Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-11 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCI L MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, July 11, 1983 IThM Ural Communications Minutes of April 18, 1963 Consent Calendar Referral Item #1, Selection of Financial Consu!tant - Civic Center Project - Referral to the Finance and Public Works Committee Item #2, Mnanciny Alternatives and Recommended Flan - Civic Center Structural Repairs and Build - Out - Referral to the Finance and Public Works Committee Item #3, Consultant Selection for Fiscal Year 1983-84 Consultant Projects - Referral to the Finance and Public Works Committee CITY OF MI00 ALTO PAGE 3 5 6 6 3 5 6 6 3 5 6 7 3 5 b 3 5 6 7 3 5 6 7 3 5 6 7 Action 3 5 6 7 Item #4, Deferred Compensation Plan for Director of 3 5 6 7 Utilities Item #5, Compensation Plan for City Employees Management, Confidential, Classified, Temporary and Fire Item #5, Contract for Legal Services Item #7, Chip Seal Program Item 18, Amendments to Political, Sign Ordinance (/nd Reading)': Item #9, Ordinances re College Terrace Zone Changes 3 5 5 8 {end Reading) 3 5 6 7 Item #1U, Golf Course Drivi-ng Range Fence Item #11, Esther Clark Park Improvements Item #L, Acceptance of Park Restoration and Urban Reforestation Item 114, Alan Street Roadside. Clear ng Rejection of bids 3 5 6 8 3 :-k 6 8 3 5 6 8 3 .5 6 8 3 5.6 9 3 5 G 9 3 5 6 9 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 3 5 6 9 3. _b_4 7/11/83 ITLM PAGE Item #15(a), Resolution Calling General Municipal 3 5 6 9 Election and Special Consolidated Election for November 8, 1983 Item #15(b), Rotation of 8allot order by Clustering 3 5 7 0 of Precincts Item #15(c), Fees and Candidates` Statements 3 5 7 0 item #13, Sunday :.;us Service Review of Santa 3 5 7 1 Clara County Transit District Proposed Service Modifications Item #18-A (010 ii �m #13), Cal Trans%Southern Pacific Train Service_ FiWd? `dear Alar� 1Q:2;-i9R12 Adjourned Meeting of July 7, 1983 - Stanford West EIR Item #17, North Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Authority - Status and Request for Council Direction Item #1b, Argument Procedure for Three Measures at Special Election on November 8, 1983 (Charter Amendments re City Controller/Auditor Positions and re CATV 3 5 7 2 3 5 7 4 3 5 9 4 3 5 9 5 Item #19, Bequest of Councilmember Fletcher re 3 5 9 5 Moffett Field Item #20, Request of Mayor Bechtel and Council - member Cobb re Council Support of Community Efforts to Curb Teenage Drinking and Driving 3 5 9.6 Item #Z1, Confirmation of Special, Meeting with City 3 5 9 7 Manager re Annual Review Adjournment 3 5 9 7 Regular Meeting Monday, July 11, 1933 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:40 p.m. Pr;ESENT : Bechtel, Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ptah X Siki Bennett, 524 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding world peace and about a seven year old girl in the United States who woke up to the atro ties of, war and who was in Russia meeting with Mr. Andropov. Ile said that everyone in the world was related to one another by God, and he believed that America was currently the melting pot of the world. It was time to redistribute the world to the people_ who lived in it --not those who claim to own it. miNUTES OF APRIL 18, 1983 Mayor Bechtel had the following corrections: Page 3155, last paragraph, first line, word were. Page 31t4, last paragraph, first word, "Inex" should be "Inez." Councilmember.Klein had the following corrections: "was" should be Page 3188, third full paragraph, !ine 11, rirsc cull sentence should read, "The combination of things --increased costs, inabil- ity to raise taxes in other areas, and a variety of declining revenues --lead to its proposal." Councilmember Renzel had ,he following correction: Page 3158, last paragraph, second sentence should read, "She was opposed to reviewing the zoning..." Pa a\ 3158, eighth line, following the word "Count i 1 membe rs," Tnser including heeself." Na a 3175, second full paragraph, eighth line, word "envelopment" ou. • e "envelope," and word "of" should be deleted at end of line. Page 3180, fourth paragraph, eighth line, word "issue" should be "imbalance." Page 3191, middle of page, paragraph should read, "Counci lmember kenzel supported the motion and hoped the City woult be able to solve its wet weather problems without running into compliance. problems with water quality cont-rel." Pale 3191, Second to last paragraph, last line,- delete -n5e* and word "into" should be -changed to "out of." NOTION: Counci lrember kenzel woved, seconded by Cobb, of the -minutes of April 18, 1983, as correcte4 MOTION PASSE© unamis*rsly. the word approval 3 5 6 6 7/11/83 CONSENT CALENDAR Counci lrnember Fletcher removed Item #13, Caltrans/Southern Pacific Train Service Five Year Plan, from the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Vice Aayor Witherspoon moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Eyerly asked to be recorded as voting "no," on Item #9, lone Change Crdinance for College Terrace. Referral ITEM #1, SELECTION OF FINANCIAL CONSULTANT CIVIC CENTER PROJECT J . ITEM #2, FINANCING ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDED PLAN - CIVIC ITEM #3 CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 CONSULTANT E O FINANCE AN() PUBLIC WORKS CbMMIiItt Action ITEM #4, DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FUR DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES ���• a "TVJ . Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. RESOLUTION 6147 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL ;rr EY OF PALO ALTO ESTABLISHING AN INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN" 1IEM #'r COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CITY EMPLOYEES - MANAGEMENT, LUNFIULNtTAL, CLASSINED TEMPORARY AND FIRE (CMR:413;T) Staff recommends that Council approve the resolutions amending the compensation plans for Fire Department Personnel, Management Personnel: Confidential Personnel, Classified Personnel, and Temporary Employees. RESOLUTION 6148 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL �F lilt CIIT up PALO ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FUR MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NU. 6060 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION 6113" RESOLUTION 6149 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF - O ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 6055 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. 6114" RESOLUTION 6150. entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF int uni up rALO ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL, SEIU) ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION N0. 6032 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION 5068 AND RESOLUTION NO. 6126' RESOLUTION 6151 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF O ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6066" RESOL4T hill 6152 entitled "RESOLUTION OF TIE COUNCIL OF int cur Jr rALO ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 5946►" 3 5 6 7 1/11/83 2 ITEM EM b , CONTRACT FOR IFGA! SERVICES Staff recommends approval of the agreement with Donald H. Maynor. AGREEMENT Donald H. Maynor ITEM #7, CHIP SEAL PROGRAM (t1R:400:3) Staff recommends the following: 1. That the Mayor be authorized to execute the agreement with Santa Clara County for $103,000; and That staff be authorized to execute change orders of- up to $ZO,U0J. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alto ITEM ft3, AMENDMENTS TU POLITICAL SIGN ORDINANCE 2nd Readin ORDINANCE 344S entitled "ORIIINANCF nF THE COUNCIL OF IHE GIIr UF PALO ALTO- AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE DUILiJ!!{t9 KtbULl11 LUI1J KtbAKUiuti LLLt 11UI{ S1bnJ'" (1St Reading 6/20/83, PASSED 9-0) ITEM #9, ORDINANCES RE COLLEGE TERRACE ZONE CHANGES (2nd Reading ORDINANCE 34^45 entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 18.19 (RMD TWO UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE" (1st Reading 6/20/83, PASSED 8-1, Eyerly "no") URUINANCE 3447 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF Hit PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 18.30 (NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION COMBINING DISTRICT LAP] REGULATIONS) TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE" (1st Reading 6/20/83, PASSED g-1, Eyerly "no") ORDINANCE 3448 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF IHE GIIT bt rALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.080.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL. CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN COLLEGE TERRACE BETWEEN CALL URN.A AVENUE, STANFORD AVENUE, EL CAMINO REAL AND WELLESLEY STREET FROM RM-3 (MODERATE DENSITY MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO RMD (TWO UNIT MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT) MP (NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION)* (1st Reading 6/20/E3, PASSED 8-1, Eyerly "ne") ORDINANCE 3449 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE. COUNCIL OF MME G1IT or PALO ALTO TERNINATIN6 THE EXISTING MORAT?RIUII ON ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IM THE RM-3 ZONE OF COLLEGE TERRACE BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AVENUE, STANFORD AVENUE, EL CAMINO REAL, AND WELLESLEY STREET" (1st Reeding 6/20/83, PASSED 9-0) ITEM #10 GOLF COURSE DRIVING RANGE FENCE (CMR:397:3) Staff, recommends that Council. approve the park improvement ordi- nance for the fencing project along the driving range -. in the vicinity of the.10th fairway. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF liltCubwa1. Of !HE (.'i I I yr . PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR FENCING AT THE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE" 3"5 6 8 7/11/83 PlialtwWWIIIIMOUrrisMalvirwmpirirgiawariate 1>•..ilt4 ITEM #ll ESTRFR CLARK PARK IMPROVEMENTS (CMR:374:3) Staff recommends that Council approve the nark improvement ordi- nance. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THL COUNCIL bF IKE C1TT OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR EROSION REPAIR AT ESTHER PARK." ITEM #12, ACCEPTANCE OF PARK RESTORATION AND URBAN REFORESTATION VWGITui GRANI (CMK:4tT :3 j Staff recommends the following: 1. That Council approve the resolution giving signature authority to the City Manager; and Z. That Council a opt the budget amendment ordinance accepting the grant revenue and appropriating $35,000 to the Parks & Open Space Division of Public Works. RESOLUTION 6153 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL GAIT ui -TALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS FROM CALIFORCIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVAL AND PLANTING IN FOUR AREAS OF 1/ al 11 EE ■ C•; • • vat •• ••r • Y ORDINANCE 34cD entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF ;HE C 1 T OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FUR PARK RESTORATION AND URBAN REFORESTATION AND TO PROVIDE FOR RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY ITEM 114 ALMA STREET ROADSIDE CLEARING - REJECTION- OF RIDS Staff recommends tile, the City Council authorize the rejection of the bids received for Alma Street roadside clearing on June 2), 1983. The work will be readvertised at a later time. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly noting "no," on Item #9, Ordinance Nos. 3446, 3447, and 3448, re College Terrace Zone Changes. AGENDA CHANGES_, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager hill Zaner said that Item 113, Caltrans/Southern Pacific Train Service Five Year Plan, would become Item 18-A. Counci'lmember Renzel asked that Item 117, re Solid, Waste Manage- ment Autnority be heard tonight. 1 IEM 15 (a) Ri SULUTIUt CALLING 6EWERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND ?!1 1A1. CuN r0 , -- City Attorney Diane Lee said after the resolution was drafted,`she received two suggestions from CounctImembers for changes in the title of- Section 22 as follows: Page 4, Title of Section 22 should read as follows: "Sec. 22. o'S of compensation referees; cable television board; other boards advisory only." Ms. Lee said it was mentioned that the. proposed wording of the summary made it appear as though the City was, awarding a.. particu- lar franchise. It was suggested that within the confines of the provision, the City should attempt to clarify that the question was whether to give the Council the authority to. award a fran- chise. She, suggested the wording , of the summary be amended .to read as follows: 3 5 6 9 7 /11/83 1 1 "sha i 1 the Charter of the City of- Palo Alto. be amended to give the City Council authority. to grant a franchise or franchises for Cable Television?" MOTION: Vice Mayor Witherspoon moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the resolution with amendments of City ' Attorney to Section 22 Title an+d to Measure re CATV. RESOLUTION 6154 entitled "RESOLUTION OF TH. CO.'CIL OF 'fit cI i T uF PALO ALTO CALLING ITS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF CUUNCILMEMBEMS, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION FUR SUBMITTAL. OF CERTAIN MEASURES SEEKING TO AMEND THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO THE ELECTORATE, REQUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, AND ORDERING THE CONSOLIDATION OF SAID ELECTION" Councilmember Klein said regarding tlfe title for Section 22, that the Board of compensation referees and cable television board were independent and would have final decision -making authority, and that alt other boards were advisory only. He suggested the word "other" be inserted before the word "boards" at the end of the Title for Section 22. COUNCILMEMBER KLEIN'S SUGGESTION TO ADD THE WORD "OTHER" BEFORE THE WORD "BOARDS" AT END OF THE TITLE FOR SECTION 22, INCORPORATED Wit -1774 -Am cww ym.irn nrwAual iii tilrift16A I777V a7610un S• MOTION PASSED unaniw►nuu_1y. ITEM #1b b , ROTATION OF BALLOT ORDER BY CLUSTERING OF PRECINCTS Councilmember Fenzel said she believed clustering was confusing for the voters.. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Cobb, that Council not adopt the clustering, that the names be draw by lot and that there not be a cl ustftring by precincts of a -rotation of ballot order.;. and that in the future, the matter of clustering be brought:to the attention.af the Council for information only. RESOLUTION 6155 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF Tits. Gt'T [It PALO ALT© AUTHORIZING .A DETERMINATION BY LOT OF THE URGER OF CANDIDATES' NAMES OH THE BALLOT - NOVEMBER 8, 1983 ELECTION" Ms. Lee said the problem was there was one Council today and there would be another Council t'le next time there was an election. To the extent the Council was the same, the Council could be bound, but if the composition changed, there would be a problem. Counci li;.ember Menzel said her intent vas that the matter of con- solidation be brought to the attention of the Council in their packets at election time rather than appearing on the agenda. MOTION PASSED unanis..asly. ITEM 1S(c), FEES AND CANDIDATES' STATEMENTS MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, that nofees be charged and that candidates' statements be. kept at 200 words. Louncilmember Levy said that -as a.:possi.ble candidate in November, he would not participate in the item. MUiTUN PASSED by a vote of 8-0-1 ,Levy= `not, participatiaq," 3.5 7 0 7/11/83 CUuNCILMLMEitK FLETCHER RE BRINGING FORWARD ITEM #18 SANTA CLARA MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher loved, seconded by Klein, to briny forward Item #1t, re Sunday. Bus Service. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #18, \SUNDAY BUS SERVICE - REVIEW OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY s • City Manager Bill Zaner said staff received a letter_ from the Santa Clara County Transit District 'today with regaed to the Sunday bus service. The County amended its plan and did not intend to participate with Palo Alto in a taxi type service, but rather intended to eliminate the service on Line 84, and modify it on the remaining two lines. He opined that the recommendations in the staff report were still valid, and urge: the Council to pro- ceed despite the comments received by the County. Councilmember Fletcher concurred with the staff recommendation, with the contingency•that Line 84 not be eliminated, that Line 23 be extended to Stanford, and that it be rerouted on Middlefield Hoag to San Antonio Road where it now made a- loop around the industrial area at East- Meadow Circle to take nary► of the resi- ue,,i.s of Stevenson mouse who could walk ton the corner of Middlefield to take the bus. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the staff recommendation that the Mayor be authorized to send a letter to Santa Clara County as follows: 1. Opposing the proposed route modifications on Lines 84, 86 and 88; 2. Reaffirming the City's request for prompt implementation of the Major Activities Loop; and 3. R. questing that the Transportation Commission reexamine the SCCT13's current route evaluation process and criteria; and if Line 84 is eliminated, the Line 23 should be extended to Stanford University and that it be rerouted on Middlefield Road to San Antonio Road on Sundays. Councilmember Eyerly asked staff to comment on Councilmember Fletc.her's additions. Associate Planner Gayle Likens said with the current changes pro- posed by the Transit District, there would be some service to Stanford University provided by Line 86, which was- not new to be eliminated, but there would be more direct service for those people along Middlefield Road especially those at Stevenson House -.by the modification as suggested by Councilmember Fletcher of Line 23. Line 23 currently went up toward the Fabian and East Meadow Circle, but since it was a .business district, that service was not needed on Sunday and could better serve residents by con- tinuing on Middlefield Road southbound. Councilmember Eyerly clarified that it would give better service, - but would not be a duplication. Ms. Likens said that ryas correct. MOTION PASSED unanimously. CITY MANAGER BILL LAMER RE ITEM 18-A OLD;- ITEM #13), CALTRAMS r City Manager Bill Zaner suggested that if Item - #18-A could be heard out of turn, it would allow Transportation Department staff to leave for the evening. 1 3 5 7 1 7/11/83 NOTION: Counci Inrember Kenzei waved, seconded I18 -A (Old Item 13) be brought forward. MOTION PASSED unanimously. by Cobb, that Item 16EM #18-A ULO ITEM 13 REVIEW OF CALTRANS/SOUTHERN PACIFIC :3) Councilmemb er Fletcher said she attended the public. hearing on the Caltruns/Southern Pacific Train Service Five Year Plan in San Francisco last week. The draft plan suggested that service be wilt up at the Castro Station in Mountain View by having more trains, and if sufficient additional passengers could not be generated that way, consideration should be given to moving the station to San Antonio. ' She believed Palo Alto should request the San Antonio Road station be changed to high priority because the traffic generators were not around the Castro Station. A lot of ,activity centers were on San Antonio Road, and a big office com- plex was proposed for Mayfield Mall which would generate addi- tional traffic. Caltrans originally decided to implement a demon- , stration project to show that considerably more patronage could be yene,rated by extending three commute hour trains to the ferry building, but the new administration decided riot to pursue that avenue, and proceeded with a study known as "San Francisco Com- muter Rail Terminal Relocation Study." The results_ of that study indicated that it the terminal was relocated downtown, there would be an immediate increase of passengers by about 50 percent. The first fecuuIfRendatiUlr was that the site of the old Rlricoh Arrrlex Post Office be used as the terminal building. Two alternatives were 160 Harrison Street and the site adjacent to the Transbay Terminal. Each alternative had factors that would interface with other transit services, such as BART, but it was recommended that the station not be at Fourth and Townsend. Patronage dropped con- siderably over the past two years, and she beljeved the sugges- tions made in the report should be the highest priority. When the time schedules were changed, the 7:10 p.m. train from San Francisco, with a daily ridership of 200, was dropped. Council urged early restoration of that train, and nothing had been done to date. She suggested the Council reiterate its desire that the 7:10 train service from San Francisco be reinstated. At the hear- ing in San Francisco, she suggested that before policies, were made regarding station locations in the various jurisdictions, local officials be consulted. Palo Alto and Mountain View were not con- tacted before the decision to build up ridership at Castro, and both cities woulc:-' have advised against that recommendation in relation to what could be done at San Antonio. NOTION: Counci imember Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, as follows: 1. That the Palo Alto City Council advocate the relocation of the San Francisco terminal to a downtown relocation as the highest priority; Z. The Palo Alto City Council bel ier::s that the attempt to increase ridership at the Castro Station to be futile and urges relocation to Sao Antonio Road in 1984-85; 3. Vim Palo Alto City Council .roi terates its desire for restora- tion of the 7:111 p.m. train out of Sam Francisco; 4. Approve staff recommendation: f (CMR:411:3), that the Palo Alto City Counc h supports the`` improvement projects budgeted in 1984-85, and 1985.86 for the University Avenue Station, 1983-84 at the Cah.ifor0a Aveno*;Station; 5. Approve staff :recvmreedat1.n 13 as revised: The Palo. Alto City Council wi thSol ds- eaaorsement .of . the 'parking lot coa- struction project.'schereled for 1986-81 at theL University Avenue and the perklrg structure'acheduled for 1987-88 at=the 3 5 7 2 7/11/83 .5 iii! lUH CUNl1NUEU California Avenue Station pending future analysis of parking demand and traffic impact data; and 6,, The Palo Alto City Council requests closer cooperation between Caltrans .and local officials in formulating policies in the jurisdictions affected. Councilmember Cobb said with regard to the third staff recommenda- tion, and Councilmember Fletcher's suggestion that the Council withhold endorsement of the parking lot project for San Antonio, that he lived in that corner of town, and already found the traf- fic tc, be murderous at times.' He asked whether the City knew the exact impacts of such a parking structure and a station at that location, particularly in view of the proposed Mayfield Mall con- version. He asked staff to comment about the recommendation to withhold endorsement, the traffic impacts, and whether the inter- change could handle the anticipated traffic. Uirector.of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the recommendation to withhold endorsement on three parking facil- ities, t h two lots t s and the ..! � ��:.� the si.i-uci.€,r-e, was consistent with the City'.try's pn l.tion ]pct near that -it w o uId t s ■ _ - : .. � .. w - Y ■ V ■ ar - n V 4[ ! {i need 4 V :1 Y 1+ 1 . 1 ! •Tb the design before endorsing any specific parking layouts. He said it would be difficult to assess the impact of a San Antonio facil- ity because the City had little, if any, real information in terms of the size of the parking lot, the number of trips, entrances, exits, etc., all of which was crucial to an analysis. He believed that the encouragement to move the Castro station to San Antonio and accelerate the process, but withhold endorsement of the actual parking lot, could be interpreted as a double message. If the concern was parking lot design, it could be requested that the design come back through the City even though the site would probably be located in the City of Mountain View. But, if the concern wcs the total impact of the parking facility, the Council mighthave a problem endorsing acceleration but not parking. Councilmember Cobb said people already used the ';niveesity_ Avenue and California Avenue stations, and he was concerned that the Council was being asked to accelerate something with potential serious impacts. If the station were moved to San Antonio, he asked how far it was to the next station. He was concerned the Council was being asked to do something without enough inforratttel to determine whether it was a good 't.dea. Councilmember Fletcher said she --understood that more employees would be drawn to the San -Antonio station as_e commute destination rather than departure because of the considerable employment base in that area. There would be_more cars with the Mayfield develop- nient, and:countless additional cars if the station were not loca- ted there. Counc1Imegiber Eyerly agreed with Councilmember Fletcher's analogy, but asked that Staff recommendation' Nn.- 1 be included in. .the motion. MAKEILANO•SECOND _ INCLUDE® ITEM AO. 1 OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPUMI THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S SUDGETEO, IA 1984-85, amd,4985-85 FUR THE UNIVERSITY AVE 1UE . STATION, AND 1983-84 AT THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE STATION INTO: TUE: MAIN. MOTION. Councilmember Fletcher said she had no. problem including staff recommenuation No. 1, but clarified that she did not consider it to be the number one pr'ority. Councilmember Renzel urged Council . support of the mot.i on, The Castro Station was not a stop for every train, did not get . a_.lot 3 5 7 7/11/83 of business, and the motion expressed the Council's sense of priorities for the system. The wheels were grinding slowly, and if --new information developed, the Council could change its prior- ities, but should get things moving in the meantime. Mr. Schreiber asked for clarification that in adding recommenda- tion No. 1, the references to the Castro station were not in- cluded. Councilmember Cyerly said that was correct MOTION PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Fletcher said a Citizens Advisory Committee was being formed to advise on the commute service. MOTION: Counciliiember Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, that staff be directed to prepare a preliminary report on potential traffic impacts on the San Antonio/Alma intersection if a station were located there. Councilmember-Klein reminded the Council of its "vow" not to ask staff for too many more studies until the others were under con - trill, and asked staff how much time ; the proposed --r2 port would consume. Mr. Schreiber responded staff could review the limited information - t a. L) 4 / A b..» Trade Station Analysis, d ...... L..... a available 111 ! IC uu i LV,I/ Ylj I11IIQ r1 I I Q�IC d .0 L 1 Vrl done [7 vVld L 1 and one -Half years ago, provide an overview of that information, anti return to Council for direction if it looked as though the study would involve a considerable amount of staff time. Councilmember Klein clarified the Scope of the study could be determined with one person putting in' a day or two. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Councilmember Cobb clarified that the report could be preliminary and he was interested in where the City stood and whether his con- cerns were justified. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 8:011 pm. - ADJOURNED _MEETING OF JULY 7, 19$3 STAB 7_, WEST DRAFT EIR PUBLIC NEARING MELD JULY - 48 __.1 3 AND Mayor Bechtel commended staff and the consultants for an out- standing job over the past years on the project. Althc'igh some speakers alluded to the over 1,100 pages of the final Elk the Council did not receive all 1,100 pages at once, and had the chance to assimilate them over a period of one year. She com- mended, -staff for preparing an excellent summary on short notice, and fir -r the .report last week which clearly listed all : mitigation measures. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber noted for "tne r=rcor4 -that »hr_i 1 received at its places tonight, addi- tional responses from Environmental Impact=Pianniny °vc,r-poratio..- some of the i s3ues •raised last Thursday night, and also a number of Iel4ers, including one from Bert 6eraw and one from former Councilmember John Berra i d._ City Attorney Diane Lee commented.that she- did . riot respond as she would have liked to a letter she received f rom the law "f i rm of Bears & Dickson stating that the City did not discuss a: 5Wunit 3 5 7 4 7/11/03 alternative in the kit{. The City Attnrney's Office opined that the City was only required to discs .. reasonable alternatives, which was defined by cases not to include alternatives which shout -d only be implemented after signf7icant changes in govern- mental policy or lerislation. Given the zoning in the Comprehen- sive Plan, particularly with respect to the site, the 500 unit alternative would not be one which needed to be discussed. She suggested that for the record, Mlr. Freeland or the consultant add a point of reference to the Comprehensive Plan. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the zoning on the site was KM -4, and in order to change City polity to the point where.it would control the project on the order of 500 units, it would required a zone change down to an RM-1 level, or 6 to 12 units per acre. It represented a major change from the present level of multi -family zoning and appeared to put a 500 unit project outside the logical alternative realms in terms of existing City policy. Further, consideration should be given to the fact that- the sltc was specifically mentioned under Program 17-A of the Housing [le- ment, which dealt with large sites subject to below parket-rate housing, and noted that developers building on sites larger than five acres were expected to provide a greater percentage of below - market -rate units or set aside land for assisted housing to be built by others. Larger sites provided design and economic flexi- bility to present a wider range of types and prices, and the VFiF/Nr tuff ( i.,y fur ur- de i yri and economic flexibility to produce a fairly high density housing project were incorporated into the low and moderate income housing contemplated by the project. A large component of the proposed project were below -market -rate units plus, as City Staff understood the objectives of the sponsor, a large supply of additional units intended to be affordable to Stanford faculty and staff. It seemed to imply that a large site such as the one proposed was a special opportunity to the commun- ity and one that should not be, from'a policy point of view, simply used for normal housing of a lower density. In terms of zoning and opportunity, as represented in Program 17-A and from a policy of point of view, it would be quite a shift of City policy to reduce the units to the 500 unit range. Mr. Schreiber noted thet Linda- Peirce, Rick Pollack, and Doug Svenson were in attendance from PIP Corporation, the consultants. bob (Artier, archaeologist, was also in attendance, and represent- ing PRC Voorhees, the traffic consultant, was nave Fairchild since Mr. Peers toad another commitment. Mayor Bechtel reminded the public that a two and one•h.alf hour public heiei ng was held on Thursday, and the public. hearing was now closed. The process was a long one for Stanford, Planning Commissioners, and City staff members. all of whom sat through nine meetings, and she believed the proposed project -was a good One. Stanford was providing neeied housing', and the City was getting below- market -rate units that were an important part of the City's dMl( program. The City was also getting substantial traffic mitt- gations, andH5tanford was contributing $2.1 million to the pro- gram.. There were bicycle and transit proposals, substantial pro- tection of the creek, and a reduction in density from the zoning which cpu l d ..allow up to 1,700 un ts. She would prbpose some - cori- troi-s of vacant areas of land under Stanford's jurisdiction thet might go a long 'way towards limiting growth along the Willow Corridor.: She commended Ken Schreiber, Bruce FreeJ.end, and the other staff Members involvedwith the project. - MOTION: Mayor Rech€.l moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve thestaff recommendations contained in C14R:415:3 as follows: 1 Elect that the provisions of Section 21.083,2 of the Public Resources Cede, which ebtabiish new standards for the mitiga- tion of archaeologic.] resources through environmental review, shall not apply to the Stanford West EIR; MU i 1Th C0!+E a i IUEu 2. Adopt the Planning Commission's findings of significant environmental effect with the additional air quality effect recommended; 3. Find that suitable mitigation measures for the project's significant environmental effects have been identified; 4. Find that the final EIR including: a) the Draft EIR; b) comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR; c) a list of persons, organizations and public agencies com- menting upon the Draft EIR; and d) responses to significant p its raised and answered in sup- plemental reports from the'tonsultants and staff as well as responses contained in the minutes of the Planning Commis- sion and City Council review of the EIR satisfy the re- yui regents of Palo alt_ Procedures ... the . a o v Alto �f�Vi.C�lilf es for the iaspi ementa- tinn of the California environmental Qa I1ti Act it ga) and r. Certify that Final Elk has been completed in compliance with CEtiA and the State Elk guidelines and City Council has re- viewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, plus amend page 41 of Project Characteristics to read '...rentals. Some of these units may be limited equity co-ops.* AMENDMENT: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, additional mitigations as follows: 1. Under General impacts, page 35 - a legally bindieg agreement between Palo Alto and Stanford establishing an average 150 foot wide (with a minimum width of 125 feet) no building area along the southeast side of Willow Road from Pasteur to San Francisquito Creek; 2. Under Tra naportatiofl Impacts. page 18 - a, legally binding agreement between Palo Alto and Stanford that there will be no vehicular access to the southeast side of Willow Road from Pasteur to San Francis.quito Creek; 3. Unite? Transportation Impacts, page 18 a legally binding agreement between Palo Alto and Stanford that the property bounded by Pasteur, the proposed Welch e_ xtensioa, Campers , Rri ve West, the golf course and Willow Road will be used only for academic and .support services in accordance with the 1980 Stanford Land Use Plan; and. 4. Under Social ; Economic _ Epvi ronaaent . Impacts, page 12 . - . An amendment to the mitigation on the bottom of the page, '100 yards square (or au nrea of 10,000 square yards) for the bens- fit (delete °so1+a') of the residanta of the 'project...' The field may include a portion of the 100 foot Willow Road set- back and the ball field outfield may overlap with a portion '(;but no more than one-third) of the central open space. Use of the field will be scheduled by the City Recreatt-oa Depart- ment in coordination with the Stamford. West Homeownert-=Asso- elation, and will be available.for_or;;nized recreational use by the City. Vice Mayor Witherspoon said she understood from the discussions last Thursday ''about the -types of playing fields to be provided in the mitigation measu'res,, that the Homeowners' Association would be 3 5 7 6 7/11/83 responsible for deciding what kinds of playing fields would be appropriate. She was concerned it sounded like the City's Recrea- tion Department would be continuously scheduling the fields. While she had no objection to that on occasion, since it was pro vided by Stanford, she -assumed it would be used for their resi- dents at least half the time._ She asked the language. specify that use of the field will be scheduled by.. the City's Recreation Department in coordination with the Stanford West Horeowner't Aseocia:.ion, and will be available for organized recreation'?- use by the City. MAKER MW SECOND INCORPORATED THAT LANGUAGE INTO AMENDMENT. Mr. Laner said staff had no problem- with the wording because it was similar to what was done- with other agencies, including the school di -strict. Councilmember Cobb said he was also concerned. than organized sports activities in Palo Alto scheduled fields, school fields for. example, in• coordination with the School District, and everyone sat down along with the various leagues trying to 'use those fields to work. out a plan -so that everyone could use the fields An some type of coordinated way. The purpose of -the amendment was to clearly poet; nut that .the development would add about ;even•- per- cent to the City's population. _The City already_had-e shortage.of piayi-ny fields end people were .aiready being turned away. By making the fields available to the organized sports activities in. the City, -the children of Stanford West residents would be playing AYSO Soccer and would not be displacing others, but would add to the total mix. More children than soccer fields would probably be added so the space would. get tighter --not more generous. He wanted the wording to come across as being cooperative rather than the Homeowners' Association having veto power, that the goals to make the fields available for City recreational activities could not be achieved. Mayor Bechtel clarified that Vice Mayor Witherspoon wanted to insert that the Homeowners, Association would coordinate with the Recreation Department and be included in the loop. Vice Mayor Witherspoon believed he, wording was appropriate because the residential mix of the project was unknown. She preferred to have some fleeibi l ity, and she was certain that the City and the Homeowners' Association would .cooperative with one another. She wanted to make it clear the City was not imposing the mitigation on Stanford to provide a City playing field for everyone else in the City.__ Mr. Laner suggested that cleare', wording might be "use of the field would be scheduled by the City Recreation Department in coordination with 'the Homeowners' Association." AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Witherspoon .roved, seconded by Bechtel, that the vse of the playing field will be schedd1Rd by the City Recreation Department in coordination with the More - owners` Association of Stanferd West. AMENDMENT TO ANENONEWT INCORPORATED INTO ORIGINAL AMENDMENT BY MAKER AMD. SECOND_ Councilmember .Levy said he did not want the change from "within the- City" , to "by the. City" to .haply that only. City sponsored groups fell within the organized recreational loop. - M; Laner said he would nr..=; construe the language to mean only City organizations. It would bethe same construction used .b,y the City -with regard to school districts. 7/11/B3 Councilmember Levy asked why the change was made from "within the City" which he believed was more open to Mr. Laner's interpreta- tion. Mayor Bechtel said she made the change because when she read it again, it rounded like better English, but did not intend for it to mean anything different. Councilmember Levy said he would feel more comfortable by going back to the less grammatical construction of "within the City'' so as to eliminate the implication that only City -sponsored groups were concerned. LAST THREE WORDS OF AMENDMENT CHANGED TO READ "WITHIN THE CITY" AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY MAKER AND SECOND Councilmember Klein strongly supported the amendments. He com- mended staff and the Planning Commission for getting through the mass of material, options, alternatives, and implications in order to come up with a workable -analysis for the Council to review and on white to vote-. Lfie items added by Mayor Bechtel were also crucial and responded to some important concerns in the area. Keyarding the first three amendments dealing with the property on the other .ide of the road, he believed it was important for the Council to try and get a handle on where it was going in the si i i low C,c) 5 1V611 . 6./C5yViii h1iGfI it WUi Viii: V5 1.55E 1"fUi ,V 1 UOU 5 15 town, heavily impacted, and a variety of organizations spoke to the city about coming up wit.i a jnint.pian with other governmental organizations. He did not think that was possible at present, and wanted to see the project go forward if possible. While the Council wanted to see the project go forward, it would be unwise and negligent for the Council to not try to assure that the corri- dor did not becoiie one of the all time traffic disasters, and Mayor Bechtel's recommendations were appropriate to assure that there would not be great amount of development along Willow Road. In effect; the 46 acre site would be the major development along with the Stanford Hospital Modernization Project and there would not be additional projects on the remaining property. He felt the things the City was asking Stanford to do --154 foot setbacks, no vehicular access from that part or their property to Willow Road, - and agreeing to put 0e:ly--academic uses on that property --were no more than what Steirford agreed to in their 1980 Stanford Land Use Plan. He hoped Stanford would look at that plan and agree to it because -it was what they originally .planned to do. He was dis- appointed by Mr. Massey's letter to the Council, and the attitude expressed therein, and belle`v.ed- that his remarks to.., the Council were not conducive to moving forward with the project or with good planning.. He hoped Stanford would reconsider its position because it was only being asked. to comply with its original plans and it should be easy to do so. He believed the project would be a good one for Palo Alto, -was pleased to support the main motion, and hoped it moved forward. An the interest of everyone, the project could only move forward if the the additional mitigations proposed by - the Mayor were agreed upon. He would support the additional mitigations and urged Council support. Regarding the recreational 'i`,tem, it was important for the City to have _some agreements along the lines proposed in order to assure that the children who lived in the de:'elopment woul-d have adequate recreational space and not nave to ride thei=r bikes across busy intersections to get to the public playing fields n__ Palo Alto,.. He strongly supported the proposed amendments and urged Council support. Councilmember Eyeriy asked about the stat-us- of the property on the southeast side of Willow between Pasteur and Quarry. He clarified that the No. 2 item took care of vehicular access to the southeast side of Willow Road from -Pasteur to San Francisquito --Creek, and he asked if the City had any control over` -future development the other way --from Pasteur down towards Quarry. 3 5 7 7/11/83 Mr. Schreiber said that in terms of undeveloped parcels, the City had no .control up to Arboretum. One of the mitigations in the document was an attempt to have the Chi ldrens' Hospital entrance relocated from Willow Road to down across from Arboretum,- for a ,possible relocation and consolidation of the entrance to the Sak's/Bullock's portion of the shopping center which had two entrances on W.i l low, but was a modification rather _than an amend- ment. Councilmember Eyerly asked if the open area was within the City's juriadiction it Stanford asked for a commercial development with ingress or egress onto Willow Road.. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Councilmember Eyerly supported Councilmember Klein. Stanford West was a good project, and It behooved the City and Stanford to move forward. re believed the additional mitigations, in:.iuding 'the one to prevent ingress- and egress from Willow road into the Open space, were minimums, and would turn traffic into the campus areas. Future campus buildings could impact the Willow inter- section, the one on Ga l vez and ethers, and Stanford should share responsibility for increased traffic with Santa Clara and San Mallen Counties, Park i Palo .., Menlo.,..,.,� Park and ra �o Alto. Action was required to. keep traffic circulating, and he sudoested t.hr. i' .i'nri1 att!c!t th prooiems at other intersections to assure that Willow Road's traffic flowed at a good level after approved mitigations were implemented. The fourth mitigation that open space be set aside was a minimum requirement, and the possibility of 400 children dt Stanford West might demand Palo Alto to supply additional open space for recreational areas, and an area closer than El Camino Park would be needed. He believed Stanford should agree to the mitigation measures in view of the pedestrian overpaso proposed to occur in three years at Willow and consider the possibility of further open space for recreational pursuits. A decision on Stanford West should be made, and the proposal before the Council was one the Council and community could support' because of the proposed housing. Stanford was not' being asked for much, and should move forward on the project. Councilmember Levy said the protect was complex, and the key issue was the density on site and the build-up of traffic and occupation down the Willow Road corridor. Many years ago the Council zoned the property RM-4, which allowed for up to 1700 units. That zona ing was established to be too dense and was part of the Comprehen- sive Plan relied .upon by Stanford. Stanford knew Palo A1to".did not want the property to be built to its maximum, and given the zoning, the density of 1,100 units -on 46 acres was too high, but better than could have been. Stanford was asked to hold to its own contractual plans and goals, and although he was .sure of Stanford's faith ar;d goodwill, long-term plans needed firm agree- ments. The 150 feet of no _building area along the southeast -'side of Willow Road was acceptable, but did not address the development density, Stanford could develop the remaining -site to a level within their plan, which could open Willow Road by maintaining open -space on th.:- south side and reflecting the setback on the other side. More flexibility -on minimum depth could be consid- ered, and it might- be approprate not to have access between Willow Road and San Francisquito Creek :from the development because Stanford deve l oped the campus, with internal access -to that space. Although Stanford asserted continued interest ;n maintain- iny the area for academic reserve and support services, the legally lvinding -agreement requested -by the City was not: intended to indite its good fatith. He agreed with the mitigation requiring a recreational area, but pointed out the project was, complex and required considerable negotiate ins, and the CO -Until should not be too concerned with the fine prd'rut. He was -Still concerned about density, but believed the -Mitigations tabled were vital to the 1 ssue z 3 5 7 9 7/11/83 Councilmember Cobb said he and:rstvvd the recreational area would be developed arrd ready• for use and he• asked whether the dimensions of the recreational area were- correlated to two soccer fields. Mr. Schreiber: said he- understood the fields would be developedd-ro- prevent the project from creating new pressures on already over- used - fields. 1 1 Councilmember Cobb pointed out the project was laudable and would add approximately seven percent to the City's population. . Unless a mitigation were required, the project could be a c,isservice to the 50,000 current residents by reducing the quality of life as the price for bringing in additional housing. He did not believe the mitigation was unreasonable because the Stanford West resi- dents would use all City 'public services, energy, and landfill, and although tax revenue would be produced, money was not enough for things such as recreational fields when more land was needed. Willow Road was already close to saturation point, and the addi- tion of over 3000 people would bring about super saturation unless significant measures were taken -to keep the corner under control. Stanford had already agreed to much, but it was essen- tial since Willow Road would otherwise pose a continual, non, solvable problem. He pointed out the development was on Palo Alto land, which provided a unique opportunity to deal with the Willow Road corridor, and the suggested mitigations to reduce traffic wPro PuA � r�n� it ; o - nil mi nt= 1 i�.. ort _d ts_ _ [ the - _ ---._� _ __ ::� mint=1. � ::�. .a:.ir::};vi �c� �iir G iR $7i l �rl Llle car - rent mitigations. Councilmember Fazzino applauded Stanford, the City staff, consul- tants, and -the Planning Commission in particelar, for the careful study of the project. He primarily supported certification of the L 1R because of the good .response from Stanford to the City's cur- rent plan for affordabll housing. He was concerned because he believed the desiyn of the project was atrocious, and should be drastically changed before final project approval. Mayor Bechtel pointed out that the design issues and other non-E1R items would be discussed later. Councilmember Fazzino ;-tisagreed with the proposal, and considered it to be another example of too much legal complexity. One prob- lem was the fact that Stanford had not spoken with one voice, and he urged that Stanford consolidate its views as the project moved towards completion. He believed the project was primarily afford- able because of the BMR provision, the Mayfield option, and other considerations, but was eoncerned over Stanford's ability to sell toe non-BMR units to the ' identified market, i.e., 120 percent to 150 percent :ounty income group. One Stanford source quoted one- third to one-half of the units might be rented, and another Stanford source said that housing assistance programs to help faculty with the large down payments would`be available. He sug- gested that more information or commitments as to those facts would be helpful. He understood that another Stanford spokes- pers-un expressed support for the co-op housing concept, which approach he heartily endorsed, and suggested that Stanford make a coaiafitment to that effect He had no question that co-op housing and -financial assistance for faculty .could make .Stanford West. affordable, °but in terms of -.the. impact on the City, he -referred to the 70 percent growth over the.;re't ,decade, and said the density -- necessitated the proposed recreation .area, setbacks,, adjoining land and traffic= proposals. Stanford'already made those commit :cents, and he saw _no reason._why _the City should not, formal ly approve. thegn. ..The project offered the City .an impdrtant housing project end a list of costly mitigations to control -,the impact on,. .both :Palo Alto and Menlo Park. He was satisfied with the. amend- -ments as proposed and strongly encouraged_the Council's support. Mayor Bechtel said after Council voted on the main motion she woul jl propose additional motions concerning limited equity co-ops, 3 5 8 0 7./11/83 .. She housing, and desigfi elements, %Lc. She concurred filth the comments trade by her colleagues that the items were ones that Stanford proposed and which were contained in the Land Use Plan for uses of the property, setbacks, etc. Members of the public requested a 1,UUU foot setback from Willow Road, and she believed _her approach for an average of 150 feet, was very reasonable. She also believed that proposing land uses in that unincorporated area in accordance with the Stanford Land Use Plan were also very rea- sonable. The 1UU- square yards of recreational field ��as extremely- important and needed for the residents of that area. Although 120 square yards of -recreational field might be. ideal, the proposal was reasonable and large enough to not drastically ,encroach on other recreational areas needed for passive recreation. AMILNUHE11T. PASSED unanimously. Uouncilmember Kenzel said she proposed to make a motion to follow the California Department of Fish and Wildlife recommendation that no grading or construction be allowed within 100 feet of the top of the creek bank. The proposal in the mitigation tables was that no structures he allowed within 9U feet, which was about one and one-half of the City's standard lot width. In an -open space con text, that was inconsequential --people going along the creek would not feel as though they were going along through a repair in habi- tat, but rather along the edge of an apartment project. She be:iPVPd ?_hat thw 4i_annin.� r`.,,,,rr.9 on . .. . ..___e_, t at- _ _ _ __: .: � a....... v;� � .��.y.pI1tGITVGV Lila {, i.flCi C be 900 units and that there could be.more units only if there was open space or affordability compensation. A certain amount was taken care of by Mayor Bechtel's motions, but Stanford and staff came in with 1,100 units, 2UU more than -the Planning Commission recommendation, but 175 less than originally proposed for the 46 acre site. There was some flexibility for restructuring the site to preserve what she considered to be the most important amenity and land feature --the creekside open space. She reiterated the Cal.iforni.a Uepartment of Fish and Game recommendation that no yrading or development be permitted, and the current plan which permitted grading, tennis courts, streets, parking, and a variety of things within that 9U foot ban in addition to structures. Significant benefit could be derived from increasing the setback to 1UU 'feet and not permitting any grading or construction. In other words, the whole developed project would have to occur out- side the 100 foot ban. If Stanford desired to attract teachers from their half acre lots in Connecticut, it was essential to pro- vide something distinctive and she believed the creekside was the most distinctive amenity that could be offered with the project. Menlo ParK neighbors appeared in droves concerned about the impact of such a dense project adjacent to their four or six per acre subdivisions, and she believed ehe 100 foot no grading or devel- opment" area would partially address their concerns. Many of the achaeological sites were in the .vicinity of the 100 foot ban along the creek, and having a no grading or structure facility .might obviate the expense.gf archaeological protection in that area, and would make -more significant allowance for the occasional fluffing and rerouting which happened on every creek. It was a sensible thing to do in the long term. MOTION: Counci lmember Renzel moved an page 12, under Land Use and Population, that a mitigation to the significant impact that the project posed potential conflicts with surrounding land uses in terms of its relative scale and proximity to the reek, be to not allow grading or structures within 100 feet. Mayor Bechtel said she might be prepared to second the motion, but asked staff what was proposed in the current plan in terms of grading. Mr. $chr-eiber said page 12, under Land, Use and Population,.:Indi-- cated the 10 root building setback, but page 3 indicated a sig- nificant impact on the hydrology and. water quality area which was the specific impact on the creek bank and area, The mitigation 1 3 5 8 1 7/11/83 r=ecommended by the Pldnniny Coiiiniission was the Department of Fish and (.acne wording that no grading or development occur. The Department Fish and name's initial recommendation was 100 feet and since concurred with the 90 feet,, but the mitigation was for no grading or development within 90 feet; The 100 feet versus 90 feet factor, was like a balloon --_pushing it in someplace would have it pop out someplace else. If the City added more require- ments for central, active and passive oven space, it became a question of what would dive, and -another tern feet along the creek would either make the buildings closer- together and private open spaces would be scrunched or there would have to be further encouragements on some of the central open space to make up the difference. Mayor Bechtel clarified the amendment was for an additional ten feet or no grading. Councilmember Renzel said that in most places where it said incor- porated by the project sponsor it said no structures would occur within 90 feet and she asked for assurances that At was an addi- tional prohibition to the grading. Mr. Schreiber said that was -correct, and the intent was. that there be n gr id i ny, pdv i nu, development, and no• structures. The only work contemplated _in the area was. some restoration and maintenance of the existing dirt pathway, the creek bank, and additional land- scapiny-to fi)1 in current holes and upgrade. Councilmember Renzel said the dia -amatic plans incorporated into the EIR appeared to show a lot of intrusion of roadways and other things into that setback, and she asked for comment. Mr. Schreiber said earlier graphics in the preparation of the EIR showed intrusions in the 90 foot area because initially the archi- tects measured the 90 feet from a location other than- the banks. He did not believe any of the latest graphics showed any intrusion of paving, etc,. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Henze] asked for clarification that the "hoptel" was qualified in the multi -family zone as lodging unit whereby' two lodging units were permitted far regular apartment unit. Mr. Freeland said it would be considered a lodging unit, and the calculation that "two equalled one unit" was. for purposes of park- ing requirements and other site related characteristics. Councilmember Renzel clarified that it also meant twice as many lodging units could be permitted as apartment units. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct, but a lodging unit could not contain kitchen facilities He understdod-the units would most likely nave kitchens, and the density along` with the 1100 Welch Road site was •calculated counting one hoptel unit as one unit and no ".two for one" counting. Councilmember°°Renzel clarified it basically took aj:a:rtment' units. and called them "hoptel units." Mr. Schreiber said the -applicant was so at away from design decisions, but he believed that whop. -the City saw the-hoptel units, they would be "close to conventional apartment units, and would simply have a different designated use. There Was some_ anticipations _ at the University -regarding different funding sources, but in ,essence, each unit counted; as one unit. Councilmember-Renzel clarified that as separated from the other housing project at 1.:100 Welch Road, it world still be one unit per apartment unit. 3.t 8 2 7/11/83 r u. ::;chreiber said h a was c r r e t. -Couricilmember Renzel asked whether the parking requirements re- lated to lodging or apartment units. Mr, Schreiber said each unit would end up with its own parking as required for apartment units. Councilmember Renzel clarified the proposed "hoptel" was another apartment development called a 'hoptel," and did not relate to how lodging would be treated in other parts cf the City. Mr. Schreiber said it would not establish a precedent for other portions of the City, Couricilmtmber Renzel said she was concerned about lodging units because when they were permitted by the zoning ordinance in multi- family zones, it was not contemplated -they would lhave kitchens. Since the City- apparently waived the BMR requirement with respect to lodging units ettitch normally had different and lesser parking requirements than multi -family units, she would be concerned if the City permitted kitchens and all the other developers benefits of lodging units --lesser parking, no BMR requirements, and a te rca r h„i l di ny mass because of the 1 e,sser parking requirement J e.V .� S""e clarified those concerns were not curr•enLly d concern and it .enleiri n.,l rhanraa from the current staoe to the oro.iect stage. Mr. Schreiber responded the City could not end up with more units, but in terms of parking, Stanford talked about deferring some parking subject to an appropriate mechanism for handling it, which issue -night come back in the design review process. At the pre- sent time, the information was not available, but it was antici- pated the decision would require Council approval. Councilmember Renzel said in further negotiations, staff wanted to permit limited equity co-op !::; s iny on the 11(10 Welch Road site and eliminated the requirement for rental only. She asked if that was part of the mitigations or whether the Council needed to mod- ify it in the approval if it wished' to require that it be "rental or limited equity cooperative." ve," Part of the on gi na l "acceptance" of the 1100 Welch Road site was because it proposed that it be entirely rental. Mr. Schreiber said he believed the elimination of "rental only " referred .' o the BMR. Mr. Freeland said he believed Counuilmember Renzel referred to the #pro;:ec.t description which might well state that the 1100 Welch Road site was intended to be rented. Councilmember Renzel said the June 23, 1983, staff report speci- fically mentioned that t.fe "rental only" was deleted to permit limited equity cooperative and she wanted to be sure to address the issue at the proper,tiie. Mayor -Bechtel said the BMR aspects were being discussed separately from the :mitigation measures, and she suggested that; -the limited equity issue be discussed after voting on the E1R. Mr. Freeland said he believed the question had to-do with whether the i1R as it stood would have any conflict with a cooperative hqusi!hg project on the 1100-w 1ch Road site and whether the proj- ect was described as being "rental only." Councilmember Menzel,,said the project -was described as "rental only" for the 1100 -Welch Road, and the June 23, 1983, staff report spe ificai ly mentioned that the "-rental s; nly" was delete d In order to provide for the possibility of Stanford providing limited' 3 5,8 3 //11/83 equity cu-vp3. If ,hot was part of the mitigations, she wanted to address it now and have it say "rental or limited equity co-op" rather than deleting "rental -only" and leaving it open for condo- miniums. Mayor Bechtel referred to page 41, under Project Characteristics, which said the "Welch Road site would offer 100 percent of the units as rentals,_" and she asked whether the Council wished to amend the ElR to insert "rentals and/or limited equity! coopera- tives. Ft LANGUAGE TU AMEND EIR TO STATE THAT THE WELCH ROAD SITE WOULD OFFER 100 PERCENT OF THE UNITS AS RENTALS AND/OR LIMITED EQUITY COOPERATIVES ONLY INCORPORATED INTO MAIN MOTION BY MAKER AND SECOND Councilmember Renzel said she presumed that if the language showed u p somewhere else in the mitigation measures, it would also be incorporated into those spots. Mayor Bechtel said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel said regarding Willow Road, a number- of the traffic mitigations went around the issue of extending Willow Road to I- Camino If the language was contained in mitigations aarinpt- v v. -' Camino. 1 1I V • I - the 14 1 .' 414 .',� LEI '.w ..r. ed by the_ Council ton ght, and if similar language was adopted w ith respect to the Hospital Modernization Project and any other projects, but no real Willow Road extension decision was made, and all of the events suggested cane to pass, site asked if the City was obligated to punch Willow Road through. Mr. Schreiber said nothing before the Council tonight would obli- gate the City to approve a Willow Road extension. Councilmember Renzel said normally the City was required to pro- ✓ ide for mitigations or overriding benefits, and asked if. the Council sugyested mitigations and no overriding benefits, whether the "chickens would come home to roost" at some point. Mr. Schreiber said the City di'd not identify any mitigations for a Willow Road extension other than noting in the staff report on the transportation area the amount of funding proposed appeared to be adequate to cover the mitigations for a Willow Road extension to the best of staff's current knowledge, but that EIR was in draft form and not yet released and would be a separate process to go .through the CoLL_nci l . Councilmember Renzel said on page 18-A, Item 3, all of the non - auto related mitigations --shuttle buses,. bus service for school children, bicycle subsidies --started out with a basic per unit funding. An ongoing $10 per month contribution would be required from homeowners, but after a period of three years, the homei wners could decide wne-ther to continue...that program. In about 1986, two years. before\.Willow Road traffic was expected to return to its 1981 levels, it was possible that the homeowners, a major portion of which would be affiliated Stanford- University, might decide not to continue with the funding. She asked where - that left the City with respect to non -auto related mitigation measures. Mr. Freeland -said the three years had -to,.:do with the period after full occupancy of the project so the: e-ecould be- a period.- of time in which enough people could be in the project to see the success of tie different measures proposed. The date would not be 1986, but more like 1993-0r some period after the entire project ,was developed and occupied. If the homeowners .decided not to- continue the funding, there would be much less program for non -auto. i ncen-. tives. It was possible there -might be- some money left from -early capitalization -:based ore -the sale of the units,'.. -but the ;10 per month might disappear and the City could find itself with either .a very reduced or no program for non -auto mitigations:.rafter that time period. 3 5 8 4 7 /'1/83 it Couecilmeniber Renzel seisi she understood there would be - abo4Rt $220,000 it there were 1000 units, aid about $120,000 per --year for that period in which occupancy was being developed That was not enough to capitalize a fund given the proposal to put shuttle buses and bus service, etc. It appeared to be a mitigation mea- sure and traffic projections were based on its occurrence and if it were -deleted, what would happen to the City's intersections and everything else. - Mr. Freeland said he believed the sensible way to provide bus ser- vice would be through a contract. arrangement, and that the shuttle buses for -school children and the general shuttle bus service dur- ing the trial period would come primarily from the $10 per month rather than the capital. With a wise investment, the capital fund could grow, but if other programs,. such as the bicycle subsidy were started, it would draw down on the capital amount. The City needed to determine how to ;mplement the program ensuring reason- able use and control during the time period before the homeowners were ready to assume, full responsibility. In the early years, the City would need to be deeply involved with how the money was dis- tributed and invested,.but it was possible -to have the -initial funding orow into a sizable amount without the shuttle buses hav- ing to come strictly from capital. The City would need to work out those details between now and when the project and returned to the Councils t;ounct lmci��►Jsl ncfii.c i JQ111 J{,WIi v u ili{III.QLCU i s intent to keep a large number of rentals on site as well as the fact that it might P.1/i �'p tlitlh IY e number of rent lc because f unsold .. _:r .. ,._, .. .�. �,� v a a �.�av�a�� J ve.�+uiiJG of li1fJ V i Y units, which was currently the experience at Frenchman's Terrace. Since Stanford was one entity able to largely influence the vote on the matter and with a large amount of money at stake, she asked if it would be appropriate to say "resident homeowners making the deci- sion" rather than just 'homeowners." Mr. Freeland said he understood the Department of Real Estate frowned on situations where the project sponsor could control the Homeowners' Association so there would probably have to be a separation between the control of the Homeowners` Association and the project developer once the project was passed to the control of the Homeowners' Association. In the early years, the developer would have a major control over the entire site, but staff would have to review the subject aed return with details. Counci member Renzel said in. Item 7-C, related to the bicycle and pedestrian analysis,. -there would be a study and she asked whether the statement "if the City, the University, and residents of Stanford West jointly concluded..," meant that all three had to agree. Mr..Schreiber said the correct interpretation' was that all three nad to agree with a veto by any one of the parties. Coura ilmember Renzel clarified that Stanford would have a unilat- eral veto of any bicycle/pedestrian improvements even if. they were desired by the City and res dents.- AMEMDNIERT: Ceuncilme®ber Renzel moved, seconded by fletcher, that the last sentence of Item 7-C, on page. 18-A,- be 'Asended to read that ,if a aajority of the City, the University and the rest - dents (tvo out of three)- jointly cal clods...' Counci hnenber Renzel believed that mu+ h of the mitigation i"n_ the transpotat.lon area was going ln the direction .of non -auto related, and basically those questions were bei^.g left up `In_tthe air and subject to -a ilateral veto by the ' developer. She was concerned -that -once the,.: project was built and- occupied, it was difficult for the City -to revoke use permits and do other things to accomplish necessary goals.. it: -was . better to- deal with the matter up front. 1 3.5 8 5 7/11/83., 6N 1 .Councilmember Klein said he would vote against the amendment because he believed the Council was engaged in a cooperative pro- cess and it -was easy for two people to vote to spend the third person's money. There were many areas where the City had to insist on_ absolute agreements, but not the area covered by the amendment especially since the decision to build was uncertain. When the process began, he believed it would be an absolute neces- sity, but studies persuaded him that it was by no means -clear that it should be. He did not like the process of having the f:° iyht to force Stanford to'spend money on something that might not 6e necessary. Councilmember Levy agreed with Councilmember Klein also because the consultant who prepared the study must be acceptable to the City. That gave him confidence that the consultant would look at the matter objectively and look at it from the standpoint of the broader community. The recommendations of the consultant would represent a considerable' amount of pressure on all three parties, and he was satisfied that the City was protected in that regard. Councilmember Fetcher commented the City was not asking for veto power, just that there be a majority rule. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Ree+1e1 and Fletcher voting "aye." vvui.a. i iiucrwvcr i 1 Ct .i ci �a iu tie 1 I I�4 ,errl.err(.e ur 1.ne parayrapfl related to rentals on page 41 of the FIR stated that "the project .c.p.n.r:.zior as:t'c pates ..ha., approximatciy Vf the units on the 4b -acre site would be for sale, 30 percent available fnr rental units, and the remaining 40 percent dependent upon market conditions." She wanted assurances of at least 30 percent rental or co-op on the main site. It was assumed that when the traffic impacts were analyzed, those requirements would be in that cate- gory. Mayor Mechti i clarified it was the same sort of thing as in the amendment for 1100 Welch Road. Mr. Schreiber said he observed the co-op units vould most likely be regarded as sale units rather than rentals, and it might be I best handled by inserting a sentence after the first sentence to the effect that some of the units might be cooperative housing units. AMENDMENT : Councilmember Fletcher moved to add at the End of the first sentonce on page 41 of the EIR related to rentals, that "some of the units might be limited equity cooperative housing units." MAKER AND SECOND OF_ MAIN MOTION INCORPORATED AMENDMENT INTO MAIN MOTION Councilmember Fletcher wanted to make sure the 30 oercant was referred to in that context. Mayor Bechtel said it should not be tied to rental units because limited equities tended to be for . the for sale units. It should be :eft broader to avoid taking away from the 'rental units. She clarified the following sentence would read "Some of these units. for sale or rental could be. limited equity." MOTION TO CERTIFY THAT THE FINAL EIR WAS COMPLETED WITH THE MITIGATIONS ANC AS AMENDED WITH THE ADOI' IONAL MITIGATIONS PASSED unanimously. KECESs. FROM 9:4ti A'. m. TO =10:05 p,m. " ,yea.■nwv aver - �a1111r1�lr -. 3 5 8 6 7/11/83 Fr`. Mayor h chtcl said the Council was now ready to discuss the staff r•ecominendation concerning items outside of the CIR certification process. Page 4 of the July 8, 1983, staff report, raised a num- ber of issues the Council might wish to discuss. MOTION: Mayo, Bechtel moved, -seconded by Fazzino, subject to the development of acceptable design features and environmental mitigai:;on, to accept staff recommendations with additions to indicate conceptual acceptance of the following: 1. The proposed BMR agreement; 2. The proposed density of 194 units at 1100 Welch Road; 3. The proposed density of up to 1100 units on the 46 -acre site; 4. The incorporation of a day care center and convenience store into the project; 5. The requirement that the collector road be a public street and that the righ of -way can be an easement --not necessary fee title --and can be as narrow as 36 feet; 6. Use of deferred parking provided that a fully workable pro- posal for such deferral is submitted; plus 7. For sale housing shall have resale restrictions which shall be in accordance with Stanford uniyergity's priority list; d .., � priority � �,� E t a a. , and Vl U. Encourage Stanford University to provide eEntai `Musing and limited equity co-op housing. eounciimember Renzel said that earlier in the motion, it Was men- tioned to add rental or limited equity and she clarified that it was intended to be done on item 2 which was the 194 units on Welch Road because Item 3 addressed the 1,100 units which were going to be for sale rental, and the possibility of limited equity was added in the draft EIR. She asked if it was intended that they should be rental or limited equity on Welch Road only. mayor Bechtel said the broader concept of rental housing and limited equity co-op housing cove;:1 only be encouraged by the City. She believed it was in Stanford's interests to provide housing that was affordable to its staff and employees, and she did not believe it would be interested in providing housing that no one would buy or be able to rent. She trusted Stanford to provide acceptable, housing. She had no problem adding the language sug- gestO by Councilmember Renzel. She asked -, if a restriction that the hoptels at 1100 Welch Road be rentals or limited equity co-ops would be a problem for Stanford. Uirector of Real Estate for Stanford University Frank Morrow responded that Stanford anticipated the entire area to be full rental housing or limited equity co-ops. Another financing mechanism was to syndicate some of those units, and Stanford might ant the ability to subdivide the units and sel t off individual units to non -owner occupants in order to lower the effective cost to the residents. if it had to be rental only, he did not have a problem saying it was for rent only if he could still subdivide' and have non -occupant owners'. Mayor echtel saidi she preferred to nit insert the language now because it ._allowed the same flexibility _and she` did not want to insert the- limited equity or iertal's• oeCause she believed it was. Stanford's intent. The syndication issue was one that had- to be resolved legally by Stanford and she would just as soon keep it' the way it was and only put in limited 'equity under the -proposed KMtt agreement. 3 5 8 7. 7/11/83 Mr. Morrow said Stanford was seriously look prig at limited equity !fecause it had a lot of merit. He did not want Stanford precluded from other ways to finance -the units in order to keep the costs down. Councilmember Henzel said since the original project description indicated "rental only' and it was only in the June 23, 1983 staff report that there was a'change for the sole purpose of permitting limited equity cooperatives, she asked for clarification -that the idea of syndication only came up since June 23. Mr. Morrow said syndication was discussed by everyone at some length for some time, and he believed everyone understood they would be primarily rental units. Owner -occupants were not antici- pated, but various ways of creative financing were anticipated to make the project work. Mr. Schreiber said Mr. Morrow was correct. HE added a caveat that tonight's discussions were advisory, and noth eg would be binding. Advice was being given to Stanford on things the City would like to see pursued, and things it might wish to impose at the project approval stage. At this point in time, none of the following dis- cussion would be binding. iir. Morrow added for the record, that he understood 1100 Welch Road was b;; tZ primarily Housing for the people within the Medical Center. Almost by definition, it would be relatively short term, rental housiny, The paths to achieve those intentions were not clear, and he clarified that rental housing could also be limited equity cooperative. Mayer Bechtel t banked Mr. Schreiber for his comments that Council did not need to ask whether Stanford would be held back because the discussions were advisory only and were intended to provide input. Councilmember Fletcher asked regarding the possibility to sell to non -occupant owners, whether there would sti-11 be control on the priorities of who could occupy the units. Mr. Morrow said and particularly at 1100 Welch Road because it was a Medical Crater orientea project and they would hive first priority, and any type of third party ownership would have strin- gent controls. Councilmember Renzel clarified that Item 17 added by Mayor Bechtel stated that for sale housing shall have resale restrictions, and she asked whether it was intended to relate to BMR for sale hous- ing or all for sale housiny. Mayor Bechtel said she intended for it to relate to all for sale housiny. Because Stanford owned the land, there were various deed restrictions, and when a property owner sold a parcel, they were allowed only to sell to another Stanford professor, etc. Councilmember Reniel suggested the laneeage be:eltarrged to say that "for sale housiny might have resale restrictions" --rather than *shall' because the City did rot worry about' what Stanford did with its- property. She understood:"resale restrictions" related to the amount of equity that could be_built over time as was attempted through the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the BMR units.. 1f resale within the Stanford_ community was intended, it was Stanfordrs issue, and only an issue for the City ff the Coun- cil -wanted staff to know ;that it was okay for Stanford to do se. ,with respect to its property, but she did not believe'the City had.-_ any-. _cont ro 1 Mr. Freeland said the,.City would not normally have control, 3 5 8 8 7/11/83 Counc i i rnemPer Etenze l believed it would be better to not even address it and let Stanford worry about it. It might affect. future projects to appear before the Council, but the City never had any say over how Frenchman's Terrace or any other project was done. Mr. Schreiber said in the context of encouraging Stanford to do something, the priorities listed in the pro ect_descripotlnn were broad --1) faculty and all regular staff of the uni-versity a-:Sd hos- pital; 2) graduate students and post doctorate fellows; 3) :iaersons employed on University lands; and 4) persons working in Palo Alto. He sensed the thrust of the comment was to try and have the hous- ing, since the University was experienced in restricting priority on turnover, oriented towards those priorities rather than simple open market rate housing available to anyone whether they worked at Stanford or not. Councilmember Menzel clarified that Mr. Schreiber suggested hous- ing be available to the categories as indicated in the EIR as the target population for the housing. Mr. Schreiber said as he understood Mayor Bechtel comment, the intent was to try -and orient the housing and the second and third subsequent occupants of the housing to those priorities rather than open free market rate housing. Mayor Bechtel said she was concerned the project -was valuable from the point of reducing traffic because if Stanford employees were liviny in the project, they would not be driving through other communities and causing traffic difficulties_ However, if someone subsequently sold the property to someone who worked in San Carlos, the problem would not be solved. Since the discussions were advisory, the City could encourage for sale housing to have resale restrictions which should be in accordance with Stanford priority lists. Councilmember Renzci was concerned that resale restri :tions could be all kinds of resale restrictions without some clarification about the Council's intent. . If the intent was to address the taryet population, she had no. problem supporting it. She had a lot of difficulty with a "company town" in general, but could see the purpose of attempting to minimize traffic and encouraging nearby people to live there. She suggested that the resale restrictions be clarified when Making the motion. Councilmember Fletcher emphasized that she agreed wholeheartedly with the thrust of the motion because she was more interested in accommodating those who already drove in Palo Alto as opposed to the 3,000 new people. She was concerned about the street widths toeing tied to 36 feet and not allowing more flexibility to make it more narrow. The Vi l lage Homes model in Davis had 243 foot wide streets. Parking in that model was not allowed parallel to the curb along the street, but within every block on both sides 'at several locat `ons, there were bays off the road where cars parked perpendicular to the street and about four or five cars fit into each of those bays, which allowed the street to be 20 feet and still accommodate the cars that would normally be eccommodated.on a wider street if they were parked one behind the other. She preferred that the motion allow for more flexibility and that .it be worded to allow for the. exploration of narrower streets since no one was being tied to anything. She realtied fed that 36 feet was the traditional size roadway to allow for parking on the street, which took up cdnsiderably more space. The development concept she had in mind was demonstrated at Davis. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved that the motion allow for more flexibility by allowing for the exploration of streets being narrower than 36 feet. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECQM,D 1 1 1 3 5 8 9 7/11/83 Gounci lm:rnber Henze] commented that she was . concerned about how narrow the street might be given the fact the project was one of l,iU0_units which was not built on the standard grid system and would have considerably more :,treets for guests, etc. to park. She did not object to Councilmember Fletcher's concept of li'.tle parking bays, but since there would be some deferred parking, she had seen too many places where the parking occurred on the street end it was essential that the street, at least meet the City's minimum street standards. She asked for clarification that the 36 feet included four six-foot wide lanes plus two bicycle paths. Mr. Schreiber said it was two 1Z -foot lanes, plus bicycle area on either side, one eight foot parking area, and the parking area would alternate from one side to the other. There would not be parking on both sides --parking would be on one side only. -Trans- portation believed •.t was important from a vehicle movement stand- point, and from visitor parking. The Fire Department believed it was important to allow for parking. The design was intended to allow for 24 foot clear, and having a car parked on one side of the street would .still allow enough room for a fire truck to go by. The 36 foot area referred to the area where there would be an off road bicycle path on one side of the street, so there would be 36 feet in some spots and 40 feet in others. Councilmember parking on both sides of the street. nCI1gC 1 the 40 foot wide streets would have Mr. Schreiber responded the 40 foot wide streets would have bicycle .lanes on both sides plus one side of parking. Some loca- tions would have bicycle paths off the road and in that case the roan width would be down to 36 feet. Councilmember Renzel said regarding the proposed BMR agreement, originally there was discussion the Stanford BMR program would spread the units between 80 and 120 percent of median- income with an average at median level. Since the language was not in the most recent report received by Council, she asked if it was still contemplated that those units would be spread between the 80 and 120 percent and would not all end up at the 120 percent level. Mr. Schreiber said that was absolutely his understanding. Councilmember Renzel asked if that needed to be verbalized or whether it should be left in the record as the understanding. Mr. Freeland said he believed it was understood and that it should be understood by the Council as an acceptable BMR distribution. Councilmember Renzel asked whether it was appropriate to make a specific amendment that it was understood the Stanford BMR units would be spread between the 80 and 120 percent of median income. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Eyerly, that the:units ins_the Stanford IMR program world be spread between the 80 and 120 percent of -median income. Councilmember Levy asked what the rent would be for someone at the 80 percent -level. He always Wondered whether more restrictions were being put on Stanford that would be put on -a normal developer or whether they were -being treated in the -same way. Mr. Schreiber said the latest ° rent range figures for the 80 per- cent of median income, assuming 25 percent of income for rent, ranged from $410 for a one person household, $465 for a two person household; $525 for a three person household, and $585 for a four person household on up, 3 5 9 0 7/14/83 Counci lmember Levy said the ,'figures appeared to be attainable and he supported the amendment. Mayor Bechtel said under the BMR restrictions,, the first paragraph pointed out that all of -the details of Stanford's BMR program needed to be fully worked out before completion of the project. Councilmember Menzel said she rea'.;zed that,_but in the course of the Planning Commission deliberations and up to now, it had been represented that those units would be spread in that range. Since it was a concept that was kind of an enderpinning of all the deci- sions made to date, it was important to make sure it was clear. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Renze} said she was still concerned about the 194 units at 1100 Welch Road and asked whether some language could be added to indicate that while they might be financed on an equity basis, they would be occupied on a rental or limited equity co-op basis. Mr. Freeland said the project in the EIR identified the 1100 Welch Road site as offering 100 percent of. the units as rentals. A statement was added to Affect that some that a�nee of the u111 4, 1 11 the project might be limited equity co-ops. He understood from the t iri just, approvea that rentals or limited equity co-ops better be brought in. MUTIUN AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. Mayor Bechtel said the Council was ready to discuss design. Councilm.ember Fazzino said his worst fears came true because he feared the Council had degenerated into another Planning Commis- sion meeting. he encouraged his colleagues to leave the item by item evaluation of the project to the Planning Commission and that the Council yet on with the policies, His purpose in moving through all the issues at one time was to establish the fact that he believes the project for the most part was adequately handled. Staff supplied a generous list of mitigations which were_ accepted by Stanford and Council` did not need to do much more than the amendments approved earlier tonight to move ahead with the project which was why he was "peaked" that staff asked the Council to hold off their comments even with the possibility of a lawsuit. He was always concerned when a staff person told him to be careful about what he said because of potential lawsuits. He Was concerned three months ago about the design issue because he believed the color scheme was totally inappropriate for the site, he was con- cerned about the way in which open space was treated, and that the color scheme and other aspects viewed by Council that evening tended to make ,the project immense and not one which blended well into the area. It was extremely important, if the project was to be accepted by the community, that it be designed well and have an architectural style which blended into -the area. lie Commended Stanford at the `i\ime for the outstanding Peter Coutts project, which he believed was an excellent architectural design. He encouraged Stanford's architect to go back and look closely at Peter Coutts and other projects which were well designed to ensure that the site fit into the general area. He left those comments for the ARB and Planning Commission wen they discussed the is -sue later. It was important.; for the City .staff, to work with. Stanford, step by -step a1nng- me way., to ensure ,the design issues repre.- sented the, policies and guidelines adopted by the Council and. which were reflected in ARB considerations over the years. Counci liaember:, Levy said ne had no comment with respect ti- the _ des=ign issue. It was too easy for those who had the microphone to pontificate on everything that came along whether_ or not the Council had thee -ability in the background to do so. Specifically, 1 3 5 .9 1 7/11/83 design was outside the Council's area and why the ARB was in existences Perhaps the fact that the Council kept at arms length from the ARB was the reason for its success. The Council must remember as it discussed the project, that Stanford would also have to live with the results forever, and it was in Stanford's self interests to do a good job with design, make it a desirable place for people to live, to make it affordable, and that it be well maintained. He believed the Council could -rely on its own. ARB to ensure that the design was good. 1 1 Vice Mayor Witherspoon said regarding the design, she sensed Coup,'= cilmember Fazzino's frustration with the color scheme a few month's ago, but she vas dissatisfied because it had no sense of place. Her experience on the Council showed that density had less to do with the number of dwelling units on a site than with the design of the buildings and how each related to the other. Some of the densest projects in Palo Alto were some.of the best designed and had little impact_ on their neighbors. She hoped that when the design issue was before the ARB, real thought would be given to the scale. Stanford was too proud to ..comply with the City's, recommendation to provide playing fields and large areas for pas- sive recreation, but in a project as dense as the one proposed, it was important to provide the residents some open space they could consider private. A good example for the climate in California would be to provide every unit .•Pith some acres to the outdoors, either a ground patio or balcony, and there was no excuse not to. S z iiau iiv V i jet. L i Vii i.v Lire i, i ny un i s, buL believed that in con- junction, common recreation or. entertainment rooms should be pro- vided -Otherwise, it could be difficult for friends and relatives to visit. She preferred that the large plaza like open spaces be scaled down to avoid ending up like the City Hall Plaza which she opined to be lonely, windy and cold so that no one wanted to use i t , and suggested a series of small city scape open spaces. The City and Stanford had the opportunity to provide an exciting project, and she hoped that through compromise and goodwill, it would go forward. Councilmember Cobb also did not like Stanford's first cut of the design. He liked Peter Coutts because it was a compliment to the hill, and urged Stanford to use the same sensitivity and care in the design of Stanford West so there would be no need for the people who lived across the creek in Menlo Park to be concerned about their neighbors. The project should blend with its neigh- bors and be something everyone could look at with pride. It was important to assure that Stanford West was integrated with Palo Alto because its occupants would be residents and voters in .the City of Palo Alto and would take part in its activities. Every- thing possible should be done to. make those residents a part of the community, and he hoped Stanford and t`te City would devote the necessary attention to that fact as the project progressed because to do otherwise would result in the creation of a "compar.y town," which was not in either Palo Alto's or Stanford's best interests. He was delighted to see Stanford pick up positively to the concept of limited equity co-ops because it was one way to make large amounts of housing affordable, and he encouraged that it be done to the largest degree possible. He was concerned about parking, and believed the projection for cars was unrealistic. Even if one member of every family worked at Stanford, the other might work elsewhere and there would be a lot:-. of -cars in need of parking in addition o guest parking. If adequate parking were not provided, Stanford Shopping Center might be used as the parking lot for the extra cars, and he hoped the City: would not delude itself. into thanking there would only be -one car per, family. The suggestion to allow impact assessments' after . partial completion was not recommended inithe list -of mitigations, and he rbelieved it should be added. The quarter was close to saturation even with the miti- gations, and the 1990 projections reflected a toughsituation. 3 5 9 2 7/11/83. Councilmember Fletcher corrected her earlier remark in terms of "mercury vapor lighting" to "flyorescent lighting," and said that the Greenhouse condominium project switched from incandescent to fluorescent lighting in the common areas which reduced the costs by half. She would like to see passive solar siting, natural drainage, and community gardens using setbacks is possibility, in addition to safer bicycle parking on campus, which presently suffered 400 to 500 stolen bicycles per year. The racks were insufficient, and Palo Alto's parking ordinance should be used as a guide. Equipment should not block the Willow Road bike lane or the off road bike lane during construction, and she asked for clarification that the project would process through the Planning Commission and Council. She commended staff on its outstanding job, and in terms of Stanford's hure feelings, she offered assurances that projects and developments were seldom allowed to build out to the maximum zoning. All developers were treated the same, and the project's size required so many mitigations and controls. The City had to assure that developments woizTd not harm the future residents of a project or the residents of the City as a whole. She was pleased to see the project go forward and felt it would be an asset to Stanford and Palo Alto. Councilmember Renzel said the initial goal articulated by Stanford in the EIR was to create an aesthetically pleasing, ,environ- mentally sensitive_ Pnarnv effirsnnt and -;-_� __ _ _ _ . _ and ::+ c; '! i � j C f; E. , d Tl D the site offered a opportunity for a creative design. With a standard road system, as few as 600 units could be permitted the 46 acre site, and there was a tremendous opportunity with the much higher density proposed. A significant amenity on site was the Say; Francisquito Creek, and she hoped Stanford would note her remarks. The design was inadequate in terms of aesthetics and environmental sensitivity, and Stanford faculty and staff would have higher standards and need more than a low down payment. She concurred with Vice Mayor Witherspoon regarding a sense of place, and she quoted George Cody about a "series of suburban garden apartments blown up to an urban size and offering the advantages of neither tot lots surrounded by five story buildings...largest most complex, most important public open space is the street... definition of the entrance to the neighborhood was poor." She spoke of the need to cross Willow, and fully agreed with Mr. Cody that the project was unacceptable. It must be a much lower dens- ity, which was a matter of design, and the proposed design did not take advantage of the site. The psychological effects of the design on its prospective inhabitants were also not good. Menlo Park would have to look at the project, and Stanford should util- ize the creek -site open space not only`as an celen1 ty but also as a buffer. She .hoped the Council would have an opportunity to review the design, and the final project would be a vast improvement. Mr. Schreiber reminded Council ,that the City's process for design review allowed the AR13 or- staff to monitor the design after ARS review to the Council, and he requested that staff be directed to do so. He believed the Council would wish to see the design, and although a motion was unnecessary, he requested information re- garding any strong objections. Mayor Bechtel asked if anyone objected to the project being re- ferred back to the Ceunci l , :after going to the ARB, and receiving none, she directed that it be done. NOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Penzel , that the Council find the proposed design inadequate and encourage Stanford University to incorporate the specific proposals made by the Council at its July ,ill, 1983 meetinx-.carding design. Councilmember Levy believed design was outside the Council's pro- vince add would abstain from voting. Councilmember Klein believed the design could be approved but did not want to tie the developer=s hands by suggesting incorporation i/11i83 As Corrected. 11/14/83 of Council recommendations.. He would support the motion if it stopped after requesting improvement. MAKER AND SECOND A.GREEQ MOTION RESTATED: THAT THE PRESENT DESIGN WAS INADEQUATE AND THAT STANFORD MAKE IMPROVEMENTS MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-0-1, Levy "abstaining." COUNCIL MOVED TO BRING FORWARD ITEM #17, NORTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY :'itu[.tUUKt r►,lx i HKtt. iitASUi4ts� Al SPLC IAL LLLC FTUR IU PaOVIUE 1 UNt -1-UK S1Arr 10 ARK1VE ITEM #17, NORTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT rreranrM=1"ATOrriTTETTDEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION-- Councilmember Renzel said she completely concurred with the staff recommendation and because of the tremendous public interest developing on the subject, it was important for the Council to direct her representation at the Solid Waste Management Board. MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Fazzino, approval of the staff recommendation to instruct its Solid Waste Management 1..4heritu Dnnwnenr�ta,tivs tn� 1. Support actions to maintain maximum flexibility regarding retention of all viable project options; 2. Oppose any action that would require delays in the orderly pursuit of project developments such as restudying options which have proven to be impractical; and 3. Ensure that all options regarding the use of Bryan Canyon remain orin until proven to be unacceptable due to engineering or environmental reasons, which include continued considera- tion of feasible alternate access routes. Mayor Bechtel was concerned about:Br;ant Canyon, but added that it might be the only alternative and the door should not yet be shut. Councilmember Cobb asked to the extent the City tried to get into the energy recovery business which involved burning and emissions whether the projected emissions were unacceptable or an unaccept- able contribution to ghat was already a bad smog', situation under certain circumstances. Director of Public Works David Adams said the study entitled "Fatal Flaw" did not turn tip any fatal flaw in that area, and it was believed that the emissions wer=e controllab'e in that area. Councilmember Levy asked about the comparative costs for the three sites currently being considered. Mr. Ada;: ;said that information was not available tonight,, but could be obtained through the Authority.. Those costs appeared to change as one got deeper into the study areas. Councilmember Levy said the further away- from the metropolit=an area, the more acceptable the site would be in terms of the intru- sion on local residents. If -the:: were not talking about signifi- cant differences in cost, he preferred to more actively consider further distant sites. He realized they were more costly, but suggested the costs could be relatively marginal. It appeared to be a 25 Year scenario, and he was concerned that 25 years went by quickly and the City's planning should be beyond that point at the present tme. 3 5 9 4 7/11/83 As Corrected 11/14/B3 Mayor Bechtel said that she and Cot.ncilmembers Fletcher and Renzei attended the all day study session on Solid Waste, and some alter- natives showed in combination, a 100 year life or even longer dependent upon how it was dune. Councilmember Levy's comment that the further away the less impact on residents was true, but some- one else's residence or neighborhood would be impacted, and the costs for hauling, whicsi was the major expense, were substantially increased. Extensive data regarding those facts could be obtained from the consultant and Mr. Henderson of the Solid Waste Board. City Manager Bili' Zarier said the real costs were transportation, and the further away, the faster the costs rose. Councilmember Renzel said there could be problems with combining the various possibilities of energy recovery and landfilling because a site which might provide 30 years of straight landfill capacity was expanded by three or four times with a conversion of refuse. In terms of the long-term implications, 42 sites were initially believed to be alternatives for the solid waste solu- tion, and it now appeared that only six or seven were available, and she could not imagine what it would be like in 25 or 30 years. It behooved the Council to look beyond the Solid Waste Management Board's mission to deal with garbage for 30 years, and if a flexi- ble solution for the future were not sought, it would not .be easier to deal wits the problem in the future. To the extent the city rPliad nn a neetcir♦n- itc- ieericrr-ir•tinn it ,..!cold b - competing with many other communities. Approximately four out of five landfills would close in the next five years in California. and only 30 or so landfills were in the permitting stage including the Kirby Canyon site, which did not yet have a permit or an access road. Most likely they were talking about Pacheco Pass in terms of an outside landfill and there would be competition with other communities for that space in a basically monopoly market. It was important to remember that in terms of long-range plan- ning. Councilmember Eyerly was happy to see the recommendation to oppose any actions that would result in restudies or,impractical delays -on the project„ which he believed tended to occur on projects of like magnitude as the time drew closer to actually commit to spend the money and proceed. He urged staff and the Council liaison to oppose that type of action. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM 116, ARGUMENT PROCEDURE FOR THREE MEASURES AT,, SPECIAL 'C I'T MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved,_. seconded b.y Witherspoon, that the Mayor be artnori red on behalf of the Council to appoint per- sons to prepare three arguments in favor of measures for approval at the holy 18 meeting. Councilmember Levy asked for clarification that Council would vote on the wording of whatever came back. Mayor Bechtel said that was correct, and that community members or individuals representing organizaticns would be asked to cosign. MOTION rrjjiii---Onaniior3, y. Mayor Bechtel asked staff to help draft the argunments under the cable television items in time for Council review in conjunction with a.subcomari.ttee of Councilmembers Levy and Cobb. She asked the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee to -draft an argument regarding the Controlle r`s-position. ITEM 119, REgEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE MOFFETT FIELD- .. Councilmember F4cher si-ad she placed tht matter on the agenda because pressure was being exerted by the City of San -Jose to open Mil 1 Moffett Field for transcontinental car• intercontinental commercial aviation. The Council took the position a few years ago advocat- ing that Moffett Field be open to general aviation as a, reliever for Palo Alto Airport. At the time, the Council did not consult with Mountain View or Sunnyvale, and she discovered a few months later that Sunnyvale was very opposed to any general aviation at Moffett Field because it would be impacted by those flights much more so than Palo Alto. It was appropriate for the Council to reverse its position. Plans were moving ahead for a general avia- tion airport across the bay at -Fremont --not at the present Fremont site adjacent Milpitas. She asked for assurances that Moffett Field would nOt get opened for commercial aviation not only be- cause of the impacts of the air traffic on Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Palo _Alto but also because of the ground traffic it would draw. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved that Council to on record as being opposed to joint military/civilian use of Moffett field and to commercial aviation at Moffett Field now and in the future independent of the military use of the installation. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, that the matter of the use of Moffett field be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee. Mayor Bechtel believed the Cnunei l ►,apaer1 a.±ryi* _n ? ck �- - -- -- -- 79 volt . information on the subject, but agreed concerning the commercial and genera: aviation use and the previous Council pnlic, was worthy of reterral to the Policy and Procedures Committee. Councilmember Fazzino agreed with Mayor Bechtel's apprcach because at this point he might support the possibility of. commercial avia-, tion at Moffett Field, but at the same time wanted to hear the concerns of Sunnyvale, Mountain View and -other communities in the area, and have another discussion of the whole general aviation strategy of the Bay Area. The issue was discussed at length three or four years ago but would be appropriate for another Committee review, and he would support the motion. Councilmember Renzel had no problem referring the matter to the P&P Committee, but asked for confirmation that no time urgency was involved. Councilmember Fletcher said that was her only concern because Mayor Packard mentioned that some hearings were pending, but that he was not aware of any particular schedule. She believed there would be enough notice for .th3 City in the event hearing dates were set, and that action might possibly be taken in time for such an occurrence. Councilmember Renzel said she understood the previous Vote •did:not urge a civilian use which meant general and commercial avi.ati on_, but general aviation only whi-ch was significantly different than the commercial aviation recently.proposed. She had no objection to stating as, a policy that she opposed commercial aviation at Moffett Field, but perhaps it was better to discuss the entire matter as a whole et the P&P Committee. As long as a reliever airport was clearly identified and available for the increased use of the Palo Alto Al,rport, it might be appropriate to .look at -the City's pelt ides again. MOTION PASSES) vnaniwousty. Councilmember Fletcher asked that staff notify both Sunnyvale and Mountain View of the Council's action and Committee hearing date. ITEM 120, RE U€ST OF MAYOR BECHTEL AND COU$CILMEMBER CO 3 RE U4 NC1L SU UK OF COMMUNITY EfIORtS TO CURi TEENAGE' DRINKWb` AND UK1V1N MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, appiova1 of the resolution endorsing the community efforts to curb teenage drink., ins rod driving. 3 5 9 6 7/A/83 RESOLUTION 6156 entitled "IESOLUIIUN OF THE COUNCIL- OF 1111-7717"137-7710 ALTO URGING ALL MEMBERS OF THE COM- MUNITY TO WORK TOWARD SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF DRUG ABUSE, DRINKING AND DRIVING" Councilmember Levy agrAA with the objectives of the motion, but the resolution was headlined to the problem of drinking and driv- ing, and the resolution addressed itself to drug abuse as well. Both problems needed to be -addressed, and if it Here up to him he would be more concerned with the dangers of alcohol abuse in the community, particularly among its younger members. -' 'hile he was not'.insensitive to the concerns about drug abuse, it might_be well for the Council to address itself specifically to the issue of drinking and driving. Mayor Bechtel said she understood Councilmember Levy's comments, but at the meeting she attended with ,approximately 80 concerned parents and residentF-i. the Community Health Abuse Council staff members who dealt with children who had problems of being arrested or cited for driving under the influence found that alcohol abuse was frequently related_ to drug abuse of one kind or another and that they were not necessarily separated. The resolution was pre- pared in a broad manner because even though alcohol abuse had gone up considerably compared to drug use, the two were not separated. Councilmember Levy suggested that the title of the resolution be changed to read, "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto -urging Al i Members _ of the Community to Work Toward Solving the Problem of Drug Abuse, Drinking and Driving." TITLE CHANGE INCORPORATED INTO MOTION BY MAKER AND SECOND MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #21, COUNC1LMEMBER COBB RE MEETING FOR ANNUAL REVIEW FOR CITY Mayor Bechtel said she was finding sonnet session. awkward to schedule a per- Counci lmerber Cobb said he wanted to try and agree on an evening for the full Council to have the.annual review of the::City Man- -ager. It was initially agreed upon for July 20, but the Personnel Committee was going to try to complete the evaluation form. He was concerned that if the date for .the City Manager's review was not rescheduled, -it would force the Committee to run through the other matter faster than desired. MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seccded by Reuzel -to set the annual review for the City Manager on July 27$ 1983. Councilmember Fletcher said the Transportation Connis:1on was dis- cussing the Palo Alto bus routes that evening. Mayor Bechtel suggested that Council stick with the July 2Ci', 1983 date. NOTION WITHDRAWN AUIJUIKNMENt Council adjourned at 11:3U p.m. ATTkST: APPROVED: 3 5 9 7 7/11/83