Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-18 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTEs CITY Pill 0 ALTO Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 11, 1984 Adjourned to Tuesday, September 18, 1984 ITEM PAGE Item #6, Public Hearing: Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Recommendations ons. on the Wiilew Road Ext3nsion Project and Environmental Impact Report 5 0 8 0 Recess from 9:35 p.i . to 9:50 p.m. 4 0 9 6 Item #7, Re;onsideration and First Reading of Ordinance, Amending Title 18 (Zoning Code) ' and ¥ i tl e 21 (Subdivision Code) 5 1 0 5 Adjournment of �iAdjour�ned Meeting of September 11, 5 1 0 5 1984: 11:00 p.m. 5 0 7 9 9/18/84 Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 11, 1984 Adjourned to Tuesday, September 18, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met an this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue at 7:40 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renael , Sutorius, Witherspoon (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Woolley ITEM 6 PUBLiC HEARING: PLANKING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL. c 1YR iRE t1 L.LIM ITU Alj : u/: : • Mayor Klein said there was a motion on the floor made by Councilmember Woolley and seconded by Councilmember Witherspoon which incorporated the staff recommendations in the staff report (CMR: 470 : 4) . There was an amendment to Coenc i l member Wool 1 ey' s motion, in paragraph 2(A)(3), the reference was the "left -turn pockets" rather than - "jug handle" entrances. Councilmember Woolley preferred to accept the staff recommendation with regard to Item e7 on the last page of ` the recommendations to not include the language. Councilmember Woolley chose the staff alternative to No. 4, which was on the second page of the recommendations, that the developer do one of the following an agreement between the City and the University with regard to third lane to Santa Cruz Avenue, etc. Two amendments were'. passed. In paragraph 2(A)(5) , the language now read "securing of a written commitment from CalTrans." The word "written" was added. in the last line, "...the consent of the City Council of Palo Alto. The proj ec t will not go forward without this commitment and Stanford will join in the effort to obtain that commitment from CalTrans." The other amendment was by Councilmember Sutori us, and split paragraph 2(B)(1) Into 2(8)(1)(a) and 2(B)(1)(b). The "(a)" part was as proposed, and the "(b)" part related to the limitation on addi- tional square footage in the footprint of the shopping center, which limitation was to apply until a modification of zoning or the negotiation and approval of an applicant -initiated specific plan delineating ultimate development on the shopping center site. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said staff prepared a marked -up version Of the Council's recommendations. There was an error in drafting with regard to recommendation 1(8)11) which was split into parts ( a) and (b) . Staff inadvertently noted that it was motion 2 that was split into ( a) and (b) . Mayor Klein's sum- mary was correct. The September ,17 staff report had many, _refer- ences to motions dealing with the left turn pocket on Willow Road. He referred specifically to. references to 2(a)(2), which should read 2(a)(3) in each instance. Mayor Klein` ,clarified that the motion read as stated in the staff report of September 13. Councilmember Renee) asked staff to, clarify their position on the third lane versus left -turn lanes opposite the Oak Creek Apart- ments. Mr. Freel nd said Council passed a motion -last week to .include left -turn p;3ckets to help eastbound motorists make left turns into tee Oak Creek Apartments. Staff concluded that the recommendation would solve one of two present problems in the area. 5 0.8 .0 9/18/84 The two problems were traffic safety for people making a left turn into the Oak Creek Apartments, and congestion from the amount of westbound traffic on Willow Road. Staff believed a left -turn pocket would be effective, with the signal phased to allow the left turns, in remedying the safety problems for the people making the left turn into the Oak Creek Apartments, but the added red time on the stop light to allow the left turns would worsen the traffic congestion forecast on the two driveway. entrances. Staff concluded that if Council went with the left -turn pocket concept, it should acknowledge an unmitigated adverse impact in unaccept-, able levels of traffic at the two signalized Oak Creek driveways and justification that the project benefits outweighedthe adverse impacts. Alternatively, a more effective mitigation was required. The only mitigation identified which would both solve the. safety problem and relieve the traffic congestion problem was the .third lane -ea do`.bl a westbound lane on Willow Road. Staff did not make that recommendation initially because it was undesirable to . merge those two lanes down to one at the point where the lane reached the bridge across San Francisquito Creek. Staff believed that compared to actually worseni nL the quality of road congestion on Willow Road, which the left turn( pocket would do, it was better to accept the awkward merge from two lanes down to one just before_ the bridge. Staff's new recommendation was to have a third lane westbound on Willow Road from a point about 200 feet east of Pasteur and then merging down to one lane at the bridge across San Francisquito Creek. That would have an additional benefit of eliminating what was identified in the EIR as an adverse traffic congestion problem at the intersection of Willow and Pasteur, which would remedy three problems --Willow, Pasteur, and Willow at the two Oak Creek driveways. Counclimember Renzel understood that the levels of service pro- jected, i.e., "DX at Willow Road and El Camino; "E" at Willow and Arboretum; "O" at Willow and Pasteur; and ND" at Willow and Oak were based upon the Stanford West project as approved; the shop- ping center as approved; the Hospital Modernization as approved; the Children's Hospital, a level of activity as currently existed, and no projections were made for the 85 acres. She asked if that was a correct statement of the assumptions that went into levels of service. Mr. Freeland said several scenarios were used in developing the forecast• Not all assumed Stanford West, but scenario 1990 B did include the potential of Stanford West, and it adversely affected one of the Oak Creek Apartment driveways. There were scenarios which showed adverse _.impacts with and without Stanford West. The 85 acres did not spec' fatal 1y have development forecast for that location, but there were general growth figures assumed for Stanford academic campus and some portion might well be attribut- able to it. Counciisember Renzel clarified that some numbers were included in the :traffic levels of service projections. Mr. Freeland said general background levels of growth for Stanford campus were included, but not specifically for that land. Transportation Planner Dave Fairchild said the general background growth; for Stanford campus AS, a whole was one percent per year; and one and one-half percent per : year was used for growth in arterial through traffic/regional traffic Counci lmember : Reneel Clarified that a one and ore -heal f percent growth was added to :attribute for the general campus growth with- out dealingwith any specific acreages.: She said those presump- tions included lotwo square fest Of approved expansion at Macy's, but not 20,000wht th'•' Empor1 use. 5 0 8 1 9/18/84 Mr. tFai rchi i d said the footages used for the shopping center did not include any of the expansions discussed. They were based on the existing in use square footages, plus Neiman Marcus. Counc i l member Renzel said essentially there were 30,000 square feet plus the 10,000 square feet authorized in the motion, which were not included in the additional traffic generation to existing levels of service. Mr. Freeland said it could be. Had staff known about the 10,000. square feet during preparation, it would have been included. The; 20,000 square feet identified for Macy's plus the additional development potential under the motion 263)(1)(b), was not the same as probable development about which staff was aware. Staff knew of no specific plans for any of that development, and would not normally include potential for which there was no identifiable project. Councilsreraber Renzel asked if staff looked at how much square footage, in addition to the 10,000 square foot footprint, could be added to ore -story buildings at the shopping center up to the five -story limit Mr. Freeland said there was a 50 -foot height limit for the type of commercial structures built in the shopping center, which was typically three stories because they had tall ceiling heights. Staff made no such analysis, but there were low buildings that could have second or third floor additions, which would be subject to additional environmental review. The shopping.. center was car- ried by the Shopping Center Expansion Plan EIR conducted in the 1970s. All the development contemplated under that plan was conducted, and he expected additional development, other than small projects, night trigger substantial additional environmental review. Councilmember Sutorius asked whether pocket extensions or changes in si final i zati on would be required if Section 2(A)(3) were amended to the staff recommendation of a third lane westbound. Mr. Freeland said the third lane on Willow Road would not necessi- tate stopping Willow Road to allow the left turn so there would be no need to change the signals. He did not believe it would be necessary to increase the size of the left -turn pocket either because there would be many opportunities for people to make that left turn against the gaps in traffic that would open if traffic were spread on two lanes instead of one. Coiancilmember Sutorius asked whether other areas of the document, including recommendations and conditions, etc., would need to reflect the change if 2(A)(3) were modified. He was concerned about Condition No. 4 immediately following. Mr. Freeland said there would be a need to clarify recommendation 4 because as currently written' it gave a choice between an agree- ment leading to the eventual upgrading of the Willow and Sand Hill Road; or a provision for a Significant portion of the third lane project bearing in mind either the frontage road and sound wall or the bridge crossings at San Franc i squi to Creek. If the third lane from Pasteur to the bridgewas done, it would arguably be >r: sig- nlficent portion of the third lane, but that was not what; staff had in mind when it wrote condition 4, For clarification,- Staff would amend #4, el iminati eig the notion of a significant portion of. the third lane, and ask for the agreement for future funding and pursuit of the co.rapl ante third lane all the way out to Santa Cruz/ Sand Hill. 50.02 9/18/84 Counci l►nember sutori us asked that Council be alerted to other changes. Mr. Freeland said the foregoing were the only ones that staff was going to propose. MAYOR KLEIN RE CITY AUDITOR Mayor Klein introduced Palo Alto's. first City Auditor', Michael Northrup. He said the City Auditor position was authorized by the voters on. November 8, 1983 as part of the reorganization which transferred responsibility for accounting and financial matters to the city Manager and established the ' Ci ty Auditor position as a Council -appointed office. Mr. Northrup was chosen following several months of recruitment during which the Council interviewed many candidates. Council was pleased with Mr. Northrup, his back- ground, and his enthusiasm. He had excellent credentials, having served as City Auditor for Hayward, California and in a number of accounting and auditing positions with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. His responsibilities would include con- ducting internal audits of all City fiscal transactions as well as analysis of financial and operating data as directed by the City Council. He would arrange for the annual external audit by the certified public accounts, and his office would be located on the seventh floor of the Civic Center. He welcomed Mr. Northrup. COUNCIL RETURNED TO ITEM #6, WILLOW ROAD., Councilaaember Cobb asked about the zoning of the 1.4 acres. If the motion before the Council passed, the project could go forward regardless of whether the rezoning was resolved. Mr. Freeland said the motion would initiate proceedings, which was all the Council could do, as he believed the Council could not decide to rezone any piece of property without a proper hearing. The wording did not indicate that the road approval would be voided if the change was not made. Councilmember Cobb clarified that Council's final decision on that question was in the future and did not necessarily stand in the way of the road approval. Mr. Freeland said for any change of to Comprehensive Plan or zoning of the site, Council would have to go through the public hearings, which would be a future decision. Councilmember Renzel asked if the new wording for the . final sentence of 2(A)(4)(0, *a timetable and process for implementing the third lane should be i ncl udeSl in this agreement,* included the third lane portion that would actually be constructed and the portion that would be funded and pursued. Mr. Freeland said staff suggested that the portion east of Pasteur to San Franc i squi to Creek be done' at the same time or prior to the construction of the Willow Road extension project. The timetable would them; encompass all the other improvements that would take place later. Counci laember Renzel. obtained confirmation from Mr. Freeland that it. referred to the bridge up : to Santa Cruz.. She : believed it would be wise to clarify ` in ' the wording that the sentence referred to the bridge in the second stage, although it was not yet formulated as a motion. Mr. Freeland : suggested the phrase "a timetable and process :. for implementing the portion of.. the third lane from, and including the bridgel, to Santa Cruz/Sand Hill" be inserted: 5 0 8 3 9/18/84 Councilmember Witherspoon said the Menlo Park jurisdiction would be involved in that part of the project, and Palo Alto would have no say. Palo Alto had no idea about, and could not stipulate, the conditions Menlo Park would place. She assumed Menlo Park would went design review, and might decide for aesthetic• reasons that it did not want the sound barrier. Mr. Freeland said no fewer than three jurisdictions would be involved --unincorporated San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and Menlo Park. Clearly, no improvement_ could take place without their approval. A process to pursue them would be necessary. Councilmember Witherspoon presumed the whole project would not be cancelled if there was good faith and diligent pursuit, even if another jurisdiction decided for some reason that things would not be as Palo Alto had hoped. Mr. Freeland said staff believed the agreement should be clear that diligent effort over a long time period would be required. Councilmember Woolley asked if appropriate wording for paragraph 2(A)(3) would be: "a timetable and process for implementing the second stage of the third lane." Mr, Freeland believed it would clarify the rattier if the second stage was made clear. He suggested the words "westerly from Oak Creek Apartments" be appended. AMCMVMLMT : Cosac i 1 measer Seel l ey moved, seceided by Witherspoon, to mead 2(A)(3) to read Provision of a third lane on wastosand Willow toad from a point approximately 200 feet east of Pasteur to the westernmostsignalized driveway to Oak Creek Apartments, arid provide a merge 1200 from that point down to .sae lane westbound es the San Franc1sgaito Creek bridge." Mayor Klein asked staff and Stanford representatives if they had any reactions. Mr. Massey of Stanford University indicated agreement. Councilmember Renzel said she supported the amendment because if the motion was approved, the extra lane would be required to avoid serious uni i t1 gatabl a impacts. She clarified that it was a pre- requisite and had to be built with the project. She asked if that was correct and included in the motion. AMEMOMENT PASSED aerasineos1y. Al cM®i EMT s Covoci 1 tier Woolley nevoid, oecooded by Setar$ as, to sabstitete paragraph 2(C_)(4) eliminating .a" and ' b' and rep1 aci ag tke following: "ReMoi re an agreement between Stamford sod the City whereby Stanford ii 1 ag 'yes to fond and casteact the tk1rd 1aR* from oast of Postwar to tMe Sao Frsocisealto Creek Bridge prior to •r at the same time as c astrecti as of tits Willow Mead Estonia'', Project and food gad pNercieae tie d velopmsat of the third lam, from the bridge to Saito Cram Avenel*, i ncl edi ag the associated bri es, frontage .road aad saved wall improvements. A timetable an coss' for iaple ting the third lame westerly from the Oak Creek Apartments to Soate Cram- she+11 d ; be l icl edsd is this agreement which could also tie fending to aster* development projects i o the area. ° Mayor Klein said the phrase "should be included...* indicated that " 1 t, woui d be nice, but was not necessary.". Mr. Freeland Said he used "should" and not "shall " because he was not sure where negotiations would go. He wanted to leave some wiggle room to accommodate the nature _ of the agreement' when it case: back, but had no ,objection to using "shall 1 Mayor Klein understood the problem of the timetable not being within the control of anyone_ present, but the conditional tense also applied to the rest of the sentence, and could be construed to apply to the funding formula. He asked if the wording should be: shall be included in this agreement which shall also tie the funding..." Counc i l me4aber Woolley believed the funding was an option of the agreement, and did not need to be tied. LANGUAGE AMENDED TO REAM: *...TO , SANTA CRUZ SiiALL 5E INCLUDED...' Counc i l mesaber Witherspoon asked for clarification for the record of what was meant by "tie funding to future developments in the area. Mr. Freeland said that if there were expansions at the shopping center, a formula could require that for every additional 1,000 coolers, feet, a contribution of a certain emount be made towards a fund to put in the improvements. Another possibility would be the. reuse of Children's Hospital where for every certain amount of square feet a certain amount of money would be contributed. Councilmember Witherspoon referred to page 4 of CMR:470:4, where i t was puinted out that some findings of the EIR would have to be changed if the recommendation was adopted. Mr. Freeland said it would be appropriate to change recommenda- tions 5 and 6, as indicated ,in the •staff report, to eliminate the reference that previously existed to an unmitigated impact at Willow and Pasteur. By adding the third lane, the impact would be mitigated making the reference unnecessary. Mayor Klein suggested the issue be taken up in a separate motion. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Vice Mayer Levy meved, seconded by Witherspoon, to delete the refer'eetes t.e the freetege mall and sound wall improves:ets. Vice Mayor Levy made the amendment to the amendment because according to the staff report, there would be no perceptible change in the noise level. The noise levels after the project completion in 1985 and in 1990 would still be under the Palo Alto standards for noise in residential areas. Because of the slight change in noise levels, he believed the erection of a sound wall was an inappropriate mi ti gati bn measure. He asked staff ` to _ con- f i r■ that the frontage road was required because of the sound wall improvements and, if it was believed the sound wall was inappro- priate, the frontage road would no longer be required. Mr. Freeland disagreed. The frontage road made sense even without the sound wall. It was absolutely necessary : to have a frontage road in order to have a sound wall, but ' therm was Another major: problem. Presently, the driveways abutted onto Willow Road. With a second lane carrying a lot of traffic behind those driveways, there would be many unsafe circumstances. Many of . the driveways were on severe inclines, and cars backing out onto that portion of Sand Hill Road already experienced a hi fitter than usual rate of accidents. The frontage road :corrected, a safety problem, and was essential if there was to be sound, well. NAILER AI#! SECOND AGREED TO DELETE , ,."FRONTAGE ROAD* FROM THE AMENDMENT . TO .Till AMENDOEMT. Vice Mayor Levy said the cerrent noise .level in the ares.. was 61 decibels. With the third lane and the extension, the noise level in 1905 would still be. under 62 cibel s, rising to 63 decibels 1n. 1990. A two decibel difference was below ; the threshold of per- cepti bil i ty, and . the 1990 level was still below the Palo - Alto 5 0 $'5 9/13/84 standard of vS decibels for residential areas. z he City was asking for more than was appropriate by calling for a sound wall improvement as a mitigation measure for the project. Counci 1 member Sutori us said he attended many meetings on the area over a long period of time, and was struck by the plight of the 1 ocal residents and the lack of representation available to them. It was appropriate that the frontage road be maintained. At the previous meeting the Council was invited to look at the area. He presumed they would have had a lot to listen to as well. He asked. if the maker and second would consider a landscaping or fencing buffer to assure a satisfactory separation that ' was visually appealing. The landscaping should be aesthetic and offer visual separation as well as absorbing sound. The option should be allowed as it would go through a design process. Vice Mayor Levy accepted the modification, which he found appeal -- i ng, but asked for staff comment. Mr. Freeland had two immediate concerns. First, was the responsi - bility for the long-term maintenance of the landscaping. He was not sure who owned the land. It might be unincorporated San Mateo County, Stanford University owned, or part of the right-of-way of San Mateo County. Secondly, he wondered about the comparative cost savings between landscaping and a sound wall, and whether the savings would warrant such a change. Director of Planning and Community Env irnnment Ken Schreiber said a relatively thin landscape buffer would have a relatively minimal impact on noise. To achieve any real sound reduction, substantial landscaping would be required. It might mean spending more money for a less positive effect with more long-term problems. Counci 1member Sutori us suggested language be used requiring feasi- ble buffering, open enough to permit the interests and concerns of the affected neighbors to be brought into the design proposals brought forward by the . applicant to the approving agencies. He wanted to suggest some, kind of latitude that did not freeze out the most hel pful treatment of the frontage road. Mr. Freeland said that if therewas to be no sound wall, it was necessary to suggest some kind of decorative treatment between the frontage and main road. He would not resist_ such a suggestion Mayor K1.Cie said Council would have no say in the matter and ehoeld not spend toomuch energy on it. He suggested, that instead of "soond wail improvements, ° the words "and appropriate sound bettering or landscaping* be. used. Councilsember Sutolrius objected to the word "sound." MAKER AND °SECOND AGREE' TO DELETE FROM TWE AMENDMENT TO THE AME.1ONENT TOE WORDS 'FRONTAGE ROAD AND SODS NALL IMPROVEMENTS" AND WWI TOTE 'MITI, APPROPRIATE DOFFERING DR LANDSCAPING." Councilmearaber Witherspoon said there would have to be something between the frontage and mein roads to prevent people crossing i t . She preferred the barrier be attractive, and suggested that native plants or :°_shrubs * u1 a be agreeable. C oven: i laaeaeb►er Bechtel did not support the amendment to_, amendment. Some sound buffering was needed, and landscaping was fine, but unless it was thicker, it would not do the job. Looking at the big scheme: of things, the sound wall was a relatively minor aspect. Comae $ lmea?aber , Renzel. agreed, Byputting two .mare lane, up to, the.. Sand Hill/Santa ' Cruz intersection, one of the - biggest bottlenecks eloeg Willow, a situation was being created for the people that 5o 8 b 9/18/84 As corrected 12/3/84 1 'lay [hit typical of a residential nei residents could expect a long peak cars in fr' nt of their homes, etc. Alto offered little to other duri sdic was one thing that should be in place make clear that the frontage road wa Willow Road itself:_ ghborhood in Palo Alto* The hour congestl cn., with idling It was reason ble, as Palo tions in the proposal, and it to protect the residents and s not a lateral extension of AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT FAILED $T A VOTE OF 4-5, Levy, Klein, Yltherspoen, Sutorirs, voting °a_ye." Counci1member Renxel said Willow Road was a public road dedicated to the City of Palo Alto in the reach from Arboretum up to the boundary at the bridge. She believed it was appropriate .to also dedicate the additional lane, and asked if it should be made as a separate moti on. Mr. Freeland understood it could occur within the existing public right-of-way that already existed, making it a public road. There was no need for an additional right-of-way. Councilmember Renxel asked if Mr. Freeland was confident enough to not include it. Mr. Freeland said he and Mr Schreiber looked over the plans that afternoon, and were concerned about only one area --the need to get the bike bridges and bike paths connected to them. There were some small points where they might have concern about rights -of - way, but only for the bike paths, not the road itself. Councilmember Renxel asked if Council should ask that any addi- tional right-of-way for the third lane be dedicate4_ They were a part of the scheme of things, and . it was not desirable to have the bicycles on the road itself. Mr. Freeland agreed that could be done. AMENDMENT T4 AMENDMENT: Cavaci mostior Ne zel sieved, seconded »y Fletcher, td aid to paragraph 2(A)(4) as amended, -"Any necessary addi t*feai right-of-way for. the third lame -shall be dedicated to the City.` Councilmember Renxel said her amendment to amendment particularly referred to small pieces of land which Mr: Freeland indicated might not fit within the existing right-of-way... MOMENT TO AMENDENT passed mnaninoesly. AMENDMENT . AS AMENDED PASSED gmanistinsly. AMENDMENT . C-40011Clisseather Woolley moved. secoado4 Ni ilitherspeeni, to amid paragraph E deleting Iliad' the significant traffic impact at :the intersection of Willow *ad Pastehr,* and paragraph d deleting _ .1. Rd 111111M Roard/Pastoor,' and aaaUd q •1*tersi ctiees1 to "istor oction." AntiONENT PASSED,:;eaau1eoosly.. ANENIM DT t Ceeaci 1 hex Fletcher *owed,, **tended by Wenzel, to mood paragraph 2(A)(1) de1etl a ", .. (ar# th the aad.rstaading that the intersection is acceptable if CalTraat refuses to approve... the... north akin bicycle cross i a g) . Councilmember Fletcher said westbound bicyclists coming out " of Palo Alto Avenue were, on the street. Tf fhe north side -crossing .er ciat prvrioee, they Mould be' expected to cross -E1 Camino at Alma where there was a free right turn,, which in itself was a dangerous maneuver. Once theywere across, they would have to ride on the wrong side of ,E1 Camino to reech the right side of Willow Road. Wrong way riding das'a major cause of accidents, 8y_;. 5 0 8 7 9/1.8/84. deleting the phrase, the City would have a stronger argument against CalTrans because it would be clear that the north side crossing was the only one Palo Alto found acceptable. Mr. Freeland said he was concerned that if the design was not acce ptabl`e to CalTrans, it would appear to close the door on find- ing another solution that would be acceptable to the bicycling community. He asked if Council wanted to leave some ability to find an alternative solution if the current one " did not work out with CalTrans. Councilmember. Fletcher said she had heard indirectly that CalTrans was willing to consider that configuration. She had heard no strong opposition to it, and did not believe in putting in an. unsafe -facility. Another factor was that bicyclists would proba- bly not go through such a convoluted maneuver of going on the wrong side of the street to cross Cl Camino, then again ride on the wrong side of the street. They would probably take their chances by going against the traffic to cut straight across. Councilmember Woolley agreed with the recommendation from the bicycle committee and with Councilmember Fletcher. On the other hand, she hesitated to make it difficult for CalTrans' approval to be dependent upon the bicycle lane being exactly in that posi- tion. There should be some room left to maneuver. CalTrans' problem was that they were concerned about slowing the phasing of the signals with the bicycle lanes in that position. Councilmember Witherspoon said the same problem arose for pedes- trians. She did not agree people broke the law if it was not convenient. Mr. Freeland showed the plan in question with the crossing marked with a dash -dot diagonal line. The intention was to have a some- what unusual allowance for bicyclists to make the catty -corner crossing on that diagonal. Otherwise they would have to cross on the pedestrian path, which was an indirect route. Cyclists head- ing northbound on El Camino would then have to go in the opposite direction to traffic. The plan was to get cyclists directly across the intersection so they could pick' up the path and go along Willow Reed. At Councilmember Witherspoon's request, he showed the proJeted routes on the overhead screen. He said it was pl ginned to allow the diagonal crossing on a signal phase. It wade good sense, but was unconventional, and there was a question about CalTrans' reaction to unconventional situations. Councilmember Sutori us asked if it would be 'illegal if the route trued by staff for cycl i s.ts . Councilmember Fletcher said bicyclist, were no more permitted to ride on the left-hand side of the _street than automobiles, Once the crossing over El Camino Real was made, they would be required to ride on the lefthand side of. the street, which was illegal, or get off end walk, which was unr`ealistic= Councilmember Sutoriue said they would then be like pedestrians, Councilmember Fletcher said it meant getting off their bicycles and wa1 iii ng the*. It -might ba an ideal sl tuation, *but was unreal- , istic. Mr. Fairchild pointed out that the° crossing bs shown -was without the northside bicycle crossing. If the northside bicycle crossing was not approved by Cal trans, ;'the crossing shorn would be entirely legal for bicyclists: within the sidewalk walking their bikes. It was net a bike lane, buta crosswalk for ..pedestrians An entirely legal crossing was provided, although _ fro® the point of ..view of bicyclists trying to _make time across the intersection, it would be extremelyslow. Councils ember Fletcher said it was u{+real is .ic to ask cyclists to fullow pedestrian rules. MOTION PASSED by a vote of S-4, Woolley, Cobb, Witherspoon, Srtories, voting *me.* AMEMPMEMTf Cos ci•lmeeber. Fletcher moved, seconded .by Reezel, to amend paragraph 2011) adding 1tom 17 *Require 100 foot setback from the creek for the road design.' Courcilmember Fletcher said h r amendment wool d make . the setback consistent with the City's requirements for Stanford West. The impacts is of the roadway on the creeks ide setting would . be more severe than the housing would have been. Councilmember Bechtel understood that there were places where the roadway was designed 45 feet from the creek. She suggested a map be shown, and asked if the 100 -foot setback was a City requirement or the policy for Stanford West. Mr. Freeland indicated on a drawing two . points et which _ the pro- posed road was less than 50 feet from the creek. He believed it was 45 feet at one point, and 47 or 48 feet away at the other. As he recalled, the requirement at Stanford West was a 90 -foot setback, which came about through two different comments received in the Stanford West Environmental Impact Report (EIR). One was from the State Department of Fish and Game asking for a 90 -foot wild life buffer to protect the creek. However, the .Department also reviewed the current EIR without waking any such request in connection with the project although he did not know why. The other concern was from the Santa Clara Valley Water District . to access along the creek for maintenance. The District wanted 100 feet, but were willing to accept 90 feet as an area in which they could put future a: cess roads to get ,down into ,the cr.eek..fo.r., 'main- tenance purposes. The District also reviewed the EIR, but were not asking for access ways through the area, although they might at some time in the future ask for some if there were development projects. The two agencies requesting the setbacks when the Stanford West project was considered made no such requests for the projected road. The other concern was for stream bank erosion as San Francisquito Creek was subject to sloughing off. The EIR addressed that issue, and said there should be a 2:1 slope angle to provide an angle .of repose on the stream banks so that the road itself would not eventually be eroded away. They suggested a 2:1 slope angle could be accomplished with a 50 -foot ietback. The present EIR suggested a minimum of 50 _feet. When the road was redesigned, as it would have to be to satisfy the Planning Commission's recommendation for the narrower road, a design cri- terion should, as a minimum, respect the 50 -foot setback to ensure stable bank conditions. Mr. Schreiber said the first use of 90 feet setback requirement occurred in 1975-76 during the previous incarnation . of the Willow Road Extension review. There were negotiations between Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Stanford. One of the conditions imposed by Menlo Park was protection of the trees in the 46 -acre area. He deter- mined the 90 -foot limit by identifying the dripline and pacing it off from several places near the . creekbank.: it.: corresponded. to the edge of the dri pl i ne for the _ .band of trees along : thetop of the bank. Along the area closer to, El Camino, there was not the same type of configuration of vegetation, Counc i l memberR Cobb asked if Mr. Freeland was measuring from the creek or the drlpllne. Mr. Freeland said the measurements were from the top of the bank. Cduncilaeeaber Cobb. said a 100 -foot setback meant the road would have to be moved over considerably `, and would impact the intersec- tion design Mr. Freeland said the setback would require major redesign of the road alignment AMENDMENT FAILED b.y a vote of 3-i, Fletcher, Densely Bechtel, voting 'ape." Councilmember Renzel said the following- amendment conformed to the Water District's desire -foe a 2:1 ratio.. AMENDMENT: Cosacilmember Menzel mewed, seconded by Fletcher, to amend paragraph 2(B) adding Item 17 *Rego l re Se foot minimum set- back for the roadway from the top •f the bank of San Francs sgei to Creek...'. . Councilmember Renzel wanted the word "minimum" to be used, as she hoped the setback would be greater wh,,n possible. Mayor Klein did not believe the 50 -foot setback was required by the District. Mr. Freeland said it was suggested by the environmental consu1 taut in the section on soils and erosion. Mayor Klein asked if ;it was appropriate to speak of a 50 -foot minimum setback as suggested by the consultant. Mr. Freeland said sa 50 -foot setback" would suffice. Councilmember Renzel commented that natural streams meandered and changed their configuration. The Council should allow that to happen and not be forced into cementing. in yet another stretch of the creek in order to stop its natural meandering activities. If it were not allowed, the creek would encroach on the road over time, and eventually have to be cemented up. Councilmember Sutorius had 'Aixed reactions to the motion. The 50 - foot ¢etback was only a few feet more than the.two closest points, which suggested it was a modestrecommendation. He was also con- cerned about 'the other criteria used in the discussion process at the Planning Commission and which were incorporated into other cond'!ti ons that had to do with trying to save trees. When deter- mining the median width and how it affected roots, a matter of a few feet could make a significant dif erence . He walked the route shown in the design, and saw how a slight shift could cause the loss of a tree that considered salvageable and on which effort was made to save. . He asked if he was overreacting to the poten- tial of a fixed 50 -foot separation from the creek running into possible design problems, Mr. Freeland did not think it would, as they_ were discussing the minimum distance from the edge of the paving. Supposedly, any tree 50 feet or closer would be saved by the setback, whereas any tree further away would be a design option. Councilmember Sutorius said they were potentially shifting the geometry of the trees. Mr. Freeland assuaged they would not necessarily have to move the south side of the road because the reduction in lane widths, etc. would save many feet from the width of the road. The extra four or five feet should be picked op from the .difference in paving widths between the design and the Planning Commission's recom- mendation. Cauneilwember Fletcher asked for confirmation that the 50 -foot Setback could have a pedestrian `path on it. Mr.. Freeland said the 50 -foot setback was for the a 'pedistr1 en path could be included within. 8 Councilmember Fletcher- did not want to make ari amendment, but did nut believe the path should be paved. A dirt path such as those in parks would match the setting although it was a decision for the Architectural Review Board. Counci l member Renzel said the creek would be there much longer than any of the trees along its banks... She did not want to lose any more trees than necessary, but the creek was a more valuable resource if a choice had to be made, and should be protected in every way possible. AMENDMENT PASSED eearaari sousl y. Councilmember Renzel said there_ would still be some bad levels of service after the extension, even with the third lane westbound and the double left turns at Cmbercader o, which were predicated on some land use projections in the area: that did not reflect .,the degree of land use currently permitted by zoning in the: area. Although some required a Use Permit, it left an expectation that the land-_ use could be 'fully implemented. She referred to the Children's Hospital -on 2,f acres and zoned ; PF with - a - floor area ratio `of 1 ,1 , ' w i1 :h ` eaeant 26 acres .of building coUl d b"e °erected. The- present ar ount '+ f 'bu11 ding was approximately 'the equi`Ivai ent of 2.b acres, giving a 1Q -fold potential in terms of building and consequent activity in traffic. AWEMBNEMT: Casaci l member 'teazel maenad: seconded b. .Fletcher, to amend paragraph 2($) by addisg xtsm 1g, *Ash the _flaming Cemmissioa to initiate a zealot change that would create a seffix for the PF zene or a possible residential zee for tine children4$ Sesp1tai site ter permit me more than the current level •f traffic activity.," Councilmember Renzel said the amendment would include in the zoning of those sites a restriction relating to the level of traf- fic activity on which the levels of service for the road extension were predicated. It was known that the road would have many prob- lems, and nothing should be pereitted to make them worse. If the Planning Commission- went to residential zoning, the Children's Hospital and other-- facilities would be grandfathered for as, long as they remained. The H.osp_ita.1 was planning to move, and it was reasonable to ensure that in five or ten years if- the land use changed, whoever was looking at the particular zone would not need to knew the whole history of Willow .Roace. in order to know that activity needed to be limited, Councllmember Woolley asked what controls the City had on the site. Mr. Freeland, said it was' a Public. Facilities (PF) zone, and any governmental use would be allowed as a matter of right. If the site was released to a governmental, agency, the City would have little control beyond architectural land site approval, , and with some governments, the City would ;got have that control For private use by the University, *practically any .proposed use was subject to a Use Permit', City review zed 'aeuch .City discretion. Councileember Woolley agreed the City did not wait to: see an increase of traffic ; on the site, and preferred to make a decision at the time a Use Permit was reviewed. She could think of, at least moo use --a geriatric facility --that would be beneficial and of great public benefit and which the City might want to treat differently. Counc1leember Bechtel said the unlikely happenstance of another gdvernmental: agency leasing the fac i l t ty was Outlined, and With the PF zoning the City had control. 'She agreed that intensity should be no greater than;. at present, and the' exi sti ng . PF zoning should be retained. Council ember Renzel said although the Use Permit allowed some control, the fact that the PF zone had a 50 -foot height limit and a floor area ratio of I:1 engendered expectations that the full envelope could be used. Rather than allow someone to get a long way into the planning process and contractual obligations etc., it would be better for the zoning to clearly reflect the Council's intent. Most of her colleagues appeared willing to approve the road even with its bad levels of service. They were at the bound- ary with three intersections with service level ND" and one "E" can Willow Road. Every mitigation was included and no increase in land use on the 26 -acre Children's Hospital site, directly oppo- site the shopping center and Arboretum--bne of the worst inter- sections, and it grade good sense to ensure that expectations for the site were not unrealistic. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote •f 2-7, Reazel, Fletcher, voting - arlw AMENDMENT: Mayer Klein moved, .seconded by Refuel, to amend paregreph a by striking the period at the •end and adding the following lassoes.: "and define are appropriate mew decision -making mechanism which will give Palo Alto an appropriate share of the decisienaeakiag process for projects larger than a threshold to be agreed upon, this candi ti on to be satisfied prier to the start of the constriction on the Willow Extension Projects" Mayor Klein was : concerned because the sizable parcel was crucial to what happened in the Willow corridor. Mr. Freeland said there were no specific figures in the EIR. related to development of the site in question. Therefore, if the 85 acres were developed with a large project, all data upon which Council relied would ` go out the window. There was a condition to prevent any additional curb cuts on Willow witnout Council approval , which would apply to the 85 -acre site, but that was misleading and would not solve the problem. Traffic would find its way back, as the 85 acres would presumably have access onto Pasteur and could go from there to Willow. A large enough development would have a negative impact on the road. Therefore, the 85 -acre site was of vital concern to the City. The question was raised when the Stanford West item was discussed, and Stanford's argument, which he did not find persua- sive, was that it would be improper for Palo Alto to have veto power. He hoped his language was sufficiently drawn up to not suggest a veto. The point he wanted to crake was that although it was an unincorporated area, the Board of Supervisors was not the governmental .agency most concerned with the area. The ' City of Palo Alto owned the road that would be heavily impacted, and. Palo Alto residents would be heavily impacted should the 85 acres be overdeveloped. He had no desire to interfere . with or change the rules regarding Stanford's academic planning unless . a point was reached where the project had a dramatic impact on the road under analysis. A number of mechanisms could ensure that Palo Alto's interests' were adequately represented, and for Stanford to pro- claim the worth of the Board of Supervisors was, at best, ingen- uous. The Board was not constituted to be concerned ebout such issues, whereas the City of Palo Alto was. He was willing to con- sider different alternatives where the decision -making policy was modified to allow Palo . Alto a say, ' but not a veto, 1f . Stanford believed no one but the Board of Supervisors should have a say in what happened to, the 85 acres, it must be `because it was going to be developed, and _ the Board of Sdperivisors was an easier body to get a decision through. It was unwise for the Council to not have a significant say in what happened tc the 85 acres and a derelic- tion of duty to its. citizens.. The area could have a significant impact, although nothing might ever occurs but since he did not know what the future would bring, he did : not want to tie the hands of the future. lie wanted the Council's successors to have a, say !n what clearly could be ;a significant impact en Willow and all of north Palo - Alto, which was";:why he suggested his language. If all parties were willing, a mecheni sm such as he outlined could be found that was reasonable and acceptable to al . , 5 0 9 2 9/18/84 f Councilmember Witherspoon understood the Mayor's concern, but said everything everything in that quarter was a concern when Council was putting in a major effort to relieve congestion in the whole area. The land was zoned for academic reserve, . and if there was ever to be a commercial enterprise on it, it would be incorporated into the City, and Council would have total control over what went in. If there was academic reserve, any review that did not con- stitute veto power would be effective. The sane should be in place for the rest of the campus because other parts of the campus would impact Palo Alto roads considerably with huge academic proj- ect. She understood --having worked at. Stanford for three years -- that the area was .set aside for research facilities thdt would probably not be growth inducive and would use the staff now jammed into the hospital complex or into other parts of the campus, such as the Physics Department. She did not see the threat and did not believe the. review necessary. She hoped the County Board of Supervisors, who were elected to represent the people, would listen to Palo Alto's concerns. She would not support the :amend- ment. Councilmember Refuel said the same arguments she made about the Children's Hospital also applied, but more strongly. At least there was a Use: Permit process on the. Children's Hospital site. The two sites together comprised 111 acres not presently developed to anything approaching their potential. As Mayor Klein pointed out, the acreage would clearly impact the Willow corridor. The levels of service along Willow were three "D' s" and one "E." An "E" went transitionally towards "F," or unacceptable. It was already said that 40,000 square feet at the shopping center was not included in the service level projections. .With the Children's Hospital and the 46 acres, they. were at the . point where, if Council gave approval for the road extension in ques- tion,. it was important that land use controls be implemented. It was clear the City would have, no leverage to implement them at a later date. Councilmember Sutor 1 us believed many aspects of the amendment were important and creative, and appreciated that it was framed to not identify any specific paper or Content. I t • was not too contrary to Stanford's statement which expressed, in land use terms, the labeling of some thresholds -e The CS process might appropriately be subject to codifications; and the additional mechanism -might prove viable and sautually . satisfactory. SUBSTITUTE- AMENDMENT: Cousci lsmember !interims m►ose-d, secseadet by Cebb, to .totals the .psrl.pd U after, the rani '°!Hi ear;:,! end add Ai sen- tsMe, "The elmats shoai1.4 intloeoz', asd Mayor K1e.inT's Wordings exclidieg the last phrase, mould become the _first indent •f- .three I sadaeasts, Salt1 a .i t Item -1 *de,r e lead statement !The elements should include,. Item 2 mould read .ads open specs setback a1 eaeg 31111 sw Road m1 s1 all j 1sa*aessi stmt Stith County scenic corridor treatment naiad ahti c.i pats► l t1 eesate drip line protection is ;the newly- planted oak, taus at their aeeaateri t . Item 3 would read, "A process that mill 110440-s 4z -its .:its results 4:.commou hi Gent o, diva et or the Willow '4444 Corridor that cans topose appreeai Iij : . , -City . comae Sta*fsrd res rctivsly, _ appendo4 `te, or 1d .ter e atad. in r1► ., ref•rsece ; b• coat Palo Al _C.se prehtnsl et !l aia -aid : anfer.d4 t Laud Use Plan -.1 Coueacilsaeeaber Statorl sus .said /taw 3 o f the substitute amendment was a concept" Cogncaleesber Cobb held for. aavty :years. which was appro- pri at . to n l p+de . The elements- of the orl g I nae►1. _ eeendsseaont. 'were - contai ned 1n.H-the substtl tote-aaeaasendsaaie<t, and he -bel leved his addi ti ons - were i*portant . to- elaborate on aspects that night not.' be otherwise : addressed, and to :ee eun1 date ,to the - ubl i.c , ne.i ghbo':ri ng coaeaed► i ties, and .. e-nvlronsental:-..group.s that Pal o -Alto was .:1aot 1940,104 planning - partl cut oast;s directly affect! sag their:interests. interests It was atso. necessary to. deae tanlcate to Stanford -:that good faith intent-iods:,'fhqnornbly **tended, were hoporabl-y accepted., The. subs, s ti tute aiseddiient did-- not _ requl re: the determination to be con- -Chided. prior -to start ,ofconstruct%o!i. 5 0 D 3 9/18/84 Mayor Klein asked if Councilmernber Sutorius- had any deadline in mind for the process. Counc i l member Sutorius believed an attempt to follow a timeline aimed at a specific date such as 90 or 120 days was risky. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) mutual interest matter was in abeyance at the request of the two parties, while such matters as the 85 -acre parcel and other aspects of -the CS agree- ment that Stanford wanted to discuss with the County had common threads. For that reason it was inappropriate to set a timeline, but there was ample opportunity to assess the progress, as any application for the affected area under existing agreements would go to the Council as part of the understanding, which Stanford honored. It was recognized that disappointments or failures would have a strong effect on the City's view. Counc i l member Bechtel asked Mayor Klein what was meant by "devel- opment beyond the threshold"? Mayor Klein said he anticipated that there would be a minimum amount of 5,000, 6,000 or 10,000 square_ feet where the City would not participate in the decision -;making process he referred to. He was concerned not about small academic buildings, but about cur- rently unanticipated large-scale development that might be aca- demic, quasi -academic or borderline academic, such as the 1995 equivalent of the Reagan library, or a new research institute that would require 100,000 square feet. Councllmeabar Bechtel said there was a big difference between ;,000 and 100,000 square feet, and supposed the, agreed upon threshold would fall somewhere in between. Mayor Klein did not want to tie the hands of the negotiators, but guessed the threshold would be set somewhere in the 5,000 to 10,000 square foot area. Counc i lmember Bechtel said that both Mayor Klein and Counci l meatber Sutorius expressed a desire to clearly indicate they were not envisioning a veto, and asked if it was Mayor Kl ei n'.s understand- ing of a process that might be resolved. Mayor= Klein believed he was as clear as he could be. He tried to respond to Stanford's concerns and come up with a mechanism that would make both parties feel adequately protected. The present procedures : did not make him, as an, office hol der , _feel Palo. Alto's citizens were protected. Council cumber Bechtel .considered , the , ward of .Supere isors ` to be more responsive than Mayor Klein described, even . thougb ..oni y .one Supervisor represented the Borth Comity. On any issue concerning the County only one. Supervisor represented is particular :area, although all five. Supervisors "Dada . decisions aed became . actively involved. Addressing Councilmember Sutorius, she was concerned that i f no time limit was . imposed, , * matter : could drag on for years, Counc.ilmeraber Sutor-iws said .Item _ 8 was a direction ,to : staff to work with Santa Clara County and Stanford Unlv;erslty, - etc. Progress reports formed a regular part of the process, and he had no problem with a quarterly progress report. If Council was concerned about the nature of the progress and whether completion was forthcoming, it could bri ed the subject up again at any tine. There were several aspects involved, and he did ..not want to fore closure by setting an arbitrary date, and preferred progress reports. He was w fl I 1 ng to listen to interval or first report reCommendatlons if anyone wanted to make -them. Counctlneeber* Cobb was less sanguine about the, Supervisors con- cern over Palo Alto's interests, but understood Caunclleeaber 5 0 9 4 9/18/84 1 Bechtel's bias. There were two critical issues with regard to Willow Road Ono was dealt with successfully by requiring an absolute commitment From Cal Trans that Alma Street would be for- ever blocked from the intersection. The issue before the Council was the next critical issue. He believed the road needed to go through to El Camino andstop there, but did not believe it needed to go further. While agreeing with the spirit and intent of the amendment, its practical effect, as suggested by President Kennedy's letter and other discussions, would be to kill the project. He did not want to risk that happening as it had with Stanford. West. He wanted to find a way to deal with the issue that stopped short of that point. With regard to the.` time limit, he believed it could be easily established. The Council .,could require the processes to be in place before considering Stanford West• It was an easy lever and one that would work. Stanford West was a more important project to ooth Stanford and Palo Alto than the Willow Road project. He was willing to set a specific time limit on the establishment of the process sooner if neces-- 'sary, but Council had cl ear control through that simple mechanism. Referring to the third indent, he discussed, the idea since the Stanford West project and its difficulties were examined. The process was an addendum to both the Stanford and Palo Alto plan- ning documents for thresholds, as part of the planning require- ment, which talked about aspects of Stanford West as raised by Counci ltaerber Sutorius at the last meeting; Willow Road, as described and before the Council, and other issues attendant on it. It was one of three areas in which Stanford's and Palo Alto's interests intersected and overlapped even though the boundaries might jump. If a similar document was duplicated and attached to both documents, it would for a public certification of an agree- ment between two bodies that needed to work together. Should either body attempt to walk away from . the agreement, pressure from the public and press would make it a difficult step to take. When setting it up, a process would be evolved where the document could be worker: out similar to the way the Planning Commission operated. Such a document was not only feasible, it was practical, and would put tremendous pressure on both Stanford and Palo Alto to live up to it. Using the specific case about which Mayor Klein was concerned, enormous pressure would be applied to Stanford if it tried to break an agreement made with the City_. of Palo Alto and go beyond the threshold. Such a process would work --it was not a veto power, but was tl ose enough in terms of the kinds of pres- sures that could be brought to bear to ensure net it would work as well. Its advantage was to establish a basis not only for the current project to go forward under a mutual agreement that was feasible, bet a mechanism to deal with other areas such as the El Camino corridor end the Foothills where interests intersected. The process could establish a long-range basis for cooperation between- Stanford and Palo Alto to mutually serve their interests rather than conflict. He hoped Council would support the workable approach, which would permit the needed intersection to go ahead in a positive way. He did not believe Stanford would -view it as a vetobut would agree to it. A few months Might be needed to work out the details, but they - could be worked .out as all the plant existed. It was a matter of putting it on paper and getting both the official bodies --the Council of Palo; Alto and the Directors of Stanford University --to sign; it and attach the same pl.ece of paper to- both documents. He would like to give it a try, as he believed it would work, Councilmember Fletcher said it was Council's obligations under the Environmental Quality` laws, to consider all impacts when approving a project. The City was the lead agency in the situation, and Could include condl ti on s on land, whether within the City boun- daries or not, if the impact affected the project. The claim that Stanford Best did not proceed because of the conditions. the City put on it was absolutely false. Over the eosrtbs following the Council action, site spoke with two high-ranking Stanford officials separately,- and both assured her Stanford West was put off for financial reasons; that Stanford wanted to go ahead with the Welch. 5 0.,9 5 9/18/84 Road site and finish et before deciding what to do about Stanford West. Had Stanford really been hung up over the one condition concerning the setback on Willow Road, they could have returned tc the City to negotiate, but they made no move to approach either staff or the Council to work something out. The language in the letter received the previous day was intentionally strong in order to influence the outcome of that eeening`s decisions. It was a typical example of an applicant overstating his case, and should be taken with a grain of salt. One of the components suggested by Councilmember Sutorius was the County standard for setbacks. She did not know what those setbacks were, but was reluctant to close the City's options. The City was still on record as requiring the 150 foot setback on Willow Road for the Stanford West project, but f the motion passed as proposed, it would essentially rescind that requirement. The City might be willing to negotiate on that point some time in the future, but she did not want to close the options. Stanford West would return to the Council, and since it would have considerable impacts on the road, the Council must leave its options open. For those reasons she had difficulty with that part of the amendment, but favored the original amendment. Mayor Klein asked which part of the substitute motion she did not favor. Councilmember Fletcher referred to Item 2 of the substitute motion. RECESS FROM 9:35 .m. TO 9:50 .m. Mayor Klein said Council would continue discussion of the substi- tute amendment with regard to Item 8 on page 9 of the staff report. of that week. Vice Mayor Levy asked Councilmember Sutorius to be more specific about the County standards for setbacks to protect scenic cor- ridors. Councilmewber Sutorius reread Item 2, "an open space setback along Willow Road that minimally is' consistent with County, scenic cor- ridor treatment and Anticipates ultimate drip line protection to the newly planted oak trees at their maturity.' He said the iteaa was phrased so as not to impose the strict wording one might find in the Santa CI ar_, County General Plan, but to allow for something that was visually _appropriate and recogni zed the number of-mature along Willow Road and three rows of newly planted trees. An arpi tra,rr straight line open space area parallel to the_; road bed was. not``. the answer that either -Stanford or Palo Al to would look for. The General County Plan, in the chapter on Recreation and Culture, stated that the setbacks Were for the purpose of retain- ing the visual appearance and not hawing a negative impact in the placement of new structures.. Generally, the minimum setback would be 100 feet, He reminded his colleagues that the previous even- ing, in response to questions about where the re -Ws of trees were planted, Mr. iii 1 Tams, on behalf of Stanford. -drew a sketch of the area showing _ how it, undulated and took into -Account the mature trees. it was. that. concept he.wanted to emphasize -rather than an arbitrary, fixed number of feet, straight line corridor-. lice Mayor Levy said the substitute motion contained three ele- ments. The scenic corridor . eleraeot differed fro* the other two, and. he co-uld comfortably' endorse it. The third item, the co'eson p1Anni ng process, was al sa excel l ent. lie::assu.ed it would include some elements for public heart ngs when -.the common plan. agreed upon was subject to change -from -tither side.- Those hearings Should be promi nentlj -euverti sed and held, . so it was clear that-__ change was about to take piece. Me was not .sure -how they wa i1d_arrive At the e,l ement to ensure that ::Pale Al to had a `str_onge :sad! in the ;p1 an- ming of the 85 acres 'without a veto - power ,Se*e 'eie*eernts of strong public exposure and .persuasion_ rather then some specific veto power would be required. Such elements were worthwhile to work on. He saw that as the spirit of the substitute amendment, and endorsed it. Councilmember Renzel believed the substitute amendment contained three substitutes to the original amendment. The question of the mechani sm being in place before construction began was deleted. There were two additional matters, one addressed the open space setback; the other the process. She was uncomfortable about modi- fying Mayor Klein's amendment, which was strei ehtf orwa rd and simple, with the added benefit of giving Stanford some incentive to develop the process fairly rapidly. Councilmember Sutori us' substitute notion contained the word "should" rather. than "shall" when speaking of what was, to be included, which made picking and choosing less optional. As Couneilmember Fletcher pointed out, the open space setback was less than re",ui red for Stanford West. Finally, everyone was aware that Stanfof d requested the academic lands be removed from Palo Alto's Sphere of Influence. Should that occur, Item 3 would be virtually meaningless. Under the City's CS zone. Palo Alto's comments to the County, with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, not mandatory. In essence, Council had loose authority using its own Comprehensive Plan with respect to the County. If Stanford succeeded in removing its academic lands from the CS zone, the City's Comprehensive Plan would be the same as if it wanted to plan for Menlo Park or East Palo Alto --it would have no authority whatsoever, even at the influence l evel . She preferred to stay with the original amendment, and opposed the substitute amendment. As she saw it, Stanford West was already aopreved, so that in and of itself, it would not be a sanction to spur Stanford to expedite the common planning process or expedite development of a mechanise in which Palo Alto might participate. She preferred Mayor Klein's motion, which was simpler and also contained,a prod to ensure that it got done. Mr. Freeland clarified that Councilmember Sutori us accurately quoted the County Plan. Mayor Klein was;. concerned about the 1 eck of a timetable because without one, thi meaningfulness of the motion Was substanti ai ly reduced. Even though one was not stated, he bei ieved there was a deadline included. He asked for cl ari ficatien - that if it did not work out by the time Stanford }lest came along, Councilmember Sutori us could -not vote ire favor of - it. Councilmember Sutori uis said he would be frustrated, disappointed, and not prepared to act because he would not have had an under- standing arrived at or a process in pl eee to satisfy _him, and would be in doubt as to what he was dealing with. Councilmember Cobb did not want to consider Stanford West until the process was in place. He believed the process could be easily implemented, and Vice Mayor Levy accurately picked up the sense of what he was digging for. If final approval remained with the Board of Supervisors, at least PaIQ Alto and Stanford University would go there hand in hand with a common idea and common piece of paper which "more closely assured that Pal o Alto's interest would be recognized. Mayor Klein said he was somewhat reassured, but not sufficiently so to support the substitute. 'Ale believed it tossed away the best opportunity to work_ ,a 4t sometht ng 'that was necessary . for the com- munity. He did `net 'hei le.e a ;hoard of `s ipervisors wh .r'e four out of the five members were oriented° towt'ds San- Jose cared what happened at Stamford. While it_might be 'that 'offii' a fielders all should be__cencerned. about: anything in their jurisdiction, he saw no evidence that four out• Of the five ' superviaors had . any concern about whet '\ apponed fa the. Merth County, He did not see that changing in toe f4ture- because the supervisors', political careers were all oriented towards San dose, and it behooved the CO1ncil to take ' n c 0 the 9 s A A they l r c B• • d 1 t� � cognizance of facts as ti3�cf were. . Sy and large Nevpl L-' only arrived at tough decisions when under time pressures to do so, and by not having a procedure that conditioned the project's going forward on agreeing to the type of process outlined, Council was in effect saying it did not care as much about it as it should. Council's was obliged to its citizens to be pr'udent and protect their welfare, and he did not believe Council went as far as it should on it, and while he liked some of the things that were said, he believed Council should go further. Councilmember Renzel asked for clarification that Council already approved Stanford West subject to conditions. Mr. Freeland said no. Council certified an Environmental Impact Report, but the project approval itself never returned to the Council. Councilmenaber Renzel asked if the project approval was something consistent with the zoning that would just go through the staff level. Mr. Freeland said no. There would be an ARB approval plus he understood a condominium subdivision that would have returned to the Council. Councilmember Renzel clarified that there would also be a subdivi- sion map which would essentially be the City's control on Stanford West; Mr. Freeland said ye,s, and he believed there was every reason to believe that the ARB approval would have found its way to the Council as well. Councilvayr ber Renzel associated herself with the comments of Mayor Klein also with respect to the fact that the thrust of his amend- ment was to develop some land use control in the corridor so that the projections were not worse. Little traffic impact was attrib- uted to the 86 -acres, so whatever happened there while the plan- ning process under Counc i' member Sutori us' substitute went on was apt to throw the intersections into unacceptable levels of service. She believed it was important for Council to get some level of control as suggested by Mayor Klein Counciimember Woolley said as Council concentrated on the Willow Road project, it was reasonable that it focused on the impacts of the Stanford project on Palo Alto and lost site that it was a two-way street and that Palo Alto also impacted the University. She supported Councilceezber Sutori us' substitute because she liked the emphasis in the first part upon a joint effort between the City and the University with the County, and the idea of a common planning' process as emphasized in the third part.' It allowed the door to stay open, the twO groups . to keep working together, and that was the direction. on which Council should concentrate Councilaaember Bechtel agreed with the concerns. about some kind of a time deadline, but at :tie same 'time, knew- how ;long It took to work something out. She knew how long it took to work .out the CS agreements, but a more specific time line than that contained in the substitute was necessary. MIUSIVENT , . TO SIIIWITOTE Cemocilnember Seektel sewed, aeiom ed by Caret :mat a lel nimmosostt be completitt w! -thin One year free $epteaar- 1*, .t $4 F Counc;l1member Fletcher asked what happened if the process was not completed , i n one year. Counc l l member Renzel pointed out that the way the ”cdndi ti on" was worded, it was not conditional at all. It essentially, allowed the project to proceed and Stanford was ender no obligation "to dance 1110 a monkey on a string" to conditions 1, 2 and 3 unless. it wanted something. She believed it was important that Council not allow the project to proceed when the problems for that project were not litigated. Council must know it was not going to have a worse situation than the EIR identified, and Council had no sanc- tion if in one year there was enot even a process started. There was nothing to compel the process to start. Cbuncilmember Fletcher asked if Council would have the leverage to deny the Stanford West subdivision map when it returned to Council based on the amendment to the substitute motion. Assistant City Attorney. Sandy Sloan said State law made it diffi- cult to reduce the density of a project below the zoning in place, and that other laws would else apply. Councilmembor Fletcher believed the subdivision map regulations were specific on,the grounds on which Council may deny, and she imagined they were not sufficiently .broad to allow Council to deny a project because Stanford did not go through a process with the County which was remotely related to the subdivision map itself. Ms. Sloan said the broadest language in the Subdivision Map Act related to if the map was not in conformance with the general plan. If the process ended up with an agreement becorai g part of the Comprehensive Plan, it would give the Council some leverage. Cauncilmember Fletcher clarified that if an agreement was not included in the City's Comprehensive Plan by the time the Stanford West project returned to Council, there would be no legal right to deny on the basis of a particular process. Ms. Sloan said it would be difficult because of other state laws. Mayor Klein asked if a new -EIR would be required if Stanford returned with a substantially modified proposal for Stanford West. Ms. Sloan said there were guidelines contained i n the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) about supplementing EIR's or doing a subsequent EIR, which would depend on how great the modi- fications were. Mayor Klein asked if the modification or ` suppl eaent to the EIR would have to return for certification by the Council. Pis. Sloan said yes. Mayor Klein said at that point Council could suggest various miti- gations, etc. Ms. Sloan said yes. Councilmearber Renzel asked if Stanford calve in for a subdivision under its current Elk or something less dense than the current EIR, whether a supplementary EIRwould be requir d if: the impacts were less than identified in the'present EIR, and whether the City had an option about whether to consider a subdivision :crap when offered pr whether it was automatically \approved if Council failed to consider within a period of time:, Ms. Sloan said a s.eppl ementel EIR w ui 4 Still :be.. ,required if -the project's impacts were less`; but that process was much easier than a subsequent EIR. Council always had a, right to evaluate a proj- ect on its own merits : even if an EIR concluded no significant environmental effects, Council did not have toapprove a project and " could deny under the other discretionary approvals of the, Council ;.,. Councilmember Renzel clarified that the protect had to be con- sidered or it was automatically approved. Ms. Sloan said yes. Councilmember Renzel clarified that Council could not decide to not consider the project until something was imp Cemented . Ms. Sloan said yes. Cc unc i l member Cobb believed the process did provide a basis. He believed Council would have the tools to simply not consider the project because it had no plan on which to base it. Councilmember Sutorius appreciated the detailed concerns being explored, but regretted that Council found itself with words and phrases that suggested a mistrust. He believed th.a.t when Council used: terms that conveyed mistrust as an impression, it did not help the environment they were working with and drove them away from thinking about hew to get the worthwhile things accomplished. He opined that the applicant was interested in pursuing those elements because it got down to . reasonably simple terms, under- standable thresholds and processes, which he was confident could come out' of the process. Council continually focused on white hat/black hat kinds of considerations that he believed did no good. He urged Council to think in terms of a total process, a co,nti nuum , and getting it completed rather than working at pre- cisine road blocks. AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE NOTION PASSED by a vete ef 6-3, Menzel, Woolley, Al e1 a vote mg *me.. Councilmember Renzel urged Council to vote against the substitute motion. While she concurred that it would be nice to have ele- ments of trust in the negotiations, she believed Council was faced with a decision that was directly related to the land use in the area, and it was imperative that Council do everything possible to ensure that the land use comported with the traffic projections, which Mayor Klein's motion did. She believed the substitute motion, particularly in light of -Stanford's request for release from the City's CS zone, was- not meaningful. SUBSTITUTE -, bOTIOM AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Menzel, Fletgk'r, Klein v. t.lag 'a.. Councilmembee Renzel remained concerned about, the '.degr=ee of expan- sion at Stanford Shopping Center despite Councilm'amber Sutorius' earlier motion. As she saw it, that motion permitted a mi ni uum of 40,000 square>�feet of expansion before any planning process went into play, and she preferred, since those Were not Inca u'ded in the traffic projections, and since Council: was unclear as to exactly how much internal space could be converted, that Council permit no further expansion of the shopping center until a planning` process was completed to identify exactly how much should occur. ASEMOSEUT: Ces ecilmoeAer teasel moved that se farther expansive of the Stamford $k ppi es Center be permitted setai a pleasing process was complited, ,to .identify exactly bow ouch smeel d eecOr. AMENDNEXT DIEM FON LACK Of A SECOND AMMISIIEST; Condo member Waal sawed a►t tee twe ' leans Wm,. t* El_;tt ee :.Real be a public Street; Councilmember Renzel saidthat since 1i11lew Road was a public road from Arboretum up to `Santa Cruz/Sdnd Will, .`Council should require that the two lanes that went to El Camino also be .a pUbl is street. She believed that gave the City a little better control in the 1on9: range and it .made sense to be in the City's' jurisdiction in terms of it being :a collector arld arterial street. 1 AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Coraci l member Cobb meted,, seconded by Sutori es, to add Item 014 ea page 19, to direct staff to work with Stanford to develop and implement traffic controls end/er designs which would improve the projected, pest ezteasfu level of service at the El Cassia/Embarcadere intersections. Councilaember. Cobb said he previously asked whether sucn mecha- nisms were available to the. Council to try and do something about that intersection. He was concerned that when looking at the projected levels of service, it was the one intersection that tended to get up to a bad area. He understood there were ways in which traffic could be directed such that there would be fewer left turns onto Embarcadero and more cross traffic like there was presently. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Freeland said recommendation 2(A)2 called for modifications to that intersection which staff understood to be the modification needed to satisfactorily address level of service. Counci1nrembee Cobb said he was more interested in whether there were ways for Council to address traffic in such a way that there would be fewer left turns and more cross traffic. He understood the extension would create more traffic turning left onto Embarcadero than going straight across, which was what created the level of service problem. Mr. Fairchild said the extension would attract traffic and he understood that Councileaenrber Cobb .proposed to nullify some of the natural attraction effects of :the extension by chaannelization or turn prohibitions. Councilinember Cobb asked if staff believed the levels of service i ndieeted at El Camino/Embarcadero were the best that could be done with the Willow Road extension. Mr. Fairchild said staff reviewed the consultant's forecasts and they appeared reasonable. Unless there were some ways to make turn prohibitions or channel ization, the volumes projected were the most likely levels of service. Nr. Schreiber noted that the mitigations identified ;n 2(A)2 would bring the intersection back to a level of service "D." .The miti- gations would basically compensate for the traffic that now might use the campus and go straight through the intersection, and which after the extension would use the extension and El Camino and them a left-hand turn. He anticipated the mitigation as part of the project and it would improve the level of service. AMENDMENT WIT11l&AV8 LASES OM U..SC11UEIIEk`S .CBMiIENTS Vice Mayor l.evy said Council received a letter from Herb R®rock (which is on :file in the City Clerk's office), which asked .about the total amount of new floor area that could be a approved . under Cauncilae er Sutorius° amendment and was approved .last week. He asked ter Comment. — Mr: Freeland: said ,staff ° dotal:$ Rot provide, a figure,s and' said, it went back to the question about the potential for expansion over existing buildings, to believed it would be substantial. Staff knew there was 10,000 square feet of new floor area which, might reflect itself, and perhaps 30,000 of total building with a new three-story building and a . 10,000 square foot footprint. Staff knew of 10,000 sqv re feet at Macy's that: might be converted. and:. there was the 20,000 at the Emporium. There might be some other indeterminate amount of secondstory additions that would be exempt under the language, but that would have to return for new approvals and would be subject to substantial additional review. 5 1 © 1 9/18/84 Vice Mayor Levy said that was not the way he believed he was vot- ing last week when he voted on the item. At that time, his assumption was that he was approving something like 40,000 'square feet total of new construction that could be built until such time as a new plan for zoning was •developed for the shoppingcenter. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded. by Fletcher, to amend paragraph 2(0)1(8) to include laesfaage is limit additional floor area to as additional feetprint area of 10,000 serare feet and as mere than 30,000 additional square feet, not iocledlog the projects already approved bet net yet caestrected. Councilmember Cobb asked how the 30,000 square foot number com- pared with plans about which staff was aware. sir. creel and said he was only aware of the 10,000 square feet at Macy' s which was already approved and which would be exempted from the language, and the current construction of the Neiman Marcus store. The 20,000 square feet at the Emporium was discussed but he was unaware of any plans. Councilmeeher Witherspoon was concerned that before Council willy-nilly cut off potential sales tax revenue, it know what it was doing. A lot depended on how the space was used. If the Emporium was going to develop 20,000 square feet for.. storage or warehousing and would not generate a lot more traffic, she had no concerns. If they were going to do a major expansion, she wanted it to go through the Architectural Review Board, and for Council to have a handle on what kind of traffic it would generate, but she was mindful that the bulk of the City's sales tax revenue came from the Stanford Shopping Center and she did not want to arbi- trarily el iminate it. She would not support the amendment. (Mayor Klein would not support the amendment. He was uneasy with Counciimember Srftorius' motion the previous week bat believed he could live with it especially since it seemed acceptable to all! but he did not like the idea of suddenly grabbing a figure like 30,000 square feet out of the air. It did not seem like an appro- phi a.te way for the Council to do planning for ;a sensitive area. Coencilmember Fletcher said the limitation would only be for a short period of ti e until the full impacts were assessed and re-evaluated as a result of the extra traffic from the Willow Road project if that was approved. , Council+aember Renzel clarified that the motion meant 60,000 square. feet total, and it essentially changed by 10,000 square feet what Council could foresee happening now. Vice Mayor Levy said the intent of his amendment was to allow what might be natural at the. present .time to go ahead, but: not .substan- tial new unforeseen building. Conn; ilmeaaber Renzel supported the amendment only because it elim- inated the construction that might occur on second -story addi- tions) but she did not regard it as - a significant ehan;e other- wise. A MDMEMT ,E L .D by a eetare of 3-'0, Fletcher, Menzel, Levy estieg Niro.- Mayor Klein was concerned about paragraph 2(B)1) end the language which which seemed : to tie the hands of the Planning Coesission. They were being told exactly what to do as apposed- tobeing given dis- cretion. Me : asked if that language was developed by staff and what Was the thought . behind it Mr. Freeland said it reflected the planning Commission's, recom- mendation. The original staff recommendation to the Commission was somewhat broader end included a variety of potential reLvr in s 9i i.3 3 including PF and Open Space. It was the Planning Commission's strong desire that it be limited to open space. Councilmember Renzel said in the last year, Council had considered Stanford West, the Hospital • Maderni zati on Project (HMP), and now the Willow Road project. There was a condominium conversion at Oak Creek and a number of activities with respect to the shopping center that did not go to the Council that were approved by bodies long ago. Council was essentially required by .law to look at the cumulative impact of what it did in a particular area. With respect to the HMP and Stanford. west, Council imposed what appeared to be conditions, but in fact had no teeth. For example, unless the Santa Cruz/Sand Hill intersection was done, .Council did not address those impacts. The Willow Road motion as submitted by the Planning Commission was what the r;ommissioners who supported it minimally.believed would result in a road with slightly im- proved characteristics over the present situation. The Council, by its various amendments, actually removed many of those mitiga- tion propueal.s end weakened them. Council discovered in the course of its discussions that them; was some 30.,000 s'quare feet of shopping center that was not included in the proposal, and it was clear that the 86 -acres was only minimally factored into the levels of service that were seen on the road. She believed Council Ras being asked to approve a road which in some instance would actually lower the level of service below what was exper- ienced today, and at the same time, the proposals to mitigate that "loss of efficiency" had no teeth. She believed it was irrespons- ible of the City Council to approve a roadway such as the One pro- posed without all the attendant possible identified mitigations Council was creating a situation where it was pointing a lot of frustrated traffic straight at downtown which already had its own set of problems, and at the same time it was not solving, to any significant degree, Stanford's problem with traffic through the shopping center. It was anticipated that much of it would con- tinue and some of the base factors included Arboretum as if it ran through the shopping center, which it did not do since it was a public road. Council was the decision -me er and it could not expect decision -makers five years from nc .to remember all the conditions which Council believed it was including in terms of the Children's Hospital site, the 86 -acres, and the Stanford Shopping Center. She expected a future City Council would see more appli- cations for those things, and it was irresponsible for the present City Council to not awake sure those adverse impacts did not occur. She would not support the project. Council *ember Fletcher also had problems with the project although on the surface it wade sense to continue the .road to connect with a elajor arterial. She was afraid of several impacts. One was the increase in traffic on Embaresdero Road which was bound to occur if Council increased capacity at the intersection by the proposed additional left -turn lane that word d . be required .to mitigate the added trips that would .come fr oe the; project.: There would be a residential neighborhood impacted because of th3 additional left - turn lane and:a►ddi ti onal trips. She was alto efra i d' .that with the additional congestion at El .Camino and Ravenswood in Menlo Park, gradually as that congestion built up, , tiler's would be more trips taken through the shopping center to get out of the main entrance in order to make the -right turn onto Alma Street, in order to avoid Ravenswood which would- be severely - ieepacted, : id order to reach 101 or - the new University Avenue west to the Dumbarton Bridge, which had not been 'Mentioned 4e barteh [fridge now had the direst access to gdi yeasi ty Avenue and the trips coming: from the west were not gdi ng;, to use University Avenue through the busi- ness district if : they Coul4 avoid it, tnd the fears of the Down- town Park Worth. residents hadsome real basis in fact, and the did not want., to create a road' which would add` to that - proesdr, to find alternate routes. She- was also concerned with the additional trips coming on- Willow Road, the congestion at the El Camino end would increase over the' years: and the pressure would be on to open 6 1 0 3. 9/18/84 e it up to Alma Street. With the backups every day, it would peake infinite sense to the people then making the decisions to extend Willow Road and link it up to Alma just as Council was doing now to El Camino Real. The pressure would then be on for Alma Expressway, which was being considered at one time. The total effect of the project was to relieve the congestion of the internal roads in the Stanford area --Quarry, Arboretum, Welch,. and Pasteur --and it would increase the congestion at Oak Creek, which was a residential neighborhood, and. on Emoarcadero Road, which was. a residential neighborhood. There were no residenfes adjoining Pasteur, Quarry, Arboretums, and Welch, although there was a project in the works there, and she did not believe in shifting the traffic from nonresidential neighborhoods to residential neighborhoods. Although on the surface it made sense to cut the road through in order to go straight through, it would not sig- nificantly decrease travel time and it would have .adverse impacts on the .neighborhoods and eventually on Alr a. Street, Mayor Klein supported the motion. In his opinion, the full exten- sion was neither the panacea that proponents would claim nor the disaster that some of its opponents claimed. He believed the slogan "who wants 4 road that ends in a shopping center" was nice, but it carried with it the idea that the problems on Willow would go away with the extension. Those who lived with tie problems knew better than that, but in his conversations with citizens, they believed it would do a lot more than it would. It was unfor- tunate that the project was oversold --Willow would still be a difficult road to use, people would still be backed up, and they would still spend a lot of time getting to Sharon Heights or Portola Valley at S:30 or 6:00 p.m. . That should be said many times because he believed that when the road was built, people would complain to Stanford and Palo Alto that it did not do what they believed was claimed for it in 1984.. The extension primarily benefited the shopping center, and he had no problem with that, he just welshed it was stated more explicitly at the outset. He liked the shopping; center, it was . good for the . City, and , there :a, nothing wrong with benefiting the Stenfcrd Shopping Center, but it did not mean it solved all the other problems with regard to the Willow extension.+: Secondarily, it removed traffic from various internal Stanford streets, which was okay, but it did_ not mean traffic would move faster, it would just move in an area where the proponent, Stanford University, preferred to have the traffic. The benefits were there, but they were not wonderful. On the other hand, he did not see it as the threat subscribed to it by various people. kree the resurrection of .the long -dead Willow Expressway he believed to be a scare story that had no justifi- cation. Council's action requiring the coodi ti on that Palo Alto have a veto power over the use of the turns from .E1 Camino onto Palo Alto Avenue and'Alma would sot the last nail in the coffin to the idea that somehow it would be converted `into . a new cross peninsula road. He saw the detriments to the project as rela- tively minor.. Yet, there were certain .intersections that would have increased traffic, some intersections would have increased traffic no _matter what happened in the area. The relatively short mad by itself was set ‘ going to be :;the traffic, inducer of a major road like the new Dumbarton Bridge. When he w.l ghed the benefits and detrl melts of the project, he . found a _ quantifiable and sig- nificant aeeaat of benefits and = not ; a lot of detriments and, therefore, . supported it. Be was concerned red about what Council was doing on the 86 -acres since that ;_was., the greatwild card on what eight happen with traffic on the Willow ;extension. He was, dis- appointed by the Council's action and that Stanford was unwilling to do it right away. He auppor'tssd the potion because he believed in actuality. The motion,; while net as . strong as he would . have liked* was still strung enough to give Palo Alto and Stanford a clear message` that ,Palo ;_Al to had`to be involy in the decision - Maki nf process as to whit west., on: in the, 86 -acres... When analyzing the Council ° s vote OA the verticalar motion by Counci1meober motion by Counc i l me ,b`r Sutor i us' , the vote was 6-3, and those who voted against it did riot believe it was strong enough. As he added it up, it meant Council was unanimous in feeling . it had to have appropriate land use controls, and participate in the deci- sion -making process for the 86 -acres. He was pleased it was a strong message, and he hoped it would enable the Council to move forward in the spirit of cooperation to get it worked out. If not, Council would have a great deal of difficulty with Stanford West. He regretted that Council was not using the present oppor- tunity to get done what needed to be done, but there ways still one more opportunity. He believed it behooved the Council, staff and the University to .move forward as quickly as possible to implement Counci 1 member . Sutori us ° motion. He would support the main motion and hoped the project would move forward, and that the land use planning process moved forward. Vice Mayor Levy said throughout the entire process, he remembered his belief that a safety problem existed and had to be addressed, and it was the fundamental element which guided him in considera- tion of the project. Movements in a shopping center were random in terms of automobiles backing up and moving forward, pedestrians moving everywhere, and children, bicyclists, etc. It was a dan- gero►Ms. place and lent itself to the possibility of strong lawsuits against the City .ie the future if not addressed. The most danger- ous time for the shopping center was in the winter months when it got dark early. As pointed out by Mayor Klein, Council addressed the safety problems modestly and in such a way that would not be a catastrophe or an overwhelming problem for the community. Those elements guided him, and some strong wording was .included and strong measures were taken to ensure that traffic did not cross El Camino. In many ways, Council communicated with Stanford its desires to work with them in terms of land use controls, having a strong review over what was done in the Willow Road corridor and strong input. He hoped those elements would serve the City wel l as it con; i dere . ` other elements along the Willow Road corridor. MAIM MOTION AS MEMO PASSED by a sate of 7-2, Fletcher,: Menzel vet#cg 'as.` Vice Mayor Levy said for two reasons, it was appropriate to rename Willow Road to Sand Hill Road. From a planning standpoint, it made no sense to have one road with two names. Secondly, it would send a signal throughout the community that Palo Alto had no intention whatsoever of connecting willow Road io Menlo Park to Willow Road in Palo Alto. Further, it would eliminate confusion from .people on 101 seeing Willow Road and wondering i f it was the Willow Reed being talked about in Palo Alto, TI Mt Vice Naylor Levy sowed, seconded by Cab, to direct. staff to lestl tnt►e appreprl&te ece re to Bbooge the name of 'billow Road is Pale Alts te Sand Mill Reed. NOTION VASSftU ee40110es1, . ITEM 07, RECONSIDERATION AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE. AMENDING NOTION : TO #T1 t Mayerj* e.i a moved, se$**4eN b: bts1, t.a centime* nom to •etebsr 1, 0014 TIDE !ASSES aaarrf a1y. ADJOURNMENT OF ADJOURNED MEETING OF SEPTEMBER Council adjourned the adjourned meeting. of September 11, 1984 at 11:00 p.e ATTE CITY COUNCIL MINUT€.s CITY OF MK) ALIO Regular Reeti ng Monday, September 17, 1984 Adjourned to Tuesday., September 18, 1984 ITEM item #11, Ordinance re Moratorium Procedures Item #12 Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on Development in the Primary Study Area of Downtown Palo Alto PAGE 5 1 0 7 5 1 2 3 Adj ournraent: 1:35 a .m. 5 1 2 5 Regular Meeti ne Monday, September 17, 1984 Adjourned to Tuesday, September 18, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 11:00 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel , Sutori us:, Witherspoon, Woolley ITEM 111, ORDINANCE RE MORATORIUM PROCEDURES (PLA 3-16-1) Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that the ordinance was the procedure for imposing moratoria in any part of town and that Council should keep the broad view. Mayor Klein, said that was correct. Councilmember Witherspoon supported having a procedure for mora- toria because it was only fair for everyone to knew - the rules by which Council would play the game. The staff report of September 13, said approval would not be final until the City Council took action, but in the staff report reviewing the downtown moratorium, there was a retroactive trigger, which was not provided for in the rules. She asked for clarification. Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan said -she concentrated so much on moratoria that there were two sections of the first ordinance, which needed clarification. Section One was a proposed amendment to the Architectural Review code, 16.48.150, and Section Two was a proposed amendment to the Mani ne map regulations. Technically, any amendment to the zoning map must be reviewed by the Planning Commission: before the City Council takes action. She proposed that Council discuss Section One, but send Section Two to the Planning -Commission for review with recommended language from Section One. The staff report of September 13 clarified that the City Attorney's office interpreted Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval suggested by Mayor Klein and Councilmember Fletcher, that the ARB technically did not approve thins wader the Architectural -Review ordinance, it made a recommendation to the ei rector of Planning, but had no independent authority. If the &tirector's decision was appealed, it went to the City Council. If there was an appeal, there was no final design approval until the Council took action. The September 13 staff=-. report stated that receipt of final design approval was required, tut if a project's design was approved by the Director of Planning, and appealed within the requisite tine limit, the - approval would not be final until the`;:City Council took action. Item 012 was consistent with that language because it wa`s drafted such that it was necessary to have final design approval by September 17 in order for a project to be completed, Since final design approval was not complete until "the City Council acted, and if an appeal was filed before September 17, the project could not be completed. Councilmember Witherspoon said she was striving for consistency as much as possible, but it was difficult because it was not a final approval until the City Council _ took action. On the other hand, there were ?'many slips 'between the cop, and lip' as far as getting to the City Council and she wanted a process that would make it a little loss uncertain. She suggested the moratoria be triggered when someone submitted what the Planning . Department Certified to be a complete appl icatie:in, ,a i‘;a allowed them to stay in the pipe- T�ir�• 1. did not mean Council would .approve the project or that it would not 'be appeal td and maybe turned downby the City Council or die u rector, of Planning. It Wowed the project to stay in the planning process until something .was finalized, and if it received `approval. the clock started running and they had only a year to Complete if the moratorium lasted longer than a year. Vice Mayor Lcva said staff's iiteep retation of ARB approval was final design approval which meant ARB approval , staff approval, appeal and Council approval. He asked if there was any reason to not use ARB approval with the understanding that ARB approval was not legally binding in tens of being final design approval. The term "ARB approval was always used, and he assumed there was no reason Council could not adopt ARB approval as the cut-off point if it chose to do so. He referred to the narrow ARR recom- mendation for approval. Ms. Sloan said it could be done, but she suggested the term be "ARB recommendation." There was also no reason to not hav' the cut-off when the application was deemed complete. Vice Mayor Levy understood that applications for so-called "pre- liminary ARB approval," were often incomplete and that a com- pleted application was normally submitted for final approval. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said preliminary architec- taral review was not intended to lead to any kind of approval whatsoever. It was a courtesy of the ARB to extend advice on whatever kinds of drawl tgs the applicant wanted to bring forward. There was no staff review, and the materials were generally insuf- ficient to constitute an approval. An official application for ARB approval was a separate application stream from preliminary review. In that event, staff would not send the project to the ARB until it was determined that all of the drawings were in order and all the necessary documents were submitted. Vice Mayor Levy asked which projects in the downtown area were accepted by staff as complete. Mr. Freeland said 379 Lytton was received as complete and, received a favorable ARB recommendation; and 275 Alma was accepted as com- plete for processing. Counci latember Sutorius believed the ordinance was broadly worded because of the nature of the Commission process, and an amendment could wily ly appear on a Commission agenda and not be finally acted upon for ages. That would create a limbo period where no one, including _the City, potential applicants, property owners or concerned parties would have any idea as to the probable status. He believed that language should be worked over. Oiarmuid .McGuire, 327 Waverley, said Council decisions on mora- toria criterion were critical to the future of Palo Alto and he urged that Council be strict. Re heard a tendency to loosen the net, and believed if it were loosened, it would render the meaning of moratoria null and void. There were many projects in the works that would progress if Council loosened the criterion. He pointed out that Palo Alto previously experienced projects slipping through the Planning approval process before strict regal tenns were applied, to. wit: 525 University Avenue, which was a contin- uing source of embarrassment to Palo Alto in that it was totally inappropriate given Palo Alto's direction since the building was constructed. At least one project under ; consideration which received a favorable ARB recommendation, , would constitute a simi- lar embarrassment i f the criterion were loosened to allow the project to slip through. David Jury,- Hare, Brewer 1 Kelley, 305 Lytton Avenue, said by the there MB approval was received, money was spent, and a hardship existed for 'someone who applied under a moratorium. Theway the ordinance was proposed, a project could be eliminated from even having en appeal. An appeal could be filed, and in essence, become soot if the effective date of the moratorium fell between the time AR® approval was received and the hearing date of the appeal. He believed that was unreasonable and Council should review it carefully. 5 1 0 8 9118/84 Tom French, 031 Coleridge Avenue, an attorney with Ware, Fletcher, Fri edenri c h , spoke on behalf of Hare, Brewer & Kelley, -the owner of a project at 379 Lytton Avenue. He hoped Council understood that Hare, Brewer & Kelley made no effort to end -run the more- 'torium under consideration. Numerous delays were encountered and as a result, the project was in ARB for more than six months while- height and floor area ratio dowescal i ngs occurred in response to the Council ' s request. He believed the moratorium standard should be to exempt projects submitted as complete applications to the ARB and which were accepted as complete by the ARB; or, that ARB final design approval be the. cut-off, regardless of whether an ARB appeal was filed. He was concerned that in the current draft'of the moratorium exemption criteria as interpreted by the City Attorney, final design approval appeared to be specifically aimed at their project since it was the only downtown project in the pipeline which received ARB design approval and which approval was subject to a pending appeal by -citizens. Council never before adopted such a rigid standard in dealing with e: empti ons to mora- toria, and he requested that Council be fair in dealing with their project and evaluating the moratorium criteria. He pointed out that establishing a final approval date after an ARB approval was taken and exhausted would not protect against visiting any hard- ship on property owners, since much of the project costs were incurred well before an ARB appeal was taken. He was also con- cerned that using the final approval date after an ARB appeal was fully taken and exhausted might have the unintended and undesir- able effect of encouraging frivolous appeals by citizens with no stake economically and nothing to lose. That would be harmful to property owners and would cause uncertainty and delay. He was also concerned that adopting the final approval date as the cut- off after the ARB appeal was taken and exhausted would deny a property owner of its lawful right to be heard in an ARB appeal. He was concerned that every time a citizen sensed a moratorium in the offing, they would file ARB appeals against projects which they disliked. If the moratorium intervened while the appeal was pending, the property owner would have effectively lost all right to have his appeal heard.. A further legal concern about the pro- posed effective date, be it final ARB approve1 date after all appeals from the ARB were taken, was that it effectively 'operated to delegate to citizens the authority to include or not inel ude, in an arbitrary pick and choose}.fashion, properties within a pend i ng moratorium scope. He believed delegation of that power to citizens was improper and subject to serious constitutional ques- tions. Only the City government was lawfully .empowered to act to adopt moratoria or to hear 'and judge appeals of the City's actions. He asked that Council recd .nize the significant hardship that would be visited upon Hare, Bre her & Kelley if the' draft as presently. proposed was adopted tad the legal issues presented by the current language, and adopt an ordinance which was free of those legal concerns. He urged that the per ei ssi bl a .cut-off point .be either the date upon which the applicant's ARB application was deemed accepted by the ARB; or, the date upon which AIRS gave its final design approval of a project regardless of whether an appeal of that ARB approval was later taken. Mayor Klein asked whether Council _could consolidate the discussion on. items #11 and #12 and hive people speake to both items to gether. Ms. Sloan said it was proper to discuss both items together. Mayor Klein asked $r. French, Mr. McGuire, and Mr. Jury if they had further coeeererats with respect to Item 012. 5I 0,9 9/18/84 Mr. French said the Hare, Brewer & Kelley project was caught up in the moratorium as currently drafted because an appeal of an ARB approval was filed by citizens. He pointed out that the project was further along the pipeline than any other project affected, and as a result there would be greater damage to Hare, Brewer & Kelley if the moratorium as written was adopted. He requested that Council act with fairness and sensitivity as it had previously in dealing with prior actions regarding moratoria, and that Council consider the hardship that would fall on Hare, Brewer & Kelley if the ordinance, as proposed, was adopted. The proposed cut-off standard was more rigid than any other one previously ado- pted by the City. In the case of the Parsons project on Park Boulevard, Council dealt with a moratorium with respect to the development on Park, and ci ti lens had appealed an ARB approval of that project. Council specifically rejected the concept of block- ing a project which had made it to the ARB appeal stage, and spe- cific comments were made that any project which progressed that far should to be permitted to proceed, and to do otherwise would be unfair. Mr. McGuire..urged that Council apply the moratorium fairly and impartially. He believed the maximum criterion available under law would block any development not currently under construction or on which substantial construction had taken place. Council's position was considerably short of that, and Council's position,, regarding final design approval was appropriate and should be applied across the board without exceptions fo.r anyone. The City was imposing a moratorium because full build -out would require thousands of new parking spaces and unprecedented traffic Jams in Palo Alto. Failure to impose the rules now, i partially and across the board, would allow the possibility of buildings going up which would not be permitted under the new rules and would create the possibility of eyesores. Regarding Lytton Avenue, the Apple Computer offices at 181 Lytton Avenue occupied 19,737 square feet; the Webster Square building at 265 Lytton including the Gatehouse was 19,317. The Hare, 3reeer & Kelley offices at 305 Lytton were 10,690 square feet. The building that Hare, Brewer. and Kelley wanted to build on the corner of Waverley and Lytton was presently proposed at 39,000 square feet, which was twice the size of anything else on Lytton Avenue. It would be a quantum leap in the development of Lytton Avenue and the same kind of thing on Lytton Avenue as 525 University was on University. Mr. Jury said the project at 379 Lytton went through four .ARB meetings, and on three different occasions they went back to the architects for: red +sign. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were ,peat en the project, and it was in the MB for six months, with a total project time so far of about ten months. The building as approved, was far from. .the maximum allowed because of meetings with the ARB .and citizens. The Council historically treated proj- ects fairly when that much time and money was invested, and he requested that .the criteria either be ARB acceptance or the _ final design approval, with the condition that if an appeal was made, and . if the appeal was net ' uccessfui and the ARB decision was upheld, that the date of ARB approval be used rather than the appeal date. He did not expect Council to judge the merits of the prof ect that evening, but simply deal with the moratorium : issue. He requested the opportunity to present their project and full consideration of the merits at the time of the ARB appeal Geoff Bertelsen, 960 Waaverl ey Street. lived and was an .architect, in Palo Alto. He shared Council's concerns about the future development,, but believed the moratorium procedure ordinance was rushed into because of Item #12. He believed there were problems with the wordings- that Might create hurried act1 oes and establish rigid positions that would not lead to the best designs or con- struction. He suggested the wording be improved to allow adequate 5 1 1 0 9/18/84 reviews, design modifications, and inspections by the various professionals involved with City staff, architects, engineers and contractors. It was important to look at the environmental assessment report tied to the ordinance and then refer to the report presented for Item 412, specifically the second page, last paragraph, which referred to the financial commitmeaes of making an ARB application or building permit documents. The financial commitment was not small, and time was needed to process and perfect the work. He believed the best cut-off date was submis- sion s- sion of the plans to the ARB in a case where the ARB was involved. He further suggested that minor and reasonable design modifica- tions be allowed to previously approved projects under the rules in force when the project was submitted or approved. In addition, when ARB review was not required, the date of submission for either the building or use and occupancy permit should be the cut- off date. When Council takes emergency action or; a moratorium, it was appropriate the cut-off date be the submission of the pl an . to the ARB or the Building Department, as applicable. Regarding Item #12, under staff discussion on the effects of the ordinance, the second paragraph regarding the effective date seemed to contradict Item #5, where it was said that final approval would allow the project to go forward. In the discussion it said, even if ARB eppr.ov 1 -was received, no more building permits would be accepted. He was confused, and believed it would be more clear for everyone if the cut-off date was the submission of the final documents to the ARB or the Building Department, and it was especially important if Council was going to approve an emergency action. Millie Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, understood that case law est b= l i shed the cut-off time for exemptions from zone changes or mora- toria at the time of substantial construction on the project; therefore, granting the exemption at the ARB level was already an early stage in the project. With regard to Item x#12, a survey was published in a July 3 Palo Alto Weedy ad regarding approval of an office moratorium in the dow�itown area. In August and September, a newsletter was distributed in Paso Alto, and there were 102 responses to those newsletters, 87 of which supported the office moratorium in Che downtown. A major portion of the replies were received from the Crescent Park, University Park, and the Downtown a. ■ t citizens all' + Park '.forth area, ��� over the City *ere worried about the effects of continued office construction downtown. She sub- mitted petitions (which are on file in the City Clerk's office). Anne tircol ani , 2040 Ash, said the purpose of discussing the cut- off date separately was so it would not be tied to a specific moratorium, but that was not happening. She did not belinec the specific cut-off was intended towards a particular project. All the moratoria Council Imposed so far were where conditions were considered • critical and it was necessary to postpone development while studies were completed so that Planning options would not be precluded. Allowing anything less than final approval by the Council if an ARB decision was appealed was necessary for mora- toria to be effective when those critical conditions existed; otherwise, further problems would only exacerbate those condi- tions. She hoped Couicii would use no less than the ARB approval, including an/ appeal as the cut-off. As : to the specific downtown moratorium, it appeared that lastmonth's Council and public dis- cussion and goals for the downtown study, indicated an urgency for moratorium. If the reasons for the moratorium were to be effec- tively addressed, she urged an emergency ordinance be pessaed for the moratorium so the cut-off date for approvals would be yester- day, which would allow all of the ,_options under the goals over- whelmingly endorsed to be effectuated through the downtown study. uebra Holvick, 670 San Antonio Road, had a pruject at 275 Alma. She submitted a letter to the Council (which is on file in the City Clerk's office) that explained why her project should be exempted from the moratorium. -She shared the City s concern over the parking situation in the downtown -area, and applauded Council's determination to address that and many other problems facing that area of the City. Having closely.monitored the City's land. use decisions and. discussions during the past year, she was sensitive to the problems and issues affecting the downtown area. She specifically designed and modified her project in:a manner to address many of the `City's concerns over downtown development. The density of the project was limited to a floor area ratio of 1.5 to 1 even though zoning allowed for 3:1. The project provided all .on -site parking, --which was probably excessive since the Southern Pacific depot was located almost directly across the street. -- The project provided retail and office uses, .and to reduce the height of the garage, an expensive second floor of underground parking was added. The fourth floor of the offices was set back to give the visual appearance of a three-story build - illy. If previous downtown projects approached the self- imposed limitations of her project, she doubted there would be any need for a moratorium. The project Was less 'intensive than the zoning criteria under the recently adopted CC -2 zoning ordinance for California Avenue, ani it would be unfair to include her project in a moratorium because she relied on City actions in the recent past in going forward on the project and spent almost two years carefully planning it. On duly 9, the Council voted to not include the downtown CC zoned property in a moratorium, .and prior to that meeting, her project architect, -Tony Carrasco, informed most Councilmembers of the pending project. If the Council wanted to, include her project in the moratorium, she. wanted to know as early as possible before spending additional time and money; but for many reasons, Council decided not to impose .the moratorium for the downtown area. No statements were made at the duly 9 meeting to give her any idea that Councilmembers would change their minds only two months later. In reliance upon Council action of July 9 and on statements wade in previous meetings, she pursued the project in good faith and expended approximately $80.000 to. date. A moratorium- affecting her project would not only represent a major personal financial loss, but would result in a major finan- cial. loss in the future because she already released her present tenant. To avoid such hardships, she urged Council to exclude her project from the moratoriums. Her project was accepted by City staff, and she believed the cut-off .point for the moratorium. procedure ordinance should ..be when a cempl ete application wee acceptedby staff. Florence LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, said notable .projects were recently approved. by the Council despite almost.unaniious public opaositl-on. She urged d not only the _moratoriums, but that it be -made as comprehensive as 'possible, and at its end,. zoning changes be made to ' contribute to a healthy Ipimate for small .downtown businesses and .protection of resi denti a * values. Pam Marsh, 327 .-liaverl ey, said she had urged Council to =adopt a moratorium downtown trree weeks. ago. As eeliember _of the Downtown Study Coumittee and ' a resident -of the downtown for .the past, nine ,rears, she :believed a moratorium was essential -Development down- town was at a critical point • : Each additional building- contri b.e uteri to the unresolved problems of parking and traffic,` and many contributed to the loss of a human scale downtowc. They changed. - the way someone felt about Walking down the street or about 111,109 i n the neighborhood. She believed a moratoriume until the goals of the downtown' study were put into .effe.ct, was short-term, but_ an important step. She iirged that. Council make ,the''moratorium as bread and -.inclusive` as possible...: It -was- too bad there, Were people planning to. Duna downtown .who ;had legitlrately invested time and.= energy into plans and who would be caught in the moratorium, but she did net believe there wet any - sol uti on to that. The fact that -- 5 1 1 2 9/18/84 people wanted to build things down town undei'l i vied the need for a moratorium. She ueeed adoption of a moratorium with no exemp- tions. Either Council was going to allow buildings to be built that might be considered inappropriate next year, or it presumed that people could guess the outcome of the downtown study and the development criteria that would be in place in downtown Palo Alto in a year. As a member of the Downtown Study Committee, she believed there were few ideas about what building criteria might be adopted in the next year. Each time a guess was made, the effectiveness of the downtown study was undermined. She believed the most fair moratorium was an all inclusivve one, and she urged Council to vote for that. Don Raynor, 2471 E. Bayshore Road, represented Debra Holvick, and said the proposed ordinance would exempt those projects which reached a certain cut-off point along the development process. The ordinance gave recognition to the fact that a moratorium was an extraordinary legislative measure which frequently imposed unreasonable and unfair hardships on developing property owners who expended a great deal of time and money on their project in reliance on exi sti ne City rules. The ordinance attempted to eliminate tnat unfair hardship. In principal he agreed with Section One of the ordinance, but believed the cut-off point should be the receipt of a complete ARB application, as Council - member Witherspoon suggested, rather than the point of design approval. Assuming the purpose behind the ordinance was to estab- lish a cut-off point beyond which it would be unfair to stop a project by a moratorium, he emphasized that substantial time and moneywas required for the preparation of a complete ARB applica- tion, which included an environmental assessment, traffic study, topographical map, landscape plans, site development plans, materials, signage, elevations, floor plans, and special sections. He noted that the time and expense to the developer was relatively small in most cases to go from the application stage to the design approval stage. The question was the most appropriate cut-off date in terms of fairness, and since the application and design approval points were so close to one another in the development process in terms of actual time and money spent by the developer, he believed there was a good reason to choose the ARB application Mss the cut-off point because it was a specific time, and it was basically at a stage in th.e development process which involved a lot of time and expense and it was close, in those terms, to the design approval stage. For that reason, he strongly urged that Council choose the complete ARB application as the cut-off point. The Holvick project had its ARB application submitted, and received preliminary review. He emphasized that exempting the Holvick project from the moratorium would not have the effect of approving the project. It was important to keep in mind that the project faced a whole host of development approvals including design approval, the possibility of appeal, and a subdivision map approval which would go before the Planning Comission - and City Council. Such an exemption would allow the project to be judged on its own merits, which was fair under the circumstances. Councilmember Cobb said regarding fairness that Council often heard about the costs incurred bysomeone who toot a. project down the development chain. He asked for clarification - that the dif- ference between the point requested and the one in the proposed ordinance was a relatively small cost differential, which he believed was a major part of the fairness issue. He asked for a ball park percentage number on the marginal costs between the two points. Waynor responded that it versed on the particular project. If the project was submitted in good,,shape-a, it could go from the ARB sppl icetl on ,to a design approval with a five percent increase in cost If there wore: a lot : of problems with a project. it could go as high as 20 percent. Both events involved a lot : of timeand expense, and he was concerood about the tremendous cost of putting together a complete ARB apps scat# pn Once at that point, a great deal of time and coney was spent. ` ' To go from there to the next point did not involve a lot of money. Mitchell eii l 1 er, 117 • Ferne, was an attorney and had development interests in Palo Alto. If Council made the 'moratorium cut-off the approval stage, it was taken out of the control of the devel- opers because after an application was submitted, a developer basically lost control over what happened until after approval was obtained. As an attorney, the statute of limitations were not based on the trial date or when the judge rendered his decision or when the Supreme Court rendered its decision —it was based on the filing date, which he believed was the only fair way that people could make wise and prudent decisions i n conducting their business activities. Betty Meltzer, 1241.. Dana, said at the Council's last meeting, it recognized the critical need for an immediate moratorium in order to assure the Downtown Study Committee an opportunity to implement its goals and as yet undefined plan. Council acknowledged that the parking and traffic congestion could only worsen with any con- tinued build -out and it had statistical evidence from the City's Planning Department to support the conclusion. She urged that Council maintain its decision reached at its last meeting, and to remember that the people of Palo Alto . wanted a downtown to cater to their needs and conveniences and not predominantly to the needs and conveniences of an office -filled downtown, which created a transient group of office workers who for the most part left town at 5:00 p and clogged the residential streets while exiting. She asked that Council rememberthat Palo .Alto residents wanted to keep their town and their downtown an attractive place to shop for a variety of purposes and a locale for meeting with friends and neighbors. She urged that Council not allow delays of the mora- torium. self-serving economic interests, and further realization of build out to destroy the qualities that Palo Alto residents cherished. James Morley, 160 Waverley, said Palo Alto might have blown it somewhere along the line and was just now seeing the results. Now was the time to do something about it, and he urged that Council adopt the moratorium on an emergency basis in order to give citi- zens an immediate breathing spell in which to assess the direction of downtown growth. What happened in downtown Palo Al to worked a hardship on residents who must`put up with the adverse effects of monstrous office space. °- The downtown study might take anther eight or nine months to complete, and he suggested it be completed under the umbrella of a moratorium beginning as quickly as pos- sible. Bob Moss, 4010 Ore, suggested an amehdmeh't to Section One of the moratorium ordinance procedures, fifth line after "a project which has received," insert the words ."a building permit." He saw a lot of garbage accepted for ARB review which sometimes returned to the ARB ,. as many as four and five tires before the architect and developer got it right, and even then it was not always right. Applications were sometimes incomplete, and sosetimes.it.was phys- ically impossible to build the .structure the way it was presented for ARB review, yet it was accepted as "a complete application. Sometimes the developer and the architect did not take advice frog the ARB' and repeatedly went in with bad projects. Sometimes proj- ects were difficult and the Building Department had a tough time accepting what was proposed, and sometimes the AFB gave mixed signals, and the Building Department had a tough time reconciling recommendations from various ARB members He believed an applica- tion to the .I RB was an inadequate criteria for accepting a proj- ect. If the I RB gave desige approval, the staff review was :emit- ted which frequently picked up gross errors in the construction, utilities and conditions which the ARB suggested ought to be reviewed, but' only staff could impose. Most, important was that the public would be disenfranchised from exercising, their right, to appeal the project for any number of reasons. A. project should be completed with MB review, but also staff reelew, design .detail s and construction and an opportunity fer the public to appeal it. He suggested the cut-off be made contingent upon receiving a building permit because all of the foregoing must precede a build- ing permit. As pointed out by Mr. Maynor, the difference between .submitting a project to the ARB and getting design approval for a good project was not that great. He believed the moratorium should be adopted as an emergency ordinance, and hoped Council would make a modification to add to Section 2, Page 2, end of the third line, "for conversion of nonoffice uses to financial services or office uses." The omission of financial services from the moratorium was a- big loophole as there were many discussions regarding banks repl act ng retail businesses downtown, and ,he believed financial services should be included in the moratorium. If Council accepted the concept of adopting the moratorium at the point of i ssuance :. of a building permit, everything else would of necessity fall out on .the right side, end there would not be the overdevelopment to overwhelm downtown before receipt of the advice of the oowntown Study Committee. Don Mullen, 618 Tennyson, said there were two moratoria before the Council, the second of which was added at the last minute and related to conversion of existing retail space to office use. He believed it was important to remember that the consultant's report did not find the kinds of problems that required a moratorium. The citizens group established to study the problem found shifts in retail and office use on the order of less than five percent and did not recommend taking any further steps. He had a large older building on the historic list that was out of the main down- town area. Convenience stores were not looking for space at the moment, and there were not a lot of offices looking for space. He found that if one did not want to rent immediate size space to another bar or restaurant, there was almost no one out there, and that was the major change. It was his decision to remodel his building, but he wanted the option of being able to utilize it for either other retail use or a portion for office. The choices being offered were only restaurants. He reminded the Council that a restaurant did not make a temporary change like a small 1,000 square foot office. They invested substantial sums of money on the order of $300,000 and up, demanded a minimum of 14 -year leases, and would dramatically change the nature of Palo Alto for a 1 ong ti me to come if that portion of the moratorium was adopted. It was becoming a mandate for restaurants, snack shops and bar use, which he slid not believe Was the Council's intention. He requested more study particularly as. it affected some of the older buildings. By expanding an area, that was originally only to include University Avenue and the side-streets, to include the entire downtown area would work a hardship on many owners of older buildings, and would mean more traffic because the use was restau- rant and bar. There was nothing presently to demand a mora- torium —changes of three to five percent in use could not be described as an emergency. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, regretted that the issues were .combined because she believed something was lost with the combination. The public wanted each issue reviewed on its own merits, 4nd she trusted that Council would do so in their own thought processes. If there was.. a moratorium proposed or a zoning change, that meant there was . a strong .public interest to do SO. - and that things in the pipeline eight subvert the fulfillment of that public interest. If, what went through the pipeline would subvert the public interest, it meant. the City had no control because virtually every application in the pipeline was approved. Hardly anything of a substa,Itlal project nature was denied, which meant if the cut-off date was at the complete appli- cation stage, it gave away the public :interestentirely, and in a time of crisis and planning changes, Council had no control just when _,it needed it moist. She heard from the developers that they were finder hardship if they had to - go through the normal review process for a project, and were ;under hardship if they went through that review process and were denied. Essentially, the developers wanted to develop just by applying, and as a citizen, she, was sick of hearing that - from the developers. The cut-off e point must be at the design approval stage. It was the first level where there could be a neat and clean cut-off. Anything short of that meant it was up to staff to make vague judgments, and as a citizen, she resented the implication that appeals were made frivolously. If at the end of the appeal process, the Council wound up approving a project, then the developer lost nothing. If the ARB approval was made in the time -frame that the cut-off ordinance addressed, then the approval was as of the time the ARB made its decision. She believed if the appeal were not allowed to go forward and it was not honored, then the citizenry lost its threat of appeal. If the Council denied the project, the project deserved to be denied. The cut-off was no more rigid than any cutoff ever proposed. It was the only way the 1976 Comprehen- sive Plan land use deliberations could go forward with any hope of integrity at the other end because the . precedent was :established that the ARB cut-off was 'at design approval. It was only in recent years than the precedent was eroded. The developers were i ncon;reni ended at the time, but without the' standard being in effect, Palo Alto would not have a land use map or zoning ordi- nance that was worth anything. The developers with downtown proj- ects in the pipeline who spent development money or who terminated leases did so knowing full well that they risked being caught in the downtown study process, and as a result of some action to come ott of that committee, they night not be allowed to go forward. They took that risk knowingly before there was risk of a mora- torium cut-off decision, and before there was risk of reconsidera- tion of a downtown moratorium. She urged Council to pass the mor- atorium um cut-off issue, and the downtown moratorium. Audrey Coulter, 1731 Park Boulevard, supported the moratorium and hoped it went into effect that evening with no exceptions. Sarnia Smith, 2031 Park Boulevard, believed the moratorium should be adopted as an emergency ordinance. It was long overdue, and it was up to the City to take action because developers did not care about the effects of their projects in terms of traffic or park- ing. Geoffrey Thompson, 416 Oxford, applauded the Council for trying to put the ordinance through and believed it was long overdue. Moray \tor a happened when there was a problem and were the result of public pressure, which generally was the result of public aware- ness of a building considered by the public to be grossly out of scale with the surroundings. It took time for it all to happen, and it took time for .a moratorium to happen.' He believed Council - member ' Witherspoon was correct that there ' had to be fair and uni- form' criteria, and he suggested it be as deep into the process as possible. He strongly supported the emergency passage of the moratorium. Patricia Ward, 412 Everett, said Council was absoebed for the past couple of months with major issues The Evergreen Park issue and Willow Road were both the eesul t of traffic problems. As a' rest - dent of Downtown Worth, she saw her street stressed everyday with tref f is . Unless action was taken as a result of current problems downtown, at spAe later date the Council would have to deal ` with it in some other manner, and it probably would be more of a stop- gap issue. Council had an opportunity to save its own energy by setting a moratorium to be effective immediately. She supported the downtown moratorium, and !roped the moratorium procedures were applied fairly to all of the projects currently in the process. 8$ Making application to the MRS cut-off, Council precluded any input from the community; by allowing :,the moratorium to affect all projects and require in the criteria full staff approval, Council mould ensure that all factors regarding the spirit of the downtown ooratori um were taken into consideration. She stroftill Y :recom- mended that the criteria for the ` moratorium be ° applied to projects requiring full staff approval S 1 1 8 9/18/84 Councilmember Fenzel said there was much discussion that the mo =a- toei um procedures ordinance provide a consistent and fair cut-off point, that moratoria be used sparingly when present planning stud1es anticipated zoning changes, and only for the purposes of preserving options in that planning process. Moratoria were rea- sonable and logical in good planning to preserve options, and should be as wide as possible. She preferred to maintain the legal limit, which was substantial construction subject to a law- fully issued building permit, but in recent past, Council pre- ferred to use someth1 g in the design review stage. MOTION: Ceenci l Member Menzel moved, seconded .by Fl otcper t to adopt Sections 1, 3 aced 4 of the Ordinance adding Palo Alto Municipal Cade Section 16.46.150 for first reading. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled :'ORDINANCE OF THE ALTO AMENDING THE BUILDING. CODE (TITLE 16) AND THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 18) WITH REGARD TO TIM EXEMPTION OF PROJECTS THAT NAPE RECEIVED DESIGN AFPROTAL FROM MORATORIA AND ZONING AMENDMENTS° Council aie6er cenzei said Section 16.48.150 essentially provided that only those projects with final design approval pursuant to that chapter on or before the date of the Council meeting on which the moratorium first appeared on the City Council's printed agenda shall be allowed to complete the project as approved for as long as such approval is valid and provided that the project complied with' all other City ordinances. In terns of Council adopting fair and consistent criteria, a lot of discussion by developers focused on the dollar investment and she did not know how the City could measure the difference in terms of dollars from someone who bought a large parcel of land and did little design review versus someone who bought a small parcel of land and did substantial design review. She _did not believe it was the Council's job to weigh the dollars spent by developers, but rather the potential benefits of good planning and detriments of allowing the Ci tv' c pl ewry r; options to be narrowed. In tens of fairness, Council recognized that there were tremendous parking deficits downtown and traffic congestion, and the downtown study would result in soma limita- tions in what could occur .there in order to be equitable and allow all parties their rights to develop consistent with what .the down- town could hold. To let any projects through the net prejudiced the equl tabi l i ty and fairness to everyone else in the downtown, and she urged that Council adopt- the ordinance as submitted. AMENDMENT: Councilmen -bar :IitAerSpeen moved, seconded by Lolly, to amend Section 16.48.140„ fifes line to read, 'mme ateraaa, a prefect wkicb bas sebaaitted am application deemed complete by staff on or beforethe data of t * Ceiocil meet1a! et which tke moriter1mm first appeared on tiff Council's printed agenda shill be Wooed owed to coop1 art* tb0 MI.* Process toward approval, and if approved, for es long as sec* apprOvel is valid.... Mr. Freeland said ordinarily staff accepted an application as complete. Vice MAW Levy said moratoria were described as good planning and as being fain; but he believed moratoria were recognitions ofpoor planning and by definition could never be fai r Moratoria were necessary when Council failed ` andmade mistakes, and member•s of the public took ection based onfyhat they_bel leved wort the rules of the game and the laws of the land. They went through the pro- cesses based on those lows,and gat the last .moment CGuncil imposed s moratorium and chang4d the laws, which was unfair. Sometimes moratoria were cessar.-y, 4sd while he `,did not like them, when they were anti*ekry, be Supported them In voting for`.. a . mora- torium, he was ,t.hs tine to the fact that Council performed, incor- rec tl y as a government body towards those people who relied on the laws pot into effe t by the City. Council could Make laws, change laws, impose 4, moratorium, and act on 40 emergency basis, but in laying out moratoria, Council should consider a fair cut-off point, which he believed was the submission of an application deemed complete by City staff. A completed application reflected much planning and expenditure on the part of a property owner, and it indicated that the property owner was not rushing in with some- thing to beat a deadline. Further, the submission of the applica- tion was the last point in the chain of approvals where the appli- cant controlled the time frame. l4ost activities where government related to its citizens were based 'on the filing date --not the date the governmental body reacted to the filing. It was unfor- tunate that Items 11 and 12 were both before the Council simultan- eously because there was no question that If Council dealt concep- tually with how to fairly treat the problem, the cutoff point would be the application. Council was now, looking at a couple of projects and he urged that Council separate. Items 11 and 12 in their minds. When it came to the right concept, he believed a completed ARB application was correct. Then, no matter what the subsequent delays, the applicant performed properly and it was Council's job to then respond. He pointed out that the applica- tion could be turned down. Mayor Klein said he and Counci 1 member Fletcher submitted the memo to the Council for the downtown moratorium without any knowledge of the particular items before it that evening, acid in that memo- randum, they used the standard design approval. To say a dif- ferent standard would be used if it were not for the fact that item 12 was also before the Council , flew in the face of the ac- tual facts on the item. When he and Counc i l member Fletcher sub- mitted thememorandum to the Council on July 31, it was not light- ly considered and while he appreciated the comments on behalf of the submitted applications, he believed there were several factors thdt mitigated against it. The application time ignored the pos- sibility of any citizen input because there was none when an ap- plication was merely submitted. Further, it put undue pressure on staff to decide whether something should be deemed complete. It was a discretionary decision, and there were great ramifications of a moratorium situation, and he did not believe that was the type of discretion Council wanted to place on staff. He believed Council was looking for a clear rule that could be readily fol- lowed, and that was clearly design approval. He urged that Coun- cil reject the amendment. Councllmeaiber Woolley strongly supported the standard cut-off con- cept, but was in the middle between the motion and the amendment. She bellowed that when the initial Council discussion took place, the idea of an appeal was not something - Council considered. Therefore, final Alta recommendation was a preferred cut-off point to final design approval which could be preceded by an appeal, Council was having to balance fairness on two sides, and either: had to allow an appeal process to go forward theneeh } P ginning, Commission and the Council, or allow citizens who say or may not be residents of Palo Alto to make an appeal for a variety of reasons to stop the appeal process. It was somewhat like_,consid- ering someone guilty before they were proven innocent, which was reverse of the usual procedures. She believed it, was more fair to let the pro, ect go through the appeal process , ,. Or l have its trial, than to assume it was guilty by including it in the moratorium. A project should be allowed through the process, and Council could decide whether it should be allowed. Couneiimeaaber ,Fletcher said she never knew ofnonresidents filing an appeal, but realized that many nonresident developers went to Palo Alto and made fortunes developing and moved o, . Even those who were residents of Palo Alto had other interests in other cities, but the , residents of Palo. Alto had to live permanently with the results of developments. Appeals were not made frivo- lously becausethey coot -'the 'appellant $90, and that usually meant raising Ooney in the neighborhood and consider -able support. The proposal to use final AR8 approval as the cut-off date represented a coproatise to her because; Council was net legally obligated to 5 l 1 8 9/18/84 let projects go through in those situations until they were issued a building permit and substantial construction was underway. Moratoria were in the. public, interest, and she pointed out that eacn Councilmember treated moratoria with serious concern and realized there were always people that would feel hardship 'as a result. Usually moratoria were imposed late in a planning process or in a situation Council bet i eved was getting out of haa4 and the purpose of a moratorium was to put a stop, as fast as possible, to an undesirable process. The only way for it to be effective was to have as late a cut-off point as possible, and Council must remember that what slipped through would be permanent. Developers came and went,: but ;their projects stayed: Some of the projects on California Avenue_were completely out of scale with the results of the study and what should be ' in that area,, and were sore points when they were seen and it was known that they slipped through because they were somewhere along in the process. Mayor Klein had pointed out that when an application was received by staff, the public was unaware and could not raise_a red flag about what was happening, and a project might go through even though it was com- pletely out of character with what was in mind for development or what a particular study might find desirable in the end. She urged that. Council not support the amendment and go with the Orig- inal recommendation. Councilmember Sutorius associated himself with many of the com- ments of Bob Moss, and agreed thatmany strange things went to the ARB, but believed they were the exception and not the rule. Regarding the moratoria procedures. he understood what he was act- ing on when Counc i 1 members Klein and Fletcher first proposed what go forward for development, the importance attached to avoiding a decision that allowed for preliminary design review to bethe cut- off, and the reality of actual preliminary - design review. He anticipated that ARB design review approval would be the forth- coming cut-off, but did not anticipate that final design review considered a situation wherein ARB approval would be secured, and an appeal would occur on two hypothetical projects where Council reviewed two projects and sustained the appeal of one, and there- fore, that project could not proceed, and denied the appeal on the other and that project could not proceed because. Council said the date was controlled by when final approval occurred. He believed that was Councilmember Wool l ey` s exact conceal, and it was not equitable. Mayor Klein said he focused on the difference between ARB approval, preliminary approval, and submitting an application, and chose the one furthest down the line, but did not consider an appeal Councilmember Fletcher said she thought about appeals and under- stood from staff that an Appeal negated final approval She was also . award that appeals could be upheld or denied on a limited basis and could not be judged on whether they fit in with a pro- posed plan for a rezoning which Mght, be in the works. If there was a moratorium and .Council had a specific trend in mind, she =,believed the cut-off was justified. Councilmember Sutorius would not support the amendment and was prepared to support the final design approval recommendation, but not soething that extended the appeal because it made no sense to. him in terms of equity. We believed the appeal should proceed, but it should not become the date. Councilmember Witherspoon pointed out that Council was talking about keeping something in the , pipeline, but there were no guar- antees and there Was every opportunity for ci ti non input. The staff reportsold all projects would still be subject to environ- mental assessment at the time of ARa review , use permit review, or site and design review, and by making the cut-off point a little ahead of the approval, Council avoided the .° problem with which Counci lmerabers Sutorius and Woolley were concerned because the appeal could go forward and be Judged on its own merits. (oencilmember Renzel said the proposed amendment put tremendous pressures on staff, and if a moratorium did not come in the same time as the project, there would have been no question that final ARB approval should be the cut-off date. the public always re- served the right to appeal an ARB decision. If one looked at whether something, was fair, if the process ended and someone did not have final ARB approval by the cut-off date, there was no po- tential for being arbitrary on one developer versus another, and it was likewise true with respect to trying to judge the situation on where someone had their dollars invested, The: fairness issue was whether Council had a consistent policy tc be ,applied from one project to the next and one moratorium to the next. She believed ARB approval as a final design approval was a reasonable cut-off point, and eliminated the messiness from a litigation standpoint of having a process where Council, the Planning Commission, or staff was obliged to continue looking at project= and having to weigh whether to rush the project along or slow i t down. Council would be accused of slowing things down even .though a project would normally be slow, and final design approval as a cut-off point eliminated the potential for allegations of being arbitrary with respect to the time of processing. Council should defeat the amendment and support .the motion as orig;nally referred to the City Attorney. Mayor Klein said the amendment would change the language of Sec- tion 16.48.150 to make the test a submitted application deemed complete by staff, as opposed to the language which referred to final design approval pursuant to that chapter. AMENDMENT .aye." 1f i! rn 1 16AdLO by a vote of 2-7, Levy, iii therspeos voting Coursci 1 member Woolley suggested an amendment to substitute for the words "design approval" in the three places in the proposed ordi- naiice the words "ARB recommendation," and to retain the word "final." Ms. Sloan suggested that after the word '"f1 nal ," it aright be more clear to say "recommendation for design approval from the ARB'` and the language would remain the same until "shall be allowed to com- plete the project." Instead of that language she suggested "may continue to be processed provided that the project complies with all other city ordinances." She did not believe it should say that if a project had an ARB recommendation it shall be allowed to be completed because it was possible that Council would hear an appeal and deny the project. She suggested the\ project may con- tinue to be processed provided it complied with all other City ordinances and if an appeal was granted, the project would not go forward. AMENDMENT: Ceencilaeaber Maloney moved, seceded by Seterr.ios, to amend the fifthline, starting with the wends, "a project which kaa received filial recommendation from the Architectural Review hoard for design apprsvai purulent .to this chapter en or before the date •f the Conseil ens.tinj et- *Mich the moratorium first appeared of the City Cotacil.'s piri feted .agenda, shall _ be otl owed to continue the process mad provided that the pr*jtct shall comply with all other city •rdi manes r" Mayor Klein clarified that if a project was appealed and the Coun- cil upheld that appeal, the project was not within the grand - fathering. He asked what would happen if a citizen appealed a particular project on the grounds of "a, b and c" and Council agreed that "a" was a problem, but believed that if the applicant used "reed brick" rather than "green brick" on the side of a build- ing, it would be okay, and the applicant agreed. Ms. Sloan t> i d the language' she suggested said that once there was an ARB recommendation, the project would conttnue to be processed, and whatever happened happened. If Council said: the project cohld 5 1 2 0 9/18/84 be built if the color of the brick were changed, then that was the project that would be allowed to be completed. If Council said there could be no project, then there would be no project. Mayor Klein clarified that the only way the appeal would be effec- tive to keep a project out of the grandfathering would be if Coun- cil upheld the appeal and totally dens e4 the project. Ms. aloan said that was correct. The hearing was really de novo, and she believed her approach was appropriate. Whatever the Coun- cil decided on the project was final. The language allowed the project to be looked at by the Council and for Council to make the decision if the AIM B made the recommendation by a certain date. Councilmember Fletcher asked on what basis appeals might be up- held. Could an appeal be upheld because Council believed the project was out of character with the intent of the moratorium or must it be specifically related to a not much narrower focus. Ms. Sloan said if an appeal were before the Council, it must look to the standards set forth in the ARS ordinance. Councilmember Fletcher clarified that design criteria in terms of the ARB was narrowly defined, so that a .project could not be denied on its merits but only its design features. Ms. Sloan said that was correct. There was slightly broader lan- guage in the ARB ordinance about the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that if a project was appealed and went to the City Council, the Council could not uphold the appeal on the basis that the project was out of character with the intent of the moratorium, which it would have fallen under if it was not processed. Mayor Klein suggested it would not be an appropriate ground, but believed the ARB ordinance provided many different standards Coun- cil could use, so the ARB and Council actually had pretty broad powers. Councilmember Renzel was appalled that through the other mora- toria, Council tailored its exemptions to let through -its buddies with projects going forward and made a mess of things. The motion raised by Mayor Klein and Counc i 1 member Fletcher was intended to bring consistency to the process and to el itainate that problem once and for all. There Council was doing the same kind of mon- keyingaround creating an ordinance that was supposed 'to be on the books as a permanent archive of Council's ability to govern well in Palo Al to, and it was doing the same kind of screwing around trying to . create little holes whereby other Projects could go through. : It Was time for CounCi l.` to . bite the bullet 'and recog- nize -the terioua .0001 00 downtown. . Councl`l• had an' ordinance that was clean and 'did not allow a lot of space for tie'e- Council; Plan- ning Commission, ARS, or staff to be 'put .in the position of naming to weigh' whether making the decision today. or tdaorrow would Make a difference for someone' a proj'ec't.' Mow Council was trying to mess it up because of specific pro f ects. in the. 'pipel fine .She urged that Council reject the aaeeudment` and support a el"air ordi- nance so that Council was not faced with the same problem over and Over again.; Vice Mayor Levy supported the` new language .and believed it was the language -under discussion in - July., The. memo from $layor Klein and Councilmember Fletcher proposed `that Council` direct the_ City Attorney ,to draft appropriate language for the l nicipa1, Code to accept projects which received ARB and/or psi; per it approvals for moratoria. They -Spoke '.of AR! approval at: the time, and to him ARE approval meant, the language now in the' moratorium. Although he did net find the . language: to be optimum he supported its Ma took 1 exception to Councilmember Reri,i:rl's comments, and said he hard no "buddies" that were developers and never did anything for his "buddies" who opposed the developers. Councilmember Bechtel said regarding the flexibility related to appeals, she understood that when Council adopted the ARB ordi- nance, there was much discussion about how much flexibility Council would or would not have and it was broader than simply design standards. Mr. Schreiber said wording was contained in the ordinance which was broader than design standards, and the design standards were the basic factors to use. The question posed to staff was whether an ARB application could be evaluated on the basis of . its impact on potential • regulations, and if the project were found to be inconsistent with what might be adopted, was it then a ground for denying the application. Staff did not see that in the ordi- nance. Councilmember Bechtel clarified that it was broad enough that the other bases in the Comprehensive Plan --preservation of neighborhoods, traffic impacts, etc., were relevant. Mr. Schreiber said that was his understanding. Councilmember Cobb believed Council could make many findings including environmental impact, which dealt with questions of traffic, parking, etc., and he had no problem saying "no" to a project he believed to be too big for an area. In the best of all worlds, it would be nice to have the basic ordinance as cleanly as referred to by Councitmekb` r "enzel , but as a practical matter, he could not decouple the two actions that had to be taken that evening, arid it was important for Council to set up a process whereby enough support on the Council could be garnered to enact an emergency ordinance on the next project coming along. He supported the amendment. Councilmember Fletcher said she could support the amendment in the spirit of compromise, but was concerned that some projects —use and occupancy kinds of changes --did not go through the ARB, and she asked for assistance from staff to add language that use and occupancy permits be included in the section. GIs. Sloan said when the matter was discussed, it was determined that it made no practical sense --if a project did not need ARB approval and only needed a building permit or a use and occupancy permit approval --to back date the appro al because if anordinance was not in effect, someone could still apply for a building per- mit and if one were received, and they went out and started con- struction, the Building Department had no way 'to monitor. Councilmember Fletcher said the point was to plug the loophole, and she asked whether staff could suggest language to do so. Mr. Schreiber said the problem was that the loophole case about if the moratorium was not an emergency ordinance. If a moratorium was adopted'_ as a regular ordinance, staff had. 45._. days until, the effective' date, and. staff ,did not, ;bet ieve it had the.. discretion during that Period- to refuse to accept ` an application_ for a building Permit and to refuse to issue the Permit.. If it was in compliance with the code, staff did not believe it' had the basis to not issue the Permit Since items 11 and 12 kept getting linked . together, the situation was if item: 12 was adopted ax a regular ordinance, it might be said . in the ordinance thief gip: projects withot` building permits issued —later " than Septeib r 18, 1904 cou i d 'proceed,,;.but .in : reality,• if :someone made application in the next 45 laiy% and had appropriate plans and could get a 'permit, staff did_ not believe: it had the basis to demo. Once they had,. the ,permit and once construction was coarhrenced, they were back tp the issue of a vested right, b-1 2 2 9/18/84 AMENDMENT PASSED by a•vete of 8-., ranzel voting "ao.4 MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-1. Renzel NOTION: Mayer Klein ■owed, seconded by Levy, to refer two of the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission. MOTION PASSED anaai.ously. ITEM #12, ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT )'IsNrmAla Ttliif voting section IN THE Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland asked the record to reflect the administrative issues staff would face as a result of the moratorium. First, staff believed it had the latitude to accept minor changes to ARB applications which already received approval, and unless they heard to the contrary, would proceed on that basis. Second, staff would have additional rirobl ems dealing with the conversion of space to office use in regard to vacant space downtown, but for new space created downtown, by definition it was not being converted from another use and, therefore, there would not be a: barrier to offices occupying that space. For space which existed, it was not part of a brand new building, and if it was vacant, staff would use the last active use as its reference point. Unless those rules were objectionable, staff intended to administer on that basis. Counci loember Cobb supported the moratorium, but was concerned about the situation with ground floor space espoc i al 1 y in a building of historical importance or significance where the City might wind up with unintended consequences. Could a person use the proposed exception process as a mechanism for coming in with an unusual problem and getting some help around it. Ms. Sloan said the person could apply. The standards for the exception procedure were set forth near the bottom of page four, and presently the two standards were the City Council and Planning Commission must find that the project's benefits to the public outweighed ehe pote,rtiaal increase in traffic and parking demand generated by the project. Counci losearber Cobb believed the circumstances outlined by Mr. Mullen could be covered by the standard that there were excep- tional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to. the project. t. He clarified that he was looking ' for a window to deal with extraordinary situations of the type outlined by Mr. Mullen so that Council did not have to go on and try to define specific language. If staff cos$idered the language broad enough to deal with that type of problem, then he was comfortable. Pisa Sloan said Council would have to make those findings,- but those findings were both necessary the . way the ordinance was drafted. It was somewhat like a variance where Council had to find the following two or three things. MOTION: Counci l oeaber Set/Pries semis seconded . by Cobb, to approve the staff rscoomendati®as es follows: 1. Find that the ordinance will set have .o weg,t.' is •sT i r.MSS Rtal irparct; 2. Adopt the srdleosce imposts, o moratoria* for see year as the processi as: of oil applications for City , approval; for coo,. streati os of new floor are* gad . fir as flair VWrsrdl oas arf sea -office noes , shows _.ea £ tbio.tt 3d Approve a #e, Of $4o0 fee pratasiie sppi i doti eo for •xce tier to the - rater, Ms to bec re effsctitia •s ptsobdr -l7, 01114; sad mead. Sa`-f tt ss 4 re' •tsspti ens , the i ' ventilate MOTION CONTINUED as follows: *...preservation of as historical bending, a res1deatia1 use, or otherwise allowable uses ender zoning code if site development is restricted to a total FAR not to exceed SO percent of cerreat zoning." ORDINANCE 3570 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ca Tf liF FAI.Oi ALTO IM 0S1Mf MORATORIA FOR ONE TEAR ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW :QUARC FOOTAGE AND THE CONVERSION OF NON -OFFICE .USES TO OFFICE USES IN THE BOOMTOWN AREA AND DECLARING AM EMERGENCY." Councilmember Sutori us said the motion permitted an additional opportunity for an applicant to go through the stringent and severe process, but with the determination that they were going to control the development of that site down to a level of 1.5 in a CC zone or 1.0 in a CS zone or lower --50 percent of the current zoning. That was a decision to be made by the applicant, and accepting the. responsibility to go through the exception process meant that in addition to the normal materials they would put together absent a moratorium, they would have to go through the Planning Commission and City Council. He believed the applicant would also make the determination about whether they could iden- tify that the project would meet the criteria and whether it was worth it for them to go forward. A person would not come forward with a project that created parking problems or could not stand stiff scrutiny. The potential was for a valid, legal use to occupy a site much less intensively than the development potential at the site. Mr. Freeland asked whether the intent was to change Section I(c) to be consistent with the action on Item #11. 1 Councilme€nber'Sutorius said yes. Ms. Sloan suggested two changes --one in Section 1(c) where the language referred to final design approval; and one in Section 2 where it referred to final design approval. Councilmember Fletcher said the purpose of the moratorium was to allow maximums flexibility for the downtown committee to come up with suggested changes on how the downtown was used. She envi- sioned it would deal with more than just floor area ratios..' AMENDMENT: Coeeeilrember` Fletcher moved is delete the language suggested by toeeciimember- Sutorims :be at the end of the introductory paragraph to section 4. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Renzel understood Section -4 to say such projects may include, but are .not limited to so that the addition of one or more example: was a suggestion that those were invited to apply. but it had no effect because the "not limited to already permitted the particular example to apply. Ms. Sloan said that was correct, and she would view it as an invitation. Councilmember Renzel said she would support the motion with the understanding that it was an example of projects that could - apply. She believed Council already saw that>. 14 .0 . of - the pro'j ectt pro - Posed . with -half the -floor area ratio were not terribly mcceptable. With the .understanding that it did not prejudge any ~degree of acceptability. she would : support the motin . She expressed her delight that Council was finally tatidg this important and long overdue action. Counc i i member Cobb commented that because Council was acting on an emergency ordinance, it took virtually unanimous support to do so. He voted for the downtown moratorium when it was a minority posi- tion, and was delighted to see it was, a majority position now. Council needed to act on it unanimously to avoid opening the window that would allow a lot of other things to happen that were precisely the kinds of things that caused Council to raise.. the concern and take the actions being ,taken that evening. He urged his colleagues to wive the motion unanimous support to close the window, and Allow the downtown committee to do the work it was trying to do and solve the problem before it got , oirt of control. Vice Mayor Levy said he was essential l y opposed to the moratorium because he believed Council could have accomplished what it intended to accomplish by drastically reducing what was permitted but to still permit minimal projects to go through: Stopping everything for one year: was severe. The ordinance would pass as an emergency • or as a regular ordinance, and he asked about the difference. Mr. .Freeland said there were classes of building permits that would be necessary for interior modifications of existing struc- tures which would not require ARB approval. Even though the ordi- nance says it would become effective as of September 17, 1984, if not passed as an urgency, staff had no authority to do anything other than continue issuing those permits. For example, if some- one went in tomorrow and asked for a period to change the interior of space with the idea of locating an office in that space, staff had no legal authority to not issue those permits so that there would be a great potential for confusion as to the effect. Sup- posedly, if the permits were not exercised by November 1 or 2, there was a question of vested rights and whether they had the right to proceed at that, point. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that in terms of mejor construction, there would be no change, but there would be in terms of remodeling projects. Mr. Freeland said that was correct. Any major constructiee would have to have AI3 approval, and staff could control the ARB approval process. Vice Mayor Levy said he would support the moratorium on; an emer- gency basis only because it would clarify and remove many of the problems that would otherwise exist. ANEDONESTit Cm *c#1 .mar F.1 t ha r poi, ,•d4:11 ` 1041, isPzolo add "ai~i1I r fluacial •see to Soctioa 2 of.tso Ordismws- AmissAINT PASSED 011 its a. .44 rLle -10 �i s Fi, * Oittierrspeeo . i eTIos AS AMMO PASSED 07 • vote •f 8-1, Witherspoon vat •i ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned the adjourned meeting of September 17, 1984 at1:35am.