Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-29 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting January 29, 1996 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................78-92 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 1995....................78-92 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Campus Project Final Environment Impact Report................78-92 2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an ordinance approving a First Amendment to a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation regarding the Palo Alto Specific Plan area near Downtown Palo Alto located at 300 Homer Avenue78-92 3. Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Vacate Public Street and Utilities Easements on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Site at 795 El Camino Real.....................................78-93 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. in memory of Dave Schultz, Winner of the 1984 Olympic Gold Medal for Wrestling.............................................78-113 01/29/96 78-91 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:16 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS John Hanna, Attorney, Hanna & Van Atta, 525 University Avenue, spoke regarding Gregory B. Hammer and Christina Pahl v. City of Palo Alto and Monty Anderson. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, spoke regarding banners. Kevin Madden, 1120 Byron Street, spoke regarding selective purchasing. Coban Tun, no address provided, spoke regarding selective purchas-ing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of November 20, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Wheeler "abstaining," McCown absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to combine Agenda Item Nos. 1, 2, and 3 for the purpose of discussion and action. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Campus Project Final Environment Impact Report and Project-Related Applications for Property Located at 795 El Camino Real, Including Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Design Enhancement Exception, Deferral of Required Parking Spaces, Architectural Review Board Approval, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Extension of Urban Lane to University Circle (continued from 1/22/96 - Public Hearing closed) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an ordinance approving a First Amendment to a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation regarding the Palo Alto Specific Plan area near 01/29/96 78-92 Downtown Palo Alto located at 300 Homer Avenue and adjacent properties (continued from 1/22/96 - Public Hearing closed) 3. Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Vacate Public Street and Utilities Easements on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Site at 795 El Camino Real and Setting a Public Hearing for February 20, 1996 (continued from 1/22/96 - Public Hearing closed) Council Member Rosenbaum explained that he had watched the video tape of the January 22, 1996, City Council Meeting; and therefore, he would participate in the discussion and action on the items that evening. Mayor Wheeler asked the Council to discuss the issues that arose from the previous public testimony and presentations by staff and others. She believed the Council needed to discuss and determine a general direction for five areas before presenting the motions: 1) a connection across the railroad tracks between the project and the Homer Avenue, 2) inclusion of Building D in the project, 3) the double left-turn lane from El Camino Real onto eastbound Embarcadero Road, 4) housing mitigation, and 5) the Wells Avenue parking situation. Council Member Andersen wanted clarification regarding the report from the City Attorney's Office dated January 24, 1996. Council Member Simitian asked for the City Attorney to distinguish between contacts with members of the public in connection with the public hearing which had been closed and the written materials that the Council received after the close of the public hearing that provided additional information on the various topics. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said written communications that were received by the Council after the public hearing had closed should be disregarded. The Council's rules indicated that other than questions to staff, additional contacts with the public should not be made. He advised the Council not to rely on the letters when making its findings that evening. Staff had reviewed the correspondence, and from a legal perspective, the communications did not raise anything the Council needed to be aware of. Council Member Schneider asked what were the prohibitions regarding Council comments to the press. Mr. Calonne said in a quasi-judicial public hearing, the Council had an obligation to be fair, impartial, and reframe from bias. Comments to the press that might indicate a prejudgment of an issue could be problematic. If a Council Member went on record strongly after the public hearing was closed but before Council deliberation, it was an appearance issue but it did not indicate prejudgment. 01/29/96 78-93 Council Member Fazzino felt that Council Members as elected officials had the right to talk to members of the public and the press anytime they wished. He clarified the Council would vote on a policy proposal regarding each of the issues which would later become part of the main motion. Mayor Wheeler said yes. She explained the Council would begin its discussion with the crossing from the project through to Homer Avenue to Alma Street. Council Member Kniss clarified approval of an at-grade crossing by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) was unlikely. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the staff of the PUC and the Joint Powers Board (JPB) had indicated that neither agency would favor an at-grade crossing. Council Member Kniss clarified the staff could not recall any at-grade crossings being granted for several years. Mr. Schreiber said the PUC could not provide an example of an at-grade crossing being approved for at least the past three years. Council Member Kniss had viewed the tunnel in Mountain View and had not found it unattractive. She asked the usage and cost of the tunnel. Senior Transportation Planner Ashok Aggarwal was not familiar with the Mountain View usage. Staff had viewed the tunnel previously and felt the underpass was attractive, wide, and well lighted. Council Member Kniss felt the lighting was important and that the tunnel was user friendly. She recalled staff indicated the cost of the tunnel would be approximately $1.5 million. Mr. Aggarwal said the tunnel was built eight to nine years previously, and the consultant indicated at that time that the cost was approximately $1.5 million. He believed the tunnel was 40 feet, and a tunnel at the proposed location would be in the range of 60 to 70 feet. With an inflation factor and the additional length in Palo Alto, the cost could be approximately $2 million. Council Member Kniss asked the possible location of a tunnel and whether there would be another opportunity in the future if the Council did not require some type of tunnel at the present time. Mr. Schreiber said Homer Avenue was identified as the logical area to come out of the undercrossing because of the traffic signal which would facilitate people crossing Alma Street. The location would have to also fit within the various utilities. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended a provision which would allow a 01/29/96 78-94 landing area that could be tied to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) site and the north/south connector road. Council Member Kniss wanted the final approval for the project to include a condition of approval that the City would have the ability to construct an undercrossing at the proposed location. Council Member Fazzino clarified Council Member Kniss' focus was on the landing area next to the tunnel. Council Member Kniss wanted to make certain that the landing area would be available to accommodate a tunnel. Mr. Schreiber referred to Condition No. 8 on page 4 of Attachment H, Findings and Conditions for the Use Permit, which read: "If/when the City constructs the Homer Avenue pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing, the permittee shall provide at no cost, easements to accommodate the landing area for the stairway and ramp, and the connection with the bicycle/pedestrian path." The landing area would allow the undercrossing to connect with the PAMF site and continue to the north/south connector road. Council Member Kniss said Condition No. 8 stated "If/when the City constructs the Homer Avenue...," and she asked whether Condition No. 8 covered the previous Council discussion on the issue that evening. Mr. Schreiber said yes. The PAMF did not propose the construction and assumed that if the undercrossing were ever constructed, it would be a City-constructed project. Council Member Andersen clarified that when the project was initially suggested, the PAMF discussed a connection to the Downtown. He was certain the PAMF did not believe a connection could be built for $150,000. The previous discussions clearly indicated that the safety factor was the reason to have the PAMF involved in paying for some portion of the crossing. Many safety issues would be raised if a connection were not provided. He felt it was a public benefit that went beyond the PAMF's providing the funding, and he would propose the PAMF pay 15 percent of the cost. He was concerned about using a fixed figure because 85 percent would have to come from other funding sources. If the City were able to build the crossing in five years, there would be a fixed amount of money provided by the PAMF. He would be willing to have the PAMF hold its funds until the time of construction and that there not be a fixed amount but rather a percentage of the cost in order to provide the inflationary factor from depreciating the PAMF's participation. He felt it would be appropriate to request the PAMF to provide 15 percent of the cost of providing an undercrossing, and he preferred that the funding be provided at the time of the construction of the undercrossing. The PAMF would not be adversely affected by inflation either. 01/29/96 78-95 Council Member Fazzino did not want to build an undercrossing until the Council had foreclosed the other two options of across or over the area. The Council had previously heard the strong statement from the JPB regarding the at-grade crossing. He asked whether any data with respect to safety issues or the current safety situation at at-grade pedestrian crossings had been found. Mr. Aggarwal said other than the two accidents in Palo Alto at at-grade crossings, he was unfamiliar with any other data. Council Member Fazzino asked whether any statewide data was available. Mr. Schreiber said staff had not been able to research that issue. Council Member Fazzino wanted the information made available in the future. He asked why the City could not construct a bridge which would be easy to cross. Mr. Schreiber said staff was told that in order to spiral up, given both the maximum grade under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as the clearance necessary between the concrete levels, the spiral would have to be a very big structure. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the JPB had an official policy on the issue of elevated structures which might interfere with a Bart-type transit system. Tom Davids, Property Manager, Joint Powers Board, said elevating or depressing the railroad tracks was a local option. The City of San Carlos had brought the railroad tracks up so the traffic would be under the tracks. He encouraged the Council to think about the possibility of a third railroad track which had been a part of the JPB's forward planning. The JPB's future plans anticipated that a third track could be located on the rights-of-way, and the tunnels portals locations would have to allow room for a potential third track. Council Member Fazzino clarified that was a larger issue in terms of the tunnel option as opposed to the elevated option. Mr. Davids said there was plenty of room in the area, but the JPB wanted to make certain there was enough room over the tunnel to accommodate the third track. He pointed out that there was an extensive length fiber line down the west side of the track, and the fiber needed to be carefully handled and was expensive to move which needed to be considered in the economics of the project. Vice Mayor Huber believed the undercrossing was a rational idea that would assist in traffic reduction and the parking problems. He was not enthused about an at-grade crossing because of the 01/29/96 78-96 safety issues. The Council needed to set a reasonable figure that it could expect from the PAMF in terms of contribution, and he believed as the Council went through the backfill process of the specific plan which would include the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) as well as the old campus of the PAMF, that would be the time to consider the efficacy of the tunnel or another type of crossing. There had been previous discussions about the necessity of an assessment district for parking in the SOFA and logically overall financing, if necessary, would also need to be considered by way of an assessment district or otherwise in the future. The Council should leave the provision in place regarding the underground access, set a reasonable figure that the PAMF should provide, and then deal with the issue during the process of the specific plan. Council Member Schneider asked what kind of access would there be at the Homer Avenue entrance or exit to the tunnel. There was no sidewalk on that side of the street. Mr. Aggarwal believed a sidewalk would have to be constructed on that side of the street, and there was a signal at Homer Avenue to cross Alma Street. Council Member Schneider asked the cost to the City for the sidewalk. Mr. Aggarwal said the approximate cost of $2 million included most of the improvements. Council Member Schneider clarified the $2 million for the tunnel included the sidewalk on the west side of Homer Avenue. Mr. Aggarwal said that was correct. Council Member Schneider supported the 15 percent amount but preferred a maximum dollar amount not to exceed $300,000. She said the total project budget of $100 million was established previously when interest rates were significantly lower than at the present time, and she believed there were some dollars in the proposal for the tunnel. She felt the statement "that the tunnel under the railroad tracks would be of marginal utility" was disingenuous. It was not a marginal utility and was of significant importance to the City of Palo Alto. She wanted the tunnel to be part of the project and requirements. Council Member Kniss referred to the language in Condition No. 8, Attachment H, which read: "permittee shall provide at no costs, easements to accommodate the landing area..." She asked, if the Council did not make a decision about an undercrossing that evening and the PAMF moved forward and constructed the proposed project with landscaping, etc., whether the PAMF would be required to remove the landscaping. 01/29/96 78-97 Ann Moore, Moore Consulting, said the intent of the condition was that the PAMF provide the easements and make those kinds of changes at such time the improvement was made. There would be some minor changes needed for the landscaping. The design of the area was carefully considered so that it did not have important elements in the expected landing area that would be costly to modify. Council Member Kniss asked whether the area for a tunnel would be sufficient enough to avoid the railroad tracks and the fiber optic, whether there needed to be a ramp or stairs to the tunnel, and where would the landing end up. Ms. Moore said an original planning design done by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) engineers showed a very long ramp. Staff's initial comment was that the ramp needed to at least double or triple back onto itself. The area had a fair amount of width across the railroad right-of-way even with a third track concern. Staff believed there was sufficient depth to get under the fiber optic on the side of project. Karl Heisler, Environmental Sciences Associates, said the design illustrated in Appendix G in the Draft EIR (DEIR) showed the access tunnel doubling back on itself both on the PAMF side and on the Alma Street side. The total length was 180 feet of travel. Council Member Kniss clarified the length was equivalent to half a city block and that the ramp would triple on itself before going underground and the location on the Alma Street side was unknown at the present time. She assumed the condition included ample easement on the PAMF side and also on the Alma Street side for the potential undercrossing. Council Member Rosenbaum said at Homer Avenue and Alma Street, there was easily 50 feet between the railroad tracks and Alma Street. The City of Mountain View's tunnel was depressed 10 feet below-grade, and the ramp was 150 feet and parallel to the railroad tracks. He encouraged seeking approval for an at-grade crossing and wanted cost estimates for the overhead with the two spirals. He suggested those alternatives be pursued. Council Member Simitian asked whether Council Member Kniss's suggestion was that if an undercrossing were to be provided in the future, it was appropriate for the PAMF to pay some portion of the cost. Council Member Kniss said she only addressed Condition No. 8. Council Member Simitian said the many pages of environmental work reflected several years of research and professional time and expertise. He wanted to avoid designing the access from the Downtown to the PAMF campus. He was not prepared to eliminate the possibility of an at-grade crossing and had heard that there were 01/29/96 78-98 many people in the bureaucracy who did not have much enthusiasm for an at-grade crossing and who had taken the view that Palo Alto should provide $2 million for an under- or overcrossing. He wanted the forthcoming motion to address the question of whether the passageway was needed from the proposed PAMF site to the Downtown, whether the PAMF should pay some fair share and, if so, what the amount should be, and to give the Council some flexibility to either go over, under, or across the railroad tracks. Council Member Kniss suggested if the Council agreed that some kind of crossing were needed, it should look at the issue as a crossing rather than under, over, or across. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, that the Architectural Review Board Condition of Approval No. 59 [Attachment L of the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:104:96)] be changed to read: "The permittee shall provide 15 percent of the cost of providing a pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing at Homer Avenue in a form acceptable to the City Attorney prior to issuance of excavation, grading, or building permits.at the time of the construction of said crossing." Council Member Andersen understood there was some interest in having a fixed cap and he assumed the $300,000 figure suggested was based on the notion that the cost of the project would be $2 million. There was no way to know what the project would cost in the future. The PAMF would provide $300,000 for the project in the future, and the fund would continue to grow and cover additional costs over the $300,000. The PAMF would not pay more than a $300,000 cap. He would support a cap if the money were deposited prior to issuance of evacuation, grading, or building permits so the City could accumulate interest. He did not believe it was necessary to take the funds until the financing mechanism was in place for the remainder of the cost for the project. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to impose a $300,000 amount plus a Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflationary factor or 15 percent of the cost of providing a pedestrian/bicycle crossing whichever was less. Council Member Kniss asked whether the motion included that the money would be deposited into an escrow fund. Council Member Schneider said no. Council Member Simitian said the value of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) approach was to find some way to assure that the same level of contributions would be provided at a later date but without requiring that $300,000 to be committed up front. He asked staff to find an approach that would give the City the protection it needed and would not require the $300,000 up front. He believed requiring the money up front was onerous and not necessary. 01/29/96 78-99 Mr. Schreiber concurred with the intent of not receiving the money up front and wanted an agreement developed with the PAMF that would guarantee the funds in the future. An agreement had not been developed, but the language indicated that the form should be acceptable to the City Attorney. Council Member Andersen concurred with that intent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble said the City Attorney's Office was contemplating that as part of the subdivision improvement agreement for the project, staff could include that condition when it dealt with guarantees of completion for various other public improvements. The agreement could provide for appropriate security. She assumed that the Council's approval of the motion would give direction to the City Attorney's Office to ensure that agreement contained appropriate security for that obligation. Mr. Calonne asked the Council to consider broadening the inflationary adjustment to allow staff the flexibility to confer with the engineering staff. There might be better inflationary adjustment indexes for construction projects other than the CIP. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the staff be allowed flexibility in establishing the inflationary adjustment. Vice Mayor Huber said the possibility existed that at backfill time an assessment district might be created. He suggested that the new PAMF be included in that district and that there be a credit for whatever amount it was charged under the condition. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation be allowed a credit if in fact an assessment district were formed. Ms. Cauble clarified the condition would require the PAMF to agree to participate in an assessment district if one were established in exchange for which it would receive credit for the payment. Council Member Andersen said the PAMF should not be obligated to participate. Council Member Simitian had previously spoke strongly about putting some limit on the total dollar and also about the desire to avoid imposing an up-front requirement, but he would not want to eliminate the potential for including the PAMF in an assessment district if that were determined to be the most equitable way to proceed. There needed to be full credit for sums described previously if the sums were paid in whole or in part. 01/29/96 78-100 Council Member Andersen said there might be some other elements that had little to do with the tunnel where an assessment district might be a requirement. He agreed that flexibility to obligate the PAMF would be preferable. Council Member Simitian referred to the 15 percent figure and the $300,000 adjustable cap, and he asked whether a nexus would be necessary if there were a 15 percent requirement. Mr. Calonne replied that he was uncertain whether it was incumbent upon the Council to calculate that figure that evening; but if there were a challenge, that would have to be done. Council Member Simitian said the $150,000 figure had been suggested by the PAMF and $300,000 had been suggested by a Council Member, but someone might ask the basis for using that number. There should be some reasonable relationship to some fair share whether it be a precise nexus calculation or an assessment. He wanted to be assured that there was some basis for using that figure. Mr. Calonne said staff had previously advised the Council regarding its concern in that area. Council Member Andersen's recommendation was different from previous recommendations and was the reaction to the prospect of an illegal at-grade crossing. There appeared to be a safety concern that a tunnel would alleviate. The question was whether the City was obligated to quantify that safety benefit. Council Member Simitian asked whether the number proposed represented a reasonable fair share of burden. Mr. Calonne said Council could direct staff if it wanted a further demonstration. He was uncertain whether the math had been exhausted regarding the record before the Council. Council Member Simitian believed the Council's view was that the cost should be shared equitably among the parties who benefitted and among the parties who created the need for the cost to be incurred, and that the Council should not use the approval process as the means by which to exact contributions for any project. He also believed the numbers reflected the scope of the project and the contribution that would be appropriate. He asked whether it was feasible that an assessment district would be put in place prior to the construction of the improvements and, if so, whether it was the intent of the motion that the Council require the contribution at that time rather than permitting the election of participating in the assessment district if the assessment district participation ended up being a greater sum. Mr. Calonne suggested if the Council still had concern, staff could provide broader language, i.e., the obligation to participate in an assessment district. 01/29/96 78-101 AMENDMENT: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, that the City Council not pursue the issue of an at-grade crossing. Council Member Kniss believed an at-grade crossing was the most friendly way for any portion of the City to be connected to another area; however, the City, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the community had gone through anguish and agony when there had been a death at a railroad crossing. She felt it would not be responsible for the Council to pursue an at-grade crossing at that time and to use staff resources to ultimately discover that the JPB would not allow an at-grade crossing. Vice Mayor Huber echoed the comments of Council Member Kniss and said the potential increase of train traffic would create more possibilities for conflict. Council Member Fazzino said the comments of his colleagues was a significant reason why he favored a tunnel than an at-grade crossing. However, he wanted the additional data on safety and cost regarding the two alternatives, i.e., at-grade and elevated, before he foreclosed the option of at-grade. He also doubted that the JPB would ever allow an at-grade crossing. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Fazzino, Rosenbaum, Simitian "no," McCown absent. Council Member Rosenbaum wanted staff to look at the cost and feasibility of an overcrossing. Mr. Schreiber explained the overcrossing was one of two options in the motion. Council Member Kniss asked about the design options. Mr. Schreiber replied the options were a spiral, a long ramp, and an elevator. He anticipated as part of the future coordinated area plan for the SOFA and the existing PAMF area, staff would evaluate those options as well as an undercrossing. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Council Member Andersen believed that there needed to be more control over Building D at a later date and that a conditional use permit was appropriate. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the Council provide that the Conditional Use Permit Condition No. 3 [Attachment H of the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:104:96)] be modified to approve "approximately 295,580 square feet"; and Condition No. 5 be modified to read: "A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review Board design approval for development of Building D is required." 01/29/96 78-102 Council Member Rosenbaum believed the PAMF did not have real plans for Building D and that it was put in simply to make sure that the PAMF received an entitlement to the full floor area ratio. The Council had an opportunity to wait and see how the rest of the buildings worked out rather than relying on the EIR. The Council would have some actual data on how the operation worked and at that point it would be appropriate to consider the addition of Building D. Council Member Fazzino asked staff what would be the best course of action for good planning. Mr. Schreiber said Building D had been a speculative concept, and staff was comfortable with the motion before the Council. Council Member Simitian asked what processes would be required if, and when, the applicant wanted to return with a proposal for Building D. Mr. Schreiber said the motion added a requirement for another conditional use permit in addition to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval which would have been required in any event. Council Member Simitian asked what level of environmental review might be required at that time, if any, to supplement the work already received. Mr. Schreiber said if the proposal were done in the near future, it might be able to use the certified EIR that would have to be prepared as part of the process. If the time were delayed and conditions changed, it might be necessary to have a supplement to the EIR. Council Member Simitian asked what the time frame would be. Mr. Schreiber said the issue was not the time frame but the extent to which conditions might have changed, i.e., a notable change in El Camino Real traffic or after the operations began, the actual traffic generation was substantially different and greater than what was in the EIR. Council Member Simitian asked whether the proposed construction of the project constituted a significant change. Mr. Schreiber replied no. Council Member Simitian clarified placing 295,580 square feet of new development into the project would not constitute a significant change for the purposes of considering the Building D condition use permit. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct, and it was assumed by the EIR. 01/29/96 78-103 Council Member Simitian asked the time frame if there were a supplemental EIR. Mr. Schreiber said a supplemental EIR had to go through the same procedural process as an EIR, but it was a simpler process that might only take six months from the start of process to Council review. He explained the supplement document would be updated with the changes that had occurred. Council Member Simitian said the Council encouraged applicants not to piecemeal the process as part of a thorough integrated plan, but the Council had indicated that it wished the applicant had not proposed such a long-range plan. Mr. Schreiber said the PAMF had indicated that if Building D moved forward, its desire was for it to do so in the reasonably near future. The potential for a supplement EIR was minimal if that happened. Staff had originally hoped for a specific design for Building D as part of the process, and the staff report (CMR:104:96) identified the engineering process that was done by the PAMF the previous year. In that process when square footage was removed from Buildings A, B, and C, it was reallocated to Building D. He reiterated that staff was comfortable with the requirement for a second conditional use permit, not only because of the matters in flux but also because the ARB had indicated significant discomfort regarding the relationship with Building D to parking. There was a variety of issues that needed to be worked out with Building D, and the requirement for an additional use permit would create a higher level of review. If the process went normally, it would be a Zoning Administrator's hearing and would only come to the Council on appeal. Council Member Kniss agreed with the comments of Council Member Simitian; however, changes were made at the last minute and the building was simply called a wellness clinic. She was comfortable that the applicant could return when necessary and when funds permitted. She did not believe the wellness clinic was woven into the $100 million and felt that the arguments had been persuasive. Mayor Wheeler said the traffic figures might change once the major buildings were built. She asked whether the traffic volumes for the surrounding properties analyzed in the DEIR were for the current developments on the sites or whether it was on proposed or potential future developments on the surrounding properties. Ms. Moore said the DEIR assumed there would be cumulative development in the surrounding area and that development was included in the analysis for the time frame 2010. The assumption was that developments might include some hotel development and intensification of other properties and Town & Country Village. 01/29/96 78-104 Mayor Wheeler said the Council wanted to make certain that the outcome of Building D would be handled publicly. She asked whether there was a public process that was easier than an additional conditional use permit. Mr. Schreiber said the alternative was to rely on the design review process. Other than creating a new process or an ad hoc requirement that the building return to the Council for review, under the proposed Public Facilities zone change for the site, absent a use permit, it would have to be design review. Mayor Wheeler asked for a clarification of design review. Mr. Schreiber said design review meant that the ARB's action would come before the Council. He believed Council Member Andersen's concern was if design review were the only process available on a future Building D, the process would not cover basic use issues. The Council would end up with architectural design issues which might not be what the Council desired. If the question were regarding use and appropriateness of the building, then the use permit was the most appropriate discretionary action to address those issues. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Mayor Wheeler said Council Member Andersen previously requested the Council's representatives to the City/Schools Liaison Committee to raise the subject at the next meeting which had been done. Due to the fact that the Council was not suppose to receive information between public hearings, the response from the PAUSD representatives was requested to come to the Council through the City Manager's Office. City Manager June Fleming said the only significant discussion centered around Superintendent Jim Brown's indication that he knew the Council would make certain that the merging that occurred on Embarcadero Road would be done as safely as possible. She indicated that the issue had been previously discussed and that the Council would continue to pay close attention to the matter. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, that the City Council defer the addition of a second left-hand turn lane from El Camino Real to Embarcadero Road as identified in the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:104:96) since the traffic would essentially be the same. Council Member Fazzino said there were some legitimate concerns from the Embarcadero neighbors about creating additional traffic for that area through the addition of a second left-hand turn lane, and the Council was very concerned about occurring traffic conditions along Embarcadero Road from Highway 101 to El Camino Real. He believed everyone would benefit if the relationship 01/29/96 78-105 between the additional traffic and the construction of the PAMF were clearly established. It would be better to defer the matter and observe the traffic situation in the area as a result of the PAMF's development. Council Member Rosenbaum was troubled with the idea that putting in the second left-hand turn lane would encourage more traffic on Embarcadero Road. He saw only an upside to having two left-hand turn lanes, and the traffic cycle would move faster. As long as the cost was paid by someone else, he felt the second left-hand turn lane should be put in as soon as possible. He would not support the motion. Council Member Simitian said the dilemma was whether or not additional capacity solved or aggravated the problem. Only experience would answer that question. Sometimes the additional capacity induced traffic and people filled it up until they reached the maximum average tolerance for aggravation. He believed the monitoring would determine that the second left-turn lane was necessary, and he did not believe it would create a problem to do it later. No matter how many EIRs and traffic consultant reports were done, the neighborhood would never be convinced that they did not understand the traffic as well as, if not better, than the consultants. If the traffic generated a demand for a left-hand turn lane, then there would be some creditability and support from the neighborhood when it needed to put in place rather than the Council hearing that it imposed a second left-hand turn lane over the neighborhood's objections and the reason the traffic was there was because the lane was put in. There was some value in letting people test out their own assumptions and to see whether or not the need existed before imposing the solution. He would support the motion. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Rosenbaum "no," McCown absent. Mr. Schreiber referred to staff report (CMR:132:96) and said staff felt the PAMF's request to give it credit for space vacated on its existing site as long as the space was redeveloped with residential use had some merit. Staff had not had an opportunity to consult with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) and recommended the Council refer the matter to staff and the PAHC and staff would report back to the Council. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Simitian, to refer the request from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation for modification of the City Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance to staff and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for review. Council Member Kniss said the request made sense. Also, there were other issues regarding both the existing site and the new site. She was concerned that there might have been some assumptions made about the existing site before the move took place. 01/29/96 78-106 Council Member Simitian supported the motion for reasons of equity and fairness in terms of the calculation. He also supported the motion because he had a strong desire to see the maximum number of housing units developed on the existing PAMF site consistent with residential quality. Construction of some credit would give the PAMF additional incentive to maximize the residential potential of the site. Council Member Andersen said page 2 of the staff report (CMR:132:96) indicated that the "developer has provided the option of either providing the required number of low- or moderate-income housing units or paying in-lieu fee. He asked whether there was a precedent for including a housing incentive or a disincentive for a fee payment in the referral or whether the Ordinance would have to be changed. Mr. Schreiber said the Ordinance needed to have equivalency between the number of units provided and the amount of dollars. He was uncertain whether that type of incentive had ever been pursued. Council Member Andersen did not want a situation to arise where it made it more appropriate to pay an in-lieu fee. He supported the motion, and he felt housing was the issue and the Council might need to have an incentive for housing to occur in the quantity described by Council Member Simitian. Council Member Schneider asked whether the PAMF would still receive a 92,000-square-foot credit with the motion. Mayor Wheeler clarified that the Council was asking staff and the PAHC to examine the issue. The motion implied that there was Council interest in pursing that direction. Council Member Schneider did not want to extract any unnecessary costs from the PAMF. The benefit of having the land available for housing was of the utmost interest to her. She did not want the City to lose the opportunity because the Council was not supporting the Housing Element, and she wanted to encourage the low-cost housing and give the PAMF the credit for the 92,000 square feet. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. The burden would be on the Council and the PAMF would be more than willing to develop as much housing as possible on the site. The Council would be faced with the issue of what kind of housing should be on the site, e.g., should there be a transition from single-family housing to multi-family housing and should there be a neighborhood park. He felt the proposal by the PAMF was quite reasonable and he would support it. Mayor Wheeler understood Council Member Andersen's concern but the Council would be discussing that concern and its resolution very 01/29/96 78-107 thoroughly as the Council went through the coordinated area planning process and the more detailed studies of what would be done with the site that was backfilled rather than discussing the application before the Council that evening. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Council Member Kniss asked when the land would become available for the Council's long-range planning of the area. Mr. Schreiber said the proposal recommended to the Council by the Planning Commission and worked out between the staff and the PAMF would be part of the amendment to the Development Agreement which called for a coordinated area plan for the PAMF/South of Forest Area. It could start as late as 18 months after the effective date of the Council's action or the PAMF could trigger it earlier if it wanted. The 18 months was chosen with the realization that during the next 6 to 12 months, the PAMF's time and resources would to be devoted primarily to the issuance of a building permit. If it were not started for 18 months, it would allow completion of the process prior to the time that the PAMF moved into its new facilities. Council Member Andersen was pleased that many of the details had already been worked out and the Council only had to concentrate on minimal details compared to the scope of the project. He referred to page 3 of the City Attorney's Report dated January 24, 1996, Section B. Traffic and Circulation, Impact B.4, and he asked about the rationale and implications for the Palm Drive/University Avenue on-ramp. Mr. Aggarwal asked whether the concern was about the separate phasing of the on-ramp. Council Member Andersen said yes. He wanted to know what would happen to the El Camino Real and Palm Drive traffic. Mr. Aggarwal said the Palm Drive traffic would not be able to make a left-hand turn into the site which meant when the southbound mainline traffic was moving, the on-ramp traffic would not be able to move. The reason for that was the weaving distance from Palm Drive/University Avenue to the first Town & Country Village break in the El Camino Real. Both areas related to wheeling distances. Council Member Andersen clarified people would not be able to turn into the PAMF's entrance but would be able to make a left-hand turn onto Embarcadero Road. Mr. Aggarwal said yes, as well as into Town & Country Village off of El Camino Real. 01/29/96 78-108 Council Member Andersen asked whether the PAMF had approval from Stanford University to move forward with the extension of Urban Lane north to University Circle. Mr. Schreiber said no. The PAMF, Stanford University, and the JPB had a legal interest in the property and had not reached an agreement. One of the PAMF's tasks, if the project were approved, would be to take the lead in working out a solution for the Urban Lane extension which would have to be done before any building, excavation, or grading permits were issued. Council Member Andersen asked what would happen if the three parties could not come to an agreement. Mr. Schreiber said it would be a major problem for the PAMF if it could not reach an agreement with Stanford and the JPB, and the Council would have to discuss the project in much more detail because the site plan circulation would not work without the Urban Lane extension. Staff believed that if it came to that point, the designers for the PAMF would end up with more changes to the site plan. Vice Mayor Huber believed the PAMF should continue to maintain its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, and there was no condition that currently required that in the proposal. He understood that could no longer be a requirement by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), but the Council could make a finding that it would improve traffic circulation, parking situations, etc. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to require in a new use permit condition that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation continue the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program currently in place. Council Member Fazzino said the legislature previously approved a new law with respect to employer TDMs, and he asked how that might impact the proposed motion. Ms. Cauble believed the language in the motion was lawful. There were several statutes passed the previous year which purported to preempt cities from taking certain actions with respect to TDM. Given the placement of those sections in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and given the fact that the language explicitly said "notwithstanding or preventing the Council from doing this, and it was not controlling the Council's otherwise lawful land powers," it could be lawfully imposed, particularly since it was a continuation of an existing program, and because the Council was not doing it for air quality reasons but for other local appropriate reasons related to the project. 01/29/96 78-109 Council Member Fazzino asked whether traffic congestion would be another reason. Ms. Cauble said traffic congestion and parking needs were an appropriate basis for such conditions. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Council Member Simitian asked whether the language in the motion addressed the following issue: If the project cost $2 million and an assessment district was created to pay the cost before the project began and the PAMF participated in an assessment district over a period of years and paid its fair share through the assessment district, whether the PAMF would not have to pay the money up front or be able to use the financing mechanism which was the assessment district. Mr. Calonne said the language in the motion would treat the $300,000 as credit against future payments. The language would have to be reworded if that were the Council's intent. Council Member Simitian understood that an assessment district was a way to use public financing mechanisms to pay the cost over a period of time. He asked whether there was an advantage for the City to require a $300,000 downpayment if the assessment district were going to be set up anyway. He believed the PAMF would rather not pay the $300,000 up front if it could participate in an assessment district. Mr. Calonne said if the Council desired, the language could indicate that upon successful formation of the assessment district with the PAMF's participation, the PAMF would be relieved from making the railroad crossing mitigation fee payment. Council Member Simitian said if the PAMF's participation in the assessment district were less than the amount of the fee, the PAMF would still be obliged to pay the 15 percent or $300,000 adjusted whichever was less. If the amount were greater than the amount paid through the assessment district, the PAMF should not have to pay the money up front. Council Member Andersen believed that approach was rational and that the PAMF should be given the opportunity if it were in the assessment district to spread the payment over time. RECESS: 9:30 P.M. - 9:45 P.M. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to: 1. Adopt the Resolution as attached to the January 24, 1996, Report from the City Attorney, certifying that the Final EIR has been prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and adequately analyzes the potential impacts of 01/29/96 78-110 the project and related mitigation measures, with findings included; 2. Adopt the Resolution approving an amendment of the Compre-hensive Plan land use designation for the Urban Lane campus area from Service Commercial to Major Institution/Special Facilities; 3. Adopt the Resolution approving an amendment of the Comprehen-sive Plan Housing Element Program to provide for modification of Housing Program 1A related to the Downtown PAMF Specific Plan upon occupancy of the Urban Lane Campus; 4. Introduce the Ordinance amending the Public Facilities (PF) text to allow, as a conditional use, outpatient medical facilities with associated research; 5. Introduce the Ordinance amending the zoning for the Urban Lane area from Service Commercial (CS) to Public Facilities (PF); 6. Approve the conditional use permit for operation of outpatient medical facilities with associated medical research use at the proposed Urban Lane campus, with the findings and conditions attached to the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:104:96) (Attachment H) with the following amendments: Conditional Use Permit Condition No. 3 would be modified to approve "approximately 295,580 square feet," and Condition No. 13 would be modified to defer the addition of a second left-hand turn lane from El Camino Real to Embarcadero Road with the monitoring approach identified in the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:104:96), and Add an additional condition that would require the Palo Alto Medical Foundation to continue the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program currently in place; 7. Approve the design enhancement exception to reduce building setbacks along Wells Avenue and the new north-south connector road to Urban Lane, with findings as attached to the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:104:06) (Attachment J); 8. Endorse the Director of Planning and Community Environment's approval of deferred parking spaces in a 5-story garage to be constructed if needed in the future, with findings as attached to the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:104:96) (Attachment K); 9. Approve the site plan, architecture and related design features, with findings and conditions as attached to the 01/29/96 78-111 January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:104:96) (Attachment L) with the following amendments: Condition No. 5 be modified to read: "A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review Board design approval for development of Building D is required...," and Condition No. 59 be modified to read: "In recognition of the need for a safe, convenient bicycle and pedestrian crossing from the project to the Downtown and South of Forest Area and to reduce traffic that will be generated by the project, PAMF shall agree to pay a Railroad Crossing Mitigation Fee (RCMF) equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the cost of a pedestrian and bicycle under or over crossing from the project site to Alma Street in the vicinity of Homer Avenue. The RCMF shall not exceed a Three Hundred Thousand Dollar ($300,000.00) maximum cap, but the cap shall be adjusted annually for inflation upon the basis of an appropriate index to be determined by staff. PAMF shall also agree to the formation of an assessment district, or other similar fair and appropriate mechanism, to provide funds for the crossing should such a mechanism be established by the City. The RCMF shall be credited toward any assessment district levies due from PAMF. If the RCMF exceeds the principal amount assessed to PAMf under the assessment district, then the excess shall be due and payable upon confirmation of the assessment. If an assessment district is not formed, the RCMF shall be determined by City staff and made payable upon commencement of construction of any crossing. The terms of this condition shall be reflected in an agreement between the City and PAMF which provides adequate security for the obligations established by this approval. The agreement shall be executed before issuance of any building permits and shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney."; 10. Approve the design concept for the proposed extension of Urban Lane from University Circle to the proposed Urban Lane campus, as contained in Alternative 4 in Appendix F of the Draft EIR; 11. Continue consideration of the tentative subdivision map to the Regular City Council meeting on February 20, 1996; 12. Introduce the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement Amendment in substantially the same form as noted in the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:115:96); and 13. Adopt the Resolution indicating the City's intent to vacate portions of Homer Avenue, Urban Lane and a Public Utility Easement, and setting a public hearing for the Regular City Council meeting on February 20, 1996. 01/29/96 78-112 Resolution 7569 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation New Campus Project Final EIR and Making Findings Thereon Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act" Resolution 7570 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for Property at 795 El Camino Real" Resolution 7571 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Relating to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation" Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.32.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PF District Regulations), Relating to Conditional Use Permits for Medical Research and Outpatient Medical Uses" Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Zone Classification of Property Located at 795 El Camino Real from CS to PF" Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving an Amendment to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Agreement" Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation Resolution 7572 entitled "Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Vacate Public Street and Utilities Easements on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Site at 795 El Camino Real and Setting a Public Hearing for February 20, 1996" Mr. Schreiber noted for the record that the motion appropriately did not include the variance. With removal of Building D from the approval, there was no longer a need for a variance. Vice Mayor Huber hoped that the project came to fruition in the near future. The new location would provide better health care services for the entire community and would return the existing campus back to residential which was the type of neighborhood that was appropriate. Council Member Kniss commended the PAMF for moving ahead on the project and looked forward to the project moving forward quickly. The proposal reflected the dramatic changes in the health care 01/29/96 78-113 industry. It was a dramatic motion because one large parcel of land would be developed from one use to another in two or three years and another parcel of land close to the Downtown would be available for alternate use. She reminded the Council that it had everything to do with what happened to that parcel of land, and she anticipated that the Council would spend a good deal of time discussing and taking action on that parcel. Council Member Fazzino congratulated the PAMF for pursuing the project in the City. He wished it had occurred four or five years previously before the City engaged in a long campaign to pass the expansion proposal at the PAMF's current site. It was the right thing to do at the time, but the project proposal was an even more appropriate action. Beyond all the discussion of project development, it was important to reflect on the fact that the PAMF was a significant asset to the community, and he was delighted the Council could accommodate the PAMF so that it could remain in the City and provide quality health care to the citizens for many more years. The project proposal also benefitted the neighborhood where the PAMF was currently located, and he looked forward to working with the neighborhood to decide the appropriate uses for the long-term in that area. He believed the Council did what it could to address the vexing issue of access to Downtown, and he believed access to Downtown was critical. It was unfortunate there were safety concerns associated with an at-grade crossing since financially and for other reasons that might be the direction to go. He hoped the Council could move in the direction of a tunnel as an option, but at the same time, the Council appropriately limited the PAMF's responsibility for providing that mitigation. He thanked the PAMF, City staff, and consultants for making the project flow smoothly. Ms. Moore helped significantly when the issue came before the Council by isolating four or five key policy options for the Council's consideration. Council Member Schneider echoed the comments of Council Member Fazzino. Mayor Wheeler said her colleagues had expressed the sentiments of the entire Council. The PAMF should be commended for pursuing the process for so long. She thanked the consultants, City staff, and the advisory bodies for their efforts which enabled the Council to move through its decision making in an expeditious manner. She also thanked the members of SOFA neighborhood. She believed they took very positive, responsible role in assessing the documents that were provided, and they gave the Planning Commission and the Council their thoughtful, serious, and truthful comments. She looked forward to their continued help in the planning in the SOFA. She thanked her colleagues and said the Council had made good logical decisions that evening and had put forth a good record. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. 01/29/96 78-114 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. in memory of Dave Schultz, Winner of the 1984 Olympic Gold Medal for Wrestling. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 01/29/96 78-115