Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-01-23 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCI L MINUTES' :CITY OF Mt(0 ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, January 23, 1984 1T M diflalft Oral Communications Minutes of Vctober 17, 19133 Consent Calendar Referra-1 Action Item #1, Sidewalk Replacement Project !tc #2, Baylands Bicycle Trail to East Palo Alto Item #3, rultsurel Center ctr,jrt.ure1 and Basement Flooding Repairs Item #4, Removal of PCB Filled Transformers Item ;#5, Employee Assistance Program' Item #b, Amendment to Smoking Ordinance Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #7, -Plainning Commission Recommendation on Land Use, Parking, and Circulation for the California Avenue Study Recess ',Item #b, Amendments to the Municipal Code Regarding Abolition of the Office of City Controller and Creation of the Office of Finance Item #7, Continues P A G E 4 1 3 0 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 4 .1 3- 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 2 4.1 3 2 4 1 3 2 4 1 3 2 4 1 3 e 4 1 3 2 4 1 3 2 4 1 4 7 4 1 5 °3 4 1 5 5 Iteus #9, Request of Mayor Klein and Counci.lmember 4 1 6 4 Cot'b for Report. from Trust for Community .Skating Item #10, Bequest of Counci lmember Bechtel re Resolution Commending California Elected Women's Association: for Education and Research Item 111, Request of Councilmenber Woolley for a Resolution re Neighbors ::Abr oad. Official Visit to Palo, Leyte, Phl l i pp i nes in February, 1984 item #12, Request of Coufci lme*ber: Fletcher re Lamp Post Installations Item #i3, Request. Of Vt e-,Mayar.;Levy re Metropoli- tan' -Transport4tion Commission/Dumbarton bridge. Item #14, Request of Coun i IMember Bechtel re Auditor. Pasitioft saes ription Adjournment 4 1 6 8 4 1 6 9 4 1 6 9 4 1 '7 2 4 1 2 9 1/23/84 Regular Meeting Monday, January 23, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:33 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 1:31 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Renzel , Sutorius, Witherspoon (arrived at 8:40 p.m.), Woolley UHAL COMMUNICATIONS 1, George Millar, 980 Matadero Road, which was adjacent to Stanford Industrial Park, referred to a memo he wrote, which was on file in the City Clerk's office, concerning industrial and constriction noise levels in the Stanford Industrial Park. He first appeared before the Council in 1978 to discuss the problem of industrial noise in Berron Park, which meeting was fruitful and resulted in a City study and the change in sound level from Varian. The people on Chimalus Drive were now hap- pier than before, but the Chimalus Drive effort and the work at Varian did not solve the problems for those living at the top of the hill. The study proved that the City, working with ---business, could -have a positive effect on the noise issue. He was concerned about the construction noise. _ -Last week he was driven out of his house by it because it was impossible to work in the house.' Two weeks ago the: noise began at approxi- mately 8:UU a.m. on Saturday morning and continued until 6:00 p.m. Saturday night, and the eame was true on Sunday. He was a ga i n driven out of his house the following Saturday. His w ife commented' it was lucky their daughter was getting married in March rather than that day because she could not imagine having a wedding reception in the backyard for 15 to 100.,. people with the noise going on next door. They could not have a conversation with each other --the noise was that loud --and somehow it was legal. If that was true, something was wrong w ith the ordinance.e lie was also Concerned about the noise generally created by the factories in the Industrial Park. There were factories that had -continually exceeded the decibel levels by a considerable amount allowed under the ordinance f;rr years. Nothing was done,. and although' there were probably reasons,- he requested the problem be addressed again. Possib- ly there could be another study, He hated -studies, but wanted to see action taken. -At that moment there was a serf ou: im- pact ion the values of the properties on the Roble Ridge! Matadero area because no one warted to live where they needed earplugs to sleep. Mayor Klein commented the council could not respond to Mr. Mi l lar's remarks at that time. The City Mai tiger would respond, and the Council Would -take Mr.. Mi l la r' s - remarks into coeSri dera- t i oN Z. Ur. Nancy Jewell Cross, 3il1 'Vine Street, Menlo Park, spoke for the Committee for Safe and Sensible San Franclsquito Creek Rerouting. She said the Council had the opportunity to indi- cate its preferences for new "rail starts and extensions, its concern with the Southern -Pacific Caltraiin, and what might be done to keep i 1 .competitive. In the ' past three years, ;patron- age declined--t-thre-fourths of what it was. She believed the Council could be_influential in the disposition of funds for a Bey Area -program if it expressed the desire. The Coun ci l 1 might be reluctant to move on the item because _ it was a regional matter, but regional agencies were made up of local people interested in pursuing the best for their locales. The area was relatively -remote from Berkeley, the site of Metro- politan Transportation Commission (MTC) decision making, and they were no less entitled to a a co-ordinated transport sys- teni .in the area as well as up north around the Bay Bridge. Much congestion trouble in the north was attributable to the fact that there was no rail transit coordinating BART and Cal - train in the South Bay. That could be done at a modest ex- pense. The MTC expected to go to Washington in the spring with a package for the Bay Area, and she wanted the package to include an electric train or trolley to connect BART and Union City with Menlo Park and Palo Alto. She spoke with about 1,3110 people individually on the subject of regional transpor- tation, mostly from the immediate raid- Peninsula area, and over ZUU were from Palo Alto alone, Tuiose people supported the idea, and she could not recall anyone opposed. She be- lieved it was appropriate for Palo Alto, as a city, to speak in favor of its residents. She spoke with seven people mostly around University Avenue during .the past weekend, and they were used to the debates about whether it would be Hamilton or University Avenue, where the barriers would be, etc. That did not change the total traffic burden in Palo Alto, and the trolley would. It would provide a means of getting to Palo Alto from long distances without a car or truck, which was what was wanted. She requested that Palo Alto send a letter to the MTC, expressing its interest in having that come about. She showed transparencies showing alternatives to the South Bay Bridge, also called the "New Dumbarton Bridge." There could be four lanes of cars and trucks, two of trolley, with a bike and pedestrian path next to it. The trolley could stop in the riddle of the bridge to let people off with bicycles, so they could enjoy the bridge from the surface, not under the Bay. They could bike down to the marshlands on both sides. line bikers and pedestrians were protected from the car and truck fumes by the placement. The alternative suggested by Caltrain was a six -lane freeway with a bike path. She did not know who would want to ride on a bike path there, but the an- swer to Caltrain's troubles was to get Caltrain coordinated with BART and with Muni Metro in San Francisco.- A trolley was needed here, , and there were going to be trolleys -in San Francisco. MINUTES UF' UCTUbER 17, 1983 Mayor Klein had the following correction: 112.11 .1111, line 5, after the word "would," insert "not." MUTIUII:` lice Mayor Levy morel, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the minutes of October 17, 1983, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Withersp6On absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: CoUnci lmember Renzel :'marred, seconded by Levy, to prove Consent Calendar 'test 11 through 6. Referral None Action ITEM #1 SIUtWALK KEPLACE!#EI TJKUJEcT . (cMR, 13O 4 )_ Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor .to execute a contract with M.C.E. C tfon in the amount of $136,631. 4. Authorize staff to execute change orders up to $15,000. AWAKU OIF CONTRACT CORPORATiO orpara- 4 1 3 1.. 1/23/84 ITEM #') bAYLANUS BICYCLE TRAIL TO EAST PALO ALTO (C iR:1U4:4 ) Staff recommends that Council approve the Park Improvement Ordi- nance for construction of a bicycle trail in the Baylands. ORUINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE rUlTiirrrffrrirtTrrITTMCCIT ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FUR A PORTION OF THE BAYLANDS BICYCLE TRAIL OVER A PORTION OF BYXBEE PARK, THE CITY -OWNED BAYLANDS AND THE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE° I TLM #3 CULTURAL CENTER STRUCTURAL AND BASEMENT FLOODING Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. with Sigrid Lorenzen Rupp/Architects in the amount of $24,300 for archi- tectural and engineering services at the Cultural Center. Z. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement for additional services of up to $10,000. AGREEMENT - PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES Sigrid Lorenzen Rupp ITEM #4_, REMOVAL OF PCB FILLED TRANSFORMERS (CMR:103:4) Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with .Erickson Air Crane Company in the amount of $14,500. AWARD OF CONTRACT Erickson Crane Company ITEM #b, EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (CMk : x34:4) Staff recommends that Coun 1I authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Occupational Health Services for the Employee Assistance Program. AGREEMENT - EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Occupational Fealth Services ITEM #b, AMENDMENT TO SMOKING ORDINANCE (2nd reading) ORUINANCE 3503 entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF Tirrari—OrTEL1) ALTO AMENDING SECTION 9.14.090 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING SMOKING IN THE OFFICE WORKPLACE TO ALLOW THE USE OF THE INTERNATIONAL 'NO SMUK I lib' SYMBOL OR SIGN IN LIEU OF A WORDED E0 SMOKING SIGN ANU TO PROVIDE FOR SEPARATE SMOKING AND NO SMOKING LOUNGES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES° (1st Reading 1/9/84, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent, AGENDA CHANGES, AUDITIONS AND DELETIONS ri���..rrne+uw�rryi.�s+.r.r.rrsessw - Vice Mayor Levy added Item :#13 re MTC/Uumbarton Bridge. Counci lmember Bechtel added Item #14, re minor change to the draft proposal of the description of the City Auditor position, ITEM #7 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON LAND USE PARKINGI UL U OR Mayor Kiein deferred t.o Counci lnembe.r :Sutorius who served on the California- Avenue Study Sounding..Iioard at' a Planning Commis- sioner. 4 I 3 't 1/23/84 Councilmember Sutorius said the Council initiated the subject in February of 198, and approved the work plan and a proposal to meet the public input objectives. A Core Committee was formed and a Sounding Board. process was' implemented which ran somewhat paral- lel to a second ley of the study and input process which affected the California Avenue Assessment District, evaluation of the park- ing assessment process, and study for possible changes to the for- mula processes. The Council's objectives were to maximize public participation and.input, assure Planning Commission and Architec- tural Review Board (ARB) representation during the Sounding Board process to monitor and assure that public participation was secured, and relieve staff from housekeeping and monitoring in order for them to focus on their professional responsibilities. Six public meetings were held during a six month period of time, and attendance varied at each meeting. Business tenants, property owners, members of the public and nearby neighbors attended those meetings. Commissioner Cu l l en and the various representatives of the ARB believed there was ample opportunity for public input, and good input was received as reflected in the considerations. Con- cerns and criticisms were raised as to whether all points of view found their way into the conclusions and recommendations from staff and into the subsequent conclusions of the Manning Commis- sion; but he believed, and Commissioner Cullen confirmed, that the input process served to bring out recommendations, suggestions, and concerns that were fed into the process. Planning Commis -lion Vice Chairman John Northway said the Planning Commission unanimously sensed the recommendations were good ones. The Planning commission was concerned about the way the City would present the package to the community --the recommendations were a series of zone changes and modifications to existing zoning. Some were concerned that in the future, it might appear confusing and that perhaps a better format was necessary, whether it be a spe- cific plan or another way to communicating the modifications to the zoning ordinance and the goa-is and objectives of the study to the general public and future generations. The goals and objec- tives of the study were to continue California Avenue as a neigh- borhood serving commercial area, and to keep its scale with great sensitivity to the surrounding residential areas. The only dis- agreement on the Commission was the best method to translate the information. The study was excellent and a lot of yood informa- tion and ideas were received. Recently, an RM-4 zone came up on Middlefield Road, and even though people in Palo Alto looked care- fully at everything done, somehow there was an RM-4 zone next to an R-1 zone .and an ltMe2 zone across the street, and there were no remaining records as to the thinking when that occurred. That was the concern of the Commission in transmitting the .study into ac- tion --it must be done clearly, and the goals and objectives of the study must_lxe well spoken to. The City document setting forth the objectives for the California Avenue area. -must -be clear in order for people in the future to know the goals and objectives of the Planning Commission end city Council in the Cali'f'ornia Avenue study. If, in the Planning Commission's best intentions, mistakes wereemade, at least people could go back and see it. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freelar:d introduced tip' economic consultants frorry Aynus McDonald & -Associates, Inc. The City s present moratorium on development on California Avenue would e:x pi re on- April 24, 1914, arid if the ordinance extending the mora- torium was to become ; e`fecti ve on that date, the first reading wau l d here to be on March 5, 19134,' and second reading on 'Ma rch 19. Planning Comic-iission action would be, requ#red on February 22 or 29, which was three weeks from that day.: Staff realized it would be tight and pressed 'rapidly to get the materials to the Council. If Council believed aspects of the study might need . more t tare, a con- sequence mi.ght be to consider extending the --period of the_morator- iurn, which was possible.- Staff requested that Council give corn-- ceptua l approval -Ao the proposals, but `'he clarified i t was not final action on any of the California Avenue recommendations. If the Council- directed staff to proceed-, ordinances and Comprehen- sive Plan arnendnrents. would be drafted, and noticed pdbl is hearings 4 1 3 3 1/23/84 held at the Planning Commission and City Council_ levels in order to make the recommendations the official policy of the City. Tonight's action was important in terms of overall direction, and he believed everyone needed to know there was yet another round of more detailed hearings to come. In order to extend a moratorium, an ordinance was required. The recommendations of the study clearly followed the objectives identified in the staff report. The policy objectives produced as a result of the study were to maintain the existing character and function of the business dis- trict; foster retail and personal service uses which served the residential population while minimizing the economic pressure to change that into a regional economic center; allow a rehabilita- tion of smaller buildings, but to prevent new buildings which were out of scale and character with existing buildings; provide all of the parking needs within the business area, i,e., no spillover onto the residential areas; avoid abrupt changes in scale and den- sity between commercial and residential neighborhoods; protect the residential areas from traffic; and minimize the declines in the level of service being expected on .the major road system if ac- tions were not taken. The Planning Commission recommendations were almost the same as the staff recommendations with a _couple of exceptions. Staff proposed that all _of the previously zoned CS properties outside of the California Parking Assessment District being zoned CN rather than the current CS, which would genera11 reduce the development potential in half for those properties -- from a floor area ratio of 2:1 to 1:1. Some areas within the business district would have land uses based on the community com- mercial zone but with the reduced floor area ratio _of 2:1, and staff recommended 2.5:1, and there would be a height limit :f 37 feet. Some areas would have further limitations on ground floor uses--retai l , personal service, eating .and drinking and financial services, but with d use permit only. Other uses ---primarily of- fice --would be limited to second i=looc s. He believed it was a good idea to include the pedestrian combining district to California Avenue business district which required new buildings to be designed in a way to enhance retail use of the buildings and provide some pedestrian amenities. Several areas were recommended for change in land use. The properties between Park Boulevard and the railroad tracks.were presently zoned CC and were approved for a residential development. There was a commercial component of that development which was contained in the commercial district, and that would be changed to a multiple family residential dis- trict to reflect the housing use on those parcels.. Another block of properties between Park boulevard and the railroad tracks was recommended for change from CC to the Cti by the Planning Commis- sion, and was another point of disagreenient. Staff recommended a residential. designation for those properties. There was a multi- ple family area on College Avenue, and the concern was that most of the existing buildings .were two-story in nature and wei=e in a transition to a purely single family area just to the north. The recommendation was that they either be rezoned from RM-4 to 111-3, or if they stayed RM-4, they have a new two-story height limit overlay. he referred to the .recent two-story overlay developed f or oe5 pp l i ca t i on t.o ..Middlefield Road,. Two .parcels were identified after the main staff recommendations were complete and far those tree Planning Commission wanted an additional rand separate study. Those parcels were just off the on -ramp on Oregon Expressway, where a Shell (asoithe station was recentlj'removed. In the most recent staffe report, there were other recommendations;, from -the Planning Commission -having to -do with land uses parking, circula- tion, retail enhancement, and the County parking lot on Page Mill Road. He suggested that for purposes of going .through .the recom- mendations, Counri l work from the most recent staff report. eIn addition to the recommendations summarized in CMR:135:4, de ted January 19, 1984, there was- an additional consensus recommendai:ion from the Planning Commission which was- not reproduced in the staff report. by _consensus , the Commission recommended, that air rights projects not be pursued over California Avenue.` parking lots, that the density transfer' concept not be pursued, and that staff 4 1 3 4 1/23/84 examine the potential to have a narking exception credit estab- lished for future residential projects on commercial property winch made past assessment payments. That process would allow new residential projects to have some parking provided by the assess- ment district provided that in the past there were commercial uses making payments to the district. That would be a separate matter that staff would want to return with additional recommendations. Regarding clean-up items in the staff report, if the process out- lined was satisfactory to the Counci I , formal action was not nec- essary.t Many of the recommendations would require grandfather clausessto be established in the new ordinances otherwise many nonconforming uses might be created. Along the El Camino frontage recommended for the CN zone, there were currently six uses that would be made nonconforming by the change, but might become uses in the category that was alright with a use permit. The 1978 zon- ing contained a provision which allowed properties that went from a permitted to a conditional category to continue as if_they al- ready had a use permit,, but that applied only to the 1978 zoning. Staff would want a std#i lar type .clause for those properties. The Lawrence Tire Service would have to be grandfathered in inasmuch as it was not a conditional use in the CM zone. The ground floor uses that were not retail, personal service, eating or drinking would need a grandfatner status or else they would be subject to termination at some point in the future. Some of the uses between Park Boulevard and the railroad tracks would be made nonconforming by either the staff or Commission recommendation for change and would also have to be taken care of. Staff did not intend to deliberately terminate uses as part of the study, but more towards having future land uses conform to established patterns. Staff recommended the grandfather clauses when the ordinances. were returned. He pointed out corrections to the Environmental Assess- ment. On pa}e 15 of the revised environmental assessment attached to CMri:135:4, the second from the last line of the first para- graph, refers to "77" units which should read "74" units. In the second paragraph, "77" units should read "75" units; in the third from the last line in that paragraph, the number "ti7,580" should De "87,921;" and on page 16, next to the last line of the first full paragraph, the number "77" should be "75." .Counci lmember Woolley said in Angus McDonald's working paper, sev- eral actions were evaluated in terms of whether they had an impact on the "vitality" of the California Avenue area. She asked if the word "vitality" included new development or whether it was limited to upgrading existing buildings. Anydse-ticijona 1 d deferred to Ms. Vandertack to discuss the sub j_'ect of vitality.`' Ms. Vandertack said the term "economic vitality" applied to exist- ing business and proposed new developments because if the econo- mics declined, it would affect the existing property owners as well as what hdppened on redeveloped properties. In terms of rents and property values, if an' area was -vital,. the property values were subject to upward pressures --rents were increased and there would be high demand for new space, and low vacancy rates. That meant a property which could not command high rents was a prime candidate tor redevelopment. Councilrnember Woolley asked if it was possible for the vitality not to be sufficient for new develCopment, but an existing property owner would find it worthwhile -lo upgrade the property. . Ms.-Vandertack said that possibility existed. Councilmember Woolley said sometimes the negative impact did not necessarily\'lean that existing property would not be upgraded. Ms. Vandertack said no, but it was possible because if there was no potential for resale or redevelopment of the property because 4 1 3:5 1/23/84 of downward pressure on land values, it was possible the existing property owner would. not want to spend money to 'upgrade because it could not be recouped if he wanted to sell in the future. Mr. McDonald emphasized that the same economic forces would work for the existing landowner who desired to intensify or add use on the development of a currently undeveloped or underdeveloped par- cel so that everyone, existing and new, would be affected by any changes. Counci l€nenber Renzel asked, with respect to grandfathering versus having exception procedures, for an exolanation about how those two prccedures. differed in terms of permitting existing uses to remain, should Council agree conceptually to rezoning. She Asked how much flexibility there was within the grandfathering process to set limits on the use and structural changes that might take place later. Mr. Freeland said there were three separate sections of thezoning ordinance that applied to the question. Section 18.9U.085(b), Use Permits, spoke to a provision establisher) in 1978 that "no application for conditional use permit shall be necessary for uses existing on July 2U, 1978, and which prior to that date were law - fu 1 ,..,-conforming permitted uses and were rendered conditional by rezoning or change to this title." That applied to those uses that moved from a permitted to a conditional category, and staff would want such .a provision in any change. Section 18.94.070(b), under Nonconforming Uses, stated the conditions under which it was possible for professional and medical uses in residential dis- tricts to remain, and it basically said that if they were in existence prior to 1978, and the area was changed to a residential category, the uses may remain as nonconforming uses and were not subject to amortization. That section answered the most specific questions as to what could be done. The present rules specified that tree space could be replaced and moved around the property as long as Lhe nature of the use going on within the area was not changed. Council might want more limitations on that than simply the blanket ability to replace or reconfigure that space as deemed appropriate by the Council. The nonconforming use exception process was under Section 18.94.07U(c), and stated that uses made nonconforming in 1978 would be identified by the Director of Plan- ning, a notice would be sent to the affected property owners, and tney had a certain time in which to appear before the Planning Commission and the Council to ask for an exception from termina- tion. An exception, once granted, ran permanently, and could be conditioned. The difference between a blanket nonconforming use clause, such as the one that allowed medical' and professional uses in a residential district to continue, and an exception --process, -was that the blanket nonconforming use clause was a decision across the, hoard --that all uses may be maintained, and there was no selection as to which were beneficial or detrirnentale-they sim- ply gained the right to continue. Under the exception process, each parcel that applied for the exception was looked at indepen- dently --a checklist looked at the compatibility of the use with the surrounding area, and a decision was made on a case -by -case basis as to wheher the use should continue. One process was dis- cretionary, and the other was more of a 'blanket process. Councilmernber Fletcher asked if on page 3 of CMR:135:4, the bottom paragraph, fourth line from the bottom the word "destination.s° should be "designations." Mr. Freeland said yes. Vice Mayor Levy said there was a lot of'_discn:ssion about-. the value of a .specific p`( ►v an versus -the recoe�mendations, and some endorse- ment Cif the co,'icept by Commissioner Plor^thway and Counci )member Sotor us. He 8»eked for an explanation of the difference between the specific plan and the recommendations', and why it was a better way to go. .4 1 3 6 1/23/84 Mr. are.eldnd said d specific plan was a vehicle that allowed fine- ly tuned regulations to a particular area to be applied to that area. Staff suggested adjustments to some already existing dis- tricts which would be adequate, and he did not agree that a spe- cific plan was needed. If there was a desire for different regu- lations from one block to the next so specific that it was unnec- essary or unuseful to create four or five new zones to apply, a specific plan would allow the Council to treat different blocks differently for different reasons, in a way that would not normal- ly be accomplished through zoning districts which were meant to be more general in their application. He believed Commissioner Northway's overall point was that a specific plan would be a good vehicle for communicating the ideas, and he agreed that the ideas needed to be packaged and communicated. He hoped staff would be successful in doing that to his satisfaction in a page or two that might be suitable for the Comprehensive Plan, and which would serve to notify the world about why the policies were in effect for California Avenue. A specific plan could also lead into a detailed design plan, and if there was a desire to try and accom- plish plazas or other unique -features in the area, it could be a guide to doing so. The specific plan could be anything, and one of its beauties was that Council had a wide latitude as to the types of regulations and guidance, and it could speak in positive terms about what the City specifically wanted to accomplish in given blocks and areas where zoning spoke negatively about what could not be none. A specific plan was an excellent process, and perhaps one should have been started, but by the time the idea carne up, staff was already running late in the program. Staff could accomplish most of what was needed with the more general recommendations proposed. Panning Commissioner Northway said, speaking as an architect, and looking at the area, part of the lecture to the Commission last Wednesday was to try and show that within an urban area, ex- citing and interesting things .could happen if some positive des- criptions of what tie City wanted .to happen could be provided. Looking at Cambridge Avenue, the City wanted to modify the height of buildings as they interfaced with the residential area. On the other side of Cambridge which related more to the commercial, area, the height could perhaps be higher and the floor area ratio still held down, which would give the ability for the designers to work in outdoor spaces and'other in.teresting'areas that could happen when the entire volume described by a zoning ordinance was not filled up by the floor area ratio. It was difficult to modify a zone with one height limit on one side of the street and perhaps a friyner,height limit on the other side of the street. He believed that a:specific plan which said what the City ranted to see happen in each area gave a positive incentive for some interesting design possibilities. In an area c=urrently zoned CC, and containing non- conforrri ng uses which had gone on for years and wh ich_ were valid, it rmi gnt be a better way to describe what the City wanted to see happen on the particular area of -the plan rather than twisting. and turning an existing zoneto describe it. Mr. Freeland gave a good description of the potential of a specific plan. verSus .lust modi- fying existing zoning. Councilmember Sutorius believed both responses were appropriate. A specific plane for an area such as California Avenue might be considered as a mini -general plrl t but specific to- that area.. The area -had an identity, personality, history, and a future. its history and its future were unique --it was -not the same as down- town, Midtown or Charleston, and he believed .a specific plan Al- lowed the nature of the area to be -documented in terms Of what the „community warted to accomplish in the long-term, and to have all the f lexibi l ities illustrated and referred,.to by Mr. Freeland avid Commissioner dorthway. A specific plan could- provide.a lot of certainty about the flexibility, And 'could communicate for the private sector now it could participate in the development of an area, which was sometimes- lacking in the traditional zoning process-, and the br°oader general plan. Thinking about how 4 1 3 7 _1/2304 California Avenue or the downtown and other definable business areas in Palo Alto were covered in the Comprehensive Plan, he con- cluded it was a brief narrative report, as opposed to something that could be elaborated in a definitive form, but with enough flexibility that variation could be justified, Although it was not a mandatory feature of a specific plan, and it was something that could be approached without a specific plan, it could be facilitated by the use of modeling --that is modeling of a physical and statistical nature. He agreed with Mr. Freeland that the potential tor a specific plan was perceived too late in the game to implement without a great deal of Lost time, and since the process began in February of 1982, time was critical as were the expenses -associated with a long and drawn out process. He encour- aged the Council to think in terms of specific plan applications as it progressed with planning in the City of Palo Alto. Although the downtown was larger for the Council to get its feet -wet, California Avenue would have been ideal. Vice -Mayor Levy asked if the incentives developed for residential developments were reviewed in terry of economics and the parking so that they represented an incentive rather than an empty ele- ment. Mr. Freeland said no. He believed.less parking would be required of a structure with two floors of residential and one floor of commercial than one of the sane size with all commercial. He did not know how the parking related to a combination of two floors of commercial versus two of residential plus one of commercial. That could be reviewed between now and when the ordinance was re- turned. Vice Mayor Levy said he was not clear as to the parking recommen- dation. Mr. Freeland said that since it was clear by the study that the parking assessment district did not presently have the financial capability to provide expanded parking in numbers sufficient to overcome the projected deficits in the area, the parking burden needed to be put on the shoulders of the developers. Staff recom- mended that the standard for required -parking should be based on the Wilbur Smith numbers and that an ordinance, similar to the downtown ordinance, should be established for California Avenue to require ail =-Flew parking requirements based on the Wilbur Smith country to be' provided by the developer with an exception that would allow a credit for past payments into the district. The only question was the size of the exception, which staff wanted to review further before making as recommendation. He believed it would be similar to what was done downtown where the recommenda- tion was an exemption of one floor area ratio, but since they were talking about an entire €loor area ratio of 2:1, allowing the full one, which was an exemption of half the parking requirements, might be excessive. At the same time, i f enough of an exemption was not allowed, it would work heavily against anyone having retail on the ground floors. CUUNCILMEMtlER WITHERSPUUI! ARRIVED AT 8:40 p.m, Cbunci lmember Cobb :said if the ordinance was to be implemented by the time the moratorium expired, there was a heavy schedule ahead. Considering the, importance and Magnitude of the actions, it would be difficult to get it done. 'He asked if Council should consider extending the moratorium .to make the process mote workable. Mr. Freeland believed it was no great hardship to extend the Mora- torium, but left that decision to the Council. Councilmember Cobb asked if the -job could get done in the. --time .remaining .without tremendous strain or short circuiting -the process. Mr. Freeland said not without tremendous strain, but it cou_ld be done. 4 13 8 1/23/84 Councilmember Cobb said the items that would be made more specific as time progressed were the items to be grannfathered and how they were grandfathered _and specifically related to the issue of resi- dential use of the assessment district spaces, air rights over the parking lots, whether the smaller lots should be collapsed into fewer larger lots for various efficiencies, and the specifics of the credit referred to in Vice Mayor Levy's question. He asked if his list was complete. Mr. Freeland said he did not recall the issue of combining lots. The Planning Commission recommendation with regard to air rights and density transfers was that nothing more be dane, but that staff review a credit for residential uses in the district. Air rights and density transfers could be crossed off the list unless Council wanted them pursued. Councilmember Cobb asked what the 2:1 floor area ratio aersus the 2.5:1 meant from are architectural standpoint. Planning Commissioner Northway said the principle was if the cubic footage defined by the zoning ordinance --height and setbacks -- equalled the floor area ratio, the ultimate designs would basical- ly be boxes. If the floor area ratio was less than the cubic. footage, it allowed designers some leeway to leave areas open on the ground. floors, or make buildings in configurations not exactly rectangular or with flat tops. He believed if the floor area ratio was 2:1 with a 37 foot height limitation, it wculd mean the volume definee was not the same as the floor area that could. be. maxed out. If the height limit stayed at .50 feet and the floor area ratio ewas dropped to 2.5, it would give the same sort of design flexibility lf. the floor area ratio stayed at 3:1 and was 37 feet, the end result would be cubes. Mr. Freeland said that staff recommendation of a 2.5:1 floor area ratio plus the 37 foot height, plus the alley setback was a cube. That filled the volume referred to by Commissioner Northway, and was one of the reasons the Commission backed off to a 2:1, to create some flexibility between the floor area ratio and the building envelope. Councilmember Cobb said that with respect to the CN zone recom- mended for El Camino Real, the City had a good size CN south of California Avenue on El Camino, and he asked whether there was some limit to the amount of CN zone the general area could take before the zone could no longer fulfill its purpose. Mr. McDonald said a specific answer to that question was beyond the scope of the California Avenue study because the focus was on California Avenue only. Off the top of his head, given the per- mitted uses and the limitations on volume and area, he did not believe an uneconomic use was created. The City could have enough demand to fill that space and then some. Councilmember Cobb asked about the impact of that evening's deci- sions, particularly the points of difference with respect to the forthcoming assessment district formula. Mr. McDonald said the formula per se was not affected by the zon- ing decisions on California Avenue. The level of development and increased economic activity would be lower than would otherwise be the case so that the pressure on parking would also be lower. Mr. Freeland said the other side to the answer was the amount of money to be raised, which was a different question than the formu- la. The formula talked about a certain dollar amount to be raised and how the cost was spread among the different properties_, but the other question was how „much money was to be raised to provide additional parking. He bel''eved the extent of development oppor- tunity in the district would reflect itself in, the attitudes of a. 4 1 3 9 1/23/84 some of the property owners in terms of how much funding they might want to undertake. He believed there was an indirect rela- tionship to how much funding, but not the formula itself. Counc;lmember Witherspoon asked what was meant on page 2(e) of CMR:135:4 where it referred to establishing a ten year performance measure of no more than 100.000 sgilarP feet of development within the parking assessment district. Mr. Freeland said he originally included it in the report because he was sensitive to the fact that with a recommendation for a '2.5:1 floor area ratio, there was still an enormous potential for build out of that district. He believed it would be difficult to bring enough -assurances that development would not ..take off and proceed to the build out potential, given the fairly modest cut- back in density. Staff looked at traffic impacts under the pres- ent policies, and demonstrated that with the addition of the sig- nal proposed at Cambridge and Sherman, there was no question but that the traffic load of 100,000 square feet and more in the next ten years could be accommodated, and that the 100,000 square feet appeared to be a safe number in. terms of traffic. Other recommen- dations should take care of the parking growth, and staff believed it was a safe level for ten years and could act as a performance measure. The Comprehensive Plan could state the City's desire to not exceed 100,000 additional square feet in that stated time period. Every six months staff provided a report on intensifica- tion where the amount of building activity in the City was moni- tored, and staff proposed to track that development aver time against the pull. If it appeared that the Tate was going to be exceeded, staff would return and recommend more severe land use restrictions. The Planning Commission believed, even with the reduced floor area ratio of 2:1, that it was a good idea. Councflmember Witherspoon' said, when talking about setbacks for corner lots, and lots other than corner lots for those not en an alley in an urban area and a downtown urban planning zone, it seemed like a large setback. Since the City was constrained by the floor area ratio, height limit and the daylight plane, she asked how it would be enforced, and whether it would have tobe on a lot line or whether the open space could be incorporated in the middle of the building. Mr. Freeland said the alley setbacks were entirely to help the functioning of the alleys themselves. Only two setbacks were pro- posed, the alley setback plus the r district would have the 1.5 feet times the street frontage which had to be allowed for set- backs of various sorts in the fronts of the buildings. The alley setbacks would all be in the rear, and the purpose was to allow a space for garbage, vans to unload supplies, and to generally get some of the clutter out of the alley itself because they needed to be unrestricted by double-parking trucks, etc. As written, the setback would go all the way up. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified it would further restrict the build out of a lot that adjoined an alley. Mr. Freeland said that was correct and the reason a. 2.5:1 floor area ratio with a 37 foot height limit allowed three floors, but there could not be three whole floors because of the 20 feet in the back. Planning Commissioner Northway said the ARB recommendation to the Planning Commission was that the rear setback be an average of 10 feet rather than the full 20 feet. The idea was opposed by the building owners in the California Avenue area who wanted to be sure the full 20 feet was there so that the alleys would continue to functioh, also that was' why the Planning Commission stayed with the 20 foot recommendation rather than ,,the average of 10 feet. 4 1 4 0 1/23/84 As Corrected 3/26/84 Councilmember Witherspoon said one recommendation was that if the County should decide to sell its parking lot, the City should urge the County to use the proceeds to improve parking, etc. Since parking was at a premium in that area, she asked why the City would not consider buying the parking lot. Mr. Freeland said the lot at the corner of Ash and Page Mill Road did not function as parking for the district. The lot was origi- nally acquired as part of the Page Mill grade separation crossing, but was turned into a parking lot by the County after complaints about the parking impacts on the North County Court House sur- faced. The County paved it and created a parking lot, but no one used it. Councilmember Witherspoon said she was reminded of the parking problems downtown and the need there for long-term parking lots of just that size. Mr. Freeland said the Planning Crmmission recommendation was not to have the City affirmatively ask the County to sell, but rather to advise that if it should sell, the City would like the money used for the parking purpose in the district. He said the County intended to sell the lot. Councilmember Witherspoon asked how more parking could be created by the County without building a parking structure. Mr. Freeland said the County might want to cooperate with the parking district for a deck in the district. Councilmember Fletcher said the corner structure at an alley would not have a setback, and she asked whether the site .lines for the traffic going in and out were taken into consideration and whether it would be a safety problem. Mr. Freeland said the recommendation was that corners have an eight foot setback except -for those few parcels where the side property line was on the alley. One parcel was long and skinny and less than 50 feet wide, .and- E rite City applied an eight foot alley setback along the length of that parcels it would be ren- dered unbui l iabl e. The desire was to avoid those unusual situa- tions where the long access of the lot was against the alley. In general, there would be an eight foot setback at those corners. Councilmember Bechtel commented the parking lot marked "PF" at Page Hi 1 1 and Ash Was the sane lot the City considered for the point of departure for a downtown shuttle. Mr. Freeland introduced Stephen Avis, the Chairperson of the Park- ing Assessment District, which was an intrical part of the study. Stephen Avis, 164 S. California Avenue, represented the Palo Alto Co -Op, the California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA), and the California Avenue Parking Assessment Committee. The California Avenue area was recently scrutinized; and in addition to the .Evergreen Park traffic situation, a major study of growth, _parking, and general enhancement of the area was being concluded. Hours of_time by staff, consultants, residentse property owners., and'husiness people were spent reviewing --and evaluating concepts, formulas, and new buildings. -'The result was --a sense that con- tinued development in a slow; well -planned, `and. financially prudent'manner would benefit the district, an enhancement to sec vices, and_.the retail needs of the``cammunity. Built into the rec- omm endations of the Parking Assessment Committee -and CAADA were certain requirements designed to curtail growth until. needed. The idea of speculative development was not looked on favorably, par- ticularly -when it brought additional . burdens of parking, enforce- ment and traffic congestion unnecessary to the real- needs of the community --both business and residential. The Planning 4 1 4 1 1/23/844 As Co i101 Commission recommended a new floor area ratio of 2:1 where a 3:1 ratio currently existed. Staff recommended a 2,5:1 ratio. He requested a continuance of the 3:1 ratio on California Avenue. A parking requirement or buy -in, a zero for the first floor and 100 percent for the second floor was also recommended by the Planning Commission. CAADA and the Parking Assessment Committee suggested guidelines of zero, 50 percent and 100 percent fore first, second, and additional floors. A height limit of 50 feet currently existed in the district, and the Citizens' Committee recommended that it remain as suggested in points one and two allowing for residential use only on the fourth and fifth floors in conjunction with the recommendations on fulfilling the parking requirements. The constituent committee believed that adequate safeguards against too rapid development were inherent - in their recommenda- Lions. Too much restriction, which was the case with the Planning Commission recommendations, would make it prohibitive for even the most modest of property upgradings primarily from a single floor to a remodeled second story. Normal sized lots had no room for building automobile space, and with a 100 percent buyin as recom- mended by the Planning Commission, it would be required to pay approximately $250,000 just to -add a second story. He emphasized that they desired .a slow, controlled, and fiscally sound develop- ment over the next 10 years in the California Avenue area. They. looked to retail and service businesses as a strength to the cor- mun-ity and encouraged their development, He hoped Council would consider the recommendations of CAADA, and the Parking Assessment Committee as outlined and help to determine .the shape and future of the area. He submitted a petition signed by about 91 people from the district in support of their response and request. Ellis L. Jacobs, 437 Cambridge Avenue, a part owner of the build- ing at 433-447 Cambridge, had been an architect in the area since 1948 and was responsible for approximately 30 percent of the buildings built in the area and at least some of the character and aesthet'cs people bragged about. He believed the Planning Commis- sion report went much beyond either the staff or the consultant's report, paid for by the Parking District. The petition submitted now by CAADA was correct, and would allow the area to remain alive and well. The new parking assessment formula, coupled with the CAADA formula --free first floor, second floor to provide one-half of the required parking, third floor to provide all required park- ing --would control the amount of building and provide the neces- sary parking. He agreed with staff monitor- ing what happened. The Planning Commission proposals would not require monitoring, because there -would not be any building. Under proper zoning, the area could be alive and well in the future. Howard Burnt'lde owned the property at 2211 Park Boulevard, which was within the CC zone between Park Rn«1 and and the railroad tracks. He understood the Planning. Commission recommendation to create a CC zone there, and the staff recommendation of RM-3, or multiple residential, but if it became residential zoning, his use would become nonconforming. He and his neighbors owned the property for more than 18 years, and a law office was consistent with residential service. The office was not large, and served the general public in the area. It was in the Lawyers Reference Service, a pro bono operation that represented members of the pub- lic at no cost fir —miscellaneous conferences, and he believed five out of ten of those clients were exclusively from the neighbor- hood. It was unreasonable to make the law office nonconforming in a residential area, and he concurred with the Planning Commis- sion's recommendation that it at least be allowed to stay on the property and render the _same service. The office was unlikely to become large or grow out of its present uses. His son and daugh- ter had joined the firm, and it would be there another 18 years if allowed to do so. He believed it was appropriate to consider gi`andfathering if it was to become a nonconforming use. On behalf of his neighbors on either side, nonconforming' or not, they pre- ferred grandfatheringi as opposed to being required to obtain an 1 exception to occupy where they had long been. Every few years he and his neiyhbors did cosmetic work to the properties to make them more compatible with the neighborhood and the surrounding resi- dential area. He did not challenge the staff philosophy that it become residential zoning, but suggested it would ultimately be- come substandard residential because it was adjacent to the rail- road track. If the properties were permitted to continue the present uses, he,believed it was reasonable to zone them iv a man- ner that did not make them nonconforming. If the Council di .;1 not auree, he asked that they be yrandfathered. Anne Ercolani, 2U4U Ash Street, chaired the Evergreen Park Neighe borttood Steering Committee. At its last meeting the area was dis- cussed for possible recommendations. It was difficult to say what types of zones were preferred because it was looking at the ef- fects of various uses. The Committee was concerned that the uses along El Camino not be heavy traffic generators because it already generated a lot of traffic. North of California, which was all R-1, R-2, or R-3, if it abutted R -I, a single family residence should have a one-story height limit; abutting R-2 or R-3 there should be a two-story limit in accordance with the regulations, but the most restrictive setbacks and daylight planes were for the abutting use. There should be some kind of residential zoning along Park Boulevard-, and ..multiple family use probably would be appropriate. The largest parcel at the corner of California and Park Boulevard should be primarily residential, across the street and to the north were residential zones. To continue the whole section as residential_ would be appropriate and compatible with existing uses. She was asked by a representative of one of the owners of a parcel whether the Committee discussed the grand- fdtheriny of existing uses, but it had not. No .one on the Commit- tee she talked to wanted to displace existing uses, but were con- cerned about what would replace them if they left. The decision on granofathertny was up _to the Council. The amount of housing should be almost equivalent to the volume of the existing build-- inys. The main California Avenue business district was already at capacity for traffic, parking, and the uses by which the community was best served. The Planning •Commission recommendation was a step towards tnat ideal limit,. which the Committee preferred to something with more than a ?:I ratio and a 37 foot height limit. Parkiny must be provided within the business district, which was the purpose of the -study. Some zoning changes might result in propet: ty owners not realizing the income they hoped from their properties, but the community and the City as a whole was what the Council ?must consider, the interests of the whole community She asked the Council to keep that in mind when making its recommenda- tions. Mike Uolick, 306 California Avenue, was at reactor in the area for 3B years, and believed the Planning Commission recommendation was too restrictive for the area. The California Avenue shopping cen- ter was being developed for the last 25 years by a co-operative body of landlords, merchants, and professionals. GAADA was found- ed in 1958, and was:a watchdog. It came to City Hall to make requests of the Council and was continually denied. The neighbor, hood was helped by.the Council, staff *embers and Planning. Commis- sioners 1U or 15 ,years ago. He believed the thinking of the Plan- ning Commissio.rt was on a downward spiral. When the railroad track was closed at California Avenue, it was the leader Of .the food stores on the Peninsula with seven markets. All were lest but the Co -tip, and if _ further .restricted, the last market -would disappear, The area wa.S. barricaded from all _sides, and he .believed .that time would show the latest action _to be unforgivable, He begged for Council consideration. Stephen Avis Stated their desires--t.hey helped pay for the p_10O, and paid for -the entire_ plan themselves year's earlier. CAATJA did not ask for money, paid for the plan-. nee, and were requested by the Council to go ahead with the'study. After: two years of hard work, they came up with a master plan, witicn .was fal lowed. He asked that they be allowed to continue in that vein, and be given some latitude. 4 14 3 1 /2 3/34 They were Tina i ly seeing sorne daylight atter 'e5 years of work, and their developments in scent years were finally making sense. The marketplace should be allowed to dictate and would benefit the majority. Colin Hunter, 1357 Pitman, was president of Hunter & Ready, Inc., 44b Sherman, d microcomputer software company. Six of its 30 employees were Palo Alto residents, including himself. Three com- muted by bicycle, and two nonresidents commuted by train from San Francisco. All employees walked to lunch in the area, and shopped at that time. His company currently occupied about 8,000 square feet, and projected growth was to about 20,000 square feet in -the next two or three years. His company was the kind the Planning Commission was trying to get rid of in the California Avenue area, and with the proposed ordinance, .it would probably succeed since it would be difficult for them to obtain new spaced He asked the Council to consider some of the larger issues if companies such as his left Palo Alto and what it would mean for the Bay Area cornmu- nity as a whole. it meant longer commutes for his people, more crowded freeways, and more pollution. They would have to drive to work and shop during the lunch breaks, which again meant more pol- lution and crowded freeways.. It meant more construction in peri- pheral parts of the Bay Area. If they were not building in Palo Alto, they would build somewhere else. The basic alternatives were to build up, or build out, which meant high density construc- tion in core areas near mass transit, or sprawl. The basic alter- nati ve was to build up in Palo Alto, or cut down trees somewhere else. The decisions were difficult, but the Council should think about the consequences before taking action. Robert Kavinoky, 2 91 Cornell Street, said he resided in College Terrace for more than 30 years. During that time, the California Avenue business district was a valued asset, where they could walk and get groceries and other necessities, and go to the theater, etc. He was a member and trustee of the Methodist church, which owned property in the district, and served on the parking assess- ment committee, but appeared that evening as a private citizen. The_ two most troublesome items were those that dealt with the floor area ratio and the height. He realized that the intent was to reduce the rate of development, but was concerned that since they were only two `of many elements, the effect might;` not be just a slight reduction. �` t might "stifle" the rate of development, and reduce the economic viability of the distract so that in future years, there would not be the kind of facility where he and many others could walk to do thew business. He discussed the matter with staff, and was particu arly concerned because with the floor area ratio, there way. an uncertainty as to the financial impact of the measure. He plowed through the economic evaluation report-, Which was in the Council package, and while many aspects of the problem were dealt with separately, _ he saw no reference or assessment of the combined impact of the trings happening there. He would ;eel better if the Council adopted a less radical and more balanced approach to the problem. It was complex, and he was not prepared to say what the Council shot l d do. He believed all factors should be taken into consideration together. He would be more comfortable with the --2.5 floor area ratio, but did not know whether that Was -the - right; number. He hoped the City of Pa to Alto, with all its resources,, would address the problem of-build- inotilmitations without resorting to ticity-tacky box things that were implied`.in what was before them. tieorye McDonald owned the property-, and had his business -at 2183 Park Boulevard, in the CC zone. He submitted a letter to the _Planning Commission which --gave a history of the property -and the building -from the time -he-bought.: it as a -sand gravel pit in 1952 to what it developed into. An earlier concern was raised from the public about what Might happen down the road. From 1952, When he bought the property, until. 1978, he built his property up to the zoning provided by th'e City, -and' all their tenants complied wi%h Life toning. They started out as light manufacturing, wnich was now the structures_ were built, and then the zoning changed to CC without his being notified by the City. He went before the Planning Commission and the'Council who rezoned it to H&!) so the .business could continue, but it was later- discovered that they were in the plan but never implemented and were still nonconform- ing. Then RN -3 was proposed, then CS, and finally CN. During that time he tried to run his business and reassure his tenants :they would not be thrown out in the immediate future by some re- zoning. It was hard to reconcile that a building that was there for 30 years, tenants who were there.. for about 10 years, and neighbors with whom he was friendly for 25 years now had to apply for nonconforming permits. Teat was unfair. He did not know what else to do or how many tunes he would appear. He requested if there was no other way out, they be grandfathered in. The Council could use the blanket approach so that, every couple of years, they would not have to get exceptions for people who had been there for 10 or 15 years. Audrey Poulter, 1731 Park Boulevard, submitted a letter from Marion Slattery, 1731 Park Boulevard, which :has on file in the City Clerk's office, which welcomed new Councilmembers and ex- pressed concern over a sign at 1691 El Camino on the front lawn of "the Weeks property." The 31,600 square feet of property was seven feet to the west c'f her neighbor's bedroom window. The Council's help in guarding the residential nature of the neighbor- hood would be appreciated. She hoped the reference to stores, daycare and restaurant facility on the sign was faise advertising. Experience -with other such facilities in the area, and the traffic yenerated by high density uses caused her concern for future uses of a space only 1UU feet from her front door. She was not unsym- pathetic with the efforts of the business community to exist and prosper, but believed they could cooperate to make Palo Al to a community for all. Un her own behalf, she said the former Grecian Health Spa was across the street and presently unoccupied which made there happy. Mr. Week's buildings were attractive, and the site served as an entrance toEvergreen Park. The present tenants were good neighbors, there were no present parking problems, and not much increase in traffic. In the past, there were moderate to severe parking problems with the tenants an that side, and the problem wae only solved by . the tenants moving to larger facili- ties. Three of their bedrooms faced the parking lot of Mr. Week's property, which extended to the property line, and there was no landscaping to buffer the noise. The previous tenants drove through their back fence several times, or destroyed a hedge by careless parking. Extensive landscaping should be mandatory around the perimeter of commercial parking of property abutting a residential area. Mr. Weeks indicated a desire to build a two- story office building on the property, or a restaurant might be built there. The Sundance Mining Restaurant caused parking -prob- lems for years in Evergreen Park, and an office building or res- taurant would increase traffic in an already congested area, and create more parking probi ms. Some properties in Southgate and Evergreen Park would suffer in property value, and those close to the property would have a loss of privacy. The consensus of her neighborhood was to. have the property remain in the -.same use,_ or have the .arbperty compatible with the neighborhood, meaning on - site parking only, and a use that would generate the least amount of traffic. They did not need any wore office buildings in Palo Alto because there was already ,a jobs/housing imbalance. They needed low cost, affordable housing. She believed a mortuary, a research institute, Or hou:,ing-would be appropriate If the use of the site was changed, she asked that it be compatible with the neighborhood. David Schr•om, 302 College Avenue, resided about a block outside the business assessment district. He asked the Council to'con- sider its responsibility to the community as a whole rather than gust those directly interested by actions proposed. The Council's zoning . power gave i t _the authority to limit building in the com- munity to that beneficial to the residents. An earlier speaker 4 1 4 5 1/23/84 correctly stated that there was more than enough commercial space in the City to employ every one in the City several times over. There were few needs he was unable to satisfy in the shops and stores of Palo Alto, or with the professionals with offices in the City. The proposed controls we;e modest, and people were allowed to continue to build at ever higher den:;ities, people could con- sume at the margin while paying at the mean --when the utilities could no -longer be satisfied by the low cost power already con- tracted, the new buildings alone would not pay triple the price of the current power, those who already lived in the community would share the burden as would be the case when the street system was no ionyer satisfactory. the parking issue prompted the California Avenue study, and according to the study and the report presented by the district that evening, the current tenants said it was im- possible to bear the full cost of providing parking for their employees and patrons. A district repr'eseotative asked for the marketplace to determine what was built, andrif the people who did business in the district bore the full cost, the Evergreen Pans neighbors would let the market determine what was built. The Council already heard that if full parking was demanded of all new construction, nothing would be built. He was puzzled it contem- plated adding two or three-story buildings to the one when between 5U and 100 cars parked daily on College Avenue, Ash Street and Birch Street, as was indicated by the studies done by the City's Transportation Division in connection with the Evergreen Park traffic plan. The objective of an earlier recommendation was to provide full parking, and he recalled that all hanging issues involved how to avoid doing that. They had a notion that growth would make them feel better --whether they were property owners, business operators, planners, Council people, sometimes even resi- dents. Fed -Thompson, 470 Cambridge Avenue, chaired the Parking Committee for CAA€,A, and was also on the assessment board. It was a compli- cated situation being piecemealed.- The ARB went one way, the staff the other. Buy -in parking and parking permits would have to be considered. He was afraid of a split in the people who would pay the assessments. People with two-story buildings were fairly well set, they were; bui I t out. The City Council permitted three structures to come in and create an additional shortfall of 230 cars which when added to the original 117 car deficit meant an approximately 350 -car deficit. The assessment committee worked out a formula through Mr. McDonald that was acceptable to the majority, and was a weighted system applied to land area and a deficiency of car parking. In conjunction with CAADA's plan of first floor zero, one-half on second floor and with the third floor full buy -in, it permitted people --and that day he counted approximately 10 structures that should be replaced on El Camino and on 'California Avenue --to go about replacing. They all backed on alleys. A 50 foot lot would be ample for them to provide four or five car parking. A half buy -in: or a half parking requirement on the second floor, would mean office space would be about two cars short. MN McDonald's rate of $20,000 a car space meant they would have to put in $40,000 for more parking, which would still permit them to regenerate their. buildings. Unless the buy -in was established, no matter how it was done, it would place a burden on those people of $240,000 or more to put on a second floor, which approached the .price of :the property. Hal f the_ district was single floored, and those people would not want to go and buy parking structures. He would not want to put up a floor and have to pay an extra $250,000, and would stay with the first floor. There -_would be no rejuvenation of first floor buildings, because there. -'would be no point. Those people who passed by the City Council to avoid the moratorium, and those who already developed their property, even if they needed more parking, could avoid the issue. - Even if they _went for more and proper , parking, those people with the single floor might not do it. -The community would then be split in terms of future parking. The parking committee represented about 50 property owners in the area. He could trot" advise people with single floors to `do anymore than purchase the. 4 1 4 6 1/23/84 Keystone lot dS insurance to prevent someone from putting up a building on that lot. the purchase would not contribute to any car deficiency, because it was already counted, but he.did not see how people with single-- floors could be asked to purchase double - decking. Beverly wood -Smith, was born and raised in South Palo Alto, living since 1950 at 202 Sequoia Avenue, located directly behind the property on El Camino Real and Park Boulevard. That property ad- joined her home by approximately 130 feet and she objected to a higher building on that lot which would make any structure higher than the present buildings and cause a loss of sunlight for most of the day on her property. It would also create more traffic problems and noise than the neighborhood already had especially at that corner. The traffic at that intersection was so heavy that Evergreen Park was partially closed in. Having grown up in the City, she always considered Southgate and Evergreen Park one neighborhood. Because of heavy traffic in the entire area, South- gate was barricaded from Evergreen Park, and they were now com- pletely separate, South Palo Alto was being turned into a dis- trict of beehives, ..and a higher building would mean loss of pri- vacy in a residential area consisting of single family homes. The map showed that the property on the cor=ner of El Camino and Park Boulevard was a part of Southgate, and surrounded by three resi- dential horses. A hi}her commercial building would be inappropri- ate and an increased commercial invasion into both neighborhoods, reducing the value and privacy of their homes. She owned a com- mercial building on El Camino Real between California Avenue and Park Boulevard, and although it would be to her economic advantage to construct a laryerr building on the property, she believed it would be a mistake to build high density buildings along that strip because of the already existing ;,traffic congestion, noise and pollution. As it was, she was unable to reach her building, the California shopping district or the S.P. depot from her home without making a six block detour, waiting at three heavily traveled traffic signals on El Camino Real. As long as businesses were allowed to expand into the neighborhoods, they would continue to have serious traffic and housing problems. An expansion of the buildings on that corner would add to a problem that was yet to be solved. Because of its unique location, she and her neighbors requested that the property be given special zoning. If that was Impossible, she uryed the Council to designate it a CN zone. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:45 .m. TO 10:00 am. Mayor Mein said the item was difficult, and suggested that Coun- cil first discuss the item without a formal motion in order to take a took at the bigger picture. After the comments were ex- hausted,' they could proceed to consideration of the various recom- mendations in the order they were listed in the staff report of January 19, 1984. Counci lmember Cobh believed that one of the central issues before the Council was the floor area ratio, and there was a difference of opinion between the Ptanning Commission _and t -he staff with respect to whether the floor area ratio should be 2:1 or 2.5:1. He understood Mr. McUona l d's report to say that a floor area ratio of 2:1 could have a negative effect on- the econom c vitality in the California area, and asked f'or comment and clarification. Angus McDonald, cansu Cant, believed the 2:1 floor area ratio would have a depressing_ effect on the capacity of the area to en- courage new businesses or to grow. Councilmember Cobb clarified that the economic health of the area would decline. 4 1 4 7 1/23/84 Mr. M..Uviiaid said the probabiiity was that it would decline, and carefully qualified, it would probably allow for the continued "boutiqueiny" of the area. It allowed for any number of eventual- ities but he believed that if they welt back in a few years, with d floor area ratio at 2:1 they would still see people paying rents, making money and being relatively happy. The pressure of the downzoning would be away from a continued ferment, change, and yrowth in vitality in the area. As the area's economic consul- tants, tney did not Make any comment one way or the other on the overall planning and zoning issues, but spoke from a straight, private sector economics point of view. They believed the floor area ratio of 2:1 would have a downward economic effect on. the area. Mayor Klein asked Mr. McDonald to be More precise in his opinion as to the downward pressure of the 2:1 floor area ratio, as com- pared with the 2.5:1. If the 2.5:1 floor area- ratio produced about 50,000 _ ;qua re feet of new space in the next 10 years, he asked wilat d. 2 : 1 floor area ratio would produce. Mr. McDonald clarified that when looking at the question, they considered the difference between a 3.0:1 and a 2.5:1 floor area ratio. Ms. Vandertack said they looked originally at the difference be- tween a 3:1 and a 2:1 floor= area ratio rather than the median 2.5:1. In view of present land values, a certain building size was necessary before it became economic to do any new development. New development, or a demand for space in the area, contributed to economic vitality, and if there was an excess demand, people were interested in moving into the area. It did not have to actually grow in size, but there was a demand for the area because there was potential. If you reduced the potential building size you could put on a parcel , the profit from red ve l opment or -improve- ment was limited, and there was less incentive to do anything with the businesses, which were then left to run down rather than be improved or redeveloped. If the area began to look rundown, it right detract from customers corning to the area, which affected all business in the area. Mayor Klein said he recognized the theory, and asked that it applied to the situation. Ms. Vandertack said the difference between 3:1 and 2.5:1, and 2.5:1 and 2:1 was not a proportional reduction in the amount of development. It could not b, tssumed that because the floor area ratio was only teen -thirds t i .. .ize, there would be only two-thirds the amount of development. There were cut-off points at which certain prtr ects would be totally unfeasible at the lower floor area ratio,e so it could be a significant reduction in the amount of new space and the potential for development. Mayor Klein asked if she would still. feel that way with office space rents at $2.50 per square foot per month. Ms. Vandertack said she did not think so. Mayor Klein said that was the current rent on the University Avenue and the downtown area. Mss Vandertack said the California Avenue generally had a second- ary reputation Compared to University Avenue, and she was not sure -the district, could bear those rents in terms of businesses ranting to move there. Mr. McLona is conceded that as one ..-of the_ qualifying "probabi l i- t:ies." If they._ collected .downtown rents over the _Iong-,term,: it changed the direct -'effect, but the relative effects were still the . same.. As .everyone knew, .the higher ratios would command the ,greater returns, and he emphasized Ms Vande!rtack's .remarks, that 4 1 4 e 1/23/84 such things did not go on a one-to-one ratioeethere wag a greater effect in going from 2:1 to 2.5:1 than the ratio would suggest. As they pointed out, some parcels became flatly uneconomic, which was reflected in their analysis. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the floor area ratios factored in the parking restrictions that were also recommended, as well as the size of the parcels in that particular part of town. Mr. McDonald said the image when making the statement was a com- bination of the building restrictions and the parking require- ments. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if it also included the size of the parcels because they were dealing with small buildings that would have to be redeveloped as small buildings. Mr. McDonald said they looked at the area on a parcel -by -parcel basis. Councilmember Witherspoon commented on the staff and Planning Com- mission recommendations., and said she was struck by the fact that the problem appeared fairly simple, but everything was being thrown at it. She preferred to not correct something that was not yet drastically wrong. After the study on University Avenue, it was found that although it was perceived that financial. uses were taking over retail, in fact they were not. The Council decided to hold off and not try to remedy the problem until it arose, and she believed .the same was true for the California Avenue area. The main problem was that the development potential was taking off ahead of the anticipations, parking had not caught up, and the traffic infringed on the residential neighborhoods. She was con cerned that in an attempt to solve the problem, future development would be choked. When she first came on the Council, the whole area was nothing but massage parlors and adult bookstores --they have come a long way in eight years, and she did not want to regress. She was concerned that the tight floor area ratio, as well as the setbacks and some of the other constraints, such as height limit, would produce an unimaginative urban setting in those blocks, which she hated to see happen. She did not under- stand the magic of 37 feet versus 50 feet, and was more concerned about a zoning formula or a pedestrian overlay that encouraged open space at the pedestrian level. She wanted to see courtyards, atria, and perhaps wide sidewalks where there could be tables in front of a 'restaurant. ; There was nothing in the Planning Commission p:-oposal that allowed for or encouraged -that to happen. She did net care whether it was a density bonus, or' a relief from the---parkinO restrictions, but she believed there could be more creativity so that when redevelopment occurred, it allowed for a more creative use on 'the small parcels. They were dealing in mini buildings= and she preferred to concentrate on the major problem of how to control growth in that area without stifling it, and allow parking needs and traffic needs to catch up with the contem- plated development. . ,r. Freeland suggested monitoring, and a policy goal in the Comprehensive Plan for another 100,000 square feet after the 100,000 already approved-ein other words, 200,000 square feet was a good way to go because it flagged whevte to turn back., and maybe put the screw on here and there and fine tune the program. She preferred thath t be done with retail, and made a. policy, and be soreth` pg -that could be. implemented if it got out of hand. She hated for -the Council to get into such. things as air rights` ar,d say "no.0 She could see creative uses as. were done in San Francisco with retail on the ground floor and parking above, There were a few discrepancies between the staff report and What She had -`rom Planning Commissioner Helene Wheeler. On the first , pAgee.tif Nis. Wheeler's -report of January 1.9, 1984, under 1, 2, 3 an.d 4, there were suggestions on specific zoning changes where Council , vas. asked to - comrent.- On the final page 3, there were some specific suggestions,. .She believed 3 and 4 were tied in - 4 1 4 9 As CoVI2i911 because they talked about parking exemption credits, but she was unclear about the rationale. She asked for clarification about whether they were saying that residential use on the upper floors would be required to provide parking. Mr. Freeland clarified that numbers 3 and 4 were reflected on the face of the land use map. No. 3, the change to RM-3 or RM-4 for the parcels on College Avenue were allowable use for multiple family residential: Either RM-3 or RM-4 T, two -floor height limit. No. 4, "Reexamine the designation of 390 Ash (CN) and 2770 Birch (RM-5), as a separate study." Councilmember Witherspoon asked if those were the parcels the Housing Corporation was redeveloping because she remembered there was a suggestion that zoning be changed. Mr. Freeland said they were not the same parcels. They were the two referred to in No. 4, ?nd were identified for separate study, because after the study was completed, it was discovered that the Shell station was closing. That brought up the question of the adjacent RM-5 parcel which had no viable access by itself. Since they were looking at the gas station site, the thought was to look at both of them. Councilmember Witherspoon said it should be added to the list. Mr. Freeland said it was in the staff clean-up items. Staff sug- gested that it be brought back for hearing on a multiple family. and Council would not need to take separate action if it agreed with the recommendation. Councilmember Witherspoon said that would depend on whether they wanted those residential 'fses to have required parking. Mr. Freeland said the one he saw was, "For projects in the CC zone with 66 percent or more of the floor area devoted to residential use, the floor area ratio shall be 3.0 to 1." Councilmember Witherspoon said that if one went to No. 6, the Planning Commission referred to residential projects on commercial property. Mr. Freeland said the first one was covered in Planning Commission recommendation 1(a) under the land Use recommendations. It was a separate item entirely from the parking exemption. Point 3 spoke to an additional floor area ratio for a mixed use project, and where it would be 2:1 for all commercial, it could be 3:1 if two- thirds of the floor area were residential. It had nothing to do with parking. The statement in No. 6 said that in the future, a credit could be established so that commercial sites used residen- tially would not have to provide all their parking, but that would be a separate matter. .He drew that to the Council's attention as a consensus item, in addition to the Commission's main recomrnenda- tions. Planning Commissioner Northway said the Planning Commission believed that perhaps the second required car might be able to park in the assessment district Parking lots. They believed it was crazy to give -an incentive to build residential and have to provide all the parking. Councilmember Witherspoon asked where the Planning Commission recommended.;the (P) zone be applied. 1r. Freeland said. it was the parcels along Birch, right at :the corner of Cambridg* where the Cookie Stop, Spice House_and the hardware store were. The (P) zone would_ go out around those and it was believed that if the (P) zone extended, the ground floor use restrictions should also extend. Vice Mayor Levy expressed his admiration- for the study that was do►re, and tr.e clarity with which it was brought before the Coun- cil. He believed - it was a credit to staff and the Planning Com- mission. Regarding density, he was unclear about how much more California Avenue- could develop. If they followed the parking restrictions as recommended by the consultant, he asked Mr. Mctone ld about the likely amount of square footage that would be added in that. area. with a 3:1 floor area ratio versus a 2.5:1 ver- sus a -2:1. Mr. McDonald said the City's economic consultants were caucusing the point. For purposes of the discussion, the answer was an upper bound of approximately 110,000 square feet, and a lower bound of: status quo in terms of numbers of square feet. The mid- point would be around 33,000 square feet more. Vice Mayor Levy asked whether that was at any floor area they considered, or the 3.0. ratio Mr. McDonald said he did not believe they ever' went higher than a 3.0 floor area ratio, and did not believe the market would support much higher bulk and densities than it presently had. Mr. Freeland clarified that the 110,000 square feet related to having the 3.0 floor area ratio. The status quo or no additional development related to the 2.0 floor area ratio. .The 33,000 square feet might be in the bail park with a 2.5 floor area ratio. Mr. McDonald said that was correct, but they never really talked in terms of higher floor area ratios, nor did they find tremendous market support for it. The discussion was powerfully bracketed in the range of 3.0 down to 2.0. Vice Mayor Levy believed they would have development at 2.0, if for no other reason than the amount one would have to develop, without providing extra parking, would be less, so there would be extra development at 2.U. he clarified that jt was likely they would have development approach 100,000 square feet at 2.0. Mr. Freeland deferred to the consultants as to the amount of development. Staff had not provided a contrary estimate of their own. The idea of "d 100,000 square foot limit e;s one he invented, because he believed it would be difficult to ;sell the Commission and- Council on a 2.5 floor area. ratio. ; He believed they :might seek some additional safety against the prospect that a 2.5 floor area ratio might result in more development than the consultants -were advising. It was there as a safety net, and not as a fore -- cast} Vice Mayor Levy clarified that the development would be limited, whether it was a 2.0, 2.5 or a- 3.0. He understood there was not much difference between those three floor area ratios as far as the total development in California Avenue was concerned, but there might be a difference in ,terms of an individual piece of property. Regarding parking, he asked where they would put the parking from the 1.0 floor area ratio, assuming they followed what was done on university Avenue. 'They would still have to provide a lot of parking in the California Avenue area, and he had the im- pression there ryas no place toput it. He asked how it would be done. Mr. Freeland said it would probably mean that .new development would have to tear dowel what was there, and put -ire a new structure to incorporate_ parking with the new development. It would make it difficult t0'add square footage onto existing buildings because there mould be Jno place. to put the parking. He hoped that the assessment district would be able to _.create a -surplus supply it could then sell to people who could not develop parking on site, :as a buy -in or in lieu -fee concept, bat that did not seem to be practical since the amount of -money they w€;uld have to raise to 4 1 5 1 1/23/84 overcome the deficit and yet into a surplus situation appeared to be beyond the ability of the district. He believed some projects would not prove feasible, and that new parking would come from new structures. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that if he were to build a new structure that was at a 2.0 level, he would only have to provide half of the parking for the need he created. Mr. Freeland said yes in concept. Staff made no specific recom- mendation on what the exceptions should be, and he was not =ore whether it would be a floor area ratio of 1.0 --it might be some- thing less. Vice Mayor Levy said he was concerned about density, architectural diversity, parking, and the overall workability of the recommenda- tion. In terms of density, he believed the Planning Commission figure of 2.0 was satisfactory, particularly since he heard that there would not be much more development if it were 2.5 or 3.0. In terms of architectural diversity, he was concerned along the lines mentioned by Councilmember Witherspoon, and was .not one who believed they had to keep a 37 foot height limit. He was con- cerned with density, and believed a 2.0 floor area ratio, would limit the density in the area. If someone wanted to develop to a higher limit because there was a desire for a 20 foot atrium or a plaza or something of teat nature, he would be sympathetic. What- ever they did, he encouraged as much architectural diversity as possible. He knew the Planning Commission made a step in that direction by saying 37 feet and 2.0, but he welcomed other con- cepts from the Altii, Planning Commission or staff. He believed the matter was not really addressed. Parking was addressed, although he did not know where it would all come from. They glossed over the fact that they needed more parking even with the proposed restrictions. Regarding workability and concept of residential use, in the past, when the Council thought it encouraged residen- tial use, it did not. He hoped there would not be any unusual restrictions. The need for open space in connection with each residence was not mentioned, and if they were not careful, those requirements might make it impossible to build the residential above the commercial, which they desired to see. Councilmember Fenzel asked the consultants about the vitality question. They spoke to a lack of interest in redevelopment and so forth, eaosing --deterioration of the properties, and said, "Given the land values tof the area..." She believed the land values related much to what zoning permitted, and aside from prop- erties that recently changed hands, Most properties would not suf- fer a direct financial loss from any rezoning that took place. She wondered now they .related that to the vitality of the area. Their statement sounded as though the land value was some fixed amount that did not relate to what was permitted or practical on the site, Mr. McDonald said it was related to the. permitted uses. The mar- ketplabe did not -instantly recognize changes in zoning, and always held out the hope that something would change on any given Monday night --a permitted use might change, s-o the market .would not reflect the following morning any .action taken the previous night. Although there was a relationship, it was not instantaneous.- With` regard to vitality, he deferred to ,GIs. Vandertack. Ms. Vandertack said the land values in the area: were fairly high, and if someone decided' he wanted to sell, but could not get what he wanted for the property or what his neighbor recently got, he mi yt►t se 1 1 , but would not spend money on it- i f he Gould not. _get `the money back. That put downward pressure on land values, which related through rents and the types of use_ s that stayed. orsoul d afford -to stay in the area. 4 1 5 2 1M/84 Counci lme'jber Renzel saw the theory, but did not see that it would apply in a market as strong as Palo Alto's. She generally con- curred with the Planning Commission recommendations with the ex- ception that she ayreed with the staff recommendation about Park Boulevard, provided that Council grandfathered in existing uses, perhaps with a s l i yht ly more -i imi ted grandfatheri ng than the pr ►,- fessiondl offices which allowed substantial rebuilding, etc., to allow existing uses to remain and continue in operation as long as they desired since they appeared to be compatible with the neigh- borhood. As pointed out by a neighbor, in terms of long-range planning, the Council should address what it wanted to see in the event of redevelopment. She preferred to see residential, and it made sense in terms of long-range planning. She concurred with Vice Mayor Levy with respect to the floor area ratio aid believed that the Council was better off to err,on the downside, if at ,all, because the problems were too great if it erred on the upside. Just de the marketplace did riot respond on Tuesday from a Monday night meeting, neither was the Council likely to respond when it overtopped the 100,000 square feet. Small overtoppi ngs could add significant burdens and effects on the district as a whole. Taking the consultant's outlook on what could. happen in the dis- trict with a floor area ratio of. three and some parking restric- t_lons as being only 110,000 square feet over the next ten years, it appeared that more severe restrictions would not greatly impact anyone. If it was a fact that there was not that much demand to build on California Avenue presently, there would be no adverse effect on anyone if things remained as is. Currently, there was a floor area ratio of one, and the Council permitted some expansion which she believe d allowed for creativity if someone wished to deal with a property in that way. The Council must recognize that it was dealing with an area largely built up, under a zone that probably allowed exactly what was there. -At some point it changed, height limits were raised and floor area ratios were changed, assessment districts were established, and suddenly people's expectations changed. Perhaps a realistic zone was not applied, but people got a useful value out of the land exactly as it was. She believed that the idea that it had to get bigger and better in order to survive and. thrive was not necessarily .the truth. It. thrived -for for a long time on a small scale, and as -she looked down California Avenue and saw. largely.one--story on both sides of the street and contemplated the new building on the cor- ner of El Camino, it was upsetting because it changed the scale. She disagreed with Vice Mayor Levy on the height limit and be- lieved that the Planning Commission recommendation of a floor area ratio of ° two_ and a height limit of 31 feet permitted some varia- tions so that everything would not be exactly alike. Presently everything was alike, and she believed most people. found it com- fortable. She was not anxious to have • variation and a tenestory bui l.ding even though it was a toothpick in one place and a one- story building in another. 'There was something to be said about keeping the scab more or less even._ -The Council was dealing with the,_ kinds of -choices property owners currently had, the types of choices they would have after changes in the district were made, and how the Council structured those choices to encourage the kind of development and retail area it wished to see. She believed the Planning CG`mmissiori did a good job in trying to structure it, and she also concurred with its recorsimendations along El Camino. MAVUK KLEIN ;it ITEMS TO BE HEARD AFTER 11: U0 o.rn. Ftayus Klein said the Palo Alto Municipal Code required that the Council decide at 10:30 p.m. whether to consider any new items after 11:00 p.m., and he suggested that ail items could be handled with the exception of Item 8, regarding the abolition of the Office of the City Controller and Creation of the office of Finance. 1` 114 ;fi - CUNTINUA1C£ NUT1O : Counc# liewbbr Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to bring forward Item #8 for continuance. 4 1 5 3 1/23/84 2. Councilmcmbcr Bcchtcl. asked Mr. Z ncr if there, would be any prob- lems by continuing tie matter. Mr. Laner said no. Staff would continue to administer internally, and begin the informal recruiting process with some advertising. Mayor Klein clarified that the position was authorized by the -Charter. Mr. Leaner said the Charter did not establish any position to con- trol the finances --it only abolished the Controller's position. The Charter did not include any position nor did, it delegate any authority to the City Manager to operate the finances. MOTION PA5:; v ITEM #ti, AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ABOLITION OF Y C N ROLL R AND CREATION UF i tl FI NANCL MUTI,UN TO CONTINUE: Counci lmeMber Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to continue Item #3 to the next Council meeting. Councilrneniber Witherspoon asked if Clay Brown was fulfilling the function of finance officer. Mr. leaner responded that Mr. Brown remained under contract to operate the finance office --not as the City Controller --until the middle of February, 1984. Councilc,ember Renzel said she recognized the motion to continue, but believed it would be helpful to refer the matter to the F&PW Committee rather than continue it and then refer it to the F&PW Committee. She preferred that the referral be done now, and per- haps it would return sooner. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to refer the abolition of the Office of City Control- ler and Creation of the Office of Finance to the Finance and Pub- lic Works (F&PW) Committee. ttee. Mr. Caner said with the substitute motion the matter would not return for any kind of Council action until well into March which would begin to cause problems. It meant the finance operation ran without any code authority until that time, and he did not believe the Council would learn anything new at the F&PW Committee com- pared to what was included the memo. Staff attempted to re:. place the functions previously performed by the Controller with the City Manager, no new responsibilities were added. City Attorney Diane Lee said she was concerned the Municipal Code containeo several provisions that no longer conformed with the City Charter in terms of`` duties and responsibilities. A delay could cause problems in administration and might create legal problems in dealing with banks and other financial institutions. Mayor Klein did not s pport the referral. He believed the Council should debate the issues of concern and handle the matter at its rent rneetl ng. Vice Mayor Levy .believed the referra i was the proper action. He was.concerned that Council was affecting the financial operations of the City in a major way.,almost immediately --prior to bringing' on board a Council. Appointed Officer .who would have functions in the area .of auditing and who would interface with the Council -Is di s- cussions. He preferred the matter be scrutinized, and believed it ru1ght be well to . take an interiMi action until the auditory was hired So that.-.,Counc i l did not provide * he auditor with uncomfort- able elements. - 4 1 5 4 -1/23/84 -- Cnonci lme 1ber Uec it' l- reminded her colleagues that Council approved the change when it recommended it be put on the ballot', and it agreed last May that it was appropria,.e and good fiscal management by the City Manager to have financial control and those people reporting to hiun. The auditor was a separate function and reported to the City Council. It was a housekeeping chore and should be routinely. approved by the Council. She would not sup -- port the referral motion. fob Moss, 4U1U Orme, recommended that Council refer the matter to the F&PW.Committee because the ordinance before the Council made -some substantive changes in the way the City's finances and finan- cial structure were handled. The topic was worthy of more discus- sion and he uryed-that it be referred. Councilmember Sutorius asked what the upcoming agenda looked like. Mr. Laner said there would be public hearings that involved zone changes, and it was a full agenda. MOTION TO REFER TO THE F&PN COMMITTEE PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5-4, Klein, Bechtel Sutorius, Cobb voting "no." Councilmember Cobb said because of the time problem with respect to the matter, he requested there be an early special meeting of the F&PW Committee in order to get the matter on the agenda in two weeks. Mayor Klein said that was the prerogative of the Chair of the F&PW Conuni ttee. Councilmember Cobb said that since he heard no objections, he would call such a meeting, and have the matter reviewed within the next two weeks. 1 1 IIE.M #7, LINE} USE, PARKING AND CIRCULATION FOR THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE STUDY ( Continued) Councilmember Fletcher picked up on the comment regarding the economic viability of the various floor area ratios, that the 2:1 floor area ratio would -result in a "boutiqueing" of the neighbor- hood. Mr. McDonald clarified that when they talked about continued or increased rents. one probability that would allow it without physical growth would be any kind of a force that went to higher rents per square foot, and one would be more of a 'boutique" image and less of a "neighborhood serving" image. It was not a predic- tion, but rather an "if then" type statement. Councilmember Fletcher said she Was trying to tie the statement in with what was happening downtown where there was a 50 foot height limit and there was "boutiqueing" to the ultimate. The food stores were being lost and the other neighborhood serving kinds of retail establishments, as well. If a 50. foot height limit were left on California Avenue., and it took off the way downtown did, it would lose. the nei yhborftood serving type of uses which were now there. She believed that a logical conclusion was CO keep a lower floor area ratio in order, to keep the current type of retail activity:. air . McDonald said i t would, and- that . apy bidding up process that wade California Avenue more like downtown would lead to uses other than neighborhood_ .s-erving commercial. The consultant agreed that if the .objective was- to preserve a -neighborhood serving :shopping area actions to limit the potential for other emore profitable uses would serve that. end. 4 1 5 5 1/23/84 Counci h emner Fletcher believed that spoke well for considerably rlduciny the current floor area ratio. She reminded the Council, in light of Councilmember Witherspocn's comments regarding the ground floor reta i 1 , it was the request of CAAUA that the regula- tion be imposed to prevent a conversion of what was currently there to office and financial establishments. She believed it was a good regulation unless Council wanted to see the change that was seen downtown. She predicted that the next time there was a sue- vey, Council would see a considerable loss of retail space. Regarding the height limit, one of the objectives of the study was to keep the current scale and not the scale of what might happen under current zoning. She was concerned about not requiring more on -site parking for residential: -levelopmcnts than for -commercial, and hoped a solution could b found to provide incentives --for residential development. She supported Councilmember Renzel's comments regarding the properties on Park Boulevard, and favored residential because residential was currently being developed there optionally by a commercial developer, and if he believed it was d commercially viable type of development right by the tracks, the Council should not stand in the way by not zoning it residen- tial. She realized it would be optional, but preferred to err on the side of having it residential rather than commercial allowing for the present uses to .be grandfathered An. The Planning Commis- sion believed it should see first how the residential currently being developed worked out, but she believed it should be rezoned residential, and if the present residential development did not work, the Council could yo the other ways whereas it would be nard " .o do that the other way around. Councilmember Woolley agreed with the Planning Commission recom- mendations except for the property along Park Boulevard, which she preferred to see go to housing. She lived about three blocks down from. the railroad track, and it was not a bad place for a house. She was concerned that housing was needed in as many places as feasible. She also took exception to the Planning Commission recommendation regarding the height for the housing incentive. The sounding board participants favored residential' incentives, t.rge Planning Commission favored residential incentives, but she wcis not sure that the recommendations were actually incentives as long as it had a 37 foot height limit. The study stated that with a maximum three stories, the effective building size would be con- siderably less than three times the floor area, and if it were a mixed use project, she asked if it would hold as with a completely commercial project. 4s. Vandertack said the "less than three times the floor, area" was in a dedicated .--residential development with the open space requirement, setback and daylight plane. She believed that in a mixed use project, open space did not have to be provided for the residential units. Councilmember Woolley- clarified it would be possible tp put in a mixed use development. Mr. Freeland said it would be difficult to maximize the floor area in a residentia 1 mixed use project and arrive at `aa suitable design. ' pe believed there would probably be less than the 3:1 floor a;-ee ra.ti:i if orte created a structure that would be pleasant fur t.:•es+dent ,-.1. environment, and would pass the ARB's review in. tha the City would look for some amenities in. terms of light --not €passes . of housing units above,. The incentive would be in the direction -_of housing —although it might not be .the full 3:1 floor area ratio with the. height limit. Counci imember Woolley said she preferred to get the full amount of Roust ny and have it be livable. When One thought about the -square blocks being discussed, she envisioned apartments like in' Boston with a corridor down the center and units on. each side wi'h no cross vents liation and relatively. little °interest, and she pre- ferred to see the Council allow a 50 -foot height limit for 4 1 5 6 1/23/84 residential or mixed use projects only. She did not believe there would be. that many, and it would add to the interest on California Avenue, Councilmember Cobb said on page 15 of the McDonald report, the comment was made "that it is anticipated that creating a pedes- trian zone on California Avenue from El Camino to Birch Street would detract from the economic vitality area." He was surprised by the statement and asked staff to comment. Mr. Freeland said he took strong exception to that advice when he went to the sounding board committee. The comment was based on the thought that any additional regulation detracted to some degree from the present situation in terms of the marketability of the projects, and he believed the pedestrian zone greatly enhanced the area and returned more than it took in terms of the quality of the area and its attractiveness, Councilmember Cobb said with respect to the floor area ratio, CAADA indicated that if the floor area ratio was set at 2:1, the assessment formula would have to change to basically have the first floor bear the full amount rather than have some sort of credit. He asked if that meant that at the 2:1 ratio, the assess- ment would have to be carried down to the first floor in order to keep the assessment district healthy on a financial basis as against to 2.5:1 where they talked about nothing on the first floor, half on the second, and full on the third. Mr. Freeland believed the question related to the comments in Attachment F where staff reported on the progress of the California Avenue Parking Assessment District Committee. The Committee favored the "CAADA formula" which was that the parking assessment district would provide all parking on the ground floors and half the parking on,the second floors, and that the developer would provide all the parking on floors above that. If the floor area ratio were changed to 2:1, they would no longer hold with the "CAADA formula" because if there were no parking requirement on the ground floor and 50 percent on the second floor, it would result in only one-fourth of the parking being provided by the developer. The whole concept of the "CAADA formula" was to have something like half of the parking provided _by the private. developer and half provided by the district. The problem with all of it was that if the assessment district was not providing parking, even having half of the parking not provided by the developer was a problem, which was why they were looking at some-. thing less than a one floor area ratio exemption. Councilmember Cobb clarified that it would dramatically change the}. formula. He was concerned that if the floor area ratio was set at 2:1, the Council might create a situation where the assessment district found it more difficult to solve the net deficit of parking that already existed. Mr, Freeland said it was true that the assessment district would have a hard time raising a lot of money if there was little addi- ti-onal development potential that made it salable to raise a lot of money to provide parking. To the extent that growth was con• strained in the area more than the area was willing to accept, potential funding' for parking was cut off. On the other hand, it would greatly reduce the amount of growth in parking that needed to be provided. Councilmember Bechtel believed that the arguments for providing residential rezoning along -Park Boulevard were good. There was residential zoning and single family houses, and an existing proj- ect which was a combination of residential with- some commercial. She believed it was valid to put in residential and grandfather. all of 'the existing uses. Although she was concerned. about the consultant's comments concerning the economic vitality and via- bility of the California Avenue area, it existed nicety -with 4 1 5 7 As C°Vii414 one and two-story buildings, and she believed the 2:1 floor area ratir, made sense because it would reduce the future pdrking Ong demand of the area. In combination with the Planning Commission recom- mendations, if 66 percent or more of the floor area in the CC zone were devoted to residential use, the floor area ratio would be 3:1. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Planning Commission recommendations in CMR:135:4 including Land Use Map, with the following changes: 1. Change Neighborhood Commercial on Park Boulevard to RM-3; and adopt Planning Commission recommendation for C.2 for a 2:0-1:© floor ratio for the CC zone properties along Cambridge, California and Sherman; 2. Adopt Planning Commission recommendations that the density transfer concept not be pursued and that the staff examine the potential to have a parking exemption credit established for future residential projects on commercial property which has made past assessment payments, but th;t air rights projects be an option to be considered at some point in the future; 3. Finds no significant environmental impact and direct staff to prepare the necessary ordinances, resolutions, and plan text to implement the California Avenue Study for public hearing by the Planning Commission. Coencilmember Suturius said the motion collected all the items and that was the most efficient way to handle the matter, but he was at odds on three points in the motion. He supported a 2.5 floor area ratio, which was the staff recommendation because he agreed with the consultant and the staff assessment of what the develop- ment actually would be. He was comforted by the monitoring process and believed the parking situation was an observable brake on development and was concerned that at a 2:0, the potential was that it would put the acquisition of the Keystone lot in jeopardy. He did not have expert financial knowledge, but it put the finan- cial situation of the assessment district in a more precarious position philosophically, physically, and financially. The out- come of that would not only be lost opportunity relative to parking, but it would °oz increased development in the area that was not calculated into any of the growth estimates. He was also concerned about the residential recommendation for the Park Boulevard properties, and he concurred with the Planning Commission evaluation and conclusion in that location. He pre- ferred to not vote for language with a negative cast to the con - cept of density transfer. He believed the Council and Planning Commission were aware that he advocated the opportunities tto .dem- onstrate the benefit of density transfers. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that in item C.2 on page 3 of CMR:135:4, the floor area ratio be changed to 2.5. Councilmember Renzel agreed with Mr. Freeland that while the lower floor area ratio might have some negative impact on the assessment district mechanism, it would also result in far less parking demand being put onto the assessment district. She believed there was currently about a 300 space deficit which would be difficult to make up in any case even with the acquisition of the Keystone lot, but if Council continued to permit deficits to be created, which a 2.5 floor area ratio would, it would not matter .whether the Keystone lot was acquired. While she wanted to see it acquired and some progress made toward the existing deficit, she believed it was more important to prevent future deficits. from being created., Councilmember Witherspoon wanted to see the ratio go to 2.5 because they were dealing with small parcels in the area and that 4 1 5 8 /84 As Corrected 3/26/84 would allow some of those parcels to be modestly redeveloped whereas others would probably be constrained because of the park- i;rg. She was not concerned about overdevelopment in the area, and believed it gave flexibility to the smaller landowner. She hoped it would also give flexibility for the Council to develop incen- tives for providing open space at the pedestrian level for rede- velopment in the area. Councilmember Fletcher believed Commissioner Northway said that the Planning Commission reduced the recommended 2.5 to the 2.0 floor area ratio to encourage flexibility in design and because 2.5 would result in boxes. She was net sure about the economics of the parking deficiencies versus the 2.0 and 2.5 floor area ratio, and was concerned about what would be worked out to encour- age residential development parking. She thought about putting off a decision until the residential. parking problems were worked out, and it was suggested that Council could make a decision that evening, and when staff returned with the recommendation regarding parking for residential developments, Council could recommend a change if necessary. Mayor Klein said Council was only approving idees in concept that evening, and staff would go forward with the public hearings before the Planning Commission, etc. Councilmember Fletcher believed it was safe to stay with the 2.0 floor area ratio and remember the reason for the Planning Commis- sion recommendation. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Cobb, Witherspoon, Sutorius voting "aye." AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the CC area along Park Boulevard, proposed for rezoning to residential, be changed to CN as contained in the Planning Commis- sion recommendation. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Cobb, Witherspoon, Sutorius voting "aye." Councilmember Sutorius said he understood the present motion removed the Planning Commission prohibition on pursuing air rights, but left in a prohibition on pursuing density transfers. AMENDMENT: .Councilmember Sutorius moved that the density trans- fer prohibition be deleted from the motion. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Levy, that the Planning Commission and staff explore ways to encourage developers to provide open space on the ground level. Councilmember ititherspoon believed encouragement could be provided in a number of ways and did not want to preclude the overall pack- age. If open space could not be provided by straight encourage- ment, they could explore a bonus in the height limit or in the residential area c ove.. Councilmember Renzel supported the motion, and hoped the para- meters suggested by the Planning Commission would provide the architects with the latitude for open space at the ground level. She was not sure how far the Council needed to go for encourage- ment, and had no problem with staff studying the matter. Vice Mayor Levy believed the Council should encourage architects to provide as much interest and diversity as possible. Open space to him was fountains, atriums, clock towers and things like that, and he hoped that would be part of the thinking of staff and the Planning Commission. t/3N Councilmember Fletcher understood that was what the (P) zone basically addressed basically J addressed. 3 Mr. Freeland said that was true to a certain extent, and the only requirement was that an area equal to 1.5 feet times the street frontage be set aside as recesses, alcoves, arcades, or similar such features in the fronts of the buildings. He believed the motion spoke to something more substantial in dimension. Councilmember Fletcher said the (P) zone did not cover the entire area, and clarified the motion would address the whole area. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Witherspoon was concerned about the proposal that Council consider selling some of the parking lots on Cambridge and provide retail space there to encourage retail use; and that if the Co!inty proposed to sell its lot, the Council made no effort to buy it, even though it talked of buying the more expensive Keystone lot. That was counter to her concern that people who worked in the area used up all the spaces designed by the Assessment District for the retail shoppers, and soon there would be what former Councilmember-Fred Eyerly called "sleeper parking " if. it was not already happening. She hated to see the City lose any lots for parking because they had to start providing parking lots three or four blocks from the California downtown area for the long-term packers. She supported the suggestion of Councilmember Bechtel that air rights not be precluded until the Council knew how it might be combined with parking. She believed the Council policy was to encourage parking down there, and some of the things in the report were counter to that policy. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, deletion of Recommendation 4b in CMR:135:4. Councilmember Cobb asked whether there was the potential for the Council to combine and get a larger lot and increase the net stock of parking. He believed that was a possibility and asked for clarification. Mr. Freeland said if the small lots were sold and the money used to buy lots contiguous to existing Assessment District lots, and there was a lot large enough to accommodate a parking structure, the long-term potential for parking would be increased. On the other hand, a parcel might also be freed up for development, which might impose a parking requirement Changing the configuration,of the lots could well result in increasing the potential. Councilmember Sutorius agreed with the staff comments and recom- mended that Council not delete,4b. It was only suggested for con- sideration, and he believed it was unnecessary to removee it from the evaluation process. . Councilmember Bechtel concurred with Councilmember Sutorius' remarks. Mayor Klein did not support the motion, and believed that after the words "to consider...," the words `"but only so long as no net reduction in number of parking spaces occurs" be added. Councilmember Woolley asked for clarification about whether the motion spoke to the small .lots or the County lot and the possi- bility of the City buying it. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that she intended to speak to both being in conflict with the Council's goal to provide more parking, Councilmember Renzel's motion spoke specifically to the idea of selling the small lots, and she agreed that the City did not wish to sell any parking lots. 4 1 6 0 1/23/84 As Corr26/8 AMENDMENT FAILED by a rote of 2-7, Renzel and Witherspoon voting "aye. AMENDMENT: Mayor Klein moved. seconded by Sutorius, that recom- mendation 4b (CMK:135:4) be amended to add "but only so long as no net reduction in the number of parking spaces in the area occurs." Mayor Klein clarified that if there were to be trade --offs, there would have to be an equal, or greater amount added in some other area. Councilmember Renzel clarified that by "net," she meant that if a lot was sold and developed and created a parking demand, whatever alternative was created would supply that demand and replace the old supply. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Councilmenber Cobb had problems with the air rights concept because he believed it could only lead to high density projects the area did not need. AMENDMENT: Counci lmember . Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, to restore the language in the Planning Commission recommendation that air rights projects not be pursued over California Avenue parking lots, Vice Mayor Levy said he was not sure where they were going with air rights and density transfers, and nothing in -the study spoke to the approval of an air rights concept or a density transfer. he did not believe Council had to say anything, yet it was con- sideriny going on record in opposition, which was premature. He was not comfortable with air rights, and density transfers had not been sufficiently discussed for him to form an opinion. He did not.want to convey a position on either item. Mayor Klein believed it was a procedural matter. Councilrnember Sutorius offered an amendment to suggest that the density transfer concept be left on the agenda for consideration although it failed for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Levy asked if that took some kind of action. Mayor Klein said yes, the Council decided not to pursue the par- ticular amendment and the motion on the floor proposed language. tnat the density transfer concept not be pursued. Vice Mayor Levy asked for clarification about. density transfer, and how staff interpreted any action if the Council approved the amendment on air rights. Mre Freeland said density transfer was the ability to take unused potential_ development, under whatever zoning was established for the area, and transfer it from one parcel to another. Vice Mayor Levy said that since there was nothing in the report that recommended density transfers, how would staff interpret Council not having favored it. Mr. free,tand said that if Council did not discuss density trans- fers, the concept would not be included in• the materials staff prepared for a_ hearing. The only difference between that and a policy specifically opposed to density. transfer was that staff would not feel comfortable bringing forward a density transfer in, the near future for California Avenue. If it came up in six months wherr someone- had a recommendation, staff night look back to that as a policy precedent from the City Council. If the Council spoke in opposition to dens.i.ty._ transfer or took- na position, it would not, come back in the rnater--ials staff prepared. 4 1 b 1 1/23/84 Vice Mayor Levy asked if the ware was true for d i r ri uhts. Mr. Freeland said yes. It was a question of whether the Council wanted the record to reflect a negative feeling on the subject. Councilmember Henze] said she understood the Planning Commission recommended that no further consideration be given to air• rights or density transfer because they were believed to be unworkahle concepts for the area, and At would take considerable staff time to address the complex concepts. She preferred t,o see staff's time used in other directions. She had a lot of questions about the density transfer, and concurred with Councilrnernber Cobb on air rights. It was pointless for staff to look at those concepts for that particular area, -and she supported the amendment on the floor, but not the one to add back the density concept. Mayor Klein clarified that the amendment only dealt with air rights. It the amendment passed, it -Would restore the language in the Planning Commission recommendation that air rights not be pur- sued, Councilmeriiber Witherspoon did not want the staff to spend hours studying air rights, but she was concerned about parking. She conceived the air rights concept as a way for the Council to achieve its parking goals by makiny a reverse --allowing the devel- opment of the ground floor for retail and provide two or three levels above for parking. She did not want to preclude the- con- cept, and did not want the Council to goon record that it would not consider air rights. It might be the only way to get park- ing. Planning Commissioner Northway clarified that to the Planning Corn - mission, the air rights concept was always an experimental issue. The jury was sti 1 l out on i ;, in that the project was not built downtown. The Planning Commission believed it would only confuse the issue to investigate air rights in the California Avenue area. it might be a good idea, or it ,might be a waste of staff time to pursue it. The same was true for densi y transfer, and a study would be required to determine where such a concept should be applied. A lot of effort would be required of staff, and density transfer should be part of a who1e study. After some final deci- sions on air rights or density transfer carne in, it night be a good idea to apply it to the area, but the Commission believed it was premature to throw at staff. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that however they voted,•istaff would not spend any more time.on air rights in California Avenue. Mr. Freeland said yes. The only difference would be if someone walked into the office in two weeks and was interested in develop- iny an air rights project over the California Avenue parking lot. If staff had what amounted to a policy statement from the Council that it actively did not like the concept, there would be a policy against it. In the absence of any such policy, staff would tell the applicant he was free to deal with the City to pursue the mat- ter. Tice Mayor Levy believed it was procedurally wrong --in the middle of a discussion WI California Avenue --to bring up a polity Matter ;in air rights because that was not the issue being discussed. No one recommended the use of.air rights, and h,e. did not believe council had to discuss a policy. Councihnember AlechCel did not believe Council was discussing --. a policy,- but rather that it was a-posSible option Council did not wish to preclude. It right be a chance to provide necessary park- A ng perhaps --in conjunction with offices. AKNUPIENT FA1l.0 by a -rote of 2-6, Cobb and 1enzei voting "aye,_' Levy abstaining. 4 1 6 2 1/23/84 . AMLNUNLNT. Coos{ci luieiliee Woolley moved, seconded _by Levy, to adopt the land use preiiurinary recommendation from staff allowing buildings over 37 feet• -if they were residential or mixed use proj- ects. Councilme'obe. Woolley said she wanted to provide as much incentive as possible for housing as opposed to jobs. Two-thirds of the project would have to be housing, it would only he the first floor, which they already had, so there would probably not be an increase in jobs in that kind of development; and the additional housing would support the,type of neighborhood retail they wanted to preserve. Mayor Klein asked for clarification that she spoke to the CC zone And the 66 percent residential. He pointed out it would then be subject to a 5t) foot height limit, and Counci lnierber Witherspoon queried whether there would also be parking restrictions. Caunci.lmember Witherspoon said that was covered in the main motion. AMENDMENT RESTATED: TO .ALLOW BUILDINGS IN THE -CC ZONE OVER 37. FEET ANU UP TO 50 FEET ONLY IF THEY WERE FOR RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE PROJECTS.. Vice Mayor Levy said he seconded the amendment because it would not increase the density. The floor area ratio would stay the same, )ut it offered a greater envelope for more amenities in the housing element and made it easier for the Council to have mixed use development, which was worthwhile. Counciimember Fletcher asked about the floor area ratio of the Cox project on Park and California. Mr. ireeland did not know. Councilme,iber Fletcher said she was hesitant to vote on the amend- ment because there was so much negative reaction to the Cox proj- ect. Until the Council had a handle on preventing that type of development, she was not ready to vote for it. She might at some time in the future because she was convinced the Council would not yet another project like that one. Mr. Freehand said the floor area ratio for 100 California Avenue, which was not yet built, was approximately 1.5. Cotricilmember Fletcher said she was thinking about the part al- ready developed. Councilmember Henze] believed one of the issues on California Avenue was to preserve the scale and the small town atmosphere. It was clear the public was unhappy with high buildings, whether residential, commercial, or anything else, and if there were other areas where residential could be developed in a mixed use •concept, the Council should stick, to- preserving the scale on California Avenue. She opposed the r oti on . AP ENUf4ENT FAILEL by a vote of 4-5, Woolley, -Wltherspo0-n, Sutorius, Lev voting "aye." Councilmember Bechtel clarified the main motion that all of the uses that became nonconforming in the neighborhood -commercial area along El —Camino, and the residential area proposed along Park Boulevard, would be yrandfathered in. The question was what would happen with the one which was already nonconforming. Mr. Freeland said that was the one difficulty--thewarehousing and distribution function on Mr. McDonald's property, -which was presently nonconforming. It aright be legally permissible to grandfather in a nonconforming use, but staff believed that from a 4 1 6 3 1/23/84 planniny point of view, it was a bad precedent to grandfather in uses which were already determined nonconforming by. the City. Staff proposed to follow a nonconforming use exception process,. to which the property was entitled. The owner recently received a notification of nonconforming use status from the 1978 rezoning. Councilmember Bechtel asked if that included the Lawrence Tire Center and the various cleaners because she intended that they would all be grandfathered in with the exception of those already nonconforming. She -spoke with the owner of that property and his attorney during the break, and they planned to apply for the exception which site would favor. The RM-3 should be left up to the Planniny Commission and staff recommendations, but she believed it should be multiple family residential. MUTICtl RESTATED: APPROVAL OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOW - IMO EXCEPTIONS: 1. That Park Boulevard be multi -family residential rather than neighborhood commercial; Z. Item 6 from the Planning Commission recommendation not have a total condemnation of air rights projects; 3. There be an appropriate grandfather provision, as recommended by staff; 4. The motion include the language on page 5 with regard to the environmental impact report, and direction to -staff to prepare the necessary ordinance resolutions and plan text; 5. The amendments to Recomendat1on 4b to ensure no net reduction in parking spaces; 6. Direct the staff and Planning Commission to find ways to en- courage developers to create open space at ground level. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. Mayor Klein said the item took four hours, and he hoped the next item would take less time. ITEM #9 RE UEST OF MAYOR KLEIN AND COUNCILMi MBER COBB FOR REPORT P R u S r MMU IN Councilmember Cobb said he hoped that ways could be found to en- sure that community ice skating continued in Palo Alto. He noted fo-veer Mayor Alan Henderson_ was in the audience until exhausted by the Council, and had departed, leaving a statement that he would later read into the record. Jack Morton spoke for The Trust for Community Skating, and said that last April, late in.,.the evening, they accepted the City's grant to ensure the short term coat i nii.ati on of ice skating. At that time, the trustees committed-,t.o try and find a solution that would not requ;re a; substantial outlay of City dollars, They also claimed that the program would be self-supporting and the City._ mould not :have to 'worry ;about a perennial operational drain from the -program. Correspond: nce in the Council packet sugge:sted that Council consider a non -cash solution in the form of a recommenda- tion to allow a plebisci e on a fair market trade =between the Middlefield Road site wher the Winter Club stood, and the lot on -tieng Road previously offered by Council for a skating `facility Underlying the suygestion was the clear recognition that the -Truss a did not have the c pital, and could not raise it by the May 1 deadline. It further recognized the YMCA, which operated the facility co -joint* with the =Trust, did not presently have the funds to proceed with such a purchase. .They believed tie,_ communi- ty Would prefer to have the -City. as the agent in. the final solu- tion to the problem." The second part of : the claiM at that time 4 1 6 4 1/23/84 U� self-su pporting. pP g Regarding the finan- Yr'a5 that i�� �`iiiR would f} Ort1�1 . Lid; statements in the packets, the balance sheet showed an stem of deferred revenue on earned lesson fees of $13,000. Those les- son fees were received by the program but were not included on the income statement on lesson fees. If they were added in on a receipt basis, the program would have produced lesson revenue of $39,UU0. The budget figure included the fact that they would receive two sessions' worth, which meant the program's excessive revenue over expenses was actually $53,000. None of the public donations were spent on the program itself, and through November, a $3,000 excess was generated. The only use of contributions was to acquire the facility and make the deferred maintenance for which they budgeted. In addition, they used a portion of those moneys to set aside a demolition reserve since they hoped to con- tinue beyond May 1. Not only was the rink self-supporting, but that year it seemed to undergo a resurgence of interest. There were more lesson s+a ters in the second, mid -less i on, than in the best session last year, the final session. Skating parties were booked through yearend and the staff was excited. The only dark cloud was that demolition was sch ;;duffed again for May 1. They expected that within the next few weeks, Council would receive a report from staff, and he understood that staff would not recom- mend that Council build a facility elsewhere to replace the -cur- rent one because of the cost involved with replacement. Gounci linember Witherspoon asked who would pay to upgrade and reno- vate the existing facility if the land issue was solved. Mr. Morton said the Trust believed the lesson program was highly supported and the key to the facility. They proposed a slow transformation of the present facility, and the next item would be to expand the enclosed rink. There was presently a small enclosed rink whhich they wanted to triple in order to have simultaneous public sessions and lesson skating and provide two revenue sources from a single evening. Discussions with Duncan Williams, who they hoped would be their volunteer consulting engineer, led them to believe it could be accomplished within the budget although they might have to undertake an outside campaign for support. Nothing was done so far except maintenance of the present facility. Things they could have done within their budget were deferred un- til the fate of the facility was known. They wanted to expand the family barbecue area to increase attendance at family nights and so increase revenue. They expected that J'aving associated them- selves with the YMCA, they would enter i n0 a ;long-term contract and use their resources to develop the facility. Vice Mayor Levy asked about the value of the request of the City. Mr. Morton deferred to Rick McLancliffe. Rick McLancliffe said the YMCA and the Trust worked independently to try and get an idea of what the land was really worth. The land was zoned for high dcnsity multiple housing but was not ap- proved for any specific:praject, so it was hard to assess-. t The land was worth substantially more than the improvements, *O. fact, the improvementswere worth nothing since they' would be torn down. The land costs for the skating erink and adjacent parking, a separate lot which was actually leased to Mr. Williams and which was about an acme, T.could easily be worth in excess Of $500,000 just for the land value. That was het the entire Chuck Thompson - facility* only the Winter Club`faci.lity. Vice Mayor Levan asked if the Winter Club facility was available as a separate parcel a Mr. McLancl i ffe did` not believe i_t was a separate legal parcel, but could become one. it was always: treated as a separate_ parcel, and 'was leased. for sortie 2U years.. it was an -identifiable parcel, with a descripxlon, but he did not.. believe it was an actual separate l;eyal parcel. 4 k 6 5 1/23/84-. Vice Mayor levy asked if it had access to Middlefield, and whether it could be separated out so the Council could say whether it was -willing to spend $b00,000 or the equivalent and acquire the par- cel. Mr. McLancliffe believed it could be done through some kind of easement which presently existed to the left of the Shell site. in terms of the other facility, there would be no problem. The Thompson facility also needed access to Middlefield Road which could be shared, Mr. Loner said that if it was not a separate legal parcel , whether they could successfully obtain an easement for access was_ another question entirely. He could not guess as to the value of the land. Counci_lrnember Cobb said that, former Mayor Alin Henderson left a _statement, which was on file in the City Clerk's office, as a mem- ber of the Executive Committee of the. Palo Alto YMCA and as Chair- man of the Y's future Planning Committee. He would read Mr. Henderson's statement. Regarding the Winter Club's operations to date, general admissions were initially a little low, but climbed to slightly ahead of the expectations. Jsesson sign ups were a' little less than hoped; but they were on target with their budget and expected increased interest following the Winter Olympics in February. The City hatched the Trust funds mo!ley on a one-to-one basis --$25,000 from:_ each source. All equipment was purchased and trie necessary faci i ity improvements were made at a total cost of less than $30,000. From the $20,000 plus remaining, it was anticipated that operations could continue for another year and probably for a number of years without requesting further City financial help. The remaining $20,000 plus would be used for additional repairs, and it was. expected that the Winter Lodge operations would be self-sustaining. Personnel -wise, the existing winter Club staff successfully became the Y's Winter Lodge staff without placing great burdens on existing YMCA staff members. The YMCA was pleased with the Winter Lodge operations to date, and happy it could help keep the program going in the community.'., In terms of. the. long-range, the YMCA was interested in looking into the possibility of relocating to the Middlefield Road site. The existing facility on Ross Road produced a lot of traffic, day and night, in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Expansion there was not possible, eve€i for the much needed swimming pool. The owner of the Middlefield property, which included the Winter Lodge, Chuck Tho_npscn's Swim and Tennis Club and the former Shell station site, set a price for the property and expressed the desire to sell it soon. The economics of a possible City pure ch.s2, short -terra lease management and eventual resale to the YMCA were unknown, but the "Y" supported, by unanimous vote last week, immediate investigation of such a possibility with the City and the property owner. If an arrangement could be worked out, the result would be new housing on Ross Road, the preservation of ice skating in Palo Alto, swimming and tennis facilities being avail- able to most. Palo Alto. citizens, and the addition of an outstand- my community service organization in a centralized, non --single family residential location. The "Y" hoped the Council would appoint a committee? or take whatever stefis necessary to make ap immediate study -f the concept. kver' though it might seem like a lorry .shot, heOen was excited about the potential, for discussion, negotiation, and corpromise among tie representatives of the City of Pa 1 o Alto, the .YMCA, the Trust for Covununi ty Skating, and the property owner, Mr. Peery. He thanked WI I Inner _for_ his posi- t i re approach to the sob.ject. -He was note only willing to discuss the *natter, he had the entht siasm `to _ pre.sent new ideas. tie thanked the Mayor ,and the Counci lmembers for the past support of the Wlntar Lddye and the opportu€iity to discuss_ its future. Louncilmember Cobb said although former Mayor !Henderson was unable to be there in person, his letter spoke well to the Regarding the question;ln Mr . Morton's letter _about the land swap 1 O 4 1 6 6 1/23/134 on ieny Road, that would be inconsistent with previous Council actions to restrict development in that area, especially commer- cial development. MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, that Council declare its opposition to the exchange of land involving City -owned parkland in the Baylands area as d mechanism for pro- viding the continuation of community ice skating in Palo Alto. Councilmember Cobb said his motion was intended to clear the air of an idea he believed -'was politically unfeasible, and' he wanted to get it out of the way in order to get on with th those that might be feasible. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Cobb said the facility was proven to be physically and operationally viable. He saw a lot of people enjoy and use the Winter Club, and he was excited about its attendance. The YMCA -expressed an interest a -s stated by Mr. Henderson's letter, and he believed the potential to get the land use to a point where there was recreation on the Middlefield site --which was perfect for the kind of activities the "Y" had and could offer the com- munity --and to get housing in the middle of a residential neigh- borhood where it belonged was too good an opportunity to pass up, or at ;Gast study, MOTION; Councilmember Cobb roved, seconded by Sutorius, that the Council declare its interest in continuing to actively explore mechanisms and approaches to permit community ice ti.cating to con- tinue its a part of Palo Alto's recreational fife, and to that end: 1. That the Mayor appoint a Council subcommittee to work with the skating community, the YMCA, staff, and the property owner; and 2 Urge the property owner to defer the planned demolition date for the skating facility to permit potentially viable options to be more fully developed and considered. Councilmember Witherspoon completely agreed with the goal, but did not understand why the Council was getting into the act unless it Was being asked to help pay. Councilmernbers could act as citi- zens to work with the committee. The Council was already on record, with its capital gift, as being in support, If the Mayor was to appoint a committee, and direct things to the owner of the site., she wanted to know what was expected of. the City. Mayor Klein said one possibility was a situation where the City and the YMCA entered into_an agreement where the City would pur- chase the land temporarily with the YMCA to both operate the facility and buy: out the City's position within a giv _n period of time. There might be Otherways wlrere._tne City Could play a crea- tive role short or actually being the owner. Co:uncilmegb,er Witherspoon asked how that could be indicated as a policy. .Mayor Klein Said . that aS he. understood. Councilmember Cobbs motion, nothing was being committed or ruled oute it was just an exploration. Councilmember Witherspoon said if the Council got into the act, it would be expected to somehow facilitate, and she was not inter- ested in that. Vi-ce Mayor Levy -wanted skating to continue in Pa l o,: Al to, E4nd empa-. thized with Counci imember= slither -spoon's concerns about the 4 1 6 7 1/23/84 ip? e.ai ions of a Council action, and believed it might help for the Council to specifically comment that its action that evening did not imply further City financial commitment. That did not mean the Council would not end up doing -something similar to that mentioned by Mayor Klein, but he believed the Council's going in position must be clear. There was no implication about the City making a financial -commitment in an'y way by that action. He wanted to see that language added to the motion before he would support it. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to amend the motion by the addition of the words "This action does not imply further City financial commitment." Councilmember Fenzel asked if the amendment meant the City did not guarantee financial commitment, or that by actively voting for it they were saying no financial commitment would be made. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that the language "did not imply," meant the Council was free to do something in the future. He believed that anyone looking at the motion could see, thy? Council was not making a financial commitment and should not assume one would be made. it was a separate action and had nothing to do with the action in question. Councilmember Henze} clarified that Council was not guaranteeing any financial commitment —not that it would never make one. Vice Maycr Levy clarified, that any financial commitment would be a completely_ separate action, and had nothing to do with the motion on the floor. Councilmember Menzel said she wanted the exact meaning ,notion clarified. the Mr. Liner believed he understood the motion. Councilmember Renzel's point was critical -the real issue, if Council wanted to continue the ice skating, was to preserve the existing g fac_i l ity, and a signal needed to be sent to the appropriate parties. The Council, in a separate action, might consider some financial involvement like a loan, a purr,.hase, or any one of a number of things. It would not be appropriate for the Council to send the signal that it ruled out all financial possibilities in the future because that might result in the demolition of the property. He understood that the motion said that subject would be determined at a later date, not ruled out, but not guaranteed either. Councilmember Cobb said the mnt i :lee purposely worded carefully so there was no implication one way or the other. The Council was trying to send a signal because there was a bui ldozer out there that might well run on May-! if it were not sent. .,e did not feel the amendment was -necessary because it was clear that there was no specific commitment. The commitment was that the Council would like to see the skating _ontinue, :would work on it, and see what they carne up with which would include whatever numbers were ger- mane to the potential continuance. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Cobb and Swtorius voting "no." MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-0, Witherspoon abstain- ing, ITEM ri.0 RE OES1 OF COUNCiLMEMBER BECHTEL RE RESOLUTION OM Counci lmember Bechtel said. the .Association had membership tnroogh- out the State of California, and it was not only for elected women, but for anyone interested in the political process. 1 4 1 6 8 1/2304 MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Ren2el, approval of the resolution commending the California Elected Women's AssociatO.on for Education and Research (CEWAER) on its tenth anniversary. RESOLUTION 6224 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF IHE CITY OF PALO ALTO COMMENDING CALIFORNIA ELECTED WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ON THE OCCASION OF ITS TENTH ANNIVERSARY" Councilrnember WitherspocA asked for confirmation that CEWAER did nut take political positions on issues nor endorsed candidates. Counci lmerriber Bechtel said that was correct. Vice Mayor Levy. believed Council policy was .that proclamations of such nature were signed by the Mayor in his or her own judgment, and he agreed with that policy. General proclamations did not go before the Council, and he asked why the exception. Courrci l,nember Bechtel said that the Mayor of Ua v i s distributed a proposed resolution at an Environmental Quality Committee of the League of California Cities, and. solicited support: from a number of cities-, and she was asked to pass a resolution. It was a com- mendable and worthy organization, but she- understood Vice Mayor Levy's concern.- Anyone who felt strongly could abstain, but she urged supports She had no intention of submitting further resolu- tions, and the action would not set a major precedent. Vice Mayor Levy said he would abstesin even though he did not dis- agree about the organization's cornrnendah? lity and approved the goals mentioned in the resolution. He was ignorant of CEWAER, did eot know what it stood for, who itr officers were, orwhat it. did. He was inadequately prepared to vote one way or the other although he strongly supported its objectives. 4U 10N MASSED by a vote of 8-O, Levy abstaining. FILM #11, kLlUtST OF COUNC1LMEMBER WOOLLEY FOR A RESOLUTION RE KETGHBORS ABROAD O FICIAL VISIT U PALO LEY , PH L r� t 9B MOTION: Counciloearber Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, that the City Clerk be directed to prepare a . res-ilution commemorating the official visit to Palo, for the 21st anniversary of the Sister City relationship between Palo Alto and Palo. AMENDMENT: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Witherspo.1Y, that Councilmember Woolley be designated as Pilo Alto.'s official dele- gate on that visit. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. ITEM #I2 HE ULST Uri C1)UNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE . LAMP POST visworsOwslewsmanteetoossmiftwor Counci l mecrber '` F.l etcher said aluminum lamp .post:s -.. sere going :up An various areas, and there were- complaints, She,!believed the- lamp p►osts might be appropriate for some areas, but not others.. MUTI1104 Cosunci lmember. Fletcher moved, seconded by Renael , to direct staff to work With the Architectural Review Board to devise a new standard for laap post installations. Counci l umber Witherspoon resided in the Crescent . Park community -- and looked at her aluminum lamp post every _ day, and she agreed that they were not very beautiful. Sheasked what was meant by "standard' because she believed the Utilities Department used, the standard ` of safety, and for that reason picked aluminum. 4 1 6 -9 1/23/84 t,ouncf imemtjer Fletcher clarified she wanted the lamp posts to be appropriate for the neighborhood in which they were >beiny installed. She referred to the downtown beautification project where lamp posts were chosen to fit into the area. Her initial request was that each installation be reviewed by the ARB, but the City Manager believed that was too cumbersome a.procedure. Her motion was d compromise because she believed it was incongruous that the ARe: went to great lengths for proper lighting fixtures en individual parcels, but street lamps which were more visible to the general public were not reviewed at all. She preferred that each installation be' reviewed by the ARB, and would entertain a substitute motion. At the request of City Manager Zaner, her motion was a compromise. Councilmember Woolley said that when the street lights were installed the previous fa 1 l in Crescent Park and residents com- plained, she spoke with a member of the Utilities Department, who advised that further lamp posts would be anodized. She asked if that was bei,iy done. Mr. Zaner said it was done, but he believed Councilmember Fletcher referred to installations that went into various F,laC::a in town. The lamp posts varied from place to place, and staff intended to work with the ARB to establish some standards for the areas where lamp posts would go so they were consistent with that area. Those in the Crescent Park area were anodized a:, far as he knew. Councilmember Renzel concurred with everyone who did not like the new light posts. She was not as concerned about finding appropri- ate light posts for each area of town, but believed there could be a better standard light post. The present standard was a carriage light which was too small for the height of the pole and totally out of character --aluminum poles for carriage lights were in the olden days. It was an anomalous light fixture, and it was hard to swallow when she noticed that the New Century Liquor store was remodeled, and it used the old Crescent Park type light fixtures in a parking lot where. presumably ,the same type of safety stan- dards applied. She believed those fixtures were still available, and wanted the ARB and staff to see if there was something better. Vice Mayor Levy said he was uncomfortable when asked to make judg- ments on design and aesthetics.. The ARK was the organization appointed .to do those kinds A of things, and he .had no problem with nay.ing the ARK review lamp posts whenever recommended for various parte of town. Mr. laver said : staff was atternpr,ing to crake the process, .simpler and Tess bpreauchatic rather than add- another item for :the ARB to review. Staff wanted the ARK to give standards that -could;be applied and used so the issue would not have to be reviewed each time and become subject to'appeals or. other processes, Vice Mayor Levy said the notion -spoke to appropriateness -in sev- eral parts of town because each area had its own unique requi re- mects, SUtSST i 1'UTf NOTION: Y 1 ce i?ayor Levy reared, seconded by fi etcher, to direct. that henceforth _all City lamp post installations be reviewed by the Arch$tea.tarre.l- Review Board. Councilmember Henze] said the City purchased light posts in sig- nificant numbers, and she was "concerned} that there might be prob- lems . with economies of scale in terms of specific installations. She preferred to leave •it in the 'broader context to- see what hap- pened. If it was not satisfactory, perhaps they could go further. She preferred the -original motion: and would . not support the sub- stitute. 1 1 4 1 7 0 1;23/84 Counci lInember Sutorius concurred with Counci lmember Renzel. As a former kith member, he believed the ARB was competent to work with staff on the subject of standards as stated in the original motion. He suyyested that the ARB might review the first lamp posts after the standards were developed. He preferred the original motion. Counciimember Fletcher did not believe there were that many street light installations; they were done whole neighborhoods at a time. She was persuaded that something could be worked out, ' for instance, one standard might be appropriate for the Industrial Park, while a residential neighborhood would require a different type. She would vote against the motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 8 - 1, Levy voting "aye." MAIN MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITiM #13 REEUEST OF VICE MAYOR LEVY RE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTA- t MBA l i BR U Vice Mayer Levy said he was informed that the MTC was meeting on Thursday, January 26, 1984 to discuss public transit in the Bay Area. MOTION; Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, that the Mayor be directed to send a letter to MTC endorsing public transit across the Dumbarton..Bridge.- Counci l member Fletcher saw no harm in the letter, but also saw oo point in it, because the MTC •did not entertain proposals -from-- isolated cities. The proposals -it considered came from transit agencies with a commitment of funds from the transit agency to support the proposal and with supplemental- funds clearly identi- fied. She would -vote against the motion. She suggested that future projects be routed through the transi agency. of Santa Clara County. Regarding public transit across the Dumbarton Bridge, the MTC would require a commitment from the transit agen- cies in the East Bay before it would seriously consider such a project. .Mayor Klein said Or. Nancy Jewell Cross wanted to' address the Council, but since she had already spoken that evening, and in vie; -:of the hour, he asked that her remarks be limited to one minute. Ur. Nancy Jewell Cross said "transit" was too general a term to specifically mean a train. If the Council meant a trolley or an electric train, it -would be desirable to say so, because "transit„ .might mean only a Os, which was not feasible. Buses were as slow as cars, and the idea to operate a _bus across the Dumbarton Bridge was not sold to a bus company because ,it was impractical. Regard- ing who rn.ade proposals, the operating agencies were generally respected. She. bel ieved the restrictions to operating agencies -- in terms of nominations -.-were invalid because it needed to -con- sider the operator. She was sent a list of questions for sponsors of projects by the-MTC, Which she completed. -She submitted .a, prospectus to the chair, which was an a_ct,ive proposal, and was supported by Newark, Menlo park, and /he -Voice of Palo _Alto was requested. They proposed to send a_package-of what was wanted in the Bay Area -to Washington, which she bel ieVed would` be economic- ally valuable -AA many -regards, and she wanted to include the voice of Pd10. Alto. Regarding implementation, they were not responsible .in a sense, and, could only propose,, but it was a valid proposal and would not be addressed by _the existing agencies, which were ,Separate county -agencies or in the north - Bay. They. -needed some `ley#_slation for an operator who would operate across the. Bay. Someone had to. start arising for it, and if three cities believed it Was desirables she believed -it would move. Counci lmember Bechtel understood Cor,nci lmerrrher Pletcher's con- cerns, but did not believe it would hurt to send a letter. Know- ing the process, the letter should be addressed to Quentin Kopp, chairman of the MTC, and be followed up on later. She did not know the feasibility —it would be expensive and there would need to be connections. Many things would have to be thought through, but it was true that the Dumbarton Bridge traffic was terrible. MOTION PASSED by a vote of- 7-2, Fletcher and Witherspoon voting "no." ITEM 114, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER Le.CHTEL RE _ CITY AUUI TOR Counci lmember Bechtel realized that many her colleagues, might not have the recrui tment profile with them, but her .changes were so minor she did not think there would be any problems. She refereed to page b of the profile, in the middle of the page, where the wording: -from the first asterisk, read "The City Auditor will be expected to attend Council meetings...." She wanted to insert, after "atteri41," "as needed." That was the gist of the Council discussion the other evening. It was not imperative that the Auditor attend every Couneil meeting --only on, an "as needed" MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, on page 6 of the profile re Auditor, to insert "as needed" after "attend." MUTTON PASSED by a vote of 1-2, Woolley and Sutorius voting "no. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:45 a.m. ATTEST:. APPROVED: -/ /11 - Mayo :4 1 7 2 1/23/84