Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-15 City Council Summary MinutesQTV COUNCIL MINUTEc ITEM CITY Pill O ALTO Adjourned Meeting of May 13, 1986 May 15, 1986 Item 16, Public Nearing: Downtown Study (Continued from. May 13, 1986) Recess Items to Consider After 10:30 p.m. Adjournment: 11:20 p.m. • PAGE 7 2 2 3 7 2 3 9 7,2 4 5 7 2 5 1 7 2 2 2 5/15/86 Adjourned Meeting of May 13, 1986 May 15, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:40 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:50 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Klein ITEM #6, PUBLIC HEARING: DOWNTOWN STUDY (CMR:279:6) (Continued from May 13, 1986) MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Councilnember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, reconsideration of Item 36, Traffic Mitigation Program, specifically the traffic engineering improvements to intersection of Middlefield at Willow Road (which was no action.) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein and Patitucci absent. Mayor Cobb asked the record to reflect all motions would include the implicit language: "staff be directed to include in the ordi- nances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council." Counci lmember Sutorius referenced -the Draft Envi ronmc:tal Impact Report (DEIR), Section VI.J.V8, Table 35, 1995 Peak Hour Traffic Impacts of the Project, up to Page VI.J.45. Table 35 showed tie 1984 base, the 1995 no growth situation, the lower and upper range impacts of the projects, and all the alternates considered. No. 11, Middlefield and Willow, considered the 1984 base and the char- acteristics of the project impacts. In staff's analysis, the intersection was significantly impacted by the project in any and all cases. Page VI.J.42, Table 40, showed the impact comparisons, and specific discussion of traffic engineering improvements for the intersection was on page VI.J.44, Middlefield at Willow. The Councilmerabers needed to change their positions. If the impacts were created at the intersection by a developer, Council needed to consider whether it would impose the mitigations. He believed the answer was yes. If a Menlo Park project impacted an intersection in Palo Alto, and Palo Alto later learned Menlo Park saw an impact and a mitigation but did nothing about it, Palo Alto would not consider Menlo Park to be a good neighbor. Staff should be directed to notify. Menlo Park of the existence of Palo Alto's DEIR, the impact identified, and the mitigation to solve the prob- lem and ascertain whether Menlo Park wanted the mitigation to be performed and if so, it should be done. MOTION: Counci laesber Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions„ and ether material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: 36. Traffic Mitigation Program a. Rescind that portion of Council -'s action of May 13, 1986, on Item 936, Traffic Mitigation Program, regarding the Middlefield/Willow intersection; and b. Staff prepare appropriate formal notification to the City of Menlo Park _tea Pale Alto's project DEIR. acknowledges a pota.ti.l impact On am footerseckten in Menlo Park's 7 2 2 3 5/15/86 MOTION CONTINUED jurisdiction, recommends a specific mitigation, and as a consequence, Palo Alto would undertake the mitigation if Menlo Park determined such mitigation to be appropri- ate. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the City of Menlo Park was aware of. the DEIR, but he was not sure whether the Menlo Park City Council ever considered the item. Correspondence should be to the attention of the Menlo Park City Council for a policy decision based on their staff's recommenda- tions. Councilmember Sutorius was aware of Menlo Park's traffic engi_ \_ nearing participation in the process and the staff level know- ledge. The Palo Alto City Council dealt with its colleagues in Menlo Park frequently, and the action was an appropriate. Councilmember Fletcher referred to a letter from Menlo Park's Assistant City Engineer to Bruce Freeland in the Final EIR (FEIR) which said, "Recommended mitigation measures at Middlefield Rd./ Willow Rd. intersection would encourage Palo Alto bound traffic from US 101 and East Bay fn use Willow Rd. rather than University Avenue. Consequently the increase in traffic, especially trucks, would be of major concern to the residents along Willow Rd." It was not fair to impose extra traffic on Menlo Park to make it easier on Palo Alto. Councilmember Bechtel asked for a cost estimate of the mitigation described in the DEIR. Transportation Planner Dave Fairchild said $63,000. Councilmember Bechtel said tht, intersection was already consider- ably worse than any of Palo Alto existing intersections in the Downtown area; currently level of service D and E, and might go to level of service E and F with any change. Their proposals spoke to a considerable lessening of growth than might not .have been the case with no action. She agreed the Menlo Park City Council should be notified but was concerned by carte blanche saying Palo Alto would do the improvement. She asked the motion be split for purposes of voting. Councilmember Bechtel asked if Palo Alto ever offered to pick up the cost of an intersection improvement in an adjoining city. Mr. Fairchild was unarare of the situation having occurred before. The method staff proposed was normal for the kind of situation elsewhere in the Bay Area. When such a traffic impact was identi- fied in an adjoining jurisdiction, -it was common for the city generating the impact to find resources to pay for mitigation and not expect the adjoining city to pay. Regarding payment, staff considered ways to raise money through fees to be assessed on new w development in the Downtown. Mr. Schreiber referred to the City of Palo Alto imposing obliga- tions on Stanford to contact Menlo Park. and San Mateo County regarding mitigations in those jurisdictions for.. projects located in Palo Alto. Historically, Palo Alto staff periodically asked Menlo Park staff to do more in depth analysis of the impact of Menlo Park projects on Palo Alto streets, which might again arise with developments such as the St. Patrick's Seminary. Councilmember Renzel said since Council took no action by a 4.4 vote, the matter was left in abeyance pending a statement of overriding benefit. Mayor Cobb said the City Clerk indicated that was correct. 7 2 2 4 5/15/86. Councilmember Renzel said if the Palo Alto City Council corre- sponded with the Menlo Park city Council, it needed to .indicate it was not planning to keep the relative congestion at a parity by improving Palo Alto's intersections. As pointed out by Councilmember Fletcher, by making it- easier to go Willow, Palo Alto sent its traffic to Menlo Park if it did -not improve its own intersections: Councilmember Bechtel's point was well- taken. The project was a substantial downzoning and diminution in the amount of traffic that would have otherwise occurred. It was odd to be in an EIR situation where the project actually showed a downward trend from what would have happened. She queried the legal obli- gations in terms of mitigating where if Council did nothing the situation would be woree than if it did something. Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan -reiterated the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). She did not believe there was any difference whether Council downzoned'-, or upzoned as long as it studied the project and determined a sig- nificant effect- When a significant effect was determined Council needed to: 1) find mitigations which lessened the significant environmental effects; 2) find that such changes were within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding; such changes were adopted by such other agency or could and should be adopted by such other agency; or 3) find that specific economic, social, or other considerations made infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives. The Palo Alto City Council had no legal obligation to improve the intersection. Councilmember Levy said Councilmember Sutorius suggested formally notifying the Menlo Park City Council. He was generally comfort- able when Council notified the Menlo Park staff, it fulfilled its obligations. It was not for Council to say what was appropriate for the Menlo Park staff to communicate to their own Council. It was important for the Menlo Park Council to know what Palo,. Alto was doing overall, and he hoped it would serve as a precedent for Menlo Park and other communities in the area. However, he could not support if Menlo Park said Palo Alto should do something, then assume Palo Alto needed to do it. SUBSTITUTE MOTION* Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Wenzel, to notify the Kenlo Park Council of Palo 'alto's prelimi- nary action (which was no action) and its appropriate context in the total Downtown Study and request its formal comment. Ms. Sloan repeated for the record Palo Alto was obliged to notify Menlo Park because of the effects of the project in Menlo Park. Palo Alto's obligation was fulfilled when the City of Menlo Park Planning Director was notified before Palo. Alto prepared the DEIR. Copies of. the DEIR and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were sent to Menlo Park. Mayor Cobb preferred the sense of the original motion and would vote against the substitute motion. SUBSTITUTE NOTIOW FAILED by a vote of 3-4, Fletcher, Levy, Weasel voting "aye, • Woolley ,'''not participating,' Klein absent. Councilmember Patitucci referred to the reciprocal nature of the issue. A new proposal emerged for the St. Patrick's site and, was being studied. He did not know if Council was formally -.notified but was sure there would be an EIR.: He liked the sense of the motion, but before Council committed to spending .any .money, it should be tied to some reciprocal planning for the impacts on the respective communities. A large amount of the traffic to the Sunset and SRI area went through Palo Alto and would be affected by any development at the....St. Patrick's site. 7 2 2,5 5/15/86 As corrected 6/16/86. Councilmember Fletcher believed employment in Palo Alto generated more traffic. through Menlo Park than vice versa. Mayor Cobb suggested the following language: "and request Menlo Park's cooperation in achieving an appropriate mitigation." Councilmember Sutorius agreed. SECOND PART OF MOTION RESTATED: "REQUEST STAFF TO PREPARE FORMAL NOTIFICATION TO ThL i:IJY OF MENLO PARK THAT PALO ALTO'S DEIR ACKNOWLEDGES A POTENTIAL IMPACT ON AN INTERSECTION IN THEIR JURISDICTION A►ip RECOMMENDS SPECIFIC MITIGATION AND REQUESTS THEIR COOPERATION IN ACHIEVING AN APPROPRIATE MITIGATION° Mayor Cobb clarified the language could be cleaned up by staff if necessary. Councilmember Renzel preferred the substitute motion to dispatch Palo Alto's obligation to the Menlo Park City Council and ensure it was aware of the problems. By requesting Menlo Park's formal cooperation, it indicated Palo Alto planned to put money into the intersection. She suggested Council also inform Menlo Park of PalooAlto's action regarding the two intersections. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Kennel moved to inform the Menlo Park City Council of the Palo Alto City Council's preliminary action regarding the intersections in Palo Alto's jurisdiction in the course of notifying them of the mitigation items. MAKER AND SECOND OF MOTION AGREED TO INCORPORATE AMENDMENT INFO MAIN MOTION Ms. Sloan suggested changing "notification" to "draw the atten- tion," because she did not want the Menlo Park City Council to believe Palo Alto did not fulfill its obligation to notify them. Menlo Park complained in the past and staff was careful to notify them on the Elk. Councilmember Bechtel requested the motion be divided for purposes of voting in terms oF drawing the attention of the Menlo Park City Council, and seeking its cooperation in mitioating the problem. Council was split on a decision about improvements at University and Middlefield, which was within Palo Alto's jurisdiction because t only needed to make improveiients when growth , reached the ten peecent level. She asked if by immediately conveying the informa- tion to Menlo Park, it implied Palo Alto believed something should be done immediately at Willow and Middlefield but not at Palo Alto's own intersection until sometime later and whether it was appropriate. Councilmember Sutorius believed the action was appropriate for ethical reasons and not inappropriate for legal reasons. He was not trying to distinguish between how the Palo Alto City Council observed the situation within its own community versus Menlo Park's community, but tried to be respectful, open, and recognize if the shoe was on the other foot, he wanted the same constdera- t1on. The motion as separated out only spoke to Middlefield and Willow, leaving the state of the other two intersections as Council left them the previous evening. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified Council essentially had no position on whether to mitigate Willow but would discuss and explore it. Councilmember Sutorius said as modified, that was correct Councilmember Sutorius said yes. Councilmember Bechtel asked for clarification from the City Clerk on the second half of the motion. City Clerk Gloria Young said the wording was, "Palo Alto request Menlo Park's cooperation in achieving an appropriate mitigation and further to inform the Menlo Park City Council of Palo Alto's preliminary action regarding the two intersections in Palo.Alto." Councilmember Bechtel said the motion sounded as if Council demanded Menlo Park make some improvements. AMENDMENT: Covacilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to change the second part of the motion from recommending a miti- gation to indicating Palo Alto's cooperation toward a mitiga- tion. Councilmember Renzel said offering Palo Alto's cooperation indi- cated Palo Alto was prepared to pay for the mitigation without knowing the respective obligations between Manio Park and Palo Alto. Also Palo Alto reduced the potential impact oven though technically it was identified as an impact. Councilmember Levy said Palo Alto was not a developer, and Palo Alto was obliged to call Menlo -'ark's attention to everything it did; specifically, the fact one of its intersections was impacted. Having done so, presumably Menlo Park was obliged to look after its own interests and would communicate to Palo Alto its interests. When that happened, Palo Alto and Menlo Park should get together and work out a community of interests. He supported whatever Council did that said "call attention to," and opposed anything that implied Palo Alto would take some action. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Bechtel, Fletcher, Levy voting "aye,` Klein absent. MOTION RESTATED; STAFF BE DIRECTED TO INCLUDE IN THE ORDINANCES, REf,OLUTIONS AND OTHER MATERIAL TO BE PROVIDED IN OUR FINAL REVIEW, THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNCIL: 1. STAFF TO APIROPRIATELY DRAW MENLO PARK CITY COUNCIL'S ATTEN- TION TO PALO ALTO'S DOWNTOWN STUDY DRAFT Elk WHICH ACKNOW- LEDGES A POTENTIAL IMPACT AT AN INTERSECTION IN ITS JURISDIC- TION. STAFF TO INFORM ThE MENLO PARK CITY COUNCIL REGARDING PALO ALTO'S PRELIMINARY ACTION REGARDING THE TWO INTERSECTIONS IN PALO ALTO'S JURISDICTION. 2. FURTHER, STAFF TO INDICATE A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION AND REQUEST MENLO PARK CITY COUNCIL'S COOPERATION IN ACHIEVING AN APPROPRIATE MITIGATION. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF MOTION PASSED uaaoimoosy, Klein absent. SECOND PART (IF MOTION FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Cobb, Patitucci, Sutorlus, Woolley veting "'aye,' Klein absent. Growth MOTION; Councilmember 'Reuel moved, seconded by Woolley, that staff be directed to incinde in the ordinances„ resolutions, and other material to be •rovlded in eer f t cal review, the following recommendations of the tounci l : 1. Growth; Comprehesive Pia n PoiiCies on Growth Limits, and Monitoring Approve Planning CoMmis ,Ion recommendation for Nem Co.proh.ugive Plan policies and text limiting nee Monitoring future oomres i dent i e l deeol op teat_ in_ the Downtown Area as follows: i 7 ..: 2 7 5/15/86 MOTION CONTINUED Urban Design Policy 68: Limit nonresidential dove topment in the Downtown area to ten percent (350,000 square. feet of floor area) above the amount of development existing or approved in May, 1986. Urban Design Policy 6C; Re-evaluate growth regulations for nonresidential development in the Downtown area when develop- ment approvals reach two-thirds (235,000 square feet of floor area) of the ten percent growth limit for nonresidential development. (Text) Policies limiting nonresidential development. in the Downtown Area are necessary to minimize traffic and parking problems resulting from new growth. They are also necessary to assure that the Downtown area retains its special character offering the community, on a human scale, a blend of retail activities, eating and drinking establishments, business ser- vices, professional and financial services and residential neighborhoods. Planning Commission re-evaluation of Downtown growth regulations will occur when development approved after May 1986 reas:hes 235,000 squar feet of floor area. Monitorihe of Doemtewn development will be undertaken by City staff. staff. Reports on the level of development activity will be agendized for Planning Commission review, and will be sent to the City Council, on a semi-annual basis. Councilmember Bechtel said Palo Alto residents wanted to slow down growth, and she was pleased the recommendation included a semi- annual monitoring to be reported back to Council. Council needed to stress monitoring of the impacts. Mayor Cobb wanted to monitor the impacts of all Council actions `regarding the entire Downtown. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Cobb, to revise the text of growth Item 1 after "...Monitoring of Downtown development will be undertaken by City staff.' Reports on the level of development activity, vacanc rate in terms of round floor reai,I. sales tax reveeues, and cost of ' s itce "for retail vs nesset service businesses and offi-c�e use-� w �: be. a idized or nn a !rs a fig o on rev ew as w 1 e -- sent ' ' o P t e. City Council on a .semi-annual basis. Vice Mayor Woolley asked whether it was reasonable to report on the cost of space for retail businesses, service businesses and office use. Mr. Schreiber said people could be asked about the going or anti- cipated rate for a particular space; however, it was hard enough to determine rent in terms of what else was charged to the tenant outside of the base rent, what type of deals were made regarding improvements and forgiveness of rent, or renewal clauses. He was not sure being told the cost of space was enough to do any real analysis. Mayor Cobb said real estate companies regularly published data on the average cost of space in different communities; therefore, the data .was generally available:. although subject to live interpreta- tion. An alternative might be to monitor the assessed valuations of properties. Mr. Schreiber recently attended a meeting where a local economist spoke regarding economic .trends. Substantial. differences were noted between actual and .published rents based on different deals worked out to lease space. Mayor Cobb asked if it was easier vo monitor assessed valuations. 5/15/86 Mr. Schreiber said no because of lag time and the impacts of Proposition 13. Mayor Cobb recognized the numbers varied but they were easy to obtain. Mr. Schreiber said it might help to elaborate on the objective to be achieved by 'collecting the data. Mayor Cobb believed the items were easy to measure and would tell a lot in terms of the Downtown vitality. If sales tax revenues dipped markedly, it was important for the City's budget and the Downtown vitality. Vacancy rates said a lot especially if broken down in terms of retail, service, and office uses. 1.1 the data showed more space going to office use and less to retail because of market. prices, Council would know its programs were not working as hoped. The cost of space would determine whether small opera- tors were being priced out of thearea. if ground floor space on University Avenue wenteup, he wanted to know. Mr. Zimmerman asked whether Council wanted the reports for retail businesses, services business and office uses for the entire CD zone or just the OF area. In his discussions with realtors and developers, rents varied not only accordinu to location but also according to function. Mayor Cobb was not looking .:for precision., He wanted general information he could use to roughly calibrate the impacts of Council decisions. Councilmember Levy believed there were no rents for vacant buildings so the information would represent dreams of the prop- erty owner or fears of the potential renter. Councilmember Bechtel concurred with Mayor Cobb. She supported the general conceuts With tha staff idea would return with exactly v what Council wanted. Staff was outstanding and sometimes worked harder than necessary.. She did not want staff to ascertain every nuance but rather to return with a general planof what to do. Councilmember Renzel agreed with Councilmember. Levy in terms. of rents on vacant space but believed when Council set zoning it would be unable to determine what the market would do with rents. Rents were determined by people`.s business choices. She.did not believe the cost of space would produce any relevance. It implied if the cost of space went up or down, Council might take action to respond but it was unclear whether it would be appropriate or whether Council would knowwhat to do. It interfered with market processes which dealt independently of Council actions. Sales tax revenues and vacancy rates would have some impact on whether the Downtown was headed toward a slide, but she did not believe the cost of space would tell anything Council could or should do some- thing about. She requested cost of space be pulled out and voted on separately.. . Councilmember Patitucci referred to noninterference with the marketplace and said Council interferred with the marketplace by prohibiting construction. It was simple to monitor rents and determine whether Council was pricing . certain uses out of ' the Downtown area. It was a fundamental issue to those who said stop growth and retain current uses or return to what used to be. It was appropriate, necessary,.,�and simple for Council to ascertain the cost of space. Vice Mayor Woolley referred to sale tax revenues and said Mr., Northrup advised it would require eight to ten hours of staff time per report, which she believed was well worth the information to be obtained. Vacancy rates neededto be determined anyway for the (aF area and she was willing to leave it to staff to determine whether to go beyond. Council - needed to balance the cost of the staff time against the value of the information received. As long as the actual iifechatiics in terms of how i fit' the report, we'll end what areas it covered were left up to staff, she was comtortable. She wanted to ensure staff knew Council did not want them to yo to extraordinary efforts. Councilmember Fletcher preferred not to monitor the cost of space but rather the actual rented space. She would not support moni- toring the cost of vacant space. Councilmember Sutorius concurred with the sense of the motion. It was important to trt.ck the reasons and consequences of actions taken. The regulator;; processes would have many economic impacts and Council needed to be aware of them in order to take appropri- ate - action based on what was learned. He supported the amendment as proposed. Councilmember Renzel said the thrust of Council's efforts in the rezoning process was to address legitimate planning concerns in terms of traffic, parking and the general size and scale of the Downtown. There were clearly economic and marketplace impacts but Council's actions should be directed at legitimate planning con- cerns and not at trying to maintain, some baseline rent or other marketplace factor. Council knew tits actions would have some impact in the real estate market Downtown and clearly some plan- ning considerations would be affected. Staff pointed out the dif- ficulties with obtaining anything meaningful out of the cost of space. She did not support the cost of space aspect but supported the other monitoring aspect. Councilmember Patitucci said Council could not ignore the economic effects of "good planning actions." It was not good planning to institute a .4 or .1 FAR, ignore it for two years and find the economic system had a totally opposite effect in terms of retaining existing services. Retention occurred 'based on the dollar cost of space and the cost of space went up if there was a demand. Council needed to understand the impacts and monitor what happened to costs and what kinds of services could afford to pay the rents and stay in Palo Alto. He saw no separation between good planning and economic impact. Council needed the informa- tion. That was the biggest deficit in the material before the Council --no one could say what would happen. He urged Council request the information. Councilmember Fletcher did not believe staff or Council had the expertise to analyze -what business could afford what rents. She believed Council would.get the useful information by monitoring sales tax,.: FIST PART OF AMENDMENT RE6ALDIN6 LEVEL OF VACANCY RATES FOR GROUND FLOOR RETAIL 'AND SALES TAX REVENUES FOR RETAIL BUSINESSES, SERVICE BUSINESSES AND OFFICE USE PASSED 'unanimously, Klein absent. SECOND CART OF AMENDMENT TO MONIVOR THE COST GF SPACE PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Renzel, Fletcher, Levy voting i "ae, ` Klein absent. AMENDMENT: Counci lme :bar. $ etories moved, seconded by Cobh, to amend the "Text" of the Urban Design Policy to revise the following sentence to read: `Planning Coe.siss;l,a re -evaluative of Downtown growth regulations will occur When deie l opeeat apprvvad =LItufe=1=11=1111=Wieer rt teat cif fleet area or five rs ar ter, • Councilmember Renzel believed Council looked at a seven-year time frame and if Council expected development to occur in a regu- lar pattern pattern the Council should expect to review it' in more than five years rather than _ three years. 7 2 3 0 5e15/86 RAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO CHANGE "THREE" YEARS TO "FIVE* YEARS. Councilmember Levy was seetitive to the workload Council put on staff. Studies should not be assigned without specific reasons. The key elements were density and space, not passage of time. He believed the Planning Commission recommendation was appropriate and should not be changed. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission recommendation regarding re-evaluation indicated two-thirds of the cap -was the point at which either something was going wrong if it was being reached rapidly or the City was getting close enough to the cap'to where an in-depth review of Downtown growth policies was war- ranted. Regardless of whether the time frame included two, five or ten years, the assignment meant starting down the process which would most likely lead to redoing the Downtown Study. He was concerned about a time limited feature. It was a major under- taking. Planning Commission Chairperson Pat Cullen said one recommenda- tion was for a semi-annual report of the development rate to be agendized for Planning Commission discussion. There would be a monitoring on a semi-annual basis without the need for recon- sideration of the entire package. Councilmember Patitucci clarified to re-evaluate growth regula- tions r the Downtown Study. meant a total review of ���� ..,..... Commissioner Cullen said that would occur only when the, two-thirds level of development was reached. Councilmember Patitucci asked of what value was 'the ten percent requirement. Commissioner Cullen said ten- percent was the- maximum allowable development. If two-thirds of the ten percent was reached in 1995 or 2000, the City would have to decide what to do. Legally, the Planning Commission was advised it would be important to re-evaluate. The level of development would be reported on an ongoing basis in the indentification development studies. The Planning Commission added the intensification studies should be agendized for public discussion on a semi-annual.. basis to provide =en- opportunity every six months for the public to give its thoughts on how development was proceeding and how the intensifi- cation of the various areas of town and particularly Downtown was occurring. Councilmember Patitucci was concerned about redundancy. It seemed with semi-annua reports, Cuuncll could do a cofplete reeevaiva- tion et any' time. He asked about the magic -of -235;000 square feet to force such a re-evaluation if Council 'reviewed it so closely anyway. Commissioner Cullen said it was a trigger point at which to moni- tor and re-examine current regulations. To do it in . three years or five years when the two-thirds was not yet reached was over- kill. Mr. Schreiber did not object to a trigger for re-evaluation ofthe regulations. ' It was appropriate not when the cap was reached but when it was within hailing distance which was the purpose ' of the two-thirds. The basic difference' between re-evaluation' of.. the regulations and `monitoring : Was. the five-year edd,ittone would trigger re-evaluation in five years whichwas a major undertaking. The monitoring might indicate re-evaluation after 100,000 square feet. Councilmember Sutorius agreed the intensification study materials were the kinds of things to be reviewed. He was glad Commissioner Cullen emphasized agendizfng the semi-annual review and the fact it would be the subject of considerable scrutiny. He recognized great hopes for the intensification reports originally designed to address the reviews. He anticipated the revidws' would be timely, and 'he would withdraw the five-year amendment. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN Councilmember Patitucci believed considering each item incre- mentally made it difficult to see the linkage between many of the items. For example, he saw a close relationship between #1, Comprehensive Plan Policies on Growth Limits and Monitoring, and #4, on page 10 of CMR:?79:6, Establishment of 1:1 FAR in CD -C Subdistrict and 0.4:1 FAR in the CD -S` and CD -N Subdistricts. He also saw a relationship between Items 2-12C, and the logical way to proceed seemed to move approval of Items #2, 3, 7a, 7b, 11a, 11b, 12a, 12b and 12c, which had the effect of changing the over- lay zones and downzowi ng. He suggested the foregoing be done in one motion and then items #1 and 4 be taken together and discussed regarding the i nterrel atirnshi p of the cap and FAR. Mayor Cobb clarified the motion on the floor set the cap. Unless there was a difference in terms of what the cap should be, Council should vote. Councilmember Patitucci believed some members of the Council would not vote for the ten percent level of growth if they did not anti- cipate a 1 : 1 FAR. Conversely, some Counci lmember s might not .favor= any growth if it was the standard growth which would occur under a 1 : 1 FAR with no benefits of other criteria applied to develop- ments. He believed items #I and 4 were critical and should be considered together. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Patiioucc1 moved, seconded by Reezel, to include Item #4, Establishment' of 1:1 FAR in CD -C Subd1st rct}; and 0.4:1 FAR in the CD -S and CU -N Subdistricts. Councilmember Levy recognized. the validity of Councilmember Patitucei's comments but would be' much more oriented if Council continued to follow its same process. The initial "shirt -sleeve* discussion helped present the total context, and Council could always go back and review earlier actions. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Renze], Patitucci votiag *aye,* Klein absent. Councilmember Levy referred to the middle of the *text* of the Urban Design Policy, and believed the phrase "residential neigh- borhoods" was misleading. He pref,;ered it read residential *development* rather than "neighberhoads" because they were resi- dential development$ within an area essentially not a residential neig'.borhood but rather a commercial area. Councilmember Renzel believed the surrounding residential neigh- borhood was -truly a residential neighborhood. The fact residen- tial occurred within the Downtown core was not a typical residen- tial neighborhoo1 but it did not eliminate the residential neigh- borhoods. She would not agree to the change. Councilmember Levy did not believe the first sentence in the "text" of the Urban Design Policy was strong enough. It presently read, "Policies limiting nonresidential development in the Downtown Area are necessary: to'minimize traffic 'and parking prob- lems resulting from new growth. He believed the language should read following the word '"necessary," to protect the area from worsening the already severe traffic and parking problems.* Councilmember Renee? and Vice Mayor Woolley would not accept the change. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Patitucci "not partici- pating," Klein absent. MOTION: Councileember Sutorius 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: 2. Rezone Downtown CC Coemunit Commercial District and CS Sergio -Ceuerc1al D Sir ct to a New onwerc a own own D s r ct The Planning Commission recommendation to establish a new CD Commercial Downtown zone district for the commercially zoned parcels in Downtown Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Couscilmember 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: 3. Establishment of CD -C CD -S and CD -N Subdistricts within the CD District Planning Commission recommendation to establish CD -C, CD -S and CD --N subdistricts within the CD district. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Councilmeaber Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, 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: 7. Coaprehenslve Plan and Land Use Nap Changes 7a. Land Use Plan Map Change: *CC Northern Area" From Regyional CoaaunitZ Commercial to Neighborhood ommerciaT* MOTION PASSED unanimously) Klein absent. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be prod 4ed in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: lb. Land Use Plan Nap Change: 'CC and CS Southern Area' From Service Commercial to Ne1gj born+ odd C,00mmmercit!" Planning Commission recommendation to approve Comprehensive P :aan Land Use Map changes for the arms identified in the maps on page 24 and 24a in CMR:232*6 of 4/3/86. Counci lmewber Bechtel would not support items i i2a and #12b and believed the map on 7b might be affected. She wanted to retain the .strip on Alma with Minerva and Morris's Tire/Parking Lot. Mr. Schreiber believed it could be done under 12a. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Ceuscilmember Bechtel; moved, Seconded by Sutorius# that staff be directed to 1nclede is the •rFdlaeaces, resolutions, and other material to be provided is our final review, the following recommendations if the Council: MOTION CONTINUED 11a. Comprehensive. Plan Land Use Map Change: 215-239 High Street (Nigh Street Solar, Project) From Regional Community Commercial to Multiple Family Residential llb. Zone Change: 215-239 Nigh Street. from CC Commercial to RM-3 Multiple Familv Residential Planning Commission recommends above Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zone change for the area identified in the map on page 37 in CMR:232:6 of 4/3/84. Community Councilmember Levy was uncomfortable doing the spot zoning to residential. He asked about the effect of leaving 215-239 High Street within the Community Commercial zone. Mr. Zimmerman said dependent upon the FAR applied if it were left in CD -N, it could become a noncomplying facility which would not allow any expansion. The proposal included a special clause to allow minor, expansion .of the existing facility without any increase in density, recognizing.. the residential facility was built according to CC Community Commercial site development regu- lations. Therefore, the: rezoning as proposed with the special clause, would have some allowance for expansion which might not be true if it were rezoned; to CU -N with a._.4. FAR: Councilmember Levyasked now much expansion would be allowed. Mr. Zimmerman said five percent. The thrust was to allow minor expansions in terms of- porches which might hay..e. a.:;cover trellis but it would not allow expansions in terms of density or into any other types of regulations with regard to setbacks or daylight planes, Counc4lmember Levy asked, whether there would be any other restric- tions on a development if it stayed as commercial. Mr. Zimmerman said not that he was aware of,. Councilmember Levy preferred to leave the parcels as commercial because it made 1,t a more clear map. The actual effect would not change the use of -the property and if the property. owner wanted to make Minor changes, they should be able to seek and secure a Minor variance. For the sake. of better land- use planning overall,- it was better to not make the change. and single out the parcels, Councilmember Bechtel pointed out a recently ,constructed project was equivalent to an RM-34 -- It mademore sens.0 to recognize what was there. and she -did. not see why it would make for a more . clear map, to: not do so. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out the area was already in resi- dential use and surrounded by multi -family zoning. , Councilmember 5utorids- clarified if the prcperty wa`s retained as a CD N, the..adjaoent .t.rue CD -N properties: would have .e slightly. dif- ferent. s,ituatic.n, w<i.th, res-pe.Ct, to of- the -.:various ;parameters ,to which they would need to conform because .of. -the° _intervening_ CD -N bordering properties.- Toi not rezone denied the fact it was brand new residential. He be_lie.ved the rezoning.-was..appropr:iate.. NOTION PASSED by -a vote of 7-1, Levy voting "na,7 Klein a*seat. MOTION: , Coencilaeeber-- Bechtel moved,- seconded by: Cobb, that staff be directed to include in the oreiaamces,, resat tuns, cad other material to.; ee provided in_ err final review„- the forfeiting recoMmendatioes of the Ce iseil: 7 2 3 4 - 5/15/36 MOTION CONTINUED 1 12b. Zone Change: 1019-1027 Alma Street and 112 Addison Avenue from CS Service Commercial to CD -S Approve zone change for the area identified in the map on page 39 in CMR:232:6 of 4/3/86. Councilmember Bechtel was initially persuaded by the Planning Commission, but because the area was strip commercial for -over 40 years, the adjacent properties were and would_be protected by. the 150 foot requirements for properties adjacent to residential, thy were small parcels and it was consistent with the rest of the strip, Council needed to preserve the, small service commercial properties. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Councilmeaber Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommen4atioes of the Council: 12c. Zone Change: Northeast corner of Forest and Alma Planning Commission recommendation as follows: 1. That the Comprehensive . Plea Land Use designation be changed from Regional Community Commercial to Service Commercial; 2. That zoning be changed from CC -Community Commercial to CD -Commercial Downtown; and 3. That the proposed CD -S Subdistrict and Site Development Ares No. I (with a housing FAR of 1.5:1, 25 percent 8MR require- ment, etc.) be appliedto this area. Councilmember Bechtel was concerned about the differences in the overlays of the housing FAR. She asked if Council could vote on 1 and 2 of 12c first. Mr..5chreiber. suggested Council postpone 1 and 2 but include the portion of No. 3 which included the CD -S Subdistrict. MOTION RESTATED TO INCLUDE ONLY ITEM NO. 3 UMW 12c MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Couacilauber Rental moved, seconded by $ecbtcl„ that staff be directed to include in the ordinances: resolutions, and Ober material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Couaci l 4. Establishment of 1:1 FAR in CD -C Subdistrict and 0.4:1 FAR in the CD -S and CD -N Seedi*tricts Planning Commission recommeodatiom to mince the maximum floor area ratio for all development (nonresidential and residential) in the CO -S Subdistrict from the.preseat (CC District) FAR of 3.0.1 to am FAR of 1:1. Reduce the maximum floor area ratio for non- residential development in the Cp-S and CD -N subdistricts from the present (CS i istrict) FAR of 2:1 to an FAR of 0.4:1. Councilmember Renzel agreed with the conclusions of the Planning Commission and Downtown Study Committee°. FARs would see the Downtown allocation used -up 444ickly ' by larger developments. Even at an FAR of 1.5 at ,the' corner -of Waverley and -Hamilton was too massive. The citizens preferred --a- smaller scale, development and one way todo it was to establish a fairly low : FAR. She was �/ 58 not so concerned the City would end up with little boxes because she believed the architects would wart to be creative and wo'_ild look at different ways to use the space. The recommendation allowed for plenty of renovation of existing structures which exceeded the FAR and there were other mechanisms for helping with historic and seismic buildings. It was a reasonable proposal. Councilmember Levy fundamentally concurred with Councilmember Renzel but wrestled with. whether to go slightly above the 1.0 to a figure not to exceed 1.25 in order to do some of the fine tuning other Councilmembers mentioned. He would approve the 10 as the basic maximum and would go on to approve an FAR of up to 1.25\ if it carried an incentive for developments which provided public benefits. He did not see it as a "beauty contest" where proper- ties competed for a given amount of FAR, but rather there would be standards set up by the Council and if those standards of public benefit were met, Council would permit the slightly higher FAR. ANEVDME$T: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Patitucci, to include the following language at the end of the first sentence, "Permit an FAR of 1.25 as an incentive for developments which pro- vide public benefits from among a listing to be determined by Council." Council request staff to advise Council regarding the establishment of a list of applicable public benefits and adoption of appropriate standards. Public benefits should include, but not be limited to, public oriented open space and art in public places.* Councilmember Levy said Council should not detail what public benefits should be but should request staff consult with the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board (ARf3_) and Visual Arts Jury to do so. He considered architecture and art as public benefits and other Councilmembers might have different elements such as child care. Councilmember Patitucci seconded the amendment for purposes of discussion but did not totally support the specifics. Council needed to make better use of the ten percent cap. He did not know whether a .25 FAR would create sufficient incentive for someone to go through an alternate process to a 1:1 eFAR project. He and Councilmember Sutorius met with City staff to discuss methods to allow for more public benefit from the last ten percent. It was not as easy as a one sentence proposal because it raised such questions as the application procedure for projects which might have the incentive and the criteria to be applied in approving those, projectss Section 6, on page 11 of CMR:279:6, referred to Growth Incentives and Exceptions. Section 6a referred to handicapped and building code improvements; 6b was seismic; 6c was historic; and 6d was minor expansions of nonhistoric. He proposed a new Section 6e which would set aside part of the cap in two categories. The first would reserve 75,000 of the 350,000 square feet for historic, seismic, handicapped and minor expansions. It could include additions to the parking supply, improvements, increased vitality and variety in the commercial Downtown, and retaining some of the historical uses of facilities even though they might not fall in the historical, etc. He suggested a committee to report to the Council in six months with specific. criteria to apply to approval of such developments and specific trade offs allowed to meet the criteria one of which would be FAR. The criteria would then be accepted a s the definition of public purpose for projects to be approved basically through the PC process. He proposed the committee be comprised of members of the publics ARS, Visual-. Arts =Jury,- local design/architecture professionals, and public members, have a minimum budget assigned, and six months to. return. The process was an appropriate alternative to Councilmember Levy's after Council 'approved the 1:1 FAR as- an incentive:exception rather than as part of the FAR. Councilmember Bechtel said Councilmember Patitucci's concept helped; and if Council desired, it should stick with a 1:1 FAR. If Councilmember Patitucci's motion failed later, there could be a push for reconsideration of Councilmember Levy's motion. She was attracted to the ideas of public benefits but she was concerned about the procedural dangers of how to avoid the "beauty contest" problems, who determined the criteria and whether someone with more money could hire someone who drew better pictures was being given an unfair advantage in terms of who received approvals. She was riot ready to support Councilmember Levy's proposal. Councilmember Renzel asked whether the PC ordinance permitted going beyond the site development regulations if someone made application for a project with a 1.25 FAR and significant ameni- ties. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Councilmember Renzel said if Council wanted to achieve certain amenities through a PC, it was possible regardless of whether Councilmember Patitucci's motion went forward. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel said in order to achieve stability in the Downtown marketplace it was important to have one FAR and have zoning criteria determined. If people found it economic to offer trade offs in their projects, the. PC ordinance provided the. opportunity to do so. The value of urban design work and identifying amenities Council wanted to achieve was not negated but it was better to adopt the FAR as recommended by the Planning Commission and look at particular amenities through the PC process. Mayor Ccbb said Mr. Zimmerman suggested under Category 6e, Council could consider' Councilmember Levy's amendment, Councilmember Patitucci's suggestion or any combination. He urged Councilmember Levy withdraw his amendment for consideration with Item 6, since it was an exception to a 1:1 FAR. ANIMM*$T WITHDRAWN Councilmember Levy referred to the CD -S and CD --N FAR of .4:1, and asked if the FAR was sufficient to retain the service businesses. Mr. Schreiber s id the basis of the .4 .FAR related to the amount of on -site development in the area and the amount to be achieved without extensive .underground pa'kking. It did not address the economics of retention or loss of the existing service businesses. Staff did not have the necessary expert..jse or information base to decide on the question. Councilmember Levy said .4:1 FAR reflected many of the uses to which the area was presently being put. Mr. Schreiber said yes. The intent wasto reduce the zoning to a level which did not generally allow a substantial gain in square footage through redevelopment and hopefully facilitate the reten- tion of the service commercial businesses. Staff could not project what would happen economically. Councilmember Levy recognized a major ° change was reflected in the present.. zoning and in the use Council saw in the future build -out. Of the Downtown area. It was a dramatic change which took a long time to a►rrive, but the community was unanimous. The residential side of Palo. Alto' and many business people recognized the value in not letting the community get overloaded. He sa.k4Orted the thrust of the motion. Mayor Cobb did business throughout the .County and if he expected to do business in San Jose, he needed to leave at 2:30 p.m. or do 7 2 3 7 5/15/86 As corrected 6/16/86 it che next day. Build -out went to far in the south part of the County and the task force to restrict growth took too long. Palo Alto needed to stop or people would need to leave Palo Alto at 2:30'p.m. to get out of town. He hoped Council could yet ahead of the problem as opposed to reacting in the middle. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, that staff he directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the. Council: 9. Grandfather Clauses. Existing Uses in CD -District Planning Commission recommendation to permit continuation of existing conforming commercial uses in the Downtown CS and CC districts that would otherwise become nonconforming because of rezoning to the new Downtown CO district and the CD -C, .CD -N and CD -S subdistricts or because of the application of the GF com- bining district. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, that staff be directed to include is the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our . final reviews- the following recommendations of the Council 10. Grandfather Clauses: Existin Structures in CD District Pleasing Commission recommendation to permit continuation, remodeling, improvement and replacement, of noncoepiyisg structures within the new CD district provided stich remodeling,. improvement or replacement did not change the present size _ a..ad. configuration of the noncomplying structure. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. NOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzet, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the fallowing recommendations of the Council: 5. Nonresidential Pro iect Size Limits Planning Commission recommendation . to: establishmaximum project size limits for nonresidential development or the nonresidential component or mixed use projects in. the CD district of either: a) 25,000 square feet of floor area provided the floor area ratio is not exceeded; or b) ;.15,000 square feet of floor area: above; the .existing amount of floor area, whichever is greater, provided, the floor area ratio is not exceeded. Councilmember Sutorius asked whether Item #5 should be _discussed with Item #6, Growth Incentives and Exceptions. Mr. Zimmerman said not necessarily. Council could add exceptions to FAR and project . sire limits could -be .done under Item #6. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Councilmember 'teazel moved, seconded by Bechtel, that staff he 'directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our finial review, the following recommendations of the Connell: MOTION CONTINUED 19. Parcel Merger and Lot Sjiits Planning Commission recommendation to direct staff to study pos- sible restrictions on parcel , . mergers, lot s.p.l.itsi and establishment of minimum lot sizes in the new CD district. Councilmember Fletcher was concerned about mergers and lot splits pending final resolution of. the. Study. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved to include staff be directed td return an ordinance. to Council anstitutlag a mora- torium on lot splits and mergers pending staff and Planning Commission action. r AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember ,Sutorius believed there. might again be.. pertinent discussion under Item #6, Growth Incentives and £xceptifons.= 'MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent.. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:3U p.m. TO 9:95 p.m. MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Councilmember Renzel moved, se.conded by Fletcher, to reconsider Item .#19, Parcel mergers sad lot splits. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Pititucci, Woolley voting "no," Klein absent. Councilmember : Renzel understood -the present moratorium on lot splits . and mergers expired with .the other moratoria on . the Downtown Study and it might take. a while for the matter to yet back to the Council. Mr. Schreiber said Councilmember Renzel was correct. The mora- torium would expire September .3O, 1986. MOTION.: Council -member Renzel moved., -seconded by Fletcher,. that staff be _directed to include in :the ordinances, resolutions, and other wet el to he provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the 19. . Parcel Merges avo4 1.ot Splits = 1. - To direct . -staff to study possible restriction on panel s,, lot splits and establishment of minims* lot sizes in ti new CD Districts 2. Staff also to return with an ordinance instituting a mora- torium. en lot splits and pert pending staff end Planning Commission action. Councilmember Renzel did not object to mergers or splits which diminished the ability to redevelop in places where there was =marking on a separate lot from a building where it might be appro- iate to diminish the amount of development. She urged support. Councilmember Fletcher believed many of the Downtown development concerns resulted from lot splits and mergers. The subjectwas an integral part of the study focus and she didnot want the results to be undermined by unanticipated consequences of Council allowing something to happen before the study was completed, Councilmember Levy did not approve of moratoria without- a specific impending crisis situation. He failed tosee a crisis with the 7. 2 3 9 5/15/86 overbuilding and vacancies and with Council's -other limitations imposed on the study, he was c_orzfident the problem would be weil in hand without the need for a moratorium. Mayor Cobb agreed with Councilmeinber Levy. He believed- the 1:1 FAR was essentially a moratorium for the near term. Exception procedures might change it, but he did not believe there would be much development until the economic system returned to balance with the values created by the lower FAR. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. SECOND PART'OF MOTION TO PREPARE MORATORIUM ORDINANCE FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Renzel, Bechtel, Fletcher voting "aye," Klein absent. MOTION: Couecilmember Renzel moved, seconded by ,Woolley, 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 Coenctl: 6. Growth Incentives and Exceptions 6a. Exceptions for Building Code, Title 24 - Handicapped Iaprovewents Planning Commission recommendation to exempt fro* new floor area 'vatic limits added floor area necessary for Title 24 "handicapped improvements." MOTION PASSED wnanimously, Klein absent. MOTION; Couacileewber Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, that staff be directed to include In the ordinances, resolutions, and Other.m<aterial to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council; sb, Seismic Incentives Planning Commi st i om -recommendation to permit for buildings in Seismic Categories I, II, IIIe one expansion per site aim the new FAR !to a maximum Of twenty-five (25) percent aboOlk the existing .amoumt of floor area Or 2,000 square feet of flee# roft,- whichever is less, when such a Structure is granted a permit for seismic upgrandlsg. The .expansion would apply wirer -. - a, building's FAR with the iliceative exceeds 3:1 s the CD-C.and 2:1 in the CD -S. Councimember Sutorius said property owners were concerned ebout. the economic impacts of the ir estigation and upgrading to con- form. Under the present incentives, the financial impacts on the smaller building were not given enough consideration. If Council reviewed the buildings in Categories i, Ii and III throughout the entire Downtown Study area, about 53 buildings were affected and three were already above either the 3:1 FAR or the 21 FAR which would be the cap to which the category applied. It left ;38 buildings in the old CC zone and 11 in the old CS zone dra- matically effected by the seismic ordinance. Some of the auildings were also in historic ceitegories.. AMENDMENT:- CouscI lamer Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley, the incentive be changed to reed '...25 percent or .2.509 square feat of floor areal, whichever is Amviitt.* Councleember Sutorius clarified in no event would the amendment allow the previously existing 3:1 -or- 2:1 . FAR to 'expand. Currently, a 5,000 square foot lot only allowed a 1,250 square foot iupruvement because 25 percent was less than the 2,000 square foot maximum as presently stated. Reversed to say 2,600 square feet or 25 percent whichever was greater, provided an opportunity for an upgrade including an incentive allowance of 2,500 square feet. A 20,000 square foot lot in the present situation would only get a 2,000 square foot growth factor because it was the lesser amount of the present equation. As a percent of the existing building, the larger building with its attendant high costs got a fractional percentage of existing building value back by way of incentives. By reversing, a 20,000 square foot lot would yet a 5,00U square foot incentive. If Council was concerned about providing support for upgrades and for the retention of buildings, the change was important. He and Councilmember Patitucci tended to establish, within the.350,000 square foot cap_, two types of reserve allocations. One would be for amenities and the other would be for the sum of all of the historic, seismic, handicapped and wriggle room. Mr. Zimmerman; said implicit within the exception as proposed by the Planning Commission or as he understood the amendment, the total expansion would fall within both the project size limits and would be counted within the cap. Mayor Cobb clarified if the amendment passed, ever extra square footage would count against the 350,000 square foot cap. Mr. Zimmerman said yes. Councilmember Sutorius referred to the last sentence. in Item 6b, "The expansion would not apply where a building's FAR with the incentive exceeds 3:1 in the CD -C and 2:1 in the 'CD -S," and said it read accurately for what was meant, but he knew of occasiuns where there were different interpretations. It was important to understand one could not increase a building's FAR above the 3:1 or above the 2:1 FAR. If a building had a 2.75:1 FAR and a 3,000 square foot seismic allowance, the entire seismic allowance could not be exercised because it topped out at 3:0. Similar cases would be in the old CS zone which 2:1 applied. Mayor Cobb believed it might be clearer to change the word "with" to "including." He suggested staff coup do it if necessary.. Councilmember Fle ;her said since the buildings would be exempt from supplying parking, she asked about the impacts on the parking deficit. Councilmember Sutorius opined the crucial factor was . whether Council wanted to preserve the present businesses which occupied the buildings. Dramatic testimony spoke to the impacts of; the seismic rehabilitations considering the .number of buildings and their value to the fabric Council 'was trying to protect. It was fundamental to inspire upgrade rather than sale and demolition. Councilmember Fletcher wanted Council to tread carefully on increasing the potential build -out because no one knew to what extent tore buildings needed to . be upgraded for seismic purposes. She preferred a hardship situation where Council could. offer bonuses in terms of added development rights rather than providing blanket approval. Councilmember Renzel believed the Planning Commission incentives anticipated about 425 spaces would be needed. . The present seismic ordinance required an evaluation within a certain time frame but there was no requirement for any , seismic changes. Until mandatory repair was required, no one would automatically be pu,t,under a seismic' hardship other than for the study. Mr. Schreiber said in the situation where a property :owner received engineering data which indicated a" problem, an objective of the Seismic Program was to make difficult either for insurance or other reasons to not do something. The objective was to achieve a level of discomfort without a requirement, and there would be situations where property owners would feel a necessity to do something abort their property whether it be demolition or repair. Councilmember kenzel clarified the one-time expansion was allowed_ in the seismic categories without regard to whether it was really updated seismically. Mr. Schreiber said the phrase "when such a structure is granted a permit for seismic upgrading," was intended to mean seismic upgrading under the regulations adopted by Council. Councilmember nenzei believed there would be varying degrees of need in terms of seismic upgrading. She agreed with Councilmember Fletcher a n9minal amount of incentive was appropriate and as Council gained experience with the seismic reports, it would have a better idea about whether greater incentives were needed to accomplish its goals. It was more appropriate to wait. Everyone. would get the same incentive whether they added a few bolts to the foundation or did a major upgrade. Councilmember Bechtel agreed with Councilmember kenzel in terms of to what extent something counted ds a seismic upgrade and how it fit under the ordinance. She was torn because she wanted to see buildings voluntarily upgraded without being totally demolished. She was concerned a major rehabilitation often displaced the existing tenant depending on how major the upgrade and the ser- vices might be lost in the interim. The maximum square foot increase could be_ -25,000 of floor area provided the ratio was not exceeded or 15,000 square feet greater than the existing floor area. There could potentially be an incentive as great as 15,000 square feet. If a lot was large enough, an existing building could have the incentive for 15,000 additional square feet and she was concerned about someone bolting down the hot water heaters or foundation and receiving the large upgrade. Ms. Sloan said the scenario pointed out by Councilmember Bechtel was possible but not probable sinde buildings were in Categories I , I I , and III. When a building was 'seismically rehabilitated and expanded, analysis standards were referenced in the seismic ordi- nance, Chapter 16.42 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The drdinance' did not require people to rehabilitate; but tables set out what needed to be done if rehabilitation Were undertaken. It would have to be a fairly major rehabilitation. Councilmember Levy said the question was whether to deal with policy or detail of implementation. In terms of pol iey, he did not see a difference among Council to provide an incentive to the seismic: improvements while keeping in perspective all of the objectives for the Downtown area. The question was whether to go with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The changes 'were 'sigeificant in that a 4,000 'square foot ,building under the Planning Commission recommendation could add 1,000 square feet. The proposal allowed for 2,500 square feet which was more than double. A 16,000 square foot building allowed 2,000 square feet under, the 'Planning Commission recommendation and the proposal allowed 4,000 square feet. Council would see a'significant amount of square footage because of the change which would throw the other elements of the plan into a different balance. : He was unprepared to change implementation significantly and was more comfortable with the examination -given in the Planning Commission and Staff recommendation. :Mr. Schre ber said .he and- Co iss� oner Cullen characterized 'the numbers ..4s hastily arrived without any in depth analysis by ° staff in -terms of whether the appropriate number was 2,000, 2,500 or the 25 percent. Most of the properties for which "the -exemption was 7 2 4 2 5/15/86. available were less than 10,000 square foot buildings. Relatively few buildings had more than 10,000 square feet and the difference between the Planning Commission and Councilmember Sutorius' amend- ment was relatively small in terms of square footage. The difference for an 8,000 square foot building was 500 square feet. Mr. Fairchild said assuming a change to "whichever was greater," and assuming all of the 37 parcels got 2,500 square feet, it created a change from 53,500 square feet to 92,500 square feet. For the on -site parking requirement, it created an unmet increase to 377 parking spaces or 156 spaces. Counclimember Sutorius clarified they, were discussing costs involved with rehabilitation not the sizable costs involved in the analysis. Each property owner was required to have the detailed analysis conducted at his or her own expense and there was no reimbursement schedule. There were sizable dollar impacts and the concerns should be what the property owner would decide. He believed those who worked in the seismic area understood the costs and what a difficult decision it would be for a building owner. He and Councilmember Patitucci intended to have an allocation within the cap so they were not talking about additional square footage beyond the cap. Mayor Cobb said the process was difficult and expensive. Mr. Kiages referred to the store which housed Widemarn's and the dif- ficult decision he would face if he had to do the seismic remodeling and the possible loss of the business because the costs would be so prohibitive. Other people said the incentives as presented were not incentives because there were too small to reimburse for the costs referred to by Councilmember Sutorius not to wenti.on the cost of having people out of the structure. A big developer used the language "doze it" which was short for "bulldoze it.° He loved Palo Alto's old buildings and it was important for the 350,000 square foot cap to be the lid on development. He was not prepared to go' beyond. How Council arrived at the cap had a lot to do with what got "dozed" and what did not. He supported the amendment. He clarified the last sentence of the motion which referred to a 2:1 FAR in the CD -S should also include the CD -N. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct. A iL . T RESTATED: TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE TO READ !.,.A MAXIMUM OF ANTI'-FI;'" PERCENT...OR 2,500 SQUARE FEET...WHICHEVER IS GREATER.* AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Reazel, Fletcher, Levy voting "no," Klein abse.A. Mayor Cobb referred to the main motion and clarified "and CD -N'% should be included after CD -S. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 5-3, !teazel , Fletcher, Levy voting `Rap" Kleia absent. MOTION: C4nsci 1.enher Woolley moved, seconded by Petiteccl, that stiff bed directed to include is the ordinances, resvl:et i ois, and other material to be prcivided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: 6c. Historic' Incentives Staff recommendation with changes as in 6h (Seismic Incentives) for an i sceet a ve for Downtown buildings in historic Categories l and 2 (which are feat.in seismic Categories I, II er III), whichis similar to the Seismic Incentive recoesteaded, .bar the Plassieg Coal ss i lore (atoms *b _:load 23c in C101:232:6 oir April 3. 19$f ). Specifically, the lefeAtive weeld permit, for buildings' in these historic cetegeriee ape expeaslos per site above -the existing iiibleg MOTION CONTINUED amount of floor area of 2,500 square feet of floor area, whichever is greater, when such a structure is granted a permit for exterior restoration. In addition, staff recommends the following new Urban Design pro- gram in the Comprehensive Plan requiring a finding that additions would'\ not compromise the character of an historic building's exterior. Urban Design Program 10b: Expansions. of Downtown buildings in historic Categories 1 and 2 should require findings during the design review process that the character of such building exte- riors would not be compromised by the expansions. Mayor Cobb clarified the motion was the staff recommendation modi- fied to read, "...a maximum percent...or 2,500 square feet...whichever is greater..." Councilmember Fletcher said there already were incentives and if the motion passed in addition to the one just passed, the incre- mental impact on the parking deficit would get to be enormous and it was not planned for.. Council dealt with the parking issue the previous evening and it would all need to be revised. Councilmember Renzel agreed. In the previous action, Council added.. 156 spaces, 13 block faces or three square blocks with parking all the way around to the parking. deficit. The parking discussion determined that some 14 square blocks would be filled with parking all the way a sound with unmet deficits. The problem was serious and would get worse with increased incentives. Vice Mayor Woolley said staff added the Urban Design Program 10b because the Historic Resources Board (HRB) was concerned with the 6auie points made by Councilmember Renzel. Under the Urban Design Program lob, expansion to the Downtown buildings in Historic Categories 1 and 2 would require findings during the design review process that the character of such building exteriors would not be compromised by the expansions. . She emphasized it was a great concern if the hRB planned to work with the M B in reviewing expansions of the historic buildings.. Councilmember Levy asked how much square footage was at issue with historic buildings in Categories l and 2 which were not part of the Seismic Categories I,. II or III, and how many buildings. Planner Steve Olsen said it was an increment of about 21,000 square feet. Eight buildings were nonseismic. Councilmember Levy clarified all eight buildings were under 8,000 or. 10,000 square feet since they totaled 21.,000 square feet all together. Mr. Olsen said the 21,000 square feet was the increment above what would be allowed under the 1:1 and .4:1 FAR. Councilmember Bechtel supported the previous action because she was motivated to seismically upgrade some of the buildings. She also wanted to preserve the historic buildings and believed there were some overlaps. She was unwilling to increase the parking deficit or make the motivation so it would increase the parking deficit to an even greater extent. She could not support the motion as written. 7 2 4 4- 5/15/86 corrected 6/16/86 Coenciliiember Levy asked about the difference between the Planning Commission recommended allowance and if Council revised it as set forth in the motion. Mr. Zimmerman said there would be approximately 4,000 additional square feet of at build -out value. Mayor Cobb clarified 4,000 square feet was the incremental effect of the difference in language. Councilmember Levy clarified instead of each building out '2,000 square feet, they would build out 2,500 square feet. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct. Councilmember Levy said for the sake of consistency. between Seismic and Historic and since the increment was small, he would support the motion. Councilmember Sutorius said in addition to the specific HRB recom- mendation referred to by Vice Mayor Woolley, the ARB not only endorsed the HRB recommendations but requested consideration to allow an increase all of the way up to the FAR awithout a percent- age or a greater or lesser number. The ARB believed it was important and recognized many of the sites would not take advan- tage because anything which did damage to the facade situation was inappropriate. Councilmember Renzel said there was a difference between the non - seismically' and seismically endangered historic buildings particu- larly where the historic buildings might also exceed a floor area ratio of 1:1 or the other appropriate FARs. There were signifi- Cant incentives to remodel simply because they already did not provide parking and would enjoy a higher FAR than if they redeveloped. She believed there was a significant incentive in place for such buildings and even though it was a small increment, they were talking about another block face of cars. There was a serious problem and every incentive added another block face or two or more cars parked in the neighborhoods. Councilmember Bechtel was convinced by the small amount of dif- ference that it was worth going for. Councilmember Levy asked staff to refigure the 4,000 square ioot incentive before Council voted. ITEMS TO CONSIDER AFTER 10:30 p.m. Mayor Cobb suggested Council adjourn as close to 11:30 p.m. as possible and . ontinue the remainder to the Council meeting of May 19, 1986. Councilmember Bechtel suggested Council deal with the simplest issues and save the thorny issues to Monday, May 19, 1986. Mayor Cobb agreed. Councilmember Renzel believed it would. expedite Council discus- sions if amendments to Planning Commission recommendations were produced in writing and made available to Councilmembers in advance of the meeting. Mayor Cobb agreed. RETURN TO ITEM #6, DOWNTOWN STUDY Mayor Cobb said the vote on the motion would rest on staff's refiguring the .incentive. He asked if staff : wanted some time to work, out the figure. g/is,8g Mr. Zimmerman said ye Mayor Cobb asked Vice Mayor Woolley and Councilmember Patitucci to withdraw their motion on 'ten! - #6c, Historic Incentives. MOTION WITHDRAWN Neighborhood Protection MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius, 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: 15. Existing Special Requirements. in CC,' CS and CM District Regulations Planning Commission recommendation to incorporate special require- ments of CC, CS and CM districts into the respective CD -C. CD -S and CD -N subdistricts. Such special requirements include residen- tial density (for the CD -C subdistrict only), usable open space and daylight planes. 16a. Neighborhood Protection: Height Limit Planning Commission recommendation to restrict the building height within 150 feet of a residential district (including residential Planned Community Zones) to the height limit of the most restric- tive abutting residential district. 16b. NeihborhOud Protection:` Street Setbacks Planning Commission recommendation to restrict the street setback within 150 feet of a residential district (including residential PC) to the street setback of the most restrictive abutting resi- dential district. 44. Guidelines s'or p.e1 hborhood Protection Desi n Cum atibilit Planning Commission recommendation to develop design guidelines (staff and ARS) for commercial strectures in neighborhood transi- tion areas to assure compattbility between such buildings and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Sutorius had no problem with the motion but alerted Council that when it talked about design processes, etc., #44, Guidelines for Neighborhood Protection Design Compatibility, would logically be incorporated in some of the recommendations. He saw no r'easoff to not approve #44. Councilmember Patitucci understood 150 feet w$s standard for transitions and already included in the zoning restrictions. Mr. ZiMmerman said that was correct. Councilmember Levy believed the motion reflected reasonable and good protections. With a 1:1 FAR, a developer could still build to .the maximum allowable within the proposed restrictions and thR result might be more interesting b';ildi'ngs. ' MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. Miscellaneous Mitigations MUTIONI Couacllmsober Fletcher: moved. seCeeded by Bechtel; that stiff be'dtrectedt4 include in 'tine ordinances, reseletiess, and other material to be provided in eur final review, the following receamendat i •as . of the Council: 7 2 4 6 5/15/86 MOTION CONTINUED 38. Air Quality Mitigation: Construction Planning Commission recommendation that no further action be taken at this time. 39. Air Quality Mitigations: Motor Vehicle Cmissions Planning Commission recommendation to not take further actions beyond those identified in the DEILL` ' Actions `identified in the DEIR' include. 1. traffic mitigations fo: impacted intersections; 2. an incentive program to reduce 'drive -alone' trips; and 3. the 'eight -point program"' (revised to "twelve -point program') to use 'parking facilities mom efficiently 40. Noise Mitigations Planning Commission recommendation to direct staff to utilize noise profile reference materials in'- reviewing applicetioas for projects located on major corridors in the Downtown Study area. 41. Solid W-ste Mititatioes` Planning Commission recemmendation to direct Department of Public Works to study and report back oncosts to implement an expanded waste reduction mend recycling pregrai- for the. . area. of the new Down -tome CU district. Counci lmember Levy asked about the meaning of "noise profile reference materials." Mr. Fairchild said the DEIR utilized a noise consultant to do an analysis of major corridors such as Alma Street and Middlefield Road: The DEIR contained reports of measurements the consultant took and also projections of traffic levels and noise. Staff sug- gested the materials be incorporated in the standard design' review process. MOTION PASSED eeaanimously, Klein absent. MOTION: Counci lmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that stiff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other Material to be provided in our final review, the following riotommendations of the Council: 17. Coavnr$iou of Rental Resideo_1al to Commercial Use P sning Commission recommendation to add the following inpreghensive Plan program: Noosing Program OA: In the Downtown area, consider rezoning sites with predominantly multiple family : rental 'wising to multiple family residential zones. (Text) Since mast lower cost housing in Pale Alts... is rental housing, any type of potential displacilints is ,luding' nversioms to commercial uses, would have an espe640l)y adverse imOhAt en the housing supply. Therefore, consideerati shield .:ire=`: given to applying multiple fawiFy residential sons to ce ercially zoned sites having predominantly a !t1p;le: ,fa ily rental bending emits. Counci lme aber Renzel said Council bent over_ backwards, - increased. densities, etc. to generate a few'BMR units which _;did not address the same marketplace as rental units which lowest 1 1 cost housing in Palo Alto. It was important to preserve rental housing. Condominium conversions of rentalrentat hous i ray was not allowed throughout the community and. the motion was consistent with that policy. Councilmember Patitucci recommended Council oppose the motion. He believed it was inappropriate because it. related not to housing, but to a use which was converted to housing for a temporary period. They were talking about a commercial zone and he assumed it applied to hotels currently being used as housing and other such uses which were not designed for housing. He generally. believed if Council wanted housing, it should zone for it and yet proper housing built. To restrict the uses ,because of some his- torical use into the future was also inappropriate. Councilmember Bechtel said the "text" indicated "consideration should be given to applying multiple family residential zones to commercially zoned sites having predominantly multiple family rental housing units." She believed they were talking about the President Hotel eel two buildings on Forests and she did not believe Council wa1ited an overlay housing zone. Councilmember Fletcher believed the motion applied where there was a residential use. She did not know of any situation where com- mercial use changed to residential unless it was residential in the first place. Many residential structures were converted to commercial because they were in a commercial zone. She believed the motiort.recognized existing uses and ensured they stayed. Councilmember Levy associated himself with the comments of Councilmember Bechtel. It was improper to none something residen- tial -on a spot basis because one development happened to have been residential or happened to be converted to residential. On a broader4 scale, he was not enamored with a lot of residential in the Downtown ;;area. Some people wanted to live in the Downtown area, but treditiona]ly most people who lived Downtown did so because of an inability to live elsewhere. It was not conducive to' families with children which was a key element of the Comprehensive Plan. Since Council was addressing the total complexity of the community, it was better to recognize the Downtown area was fundamentally the commercial core of the com- munity and it benefited the community to be healthy and well-defined. Council received complaints from residents who lived in the commercial core and did not understand it. It was true there would continue to be people living in the Downtown but he did not believe Council should, by its zoning process, define it so precisely. Current residential developments could remain. Vice Mayor Woolley asked whether a hotel was considered a commer- cial or residential use. Mr. Schreiber said commercial. Vice Mayor Woolley referred to the President Hotel and believed they were talking about a historically commercial use which became residential and now Council was saying it -needed to stay residen- tial. The only other building was the Laning Chateau on the corner of Forest and Ullman which happened to be a Category 2 historic building. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct. Vice Mayor Woolley agreed with Councilmember Councilmember Renzel believed housing was not for families *multi -family" really meant competed in the same market individuals competed for the priate for ffui l 1 es because Levy. it was stretching -it to _.say because it was not multi -family. The term multi -unit housing ; and • families with* individuals. To the extent housing which might be more appro- it was not available in the more 7 2 4 8 5/15/86 urban contexts was a problem for families. She believed IL Was clear everyone was in the same competitive market and they knew from experience it was a competitive market with few vacancies and high rents. Rentals were still cheaper than purchase which required a big downpayment and a lot of income to support loans. etc. Palo Alto''; multi -family housing was precious and should be protected. Council recognized the two examples were major buildings and if they were to convert to offices, which they could do under the zones, they would generate a fair amount of traffic, more employees and more problems than was seen with multi -family. She believed it was legitimately related to Council's objectives for Downtown to preserve the buildings as multi -family and to avoid the problems if they were converted to high-rise office buildings. She asked about environmental impacts if the buildings were converted to office buildings. Mr. Olsen said staff did not make the assessment. If the buildings were converted to commercial u`se, there would be a large amount of new par.i y_and traffic demand. Commissioner Cullen pointed out the item was a referral from the Council to the Commission with a request to consider a means of retaining those structures currently used for residential purposes and existing in the commercial zone. The Commission studied a couple of ways to do it and found rezoning to be the only appro- priate wee. Councilmember Patitucci believed Vice Mayor Woolley made the point it applied to two buildings which were basically hotels. If Council's objective was to reduce office space, it should deal with it. If the objective was to try and keep people in hotel - type housing, Council should oppose the motion. Councilmember Fletcher said commercial uses also included offices, which was likely to be the highest and best use. Mayor Cobb clarified Council could enact separate legislation to deal with the parking issues to pretty much prohibit conversion if Council wanted to deal with a potential conversion to office space. Mr. Zimmerman said it was already in place. NOTION FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Reazel , Fletcher voting "aye," Klein absent. NOTION: Councilmember Levy .eved, seconded by Fletcher, that staff be directed to ' AW ede in the ordi aawces, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: 1$. pilaf Care Planning Commission recommendation to direct staff to consider appropriate child -case iece thus in the City-wide Land Use and Tran;pertation Study. Councilmember Petitucci did not s how Child Care related`to Land Use and Transportation Study. Mr. Zimmerman said when child care Was originally discussed by the Downtown Study Committee, it was discussed in the context of con- sidering FAR bonuses for the provision of child care. The Planning Commissfon could not arrive at any resolution with regard to Downtown Study recommendations, and referred it to be included as a sub -issue within the City-wide Land Use and Transportation Study. Childcare was also being considered in various forms with the new Child Care Task Force. 7 2 4 9 5/15/86 Assistant City Manager June Fleming said the Child Care Task Force was looking at the issue of a long-term approach to providing child care associated with development. Councilmember Patitucci was concerned about all of the directions to staff and preferred to save some staff energy for the things of primary importance to land use planning. Child care seemed to have a lot of energy already aimed at employer participation which Council endorsed. It seemed redundant and he hoped Council agreed and did not support the motion. Vice Mayor Woolley agreed. Councilmember Sutorius believed the Child Care Task Force was a good committee and well started. He would not support the motion. Mayor Cobb agreed. Councilmember Fletcher agreed in terms of the Task Force but believed it would be well for the Land Use Transportation Study consultant to work along with the Child Care Task Force on the issue. Councilmember Levy would not support the motion because child care was taken out of the Downtown Study by the referral to the City-wide Land Use and Transportation Study. He would leave the issue as outside the Downtown Study. Councilmember Menzel believed Councilmember Patitucci made a persuasive argument. When Council received a report back from the Child Care Task Force, it could refer its recommendations or selected recommendations to staff and the Planning Commission for consideration in conjunction with the Land Use and Transportation Study. Councilmember Fletcher asked why child care was included in the report. Commissioner Cullen said child care was not included in the Planning Commission minutes and she believed there might have been some misunderstanding about a discussion. The Commission voted not to make child care an incentive as part of the Downtown Study. She withdrew child care as a Planning Commission recommendation. MOTIObi WITHDRAWN MOTION: Cauoci laember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, that staff be directed to include is the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recd.aeadati ons of the Council 29. aliga Guidelines for Driveways Crossirrk Sidewalks_ Planning Commission recommendation to direct staff and the Architectural Review Board to develop driveway design guidelines addressing the following. two concerns: assurances that driveways crossing sidewalks is commercial districts provide existieg vehicles sufficient visibility so they do not block sidewalks, and assurances that location of entrances to off-street parking in the "P" District balances the following goals: 1. esheecement of the pedestrian environment along major streets; 2. 'prralatioL of traffic safety; and 3. protetten of adjoining neighborhood side Streets 7 -2 5 0 5/15/86 Councilmember Sutorius anticipated more of an omnibus type of referral on the subject of design before Council finished. MOTION PASSED unanimously, fllein absent. Ms. Fleming said if the remainder of Item #6, Downtown Study, was continued to May 19, 1986, Council would immediately pick up with Item #6 and go as far as it wanted and then pick up the agenda di ;tri buted in the Council packets. Councilmember Fletcher said if legally possible, she did not believe it was fair to the public to have to wait the entire eve- ning to yet to the agenda items. She preferred Council deal with the agenda as published. Ms. Fleming said Council could make motions to deal with the agenda as it chose on May 19, 1986, but the Downtown Study was an unfinished business item and was usually considered first. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to continue Item #fi, Downtown Study, to hay 19, 1986, City Council meeting at a time certain ($:3Q p.m.) Councilmember Bechtel would support the motion to continue to a time certain so long as Council got done with the rest of the agenda before 11:00 p.m. Ms. Flemiuy suspected Council could get through the agenda on May 19, 1985 in the first hour. Councilmember Renzel suggested a time certain to begir the Downtown Study. Council should not deal with the controversial portions of the study at a late hour. Ms. Fleming said none of the items on the May 19, 1986 agenda were items which needed to be dealt with that evening. Counci1O.Mber Levy preferred Council handle the agenda the way it was originally stated and withdrew his second. Cauacile.nber Rental seconded motion to continue Councilmember Renzel said the item she put on the agenda was for a response to an agency which needed a response by May 230 Councilmember Fletcher said one of the late items on the agenda was the Dumbarton Bridge Bus.' item which went to the Boar'd' of Supervisors on the morning of May_ 20, 1986. The appeal from a neighborhood would have the ,public attend on the issue and she did not believe it would be fair to cut the matter off in the middle or` ' even postpone it. The item was postponed already and the pro- ject was under construction. It shbuld be dealt with on May 19, 1986, and she preferred the agenda remain as p-irated. MOTION TO CONTINUE , PASSED by 4 vets of M-2, Fletcher* Levy yeti'# •ae°` Klein absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:20 APPROVED: