HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-18 City Council Summary Minutes2OUNCIL•
QTYAlakix.
f ;`
d V
MINUTE3
CITY
OF-
PAI0
ALTO
Adjourned Meeting of
June 17, 1985
Tuesday, June 18, 1985
ITEM
Item #4, Planning Commission Recommendation re
Downtown Study
Recess
Item #5, Initiative Petition Proposed Ordinance for
Continued Maintenance of the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor
Item #6, Request of Councilmember Fletcher re City
Review of County Projects
Item #7, Request of Councilmember Renzel Regarding
Date for Call for Election
Miscellaneous Meeting Dates
PAGE
5 9 1 5_
5 9 3 1
5 9 4 2
5 9 4 7
5 9 5 0
Adjournment: 12:05 a.m. 5 9 5 1
Adjourned Meeting of
June 17, 1985
Tuesday, June 18, 1985
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:40 p.m., left at 11:30 p .m.) ,
Cobb, Fletcher, Klein (arrived at 11:30 p.m.),
Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley
ABSENT: Witherspoon
ITEM #4, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE DOWNTOWN STUDY (PLA
7-14)
Mayor Levy announced that Councilmember Klein would not partici-
pate on Item #4, Downtown Study. Council was resuming the previ-
ous night's adjourned meeting with Item #4, a recommendation from
the Planning Commission regarding the Downtown Study. He would
reopen the item for public testimony for those members of the pub-
lic who. had not spoken the previous evening.
Tois Takaoka, 908 Colorado Avenue, formerly of 937 Emerson Street,
where her family still owned property and operated Emerson
Cleaners. She requested the transitional zoning be maintained for
that area. There was a mixture of single family homes, small
rental cottages and service businesses. In the 1950s, the retail
business downtown was taken away by the Stanford Shopping Center
and Town and Country Shopping Center. They needed a vision of
what Palo Alto should look like, and the only alternatives
presented were replacements of businesses with housing, which
might not be a viable alternative based on how condominiums and
townhouses sprouted up and the trouble marketing those kinds of
structures. There were two transitional zones about which she was
concerned. One was where their property was located, and the
other was on the other side where Dahl Plumbing was located off
Hawthorne, High, and Lytton. She hoped they would remain at the
current zoning status.
Susan Selig, 2165 Waverl ey, looked at the downzoning from many
different angles and was concerned about the quality of life for
the people of Palo Alto. When she received her notice, it looked
s if it only affected downtown Palo Alto, but upon review she
noticed that it affected all the CS, CN, and all the other areas
in the entire City. She understood that some Councilmembers asked
for facts concerning how the high density of office buildings
affected property values for the residents. On University Avenue,
Middlefield Road, Alma, and the properties that backed up in
Southgate to the properties facing on El Camino, it was as much as
$100,000 . in lowered economic ceilings for the residences on
University Avenue, and ran anywhere from $50-$75,000 in lowered
economic ceiling for the properties on Middlefield Road. The
properties on University, between the creek and University, were
impacted because they were isolated; they were not members of a
strong neighborhood. Her first house was on Embarcadero in Palo
Alto, and a sense of neighborhood was lost on a busy street -
because people could not talk to each other and .there was no way
to reach out. Another problem was increased population in the
daytime because there was a burden on the residents of the City.
The residents had to pay for police service, traffic control,
clean up, and all the other aspects of that increased population
as the big businesses no longer shared. She believed more atten-
tion should be given to the single family landowner than to big
e
1
business. The developers who worked in the high density areas had
wor=e money acid everyone tended Lo .euri scared from them because
they were the ones who _ threatened lawsuits and had the money to
back it up, which made it difficult for the Council to do its job.
It had to be stopped at some point. The quality of life had to be
considered. If Council downzowned all the ne1ghborzhood:commercial
throughout the City in terms of the amount of available develop-
ment, she believed it would adversely affect the availability of
the neighborhood services to the people in the tommunitye If the
land was made more expensive and difficult for the -sinal l business
person, the people of the community would have to go elsewhere for
the things that made their lives bearable. Higher density, pro-
duced ."weirdos." Many people who grew up in Palo Alto would not
now live in Palo Alto because of the influx of unattractive
people. The high density of downtown Palo Alto lost the people
touch. As Council made its decisions, she urged that they remem-
ber the importance of the people._ She was afraid it would all be
lost.
Councilmember Sutorius said regarding the noticing process, the
only notice with which he was familiar spoke to the downtown area.
The Palo Alto Tomorrow petition spoke to the entire City com-
munity. He asked for clarification.
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said a notice went out a
week ago about a Planning Commission hearing which involved the
CS, CN, or OR zones.
Councilmember Sutorius clarified that when Ms. Selig spoke about
effects on residential property values, she meant the rate of
increase in property values enjoyed by Palo Alto residential prop-
erties might be less in rate of increase in some areas than in
other areas. She identified areas where she saw traffic, infil-
tration, and crime as being factors that influenced a lower rate
of increase than was enjoyed in other areas.
Ms. Selig said that was correct. It was called an economic ceil-
ing. In any neighborhood when evaluating a property, one looked
for the maximum economic ceiling in that neighborhood.
Councilmember Sutorius said the factors which influenced that kind
of thing might be schools, transportation, the condition of the
house next door, etc., but there were discrete things that were
identified for certain corridor locations where one would say that
some degree of the reduction in increase of valuation might be
attributable to the impacts being discussed that evening.
Ms. Selig said it was not a question of 'might," they were abso-
lutely impacted by the traffic and increase in pedestrians.
Frequently, in selling residential property, they found that
buyers wanted air samples of the house because the pollution was
so great. It was impacted not just by houses right on the
streets, but house, adjacent.
Councilmember Sutorius appreciated the clarification that it was
not a reduction in value, but a reduction "i n the rate of . increase
in value that the property enjoyed.
Ms. Selig said if they were talking about blanket, it wasa reduc-
tion in the rate of appreciation, but there were some properties
that might have gone down in value because of the impact of some
development.
Councilmember Sutorius asked if it was fair to say that to some
degree, the attractiveness of Palo Alto was influenced by Stanford
and the business community of the Silicon Valley and that it
influenced the rate of increase of property valuation.
5 9 1:6
6/18/85
1
Ms. Selig said it was interesting because most of the people who
wanted to live in Palo Alto did not all work in the arca. Most
came to Palo Alto because they were sold on the fact that Palo
Alto had a quality community and the school district and services
were excellent. It was not just because they worked at Stanford
or Stanford Industrial Park. She did not believe Stanford was any
longer a draw.,
R. J. Debs, 3145 Flowers Lane, was a member of the advisory com-
mittee of the Bay Area Air Quality Maintenance District, and was
amazed that people asked for air samples in Palo Alto. His sym-
pathies were with the quality of life in the City. It could
become a Manhattan, and never stop growing. The City Council had
to teke a stand. He urged that Council carefully consider its
action. Palo Alto was a good town because the people were impor-
tant. He agreed that the tax burden was paid by those people in
the R-1 areas. Proposition 13 went from two-thirds industry to
one-third residential, and it would now be 90 percent residential
to 10 percent industry tax burden, which was a crime. He urged
that Council worry about its citizens.
Mayor Levy suggested that in Council's consideration of the EIR,
it focus on the memo from the Planning Commission, dated :tune 6,
1985, with Attachment A, which detailed the recommended EIR proj-
ect strategies and the alternative.
Vice Mayor Cobb said the referenced strategies were numerous, and
he preferred to make a general motion and go through and deal with
some of the specifics.
Mayor Levy believed it was best to deal with Attachment A like a
consent calendar and go through each of the strategies taking off
of the "consent calendar" those items to be changed. He suggested
that Council go strategy -by -strategy and begin with growth
strategies on the face page of Attachment A.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt re
the Downtown Study, Recommended EIR "Project' Strategies
(Attachment A).
Vice Mayor Cobb said the Planning Commission recommendation repre-
sented what they saw as a practical maximum. It seemed to him as
Council went through the strategies, they should eliminate all
consideration of items on the EIR that went beyond the Planning
Commission recommendation. After listening to the public input,
Council must look at the extremes. At the same time, it was
foolish for staff to chase down more avenues than necessary to
give Council the understanding it needed for a final decision next
May. He believed Council needed to adopt, as the other strategy,
one which was essentially zero growth with the exception that
Council mould allow for •"wriggle" room for such things as
restorations, preserving :historic structures, etc. If he
understood Mr. Freeland correctly last evening, by looking at
those two alternatives, they would have bracketed the problem and
brought Council to the point that any decision it made would b.e
within those bounds. Those were his goals as he took things off
the growth strategics. He suggested the following alternatives be
removed under the growthstrategies projects: 1-a, l -b, l -c, and
1-d. He asked Mr. Freeland , if he was going about it the right
way.
Mr. Freeland suggested the project would be a growth limit any-
where from zero to 50,000 square feet per year. The other items
listed could still be carried as alternatives. It was a CEQA
requirement to look at reasonable alternatives, but the alterna-
tives would not get as much_ attention as the _project. For. many of
the alteratives, ►�i a lot of ' data was already dev�el oped and it would
not add much work.
Vice Mayor Cobb cl rified that Cninci1 shoeld define the growth
under the proposed strategies as two projects —one, the Planning
Commission recommendation, and the other essentially zero growth
with some allowance for restorations, etc.
i
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Bechtel, to
Amend GROWTH STRATEGIES, Project 1 to_read °Establish an. annual 0
to 50,000 square feet maximum growth allocation for ,commercial
projects for a seven year period Also, direct staff to define
appropriate allowances for remodel lags and restorations.
Mayor Levy asked if Vice Mayor Cobb proposed the elimination of
any of the alternatives 1-a to 1-e.
Vice Mayor Cobb preferred that Council not consider any alterna-
tivebeyond the Planning Commission recommendation.
Mayor Levy clarified that the motion did not eliminate any of the
alternatives.
Councilmember Bechtel asked if zero growth was for the next five
years as proposed by the Palo Alto Tomorrow group.
Vice Mayor Cobb said it was for a period of seven years.
Councilmember Bechtel said Mr. Freeland recommended the project
would be between no more commercial growth to 50,000 square feet
per year, and she did not hear that in the restatement of the
motion.
Mr. Freeland believed it was best to look at the range because
Council could then pick from anywhere in the range.
Mayor Levy clarified that as a project Council could define the
range or (-ere to 50,000 square feet per year for a seven-year
period. He asked if that was what Vice Mayor Cobb wanted to see
as the project.
Vice Mayor Cobb said as long as staff understood his objective --to
bracket the study between zero and the Planning Commission recom-
mendation because he believed Council would want to work within
that bound and he was trying to simplify staff's work by reducing
the number of things to look at.
Mayor Levy clarified that "zero" would be defined with the kind of
"wriggle" room Vice Mayor Cobb requested.
Councilmember Bechtel did not want to add any of the alternatives;
but if it made the.EIR stronger, then they should be included.
Councilmember Sutori us could not comment exclusively on the motion
without speaking in part to the alternatives. There was a dis-
tinct difference betrieen a zero growth with "wriggle room versus
a 50,000 s:,uare foot maximum growth allocation, even though they
were for the same seven-year. period. It did not compare as favor-
ably in the work effort. For instance, , the,. proposed project of
50,000 square feet per year for, seven years, .could be readily com-
pared to 35,000 square feet over ten years or 70,000 square feet
over five years. If it were done in a range of zero to 50,000, he
asked to where Council pointed, and how, if Council needed alter-
natives, one would comparethe range to the alternatives. It was
important to .understand, in acting on the motion, that alterna-
tives were proper. It was a CEQA process. Council was not awaking.
a decision on the outcome,, but rather decisions about what should
be incorporated in a proper and legal study. He was prepared to
drop alternative 1-d because at the Planning Commission discussion
5 9 1 8
6/18/85
f
1
the City Attorney was asked whether it was necessary to have 1-d
included. The response was that it was necessary to have
reasonable alternatives, and as to the specific alternatives, 1-d
was a judgmental decision not a legal decision. It was up to the
Council to decide whether it wanted to include it. With all the
data available, he believed Council could make the judgmental
decision that 1-,d did not need to be included among the
alternatives. From a legal, pragmatic and working effort
standpoint, he believed there were other alternatives that needed
to be included and they might be ones where no Councilmember would
accept the outcome when it arrived. He particularly believed 1-e
needed to be included. He had difficulty acting on the motion
when Council was not contemplating the alternatives and when the
main motion had a range and compounded the complexity of the
comparative process. If staff from a legal or work effort
standpoint found that he was exaggerating the situation or wrong
in his interpretations, he would be guided by that counsel. He
believed Council should consider what it was doing when it had a
project with a range.
Mayor Levy requested staff comment.
City Attorney Mane Lee said from a legal standpoint, Council
could have a project with a range. She saw those kinds of EIR s
and projects with a range. The stronger argument was whether the
information generated in that fashion would be as valuable to the
decision makers ultimately when they had the EIR before them.
Mr. Freeland contemplated that staff would look at 50,000 square
feet and zero, arrive at conclusions, and provide some advice as
to the sensitivity of the numbers in between. He believed that in
terms of traffic, 40,000 would not be measurably different than
50,000. Staff could provide some indication of how different
something in that range would be, but the intent was to look at
zero and 50,000, and not to try and look at every point in
between, but rather to give some advice as to how the in between
might vary from what staff studied. The only reason to do it at
all was for when Council got down to the final decision and
decided it wat more comfortable with something in between. Then,
staff would have some information about it.
Council member Sutorius emphasized that his observations were it no
way related to an outcome. They- were related to a process. He
believed that for any of the projects identified and where alter-
natives were included, the alternative had as much chance of
emerging as the project. It was a matter of identifying things
discretely enough that one could get 'Weir Trms around them. The
reason for having a project and al ternati vet' was to say the proj-
ect was presently based on the e data, input, study process, etc.
and ww;,the one that would be the lead case in the procession.
The alternatives :would would
require the same in depth development
because they were a retie to data that was developed int the
project itself. He would be opmfurtabl a with a project that read
as proposed by the Planning Commission and- asiending the
alternatives to include the no -growth with 7wriggle" room a.s an
alternative. He would be sati sfi.ed ` that the -- output of the E ik
would be just as intelligible and i t would also mean there would
be other al ternati ves so that Council would have satisfied i tsel f
on the competency of the study both from a legal, judgmental and
final decsi si on standpoint. His preference would have- been to see
the mot.imn' be as proposed by the. Planning Commission and work on
the alternatives for eliminations or= adds ti ons .
Councilmember Renzel was comfortable with:. a joint project of zero and the Planning Commission ; recommendation. She believed both
deserved extensive study. Council received strong public input
with respect to the zero growth and _ recognized by the nature of
the fact that an OR was required that even ` the = Planning
Commission recommendations were apt to have environmental impacts.
The "no -project;" which was the current downtown ' zoning would
b 9 1-9
6/18/85
always be there as an extreme limit of the kinds of things could
happen. She assumed - Council would discuss the nex t section on
alternatives. She had trouble with the annual allocation method
unless there was a back stop of significant zoning changes so that
the burden in seven years would be to change to something greater
rather than to try to make it - 1 ess because the pressures woul d be
enormous and it would be important to stabilize the zoning for
purposes of the real estate market and to understand what to
expect to occur. She believed the 1.75 FAR -would not provide much
of a back stop with the present pressures.
Mr. Freeland said discussion of the floor area ratio to accompany
the annual growth limitation occurred later in the document. If
Councilmember Renzel referred to the alternative of trying to
approach the whole problem of FAR rather than annual limit, it was
alternative 1-e and should be discussed with the alternatives.
Councilmember Woolley was also comfortable with the range. Her
only concern was that they had thought of sufficient "wriggle"
room or left enough flexibility for staff. She remembered a dis-
cussion from the City Attorney the previous night concerning
vacant parcels and wondered if Council should specifically speak
to variant parcels.
Mr. Freeland believed they would have to, but since it was new and
they were all a little unprepared on just what "wriggle" room was,
he suggested that staff write a memo to Council outlining a pack-
age of possible "wriggle" room and return it in as an informa-
tional document. If Council felt the need to discuss its it could
be done, but he wanted a couple of days to .think through all the
different components, i.e., housing, what to do about housing, was
it exempt, etc.; vacant lots, what to do about vacant lots; about
remodels of big buildings as well as small buildings. Staff
needed to put that down on paper and send something to Council
they could react to.
Mayor Levy wanted to be sure they were all clear that the techni-
cal phrase was "wriggle room."
Councilmember Fletcher first wanted some idea from the staff in
square footage term=s of the alternatives presented in the petition
that was signed, 10 percent in 5 years, and 5 percent in 10 ;ears,
and where it would fit in the range from zero to 50,000.
Mr. Freeland clarified that 5 percent in 10 years would be 17,500
square feet per year.
Councilmember Fletcher wanted that option built into the motion.
She asked whether it needed amending.
Mayor Levy said Council was not talking alternatives at that
point, but were discussing the project, which was 0.50,000 a year
for seven years. Anything other than that woul d be an alternative
which should be discussed after completing the vote on the proj-
ect.
Councilmember Fletcher said at some point she would suggest Con-
struction plus expansion of existing structures if they were going
to be for retail to allow for retail growth, and she believed she
wanted to build them in as exceptions to the zero growth. That
would come later because essentially it was not zero growth if it
was built in.
Councilmember Bechtel: said regarding Councilmember Sptorius' com-
ment that fl,exibil ity was needed there and in the projects because
whenwhen listing no'more commercial growth as a project as opposed to.
an ,alternative, which_- Councilmember Sutorius suggested, it added
more weight to it. Staff would devote more time to it because
alternatives were considered` of, a lesser importance and, there-
fore* she believed it needed , to be listed as part Of the project.
vice Mayor Cobb said Councilmember Sutorius raised some appropri-
ate points. He apologized to staff and Councilmember Sutorius
because he was too quick to start yanking alternatives and forgot
some of the discussion from last night. The late hour did that to
him. He returned to the idea of bracketing the problem which was
discussed last night and, although he might have been too quick to
grab at alternatives, he still believed it was a legitimate
approach partially based on the answers he received from. staff
that Council carefully bound the problem within the bounds they
believed to be acceptable. Councilmember Sutorius was correct;
that Council must look at those alternatives in between in order
to understand. the sensitivity of things like traffic and all- the
rest to make a midpoint that might be discussed and offered up ..to
the future. He apologized for being so quick to throw alterna-
tives out. He was trying to do too much too fast, but believed
the basic concept was correct and he heard nothing from staff to
suggest that he was off line on that.
Councilmember Sutorius said in the spirit of moving ahead he would
support the motion.
Mayor Levy believed those were the two proper parameters on which
to focus, so Council would vote on the amendment to Attachment A,
that the project encompass the range of 0 to 50,000 square foot
maximum growth allocation per year for seven years for commercial
projects.
AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Councilmember Klein not partici-
pating," Councilmember Witherspoon absent.
Mayor Levy believed it was the proper item to go to the alterna-
tives to the growth strategies.
Councilmember Renzel said the Planning Commission believed the
50,000 square foot maximum was really all that was acceptable, and
knew the no -project alternative, which was the current zoning, was
going to be an alternative that had to be studied as part of the
EIR process. For that reason i t seemed eo her that alternatives
1-a, 1-c, and 1-d were unnecessary to study. There was a high
boundary to get some,sense of what was happening there, and Coun-
cil had the project which was the maximum the Planning Commission
believed co0d be done. She believed some of the lesser projects
than 1-b and the different type of mechanism 1-e were appropri-
ate.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
delete 1-ar, 1-c, and i-d as alternatives.
Mayor Levy believed it might be best if Council voted on the
alternatives separately.
Councilmember Renzel commented that Council was supposed to study
reasonable alternatives to the projects, and from what they
already knew, 1-c and 1-d were unreasonable. She said 1-a might
be argi nal , but 1-c and 1-d were no.t. She did not believe it was
appropriate to study them.
Councilmember Sutorius said he intended to crake a motion to elimi-
nate 1-d and amend the wording of 1-e. He had difficulty support-
ing a motion that eliminated 1-a. He said 1-c read, "Establish a
maximum growth limit for commercial projects of 20. percent or.
700,00.0 square feet above existing and approved development.''
There was no time line associated with that. Staff shook its head
that it was deliberate, and not an Omission, so he saw it as a
distinctly different alternative in character from the other
alternatives, and that other :;projects and decisions could influ-
ence ' how the ..700,000 square foot alternative was ` implemented and
how, in fact, .i t would occur. It would mean, therefore, that
there would alwaysbe breathing space or monitoring opportuni ti es .
He asked staff for clarification.
Mr, Freeland said Councilmember Sutoriuz was correct. ns a prac-
tical matter, in order to do the, analysis and make comparisons,
staff needed to do an analysis for a stated time period, and would
probably do it for a 10 -year time frame. Unless instructed other-
wise, staff would assume the 20 percent, 700,000 square feet to
occur within that 10 -year time frame. Otherwise, staff had no way
to know when it might occur and would have to guess .and end up
comparing apples and oranges. Unless there was a good reason to
do otherwise, staff would standardize on a 10 -year time frame.
Councilmember Renzel said even though the project was a seven-year
time frame.
Mr. Freeland said staff could do it for seven years, but the prob-
lem was that it would not be comparable to something that had a
ten year time frame. It would be confusing to compare the results
f there were mixed time frames. He spoke specifically to the 20
percent, 700,000 figure and believed they would assume it would be
in a 10 -year time period.
Councilmember Sutorius said he misassurned as far as certain of the
other projects or the alternatives where the alternative was
referred to as saying it applied to (a) and (b) above, but did not
apply to (c) and (d) elsewhere in the projects and their alterna-
tives. There were qualifiers in items that caused them to apply
to only one particular project or alternative, and it was his
belief that because there was no time line associated with 1-c, it
was appropriate. that it have qualifications. It could be "gated"
in some fashion. "Gated" was the term that arose in the process
which meant the allocation process. The amendment incorporated
1-a, and he needed to resist it. If it passed, he would offer an
amendment regarding 1-e because he believed it could be improved
upon.
Mayor Levy said the amendment was to delete 1-a, 1-c, and 1-d and
they would be voter on individually.
Vice Mayor Cobb believed Council should retain 1-a because it
would show how sensitive the problem was to .the high end of the
Planning Commission recommendation. He believed it would help
Council understand that they needed to go lower than that.
Mayor Levy said it seemed like 1-a was not measurably different
from 70,000 for five years versus 50,000 square feet for seven
years. He asked if staff believed they could be measured to a
readable difference.
Mr. Freeland said no. There was the time frame problem. -There
was a five-year, seven-year and some of the alternatives had_ a
ten-year °time fray e. If staff took the full amount, they would be
unable to compare_ -them An the time ;rare. It they took the same
time -frame, then some would have to assume the, gap of some years.
From a traffic point of view, they would all probably add up to
350,000 square feet and staff would have to assure some point in
ti e to compare the, . The 70,000 for five years and the 50,000
for seven years would not end up showing_ differences.
Mayor Levy said if Council wanted to bracket the 5D',000 s care
feet recommendation from the Planning Commission, he askededhow
staff would suggest going .above'.:50,000 to a -readable point, -
Mr. Freeland said.the most important difference would be traffic,,
and he deferred to` have F'ai rchi l d to respond.
Transportation Planner Dave Fai rchil d believed if Council brack-
eted up to 20..:Percent, for ten years..- which Was double the
350/700,000 ,square_ feet for ten- years, staff soul d be _using _a ,tens
year time, frame, and they would be talking. about a half -level of
service -change at :the ; gateway i:dtersections.. The half level of
service change was at the save _of readability.
g/W8i
Mayor Levy clarified it was 100,0iu for seven years.
Mr. Fairchild said it was Alternative 1-c, limited to a ten-year
period.,
Mayor Levy clarified that Council presently had.50,000 square feet
per year for seven years"
Mr. Fairchild clarified that was 350,000 feet net growth.
Mayor Levy said in order to give Council perspective, he believed
it was unlikely that he would support more than 50,000 square feet
at the end of the road on the study. For the study to be proper
and give perspective, Council should include something in the
study that was similar to the 50,000 for seven years, but the next
level above it. He asked ,what that was. He believed staff was
saying it would be 100,000' a year for seven years; that i.t could
not be measured unless it was double.
Mr. Fairchild said that was correct due to the nature of how it
worked at an intersection.
Mayor Levy said he preferred to retain alternative 1-a, but wanted
to .make, it 10,000 for seven years.
Counc i l member Fletcher had a different solution to the time frame
differential. She suggested reconsideration of the project itself
to stretch out the seven-year period to a ten-year period because
it seemed to her it would take about five years to assess the
effects of what was presently in the pipeline.
Councilmember Renzel was not sure the time period was crucial for
purposes .of comparison because the public was interested in what
there would be at the end. If Council found that 50,000 in seven
years would bring the City to a certain point, that was fine; and
if it was found that 100,000 square, feet at the end of ten years
would bring the City to a certain point, those were comparable
because that was what the City would look like, which was what the
people cared about. The only difference was that three years
would have elapsed in terms or when the problems or circumstances
occurred, but in terms of what they were, they should be compar-
able. She was not sure Council needed to worry about time.
ANENDNENT TO DELETE ALTERNATIVE 1-a FAILED by a vote of 3-4,
Fletcher, Renzel, Cobb. voting *aye,* Witherspoon absent, Klein
'not participating.'
AMENDMENT TO DELETE ALTERNATIVE 1-c PASSE[ by a vote of 5-2,
Woolley, Sutori us voting *no,* Witherspoon absent, Klein *not
participating."
AMENDMENT TO DELETE ALTERNATIVE 1-d PASSED unaniaao isly,
Witherspoon absent, Klein "not participating.*
AMENDMENT: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, to amend Item
1--e to read "70,000 square feet for a seven-year period.'
Councilmember Fletcher believed the year limits needed to be more
consistent so that the figures presented to Council were compara-
tive and could provide a better handle of what they meant. She
preferred to stretch out the initial seven-year period, If it
were a five-year period, then Council would know it was half of
ten years.
Councilwea ber Renzel believed ,:one of the reasons _ the Planning
Commission rejected alternative 1=a at 70,000 over five years was
because that -much growth would occur in a relatively short period
of time and the evaluation date: would be too late.; by slowing it
down to 50,000 -over a seven-year period, if, in fact, the impacts
were worse than ' anticipated„- the Planning C aaaaaission believed
1
there would be time to make some correction, whereas with a five-
year period there was almost no time. The time period was criti-
cal in terms of when to schedule evaluation of what was done, and
from that point of view, she agreed with the Planning Commission
that the longer period was more appropriate.
Councilmember Sutorius would support the amendment in the spirit
of getting things moving, but he hoped Council recognized that
they were saying the alternative effectively was an alternative
that measured 7 times 70, or 490,000 square feet as opposed to
350,000 square feet which was the intent of the Downtown
Committee. All the Planning Commission did was adjust the period.
He did not want Council to be disappointed when the EIR was com-
pleted if the data did not quite measure up the way the Downtown
Committee presented it. The Committee did a good job and thorough
job, and came up with an amount and came a period of time. The
motion changed that period of time, and effectively Council also
changed the amount involved. He wanted Council to remember that
by their vote.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Woolley, Renzel voting "no,"
Klein not participating,* Witherspoon absent.
Councilmember Fletcher understood that staff would draw the fig-
ures out in any event whether it was seven or ten years, but she
was concerned about the rate of growth and believed if Council
could have a 10 -year period as a frame of reference, the rate of
growth would be less.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Councilmember Fletcher moved reconsidera-
tion of the project.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to
add after first sentence in Item 1-e: "Include a construction
gate system (for example, building andf or encroachment permit
limitations) to l imit/disperse construction impact and to monitor
growth effects."
Councilmember Sutorius believed Item 1-e was an important alterna-
tive to the overall evaluation process. Regardless of whether it
was selected, it was a fundamental alternative to include in the
process and had characteristics that could cause it to emerge as
an appropriate strategy. One of the things he believed concerned
all the Counciimembers and gave an emphasis to the public concern
about development was that, for many reasons having to do with
economic situations, interest rates, and window periods, many
projects in Palo Alto came due simultaneously. All one needed to
do was reflect on University Avenue Circle, Hamilton, Alma, and
-the 300 and 400 block of Hamilton, when there were as many as four
and five huge construction cranes, construction trailers parked in
the street, plywood Ceilings and sidewalks going out such that
parking spaces and driving lanes were consumed and unavailable to
the pedestrian, the bicyclist, and to the auto traveler. He
believed those effects, when concentrated in an area, produced
physical congestion, safety hazards, and a psychological impact,
which was draining and portended a horrendous future For a
variety of reasons, it was important ; to control the rate of
construction as it happened in a given area. The concept: of
looking . at the building permit ;process and/or the encroachment
permit process allowed for a variation af what Council, would later
deal with when they talked about allocation processes, but it
would be related to locality —not square footage.. For example,
staff might find in exploring the concept that - it would be
appropriate to divide the area into halves, or" into quadrants, so
that the number of_ projects that could occur at any - one time
within a quadrant, for instance, would be limited and there would
not be the 'multiple construction impacts and the 'associated
congestion, loss of parking spaces, and hazards.
AMENDMENT RESTATED: TO ADD TO ITEM 1-e: TO INCLUDE A CON-
STRUCTION GATE SYSTEM TO LIMIT AND/OR DISPERSE CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
AND TO MONITOR GROWTH EFFECTS
Councilmember_ Fletcher believed the idea was interesting. She
asked what happened if an entire block burned down in a fire or
was demolished in an earthquake.
Councilmember Sutorius believed it would constitute an emergency
and that Council could take emergency action as appropriate for
health, safety, and welfare.
Councilmember Bechtel understood what Councilmember Sutorius was
trying to do and shared his concern because all the construction
meant that many more parking spaces were lost, etc. She was con-
fused about why it was being tacked onto floor area ratio because
she was not sure that was an appropriate connection.
Councilmember Sutorius said there was no annual allocation asso-
ciated with the alternative. The others had annual allocations
and, therefore, the magnitude of the problem would be Controlled
by the annual allocation process. He was not advocating the allo-
cation because he still did not understand how it would be hand-
led, but the likelihood of multiple situations of the magnitude
being experienced under the allocation system was remote.
Councilmember Bechtel suggested it might be a separate alternative
if not tacked onto the floor area ratio because she saw it as
something completely separate.
Councilmember Sutorius believed it was something that should be
incorporated in the City's processes. If there were no limits on
growth or significant construction capabilities in a compressed
area, he still believed the permit encroachment and building per-
mit process would be appropriate administrative controls.
Mr. Freeland said that since the floor area ratio did not speak to
an amount of growth, he intended to invent a floor area ratio that
might somewhat mimic the levels of growth of the other alterna-
tives so if Council found it did not want to deal with growth
limitations through the annual allocation, there would be some
expression of similar amounts of growth through the floor area.
Some of the floor area numbers would be large and frightening, and
the device would assure that development would be slow over a
longer period of time. There would be protection against the up-
swings in the building .cycle, so from that point of view he be-
lieved it would be a helpful moderating effect on a conventional
zoning type of approach. He did not know just how it would work,
and staff would have to look at that, but he believed it would put,
a governor on thr speed of development and would make a floor area
approach more palatable, so they were a reasonable combination.
Councilmember Renzel applauded Councilmember Sutorius. Downtown
looked like a war zone for about three years and it was high time
they did something.
AMENDMENT PASSE) unanimously, Klein 'not participating,"
Witherspoon absent.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded, by Bechtel,
to rove from page 7, under. NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION STRATEGIES,
project 3.c °Count above -grade parking as FAR" to page 19 under
GROWTH STRATEGIES, project 3.
Councilmember Woolley reasoned that counting above -grade parking
as FAR was, not then being done. If one wanted to build an above -
grade parking structure and the site had space for it, it could be
done and it did not count toward the FAR. Visually and in tens
of the public:, . the project was i ncreased\ by whatever`.. the size of
the packing garage, and one sti l ! got a larger bulk or mass, That
was important in the periphery areas adjoining the neighborhoods,
but she believed it could turn out to be important in the core
area because they would be reducing the FAR, but would not reduce
the envelope. Council had not talked about changing the height
limit or setbacks. She supported it because she believed it gave
more flexibility for an architect to build a more interesting
building. On the other hand, if they had the same size envelope
and a lesser FAR, it would be easier for a developer to use part
of his site for above -grade parking and, therefore, they would not
eliminate the mass they were looking to eliminate. - She was only
talking about above -grade, which meant a parking structure. So
far one project fit the description, and it was at the corner of
Lytton and Alma.
Mayor Levy said he saw what Councilmember Woolley pointed out
already in Attachment A, but in a different place. He asked if
staff believed it was more appropriate to be moved to a different
place, or if it made a difference.
Mr. Freeland said it could be both places. It definitely made a
difference. What Councilmember Woolley suggested was an idea the
Committee suggested would only apply within 150 feet of RM-4 or
lower residential zones, applied throughout the commercial dis-
tricts. It •was a question of where it was applied
geographically.
Mayor Levy clarified the amendment was to count above -grade
parking as FAR throughout the commercial area.
Councilmember Sutorius asked whether there were any unintended
adverse consequences such as affecting how the potential housing
and/or grocery store could be influenced by counting FAR in if
they were to get into any kind of a project that involved that
type of a mixed -use.
Mr. Freeland said Lot Q might be an example. The Lot Q project
was a planned community zone so it was sunder different rules, but
in fact, one level of its parking structure would count He
believed above -grade really meant at the surface or above, but in
a structure, was what it tried to say. There was one level of Lot
Q that was that way, so it , did cut down some flexibility to do
that type of a project. He assumed a grocery store or similar
ideas woule probably have a similar configuration, but they might
be in planned community zones and be treated differently. For
instance, if they were using a City lot for a mixed -use project.
He said there was a floor area ratios in the PF zone that might
apply to the City's parking lots. . If it wags meant to apply to
com[mpercial dev.elop';ents in CC and CS .zones, he 'believed it was
taken care of.
AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Klein "not participating,'
Witherspoon absent,
Mayor Levy had a question regarding growth strategy, alternative.
1-b. They now had alternatives 1-a, 1-b, and 1-e, and he desired
to simplify staff's job, and asked whether alternative 1-b was
measurably different from what staff would return with from the
basic project.
Mr, Freeland said no.. By the same token, he did not believe
Council needed to worry about the burden on staff to write about
it. It would add up to the same 350,000 square feet_ as the high
range of the project, It was only a question of which year it
occurred in. Staff would probably report that a certain amount of
traffit related_ to that amount of development and itmight occur a
-few:'years earlier in -one case than`: 4n the other. It would not be
a different analysis.-
Mayor Levy clarified that from staff's basic discussion of the
project, if -Council wanted to approve a 35,000 square foot maximum
for seven years or ten years, they would have satisfactory i nfor-
mation from the basic project analysis to do that.
Mr. Freeland said staff would endeavor to make it so that Council
had some flexibility at the end.
Mayor Levy said for the sake of clarity, it made sense to delete
Item 1-b as an alternative.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Levy moved to delete alternative 1 -b .
AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel,- to
amend Alternative 1-b, under GROWTH STRATEGIE Project 1, to
17,500 annual square foot maximum growth for a ten-year period.
Councilmember Fletcher said 35,000 square feet was not that much
less than 50,000 square feet, and the 17,500 was -evidently the
five percent in ten years that was advocated by some of the resi-
dents.
Vice Mayor Cobb was concerned that Council was tinkering around
with the recommendation. He asked whether it made any difference
to staff in terms of the assignment to bracket the problem between
zero and 50, 000.
Mr. Freeland said the amendment would cause staff to produce a
different set of numbers, but he did not believe it was any prob-
lem. It would still be in the range between zero and 50,000, and
would not be much different than sore' other numbers. He realized
it was hard to accept because it looked like major changes would
not make a difference in terms of traffic, air quality, And things
staff could measure, but once they got into that range, i t would
not make much difference. Staff had no objections, and it
responded to an explicit suggestion from the community. As such
it might be reasonable to include in the EIR.
Mayor Levy supported the amendment because he believed it was a
more measurable difference than 35,000, and because it responded
to a community concern.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Woolley voting 'no,'
Witherspoon absent, Klein "not participating.'
Councilrnember Fletcher asked regarding floor area ratio, for
staff's reaction to adding as floor area ratio those indoor open
areas which were not now counted as floor area ratio. She was
thinking about the Hamilton/Alma Street building which looked so
massive and yet had a low floor area ratio because there was no
roof over sections of the building.
Mr. Freeland said it was technically not indoors.
Councilmember ber Fletcher said from the outside it was a big bui i di ng
even thoagh once inside, it was: open. From the point of "view of
the residents who went by, it was massive.
Mr. Freeland suggested if Counc i 1 member Fletcher believed that was
a mistake, it should be comaunicated.. to the Architectural Review
Board (ARB). Staff was unprepared to address that kind of a
change.
AMENDMENT: CovAci l member Renzel moved ander Project 3, that
alternative 3ea be the project and Project 3 be alternative 3-a.
5 9 2 7
6/1,8/85-.
AMENDMENT. Vice Mayor Cobb moved seconded by Levy, under
AMENDMENT: » i-i ii . Vice j moved, _ - i
GROWTH STRATEGIES, Project 4, that the project be a rating system
related to community benefit. criteria and Alternative 4-b be on a
first come, first served basis alternative.
Councilmember Woolley asked staff to comment.
Mr. Freeland clarified the amendment spoke to a rating system that
included community benefit as one of the criteria --not the
exclusive set of criteria. He said many jurisdictions that went
into an allocation chose the community benefit as a criteria. The
philosophic intent was that if there was to be a small amount of
growth, it should be the best. The only way to select the best
was to go to a rating. The disadvantage of the system was that it
was a big deal, and it put someone on the spot and it was likely
to be the Council. If the annual allocation number was small, it
might not seen worth the effort and pain of making the annual
selection.
Councilmember Woolley asked for staff's feeling about whether it
was the project or the alternative.
Mr. Freeland said if it was the project, staff would feel a need
to actually develop ordinance language that addressed how it would
work. It was a major decision from that point.
Councilmember Woolley would not support the amendment. If it
failed, she would add the rating system as an alternative, but
preferred the project remain as it was. She did not want Council
to create a tremendous amount of work for staff with something
Council might decide was not useful. She could see it in projects
in some communities dealing with thousands of square feet, but it
was possible to divide them so that each applicant had a piece of
the allotment. If Council was getting down as far as 17,500
square feet, she was : not sure it was worth an elaborate rating
system, staff time, and Council time to execute.
Councilmember Renzel could foresee that the entire allocation pro-
cess would be difficult no matter what the basis. She believed
Councilmember Woolley's comments were appropriate that Council
could explore the ramifications of that type of a system under an
alternative and not force staff into deriving a full blown cri-
terion for ii rating system for the purposes of the EIR. She con-
curred with Vice Mayor Cobb's preference for a rating system over
the others, but she believed they were all badly flawed. She
assumed the rating system would have an extensive objective
criterion on which to evaluate.
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, to leave the
project as defined and add as alternative 4.b. a rating system
including community benefit.
Mayor Levy would not accept the substitute amendment because if
the amendment failed, it left things the way they were and Council
could sea up the alternatives at that point.
Councilmember Fletcher liked the rating system idea because Palo
Alto was not enthralled about having a lot of offices, but on the
other hand, .i t welcomed stores, and any commercial project which
incorporated residential There might be other things like arts
in public places as part of the project or some other community
benefit which was not normally received. She believed a rating
system would stimulate a lot of worthwhile projects.
Mayor Levy supported a rating system because by dramatically
1 toiling the downtown growth from what; : it might
otherwise be, with
a free -market, Council l was creating artificial_ wealth. Those who
were allowed to b ui Id would have a much more valuable piece of
property because, property would be more scarce than it would be if
the market wear_e opened up. He believed because of the scarcity'
created, Council had a right to consider asking for something in
return, which was the community benefits. There could be many
different kinds, such as arts in public places, fountains, plazas,
a type of use particularly needed, additional parking, etc. He
saw no reason to not make use of it if the City had the right, in
an honest way, to do so. Someone stated it would be good to have
it if there were hundreds of thousands of square feet to allocate,
but not with a small amount. He believed the opposite was true.
If there was a small amount of construction, every square foot was
important and the City shout d pay attention.
Vice Mayor Cobb agreed. He believed a first come, first served
system would have two bad effects. Every year at allocation time,
there would be a rush to develop, which put a significant dis-
advantage on the smaller property owner, and it created an inher-
ently unfair situation. Secondly, if the City got into allocation
systems, they were on the critical path and all other things being
equal, at least they would have community benefit on which to base
a decision.
Councilmember Sutorius said regarding the values of the community
benefit process, over the past five years his observations were
under the umbrella of amenity zoning. He did not believe they
were the same because amenity zoning meant the City stimulated the
opportunity for benefits, but was willing to offer an allowance
along with it. When dealing with annual allocations, downzoning
and FAR limitations which meant some of the projects that could
qualify for consideration would be small projects, trying to rate
something on whether it had an identifiable benefit, which in many
cases might turn out to be a subjective judgment, was an improper
course He would not support the amendment. If it failed, he
would support the rating system included as an alternative and did
not object to community benefits cited as an alternative. He
believed Council woul d be able to evaluate whether it should be
applied when it returned.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 4-3, Renzel , Sutori us, Woolley
voting 'no," Klein not participating,' Witherspoon absent.
Councilmember Fletcher said regarding Project 5, she wanted to
permit more than a 10 percent additional floor area expansion if
the ground floor was limited to retail and the upper floor was
either office or housing to make it economically feasible. Her
intent was to encourage a grocery store.
Mayor Levy clarified it was Councilmember Fletcher' s desire to
exempt all construction if the ground floor was limited to retail
and if the floor area ratio was not more than 2:1. and only on
sites of 5,000 square feet or less.
Mr. Freeland said any development up to a 2:1 floor area ratio was
exempted so long as the ground floor was retail on sites of 5,000
square feet or less.
Mayor Levy clarified they were not talking about buildings of
5,000 square feet or less.
Councilmember Fletcher referred also to structures that needed
rehabilitation so that they would have an economic ability \to
provide a retail service.
Mr. Freeland said "'a large portion of the downtown might qualify
for expansion that would not count against the annual limit
principal planner George Zimmerman pointed out that if the amend-
ment passed, it, would apply to any area outside the area that
would be considered" for the ground floor retail only provision.,-
If it was approved as a project, in that area Council - would have
ground floor retail related anyway.
5 9 2 9
6/18/85
Counc i Irnember Fletcher agreed except they were limiting it to a 10
percent expansion.
AMENDMENT:. Council member Fletcher moved re Project 6, to exempt
expansion on sites of 5,000 square feet or less if the ground
floor was limited to retail with a maximum floor area ratio of
AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Councilmember Woolley said on page 4, paragraph 2, of the June 6,
1985 staff report (CMR:359:5) staff said they were uncomfortable
that certain policies like the Planning Commission's recommended
project strategies to limit downtown growth to 50,000 square feet
annually, could result in unforeseen circumstances. Staff
believed if such policies were ultimately approved by the City,
they should be approved with an ongoing mechanism to monitor
effectiveness rather than with a directive to evaluate after a
specified period of time. It appeared that Council was going in
that direction.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher,
under GROWTH STRATEGIES, Project 10, change To monitor the effec-
tiveness of downtown growth policies on an annual basis."
Mayor Levy clarified the project was to be studied by the EIR.
The EIR would evaluate how Council should evaluate its growth
policies. The EIR would, as it was now laid out, discuss the
effect of evaluating the growth policies after five years.
Mr. Freeland said that was correct. It would not show much dif-
ference in what staff wrote in the EIR. The difference would be a
sentence which read "there would be a process for ongoing moni-
toring to spot problems which would potentially avoid some
impacts," but that was about as much as that statement would say.
He suggested that it read "ongoing monitoring in an annual
review."
Mayor Levy asked if the EIR would tell Council which was better.
Mr. Freeland said no.
Mayor Levy clarified the EIR would say it should be monitored.
Mr. Freeland said that was correct. It more described a detail of
the project. It was not a major factor in the EIR at all, it was
just a detail of the project.
Ccuncilmember Woolley said her concern was the long lag time
between when Council took action and when the public actually saw
it. She was concerned if Council found out there were some
negative impacts, by the .time it was that apparent, if they waited
for five years, took action and then those changes were imple-
mented, it was too long a time period. Council needed to evaluate
the change on an annual basis.
AMENDMENT RESTATED: To. change Project 10, of GROWTH STRATEGIES,
to state that Council would evaluate .downtown growth policies on
an annual basis,
Councilmember Sutori.us supported the amendment. He envisioned
that perhaps the major tool would be identical to the City's
intensification study which provided, on a semi-annual basis, the
square footage, parking, and employment ment associated with projects
that were. filed. On a ; six-month basis, Council knew. what was
in the pipeline, its status, and,.impacts. In the case of
CaHfornia Avenue, when the rezoning was done, Council put in a
monitoring device > which said "x" nuMber of square feet per year
as a warning signal, and staff would go to the Planning Commission
and Council- indicating the warning signal was tripge .
Councilmember Renzel concurred with the amendment, but since the
basic project had a seven-year time frame, assuming Council under-
took some evaluation at the end of seven years, she asked what
happened in the seventh or eighth year. Did Council allow the
allocation to continue, was a moratorium declared, or would Coun-
cil rely on the underlying zoning.
Mr. Freeland said that was why the Commission went to a seven year
program. The Commission assumed the major review would commence
at the end of five years so there would be a period to talk about
what to do next while still under the seven year program.
AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Klein 'not participating,"
Witherspoon absent.
COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:40 p.n. TO 9:52 p.m.
Councilmember Renzel said regarding Project 9, under GROWTH
STRATEGIES, she remained concerned about the density transfer pro-
gram. She realized it seemed to be the major emphasi s of the his-
toric preservation element and yet she believed it was fraught
with problems that would be difficult for the community. She was
not happy to see it as part of the project.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, re
Project 9.b.3, 9.c.1, 2, and 3 to delete density transfer program
as an alternative to the project.
Councilmember Woolley reminded the Council that the recommendation
did not go through the entire Committee --it was only the recommen-
dation of one of the subcommittees of the Downtown Committee. She
understood it was in a preliminary stage as were a few other parts
of the plan, so the amendment was premature. The square footage
of all the historic buildings in the downtown area was small. She
understood it would call for an overlay, but what buildings would
be in the overlay was not determined. if, i n corder to get a ball-
park figure, Council took all the structures in category 1 and 2,
she believed it was 90,000 square feet. It was a transfer --it did
not create any new buildable space.
Councilmember ,Sutorius observed the project was headed with the
lead paragraph being "Develop following mechanisms, consistent
with other recommended growth strategies, to preserve buildings of
historic and architectural interest:" Therefore, he believed the
qualifier of "consistent with other recommended growth strate-
gies," should be the allowance for any concerns that Councilmember
Renzel or others had as to the outcome. He saw no need to make
it an alternative.
Mr. Zimmerman said it was the explicit intent of the subcommittee
that the entire historic preservation strategy fall within the
annual growth limits recor ended by the full committee.
Councilmember Bechtel was pleased to have that confirmation from
Mr. Zimmerman but it was an item the Historic Resources Board per-
iodically brought up and the issue was always density transfer to
where. She believed that by simOly putting it into an alterna-
tive, they were not eliminating it altogether, but were just not
giving it as much emphasis. She continued to support ;it.
Councilmember Woolley pointed out that "9 c.t." did indicate where
the receiver site would be located and limited it ` to not being
adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
Councilmember Renzel clarified the motion was to make the density
transfer an alternate to the project not to delete it.
AMEWDMEMT FAILED by .a vote of 3-4, Bechtel, Fletcher, Renzel
voting "aye," Witherspoon absent, Klein "not participating."
Councilmember Woolley reaffirmed her concern about the economic
impacts. Councilmember Witherspoon mentioned some faetors the
previous evening but the possibility of increased rents for
retail space was not mentioned. She was concerned that as Council
limited the supply of space, and if the demand stayed the same,
prices would go up.
Mayor Levy agreed, and if the funds were not available, he recom-
mended staff return with a request for additional funds. He was
concerned that while Council believed it meant something to pre-
serve retail space, the economics might mean the retention of only
certain kinds of retail space and the sale of things Council did
not consider to be a community benefit..
Mr. Freeland said staff intended to study that question. Council
might not get a lot of solid advice back from the economists, but
the question would definitely be asked.
Councilmember Renzel believed the strategy with respect to.
University Avenue would preserve retail space and, since most
retail space was on first floors, they were only talking about
where vacant lots or grossly undeveloped lots were apt to change
from retail space. She sympathized with the point, but if staff
returned with budget amendments, there should also be a report.
it should not be one Councilmember's desire to have something like
that returned. It should be a vote of the Council.
Mr. Freeland said staff would shortly have conversations with some
possible consultants to try and develop a scope of work. Staff
would draft a request for proposal (RFP), and perhaps Council
could review it and return its comments to staff.
Mayor Levy clarified that staff needed no action from Council at
that time.
Mr. Freeland said no, and since it was less than $10,000, it was a
contract staff would handle routinely.
Vice Mayor Cobb referred to Project 1 under Land Use Strategies,
°°Determine an appropriate vacancy rate which would allow proper-
ties to be leased to non -retail uses, for limited periods of time,
if vacancy rate is exceeded,°°. and asked how that might work. For
example, an excessive vacancy rate however "excessive." was de-
fined, and the option of leasing for some other kind of use. He
asked how staff determined a limited period of time, and said it
would be hard to cut a lease like that.
Mr. Freeland said the committee discussed a five-year time per-
iod or something that corresponded to a normal lease period.
Councilmember Woolley said regarding Project S, last night Council
heard from several people who were concerned about the area, and a
letter was also received from Earl Schmitt (which is on file in
the City Clerk's office) regardi�Zg his property on Homer. She
knew it was a preliminary part of the plan, but said the property
on Horner between Emerson and Ramona was a unique block and had
some historic value. The businesses on the one _ side that were
commercial were the type Council generally approved; so -she hoped
the particular block would receive special consideration. Also,
the grocery store and garages along Alga were also uses that
needed to be retained in the City, There was no mention of grand -
fathering for that section, and she asked whether it was an omi s-,
si on or whether there was opposition.
Mr. Freeland said the Committee did not reach a conclusion as to
whether there should he grandfather clauses, partially because it
did not reach a specific recommendation in terms of which areas
might be converted to a residential pattern. If the intent was to
deliberately convert some of the areas from their present uses to
housing, Council probably would not want a grandfather clause. It
might be difficult to have that policy come about in the area, and
might be a case where it would take a strong policy position to
effectuate a change to residential pattern.
Councilmember Woolley hoped special care would be given to that
area and to those properties she mentioned.
Councilmember Sutorius was also concerned. If it stayed as it
was, there were dangers and some cross purposes that might occur.
He agreed with staff that with the rezoning and without grand -
fathering some valuable neighborhood serving uses would cease to
exist in reasonable proximity for many of the Palo Alto users, and
would, therefore, add to traffic, inconvenience, and costs.
Absent 0 grandfather clause, if those businesses stayed, it would
not accomplish the housing purpose behind the rezoning. He
believed Council might create a turmoil -type situation by propos-
ing to re4:one when the outcome was not particularly desirable. If
those businesses were lost, it was a negative, and, if the buffer
created was medium to high density residential, he was not sure
the adjacent lower density residential would be pleased. He ques-
tioned whether it was the proper approach. He asked how staff
interpreted words like "consider" and how far would they go with
that project.
Mr. Freeland said it was a major loose end of the Committee work,
and staff assumed they would work with the Committee to look fur-
ther at the area to come up with a specific pattern to propose for
a rezoning. In order to get to the point where staff had some-
thing specific to talk about in the EIR, it was a major work item.
If the concept of a multiple family buffer around the edge of the
CS area was'an area in which Council had serious misgivings, it
should say so, and staff would not spend time developing it in
great detail.
AMENDMENT: ; Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by - Cobb,
under LAID USE STRATEGIES, Project 6, that the present warding of
the project in Item 6 became the alternative, and that the main
wording was no rezoning in the area east of Emerson and south of
Mr. Freeland did not believe "no change" would be the fall -back
position. The fall -back position would be to treat the area in
the sale manner as the changes in the rest of the CS zone.
Councilmember Sutorius accepted that.
Vice Mayer Cobb shared the concerns of Councilmembers Woolley .and
Sutorius. He referred to the man who spoke the night before with
a swell automotive service business who said people did not want
to drive to Mountain View or Redwood City for those services.
Council heard from someone who operated a primarily residential
oriented plumbing establishment, and most of his business was in
Palo Alto. He believed in Council's desire to save downtown, it
wanted to preserve those kinds of service functions, but many of
its :actions, in efforts to stop the larger problem of ` excessive
office space, had an unfortunate side effect. Those were dot big
traffic generators, nor big employment generators, but they y were
necessary services and probably created more of a traffic problem
by people going out Of town to get the service because they were
chased away. He was concerned that Council not go too -,far and
create a new set of problems in attempting to solve the real prob-
Iem. Council heard much, and properly so, about the excessive
commercial deVelopment in town and he concurred completely.
Another concern in the sacrarium ity was excessive development of high
density condominiums, multi- family housing, which they talked
about being a buffer. The neighborhoods did not like those
e ither, and he was not sure they would not prefer neighborhood
serving kinds of businesses which were low intensity kinds of uses
o f land. Something like what went in at the Hoover School site
did not make that neighborhood happy and he did not believe it
necessarily improved the community. He was concerned about the
zoning changes and their effects and the unintended consequences.
He did not want to create a self- ful filling prophecy by hay ing
sta ff work on it so hard that all of a sudden Counc it fel t obl 1
gated togo into that kind of a zoning change.
Co unc i l m em ber Bechtel understood the motion and as she looked and
thought about the area and about Emerson Street, for example, and
the small market Tad Cody and Joe Yarkin spoke about, she was con-
cerned that even with the limited growth being studied, people
liked the area the way it was, and she wondered whether there
would be a problem under the present zoning potential. She wanted
to ensure they would be sufficiently protected by the growth
strategies and that the area would not suffer some real changes.
Mr. Freeland said by and large the area had low val ue improve-
ments. Many of the properties had a lot of open lot area on them,
o ften filled with cars waiting to be serviced. Without question
the ex i sting 2:1 fl oor area ratio was tempting for redevel opnent.
He al so questioned whether a 1:1 floor area ratio, as recommended
by the Committee and the Commission, might also be tempting giver
the low level development of many of the Tots. Some had less than
a 0.5 floor area ratio of existing development, so while he did
not want to vol unteer another al ternative, i f staff was not look-
ing at housing Council wanted them to look at, perhaps they could
look at an alternative in a l ower singe than that suggested by the
Committee to get down to something closer to the types of develop-
ments that were presently in the area.
Counc ilmember Bechtel said that would be her preference. She
bel ieved Council was swayed by the eloquent speakers the previous
night who spoke about the charm of the area, which was true, but
it was very low density and, therefore, if it met the growth
requirements whatever they ended up being, it could end up being
totally changed._ At the edge of the par ticul ar area, about 80
years ago, a single-family residential house was built, and liter-
al ly .three feet away was Emerson Street Glass. There was a wall
ten feet high so the woman in the ho use looked out of her windows
at a huge wall. It was a terrible kind of transition and she was
concerned. It was the kind of an area where there would be a
problem. She preferred that Counc ilmember Sutorius and Vice Mayor
Cobb change their motion to consider something that mould prevent
the kind of redevel opment for that area.
Counc ilmember Sutorius said the al ternative woul d still be what
was presently the proj ect, and so it would only be the project
that would be changed. He suggested,, "Treat area -- Retain CS
zoning for ar to east of Emerson and south of Charming but consider
building restrictions to assure a reasonabl a transi flan to adj a
cent residential .areas.
Count ilmewaber Bechtel asked if by that he meant essentially a
mechanism. to somehow keep it similar to the density that presently
existed.
Council:member Sutorius said be was trying to not freeze. staff'.
Staff might propose a lower FAR, something relative to parking, or
soughing. 'relative to dayl ight planes, etc:, and he- wanted them .to
h;ave\`the full mix of the various zoning parameters and building
site regulations t,o effect their recommendations.
i
ROT IOW. RE' ISED , TO'' READ: Under . MME . USE •STRRTOGIESi Prof ect 6 D .
Add Alternative 'Retain C -S zanies -for area east :of Emerson- and
aaotik , et= Coannieg, bet Consider bai l ding restrictisa_sishicb assert
a 'reasonable transition to adjacent resldentlal areas."
Counciifember Renzel concurred with the desire to preserve some of
the smaller CS uses that presently existed in the area south of
Channing . On the other hand, Council should not be compl acent
with respect to the area particularly if the strategies Council
previously discussed were adopted downtown. The pressures on the
area on the periphery of downtown would be enormous, and she did
not doubt the good intentions and sincerity of the people who
spoke with respect to their family --owned businesses and their
desire to continue. She honored their words, but they were only a
small portion of the sites. Many were small houses; there was a
variety of different kinds of properties there. She bei ieved
Council had to shoot for what they desired to see in the 1 ong run.
Basically people accepted what was now there as compatible, but
for the 1 ong- term Council had to look at what it wanted for the
1 and use. That could not be done based on the individual who
owned the property and their intent because if they moved, died,
had a financial hardship or reversal , or their particul ar business
was no longer competitive, someone might go in and offer a good
price for their land based on the various possibilities for CS
uses. That was the reality of the real estate market, and for
that reason it was more desirable to look at a rezoning. She was
amenable to some sort of g rand fa ther ing , or something to require
that those exempted uses show compatibility with the neighborhood,
or something of that sort to permit the existing uses such as SOS
Grocery and some of the others to remain but would, in the long
run, work a transition toward uses that Council knew would be
compatibl e rather than those which were unknown. CS permitted a
wide variety of uses, some of which were compatible with such a
neighborhood and some of which were not. She opposed the motion
and assumed that, in the course of studying appropriate sites for
rezoning, Council woul d al so hear what some of the probl ems were
and would seek solutions to them. She did not believe Council
needed to decide all those at that time,
Councilmember Fletcher said when Council talked about the busi-
nesses they did not want to lose; many simil ar businesses in other
areas of town were lost to more intense uses because of the val ue
of the land, and zoning went with the land and not the use. She
also preferred to keep the housing item there as a proj ect because
it did not speak to rezoning the whole area. It said, #Consider
appropriate sites for rezoning," and the par ticul ar businesses did
not take up the whole area in question. She opposed the motion.
She was not actually opposed to studying the suggested project to
retain the CS zoning but preferred to change the wording .to break
i t down instead of treating the whole area as CS to leave the
option open to break it upas partial housing possibly.
Mayor Levy concurred with Councilmembers Fl etcher and Renzel . He
questioned whether there truly was such .a thing as a transition
area and, i f so, to what it transitioned wa s wha t Council should
be sensitive to. In that -case, it transitioned out nf housing and
into a maximum service commercial use, and he believed that was
not essentially the direction they wanted to go. He was sensi-
tive, as they all were, to specific commercial enterprises which
served the community and which Council shoui d strongly try and
maintain. Most of the commercial 1 and use in the area was in ser-
vices that did not truly serve the residents. Once he had a
mirror made and on one occasion in his 15 years in Palo Al to, had
a windshield replaced but essentially many of the services were
not what he would' hall services for residents. Some were, and
part of the project was to consider which property should remain
CS. He believed they were going to see more and more of what
Councilmember Bechtel alluded to, which was housing_ being cut off
by entirely inappropriate commercial use, inappropriate visually,
inappropriate in terms of the use of the street, inappropriate in
terms of the noise level , etc . Housing shoul d be the focus
and the incidental element should be that they consider which
properties should remain CS in termsof truly serving the resi
dents. That was the language there now, and he believed it was
appropriate to leave it as it was.
5 9 3 5-
6 /18/85
As Corrected -
8!19%85.
Councilmember Bechtel said the last few speakers convinced her and
she, therefore; intended to vote against the amendment. If it
felled, she would move that Council do the reverse and make what
he proposed as the al ternative the proj ec t, and the proj ec t the
al ternative.
Mayor Levy said the motion before. Council was on Item. 6 in the
LAND USE STRATEGIES, the proj ect should retain CS zoning for area
east of Emerson and south of Channing but consider building
restrictions which assure a reasonable transition_ to the adjacent
residential area, and the al ternative project would be the
existing language.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-5, Cobb, Sutorius voting
"aye," Klein 'snot participating ,° Witherspoon absent.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel
under LAND USE STRATEGIES, Project 6, Add Alternative "Retain C -S
zoning for are: east of Emerson and south of Charming but consider
building restrictions which assure a reasonable transition to
adjacent residential areas.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Fletcher voting "no,' Klein
"not participating,' Witherspoon absent.
Councilmember Renzel had some concerns under Public Parking about
an additional parking structure. Council saw that there was a
significant deficit of spaces downtown. An additional parking
structure would give perhaps another 200-300 spac es b ut it would
be a small dent in a major probl em , and would have maj or financial
impacts on merchants and property owners downtown in order to pay
for it It would hav e visual impac ts in terms of its size, and
she suggested it might be better to try to acquire whatever
privately held parking lots or vacant lots were available even
though she recognized their expense. Parking structures were al so
expensive and there woul d be no more .1 and downtown. A. structure
could always be put on l and, but there would not be any more l and
downtown. From her point of view, making a small dent in a
parking deficit at considerable expense both in terms of dollars
and physical impact might not be such a good idea, but she did not
know quite, how to modify it. She suggested to "consider building
at least one additional parking struc tore," and add as an al terna-
tive, to purchase any vacant lots or privately -held parking for
providing -parking to give better options for the future, since it
seemed their impact on the parking problem was going to be fairly
i nconsequential
Mayor Levy asked staff i f the addition of the language "consider"
was material .
Mr. Freel and repl ied it was what they were going to do anyway; it
was just an EIR.
AMENDMENT: Councllieeber Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
add an alternative to Alternative 1--a., under PARKING STRATEGIES,
Project 1, 'To purchase vacant lots or privately held parking lots
downtown.*
Mayor Levy bel leved the amendment was an eminently sensible idea.
Councilmember Renzel said she recognized that an existing parking
lot would not add parking per se downtown, but if it got
developed, it eaeuld delete -parking and that was something Council
.had to recognize
AMENDMENT PASSED- unanimousiy, KIein "not . participating,
Bechtel Witherspoon absent.
5 9 3 6
_- 6/18,185
Counc ilmember Sutori us referred to Parking Strategics and asked
that staff famil iarizc him with the circumstances under witich
Urban Lane was not contained in the strategies even by reference.
It might be in the detailed Committee minutes and notes, but in
the materials he went through, he found no; reference. He was con-
cerned why it was not there. With regard to the Parking Strate-
gies subject area, he was concerned that Council continued to tal k
about " the Assessment District," and he recognized there were Ser-
ies E and Series G Bonds associated with the district. He recog-
nized consideration had to be given in terms of the money paid in
by the property owners within the confines of the district, but
regardl ess, he bel ieved consideration should be g teen, and an
eval uation made of an overl ay of the district, or creating a new
district. It did not necessarily need to kill the existing one,
but a mechanism was needed that said areas not now included within
the district contributed to parking problems. While the measures
proposed in the strategies so far were significant, they did not
seem to contempl ate that additional areas should become part of an
assessing process.
Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that Urban Lane was identified as a
potential site in the packet of material s transmitted from the
Study Committee to the Planning Commission, dated May 3, and it
was illustrated on a map on Page 22 of that packet of materials,
which shoul d have been incl uded in the June 6 Council packet of
ate riai s. It was Map 4 on Page 22 on the Downtown Study' s Strat-
egies on Growth, Study Committee proposal s.
Mre Freeland believed it was the large packet called "Downtown
Study Background Material s."
Counc iimember Sutorius said he saw Map 4, and saw Urban Lane, but
he perceived it was being looked at from the standpoint that the
existing parking assessment district could acquire properties
outside of the district if it el ected to. He was concerned that
they had additional commercial areas that were not within the
existing district. They were areas that caused impact in terms of
parking. He did not know the answer to the question, but asked
whether it was possible that there were permits being purchased
for lots within the assessment district by ernpl oyees or employers
outside of the district.
Mr. Freel and bel ieved the question of whether the assessment dis-
trict should be made larger was at a different level of detail
than the level they could meaningfully deal with that night as
part of scopi ng out the EIR. He bel ieved in order to establish a
1 urger district boundary there had to be some showing of benefit
that would be the basis for assessing those properties. What that
benefit woul d be woul d have to . be cl early artic.ul ated in a way
that a bond counsel woul d feel comfortabl e for a future bond issue
to build a structure. It was something that could be discussed,
but he bel ieved it went beyond the scope of what they could deal.
with then. Urban Lane was identified on Page 21 of that same doc-
ument that Mr Zimmerman mentioned as one of the four •likely sites
for new struc ture. They did not try to go further than narrowing
it down to the four staff believed were the top candidates.
Counc ilmember Sutorius understood . Mr. Freel and' s answer to mean..
there was a separate process that needed to be fol l owed in order
to raise the question of enlarging or creating a new assessment
district.
AMENDMENT: Coenciieewher. Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley,
that Council consider a parking structure for the Irb an Lane site
as ara alternative.
CouhoilmeMber Renzel: said there were a number of proposals already
outlined She believed the .Urban Lane matter was a maj or study
that needed to be done. The City might need that Urban ` Lane
•
5 9 3 7
6/18/85
corridor to provide alternative routes to those deep lots that
existed off El Camino which were rapidly changing hands, and for
which Council had not done much in the way of rezoning. That
o ption should be preserved, but she was not prepared to get into
the matter of Urban Lane with respect to downtown then She
bel ieved there would probably be significant costs associated with
developing it and great resistance on the part of the Assessment
Di strict to fund it.
Mayor Levy asked staff about alternative 1-b-1, "Consi der a second
structure for parking only." He clarified that it was an al terna-
tive being proposed; that the proj ect consi sted of Items a, b, c
and d, and that Item 1 -b-1 and 1-d-1 were alternatives to the
proj ec t.
Mr. Freeland said that was right.
Mayor Levy asked if consideration of a separate structure for
parking only was embraced in the motion before Council , which was
to consider a parking structure for the Urban Lane site.
Mr. Freel and said what seemed to he happening was a desire to move
it to a level of decision never contemplated by the Study.
Mayor Levy said Council did not believe in short EIR's.
Mr. Freeland said it was not just the EIR, but, to try to put it
in perspective, the Committee anticipated bringing forward a set
o f ideas many of which would take follow-up actions that maul
come after the study. The Committee was only trying to go as far
as getting the Council to initiate a program to take on the job of
creating a future; structure, which would then essentially become a
new study and a new project. which further evaluated the different
sites. In his j udgnient, it was really not realistic to try and
make a decision as to how big a structure, the location, how much
it would cost, would it incl ude a store and housing as part of
what they were doing then. That was a maj or matter, and referred
to the staff study on the Lot J project just for itsel f. He urged
that Count it be content with the level of thought developed by the
Committee, and that Council ` s action should be to create that next
step to do the work that they wanted staff to take on now.
Mayor Levy would not support the al ternative. He bel ieved Council
should not get down to that level. Parking was an extremely
important part o.f what Counc it was doing, and there was a huge
parking deficit that impacted the quality of life of 1 arge numbers
o f residents just outside of the downtown area, which was one of
the most interesting residential area in town. Council should do
all it: could to reassess and bring back into balance the parking
�iss�bal ance. It was unfortunate, but true, that one of the few ways
they could that was to build parking structures. He did not like
the appearance of most-eparking structures and hoped Parking Lot J
would be an attractive structure. He believed they had to build
struc tures and he wool d leave the strategies to embrace the
Al ternative 1-b-1, to consider a second structure►, and not get
into the infinite detail o. where it would be. With that in mind,
he would vote against specifically singling out the Urban Lane
site.
NOTION WITHDRAWN
NOTION: Cooncilatember Bechtel moved another alternative that
Coons it consider resirre€ ti ng the shuttle idea to relieve -parking
demand in downtown Palo Alto «
5 9 3 .. 8
6/18/85
Mr. Zaner said he did not hear a second to the motion, but com-
mented that he underwent some difficult moments in front of the
Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee a few nights before
because of a request for additional staff. He said the project
being discussed was to be done by Mr. Zimmerman, with $10,000
worth of money taken from the present year and being carried over
into next year Mr. Zimmerman would see them in a year if they
were lucky. He urged that Council understand that staff was not
anticipating a $100,000 study. The effort was to try to get the
work done , get an EIR put together so that Council could look at
the downtown growth i ssue., and make some decisions based on some
reasonable data .
MOTICW DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Councilmember Renzel said she raised the question of what would
happen if Council just stopped creating assessment districts and
went back to an old --fashioned idea of requiring everybody to pro-
vide .100 percent parking.
Mr. Zimmerman said it was under the Private Parking, section 2.
Councilmember Renzel said that was where she was except it
exempted the floor area currently assessed for parking, and it
also talked about somehow continuing to provide additional struc-
tures. She understood there was about 175,000 square feet of
vacant 1 and in 10 parcels and, while some might be larger parcels,
the average. was 17,500 which was well above 10,000, which was con-
sidered the minimum site coverage to provide their own parking.
There might be one or two sites that were too small for parking,
but for existing si to s not yet developed it sounded like they y al 1
should be able to provide parking. She wanted to have as an
al ternative to #2, Private Parking, "that new proj ects provide all
parking and that the assessment mechanism be phased out,"
Mr. Freeland explained that the exemption referred to was meant to
be a minor exemption -- only large enough to sati sfy the legal_ obl i-
gation they might have toward properties that paid assessments
over the years. With the City's bond counsel , staff talked about
how they might go about determining exemptions, and there were a
couple of different possible formulas. One they might use would
be to take a prorated share of the parking spaces that were paid
for by assessments, get a prorated allocation back to the share of
the bonds that were associated with those vacant parcel s, and that
would equate to a certain number of parking spaces that might be
exempted. It would generally be a call number because 'the vacant
parcels, particularly because the older bonds were on an ad
valorem basis, would have paid proportionately less than many
other properties. It was a minor sort of an exemption, not a
bl anket exemption for those vacant parcel s.
Councilmember Renzel said with the understanding that the intent
was to try and require 100 percent parking within the coy, 'jnes of
their legal obligations under existing assessment mechani es, she
cl earl y bel ieved one of the raj or probl ens for shortages in the
downtown was a parking assessment district mechanism which his-
torically failed to produce a new supply consistent with demand.
It was something they cl ear=1 y recog ni zed and should ac knowl edge.
Mr. Freeland said the one point that might run contrary to Coun-
cil*ealber Renzel's intention was the exemption for minor expan-
sions on small lots. It looked back to. the Growth Strategies and
was the 10 percent additional floor area on lots of less than
5,000 square feet. That was al so recommended to be exempt on the
theory that they would be unable to l"ov ide_ those spaces on those
kinds_ of sites.
5 9 3 9
6/18/85.
Mayor Levy said it looked to him like Items b and d overlapped
with Item d really being more elaborate than item b. He asked if
that was true. Under Project 1 if Counc i1 endorsed Item b, it
meant staff would consider a food market and/or housing as part of
an air rights project. Item d really went into more detail call-
ing for an air rights proj ect on Lots S, L, and F. He asked if
that was correct.
Mr Zimmerman said yes. They could easily be merged into one proj-
ect because d was an elaboration o.f b.
Mayor Levy said he would move to del ete Item d because he bel ieved
the important el ement to see how feasibl e a food market would be
as part of an air rights project was encompassed in Item b. He
believed the overall needs of downtown were significantly served
by parking and .therefore he did not want to single out Lots S, L,
and F for specific study for maximum devel opment.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by R.enzel , under PARKING
STRATEGIES, to delete element 1.d and also the alternative to 1.d
from the project.
Mayor Levy said the al ternative to 1.d was redundant because Coun-
cil would be looking into a second structure for parking only as
al ternate I.b .1.
Council!ember Sutorius bet ieved the intent to simplify potentially
compounded the staff effort because to do the evaluation, staff
would need to look at more lot locations. Under the present word-
ing , S, 1, and F were identi fled after consi derabl e investigation
and commentary at the Downtown Study Committee and P1 anning Com-
mission level s. He did not bel ieve the siapl ification Mayor Levy
intended worked out that way.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-4, Levy, Woolley, Renze1 voting
"aye," Klein *not participating," Witherspoon absent.
Transportation P1 anner Dave Fairchild said regarding a technical
problem of what staff did with the years between the end of the
seven-year period they were considering for the growth limitations
strategies and the ten-year period they would use to assess envi-
ronmentally the effects of those strategies, staff needed some
guidance on what those three years consisted of. The simplest
assumption was that there would be no additional growth in the
downtown study area .
?4r. Freel and bel iev ed that wa s the o`nl y one they co ul d po ssi bl y
make any sense of.
Vice Mayor Cobb asked if staff needed a specific motion, or
whether concurrence by Council silence was sufficient.
Mr. Freeland said concurrence by silence was sufficient.
Mayor Levy said the motion before Council was to approve Attac-he A as amended. The Growth Strategy project wo ul d encompa se
the range between zero growth and 50,000 square feet per year for
seven years. The zero growth project would allow for exceptions
to provide the "wriggle" room ' Council discussed-, and staff would
defi ne. '' Comic ii del eted alternatives 1-c and 1 -d from the Growth
Strategies. Council amended strategy 1-a to read, "70,00.0 square
feet for seven years." Strategy 1-e was amended to add the wwords,
"Include a construction gate system to limit and/or disperse con-
struction impact and monitor the growth; effect." Element 1-b was
amended to read, *1 7, 500 square foot maximum , growth allocation per
year for a 10 -year period.* Under Proj ect 3, Item 3 of Growth
Ste aiegies, Council added as, a project 3 Pria'e, to ''*Count above-
grade parking in the FAR."_ under element 4, Council added as a
project a rating system , or stl pul ated as a project, the use of a
rating system which, Inc"! uded= community benefits to serve as the
5 g 4 0
6/18/85
benefits to serve as the allocation basis and they relegated to an
alternative the fi rst come, fi rst served basis al ternative. Under
el ement 10, Council stipulated the proj ec is wo ul d be evaluated on
an annual basis. Under Land Use Strategies, Council added an
alternative under element 6, "To retain the CS zone for the area
east of Emerson and south .of Charring, but consider building
restrictions to assure a reasonable transition to the ;adjacent
residential areas." Under the Parking .Strategies, Co'incil added
as an alternative the consideration of purchasing vacant lots and
existing private parking lots for downtown parking. He asked Ms.
Tanner i f he was correct.
City Clerk Ann Tanner said yes.
Mayor Levy said that Council had before it Attachment A, the
recommended EIR Project and Al ternative Strategies as amended.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Klein .not participating,°
Witherspoon absent.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Bechtel , that staff
initiete extensions of the Downtown moratorium and Downtown
Assessment District Parking Ordinance until May, 1986 in order to
provide sufficient time to prepare an EIR.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutoriws moved, seconded by Voolley.
that the non -conversion provisions be revised to apply only to the
P -Combining District with the CC Zone.
Councilmember Sutori us said his amendment %ix;ul d be to change the
area affected by the non -conversion of moratorium. He did not
have that moratorium in front of him, but believed it spoke to
preventing non -office or nor financial from being changed to
office and financial. There was no building going on, but the
amendment precluded that kind of a change in occupancy. His
amendment would affect the area that was encompassed by that, and.
he proposed the moratorium provision apply to the P -Combining
District within the CC zone. If Council referred to one of the
larger maps, they woul d see they had a moratori Lan that affected
the entire CC and CS areas. Through the study process, the only
area .identified for possible zoning change to have a ground floor
retail provision was referred to as the University Corridor. When
further defined, it referenced University between Alma and Cowper
and the side streets between Lytton and Hamilton. It seemed cl ear
to him that they were not headed toward a retail only process that
would affect the CS areas, or the non -P zone areas, because the
"P" zone within the CC zone was much larger than the area so far
described in any of the - study materials. It seemed reasonable to
him to modify the existing moratorium.
Councilmember Fletcher confirmed with staff that the boundaries of
the P zone were as stated by Councilmember Sutari us .
Mr. Freeland said the boundaries of the P zone extended to a
larger area than that under active consideration by the Study
Committee for the retail -only 1. imitation.
AMENDMENT PASSED omen iteoesl y, i d min . net participating
Witherspoon absent.
Mayor Levy said small amounts of development in the downtown study
area should be allowed. When he drafted his memo to Council , he
used the Planning Commission recommendations as the basis for a
modified moratorium. It was clear, based on the changes that
Council madz in the projected EIR, that they should modify the
elements that he had laid out in his memo.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Levy PIoved to amend the moratorium as follows:
To allow new development in the downtown study area but with the
following limitations: 1) All projects would be limited to a
maximum new construction of 50,000 square feet per project; 2)
that the new development would be limited to a total of 25,000
square feet during the . period of the moratorium; 3) the floor area
ratio would still hold at 2.0 to 1.0 in the CC zone and 1.0 to 1.0
in the CS zone; 4) They would process development applications on
a rating system basis as they had outlined as the basic project,
rather than a first come, first served basis as was originally
suggested; and 5) that they hold with the new suggested parking
requirements of four parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet
that would be added.
Mayor Levy said the purpose of the amendment was to allow a small
amount of development in order to reduce hardship currently faced_
by business peopl e and property owners who wanted some fl exibil ity
in some cases, paeticelarly the smaller business people who were
not as financ ial l y abi e to weather a long- term moratori um as were;
the larger ones. Another element of the amendment was that the
moratorium be continued for 12 months rather than 8 months. He
was satisfied that the work on the EIR might well take longer. In
any case Council . shoul d al low staff. ampl e time to do as thorough a
j ob as they could within the budget they had and within the 1 imits
o f the stamina of the people who would be working on it.
AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Klein "not participating,"
Witherspoon absent.
Mayor Levy thanked the members of the public who participated in
the process over the past year, particul arty the members of the
Downtown Study Group and the: active members of the public. He
bel ieved Council had begun the most significant change which
occurred in Pal o Al to in many years. It was a cl ear change in the
✓ ight direction.
( Councilmeta ber Bechtel left at I1:30 p.m',.s Councilmember . Klein
arrived at ).1:30 p.m.)
ITEM #5 , INITIAI`1YE PETITION PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR CONTINUED
MAINTERAMCE 6 A E 25
Councilme+nber Renzel asked the City Attorney, for purposes of
clarification, what .';reasonable° meant in the context of any
reasonable' means may be used.*
City Attorney Diane Lee believed in the first instance it was a
matter of Council interpretation to decide what reasonable was on
a given set of facts, which she did • not presently have before
her.
Councilmember Renzel clarified it would the n be up to a majority
o f the City Council to determine that something was reasonable.
Ms. Lee said in , the first instance, possibly a court in.. the
second.
Councilmember Renzel asked to what .extent , user supported"
applied. She asked if it meant there ;:was some contribution to
support or 1 00 percent.
Ms. Lee defined it as no City subsidy —the same approach the City
took with other measures before it in which the term was used. It
meant no City subsidy.
Council*eoper. Renzel asked in the event either: the *reasonable or
the *no City subsidy* aspect was unable- to be met, what the
process Noul d be for removing such a requirement from the` books
should it pass.
Ms. Lee said it would take .another.- vote of the peo pl_ e .
Councilmember Renzel asked if once a Council determined that a
method or something was unreasonable, whether it could be undone
by a future Council
Ms. Lee repl led yes.
Mill le Davis said Rochelle Fortier, 3148 Morris Drive, was present
the night before but had to go to, the airport that evening . She
read Ms . Fortier' s statement into the record: She represented the
Bayl ands Conservations Committee. She urged that Council p1 ace
the Yacht Harbor initiative on the ballot. The dredging of the
Yacht Harbor was controversial for many years principally because
of the problem of dredge spoil disposal . Five years ago, the
voters rejected a similar measure to amend the Comprehensive Pl an
to maintain the harbor and concurred with the City Council' s deci-
sion to permit one last dredging.. In fairness to the electorate,
an el ection should be held. The City spent many thousands of dol-
lars to identify environmentally sound means of disposal of
dredged mud. A $10,000 add-on to the WRE flood basin mathematical
model was done to see if rel ocating the flood basin tide gates
woul d hel p scour the harbor. The answer was no. A quarter of a
mill ion doll ars was spent on the Bayl ands Master Pl an required by
San Francisco. Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
for the purpose of identifying long-term mud disposal sites. The
results of that study were so horrendous the P1 arming Commission
urged the City Council to permit no further dredging unless the
spoils were removed from the Bayl ands area, The City Council , in
the meantime, 1 atched onto the idea of using the mud for dump
cover and yet another contract was made with Cooper, Clark &
Assoc fates to explore that pl an. When later costed oute the
refuse utility and ul timately the rate payers would have paid more
than $11 per yard for dump cover. The City subsequently con-
tracted for, and had del ivered, ample cover material for the
approved dump pl an at l ess than $6 per yard. If what we read in
the paper is correct, the principal proponents of the initiative
John Walker and Dick Trainer, said it was not their probi em to get
rid of the mud. They would go along with anything the City Coun-
cil bel ieved was reasonable. Since the City Council had negative
resul is from thousands of doll ars worth of studies, it appeared to
be premature to adopt the initiative without some identified
viable plan for disposing of the dredged mud. For that reason as
well the issue should go to the voters. Finally, if the voters
were asked to vote on this issue, she, urged the City Council en-
sure the public was not asked to "buy a pig in a poke," but that
ample information be available in time for the ballot arguments to
assist the public in making an informed decision. The three key
i ssiles were: 1) Whether the harbor was viable on a user -
supported basis. The Palo Alto Harbor Association should make
full public disclosure of its revenues and expenditures for the
past four years. The City and/or County should provide informa-
tion on how much was spent for administration, security, and util-
ities for the harbor as well as any other costs such as the
$125,000 spent by the City to prepare Yacht Harbor Point 2) What
did the proponents of the initiative and the City Council believe
were reasonable means of maintaining the harbor and, 3) The
catch-all clause at the end of the initiative subordinated all
other policies of the Comprehensive Pl an and Bayl ands Master Pl an
to the goal of the initiative.- The voting public needed to know
how far- reaching the effects of the cl ause were. In summary, the
Bayl ands Conservation Committee urged that Council put the initia-
tive on the ballot and request staff, the County, and the Palo
Alto Harbor Association to crake available prior to the submittal
of ballot arguments the information just outl ined
Mayor Levy thanked Millie Davis and pointed out that she had also
submitted a card and asked if she wished to add to those comments
on her own behalf.
1
1
Ms. Davis replied no.
Phil LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, brought along a sample of the
Palo Alto Yacht Harbor mud and asked that the Council not forget
to smell it as it went by. He dredged up themud the previous day
so it was not quite fresh, and he believed Council might be intern
ested in seeing what the material looked like, When asked by a
Times reporter in a recent interview what he was going to do with
the dredged mud, the president of the Palo Alto Harbor Association
(PAHA) replied,, "1 don't see the need to do anything with the
dirt. It depends on what the City wants to do with it." Another
leading spokesman uttered words to the ;effect, mRi ght, let's get.
the vote and then let the City figure' it out," He reluctantly
urged the Council to place the issue on the ballot. Neither of
the people he mentioned acknowledged the fact that the City strove
unsuccessfully for at least 20 years to find a solution to the
spoil disposal problem. In other words, nothing changed. The
issue was mud disposal and, if the initiative passed, the repon-
sibil ty would be dumped in the Council's lap to take "all reason-
able actions" to keep the Harbor open. .Those who supported the
initiative should be prepared to describe just what reasonable
actions they might have in mind. Over the years, the Yacht Club
and PAHA proposed or endorsed many ideas that they considered
reasonable. He asked whether Council believed it was reasonable
to divert San Franci squi to Creek and the Flood Basin through the
Yacht Harbor even though engineering studies showed those actions
would have no effect. Did Council believe it was reasonable for
yachtsmen to complain to the State Lands Commission that the City
of Palo Alto destroyed a navigable waterway. The Commission
rejected that argument and decided the primary purpose of the com-
plaint was to overturn the City's decision to terminate dredging
of the harbor. Did Council believe it reasonable for PAHA to
dredge only one of the two public launch ramps when it was the
condition of the BCDC permit that the entire ramp area should be
dredged first. Did Council believe it reasonable to dike off the
harbor from the bay, fill it with sewage plant effluent and pro-
vide a boat lock for recreational sailing at a cost to the public
in excess of one and a half million dollars. All of those and
more would be questions the Council would be called upon to face
repeatedly in public forums. He did not address the questions_ of
fiscal responsibility of PAHA except to note that: their financial
position was admittedly poor. Their income was yet to be shown
adequate to cover all of the costs of maintaining the harbor and
its facilities and their dredge was old and subject to breakdown.
What would the City's liability be in the event the initiatitae
passed and PAHA and the Yacht Club were unable to fulfill their
commitment. Lastly, initiative or, not, the City could not be put
into the position of breaking any existing laws or regulations
governing operation of the Harbor. For example, the Harbor Point,
11 -acre site presently used for spoil disposal would not be avail-
able after March 1, 1986 under the terms of the BCDC permit. So,
they returned to thebasic question. Where did they plan to dump
the dredged spoil. The public _ was entitled to that information if
the caelpaign was to be based on a rational examination of the
facts. To him_ the facts were clear --it was virtually an engineer-
ing and economic impossibility to _keep up with the siltation rate
in the South Bay. The Palo Alto Yacht Harbor was simply located
in the wrong location. For example, the $300,000 Al vi so Marina
the County built in 1968, after spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars on dredging, it finally gave up and decided to let it
return to salt marsh. He believed the advlce of Larry Norris,
Santa Clara County Director of Parks and Recreation to ` the Al vi so
yachters, was equally applicable to Palo Alto, namely, °If I were
them,- I'd get my boat out of there as soon as possible. It's not
realistic to think that the marina can survive.
_5 9,4 4
6/18/85
MOT IOR: Counci l meeker Woolley mover ; seconded by Klein, to
direct the City Attorney and City Clerk to include in the proposed
ordinance in the resolution to be brought to the Council on July
1, 1985, calling a special election to be consolidated with the
General Municipal Election to be held in Palo Alto on Tuesday,
November 5, 1985, and submitting said ordinance to the elector-
ate.
Councilmember Klein seconded the motion because he believed it was
the proper course of action for the Council since they only had
two choices. He personally believed the proposed ordinance was
unwise public policy, intended to vote against i twhen it was on
the ballot, and would campaign against it. As a member of the
City Council, he had no choice but to either adopt the ordinance
or put it on the ballot. Since he believed it was unwise public
policy, he was not about to vote to adopt the ordinance. Since
the number of registered voters signing the initiative petition
was sufficient to put the matter on the ballot again, he believed
Council should have the electorate decide what it wanted to do.
Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Klein.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
Councilmember Renzel- said in the interest of having the voters
have complete information and since it seemed to be difficult for
private citizens to get this i nformati on, she offered the follow-
ing motion:
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, that
staff be directed to report to the City Council exactly who was
paying the utilities in the Harbor, how ouch the County spends on
whatever information they can get from the County or best esti-
mater of staff of what having a Harbor Master or security people
to watch the Harbor and what kinds of capital costs might be
associated with maintaining the Harbor in a safe condition, and
finally to attempt to get through the County, financial informa-
tion from the Palo Alto Harbor Association with respect to their
revenues and expenditures.
Councilmember Renzel believed that was important information. for
the voters to have before them to understand exactly whether "user-
supportee was a reasonable possibility.
MOTION RESTATED: TO request staff to develop and provide Coun-
cil with the costs of Harbor operation, capital and maintenance
costs, and financial information from the Palo Alto Harbor Associ-
ation about their revenues and expenditures.
City: Manager Bill Zaner wanted to clarify the assignment. He
believed he heard Councilmember Renzel say obtain fromtheCounty
all that information, and he heard in the restatement, that staff
was to develop that data, which were ` two different assignments.
He asked fcr clarification.
Councilmember Renzel said her intent was;\ that staff try. and get
the information from the County. She dried to get it from the
County and believed staff might be . more successful if Council
requested it. She was sure the utility information was in-house
and the County : had the right to request the Palo .Alto Harbor Asso-
ciation financial data. She was sure by requesting it, they could
get it through the County. The capital Costs and the Harbor
Master security -type costs might have to be estimated by costs if
detailed information could not be obtained from the County.
5 9 4 5
6/18/85
Mr. Zaner was concerned with the latter. Ue +gas not sure what_was
meant by the estimation of capital costs, to keep the Harbor in
safe condi ti on. He did not want to put out information . that he
would then be challenged on because staff did or did not include
what safe condition meant. He did not know what it meant to keep
the Harbor in a safe condition.
Councilmember Renzel said as far as she knew, the berthing areas
were built and nothing much was done to maintain them since. She
did not know what condition they were in now and whether they
would meet the City's standards. She guessed she really wanted to
know whether they met the standards of the City for a public
facility; if not, some estimate of what it might take to bring
them up to standard.
Mr. Zaner said that could be done, but he wanted Council to under-
stand that meant he would send someone out to inspect. It might
mean hiring someone --a marine inspector --to go out and look at
those slips and the piers to give that kind of an estimate. He
did not know if that type of expertise was on the staff.
Vice Mayor Cobb said Mr. Lapiviere made reference to certain BCDC
restrictions on which spoils could be dumped, where one could not,
or the extent to which one could, and he wanted to be informed,
and wondered whether it could be included as part of the assign-
ment, as to what BCDC restrictions there were that might apply to
the measure before the Council.
Mr. Zaner said they could be included in the report. The BCDC
permit would prohibit the City from depositing spoils on Yacht
Harbor point beyond the final dredging. That was the last time it
could be done by the City unless the permit was amended.
Councilmember Woolley asked how staff would determine the utili-
ties for the boating section of the Harbor.
Mr. Zaner said the utilities were metered and i t could be deter-
mined.
Councilmember Renzel said obviously that was not relevant if they
were paid for by the Palo Al to Harbor Association.
MOTION AMENDED TO INCLUDE RESTRICTIONS OF BCDC PERMIT
Mayor Levy believed the information was important to the voters,
and it was up to the City to develop that information and supply
it as part of the election.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent.
Mayor Levy asked City Clerk Ann Tanner to comment on the argument
procedures and how Council would go about there so everyone was
aware of the next steps in the process.
Ms. Tanner said on July 1 , 1985, Council would. have the resolution
before them formally calling the election. At that time, Council
would also consider the argument procedure aid Council would have
an opportunity to decide for each measure whether they wished to,
as a body, author an argument in favor of a or opposed to each
measure. She could provide the priorities how if Council desired.
They were different for each measure, dependent upon whether the
measure was a successful initiative or placed on„the ballot at, the
request of the Council.
Mayor Levy clarified that July 1, 1985 was when Council would dis-
cuss and . decide on the argument procedures.
Ms. Tanner.; said presently it was sct!ediul ed for July 1, ` 1985.
Mayor Levy asked about the final date for Council' to act on argu-
ments. �,'
Ms. Tanner said the final date for those decisions to be madc
would be July 8. They must have everything in place by July 15
when nominations opened. To stay on schedule with anl argument
procedure and a rebuttal argument procedure, and meet the printing -
deadlines, authorship of arguments must be in place by the eighth
at the latest,
ITEM #6. REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE CITY REVIEW OF
COUNTY PROJECTS ( LA 1-5T
Councilmember Fletcher said recently a project was approved by the
County Planning Commission after it was referred to the City of
Palo Alto for review and comment. It was an office building on
Stanford land which wa.s in the County, and to her surprise the
recommendations from their Planning Commission did not include the
bicycle parking segment of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which
requirements were always applied to office buildings in their
City. There was no parking whatsoever for bicycles mentioned in
the projects. She pointed out there were more than 11,000 jobs on
the Stanford campus and that letters from some of the downtown
properties stated that much of the traffic that impacted downtown
went to Stanford University, and Stanford had announced a
$250,000,000 building program. In order to help cut down on the
automobile traffic, she was concerned that secure bicycle parking
be required just as it was of the buildings in Palo Alto.
Stanford presently lost 400-500 bicycles to theft every year
because they did not have adequate parking, and that was the big-
gest deterrent to riding bicycles.
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Menzel, to
recommend to Santa Clara County that standards at least equivalent
to those requirements in the Palo Alto Municipal Code also be
applied as conditions of approval,
Councilmember Woolley asked staff to review the bicycle parking
standards for office developments in the City.
Director of Planning'and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
it was essentially 10 percent of automobile parking along with
what were called Class I requirements, which were secured spaces.
He clarified the motion was to propose "standards" and he assumed
those were bicycle parking standards.
Councilmember Fletcher said she had '°bicycle parking standardsN in
her notes, but i t was not limited to that because she could not
see any requirements in the Palo Alto Code which should not also
be applied to Stanford projects. If Mr, Schreiber caul d think of
any he wanted exempted, she might consider adding it in the
motion.
Councilmember Woolley understood the number of spaces that were
required, but asked about the type of bicycle rack that was
required.
Mr. Schreiber said the City had requirements for secure bicycle
spaces Which were either in the locker -type facilities or some
other type of secure storage area. Most of the facilities on
Stanford campus were not secure bicycle spaces, they were the more
traditional onal rack. In -the past, Stanford staff indicated they had
investigated and would ,.see a substantial problem i n trying to
shift -over to secure -, spaces because of the spate needed and the
impact of the trerendous number of lockers. -Me expected, _there
fore, that Stanford staff would not be receptive to those types of
conditions -that were discussed with the County.:
Council member: Kl ei_n was concerned_ about the -Words *at, -least" i n
th', aroti �r►.. €1e supported the. ,idea that Couocl l recommend star
dards equivalent ent to these -in -the Municipal Code to Stanford pr'oj
ects, laut At —did -not seem to: hitv,the,t should be more'_harsh do
Stanford than -they woul d. be .oh applicants in their own casaauni ty.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, to
delete the words "gat least."
Councilmember Fletcher said the reason for the "at least" was
because in the requirements as recommended by the staff and the
Planning Commission to the County, there were many requirements
which specifically dealt with the traffic impacts that particular
and future projects would generate, which were way above: what was
written in the Municipal Code. She had no problem as long as they
conformed with the Municipal Code but, if they limited it to only
the Municipal Code requirements, it was going to limit staff in
the types of mitigations they might request.
Mr. Schreiber said staff would recommend to the Planning Commis-
sion or directly to the County, if appropriate, the type of con-
ditions it believe: were appropriate. He did not believe staff
would feel like they were limited to only ordinance -related items
because of that type of motion.
AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Witherspoon absent.
Councilmember Sutorius asked if the motion was a Council affirma-
tion regarding a procedure where the option already existed that,
in fact, applications for some buildings went only to staff, some
went to staff and the Planning Commission and, on occasion, they
went to the Council. The option always existed and the motion
confirmed that, rather than an option, it would be stated whenever
a project came through, that Palo Alto recommended to the County
that they apply the bicycles standards of Palo Alto to the partic-
ular project, and in doing so, the County received the project and
may or may or not incorporate, and Stanford may or may not want to
apply the particular standard. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Schreiber believed it was correct except for the limitation of
the motion to bicycle standards. The way the motion was worded at
preserut it applied to essentially all City development standards,
which encompassed many different things, primarily in the zoning
ordinance.
Councilmember Sutorius asked what that suggested in termsof any
particular additional staff analyses, staff preparation, and addi-
tional review steps that might be associated with passing the
motion when it did not have the word "bicycle" in it.
Mr. Schreiber responded that not including "bicycle" substantially
increased the amount of staff work that would apply. Essentially
Stanford plans would have to be run through the type of plan check
that City projects received prior to review by the ARB. That was
not a building code plan check, but a zoning ordinance plan check,
which reviewed such things as compact spaced, width of spaces,
aisle widths, parking areas, landscaping setbacks, etc.
Councilmember Sutorius believed that suggested there was more to
the motion than perhaps was intended by the maker. He would not
be comfortable voting .for the :otion :in its present form without a
more clear understanding of what Council was :subjecting staff to
from a work load standpoint, The easiest way to get at that ques-
tion was to propose an amendment to the motion that inserted the
word "bicycle" so that itwas clear if Council passed the motion,
they were talking about bicycles.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutori as moved, seconded by Woolley,
to add the words 'bicycle parking'" before 'standards."
Councilmember Fletcher said that was exactly what she had her
light on for before the motion was made, to insert the word
*bicycle* before "standards," and she . would be pleased to incor-
porate that into the motion.
Counc i i meaner Klein was sorry to see the motion limited because he
believed it had .become innocuous and he liked the broader idea.
He respectfully disagreed with Mr. Schreiber's interpretation of
the metion as originally made. It was not intended, as far as he
heard it, to have the broad meaning suggested by staff. It was
probably too fate to really get into that night, but he was con-
cerned what standards staff was using to evaluate Stanford proj-
ects, it seemed to him the appropriate standard in evaluating
Stanford projects was the City's own rules and regulations. That
did not mean they got into a serious plan check on it, because it
was not their responsibility, but they needed some neutral, fair
criteria they applied to Stanford projects otherwise they would
have a legitimate criticism and were just engaging in ad hoc crit-
icism of whatever Stanford tried to do. He would appreciate Mr.
Schreiber's response.
Mr. Schreiber said City staff evaluated Stanford projects for con-
sistency with overall planning policies and for mitigation of
identified adverse impacts. Traffic and parking were a prime con-
cern with many projects, but they had a basic assumption that the
plans were processed consistent with Santa Clara County regula-
tions and that the County was an appropriate agency to take care
of many of the details of plan check that would vary, such as com-
pact car spaces, number of spaces, width, aisle width, back-up
spaces, etc. many of those things that varied to some degree from
code to code.
Councilmember Klein had no problem with that, but if the project
called for one parking space for every 500 square feet, whereas
they generally talked about one for every 250, he hoped staff
pointed out the deficiency as compared with their standards and
made the point clear to the County that parking would be inade-
quate based on his hypothetical facts. He asked if that would
happen.
Mr. Schreiber said staff would look at that type of situation and
call it to the County's attention. However, with many Stanford
buildings, they were of such a specialized nature --there was lab-
oratory space, large computer areas, etc. that oftentimes one
space per 500 square feet might make eminent sense.
Councilraember Klein was not trying to get into the specifics, but
rather that they needed to proceed from some set of principles
when making an evaluation, and :he was concerned as to what that
set of principles was.
Mr. Schreiber said the basic principles; were the standards adopted
by the City, but again they looked primarily for areas where there
would be some type of significant adverse environmental impact,
especially in the traffic and parking area, or some divergence
from either City or County land use policies for ehe area. There
was a much more minute form of checking standards that occurred
with a City project. in many of those items, staff would not
routinely check the average Stanford project. A new building in a
critical location, the Willow Road corridor, etc would receive a
more in-depth review than many of the buildings seen on campus.
Coons i 1 aaember Woolley said if she understood staff correctly, the
motion required secured spaces which would either be the lockers
or the special kind of rack that got the lock up underneath and
was hidden. She assumed that would be another variety ,that would
be acceptable. She had problems with that as a bicycle user. Her
experience was that most people preferred - the simpler rack not the
complicated rack and, if they used the complicated rack, they just
used the chain and chained it to some part of the rack rather than
going through the process they were supposed to go through using
their lock and getting it up underneath the metal box that was
supposed to keep it in so that it was safe from vandalism.
Therefore, she had absolutely no problem with requiring a certain
number of bicycle racks, but to require that they be the secured
type she disagreed with, and, she would :vote against the motion
Councilmember Renzel said it was simply a staff review of projects
not within the City« The Council did not have power to mandate
anything to the County, they only suggested in their comments what
they would like to see. She did not believe that in any way was
onerous to Stanford or the County because it was optional whether
the County took the recommendation. She hoped Council would not
get into a debate on secured versus unsecured parking. Basically
what they had was an attempt to try and ensure that, when Council
made its recommendations to the County with respect to Stanford
projects, it used the kinds of standards they had in Palo Alto.
She believed it was reasonable.
Councilmember Fletcher addressed Councilmember Woolley's comments,
and said when Council adopted the parking ordinance, she brought
in quite a heavy chain to show Council the deficiency of an ordi-
nary rack, and she found a chain that was wrapped around a bus
stop on El Camino and the bicycle was not there any more, just the
chain and the lock. The lock could also be cut. The point was
that Stanford had lots of racks and 400-500 bicycles were stolen
out of those racks every academic year. There was n.o stronger
deterrent to riding a bicycle than not having a secure place to
put it. Palo Alto was impacted by the traffic that went to
Stanford, it was Palo Alto's problem, and she believed Council
should make sure they provided the facilities which made it possi-
ble for people to use bicycles. She personally knew of a doctor
who would not ride to the hospital because he had no indoor place
to put his bicycle, and he knew there were racks around.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Woolley voting "no," Bechtel,
Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #7. REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER RENZEL REGARDING DATE FOR CALL
FOR ELECT1 N E ,
Councilmember Renzel said staff announced the call for election
would take place on July 1. There had to be some calendaring of
the election done way back in March. As it turned out, the full
Council would not be present on July 1, and Council heard that
evening there was time to properly call the election and do all
the ballot arguments and rebuttals, etc., i f the call of the elec-
tion was on July 8. Staff would be more comfortable if the Coun-
cil were to officially decide that so that everyone was on notice
that it was changed from the 1st to the 8th, and probably to some
extent staff would be a little relieved too, because it gave them
a little more time to draft the ballot ordinance language.
NOTION: Councflmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
call for the Election on July 8, 1985 instead of July 1, 1985.
Councilmember Sutorius asked whether this change would facilitate,
hamper, or be a push as far as the outcome on work load and
requirements.
City Attorney Diane Lee said from her perspective, since she was
looking forward to two .more nights next week, at that, point she
believed it would facilitate.
City Clerk ,Ann Tanner agreed.
NOTION. PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent.
MISCELLANEOUS MEETING DATES
Mayor Levy reminded the Council that there was a City School
Liaison Committeemeetingthe next evening, and -since most of them
wouldbe free, he and Vice Mayor Cobb cordially invited them to
attend.
Mayor Levy asked if there was , any other bus=iness to
Council meeting,
Councilmember Sutor;us asked whether a Council meeting was antici-
pated for July 29, the fifth Monday in July.
Mr. Zaner said staff was not anticipating a meeting that evening.
Mayor Levy said Council had an extremely heavy agenda. next week,
which,lncluded budget items and some initiative items. There was
no way they could schedule around that giver the calendar. He
believed staff did a conscientious job of scheduling the Council
meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED: