The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-08-27 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 i CITY / COUNCIL MINUTES \ Regular Meeting Monday, August 27, 1934 CITY Or. MI( ) 410 ITEM Oral Communications Consent Calendar Referral Action Item 11, Arastra Barn Manager Contract Extension Item 12, Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Planning Fee Item 13, Summary Vacation of Public Utility Easement - Crescent Park II Undergroundirig Item 14, Ordinance re Office Developments in CS Zones (2nd Reading) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions PAGE 4 9 7 1 4 9 7 1 4 9 7 1 4 9 7 1 4 9 7 1 4 9 7 1 4 9 7 1 4 9 7 1 4 9 7 2 Item 15, Request of Councilmernber Fletcher re 4 9 7 2 Proposed County Sales Tax Increase Itc.n 15, Request of Councilmember Fletcher re 4 9 7 6 Recognition of Syntex's Child Care Program Item 07, Report of Council Committee re Council 4 9 7 7 Appointed Officers Compensation item 18, Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- - 4 9 7 7 rsendation re Source of Funding for Undergrounding Connections Item #9, Planning Commission Recommendation re 4 9 7 8 Downtown Study Goals and Minor Revisions to Work Program Recess 4 9 8 Item #10, Resolution of Intent to Lease Cubberley 4 9 9 8 Fields - Palo Alto Unified School District Item 111, Request of Counci lmember Bechtel re Water Quality Resolution Item 012, Cancellation of September 4, 1984 City Council Meeting Adjournment: 11:45 p.ra, 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Regular Meeting August 27, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley Mayor Klein announced that a Closed Session re Personnel and Liti- gation was held in the Personnel Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None Action ITEM 11, ARASTRA BARN MANAGER CONTRACT EXTENSION -' CLYDE FARMER (PLA 9) (i MR:448:4) Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to continue the cur- rent contract with Clyde Farmer at the rate of $1,200 per month on a month -to -month basis ;until a lease has been negotiated with a concessionaire. ITEM #2, SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING (PWK 5-5) (CMR:455:4J Staff recommends that Council approve the Budget Amendment Ordi- nance transferring $16,000 from the Refuse Reserve Fund for Sys- tems Improvements into the Refuse Operating Budget. ORDINANCL 3564 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FEE" FEE ITEM #3, SUMMARY VACATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT - CRESCENT PARK II UNDERGROUND ING ( T I 2/UT 1 8-4) (CMR: 399 TY Staff recommends that ,Council adopt the Resolution Ordering Vaca- tion of Public Utility Easement at 190 Southwood Drive. RESOLUTION 6302 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE am OF PALO ALTO ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF A PUBLIC. EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES AT 190 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA* ITEM #4 ORDINANCE RE OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS IN CS ZONES (2nd Reading L- ORDINANCE 3565 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITE dF -PALO • ALTO . AMENDING CHAPTER 18.45 (SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS)" (1st Reading 8/13/84,; PASSED 8.0, Bechtel absent) NOTION PASSED eAaitlmously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Counci lmember Bechtel referred to item 11, Water Quality Resolu- tions, and said she would bring up the action of the Environmental Quality Committee concerning the City's Water Policy Resolution. ITEM #5, REQUEST OF CODUCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE PROPOSED COUNTY SALES TAX INCREASE (Continued from 8/267'84) (PRE 3-2-6T(CMR: 61:4) Councilmember Fletcher said the Santa Clara County Board of Super- visors placed on the November ballot the issue of raising the sales tax by one-half of one percent to fund additional highways in the county. The tax would be used for three projects: to add lanes to Highway 101, to build a highway on Route 85, and to up- grade. Route 237 to freeway status. The Transportation Commission was asked to endorse the proposal. As the Council's representa- tive, she made d motion at the Commission to not act until the in- dividual.Commission members consulted their City Councils. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to go on record as opposing the proposed County sales tax increase on the November ballot. Frank Freeland, 429 Dunster #2, Campbell, Chairman, Legislative Committee of the American Association of Retired Persons in Santa Clara County, said his Committee concluded that its members were opposed to the sales tax increase. The present rate was already higher than in any other county. The sales tax was a regressive form of taxation and more burdensome and oppressive to low income people, in contrast to the income tax, which was progressive. The sales tax should, therefore, not be increased. The large 1983 Federal and State gasoline taxes should take care of the roads. The vehicle licensing cost also greatly increased. The Federal tax rose by five cents ---.a 125 percent increase --and the sales tax increased by 28,5 percent. No further increase should be neces- sary. The proponents claimed that road maintenance had not kept pace with inflation and there were more miles of systems. How- ever, yearly more cars and trucks were coming into use and extra gas was used, greatly increasing tax revenues. In view of the gasoline crisis and its effect en inflation, gas prices were too high. They opposed any factor that increased travel costs and did not believe the rate would revert after 10 years. It had been promised the Golden Gate Bridge toll would terminate, but it never did. Once applied, the rate would never be reduced. If the road funds needed a tax increase, another gasoline tax increase was indicated. A sales tax increase was not the right way. David Walworth, San Jose, Vice President of the Medical Society, said the Transportation Task Theme of the Urban Coalition consid- ered Santa Clara County's specific transportation problems and looked worldwide for solutions, The group's solution was refused by the San Jose City Council, which said it would take 10 years to put in place. That was in 1968, and had it been in place, there .would now be no problems. The City Council's solution was to 'build Highway 280 and widen roads. For its 25 million residents, California had 20 million registered vehicles. If transit needs were to be met with automobiles, 7,534 acres of park i na adjacent to the workplaces would be needed in 1990 for commuters alone, with the same amount at their homes.' There was inesufficient land. It was a ridiculous solution, and it was preposterous to make a highway out of route 237.. He congratulated the. Council for having voted ag4inst the measure earlier and hoped it would continue to set the standard. Don Shank 663 College, urged Council to support the' motion be- cause improvements to the road system should be paid for by those. using the highways.- s The sales, tax reached people who did not be- long to that group, , duel somethi.g more creative than adding high- ways and increasing the hydrocarbons had to be found. 4 9 7 2 8/27/84 Mark Hinkle, 7178 Via Colina, San Jose, read a statement signed by several people saying that Measure "A" was an ill-conceived tax and would worsen the County's transportation needs. It was said to cost $1.1 billion over 10 years, but the proposed bond sale showed the cost over $3 billion. If all bonds were sold, the debt would treble the annual County budget. Recent taxes meant that over 24 cents in tax was paid per gallon of gas. The roads con- tinued to deteriorate, and tax officials were using the tax to finance an underutilized and wasteful transportation system. The measure violated the two-thirds majority vote. A fiscal crisis should not be added to the transportational and environmental nightmare. He urged a "no" vote. Orange County voters rejected such a measure, so it was a waste of money to put it on the bal- lot. The State constitution placed a four year limit, not. 10 years. He urged the Council to adopt the motion. Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, 301 Vince Street, spoke for the Committee for Safe and Sensible. San Francisquito Creek Area Routing. The committee encouraged creative solutions for transport. The pro- posed sales tax and its proposed use were counterproductive. She supported the notion and congratulated Mayor Klein as the author of one of the four opposing arguments in opposition. She showed a transparency of the relative status of 25 cities in the Bay Area, Palo Alto and Menlo Park were the most polluted by carbon monox- ide, while San Francisco and Oakland had much less. They also had more public transportation, especially electric rail vehicles. A clean air transport system would cost a fraction of widening free- ways. An airport stop for CalTrain would increase ridership as it was only .10 miles to the airport from the tracks. Trolleys were also needed, at a cost of $10 million per mile as opposed. to $200 million per .mile for freeways. The total cost would be approxi- mately $400 million. The measure would use up all the money, but rail transport would be an efficient alternative. San Francisco was trying to sell BART and the freeways to the Peninsula to keep the airport parking lot fees up. A great opportunity for a new approach to transportation in the area existed. Clean air trans- port was efficient. Marjorie Martus, 660 Creek Drive, favored the motion. The measure was piecemeal legislation not an integrated plan, acid no action should be taken on roadways without a simultaneous plan for rail transport. It was unfair to charge a tax to people who did not use the roadways. Jack Otto, 3157 Louis Road, said if nothing was done about air. pollution, children would not have any future. The increase in`, lung problems was the highest ever and everyone had breathing problems at certain times. Councilmernber Fletcher said the State and the three tr r p F Cation agencies spent $16 million annually on subsidizing public trans- portation. Adding two lanes to 101 would impact the railroad, and some current and potential passengers would be lost, increasing the subsidy. If the measure awaited the outcomeof the intensive Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) study of the corri- dor, she might feel more comfortable. The alternatives included extension of BART to San Jose, possible. light rail to San Francisco from , San Jose, and a vastly improved Southern Pacific railroad. If lanes were added to the freeway, it was unknown whether the alternatives would work. It was proposed to make the added lanes high occupant' vehicle lanes during commute hours, but the proposal contained no provision for funding enforcement, with- out which such lanes failed. The County presently spent $..5 mil- lion for California Highway Patrol enforcement on San Tomas Expressway, a short stretch in comparison. Resistance from San Mateo County drivers using the lanein a non -high occupany fashion could be expected. A similar study was being made an the West Valley corridor on Route 85 where a right of way was planned for A/275 30 years to build into a freeway; In order to conform to all regulations, a current study called "Alternatives Analysis," sup- posedly an impartial analysis for what type of transportation would best serve the needs of that corridor, was currently in process. The results were not in and the proposal was to pay for a freeway before that study was completed. If the freeway was built in that corridor, traffic on 101 would increase because it would stimulate added development in the southern part of the county and would bring new trips ,.long Route 85 into Highway 101. There was a transit alternative study also going on for Route 237, the, Fremont/Southbay corridor, and currently high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes were being constructed and funded aside from the one- half cent sales tax. No HOV lanes would be constructed with the extra one-half sales tax. It was proposed that the extra funds would be used to,make it into a freeway --to lauild inter- changes. The measure paid no attention to land use issues and all indications were the lanes would be filled as soon as built, added employment was planned, and no one was offering comprehensive planning a: to the full, impact of -the employment. _.Seven cents sales tax would be the highest in the County, the Bay Area, and probably the State, and she feared for Palo Alto's retail vitality if it charged more sales tax than the surrounding -communities, especially being on the border of San Mateo County. It was an inappropriate means of paying for highways because not all house- holds owned automobiles, or if they did, they were not used in the commute hours which was the sole purpose of adding lanes. In Palo Alto. seven percent of the households did not own automobiles, and while she owned an automobile, she did not make use of the free- ways during the commute hours. Palo Alto would penalize those persons who made an effort to not add to the congestion, plus it was an unfair: sales tax which hit the lower income people more than those who were employed and using the facilities. Regarding circumvention of Proposition 13, it was a gimmick to set hip thn added authority which was given no discretion. The funds would provide nothing for maintenance —the money must be used for new construction. It prohibited use of the funds for any transit or enforcement of HOV regulations. She was not totally against any tax, and did not oppose S8 215, which increased the State gas tax by two cents, because it was balanced and had money for construc- tion, some for maintenance, and some for transit. She did not oppose the five cents Federal gas tax because it set aside one cent to fund public transit. If adequate transit was made avail- able to those who had the opportunity to use it, it would leave enough for -those who dcd to hove their _nou h room on the free;�p'-s f �:� 4,;��=. �.��:� r�eeu�� cars without expanding. The ballot measure was not called a one- half cent sales tax measure, it was called a "Commuter Relief Act" and in the explanation it said it was a half of one percent trans- action and use tae. She wondered how many understood it was a sales taxthat would be paid on all items purchased. The teneyear sunset -clause written into the measure was unlikely to die at the end of that time because extra lanes would-be filled long before the end. They were told the projects were specific and had to be built., but there was no environmental impact report to show the impacts. A firm in Los Angeles required its employees who drove alone to pay .for their parking; and overnight, the nuMbers of employees driving to work dropped from 42 percent to eight per- cent. . If the money planned to be raised by the proponents of the measure was spent on getting -employers-in the county to informally have a system Whereby they would pay their -.employees an allowance for parking, the freeways would be adequate because people were induced to drive if they -had a parks ng .space _a.t-...the . -other end -_:of the drive. The measure -would raise $1.i billion, and at /he end oaf _ten years there would bethe same congestion as presently. She Suggested waiting for completion of the existing studies, and ^then if . a tax vas proposed for the: best transportation system, she would support it. It was premature' now because the studies were ri t..tompleted, and there was too little analysis.` It _was the wrong tax at the wrong time- for .the wrong purpose to be paid by the wrong people. She urged a ne vote. - 4 9 7 4 8/27/84 Councilmember Renzel concurred with many of the arguments put forth by Councilmember Fletcher, and was impressed by her wealth of information. She opposed the tax because it was regressive and hit everyone on everything purchased, and she believed it was the wrong type of tax to use.. The present congestion on .the freeways illustrated the punishment people took in order to get from point A to point S, and she believed if the capacity was made larger, there would be more people willing eo endure. Land development would be opened further south and away from the urban center by making access a little quicker. It would be a short-term fix and premature until concrete evidence was seen that reasonable land use controls were going on County -wide. She would not support the tax and supported Councilmember Fletcher's motion. Councilmember Cobb supported the motion. Even if public transit was available, he would be unable to use it to conduct his busi- ness and would have to deal with the traffic jams. He could at- test that the roads needed improvement to deal with the current problem. Without effective land use controls to improve the cur- rent problem without escalating it and having to deal with the same issue again in ten years with more lanes, more traffic, and more pollution, he saw no point in going ahead. The controls were needed immediately to improve the roads. He agreed the sales, tax was regressive, and believed it was fair for those who drove to pay at least partially through a gas tax for the cost of those im- provements. He looked -at the development record for some of the cities in Santa Clara County and was concerned about where the Valley was going. Overdevelopment in other areas affected every community in the County, and he hoped a conrerence of cities might be called in Santa Clara County to talk about land use controls, to establish limits to _growth, and to deal with the issue in its larger perspective. Unless that kind of city -to -city agreement throughout the County was achieved, traffic jams were the only development control left, which was a sorry way to control devel- opment. Vice Mayor Levy supported his colleagues' comments. He believed the people responsible for placing the item on the ballot resorted to expedience and deception and violated many of the concepts for financing public development established in the State over recent years. The item would take a 50 per=cent approval as opposed to, the standard two-thirds, and it was special legislation that allowed it to go on the ballot. Some of its terminology, such as the statements "Commuter Relief Act," or "transaction and use tax" rather than "sales tax," were deceptive, It went out of its way. to avoid Proposition 13, and its resort to Bales tax was deceptive and bad in terms of Palo Alto. it was increasingly . customary where possible that users pay for what they used, which meant the improvements should be financed by a gasoline tax, automobile tax, or some other direct use tax --not a general sales tax. He agreed with his colleagues that a sales tax would be detrimental to Stanford Shopping Center and Palo Alto's business. Councilmember Bechtel was in a difficult situation. The item would go before the voters in Nove ter and it was the poly sugges- tion presented at that time. The problem was there and would not go away. There was -a backlog of. deferred projects, and .in the 24 years she drove Route 101, there were no improvements between Palo Alto and San Jose. A commute that used to take 20 minutes now took 40 to 50 minutes. The roads were clogged and .Pa.lo Alto was. affected because people used the residential and arterial streets to avoid the freeway, More people would use the Dumbarton Bridge. and affect Palo Alto instead of ;using Route 237, which gas com- pletely untenable A multi -modal approach was necessary, and highways were not a panacea. The Manufacturing Group pushing the proposal also pushed hard for the first 2© -mile segment of the Guadalupe Corridor. She expected . the group to continue its _posh for transit, and although the proposal would not solve the prob- lems, it was a beginning to alleviate them. They had to work hard for public transportation to ensure that new lanes constructed on Highway 101 and Route 85, if it became a freeway as well as light rail, included high occupancy vehicle or commuter lanes. Such lanes were being built on Route 237. She opposed the motion. Counci lmemb er Woolley did not see the measure in black and white as some of her colleagoea d1i , Staff made a good point in the report that failure to Amprove the road systems would not be a substantial discouragement to future development, and might en- courage more traffic on Palo Alto streets. If she had to go to San Jose early in the morning, she did not use Highway 101 because of the San Antonio Road bottleneck, and stayed on Palo Alto and Mountain View streets until Stierlin Road. Regular commuters also knew that was a faster route, and if the measure passed, staff. recommended every effort be made to ensure the extra lanes were HOV. It was one small part of a total transit program, not the whole solution, and she agreed the method of financing could be called a gimmick. It did not relate to usage, deter driving nor promote alternatives. It was a difficult decision to make. Councilmember Sutorius also wrestled with the problem. The argu- ments presented in favor of the motion might cause him to vote against the ballot in November, but the points made by Council - members Bechtel and Woolley were sufficient to prevent him from supporting the motion. In 1952 he commuted to San Jose from the Oregon/Bayshore area in 20 minutes by Greyhound bus or in 18 minutes by car. From 1974-80 he usually traveled by train, but the car trip took 25 to 35 minutes, and that morning he needed 50 minutes for the trip by car. No answer to the problem had yet been formulated although the problem received considerable analy- sis during the years. He could not support an official City posi- tion to vote "no" on the measure. Councilmernber Fletcher said the indications were that HOV lanes were infeasible for Route 85 because the affected jurisdictions would not accept more than four lanes. Caltrans said HOV lanes were only possible if there were two through travel lanes as well as the extra lane for the HOV. It was accepted, and MTC agreed, that not ,more than four lanes would be constructed. No HOV lanes were contemplated other than those already funded on Route 237. There was.. no analysis on whether_ HOV lanes would work on Highway 101, as Palo Alto was adjacent to San Mateo County. She pointed out that Councilrnember Sutorius could have been in San Jose in 20 minutes that\ day by using CalTrain. She feared that when all the studies were complete the proposals would find that a linking rail system throughout -the County and around the Bay was needed. it would cost a lot to implement and a sales tax to raise the money would be suggested, but if the present measure passed, people_ would point out that the County was already paying the highest tax in the State and perhaps on the West Coast. There was no way for some of the $1.1 billion raised by the sales tax to be shifted from the highways to a rail system. It was bad planning and a shot in the dark. It would not help divert local traffic from the streets as the lanes would be filled almost immediately. MOTION PASSED by a rote of 6-3, Woolley, Bechtel, Sutorius voting sino,R ITEM #b, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE RECOGNITION OF onfinued-fro► L; 2O/ $) (S 1) Counci lrneraber Fletcher recognized Syntex . for 'i;ts bold move as the first employer in the City to set op and fund , a child care center for its employees. NOTION: CouncilmeWiser Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that.:. staff prepare a resolution of . appreciation ` to Syntex in : recogni- tion of its willingness to establish a chl l d care center. NOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #l, REPORT COUNCIL OF COMMITTEE RE COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS' COM- PENSATIO (PER 2-1) Mayor Klein said Council received a memorandum dated August 23, 1984 from him and the Council's Personnel Committee consisting of Vice Mayor Levy, Councilmembers Renzel and Cobb. The amounts of the salary increases were set forth in the memorandum. MOTION: Councilreeber Cobb moved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt the resolution re compensation plan. RESOLUTION 6303 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THrriTrITMTO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AND COUNCIL -APPOINTED OFFICERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION No. 6282• MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM 18, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE NG CONNECT IONS TU (CMR:413 4) Councilmember Cobb for the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Commit- tee said the Committee's July 24. 1984 minutes reflected its unan- imous vote to adopt the staff recommendations. He would later call on the Director of Utilities to explain a technical item. MOTION: Counci 1member Cobb for the Finance and Public Works Committee coved to adopt the following staff recommendations: 1. A resolution deters.i ni ng properties electing topay cost over a period of years, determining and classifying unpaid assess- ments, and funding loans to property owners from the Electric System Improvement Reserve; and 2. A budget ordinance to provide appropriation of funds from th.e Electric System Improvement Reserve to a Reserve for Under- ground round Service Connections; and 3. The use of the Electric System Improvement Reserve for this purpose should be limited to $150,000 for any given project and $260,000 total. RESOLUTION 6304 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF 'MITT OF PALO ALTO DETERMINING PROPERTIES ELECTING TO PAY COST OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, DETERMINING AND CLASSIFYING UNPAID ASSESSMENTS, AND FUNDING LOANS TO PROPERTY OWNERS FROM THE ELECTRIC SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT RESERVE° ORDINANCE 3566 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITE OF PT[ .l ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL TEAR 1984-85 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION FOR A RESERVE FOR UNDERGROUND SERVICE CONNECTIONS IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY° Director of Utilities Richard Young said the proposition before the Council was basically a substitution of the source of funds for the individual property owners: hookups to underground and. electrical services, which were previously done by bond issues. They took time and any change of mind by the property owner to participate was blocked by the sizing of a bond issue. They ran into a number of clumsy problems when trying to utilize such fund- ing, so it was proposed to utilize a portion of the System Improvement Reserve. The .limits were placed at $250,000: overall, with $150,000 for any oe project. Staff proposed touse a loan, with a percentage : rate of .75 percent above the mun c i pa l bond buyers index proposed at the time the underground district was formed, and paid off by property ::tax in the same way as - a bond issue, f 4 9 7 7 va4. !v , MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #g PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 'RE < DOWNTOWN STUDY L 7-14) (C'MR:463:4) Planning Commissioner John Northway said the Planning Commission believed it was important to list the findings developed in Com- mittee. By summarizing those findings, the goals shown in the staff report were more explainable. He commended the staff work- ing with the Committee, especially Transportation Planner Dave Fairchild, who did a great job coming up with the statistics, and determining the number of cars parked downtown in the morning, midmorning, and noon. To ascertain the cars were parked in the morning and not left overnight, staff felt the tops of the cars to find if they were warn. Aerial photographs and intense observa- tion was used. The question of how many excess cars were parked in the downtown area was well researched, and he was confident of the reliability of the answer. Councilmember Witherspoon said there was much d „cussion in the Committee meetings about timing and the direction desired from Council, and staff was caught in the middle. She asked if staff and the Committee expected that Council should prioritize goals, endorse, add, or minimize them. Commissioner Northway said he was personally concerned about the timing. He felt a lot a pressure on the staff to get the study finished in a prescribed period, but that was not the majority opinion of the Commission or the Downtown Study Committee, both of which believed the timing outlined in the report was adequate. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said they .were checking in with Council, as was scheduled from the outset, to ensure Council accordance with the study's progress. They did not want to plunge into the next phase of activity --putting together new policies for the downtown --then discover they were out of step somehow in terms of the Council's attitudes towards the Downtown Study. He hoped Council would ratify or amend the goals and return them to the Commission and Committee so they could go back to work. Mayor Klein recognized several members of the Downtown Citizens Committee in the audience, and introduced Chairman Ed Arnold, Drusia Stewart, Carl Schmitt, Pam Marsh, and Sam Sparck. Councilmember Cobb was impressed by the Committee. He referred to the goals listed on page 2 of the report to the Planning Commis- sion dated August 10, 1984, and asked the Committee if it assigned priority to any of the goals or if they expected them to be prior- itized by Council. Mr. Freeland said a priority of sorts was established..eCategory 1 represented the central focus of the study --the area on which the Committee would focus its efforts --and Category 2 set the frame- work, and represented the context within which the Committee would resolve the issues of Category 1, such as retail vitality and economic health downtown. The Committee would not study economic health and try to come up with ways and means topromote it, but would come up with policies on land use, parking, and traffic. The' purpose of the second category was to keep the image of. the kind of downtown they wanted to accomplish and forwhich they did not want to create' land "use, parking, and traffic policies that would violate the goal of a healthy economic or a vital retail' climate downtown, nor create a policy that would have a negative impact on the environment. The Planning Commission's highest priority was number 1 of Category 1: Reduce overall build -out potential. Beyond that, there was no need to . set a priority, although. Council could do so if it believed it would help. Councilmember Cobb recognized the hard work put into the study by staff and the Committee. It was suggested that a consultant do the massive study, but there was concern about the high cost. The study could be characterized as consulting, or at least study work, and he asked what difference there was between the citizen and staff effort and a consultant's study. Mr. Freeland believed the study was lacking in two areas. There was not enough time to forecast. Information was given on what was, and on the face value of policies, what could be, should they ever come into existence. There was no statement about what down- town would look like in ten years in terms of size and traffic, given the combination of policies plus economic conditions. In the next phase, an economist would advise on how changes they wanted to introduce in terms of specific policies might affect the economics of the area, and particularly, how different combina- tions of parking strategy and land use might affect the economic vitality downtown. Councilmember Bechtel asked about timing. When the interim park- ing ordinance passed the previous February, it was hoped that the study would be completed within one year. From her reading of the minutes and discussion at various meetings, she gathered that staff, Commissioners and Committee members believed it impossible to meet the February deadline, and asked when it might be com- pleted. Mr. Freeland believed they were far off the schedule necessary to. wrap the job up, but the Committee was unwilling to throw in the towel. At the last meeting the Committee said it wanted to keep the pressure on itself to move ahead as rapidly as possible. Some believed an evaluation of progress should be made in a month or two, so that if the Council was eventually asked to extend the Downtown Parking Ordinance, it would have the request in time to go through the legal processes necessary. The Committee wanted to continue and focus in on the issues relating to the parking ordi- nance and let Council know within a couple of Enonths. Councilmember Fletcher said Council had not received the Planning Commission minutes because of a time factor, and she asked for a summary of significant action taken at that meeting. Principal Planner George Zimmerman said the action taken was the recommended goals and their prioritization as shown in the trans- mittal from the Commission. It wrapped up what the Commission discussed, and reflected what the Downtown Committee discussed earlier that afternoon. Councilmember Renzel asked for confirmation that the parking defi- cit would continue to worsen given the pace of development occur- ring even under the moratorium. Mr. Freeland said it would, and deferred to Mr. Zimmerman for statistics, Pair. Zimmerman said in terms of project approvals occurring since the passage of the interim parking ordinance, an additlonal defi- cit of approximately 120 spaces had occurred. When all other ap- proved projects under construction became occupied, they, would add to the deficit. Staff calculated the :completion of Lots J and Q would wipe out the deficit. Presently, there was a net increase of approximately 120 spaces. Vice Mayor Levy asked if they were seeing an increase inn. the num beer of applications downtown. Mr. Zimmerman said he did not think there was an increase. The amount of floor area either approved or _pipeiined . in 1984 would equal_- approximately the amount approved in 1983 --between 225,000 and 250,000 square feet, Vice Mayor Levy asked If the Council action to ensure the creation of more on -site parking within the Assessment District was having any effect. 1 1 Mr. Zimmerman said the result was a larger proportion of provision of on -site parking. It had not had a noticeable effect on slowing down development growth in the downtown. Sam Sparck, 4099 Laguna, was grateful for the opportunity to serve on the Downtown Study Committee. He was more informed on the is- sue, and the more he learned, the more he realized the urgency and magnitude of the problems. Traffic congestion and the parking deficit affected the retail, goods, and personal service estab- lishments in the area, and the financial sector and surrounding residential neighborhoods were also increasingly impacted. He was appointed as a citizen -at -large as he neither lived nor worked in downtown and had no financial interest in the area. He was glad to be disinterested, and was thankful he did not have to fight his way into and out of the area on a regular basis. It was an emer- gency situation, and as an individual citizen, he was sorry the Council had not included the downtown in the moratorium on office construction. Construction was approved at a significant rate despite the parking ordinance, and something like a Downtown mora- torium might be required to prevent conditions reaching a stage where the goals being considered became impossible, Betty Meltzer, 1241 Dana, said in the past it was pleasant to shop or bank downtown, but during the past year it changed and its con- venience disappeared. Many new office buildings resulted in more traffic jams, pollution, and a growing lack of parking spaces, and many were impatient with the downtown shopping experience and no longer shopped there. An increase in the number of office build- ings was possible because of existing plans and zoning laws. The zoning laws permitted approximately double current approved devel- opment, much of which appeared to be office space. From 1970 to 1980, 100,000 square feet was approved, and from 1980 to 1984 much of the almost 400,000 square feet applied for was approved, with seven percent currently occupied. When fully built, there would be a deficit of 1,200 parking spaces and current traffic jams would look tame, end ingress and egress on University Avenue would be chaos. A new set of goals for new building was needed to re- flect the needs of residents and shopkeepers, and developers' wishes should not be given priority. The list of goals would al- low the town to grow more intelligently and appropriately, and should be approved, but an immediate moratorium on future downtown office building should be passed to prevent developers from taking, advantage'in the interim Three applicants submitted applications since the parking ordinance went into effect to add 118,000 square feet and corresponding problems. The parking ordinance was not a substitute for the moratorium. Cliff Chambers, 1837 Bryant Street, was a consultant in employer transportation programs, and he ,believed the Committee's efforts _could lead to realistic solutions. 0n May 30, 1984, the Committee asked if some amount of expected future traffic could be reduced by traffic management techniques and he was .disappointed not to see that issue presented in the goals. He worked in many situa- tions where a coordinated network of employers could: educe park- ing and traffic congestion. In a Maryland suburb 1,220 employees signed up in a comprehensive share ride program, and 43 percent were placed in car or van pools. In Hartford, Connecticut a simi- lar program was underway. It was insufficient to minimize traffic growth in• the Downtown, and programs to reduce existing traffic were necessary. There were realistic solutions to employee park- ing problems, and he hoped transportation systems management strategies .would be addres*ed. Mike Lee, 164 Hawthorne, . said the moratorium on office buildings over 5,000 square feet in downtown •was more compelling due to the emerging 1984 monoliths. Many other cities up and down llayshore provided surplus new office buildings, and as the Downtown Commit- tee would probably take longer than expected to establish new goals, a moratorium was clearly in order. James Morley, 160 Waverley Street, lived on the north end of Waverley, and often could not park in front of his house because of office workers' cars. Only a small fraction of office space coming on the market was occupied, and when complete, all residen- tial streets within half a mile would become parking lots on week- days. More and bigger parking garages meant more development and more cars. The need was first to slow major construction and avoid major monstrosities such as the Wells Fargo building on Hamilton, and to eventually downzone. He supported the Downtown Study Committee goals. and urged their adoption, but believed they would hurry the building process as land owners saw the tightening ahead. The Council should adopt an immediate moratorium on office construction. Every week's delay meant a further reduction in. the quality of life for citizens. He asked that a further 40 citizens requesting a moratorium be entered into the record. Donald Wilkins, 2142 Bellview Drive, urged the. Council to enact a six-month moratorium on downtown office construction until the studies could be implemented. The problem of explosion affected Palo -_Alto more since 1980 than in the 25 years he had lived there, with a 400 percent larger increase than in the preceding decade. He appeared before the Council three times regarding -the _recently implemented parking regulations, which affected shoppers. No one asked him about his parking needs when the City took away the parking lot serving his building. Customers then used Waverley, which was now "no parking.' His firm had 19 cancellations on Friday. He presented a list of 350 people who could not find parking spaces. Ruth Hyman, 656 Lytton Avenue, said Lytton Gardens now had over 350 residents. The shopping area downtown was necessary for them, and she presented a petition signed by 30 residents to be entered into the record, urging Council to immediately enact a moratorium on downtown office construction until the Downtown Study goals were implemented. Bob Moss, 4010 0rme, applauded the Downtown Committee work and the Manning Commission's review and .condensation of the goals. It articulated the problems which arose from years of procrastination and neglect primarily on the part of the City Council despite alarms by Planning Commissioners, some Councilmembers and the pub- lic. He commended and urged adoption of the goals and priorities of the Committee. He asked if goal 2, "Encourage urban design..." meant that City Hall should go. The process would go on beyond February as complex issues took longer to unravel than believed. They had not hit bottom in terms of being submerged by traffic and parking, and as Councl lmemb.er Cobb was quoted as saying, there should be a moratorium on excessive development, particularly of offices downtown. When the moratorium on offices in both the CS and GM zones was under consideration, the CC zone was also brought forward to fail on a close vote mainly because the Downtown Study Committee had not returned with a recommendation. That was now received, and supporting data wade it`;clear something had to be done. At the Planning Commission meeting, there was talk of in- creased street capacities widening intersections, etc. Cooler heads fortunately prevailed, but he suggested Council charge the Downtown Study Committee and Planning Commission to work within existing street capacities and not do any enlarging. Virginia Page, 2125 Wellesly, also asked that stock be taken of what was happening to Palo Alto. Tile was of the essence, and Counc,i 1 must halt the building to allow time to assess the °impact of the proliferation of office buildings on the whole City, not just Downtown. Despite the roadblocks in College Terrace, people found a way to avoid; California }Avenue and Page Mill Road and Council: should seriously _considera six-month moratorium. Jean Olmsted, 240 West Charleston, handed in a list of 150 people in favor of a moratorium. She agreed with the goals of the Down- town Study Committee; which she hoped would be accepted, although she feared they offered an incentive to rush to build office space before the rules were changed. Pam Marsh, 327 Watrerley, was pleased and felt privileged to have served on the Downtown Study Committee to formulate the goals, She was impressed by the dedication and hours the Downtown Study Committee spent reading a six-inch pile of reports. She endorsed the goals, and urged their acceptance in their entirety as they were ultimately intertwined. The first goal was important as all others hung from it. The reverse was also true as the subsequent goals established the parameters by which the build -out potential in downtown could be reduced. -They expressed human values and zoning mechanisms. No goal stood alone --they had to be accepted as-a,whole. The Council should maximize the Committee's effec- tiveness as it continued its work to put the goals into action by placing a moratorium on commercial construction in downtown Palo Alto. Some Councilmembers earlier demurred because they wanted to see the results of the Committee's work. The first goal called for limiting build -out potential in downtown Palo Alto. The Come mittee wanted to move ahead to do it carefully, thoughtfully and efficiently. Their efforts in the next six months should not be undermined by inappropriate development. A moratorium to irnp1 e- ment the goals was necessary. She spoke as an individual involved in the process and as a resident of the Downtown North neighbor- hood, where 40,000 and 50,000 square foot office buildings were proposed across the street from their homes. Staff had done much fine work, but any downtown resident could have told them six months earlier that the Parking Ordinance was not effective in stopping office development, and that the parking problems and traffic congestion were worsening. There was a large discrepancy between the zoning currently allowed at the perimeter of the resi- dential neighborhood and what was appropriate particularly sin the Planning Commission -would shortly consider downzoning many resi- dential houses there. It was an ironic situation, and only a full moratorium would take care of the problems. Residents were con- cerned about the bulk. of the buildings, which could -not be affected by a limited or. crippled moratorium. A stronger parking ordinance only meant more space used up by parking structures --it would not .affect the massive buildings. I a change were made in the allowable short-term floor area ratio, it would not deal with the question of bulk because parking structures were exempt. The downtown north neighborhood needed a moratorium, and she looked forward to continuing to work en the matter. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:20 p.m. TO 9:37 p.m. Mayor Klt?i n believed_ there were two elements to the item --whether there should b -e a ;moratorium, and consideration of the recoMMeno ; - tions with regard to: findings and goals. He was not a fan of moratoria, and one drawback was its disruption to a variety of. interests, and ultimately moratoria had to end. He was persuaded by the quantity and quality of the data produced b y the staff repo -ts that now was the time for a moratorium in ethe downtown area. The Downtown Study Committee and Planning Commission were doing excellent work,: and he was particdlarly persuaded to support a moratorium by the clear indic-Won, justified by the .data, that the City was going to move, toward a reduction' of the allowable floor area ratio in the downtown area, He did not know how much of a. reduction there would be, and believed it was premature to ,decide that evening' A significant - reduction was An order. If there was to be a moratorium, the question -was which elements should be included. t/b98i MOTION:: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Pechtel , that staff pre- pare a moratorium ordinance for a period of one year from date of enactment on all construction in the Downtown Study Area with the following exemptions: 1. Any construction which will not increase the square footage of that particular building; and 2. Category I - Geological Hazard Buildings, and that an addi- tional 5,000 square feet can be built onto those buildings. Further, that theeffective date be August 27, 1984 and for a project to be grandfathered out of the moratorium it would need Architectural Review Board approval prior to August 27, 1984; that staff give as wide as possible notice to concerned property owners, residents, etc.; and a variance process be built in. Mayor Klein suogested, for purposes of grandfathering and deter- mining wen items were in the pipeline, that the effective date be August 27, 1984, by which time an applicant would have been required to possess Architectural Review Board approval. Staff should give wide public notice to concerned property owners, resi- dents and other interested individuals to facilitate the widest possible input when the moratorium ordinance was considered by the Council. He also wanted there to be some means for people to ob- tain an exemption from the moratorium, City Attorney Diane Lee said if a project met the criteria expressed in the motion, the moratorium would not applyd Mayor Klein said if someone submitted a viable proposal to con- struct a downtown food market, he wanted a process by which it might be allowed to 90 forward because of overwhelming public benefit and interest. He suggested a variance process with broad standards, and the ultimate standard might be whether the .project was deemed to he of public benefit by the Council. He believed semi -moratoria approaches, such as the downtown parking ordinance. were ineffective, and he did want tv stop most development for a period of time. It was not a panacea, and there would.b a con- struction in a year, but he was concerned that future construction be done rationally. If construction was to be limited, he wanted it to be the best possible and consistent with what he hoped would be 4n excel i entAi;rb an Design Program to come out of the Downtown Study. The Downtown Study also included a density transfer pos- sibility, and while he -was sceptical, the construction of anything until those elements were ii place would compromise the possibili- ties somewhat. He wanted as few compromises as possible, and al- lowing construction --even if it supplied all of its own parking and was at a lower floor area ratio --would comproriae the City's ability to add excellent density ttansfer and urban design ele- ments to whatever the new downtown program;turned out to be. One year seemed appropriate because it was unrealistic to expect the Downtown Study Committee to return sooner than seven or eight months, and from the time they returned, ite would take the Plan- ning Commission and Council appro,irately 60 days . to. make final decisions: He would be unhappy if the process took any longer, but Council owed .it td itself and the community. to. do a thorough job and to move forward with all deliberate speed in order to have an -excellent, timely, and efficient study. Ms. Lee referred to the variance process and tire_ :pub 1 is interests and said that in preparing the or-dinan'ce her staff . wanted to review the question to determine . whether more specific standards would be appropriate. She was not surethe general, public inter- est standard would suffices particularly since - there were new areas of liability.: exposure opening ; up in land use: issues, An ordinance to not expose the Council to those areas was necessary. 4 9 8 3 8/27/94 Mayor Klein agreed, and said he --would appreciate. staff's,guidance and help. His only.guidancc was the food market. Ms. Lee wanted to ensure that if staff found more specific stan- dards helpful in sustaining the ordinance against any type of challenge, they should be included. Mayor Klein agreed. Councilmember Witherspoon was concerned the matter was not agen- dized. The Council would vote on the ordinance at a future time, but many people believed Council would be discussing the goals as advertised. A moratorium might be appropriate, and it was inter- esting that the Committee, Planning Commission, and the public, separately recommended it to the Council. She questioned the ap- propriateness of diverting the conversation that evening from :the goals proposed by the Downtown Committee which, if the Council did its work properly, could last for several hours. Discussion on the moratorium trespassed on that time. No 40,000 square' foot of- fice building would be erected during the two weeks necessary to notice and hold a discussion on a moratorium. Mayor Klein said the last several times a moratorium was discussed the same issue was raised. The moratorium would not be imposed that evening, and Council would only give direction to staff to prepare an ordinance and set forth a particular cutoff date. Any other approach encouraged people to rush through which defeated the concept of a moratorium. Councilmember Woolley concurred with the Mayor that the staff report was thorough and helpful, It concluded that development was a "lose" situation, and .the chart provided showed that if development was allowed without increasing the capacity of,the University/Middlefield intersection, there would be congestion. If development was allowed and capacity extended, the character of the area would be changed. Either way, the City lost. Council received a clear message from the Planning Commission and staff that a study was needed. She assumed goals would eventually be adopted, and by doing so that evening the Council would give a clear message to the community. Some kind of moratorium was ap- propriate, and apart from the issues of traffic and parking, the Council had to consider what downtown would look like. Goals 12, 13, 14 and 15 related to that. Staff told her.. that day .the First meeting regarding the -Urban Design Study would be held Wednesday, August 29. To date, nothing occurred on the .Density Transfer Study. A moratorium was important, otherwise' the Committee •would have a sense of urgency to fulfill the task while the parking or- dinance was still in place and would not give -full consideration to the Urban Design and Density Transfer studies and do the job as well as possible. She asked for clarification concerning the re- modeling clause of the motioW. Mayor Klein said his motion exempted any remodeling not resulting in increased square footage of the building. AMENDMENT: Counci laeober Woolley ®-awed. seconded by Levy, to provide a third exemption to the moratorium t_o exempt buildings with a floor area ratio of l.9 or less and, -if -.within the Parking Assessment District. to -supply all additional parking generated by the additional net square footage+ Counci lmember Woolley chose the 10 ratio figure because she did not want to second-guess the outcome of the study, which might end. up with a figure:between 2 and 2 5. An odd number like 1-.9 would send a message to the Couunittec that the figure was for purposes of- the moratorium only, and .was not hard and fast_. She hoped some• - areas would come in with a highe, and others with a"lower, floor area ratio as a result of, -the Urban Design Study. She- preferred that route because development -allowed after the study should be excluded from the, moratnr l um, and she daub tpd the . st-udy would go 4 9 8 4 8/27/84 below a floor area ratio of 1.9. The .parking requirement meant the deficit could not be worsened. All construction outside the P':rking Assessment District had to provide en -site parking, and within the Parking Assessment District there was an exemption for the first floor. Her amendment would affect net additional park- ing only, so if the first floor was not covered at that time, there would not be an exemption for the whole first ° floor, but only for whatever existed. It would not add to the parking defi- cit, which was important. Mr. Freeland said the zoning ordinance for the downtown area was based on the Wilbur Smith standards within but not outside of the Assessment District, which applied to the greater part of the area. Councilmember Renzel asked for confirmation the amendment would not exempt the first floor from a parking requirement as provided under the limited moratorium. Vice Mayor Levy said he previously opposed moratoria because of the general reasons mentioned by the Mayor. A moratorium in abso- lute terms was a meat cleaver approach and often not necessary. Moratoria, in particular those of one year, were unfair to exist- ing property owners. As was discovered aeom previous moratoria, many property owners took actions over an extended period of time leading up to construction or addition of square footage. When the Council moved in with a moratorium, it represented hardship to them, and often the owners were the opposite of large, well financed property owners. The Downtown Study Committee clearly indicated goals to reduce overall build -out potential and to get a better handle on the parking picture, which he endorsed. Council could create a moratorium that essentially reflected the goals, which was why he seconded the amendment. A floor area ratio of _1.9 was a substantial reduction. They might end up with 2.0, 1.75, or 2.25,- but 1.9 would be a fair floor area ratio to live with for one year. A requirement that new construction provide all its own incremental parking was perfectly appropriate., He hoped his colleagues would support the moratorium, including the amendment, which quite reasonably reflected the Downtown Study Committee's goals. Couricilmember Fletcher commended the previous three speakers for their support. There was too much procrastination, and the sooner a stop was put to what was happening downtown, the better planning process would result from the study. As pointed out by a meWer of the public, the parking area in new construction would not be calculated in the floor area ratio and therefore would not neces- sarily alleviate the problem of bulk. She preferred not to second-guess the kinds of buildings that might result from the exemption. She preferred the exemption stated in the main motion that would net increase existing floor area ratios and the exemp- tion for new buildings with the 1.9 floor area ratio. a,.. Counci lme€tea Cobb was concerne4 that the amendment was another attempt to find a number that *solved the problem." He. was not sure -what the right number was, and was reluctant _to tinker w to numbers, He found Mayor Klein's idea of an exemption- procedure an important step, because projects tvith sufficient merit could 10 through the moratorium, which was an appropriate way to handle the issue. During the seismic hazards discussion, he cited,a historic; building downtown that was to be remodeled to be brought 10. to seismic standards.. He was not sure how the :5000 square foot limit, affected. it, but some additional square footage made it eco nomic to restore the old , b ui 1 di ng. The trade-off was to give the owner -Of of the building a little more space rather than_ have the bul"i_ding come down and a much worse situation 10 up, thus preserv- ing hi story and, ultimately,- some square. footage, An spite of the --net addition which was larger than might 'otherwise be -allowed. The question was discussed and he wanted such --a prov,tsion its the moratorium, although the' one exemption mentioned by Mayor- Klein 4 9 8 5 8/27/84 might alresdy cover it. He wanted to investigate the question before action was taken, and the number in the amendment might not cover such a situation. It was the kind of exception in which he was interested, and he believed the exception procedure --a special recognition of historic buildings and another of earthquake safe- ty --should together offer sufficient opportunities to bring in buildings of merit. They ought not set up a formula that might prove wr=ong in the future. Ms. Lee said under the variance procedure, a geological hazard Class 1 building was already covered under a specific exemption. If there was to be a variance procedure, and positives for the City were sought, a historic building would be easy to categorize and identify in the ordinance as would any older building that was preserved and upgraded seismically to protect the public health and safety. Such clear standards could be incorporated into a variance process. Councilmember Bechtel would. not support the third exemption pro- posed by Councilmember Woolley. In the long run, they might vote for a floor area ratio of approximately 2.0, but that was as yet unknown, and there was no recommendation. The amendment might cut off possible alternative recommendation by the Committee, and she preferred not to do that. Mayor Klein did not want to repeat his explanation of why he did not favor the approach. The 1.9 floor area ratio was far too high for density transfers as the only such system that world work would be with significantly lower numbers. The figure was another stab in the dark, and they should stop to see where they came out. W moratorium was a fair price to pay for what he hoped would be a more rational downtown. He would vote against the amendment. Councilmember Renzel concurred with the three previous speakers. Members of the Downtown Study Committee said all the goals set forth were interrelated --some to urban design, others to traffic growth and circulation patterns. To introduce a blanket exemp- tion, which was a guess about the proper floor area ratio, might interfere with the ability to properly deal with some of the interrelated goals. She -preferred the more streamlined main motions with the exemption process described for extraordinary_ circumstances. The problem was severe enough to make the mora- torium broad. Councilmember Sutorius said a 1.9 bulk within the _CC zone would fit into a 3.0 envelope and, because the projects would go before the ARB, he was not swayed by the question of bulk. He did not favor the arendment because it did not distinguish between CC and CS within the Downtown Study arear and he was concerned about what could take place before final zoning occurred. Anything that set any floor area ratio and still permitted ground floor construction of offices was wrong. At the study date, 34 percent of the square footage within the Parking Assessment District area was in of- fices. Li. addition, the . vacant and the under construction/ recently completed square footage together accounted for an addi- tional 13 percent of .which half, if not more, was in offices. There was a potential of between 40 and 49 percent of office square footage within the Parking Assessment area, and would be slightly less in the total study area because the base was cur- rently only 30., 7 percent. Thinking of the goals and possibi l i ties desired, the provision would practically assure that any_ interim. construction would be office space. Because its size was going to be limited, the developer would want to put in office space for economic reasons. Once ground floor office was developed, it would take a long time to recapture it for other uses described as retail vitality, pedestrian enhancement and other things that gave a human scale and a human feeling to th'o owntown. He would not support the amendment. He appreciated the spirit in xhich it was made and the effort expended. Several colleagues explored ways to approach the problem, which would be of scussed later. 4 9 8 6 8/27/84 Couriciliiieiiiber- Bechtel understood the tinnr area ratio of the recently constructed Wells Fargo Bank building was 1.3. Mr-. Freeland said that was correct. Such large sites could throw people off in terms of bulk and floor area ratio as the two did not necessarily equate. Mayor Klein asked how large the Wells Fargo site was. Mr. Zimmerman said the building was over 97,000 square feet, and the site almost 14 000 square feet. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote :of 2.7, Woolley and Levy voting 'aye.* Councilmeinb er Sutorius asked staff for the address of the building just referred to. Mr. Zimmerman said the address was 400/450 Hamilton Avenue, and the site floor area was 97,740 square feet, and the site area was 73,699 square feet. Councilmernber Sutorius asked for confirmation that the zoning per- mitted a maximum site floor area of 145,000 square feet. Mr. Zimmerman said it allowed three times the 73,000 square feet. When Mayor Klein said that would give 219,000 square feet, Mr. Zimmerman agreed the figure was incorrect. Councilrnember Sutorius said those were the figures used in the most recent report received --the Intensification Study --which was why he raised the question. He would be surprised if the floor area ratio cited for the building was as low as described. Mr. Freeland said the. 1.32 floor area ratio cited was correct. Counci lrneober Sutorius referred to the main motion and asked if it stated that the effective date, from the standpoint of future moratoria, would be at the agendized date for discussion of the moratorium. Mayor Klein said that was the language noted by the. Ci ty Attorney. It raised the question of what was meant by "agendized," which to him meant the time it was first discussed or action was taken on it. Otherwise people woul d by encouraged to rush to the ARB or the Planning Department to file plans, etc. Councilmeiaber Sutorius said the motion referred to "approved" projects, and therefere did not relate to filing. The question of when a particular action became effective should not be frozen in the Council's thinking by a vote that evening unless they tried to precise the date. The previous discussion used "agendized," which was perhaps why CouncilmeMber Witherspoon questioned the reason- ability of taking action that evening which might have as its effective date that evening's discussion. Mayor Klein said the motion said the effective date would be that evening.- If Councilmember -Sutorius disagreed, he should move an amendment. Alternatively, the same i ssue=,.would be up for discus- sion when the actual draft ordinance came before the Council so he could. have two cracks at -it.: Councilrnember Sutorius said in fairness to the Council, the pub--, Tic, and the property owners, a date for the action should -Rot be effective that evening. The matter was not contemplated for any period of time sincethe agenda and packet materials were out.- AMEN9MENT: Counci lsearber Sutorius ►eved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the effective -=gate be . the date . the prepared 'ordinance i s agendi xed for Council and not Aegust 27. M7,84 Counc i lme€nb er Witherspoon was most concerned the Council went along with the suggestion to codify the: kinds of -aoratoria that came up so the rules of the game were known, and turn around one week later and decide to change the rules. Only a few had any clue that moratoria would be discussed that evening, as everything in the packet indicated that the goals of the Committee would be discussed. Members of the public urged the Council for weeks to have a moratorium, but it was not agendized or noticed, and was not general knowledge. The Council was opening itself up to much criticism by postdating to that evening an action the Council might take in a few weeks It would be more fair to have it the night it was agendized even if the Council did not get to it. CouncilmeMber Cobb asked if the item would return to the Council at its next meeting on September 11, 1984. City Manager Bill Zaner said Willow Road would be discussed on September 11, so he did not suggest it be agendized then. On September 1), 1984 Evergreen Park would be discussed, which also promised to be lengthy. Staff needed at least two weeks to pre- pare the ordinance, clear it through Planning arid the City Attorney, get -the information out -to the public, publish notices, and give people a chance to read the ordinance in order to discuss it at the Council meeting. Assuming it was not agendized on September 11 or 17, he suggested a special meeting sometime in the third week of September. Any other week in September would mean some Councilniembers had at least three night meetings that week. Mayor Klein understood at least three weeks would transpire before the issue could be dealt with. He asked what would likely be dumped in the pipeline during the following three weeks that might receive ARB approval in the interim. Mr. Freeland said it was unlikely a new building of any major size could be brought in and work its way through the .ARB in that time because the internal project review process took about five weeks for a major building. Mr. Zimmerman said technically two projects were presently in the pipeline. One was the Hare, Brewer & Kelly building at 379 Lytton, which received ARB approval on August 16, which appeal period would expire the coming Friday or Saturday. The other project received preliminary ARB approval and was a project for office, parking, some retail and possibly housing at 275 Alma for approximately 55,000 to 57,000 square feet. Mayor Klein asked when that might receive ARB approval. Mr. Freeland said there would be an ARB meeting on September 6, but he did not believe the Alma project was on that agenda. Mayor Klein was persuaded that given the desire to be consistent, the position of Councilmembers Sutorius and Witherspoon was cor- rect. He reluctantly believed it was appropriate to reflect a later effective date. The City did not want to give any more time .than absolutely necessary, and he was willing to support the motion, but wanted to specify a date on which it should be agen- dized. He asked why it could not be agendized for the same eve- ning as Willow Road. Mr. Zaner said it could be agendized -for that evening. Staff was concerned the meeting would prove lengthy. The public would turn out for the session, and if Council ran l ate and had to continue it or carry it over, it would mean the public would have to come another night.. It could be done and _notice could be handled by indicating the date on which the Council int'nded to hear the item. It could always be continued. Mayor Klein was more concerned that staff be given sufficient time to prepare a draft ordinance and notice the public. 4 9 8`8 8/27/84 Ms. Lee said if the public was to be given an opportunity to suf- ficiently review the ordinance before the meeting, a two-week turnaround time, during which. there would be absences in the Plan- ning Department, made it a difficult date, although the September 11 date was possible. Mr. Zaner said it was extremely difficult because of the Labor Day weekend. In order to snake the September 11 date, staff had to get it out on Thursday, September 6, which left three days that week and two days the following to get notice out, the reports out, clean up the ordinance, publish it and the notices in the paper and have copies available to all who wanted to read it before the. discussion, Councilmember Cobb said the discussion should distinguish between establishing a date that would make the moratorium effective and a final ordinance to discuss. Discussions could begin on September 11 at the earliest, and the ordinance could continue to be refined in the future so that when it finally passed, as he suspected it would, it would apply back to September 11, If he understood staff correctly, they were not at much risk before September 11. If that date was established, based on what was scheduled for the ARB and all the rest, details of the ordinance could be haggled over later. Mr, Zaner said that logic would apply equally to September 17, and staff preferred the extra week. Staff would have to get the ordi- nance out on September 6 for Council to hear it on the llth. Councilmember Cobb asked if there was more risk of something slip- ping through the ARB on September 17 than on the llth. Mr. Zimmerman said a major project would require about five weeks for staff review. There was no other project in the pipeline other than the one identified. Mr. Freeland said the major point was that only one ARB meeting was scheduled on September 6. For either September 11 or 17, there was no opportunity. The .agenda for September 6 would be completed August 28, and when he 'fast checked, there were no major Downtown projects on that agenda. Councilmember Bechtel understood the motion that passed concerning the cutoff period in the event of a moratorium made it the night it was actually discussed, and not postponed to a future date at which time the ordinance passed. She believed Council was being inconsistent with'what was done in previous moratoria that the effective date was the date Council first brought up the morator- ium-- not the date it was ultimately passed. She would not sup- port the amendment Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Bechtel. A mor- atorium strongly seemed necessary and it appeared Council was try- ing to figure out how to not catch everyone in the net. It was important for the maximum planning options to remain during the downtown study period as So many options were already cut off by existing development and approved development not yet built that each bit in the interim period would cause a problem. Counci lmeraber Fletcher said Council was not assured the : 57,000 square foot project was not going to be on the ARB agenda before Council returned and suggested Council go with that , evening's date. There would be plenty of publicity in the newspapers, plus the staff , effort to get the word out, and at that time if there was significant opposition and good reason to set the date further forward, it could be, changed, but it would be impossible to do it the other way around. With the Council's heavy agendas the next few weeks, an item might get continued and a project could slip 4 9 8 9 8/27/84 through. She saw no point in not making the effective date that ovcni ng because it could be chanyed later. Vice Mayor Levy was uncomfortable having laid out the basic rules for moratoria the previous week. Council said the point of estab- lishment of a moratorium should be the date it was agendized because it gave the community notice, and was recommended by Coun- cilmembers Fletcher and Mein with good thought. Council was al- ready discussing going against that action because of a specific situation. They were talking about trying to get their way fast before the public was truly notified. Councilmember Witherspoon's comments were valid --the public was not notified of Council's ac- tion, and the matter was not agendized. If Council was actually going to take action that evening, he was uncomfortable because he had no chance to hear from the public to know which items were in the pipeline, and what commitments were made by various individ- uals. He supported reaffirming last week's Council action that the date to begin i moratorium was the date it was agendized and public notification given. AMENDMENT PASSER by a vote of 6-3, Fletcher, Refuel, Bechtel voting °no.° AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel„ to not permit conversions of growled .floor space from non -office to office space. Councilmember Renzel believed the amendment was consistent with some of the goals set forth to protect retail vitality. Continu- ity of the retail first floor frontage was important, and Council should protect it. Ms. Lee cautioned that staff would have to review some of the legal implications, and it would be included or not based nn the legal problems. Councilmember Bechtel asked how staff would enforce the amend- ment. Mr. Freeland said a use and occupancy permit was required upon change in tenancy in buildings. If the building was legally occu- pied, a paper went through the Planning Department, which kept pretty good tebe. Councilmember Witherspoon would not support the amendment. She did not believe it was appropriate and was the kind of thing she wanted proposed by the study group. ,, A survey was made and i t was concluded that although it was 'something Coonci.i should be con- cerned about in the future, it was not presently a major problem. She did not believe it should be part of the moratorium. Councilmember Woolley would not support the amendment: She believed it attempted to second-guess the study, and she was not sure it was the only way to achieve goals 9, 10, and /1, listed in the study. Vice Mayor Levy asked if any conversions such as those outlined in the amendment were taking place. Mr. Freeland said presently the next block • of Hamilton where Peninsula Feed used to be was being converted to a landscape arch- itect's office. He heard of other space on ground floors being marketed as office space because it had the highest return on the land. There were possibly changes going the other direction, ' but there were some ground floors being converted to offices. 4'9 90 8/27/84 As Corrected 10/22/84 Councilmember Fletcher said her concern in offering the amendment was not only to preserve retail uses on the ground floor, but J J d i J_ __ _ under the City's parking ordinance, no additional t, onal Nark i riy would be required for conversion to offices. It would significantly add to the parking shortage if the City permitted offices to occupy retail spaces, and the proposed moratorium might give incentive to :that type of use. Councilmember Renzel said the difference between the amendment on the floor and the earlier motion with respect to a 1.9 floor area ratio was the amendment on the floor would only be effective during the moratorium and would not create an irreversible condi - -tion should a policy decision come out of the downtown retail study. It left an option open, and the earlier motion had the potential to cut options off, which was an important distinction. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vete of 6-3, Woolley. Cobb: Witherspoon voting mne.' Councilmember Sutorius supported the main motion because alterna- tives to approach the problem differently with the desired result in terms of additional constraints with some flexibility would take too long. He supported the motion and saw no need for addi- tional amendments. Councilmember Cobb believed moratoria were .not the most ideal solutions to the situation being faced by the City, but the situa- tion was out of control. The City was getting out of balance and there was more construction going; on than there were roadways to handle the traffic or space to park the cars. At the rate it was going, a lot more than "Manhattans zi ng" Palo Alto would happen, it might be destroyed. The situation must get under control, and the moratorium was probably the most effective tool available. He was pleased it was being done in such a manner as to be perceived as fair in terms of procedure, and did not believe anything would be lost by the procedural vote taken a few moments ago. He believed the moratorium was needed as the City had to get a handle on the situation if it was to preserve anything like the Palo Alto it wanted. Councilmeraber Renzei supported a downtown rnoratarium for a long time and was pleased to see her colleagues beginning to also see the need. If there was one issue on which she received more com- ments in the last year or so it was who would. do something about downtown. In the last few months, the situation worsened signifi- cantly. It was appalling to see in the material submitted by the Downtown Study Committee and staff the hypothetical number of 14,000 passible parking spaces that, might be needed in 4n uncon- strained build -out. Even though the City knew there would be some constraints, the potential was there. and it was an appalling num- ber in light of the actual numbers being experienced of something like 3,000 actual spaces provided in the Assessment District over the last 25 years. On the parking issue :alone, one could see a compelling need. A moratorium was needed during the :study time, and as a matter of practical consi derati ore, she observed the num- ber of debris boxes, 'canstetction sheds, lined up hopper trucks with dirt, etc. were _creating disruptions to the fabric -of down- town. The parking lot with the air sights project was currently out of commission; the_ parks ng lot she bel i eyed _was .:avai 1 aisle for the new office ,bus 1 di ng on the corner -;-of Lytton at Al ea had ° con- str4ction going on there, and a parking structure would be going up or, Lot J which would take that parking, In the meantime, a lot of the. on -street perking was being disrupted by the debris boxes, etc. In order for downtown to continue to function, there Were practical considerations for a moratori.Oe.. She; wa►s .glad . it was happening and commended staff, the Downtown .:_Study Committee, and the Planning: Coin ssl on for it! fi na work leading up to that points: �- 4 9 9 1 8/27/84 As Corrected 10/22/84. Vice Mayor Levy said Counciimember Henze] supported the air rights project, and he believed Lot J was a unanimous decision. He was uncomfortable supporting moratoria 'eecause it was an insensitive way to proceed, and he disliked insensitive government. The pro- posed moratorium would last a year, which was a long time for peo- ple trying to plan their actions and who might have planned their actions and now were having them immediately chopped off. He would not support the moratorium. He did not believe Council needed to institute a moratorium in order to lay out an interim set of proposals to reflect the goals of the Downtown Study Corn- mittee. Councilmemb er Bechtel supported a moratorium in June, and agreed with the problem as pointed out by Councilrnember Renzel. Many people coetactea her and asked what was being done downtown. Council needed to take time out, think about what was happening, and the Downtown Study Committee needed:. time to make some good recommendations on which direction to go. She believed Council was convinced by the potential of a 143 percent increase over what was currently there --an increase from 3.2 million square feet to a potential of 5.4 million or a potential public cost of $80 million for public parking spaces. Councilrneuber Renzel said there was some discussion about ARB approval, and she asked for clarification that the policy which passed was final design approval which included final design approval by the ARB. Ms, Lee said the motion directed the City Attorney to draft appro- priate language for the Municipal Code to . exempt projects which received ARB and/or use permit approvals from moratoria and zoning changes. The ordinance would be drafted in accordance with the memo. Cot.cncilmember Woolley said a moratorium was needed because of the great development potential and because the Downtown Study Commit- tee needed time to do a thorough job and consider an urban design plan. She would have preferred the City u e allowed to go on with any building that would most likely be possible after the ecudy was completed and changes were made, but supported the moratorium because she believed it was needed. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Levy, Witherspoon voting 'rye.' DISCUSSION ON REPORT FROM DOWNTOWN STUDY COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION, PROPOS-CD FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED GOALS Councilmember Cobb said Item,. #9 of the recommended goals said "increase the potential for a variety of uses in the Downtown Area," and said "variety" was too big a door. Mr. Freeland believed _ the intention was to go in the opposite direction. The Committee believed there was.. a trend towards same- ness; that is, large single use structures, and it had to do with maintaining a finer grain to the downtown like the traditional downtown with opportunities for marny different types of users rather than large, single use types of structures. MOTION: Couacllaaesber Bechtel moved,, seconded by Cobb, to approve the Planning Commission recommendations as follows: 1. The goals will not have an adverse environmental impact; and 2. The goals for the purpose of voiding svb segvent : phases of the Downtown Study. These recommended goals are based on iF:! put from the Downtown Study Committee and on the f o l l owl eg find- ings relating to potential development. current and potential parking deflciesces and expected traffic conditions 4 9 9 2 8/27/84 1 NOTION CONTINUED Findings: 1. Development potential of the Downtown Study Area under present zoning is 7.7 million square feet or a 143% increase over the 3.2 million square feet of existing development in the Downtown Area. With the Assessment District portion of the Study Area, there is a potential for 5.4 million square feet of floor area or a 112% increase over the 2.6 million square feet of existing development; 2. An additional 9,670 new parking spaces would be required if the Assessment district portion of the Study Area were fully developed under present zoning; 3. If the Assessment District portion of the Study Area were fully developed under present zoning, and current parking rules were in effect, 4,050 spaces might be required to be publicly provided, at a cost of approximately $80 million dollars; 4. There is a significant existing deficit of parking in the Downtown Area that results in an overflow of approximately 1,220 cars parking in surrounding residential neighborhoods; and 5. Relatively small amounts of additional development will result in unacceptable levels of traffic because of the limited capacity of streets serving the Downtown Area. Recommended Goals: Category 1 1. Reduce overall build out potential; 2. Increase the supply of public aid private parking for the Downtown Area; 3. Accept the existing parking deficit* in the short-term, but not allow it to increase; 4. Reduce the parking deficit over the long -tern; 5.- improve traffic circulation with the physical constraints- of the existing street network; 6. Minimize traffic growth in the Downtown Area; ant 7. Reduce nonneighborhood traffic in adjoining residential areas. Category II (relating to neighborhood protection, variety and vitality, and 'when des190: MeiahbQrhood Protection B. . Preserve the character and quality of the adjoining residential neighborhoods; *Baseline date for the existing parking deficit is March 1984 and is understood to be about 1,200 parking spaces. 4 9 9 3 8/27/84 MOTION CONTINUED - Yariet, and Vitality 9. Increase the potential for a variety of uses in the Downtown Area; 10. Encourage retail vitality and variety; 1 11. Promote the economic health of Downtown; end Urban Des1Ln 12. Encourage urban design which preserves and enhances a human scale within the Downtown Area; 13. Encourage diversity of design in different parts of the Down- town Area; 14. Enhance the pedestrian environment of the Downtown Area; and 15. Encourage preservation of buildings of historic and architec- tural interest. Councilmember Bechtel said the Committee did an excellent job and she realized there were about eight weekly meetings. She ques- tioned #3, "accept the existing parking deficit in tree short-term, but not e l l eee it tc increase," under Recommended Goals, but believed it might presently be realistic. It was one Council might hope to reduce at some point long-term, Councilmember Cobb said the basic list of goals was outstanding, and he was impressed and encouraged about where the City would wind up, Regarding rank ordering, he was not sure that all 15 goals could be done in equal measure, and suggested the Committee consider rank ordering rather than Category I and Category 11. He believed it was important "to preserve the character and quality of adjoining residential neighborhoods," and "to encourage preser- vation of buildings of historic and architectural interest" because they were part of the larger character of Palo Alto. If trade-offs had to be made, he hoped consideration would be given to where the choices should be put if emphasis had to be put on one point over another. Other than that, the goals were excellent and he looked forward to the Committee's future work. Councilmember- Witherspoon echoed Councih ether Cobb's comments. In reading the minutes, she realized the Committee was as aware as she that they were trying to address a dichotomy. The City wanted to attract shoppers downtown to maintain the vitality, but did not want them to park too lose or use University Avenue. There were two major problems --through traffic trying to use the sage streets as local traffic; namely University Avenue, and long-term parkers taking up the close -in short-term spaces. T.he problem was the same for years, but increased dramatically as offices and ..condo- miniums were built downtown. Regarding #2, in Category I, "to increase the supp ify of pub 1 i c and private parking," she believed they meant to physically increase the number of parking spaces, but urged them to look . at developing ways to maximize the use of every parking space day and night, long and short-term parking with priorities for carpool, : vans, etc. Regarding No. 4, ; in Category I, to reduce the parking deficit over the long-term," she would have preferred a separate goal for developing incentives to get downtown commuters out, cf their cars and encourage pedes- trian use of the downtown area, and -suggested actively, going after a behavior- mod.ificatiou. She believed the City needed to minimize through._ traffic: in the corridor downtown area, which Might be ac.. comp11shed by improving circulation which did not mean cutting off University Avenue. The C+ty had two good, one way streets and there were ways to encourage through traffic out of the University University Avenue corridor without drastrical ly changing the whole circulation pattern. Regarding No- 11 in Category 1I, "to promote the economic health of downtown," she suggested a caveat to en- courage the allocation of resources to assure the cleanliness and attractiveness of the public areas downtown, i.e., the parking lots, the parks and the sidewdlks. Regarding 014, "to enhance the pedestrian environment of the downtown area," anything Council could do to encour:rge people to use the downtown as pedestrians would be terrific. Councilmember Sutorius said the report confirmed that the City had a competent, professional staff, and an alert and cooperative group of citizens who were effectively participating in the study process. In terms of the goals, his was toward a future with a product resembling a specific plan; and if he was trying to advo- cate going into that mode at. the moment, he would argue about categorizing the goals and would give credence to Councilmember Cobb's suggestion about .ranking. In fairness, b a separating him- self from his own biases and looking back to the original propos- als and the actions of the Council, the product delivered was in line with the charter established for the Committee., The Category 1 and II head'ine statements were responsive to the Council's pri- orities and subjects to be addressed. Mr. Freeland referred to specific detail and earlier discussions when several Counci lmembers mentioned the importance of the urban design component of the study. The urban design component con- tained in the official charge to the study was limited and looked strictly at parking. He read into some of the statements made earlier a higher level of expectation which he believed was shared by some members of the committee. An ad hoc group of architects had formed to deal with urban design issues, and the Urban Design subcommittee was beginning to work with them. If a few extra months were to be allowed for the study, it might be helpful to give the go ahead to an expanded look at urban design. At present, that was not the charge of the study, although at least some of the subcommittee members would like it to be. Councilmember Fletcher said she admired the quality and quantity of information provided and the goals that were the outcome of the study. She wondered if the recommended goal to increase the sup- ply of public and private parking for the Downtown area might not also include an analysis of the number of additional trips such additional parking would generate for the downtown, and whether the road capacity could take it. The staff report listed 350,000 square feet; as being under construction or recently completed with 93 percent unoccupied as of March 1, 1984. Counting 16 trips per 1,000 square feet, the figures used by staff, the existing con- struction would generate 5,600 new trips Downtown, excluding con- struction between March 1, 1984 and the moratorium. Thp rnad.. capacity must, therefore, also be ccnside.ed. AMENDMENT: Counc11sreber Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to add to the recommended goals: 7) To seek a mechanism for develop- ment of r1de. sharing: programs for employee commuters. Councilmember Fletcher:. said the purpose . of her amendment ,was to alleviate .traffic and the parking need. Parking was expensive and it would impact the retailers' rents to pay for the additional parking. It would free up parking spaces for thecustomers they were trying to attract downtown to maintain a healthy and vital downtown. Mayor; K1 ei __raid he did not support the amendment, because he did not want the Downtown Study Committee to become a bind of Chr i stma s tree with : the Council adding anything it found desir- able. ::That was not its 'tiurpose. `1t was given a specified task requiring much work and the Council should not add to it. It was the type of goal the Council set for itself -and should keep. The mechanism Councilmember Fletcher sought applied not enly to down- town but to husinesses throughout the community and was a job for the Council. Passing it on to the Downtown Study Committee would not accomplish anything. Vice Mayor Levy said the amendment would meet: the objective of reducing the parking problem. The Council too often thought of physical answers Public Works and Traffic Engineering projects, not of behavior modification, chancing incentives, and recognizing and making people aware of the real cost of doing things, which would also help achieve the goals. The Council considered devel- oping a ride -sharing program before and tried things that did not work, but they were still worthy of consideration. With a.11 the problems they were aware of, the average car coming into the Down- town area contained only 1.1 people. Raising the figure to 1.3 or 1.4 would be a better way to improve the parking problem than per- haps any other, just as energy usage problems were often better solved by conservation rather than by developing more energy. Councilmember Fletcher was on the right track for several reasons, and ride -sharing should be supported as a further goal the Council had in mind. Councilmember Bechtel saw ride -sharing as a mechanism for goal 6, minimizing traffic growth in the downtown area. Councilmember Sutorius agreed it was a technique or strategy. The Downtown Study Committee and the Commission tried to avoid mixing techniques and strategies with goals. He was sure ride -sharing would be considered when they tackled techniques and strategies. Councilmember Henze] agreed with the last speakers. She concurred with the importance of ride -sharing, but it was a mechanism. It would be the same as adding specific wishes under Urban Design. Those were details the Committee should develop itself. The Coun- cil should stay with the broader goals. Councilmember Fletcher suggested the wording should be more vague and indicate that goals 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 could not be achieved without it. She did not mean the amendment .as an instruction specifically to put ride -sharing programs into place alongside the goals, but to have it as a goal that ride -sharing was an integral part of the overall plan. Mayor Klein said the language would have to be worked on. Council►nenber Fletcher agreed the wording of the amendment, as shown by the legitimate comments of her colleagues, belonged fur ther along in the process. Ride-sharing should be recognized as a necessary function in order to achieve some of the results. It was a goal that had to be ,recognized. Councilmember Bechtel suggested that, rather than have the Council vote on the issue, the members of the Committee present that eve- ning had listened to the Council's concern, and it might be appro- priate if the Council conveyed it as something appropriate the Committee might consider. She thought it was a good idea to ex- plore* but did not want to go into such detail. Councilmember Fletcher agreed to withdraw her motion and make .it as an item she wished the Downtown Study Committee to consider. NO►TIalt WITHDRAWN Councilmember Renzel spoke to the main motion, and commended staff, the Downtown Study Committee, and the Planning Commission. More remarkable than the quality of the recormendations was that a consensus developed around them from a very diverse group of people, which was a tribute to staff for developing good, sound information; and she was _`very pleased. 4 g g 6 8/27/84 Vice Mayor Levy also commended all concerned with regard to the goals. The goals in _Category Ii were in many ways more important than the goals in Category I. He understood why they had the two categories, and he did not feel one should be inferior to the other. One thing that had.to be considered as they pursued the goals was to make sure they evolved into a true recognition of what the real costs were of parking and driving. They were still living in the 1910s and 20s when space was available at the curb and was used at no incremental cost. They were only now beginning to be aware that time had passed. If developers and employers, as well as employees and shoppers, all recognized the real cost of developing parking, it would go a long way towards solving prob- lems. He concurred with the emphasis on variety of uses in down- town, the maintenance of the human scale there, and variety of design and environment. He was not a biologist, but he understood variety had a great deal to do with the development of the human species. He was convfinc d variety was the key to a vital downtown over an extended period of time. He was concerned with item 7, reduction of non -neighborhood traffic in the adjoining residential areas, as it would get them into trouble in the future. He did not see how it could be fulfilled and still develop the other goals, which were to reduce the overall build -out and parking potentials and the traffic problem. There would be more build -out and more traffic coming into downtown. To accomplish an improve- ment in the traffic circulation and the minimization of traffic. growth in downtown, it would not be possible to do so and reduce the neighborhood traffic in the adjoining residential areas. He hoped it could be maintained, but a goal to reduce it put the Council in danger of later being asked, to develop barrier pro -- grams, etc. in the neighborhood areas. A realistic goal would be to maintain traffic at current levels, and not allow it to in- crease as it would in the main downtown streets. He asked for comments from his colleagues. Councilmember Renzel said they were goals and although not 100 percent achievable, they pointed the direction in which the Coun- cil wished to go. Much of the non -neighborhood traffic in the im- mediate vicinity of downtown was due to the search for parking places. As some of the other goals were reached, it would, by definition, be a step in the right direction. It was not unreal- istic as a goal, as it had been recognized in the Comprehensive Plan, and should be included as a reminder that it was an impor- tant consideration in all othti.r decisions made. Councilmember Sutorius said the Council should acknowledge Mr. Freeland's remarks concerning the urban design situation. He was in the minority in the Council action` on the original package put together, as he supported the staff recoiwriendations on urban de- sign and not the revised Council approach. In the interim, an ad hoc group of local architects had now become an informal but ac- cepted subcommittee, Staff might wish to comment on the next,ap- propriate-step concerning Council acknowledgement -of them or any orientation needed. A work study session with the Council might be appropriate after the downtown Study Committee had received design concept recommentations. Mr. Freeland said he felt the Council was already owed a work study session on the question of urban design plans. Urban design plans were wholly beyond the capacity of the study; although some members -of the Committee were interested in developing polities to back up the listed goals for urban design. An indication_ that__it was -legitimate for them to do --so in an area larger than jest park- ing Was all that probably could be accomplished at that point in tune. It would capture: some of the energy, as opposed to pretend ing to, start an urban design plan. Couriei l,ne er Sutorius said it would be regrettable if they did not capture the talent, energy and thoughtfulness provided. Re encouraged his colleagues to maximize its utilizat=ion. Counc i lmemb er Renzel wished the amendment to be along the lines suggested by Mr. Freeland. Some urban design proposals could be included that resulted from studies on items 12 through 15. Park- ing should not be the sole limit of urban design proposals that might ensue from the study, but the Council did not wish to become involved in extensive urban design for downtown at that time. Mayor Klein did not understand what the amendment did, as items 12 through 15 did not talk about parking itself. Mir.; Freeland said that was the whole point, as the Committee had already gone somewhat beyond the scope of the original charge. There was some concern by staff about whether the Committee should be reined back or the energy in evidence encouraged. Counc i lmemb er Renzel did not wish the urban design aspects of the Committee to be severely limited to the parking issue, but might include some policy issues revolving around goals 12 through 15. She did not wish to see the whole Downtown Study derailed around the broad category of urban design which could become a lengthy proposal. She wished to suggest that it was permissible, from the point of view of the Council, to capture the energy of the people working in the area who saw interrelationships between urban design and some other goals. She obtained Mr. Freeland' s help in formulating language. AMENDMENT: Councilarember Renzel moved, seconded by Sutorius, that the scope of the charge of the Downtown Committee be expanded to include policy formulation in the area of Urban Design with the understanding that it is not to provide a full scale Urban Design plan. Mr. Northway said the design community attempted to come up with visual ideas to help when in the future very difficult issues would have to be grappled with. The traditional way to reduce build -out was to drop the floor area ratio uniformly, but the com- munity's architects and designers attempted to brainstorm at the meetings on Wednesday and visually formulate how downtown could be in a positive sense. Visual ideas of urban design would be very helpful to the Committee when it grappled with the hard issues of where the parking should go ' and how to reduce the overall build - out potential without killing the sense of vitality downtown. The wording suggested would give good direction. Vice Mayor Levy asked in what way the amendment would differ from the simple approval of goals 12 through 15. Mr. Freeland said they had become derailed on a side issue. The matter had nothing to do with the goals per se. It was only a clarification of the charge to the Committee. Vice Mayor Levy said he supported the amendment as the urban design goals were not part of the _original charge to the Committee and therefore the Council should go back and reword the charge in order to officially .have them incorporated. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. MOTION PASSED unanimously, as amended. ITEM #101 RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO LEASE CUBBERLEY FIELDS - PALO ALTO UNIFI Sl IOOL DISTRITT (PWK 6-2), ICMR:462:4) Real Estate Administrator Jean Diaz reminded the Council the reso- lution preserved the City's rights to lease the Cobberley fields under the provision of the Naylor Bill, It would also direct staff to negotiate the specifics of the lease ag'eement with the representatives from the School District. If the Council had specific directions for staff, it was an appropriate time to, give them. 4 9 9 8/27%84 Vice Mayor Levy understood if the City did not state its interest or lease the property, the property would be available Lo be leased to the private sector. Mr. Diaz said the specifics of the. School District's resolution did not extend the offer to the private sector. It seemed clear it was directed to the City. By indicating the City's intent to take advantage of it, the City's interest was reflected. He did riot believe the intent of the School District was to go private. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the_, School District would have the right, if the City did not act, to go private. He asked what realistic options the School District had and could they seek tenants from the private sector. Ms. Lee said they could eventually after going through a series of public agencies which were prioritized in various provisions of the Education and Government codes. Vice Mayor Levy asked if any of those agencies would have the right to rent under the Naylor rates. Ms. Lee said that some would, others would not. Vice Mayor Levy asked if possible uses for the property within the private sector were acceptable within the current zoning that would provide the School District with market rate rents. Mr. Diaz said he did not think so, unless it was an open space recreation use, which would not command a high market rate when compared to building space. MOTION: Ccunci lmewber Witherspoon moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the staff recommendation to: I. Adopt resolution expressing the City's interest in leasing the Cubberley fields in accordance with the Naylor Bill; and 2. Direct staff to negotiate the specific provisions of a lease with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). RESOLUTION 6305 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF O ALTO EXPRESSING ITS INTENTION PURSUANT TO EDUCATION CODE SECTION 39390 ET SEQ., TO LEASE CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE CUBBERLcY HIGH SCHOOL SITE FROM THE PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT" Councilmember Witherspoon said when the question was discussed previously some Councilmenbers were concerned that any lease pay- ments be applied to a future purchase price. She asked if staff understood that to be a part of the negotiations. Mr. Diaz said the last instruction from the Council was to nego- tiate provisions for a credit 0 the rental payments. Councilmenber Cobb said it was -a very important action. His feel- ings on the property were well known. Speaking at the quarterly meeting of the Greenmeadow Association, the most immediate neigh- bOr of the property, he said the Council should be prepared to take a very liberal view of the School District and bend over backwards to make the deal as attractive as possible to ensure the City was in in charge of the . open space on the Cubberley site. The Association voiced ; no disagreement. The meeting was well attended, and the neighborhood felt very strongly about the prop- erty and that the City should 0 the extra mile to make sure Cubberley fell within the scope of the City's activities and would be maintained as earlier, as it WAS falling into a bad state of repair.: its use was important to the community for recreational uses of all kinds. He encouraged his colleagues not to make the conditions so difficult the process would be hard to consummate. It was very important to bring Cubberiey under the City umbrella. He assumed there was no intent to sell en the part of the School District, but assumed the City would be given ample notice were such intent to arise. Regarding 3.2. --Improvements, he assumed detailed language dealing with approvals not being unreasonably withheld would be incorporated, as the City intended improvement of the properties and needed Some flexibility. His real concern was under 6.1, where the PAUSD reserved the right to reclaim recreational areas to provide the parking generated by building use. He asked that a very liberal and accommodating view of park- ing requirements for other uses on the property be taken to pre- vent open space being lost to concrete and automobiles. The goal was to preserve valuable recreational space, and they would be working at cross purposes by making, it too easy to,convert to parking. He was concerned about the area, and hoped the Council could become sufficiently accommodating so parking did not become an issue and the wording did not invite excessive parking. Councilmember Sutorius said he understood the item had been included because of the time element. It was to be a formal indi- cation by the Council of its intent to lease, with no detailed discussion. He had agreed to notify a member of PAUSD who wished to attend -any discussion and would be embarrassed if the Council went into detail. Mayor Klein pointed out that Councilmerr&er Cobb had mentioned only - personal concerns that would not become official Council policy unless a motion was made. Councilmember Sutorius feared Councilmember Witherspoon's question and staff response could lead to a miscommunication at some point. Mayor Klein did not share those concerns. It was only a formal Council action. The PAUSD representative that evening had said the Council was doing nothing inconsistent with her understanding of what would take place that evening. Councilmember Sutorius said he hoped that was the case, and there would be no miscommunication between the Council and staff. Councilmember Woolley left at 11:30 p.m. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley absent. ITEM #11, REgUEST OF C)UNCILMEMBER BECHTEL RE WATER QUALITY RESO- i. i I i+I S a I 4i ) Councilmember Bechtel said one month earlier the Council had passed a resolution encouraging the League of California:Cities to adopt an item _concerning a Statewide water policy. She had been pessimistic about:getting it through the League's Environmental Quality Committee, which was made up of more southern than northern Californians and traditionally did not take a position on water policies. The Comm►:,ttee hack the wording in front of them; but she had described it as a very general policy and one on which they had to work for a -consensus. The Committee passed the reso- lution unanimously, and it would: be voted on at the League of California Cities in September if it was approved at that point by the entire 4embership of representatives. She encouraged those who would attend the session in Southern California to attend the. Environmental Quality` session to lobby, as she could not attend. Mayor Klein, would be voting at the session as the Palo Alto repr.esentatt.ve. ITEM 112, CANCELLATION OF SEPTEMBER -.4 1984 CITY COUNCIL MEETING (C 3) MOTION Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to cancel the September 4, 1984 meeting, 5 0 0 0 8/27/84 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 5 0 0 1 8/27/84