Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-22 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL Minutes CITY OF / PALO / ALIO Regular Meeting September 22r 1.986 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications Minutes of August 25, 1986 1. Appointment of Architecturfa1 Review Board Member to Fill the Unexpired Term of .Virgil Carter Ending Se fe Aber 30, 1988 Mayor Cobb re Northern California Power Agency Chairman Consent Calendar 2. Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management Grant 3. Award of Contract for Electric Line Clearing 4. Lease of 425 Bryant Street to the Palo Alto Board of Realtors 7 7 0 0 7 7 0 1 7 7 0 1 7 7 0 1 7 7 0 2 7 7 0 2 7 7 0 3 6. . Ordinance re Amendments,: to the Palo Alto 7 7 0 3 Municipal Code re COunc`11 Rules and Notice Procedures 7. Report from Council Legislative Committee re 7 7 0 3 Proposition 65 8. PUBLIC HEARING; Planning Commission Recom- 7 7 1 2 asndation re Application of Pacific Bell for . a Zone Change from PF to CD-C(P) (GF) for Property Located at 529 Bryant Street 9. ;; PUBLIC HEARING: Plhnning Commission Recom--. s enda' ion re Application of Dr. A. 2. Ha i mson for a► Zone Change from RM-1 and RH-2 to PC for Property Located at .145 and 165 Hawthorne 7 7 1 3 7.6 9 8 9/22/86 ITEM 10. Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation re Electric Rate Increase 12. Geng Road/Middlefield Road Property Exchange 11. Planning Commission Recommendation re Stanford University Land Use Permit Modifica- tion - Draft Environmental Impact Report 13. Request of Councilmernber Fletcher re Report on League of California Cities' Administra- tive Services Committee's Action on the Resolution Adopting a "No Smoking Policy" for the 1987 and Future League Conferences Adjournment at 10:10 p.m. PAGE 7 7 1 3 7 7 1 5 7 7 1 9 7 7 2 6 Regular Meeting Monday, September 22, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzei, Sutorius, Woolley The video entitled "Troubled Waters," produced by Californians Against Toxics Initiative, was available in the Council Chambers from 6:15 - 6:30 p.m. Mayor Cobb announced a Special Study Session re Stanford Children's Hospital was held in the Council Conference Room at 6:30 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Dr. A. Haselkorn, 2881 Bryant Street. presented a petition. (on file in the City Clerk's office) signed by 54 residents regarding the Bryant Street Bridge. They were concerned that motorcycles and mopeds would use. the bridge extensively and dangerously and asked the City to forbid entry by motorcycles and mopeds into the 2800 and 2900 blocks of Bryant Street with periodic police enforcement. and to construct barriers in the middle of the bridge as deterrents. He asked that the issue be agendized. 2. Mary Lou Norden. 1725 Mora Court, Los Altos, spoke as a member of Wildlife Rescue, Inc., of Palo Alto and requested Council consider inclusion of the wildlife rehabilitation organization in the development of a master plan for the Baylands. Wildlife Rescue received a substantial percentage of its animals from Palo Alto and had a contract with the Animal Services Division to care for all wildlife found by residents of Palo Alto. They needed a larger, permanent facility. They were interested in the Harbor Master's house. Wildlife Rescue was prepared to mount a capital fund drive to help with the cost of renovation. 3. M. Alan Miller, .3852 Carina Way. asked what could be done about the health and dust problem from air blowers, The gardeners did not pick up the debris. He submitted a letter to City Hall (ors file in the City Clerk's office). 7.7 0 0 9/22/86 Councilmember Patitucci said noise was a key to reducing the use of air blowers and a complaint could be made to the Police Department if noise was a problem. MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 1986 The Minutes of August 25, 1986 were removed by staff. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. APPOINTMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEMBER TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF VIRGIL CARTER Ef1DING SEPTEMMBER 30, .:1988 (COU 5-2-2) Mayor Cobb said Robert Evans appeared as an exceptionally well - qualified candidate. He was a design specialist, Vice -President of one of the finest firms in the area, and a very articulate man whose views suggested he would be very sensitive and thoughtful to the issues. He believed Mr. Evans would be a superb choice and urged his colleagues' support. Councilmember Fletcher mentioned, although not present at the interviews, she called three of the four candidates, had interviewed the fourth in the past, and felt wellqualified to make a choice. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING City Clerk. Gloria Young announced the results of the first round of voting: VOTING FOR EVANS: Levy, Fletcher, Bechtel, Sutorius, Cobb, Woolley, Klein, Patitucci, Renzel Ms. Young said Mac. Evans received a unanimous vote and was appointed. Mayor Cobb congratulated Mr. Evans on his successful appointment and the unanimous vote. He hoped the other fine applicants would retain their interest in City activities. MAYOR COBB RE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY CHAIRMAN hayor Cobb referred to significant developments over the past two years for the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) including a new general manager, through considerable action on the part of the City of Palo Alto. NCPA nook on some major projects and went from becoming an or anization which coordinated a number of public bodies' utility activities to a large operating utility of considerable significance involving more than. $1 billion in activities. He was pleased to announce that the new chairman of the organization, elected unanimously, was Councilmember. Sutox ius. Councilmember Sutorius said the honor and responsibility would not have come his way without predecessors both in staff and Council affairs that earned Palo Alto the reputation of leadership so important to NCPA, including City Manager Bill Zar,er; former Councilmember, Mayor. and former Chair of the NCPA Fred Eyerly, and current Mayor Mike Cobb who was a Commissioner and former Vice -Chair. He appreciated their support and direction, and hoped to do as well. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Cobb noted for the record the rental rate in Item 4 was in ezror, and the correct number was not $0.61 a square foot but $ x.65 per square foot per month. The correction had been made and was before Council. Item 5 was removed by staff. MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the Consent Calendar. 2, FUEL EFFICIENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL MANAGEMENT GRANT (PLA 4) CMR:485:6) Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution authorizing the submittal of an application to Caltrans for a $54,000 Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management Grant. RESOLUTION 6540 entitled *RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE Carl OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THAT 4 GENT APPLICATION FOR 4 FUEL L EFFICIENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM BE SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION" 3. AWARD. OF CONTRACT FOR ELECTRIC LINE CLEARING (UTI tCMR;48"se6 Staff, recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with Arbor Tree Surgery for a sum not to exceed $ 394,189 AWARD OF CONTRACT Arbor Tro• Surgery 7 0 2 9/22/86 4. LEASE OF 425 BRYANT STREET TO THE PALO ALTO BOARD OF REALTORS (PWK 6.2-10) (CMR:484s6) Staff recommends the Council authorize the Mayor to execute the lease with the Palo Alto Board of Realtors for their continued use of the building at 425 Bryant Street. LEASE AGREErEMT CITY OF PALO ALTO/PALO ALTO BOARD JP' REALTORS 6. ORDINANCE RE AMENDMENTS TO THE PALO. ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RE COUNCIL RULES AND NOTICE PROCEDURES (2nd Reading) (LEG 5) ORDINANCE 3709 entitled 'ORDINANCE or THE. COUNCIL of THE CITY Off` PALO ALTO MIMING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING REVISIONS :.;: CIL RULES, CHAPTER 2.0$ REGARDING OATHS OP O , ,.MO CHAPTERS 4.04, 12.16, and 16.32 REGARDING R#1BIL1TY. FOR PROVIDING NOTICES IN VARIOUS TYPES . OF P ENDINGS* (1st Reading 9/2/86, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANCES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Councilmember Fletcher added Item 13, Report on League of California Cities' Administrative Services Committee's action on the resolution adopting a "No Smoking Policy" for the 1987 and future League conferences. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. "T FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RE PROPOSITION 65 inued from 8/25/86) (LEG4.2/SAF 5) (CMRa492t6.). Chmirperson Fletcher of the Council Legislative Committee said the Committee voted 2-1 to oppose Proposition 65, known as the Toxics Initiative. NOTION: Councilnember Fletcher for tbve Council Legislative Committees_ moved, seconded by Patitucci, for Council Legislative Committee's position to oppose Proposition 65, and if this initiative * m/4 pass, that the City support corrective legislation to emend the initiative. Michael Belliveau, 942 Market Street, #505, San Francisco, the Research Director of Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE) said CBE had several hundred *embers who were residents of Palo Alto. He urged Council to support PrOposition 65. The Proposition had overwhelming public support. They waited six years for the federal government to enact drinking water standards and it had 7 7 0 3 9/22/86 1 not done so. The Proposition was fully consistent with existing laws, and it was a moderate step toward developing positive toxics policies where there were deficiencies. The Proposition was statutory language, not detailed regulatory language, and it asked the Governor toedevelop regulations to implement it as needed. The Proposition established an official ,State list of chemical substances known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Proposition 65 prohibited businesses from knowingly charging or releasing chemicals on the list into drinking water supplies at levels that posed significant risks. Regulatory agencies were looking towards the drinking water advisory levels available for a number of the substances Lo define what level was a significant risk. Since the recipient body, San Francisco Bay, was not a drinking water source, discharges into sewer systems that eventeally ended up in the Bay would not be regulated by the initiative. Ted Smith, businesses amounts of initiative California initiative Silicon valley Toxics, said Proposition 65 prohibited from knowingly exposing the public to significant listed chemicals and was a labeling requirement. The was endorsed by the Board of Directors of the District Attorney's Association partially because the provided for an additional right of action. Most important, the initiative shifted the burden of proof over to the polluter rather than the victim and would encourage the setting of standards. The staff report in the packet (CMR:492:6) and the staff report of August were quite different. The August 1, 1986, memo .had several inaccurate statements. The League of California Cities voted in their Environment Committee to support the initia- tive. The memo spoke to a zero discharge which was not true. Even the -Santa Clara Manufacturing Group acknowledged they were speaking to the EPA approved risk benefit method of looking at significant risk. It the chemical was on the list, one was pro- hibited from discharging, and the burden switched to the dis- charger to establish it was at a safe level. The existing staff report asserted present laws took care of the problem adequately, and he referred to a memo from the California Manufacturers' Association, dated March, 1986, which spoke to the problem of existing State laws which overlapped and conflicted. The current staff report said there Were: no significant loopholes in the existing laws. He suggested if that was the case, they would not be in the midst of the tap water rebellion. Councilorber Klein recalled reading'in the local press. that Santa Clara County's District Attorney Leo Himmelsbach took a. position against the initiative. 7 7 .4 4 9/22/86 Mr. Smith believed Leo Himmelsbach was the only District Attorney in the State who took the position. The Board of Directors of the District Attorney's Association Statewide unanimously endorsed the initiative. Councilmember Klein recalled the etary said there was also some support among other District Attorneys. Mr. Smith said the story asserted there were other junior level District Attorneys who had problems with the initiative. Carl Clemm, 611 Hansen Way, Director of Facilities for Varian Associates, said the objectives of Proposition 65 were commend- able but, if passed, would be counter -productive. Ample laws had been passed in recent years which addressed the water and toxic problems, and they needed time to be implemented and fine tuned. More emphasis was neededon implementation. Proposition 65 was hastily written and inaccurately analyzed and .would delay or even stop the implementation process. The extreme standards and vague language of Proposition 65 would cauee resources to be shifted towards litigation and away from cleanup and enforcement. The Proposition took environmental ,legislation from the hands of gevern€e nts regulators and turned it over to lawyers and the courts. Varian Associates. strongly believed Proposition 65 would impede the cleanup of water and the control of toxics and urged Council oppose what was clearly a good idea gone wrong. Glenn Af fleck, 3830 May Court, represented Hewlett-Packard (HP) and complimented staff on their excellent analyses of the measure. HP supported the intent of the .initiative and made major efforts to keep their facilities from being a future. problem for under- ground water. HP opposed Proposition 65. because it would not achieve what its title suggested, and they would be unable to meet its provisions. It would be a violation of the Proposition to use City water: to irrigate thei-r landscaping since the water contained chloroform. If HP could not meet the initiative, they were sit- ting ducks for citizens' lawsuits. Changes to the initiative required a two-thirds vote of both houses in the State legislature, and could only be made to further the purpose of the initiative.. He urged opposition of Proposition 65 as unworkable legislation. John Farris, 3401 Hillview Aseenue, was a career health profes- sional, a native of the Bay Area, had two children, and managed. the , health, and safety function' at Syntex's Palo Alto facilility for seven years. Syntex asked him to speak about some of the flaws in Proposition 65. The Proposition stated no detectable level of cancer -causing materials might be discharged into 7 7 0 5 9/22/86 wastewater. It did not speak to safe levels and ignored basic principles of toxicology which showed the dose was important in determining a response. Vitamin D was an example where a small amount was essential for health but a relatively large amount was extremely toxic. Methods of detection were not defined in Proposition 65 and current sensitive methods of detection could find cancer -causing chemicals in substances such as milk, coftee, beer, wine, and tea. Proposition 65 could force penalties based on the ability to detect rather than the ability. to cause harmful effects. The initiative would be a setback to addressing the complex environmental problems in California. He urged Council to keep a constructive approach in environmental protection and oppose Proposition 65. 1 Andy Doty, 4072 Scripps Avenue, Office of Public Affairs at Stanford University, read a letter from President Kennedy on Proposition 65 which said Stanford University favored regulations to ensure the provision of safe drinking water to the public. At a time when new sources of contamination were being reported almost daily, vigorous efforts were needed to protect sources of drinking water from harmful pollutants. He was unable, however, to recommend support of Proposition 65 because of its ambiguities and the sweeping provisions it contained. Stanford might not be strongly affected by the initiative, although a literal interpre- tation.