Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-02 City Council Summary MinutesCITYC••COUNCIL MINU T ES ,?:tip'' Regular Meeting June 2, 1986 . i T 1 u A i 1.11 QF PALO) ALTO PAGE Oral Communications 7 2 9 6 Item #1, Appointment of Two Historic Resources 7 2 9 6 Board Members to Fill Terms Expiring May 31, 1990 Consent Calendar 7 2 9 6 Referral 7 2 9 6 Action 7 2 9 s6 Item #2, El Camino Real Landscaping 7 2 9 6 Item #3, Engineering Consulting Services for the 7 2 9'6 Commercial/Indust-1'161 Program for Palo Alto Utilities Item #4, Site Preparation Work for Library Computer System Item #5, Financial Data Base Upgrade Consultant Services Item #6, Ordinance Re Lease of Golf Course Facility (Second Reading) Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions Item #6-A (Old Item 18). External Audit Services Item 17, PUBLIC NEARING: Downtown Study Adjournment: 10:68 p.m. 7 2 9 7 7 2 9 7 7 2 9 7 7 2 9 7 7 2 9 7 7 2 9 8 7 2 9 8 7 29'5 6/02/86 Regular Meeting Monday, June 2, 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, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Cobb announced a Closed Session re Personnel was held at 6:15 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM #1 APPOINTMENT OF TWO HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEMBERS TO F LL RM XP R NG MAY 31, 1990 Ou 5-9-4) Mayor Cobb announced the only two candidates for the two Historic Resources Board (HRB) vacancies were incumhents. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved„ seconded by Sutorius, to reappoint Harold K. Alsdan and Jonathan B. Gifford to the Historic Resources Board for further four-year terms ending May 31, 1990. MOTION PASSED unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Covncilwember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to approve the Consent Calendar. Councilmembers Fletcher and Renzel asked to be recorded as voting "no,' on Item #6, Ordinance re Lease of Golf Course Facility. Referral None Action ITEM #21,_ EL CAMI NO REAL LANDSCAPING (PWK 2-5) (CMR : 3 i 3 :6 ) Staff recommends Council: 1. Delete Bid Item Number 16 from the base bid portion of the contract; 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Munkdale Brothers, Inc. for the amended base bid and Alternate Number.1 for $173,464; and 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract of up to $52,000 to cover the cost of a negotiated maintenance agreement and unanticipated work discovered during con- struction. CONTRACT MNskda.ie Brothers, Inc. ITEM . #3� ENGINEERING CONSULTING $,ERVICES FOR THE COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL fiR GRAM FOR. PAL Ai. 0 UTILITIES 'WI 3) (CMR:165:6) Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute agreements with the five consultants for performance of energy 7 2 9.6 6/02/86 engineering and technicAl services for $75,000 and authorize change orders of up to 15 percent ($11,250) for any additional work identified. - AWARD OF CONTRACTS ESC Energy Corporation Keller & Gannon Lafayette Engineers, Inc. Newcomb Anderson Associates O'Brien & Associates, Inc. ITEM #4, SITE PREPARATION WORK FOR.L.IBRARY COMPUTER SYSTEM (HCA 4) (CMR:293:6) Staff recommends Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with Quality Enterprise, Inc., for $22,813. 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract of up to $3,500. AWARD OF CONTRACT Quality Enterprise, Inc. ITEM #5, FINANCIAL DATA BASE UPGRADE CONSULTANT SERVICES (FIN 3-1) (CMR:298 : 6 ) Staff recommends Council: 1. Approve the waiver of Policy and Procedure 1-10, allowing staff to execute a contract with Touche Ross without formally soliciting proposals for the Phase II portion. 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with the firm of Touche Ross for an amountnot to exceed $29,920. AWARD OF CONTRACT Touche Ross & Co. ITEM #6, ORDINANCE RE LEASE OF GOLF COURSE FACILITY (2n6 Reading) (PAR 4-1.1) ORDINANCE 3687 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO MAKING FINDINGS AND DET 1RMINATIONS AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT TO LEASE OF GOLF COURSE 'ACILITY WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO* (let Reading 5/19/86, PASSED 6-2, Reuss', Fletcher 'not" tin absent) MOTION PASS= unanimously, Fletcher, Rea=el. voting "no" on Item #6, Ordinance re Lease of -Golf Course Facility. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION* Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley, to move Item #8, External Audit Services, forward to becoae_Ite■ $6-A. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #6-A (OLD ITEM Ulf EXTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES (FIN 2-1) MOTIONs Councilme ber Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, to adept staff recommendation to cpprove the external audit services contract with Coopers i Lybrand in the amount of $49,000, plus a contingency amount of $8,350. AWARD OF CONTRACT Coopers & Lybrand i/3 2'8 a MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #7, PUBLIC HEARING: Downtown Study (PLA 7-4) (CMR: 279 :6 ) (Continued from May 19, 1986) Mayor Cobb said Council would discuss Character and Scale, and Housing. Councilmember Klein said he would not participate in the issue. MOTION; Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renxei, 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: 13a. Ground floor Retail Provision: Establishment of a sal —Ground Floor Combining District Approve the Planning Commission recommendation as follows: Limit ground floor uses within a new *GF* Combining District to: 1. Retail serviced 2. Personal services; 3. Eating and drinking; 4. Hotels; S. Travel agencies; and 6. Theaters. Conforming uses under the exisitng CC Community Commercial District (e.g., offices and financial services) would be permitted to continue indefinitely. An exception procedure would allow other uses if: 1. The vacancy rate for ground floor properties within the Of area is seven and one-half percent (7.5%) or greater; and 2. The ground floor space in question has been vacant and available for occuponcy for six (6) months or more. Exceptions would be issued for five (5) years. Councilmember Fletcher said the Downtown area was losing community services and merchants b'ecause of the intense competition for space. Los Altos was an excellent example of how the provision could work under a strict code. During the Downtown Study process, a compromise allowed GF to be used for offices if the vacancy rate for six months, with an overall GF vacancy rate was sever: percent or more. If Council was• serious about keeping retail rents at a reasonable level to attract the desired uses, it should not build in *loopholes.* One compromise was reasonable, but she would not want to go any further. She urged adoption of the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Bechtel asked what was included in *personal services, besides shoe repair and beauty parlors. Manager, Special Projects George Zimmerman said personal services were for individuals, and .included take-out cleaners provided there was no on -site cleaning facilities. 1 7 2 9 8 6/02/86 As corrected 740 7/8 6 Councilmember Bechtel clarified existing offices and financial services could Foritinue indefinitely, and asked whether the insides could be remodeled provided there was no adoiti:onal square footage. Mr. Zimmerman said that was 'correct. Councilmember Patitucci clarified both the seven and one-half percent vacancy rate and the six months needed to be present for an exception; and if two-thirds of the Downtown met the require- ments, and applied to staff for the five-year exceptions, they would all be granted. Mr. Zimmerman said yes. Councilmember Patitucci said if all of the criteria were met, an automatic fiveeyear exception would be granted. He recommended flexibility to accomplish the goal of ground floor, retail, ensure flexibility for the property owner, and not allow so much time for a temporary condition. Councilmember Sutorius referred to his memorandum of May 16, 1986. (on file in the City Clerk's office), and added to the defini- tions of conforming uses, "Reasonable lobby and reception area for non -ground floor uses." The present list did not acknowledge the need for access from the ground floor to the upper or lower floors. Council should modify the ground floor provisions to consider realistic situations, e.g. during a seismic upgrade where neither the property owner nor the City wanted ground floor retail uses, some revenue could come from ground floor epace being used for other than retail. To avoid severe measu'ri ng devi ces in terms of vacancy es, Council should recognize the most important ground floor' space devoted to retail uses was the frontage area. If ground floor space requirements applied to at least 60 percent of the floor area at the ground level and not less than 70 percent of the pt , ;on of the building frontage on the street, and went to a depth, of not less than 25 feet, ground floor retail uses would be accessible, could be seen, and would not create situations where inaccessible back areas of buildings were devoted to retail -only use. He intended to make amendments along those lines. Councilmember Levy likened "travel agencies" to office use and said many would be g:andfathered in Downtown and asked why travel agencies were singled out. Mr. Zimmerman said the Downtown Study Committee considered ground floor uses which would not only be retail related, but visually interesting to the pedestrian, and travel agencies were eliminated from the general business office category as such a use, Councilmember Levy believed a travel agency was more an office use and was not a retail area. He suggested travel agencies not be included in the district. He concurred with Councilmember Sutorius' comments in terms of ground floor uses. The street- scape and store fronts needed to attract pedestrians to the retail and personal service type uses. He had no problem .with office space being in the back of a building with no access to the side- walk or the alleyways. The :basic feeling of Downtown should be retail. He was not opposed to somewhat strict requirements for except=ions:s _ e F , Councilmember Renzel said , Council needed to look et its goals to preserve the retail character Downtown and the economic realities. If space could be used for offices as opposed to retail, it prob- ably would be, which, under some of the alternative proposals, would create- more intense competition for the ground floor space particularly with a depth of 25 feet. Most retail stores required 7 2 9 9 6/02/86 "warehouse" type aspects for their merchandise and to say retailers only needed the display area ignored reality. The Downtown- Study Committee and the Planning Commission carefully considered its recommendations, and Council needed to be careful in altering the recommendations. Councilmember Sutorius raised an important point in terms of a "reasonable" allowance for ground floor entrance, but she preferred to set actual square footage limits on the entrance to second floor space. Council was :hitting on dangerous ground in trying to preserve useful retailing as opposed to "boutique" retailing, which was the trend in terms of competing with offices for rents. Mayor Cobb said Downtown Palo Alto was not the same as Downtown Los Altos, and Palo Alto always had more of a. small; city aspect Downtown it. He opined the vacancy rate provision was unnecessary and onerous beyond all reason, and would render the other provisions not meaningful because it would override everything else and never be met except in the event of a major depression. It basically said no conversions which made no sense for small property owners. He agreed with Councilmember Fletcher that C,ounci.l: did not; want to drive out the small, public serving businesses. Worry was expressed about big developers who could afford to -wait out the three, or six months assuming they had a low enough vacancy rate and held the rents high enough to get an office use. The little property owners could not afford to wait for three or six months, and if the the process was so onerous to get some alternative uses for the property, they would be driven into the arms of the big property owners who would wind up owning the whole .town of Palo Alto because they were the only ones who could afford to wade through the ridiculous and difficult process. - The provision needed. to be loosened and include a. hardship provision for the small property owners. He was concerned about unintended conse- quences, and while he wanted to see Downtown retail, he could not support the motion as it presently stood. AMENDMENT: Coanci member 5dtaries roved, seconded by Levy, to add as a coaforeieg use "ao Entrance, lobby and reception area for non -ground floor uses.* Councilmember Menzel generally supported the amendment and hoped it included the idea that when it returned, staff would provide some parameters for how big the lobbies should be. Councilmember Sutorius believed the important thing was to have it as an acceptable use. He did not include a dimension because of additional amendments to put in certain provisos as to the ground floor area itself. He saw no, need for.a specific parameter when it merely stated approved uses and parameters were not put on any of the other six uses. Councilmember Menzel believed the other six uses were service -type retail, and a lobby and entryway to an upstairs became a necessary part of the upstairs facility, but should be more limited than the others. Councilmember Sutorius agreed it should be limited. He recom- mended Council not provide.therliait in the amendment on the floor but rather handle it through staff or separate amendments. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Ceeoci lnewber !teazel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the lobby use be subject_ to a limitation appro- priate for stairways and snail : entryways to second floor ones, ,t• be determined .by staff. Councilmember Fletcher assumed the Planning Commission would also provide input into the limitation. Mr. Schreiber said no. 7 3 0 1) 6/02/86 Councilmember Renzel understood staff was designing some ordi- otices which would go return to the Planning Commission. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan said staff hoped to fine tune the ordinances presently before the Council by July or August, but only revisions to the Comprehensive Plan would return to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Fletcher clarified the u.:iendment to amendment only dealt with the lobby area --not the reception area. Councilmember Renzel intended both lobby and reception area because if a business had a second floor use, it could put its entire reception area on the first floor and there would not be a retail use there. Councilmember Fletcher was concerned about administering and moni- toring a provision for a reception area because once personnel were on the ground floor with a desk and file cabinets, she queried how the use Could be monitored. COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER WITHDREW HER SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT, COU CILMEMBER BECHTEL SECONDED THE AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT Councilmember Levy opposed the amendment to amendment because it put Council in the design business. Council probably preferred to see larger entryways, lobby areas, hallways, and stairways in the Downtown bui ldi nags rather than small, but the tendency was to make them somewhat more narrow in order to have greater room for remun- erative office space. Council .should encourage architects to plan more appealing entryways, etc., which did not promote auto traf- fic, parking, or the congestion and problems Council was trying to rectify with the Downtown Study. Some people might convert a reception area into pseudo -office space, taut he was comfortable if the definition included "reception area, lobby, entrance." He was not worried a lot of retail space would be taken from the total Downtown area and urged Council reject the amendment to amend- ment. Councilmember Bechtel encouraged her colleagues to support the amendment to amendment because without some restriction on the amount of area for a receptionist to an upstairs office, the entire downstairs might become a reception area. Councilmember Sutorius' motion did not speak to entryway, taut rather an, interior space to be occupied by a person or persons, and there needed to be restrictions. Council was trying to encourage retail use on the ground floor to make it an attractive shopping area. Councilmember Renzel clarified it was a ground floor retail provi- sion, and her intent was for staff to develop some parameters which would presumably be ample enough to allow design flexibility and restrictive enough to protect the competitiveness vis-a-vis the retail uses Council wanted to preserve. Councilmember Fletcher was concerned but would support the amend- ment to amendment and reserve the option to oppose the requirement when it returned to Council. It Right be a good idea to have some minimal area for lobbies and reception areas. :She disagreed with Councilmember Levy's concept of large lobbies end reception areas in the Downtown because it was so constricted, and she did not believe it was conducive to the pedestrian environment. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT FAILED by a wets of 3 6, (teazel, Fletcher, $echtel voting 'aye,' Klein 'abstaiale8.' 7 3 O 1 6/02/86 Councilmember Renzel clarified the buildings with second floors had some kind of access which would automatically be grandfathered in the process. She asked ebout the second floor with no stair- way, and whether, absent Councilmember Sutorius' amendment, it would be consistent with the Planning Commission's ground floor retail proposal. Mr. Schreiber said second floors with access would be grand - fathered. He did not believe there were any second floors without access, but there might be unoccupied second floors which were closed off. If the second floor was to be occupied, access would be required consistent with code requirements. If Councilmember Sutorius' amendment failed, it would be difficult for staff to approve an entryway or lobby technically consistent with the GF provisions. Councilmember Renee] would not support the amendment. She did not know many second floors existed without access, but the ones with access could continue to use them. If others needed access, the City could deal with the problem then. She preferred not to open additional competition with the retail uses. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Renzel , Bechtel, Fletcher voting no, Klein "abstaining." AMENDMENT: Counci lmeober Sutorius moved, seconded by pet i tucci , to define ground floor area space requirements as follows: At least 6U.perceat of the floor area at ground level and mot less than 70 percent of the portion of the building fronting on the street to a depth of net less than 25 feet to be eccopied by con- forming GF uses. All uses credited toward this regofrement to be directly accessible to the pedestrian from the sidewalk, an enhanced alley entry, courtyard or plaza.' Councilmember Sutorius hypothesized a 5,000 square -foot lot, 50 feet by 100 feet, and said under the definition, 35 feet of the 50 -foot frontage would have to be devoted to the ground floor uses being approved. Sixty percent of the ground floor, or 3,000 of the 5,000 square feet would need to be devoted to the ground floor area. Expressing percentages and depth as worded prevented man- ipulations to create bowling alley situations or shall boutique situations with large offices behind because 60 percent was a significant percentage of the entire ground floor. Councilmember Fletcher knew of retail establishments without frontages on the road which did well. She was not sure the amend- ment was necessary, out if the space was obscured from the front of the building, there might be a problem. She was concerned because only 60 percent of the floor area needed to be used for retail. She could not see the justification. Planning Commission Chairperson Pat Cullen said the Downtown Study Committee spent a long time on the ground floor retail provision and redesigned the configuration of the area two or three times. They were close to the one-third exception being proposed for non -retail ground floor uses in the area. To have the additional ground floor retail also subject to another one-third exception from retail pushed the ground floor toward a different kind of retail zone in the area thin what the Downtown Study Committee and Planning Commission discussed. She urged Council not make the exception at the ground floor retail which already existed in the zone. Councilmember Sutorius was correct the back area need not be included as part of the ground ':loon, but 25 -feet was small and amounted to the display area in most retail stores. Many lots were 250 feet deep, and she urged Council retain the street-scape ground floor retail, but make the exception for beyond a certain number of square feet in depth. She believed 25 feet was suffi- cient for the ground floor retail. Council was drastically redesigning the recommendation of both the Downtown Study Committee and the Planning Commission. 7 3 0 2 6/02/86 Councilmember Levy asked for clarification about the 70 percent for the portion of the building fronting on the street. Since front entries were included,- he asked if there was aey reason to not make it 100 percent: Councilmember Sutorius said entrances and lobbies introduced a way of having a parameter on the dimension of the front entries. He could accept 100 percent, but did not want the formula misunder- stood. A concern was raised because 25' feet was mentioned as an "at least" context, and in the example of the 5,000 square -foot lot, 70 percent of the frontage would be 35 feet. If 60 percent of the ground floor were requi rea, it was 3.000 feet. If one took the 25 feet and multiplied it by 35 or 50, it was a wall square footage of retail. Councilmember Levy concurred with Commissioner Cullen. He intended to make an amendment that the portion of the building fronting on the street should be occupied to 100 percent by the approved seven uses in 13a, which included entryways. He believed the depth should be yreater than 25 feet, and he intended to suggest the figure be set at 40 feet and staff communicate the information to the Downtown property owners in order for them to return with comments. He was not sure 40 feet was the right figure. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, beat the portion of the property freutiig on the street be revised to 100 percent for the Ground floor retail uses, Councilmember Patitucci believed Councilmember Levy's .direction was simpler. He suggested 25 feet without the 60 or 70 percent requirement suggested by Councilmember Sutorius. A typical depth ranged from 95 to about 125 feet, so 60 percent retail under the approved uses might incorporate Councilmember Sutorius' proposal, get the majority of the square footage, and still allow deep lots a sufficient amount of space in the back for dead space to be used for an alternate use while still preserving the retail. Vice Mayor Woolley agreed with Councilmember Patitucci. She seconded the amendment to amendment because the maker said staff should pick a number for tt;e depth. She was unwilling to pick a number and wanted to staff to return with specific numbers in July. Councilmember Renee' was glad she voted against the reception areas. Council seemed to create a complete gutting of the retail only. A stock brokerage firm with a lot of reception -type people as well as brokers could have all the reception people located in the so-called *retail only,* and the rest of the people could be in the other 40 percent of the ground floor as well as the second floor, and it would be in :compliance. It would be hard to pre- serve retail uses if virtually 100 percent of the first floor could be used as a reception area, access to the second floor, and 40 percent for other non -retail permitted uses. Councilmember Bechtel supported the amendment to amendment. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT PASSED rsaaiioisly, Klein "abstaining." AMENDMENT TO AMEMO ENT Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, to change the depth •f 25 feet to s depth of 40 feet and request staff to o communicate the ground floor combining district parameters to property owners to ensure their input before Cosacil`s flail decision. Councilmember Levy believed if staff clearly communicated with the property owners to get back to the Council in writing, no public hearing would be required. Ms. Sloan- agreed. 7 3 0 3 6/02/86 Counc l lmember Levy said the 40 feet was not firm, but 25 feet was too lit ie. Slime areas of ground floor would be inappropriate for retail usage and would not necessarily enhance the streetscape if they were in the rear of buildings. It was appropriate to allow some floor space to continue in office use only where the retail usage was not good. Retail uses on the ground floor were fully competitive with office uses on the ground floor and were gen- erally _ more remunerative. He was comfortable retail uses would not be pushed out of the Downtown area. Counci lmember 'Renzel opposed both "depth" amendments even though they referred to "at least." It was clear even with the 60 per- cent figure for ground floor retail uses; if the minimum site depth was 96 feet, it meant 60 feet or more Of depth to cover the percentage, and it would have to be more if side entries to other buildings were permitted. Woolworth's and Walgreens provided services to the senior citizens Downtown, and both had second floors which could easily be converted to significant two-story office buildings in a marketplace where the floor area ratio was to -be 1:1. There would be tremendous demand to convert the buildings and it would be more competitive than the retail use on the ground floor. The second story office would be more competi- tive if the first floor was also converted to reception areas, etc. for whatever percent might be decided on. In order to make retail competitive and preserve it Downtown, Council needed to commit to retail only. Extra parameters created a speculative and competitive environment in which the retail uses could not sur- vive. The bigger uses which provided the alternatives to a grocery store Downtown needed storage areas. Those areas did not have to be open for people to walk into, but they were an essen- tial part of the retail operation. Council ignored that if it said those spaces could be used for offices and somehow tYe retailer had to make due with what residual remained. She urged Council defeat all the additional parameters and retain the ground floor retail as suggested by the Planning Commission. Counci lmember Bechtel believed both 25 and 40 feet were too 1ittie. She would not support the amendment to amendment. Counci l menber Fletcher quoted from the report by Groin and Groin Associates who .analyzed the is fee the Council, "From the per- spective of overall retailo demand, the ground floor retail strategy will encourage the long -run trend of retail sales. Also, by eliminating the competition for ground floor space, it will help reduce; but not eliminate, the shift of rent sensitive neigh- borhood serving uses out of the area." She quoted from Richard Carlson, Manager's Forum, "Office use can always bid out retailers.# Even if it was unobtrusive to have office uses in the rear, it added employees who parked Downtown for eight or more hours, and it was not conducive to retail activity. The differ- ence between Palo Alto and Los Altos was Los Altos instituted the retail -only ground floor use 20 years ago, and it was strictly enforced. It was a thriving retail area -net only on Main Street where it was first targeted, but it lead to a spread of retail and service kinds of establishments in the surrounding area, and it was not the boutique -type of establishment Council encouraged if it allowed competition with office space, If Council really wanted community -serving retail uses Downtown, it needed to keep to 100 percent retail only. . Councilmember Patitucri said Richard Carlson. also said a rule could not be made which would keep out offices. There was a rel a -- ti dnshi p between the percentage and the depths and the _question was whether the depth, the percentage, or both were necessary. He supported anything simpler than what was before the Council. AMEMi1NEMT TO AME4l3MElT FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Cobb, Levy*, Sator,iss* Woolley +feting "so," 'Joie =abstaiotal." 7 3 0 4 6/02/86 Councilmember Bechtel said Councilmember Patitucci had a point and perhaps the depth should be eliminated. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Coanci lmember Bechtel ,moved, seconded by PatitMcci, to delete the reference to 25 feet. Councilmember Pat'i t'ucci clarified the 100 percent frontage and 60 percent of the total would be the two requirements. Councilmember Bechtel said yes. Councilmember Levy clarified a store could have on the street only its show windows and behind the show windows could be anything because there was no depth requirement. Mayor Cobb clarified the elimination of the specific reference to the specific depth meant one needed to have a retail frontage, and the limitation on depth was implicit in the 60 percent number. Mr. Schreiber said yes, Councilmember Levy agreed, but said it meant a store owner could have just a frontage window as the retail use with an office right behind the frontage window. Mayor Cobb said it was a ludicrous use of land, but technically it could occur with the present amendment. AMENDMENT TO ANEMUMENT WITHDRAWN Councilmember Renee! believed all of Council's discussions regarding parameters were moot because of tne addition of recep- tion areas as a permi ttee! JS2 which Qualified as retail. SUBSTITUTE • AMENDMENT: Cooncileeaber Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that 75 percent of the ground floor area be used for retail only uses. Councilmember Renzel was not worried about the depth because if the entryway had to be retail, it was unlikely the retail would be in the back. She believed the other parameters were too liberal and would make too much competition with retail, and 25 percent permitted some remote places • to be used for additional accessways. It was somewhat of a moot point because of the problem with the acceptable use being a reception area in entries. Councilmember Bechtel supported the substitute amendment because it met the spirit of trying to preserve and protect retail in the ground floor area. Councilmember Levy said it was clear Council desired to have 100 percent of the building fronting on the street be retail„ AMENDMENT: Cooaci lmember Levy moved that 1©O percent of the portion of the building fronting on the street be devoted to retail uses, AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO SUBST I TUtE AMENDMENT SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT RESTATE/I: That 75 percent of the graved floor area be used for retail only..and that the portion of the property fronts sg on the street be revs sea from 70 percent to 100 percent for the !reeled floor retail uses. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote 5.3, Sotorird, Cobb, Patltr,tti -voting "me!"' Klein "set participating," 7 3 0 S 6/02/06 AMENDMENT: Couacilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to revise proposed exception provisions as follows: 'An exception procedure would allow other uses .if: la. The recency rate for ground floor properties within the GF area is five percent (5%) or greeter; and lb. The ground floor space in question has been vacant end avail- able for occupancy for three (3) months •r more; or 2. The vacant ground floor spice to be reoccupied does .not frost directly en the street front sidewalk; or 3. The budding is in Seismic Categories 1, II_ , or III, end is endergai sg seismic upgrade. Exceptions would be issued for op td five years. The start date for exception 03 wain d begin upon issuance of the building permit of the seismic upgrade. Councilmernber Sutorius believed seismic exceptions should have been recognized in the original exception procedures, and he did not see why an exception could not be applied for if the ground floor space to be reoccupied did not front directly on the street front sidewalk, The amendment reduced consternation and made the granting of exemptions more realistic. Exemptions continued to be up to five years, and exemptions for the new seismic upgrades would begin upon issuance of the building permit. An exemption for seismic upgrade allowed some use of the space while the upgrade occurred recognizing the use could not be full retail. Ms. Sloan asked if "up to five years" was part of the amendment. Councilmembe^ Sutorius said yes, Ms. Sloan said she urged the Planning Commission not to have the exception procedure contain any discretion. If the application were subject to some discretion by a staff member, i.e., how many years to issue the exception for, it would require findings and determinations, a hearing notice, public .participation, and .having such a decision appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council, or just the City Council. The Planning Commission determined five years to be a reasonable length 'of time for a tenant. If Council believed five years was too long, A she urged Council chose a shorter period of time rather than give staff discretion to choose one year for one type of business and five years for another type of business which: might seem arbitrary. Councilfember= Sutorius clarified five years did not mandate the property owner needed to exercise the full five years, but the City would not be entering into the hearing process. Ms. Sloan .said someone could go out of business in the meantime: With regard to seismic upgrade, the exception period could be during the seismic rehabilitation which would not have to be five years. MAKER AND SECOND i F MOTION DELETED MOODS "GP TG" IN LAST PARA- GRApK GF AMENDMENT Counci lmember Fletcher referred to the seismic category and asked l f non -retail use be permitteo for five years or only while recon- struction occurred. Counc i l Number Sutorius clarified there would not be a judgmental. factor involved in the exception applications. The period was for five years. Since seismic was a discreet category, it was pos- sible to have some limitation related to the period of construc- tion. 7 3 Q.-6 6/02/86 1 1 1 Councilmember Fletcher urged her colleagues not : to, support the amendment since exceptions wore already built in by the Planning Commission and the Council, and exceptions were in effect for seismic buildings. If Council wanted community -serving retail and service businesses Downtown, it could not increase the loopholes. Councilmember Bechtel requested the amendment_ be divided for pur- poses. of voting. - She supported 1(a) for five percent, 'as opposed to seven percent; she supported provision 1{b), but believed three months was too,, short; and provision No, 2 was too , loose. Seismic upgrade was- already liven other benefits in terms of expansion. It was too long, and including Categories I, II, and 111 was too broad. AMERON1ENT DIVIDED FOR PORPOSES OF VOTING Councilmember Renzel referred to a definition that a vacant space fronted directly on the sidewalk-, and asked whether its entry way was to the public sidewalk. Mr. Schreiber said Councilmember Renzel provided a logical defini- tion, but he deferred a definitive answer until staff walked around Downtown and looked at some of the areas. Council might provide guidance on the record as lo the intent of the amendment. Councilmember Renzel agreed with Councilmember Bechtel in .support of the five percent or greater vacancy rate, but did not believe Council ° knew the 'extent of- the application for .other exceptions, Council provided many benefits for seismic upgrading, and if the exception was considered, it should be limited to the time of con- struction. If Walgreens was driven out by a seismic upgrade, it was probably not economic for it to return. She believed it was a mistake to fiddle with the Planning Commission recommendations. She would only support the five percent or greater because i.t was a fairly stiff requirement. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if exception No. 2 was needed in addition to the 25 percent exemption for businesses that did not front o.n the street. She agreed with her colleagues` currcerns about the seismic exception continuing for five years. If office space was permitted, the initial remodeling would probably be more appropri- ate for offices. After five years, renting the space for retail would be difficult, and the situation might continue in offices. She supported the exception for the period of the upgrade, but not for five years. Councilmember Sutorius had no problem with the exception period being limited to the period of the upgrade. It did not create a judgmental type of situation for staff and did not introduce the hearing. The seismic exception was intended to apply for the period of the upgrade not to ,exceed fi ve• years, Mr. ?-chreiber had an administrative problem with the exception for seismic buildings being for the period of the. upgrade. Under the Building Code, building permits were valid as long as progress was wade on the project. If permit work was valuable in allowing an -office use, the work could, stretch out. far _ longer than five years. HAREM AND . ►ECOND' OF AMENDMENT ' AOREED TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE THAT TIE EXTENSION NOLO APPLY FOR TILE :PERIOD. OF : -T1iE _ UPGRA$E ilOT TO EXCEED FIVE TEARS FOR EXCEPTION 03. Counci=ltaembev Sutorius said. Ite+a #2 was remote : in' light of- previ-=ous emendmentss •<< MAKER. AND SECOND OF AMENDMENT ..DELETED ITEM 02 7 3 0 7 6/02/86 1,Q7*---- •• Cn«ncil enhor i_Pvy said in the real estate business a five percent vacancy rate was considered normal. In regard to Item #1a, he asked if the five percent referred to the retail square footage or the individual properties available for retail use. Recently Palo Alto had less than five percent vacancy and residential rates were way down, but he was more comfortable with the seven and one-half percent figure. Council should encourage retail usage, and he agreed with those Councilmembers who preferred to make the excep- tions go through more rigorous procedures; therefore, he would vote against Items #la and #1b. A three -months' vacancy was not unusual for retail space, and often the normal turnover took three months or more. He believed the Planning Commission recommenda- tion of six -months' vacancy was appropriate. Item #3 was appro- priate because often while construction was in progress, a retail site was not economic, and the developer should be given the bene- fit of the doubt. Up to five years was acceptable because someone would not accept a lease and start a business in that location with the idea of leaving in a few months. Mr. Zimmerman said the original intent was for the five percent to apply to the total ground floor area within the new GF overlay district. Councilmember Levy said if one large user vacated property, it might be hard to find a new tenant, which would have a dramatic impact. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct, but the space would also have to be available for occupancy for a stated period of time, i.e., six months as recommended or three months as stated in the amendment. Councilmember Renzel asked if consideration was given to what happened if the retail uses were offices in the course of calcu- lating peak -hour traffic for Downtown, or was it added on to the figures Council already had. Transportation Planner Dave Fairchild said it was the reverse. The calculations as4umed a use distribution similar to that found in the pipeline from 1980 to 1984 and was heavily weighted towards office. Councilmember Renzel clarified it was covered in Council's traffic projections. She asked if it was staff's understanding that any of the uses permitted under .the exceptions had to otherwise meet the City's parking requirements and other adopted regulations. Mr. Zimmerman said only to the extent the application applied to added floor area and not to the present floor area.. AMENDMENT RESTATED: REVISE PROPOSED EXCEPTION PROTISION AS FOLLOWS: AN EXCEPTION PROCEDURE WOULD ALLOW OTHER USES IF: la. THE VACANCY RATE FOR GROUND FLOOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE GF AREA IS FIVE PERCENT (5%) OR GREATER; ID. THE GROUND FLOOR SPACE IN QUESTION RAS SEEN VACANT AND AVAIL- ABLE FOR OCCUPANCY FOR THREE (3) MONTHS OR MORE 3. THE BUILDING IS IN SEISMIC CATEGORIES I. II, OR III. AND IS UNDERGOING SEISNIC UPGRADE. EXCEPTIONS WOULD SE ISSUED FOR FIVE YEARS. TILE START DATE FOR EXCEPTION 103 VOULO BEGIN OPQN ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT OF THE SEISMIC UPGRADE, AND EXEMPTION WOULD APPLY FOR THE PERIOD OF THE UPGRADE MOT TO EXCEED FIVE .TEARS" 1 1 1 7 3 0 8 6/02/86 FIRST PART OF AMENDMENT RE FIVE PERCENT VACANCY RATE PASSED by a retie of 5-3, pern,r ei , Fi atcher, Lowy voting 'no,' Klein "abstaining.1' SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT RE THREE-MONTH VACANCY PERIOD FAILED by a vote of 3.5, Patitucci, Sutorius, Cobb voting "aye," Klein "abstaining." Councilmember Bechtel said the Planning Commission and the Downtown Study Committee did not consider Seismic Category III, and to include it was too broad. She urged her colleagues to vote against the amendment. THIRD PART OF AMENDMENT 13 RE SEISMIC UPGRADES FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Patitaeci, Cobb, Sutorius, Levy voting "aye," Klein ;abstaining." AMENDMENT: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Patltuccl, that staff be instructed to return with an exception procedure for hardship cases; with a floatation of five years. Mayor Cobb supported the principle of a Downtown retail environ- ment, but was concerned about unintentionally driving small prop- erty owners to sell their properties to well-to-do and large property owners who would end up owning all of Downtown Palo Alto. There were hardship cases, and rather than see the little people get hurt, he wanted an escape hatch. With a hardship provision, he could support the overall motion. Counc'flmember Levy believed if a property owner wanted to change the use front the current zone, they could go to a PC zone. Mr. Zimmerman said with a PC the property owner had to demonstrate public benefit rather than hardship. Councilmember Levy asked for a definition of "public hardship." Mayor Cobb believed economic was a primary definition, but he looked' to staff to return with the definition of "hardship." Another possible hardship situation might be a property which did not lend itself to retail use. Councilmember Levy d•id not sympathize with developing the excep- tion procedure. The zone allowed many uses, and all were "retail" or "personal service." Council allowed enough scope so any prop- erty owner could find viable uses within the zone developed. All zones had restrictions., and he did not believe the subject zone had more restrictions than others within the community. He was reluctant to open up various exception procedures, particularly where the concept of hardship usually meant economic hardship which often meant the economic use was probably inappropriate. Councilmember Bechtel opposed the amendment. Councilmember Sutorius asked if the hardship exception procedure would be applicable in the case of the vacancy situation and have a five-year time limit. Mayor' Cobb was more concerned with the vacancy situation. Councilmember Sutorius said if the exception was based on hardship with the vacancy problem as the rationale, it should be a limited exception, and the five-year limit was appropriate. If that was the intent of the amendiement - he -would Support it. awn n AN, SECOND OF AMENDMENT AGREED TO INCLUDE A FIVE-YEAR 4ANITATIO 7 3 0 9 6/02/86 Councilrember Patitucci did not believe Council knew the impacts of any of its actions. Council should allow the small property owner an opportunity to plead hardship if Council's actions came down heavily where it was unintended. He supported the amend- ment. Ms. Sloan asked if someone could apply for the exception only if the vacancy rate was at five percent. Mayor Cobb said Councilmember Sutorius referred to the five-year limitation on any exception granted. His amendment was for staff to return with a procedure for a hardship exception. If someone did not believe they could rent the property or, believed the retail zone should not apply, staff would return with an appropri- ate process for such an exception. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Cobb. Patitucci: Woolley, Sutori es voting 'aye," Klein 'abstai ni ng A" AMENDMENT: Covvscilseaber Levy moved to delete travel agencies from the ground floor uses. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Cobb voting 'no,' Klein *abstaining.* MOTION: Couacilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Woolley, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: 13b. Ground Floor Provision: �teyi s1 ovv to the Com�rehensl me Plan Approve the Ptanaing Commission recooumendatioe as foldo►ws If the GF Ground Floor Combining District is approved, modify Urban Design Program 19 to reflect this provision; The revised test and program would read as follows: (Text) In addltio*, the GF Graved Floor overlay district attempts to maintain shopper interest in the retail core of the University Avenue Business District by restricting new uses at greand fleer locations to retail businesses or personal services. Wrbaa Design Program 19: Monitor the effectiveness of the gr•eeEd floor retail requirement for sect 1 oees of the University Aves•e $vsiness District. Councilraember Renzel said the ;notion was a Comprehensive Plan "underpinning," and hopefully would achieve the desired results. MOTION PASSED onaaimsesly, Kleib 'abstaining,' NOTION: Cooncilmesber Bechtel mowed, seconded by Satar1vss, that staff he directed to 1scleea in the ordinances, resoletioas, avid other materiel t• be provided *or fi veal review, the fo11 evil eg recommeadotions of the Couaci l : 14. (P) Pedestrian SMnp.Pir4 Combining District Regulations Approve the Planets, Commission, recommendation to matinee appliCatie.a of the (P) Pedestrian Coabdsisg District de:sige regulations (Chapter 18.47) for Bowotesso areas whore Current regulatioe4 are 1n a effect. NOTION PASSED raaalaossly, Klein 'abstai ni sg,. 1 3 1 0 6/ 02/85 COUNCIL . RECESSED FROM 9:25 p.m. iu 9:40 MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Patitucci, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, -resolutions, and other materiel to be provided in our final review, the fol- lowing recommendations of the Couocil: 42. Visual: Urban Desi n Approve the Planning Commi isiom recommendation to : 1 rest the Architectural Review Beard • (ARB) and staff to £cti stinue explorstiOn of a possible Urban Design Study. Councilmember Bechtel said the motion was broad and she urged Council support. Councilmember Menzel asked how the potion dovetailed with the one passed by Council earlier for an urban design study for purposes of the density bonus. Councilmember Bechtel said the motion was an overall concept, and was a referral to staff for a possible urban design study. Councilmember Levy was confused by the urban design plan research document contained in the Council's packet which he understood suggested a far more massive concept than simply a visual urban design plan. He asked if the concept of the motion was a "visual" urban design plan or another Downtown Study. Councilmember Bechtel said the motion was for a visual urban design plan. Councilmember Levy supported the motion, but the research document indicated an expenditure of over $100,000, which he did not see as o part of the motion. -. Councilmember Ri n.rius did ;;ot wa t the comments to be taken by the ARil' as ai wet blanket to an effort just put in the packet. He did not believe many Councllmembers read the information in its entirety, and he discouraged an opinion as to its contents with too cursory an examination. NOTION PASSER by a vote of 7w-1, Fletcher voting sao," Klein "abstaining." MOTION: Vice Mayer Woolley moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff be directed to incluse in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recon- mendstions of the Council: 30a. Now C , reI e.sIv a plan Pro ,rase ea aenslty Transfer Approve the Pleasing Commission recommendation as follows: Adopt a new progrose ♦e historic preservation and supportive text within the Urban Design secties of the •Comprehensive Plow which would read: Urbael Design Program f►A: Allow the transfer of development rights for designated buildings sf historic sr •architectural significance (Historic Categories I and II) within the Cow- aercial D4ewertswR (CO) zene through the Planned Community- (PC) tone process. (Tsxt)r - A transfer of do,ol epmeot rights program wool d: permit tressferri deg the dI t fereocs benwlep the *mount of existing dere5psp.t and the maaisu.-p-sr+kitt ed 4abolbp#sM from Cate- gories 1 and II historic WWII, =sites. to MO-lrlstoric. receiver sites. Both sites would have to be located within the iewstown CD zoning district. The receiver sites: 7 3 1 1 6/02/86 nnrlom COITIRUEI3 1. Shall be at least 159 feet from residentially zoned properties; 2. Shall be permitted to receive a maximum additional floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1 above what poet d etherwi se be permitted for the site; 3. Shell rot be sites with structures of historic or archi- tecteral -significance; and 4. Shall be subject to applicable Downtown project size limits. Vice Mayor Woolley said the item would probably not have much impact on the Downtown because it only involved three sites. Six sites had some small square fobtage, starting at 98 square feet, but the complicated nature of selling rights was not worth it. The three properties were the Christian Science Church with 5,000 square feet; the Victorian house at 510 Waverley with 2,000 square feet; and the 1920s gas station on the corner of Homer and Alma with about 1,000 square feet. The likelihood that any of the properties would sell their density transfer was not great, but if the motion allowed Council to save any of the properties, it should be left in because it simply, involved putting the item in the Comprehensive Plan and did not involve a new program for staff to work out. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFER: Councilmenber Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to refer Items 30,a, New Comprehensive Plan Program on Density Transfer, and 30b, Revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMR:274:5), to the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee. Councilmernber Bechtel said the Planning Commission had little time to consider those items. The P&P Committee was an appropriate planning body, and the Planning staff did not believe it was necessary for the item to return to the Planning Commission. Council would have o further opportunity to hear public input on the concepts, which was appropriate. Councilrnember Renzel supported the substitute motion. because Council made modifications to what was permitted on Category 1 and 1I buildings beyond what was originally cw.templ aired by the Planning Commission. Vice Mayor Woolley said if Council delayed Items #30a and 30b, and the period went beyond the expiration of the Downtown ordinance, Council needed to address Item #31, Moratorium on DGnwntawn Historic Structure Sites, because a gap in time might have some undesirable action on historic sites. MAKER ANS SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: THAT STAFF RE DIRECTED TO INCLUSE ,IN T$E ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, A_ND !ETHER MATERIAL TO RE PRDVIIEO IN 0118 FINAL REVIEW, THE FOL- LOWING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNCIL: 31. Historic- Preservation: Moratorium on Downtown Historic trv�cture tts Approve tke Pleasing Cessi sst _ caw*ow#*ti s. if propos.d revi- sues to the Historic Preservatiies Or4isesco require forth., cos- sidsratiss before the City ,C•.scil Cs,a act on thee, sestina. the Desoto** *oratories for historic ttriectere sites is tkw °stew CD Districts 7 3 1 2 6/02/86 SUBSTITUTE NOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein 'abstaining." MOTION: 'Conncilmember Levy moved that staff, We directed,to,work with D•wutowe businesses with the objective of providing grocery products, including fresh meat and produce, within the'Downtown area, net necessarily at one location and further that this be accomplished without violating the objective of maintenance of the appropriate human scale In the Downtown- area. NOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND HOUSING Planning Commission Chairperson Pat Cullen sa'd Item #2, under Item 8a, was not the sense of the Planning Commission recommenda- tion. The site and design review was to be applied only to Area 1 where the 1.5 housing incentive: was recommended. NOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final review, the following recommendations of the Council: B. Housing in CD -S and CD -1i Subdistricts: Incentives and Comprehensive Plan Programs Ba, Housing Incentives Approve the Planning Commission recommendation as follows: 1. , Allow additional floor area for :h•usi ng in the CD -S and .CD -i9 seaodistricts- in addition to: the, O.4 to 1 .floor , area,.. ratio allowed for any type of permitted or Conditional use. (The recommended housing, FARs for specific areas within : the CD.S add, CO -N- iMbdistr.icts are= in'Jab1e 1, (pg. 26) in CNR:232:6, dated April 3, 1986.) 2. Require that Loosing developed in Area 1 under CD -S be subject to site sad design review lender Chapter 18.82 of the Zoning ordinance. 3. Determine the density allowed for housing by the amount •f floor arer;emitted on a site rather than on the moment of site area. 4. Require that tweety-five percent (25x) of the units .developed under the housing FAR incentives is Area 1 of the CO -S sub- district be Ballow--Morket-Rate (8N/). S. Request the Architectural Review Beard (ARB) to develop special design guidelines on setbacks, open space, and access for -housing developed in. Area 1 of the CO -S subdistrict. Councilmember Fletcher urged Council not modify the Planning Commission recommendation. 1 Councilmember Patitucci believed the system was complex. The original.' Planning Commission notebook had a change in the, FAR about=every= 100, feet within, a =four -block area.„ He was inclined to oppose. 8a and 8b and come up with a siaepl er pl art. He; suggested incorporating the avFirages of whatwas contained in the .plsarr: as an overlay type zone. The CD -S and Cfl-N would be overlayed by an RM-3 zone : so there could be coimercial only, commercial • could be combined with RM-3, or RM-3 could be an alternative. RM-3 hap- pened °to be the adjacent zoning to 4he entire area, He, suggested a' substitution for Item 8, "Housing,' including 8a and 8b.: 7 3 1 3 6/02/86 SUBSTITUTE NOTION: Coueci imember ratiti0cci moved, seconded by Setorius, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, monitions, end other material to be ',provided in •sr final review, the fallowing recommendations •f the Council: Rousing in 4O -S and CO -N Sibdi stri ct- -• Overlay the CO -S acid CO -N Svbdi stri cts with AN -3 zoning, The RN -3 zoning can be in addition to the 0.4 commercial FAR in a mixed use development or an alter- native to it for horsing only. Councilmember Patitucci believed it was simpler to tie into the existing zoning ordinance. The intent was to keep the same zoning, and RM-',_ zoning approximated the typical amount of housing found with .25 to 1,5 FARs. He could not discern a difference between one block and the next in terms of why there were dif- ferent FARs. Councilmember Bechtel clarified the RM-3 zoning was in addition to the u.4:, commercial,. e.g., . a- 10,000 square -foot building could build five units plus have 0.4 FAR commercial. Councilmember Patitucci said that was correct; the current system allowed conversion of the commercial FAR to a housing FAR plus the incentive. His proposal was for separate approvals A'mixed-use development would have a 0.4 FAR for commercial and RM-3 for resi- dential. RM-3 was ,lust RM-3, and there was no incentive to con- vert to housing by eliminating commercial. Councilmember Bechtel understood Councilmember Patituccits con- cerns with regard to the housing incentives. The Planning Com- mission wanted to encourage housing and service- and neighborhood - commercial, and recommended a 25 percent BMR for Area 1, which encouraged more BMR°s, and special design guidelines. She was concerned about eliminating positive elements and asked for clari- fication. Commissioner Cullen said the Planning Commission chose not to impose a single housing incentive or a single RM-3 zoning across the board because the surrounding areas varied greatly and the Commission tried to taper adjacent development for consistency. The closer the contiguous area was to a lower residential density, the less of a housing incentive was suggested. --The intent was to keep housing from being massive. Councilmember Patitucci understood the lowest FAR incentive was 0.26 OR' top of 0.5 for housing, and combining housing: and commer- cial produced from 3 to 26 units, while RM-3, ranged from 1 to 25 units. The only additional volume for the entire area was if someone chose to do, mixed -use and -retain some commercial. His proposal died not =increase the entire -potential densityof the area but took a - number closer to the lower range, applied it -rte the whole area. and simplified the process by not creating seven zones within four blocks as in the current proposal. Mr. Zimmerman said the analogy was correct. Commissioner Cullen said the Planning Commission did notencourage housing in some of those areas, especially those with a i0.26 housing incentive, in order to retain the service-commercia and too much incentive might tip over into housing. Mayor Cobb asked about the special incentives in Area I. Commissioner Cullen said Area 1 was a special area, much closer to Alma and Downtown, and currently had little oriented toward service -commercial. The Planning Commission believed the four block faces in Area 1 could support a .larger amount of housing, and when it happened, the Commission wanted a development which built in some of the desired amenities. - I n some of the other areas a few units on top of commercial might alleviate some of the housing ° shortage in Downtown Palo Alto witho,ut impacting the service-commerc1t1 or the contiguous residential Areas. 6/02/.6 8 coencilmember Renzel said Councilmember Patitecci's proposal was simple, She presumed the zoning criteria was that applied to a straight RM-3 proposal, and aeked about the RM-3 height limit versus the height limit in the CD -5 and CD»C zones. • Mr. Zimmerman said the height limit in RM-3 was 35 feet. The proposed height limit in the CD -S zone was 50 feet; however, there was also, the new provision that within 150 feet ,of adjacent residential, the height limit within any portion of the new Downtown CD was the equivalent of the most restrictive abutting resident el . Councilmember Renzel clarified it could be 35 feet, and the 0.4 FAR suggested they were not apt to have a high-rise building particularly in the CO -S zones. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel was concerned the substitute motion used the densities of an RM-3 zone and did not say how big each unit would be. It could have a major visual impact on surrounding neighbors, although it might not be the case if the 150 -foot restrictive height applied. Mr. Schreiber said the substitute motion was simple and easy for both staff and the public to administer. Councilmember Renzel was concerned about the visual integration with the neighborhood, whether staff perceived it to be the same at RM-3 with the 150 -foot restrictions, and whether it altered the viability of the CD -S uses Council hoped to preserve. Mr, Schreiber said staff did not have the expertise to comment in the area of economic analysis. In regard to height, he believed the 150 -foot mirror imaye height limit would go a long way towards achieving visual integration. Councilmember Renzel clarified the 150 feet reflected the limit rather than existing beildings. There were many little one-story houses, but the limit in the area might be 30 to 35 feet, so the limit allowed something much larger than actually existed,, Mr. Schreiber said yes. Councilmember Levy queries whether Councilmember Patitucci'.s formula allowed significantly more building. Presently, a 10,000 square -foot =parcel would be allowed 0.4 FAR commercial plus 2 units on top; and a 15,000 square -foot parcel could have 0.4 commercial plus 3 units. Under Councilmember Patitucci's formula, a 10,000 square -foot parcel allowed the 0.4 FAR commercial plus 5 units, and 8 units for a 15,000 square -foot parcel. llr. Zimmerman said that appeared to be correct. Councilmember Patitucci clarified there were more units in the 0.25 incertive area, but it was not a large area. There were fewer units in areas where the incentives were 0.4, 1.0, etc. Those were many more units on top of commercial if mixed -use was retained. There -were only twoareas with a .0.25., and in that case if someone chose a mixed use, Councilmember Levy was correct, but if housing 41 one was chosen it was . incorrect because housing would end up with fewer units. The substitute amendment might encourage mixed uses, but moving away from the 0.25 FAR .in all cases equalled or had fewer units. Councilmember Levy understood and respected the simplicity of the substitute motion. Council should Make a special effort to maintain the neighborhood- and service -commercial uses. There were few areas in Palo Alto where it still paid to have the smaller uses, and it was important to not crowd them out which 7 3 1 5 6/02/86 e. might happen if Council encouraged large, housing units only. It elmost violated the community ethic to %ay in some cases certain commercial uses should be encouraged over additional housing, and Council should insist in the commercial -service and neighborhood - commercial areas adjacent to the Downtown, the first 0.4 FAR be commercial use and that housing be only in addition. Mayor Cobb agreed with Councilmember Levy except he saw no commun- ity pressure for high -density condominiums. His opposition to some of the higher density projects was met with support by may, constituents. He could not support the housing incentives in Area 1 because he believed they would lead to massive condominiums, which Palo Alto did not need. He liked Councilmember. Patitucci's substitute motion, and while it might need to be fine tuned, Council should support the simpler system, which would be easier to enforce and manage. Councilmember Bechtel was concerned there were many single-family residences adjacent to Areas 4 and 7, and RM-3 zoning might be too large. Councilmember Patitucci spoke to overlaying his proposal with the underlying zoning, and she asked whether RM-2 was more appropriate for Areas 4 and 7. Mr. Zimmerman said any amendment to reduce density for Areas 4 and 7 should also include the density for the southeast corner of Channi ny a.nd Emerson which would be part of the new CD -N zone and currently proposed for a 0.25 FAR. Mayor Cobb asked which areas and zone should be included` in the amendment. Mr. Schreiber recommended an amendment include Areas 1 and 6 in the CD -N zone, Areas 4 and 7 in the CD -S zone, and -the contiguous area to area 7 along Alma/Addison (Minerva Book Store) for the overla_yed RM-2. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, that Areas 1 and 6 in the CD -N zone, Areas 4 and 7 in the CO -S zone and the contiguous area to area 7 along Alma/Addison (Minerva Book Store area) be designated RM-2. Councilmember Renzel believed the amendment was sensible and helped to keep the intent of the Planning Commission's differen- tial FARs with the simplicity of Councilmember Patitucci's pro- posal. Mayor Cobb noted for the record that Council did not rezone the Minerva Book Store area. Councilmember Renzel agreed, therefore, the CD -S needed to be incorporated in one of the areas. AMENiMENT RESTATED: "THAT TM( CD -N AREAS 1 AND 6,, CO -S AREAS 4 and 7 MIDI THE. CONTIGUOUS AREA TO AREA 7 ALONG ALMA/ADDISON (MINERVA BOOK STORE) SE DESIGNATED IN -2 Councilmember Sutori us supported the amendment. ANENONENT PASSED esaniaoesly, Kleine °abstaining." Vice Mayor Woolley clarified the CD zone allowed 0.4 commercial, and housing equivalent to RM-2 or RM-3. One could choose .not to build 0.4 commercial, but could not build any more than what was. allowed under RM-2 or RM-3. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct. 7 3 1 6 6/02/86 Vice Mayor Woolley believed there was a big incentive. O retaining the neighborhood commercial uses because one did not get anything for not building commercial. She asked if total build out of the 0.4 commercial plus the RM•2/RM-3 houslny would end up with more square footage than the original Planning Commission proposal, eand whether the size of the units would tend to be different in the two proposals. Mr. Zimmerman said it was difficult to determine which would have more or less floor area than the build -out value of the Planning Commission recommendation because it depended upon the size of the units, and the densities to which those developments were built. The size of the units under the Planning Commission recommendation would likely fall under the developable floor area average, which was 1,000 square feet. Under Councilmember.Patitucci's proposal, there was no way of telling the size of the units because the limit would not be part of the formula. Mayor Cobb said the substitute motion replaced the language in just 8a. Councilmember Patitucci clarified the substitute motion replaced 8a and 8b. Section 8b contained the separate rules for Area 1, which was incorporated. Mr. Schreiber noted 8b was a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the contents, of. which were no longer needed if the substitute motion passed. The effect of the substitute motion was to replace both 8a and 8b. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: TO REPLACE LANGUAGE OF Be (CMR:273:6) TO OVERLAY AN NM -3 ZONE 1N THE CD -S AND CO -N AREAS EXCEPT FOR AREAS 1 AND 6 IN THE CD -N ZONE, AREAS 4 AND 7 IN THE CD -S, 10111, AND iTHE .AREA ON ,TNE CORNER ON ALNA/ADD I SON ADJACENT 10 AREA 7 ON THE CD -S. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Klein "abstaining.' NOTION: Counts lm,mber Patitucci moved, seconded by Woolley, that staff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and other material to be provided in our final reviews, the following recommendations of the Council: Noosing in CD -C Subdistrict - Overlay the CD -C Subdistrict with RM-6 zoning. The RN -5 can be used in addition to the .1.0 FAR i o a mixed use development as as alternative to it for housing only, subject to the 6F and P restrictions in the applicable area. Councilmember° Patitucci said the intent was to encourage mixed uses in the CO -C zone, with all of the restrictions that went along with the housing requirements parking, -etc. , Mixed use was i not popular, but the motion was an incentive for it to occur above commercial uses. All of the other requirements for the .ground floor retail and pedestrian zone applied, so there were few spots where . one might have the alternative . of RM-5 versus commercial. He.encouryed support. Counci`1member Renzel asked ebout the current housing overlay, and the equivalent density in the community -commercial zones. Mr. Zimmerman said CC and CS was approximately the equivalent of RH-b, and in CN it was RM-3. Coonc.4lmem er Renzel asked if parking was required in the current housing incentives. Mr. Zimmerman said parking was required for housing anywhere the City including within the Assessment District.. 7 3 1 7 5/02/86 Councilmember Renzel asked if it was part of the motion that housing he exempted from parking requirements. Councilmember Patitucci intended housing be exempt from the Com- mercial requirements, but continue to be subject to the housing requirements. In a mixed use, the commercial was subject to the commercia- parking requirements and the housing to the housing parking requirements. Councilmember Renzel clarified it was presumptive that the parking requirements applied. Since Council did not rezone the President Apartments, she asked if that could convert to condominiums or offices with the present amount of parking. Mr. Schreiber, said no, Councilmember Renzel asked what the President Apartments could be used for if it remained commercial. She wanted to understand the ramifications of the overlays. Mr. Schreiber deferred response. Councilmember Renzel referred to the density proposed and presumed the parking requirements made the zone one of limited applica- tion. Mr. Zimmerman said the equivalent of the RM-5 was close to what was under CS. Commissioner Cullen said the Planning Commission had not studied the proposal and would like to do so. SUBSTITUTE NOTION TO REFER: Councilmember Renzel **veld, seconded by Fletcher, to refer R$ -SS overlay for CD -C Penes to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Levy was concerned about destroying the concept of human scale in the Downtown area. He believed RM-5 was a tdanger- ously dense zone, and should not be overlayed on t.op of a basic 1.0 FAR, Further consideration of RM-5 was unwise. Vice Mayor Woolley asked how the main motion and/or referral changed the status quo since it spoke to residential not commer- cial. Mr. Zimmerman interpreted the motion as a referral to the Planning Commission and nothing would change with regard to the CD zone and residential consistent with Council's actions so far. There would be no special housing incentive in the CD -C when the ordinances returned to Council in the middle of duly. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if it was still possible to build housing over commercial as a mixed -use project in the Downtown with the changes previously made. Mr. Zimmerman said it was possible in the CD -S and CD -N. Any housing within the CD -C was limited to the 1.1 FAR. Mayor Cobb agreed completely with Councilmember Levy. RM-5 was too intense, and the people of Palo Alto did not want it. He opposed the main motion and the referral to the Planning. Comrsi ss i on and preferred the Planning Commission consider whether the City should have any RM-5 zoning. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a rite of 4-4, Raoul, Woolley,. Soterles, Fletcher feting 'art,* Klein 'abstain's.." 7 3 1 8 6/02/36 Councilmember Renzel agreed with Councilmember Levy and Mayor Cobb in respect to high density. She was willing to have the Planning Commission review the RM-5 zoning, but was unwilling to support such a high density on top of the FAR for commercial at that time. She urged defeat of the motion. Councilmember Fletcher also believed the RM-5 density was too high and opposed the motion. MOTION FAILED by it vote of 1-7, Petituccl voting 'aye,' Klein 'abstaining.' Councilmember Bechtel referred to the Temporary Committee on Down- town Design and Amenities and said the membership to be appointed by the Mayor was proposed to be two members of the ARB who might or might not be design professionals depending on who was appointed, one member of the 'usual Arts Jury (VAJ), four members selected from the architectural and design community, and two members selected from the public at large. She was concerned the Committee should have broader representation from the citizenry at large. MOTION: Counei 1 member Bechtel moved, seconded by Sartori us, that stiff be directed to include in the ordinances, resolutions, and ether material to be previ ded in our fi nsl review, the following recommendations of the Council 6e, Temporary Committee on Downtown Design And Amenities Amend the membership as follows: a. Two members •f the Architectural Review Board (ARB) selected by the ARB; b. One member of the .Visual Arts Jury (VAJ) selected by the M AJ ; c„ Three members selected from the architectural and. design commenity selected by the Mayor; and d. Three members from the public at large Appointed by the Mayor, Councilmiember Bechtel clarified that "public" should be residents, preferably neighborhood, and not members of the public who worked Downtown. Mayor Cobb would be sensitive to the issues involved in making the appointments. He received correspondence that evening (on file in the City Clerk's office) from the public recommending a more extensive change to include more public members and fewer design professionals. Councilmember Levy said over the months the Downtown Study Committee functioned he became convinced that the inclusion. of Planning Commissioners was invaluable. He asked if "public at large" included the possibility of appointing Planning Commis- si onpr s _ to the Committee. Mayor Cobb said it was a matte_ r of interpretation.. The Planning Commission already had an official role, and was not the "public at large." He interpreted the language to mean people who were not otherwise i'nvol ved in ' some City board or commission. AMEMiiMENT: Cauaci 1 member Levy moved, seconded by Menzel to revise the membership to appoint six members from the architec- tural and design community, the Planning Commission, sod the peb- lic at large to be appointed by the Mayor, 7 3 1 9 6/02/86 Councilmember Levy said the intent of the amendment was to include two members of the ARB and one member of the VAJ together with six members to be selected from the architectural and design commun- ity, the public at large, and the Pl anning Commission. Councilmember Renzel preferred the broader delegation. The design community brought Council to that point in the morass of downtown studies which was not altogether positive, and broadening the categories to include the Planning Commission and members of the public to a greater degree wioUld be a positive step ,toward 'a pro- ductive design plan for the City. She urged support'. for the amendment and trusted the Mayor would be sensitive to the need to broaden input to the urban design plan. Counci member Fletcher liked the amendment! but ` bel i eyed it was a duplication to have ARB Members 'plus architectural people who were likely to have vested interests ire " tine Downtown development. Sh.e hoped the Mayor would be sensitive to that factor. and 'that the members of the public at large would be residents of the' City: Councilmember Bechtel understood the amendment read all six members could, be design professionals, and she preferred ensuring three member's of the public were represented. Members 'of ;the ARB 4ere also public Members, so it shouiq riot be assumed ARS members were necessarily dest gn prdfessi onal s With aped. i ai interests.' One member of the ARB was a former president of the league of Women Voters. Councilmember Sutorius concurred with the concerns of Council - member Bechtel and supported' the main motion. He was concerned about the modification proposed _arid references . tie a "design plan." The deve l opment' of project' sel'ec'tion criteria should not be con- fused with a "design plan. Vice Mayor Woolley said in informal conversations some members of the Historic Resources Board (HRB) were surprised trey were not included. The HRB had equally ass many architects as the ARS, and it was just as appropriate they be represented. r Councilmember Renzel said while the Mayor might select all six design professionals and leave out the Planning ComMi ssi'on and the public, she doubted it would be the case. The broad latitude in the amendment was adequate to allow the Mayor to appoint a well- balanced Committee, which ,she hoped would include a large number of public members. SUQST l TYTE NOTION: Ceuaaei 1 meatber Setet1 ss meived, seconded by Fletcher, to refer the 1toe to �bayer Cobb Art fire to the Council wide a 'fermi' suggestion for tba meteor, of the t orary com- mittee. Councilmember Bechtel clarified the Mayor would not categoric it 1y appoint the members, but would return to Council with a recom- mended formal a. $USSTItUTE NOTION PASSED ensninhiftly, Klein ii$tai Ai ug." Mayor Cobb believed. Council did a thorough and thoughtful job of going through the Downtown Study, and in the long run the City would benefit. - ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:58 p.aa. ATTEST: APPROVED': ayor e 7 3 2 ,0 6/02/86