Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTEs Regular Meeting May 19, 1986 CITY OF PALO ALTO ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 7 2 5 3 Consent Calendar 7 2 5 3 Referral 7'2 5 3 Action 7 2 5 3 Item #1, Travel Services 7 2 5 3 Item #2, Substructural Installation for 210D Stock 7 2 5 3 of Middlefield Road Item #3,. Remodel ing Civic Center Mezzanine 7 2 5 4 - Item #4, Flea] Subdivision Map 496 Wept 7 2 5 4 Charleston Road Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 7 2 5 4 Item #5, Council Subcommittee re City Participating in a History of *Santa Clara County: Harvest of Change" Item 06, Human Relations Commission Recommendations re New Members for Task Force for Disability Awareness Item #7, Resolution Supporting Santa Clara Valley Water District Supervising Cleanup of Underground Fuel Tank Leaks Item #8, Dumbarton Bridge Bus Service Item #9, Proposed Amendment to the Lease with the Golf Course Corporation Item #1U, Appeal of City COuncilmember Ellen Fletcher, et al., re Architectural Review Board and Director of Planning] and Community Environment Decision re 3065 Middlefield Road Recess Item #4-A, Public Hearing: Downtown Study Item #11, Request of Councilmembers Renzel, Fletcher and Bechtel re basin. Plan for San Francisco aay Adjournment: 12:05 a.m. 7 2 8 3- 7 2 5 4 7 2 5 4 7 2 .5 4 7.2 5. 5. i 2 5 8 7 2 6 1 2 6 7 7 2 f 7 7 2 8 1 Regular Meeting May 19, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Klein Mayor Cobb said a Special Study Session re Long -Term Solid Waste was held at 6:15 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. Mayor Cobb announced the need for a Closed Session re City of Palo Alto v. Lazansky, et al., pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Dorothy,. B. Star, Everett Court, Site Coordinator of the Uowntown-North Garden Group, said she and the architectural engineer believed the garden site had been ready for planting for over six weeks. The architectural engineer prepared the garden site before anything else in the park, but the gardeners could not go in. She understood the park would open in August and gardeners would be denied their spring/summer planting. Winter planting was unsuccessful due to muddy soil. She asked whether the gardeners could get in before August in order to plant. Mayor Cobb said staff would follow up with a response to the Garden Group. CQNSLNT CALENDAR NOTION: Couori lneaber Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Consent Calendar. Mayor Cobb not participating in Item #4, Final Subdivision Map, 495 West Charleston Road, due to a conflict of interest. Referral None Action ITEM #1 TRAVEL SERVICES (CMU:271:6) (FIN 9-1) Staff recommends the Mayor be authorized to execute the one-year contract with Leo T. Sides Travel Service. AWARD OF CONTRACT Leo T. Sides ITEM 2 SUBSTRUCTURAL INSTALLATION FOR 2100 BLOCK OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD CMRt2Ii5:6) (UTI :I) Staff recommends the Mayor be authorized to sign the contract with Power Engineering Contractors in the amount of. $15,700, including taxes, and authorize staff to execute change orders up, to $2,500. AWARD OF CONTRACT Power Engineering Contractors, Inc.. CONSENT CALENDAR (Co ptl nucd) • ITEM #3, REMODELING CIVIC CENTER MEZZANINE (CMR:.288:6) (PWK 7-2) Staff recommends the Mayor be authorized to execute a contract with Jack Dymond Company in the amount of $22,491 and staff be authorized to execute change orders of up to $3,UUU. AWAR1P OF CONTRACT Jack Dymond Company ITEM #4L FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP - 496 WEST CHARLESTON ROAD (CMR:286:56) (AA 3-1) Staff recommends the City Council approve the final map. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb "not participating" on Item 4, Final Subdivision Map - 496 West Charleston Road, Klein absent. AGENDA CHANGES; ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS None ITEM #5t. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE RE CITY PARTICIPATION IN A HISTORY OF "-SANTA CLARA COUNTY: HARVEST OF CHANGE" (PRE 3-2) Vice Mayor Woolley referred to her memo of May 13, 1986, and said two other cities signed up orally. Two weeks passed since the Council Subcommittee and the Heritage Commission spoke at the County level, and she now agreed with the recommendation that Palo Alto purchase two pages provided at least six other cities participated. Originally, she believed the purchase should not be conditioned. MOTION: vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt the Council Subcommittee recommendation that Palo Alto purchase two pages with the condition that at least . sir other cities also participate. The $4,000 cost for participating will be expended from the FT 1985-86 City Council budget. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. ITEM #6, HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RE NEW MEMBERS FOR TASK FORCE FOR DISABILITY AWARENESS (COU 5-12-2) Mayor Levy asked whether the item needed to be agendized since the task force members were enpointed by the Mayor. Mr. caner said Councilmember Levy was correct. have been placed in the packet for informational purposes only. No action taken. The item should ITEM #I RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SUPERVISING CLEANUP OF UNDERGROUND FUEL -TANK LEAKS (CMR:27-6-5Y UTI -1 UTI - NOTION: Couacllsomber Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the resolution.. RESOLUTION 6517 entitled *RESOLUTION OF TOE, COUNCIL OF 7707-1911747-7Ro ALTO IN SUPPORT OF SANTA. CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SUPERVIST.06 CLEANUP OF UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK LEAKS NOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. 1 981 ITEM #8, DUMBARTON BRIDGE BUS SERVICE (CMR:282:6) (PLA 4-4) Councilmember Fletcher said the Dumbarton Bridge Bus Service operated under a grant which was about to expire, and the various jurisdictions of transit properties were being asked to share the cost of continuing the service. The County's position was to cut back the service from its current 18 runs a day to only 8, and the County did not want to contribute more than nine percent of the share since only nine percent were County riders. She recommended Council ask the Board of Supervisors to continue the present level of service and fund the service at the rate of 25 percent. NOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to. adopt staff recommendation to endorse the continuation of the DB Line 1n FY 1986-87 and authorize the Mayor to send letters to AC Transit and Santa Clara County Transit District encouraging support and funding for the DB Linn, avid Coucil urge the Santa Clara County Transit District Board to approve the 25 percent funding level and continuation of service at its current level. Councilmember Levy asked how !zany individuals made a round trip. Gayle Likens, Associate Planner, clarified approximately 140 individuals, or 280 passenger trips, made the round trip. Councilmember Levy asked how much passengers contributed to the service and how much was subsidized. Ms. Likens said passengers 'contributed $1.50 one way or $3.00 round-trip. Councilmember Levy asked what percentage the contribution was to the total cost of service. Councilmember Fletcher said fares contributed 17 percent of the total service, which was consideraOy higher than the 11 percent generated by the Santa Clara County Transit. Councilmember Levy clarified the total $300,000 subsidy was for approximately 14U commuters. MS. Likens said that was correct. The $300,000 was also based on the cost of providing the service; however, AC ` i raesit and other supporters expected an increased ridership thereby increasing the °fare box° and decreasing the per passenger subsidy. Councilmember Patitucci said the subject was tied to what corpora- tions did to assist in transit. Varian was particularly success- ful with a subsidy program and a variety of encouragements to increase the percentage of employees who used mass transit or car- pools from 18 to .32 percent. For every person who started out or ended up in Palo Alto who chose mass transit rather than automo- bile, the City benefited by not haviny to build a parking struc- ture, maintain a road, nor breathe exhaust fumes. To the extent possible, the City should encourage other communities, employers, and the Transit District look at more creative options, he sug- Bested the City of Palo Alto state its interest provided the four other major cities who benefited subsidize each rider who .either started or ended in Palo Alto. If Palo Alto and Fremont contrib- uted ten cents per ride, it might make a dent in the cost of mass transportation and benefit both communities, and it Wright. chal- lenge County and Transit Districts to make up the re''ai order. If the subsidy was on a per trip basis, the contribution went up as the system was used; therefore, the total dollar amountscontrib- uted by agencies would decrease. If employers were encouraged to make the same contributions, a .lower subsidy would be required by the Transit Districts, some subsidy by the benefiting communities and employers, and a fare box by the employees eight nuke bus transportation more viable in Santa Clara County. The resource was underused, and it cost nothing try fill the buses. 7 2 5 5 5/14/85 AMENDMENT: Councilmember Patltucci moved, seconded by Renzel. staff else recommend incentives on a per ride basis to encourage the continuation of the bus service in conjunction with the other communities which benefited by having their residents take buses as opposed to driving their own Vehicles. Councilmember Renze said the amendment was creative and allowed Council to explore possibilities for more fully utilizing existing resources while dirni ni shi ne the subsidy needed by other agencies, and_ the City's costs of people osiny cars. She urged support of the amendment. Councilmember Sutorius was intrigued by Councilmember Patitucci's recommendation. Government agencies were quick to recommend another government agency spend its money, citizens were ° affected when someone else was asked to pick up cost regardless of whether they were grants at the federal level or other district revenue -- raising sources. He supported the concept and was not bothered by the expression of small monetary amounts such as ten cents because a contribution and an opportunity to improve utilization might save money in the long run. It was valuable to have a bus service across the Dumbarton Bridge. If the average daily ridership was 280 round trips, or close to 140 people, it cost approximately $8.38 per trip. The upcoming fiscal year forecasted an increased operating budget to $596,000, but the same level of 280 round trips, and the cost per trip would drop to about $8.19. Costs were important, but utilization was also a concern. The peak usage was the a.m. boardings from Union City toward Palo Alto, with an average of 14 people per bus. The reverse direction was much lower; and in the off-peak situation, there were three or four people per bus. The p.m. situation was not as favorable as the a.m. He supported the amendment but requested the main motion be Separated for perposes of voting. Councilmember Fletcher said the service was new, had not completed its second year, and was operated by AC lransit. She admired the transit service and leadership but believed its °=_Marketing Department did a dismal job. The Marketing Department added a midday service without letting anyone know. Roger Loomis was suc- cessful with Varian's program, and committed to mobilize the Industrial Park into using the service. The City of Palo Alto would hire a Transportation Coordinator to make the services known to all the Downtown employees. She hoped the service would be utilized more. The DB line had an increase in service 'when AC Transit and Santa Clara Transit saw a decrease in riderships over the past six to eight months due to a decline in the economy and decrease in gas prices. The midday service did riot have many riders, but the DB Committee meetings revealed employees were reluctant to take the peak -hour trip to work on the bus if they believed they were stranded and could not leave during the day in the event of an emergency. The AC Transit Planning Director advised after the midday trips atere added, ridership went up by 80 to 100 a day during peak hours. Regarding local governments being eayer to have other agencies contribute, Palo Alto's half -cent sales' tax went into the Transit District, so Palo Alto was a full participant in the cost of the transit service. It was crucial to note the proposal for Santa Clara County. Transit (SCC Transit) to contribute 25 percent was a one-year commitment in order to give the Metropolitan Transportation Commission -sMTC) time to develop a permanent funding structure. If SCC Transit reneged, and other agencies reneged as a result, the service would cease June 30, 1986, and there would be no time to make permanent arrangements. It was crucial the service be funded the coming year. Santa Clara County benefited at no cost whatsoever for almost two years. She believed 25 percent was a bargain. SCC Transit presently paid $1.5 million to 'bring East Bay riders in from Fremont Bart, and the City deserved some of the share. The proposal benefited the County, the City of Palo Alto, and the employers in Palo Alto. She urged her colleagues to support the proposal. 7 2.5 6 5/19/86 Councilmemher Levy concurred with eouncilmernber Fletcher as to the main motion. He would vote audinst the amendment although he hoped the Mayor communicated to the SCC Transit Board and other transit agencies in the County, the coinininity's interest_ in the development of the Dumbarton Bridge transit ridership. He was reluctant to make a staff assignment knowing the amount of assign- ments staff already had, and also recognizing the number of other agencies in the County whose direct responsibility was transit. Council should communicate its concerns and interest to the other agencies to be factored into the larger picture. The current cost per passenger for Dumbarton Bridge ridership was $12.70 per rider per day, and a minor subsidy of 10 or 15 cents would only be effective if done in concert with other agencies in the County. Councilrnember Bechtel clarified the amendment was strictly an addition, and there was no conflict between the amendment and main motion. Mayor Cobb said that was correct. Councilrnember Patitucci said Council spent many hours on the Downtown plan mainly because of transportation issues. Council could not get people in and out of Palo Alto more efficiently and had to consider widening University and imposing costs on a devel- opers of 420,000 or $30,000 per space to build parking structures. If Council planned and made decisions around transportation prob- lems, it should encourage people to use transit. In ter=ns of reducing road maintenance costs and improving the quality of life, it was important to get more vehicles out of Palo Alto. If Council could do that at 10, 15, or 25 cents per car and encour- aged four or five other communities to do the same, and direct soirre of the resources of the Transit District to Palo Alto, it created 'he right kinds of incentives and hopefully they would rius have to spene as much time working on Downtown plans to solve traffic problems. Although he realized staff had many assign- , meats, the item was important. Councilmeraber Fletcher •concurred with Councilrnember Bechtel the letter should yo forward, assuming the main motion passed, to the Santa Clara County Transit Board possiblf irtcfic;iLin j staff would be working on the item. Staff was also involved in the DD3 :om ittee who worked on the whole program. A$END$ENT PASSED by s note of 7-1, Levy voting woo,* Klei' absent, Councilmember Fenzel urged her colleagues to support the motion. She rode the UB line to a meeting in Oakland. The ride was an hour and ten minutes from Palo Alto and she enjoyed her ride. It was an important service, and it .took time for people to know the service was available. She agreed marketing was less than idol; however, because of the Bart connections, she believed there were opportunities for a good transportation network into which the Dumbarton Bridge service was a key element. Getting people out of their automobiles was slow, but options were needed. MAIN MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF YOT?IRG FIRST PART OF . NOTION RESTATED: ENDORSE CONTINUATION OF OD LIRE IN FISCAL YEAR 198640, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TQ SENO LETTERS TO AC TRANSIT AND SCC TRANSIT DISTRICT ENCOURAGING SUPPORT AND FINDING FOR THE DA LINE :AT THE 26 PERCENT LEVEL Counci l raeraber Patitucci requested the Mayor's correspo-ndence include the City was examining the possibility of participation at some later date. Mayor Cobb agreed. FIRST PART OF MOTION PASSED enanimaiosly0 Klein _absent. 1/f9,81 Councilmember Sutorius referred to the situations where in the eastbound direction, the -ridership in the off -peek boerdines averaged two and one -quarter riders; the peak a.m. hoardings averaged two and one-half riders per trip; and in the westbound situation the off-peak situation was leas than four riders per trip, and said the numbers did not justify revising the schedule. Councilmember Fletcher clarified Council was speaking in terms of maintenance, The past SCC Transit General Manager referred to cutting the last runs in the evenings, and laid there were always fewest people on the last run, but the total service had more riders because the last run was available. Even though the midday service \ had no marketing, she was sure it would enhance the service.' Councilmember Renzel agreed. It was important there be a certain amount of predictability about availability of service, and people needed to know if they missed their bus, another was available. In the long term, hopefully all of the ri derships would increase with better marketing and as people became aware of the services. If she did not know Councilmember Fletcher, she would not have known about the DB line because the marketing did not reach people who were not looking to go on a bus but ;iii 9ht. do so if they knew it existed. In many of the building EIR mitigations, Council encouraged programs to encourage transit use,- and it was disin- yenuous to adopt such mitigations and then keock the props out from the services it hoped people would use. Mayor Cobb was persuaded a good job of marketing would take care of the level of service. SECOND PART OF MOTION TO URGE THE PRESENT LEVEL OF 'ERVICE BE MAINTAINED PASSED by'•a vete 6-2, Cobb, Sutories Wing "no,° Klein absent.. ITEM a9, PROPOSED AMENDMENT ,TO THE LEASE WITH THE GULF COURSE CORPORATION (CMR:276:6) (PAR 4-I-1) City Manager Bill Zaner introduced Mr. Nielsen of Jones Hall Hi l l & White, the bond counsel, who was present to answer questions. It was an ongoing project, and he believed most Councilmembers were familiar with the provisions of the proposed agreement. The wording was carefully worked out to accommodate both the needs of the Golf Course Corporation's interests and the concerns of Council. If Council recommended the agreement be adopted, the Golf Course Corporation adopted the amendment to lease in the form presented. Councilmember Renzel said the resolution and agreement stated the City would fund improvements to address Golf Course parki ry, landscaping, and drainage needs in the golf clubhouse area, and she asked to what extent the funding was required because the project required {t,, and how it related to the measure the voters, passed which said the voters would not subsidize the swap. Mr. Zaner referred to the clubhouse portion of the agreement, Sections 5 and 6, on the last page of the agreement itself, and said if Council adopted the agreement, it committed to provide funds to develop a plan to improve many areas including the golf clubhouse. Plans were presently being produced, and the City already had funds for it. beyond Council's commitment to develop a plan, the plans would become a part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIF). It was not indicated at what level Council had to budget, nor the tinning, but rather once the plan was presented to Council and improved in some fashion, it would be included in the GIP. Council `retained its f lexibi l_lty as to what improvements would ultimately be done. Councilmember Renzel heard rumors Mr. Kramer wanted to market his eating establishment beyond the golfing community, which was spe- cifically not figured in the original Golf Course bulldiny, nor was it consistent with the City's park ordinance. She asked whether Council would assume any suggested improvements were con- sistent with the park ordinance or whether it would be decided later. Mr. Zaner said Mr. Kramer indicated an interest in rearranging his current facility at the Golf Course, and staff was working with hire to determine what it meant. Council still had ultimate authority and obligation to decide whether the facility should be unproved or expanded. The agreement provided for a financial feasibility study, which study would require Council approval before anything could happen. Councilmember Renzel said the voters authorized the exchanye and the language specified Council would not subsidize the Winter 'odge beyond the land exchange, but if Council had to do those things in order to yet the land exchanges, it was a subsidy beyond what the voters contemplated. Mr. Caner asked the City Attorney to look at the question several months ago, and any leproyements Council might do at the Golf Course were not construed to be a subsidy in terms of the ballot measure which prohibited any subsidy at the Winter Lodge. Councilmember Menzel clarified the improvements at the Golf Course would not be needed if the exchange did not take placee; Mr. Zaner said that was right, the actions were independent. The exchanye of properties between ter. Peery and the City was indepen- dent of any arrangements Council might make with regard to the Golf Course corporation and the City's Golf Course. Councilmember Renzel referred to page 2 of the staff report (CMR:273:6), the first point under No. 2, regarding a precedent for the City land use policy, and asked how going on record changed it, Mr. Zaner said the Golf Course Corporation and golfing clubs realized the precedent, but sought some indication from Council it was not a signal for it to occur again. They were understandably opposed to such an action and looked for a public expression in the form of adopting the agreement which contained the condition that Council would not rely upon the first trade as the reason for another trade, etc. Councilmember Levy referenced page 5 of the Resolution, Sections 5 and 6, and said Mr. Zaner mentioned the City already committed fundsto develop a plan in accordance with Section 5. He asked if the City had committed funds in Section 6. Mr. Zaner did not believe the City committed funds on Section 6 to pursue a plan for improvement, whereas the City actually committed funds in Section 5 to hire an architect and do the work. He deferred to Director of Recreation Paul Thiltgen for further response.. Mr. Thi ltgen said the present study in Section. .5 looked at the building as to the potential related to parking, but it did not yo beyond a conceptual. study. The conceptual study referred to the building iO.self .as it related to the items in Section 5. The sections. were tied. together. Councilmember Levy clarified if he supported the document, he did not commit additional funds above what Council committed, unless. Council chose re do so separately. Mr.. Zaner said absolutely., staff would return to., Council and request the expenditure of additional funds. lif9, Councilmeinber Levy requested two minor changes in wording. In Section 5, instead of "The CITY will commit funds..." say, "'the CITY is committing funds..." Mr. Laner had no objection to the wording, but urged Council not to make changes unless they were so crucial Council could not live with the present wording. If Council changed any of the wording, staff had to return to the Golf Course Corporation who adopted the agreement and passed it on. If Council insisted on a word change, staff would take the agreement back. Councilareinber Levy referred to Section 6, which said the City would "pursue" a plan, and'he believed it meant the City should develop a plan. Pursuing a plan implied a plan was in process, and Council was thereby implementing a plan, and he did not want to be on record in that regard. Mr. Lefler did not interpret the word "pursue" to be any different in that case from "develop." He believed the Golf Course Corporation people understood the City meant it would look at a plan, and if it turned out to be economically feasible and things worked out, would proceed. Councilmernber Levy said at the appropriate time he would suggest the phrase "has committed" be substituted in Section 5. MOTION: Couacllmember Suter;us moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt staff recommendation to approve the negative. declaration AMENDMENT TO LEIlSE RESOLUTION 6518 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITT OF HALO ALTO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PALO ALTO GOLF COURSE CORPORATION SPECIFYING CERTAIN ACTIONS THE CITY WILL TAKE IN RELATION TO THE PALO ALTO GOLF COURSE FACILITY° ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING a title d °ORDINANCE OF THE COUI�I HE LO ALTO MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT TO LEASE OF GOLF COURSE FACILITY WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALT©' Mayor Cobb urged his colleagues not to make any changes because a lot of time and effort already went into the matter. Council would open up the process for changes which presumably had little meaning in terms of substance. He agreed with Mr. Zaner's inter- pretations. He urged Council carry out the will of the voters. He believed the agreement was abar.lutely consistent with what the voters told Council to do. Councilmember Levy was originally on the other side of the measure from Mayor Cobb when it went before the veters, but joined in urging all Counci l m`mbers to reflect the will of the voters and move ahead to implement the swap. In Section 5, consonant with the will of the voters, Council was not implementing any notable additional funds in connection with the matter unless separate study indicated the Golf Course itself needed the items. He did, not contemplate the commitment of additional funds recognizing Council committed funds for the development. .of a plan in accordance with Sections 5 and 6. AMENDMENT . Councilmember Levy moved, in Section $ of the Resolution, that t#e stores swill commits be substituted by "is c mmitting.° AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECONli 1 2 6 0 5/19/86 Councilmember Renzel said the measure before the voters urged negotiation to exchange the piece of land principally in order to save the Winter Lodge with properties of equal value. Prior to the election, she was concerned Council would see lots of City costs involved in the exchange beyond just exchanging the land, and the Golf Course costs were an exemple. Council also heard the "YMCA" wanted to purchase the Winter Lodge site from the City ultimately, and would need the Arco site in order to purchase the Winter Lodge site, which meant either the City had to purchase the Arco site or something else had to happen. She was concerned Council put itself in the position of removing parkland to act as a holding company for the "YMCA" on a piece of land and might not be able to save the Winter Lodge, would have spent considerable money, lost parkland, and added increased development and conges- tion in a difficult area. She could not support the motion. Councilmember Fletcher had difficulty justifying the negative dec- laration when the "project" was deemed ,to have no environmental impact; yet the purpose of giving up the piece of land was to have a project which would have an environmental impact. She could not separate the two and could not justify voting for a negative dec- laration. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan said if staff knew more about what occurred next, they could do a more complete environ- mental assessment. The environmental assessment only covered the lease amendment. There would be more environmental work as sub- division and zoning changes took place. MAYOR COBB RE ITEM 4a as:30 -.rn. PUBLIC HEARING: DOWNTOWN STUDY MOTION: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Fletcher, to delay resumption of Item 4a, Downtown Study until completion of. Items 9 and 10. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Kle1in absent. RETURN TO ITEM #9, PROPOSED •AMENDMENT TO GOLF COURSE CORPORATION LEASE Councilmember Patitucci was surprised at Councilmember Renzel's desire to undo the public's actions. He heard a speech when Council spoke to closing the harbor that said no matter whether Council agreed or disagreed with what the voters did, it was time to close the harbor. The subject issue was similar and he recom- mended not standing in the voters' way. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Renzel, Fletcher voting °no," Klein absent. ITEM 010 APPEAL OF CITY COUNC#LMEMBER EILEN FL.ETCMER ET AL., AR H1 C UR L R EW BOARD AND DIRECUR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DECISION RE 3065 MIDDLEF1tLD ROAD (CMR.2;13:C) (PLA 3-1) Councilmember Fletcher believed the particular appeal had broader implications than the normal appeal -:ley neighbors because part of the process used by the City of Pa l o. Al to asked the neighbors and thedeveloper to work out something which was not adopted in the final decision. Architectural Review. Board (ARB) member, Linn Winterbotham, believed the staff report (CMR:2B3:b) offered a thorough and accurate assessment. The ARB's three main considerations were aesthetics, which were arbitrary, but a careful look needed to be. taken at the rear elevation and the impacts of what happened with the balcony area. Some windows were changed as a result:_ of. the neighbors' request, and it was apparent the elevation was becoming fraymented and the balcony was important. The ARB was also con- cerned about allowing natural light and ventilation since as part of the agreement the kitchen window facing into the area was sealed off. By closing oft the face of the balcony the adjo+niny dining room/ living room was also excluded from gettiny much natural light. He believed it was always the ARB's position to encourage usable outdoor areas in multi -family living units, and inasmuch as the balcony was only four and one-half feet wide, closing off the one side virtually rendered it useless. The ARB's compromise reflected the landscaping and the fence design offered the neighbors privacy'but still offered an attractive use for the future tenant of the unit. Councilmember Levy understood the process but believed the way the various decisions were arrived at was critical. He understood the ARB suggested the developer and members of the public meet to work out a solution, and their solution was to open the balcony to the side but close it directly to the back. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown believed it was important to note the neighborhood meeting held by the applicant at the ARB's request was intended to resolve issues concerning landscaping and fencing, which was the item before the ARB for review. The dis- cussion related to windows and the balcony design was entertained strictly by the applicant of his own devices and was not a request of the ARB. Councilmember Levy clarified the applicant agreed to close off the balcony. Mr. Brown said yes. Councilmember Levy said the miter then returned to ARB, and despite the applicant's agreement, the ARB believed it was detri- mental to the residents of the unit to close off the balcony. The ARB would not approve the project with the balcony closed off and instead developed an alternative which it believed to be a satis- factory solution. Mr. Brown said that was essentially correct. Councilmember Levy inspected the site from both the Price Court and the property sides, and asked if the open balcony could have been built with a single-family residence on the site at the same distance from the fence. Mr. Brown said yes, with one qualification. The recent zoning ordinance amendments approved by Council precluded the particular balcony in the location for any resideutia1 project, whether single- or multi -family. The balcony would have been out of the 20 -foot setback entirely, which meant about one and one-half feet back from its current location. Councilmember Levy clarified otherwise the balcony could have been the same height. Mr. Brown said yes, the restrictions for single-family or multi -family reyarding the balcony were identical. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if the balcony would be boarded up to the peak of the opening. Associate Planner James t;illiland said that was correct. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if a subsequent owner, or the current developer, could choose to not put the balcony on. Mr.. Gilliland said the balcony was already there. Vice Mayor Woolley was concerned about the severe : lack of light which would result from closing the balcony. She clarified the units were condominiums 7 ,2 6 2. 5/19/86 Mr. Gilliland said yes. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if a subsequent owner could remove the balcony entirely to get light in the living room and dining room windows. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken` Schreiber said depending upon the deed restrictions, subsequent owners could apply for a building permit, and as a multi -family structure, ARB review was required for any modification to the exterior eleva- tion. Councilmember Bechtel said the maximum height allowed in a single- family area was 30 feet, and she asked the height of the subject building. Mr. Gilliland said the height of the building at the back to the third floor was 35 feet. The balcony was on the second level. Councilmember Bechtel said theoretically one could have a single- family house with the balcony the same. Mr. Gilliland said that was Correct. Councilmember Fletcher asked how binding it was to have the trees once they were planted, e.g., if they became diseased, or a wind blew them over, and whether a mechanism existed whereby the condominiums were required to maintain the trees on a permanent basis. Mr. Brown said staff would investigate upon complaint by neighbors. If the landscape plan was no longer in conformance, the City would require the association to return it to compliance with the ARB approval. Councilmember Fletcher clarified there was no enforcement mechanism. Mr. Brown said no, not for standard zoning. Only PC zoning contained an enforcement mechanisms for landscape plans. Councilmember Renzel said her rear yard was south and her neigh - bores rear yard north, which roughly paralleled the subject situa- tion. A neighbor south of her had Monterey Pines which blocked out her sunlight in winter until late afternoon. She asked if there was a better material to screen without creating such a major imposition on the neighbors. She realized the neighbors wanted the particular screening, but she was not sure they under- stood the effects of a Monterey Pine or some other type of conifer.. Mr. iii nterbotham said the plant proposed was a cypress. It was anticipated the plant would fill up a volume 15 to 20 feet high, and would rot cast more shade than the structure itself. Mayor Cobb asked about the legal issues and remedies involved if the appeal were upheld. If the City upheld the appeal, he asked if it could require a change be made. Ms. Sloan said the project was previously approved in December, 1984, and since the developer made a substantial amount of progress on the project, he had a right to proceed under the first approval. She understood the first approval contained a com- pletely open balcony. John Vaught, 1549 Channi ny, owned 3702 Price Court, and lived in the neighborhood for 16 years. A recently -constructed, three- story condominium at 3065 Middlefield Road was 40 feet above the 7 2 6 3 5/19/86 Stearn and Price Court neighborhood grade. The surrounding homes were ten feet above grade measured to their rooftop heights. The condominium was four times as high as the rooftops of the homes immediately adjacent He urged Councilmembers consider the appeal as if the project were in their individual neighborhoods. He appreciated those who personally viewed the neighborhood. The ARB directed the applicant -to hold a public meeting and obtain neigh- borhood input. The applicant and neighbors agreed on five issues wherein the second story balcony and the privacy problems it created was a major issue. People standing on the balcony stood 18 feet above neighborhood grade and looked down into a neighbor- hood where the rooftops were only ten feet high. The ARB approved the plans as presented but rejected the balcony changes, which would have enclosed the end overlooking the neighborhood and opened the sides alleviating the priacy problem. City staff mem- bers warned the developer could ignore the approved changes and build according to the original plan and might do so if the appeal was filed. For a developer to hold a City -sanctioned public meeting, agree to changes, have therm approved by the ARB, and not implement them was a mockery of the City's government and an insult to the neighborhood residents. He requested the City Council assure all approved changes were implemented. The origi- nal balcony would destroy rear yard living room and bedroom privacy of three homes, as well as front yard and dining room pri- vacy of two others. The architects and residents worked hard to achieve a -mutually agreeable solution only -to have it rejected by the ARB. Four other units in the project with virtually identical floor plans but which faced other buildings in the project and would create a privacy problem were approved by the ARB with no balconies whatsoever. He believed the ARB's decision was not in accordance with its declaration of goals and purposes since it totally disregarded all impact to the surrounding five residences in order to make one condominium unit slightly more desirable. He requested Council approve the original balcony changes as applied and presented to the ARS on March 20, 1986; or, order the balcony removed since its foundation was only 19-1/2 feet --not _he 20 feet minimum'required by law from the rear property line. Small seg- ments of Palo Alto lost their daylight privacy and property values due to development projects and the record reflected ,.since initial approval of the particular project, it attempted to violate front setback and daylight planes on both side property lines and rear property lines and continued to be in violation of rear setback. The surrounding neighborhood already had its daylight and property values reduced as a result of the project. He urged Council con- sider the privacy issue. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified if the balcony were removed, people had a better opportunity to look down into Mr. Vaught' s yard. Mr. Vaught said yes. His suggestion was to build the same as on the other end of the building. Councilreember Fletcher asked ifthe neighborhood meeting addressed whether the proposed balcony should be closed off all the up to the ceiling or whether it could be less. Mr. Vaught said the, balcony's height wasnot addressed. Six feet from floor level was adequate. Mariel Darby, was a 29 -year resident of 757. Stern Avenue. Resi.. dents .of the proposed condominiums .could look into the windows of her hou a because the rooftop of the condominiums were four times higher• than local houses. She wanted thick: bushes planted at the back of the condominiums as previously discussed and the ba l con which fa►_ed her house eliminated in order to maintain her pri- vecy. Dean Lloyd, 3065 Price Court, said the condominiums at 3065 Middlefield were about four times higher than neighboring properties. The homes were built in 1952, and tho contractor built fences around the homes because of the substantial glass around the structures. Fifty percent of the homes' sidewall space was glass. The condominiums reduced peoples' privacy levels to little or none. He received notice in August, 1984, which referred to a rezoning of 3065 Middlefield and Ice Skating Rink. He did not receive the notice, dated on or about December 17, 1984, and assured he and his neighbors would have made more noise sooner if they knew the facts. The structure continued to be bunt despite substantial complaint about the fourth unit, which\ affected the neighbors most. The ARB had a duty to mitigate the neighborhood effect 'of any project. If Counci lmembers personally viewed the project, they would see how high the project was com- pared to the private homes and .would see the substantial impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Vaught hired an appraiser to do an analysis of his property values before the project was built and when the architectural drawings were presented through the realtar, his property decreased in value by $30,000. He thanked Councilmember Fletcher for her assistance. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to uphold the appeal of City Councilmember Ellen Fletcher, et al. from the decision of the Architectural Review Board and the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve the final landscape and fencing plan for the real property area of the approved condominium project at 3065 Middlefield Road. Councilmember Fletcher said the original neighborhood request to eliminate the back balcony was made before construction was far along. When the neighbors and developer met at the request of the ARB, both sides compromised. To have the compromise overturned was not part of the normal City processes, and neighborhoods should be confident agreements would be upheld by the Council; otherwise, it would be a waste of time to work things out in advance. Neighborhoods should be encouraged to work things Out prior to going to Council. The closing off of the balcony did not have to go to the ceiling and the. size of the balcony could still. be open. Regarding if there was no balcony, there would be more windows, she pointed out if there was no balcony, there would be four and one --half feet more setback. ARB goals were to promote orderly and harmonious development to enhance the desirability of residents' investment in the City related to the neighborhoods, encouragement to retain the most desirable land and improvements, enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas, and promote visual environments high in aesthetic quality and variety which were at the time same consid- erate of each other. She urged Council support. Councilmember Bechtel visited the site and agreed the project was large and imposing. The majority of homes in her neighborhood were built in the 1920s and were mostly one-story houses. .As land became more costly, people added second stories as high as the second story balcony in the subject instance. The change was a shock to the neighbors but everyone adjusted and got ,•along well.. The ARB recommended a four -foot by ten -inch h i gh latticed screen capped by a two-inch by six-inch rail to screen the adjacent properties. The kitchen window of the condominiums were elimi- nated, the bathroom window was to have obscure glass, and expen- sive planting would be provided. She did not support the motion and upheld the staff and ARB recommendation. Councilmember Levy did not believe the project should have been before the Council. Although the development on Middlefield was 1aree, the part which focused on the back was within the confines of -what could have been built there as a single-family. residence He did not believe the privacy at 3072 Price' would be intruded upon by the proposed development. No one liked being in the single -story house if a two-story house was built next door, but 1/fOlig it was possible. He understood how the ARB arrived at its conclu- sion, but he was also concerned about the process. The neighbor- hood and developer had a meeting and reached certain agreements, but the ARB believed the agreements were ill-advised when it came to the balcony and the people who lived in the condominium. He believed it was ill-advised to overturn the agreement reached by the developer and residents. The ARB might be correct in its professional judgment, but if the aeighbors and the developer reached agreement on a situation which overwhelmingly related to them and did not relate to anyone else, while it might be unfor- tunate for the person who bought the condominium and lived there, at least the purchaser would know the balcony situation. He sup- ported the appeal and believed the agreement struck by the residents and developer although professionally might not be the best agreement was an agreement he believed Council should uphold. Councilmember Renzel believed it was principally a matter of com- patibility which the ARB was supposed to encourage. In the sub- ject case, the parties involved were the developer and the neigh- bors who reached an agreement. An agreement for something the equivalent to a six-foot fence on the north side would .not be so onerous to the cendoriniism owner. Many homes had six-foot fences four to six feet from their walls and survived nicely. She believed a balcony could do the same thing, especially if opened on the ends. Council had a responsibility, particularly where it approved new developments adjacent to single-family neighborhoods, to try and ensure compatibility to the degree possible. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if the neighbors could assure the lattice work was a permanent fixture. Mr. Schreiber said the lattice work would be part of the exterior design of the structure, end to be removed or changed, it would have to go through the design review process. Vice Mayor Woolley agreed with Councilmember Bechtel the addition of the lattice was a good solution. People would probably not use the balcony to the extent they would use the living room or dining room. If there were no balcony, the large windows would be a :far greater intrusion on the privacy of the. house behind. She believed the balcony would increase the privacy of the house behind because it would be impossible for people in the living room or dining room to see into their neighbors' houses. She visited the site and believed the pictures provided an accurate reflection of the circumstances. Two of the yards on either side were heavily obscured because of large mature trees. The property immediately behind the balcony had smal .fruit trees which did not provide that much coverage. With the addition of the trees on the Middlefield site, it should provide the same screening as the ocher properties. If not, the owner of the property at 307Z Middlefield could plant screening on both sides of the fence. In terms of process, she saw the neighborhood meeting being deemed as a final step and it was a bad precedent. It needed to be clear it was the ARB, Planning Commission, and staff :who had the final say, and to give it over to a neighborhood sheeting was. not a good precedent. She did not support the appeal. Councilmember Sutorius also wished the matter were not appealed to the Council. He associated himself with the comments of Councilmember Bechtel and Vice Mayor Woolley. The ARB's action was anadmirable effort to bring some .equity to the resolution of some conflicting interests, It was important to recognize the only issues suggested for discussion at the meeting between the applicant and the neighbors were the fencing and landscaping. The ARB was - entitled to express surprise , and' concern and take its action -when something- returned which was not a partof the review process identified . as a subject for the neighborhood meeting. He could barely look out the bathroom window as presently constructed and could only see the middle of Price Street and was concerned that, as a result of the positive actions taken in response to the neiyhbors' concerns, the light situation presented a problem for future occupant. Going beyond that action would be seriously wrong, and he opposed the motion. Mayor Cobb understood the concerns of the residents of Price Court because he lived in an Eichler and would have zero privacy if there was a two-story house in the back. He was bothered by the way in which the agreement worked out between the neighbors and the developer was ignored nn one of the critical issues. (The purpose of the ARB, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. was to serve the people of Palo Alto in a larger sense). The decision only affected a few parties, one of, whom was as yet unknown. If someone wished to buy a unit with a balcony blocked off and the developer wanted to sell it that way, that was their concern. If that solved the neighbors' problem, the lar e.r com- munity was not negatively served. He associated with the remarks of Chairman Schink of the ARB that it was okay sometimes to have architecture that was not quite perfect if it suited both parties involved, and if the neighbors and applicant wanted it that way. The reality of compromise had to take preference sometimes, and this issue was a clear example. Because he was disturbed by the way in which that was ignored, he would vote to uphold the appeal. Councilmember Renzel said there was some concern expressed about the fact there was a preexisting approval. She believed the developer negotiated in good faith with the neighbors and would follow through with his agreements. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Renzel, Fletcher, Cobb, Levy voting "aye," Klein absent. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:25 p.m. to 9:40 p.m. MOTION: Counci lme tuber Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel: to reconsider for the purpese of continuing Item 110, Request of Cooncilnember Fletcher, et al., from the decision of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve the final landscape and fencing plan for the rear property area of the approved condosriaium project at 3065 Middlefield Road. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Renzel, Cobb, Fletcher voting "aye,' Klein absent. ITEM #4-A, PUBLIC HEARING: DOWNTOWN STUDY (PLA 7-14) (CMR:279:6) 71tinued from May 15, 198) 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 reCouuendations of the Council." NOTION: Cowncilmember Reese' .moved, seconded by Bechtel, that staff be directed to include in the •rdinancees, resoletioass and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: 6c. ii i stars c Incentives Approval of the staff recommendation (CMR:Z79;6) of an incentive for Downtown buildings in historic Categories 1 and 2 (which are not in seismic Cotegorie# 1, II, or III), which is similar to the Seismic Incentive recommended by tke Planning Commmissi•n (Items trb and 23c lee CMR:232:6 of April 3, 1986). Specifically, the incentive mould permits for NOTION CONTINUED buildings in these historic categories, one expansion per site above the new FAR to a maximum of 25 percent above the existing amount: of floor area or 2,000 square feet in floor area, whichever is less, when such a structure is granted a permit for exterior restoration. Approval of the staff recommendation of the following new Urban Jesiga program in the Comprehensive Plan requiring a finding that additions would not compromise the character of an historic building's exterior: Urbal Design Program 10b: Expansion of Downtown buildings in historic Categories 1 and 2 should require findings during the design review process that the character of such building exteriors would not be compromised by the expansions. A$EIiWMEMT: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, to revise the second sentence of the recommendation to read, *Speci- fically, the incentive would permit, for buildings in these historic categories, one expansion per site above the new FAR to a maximum of 25 percent above the existing amount of floor area or 2.500 square feet in floor area, whichever is greater, when such a structure is granted a permit for exterior restoration. Manager, Special Projects, George Zimmerman, said Councilmernber Levy previously raised the question of the difference in the build -out potential between the exemption for historic Categories 1 and Z properties that were non -seismic recommended by staff com- pared to the historic exemption incentive otherwise similar to the seismic incentive approved by Council. The build -out square foot- age differential was approximately 21,400 square feet; therefore, Council proposal was 21,q00 square feet higher. Councilmember Sutorius said it was appropriate to have that type of incentive to provide for equity and the opportunity for reha- bilitation to be considered in the most favorable light. The incentive might not have application for many property owners, but it was important the opportunity be there in an equal fashion. Councilmernber Renzel said the amendment added still more square footage without parking, and Council shoule consicder that. Vice Mayor Woolley referenced the buildings that were in historic Categories 1 and 2 but not in the seismic category. She said the majority were in their historic district on the 500 block of Ramona Street. The residence at 520 Ramona Street was in the process of being rehabilitated so it was unlikely it would use the incentive. Another, 514 High Street, was already seismically upgraded and probably would not use its incentive. In addition to that district, others that were important to keep because they added to Downtown were the Victorian home at 510 Waverley Street, and the stores in the 400 block of University flanking the New Varsity "Theater. Counci lmember Levy asked foe cl arif +ct ti on of the headings in the Comparison of Parking Exemptions chart, under Staff Recommended Exemptions. Mr. Zimmerman said the table before .Council was for the Assessment District and focused on parking, .hence the slight differential in figures. The question to which he previously responded covered the entire CD district for the development side of the incentive. For the staff recommended, exemptions, the seismic I, 1 1 , and III properties totaled 57,500 square feet. At build -out value, the historic exemption net, above those histori€ properties in the seismic Categories I, and III and excluding the three building identified by Vice Mayor Woolley, added 15,750 square feet The 7 2 6 8 5/19/86 staff recommendation for- minor expansion exemptinn added an addi- tio.hal -35 500 square feet for a total build -out value of the staff recommended exemptions of 108,750 square feet. With Council suggested exemptions, adding the ones for the minor expansion suggested by Councilmember patitucci, ft totaled 148,000 square feet. Council could see the relative figures on parking. Whether it was parkiny demand --the computation used in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)--or parking requirements --the recommended requirements for new development within the CD area and within the Assessment within the CU area --those parking figures reflected the build -out value of recommended or suggested exemptionez, Director of Planning and Community, Environment Ken Schreiber emphasized Mr. Zimmerman's use of the word "build-out" and said the numbers were all build -out numbers. Staff was i'n complete agreement build -out was not a real number, but they had no method- ology available to yive Council a projection either time frame or in perpetuity of what might -actually happen. Some of the buildings were already upgraded, some completely occupied the site, and others had various other restrictions that meant they would probably not use the incentive, but for purposes Of analysis the build -out number was the one staff could calculate given the information available. Councilmember Levy clarified the parking demand figures were correct. Mr. Fairchild said yes. Councilmember Levy said Council approved a seismic incentive that changed the parking demand from 178 places to 315 places. If Council did the same for the historic building, it changed the parking demand from 49 up to 105. M r. Zimmerman said at build -out value that was correct. Councilmember Levy said the net maximum for those two elements was a parking demand of 420 spaces, an increase of 200 spaces. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct at build -out value. Councilmember Levy believed Council should be consistent and favored the consistency of -the original staff recommendation. His preference was to return the seismic incentives to those that were approved. Failing that, Council could keep seismic and historic incentives similar. Councilmember Sutorius said his earlier comments in support of the motion spoke only to historic. Regarding the comparison of parkiny exemptions, he emphasized some concepts and appropriate qualifications observed by staff. Applied to either seismic or historic, a number of situations argued that a remodel with an addition of floor space would not occur. Applied to seismic, it was not possible to add footage to an unreinforced masonry building seismic upgrade and be in conformance with the 1985 Uniform Building Code unless the addition was independently sup- ported, i.e., one could not mix the corrections that satisfied a seismic upgrade of a Category 1 building with additional floor square footage and be in conformance because the added square footage had to be built in conformance with the 1985 Uniform Building Code. That remodel would not lend itself to a number of site locations and existing buildings either for economic reasons, because it would not pass design review, or the property owner would not find it physically a desirable thing to propose. A number of the buildings would not be able to exercise that par- ticular option. For some buildings in the _seismic category, the decision by the property owner ultimately would be demolition,and from the standpoint of health, welfare* safety, and appearance that would not -be a wrong decision as far as the: City was concerned. Some buildings would exercise a portion, but not all, 1 the .. incentives. J4 S of the 3ncen.ives. In rt ird to seismic, the Category I, II, and III upgrade processes had associated time frames. The formal notices to the property owner that evaluations were required were going out that week, -and the response time was 18 months for a Category I building, 24 months for a Category II building, and 30 months for a Category III building. The City would then be in a position to have received and considered the evaluation, but the obligation still rested with the property owner to provide a letter of intent within 12 months of that. t irne. Because of the different time frames, the end points would be slightly different. Some gating occurred in regard to the response and the letter of intent, and he proposed the seismic incentives be similarly gated so that after a period of time the incentive would no longer be available because compliance with Code should have occurred within that period of time. The theoretical parking and square footage numbers should not be considered with respect to what would occur. Applications went through the Architectural Review Board- (ARB) process at the minimum, and historic sites also went through an Historic Resources Board (HRB) process, and could possibly end up es a Planned Community (PC). There were ample built-in controls, a gating process, and he did not see the square footage and parkingbeing close to the theoretical numbers. Councilmember i-atitucci referred to the parking demand versus parking required and asked if the parking required was calculated by dividing 250 square feet into total square footage. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct, and the figure was derived from taking the existing demand rate Downtown based upon existing composition and. setting it somewhat higher to allow for possible conversion to retail which had a higher demand rate. The parking demand was based on actual demand. Mr. Fairchild said the 3.1 figure applied to the uses in the pipe- line and their parking rates. Councilmember Patitucci said the problem was interesting because everybody that wanted to develop had to build at 4 to 1, whereas the demand observed was 3.1 to 1. If the demand number was accurate, e.g., 250,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot maximum was built out, there would be 225 spaces in excess of the eSt1mated actual demand based on required. The requirement had within it an implication of reducing the deficit by 20 percent for each thousand square feet built. Mr. Fairchild said that was true if the use distribution in the future was, the same as the pipeline between 1984 and 1985. Councilmember Patitucci said for construction under the rules set up to date, out of 250,000 square feet there; would be 1,000 parking spaces and a need for only 775. He believed they were hedging and guessing in two Oifferent directions and developing 250,000 square feet under the current rules more than offset the 186 theoretical parking spaces created by having slightly more aggressive incentives for seismic and historic. It was a reason- abl a .trade-off. He would vote in favor of making the incentives consistent. Mayor Cobb believed it was important for Council to do everything possible to preserve Palo Alto's history. Much had already bee lost, and he did not want Council to create a body of rules that Would cause any more loss than was absolutely necessary. Councilmember Renzel opposed the amendment for the reasons stated. She calculated 460 spaces based on parking demand with all the exemptions as changed by Council, which was approximately 38 block faces, or nine square blocks of parking. Based on the new requirement, it was 593 spaces, or 12.3 square blocks of new parking. While those full figures were not apt to be realized, a 7 2 7 0 5/19/86 good portion of them were, and creating that many exemptions undermined the whole emphasis of the Downtown Study. The historic Categories were not under obligation to renovate, but the seismic Categories were. There might be some basin for providing addi- tional incentives for seismic because Council imposed additional burdens on them, but a facade easement was not a huge burden on the history people. Council might be going too far with those incentives. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Renzel, Fletcher, Bechtel voting "no," Klein absent. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 5-2; Fletcher, Wenzel voting "no," Klein absent. NOTION: 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 recommendations of the Council: 6cc. Direct staff to work with the Historic Resources Board to investigate methods of providing financial assistance at no cost to the. City for owners of properties in seismic Categories I, II, and III and historic Categories 1 and 2. Vice Mayor Woolley said the program was in the DEIR but did not yo through to the recommendations to the Planning Commission because most of the historic recommendations went into the historic ordi- nance. The HRb pursued the program with staff, and the Finance department agreed it was a reasonable to investigate. Her memo (on file in the City Clerk's office) listed three possible ways financial assistance could be undertaken. In view of other cone Straints on the City's money, it would be preferable if Council, could help the property owner in terms of bonding capacity Eut without actually putting City money ,directly into a fund or for buy -downs. Staff preferred a`- specific rather than a general direction to discuss financial assistance programs. She had inquired whether pending federal legislation made the investi- gation futile, and was told there was one bill pending which would favor the investigation and one which would not favor it; there- fore, Council -should not be guided by the legislative climate. Counci l sem.er Sutori us asked staff if it was necessary to include in the direction a reference that it was not the intent of the proposal to include a combination incentive of square footage and a financial assistance process. He believed it was going too far if historic incentives, seismic incentives, and financial incen- tives were all packaged together. The property owner had the alternative of either accepting the low-cost financial assistance or capitalizing on the additional square footage, but not both. AMENDMENT; CQvaci lmember Svtorias moved, seconded by Wenzel that there be included a caveat that financial and square footage incentives shall not be cuerlative. Counci ]member Wenzel supported the amendment because it might diminish the impact .of Council's previous actions by causing people to take the financial incentive rather than the incentive that would burden the Downtown. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vete of 7-I, Levy voting 'no," Klein absent. Councilmember. Levy asked the reasons for putting seismic and historic together. There was a clear public benefit in keeping historic buildings in their historic context. Seismic was simply the need for the owner of the building to catch up to the safety st'andards not present i n the first pi ice. 7 2.7 1 5/19/86 Vice Mayor Woolley said the reason for putting the seismic cate- gory in the program was primarily there was a minimum number of properties needed to make a bond issue practical. To float a bored issue for less than a million dollars was not worth the effort involved. A group of people had to be ready to do something at approximately the same time in order to take such an action. Councilmember Levy clarified the reason for including seismic was a practical one that Council should raise ?pore money and therefore should have other buildings in addition to the buildings in his- toric. He was willing to use City assets to maintain their inventory of historic buildings, acid would support that part of the motion. He opposed including seismic in the study. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING MOTION AS AMENDED RELATED TO HISTORIC CATEGORIES 1 AND 2 PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MOTION AS AMENDED RELATED TO SEISMIC CATEGORIES I, II, AND III PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Levy voting 'no," Klein absent. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Levy, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, eesalutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: 6d. Minor Ex+ansions of Non -Historic 1 and 2 and Non -Seismic an u ngs Approval of the staff recommendation (CMR:279:6) of an expansion exemption of 200 square. feet of floor area from the new FAR limits for 411 non -Category I and. 2 historic buildings within the new CD District, where such buildings would otheriise be limited or precluded_ from a 200 square foot expansion by the new FAR limits. Councilmember Patitucci did not believe 200 square feet was much incentive for rehabilitation and improvement of the number of buildings in Palo Alto that should be improved. He was consid- ering 500 square foot or 5 percent of the floor area, whichever was greater, and the staff analysis on the estimate of true demand was that created an additional need of 267 spaces. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct. Coonci1nember Patitucci asked for further clarification of the 200 square feet, where that number came frorn, and why that exception would be used. Mr. Zimmer an clarified the nurrher was not really an incentive but addressed the needs of many small sites to be '`able to make minor modifieations. There ,was such a proposal fro€ --the Downtown Study. Co*mi tte.e, =but the Planning Cosami ss i nn did not vote to recommend the proposal to Council. When Council considered the most recent moratorium extension they heard that some retai l`er°s needed very small amounts of floor area for minor expansions; therefore, 20D square feet responded both to the original concept for miner expahsion as well as to the types of needs identified by some `local retailers. MOTION PASSED valiaieiisly, Klein absent. NOTION; Coraci Iae.ber Patitucci soed, seconded by Sutsrirs, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and Other material to be provided In ser review, the following recoa*okdatioas of the Council: 7 2 7 2 5/19/86 -MOTION CONTINUED 6e. Create"- an incentive category for development that will improve the design of and increase the amenities to the down- town area. To develop the project selection criteria, a temporary Committee en Downtown Design and Amenities will be created. Membership on the committee will be as follows; 1) Two members of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) selected by the ARB; 2) One member of the Visual Arts Jury (YAJ) selected by the YAJ ; 3) Four members selected from the architectural acrd design community selected by the Mayor; and 4) Two members from the public at large appointed by the Mayor. The committee shall be assisted by the City Planning Staff and shall have a budget not to exceed $5,000. The committee is charged with the responsibility for devel- oping criteria for selection of developments and determining the appropriate incentives, including increases of FAR, which will encourage compliance with the criteria., .More .specifi- cally, the criteria developed by the committee. shall include at least the following; 1) Increase in the availability and usability of open space; 2) Ieclusiob of art in public places;. 3) Net additions to the downtown parking supply; 4) Approved vitality and variety of dowatownuses; 5) Retention of historical character of downtown; and 6) Mixed use development The committee recommendations shall be made available to the ARB, the Planning Commi°+sion, and the, City Couaci l for approval by January 31, 1987. The criteria developed by this committee, whea approved by the City Council, will provide a °public purpa;e" definition for the approval of developments submitted under this exemp- tion. Developments submitted under this exemption 1) shell be processed through the PC zone process; aad 2) shall be subject to the parking requirements established by the Downtown Plan. Councilmember Patitucci emphasized the proposal did not add any additional square feet to the cap of 350,000.. He referred to 6f of his memorandums_ (on file in the City Clerk's office) which allocated some of the 350,000 square feet to be held in reserve for those developments. That limited the amount that 'could be developed under the 1:1 FAR and, once the City developed criteria and had projects that met those criteria, those projects would get preference for approximately a five-year period. If the City. did not get the projects it wanted, the amount was released back to .- the total pool . and, developments went ahead as originally planned under the 1:1. The proposal had three components, _.,each -of - which_ were related but could be independent. The first component was a committee which involved professional members of the comeonity and members at large to develop criteria for the City Cosuncil to adopt 1 1 1 1 for venting additional FAR to projects that met those criterie_ The second component was an attempt to identify those categories for the criteria, including usable open space, art in public places, additions to the Downtown parking supply, improved vital- ity and variety in the Downtown area, retention of the historical character and use of Downtown, and some mixed use development. The third component was that all the criteria developed by the committee would be a generalized finding on the Council's part of public purpose, so the projects approved under the process would all go through PC. He believed that was necessary because a proj- ect proposed under PC must be found to have a public benefit, but also were projects the developers decided they wanted rather than Council. For those who supported the limits on growth. the pro= posal was basically another limit, but was an attempt within the limit to get some of the things wanted which might not be achieved under the 1:1 FAR without any additional incentive. Mayor Cobb clarified the motion was to create an incentive cate- gory fur developments that improved the design of and increase the amenities in the Downtown area. The first component was to estab- lish a Committee on Downtown Desiyn and Amenities. The second component was to develop criteria to be reviewed by the ARB, Planning Commission, and Council. Mr. Schreiber said the motion before Council was consistent with the other actions taken. Councilmember Patituc^,; said Counci.lraember. Levy suggested that the Committee might be more time-consumi rig, cumbersome, and expensive than referring the development of the criteria to staff to handle through the existing committee structure. That was of lesser con- cern than the idea that Council develop criteria and select projects according to chose criteria. Councilmember Sutorius and he believed that involved the professional design and architec- tural community who would be able to do what they said they could do with the last 100,000 square feet. Councilmember Levy said the one element missing was any statement about maximum FAR. Councilmember Pat;tucci said no maximum FAR was in the motion because that would come out of the discussion of trade-offs. He believed the maximum FAR would not go above 3:1 or 2:1 as had been the restriction historically. There was a 50 -foot height limit remaining. Councilmember Sutorius said Councilmember Patitucci's point was a given" for ary considerations, that Council would not go above 3.0 or 2.0. Tan percent open space, .10 additional FAR was an example, and that could range on up and could very easily go to a 1.5, but would never exceed a 3.0 or a 2.0. Councilmember Levy asked if the 25,000 square --foot project size stayed in place, and the 15,000 was an addition. Councilmember Sutorius recommended the subjects of project lot size and parcel split/parcel merger he incorporated in the review process with which staff, working as support to the group, would return. It was wrony to make decisioes at the time that restr?-cted what public benefit opportunities and urban design opportunities might evolve. Councilmember Levy essentially believed the motion was in the right direction. Councilmember Patitucci correctly characterized his response in terms of the temporary committee, and he believed Council would be well served by turning the project over to staff, working with the ARB, -rather than developing another ad hoc group. He understood Councilmember Sutoriu$'_ thinking. but believed individuals who were intensely associated with the development of lif9iet the community over the past years --staff and ARB--were the best people to work on the project. He concurred with the funda- mentals, except he believed Council should ,have a maximum FAR. Also, there should be no five-year sunset clause on the square footage reserved for public benefit purposes. He did not believe mixed -use development represented a community benefit and in some cases, it intensified the square footage occupied. MAYOR COBB ON COMPLETION OF THE AGENDA Mayor Cobb suggested the meeting be adjourned at 11:45 p.m. RETURN TO ITEM 14-A, DOWNTOWN STUDY Councilmember Fletcher said the proposal was attractive, but she was concerned the small, independent merchant with a small piece of property would not be able to provide any of the extra ame- nities that came under the category of public benefit.., The 100,000 square feet would be for those special category develop- ments and 75,000 square feet reserved for those development,which fell under= the exemptions for handicapped, seismic, historic,' -etc. The proposal would limit the amount of development for the smaller properties. Councilmember Bechtel commended Counciiaiembers Patitucci and Sutorius for their motion which encouraged the creativity and i nnovat i veness needed Downtown, but she shared the concerns of Councilmembers Levy and Fletcher about FAR. She understood the proposed committee would review the maximum size limits, and sug- gested there be a per project cap of 25,000 square feet or a 15,0(+0 square -foot increase. The proposal could result in one big project using the entire 100,000 square feet set, aside for cre- ative projects, which was not the intent of the motion. in terms of process between the May, 1986, and the end of January, 1987, she clarified staff envisioned no applications nor exemptions, t.. except for historic and seismic, beyond the 1:1 FAR. Someone could simply apply for a PC but would not know the criteria. Mr. Schreiber clarified under the proposal, between May, 1986, and the end of January, 1981, a PC application claiming public benefit could not be processed until criteria were developed. Councilmember Bechtel said an objective of the committee would be to establish some criteria for public benefit. Before she could support the motion, s e believed it needed a maximum floor area ratio and project size. AMENDREN T: Cooncilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to limit the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 1.5 maximum. Councilmember Bechtel said the amendment could b,; changed if necessary, but large projects had surprisingly low FARs. Council wanted to keep the massiveness of projects down while still allowing some creativity. A 3:1 FAR was too high. Counci lmemiaer Renzel was concerned the -1, resent purpose of the PC ordinance was to allow exemptions from FARs and many other con- straints in exchange for public benefits. Council determined pub- lic benefit and could have independent urban design work done to help determine public benefits. The proposed amendment offered 50 percent more floor area if certain criteria were met. Proposal 6f to reserve the floor area within the ten percent cap (350,000 square feet) for exemption categories said the reservations were not limited to the stated square feet. Sections 6c and 601, historic and seismic, provided fo.r as much as 17'1,000 square feet of essentially pre -approved exemptions. If 100,000 square feet went for PCs, it represented 271,000 of the 350,000 square -foot cap. She was concerned many small properties Downtown would _ get the extra FAR thereby utilizing the bulk of the allocation, and 7 2 7 5 5/19/86 leave many property owners the option only to do minor improve- monte. The present PC ordinance allowed developers to request benefits in exchange for conferring extraordinary benefits, and the Planning Commission, ARB, and Council were capable of making the determination. A formalized process which identified what "shall" be considered a public purpose might encourage some real estate speculation. It was a serious problem and would return to haunt the Council because there would be too many property owners at a disadvantage and all the square footage within the cap would have been used. Vice Mayor Woolley believed the appointed committee would be aware of the discussion, and preferred a specific FAR and building size be left to the committee to explore. The recommendations would return to Council in January, 1987, and if there were no recommen- dations; Council could make the decisions. She preferred Council only indicate concerns for the committee to address in addition to those included in Councilmember Patitucci's memo. Councilmember Fletcher believed the committee would be grateful the Council in terms of square footage and for guidance from FARs. Councilmember Patitucci did not support a 1.5 FAR for the reasons outlined by Vice Mayor Woolley.. He believed it was appropriate to insert in the criteria incentives which benefited the small property owner. He supported the concept of some smaller opportu- nity for property owners to make improvements and modifications, and Council needed to explore how to get control over some of the develop:aent., He preferred to tell the developer what he wanted. The idea was -to set a process in motion without a lot of con- straints. He urged Council take the opportunity to see what could happen with an abbreviated urban design. Councilmember Sutorius said the amendment represented a 1.5 FAR, and if an existing property owner with a building wanted to do some rehabilitation and make some changes in how the building was sited and sized, and the bu; ldine was at a 1.2 FAR, he clarified the liMit of availablity would be .3 additional FAR so the building could only be at a maximum of 145 FAR.. Council appropri- ately provided for historic and seismic incentives to encourage those actions and would permit the building to go to a maximum of the old zoning, i.e., in the case of the , CC zone, an FAR of 3.0; and in the ease of the CS zone, a 2.0 FAR. For public benefit, the cap stated flexibility occurred at a 1.5 FAR. Councilmember Bechtel said that was correct. Councilmember Sutorius: said some buildings would be prohibited from participation because they were already at the 1.5 FAR, and other sites were eliminated from participation because the amount to be earned because of open space, or whatever the contribution, would not .be measurable in terms of the benefit to the City or property owner. He was concerned it put ropes around the intent, flexibility, and creative opportunities provided through urban design concepts. Open space was valuable and 1.5 FAR limit was the wrong approech. He believed a small property owner would benefit because of the opportunity for small, medium and large properties to participate. If open space was expressed as a percentage, there could be some =significant open space .opportunity by. devoting 10 percent of a 5,0.)0 square -foot lot or 500 feet of open space. A small property could make those provisions and should have the opportunity to participate as easily as a 10,000 or 20,000 square -foot lot. He encouraged Council avoidtoo many restrictions into what it proposed go to a committee -like process because the committee should be able try retur=n with recommenda- tions to illustrate the application of public benefits, the appropriate limits, what it meant in terms of the street-scape that would be produced, and what it meant in terms of open space in the area. Councilmember Renzel said no hatter, what the process, Counci i could not mandate a developer to make a certain application. By establishing criteria and offering a limited or up to 5U percent bonus of space, Council gave up its right to say some projects under PC zones did not confer a public benefit even though they offered open space. An unlimited maximum building size, or floor area ratio would result in the cap being used up quickly and with- out a fair amount of discretion on the part of the decision -making bodies as to whether the benefits conferred were worth the bene- fits gained. She opposed the amendment because she believed the limit was too high. Council should stick with the Planning Commission recommendation and use the PC process for exemptions. Councilmember Levy said. the Downtown Study Committee and Planning Commission recommended a 1.0 FAR. The 1.5 FAR represented a 50 percent enlargement and he did not believe Council should go any larger. In terms of public benefit, Council should send a signal to those working on the criteria that 50 percent above the stan- dard was enough. Councilmember Fletcher believed the small property owner would be at a disadvantage because there would likely be competing projects of different sizes and more benefits would be offered from a larger project because there were more options. The small prop- erty owner had so little space he could hardly afford amenities for the public benefit. Councilmember Sutorius believed those inclined to oppose the amendment should consider why. He was more interested in having the process undertaken than he was in winning a point on a 1.5 FAR. He would support the amendment in order to illustrate a cap was being directed. Mayor Cobb agreed. CounCilmember Patitucci clarified the intent was to have a .5 incentive, and if for some reason it was proven to be no incen- tive, the committee would so advise. AMENDMENT RESTATED: TO ADD AM FAR LIMIT OF 1.5 UNLESS THE COMMITTEE ADVISED IT WAS NOT A WORKABLE INCENTIVE AMENDMENT PASSED- by " a rite of 7-1. Renzel rating 'no,° Klein absent. Councilmember Bechtel supported the motion and said she liked the idea of drawing on the input: of design professionals and others in the community beyond the ARb. Counc'lmernber Renzel believed incentives tuch as "improved vitality, a variety of Downtown uses, and retention of historic character" were impossible to ensure for the long term. To approve an application, 50 percent larger than others indicating it would improve the vitality a_I variety of Downtown uses, was not anything Council could control in the future and was therefore inappropriate. ee AMENDMENT: Cor eci lwenber Renzel moved= seconded ' by Fletcher, is delete °i•mproved vitalityy° and 'variety of Downtown uses" and *retention of historical character° as incentives. Councilmember Sutarius said the amendment represented the ki nds of things which needed to be considered. He observed in terms of historic character of the area. every Council action related to historic categories 1 and ri. There were some interesting sites from - a location standpoint and some buildings not included in those categories, but the concern expressed was invali'd 7 7 7 5/19/86 Councilmember Patitricci believed there were bui ;things of histor- ical quality in Palo Alto which could be emulated by future designs. He wanted the professionals to have an opportunity to review the matter. Mayor Cobb was not excited about some of the incentives such as extra potential for Art in Public Places and mixed use develop- ment, but did not believe Council should fine tune the list. The committee should be allowed to do its work. He would not support the amendment. 1 AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 1-7, Renzel voting "aye," ,Klein absent, AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy roved, seconded by Renzel„ to delete °nixed use developments as an incentive. Councilmember Levy opined mixed use development should be deleted as an incentive because Council needed uses which contributed to the character and scale of the Downtown. The mixed use develop- ment concept was generally supported, but to provide incentives for a mixed use development and thereby reduce the amount of square footage to be enhanced by visual and other appeals, was the wrong set of priorities. Councilmember Renzel agreed. Councilmember Fletcher opposed the amendment because she believed mixed uses added to the vitality. The previous. Planning Commissioner Pam Marsh commented having people live Downtown added a lot at minimal cost in traffic and parking. Councilmember Bechtel opposed the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Renzel, Levy voting 'aye," Klein absent. Councilmember Renzel said part of the ARB's job was to ensure reasonable Downtown development, and she believed the proposal would result in a few developers getting all of the square footage up to the cap by offering things Council should expect, especially for a PC development. She did not oppose an urban design plan which provided some basis for making later decisions, but to formalize a process involving the PC, which took away Council's ability to evaluate on its own merits, did not seem to be a good idea, especially in terms of a limited cap and the number of prop- erty owners.. Vice Mayor Woolley supported the motion and believed it kept the City's growth within the cap of 350,000 square feet but simultane- ously maximized the results. She was pleased it did not involve a beauty contest concept but believed it provided some of the same advantages. Each application would stand on its own merits and either pass or fail and would not be compared with another building. She liked the urgency placed on an urban design. plan. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Refuel, ` Fletcher voting 'no,C Klein absent ,,f Councilmember Patitucci said the purpose of 6f was to take some of the 350,000 square -foot cap and reserve it so it was not developed under the 1:1 FAR except for the categories identified. MOTION: Councilmember Petitacci moved, seconded by Sutaries, that staff be directed to ieclede in the-!erdinaeces; resolutions, had other materiel to be provided in oa.r final review, the fol- lowing recommendations of the Caneeci 1: 6f. Reserve the floor area within the `tee percent cap" of 360,0OO square feet for exemption categories veler this section as follows: MOTION CONTINUED 1. 75,000 square feet for exemptions under 6a, -6b, 6c and 6d. 2. 100,000 square feet for exemptions under 6e. These reservations of floor area do not limit the exemptions above to these amiumts. Further, the reservations shall cease to be available for these purposes on December 31, 1991. Councilmember Patitucci said the intent was to try to set aside some of the square footage for some more desirable categories and so it was not developed under the regular 1 : 1 FAR, in order to allow some criteria to be explored and allow those for whom the incentives were created something to strive for. Staff advised the physical limitations created by the parking and the 1: 1 FAR requirements meant the 350,000 square feet would be developed slowly. Councilmember Sutorius emphasized the figures were within the cap and the allocations were for exactly the purposes described. He believed the life of a seismic allocation availability should be stated because it should specifically relate to the kind of requirements already in existence in terms of intervals and how it translated to dates. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Bechtel, eligibility for seismic incentives applies to projects approved on or before the following dates for the respective building cate- gories: Category I December 31, 1989; or 30 months from date of ordi- na ce, whichever is later; Category II June 30, 1990, or 48 months from date of ordinance, whichever is later; and Category III December 31, 1990, or 54 months from date of rd,- Rance, whichever i s later. Councilmember- Sutorius clarified the intervals were directly related to the existing ordinances and to the periods of time described in the notices going out that week, i.e., Category I's had 18 months to respond; Category II's had 24 months to respond; and Category. Ill`s had 30 months to respond. There was a one-year time frame in terms of receiving a letter of intent from the applicant setting out his wants and needs. The one-year intent was added to the individual initial periods, and given a year beyond. If someone submitted a letter of intent at the last pos- sible moment, and still needed to submit an application, one year was a reasonable time in which to do so. After the one-year, the applicant would not be in compliance with the seismic ordinance if the work was not performed. There wa:: no reason to have the allo- cation within seismic categories extend off into 1991 or whatever because the work needed to be performed or the project needed to be approved before that date in each of the primary categories. Councilmember Pat<it;ucci believed the amendment might be appropri- ate in the seismic section which said the incentives would not be available beyond those points. -Councilmember Sutorius agreed but did not want the motion to get 1991 associated and have it be translated as being in conflict with the intent of the seismic ordinance. Mayor Cobb asked if the amendment passed it would properlyreflect the stated intent. 7 2 7 9 5/19/86 Mr. Schreiber said yes. 1 Councilmember Renzel asked if the statement, "these reservations do not limit the exemptions above to these amounts," meant the exemptions for the PC type developments which received benefits for benefits could use all but 75,000 square feet or could they use all they wanted up to 350,000 square feet. If seismic incen- tives were taken away, did it diminish the 75,000 square feet. Councilmember Sutorius said the allocation for seismic and his- toric incentives was a specific allocation andhewas confident it would not be exceeded. The 100,000 square feet was a specific allocation and he believed the intent was to not be limited in terns of applications with public benefit if the right criteria existed. The point was to hold out the amount of square footage from the cap for a period of time, in order for it ta'be available under the criteria for proper applications and to not allow the 100,000 square feet to be used up for ordinary processes within the initial period of time, Councilmember Renzel said the amendment put caps on the seismic eligibility for the reserved amounts, and if that was all that was left, she clarified the City would no longer allow seismic prior- ity in the category even though it might be a major benefit. Councilmember Sutorius referred to the separate and exclusive actions under the seismic ordinance in terms of time frames. Councilmember Renzel said the ordinance required a plan be sub- mitted, but did not require it be executed. Councilmember Sutorius said the notice of intent had to say what would be done. If a person did not provide an intent which meet with' the upgrade requirements, it violated the ordinance. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan said the ordinance had no time frames but required a letter of intent. The letter of 'intent could conceivably say, "I intend to do nothing," which .would not be a violation of the ordinance. Councilmember Sutorius said if someone intended to do nothing, one .'-,fear thereafter, there would be no seismic incentive available to that party, which was another indication of how the concern about whether the square footage would be used, would not occur. Ms. Sloan clarified Councilmember Sutorius added the one year, but the ordinance itself did not require any rehabilitation to be done within a certain time frame. SECOND TO •AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved to delete the 12/31/91 sunset clause on the concept. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OE A SECOND Councilmember Renzel said during .the course of the studies, pre- sumably some properties would start changing hands once all the downtown ordinances were adopted, and if incentives such as public benefits and purposes were defined and it looked as if eveything was going wrong, she asked if the. City could re-evaluate the zoning, etc. without subjecting itself to real problems. Ms. Sloan said Council could always re-evaluate_ zoning. The only problem might be how much environmental assessment was needed. If Council examined one program, an : E IR might not be needed, but if Council intended to look at all the programs, a full, EJR would be needed which would delay anychanges in the ordinance. 7 2 8 0 5/19/86 Councilmember Renzel said it was a programatic FIR; if the kinds of impacts already seen were discussed in the EIR, and Council made a decision despite it. She asked if Council could do a new EIR and arrive at different conclusions. Ms. Sloan said since it was a programatic EIR, projects which fell under the program did not need further environmental assessment. If Council changed the programs defined in the programatic EIR, it would need new environmental assessments. It depended on how much the programs were changed in terms of whether a negative declara- tion or another EIR were needed. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF MOTION WHICH INCLUDED 75,000 SQUARE FEET EXEMP- TIONS UNDER 6a, 6b, 6c, and 64 PASSED unenisiously, k leis absent. SECOND PART OF MOTION WHICH INCLUDES 100,000 SQUARE FEET FOR EXEMPTIONS UNDER 6e PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Renzel, Fletcher voting 'no;" Klein absent. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel 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 recommendations of the Council: 43, Office Size Limits and Other CM District Use Limitations Approve Planning Commission recommendation to limit office uses' in the CU -S and CD -PQ subd1stricts to 5,000 square feet of floor area per site. Also incorporate existing Neighborhood Commercial (CN) district size -of -establishment., regulations on personal se.rvjces, retail services, grocery store, and eating and drinking services into the new CD -M subdistrict regulations. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein absent. MAYOR COBB RE COMPLETION OF DOWNTOWN STUDY Mayor Cobb suggested Council discuss Character and Scale on June Z, 1966, and deal with Housing on June 9. Councilmember Bechtel asked how the suggestion impacted the Planning Department's schedule. 1r. Schreiber said the ordinances and resolutions could be returned to Council in July and still maintain cornpliahce with current moratoria. Councilmember Renzel hoped to get away for a vacation using the Memorial Uay weekend. She preferred to continue the item to June 2, 1986. Councilmember Fletcher preferred Council discuss the remaining portions on Monday nights and not schedule special meetings. MOTION ' TO CONTINUE: Mayor Cobb sieved, Wended by Fletcher, to continuo the Downtown Study ite2 to June 2, 1956. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Patitdcci voting 'gas,' Klein absent. ITEM 011., REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS RENZEL FLETCHER AND BECHTEL RE BASIN PLAN. FOR SAN FRANCISCO BAY (UTI 7-7) Councilmember Renzel referred to a model resolution which addressed certain aspects of the Basin Plan. Staff already sub- mitted technical comments with regard to the complete Basin Plan being considered by the Regional Water ,Quality Control Board (RWQCB). gii NOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the model resolution changing the last paragraph to read, "...City Couacll endorses the April 1986 proposed Amendments..." to "City Council endorsed the attached Amendments with the following change to the Amendments: n er RtCOMNEN DATIONS: First recommendation should be changed from '...the three most sensitive and ecologically diverse tests species.' to '...the three most ecologically relevant test species." Further, convey Resolution to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and also express Council support for the technical comments submitted earlier by staff. Councilmember Levy asked about previous Council actions. City Manager Bill Zaner did not believe any Council actions were taken. Staff responded to a request from the agency with regard to the draft proposal. The Southbay Dischargers Association, of which Palo Alto was a member, had a consultant review the pro- posal, who raised some questions he had not yet reviewed. Councilmember Levy did not believe the motion had anything to do with the Basin Plan itself. As an individual member of two orciani zat ions involved in- the Plan, he supported and had confi- dence in what they did. As a representative of the people of Palo Alto, he was not elected to simply mimic what another organization did. If Council was to take action, it needed. to look at the basis by which the other organizations reached its conclusions, and satisfy itself that it supported the conclusions. He did. not have all the information and could not participate in the voting. Councilmember Patitucci asked about the staff recommendation. Mr. Laver said staff commented on the .technical level with regard to the Plan, but h.ad not had an opportunity to review the consul- tant report received from: the South Bay Dischargers nor the recom- mendations to see if there were other non -technical concerns with which staff might have some difficulties. Councilmember Sutorius shared Councilmember Levy's opinion. He was concerned when staff had not had an opportunity to make the proper evaluation of the consultant report and its impacts. He would not support the motion. Councilmember Fletcher also wished Council had more time to look into the details of the study and the recommendations. It was important for Council to take a position because Palo Alto was impacted. She respected the groups who spent months studying the problems and their motives were to clean up and control the toxins presently in tie flay. She urged Counc,1 support the motion. Councilmember Bechtel said it was hard to not support the amend- ments. The City already took positions expressing concern about the issues, and she encouraged Council support. Councilmember Renzel agreed. The resolution did not speak to the entire Basin Plan which the staff comments did. The staff com- ments covered many of the technical areas which affected the sewage plant or the ability of the City to comply because tests were not available to some of the degrees of the Basin Plan. Staff's comments were incorporated with .Council's support in the notion. Staff was concerned about having to build a treatment plant for storm water runoff, but the RWQCB was -not looking at treatment plants for stormwater runoff but rather streetsweeping as a means of control. Councilmember Patitucci . preferred to see an analysis from staff as to how it was consistent or conflicted with other Council actions. It was hard to. just approve the model. He would not support the motion. 7 2 B 2 5/19/B6 Mayor Cobb a reed. The i nformation wac complex And he wAnte4 staff input. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Couscilaember Bechtel moved the Regional Motet Quality Control Board be asked whether Council -'s comments could be received at a later time. SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIED FOR LACK Or A SECOND SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Coencilmernr Reuel moved. seconded by Fletcher, to endorse the resolutisas is csscept subject to changes recommended by staff. Mr. Zaner said if staff found things in the Basin Plan not included in the resolution but which Council might want to either support or oppose, staff needed the latitude to include them. Mayor Cobb ruled Mr. Zaner's concerns to be implicit in the motion. Councilmember Renxel hoped the wetlands section would not motified. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PAUL» mumuimisAIN, 1T*ta Ovum. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:05 a.o. ATTEST- APPROVED: t City erk ti 6 Mayor