=. -of certain aspects of the Proposition. gave concern. As a biologist and former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, he felt obliged to point out a major weakness in the Proposition and to recommend opposition to the initiative. The flaw had to do with the requirement that a discharger of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity must show the amount of cancer - causing material posed "no significant risk" over a lifetime of exposure and a released toxin would have "no observable effect" at 1,000 times the level in question. The findings would be extremely difficult if not -impossible to prove. Proponents of Proposition 65 argue that suchdetails could be worked out later through negotiations between dischargers, public agencies, and others. Proposition 65 was an e,.cellent example of the hazards of using the initiative process to "solve" social problems of such complexity and importance. The issuesneeded to be worked out slowly and carefully following expert testimony on all aspects of the question. President Kennedy hoped the City Council would con-- sider.the points in reacahing i.ts decision. Jacqueline Bogard, Director of Environmental Programs for the Santa Clara Manufacturing Group, said the grenp was a collection of approximately 85 companies in the Santa Clara Valley that 7 7 0 6 9/22/86. employed three-quarters of the manufacturing work force in the valley. The Manufacturing Group also supported the intention of the Proposition, but clearly it was seriously flawed. The major. problem was the poorly -defined and ambiguous wording, such as "detectable amount" of c'imicals which, in effect, equated into zero discharge because of state-of-the-art detection technology. Bringing all discharges in the County to zero detectable levels would cause all permitted operations, including cleanup, to come to a halt. Standards were being set and progress was being made. ,Industry generally supported legislation that protected drinking water and water resources, and many members. of the Manufacturing Group worked on the Hazardous Materials Ordinance which was drafted in the County and became a model for the State. The letter referenced by Mr. Smith was drafted last May and did not include all the concerns of the Manufacturing Croup, and it pointed out the tremendous disparities between the wording and the intent of the Proposition. The League of California Cities voted 13-10, so the vote . was not clear cut, and many ` members of Santa Clara County were vocal against the proposition. The City of Sunnyvale unanimously voted to oppose the Proposition. The Environment Committee of the . City of San Jose voted to pass on an o poosition position to Proposition e5 to the City Council. Good intentions did not necessarily make good law. Frank Riddle, 310 University Avenue, Area Manager for Pacific Bell, represented local business through the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber opposed Proposition 65 and believed the measure could have a major impact on the business sector of the community and throughout the state with few results that could not be achieved through existing agencies and regulations. The busi- ness community was not opposed to clean water nor to paying its fair share toward providing it. . They supported the dozens of adequate city, county, state, and federal regulations already in place to protect the public safety. Proposition 65 went beyond the provision of safe water. Proposition 65 did not speak to "safe levels" or "clean water" at all, but prohibited the dis- charge of any detectable amount of a chemical even if that amount were far within existing permissible levels. It would be better if the funds focused on more effective ways of dealing with the problem of contaminated water supplies. Other concerns were the possibility of legal harassment in a litigious society, the bounty -hunter provisions, the vagueness of language, the many unanswered questions, and the enormous cost to be incurred for so little public benefit. The Chamber urged Palo Alto togo on record as opposing the simplistic responee to a problem already being adequately addressed by conscientious public officials. 7 7 0 7 9/22/86. 1 Tony Spitaleri, President of Fire Fighters' Union of the City of Palo Alto, urged Council to support proposition 65. The City of Palo Alto had always taken a strong stance in protecting its citi- zens and employees. There had been hard fights among citizens and groups to get laws to control toxic substances passed because the ,companies that spoke before Council that evening rarely spoke in favor of the laws, even though they agreed with the good inten- tions of the regulations. He was part of the program that helped produce toxic hazardous storage in the County and remembered the testimony from the companies that spoke against it. One of the companies was responsible for a spill in Matadero Creek, and it took the Fire Department almost two weeks to find the source of the spill. Palo Alto citizens needed the added protection. Councilmember Fletcher said her motion to oppose was in the name of the Committee, and she was the dissenting vote. A poll showed 87 percent of the residents in the County supported Proposition 65. The issue of zero detectable levels was not the case as Proposition 65 allowed discharges of listed chemicals in any amount which was shown scientifically to be safe at acceptable levels. The Governor was to reissue a list every year of the chemicals which would be banned or which could be discharged a.t certain levels, which presently were less than 200. It was unlikely there would be suits by a great many citizens because the losing party would be responsible for attorney fees. The concept -was not -new. The ability to sue by citizens was already in exis- tence and. was modeled after Federal law on toxic waste dumps and some State laws. In the six -plus years from January 1, 1.978, to April 30, 1984, under six federal environmental laws allowing citizens' suits, there were a total of 189 in the entire United States. The issue of water would not be a problem because the water was already found to be safe for drinking.. She believed having citizens able to sue would be self -enforcing where the dischargers would be doubly cautious about their discharges. If industries were not dumping illegally, they had nothing to fear. The charge that the Proposition would hold up enforcement and cleanup was not the case. The Proposition did not negate any other kind of provisions presently on the books.; The staff report (CMR:49 2: 6) .„gave a good argument of why the Proposition was needed by saying fiscal resources were not adequate for that enforcement of the existing laws and regulations. The City consistently lobbied for greater State and Federal attention to funding hazardous materials management programs. They were ail.. aware that in the Barron Park situation they were not able to get, the assis- tance of Stagand regional enforcement agencies because of lack of resources. The issue brought up in the staff report regarding the employees having to report if they knew of illegal discharges, 7 7 0 8 9/22/86 was a case where the employee must already know there was an illegal discharge likely to cause substantial injury to the public health or safety. She believed that was a justified, simple pro- cedure. The hazardous materials collection program could not be at risk because presently the wastes were collected, transported, and dumped legally, so the employee of the City handling the wastes would not know of ' any illegal discharge and could not be held liable. As far as insuring against criminal acts, the attorney for the Environmenal Defense Fund believed there was no risk of lack of being covered in Palo Alto concerning liability. She urged her colleagues to vote against the motion to opposes It was out of character with the community to oppose an initiative which was so beneficial to preventing hazardous spills. Councilmember Klein said one of the aphorisms students learned was that bad facts frequently made bad law, and he believed that was what Council had before it in Proposition 65. There was no ques- tion toxics were a problem. The issue was how to deal with it, and it was important Council deal with the significant problem intelligently. It was clear the Governor substantially under- funded the enforcement of toxics, and a substantially -enhanced program of enforcing the already -existing toxics laws was needed. The problem did not mean an automatic vote for Proposition 65. He appreciated the intelligent and well -thought-out remarks of both sides that evening and commended an article in the past Sunday's San Jose Mercury whichdetailed the background of the toxics prob- lems in the State. The initiative process should only be used when the legislature failed over a significant period of time to respond to a problem As pointed out in President Kennedy's let- ter, there was a benefit to the legislative process. If the initiative had gone through the legislative process, many of the concerns and criticisms might have been dealt with properly. Legislation needed the input of more than a few people and needed the searching criticism of various interest groups. Proposition 65 had ambiguities, and it was not sufficient to say the intent of the drafters was not what was being interpreted from the .words. Frequently in litigation over Proposition 13, they saw that the courtswere mandated to use the language before them, not what the draftsmen said. One of the main defects of Proposition 13 was contained in the subject proposition, and that was the two-thirds vote, which he found undemocratic. They should not allow a one- third minority on any issue to hold them hostage in than. manner. As a lawyer he found the provisions in regard to privatelawsuits and the bounty hunter provision to be not in the public interest. The overburdened courts did not need more lawsuits. That was not the way they wanted to establish public ' policy. They had a legis- lature which had acted.in the area. The legislature had not acted 7 i0 9 9/22/86 perfectly, and there was a lot more work to be donee but they should not give up on the procesc and resort to the cumbersome, inefficient, and unamendable process required under Proposition 65. Council's responsibility was to think rationally and not emo- tionally, to analyze the matter on its merits, and to say however well-intentioned, the Proposition was not good enough. They needed a program that was intelligent, thoughtful, and enforce- able ---a program industry could live with but that protected health, which was the first priority. Proposition 65 did not meet those tests, and he urged his colleagues to vote "no." Councilmember Renzel found it interesting to hear clean drinking water described as being emotional. She believed clean drinking water was essential for a healthy life, and Proposition 65 was taken to an initiative process because peolile believed and had good evidence that the systems in place were not working suffi- ciently fast to deal with the serious problem that many people in Santa Clara Valley and throughout the State were drinking polluted water and having health problems as a result. Most of the current laws were made in reaction to .pollution problems, not in anticipa- tion; nevertheless, reports of contamination came in every day, many of them related to the industries who were before Council opposing Proposition 65. Proposition 65 would not divert efforts from cleanup to litigation but was geared toward changing efforts from cleanup to prevention. Without clear and enforceable guide- lines, it would be difficult to prevent the kinds of discharges that continued in the Valle..!. The list of chemicals proposed was finite, limited to known carcinogens and reproductive toxins. The Governor's office would produce the list. The initiative was .a good one, and Council should show that Palo Alto :supported clean drinking water for everyone in the State. Councilmember Bechtel said there was no question the initiative had flaws; it was incomplete and left out certain governmental agencies. On the other hand, there was no reason Council should oppose it. It was clear that although they had a number of laws passedby the State legislature, not eno- ,h was done in the area, and a message needed to be sent not only :legislators but to the Governor. The initiative was amendable. _ `et. required a two-thirds vote, but would not raise taxes, unlike Proposition 13. No legis- lator wished to vote for anything that would increase the voters' property taxes, and that was why it had been particularly diffi- cult to amend Proposition 13. She believed Council should support Proposition 65. The argument there would be a multitude of law- suits was not borne out by the experience in other parts of the world where the losing party was responsible for paying the 7 7 1 0 9/22/86 1 attorney's fees, and that would deter unreasonable lawsuits. She urged opposition to the motion which opposed Proposition 65. Vice Mayor Woolley was concerned about the unintended consequences of Proposition 65 and believed it might cause more harm than good in the long run. The Proposition would cause them to waste "resources. There would be costs of carrying on business for farmers, merchants, and manufacturers, and they all knew those costs did not stay at the source but were passed on. There .would also be costs for litigation. It was better that the resources be used for staffing and implementation of the existing laws. The Proposition used a broad brush approach instead of a pinpoint approach. Funding and staffing were needed, and they saw that. clearly in their own community in Barron Park. It was certainly difficult --slow at best --for the citizens of Barron Park to get action when they spotted a problem in the creek, but that was primarily a staffing problem. She urged her colleagues to support the motion on the floor. Councilmember Sutorius supported the motion. He did not favor government by initiative except as a last resort. Palo Alto was represented in Sacramento by Senator Morgan and Assemblyman Sher, and he believed their knowledge, .peer respect, and sensitivity would continue to be applied and their past excellent ,_ efforts would be sustained An the future. He .wished the dollars and talents spent on both sides in the issue were being spent on leg- islation and cleanup improvements. Mayor. Cobb associated with the comments of Councilmembers Klein aril Sutorius. Councilmember Fletcher said the initiative called for signifi- cantly increased fines which would be deposited 50 percent into tea hazardous substance account in the General Fund; 25 percent would be paid to the Office of the City Attorney, City Prosecutor, District Attorney, etc.; and percent to the citizen or local law enforcement agency. She saw it as raising funds for the pur- pose of cleaning up and preventing toxicity in the environment. The initiative had absolutely no impact on .any cleanup efforts. Councilmember Patitucci said Councilmember Fletcher gave a perfect example of why the Proposition was bad legislation. The com- plexity with which dollars were allocated and reallocated fol- lowed through the entire initiative. He did not believe that level of detail was appropriate in the initiative process f# associated with Councilmember Klein's comments. 7 7 1 1 9/22/86 Cc)uncilmember Renzel requested the vote be specified in any com- munications they made as a City. Mayor Cobb agreed. NOTION PISSED by a vote of 6-3, Renael, Bechtel, Fletcher, voting "no.• Councileiember Renzel wanted to ensure the dissenting votes be indicated, and preferably would like her name on the dissent. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION CF PACIFIC BELL FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM PF (PUBLIC FACILITY) TO CD - P) (GF) ( COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT WITH AND PEDESTRIAN COMBINING DISTRICTS) FOR PROPERTY LOCATE1. A 529 BRYANT STREET (PLA -1) GROUND FLOOR Planning Commission Chairperson Ellen Christensen said the Planning Commission was concerned about an intensification of use as happened on the old Greyhound Station site, but believed the proposed zoning was the only logical approach Intensification couldoccur even under the PF zone, and the Planning Commission believed the building would be protected by the great difference between the existing floor area and what would be allowed under thenew zoning. Also, reintroduction of retail into that part of. the Downtown would be advantageous. - Mayor Cobb noted for the record that Councilmember Sutorius would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest. Councilmember Renzel assumed the ground -floor .lobby for a second story was permitted as part of the 75 percent of the ground floor. Council was not necessarily guaranteed ground -floor retail.. Planner Steve Olsen said that was correct. Mayor Cobb declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. NOTION*, Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt Planning Commission recommendation finding that the requested resomiag will not have a significant impact on the enviranseat, and that the rezoning is consistent with the Coaprebeasive Plan, and approval of the requested zone change. OILDINANC8 FOR FIRST PRE IMG entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE of THE C 4'Y OF ' PALO ALTO MINDING. SECTION 1$ .4$.040 OP THE PALO ALTO: MUNICIPAL CODE (THE Zo T iG MAP) TO CHANGE THE KOMI CLASSIFICATION ' OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 529 , BRYANT STREET FROM PP TO CD -C C P ) (G P) " 7 7 1 9/22/86 NOTION PASSED unanimously, Sutorius "not participating." 9. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE THE APPLICATION OF DR. A. Z. HAIMSON FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM ,RM-1=' AND RMF RESTRICTEiD DENSITY AND LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. DISTRI 'TSL TO PCC((PLLANNEO COMMUNITY_ D STRICT) TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A NINE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 AND 1 5 HAWTHORNE PLA -1) MOTIONt Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley, to continueitem to October 27, 19E6, City Council meeting. NOTION PASSED unenieous1y, Sutorius absent. 10. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE ELECTRIC RATE INCREASE (UTI 1-2) (CMR:472:6) Councilmember Bechtel said the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee unanimously recommended Council adopt the staff recom- mend►ation..to increase the electric rates by 10.7 percent or $5,950,000 annual electric revenue to be effective October 1, 1996. MOTIONS Councilmember Bechtel fur the Finance and Public Works Committee roved to adopt the resolution revising Electric Rate Schedules E-1, C-2, E-3, and L-4 effective October 1, 1886. RESOLUTION u56l entitled "RESOLUTION or THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SCHEDULES E-1, ;B-2, E-3, and E-4 OF THE CITY or PALO ALTO -UTILITIES :MATES AND CHARGES PERTAI. NG TO DONESTIC, COMMERCIAL, CUSTIMER- OWM D GENERATION AND STREET AND HIGHWAY LIGHTING - RATES" Councilmember Levy agreed with the staff report (CMR:472:6) and the increases voted because they seemed to be based upon operating costs and the. City's relation to the marketplace and to what competitive utilities charged, and the City was keeping well under their rates. He ,Irked where the City stood in terms of the request for an increase as it related to the enterprise method of accounting. Director of Utilities Richard Young said the rate increase was based on the City's expenses which were calculated to incorporate that level of expenditure. Councilmember Levy clarified the City was not relating to the enterprise method of accounting, and that would wait until the Price Waterhouse report was received. The bases for _ eta f f @ s recommendation ;were the costs and the fact the City was, well, under what PG4E, for example, chargedits: customers, even with the .increase. '` Mr. Young said that was correct. Councilmember Klein was concerned about the increase. Page 2 of the staff report said, "In 1982, the utility budgeted approxi- mately $9.5 million to cover . direct and interdepartmental operating costs. For thecurrent fiscal year 1986-87, the Utility has budgeted $14.5 million for such expenditures." The increase of just over 50 percent in 5 years seemed to outstrip a combine- tion _of inflation plus growth in demand.. He asked for comments. Mr. Young said most the expenses came from a step-up program by Western Area Power Administration in 1983 that outlined a series of 5 increases ranging from 7 to 20 percent. Councilmember Klein understood that was covered by the other part of the increase. Manager, Rates and Regulations, Randy Baldschun, said in the last four, years the City avoided a general rate increase because of increased sales levels. It used Gas Fund reimbursements for solar loan payback and conservation programs which were . funded out of the Electric Fund and now were repaid out of the Gas Fund. Even though expenses went up over five_ years because of higher CIP programs, the City avoided the rat increase because of other sources of revenues. ..The electric utility did not operate by the inflation rate each year but 1oo:ed at the needs of the community. e.g., the underground project. Councilmember Klein queried the next five years. Mr. Baldschun said the Utility had not looked five year's ahead with certainty, but the next year they hoped to avoid a rate increase in the Electric Fund. Councilmember Klein focused on the e,icpenditures on . the operational side rather than the acquisition side. , He clarified staff expected the $14.5 million not to go up much. Mr. Baldschun sand yere. Staff did not forecast a rate increase for Fiscal Year 1987-88. City Manager Bill Zaner commented that while staff did not antici- pate _a rate increase in the near future and did not expect to see expenditures rise .as fast as indicated in the staff report between 1982 and 1986, there would be a rise in utility expenditures next year. He did not expect to see a large rise on the operating side but 'expected to see a substantial, continued rise in the _ capital projects. The Citywas doing substantial undergrounding,, there was a lot of replacing going on, and capital projects would con- tinue to cost funds. Councilmeniber Bechtel painted, out that the F&PW Committee was concerned the ratepayers had adequate information about the item,- and staff would be .providing additional information in the Utility mailers showing the City's rates were still substantially below those of surrounding communities. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTIONs Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Sutor'ius, to suspend Council Rules and Procedures for purposes of bringing Item 12 forward. MOTION PASSED unanimously.. MOTIONs Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Sutor i us, to bring - Item 12 forward ahead of Item 11. 12. GENG ROAD/MIDDE EFIELD ROAD PROPERTY EXCHANGE (PWK 6-2) (CMR:462:6) Mr. Zaner said the exchange agreement was .lengthy and complicated. The primary condition for an exchange to\be consummated between Mr. Peery and the City was the properties be exchanged on an equal -value basis. The City and Mr. Peery independently commissioned appraisals and up -dates of those appraisals as the month went on, and exchanged the appraisals with each other. The appraisals were done by qualified appraising firms both in the City and outside, and were reported to Council as recently as the end of May, 1986, at which point the parties were within a small percentage figure of each other and had tentatively agreed for purposes .of the presentation that the properties were, in fact, of equal value. He reminded Council adoption of the exchange agree- ment in no way committed Council to a particular project, to any project, to any particular zoning, to any kind of architectural or site development approvals. The approval of the agreement merely stated that should those things take place, i.e., if the project, Mr. Peery put forward was approved through normal Citychannels, then and only then would the trade take place. Mr. Fellman came into the project in the middle and did an outstanding job. The complex document before Council was largely his wark and took a great deal of time and effort. Mr. Fellman deserved much credit, Councilmernber Renzel said during the election an official appraisal showed a substantial difference in value between the, two properties. She asked what the factors were that resulted in such a dramatic change in the appraisals, Mr. Zaner said the appraisal was done strictly by the City--Mr- Peery had not had an appraisal done at that point --and showed the market value of both properties as being substantially different. 7 7 1 5 9/22/86 Mr. Peery then submitted his eppeeriem seeto the City. The City's -appraiser updated his previous work and agreed with the logic of some of the arguments used by Mr. Peery's appraiser. While the numbers in the subsequent appraisals did not come out exactly equal, they were nearly equal in value. In one case they were Within $30,000 out of a total of more than $2.25 million, and in the other only $150,000 off. That was in the City's favor. Councilmember Renzel asked if the. City had an estimate of the potential cost\of the cleanup of the Shell site. Manager, Real Property, William Fellman, said not presently. Councilmember Renzel asked if staff contemplated returning to Council to ask the City to assume the cost. Mr. Zaner said no, if staff had to cure any toxic or contamination problem on the property, that would substantially alter the finances and staff would not anticipate returning to Council. Councilmember Renzel said on page 15 of the agreement the language said the fencing on the golf course was part of the exchange value, and she asked for clarification. Mr. Feliman said the wording used for the fence was the same wording the Golf Course Corporation used ir its agreement with the City. He was not sure of the price, but it was in a work order to be done in the next year. Mr.. Zaner mentioned the fencing was an already -scheduled Capital Improvement Project. Irrespective of the exchange, the City was budgeted and Council was committed to the improvement. Councilmember Renzel clarified the improvement would go through Site and Design review. Mr. Zaner said yes. `. Councilmember. R nzel said •on page 16, there was discussion of an easement for ingress and egress from R,mbarcadero Road, and the map showed the whole bicycle easement as the location for the ease- ment. She asked if her interpretation of the diagram was correct for purposes of that clause. Mr. Wellman said at present staff did not know exactly where the building would go so the driveway portion would be within any of the slashed • area depenc ng upon the approval. The easement also covered an area w -here Mr. Peery would be doing planting so that the landscaping would be consistent with what Mr. Peery had on his prO 'r 1y• 7 7 1 6 9/22/86 i Councilmember Renzel asked if staff had any budget estimates of the cost of the agreed landscaping and tree trimming around the pump station. Mr. Fellman said staff estimated the landscaping around the site would be from $3,000-$5,000 and the tree trimming was about another $3,000. Councilmember Renzel was surprised the purpose of the clause was specifically so the property would be more visible. It seemed the more invisible the building was in that particular location, the better. Mr. Fellman said the landscaping would be at the rear where there were no trees, and would protect people in the office. building from looking into the property. The purpose was for there to be trees one could see through to the building can the other side. The trees were very bushy and needed pruning. Councilmember Renzel referenced removal of City landscaping and deferring to the developer's landscaping, and asked what "not unreasonably withheld' meant in terms of the City's prerogative with respect to Site and Design review. Mr. Fellman replied any landscaping done on the project had to go through the Site and Design approval. Mr. Peery . had a problem in the salt content on the property and more than likely would be u0ing similar landscaping. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, spoke on behalf of the Trust for Community Skating. The members of the Trust were anxious to preserve the Peninsula's Llost unique recreation facility. Staff now presented Council with results of the negotiations mandated by the overwhelming of Propositions A and 8, and the Trust encouraged Council to accept the exchange agreement drafted by staff. Marilyn Eaton, 690 Hermosa Way, thanked Council and staff on behalf of the children. It was appropriate to make the decision that evening because they were starting another new season. The doors were - opened for '.essons that afternoon, they had an enthusiastic new director of operations, and all looked forward to wonderful years ahead under. the City's ownership of the land as opposed to Mr. Peery's, Lynn Jordan, Director of the Recreational Therapy Ice Skating Program sponsored by the Community Association for Retarded (CAR), said CAR's budget was limited and the resources available for handicapped children on the peninsula were increasingly tight. Because of the generosity of the Winter Lodge in sponsoring the. program at whatever people could afford, they were able to offer 7 7 1 7 9/22/86 As corrected 10/_20/8 admission regardless of ability to pay, not just to retarded children but also to retarded adults. She believed theirs was the only program available to handicapped adults without ability to pay in the entire Bay area. The Winter Club welcomed their stu- dents with unprecedented enthusiasm, included them in family evenings and barbecues, hosted Christmas parties, etc. Their kindness in sponsoring the program was one the children and parents appreciated greatly, as had CAR. She thanked the Councilmembers for their indirect work on behalf of handiee ped children in the Bay Area. Because of passage of Propositions A and 8 and the continued support of the community, the program would be able to continue at the Winter Lodge regardless of what- ever funding cutbeek CAR faced. Councilmember Sutorius observed it was nice to have the expres- sions of support and appreciation, and he was sure staff appre- c4ated receiving them. The process was ongoing, and the ball would be in Mr. Peery's court with respect to the design and environmental processes, etc. MOTIF Cuuncilnsbt r Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt staff recommendations as follows: o Authorize the Mayor to sign the Exchange Agreement; and o Authorize the Mayor to execute whatever additionl documents may be required to implement the Exchange Agreement. EXCHANGE AGREEMENT Pine and Company and City of Palo Alto Councilmember Renzel was delighted to see the Winter Lodge moving. forward and being able to stay in Palo Alto. She recognized the voters had spoken with a substantial "majority in favor of the exchange. She believed it way , a mistake to be removing parkland and putting it into an unneeded office building in a bad location. It was a difficult problem! and she could not •live with voting for the. motion. She would abstain and defer to her colleagues in making- the decision. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-9-1, Rensee1 "abstaining." COUNCIL RECESSED F O ! 9:2O . to 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE STANFORD UNIVERSITY'S LIND USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT (PLA 10-1) (CMR:490:6) Councilmember Patitucci was advised by the City Attorney not to participate in Item 11, the Stanford Draft Environmental Impact Report, because of a possible conflict of interest. Planning Commission Chairperson Ellen Christensen said the Planning Commission's disappointment with the document came from the expectation that the Use Permit modification review would. be . a comprehensive review of Stanford plans and the impacts created by those plans. Instead, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) suggested the modification was a simple housekeeping func- tion that left the real cumulative impacts still to be faced on a project -by -project basis. The Planning Commission believed the approach was frustrating and a source of friction between the City and Stanford. Under California Environmental Quality Act (C2QA) the impacts of the full proposed buildout of 3.5 million square feet must legally be addressed if not at that point then project - by -project. The Planning Commission hoped to obviate the need for the project--any-project EIRs with a fuller review at the time. Stanford asked for approvals of Land Use changes that would extend over 15 years into the futur=e. Conditions changed drastically in 15 years, and it was, important at the beginning to spell out the impacts and mitigations as clearly as possible, and that check points be built into the process that gave an opportunity to reassess both the desirability of the development and the effec- tiveness of the mitigations. The Planning Commission felt the EIR as written did neither. Councilmember Renzel asked if staff had further information on the wildlife refuge status of the land. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff had no additional information. In a. letter to the County, he asked the issue be addressed and suggested the issue be referred to the State. Staff expected a response, and the information would then be developed. Councilmember Renzel said in the modified agreements regarding the Use Permit, protocols, etc., the City's standards were to apply to those lands within the City's sphere of influence: which included those in the urban service area and those not designated or reserved for academic use. Stanford North and South in particular` came into that category. She asked how that was affected by the Use Permit Modification *hich designated the lands as academic use. 7 7 1 9 9/22/86 Mr. Schreiber said the critical factor for Stanford North and South was the Use Permit Modification designated a development of zero square feet in that area. One of the things that could be looked at would be to eliminate some of those areas from the Use Permit change, even though the threshold was zero. Development standards associated - with the City applied primaril• to the academic reserve and open space areas and was a question on which the County Planning staff asked the City for guidance as to what constituted low .intensity. The issue was on the current week's Planning Commission agenda and should go to Council in October. Councilmember Renzel said the campus had become quite urban and could hardly be defined as agricultural any longer. The original Use Permit process was based on a campus which was then largely agricultural, but currently they had an urbanized area. She queried if the County had zones or could make zones which applied to the urbanized portion of the campus so there would again be the clarity of land use for Stanford's planning purposes. She asked if staff had contemplated the fact that the whole planning rela- tionship needed to be reviewed. Mr. Schreiber did -not believe staff had the iridepth knowledge of the County zoning ordinance to give a definitive answer. In general, staff's understanding was the County zoning ordinance did not contain any type of special major institution zone. The agricultural zone contained the Use Permit conditions for the University. From their perspective, .the critical issue was the need for a Use Permit, whether an agricultural or public facility zone, since the Use Permit set out the parameters of the subse- quent development. He would be more concerned if there was a more clearly oriented University zone that allowed the campus -type development_ as a permitted use without the discretionary approvals contained in a Use Permit. Council,member Renzel had in mind real zones with floor area ratio, parking requirements, etc., that might be geared toward the needs of a university but which also set understandable, predictable limits and allowed proper planning for the whole sphere of influence and region. Mr. Schreiber said that was not the type of zone normally con- tained in a County zoning ordinance. As development had proceeded in the unincorporated ereas of their County, he speculated County staff :would be less than ethusiastic about allocating their time to developing a special zone for universities when the process of than Use Permit had and could work effectively to regulate universitydevelopment from the County's standpoint. 7 7 2 0 9/22/86 Phil Williams, Director of Planning, Stanford University, said the process took a year longer than intended partly due to Stanford wanting to be as thorough as possible with its population •projec- �t.ions and some difficulty with the traffic analysis. Stanford shared Council's interest in producing the most useful possible result. The next step involved four general questions from their perspective, the first being whether the draft covered the project in the scope intended, and the answer was apparently yes. The project was modifications to the 1962 Use Permit and,, more spe- cifically, the 12 parcels on which those changes were requested. The scope of the study covered the specific impacts of the proj- ect, i.e., the development of the parcels and the cumulative effects of the concurrent development campus -wide. The analysis was based on the concept of thresholds, and meant the Use Permit was not a request to develop out the entire Land Use plan, but identified levels of developments that were concurrent with Stanford's projected needs over the 10 to i.5 --year period and fell far short in the amount of development allowed compared to what the Land Use plan itself indicated. In several areas zero devel- opment was.. requested. Where building development or square foot- age was the cause of an impact, i,e., covering ground, creating drainage, altering wildlife, etc., the building areas were con- sidered; and where population --in terms of driving cars, needing housing, creating trash --were the cause, then population was considered as the source. The. second question was whether the information in the report was clear and useful, and the answer was apparently not. Much attention was paid to three and one-half million square feet of space, but about 800,000 square feet of that was projects already completed or under construction, 1250000 was administrative office space which was double -counted because of a desire to be on the conservative side. Several hundred thousand square feet was replacement of obselete space or tempo- rary space, 420,000 square feet was parking structures, and over 1,000 beds of housing were included in the total. Some of the square footage did not generate impacts and even mitigated them. There was confusion regarding the nature of population, square footage projections, the lack of relationship between the two, and the ways in which cumulative impacts were addressed. There was also confusion regarding the nature of the thresholds and the dis- tinction between the thresholds allowed under the Use Permit as compared to the Land Use plan designations. Even the : nature of the traffic projects was unclear, where 15 percent increase of traffic was projected over the period by area development and 2 percent by Stanford development. Staffs were mutually considering mitigations in termsof trip reductions which might bring the 2 percent down to zero. Apparently, the scope should be broadened and additional work done. ';Regarding whether the necessary revi- sions were extensive enough to recirculate the report, it would take even more time, yet it could produce the useful result in which they were all interested. The final decision would be made in conjunction with City and County staff and in a careful analysis of all the cou nts. 7 7 2 1 9/22/86 Betsy Crowder, 2253 Park Boulevard, spoke on behalf of the Committee for Green Fo'thills, and said Council received a letter signed by their two Vice Presidents (on file in the City Clerk's office). The Committee requested a supplemental EIR be prepared. The Land Use policy signed in 1985 by the Mayor, Board of Supervisors' Chairman in Santa Clara County, and 'Stanford University was not included in the document and was crucial to.,the sense of the EIR. The data quantifying the changes was •in su ,:i- cient and confusing, and should be revised and placed in the body of the report. The Committee believed the length of time requested for the Land Use modification of 15 years was too long and a 5-7 year length for any renewed permit was long enough and should be discussed in the EIR as an alternative. The development of academic and open space land, specifically Area I .and Area L, was not clear. She asked if no development was proposed in the areas before the year 2000, the end limit for the proposal, why the areas were included in the report, and why a new designation was requested for them. The alternatives section of the DEIR did not comply with the CEQA guidelines. The traffic and transporta- tion section was thoroughly analyzed by City staff and the Committee agreed it was insufficient. The hydrology impacts to the City of Palo Alto could be considerable, and the mitigations proposed were not clear as it appeared City and County_ funds would be needed. The cumulative impact of other developments on Stanford lands was not addressed in the DEIR, e.g., the Reagan Library, and the proposed hotel and convention center in San Mateo County. The Committee believed a major revision was needed and urged Council request the County Planning Commission to postpone certification on the report and hold renewed hearings on a revised documents. Councilme tuber Sutorius asked for clarification of the term supplemental" EIR. Ms. Crowder said perhaps the terms were not as crucial as the intent of not accepting the DEIR and its additions. The body of the document had such glaring omissions and mistakes that it should be rewritten either in supplemental or some other method. The document together with all the minutes and comments were insufficient to be certified. Co unci.lmember Sutorius clarified there was nothing unique in the term "supplemental" EIR as con"eyed in the letter. Ms. Crowder we nted to convey the Committee's point of view regarding omissions or clarifications, and for that to be in a process that was not merely - added at the back of the book. 7 7 2 2 9/22/86 i Linda Ulmer, P.Q. Box 47, Yountville,. represented California Department of Fish and Game, and said through an oversight the DEIR was not commented on by the Department, which was unfortunate as Stanford University was designated in the Fish and Game Code as a Wildlife Refuge. Essentially, it meant the Fish and Game Commission had the power to regulate, take, and manage the fish and wildlife on the refuge. Fish and Game Code Section 30502 said the Commission might exercise control over all mammals and birds in any game refuge and exercise control over all fish in any fish refuge. She quoted other pertinent sections of the Code regarding what was allowable in a Fish and Game Refuge. Parts of the DEIR on cumulative impacts to wildlife were inadequate regarding both the description and the assessment of the impacts. She talked to the County Planning Department and understood they would not cer- tify the DEIR, but would send it back for modifica tion. The DEIR would be recirculated and under CEQA:they would require the cumu- lative impacts to fish and wildlife be addressed, and mitigation measures be incorporated and be explained to offset the impacts to wildlife. It was under the authority of the Fish and Game Commission to regulate the take, which might include being run over by a bulldozer. Serious questions needed to be discussed if a new DEIR was recirculated, and their new District Biologist would be reviewing that. Councilmember Sutorius asked if Ms. Ulmer could give an indication of any enforcement activities performed at Stanford. Ms. Ulmer said no. Species were declining in both diversity and abundance in surrounding areas, and to protect the diversity of the wildlife species, Stanford land was made into a game refuge which passed legal title to the California Department of Fish aid Game. She had high hopes for the new District Biologist. Councilmember Klein clarified the California Department of Fish and Game had title to the Stanford lands. Me. Ulmer said yes. She was not an attorney and could not interpret the applicable code sections. MOTION!: Councilmember rieuzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt the Planning Commission and staff recommendation as follows* 10 Endorse the previously s itted City comments (August 8 let- ter) and erect skaff to forward to Santa Clara County for responses in the Reviroolontal Impact Report (RIB) the Addi- tional Planning Commission- comments summarized in CfRs4g4ti, as sell as the Planning Commission minutes from tha meeting* of August 6, 13 and 27; NOTION CONTINUED 2. Request that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) , with responses to all of the commentswhich have been sub- mitted by the City of Palo Alto and others. be recirculated before the Final EIR is prepared/ and 3. Direct staff to continue discussions with Stanford staff on a traffic mitigation agreement within general guidelines which respond to the questions raised on pager 5 of the staff report (CNR:49Dsf ). Councilmember Renzel said Stanford's EIR was the most difficult she ever tried to follow in terms of the. various actions already approved by Council in a variety of EIRs which were supposed to have been cumulative. The numbers did not seem to .reflect the kinds of activities Council was accustomed to seeing in the amount of square footage being discussed. The biggest problem was trying to figure out where they were then. Stanford requested certain changes to the use permit, but as far as she was concerned, it was an EIR for the entire use permit and focusing on 13 little areas to the exclusion of the impact of the entire plan on Palo Alto and the area within its sphere of influence was a mistake. There were several questions about Stanford's addressing of the transporta- tion problem and whether proper mitigations were shown in the report. Councilmember Fletcher said Stanford committed to promoting bicycle and pedestrian activities in the EIR, but the parking planned was only for automobiles and there was a deficiency _ for bicycle parking facilities on all the Stanford developments. In 1985, 379 bicycles 'were stolen at Stanford which was not _ an inducement to ride bicycles. At the least, all new developments should provide bicycle parking to the same standards required in the City's zoning ordinance, and the City, submitted its request for such a standard to the County.- There was no mention in the EIR of child care needs. Although she was gladto hear there was a plan for a child care center at Stanford, it was insufficient to care for the needs through the year 2000. Council was asked to make some decisions on the type of traffic mitigations or trip reductions. She preferred a trip reduction program over physical improvements, but there should be some incentives for the trip r=eduction so that if the trip -reduction goals were not met or kept over a period of time, Stanford should be required to make physi- cal improvements. She queried whether specific amendments were requested. Mr. Schreiber said comments were sufficient. Staff was looking for general guidance rather than detailed direction. 7 7 2 4 9/22/86 Councilmember Renzel referred to designating areas where nothing was planned in the next 15 years. If Council made a designation on parcels where nothing specific was planned, when the next use permit came up, they would be told it was the same designation on the land for 15 years and should not be questioned. It was a mistake to .make such a designation without some thought as to what would actually occur. Council would be prudent to maintain the current designation in some of the areas. The maps provided with the document were also difficult to read and understand, and she had a problem: with the definition of "academic," which showed up in a variety of different ways in the discussion of the report. A short -shrift was given in the EIR t.o the need for municipal services provided by the City of Palo Alto. The EIR indicated Stanford took care of all its municipal services, but those services were contracted from the City. If Stanford generated garbage, it was the City's problem; if ° Stanford generated sewage, it was the City's problem; and if Standard used more electricity than the City anticipated, i.t was the City's problem. The City needed to ensure the EIR adequately addressed the impacts to Stanford and the people to whom it contracted --the City of Palo Alto. In terms of trip reduction versus physical improvements, she also preferred the trip reductions. Regarding employment and the ,number of people generated by the buildings, while Stanford expected i t . to be low, there needed to be some verifiable employment monitoring because over the years the City was given varying employment figures at Stanford. Mayor Cobb commented that Council's objective was to get the whole transportation system in balance with existing and future demands. Trip reduction and improvements was the big picture they should look at because development in the Foothills changed the balance. The City was involved in the Golden Triangle Task Force to try to get that balance on a County --wide basis. The objectives should be to include a realistic view of what they could and could not do in terms of transportation. The road system was limited, and its ability to handle more was also limited. As they proceeded to whatever changes took place west of Palo Alto, he hoped they would keep in mind the fact there were limits, a balance to achieve, and absont that balance problems would get worse. Councilmember Fletcher found the staff report (CMR:490:6) with the Planning Commission 'comments extremely thorough. The report addressed all necessary points, and she commended both the thor- oughness of the staff analysis and the Planning Commission's work. 7 7 2 5 9/22/86 0 Vice ,Mayor_Woolley agreed with Councilmember Fletcher that staff and the Planning Commission did an excellent job. The DEIR was lighter in nature than such a document should be written. Mr. Williams was quoted as saying there was nothing earthshattering about it --it was a matter of tidying up and making plans consistent, but that depended on the base of comparison. Using the 1962 Use Permit, which the DEIR was, as the basis for compari- son not so earthshattering; but starting with the status quo, as they did with the Downtown Study, there was a considerable amount of growth being studied in the DEIR. She believed a monitoring system was very much needed as insurance that the population pro- jections made by the University based on its staffing formulas would be be compatible with the square footage planned. A mecha- nism was necessary to let the City know if the predictions were not in line, and then the concern regarding increase would not be as great. She preferred to see mitigations emphasize reduction rather than increased capacity in terms of., both the landfill, or a substantial recycling program at Stanford, and in terms of the intersections to .reduce the number of people using cars rather than to increase the capacity of the intersections. Mayor Cobb commented Council's relative silence was testimony to the good work of both staff and Planning Commission, and he thanked them for making Council's task easier. MOTION PASUEO unanimously, Patitucci 'not participating.* 13. REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE REPORT ON LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES' ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE'S ACTION ON THE RESOLUTION ADOPTING A "NO SMOKING POLICY" FOR TUE 198 AND FUTURE LEAGUE CONFERENCES Councilmember Fletcher said Council passed a resolution urging the League of California Cities to adopt a policy of no smoking in conference rooms at the League meetings and in dining areas. She reported the Administrative Services Committee of the League approved the resolution. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: