Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-17 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCI L MINUTEs Regul ar Meeting June 17, 1985 CITY of Prato Aaro ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 5 8 8 0 Minutes of May 13, 1985 5 8 8 0 Item #1, South Bay Cooperative Library System 5 8 8 1 Advisory Board Consent Calendar 5 8 8 1 Referral 5 8 8 1 Action 5 8 8 1 Item #3, Project Agreement Transmission Agency of 5 8 8 1 Northern Cal i fornia Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 5 8 8 1 Item #5A (Old Item #2), Civic Center Structural Repairs Item #4, Planning Commission Recommendation Re Downtown Study Adjournment: 11:45 p.m. to Tuesday, June 18, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. 5 8 8 1 5 8 8 i 5 91 3 Reg ul ar Meeting June 17, 1985 The City Council of the City o f Pal o Al to met on thi s date in the Co unc it Chambers, 250 Ham il ton Avenue, at 7: 30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel , Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel Satorius, Witherspoon ( arrived at 7:42 pem.) , Idool 1 ey ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1 . Dan Payo, spoke regarding the new rate structure to be effec- tive at the Pal o Al to Municipal dump. He asked about the rea- soning of the new rate increase. He ran a business dlrec tly related to the dump, artd if a decision to raise the rates would benefit the Ci ty, he would go along with i t , but he b eI leved the decision was not thoroughly reviewed. He wanted to speak to someone about i t . City Manager Bill Zaner said staff would contact Mr. Payo the next morning . MINUTES OF MAY 13 , 1985 Councilmember Woolley submitted the following corrections: Pa e 5732, line seven, after the word but," add "it would bring ." Line 9, change the word "the" to "that." 20th line from bottom, after the word "provided" add bring." 18th line from bottom, word "asked" should be "had informed." 17th 1 ine from bottom, after word "Council" delete "whether." IS wo u l d 15th line from bottom, a fter "Pal o Al to" del ete "and the answer was yes." Page 5740, first paragraph, last sentence, word "money" should be deleted. Councilmenber Witherspoon submitted the following corrections: Page 5734, delete last word on page "observed." Page 5735, first paragraph, first word "observed" should be deleted and rest of sentence should read, "pointed out that the senior housing was financially feasible only because the land was virtually free." Delete word "and" and -begin the sentence with "The garden center..." Next sentence should read, "If the Garden Club were to take over the whole site, Mayor Levy had suggested a way to ask them Wog participate in creating senior housing else- where." Next sentence, change the word "suggested" to "hoped." Fifth .sentence, change "was done" to "had been done.". Ninth sen- tence should read "She pointed out that most housing projects, private ar public , were financed, not paid for in cash up front." Next sentence add after the word "work,"_ "out the details." • Last sentence, add the word "their" after "in 1 -feu :of." NOTION: Cosncilae er Renzel mowed* secendeC approval of the Minutes of Nay 13 1985 as corrected. NOTION PASSE®" unanimously, 1Vi therspooe absent. i 5 8 8 0 6/17/85 ITEM #I , SOUTH BAY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY -SYSTEM ADVISORY BOARD Gretchen Emmons, represented the System Advisory Board of the South Bay Cooperative Library System. In 1978, the California Library Act was passed and all public libraries in the State were divided into 15 different. cooperative systems. The South Bay Cooperative Library System consisted of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. The System Advisory Board was comprised of nine juris- dictions, and citizen users. Nine people served on the Board and net four times a year to come up with ideas to share with the library directors. The Board met annually to report on system activities to their appointing jurisdictions. The slide tape show was the first idea, and was begun by Eugene Bulf who was their first representative on the Board. The slide tape show was presented. The Library System received a grant for a child care link which tied the libraries together with home child care providers so they could get special materials of which nursery school teachers might be aware but people with a few children in their homes might not, which had been worthwhile. A task force on the hearing impaired was just started, and small children who were deaf could not go to the story hours at the library, but there might be ways in which the library could reach out to them. Mary Jo Levy was their library director. COUNCILMEMBER WITHERSPOON ARRIVED AT 7:42 p.m. Mayor Levy commended the work of the :,euth Bay Cooperative Library System, and said the service received from the Palo Alto Library, as augmented by the county -wide support system, was outstanding, CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Levy removed Item 2, Civic Center Structural Repairs, from the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb of the Consent Calendar. moved seconded by Sutorius, approval ITEM #3, PROJECT AGREEMENT - TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN trx • elk RESOLUTION 6398 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALSO APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECU- TION OF A 'PROJECT AGREEMENT -- TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,' FORM -DATED JUNE 19, 1985." MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Hanage'r Bi11 Zaner said item 2, Civic Center Structural Repairs, woul d become Item 5-A. He al so_ requested the item be brought forward. Staff was available, and\ the other item on the agenda might be a long one. He hated d to keep the staff waiting if it was a relatively.simple question to answer. Counc il member Renzel added Item 07, re date for calling electiri. BRING FORWARD- ITEM #5-A, CIVIC CENTER STRUCTURAL REPAIRS MOTION Councilsaember:, Fletcker mowed, seconded by Cobb? to bring forrnrd Item 5-A, Civic Center Structural Depalrs. MOTION 'PASSED unanimously. kTEM #5- A (OLD ITEM #2) CIVIC CENTER STRUCTURAL REPAIRS, CIP Mayor _Levy removed the item -from the Consent Calendar because it consisted of $429, 000, which seemed to be a 1 arge amount of money to be considered as a Consent Cal endar item. He was confused 5 8 8 1 6/17/85 about the $429,000 windfall, and many items were being requested for which portions of the $429,000 were appropriated. He bei ieved the item should be referred to the Finance and Publ is Works Committee to analyze; even though he understood that, because the funds were generated from a bond issue they technically did not require a budget amendment. He asked if there were any problems with a referral to the Finance and Publ is Works Committee. City Manager Bill Zaner said there was some timing difficul ty and deferred to Mr. Ford to respond to how they came up with the addi- tional $429,000, and Mr. Bagdon to answer any questions about the projects for which it was recommended the funds be expended. Financial Planning Administrator Gordon Ford said wren the project was originally financed, it was estimated to be $4.3 million, with $409,000 to be earned in interest. It provided $3,890,000 which was placed in Bank of America. The $409,000 was based on a con- servatively estimated interest rate of eight percent, and in excess of the eight percent was actually earned. From the $3,890,000 placed in Ban:: of America, they took away $373,000, which left essentially $3,500,000 in the bank. The .project itsel f was delayed for approximately one year, so interest in excess of ten percent was earned during the one-year delay, which gave them about another $400,000. That, coupl ed wi th the higher interest rate earned, gave them the additional earnings. Assistant Director of Publ is Works George Bagdon said with respec t to the timing of this issue, staff brought it before the Council now because they were presently negotiating change orders that would eliminate virtually the entire remaining contingency, which meant, after the change orders were negotiated, they would have to stop the job unless without Council authority for further con- tingency. They were still working on the building, and there were still unknowns that might be discovered that would cause them to negotiate further change orders with the contractors. Once some- thing was discovered, a decision had to be made about whether to proceed with the change, or stop work and return to Council for the authority, which might take as 1 ong as two weeks, and could open the City up to possible construction claims by a contractor for del ay of time Councilmenber Woolley asked what happened to any unexpended funds at the end of the project. Mr. Ford said unexpended funds had ` to redeem the oldest out- standing certi ficate s of participation. Staff would start with the maturity of 2005 where they had 630,0000 and would retire those. If there were insufficient funds to retire them all , they would be chosen by l ot. Councilme rber Woolley asked if that would : ultimately result in savings to the General Fund. Mr. Ford said the immediate savings woui 4 be the interest on the particular issue, which was 9.5 percent, and the immediate savings were 9.5 percent per year. In the year 2005, the City ended up saving the payment for the particular money, but it would expend the available funds for any other project. ' tounc ilmeaaber Woolley clarified the City would save some interest money. Mr. Ford said yes. Councllmember Woolley said if the timing was : so .: .tight that two weeks made a difference, she was mystified as to why staff waited so long to make the Council request. Mr. . Bagdon assumed a referral to committee would be referred back to Council so they were not just talking about two weeks. 5 8 8 2 6/17/85 Councilmember Woolley said they were talking about six weeks. The pr=ojects ire the staf report were divided into three categories, and she clarified they were discussing the second or third cate- gory. The statement at the beginning of No. 2, mentioned the date of December 1985, which was when the change orders were expected. If the change orders did not have to be executed until December, she was still confused about the problem. Mr. Bagdon said the City's liability for change orders went until the project was completed in December, 1985. A change order could occur tomorrow, or in six months. The building would be under construction from now until December, 1985, and at :any time during that period, the City might be exposed to a change order. Councilmember Woolley clarified that funding needed to be avail- able. Mr. Bagdon agreed, and said the longer they waited, the larger the risk. Councilmember Woolley was not convinced the timing was so para- mount they could not take six weeks to refer the matter. When the F&PW Committee discussed the Social & Community Services budget, they wrestled over $2,000 and $5,000. The amount requested seemed like a lot of money and deserved careful Council consideration. Some of the items, particularly under Section 3, might be open to debate. She was not sure Council would go along with all six items, and believed they should receive a full hearing. They had no cost breakdowns on the six items under No. 3, and she believed that information would be helpful to the F&PW Committee. NOTION TO REFER: Councilmember Woolley moved: seconded by Levy, to refer the Civic Center Structural Repairs change orders to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee. Councilmember Fletcher understood the December, 1985 date was the expected date of completion of all construction so that was not the date they needed to have the contract extended by, or the change orders. She heard no suggestion to eliminate any of them, and if there were portions of the particular jobs Council felt were unnecessary, Council should debate them. She personally believed it looked as though they were all essential for com- pleting the work and making it look adequate. City Manager Bill Zaner urged Council not approve to the motion. The projects were all important, and the funds could only be spent for project costs and to reduce the debt, which .,would ultimately reduce the outgo from the General Fund, which paid for the pro;'- ect. As they looked at the trade-off, the opportunity to do the projects while the contractor was still on the site with his tradesmen, and while they could make change orders in a reasonable fashion, would save money in the long run. The projects needed to be done. Some of projects were the kinds of things that, if they were not done in this project, would have a difficult time getting approved for money from the Capital Improvement Program or the General Fund. He believed the F&PW Committee would conclude the projects were worthwhile, which he believed Council could do that night, ultimately authorize approval of the change orders, and the City would lose six weeks' worth of time. The project .could be more effectively managed by doing it now. Mr. Bagdon said they were not just losing the six weeks. The con- tractors were on site now, and some would be done with their .por- ti on of the work in another couple of weeks. Once they left the project site, the City might not have the opportunity to get them backat the same price to do the work, Staff would have to go out and rebid the ` work, which meant getting the bid package together, going out to bid, receiving bids, getting it awarded, and then going out and .doing the construction, which was more like four or five months from now. 5 8 8 3 6/17/85 Mayor Levy asked Mr. Bagdon when staff had first noticed the various costs wu:i d be incurred. Mr. Bagdon said they were estimated costs,. and staff discussed them comprehensively with all the contractors during the last month, and the contractors' gave them the costs they were now nego- tiating. Staff_saw they were eating into the existing contingency and that they only had $17,000 left after the changes now being negotiated, taking the $150,000 and subtracting it from the $167,000 authority. Seventeen thousand dollars was insufficient to cover them for a long period of time, which was why: staff was before the Council now. Councilmember Bechtel, as Chairperson of the F&PW Committee, saw no reason to delay the matter for six weeks. She concluded that Council had no choice but to go ahead with the amount of money. The project took a long time, and she saw no justification for a six -week delay that could ultimately lead, as pointed out by Mr. Bagdon, to a four- or five -month delay. Councilmember Witherspoon concur.eed and did not see that Council had any option, except perhaps the painting and washing of the windows, and that was not a large item. It was not a surprise as Council knew all along that the proposed kinds of projects were part of rehabilitating the building. The question was whether Council wanted to expend the accumulated interest earnings, or go to the General Fund to pay for the change orders. She believed that was the only option before the Council, so she would vote against the motion. Councilmember Klein asked why the matter could not have been brought to the Council a month ago. Mr. Bagdon responded that negotiations were not concluded with the contractors. Staff now knew the City would be exposed to $150,000, and have $1.7,000 left. It was a small cushion, but not enough to take them through the project. They could get a $20,000 change order within a week if they started opening up some new areas. Staff waited until they had all the information they could bring to the Council, which; was only to spend $150,000 in change orders. Councilmember Klein said the staff report talked about a lot more money than that. Mr. Bagdon said staff wanted to be comprehensive and indicate all the other items that were di scivered during the project. Councilmember Klein asked why those items could not have been brought to the Council before. Mr. Bagdon said staff did not know that interest would be where it was now. The interest increased by $29,000 in the last month alone. The additional interest earned changed by $29,000 over one month. It was a moving target. Councilmember Klein understood that, but it hardly got to _ the dis- cussion of $429,000, which was what they --were talking about. Mr. Bagdon said the contractors were unable to do the work until they finished the work they were now .doing. The contractors were getting near completion and were asking whether the City wanted them to do the extra work or not. If not, they would leave the site, which was wary staff requested Council decision at that paint.. Council member_ Klein said Council talked abrau_t the extra costs that might lie incurred if -the request was not approved then, and he asked whether they were talking about a $10.9000 - problem: _or a - $100,00t} probleaa. 588:4 6/17/85 Mr. Bagdon said if the matter were ref r°red to committee and a decision by Council was not made for six weeks, the City would lose the opportunity to do most of the things in Item No. 3, and would, have to go out for rebid which took five or six months, and would cost approximately $50,000 to $70,000 for additional overhead. Councilmember Klein asked from where staff got that figure. Mr. Bagdon said the City ran about 10 percent on the amount. There was overhead, inflation, and remobll ization, all of which together added approximately 25 percent more to the cost. Councilmember Klein asked 25 percent of what. Mr. Bagdon said $300,000. Councilmember Klein was not satisfied there could not have been an earlier process and consideration, but would vote against the motion to refer because he saw nothing to be gained by a referral. It seemed to him the items were straightforward and necessary, and he was interested in saving the $50,000 to $75,000. Councilmember Renzel joined Councilmembers Witherspoon, Bechtel, Klein, and Fletcher with respect to the issue. She believed it was clear that almost all the items were absolutely essential. Council wanted a roof over the building, and needed the elevators fixed. Staff was disrupted for a long period of time during the construction, and there were extensive costs associated with con- tinued disruption beyond the estimated time of completion, and Council should go forward with the items. Councilmember Woolley asked staff if they could break down the items in the third grouping as to cost. Mr. Bagdon said the costs were rough, but one of the larger items was the earthquake insurance, which was in the neighborhood of $80,000 or more. The roof would be a big item. He could not give an exact cost, but over $50,000 would not be unusual. Striping the garage was in the range of $40,000. Councilmember Woolley asked about the cost of the painting. Mr. Bagdon said it was in the range of $50,000. Councilmember Woolley said the painting and roofing did not have to occur within the next six weeks. In the report, it said the roofing would probably be a separate contract anyway. Mr. Bagdon said that was true, but staff needed..to go out to bid shortly because it needed to get constructed during that construc- tion season before the rains. It was influenced by the weather. Councilmember Woolley found it difficult to understand how, within the last week or two, staff decided to go out to bid for the roof. It could have been brought to Council a month ago. Mr. Bagdon reiterated that staff just finished . negotiations with the contractors who told staff what they were able to do, and they could not do the roof. Vice Mayor Cobb would vote against the motion for the reasons stated by Councilmembers Klein and others, but said when _ a change of that magnitude was coming, it would help. for Council to be warned as soon as staff got wind of it. He understood the reasons for urgency and letting the contractors work while they were on site, but . it would be easier for Council todeal with if they got whatever information staff had, even if it was preliminary. It would waste time to go to the F&PW Committee, but it would help Council deal with numbers of that magnitude if they had early warning in the- future.. 5 8 8 5 6 /17 /85 Mayor Levy supported the emotion to refer to the F&PW Committee, even though he was not running for reel ection in. November. For those of his colleagues who were, when it was discovered they almost supported a $429,000 expenditure on the Consent Calendar, and actually supported it with only a modicum of consideration, he bel ieved that was irresponsible. Some of the items, as a matter of- fact, should not be there. Earthquake insurance, which was $80,000, should not be funded by a bond issue, and if Council approved it, it would happen. Earthquake insurance did not have to be voted on that night. Regarding_ the roof, he assumed there was a roofing contractor on the site. Repainting the building, washing the windows, new wall panels and carpeting in the two original elevators, striping the garage, he could not bel ieve Council was going to approve those items that night in such a cursory fashion, have - them paid for by bond issue, and without referral for the appropriate considerations. He asked if there was any further comment on the item. Councilmember Sutori us clarified the items would return to Council during the bid process.. For example, if staff went Gaut to bid on the roof, it would return to Council in the normal fashion and Council would know .who . the bidders were, the engineering estimate, and what the actual award was proposed to be. Mr. Bagdon said that was correct. Councilmember Sutori us asked which of the items of a further sub- stantial nature were the ones that required individual handling in returning to the Council , beyond the roof. Mr. Bagdon said none. Councilmember Sutori us asked if it was only the roof. Mr. Bagdon said yes. Councilmember Sutorius supported the motion to refer. MOTION 'i'0 REFER FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Woolley, Sutorius, Levy voting "aye." MOTION: Councilaoember Renzel moved, seconded by F'letcier, that Council approve author' zation of the staff to use the addltional interest earnings from projects CIP 82-27 (currently estimated at $429,000) to fund change orders to existing project contracts as well as to fund separate contracts, i f . necessary, for structural repairs and other items relating to the Civic Center Councilmember Bechtel addressed Mayor Levy and said in response to his strong words, all of the items eventually needed to be done. Staff worked hard to bring Council a package when they presented it as one item to go on the agenda, and they all knew Council agendas had been crowded. They did not bring the group all seg- mented, but brought it as a package when they realized there was interest income available that would cover the expenses that had to be done in any case. She did not believe Council was arguing about whether the items had to be done. They needed to be done and must be done. Mayor Levy asked for an approximation of the $430,000, and how much would be change orders and how much would be other items related to the Civic Center. Mr. Bagdon said the roof was the only separate contract 'and would cost about $50,000. About $350,000 to $310,000 would be change orders related to the Civic Center. Mayor Levy asked if earthquake insurance was a change order. Mr. Ford said the earthquake insurance referred to was earthquake insurance during the time of construction. The maj ority was paid for and used, and the question was whether to take it from the General Fund or from the other available funds. It was a mecha-- ni srn of alleviating the General Fund expenditure and allowing sta ff to take the proceeds from the fi nanc ing . The alternative was to use the funds to redeem some of the bonds and spend the money from the General Fund . Mayor Levy said the motion was to fund change orders and other contracts for structural repairs and other items. He wanted a breakdown of how much woul d go to change orders and how much woul d go to other items related to the Civic Center. Mr. 8agdon said all items under "Discussion," Parts 1, 2 and 3 in CM R: 378: 5, would be done by change order except the roof and the insurance, which was $130,000 from $590,000, which meant approxi- mately $460,000 could be done by change order. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Levy, Sutories, Woolley voting "no." ITEM #4, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE DOWNTOWN STUDY (PLA Counc ilmernber Kl ein said he, the City Attorney° s Office, and the State Fair Political Practices Cornmissi-n •(FPPC) had a series of ongoing discussions as to the issues involved in determining con- flicts of interest on the issue, The FPPC's interpretation of their rules was that he had a confl ict of interest. He disagreed with the FPPC's finding, but had to abide by it, and would not participate on the issue at that time. Mayor Levy said a dil igent Downtown Study Committee under the chairmanship of former -Mayor Ed Arnold studied the build-up that occurred recently in the downtown area. They made a series of thoughtful recommendations which were referred to the Pl anning Commission, reviewed by the Planning Commission, and were the sub- ject of Council s discussion that evening. Council was informed that an environmental impact review was required which would be the maj or item before Council that evening. It was al so requested by staff that Council continue the existing mcratori um for a per- iod of time to enable them to conduct the env ironmental impac t review stu::y. He would first call on Mr. Arnold, who chaired the Downtown Study Committee, then he would call on Mrs. Cullen, who was the Planning Commission Chairperson, for a report from the Planning Commission, and then he would call on Bruce Freeland, representing staff, to convey to Council exactly what was needed as far as the EIR and the future study process was concerned. Downtown Study Committee Chairperson Ed Arnold said the Committee was formed 14 months ago by the City Council as a representative group to study the downtown situation because it seemed as though there was explosive growth overnight. The committee included Hal Hudson representing the Senior Coordinating Council , David Jury represented the downtown property owners and submitted a minority report; Roxy Rapp And Jerry Stewart, downtown merchants; Carl Schmidt, a downtown businessman, spent much time working with sub- committees and working groups and assisted by providing meeting space and certain amenities atte\ndant thereto. Representing the nearby neighborhoods were Joe Huber from the east and Pam Marsh from . the north. .Pam also did considerable committee work for which she deserved credit. He and Sam Sparck represented the City as a whole and Sam served as Vice Chair and was _vary, helpful. Planning Commissioners who participated were Ellen Christiansen, who did a considerable amount 's f work in subcommittees and working groups and deserved special recognitions Planning Com fission Chairperson Pat Cullen; and Commissioner Jean McCown were espe- cially active in committee work. Helene Wheeler participated as time permitted. .Tony •Carrasco from the Architectural Review Board was helpful , and Elizabeth Kittas from the. Historic- Resources Board. Staff was asked to :do a considerable, amount of research and submit a lot of material to the Committee He presumed that information was available to Council members if they wished to give it further consideration. The Committee bel ieved it covered every base it could think of. It seemed to boil down to parking, traffic, and land use. With working groups, task forces, subcom- mittees, lots of time, and smaller groups with considerable staff help they were able to arrive at reasonable conclusions. Some developments seemed to go on almost regardless, which was a problem Council was faced with. He was surprised at the require- ment for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR),` and said it was not anticipated by the -committee. It was apparently required, and he noticed that Mayor Levy described it as a modified moratorium, and he suggested an environmental moratorium, accommodative mora- torium, stretched moratorium, or extended moratorium. He had no quarrel with modified, but environmental was a good word and it fit with the impact report al so . He believed the committee pro- vided Counc it with a good basis to work, and he suggested careful consideration be given. About 15 years ago, he was on the City Council , and the and he noticed that staff work now was impressive and he commended staff. Planning Commission Chairperson Pat Cullen said they were in the second stage of the Downtown Study. The goal s represented by the Downtown Study Committee and the Planning Commission were adopted in August, 1984, and since then, the Downtown Study Committee developed strategies at meetings which lasted from September, 1984 to May, 1985. The Planning Commission included in its recommenda- tions to the Council all of the recommendations from the Study Committee. Three specific Pl anning Commission recommendations were before the Council . First, there were potential significant environmental effects on the proposed strategies and, therefore, an EIR was recommended by staff and approved by the Planning Commission. Second, the set of strategies ,before the Council as proposed by the Downtown Study. Committee and amended slightly by the Planning Commission would be the subject of the project; that is, the definition of what would be examined in the EIR. Third, the Pl anning Commission recommended that Council extend the mora- torium and parking ordinance to May 19 to allow production of the EIR. The three major recommendations to come out of the Downtown Study Committee and Planning Commission related first to growth levels; second, to the size of projects; and, third, to the floor area ratio. The first goal adopted by the Council was to reduce the development potential , which was found to be 7.7 mill ion square -feet under the present zoning of downtown Palo Alto . The devel opment presently there, including the pi pel ine, which she emphasized because many people talked about the pi pel ine prof ec ts, were used as a base to the 3,400,000 square feet which included the 500,000 square feet in the pi pel ine. The Downtown Study Commaittee considered three growth 1 evel s--10 percent, 20 percent and 40 percent, and considered the impact of those three levels on parking, traffic and the other objectives of the Downtown Study. The 20 percent and 40 percent 1 evel had impacts that were un- acceptable to the Downtown Study Committee and to: the Planning Commission. The principal difference between the Downtown Study Committees recommendation and the . Planning Commission' s recom- mendation was the ten percent growth over what period of time. The period of .time recommended by the Downtown Study Committee was five years and the P1 anning Commission attenuated it to be seven years - because the effect of pi pel ine proj ects coul d not be assessed in a short period of time. For ,example, i t was found in the employment report, which staff submitted, that it took three or four years to assess the impact of additional employment. The Commission believed seven years was necessary for the absorption of the number of square feet being held as a development level. The size of proj ec is the Downtown Study Committee and Pl anning Coermi ssi on were recommending were 26,000 square feet growth for a new project, or. 1,5,00© square feet net; that is, in addition to a present ,building to be the largest amount of square footage alIowed on a single proj ect. Thirdly. the Downtown Study Committee and the Commission recommended to Council reducing the 5 8 8 8 6/17/85 f1 oor area ratio within the central , commercial core from three- to- one to two- to -one (3 : 1 to Z : 1) , in other words , take one- third of the development potential out of any given site. Within the CS zone to reduce it from 2:0 to 1:0 —reduce it by hal f of what was currently allowed. Those three recommendations would make up the part of the project that they requested Council consider that evening for an EIR. Regarding land use, the Downtown Study Committee and the planning Commission recommended a ground floor retail zone; a historic resources overlay zone to be applied to protect the few remaining historic sites; and some rezoning in the peripheral areas of the downtown; namely, south in the study area and north in the study area on the lots closest to Alma. She deferred to Planning Commissioner Jean McCown to summarize park- ing, traffic, and neighborhood preservation strategies. Jean McCown said that since the recommendations of the Downtown Study Committee and the Pl anning Commission were available for discussion there was much regarding the effects of the already approved, but yet compl etely occupied development, i .e., the pi pe- 1ine. Its impacts were not yet not fel t, and a concern was raised as to whether any more additional development shoul d be permitted until the pipeline development was absorbed. As pointed out by Commissioner Cullen, the impacts of that pipeline development, both as to traffic and parking, were analyzed, projected and hope- fully accurately antic1pafed in the analysis of the Study Com- mittee. The recommendation to permit ten percent growth was made on balance because the evidence was that the additional amount of growth could be accommodated over a period of time if certain accompanying strategies were in place. Among those essential strategies were that all new private developments must provide their own parking in the future either on - site or off, which departed fromthe concept of the Assessment Di strict Redevel oped properties under the proposed parking strategy would be given credit for existing square footage that was hi storically, and would continue to be, assessed in the Assessment District. Small expansions, meaning ten percent or less in square footage, on parcels less than 5,000 square feet in size, would not have to provide new parking for that net additional new square feet. Finally, a new parking rate of four parking spaces per thousand square feet would be appl ied across the board. It was a blended , or mixed, rate and was higher than the present requirement_; for offices, and lower than the present requirement for retail, and was consciously skewed in that way to encourage the development of retail space. In the public parking sector, parking recommenda- tions incl uded that at least one additional parking structure be constructed. The purpose of the structure was to create spaces to address the existing deficit of parking downtown; to create a certain number of spaces to allow the private marketplace to pay for those spaces where they could not build them on their own site; and to provide a supply of spaces that would accommodate the small si to expansion exemption. The second maj or strategy for the public parking supply downtown was to use existing resources more effectively. There was an eight -point detailed program an how tu. make better use of the public parking spaces already existing. Regarding traffic, the strategies were to limit the' generation of additional traffic, and the principal strategy was the land use strategy mentioned by Commissioner Cullen to reduce the overall development potential. Secondly, there was a recommendation to create more effective programs to encourage multiple passenger automobile trips and discourage single occupant automobil e trips. Third, was to encourage land uses such as housing as an alterna- tive to commercial uses that generated less traffic. Data pro- vided to the Downtown Study-Com*ittee and the Planning Commission was thathousing uses generated one -tenth of the traffic impact as compared with commercial uses. Finally, as a traffic strategy,. the recommendation was to slake many •improvements to traffic clrt- cul ation in the downtown: area to assist- in, the existing congested situation, regarding the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown and the impact of the growth downtown on those neighborhoods. The 5 8 8 9 6/17/85 growth ; !larking and traffic strategies were al 1 intended, and expected, to assi st in the pro tection of those neighborhoods from parking and traffic intrusions. As an additional strategy for those neighborhoods, the recommendations included a proposal to develop new zoning and design regulations to create a better transition between commercial and residential zones on the peri- phery of the downtown. Regarding the overall package of recom- mendations and the concept of the annual allocation of square footage, be it 50,000 or 70,000 square feet a year or whatever the figure, rather than an approach of a flat - out cap of 10 percent or 350,000 square feet which could be obtained by a straig1rt reduc- tion in floor area across the board, that annual allocation con- cept was unconventional, but was really at the core of the recom- mendations and the strategies. They were at a stage presently of fine tuning downtown and the more focus and perhaps a contro- versial tool was called for under the circumstances. The si ze restrictions referred to by Commissioner Cullen on project size were essential if they were to prevent whatever remaining devel op- ment there was from being used up in larger projects. There was an inherent bias and underlying philosophy of the recommendations to channel the remaining development into smaller scale projects and rehabilitation projects. It was a bias that the recom- mendations concluded served the balance of needs in the entire community. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said there was a recommen- dation from both staff and the Planning Commission that an EIR be prepared because the results of the proposal s would all ow some additional growth in traffic, and if they looked far enough ahead, they would find that traffic was a problem in the downtown area and should be properly addressed through an EIR. Normally, when Council deal t with EIR s, there was a development project someone proposed and it was clear what the project was. In order to write an EIR, staff had to define the project being assessed. In the case of a study, the project would consi st of all of those irnpl e- menting actions to carry out a study --the ordinances, the amend- ments to the Comprehensive Pl an, and other devices that would carry out the recommendations contained in the .report. Currently, the Planning Commission placed before the Council a set of recom- mended strategies which constituted a project, and which were defined in the June b, 1985 transmittal from the Pl anning Comm ssi on to the City Council . The PI anning Commission went through each of the strategies developed by the Study Committee and made their recommendation as to which they bel ieved should be recommended. It started with the growth strategies and the basic question of how much growth. The Planning Commission recommended the project include the strategy of a 50,000 square foot maximum growth allocation for commercial projects for a seven-year period . Under the California Environmental Quality Act 4 CEQA), it was necessary, when looking at a project, to also consider the al ter - natives of not doing the project, of doing another project, and how that might change the analysis. The Planning Commission, as i t heard ideas from the public and considered the ideas in the Committee report, identi tied many alternatives to the 50,000 square foot per year allocation they believed should be addressed in an EIR. The EIR, i f done according to the Planning Commission recommendation, would include a 50,000 square foot al location as the proj ect, but would al so examine a 70,000 square foot per year allocation; a 35,000 square foot allocation; a 700,000 square foot allocation, which would be a 2O. percent growth rate; a 1,400,000 square foot allocation, which would be a 40 percent growth rate; and would also consider a lower floor area ratio approach to control ing development. Those would_ all be considered, but the praj ec't woul d be considered in greater depth than the al ter natives. The project would be considered with in depth traffic analysis and the subject of air qual ity analysis in some detail . The alternatives would be looked at, but would not have the exten- sive comments in the document. Staff requested that Council first take testimony, and then consider whether the recommendations from the Planning Commission described the correct set of projects and al ternatives Council wished to consider. Those items as projects, M79/8 5 1 staff and the subcommittee would go to work on drafting specific ordinances t_o return to Council next February when the CI;; was complete, and it was those items that_ would be put before Council in a form it could act on. The alternatives, if Council in- structed, could also have ordinances prepared and be ready, but those would not normally be done unless Council directed. Council may believe it was hard at that point to decide one strategy clearly stood out from the others as the one for staff to focus on. Council might wish to have staff look equally at two con- cepts. If that was the case, the project should say the project would consist of either this or that, and staff could accommodate that to a limited extent. Staff urged that Council not create as the project a lot of ideas for tide sake of exploration. Staff would be exploring ideas as alternatives and it was appropriate to identify them as such. The more Council requested staff to draft in terms of ordinances, the harder it would be to bring the matter to closure on the time table suggested. He suggested that Council go through the item by the groups of strategies contained in the Planning Commission transmittal. Councilmember Witherspoon was concerned about obtaining some idea of the economic impacts of the strategies or alternative steete- gies adopted. Her main areas of concern were their impacts on the sales tax revenue, and their impact on the future bonding capacity. of the Assessment District. She asked whether there would also be an economic impact if the zoning were changed either i n respect to floor area ratio or from retail to office use or vice versa. Mr. Freeland said that City staff had some limited ability to give comment on the sales tax issue, They did some analysis and knew what kind of sales tax would normally be associated with so many square feet of additional retail development and could say that by reducing the zoning from its current level to another level, it would reduce the potential for square feet that might be in retail. Staff was unable to provide a market forecast of how much growth in retail sales there might have been in the absence of those policies versus how much there would be with the new policies. That required sophistocated economic analysis that was far beyond what staff could produce. He believed staff could produce some simple-minded rules of thumb about sales tax. Staff had a limited budget established to economic consultation, and he was certain they could not get any kind of sophistocated forecast of revenue stream. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that staff should be able to be more accurate in the Assessment District question since the City had a track record. Mr. Freeland believed on the bonding capacity, staff could provide some information. Councilmember Witherspoon asked for clarification whether the economic impacts would require a separate motion. Mr. Freeland believed it was best to provide as clear a direction as possible on what Council was looking for. Staff expected that it would hire an economist with the $10000, but the more ques- tions to be answered, the harder it would be to get meaningful answers with the $10,000. Councilmember 8eehtel clarified that one of the main topics that evening was to decideexactly what would be studied as part of the LIR, and, under the growth strategies, she presumed they could add project as well as delete alternatives. She was particularly concerned that there seemed to be growth in square footage going from an annual 35,000 square foot .maximum up. to 1,400,000, and not less, She presumed Council could add. 5 8 9 1 6/17/85 Corrected 8/19/85 Mra Freeland said there was flexibility in defining alternatives. The CEQA requirement was to look at all reasonable alterndtives so if Council believed some of the alternatives were unreasonable, they could be deleted. If Council believed there were others that were reasonable and should be looked at, they could be specified. __Councilmember Bechtel clarified there was the downtown moratorium and the overall City-wide moratorium and she asked for a descrip- tion -of the details and whether there was a 5,000 square foot area that could be excluded, hardship cases, etc. Mr. Freeland said the downtown moratorium applied to the entire study area, i.e. all of the CS and CC zoned properties, and it precluded any new building square footage from being built .and it also precluded conversion of ground floor space, which was not in an office or financial category to be converted to an office or financial category. Within that moratorium was an exemption that allowed up to 5,000 gross square -feet for unreinforced masonry buildings undergoing seismic rehabilitation and there was an exception process for project.' of special community_, benefit of which only one was granted so far. Councilmember Bechtel asked if it applied to both the CC areas and the CS areas. Mr. Freeland said yes. The only other moratorium in the City was a partial one in the GM zone. Councilmember Bechtel asked about Town and Country. Mr. Freeland said there was no moratorium for Town and Country or Stanford Shopping Center. There was a limited time period for rezoning initiated for OR, CS and CM zones that would put more restrictive floor area ratios on for a period of time, but that was not a moratorium, but rather .a time limited zone change. That was not yet before the Council for consideration. Vice Mayor Cobb asked for comment that the growth formula used by the committee basically represented the maximum that could be allowed rather than some in between number, Commissioner Cullen said when the Planning Commission considered the recommendation from the Study Committee, they believed it was a maximum. They did not believe that anything above that could be considered because the impacts on the parking deficit and on the traffic congestion ►were unacceptable. Commissioner McCown said the reason Council saw the higher growth levels as alternatives was primarily because there was a great deal of data about those impacts developed through the course of the Downtown Study. The feeling was that as alternatives, those should at least be set out so that the comparison was clear. She believed the Commission felt the . comparison lead only to one conclusion. Vice Mayor Cobb clarified the specific project as described by the Commission was close to the maximum the City could take, and the Commission obviously took a little off that maximum. Mr. Freeland implied that if Council described too many variations in the C IR, it would become _a monster to do. Since Council was . unlikely to go beyond the .Planning Commission reeommendati ons 9 he _asked i f i t was possible, in describing the so-called project, to take some lower limit and bound the problem; that is, a maximum, a minimum, and the two project descriptions which_ would bracket all the possible things they might come up with to save staff having to do any more alternatives. Mr. Freeland said there cot!)d be a project that established a growth limit from "x" to "y" square feet in the downtown. The City was required under CEQA to look at reasonable al ternatives. It did not have to look at hundreds of alternatives,, but a range that captured what reasonabi e peopl e might consider. Vice Mayor Cobb asked if "no- growth would be considered an unreasonable alternative by CEQA. • 1 i Mr. Freeland said no, in fact, he would think if the Council actually adopted no -growth, other than possible economic_ impli- cations, there might not be an impact to evaluate and and EIR might not have be necessary. Counc ilmember Woolley referred to when the EIR returned for Council approval , and asked if it was possible to approve the EIR and sel ec t an al tern ati v e rather than a proj ec t i f Council preferred. Mr. Freel and said the intent of CEO was to make sure Council had enough information to select the superior al ternative. Counc ilmenber Woolley asked if it was possible to choose a measure of growth in between two projects. Mr. Fr eel and said the proj ect woul d have a growth limit from what- ev er was the the l owe st figure to whatever was the highest figure , and staff would describe that range. Council could choose within that range. Co unc ilmember Fletcher said it was her experience through the EIR process in various contexts that one of the required alternatives was no project, which meant it would remain under the current zoning, so that would be one of the required al ternatives. Mr. Freel and said that was right. Mayor . Levy said regarding trying to find the lowest possible growth strategy staff bel ieved it was acceptable as a project or an al ternatfve, currently the lowest strategy involved was an annual 35,000 square foot maxirnum. He asked whether a lower than 35,000 square foot annual maximum was an appropriate strategy and how low would be appropriate. He asked his question in tenets of legal as well as overal 1 inclusion in the EIR. City Attorney Diane Lee said from a legal standpoint, she wound be concerned with vacant land. The issue to be dealt with from a 1 egal standpoint was whether an owner was deprived of any economic val ue in that l and. With vacant l and, i .e e, 1 and not then developed, a lower or nonexistent amount of development permitted could peat the City into that situation. From a legal standpoint, i t was more a question of the properties in :the downtown and how a particular moratorium might affect those properties .although she understood there were few in that category. Mr . Frees and said the other half of the question was more a pol icy issue for the Council in his professional judgment, he was con- cerned about the impl ications of the 50,000 square feet. It was a maj or change in the way the property was dealt with, and staff did not .really know, nor were .they 1 ikely to find out, the economic consequences. It was not even a question that mould be easy for economists to answer .with any kind of definitive result. .The lower the number, the greater the possibility for unantici"pateci ramifications. The risks had to be weighed against the benefits in terms of reduction in traffic impacts, and the other more tang ibl a items. In terns of what: staff was comfortable with, they did not oppose the 50,000 square feet or the 70,000 square feet, To go lower, Council had to make the policy judgment as to the benefits which tended to be in more tangible areas versus the risk which was hard to comprehend. Counc i1member Sutori us said under Al ternative 1-E, under the growth strategies which approached it through the floor area ratio FAR), it said, "To achieve desired growth limits." He asked if that meant to provide that al ternative within the EIR, staff would approach it from the standpoint of an FAR that produced no more than a gross addition of 350,000 square feet, 700,000 square feet, and 1 ,400,000 square feet. He asked if that was the manner in which that alternative would be approached. Mr. Freeland said potentially many alternatives could fit within that. He assumed 1-E probably meant an equivalent level of growth to the proj ec t, however, the project turned out to be deft ned . As presently recommended, it was the 350,000 square feet, so that unless directed otherwise, staff assumed it was an alternative means to control growth to about that level. It was a pretty drastic downzoning through a conventional approach. Counciimember Sutorius asked if staff had an opportunity to deter- mine whether the Ci ty of San Francisco dev i sed a manner in which they approached the cap, at whatever level they approached the cap, which he understood was "x" number of supervisors times a number and so forth , and in Wal nut Creek and other 1 ocations that approached an allocation process. Mr. Freel and said San Francisco had a somewhat parail el considera- tion of annual growth 1 imitation. He deferred to George Zimmerman for response. Principal Planner George Zimmerman said the San Francisco Planning Department reported that staff neither considered a size limit for any project wi thin the proposed 950,000 annual growth allocation, nor had staff or the Board of Supervisors given any direction as to how the allocation would be processed on a proj ec t- by-proj ec t basi s. Staff anticipated if the Board of Supervisors approved the 950,000 square foot of allocation, staff would be directed to come up with some sort of benefit -type mechanism in determining what proj ects woul d be processed, Mr. Freeland said a rating system type of approach was the one used in Petal uma, and, the City of Morgan Hill for. years had a growth limitation pol icy tied to its sewer capacity, and it al so had a rating system. There only seemed to be three possibilities or classes, and there could be a 1ot of imagination within how each would be dealt with. There was a first-come, first-served; some form of a lottery; or some form of a rating system. The Committee so far preferred a first -come, first- served approach. He bel ieved staff was probably more comfortabl e with some kind of a 1 ottery, and Council should . consider whether it was interested in being the eval uators of some kind of a rating system. Ulti- mately, the evaluators would be the Councils if they went that way. Count ilmember Wool l ey asked by the time Council adopted a spec i fi c ordinance next spring, what proportion elf the pi pel ine;- projects would be occupied. Mr. Zimmerman said when the Planning Commission had its public greeting one month ago, staff estimated about 20 percent. Last week, staff re- ev al ua ted the current status of projects= in the pipeline and estimated that by April or May, 1985, at least 75 percent of the pipeline projects 'soul d be cOMpl eted and occupied. Cour'cilmember Woolley asked which buildings specifically would be unoccupied. 1 1 1 Mr. Zimmerman said the two maj or prof ec is which wo ul d most likely be unoccupied were the Hare, Brewer & Kelly building at Waverl ey and Lytton, and the University National Bank building on Lytton. Councilmember Woolley said those two - buildings together totaled about 56,000 square feet, which was more like 11 percent, and she cl arified that staff cal cul ated in some cushion. Mr, Zimmerman said staff assumed that some other projects would be partially occupied, but not fully. Councilmember Woolley commented approximately 75 percent would be occupied. Councilmember Renzel noted that at the study session, she had asked whet happened if Council picked a. growth strategy based on the provision of another parking garage, and then it became cl ear the Assessment District was not prepared to support that. That was said to be a possibility the City could run into. She asked to what extent the City must maintain an Assessment District mechanism if they required parking for all new buildings. Ms. Lee replied until the bonds were paid off. There were two series of bonds currently outstanding, Series E and Series G. She wa s no t sure when they woul d be retired, but if no more bonds were funded through that mechanism, after all the bonds were paid off, the City did not need to continue with that mechanism. Councilmember Renzel clarified the only l imitation was to finish off payment of existing bonds. Ms. Lee repi led yes. Councilmember Renzel said the other problem was what happened to the businesses that had not provided any parking and had no abil- ity to do so. She asked if it was considered that they paid their dues with the public parking that now existed through the Assess- ment Di strict. Mr. Freel and said the parking garage was a key part of the strategy and had two roles: To help offset the deficit to some degree, and to provide a source of new spaces to be used by peopl e with relatively small lots who wanted to add square footage on those lots and found it impractical to provide on - site parking. In the absence of the parking structure, the in -lieu weans of providing parking would not be available and the effect would be that some small lots might not be able to expand as a practical matter because they could not get the parking. It was an important component, and whi1e.. the program would not sel (- destruct, it would work a hardship on relatively small lots that had difficul ty providing on - site parking. Co unc eber Renzel cl arified that in terms of the actual vacant lots downtown, there were a few within the current Assessment Di strict. Mr. Zimmerman said the total current vacant floor area, which meant with no physical improvements, constituted about 175,000 square feet. He ventured it wars between 10 and 15 parcel s within the 17,500 square foot floor area total that was vacant. Counc ilmember Renzel cl arified the average was about 17,500, square feet. # -Zimmerman said that saris correct. Counc 1 ei ber Renzel asked whether the prov isle park] ng 5 8 9 5 6/17 /85 Mr. Zimmerman said it Was d c tc rm i n c d that the break-even si ze of a lot-. was about 10,000 square feet. Below that, it was virtually impoesibl a to provide the full compl ement of parking . The larger the 1 ot, the more efficient it was to be ;abl e to prov ide on- site parking. Comic ilmember Renzel asked, with respect to the annual allocation, which was a somewhat new concept relative to standard zoning, and while she recognized the zoning .had to be drastically altered in order to meet the same kinds of limitations being talked about, how the allocation method would cause the market to behave in downtown. People did not have their projects ready in January, and the purchase and sale of pro serty and real estate was not done with a short- term thought, but usually with a longer term idea. She asked if there was any experience about whether there was some rational method for the market, , especially if the, annual. all oca- tion was rn ybe two profec,i:s. rt Mr. Freel and. Said the biggest probl ern was they were:: tal,ki.ng about a small annual allocation versus the size of projects that might come in . In areas like Morgan Hill or Petal uma where there were residential growth allocations, they had hundreds of units per year, and it was easier to have a system wi th an appearance of fairness in terns of everyone having an equal shot to get a piece of the allocation. Staff recommended 25,000 square feet, or a net gain of 15,000 square feet as the maximum project size. As the annual allocation was reduced lower than 50,000 square feet, chances were that one or two people might get the whole all oca- tion. Of the available choices, the first -come, first -served seeded to him to break down entirely if only one or two proj ec is had a share of the development, and then how would one determine who was first. The lottery concept was al so difficul t. in that it was`'one thing to have your- number drawn out of a hat, but it was another to have a project approved by the ARB. There were ques- tions like what special rights were implied to those selected to proceed and what kinds of costs were reasonable to ask someone to incur in terms of developing plans to submit in order to qualify for entry into that lottery. There were serious and major prob- lems, which. was why so many cities went to a rating system approach. In a rating system , everyone was expected to put in an equal mount of work to make the appl ication, and the city tried to choose the one that best met some set of predetermined cri- teria. It was, however, an extraordinarily demanding ,_and a diffi- c ul t process Councilrember Renzel' said it was probably intertsimeiy competitive and put tremendous pressure on the decision makers. Mr, Freeland said that was correct. Caunc iimember F1 etcher asked if all the vacant lots were being used for _parking purposes, or what other. purpose were they ,used for. Mr. Zimmerman said they were for parking, storage, and two or three were jest vacant. Carl Schmitt, 361 Lytton Avenue, endorsed the Downtown Study. The infrastructure of the downtown and surrounding community stopped growing many years agp. As a resul is there were deficits in traf- fic and parking He was surprised to see a parking deficit of. 1,400 and that some of the City`s .gateways, despite study, were of a more passable rating than he would have found. He lived in Menlo Park, and found the Palo Alto Avenue gateway to be sticky at times, ,yet it did not pop up as one of the primary problem areas. It seemed to many people on the committee that the capacity reached the top and there was .little left in the cup to handle additional growth. As a result, the committee developed some creative ways to. try to parcel out the little that was left in the way of capacity _ until such time as the community decided to increase the infrastructure by massive_, amounts of parking and some way to deaf with the traffic. The most important part of the traffic was the through -community traffic over which they had 1 ittl a control . Some argued that traffic congestion was not. caused by the downtown, and it might be true, but there were asso- ciated problems. People tried to get from the Bayshore side to the west side and vice versa. There were always two extremes in land use discussions, and it was important for Council to walk a middle 1 ine and try to deal with both sides. The vitality of the downtown was heavily dependent upon some amount of refurbishment and small development that could continue to take pl ace. He opined to stomp it out was negative; yet, unbridled development woul d harm the down town . He s ur pr i sect his col 1 ecrg qe s on the committee having come from a "free market" approach, into some- thing that was heavily constrained. in a regulatory format as far as their conclusions. He believed it returned to the lack of infrastructure. The strategies did not stand alone, but worked together. The committee attended an average of one-and-a-hal f meetings a week over a one-year period, and the average 1 ength of each meeting was about three hours. A lot of work went into trying to bring the pieces together, and to tinker with them too heavily would be unwi se. For example, when proposing a maximum proj ect size of 25,000 square feet, the number tended to stick, yet, i f one read carefully, it was established commercial proj ect- si zed limits of 25,000 square feet growth, or 15,000 square feet net new, whichever was greater. Many of the proposed projects would fit into the 15,000 square foot limitation which said the projects would be spread over more than what first might be seen in the 25,000 square foot limitation. He appreciated having been on the project . Councilmember Sutorius referred to {fir. Schmitt's letter (which is on file in the City Clerk' s Office) , and said the last paragraph stated that "absolutely critical in the additional development was the abil ity for rehabil itation of existing space. The economics of such rehabll itation efforts often required that some additional leasable space be constructed." It went on to discuss the positive impacts of rehabil station on vital lty, etc. Within that context, he asked Mr. Schmitt to comment on the fact that as he reviewed the material and believed he understood it, the type of exemption in the present moratorium for unreinforced masonry, seismic hazard s etrofi is was not carried forward wi thin the Downtown Study Committee recommendations, and yet Mr. Suitt personally empha- sized working out ways to foster good rehabilitation and fair- ness. Mr. Schmitt said if Councilmember Sutorius referred to the 5,000 square feet, he believed they called that a 5,000 square foot exemption in the form of remodeling. Councilmember Sutorius clarified that was c1 asked in everything, and did not distinguish seismic. Mr. Schmitt said exactly, and the major reason was that when any sort_ of rehab 11 itatlon was done on a building today, Ti t1 a 24 was around the corner and started to consume square footage, i.e handicapped regulations, etc., and new fire regulations since the old buildings were originally done, but it all started to consume square footage, so to keep the economic value there, they bel ieved an -additional 5,000 "bonus," something that encouraged someone to do some rehabilitation, would be. appropriate . He was not so sure it was dissimilar from the thinking went through in the seismic. David Jury, 305 Lytton Avenue, `said, -for the last 20 years citi- zens, property owners, and merchants worked hard to convert what was formerly aebl ighted area into a vital retail and economic cen- ter, and the efforts were successful . The efforts created major economic worth and a desirable area. Risks were taken 'devel op= meats and mej or rehab 11 itation took pl ace. Downtown was -not with- otit problems. The parking problem had existed for the last 20 5 8 9. 7 6/17.,185 years. Every imaginable way must be used to deel with the parking problem by providing and requiring parking. The traffic problem was predominantly a few hot spots at peak commute hours caused l argely by through traffic generated outside the downtown area and terminating outside the downtown area. The- proposed traffic sol u- tion was to shut down growth in the core, which did not affect through traffic., That penalized the downtown to benefit the through traffic. The City Counc . had to be careful not to upset the fragile economy and destroy what people worked . so hard to achieve for 20 years. No merchant would want to move into down- town 'Palo Al to with the known edge 'that the City 'did everything in its power to reduce the number of customers going into that shop. Downtown needed a taxing structure, parking, a "market, and other things. The people of downtown successfully brought downtown back that far; and they had more to go. The answer to the downtown probl ems was not to remove forever from the tax roll s valuable property that contributed so greatly to the qual ity of life in the City of Polo Alto, and to the school district, Counc ilmember Witherspoon mentioned the retail sales tax, and she requested the Council to include the property tax. The community as a whole, the County, and the Cl ty, benefited greatly from the prover ty tax revenue for roads, school s, hospital s, etc. Through the EIR and future discussions, the downtown woul d be the subject of contro- versy for many months to come. Within a few days , he would submit to the City Counc i1 and the citi tens of Pal o Al to some positive suggestions dealing with parking, traffic, and economic realities o f that vibrant and exciting area that was their downtown Elizabeth Kittas, 1643 Edgewood Drive, spoke as a member of the Historic Resources Board (HRB) to convey its support of the his- toric preservation strategy recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Proposed federal tax reforms would abolish the current tax incentives for hi storic preservation. Wi th that support in limbo, support at a local level was more imperative.. They all desired to assure their City_ ` s unique inventory of historically important structures endured and prospered. In the downtown area their ., status became more uncortain due to the pressures of development and economic e.* The maj brity of historic structures in • downtown, identified as tignificant in their existing inventory, would have over 50 percent of development potential left' under the proposed 2:1 FAR. That was true of the majority of -sites within the recently created Ramona Street district. The proposed strategy for historic preservation would provide an appropriate combination o f restriction and opportunity to assure those objectives. Al components of the proposed strategy were present in the new San Francisco downtown -.:oedin_ ance except for the bond,.. program proposal , which had recent activ1ty at . the sta te level . It wa s wor*thwh11 e to note those strategies would not tax the public or create an increase in the level of devel opment, and yet would contribute to the greater community good by preserving rich links with their., hi story as a city. The HRB urged Council approval of the proposed preservation strategies. Diana Steepl es, 3198 Ramona Street, Director of Pl anning and Develcogent for the Senior Coordinating Council; (SCC) and staff to the SCC's Downtown Market Community Committee (DM CC) There was a need for a market to fully meet the needs of residents and workers o f the downtown area, specifically the area of the census tracks 5112 and 5113, which had a combined population of 11,402 persons, or 21 percent of the City` s popul ation. Regarding the EIR, they specifically requested chat Council approve the parking strategies Program 1-B, but carefullyl oak at Al ternative 8. They repeatedly returned to the need for a full .market to meet the grocery and household needs at affordable :prices. The MCC conducted three surveys :and if,Council did not: have copies of the statements, she wool d.:see they► were provided. !n 1980) a r neioin samP1 e survey of 600 residents' was done with a -response rat :of 76 percent from people of all ages oho lived in the- downtown- area. Three-quarters of the respondents believed the lack of a full service market would be a serious problem The 1980 survey resul ts'made it clear that mobil ity constraints kept older or 1 ower incnme residents from shopping at stores with more reasonable prices. They Fiad since conducted two surveys within the last three months when the Starlight Super was going to close. One surveyed people as they 1 eft Starl ight Super and the other was a cut out survey printed by the Palo Al to Weekly. When asked if the alternatives would be sati sfac tory, 80 percent of the. peopl e said no and gave a variety of reasons which were contained in the full comments. An over- whelming number of persons in both surveys bel ieved it was important to have a complete food store in downtown Palo Alto in contrast to important convenient or not necessary. She cocci uded by quoting a pol icy statement adopted by the DMCC for a presenta- tion to the Pl anning Commission in 1982, "We believe that a healthy downtown is one thatreflects diversity, including retail , financial , office and neighborhood serving uses. Each of these elements can and should coexist to ensure the vitality that will serve those who live or aorke in the downtown and attract con- sumers from a wider geographic region as well, The City, by its pot icy, has al ready recognized housing and parking as major needs. The DMCC feels strongly that the City should al so recognize a food market in the downtown as a rnaj or social need." She el arified their intent was not that the City construct and run a food market, but rather to request the City to play a role to enable the private sector to do so, since interest was shown •by devel- opers and grocery operators. Many people from Lytton Gardens who were interested could not attend tonight because of a special meeting at Lytton Gardens. She submitted a petition signed by many Lytton Gardens residents which said 'The residents of Lytton Gardens regret the closing of Starl ight market and .urge the City Counc it to expedite the opening of another downtown market to accommodate the shopping needs of the residents of the downtown area." David Schrom, 302 College Avenue, said since 1970, he watched the community change in ways he bel ieved were for the worse. He watched the infrastructure of the City, including its streets, become more run down. He watched the quality of life, ranging from air quality to the amount of noise in the neighborhoods, to the time it took to get from one pl ace to the other, become stead- ily deteriorated. To some extent, the reason for it was the pubs is pol is ie s with respect to l and use pl anning that were set by the City Council . For more than 20 years, there were people in the community who argued that it was prudent to stab i1 i ze the community, to bring the commercial and residential el events of the community into bal anc e . Some chose to label those people an ti - growth , but he called those people those who were able to see that the nature of the community could be changed qualitatively, for the, better without making it quantitatively bigger. Cities were extensions of the humans who built them, but as they grew beyond a certain point, they were no longer able to provide the kinds of services and the quality of life the citizens wanted. He said that Commissioner McCown believed the ten percent growth they - reviewed was something they were abi e to safely predict woul d not hurt. For the past 20 years people sa fel y predicted the City' s projected growth would not hurt.. Increasing the City meant increasing per unit costs for services, and, unless each person wanted to work. harder for 1 ess, they had to find a way to stop increasing the density of Palo Al to. , David Jury tal ked of a oarking problem, which was approximately 1,500 parking spaces large. The approximate value of each parking space was $21,000, according to :.the Downtown Study: Committee. It l ooked 1 ike a $30,000,000 capital improvea3ent they failed to make in order to accommodate the true costs of the growth -taking place downtown. The people whose neighborhood streets were lined by those cars, in effect, paid a tax on that amount. The City was asking the neigh- bors downtown to pay between one and five mill ion dollars a year in the form of a service to those from whom they got no benefit. It seemed unfair, and to contemplate asking them to do More than that by accepting further growth seemed more unfair. There was no need to study many of the alternatives that were outlined that night. He bel ieved middle' ground: was no growth. Rezoning some of g j 79/8? the commercial buildings and area downtown to residential use to hring the community more into bal ance and stabil ity seemed to him to be the other side of the coin. If they wanted to walk the middle ground, staff should be asked to study the no -growth route. If they wanted to take the politically courageous route, then talk about looking at how they were to get less commerce and more residents in Palo Al too Michael Morris, 999 Alma Street, took exception to only one aspect o f the study. He was a third -generation Palo Al tan, a third - generation owner of the same business establ fished in Palo Al. to 59 years ago, and would hopefully be a second -generation commercial property owner in Pal o Al to. By adopting the strategy of rezoning the transitionary part of downtown Palo Al to , the City maul d el im- inate the majority of automobile repair and supply facilities in downtown Palo Alto. By rezoning to residential certain areas bordered by Forest, Emerson, Addison, and Alma, the City would ✓ irtually close over 50 percent of downtown's automotive repair shops. With the new office buildings downtown, it seemed logical to have repair facilities downtown. With the possible exception o f some employees that parked in close -by residential areas, a problem which could be eliminated with new parking facil ities as proposed, the area the Planning Commission suggested needed to be rezoned in the southern part of downtown, did not seem to really bother adjacent residential areas on weekends or after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. He bel iev ed the question was whether peopl e who worked downtown should be forced to go outside of the City to get e ssential services performed that were now available downtown. Those who owned land downtown, land that they worked on, did not look forward to reduced property value if the rezoning in the transition area was successful , not to mention the tax base that would be el iminated by the rezoning. He hoped Council would take a close look at the proposal to el iminate existing businesses. If the City was convinced that growth must be curtailed, then curtail it immediately, but do not destroy what many business people in Palo Al to took years to build. Counc ilmember Woolley asked Mr. Morris what area he was talking about. Mr. Morris said hi s parcel was on the corner of Alma and Addison. Cdunc ilmember Woolley asked if that was the area bounded by Alma, Forest, Emerson, and Channing. Mr. Morris referred to staff's color -coded map and said it was almost in a grey area of things proposed. He referred to CS, FAR 11 , and: the comment, *symbol ing indicates area . of increasing need for redesi g nation to provide effective residential transition.° Hi s parcel was at the bottom where it said, *Transitional area for possibl e redesignation, from service commercial to residential.* He cl arified his property was in the south part of downtown. Betty Meltzer, 1241 Dana, said each Council member received copies o f 4,022 petition signateres from Palo Alto residents who shared a concern about future commercial growth. She presented the Comic ii with an additional 800 signatures, all collected in .a little over a month. The signatures represented the feelings of people who cared about the city they called home. Those who signed wanted to be sure the 'town did not become another overdeveloped, used -up center The Palo Al to Tomorrow Committee (PATOO evolved In response to a concern that the Downtown Study Committees recom- mendation for ten percent growth in five years was excessive. PATC appreciated the Downtown Study Committee' s recognition of the need for slower growth in the downtown area and for the creative. suggestions it offered to resolve the downtown probl ems. - PATC's original steering committee ,were residents from different neigh- borhoods whoknew that any of their friends and neighbors wanted much less commercial growth throughout the City, not Just in the downtown area. As a steering = committee, they had different opinions and started the idea of a legal petition. Recause they wanted to pursue a reasonable course, they circulated- a petition suggesting ten percent growth in ten years, which people refused to sign since it was more growth than they wanted. They 1 istened to the public and decided to use their alternatives as the basi s for a petition. As a group they did not advocate . an opinion. Assessment of publ is opinion became the focus of the petition. Of the 4,800 that signed, 64 percent wanted no commercial growth anywhere in the City for five years in order to assess the full impact of current devel opment; 30.4 percent indicated support for limiting the growth of commercial development City-wide, and in each single commercial area of the City to five;;- percent in ten years. The residents made informed choices, for riot only did they have their own experience to draw from, but al so the fact sheets PATC prepared to . tell them the consequences of continued commer- cial development both downtown and City-wide. The facts were ✓ erified by various members of the City Council , Planning depart-. went, and Planning Commission. The, Council received copies of them in the previous week' s packet (which are on file in the City Clerk' s Office) . Looking at the statistical resul is of the peti- tion drive, 94.4 percent of the residents' chose options which supported no growth for five years and five percent City-wide in commercial areas. People were fed up with the then existing com- mercial growth. She recommended that Counc it approve LIR studies for 1 evel s which re fl ect community consensus . It woul d be appropriate to include studies for no growth, and five percent in ten years, in pl ace of 40 percent growth, which nobody wanted, and which was unreasonable. The committee was aware of the pressures from various groups to continue development. of the downtown, Midtown, and California Avenue areas, but Council needed to recog- nize the message of their consti tuents. It was important to remember Palo Alto also belonged to the residents. She reminded the Council that there was a significant difference between hear- ing and listening. She asked the. Council not to ignore the impi i- cations. Palo Al tans wanted rezoning for highly. -controlled com- mercial growth; not just a few residents but hundreds. She urged the Council as representatives el ected by the residents to listen and to ac.t for the sake of the commun ity. George Liddicoat, 340 University, said the study failed to point out that down town Palo Al to was in competition wi th Stanford Shopping Center and falling behind. Palo Al to had a variety of stores but nothing compared to Stanford or Menlo Park. If the course was to be continued and rents made higher with the amount o f building available, downtown would be reduced to blocks of 50 -foot cubes of bricks lining both sides, but parking would not be needed because no merchant would be abl e to afford it. They had a grocery store for over 50 years in Palo Al. to, but could not keep it going because of the parking situation. The parking situ- ation in Pal o Al to was desperate. It was impossibl e for a retail merchant to do business in town with parking the way it was. People went t.o Stanford, parked comfortably, wandered around and had a good time. In downtown Palo Alto, they went, wandered around for a few minutes too long and were hit with a $7 ticket. He supposed that money went to the County and not to the City of Palo Alto to buy parking lots. Regarding small parking lots under buildings, something less than 10,000 square feet, no one wanted to go down into a hol e at night three fl oors down to recover their car. Pal o Al to needed large, centrally -located parking lots funded by the City as a whol e. The merchants' 1 ittle sales coul d not do it.: Tom Staley, 222 High Street, was a member of the Beyond War staff, which had its national office in a High Street buiiding. They had been in that building for several years. They :started out as a ✓ ol unteer group of about 200 peopl e working on the Beyond War project, and now_ had about 10,000 people in 33 states. A year ago they bought the bui 1 ding they were in and the two adjoining bui l d- ings, which were on Alma Street and Hawthorne. It was the old Palo Alto car barn where the street cars used to come_ in on Hawthorne Street and went out on either Alma or High Street. Beyond War purchased the building with the intent of moving into the Gymnastics West part of the building, which was on Hawthorne Street, but the proposed CH zoning would prevent them from doing so. They were a vol unteer group and depended upon community funds to continue the operation. Beyond War was about the business of ending all war and they looked for the support of the community in continuing the project. Council member Fletcher asked Mr. Staley when they planned to move. Mr. Staley said Gymnastics West would vacate their property at the end of the lease in 1986. When Beyond War bought the buil ding a year ago, they spent $35,000 restructuring it for earthquake pur- poses so they could move in when Gymnastics West vacated. Councilrnember Renzel pointed out they were not rezoning at that stage, and if rezoning took pl ace, it would take quite sometime. Mr. Stal ey realized that, but the CH zoning woul d apparently pre- vent Beyond War from expanding their offices into that building, Anne Ercol an i , 2040 Ash Street, was pl eased so many peopl e responded so strongly to the petition circul ated by PATC because as she followed the planning stages .of the growth which occurred in the last two years and spoke before the Council in opposition, she may have seemed to the Council as if she were a lone wo1 f who was out there and everyone else thought it wa.s fine. Now her fellow citizens who might not have followed the planning stages but who saw the resul is of the plans, spoke out. The Downtown Study recommendations were a quantum leap in the right direction of slowing growth and keeping their problems from worsening. Even the recommendations recognized they did not have the solu- tions to the existing problems. There was a pause in building while the study went on, and until they saw the actual impact she did not bel ieve further development should be allowed . An addi- tional pause was needed so the P1 anning Department and Pi anning Commission could plan ahead instead of continuing on the reactive treadmill that most governments seemed to be on. She hoped Council would recognize the depth of the frustration of the citi- zens who opted for the no -growth in five years option, Many of those people probably did not consider themselves as no -growth people general a member of the Beyond War staff there which had its national office in a High Street building. They had been in that building for several yid include some dev el clement until further long --term pl anning and analysi s coul d be done and a more restrictive future growth than that proposed. Her feel ing was it should be no growth. ,The future need was not for growth but for renewal and rejuvenation of what currently existed. Tad Cody, 941 Emerson Street, was concerned about Land Use Strategy, Project Ho. 6, which was referred to earlier by Mr. Morris. It concerned the rezoning of property between Emerson and Alma to a residential zone from the existing C zones. He was par- ticularly interested because his office was there and currently many of the uses around their office were residential. What attrac fed him to the par tic ul ar neighborhood in the first pl ace was that it was a genuine mixed -use district. It was not a big project- oriented mixed use, but it was a general combination of peopl e doing business and living there. There were many advan- tages , to that, but first, it had Palo Alto's surviving grocery store operating successfully., There was a Mom and Pop operation; the 50S store was in front of the property and in; the back was a small house where the grocery ttore operator .1 ived. . They were on excellent terms, the grocery store operator used their back yard for a trike run, and they occasionally asked him for various ser- vices other than gracer ies. The grocery store operator shared uses and concerns for the neighborhood. He bel ieved if it was put to a vote the neighborhood would consider the grocery store operator the mayor of the district. The operator represented a pl ace where one could leave a key, lea mpcsages, or borrow w $.5 if needed . When not doing something in his grocery store, Peter stood outside and locked up and down the street. Everyone knew the grocery store operator, and he knew everyone el se. All around there were small houses. Across the street from the office there were four houses which, if rezoned, would become nonconforming even if they were in a residential .zone because they were built before the zoning. They did not conform to setbacks and most of the regulations for an appropriate residential zone. They repre- sented inexpensive housing for four famil ies who lived there quite happily. He believed the service could not be replaced by con- verting the area to a residential zone. Another val ue in the commercial area, being kind of a low key tiring, was that they all knew each other. Zoning , particul arly in a district like that, would not limit growth because it was not going to get any bigger. The lots were too small to improve in terms of making them bigger. Rezoning would wi pe out a finely-bal anted area of housing and commercial operations. There was a small parking problem which they tended to poi ice themselves for their own business and asked other people politely on occasion when it seemed appropriate. Twenty years ago the main problem in downtown was the fact that downtown was a dead pl ace and it was up to the Council to get out and do something about it. They were suffering from the success- ful reversal of the problem that existed 20 years ago. Jean Ramacciotti , 959 Waverley, thanked the Downtown Study Com- mittee for all the hours of time they dedicated to mapping out part of Palo Alto's future. Their work and findings was most valuable. She al so thanked the many people who carried the opin- ion survey during the past five weeks. She spoke on her own behal f and for 5,000 other adul t residents of Pal o Al to, who wanted a change in the direction of Palo Alto that day, to assure a livable hometown for themselves and their children tomorrow. Vision was what separated the great from the mediocre, but the vision was one that enhanced the lives of the greatest number of humans affected. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors took off their blinders last Thursday when they voted on a plan which, according to the Chronicle, was the most sweeping control s ever considered by a major American city. Supervisor Ruth Silver, in praising the new. San Francisco downtown plan, stated, p ie are saying that devel opment is not necessarily the best thing for thi s city. There was a plaque outside the entrance to the Civic Center which stated, "Government is a trust and the officers of the government are trustees, and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people." As trustees of the City, she hoped the decisions the Councilmembers wade that night were for the benefit of those who lived there as well as for the benefit of those would inherit Palo Al to in the 21st century. As Council deliberated over setting the rate of future build up in the small town, she urged they be responsive to the desires of the 5,000 petitioners, to act responsibly as representatives of those who el ec ted them , their constituencies, and, to remember they were entrusted with the destiny of Palo Al to. Dennis Briskin , #101, 925 Waverley urged regarding the EIR, that Council consider the no: ->growth option as one of the projects. He was impressed by Mr. Fr~eel and' s presentation and that no -growth was a realistic and reasonable option for Council to consider. With regard to growth and the quality of life in Palo Alto, he bel ieved Council was well- infora ed. He hel ped ,PATC collect signa- tures because he bel ieved his obi igation as a resident was to do what he could to maintain the values he believed in, which were environmental quaff ity and the quality of life of Pal o Al to. He was impressed with the depth and intensity of the opinions he encountered as he stopped people on the streets downtown. Most people opposed anything excessive, but supported what was reason- abl e, and part of what they were debating was what was reasonable. Their systere of government was built on life, i iberty, and prop- erty, not the `pursuit of happiness, and their system' enshrined the principle that those who owned property should not be denied the right to dispose of their property as they saw fit for whatever profit they coul d gain., except when their right to ac t in that way enfringed upon the rights of others. It was clear to him from talking to people that there was an issue of rights in confl ict. The. rights of property owners to do with their property as they saw fit versus the rights of the rest. of the community to remain free from unreasonabl e intrusions upon their, health, safety, and peace of mind. It was cl ear that the rights of dev el opment pro fi t had prevailed over the rights of those who wanted a clean, green, safe, and quiet environment, and he urged that Council to do what it could to redress that balance in favor of those who chose to 1 iv in Palo Al to over other pl aces because they wanted a humane, l iv abl a environment. ITEMS TO CONSIDER AFTER 11.00 p.m. Mayor Levy said following the Downtown Study, there was the Initiative Petition re Proposed Ordinance For Continued Main- tenance of the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor; the Calling of Election; and the request of Counc ilmember Fl etcher regarding the City Review of County Proj ects. He had approximately 19 more cards for speakers on the item now before Council . Councilmember Renzel did not know how extensive the discussion was apt to be on the remaining items on the agenda, but regarding the date of calling the election, it was important for the Council to make a decision that night because it would make a difference on whether they tried to schedul e it on the 24th rather than the 1st. Council needed to dec ide that night at least to know whether they needed to do anything further. Mayor Levy wanted to know whether members of the Council bel ieved they should postpone any of the items on the agenda that evening. if not, they would continue with the agenda until it was com- pleted. RETURN TO ITEM #4 , DOWNTOWN STUDY Patricia Ward, 412 Everett, said in terms of growth downtown, it wa.s obviously pretty explosive over the past few years, and it was a3 so obvious that the character of downtown over the past 10 or 15 years changed dramatically. Regarding the small town character of the SOS Market neighborhood, there used to be a flavor of that in downtown and now there was boutiqueism rampant in downtown that was a l itt.l a bit of the result of the explosive growth. She believed it was important that the needs of the commercial area and al so the needs of the neighbors .be taken into consideration. In terms of timing, it was critical that Council take its time in evaluating all of it. She recommended they extend the moratorium now in existence on downtown growth to give themselves time to get all the facts. A lot of effort was put into the study by the Downtown Study group, and it was important that it not go to waste. There was basic parking problem downtown, and she recom- mended that Council take action to limit growth, and that they extend the moratorium then existing. James Morl ey, 160 WayWaver i ey, preferred , the no -growth or five per- cent in ten years option, and to 1 ook at the study recommendation of ten percent in seven -years. It seemed Palo Al to was taking on the office building business and Stanford Shopping Center was taking on .the retail business and then, Palo Alto got the bou- tiques to serve the offices He bel_lev ed they were looking at a zoning problem down the line. He hoped the City would not be a professional center for the Peninsula. He was on Emerson that day looking toward Alma and realized there was now a 50 -foot wall of buildings along Alma between University and Lytton. It was a very oppressive feel ing, and he favored going for changes. 5 9 0 4 6/17/85 firs. John W. Mitchell , resided at 2021 Waverley Street for the past 38 years. ()tiring that time she had an abiding concern for the character of Palo Alto. Dfsrnayed by the cataclysmic al tera- tion recently besetting the City, she j oined PATC i n the hope that something could be done to arrest the unfortunate direction being taken. She was convinced the people who lived in Palo Alto were unhappy i►i th the, turn of events but had no means of voicing their displ easure. She went to three different areas for signatures of merchants, and to three different areas for residents. With the single exception of a man who agreed that growth should be limited but said he never signed petitions, every merchant and every resi- dent signed the petition. More than that, they signed eagerly, and welcomed the opportunity to express an opinion about a situa- tion they believed was deplorable but which they felt impotent to affect. The number of signatures on the petition indicated the quality of the sentiment favoring limitation of commercial growth. It did not indicate the quantity of the sentiment because only a rel atively small proportion of citi zens were approached. The almost -unanimous support of limiting commerc ial growth expressed by those who they were able to survey made it obvious that it was representative of most Palo Al tans. Nobody believed growth should be unl invited. She asked if anyone was l istening . Peter Taskovich, 751 Gail en Avenue, said it was important to review the concept of limiting growth to so much per year. While there should be some growth, it should be limited, but to have an arbitrary 60,000 square feet maximum growth allocation for seven years was unworkable because two projects could use that up. He bel ieved the Ci ty woul d be open to 1 awsui ts. Council siioul d con- sider Alternative 1E, with equal emphasis as a way to control growth. Staff should be directed to figure out what would be the FAR to have a permanent build out of 350,000 feet to 400,000 square feet, and then down zone the .districts to achieve it. He bel ieved that woul d be more fair and workabl e. He was al so con- cerned about parking strategies. Council still encouraged auto- mobile use for downtown, and inexpensive mass transit could be encouraged by sub si dizing commuter s. Through the assessment districts, the merchants and retailers could subsidize parking of the workers. Free parking was needed to attract the shoppers otherwise they would go to Stanford Shopping Center where it was free. Commuters should pay the full cost of any additional park- ing spaces. It should not be done by offices but the actual commuters should pay the market rate, which would be much more expensive than that now currently charged. Some people feared that if it was done, more people would go into the neighborhoods to park for free, which might be avoided by 'imposing a daytime restriction from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, of peak hour parking limits on residential streets. The way to discourage sleeper parking was to increase the fi nes for illegal parking. He bel ieved one of the main problems with the traffic downtown was the through traffic. While through traffic should be discouraged, it could not be hidden. One of the alternatives discussed in the Downtown Study Committee, but dismissed because it was unpopular in the 1960's when they tried it, was to make Hamilton and Lytton one-way streets again . That woul d give an additional two l ones of traffic . It woul d encourage peopl eanot to use University Avenue as a throughfare and divert to Hamilton. Times had changed so the concept shoul d be reeval ued to see how appropriate it was. He believed the height limit of buildings should be increased to 65 feet because right now there were those cubic effects and people building to 50 feet with no setback. If owners and devel oilers were given some 1 eeway to increase the height, thereby increasing the setback, wi thout Increasing the fl oor space, he bel ieved it would be a more attractive downtown.. MAYOR LEVY RE ADJOURNMENT TO JUNE 18, 1985 Mayor Levy asked the City Cl erk and City Manager if there were any conflicts in terms of continuing the meeting until the next evening 1 City Clerk Ann Tanner :aid the meeting could be adjourned until 7 : 30 p .an . the next day. City Manager Bill Zaner had no problems. Councilmember Bechtel agreed with Mayor Levy' s suggestion. Mayor Levy said he intended to adjourn the meeting to the next evening upon compl etion of publ is testimony. Counc ilmember Bechtel encouraged that Mayor Levy conclude thi s item and to continue the remainder of the meeting at approximately 11 :00 or 11 :15 p.m. .If someone could not be there the following night who planned to speak that evening, that person could speak then. Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Bechtel and said she bel ieved they would all get a 1 ittl e fuzzy around 11:00 p.m., and 11:15 p.m. was a reasonable hour to hear the testimony, but if they started at 7:30 p.m. with Item 4, it should permit them to be fairly fresh through the decision -making process with 15 addi- tional peopl e to speak. She urged they adj ourn at a reasonabl e hour so they were all fresh the next day. Vice Mayor Cobb said the people spent a lot time sitting through all the testimony, and many of them would not have an easy time returning. He believed Council shoul d hear from the people who submitted cards that night and then adjourn to the next evening. Councilmember Bechtel was sure that everyone who was there that night would not just allow the Council to discuss the. item the next night in a vacuum. Those who were interested were going to be there even if they already spoke, that night. She believed Council should adjourn at a reasonably hour for those who got up at 6:15 a.m. Mayor Levy said he bel ieved Council should hear from the remaining members of the publ is which would take another hour. At that point he would move adj ournrnent to the next evening. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to conclude that evening at 11:15 p.m. and adjourn the meeting until the next day. Counc llmember Sutorius preferred Mayor Levy's outl ine of com- pl eting the public presentations that evening. If the motion was defeated, it was appropriate to have a sense of the Council motion that confirmed Council intended to adjourn after the public pre- sentations so those people associated with Items 5, 6, and 7 would know Council's sense and could leave at their leisure. Councilmember. Fletcher asked whether some members of the public who preferred to return the next day, instead of staying for another 45 minutes or so that evening, woul d have an opportunity. to .speak .the next day if they l eft and their name was called. Mayor Levy bel ieved that :since the item was agendized for that evening, Council should hear all the publ is testimony that evening. Since Council would be taking it up the next day, any members of the public who had not submitted a card that evening, were free to speak . the next day. Counc ilmember Fletcher did not agree with that procedure because there were people who already left because it was late. There were other people who preferred not to spend another.. hour there, and sheN''bel ieved they should have an opportunity to speak the next day. There would not be that many as *ost of the people were al ready heard. MOTION FATI=Fo by a vote of 4-4, Bechtel , Fletcher, Renzel , Witherspoon voting "aye,'" Klein "not participating." Mayor Levy asked if any Councilmember objected to concluding the meeting after the Council heard from the publ is on Item 4. Receiving no objection,, he said the meeting would be adjourned after the publ is testimony was concluded on Item 4, until the next day, when they would resume consideration. Tomorrow evening, he would open the testimony to members of the public who had not submitted a card that evening. RETURN TO ITEM #4 , DOWNTOWN STUDY Lora Smith, 162 Bryant, submitted a letter to the Council (which i s ors fi l e in the City Cl erk' s Office) . She represented Downtcwn North, and suggested for the EIR to remove the alternatives 1B and 1E, combine them and use them as the project. She believed the project was still pretty high, and if it was what got the most intense study, she believed when Council looked at it, they would decide for lower growth, using some sort of zoning to achieve that. If that was what they would decide, they might as well use it for the project. Paul Smith, 1336 Webster Street, favored the no -growth recom- mendation and supported the imposition of the moratorium for an additional one year. Regarding the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the housing goals as stated in the 1980 general plan and the 1985 housing element, the third goal was to meet the needs of the increased housing supply, and some of the housing demands caused by - j obs/housing imbal ante. The jobs/housing lmbal ance was described as being created by the abundance of jobs in Palo Al to and the absence of housing to accommodate those who found employ- ment in Palo Al to . The 1980 housing el ement had another statement which was not contained in the 1985 statement that Palo Alto did not have the capacity to meet even a large part of the demand created by empl oyment in the Ci ty, much 1 ess the empl oyment demands of the entire area. Regarding the employment element, one objective was to reduce employment potential and to maintain low ernpl oyment dens( ties where feasible. Over the 1 ast couple of years, there was a lot of construction in Palo Alto, and much of that construction was nonresidential and provided many additional jobs above Oat was in existence in 1980. The City seemed to. be going counter' to the empl oyment el ement °of its Comprehensive P1 an. under those circumstances, drastic measures were needed perhaps by curtailing increased densities. Council had to take steps towards l ow growth, or no growth, and he supported the efforts along those lInes. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, echoed the comments concerning five percent as a reasonabl e goal for development. The main al terna- tive was a first -come, first -served, and he did not like the idea that one or two projects might take a lion's share of a year's al location. The City might lose some of the better, smaller projects at the expense of the larger, more imposing buildings. If the City did not carry over appl (cations from year to year, it would see people carping out to get the best place in line for that year`s allocation. If the City did carry over, it would see hastily- designed projects. They wo old see more. City sta ff time as plans were revised while the application was in progress. A sufficiently long queue might range into years, especially with a low limit and could produce a lot of pressure on Council and/or the Courts, par°ticular.ly with respect to- those owners with vacant properties. The lottery system was an improvement over first - come, first- served, but was unpredictable from the developers' standpoint. It also presided the opportunity of abuse by some persons who ,might purchase d ev el opal en t rights or UAdertake devel- opaaaents sol el for the purpose of reselling what would become a more valuable piece of property. Like first -come, first -served, it would notnecessarily encourage better projects. He bel leved Council should consider a rating system that would Rroduce the 5 9 0 7 6/17/85 best projecto. Council would see Competition fur the best designs rather than a pl ace in line or a chance for fortune. Perhaps, it was the most fair in terms of those developers who were not pre- pared to build at that time, and should not be encouraged to build sooner than they were ready. However, it was the most costly alternative, par ticul arty if the work was done entirely by staff . Council did not necessarily have to go with 100 percent staff time, and could consider designating an independent volunteer committee 1 ike the ARB or the Downtown Study Committee. He doubted there would be a shortage of volunteers based on the con- cern expressed by the entire community, both developer and non - developer, to see the downtown developed positively. He urged that Council incl ude an alternative such as a rating system for selecting the growth Council wanted to see in the downtown area. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, spoke on behalf of nearly 5,000 Palo Alto residents who sent their message that enough was enough. It was time to drastically slow down growth. The ten percent growth, they were told by the Downtown Study Committee, was the maximum that downtown could absorb for the foreseeable future. She hoped that more than five years cowl d be seen , The committee said the ten percent was pushing what could be accepted and lived with happily and comfortably. She could not believe a ten percent growth was expec ted in five years and no more growth after that. If Council was unwilling to seriously consider no - growth for five years to give time to pl an and recover from the recent boom, she asked what would happen when they had the ten percent growth and the five years were up. The ten percent growth in five years might seem reasonable, but in five years it could have brought 30 percent more development and all its associated traffic and parking problems. That was too much. She urged an EIR on a greatly reduced rate of growth of five percent in ten years and on no- growth . The Ci ty needed to know the impac t of all of the current pi pel ice development. She was not advocating permanent no- growth; but favored a slow, planned, managed growth, During recent City Council el ections, people clearly said they wanted to retain Palo Alto as it was. In the election two years ago, both the resi dents and City Counc it candidates seemed to say the same thing, but growth continued. Quality of life was the main issue two years ago, but year after year Palo Alto became more built up. There was now a downtown for those who worked there; but it was not a downtown for the people who lived there. She urged that Council recognize the horeowneds' rights to enjoy the community .were paramount over the investors' rights to make a profit on investment land . Many homeowners, not just those on University Avenue, suffered a dollar decrease in the value of their property as development went on. They now reached, the point where residents actually subsidized any new development by a decrease in their quality of life. One Council member recently said the recommendation from the 16 -member Citizens Committed deserved more weight than the voice of the residents because those residents did not know much about the issues involved. She was alarmed at that point of view, and what it said about a partici- patory democrfiacy and the role of the citi tens. While the Ci ti zen s' Committee 1 ooked at how growth shoul d be handl ed and what strategies and implementations should be used, the residents talked about the kind of a community they wanted to live in . The voice ofthe people deserved an action which was responsive, Many people believed it was too 1 ate to save Palo Alto. Deve1 opn t was a widespread problem , but that did not mean they -had. to sit back and watch the destruction of a way of 11re. She bel ieved the citizens would support the Council if they were ready 'to try to find: some way to save their town and the quality of 1 ife they had eni,oyed. She urged that Council delete, the 20 percent al ternative and the 40 percent al ternative and look at 5 percent growth in 10 years=.and look at no -growth for 5 years.. 5 9 0 8 6/11 /85 Barbara Newton, 1585 Edgewood Drive, was a member of the Palo Al to tomorrow committee (PATC) . As stated by Betty Mel tzer, the committee concerns were Ci ty-wide and she was par tic ul arly con- cerned about the California Avenue area. For the past ten years, her activities took her to Cal ifornia Avenue. She was a counselor at the Resource Center for Women and did community volunteer work at the Turnabout Shop, the Parental Stress Hotl ine, and poi itical campaign work. Until the past year and one-half, the California area was always accessible to her. It was no longer. The proj- ects underway made the area almost impassable. Her drive from her home to Cal iforia Avenue used to take about 10 minutes and now took 25 to 30 minutes partly because of the traffic on Alma which was almost impossible at any time of day. When she reached the Oregon Expressway, traffic was frequently at a standstill , and when she got to Cal ifornia Avenue, the parking was extremely d i fficul t. The only 1 ong- term parking that was provided for working people in the area bras close to Oregon Expressway, and if she arrived in the neighborhood before 8:45 a.m., she was usually successful in getting a parking place. After that the permit spaces were all filled, the long-term parking spaces were all filled, and she ended up having to take either City parking lot areas or street parking, which were limited to two hours. he had to interrupt her sessions with cl jients to go out on the street and drive around in her car to find another place to park. If she was unable to leave a cl ient or her volunteer work, she got tickets. She resented the fact that a lot of the tickets were given to her while she did community v of unteer work. The construction projects in the area made I i fe more compl is ated because they took up a lot of the existing parking spaces. That day, five spaces across the street from the Resource Center were taken up by telephone company trucks servicing the project at the corner of Ash and Sherman Avenue. They blocked existing spaces, created congestion, and caused traffic and noise. It was safe to assume the traffic probl ems and the parking shortage would increase when the projects were finished and occupied. She urged, as did everyone el se on the committee, that attention be paid to those people whose lives were being affected, rather than the projects. Joe. Yarkin, 152 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding 945-949 Emerson, the SOS' Market. The cover of the January 30, Palo Alto Weekly, was entitl ed, "A Neighborhood Market .Surviving a Supermarket World." He owned that property a long time, it was a nice neigh- borhood market and he wanted to keep it that way. He did not believe the Palo Alto City Council intended to change the zoning there, but it was one of the properties indicated as a potential zoning change to residential It was ironic that some people spoke about the need for neighborhood markets, and yet a neighbor- hood market use was being considered for change to residential He intended to keep the market. It was in his family a long time, and they wanted to maintain the use. They were iaappy with the people who rented it, and lived in the back. He wanted to see the zoning maintained as CS. It would help he and other people in the same area if they knew whether Council tended to change any of the uses for the specific properties designated in the Downtown Study Group for potential residential use, If they were to be :changed to potential residential .use, they needed to know quickly because they had to sign leases and talk to the people who rented the places. He hoped the Council would continue the present zoning for that property. Mark Hall , 611 Webster, said the Study Committees s interest was well-founded and they did a good job of considering many of the true impacts regarding housing and centers for downtown, parking, and traffic congestion, neighborhood protection, and architectural preservation but the impact of -the past five years' growth changed their lives. In five years, their would be .community outrage and Council would be forced to confront the issue of, no- growth. Now was the time for Council to avoid future pending conflict and to specifically co nsider an option of five percent growth fiver the.hext :ten years in their CIS study, which was what Counc ii had to vote on that night. If the Council looked closely at that study, and if ten percent in five years was the maximum capacity of growth, she asked why they studied 20 percent and 40 percent in the EIR. He did not bel ieve it was good appl ication of resources, time, and money to consider a larger amount of develop- ment in the EIR. He suggested it be repl aced with lesser devel op-- ment alternatives as Councilmembers Cobb and Wool ey had mentioned earl ler . Stuart Hansen, 184 Wal ter Hays Drive, enjoyed living in Palo Al to for the past 20 years. It offered the right mix of low -density housing, schools, shopping, and job opportunities. There was heavy traffic , stop 1 ights, signs, and barricaded streets. Drivers seemed to pay little attention to speed limits even _ in front of schools. He read about angry residential groups arguing for and against barriers, about a proposal to sell the City Hall and build a bigger one, about selling so-called air rights to put up even more buildings on top of the existing City parking lots. It all boiled down to density or crowding --.the Manhatten effect. He helped PATC conduct a survey of residents throughout the City last month, and few people wanted more buildings, at 1 east for another five years, and they did not want the traffic, congestion, and the demand for more City sery ices that would drive a bigger City Hall to go with that traffic and building. He did not believe residents wanted any more signals, stop signs, and or more barricades. He bel ieved the peopl e wanted a Ci ty that was tops in 1 ivabil ity, a pl ace they could rel ax, shop, learn , or share thoughts with a neighbor. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, was disappointed about the effort to cut off debate from the wrong people again. Council and staff discussed the matter for an hour before Council got to the public . It was not the publ is who caused the probl ems. There was a letter in the packet from the Palo Alto Civic League (which is on file in the City Clerk' s office) regarding growth strategies. There was an error and a correc ted copy was at the Councilmembers' pl aces that night. He cl arified the no votes for ten percent growth. There were three peopl e who said either zero or five percent. A number of the peopl e who voted for five percent said they really pre- ferred to vote for zero but did not believe it was politically possible, so the figures Council had were actually conservative in terms of wanting to hold down growth. If a ten percent growth in ten years were appl ied to all the nonresidential devel opment according to the business section of the San Jose Mercury, there was presently existing 14,561,000 square feet of commercial and industrial development in Pal 0 Alto. The pi pel ine projects would bring the total to in excess of 15.1 million square feet. Ten percent of that in ten years would allow development of over 150,000 square feet a year; five percent would be 75,500 square feet per year, which was a lot. Regarding growth strategies, he suggested the elimination of strategies 1C and 1D. There was no point in considering 20-40-operc ent growth. He suggested the addi- tion of a new strategy to allow no moregrowth Whatsoever in the CC zone, any CC zone; and to limit growth in the CS, CN, LM, OR, and GM zones to no more than 75,000 square feet per year for the next 10 years. Under al terna`ive 3A, to consider a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 rather than. 1.75 forcommercial projects in the CC zones, and again that was all. zones. He emphasized all CC zones because if certain CC zones were allowed to have a higher floor area ratio, it would push development from one area to another, which tees inappropriate. He asked Council to add a 3C al terntive to establ ish a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5:1 in the CS zones. That floor area ratio was under active study and he believed it was appropriate for consideration as part of the over- all alternatives in the EIR since a floor area ratio of less than 1.1 in the CS zone was actively being considered. On page 4 under praj ec t 3 alternatives, he suggested the addition of a 3C, a floor area of 0.55:1 for either CS or. CH study. That was in relation to rezoning the blocks bounded by Lytton, Alma, Hawthorne, and: High. If Council considered CS or : CH, they should consider -it it the lower fl oor area ratios Under 5, the CS zoning , there sheath d be a 5A to consider the 0.5:1 floor area ratio for that CS zoning. In addressing the parking strategies on page 5 at the top, he was concerned about strategy 1A, building at least one additional parking structure. The public testimony and some of the letters in the packet indicated severe hardship for many of the Downtown Assessment District property owners in financing the bonds for even the existing structure, Lot J. He asked i f it would be financially possible for the Assessment District people to support a second similar project. David Jury commented about the impact of through traffic on downtown. In 1975, Ted Noguchi pointed out that more than half of the traffic on major ` streets was from through traffic, which was still true. With regard to restric- tions changing property values, if Council changed the restric- tions, the zoning , reduced the property val ues, and reduced the floor avea ratios, it might increase property values because, when a commodity was as in demand as property in Palo Al to was, reduced the supply increased the value. That was true both for vacant properties and for properties al ready developed. He did not bel ieve there would be a probl em with taking the property or reduc ing its economic val ue . Lad Wil son, owned the property at 329 Alma, and was the proprietor of John F. Dahl Plumbing . He 1 ived at 2261 South Court in Pal o Al to. He was a somewhat discouraged by the lack of peopl e there that night as far as downtown merchants. He bel ieved there was a general concern over the vital ity ofthe downtown area concerning retail . Hi s exampl es were the cl osure of Webb' s Photo, Craig' s Wallpaper , and shortly to . be Werry Electric. He served on volun- teer groups for downtown associations before and there was a gen- eral apathy of retail merchants. It was hard to do retail in downtown areas. He was specifically concerned about Project #3 on the zoning which was where hi s property was located. His property consisted of six parcels, four of which were zoned CC presently, and two of which were zoned residential. They requested a change in the wording of the cl ause to incl ude a grandfather clause as on Project #2 for their premises, with the restrictions that they could operate under the sane use . Dahl Plumbing had been in busi- ness since 1895. They did plumbing, heating, air conditioning, bathroom and kitchen remodel ing . They were the second oldest business in Palo Alto. If the zoning was changed to CH, even- tually they would have to move from Palo Alto. Along with that, they currently had a customer base list of 10,000 customers, and recently expanded their market area from Redwood City to Burl ingame, but the maj ority of the 10,000 peopl a represented Pal o Alto residents, Palo Alto got first priority by Dahl Plumbing which would be jeopardized by their moving to outside areas. He pointed out that with the closure of the shop, the City was losing service organizations in the downtown area. People would have to have to rely on the Yellow Pages to call out their services, and that would cause people to call people in the San Jose commercial areas to come out to their property not knowing their physical appearance. Dahl P1 umbing recently remodeled their downtown building because they bel ieved in the Palo Alto area. If granted the g rand fa ther cl ause , they wo ul d continue to upg rade the prop- er ties. Their Master Plan specifically ryas in five years they wanted to be 100 percent residential servicing . Currently, they were 90 percent residential servicing He believed that was an asset that Palo Alto did not want to lose. He expressed concern at the 1 ack of downtown merchants:. He, favored a moratorium, con- trolled growth, and an EIR. He looked forward to some improve- mentsin the downtown area. Linda Ross, 201 Loma ►Verde Avenu represented the League of Women Voter s of Palo Al to as its President. , Regarding Palo Al to' s 1 and use and - pl anning issues, the League urged the Council to approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendation that an EIR be prepared on the Downtown Plan. ,The League bel iev ed effective land use and planning. ;should include .such social and environmental considerations as housing, ,Sobs, transportation, open space, and. air pollution. The League supported the evaluation of. pihysicai planning decisions in terms of their effect on people and the evaluation of local planning decisions in termson their effect on the region in which they 1 iv ed . The League al so supported a plan- ning process which, prior to final decision -making, pub1 icixed and allowed publ is comment on the development alternatives and their probabl e consequences. Preparing an EIR on. the Downtown P1 are would hel p to ensure that all of the above obj ec tives were realized. Finally, the League opposed large- -scale development in an area of the City which was under a special planning study. Therefore, the League urged that Council continue the moratorium on downtown level opment until a final decision was reached on the Downtown Growth Pl an. Anna Gol dworth , 89O Fielding Drive, associated her sel f with the comments regarding excessive growth and urged the Council to do an environmental study and incl ude no -growth as an option. They were tal king about l ivabil ity, which was not a parking problem, nor traffic probl em, al though they were part of it. Peopl e were con- sidering moving away irorn Palo Al to, and some people al ready had. She did not want to move away from Palo Alto so she urged the Council to do the EIR and details could be worked out later. Mike Lee, 164 Hawthorne, said the inventory of historical struc- tures in the Downtown Study area seemed a 1 ogical place to start. Those buildings gave the area a human scale and the key to a sensible future. Once that past was abandoned, the future would bring an unpl easant jump in scal e. Maintaining the two- story, 25 -foot scale on University Avenue seemed to be a central issue. That basic scale survived well intact. since the last century, and perhaps could evolve into a pedestrian mall in the next century. But the scale had to be retained now or it would be lost. Den sl.ty transfer seemed to negate the rational scat e of the hi stor is buildings since they were the appropriate existing scale. The 1 arge scal e of the future downtown seemed to bury the fine hi s- toric buildings that survived. Hamil ton Avenue was al ready a singul ar street with 50 -foot high scale throughout. Lytton Avenue still was in the balance. The moratorium barely held the line there. . Hopefully it could evolve as a pleasing transition between the two-story University scale and the Downtown North neighbor- hood. The same concept could also work at the block- bounded by Hawthorne, High, Everett, and Alma; an important gateway to down- town. He believed Dahl Plumbing was an excellent case of a historic building and business that enhanced the neighborhood and gave it an interesting mixed use. The existing scale of downtown development at that time was as large as it ideally ever should be. The future of Palo Al to depended on`\proj ec is of growth within hi storical scale and architectural preservation. It meant less growth and traffic and more refinement and definition of existing conditions. Debra Holvick, 670 San Antonio . Road, #30, lived in Palo Alto and her family owned the property on Alma Street. between Everett and Hawthorne. Their tenant was the Stanford BMW Dealership. She expressed her opposition to the proposed zone change from CC to CH for the properties between Lytton and Hawthorne, Alma and MO. She gathered the committee preferred to see affordable housing on the i r property . From a d ev el ope r' s' po i n t. of v ie w, ,the pro per ty was far from ideal for housing. It was noisy, fronted the busy streeto f Alma and was across the street - front where the train started up from the Palo Alto train station. Everyone knew how much noise was generated from a starting train_ versus one al ready in motion. As -;a recent example, the housing devel content at the Cal ifornia`Avenue train station became close to bankruptcy. From a developer's point of view, success of downtown housing was spotted at best. It was inappropriate because it was also a. corn - mere ial area. Even the small green house to the north was, used for commercial purposes. The Other uses allowed would be : s,al1 neighborhood retail use. Retail would not survive there because of the lack of foot traffic. A retail use, needed_ a destination- . -5 9 1 2 6111/85 oriented customer base, a criteria most retailers avoided especial 1 y at that i ocati on. Mst of the present neighborhood service uses on Alma Street were in older buildings who could charge less rent than new or improved structures needed to charge. By passing the zone changes, she believed Council would place in inordinate and highly unjustified constraint and hardship on :their property. Many people spent a lot of time and effort deciding what they wanted to have done with little or no experience to determine if it was economically feasible for the property owner. She urged the City to provide an e'c o nom is study to analyze the impact those proposed changes would have on their property. Mary Bay, 2261 Col umbia, was temporary Chair of the Downtown Market Community Committee (DMCC) , a broad- based committee formed under the Senior Coordinating Council. Having been alerted by call s from primarily peopl e who depended upon delivery services from the downtown markets that had closed, the committee included representatives from all peopl e who served, gave food services in different ways throughout the community, which included Norm from Norm's Market, real tors and other community interested people. After their initial study was done, the Council passed a motion placing the building of a downtown a full -:service market, as a public need --not just something that would be nice --which put it in a different category from ether types of development. Their purpose was to remind the Council that the DMCC looked at every open space, and building that came anywhere near si zed from zero down to the S & L parking lot. Their goal in the market, as a market committee, was to encourage the City Council to continue to search for a way to solve that problem , particularly for the elderly, who were unable to go out of the area by means of other transportation either because they could not carry; or car because they could not drive. As the study went on, it became obvious that the need was for many people in the downtown area. ADJOURNMENT TO TUESDAY , JUNE 1 8 , 1985 MOTION: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, to adjourn the City Council meeting to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday„ June 18, 1985. Mayor Levy intended to resume the publ is hearing tomorrow evening for those members of the publ is who had not spoken to the Council that evening, and then to take up -deliberation of the agenda with Item 4. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein "not participating." ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:45 p.m. to Tuesday, June 18, 1985 at 7:30 p•m. ATTEST: APPROVED: