short-term parking space; 3) Provide variable. fee ' perking at selected parking facilities; 4) Dlscowrsge parking ig serroind#n9 residential eelgh erheea s; MOTION CONTINUED 5) Promote high occupancy vehlc]e.use of public parking; 6) Find and stripe spaces for bicycle and motorcycle parking; 7) Involve employers in parking: management; 8) Review existing -parking lots to recommend .redesign. so that more parking stalls are provided or. circulation is improved; and 9) Analyze .the current allocation of _parki,ni 4 aces in City lots and on Downtown streefsi' and deveJl_o' d_ ;is ement a program to bare e c ent y manage sresonrte;, 10) immediately- i" p emerit a ro ra■ working with,Downtown em ers to minimize or elfin na e the use. of 'siteper" 2 L _n$ spaces; 11) Re ort ro ress. on these actions In six .months and ro- t e a corny ete review n tree Councilmember Patitucci wanted to put more "teeth" into the parking restrictions. Councilmember Sutorius asked staff why Item 33 was not a point within the public parking program. Mr. Schreiber said Item 33 was developed as a separate program bet could be a point within 28a. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE RECOMMENDATION 33 UNDER TRAFFIC INCENtIVE 'PROGRAM TO REDUCE °DRIVE, ALONE TKIPS" TO DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA IMPLEMENTATION OF AM AGGRESSIVE TRANSPORTATION AND , PARKING .MANAGEMENT PR ►.GRAM, INCLUDING THE SERVICES OF A COMMUTER COORDINATOR AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF DOWNTOWN EMPLOYERS, Ili THE MOTION AS POINT 124 AMENDMENT: Coincilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to add the word ."Specifically' at the, beginning of -point 4. Councilmember Levy was displeased by the passive way in which Council attempted , to deal. with . the surrounding . residential neighborhoods. He believed there was a ,problem and, tough as it was to face the problem with a specific action, Council should at least explore a way to deal with it if Item 4 was kept in the parking supply use plan. . If Council . could not find a way to discourage parking in surrounding _residential. n,e,ighbo.rhoods, the item should be taken out. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE THE . WORD 'SPECIFICALLY' AT THE BEGINNING OF POINT 4. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified the eight -point program contained principles and Councilmember -_ Patitucci's . amendment : referred to implementation as did Item #33. She asked whether the points should be added to the principle list or whether they should • be a separate program. Mr. Fairchild said the points could be added as part of the principle list. The stems would not be differentiated ;in terms of policy and program items but would rather be a mixture. Vice Mayor Woolley said Councilmember Patitucci's amendment addressed ways of implementing some of the policies numbered one to eight (CMR:279:6), and Council should not mix the policies with the implementation. 7 2 1 1 5/13/86 Councilmember Patitucci saw hip points as being added after Item #8. MOTION -PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor -Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recomaendat i ons . of CQea�tti la 284. Reference the E1 ht Point Public Perking -Program in the ompre.sns ve a!1 Approve P! apai ng Commission recommendation to add the fol l i►wi eg new projram .26A : i n •the Traaspertat i on section of __the Comprehensive Plaa that:addresses the seed to implement the eight -point _ parrking program, .as amended, for Downtown Palo Alto. Transportation_ Program 26A: : ieple*ent the Eight -Point Parking.Program, as amended, przMosed in the.Downtown Study is order to make more efficient use of the existing parking supply in Dowetowa telo MOTION PASSED unanimously* Klein absent. Traffic Councilmember Levy said Item 32, Neighborhood Protection Traffic Program, was a negative item and did not require a motion. He did not want to go on record in agreement with the negative Item 32. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel* that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: 34. Traffic Management Policies 34a. Modification of Coa reheasive Plan Transportation Program Approve Planning Commission recommendetioe rev.ied to: read as follows: Modify existing Traaspor'tation Program 19. which reads. "Reduce traffic congestion on Willow Road's to road: Transportation Pregrai 19: Reduce traffic congestion on Sand Hill Road while prohibiting a direct connection from Sand Hill to Paco Alto Avease/Aiwa Street across El Casino Real. iloplace the paragraOh following .existing _:Transportation Program 19 with this text: (Text) Soled Hill Road has severe traffic congestion problems. However, * ey cennect i oa . *f -Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto Avpsire and Alma Street wowl,/ encoerige traffic increases on Alma and nearby residential streets, especially north of Downtown and, therefore. should not be approved. Councilmember Fletcher referred to a letter from Herb Borock (on file in the City Clerk's office) which said by passing the motion As proposed Council eliminated the present Program 19 in the Comprehensive Plan. If that was the case, she suggested an amendment to include Program 19 of the existing Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Cobb asked staff if that interpretation was correct. 7 2 1 2 5/13/86 i i 1 Ms. Sloan said Councilmember Fletcher was correct. Laneuaue was deleted from the current Program 19, Faye 32, of the Comprehensive Plan. The languaye primarily provided history that the Willow ''Road widening and road extension improvement project between El Camino Real in Palo Alto and Santa Cruz Avenue in Menlo Park was rejected by the Council le 1979. It then spoke to intersection improvements which needed to be made and spe6ifically called out traffic signals, coordinated bike lanes, sidewalks and cross- walks. Another sentence said Willow Road served an undeveloped 46-acre,site zoned for multiple -family residential. Development of housing on the site might make improved access necessary. *MOMENT: Councilmember Fletcher- moved, seconded' by Wenzel) to retain' the essential elements of the current text updated to the current Program 19 of the Comprehensive Plan as needed to make it Mayor Cobb said the simplest language was to "retain the elements of current Program 19 of the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Schreiber clarified the intent was to add the text rather than the program, because the program was already included in the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Fletcher believed the first sentence which went back to 1979 should be eliminated. It might be wise to start with "Sand Hill Road sti 1 l has severe traffic congestion problems." Mayor Cobb asked if Councilmember Fletcher would take as a friendly wording of the amendment, "To retain the current text updated to Program 19 of the Comprehensive Plan," as needed to make it complete. Ms. Sloan clarified Councilmember Fletcher said to' eliminate the first sentence regarding 1979. Mayor Cobb said yes. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously) Klein absent. Councilmember Renzel was concerned about redundancies such as "Sand Hill Road has severe traffic congestion problems." Mayor Cobb said in all actions that evening, it was implied staff would clear up redundancies without motions. Councilmernber Renzel said implied in the Planning Commission's recommended language was the Sand Hill Road connection to El Carpi no She did not know the current status but preferred it not yet stated in the Comprehensive Plan. She asked whether the language created any implications or whether it could be taken at face value. Mr. Schreiber said Council could take the language at face value. Councilmember Renzel asked the minutes reflect 'Mr. Schreiber's statement. AMENDMENT: Council/member Patitacci moved, ecoaded by Sut.orius, to amend the language to include .that Council endorse the connection through to El Camino Real from Sand Hill Road while reduciag traffic congestion on Sand Hill Road and prohibiting it from crossing El Camino Real. Councileembar Patitucci believed Council committed to the connec- tion, dollars were being spent, lawsuits being defended, and Council needed to be explicit in its plans and actions and be con- sistent. 7 2 1 3 5/13/85 Ms. Sloan -believed it was outside the scope of the Downtown Study to discuss the road itself and its connection with El Camino. MAYOR COBB RULED THE AMENDMENT OUT OF ORDER Councilmember Renzel supported the main motion and said the EIR showed the Sand Hill Road connection would not reduce traffic congestion. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vet. of 7-1, Patituccl voting "no," Klein absent. MOTION: Vice Ma Nor Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher, that staff be directed to include ill the ordinances, reso7 ut1oas, and other material to be provided in our final review, the foll,gring recommendations of the Council: 34b. Mew Comprehensive Plan Proem on No Additional Signals for Sections of Alma and Middlefield Approve Plaaniny Commission recommendation to add the following new Transportation Program 18a. and text In the Comprehensive Plea, which would.. read: New Transportation Program IBA: Do net install hew traffic signals on Middlefield or Alma north of Lytton, or on Middlefield south of Chancing to Embarcadero, or on Alma south of Manning to Churchill. (Text) Prohibiting the installation of new traffic signals will preserve the traffic -carrying capacity of these major arterials and also help protect residential cross streets from traffic volume increases due to traffic signal installation. Councilmember Levy said the item was a negative and Council should not_ include such detail as not installing traffic signals at a particular intersection. He preferred a simple statement of Council policy. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Levy maned, seconded by Patituccl, to add to Transportation 18 a paragraph stating, "Prohibiting the installation of new traffic signals on Alma and Middlefield will preserve the traffic -carrying capacity of these major arterials and help protect residential cross streets from traffic volume increases due to trafficdiversion. Councilmember Fletcher said the substitute motion took in all of Alma and Middlefield, and she was not sure those streets in their entirety were studied inthe course of the Downtown Study. There might be a situation which called fora traffic signal outside the area specified. She opposed the substitute motion as presently worded. Councilmember Levy clarified his intention was to include only those areas of Middlefield and Alma noted under Program 18A. Mr. Zimmerman askeel if the intent was to incorporate the revised wording within the Comprehensive .Plan.. Councilmember Levy wanted the revised wording incorporated as a paragraph'at the end of Transportation Program 18. Councilmember Bechtel understood Councilmember` Levy's intent to be less specific but the Comprehensive Plan was specific. She opposed the substitute motion. SO4ST1TUTg NOTION ':FAILED by a Pete .ef 2-4, Levy,, .Pat1tecci voting 'aye,* Klein absent, 7 2 114 5/13/86 XDTIOU PASSED nsniracusl . M 1 w PASSED C L fl �i sa �i a s MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, that staff be directed to Include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other Material to be provided in our final review, the following recbiaandati oas of the Coonci l: i 1 3ba. Traffic Management Programs Approve 'Planning Commission recommendation revised to `read as follows: Install minimal signs directing through traffic off Un1 versa tr—I i ie and onto Hamilton and Lytton Avenues between Middlefield and High not to exceed a cost of $400. Vice Mayor. Woolley said she deleted the words "time signals" because the signals on Hamilton and Lytton Avenues were already timed; whereas, on University Avenue the signals were deliberately not timed. Council wanted to encourage traffic on Hamilton and Lytton rather than University. She was concerned about cost and a proliferation of signs. Mr. Fairchild believed only two signs, one at each end, were necessary. Mr. Fairchild said their discussion concerned alternate wording to the signs which stated the signals were not timed on University Avenue and, therefore, through traffic could use Hamilton or Lytton Avenues. Vice Mayor Woolley suggested a cap of $400 in order to not get involved with the wording, placement, , and quantity of signs, but to clarify only two signs were needed at a cost of approximately 200 each. Mr. Zaner urged Council not to get into such detail. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO DELETE 'NOT TO EXCEED $400' FROM MOTION Councilmember Levy opposed the motion. People knew which streets were better to get through. One found alternatives after being stuck on University once or twice. More signs, particularly at Middlefield and High, were not a good idea because the inter- section was tricky with lots of signs. Councilmember Renzel agreed with Councilmember Levy and was also concerned about the problem in the Crescent Park neighborhood, where cars crossed Middlefield at Hamilton and continued through to Guinda, Fulton, Chaucer, and other cross streets. to University on their way out. People found their way to those streets regard- less of whether a sign suggested the street name took cars beyond Middlefield Road into the neighborhood. She saw little merit in trying to push people onto those neighborhood streets. Councilmember Fletcher disagreed. She was often stopped on her bicycle for directions. Potential students and others visiting Stanford used University Avenue to get to Stanford ; .from the Bayshore Freeway and ' Would appreciate alternative routes to yet through. She believed people should be informed of alternative routes. AMENDMENT: Councilmember rata ts.;ci moved, seconded by Fletcher, to change language to "Tate appropriate action is direct through traffic...* **MOMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Bechtel Cobb, . fletciter, Patitucci voting "aye," K1sio absent. 7 2 1 5 5/13/86. CT I Th PASSED by a *ate *no," Klein absent. MOTION: :Co.rncilmewber Rsnzel moved., seconded by Fletcher, that staff, be directed to include IN, the ordinances* resolutimit, and; other material to be provided in;4rr final review, .the following recommendations of the Council: 35b. The Planning Commission recommendation -to. cobddct 'e through traffic, survey of the Downtown business district and sur- rounding residential areas, Vice Mayor Woolley supported the,motion, but the proposal could cost from $4,000 if done by staff, to, $10,000 if done by' a consul- tant. She did not believe the need was pressing' enough and Council needed to be more careful how it_spent motley. If the motion passed, she hoped the project was included- in a future CIP. 5-3; Levy; Renzet. Sutorius voting Councilmember Levy concurred with Vice Mayor Woolley. He did not believe the City would gain from the particular survey and staff had enough to do. Councilmember Fletcher asked what .staff hoped to accomplish. Mr. Fairchild said the study would assess the extent of through travel in the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown. It would deter- mine which way cars went to get through Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods and the origins and destinations 'of the cars. The study would indicate whether people drove through the neighbor- hoods to get Uowntown or whether people drove through the neigh- borhoods without stopping. Councilmember Renee] disagreed with Councilmember Levy and Vice Mayor Woolley and believed baseline information was valuable, The cost was a .mall fraction of a signal or paving a block of street, and the information might help to understand the dynamics of the area. Councilmember Bechtel queried what Council would do with the information. The motion was premature and she would not support it. Councilmember Sutorius asked how the subject survey related to the City-wide Land Use and Traffic Study. Mr. Schreiber said the survey did not relate at all. If the motion passed, staff di.d not anticipate doing the survey for two or three years. Councilmember Sutorius believed the study was premature and opposed the motion. When Council started to monitor and evaluate, the survey could be included if appropriate. MOTION FAILED by a Grote of 2-6 Fletcher, Renzel voting "aye," Klein absent. Councilmember ember Bechtel believed Council needed to do something on Item 36, Traffic Mitigation Program, where the Planning Commission was split on a recommendation. She. asked how many magnolia trees were i n question if an improvement was made at the i utersect i do of Middlefield and University. Mr. Fairchild said ,five. Councilmember Bechtel believed the people in the more 'residential neighborhood of; Geri nda needed ,to be protected, and _ Council should not encourage further diversion of.,trgaffic ortto 4uinda4 7 2 I 6 5/13/86 MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Reazel, that staff be directed to include ,in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council; 1 1 36. Traffic Mitigation Program Design and construct needed traffic engineering improvements at Middlefield and University in Palo Alto. Councilmember Bechtel said the improvements at University and Middlefield would basically be a widening. Councilmember Fletcher asked if the motion included an extra lane on University. Councilmember Bechtel said yes. Mr. Schreiber said if the motion passed, the item would be put in the City CIP process and a' project would be defined. Some work was done and it was not necessary for staff to look at the design of an improved intersection. Mr. Fairchild clarified the motion deleted the Middlefield/Willow intersection mitigations. Councilmember Bechtel said yes because it was outside Council's jurisdiction. Mr. Fairchild said the item -was was EIR-related. Significant adverse impacts were found at the intersection of Middlefield and Willow. Ms. Sloan said since the EIR showed a significant effect at the intersection of Middlefield and Willow, Council had the option to mitigate and offer to help Menlo Park; find that since the impacts were in Menlo Park's jurisdiction, it was up to Menlo Park; or, find the mitigations to be socially or economically unfeasible. Mayor Cobb asked whether the motion was in order. Ms. Sloan said yes. ;lice Mayor Woolley asked if the improvement at Middlefield and University was completely separate from the improvement at Uuinda and University, or whether they worked together. Mr. Fairchild said the improvements were separate; furthermore, the one at Uuinda was not essential in terms of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) uitigatidn. requirement. Councilmember Patitucci said Council spoke to the necessity of a traffic mitigation at the ten percent growth level, and possibly at five percent. until Council dealt with thegrowth question, he believed the mitigation question should be put aside. Mayor Cobb pointed outafter: ten percent Council had to mitigate. He .opposed the motion at present a.nd`sueeested the matter be dealt with later if needed.. He did not want to propose new lanes .on University until he heard more evidence of the need. Councilmember Fletcher concurred. She opposed the project going though the .CIP process before Council thoroughly analyzed the benefits. Lt was a major improvement project and . removing trees was 'irreversible. She wanted to know exactly how much traffic would be unproved and what change in traffic patterns would occur. Councilmember Bechtel said. the problem could be in the wording. Council: would eventually .need to make improvements and staff would put the proposal into the CIP process. It was premature to talk about an extra lane on University, but there needed to be some 5/13/86 3/86 mitigation.- She asked the City Attorney whether the wording could be. more vague,: such as "consider] needed tr•a r f is eiigi neeri ne improvements" rather than "design and construct," and still meet the EIR traffic mitigation. :The: other option was to trigger mitigation at a particular growth point, which she would include as part of her motion. Mr. Fairchild said five'percent did not trigger the mitigation. in terms of growth, if Council decided to go with five percent, there was no need for the mitigation. The mitigation was only triggered at ten percent. MAKER AND SECOND .OF MOTION AGREED TO REVISE LANGUAGE TO -READ, "CONSIDER NEEDED TRAFFIC ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS AT MIDDLEFIELD AND UNIVERSITY IF TEN PERCENT GROWTH IS REACHED." Councilmember Sutorius asked what was contemplated under "needed traffic engineering improvements." He understood the staff recom- mendation was two -fold for the University/Middlefield intersection: widening, sigsage and turn controls. He was con- cerned the potential impact on Guinda was omitted from the motion. Mr. Fairchild said if the alternate, left -turn prohibition mitigation was adopted, the Guinda mitigation was required. Councilmember Sutorius understood the maker of the motion did not support the Guinda mitigation, but the phrase "traffic engineering improvements" was broad. Mr. Schreiber said the consideration process involved going back through the CIP process. When Council received all the informa- tion, it could decide on whether to authorize the project. Councilmember Sutorius said Council';was on record as not giving carte blanche. Councilmember Renzel said if the mitigation was triggered at the ten percent growth level and Council had to decide whether to adopt or call for overriding benefits, she asked what happened if a future Council lost connection with the present decision making process, and how future Councils would connect a mitigation measure to the EIR decision -making process. Ms. Sloan did not believe it was enough to say Council would review something without an overriding consideration statement at that point. If it was really to be a mitigation, Council had to say it would happen when ten percent growth was reached. There was the danger a future Council would not implement the mitigation at which point the door opened to a lawsuit. Mayor Cobb clarified the word "consider" would not satisfy the mitigation requirements. Ms. Sloan said that was correct. If the -mitigation was needed when growth reached ten percent, Council needed to say it would construct the mitigation at that growth level; or, if Council did not believe it wanted to commit the mitigation, it could sate the benefits of the project outweighed the significant effects and the mitigation was not socially feasible because Council did not want to lose five magnolia trees, or not economically feasible because it was too expensive. Mayor Cobb clarified Ms. Sloan advised to either return to the "design and construct" language or adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Ms. Sloan said yes. Council could adopt a statement of overriding considerations in July. 7 2 1 8 5/13/85 Councilmember Bechtel was concerned the City Attorney earlier said it was fine to use the word "consider." She did not like being absolute at that.point because she did not believe it was a good option. She preferred the present motion. Mayor Cobb clarified the motion remained "consider." In view of the Assistant City Attorney's advice, he .would not support the motion. He would support a motion which reflected "design and construct" with the language "if ten percent growth is achieved." MOTION WITHDRAWN 0 MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final reviear, the following recommendations of the Council: 36. Traffic Mitigation Program Design and construct needed traffic 'engineering . immipravments at Middlefield and University in Palo Alto if teem percent growth is reached, Vice Mayor Woolley asked if the motion included direction for interim improvements as well as long-term improvements, or just the ultimate long-term improvements. Mr. Schreiber said long-term. Councilmember Fletcher asked if Council could legally not address the issue by defeating the motion. Ms. Sloan said Council had to address every significant effect identified in the LIR and would be given a more specific chart in July. If the intersection was significantly adversely effected at the ten percent growth level, Council could either adopt a mitiga- tion or find the mitigation was not feasible. The findings had to be made when Council adopted the whole Downtown Study project. The project included repeal of part of the regulations and a moratorium when yruwth reached ten percent to provide for re-evaluation. Ten percent represented a cap. Councilmember Fletcher clarified if the motion failed, she could move evaluation of a traffic improvement when the ten percent growth was reached. Ms. Sloan said yes. The motion could be made, but in July Council still needed to make a finding on the significant effect. If Council did not state a specific.mitiyation would yo into effect, it needed to make a statement of overriding benefits. Council ember Renzel said Council was looking at the entire eowntown project for purposes of an EIR, establishing: limits and recognizing impacts. Any future projects within the limits would not need an environmental assessment unless the impacts were not already assessed. The projects would move forward i and Council would not address mitigations project -by -project. Council could not wait until the end of the line to address the mitigation. It needed to make firm commitments; or recognize if the limits pro- posed in .the project were reached, decisions needed to be made. Mgr. Fairchild deferred response. Ceunci,lrnemmmber patitucci said even if Council approved the ten per- cent and 1 : l FAR, nothing said 'the City would reach that 'bevel of growth. As he understood the City ' Attorney, even if the City reached those limits, Council .could say the cost of the project, including cutting down the magnolia trees, had an opposite effect which did not justify the mitigation. lif3)8g Mayor Cobb clarified Council Wotiuii Or make d statement evening. When it returned to needed to be in final form. needed to either pass -the present of overriding considerations that Council, one statement or the other `ts. Sloan said that was right. She understood the motion was 'Design and construct needed traffic enyineering tflprovements at Middlefield .and: University if :ten percent growth is ,reached.,'.. If the .regulations were in efrect: but. build -out _ idid no,t occur, the mitigation would not be constructed. Councilmember Sutorius asked for an overview of cost and adverse effects to the Menlo Park mitigation measure. Councilmember Renzel believed the EIR reflected the level of service at the Middlefield and University intersection would get significantly worse. If Council made a statement of overriding benefits, and allowed the situation to Nget worse, the congested intersection would disburse traffic elsewhere in the neighborhood. A mitigation at the intersection followed Council's general policy to protect neighborhoods. Councilmember Fletcher said her concern was whether the traffic would be improved enough to alleviate the neighborhood traffic. She believed it was unlikely. Councilmember Levy said the situation would occur many years into the future, and it was unwise for Council to go on record making a commitment so far in advance. A Council mi ghL be legally held to the commitment when ten percent construction took place. As construction occurred Downtown, a future Council could take the required action. He opposed the motion. NOTION FAILED by a vote of 4-.4, Cobb, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley votfag."aye, Klein absent. Mayor Cobb asked if Council needed a motion to pass the.stateinent of overriding considerations. Ms. Sloan said no, but it would help for Council to state some overriding considerations which staff would formalize. Mr. Laver suggested staff prepare some overriding considerations for Council. Councilmember Patltucci said he would not participate on Item 37a due to a conflict of interest. MOTION: Coaracilmeaaer Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, that staff he directed to include in the ordinances, reselutiiass, and other material t;; be provided in our final review;, , the following recommendations of the Council: Z7a. Fi tore Traffic liaea�oaae,et aa Approval of planning Commission recommendation to consider oleo#*g Enrolee Street for vise as part of a site for a new parking structure. Councilmember Fletcher was eeluctant to go on record as wanting to close a street and would oppose the motion. Cf a future parking facility was proposed which that Left .open .space where,.the street was, she night support it. NOTION. PASSED by a vote of S.Z* Renzel, Fletcher voting moo,' rat1tecci *net partitipatia g** Klein alas.ent, 2 0 5/13/86 Coy: ncilme►nher Renzel referred to Item 37b, and said the Planning Commission made an affirmative statement it did not want the proposal considered. She asked if Council should make a policy statement for future consideration. Mr. Zimmerman said no. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Bechtel, to continue Item 16, the Downtown Study, to May 15, 1986 City Council meeting at 7:30 p.n. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:50 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 0 7 2 2 1 5/13/86