Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-13 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUEICI L Manures Regular. Meeting Monday, duly 13, 1981 ITEM Update on Medfiy Situation Oral Communications Approval of Minutes Consent Calendar AB 1113 - Annexation of Unincorporated Areas Painting of Exterior of Civic Center San Francisquito Creek Erosion Control Project 81-84 - Agreement Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Condominium Conversion Ordinance Review of Proposed Sexual Orientation Ordinance for Ballot CITY PALO ALTO PAGE 1 0 3 7 1 0 J 8 -1 3 8 1 0 3 9 1.0 3 9 1 0 3 9 1 0 3 9 1 0 4 0 1 0 5 3 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Paul J. Kahn, Robert J. 1 0 5 3 Debs and David H. Jeong from the decision of the Architectural Review Board re California Avenue/ Park Boulevard Project Adjournment to July 20, 1981 1 0.6 7: Regular Meeting Monday, July 13, 1981 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Hender son, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon Mayor Henderson announced that the Council had met at 7:00 p.m. in a special executive session regarding personnel. Mayor Henderson introduced the new Assistant Planning Director, Bruce Freeland. Mayor Henderson said that the aerial spraying of Malathion would take place that night starting at Page Mi 1) Road and going south. Mayor Henderson asked that Assistant City Manager June Fleming and Acting City Attorney Don Maynor report on the current status of the Medfly situation. Ms. Fleming updated the Council regarding the stripping efforts. She said that staff had received 500 calls for assistance which had not been responded to. She said staff would continue to respond to requests for assistance through Wednesday to accommo- date residents still in the process of stripping and in need of access to the dump. The dump would remain open until 8:30 p.rn. through Wednesday. There were about 140 volunteers and 130 City employees working over the weekend and that the City would be supplementing the volunteers with City employees from all depart- ments t6 assist with the stripping through Wednesday. Ms. Fleming also said the City was attempting to work with the Telephone Company so.that -lines would be available to accommodate people calling in requesting information about spraying Mr. Maynor said that Superior Court Justice, Bruce Allen ruled - that he fou.ard no danger in aerial spraying and would not issue an injunct ,eo enjoining the State from spraying. He said he had heard, second hand, that, a writ had been sought from the California Supreme Court with no success. He said "the attorneys would be regrouping tomorrow to see"_ if there was anything else they could do. Mr. Maynor said substantial testimony was given in Superior Court all day, including testimony from a Stanford professor regarding the potential dangers of Malathion, but to no avail. Mr. Maynor said that the municipal 'ordinand_was still in effect, and ,that it was still a misdemeanor violation if fruit and vegetables were not stripped by 5:00 p.m. today, Mayor Henderson commended :,June Fleming and Don Maynor and felt they had done 0 remarkable job. Counci iiember Fazzino said that he and Vice Mayor Fletcher had gone to Sacramento to make a plea that the aerial spraying not take .place,. but that a decision had . already beer, Made by the_ tine they arrived. He commended June Fleming and Jeff Paulsen for their outstanding work." ._ 1 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. David Blumenthal, Willow Road, spoke regarding the damage and repair clause in lifetime leases being offered. Oak Creek residents.. He read a portion of a letter from Scott Carey, dated October 16, 1980, which related to continued.occdpancy for as long as desired, with the option to cancel on 30 days' notice. It also contained a sentence which dealt with the provision that the owner could terminate the lease because of damages or needed repairs. 2. Dennis Ferrachio, 275 Olive Street, spoke re the problem of flooding at the end of Olive Street. He said he would like to have this problem handled. He said his furnace is located under his house and when the water comes up it starts bub- bling and flames comes out of the wall. He said Mr. Glenn Purcell had attempted to see city officials and had not been able to set up an appointment. He was asking, for the safety of his family, that this problem be handled. 3 Glenn Purcell, 1671 Castro Avenue, said he had been a Palo Alto resident since 1958. He said he was one of . the people who had signed a petition which Council had in their packet regarding ten homes and the warehouse which have been affected by the flood. He thought the safety of the people in the homes was important He stated the people who signed the petition feel a need to seek the help of the City to solve a problem. All they were asking was that the Building Department complete the work which was began last January. It appears, under present City policy, than if the Building Department chooses to continue not to complete the wade, there would continue to be no accountability or responsi- bility. This attitude makes the people feel insecure and apprehensive as to, whether this work is ever going to be done. He said none, of them want more damage tc occur. `,He asked that Council direct the Building Department to complete the work begun last January. Mayor Henderson said the Council :.needed to have full information on the matter and he asked that staff give a full report to Council at the next meeting. 4. Nathan Kraft, 245 Olive Street, reported that the drainage ditch and the drain the City opened in back of his building were gathering weeds and.: mud and he would appreciate some- thing being done about this situation. 5. Maria Elena Spal lets, 295 Olive Street, said she was also concerned about the water damage and the fire hazard. She said she had complained to the Railroad Company and the City on numerous occasions and thet, nothing had been done. MINUTES OF MAY 18, 1981 Mayor Henderson asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of May 18, 1981 in addition to the following ,corrections submitted by Vice -Mayor Ellen Fletcher: Page 835, second tee the last paragraph, change *MOTION PASSED by a vote of 9-0, with Fletcher abstaining," to *MOTION PASSED by a vote. of 8-0, with Fletcher abstaining," Councilmember Fazzino asked that the minutes be corrected on -Page _838,_ top paragraph,, ``.three lines from the bottoi.:.- Sentence should read "He felt the horse ,should• be- built- within the variance..." Mayor Henderson also asked th3i,t, the vote on the Motion to grant the_ variance -(page 838) be checked. • - C Counc i lmernber= Fazz i no - agreed this should be checked since he voted against the variance and. the vote did not show this. Councilmember, Renzel said page 837, fourth paragraph, next to the last sentence, should read, "She felt that the tree .provided screening from the Lockheed Building and was a unique and major asset." MOTION: Vice Mayo! Fletcher moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve May 18,1981 minutes as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously. CONSENTCALENDAR Councilmember Klein removed item #4, Project Mobility Taxicab Service, 1981--82, Award of Renegotiated Contracts. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar items. Refer%al Items None Action Items A8 1113 - ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED AREAS (CMR:357:1) Staff recommends Council oppose AB 1113 and that the Mayor be authorized to sign a letter of opposition to be sent to Senator Milton Marks, Chairman of the Senate Local Government Committee AB 1113 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Local Government Committee sometime in August. PAINTING OF EXTERIOR OF CIVII 11TER (CMR :3413: I ) Staff recommends that Council award the contract to Sanders and Sons, Inc. and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. AWARD OF CONTRACT - Sanders .& Sons, Inc. SAN FRANCIS VI TO .CREEK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT 8I--84 AGREEMENT ,Staff recommends: 1. The Council authorize: the Mayor to execute the attached Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water Distrl>ct for $150,500 `, to be shared equally between the jurisdictions for coInstruction of embankmelt; stabi1izatiOn along: San 2. F.rancisqul,to' Creek. Staff be authorized to execute Change orders of up to $9,750. the agreement AGREEMENT Cost Sharin9 Agreement with the Santa Clara ValleY1i ter District MOTION PASSED to approve Consent Calendar Action Items a amended un.an1mously, AGE DACHANGES, "ADDIrIDNS MD. DELETIONS' 1 1 039 7/13/31 Assistant City Manager, .June Fleming, said that Item 4, Project Mobility Taxicab Service - 1981-82, would become Item 8A. 1 L CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE Mayor Henderson said he agreed with the City Attorney and members of the Planning Department that the proposed ordinance would be easy to meet and may result in a rash of conversions. He also agreed with the arguite-nt of. the -Palo Alto Housing Corporation that both the two-thirds' vote and a significant contribution to low/moderate income rental housing should be : cond i ti arcs for conversion. - However, he felt the proposed equivalent. number -of rental. units, in other words the 100. percent equivalent contribution, was- too restrictive. --He said the Ferne Court s-ituetlon was unusual -with its equal number of units on -either -side of the street, He suggested that the requirements for conversion be a two-thirds' vote of all units, the -long-term lease specifications, and the requirement to'provide low/moderate income rental units :equivalent Ito 50 percent of the number of units to be converted. This:last requirement:would result in two possibilities --the owner of a building with 100 --units, who wishes to convert, would have to provide, within that building, 33 units_ ef low/moderate income rental units to go'. with 67 condominium units or, the owner could convert all 100 units.in the building and provide 50 units of low/moderate income: rental units off - site. With these kinds of numbers he felt conversions would be possible, but hardly _commonplace. There might be some opportunity for existing tenants to achieve home ownership or obtain :.long-term rentals -with rent controls while, at the same time, the community would gain what it needs most, additional low/moderate income rental units. Councilmcmber Witherspoon asked if the section 21.40.020,1 (d)i of the ordinance which states "any contiguous or non-contiguous lot, parcels or areas owned in common by the owners of .e separ- ately owned lot, parcels or areas, etc. etc.... meant tnat an owner with several rental properties, not necessarily contiguous, who wishes to sell them all, would fall under this ordinance? Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan responded it would not include that. She stated this definition was verbatim from the California Code, and she felt it was very ambiguous. .• Specifi- cally what it means is a townhouse situation, and 99 percent of the time the lots would be contiguous. But it includes the situationwhere instead of just buying space, the owner would buy space plus 'a little front or back yard'. Non-contiguous is in there just to cover situations where there might be a driveway between two :lots, but it certainly would not include across town Vice -Mayor Fletcher asked what the rationale was for excluding limited equity cooperative house ng. Ms. Sloan explained the rationale was .that it was controlled by. the government and has units that are sold below market rates. Even though the units were no longer rental units, they became 1 eke a BKR unit. Councilmember Renxel asked if it ' was correct in that the, two- thirdsvote : provision applied'only to the vote of those units to be converted. : Ms, Sloan said that was correct. She thought that if a majority of the Council voted for Mayor Henderson's suggestion, the Council should consider combining the two exceptions: i.e. requiring two-thirds consent, and a below -market - rate consideration. She said that the ordinance did not address the issue that if a substantial number of units in the same .building' were to be given to a below -market -rate contribution that the. people living in the units get to. vote. Counci1member Renzel said that normally in, a conversion, she thought that: State law required that the people occupying the units be given first right of refusal on the units. She asked if there were 100 units in one building, whether they be split 50-50, 67-33, how would it be decided which units would be the below -market units, who could vote and have the right of purchase,, and what would happen to the people occupying and renting those particular units? Ms. Sloan. said she -called the Department of Real Estat.f2 and asked if under their law, they thought it was feasible to convert half a • building, or some units in one building. She said their response was no, that they considered that to be unreasonable, that all tenants in a building :ghoul d. belong to the same home- owners' association and that they would not approve such d pro- posal. She felt the Council should realize that if: the below- mar k.et-rate units were in one building, then the issue of whether the tenants in the below -mar ket-r ate units would get to vote and whether they would get a lifetime lease, was before the them. Councilmember Renzel felt that what Ms. Sloan was saying was basically moot because that type of subdivision in a single bui1ding would not be approved. Ms. Sloan said that if the Council was interested in Mayor Henderson's suggestion, it was a problem to be considered. She said that all of the units would- have to be converted, but it would be up to the Council to deckle what units would have to vote for the conversion because the Department of Real Estate had nothing to do with the voting for conversions. Mayor Hendee son said that was also true under the Housing Cor poration' s proposal Ms. Sloan . said the reason she did not address it in the proposed ordinance was because it was an either/or situation If the developer chose to give 50% to the BMR program, the developer, given the, way the ordinance was written, need not get consent . But _ if the two were combined, the issue would need to be. faced. Di recto( of R 1 anni ng, Ken Schreiber, said that the 33% of 'those units could remain.. in rental or could go into a below-mar ket'rate for " sale program. Vice MayOr Fletcher was not clear on What the Department' of Real Estate " d said and' -Risked, for. .cl"arification_."that' if hal f of ::the un t:s: were Converted and the other half wer-oY ;fold into a` BMR pro- graln :or. kept- in rental that. -would not be approved._ Ms. Sloan . said they said it`:was not passible to convert:- hal the > building, the _ whole "bui ld:fng would- heve"" to be converted. She ,sal d , she sari the 50%, : or ' whatever number MO provision ki rng` so that the entire building <woutd be -converted and.hal-f the _units' opld be sold to the Palo Alto -Housing;, _orporati_on:,. they woo"1'd be the condomi-niumSt owner_, ,end PANG would turn around and_ .011‘t -the units to below -market -rate families. She said that could be accomplished. The problem would be what tenants would get to vote for the conversion --would all the units get to vote, and if not, would the developer get to choose which units would be in the BMR program thereby assuring himself which tenants would get to vote. Vice Mayor Fletcher asked if that principle would carry over the 10% contribution which was in the regulations? Ms. Sloan said yes. She said she thought that was a smaller number and if two-thirds of the tenants consented, 10% could be set aside, but would not necessarily be available right away. They would be available at the end of the lifetime lease. Vice Mayor Fletcher asked if then they would be sold to the (lousing Corporation or a similar group? Ms. Sloan said yes. Mr. Schreiber said he believed the 10% contribution Vice Mayor Fletcher was referring to was the BMR program and -if there was a one-third requirement,' that would supersede the BMR program and satisfy the program, there would not be a separate 10%. Ms. Sloan pointed out that there was a difference in those two exceptions the way they had been written so far. She said the 50% exception required that the BMR units be rental units. The theory behind that was because rental units'were being removed from the market. She said the 10% requirement was the carne as the 101 requirement in the Comprehensive Plan which said they could be rental units or units which were sold to BMR persons, Councilmember Levy said that one of the requirements was that the City be willing and able to accept the BMR units. He asked i f... a problem arose, i.e. if there were several units scheduled for conversion and the City was only able to accept the BMR units from one project, and could not accept from another, or chose not to accept'from another, would the City run Anto problems in terms of enforcing the ordinance? Ms. Sloan said that if the City ran out of money, as long as the projects were taken in the order in which they were considered, it would only be a problem if the City acted in bad faith and turned down acceptance of units one month, and really had the money, and bought units from another developer at a later date. Councilmomber Renzel asked, ..in the case where units were provided off -site, would the BMR ►nature of those units be a requirement of the subdivision, or could a developer simply :purchase at market rate units off -site, and offer to sell them to the City at the price they paid? She asked how the economics of off -site units were related to, the approval. Mayor Henderson said the City did not have to pay what the seller wanted for the units.•. He said the City would not accept it ,unless it was a price which would be workable for the Housing Corporation to own and operate as -below-market rental units. Cuuncilmenber Renzel said that if the City was not willing take the units, then the subdivision would. not qualify. Ms. Sloan said that was correct. 1 0 4 _2 ?/13/81 Mr. Schreiber pointed that the situation could arise where there - was a ten -unit apartment, and there was an .obligation for five units. Someone could acquire five units off -site and then provide them through the BMR program. Perhaps they might be purchased and sold at a loss, or perhaps it would be even, but: they would have to sit within the guidelines of the BMR program. That way the City's directive to the Housing Corporation would riot be directly involved in buying units. bob Moss, 4010 .Orme, said that from his letter of June 22 -regarding Condominium Conversions, and the figures he presented, it became, quite clear that conversions, even though at Ferne Court if half the units were sold essentially at cost by the developer to the Housing Corporation, were extremely lucrative. He said that depending upon when the project closed and sales were made, the developer would make between 200 and 500% profit per year on his invested capital. It was not necessary to bleed too much for someone who was asked to give an equal number of units for bet ow -mar ket-housing in a conversion. However, any conversion or any encouragement of a conversion would end up in a net reduction of affordable housing in the community. That was what happened with Ferne Court. He said the City had 32 units of housing before it was sold in 1979, affordable by persons earning approximately $15,000. When the 16 converted units were sold, they would require an income level in excess of $70,000 per year. He proposed that section 21.40.050(2) the clause, "regardless of whether a vacancy surplus exists" be stricken and that it be a clean ordinance which would allow no conversions unless the vacancy rate exceeded 3%. Further, Mr. Moss said, with regard to the problem of providing units. He felt the word "provide" was a very loose term. He asked if that meant "at cost," "free," or that the City would be allowed to purchase them at market rate when the conversion price was established. He asked what would happen if they were offered, and the City was unable •to pick them up. He suggested an_ additional option, to be included at the end of Section 21.040.050(2)(a). 'If the City is unable or unwilling acc Nt isL; - a i cs for rental housing under below -market program or rental housing acquisition program, the applicant may, at the City's option, be required to provide newly constructed housing up to 20% of the number of units 'converted." One of the falacies of..allowing a converter to oive existing units to the BMR program was that it didanot provide additional new affordabie housing. He said this owould provide. the City the: option of obtaining new housing. The reason he suggested 20% was because at one time the. City did require 20% in newly -developed units, and because the _net cost of a conversion to a devol open was -much less than the cost of building new construction. Therefore, --the 20%.first had precedent, was not ari owner's burden, - and _,was at the City's opt:len. Mayor Henderson asked Mr Moss if the 20% would be for sale and not rer;tal units. Mr. Moss said that in a 100 -unit conversion, 20 new units would 4e built to be offered to the City. If the City wanted to .use them for rentals that would be fine; if the City wanted to use them for' sale ; or ownership, that would be fine. The City would have complete options and flexibility. Also, he said that would not tie the City up with having to get financing for the units provided. He supported including both the units which were converted and tho$e which: would be rentals if there was a voteon any such conversion. He suggested at the end of Section 2(B) (i ) adding a section (a), "tenants of units proposed for conversion to community housing, and tenants of rental units provided under 1 0 4 3 7/13/81 Section 21.40.050(2)(a) shall be counted as a single class for the purpose of obtaining the two-thirds consent." Also, on page 8, next to last paragraph (3)_ at the end, "Alternatively, the -City may require the applicant eto provide newly constructed below -market units equal to 20% of the numbere of omits converted." He hoped that if the Council did accept; the conver - sion with below -market units, they would accept- the amended language he proposed. Sue McPherson, President, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, apolo- -gized for any misunderstanding in their letter of -July 2. She said the.Housing Corporation agreed _that units which would be empty at the time the vote were taken, should be taker out of the "no" vote, and the letter should have stated that "if two-thirds of the occupied rental -units to be converted consent to such a conversion..." She said the Housing Corporation still stood beside their position that a one for one provision of rental units be ideal, that is 100% of an equal number or units to be sold should be provided for BMR rental units, She stressed that the PARK hoped that the conditions under which this could occur would include both a two-thirds vote of the units to be converted, and also the provision of-BMR units equal in number. Further, _she thought that regarding the extension of leases,, language should be added to exempt units provided for permanent low --.moderate income housing from the lifetime lease or the ten-year lease. She said those units must carry their own weight financially, and therefore, they should be exempt. Louis Fein, 1540 Oak Creek Drive, Palo Alto, urged the Council to disallow condominium conversion as long as the rental vacancy rate was 3% or less. He felt there should be no exceptions, no lifetime lease exceptions, no two-thirds consent exceptions. He agreed that monitoring the consent process to prevent irregulari- ties was important, but that it would be difficult for the City to do it without unusually high costs and legal vulnerability. He agreed that if -the City mandated a lifetime lease, the tenant protection, then the City would be obligated to monitor and supervise and enforce the operation of that lease i n satisfaction with the intent of the riandate, He said that the yak Creek experience was that the so-called "lifetime lease" terms even after City approval of the preliminary map, were not determined to tenant satisfaction. If the Council insisted on a two-thirds consent provision and the lifetime lease provision, _.they must conduct the consent. process to include in the ordinance the text of a lifetime lease so that it would:not be negotiable: after the approval of A map. Further,e the Council must monitor and oversee the operation of the lease. Since the Council did not want to do t iese things, --he felt they- should ban condominium conversions if the vacancy rate was less than 3%. Vice Mayor Fletcher sal -d that the last `time this item was before them, the Council had discussed the feasibility of how practical it would be, financially for a developer to be able to --convert -i f he were to provide an equal amount in a below -market -rate .type of housing contribution. She called -Lou Goldsmith and Said he had a complex graph which described how a developer could afford such a conversion. , Lou Goldsmith, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, explained a graph he had presented to the Councilrrierrbers last week. He said what it amounted to was that the value of a potential condominium con- version candidate was presumably its sale value, as a rental unit. In other words, it was being rented now, and multi -family housing was being sold every now and again in multiples of 12 or 13 times the gross income stream. It was quite possible for a unit that rented for $500 per month or $6,000 a year, to sell for $75,000 1. 0 4 4 7/13/P1 per unit as a rental unit. If you went to $1,000 per month rent then it would be,equivalent to $150,000 or in that ball park. Therefore, the idea was that if you found- a BMR unit of any kind at something less than that number, the develcper was losing money. On the other hand, if it r were sold as a condominium, chances were that it would be sold for substantially more. In one case, an_ appraiser estimated that the rental value would be about 60% of the condominium value. He explained the percentage of low -moderate units as- 50% being one to one, and 33-1/3% meant one low -moderate for two units as proposed by Mayor Henderson. He said an example was a unit worth $,75,000 in the rental market and if it were sold as a low -moderate at $50,000, the loss would, be $25,000. On the other hand, if an identical unit were sold a $125,000 as a condominium, there would be a gain of $50,000. If they were sold one for one, there would be‘a gain of $50,000 and a loss -of $25,000, and, therefore, an overall gain of $25,000. Counciimember Levy asked how much a converter should sell a $75,000 rental unit for to the BMR program. Mr. Goldsmith said that the BMR program had its own specifica- tions of allowable sales prices and they depended upon a family median income level, and percentage of median income, and per- centage of median income paid for rent. He said those things were worked out by the Planning Department and the Housing Corporation helped to work out the formula. Basically, he said a two to three bedroom unit would sell in the region of $50,000 to $55,000. MOTION: Mayor Henderson introduced the condominium _conversion ordinance for first reading, seconded by Witherspoon, and moved its approval. ORDINANCE for first reading entitled -"ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 21,40 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CONVERSIONS TO CONDOMINIUM AND OTHER COMMUNITY HOUSING" AMENDMENT: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, on page 3 Ender Section 21.40.050, paragraph (2) change the wording, "if at .least one of the following conditions is met:" to "if both of the following conditions are met:" and, under (2) (a) change "units equal in number and of comparable size..." to "units equal to 50% of the number of units proposed for conversion and of a coinpar abl a size and ..." Vice Mayor Fletcher was troubled because the Council was moving an ordinance which was not in conformance with the Council's purposes which were originally passed. She felt that the wording in the ordinance was modified to weaken . the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan in order to conform with the ordinance. Site felt the ordinance weakened the present Condominium Conversion Ordinance and also weakened the pug oases which were previously enunciated and now '`in the Comprhensive Plan. She felt it was oremature to move the ordinance before. the purposes of the Council were made -clear and if the purposes are as stated in the ordinance, the Council must commit them- selves to revising the Comprehensive Plan. She felt this must be discussed before the other details of the ordinance. She said her purpose in bringing the :condominium conversion .ordi- nance before -the Council a: year „ago was that there were loop- holes discovered in the existing ordinance, and she had intended to bring the ordinance into a more acceptable form which would 1 not have loopholes. She would vote against the amendment because it would permit more conversions than were now allowed. She was also in favor of a equal amount ,of contributions for BMR housing. Councilmember Witherspoon was concerned about who would vote for conversion, and whatever the formula for . below -market -rate units, if they were rental units, then there would be a condo- minium project with a homeowners' association where at least 50% of the occupants would not be active participants in the home- owners' association. She knew the Housing Corporation preferred that there not be lifetime leases, but she did not see' how the Housing Corporation could be treated differently and make those occupants the brunt of a public policy, but not let them have lifetime leases. Sue McPherson clarified that the Rental Housing Acquisition Program was envisioned before condominium conversion came into being. One of the provisions of the Rental Housing Acquisition Program was that no tenants would be displaced, that over time rents would be lowered so that there would be low/moderate income tenants. She said the PAHC had tried to marry the pro- gram with the condominium conversion program, but offering tenants lifetime leases would diminish some of the flexibility upon which the RHAP program depended. That is, that while the PAHC would not evict anyone, they would hope for some sort of normal attrition over time and would not like to be tied to lifetime leases. Councilmember Witherspoon said she world probably go along with the thrust of tightening up the conditions under which conver- sions could take place, but would prefer to have the contribu- tion in the below -market -rate sales program so that, the units were in ownership rather than rental units, Mayor Henderson said rental units were the real problem. He said the concern of all was the loss of rental units through conversion. He thought the community would be gaining something by having rental units, and they would be units in the income area with which they were most concerned. He did not want to convert 100 units and lose 100 rental units to the community stock. He thought they should at least get back a percentage of rental units for low and moderate income. Councilmember Bechtel op.cosed Mayor Henderson's amendment because when the matte, was last discussed, she was in the minority because she supported no exceptions unless the vacancy rate was more than 3%. She felt the purpose of looking at the ordinance was to tighten the existing ordinance and that now they were making it more cumbersome. If.. the Council wished to make any exceptions. she felt the Council needed to be very clear that the City and the residents would gain: something from allowing any such conversion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded- by. Renzel, in Section 21.40,050(2)(a) to change wording back to "units equal in number and of comparable size..." Councilmember Re'nzel agreed with Councilmember Bechtel and felt that, any conversion's would push the rental pressures down and;, push the lower income people out. She thought the Council should be as strict as possible on the exceptions to be. certain that rental housing in some degree was protected. She thought that the 100% equivalent units was a fair compromise. Councilmember Fazzino. said he supported the PAHC and Mayor Henderson and the concepts before the Council tonight. He said it had been tested to the benefit 'of .tenants-, condominium owners, and converters already. He said the proposal provided affordable housing and he applauded the PAHC on their creative approach to condominium conversion.. The 3% vacancy rate was nothing more than,out and out prohibition of conversion and did absolutely nothing for tenants. He said that rents could still rise rapidly and --no protection occurred on a long-term basis. He thought the PAHC proposal was a good deal for all. It empha- sized continued rentals for those who wished to do so. He said he would prefer to see lifetime lease provisions attached to the proposal..: He was somewhat encouraged by Sue McPhersoe's_com- `ments, but would rather see the RHAP programs explained more specifically so he, could accept the fact that the programs would bring about the same level of protection as the lifetime lease proposal. He thought the motion protected the supply of rental housing and respectfully disagreed with his colleagues. He said that all of the Council's efforts over the last few months had been to protect the supply of rentals. The Council may disagree on how to protect rentals, but the proposal did far more to pro- tect the supply of rentals for low to moderate -income people than the 3%. He said it eas the only approach which essentially "controlled" the rental price through subsidization or other approaches for those people. Also, he thought it met the pri- mary goal of the purposes which was to establish reasonable balance of rental and ownership housing in Palo Alto. He encouraged support of the Henderson/Housing Corporation pro- posal, which he felt was a fair compromise and which provided adequate protection for tenants and created affordable housing in the community. Councilmember Eyerly said that philosophically, he was against mandating a conversion to satisfy all of the constraints. He thought that when there was the necessity of being over a 3% -vacancy rate to have conversion, then some escape clauses must be available. He said that the escape clauses when all of the constraints were mandated troubled him, particularly when he thought about a smaller number of units. If a smaller landlord had to satisfy those conditions, he would have some :real prob- lems. He could support the ordinance as presented by the City Attorney's Office where it was an either/or situation, but would not support a situation whee they all had to be satisfied. Councilmember Klein felt the Council was in a difficult position because. they cited to adopt a very complex ordinance,-- which he thought.was a mistake. He said the only silver lining he could see was that the Council might end up with something marginally better than what they had. He felt it would have been far bet- ter for the Council to adopt a nice clean ordinance -with the 3% rule and nothing else. Ile_- did not think Mayor Henderson's motion went far enough. He preferred the Housing Corporation's proposal white was incorporated it Councilmember Bechtel's sub- stitute notion. He said he would support the substitute.riotion. and have the one , to one -replacement provision included andeAf that amendment _passes` with no more significant negative changes, he would vote for the ordinance as a whole. If Councilmember- `Bechtel's motion was voted down, and the Council was just going to require ;one unit for every two in the BMA_ program, then he thought the converter had too much._incentive, _.conversions were made much too easy endt they had not struck:a good deal for the City, then -he would_,.:vote against the entree ordinance. Vice Mayor Fletcher t*id that in support aof the motion,, she wanted point out that Mrs -Goldsmith., had illustrated how the developer couldmake a profit even if he Contributed half of the ea 1 0 4 7 7/13/81 the units to the BMR program for the City.. She said that if the ordinance passed,• the City would be losing total rental units, which_ was against the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. She said they were not only concerned with lower income people, but people who could not afford the finance charges which had practically eliminated anyone but the extremely wealthy from purchasing homes even condominium.; which were not expensive. housing. She said that the City was continuing to attract new employees and they would not be able to buy, and would be looking for 'rental housing. The rental housing market was shrinking and the condominium market was increasing 'all the time. She said that as far as protecting the present tenants with long-term leases, those --long-term leases twereo tenuous and were pretty weak without a just cause eviction ordinance which the City did not have., Also, they.were discriminatory because they offered rent control to a select group of tenants and she felt it was only a matter of time before tenants who were not protected by rent control would challenge it in court. She said that i n Washington there was, talk about cutting off Federal ai d to any City which had rent control jn which event she thought they would repeal this type of an ordinance. She said the City would be constantly faced with unhappy -tenants and would be put in the middle between tenant and landlord. Mayor. Henderson felt there was a great benefit to the community in providing some opportunities for below -market -rate purchases and condominium conversions did come in at below -market. He said the new condominium units were very expensive, but the con- versions were coming in at a lower price, or the tenants would not vote the two-thirds. The tenants would either get a good purchase situation or else lifetime leases al a controlled rental, and Mayor Henderson felt they should offer some oppor- tunities in that direction. He felt the 50% figure was reason- able. - ,e felt the 100j was almost like going back to the 3% vacancy limitation. SUfSTITUTE MOTION FAILED, to provide units equal in number to the number proposed for conversion, by a vote of 5-4 as follows: AYES: Renzel., Klein, Bechtel, Fletcher NOES: Eyerly, Henderson, Fazzino, Levy, Witherspoon AMENDMENT PASSED to provide units equal to 50% of the number proposed for conversion by a vote of 5-4 as. follows: AYES: Renzel, Klein, Henderson Fazzino, Fletcher NOES: Eyerly, Bechtel, Levy, Witherspoon AMENDMENT: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Bechtel, to remove "(a)" after "Section 21.40.050" in Item (3) on page B. Councilmerhber Renzel said she thought that part of the ordinance was to assume that at some point the vacancy rate might go above 3% and at that point the provision of the two-thirds vote and the 50% of units to be converted provision would not apply, but she assumed, the City would still want to require the 10% units:.. The ordinance was constructed to cover the eventuality that the . vacancy rate could go above 3%•. Ms. Sloan agreed and said it was an, overall p'%ovision that would apply regardless of the vacancy rate. 1 048 7/13/81 Mayor Henderson said he thought it would apply only if the vacancy rate was over the 3%. He did not want it to apply when it was under 3% and they would be using the 50% contribution situation. He did not want to add on top of that a 10% contri- bution. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Mayor Henderson roved, seconded by Renzel, an amend- ment.to Section 21.40.060(1)(d) on page 6, and add paragraph (6) as follows: "The provisions of this section shall not apply to units provided for low and ..moderate income .rental housing pursu- ant to section 21.40..050(2) Occupants of such housing shall be protected by all provisions of law related to, rental housing in general, Councilmermber Levy asked if this would apply to units being reserved for SMR_within a total housing project. Mark Chandler, Byron Sher`s Office, said that the way the ordi- nance was structured was that if units were provided as BMR rentals off -site, the provision for lifetime leases would not apply to those units because the lifetime lease language applied only to people within the subdivision. Since the subdivision would not include units provided off -site, the extension of lease provision would not apply to those units. However, if the units were provided on -site, the provision would apply because the units would have to be mapped within the subdivison sine the Department of Real Estate said you could not subdivide part of a building. He said the amendment would correct that anomaly so that all the units were treated 1 similar fashion. All those units would be subject to the usual protections for tenants. If they were to be managed by the Housing Corporation they -would subject to the RHAP provision requirements and tenants would not be evicted, but at the same time, the loss of flexibility that would exist if lifetime leases were provided, would be averted'. He said that -the amendment was designed to provide consistency in the treatment of the BMR units provided off -site and the ones provided on -site. Councilmermber- Levy asked if he were a tenant in the subdivision, and he wanted to lease, how would he know if he would get a lifetime lease or whether his lease would be part of the BMR. program not protected by a lifetime lease. Mr. Chandler replied that at the time the subdivision map was drawn there might be a designation of units. he felt it was a situation that had to be resolved in terms of how the map was drawn. Ms. Sloan felt it was a policy issue and the Council should dis- cuss both the consent process and the lease provision before voting on.either one. She felt they were tied in together. She said that if they required all tenants to vote, some might vote. for conversion assuming they would get a lifetime lease, and then later discover that their unit had been designated to be a BMR. unit. If the Council voted for this motion, they Would not. get a_ lifetime lease. Mayor Henderson asked for the alternative if this was not done. Suppose there was a conversion and there was the two 'to one ratio and there were people who signed lifetime leases so that initially there might not be the 50% available for, the Housing 1 7 0 /13/81 Corporation. Mayor Henderson felt that the Council was getting locked into a problem of having everyone vote, so the 100 people voted for either conversion or lifetime leases, and, then 33 units were sold out from under them and then they were told they could not have a lifetime lease. Mr. Schreiber added that as far as the process was concerned, that would become a condition of the subdivision and the final arbitrator could end up being the Council, because they would have to approve the tentative map and that would contain the solution under the ordinance, which would contain the designa- tion of units. Mayor Henderson said that • if the requirement was for an .off -site contribution, what would happen then. Ms. Sloan said that the way the ordinance was currently written, because the consent process and the 50% requirement were not linked together, the consent process was not a problem. With the lifetime lease, the way the ordinance was written, it would depend upon if it was in the same structure. If the BMR units were in the same structure, the ordinance said the units would be subject to a lifetime lease. If they were not in the same structure, they were not subject to a lifetime lease, which was the case with Ferne Avenue. Councilmember Levy felt a lifetime lease must be offered to everyone. He felt that was critical and if that meant a delay before units could get into the BMR program, some mechanism for taking care of it 'must be developed. _ Mayor Henderson did not know if the Housing Corporation could accept that type of proposal. Would they be able to have a promise of maybe 33 units within a building, and then have, to purchase those units as they became available through the years. Ms. Sloan felt -the real problem was that the PAHC would have to acquire the units in -the beginning and then they would lose;'. money on those units if they have to rent them out at below - Market -rates. Mayor Henderson felt theywould have to say that those 50% units would have to be provided offs -site. Councilmember Witherspoon said that one of the problems was the cash flow. But there was nothing in the lifetime lease that said you could not have built in escalation of the rent. The rent was not frozen forever, it could be raised, but it was understood as to what the formula was and as to how it was raised. She did not see wny the !lousing Corporation could not protect itself from the cash flow problem the same ray any other owner of the unit would. Mr. Schreiber said the complication was that if units .were sold in the private market, a' private purchaser may well carry a negative cash flow for any number of years and really be looking at the:':capital appreciation for running up the property value, rather than the net income flow. The Housirn:.Corporation would be i. ._.:a much more "difficult_ situation in trying to absorb any type of negative cash flow. Sue McPherson said she, thought they were all saying that the RHAP program would not work- in condominium conversions unless 1-0 5 0 7/13/81 they could arrive at a purchase price with -the seller that would carry the units, and they could charge a rent that would justify the purchase price. 'Over time, the. PAHC's goal was to serve as low an income family as possible. It might be the family in there now, it might be the family they hoped to reach in the future. The question was how,long should they promise the cur- rent families an existing tenure and if they get over that hump, they could reluctantly acquiesce to a long-term lease pro- vided they all understood that the lease rental must be based ,on what would carry that unit, and may not be the same as the -developer was offerin_q his tenants. She said that often times, it- happened that there were people in units to be converted who would qualify for some federal_ program if there was a federal program that the PAHC could work. If the only way to get past the difficulty was to accept a long-term lease of ten years or so, given the fact that the PAHC project must carry itself, and could not have a negative cash flow, then they would. acquiesce. M. Sloan said she thought they were saying they would agree to the lifetime lease, but not to the control on rent provisions that were in the ordinance. Ms. McPherson said their rent must be set by the purchase price and the other contingencies of the PAHC's purchase. Ms. Sloan said she thought the difference in why the PARC would not make hilaney was when they rented at low income prices to low income persons, they were subsidized. If they rent at low income to persons who did not qualify. as low income persons, then they are not subsidized and _they dose money from the subsi- dies. Councilmember Renzel said that as she understood it, the Housing Corporation or some other agency who provided low and moderate income housing, had to be able to purchase the units in order —'to qualify for a subdivision. She thought there had to be a ready buyer able to offer the housing, If the provision for lifetime lease stayed in and the developer could .not even convert unless he had a ready buyer, --She thought the price of those units would have to be predicated on something where the Housing Corporation's cost would carry it. It worked backwards from whatever rents the Housing Corporation would be able to charge under a lifetime lease situation. The Housing Corporation's other constraint was that some of the financing programs require that a certain amount of the units be available for low and moderate income people, and if the current: tenants were not qualifying tenants, then the PAHC.- might -run into problems regarding -the funds available to purchase the units. If that was related to whether the applicant could subdivide, the price would have to be negotiated. She thought it -would work out. She asked what would happen if all the unitsh in a hsingle building had to be subdivided and sold whether by blocks or indlvidda?"ly, There was still the question of the right of first. refusal required under State law. MOTION WITHDRAWN Mayor Henderson, with Counc i member Renzel'sh agreement, withdrew the amendment which would exempt the low and moderate income housing:.: :units from the long-term lease provision. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel_ moved, seconded by.Fazzino, to add Bob Moss' .,.language to page 8, Section (3), after "21.40t,05O (2)(b)(i) - "Tenants of units proposed for conversion to com- munity housing and tenants of rental units provided under Section 21.40.050(2)(a) in the same structure shall be counted as ,a single class for the purposes of obtaining the two-thirds 1 0 5 7/13/81 6-3, Eyerly, Henderson consent. Ms. Sloan asked if that meant only if those tenants in the below -market -units lived in the same structure. Councilmember Bechtel said yes. Councilmember Klein said he thought that was already in the ordinance as presently drafted. Ms. Sloan said she felt that the ,way it was written now it was all tenants who lived in the building would vote. Councilmember Levy said he thought Mr. Moss had the Ferne Court situation in mind where there were two separate parcels, both of which were involved in ` the transaction, and only the residents in one of the parcels were allowed to vote. AMEti)MF,NT "ASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, on page 7, (2)(a) . "Age discrimination. No community housing project shall prohibit sales of units,.." amend to read as foll.nqs: "Age discrlrninationr No community housing_ project shalt .'prohibit sales Of units to persons with chil.dfren unless, it is determined that from the time. 'of its development, the project was. designed and built for the exclusive - occupancy of persons 60 years of age or older." Councilmember Bechtel Asked who .would determine how the project was designed? Vice Mayor Fletcher thought the Director of Planning and Community Environment should be designated. Councilmember Fazzino said he supported the general approach of Vice Mayor Fl etcher' s recommendation, but was concerned whether it would run into problems with respect to a legal case now in the courts. Vice Mayor Fletcher responded that that case was rental housing and this was ownership housing, conversions. Ms. Sloan Said that was correct and that if and when that case was decided the ordinance could be changed if it affected owner- ship housing. Councilmember K. n felt it was inappropriate for the City of Palo Alto to determine whether accommodations were-esuitable for children. He felt it was. appropriate to determine whether some- thingwas designed solely for adults, which he_ felt was a if- _ferent,type of judgment. AMENDMENT PASSED by a Witherspoon voting no." MOTION AS AMENDED passedby a vote of 5-4 as follows: AYES Renzel, Fletcher,' Henderson, MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fletcher, to bring forward Item 7, Review of Sexual Orientation Ordinance, before Item 6, Appeal re decision of ARB for California Avenue/Park Boulevard Project. MOTION PASSED unanimously REVIEW OF PROPOSED SEXUAL ORIENTATION ORDINANCE FOR BALLOT MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fletcher, to approve City Attorney's amendments as follows: (a) Under "Purpose" (formerly "Statement of Policy"), change "It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to end discrimination... to "It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to revent discrimination... (2) The definitions have been placed in a phab.etical order. (3) The section explaining that no criminal penalties shall attach to a violation of the ordinance be moved from the section on notices to the section on remedies, and the remedy of injunction be incorporated into the first section under remedies."' (4) Add a section on the effective date of the ordinance since the charter does not address the issue specifically." The Reverand Joan Abrams, 2698 Cowper, said the City Attorney's office had looked at the ordinance and decided it was not art inclusive ordinance. She said trans-sexuals were excluded, She asked it be amended to cover trans-sexuals and thereby cover all categories of sexual orientation and that if the ordinance was riot amended to be an inclusive ordinance, that the exclusion be stated because on the face of the ordinance, it looks to be inclusive. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Eyerly, to add that the ordinance can be amended by Council. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-2-1 as follows: AYES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Renzel Witherspoon NOES_: Henderson, Bechtel ABSTAIN: Levy MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 6-3 as follows: AYES: Renzel, Klein, Fletcher, Henderson, Bechtel, Levy NOES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Witherspoon PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF PAUL J. KAHN RO F'RT Jb` DEBS AND DRUM [• JET FRIA D Rr.tATTITRN1 AV r'TA ( BOOLEVARb 44OJECT (NR:349:1) Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a motion . finding that the project as mitigated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration will not have a significant impact on the environ- ment, that the project is consistent with the' adopted Comprehen- sive Plan, and approve the project design with the condition that the May 29, 1981 agreement between the developer and . the City =targeting $30,000 of the total $130,000. traffic control improvement funds for the Evergreen Park neighborhood be included 4s an Exhibit: to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. - 1 0. 5.3 7/13/81 1 Ms. Sloan reminded the Council that they were to evaluate the Architectural Review Board decision on the project which included two parts. One was the architectural design of the project itself and the other was the evaluation of the Environmental Impact assessment. She said she;saw three choices as follows: 1. To approve the ARB,decision 'in.its entirety; 2. To approve the design aspect of the ARB decision, but ask for an EIA. 3. To disapprove both the design and the EIA and send it back to the ARB and ask for an EIA and a new design. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. He said he would permit speakers to address Council for two minutes. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to overrule Mayor's decision and permit Mr Jeong to speak longer than: five minutes. MOTION FAILED and time limit upheld by a vote of 5-4 as follows: AYES: Renzel, Fletcher, Bechtel, Levy NOES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson, Klein, Witherspoon David Jeong,.4056 Park Boulevard, spoke on behalf. of Mrs. Jeong and Kathy Thompson and gave the Council a worksheet which drew a parallel between the California -Park project, which had an EIR, and the preser+t project. He said that the project on the worksheet was 2/3 as large as the California -Park project, but that the traffic projections said that only .1/6 the number of cars were being generated. He said that the minutes reflected. that Mr. Northway had said on May 7, that he was concerned about the accuracy of the traffic projects and Mr. Jeong was too. He said that Carl .Stoffel's report of May 27, 1981 gave projections which added up to 21,056 trips; then it said there were 60 Walking trips, which were subtracted, and, arbitrarily divided the other commercial trips which were subtracted and the total was i,740 trips in the worst _case. Further, he said if that was. followed, the 709 generated .trips minus the 356 for the add-ons which were subtracted, it said that what. Cal -Trans should .be using for their projections was 24.4 per 1,000 feet of retail. However, the 10th progress report from .Cal -Trans said that for that type of a project there were 85.8 trips per 1,000 square feet. The, Institute of Traffic Engineers said there were 115.8 trips per 1,000 square feet. He said he chose this particular ,fate because they were of comparable size for the Ins1 tute of Traffic Engineers, they went from 0-49,999 square feet --the size fit perfectly. There were 210 studies, they contained office buildings, stores nearby, and this was a category used by Staff when they wrote the EIR for California -Park. Historically, what he presented was the data used in the past. If this data were used and recalculated taking an average, they would be looking at 5.733 trips per day per unit times 173 units which would be 992 trips per day.. Regarding commercial, taking an average would be 100.8 trips per 1,000 square feet times 45.19 per thousand square feet of Commercial which would be 4,555 trips per day. That would total 5,547 trips per day. That would, only be 55 Percent -Of what California Park was generating when California Part ._was. 2/3. He felt the traffic report_ did not reflect _ the worst case figures.: Regarding the mitigation measure,` the report reflected that : the commercial traffic was already there with or without the project. He said that the measures in the report addressed the commuter traffic and e i parking, but nothing addressed the traffic generated by the project. They all addressed the mitigation of the situation which already existed. He said that only measure G in the report attempted to mitigate on the traffic generated by the project itself. Robert J, .Debs, 3145 Flowers Lane, disagreed with Assistant City Attorney, Margaret Sloan, and said that the Palo Alto Municipal Code could do whatever it wished with the appeal and that the choices available were not just what Ms. Sloan had pointed Out. He felt there were potentially dangerous impacts for the five neighborhoods involved. Staff and the ARB, had handled the matter without looking at long -range -planning. He said that the laws stated that there had to be a full EIR if there was some deleterious. effect after mitigation had been applied, which in this case there was. He urged that the Council refer the matter to the Planning Commission with instructions that they -cut ba.k the impact on the neighborhoods and cut back some of the commercial and a long-range planning effort done. Andrea Lenox, 396 Stanford, had spoken to 18 households and approximately 30_ persons. About half had 1 ived in the neighbor- hood for 30 years, the other half between 5. and 10. What they. all liked most was the fact that it was a peaceful and quiet neighborhood. Most of the people did not want the development. Crime, vandalism and traffic were the major concerns. Suggestions were that an environmental impact report, stop the development, block the streets to California Avenue, create one -gray streets, traffic light on Cambridge, develop the old Maximart area, better long-range planning for the neighborhood and increase police protection. All but one person said they would support eliminating through traffic from Evergreen Park. Councilmernber Klein felt it might be helpful if the City Attorney spelled Out the Council's alternatives better. He thought .that some of the speakers felt that the Council could reject the project in its entirety and asked for clarification because he did not think that alternative was available on the proposal because of the existing zoning and the actions taken in the development of the Comprehensive Plan process. Ms. Sloan said that was true, not just because of the existing zoning and the Comprehensive Plan, but to deny a project 'and not allow an applicant to prepare an EIR would not be fair. Someone must be given the chance to prepare a full EIR before denying the project. She agreed that she should have added a fourth choice, would would be to modify the ARB decision perhaps adding other mitigating circumstances. She said that the zoning .and the EIA were two different processes and van side:: by side. Despite the zoning, the Council had the right to look at the environmental impacts of the project. If the Council started looking at the environmental effects and :thought that the project was too dense, and, yet a year ago the - area was zoned for that density or a greater density, that would be inconsistent, but the environmental effects should be looked at. Councllmember Klein asked ' what types of . environmental effects would have to be found in order = to say that despite the zoning, the Council would not now pay any attention. He said that the main concerns were the traffic and parking. He wanted to know if those were the types of environmental finding the Council could make to sly: that the environmental factors overruled the. zoning. Ms. Sloan said yes, traffic was one of .the factors, and it was conceivable that. a parcel could be zoned for something and a finding of too much traffic made. She said a parcel of land could be zoned multi -family, for example, and yet the Council could decide that the traffic problems caused by a normal multi -family project would be extreme, and they could say they would prefer a project which catered only to people over the age of 70, most of whom would not drive, the zoning could_ still be fulfilled and would also take care of the traffic effects. Councilmember Klein asked what type of environmental findings would have to be made for the Council to say that despite the fact that a project was within the existing zoning, it would not be approved. Ms. Sloan felt that an EER would have to be reviewed first. She felt. that a better way to proceed would be to change the zoning before someone had vested rights in property and vested rights began when someone constructed something. Joe Ercol ani , 2040 Ash, canvassed his neighborhood al so, and it was felt that if the issue was environment and one of the parts of the environment was traffic, and if there would be too much traffic, the scope of the project should be lowered. He also. felt that the staff report was inadequate, and on its face, appeared to be unrealistic. He said that according to the report, the existing day trips only appeared to increase about 9:t and the project was much bigger than that. Further, the average increase was 9%, and the tone of the report suggested that was acceptable. and he disagreed. He felt a 9% increase was something .that would Devalue the quality of life in his neighborhood. There was no mention of the traffic increase in the Evergreen Park neighborhood itself. He recommended that the Council look at some long-range planning and study the area within Evergreen Park also, and not just peripheral areas. David Gleason, 396 Stanford, reemphasized the traffic problem in Ever oreen Park. He also felt the staff report was inadequate. He suggested that if the project was completed as planned, the City should install barriers to block completely the traffic from California Avenue and that would include blocking. Park Avenue and Birch at Cambridge. He suggested it be -a 90 -day trial period which would not affect the, project. It would inconvenience the neighborhood tremendously, but he offered it as ea proposal for consideration. Jean McFadden, 407 Ferne Avenue, . ?resident of the Palo Alto Consumer s' Cooperative, read a letter which is on file with the City Clerk's Office. Cole Richmond, 260 Chestnut Avenue, President of Chestnut/Milton Homeowners Association, thought the project was a massive one. He said = it would have a tremendous impact on the neighborhood and said that the barricades that the City put in in his = area brought the traffic down to nothing going South. He offered assurances . to the merchants of California Avenue, between the two homeowners associations, that it was never their intention to cutoff their cash register. The only thing they _wanted was peace and serenity in their neighborhoods. He had lived in the South Palo Alto area for 32 years. He said that if tie 'project was approved in its entirety he, . was worried about the CS. He said he had stood before the Planning Commission:when the little merchants of Latmpert Avenue were Called in and told they had until 1993 to get out. He said the , Maximart area was a' large one, and each time something comes up in that area, they have to come in and fight. He recalled the construction of Court House. He said the neighborhood would` continue, -to fight. They,wer'e not fighting the development of the project, they knew they needed housing, but asked the Council to study the project and the impact with their hearts, so that if the project was crmpleted In its entirety, all of the neighborhoods would not have to come back in again and get traffic barricades, because he knew the City was on a tight budget and did not have $90,000 to keep put- ting in barricades then taking them out. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, recommended that the Council reject the proposal, and refer it to the Planning Commission with specific directions to reduce the traffic impact, or to reduce the amount of commercial development, which would do the most to reduce the traffic impact, and to look at some aspects of the EIR which were missing. He did not think the ARB should consider a pro- ject of that scope and in particular off -site traffic improve- ments, stich as purchasing and converting a railroad bridge or. putting in traffic barricades in adjacent neighborhoods as much as 1/2 mile away. He said that in August, 1974, a project was proposed to build 50 units at Los Robles and El Camino. He said the Planning Commission reviewed it in conjunction with a neigh- borhood, association and neighbors made specific suggestions regarding traffic circulation, limiting the number of accesses to Los Robles, etc. and then referred it to the ARB for design approval. The ARB put in two entrances to the project on Los Robles, did not .prevent through traffic from going .;rom Los Robles to Vista and made the project three and four bedroom homes, etc. When the matter returned to Council in November, 1974, the Council chastised the ARB for exceeding their autho- rity, and remanded the entire project to the Planning Commission with, directions to undo what the ARB had done. He felt that staff should not have asked the ARB to undertake the task, and that the ARB should have refused. Regarding traffic, he felt that intersections had not been addressed, not even inadeq- uately. He said the staff report of July 9 referred to the CEQA guidelines in the case of a commuter service imposing traffic on the streets, but did not mention what would happen if the pro- ject interferred with the commuter service. He said staff had said that if this project was not built, something worse could happen. He recalled Councilmember:: Klein saying when he was on the Planning Commission: that the =City was not required to approve a project which completely used'. the zoning envelope and there were many reasons why the City could refuse, i.e. exces- sive traffic, and not addressing all impacts such as the effects of a transportation system. He urged that the matter be remanded to the Planning Commission with specific directions to reduce the adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Corinne Powel l-, 302 College Avenue, asked all Evergreen Park residents to stand up. She said that of the 221 dwellings which were canvassed, as well as the apartments, of ?5 respondents, all but three felt the impact of the project on Evergreen Park regarding traffic congestion, pollution, noise, increased crime and increased safety hazards were of grave concern. There were manypeople who advocated traffic barriers to keep the traffic from flowing through and there were many people who advocated that the project scale was too massive and more space was needed between the buildings and sidewalks. Further, the proportion of. housing should be larger than the commercial area . . She was unclear as to the Council's -action, but felt the. EIR liras inade- quate, particularly regarding Evergreen Park. She read a letter from: Diana Hallo ay, owner /operator of Farmer's Market Restaurant on California Avenue who was concerned about the traffic impact of the proposed project at the end : of avenue would have on business in that area. She felt that the _increase 1 0 1 in vehicles_would drive away motorists who would become dis- couraged by lack of parking and pedestrians who would find crossing the streets impossible. She felt the project would be. a detriment to established businesses and was too large to con- tinue the spirit of a small community. Ms. Powell. suggested ;that until there was a plan which would consider the entire area, she did,not feel any building was appropriate. She sug- gested a task force to study the solution and bring -recommenda- tions to Council be formed. She recommended that one member from each of the surrounding neighborhoods be' on the task force, one member from the California Avenue Development Association, one member from the Planning Commission, and she hoped that any further building would be denied until the Council had adequate plans. Jill Coelho, 1824 Park Boulevard, spoke regarding the staff report. She said the arguments regarding the traffic volume were strange. The traffic barrier currently at Peers Park was directed in response to a- duala neighborhood concern regarding traffic. Evergreen Park residents had been assured that the Southgate Barrier would alleviate all concerns about the existing traffic. She said Park Boulevard was still a high speed street, -but the barrier had reduced the volume of traffic. The staff report said that the new development would bring traffic levels to her corner up from the present 2585 vehicles pet 24 hours, past the previously understood intolerable level of 2700 vehicles, to 3,085 per_day. She said .it was an inter- esting argument that this was less than some other streets especially since the staff appeared so concerned about their welfare previous to the installation of the barrier. She pointed out a "leap in logic" from North of California Avenue, it was less than some othee collector streets, and South of. California it was less than it was before the barrier. She was worried about a "wait sand see" attitude. She felt it was: suicidal because once there Were 400 people living in a new development, they' would want a. nice, fast street to their house and would be evoters and residents in that area, Before that amount of -.people was added, she wanted the 'neighborhood looked at. She said that Park Boulevard was not equipped for the amount of traffic it currently had. Kevin Arnold, 2031 Park Boulevard, felt the project would really affect the. neighborhoods and in particular he was concerned ablaut the architecture which was too massive,.* He said at first he felt the City needed the housing, but -he thought the City 'did not need the offices. Milly Davis, 344 Tennessee, said that last Saturday, they held a benefit garage sale at her home and the 21 persons who went were asked to sign a survey regarding their preference for City Council action en the California Avenue/Park Boulevard :level:op- ment. She said that four of the 21 persons did not sign because they felt they needed additional information, but of the 17 who did sign the form, there was no one who said they liked that project=:as it was and no one who did not favor .an`"EIR. She said 12 of the 17 favored a less dense project; 7 favored rezoning the project to RM3, all residential; and _ 7 favored an EIR and 1 favored leaving the site open space. She said that several months ago, she called the Palo Alto City Attorney's _ Office and asked when, it was possible to change the zone: on, a proposed development. The attorney. ,she spoke,.with said he felt that the zoning on projects could be changed up until- ; he -building permit was issued. She said" that " in view of the . fact that none of -the persons whin sighed her form favored the project was .;s' she asked Council and the staff if would be possible to rezone the site to a lower : density. ; She thought that if residents in Palo Alto were told that the project would add more unneeded jobs, that many more vehicle trips than 1,750, and some 60 feet of high buildings, she thought most Palo Altans would be over- whelmingly against such a high density project. She asked the Council to consider the possibility of rezoning the site if it was legally possible, and support the request to send the matter to the Planning Commission and to have an environmental impact report completed. Mayor Henderson asked Ms. Davis what the "attached article" was which was said to have been attached to her survey, Ms. Davis said her garage sale was a benefit for the Palo Alto Neighborhood News and they had copies of the paper on a table She said it contained an'article written by Bob Moss regarding the project. David Schrom, 302 College Avenue, said that the Comprehensive Plan- said residential neighborhoods in- Palo Alto would be pro- tected and that traffic An residential neighborhoods would be reduced. He reminded the Council that reduce meant reduce, not increase by 2% or even keep the same. He said the staff report ignored the effect on the local streets in the -neighborhood not the collector streets. lit said the March 27 staff report said. that the local streets would be -'affected. He felt that the negative impact on their streets was contrary to the Comprehen- sive Plan guarantees of protection and reduction of through traffic. He said he went to Peers Park on his way to the Council meeting and saw many people go through the fence from the railroad tracks on the other side. He said the park was heavibe used. Furthe.', he said the staff report did not address the impacts of future developments. He pointed. out that CEQA included as one of its criteria the impact on future develop- ments. He said that anyone familiar with the area knew there was much vacant land there as well as many buildings which underutilized their sites under current zoning. He asked the Council to consider the impacts of future developments as they' decided the .impact of the 'project.. He said the staff report contained no alternatives. He thought the Council and the citi- zenry should know before hand what the choices were. Erica Prince, 302 College Avenue, agreed with all the previous speakers. Sill Carillon, 2053 Park Boulevard, had followed the matter through the ARB, and urged a formal EIR, and asked that the. matter be .referred to the Planning Commission. In the July 9 staff report, re the proposed enlargement of the SP/Cal Trans Service Service, it said that they might wish to double the size of their parking lot in the future, which he thought was a future impact. Although he agreed that would be Cal -Trans'. problem, he felt the future impact should be included in the arithmetic. _ Esther itahn, 425 Grant, referred to Page 2 of , the July 9 staff t eport and asked how it could be claimed that this project met the criteria outlined in the Urban Design portion of the Plan, which says, "to identify and maintain smaller scale visual features that give character to Palo Alto and its neighbors. Changes in the scale of the community that might occur through introduction of;,massive land use such as larger building's cr, new transportation corridors should be evaluated." "Retain unique- ness and diversity of Palo Alto neighborho`ods; She did not think the project met those requirements. 1 1 .0 5- 9 7/13/81 1 i 3111 Blake, 316 Oxford Avenue, chose to live in Palo Alto after searching throughout the United States for _a place to live. He realized that Palo Alto needed the housing, but thought the. development could use more trees. He requested that two or three nice trees, two to three feet larger than the tallest building, be placed in the center. He thought the Council should consider whether exceeding the 50' height level would be allowable from an impact point of view. Further, he said there were a lot of motorbikes with open exhaust used in the develop- ment area and he had been hearing them at 3:00 a.m., and won- dered if citizens were supposed to call Councilmembers to com- plain because he thought the problem would be worse when the development was completed. He expressed several negative opinions of the project based on the plens and model and urged the Council to look very closely at the project. Dr, Thomas Eayang, 425 Grant Avenue, also urged that this devel- opment be looked at very carefully before approval so that there would not be later regrets. He had three problems with the report. (1) He, could not understand how 1,750 more trips per day -could only require 60 more parking spaces. He also felt that the City Council had the authority to require an EIR, as well as to deny or approve the project for the welfare of the public, which was a premise of a democracy, (2) He called Council's attention to page 4 of the staff report, "it is pos- sible that the traffic analysis could be further refined by survey of the California Avenue office employees and shoppers and by use of a computer modelling for trip assignment. These surveys and computer use are quite costly and are of a size to have regional impacts." He said it was evident to him that this project had not been through that sort of a study because it was too expensive. (3) Page 8 of the staff report, "Once again -referring to the CEQA Guidelines and the definition of a project, it is not appropriate to evaluate the California Avenue/Park Boulevard projec� in terms of possible increases in traffic generation from an adjacent railway station." He said that long range planning had shown that every year there was progress and growth. He said that the traffic impacts of the railway station were never well studied and presented. Mike Gol irk, 366 °California Avenue, was a property owner on Park Boulevard and was the Director of CAADA. He said that in 1959 the master plan was developed by people of the California Avenue business area. He said that the plan was paid for by the people and approved by the City Council. He said it had been the merchants' guide through the years of strife and development on California. Avenue. He said that years had been spent striving to improve the area. He felt that the development was the most efficient fiscally sound project that the Council could approve. He commended.. ,the staff for the work they had done, as well as the developer`.' . He felt there had been plenty of study and that the project did not need to go to, the Planning Commission. He urged the Council to have the traffic barriers removed. and that no more be added and he urged the Council to approve the plan. Paul= Kahn, 4Z5 Grant, Appellant and representing the Grant Avenue Condominium Association, said he had gone through the drawin s and felt that Grant. Avenue and Ash were like the holo- caust in that they had disappeared. He said his group felt that traffic would ire- coming from El Camino through Grant Avenue. and Ash to go to California Avenue and, that the impact on Grant and on Sherman had not been addressed. He asked for consideration of that .point Geoffrey Thompson, 416 Oxford, had previously spoken before the Council as an opponent of traffic barriers, but felt that if this project was approved, the issue of traffic barriers would come up again. He was certain that the residents of Evergreen Park would want to be blocked from traffic and did not want to see that happen. He felt much more study was needed of the future try{'ffic patterns for the City due to increased traffic. H.e was concerned about the traffic- congestion as well as the commercial congestion in that area. He did not think there was enough support services to accommodate the people that would be coming in. He urged the Council to send the matter to the Planning Commission for a comprehensive study . Mayor Henderson announced that he would be departing soon due to the fact that his area was the first to be sprayed with Mal athi on tonight at midnight. Vice Mayor Fletcher announced that she would be departing soon due to the aerial spraying., Mayor Henderson announced -that Councilmember Fazzino, as Chairman of the Finance and Public ,Works Committee would then Chair the rest of the Council meeting. Councilmember Fazzino felt that the Council needed to decide whether they wanted to .finalize this issue tonight. Councilmember Renzel felt the project was a very major project and she thought the matter should be heard by the full Council, and thought. perhaps it should be continued to another date at an early hour so that it would be the first item on the agenda. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Klein, that the meeting be adjourned to July 20, with this item to be first item on the agenda. Councilmember Fazzino said he would be out of town on July 20, and suggested that perhaps the item could be heard at the Council meeting to be held on July 14. Councilmember Klein was concerned that appropriate notice could not be received by the interested citizens and said he would ,_ agree with Councilmember Eyerly's motion. Councilmember Levy preferred that the Council continue its discussion and reach a decision that night. MOTION TO CONTINUE FAILED by a vote of 6-3-1 as follows: AYES Eyerly, Renzel, Klein NOES: Bechtel, Fazzino, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon ABSTAIN: Fletcher MOTION: Councilmember, Bechtel moved, seconded by Fazzino, adjourn the item and the meeting until 7.:00 p.m., July 14. Councilmember Eyerly announced he would not be able to attend meeting on July 14, MOTION FAILED by a vote Fazzino voting>"aye." 6-3 with Klein, Witherspoon and 1 0 6 1 7/13/81 1 1 MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Eyerly, to uphold the Architectural Review Board decision. 1 1 Councilmember Witherspoon said she shared many of the neighbor- hood concerns and was interested that they had united behind them. She said the major concerns appeared to be crime, van- dalism, traffic congestion, safety hazards, then density of the project. She shared the traffic congestion problems. She asked Mr. Noguchi when the Council would hear about the traffic study in Evergreen Park. She felt that some of the citizens' frustra- tion was that for almost a year the people had hoped the Council would have a solution to their concerns. She realized Council never would, but felt that the traffic study should be being discussed. Director of Transportation, Ted Noguchi , said that the report on Evergreen Park was scheduled for late October._ Councilmember Witherspoon said that regarding an EIR vs. an EIA, the purpose of either of them was to identify as much as pos- sible all the possible ramifications for project, to help the deci si onmaker s assure themselves that as many of the parameters possible were being taken into consideration. She realized that the neighborhood could dispute the traffic counts, and she felt there was no point _ i n kidding themselves that anything built on the site wound not affect traffic. She felt it was probably the best plan the City could get as far as density and aethetics especially since it was such a difficult site. She felt it would eventually be a very good project and she would support the ARB recommendations. She would support, when the planning stages were begun, looking at the traffic implications for the entire area, not just Evergreen Park, and would be very inter- ested to see if the Council could work out a solution, but felt it was a different subject. Councilmember Eyerly agreed with Councilmember Witherspoon and. said that the 45,000 of commercial square footage of the project was negligible. He heard the neighborhoods talking about the traffic, but it could not be the traffic from the commercial, and he did not think the neighborhoods understood what was in commercial and what was in housing, He said that everyone knew that housing was desperately needed in Palo Alto and he felt that the traffic flow ° for the housing and for the project per se, had been adequately spoken to. He thought the use of the railroad bridge for ingress and egress was ingenious and was happy with that facet of the project. He did not think the traffic flow as expressed by the neighborhood was any different that what Council had heard from all neighborhoods whenever there was any type of a housing project contemplated. He would support the ARB's decision. Councilmember Renzel realized staff had worked very hard on the pi oject, but felt that some significant questions had been raised. She questioned the traffic figures used in assessing the project and thought there were questions about how the traf- fic at the intersections would behave. She said that on the -map on' the traffic there were some arrows which showed the ,ingress and egress from the . project, but that some of the new ingress and egress directions crossed over existing traffic patterns in such a way as, to cause significant traffic interruptions. She, said the entrance to go onto the ra>i 1 road bridge had to cross Park Boulevard approximately where the -traffic trying to get onto Oregon Expressway had to cross over a bicycle lane to get over into the right hand lane and turn. She wondered how addi- tional cross traffic in the area would react with the traffic' and thought the issue had not been addressed. She felt the same was true on the area where people came up off Old Oregon to Birch. She said that on Sheridan there was a traffic route shown to cross Sheridan and go out to Page Mill. She did not think that was _addressed. She felt that the questions had been raised, and the project as shown on the scale model showed how dense the project was, and as a building site she thought the traffic questions could be addressed by minor adjustments in the commercial space. She pointed out that the commercial -space was only one -sixth of the project, but that it generated over half of the projected trips from the project. She felt that a major change in the traffic impacts of the project could be made by a small reduction in the commercial space. She thought there were significant reasons to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for further information on the environmental effects. She would oppose the motion, Councilmember Klein said the proposal was difficult for him because if he had been on the Council when the Comprehensive Plan was being considered, he would have voted to change the zoning of the property to a straight housing designation. He felt that the zoning in the Comprehensive Plan meant a great deal, and felt that an overriding obligation of the Council to the people was one of fair play. He felt that the once the zoning designation was on the property, everyone should be able to rely on that. He did not think it would be fair to change the zoning : at the late date when the application had gone so far and there had been substantial investments and plans, etc. He realized there could be overriding considerations and if he were persuaded that the development would be the ruination of the area, he would feel differently. He did not like the idea of having commercial and offices in the area because it was not helping the jobs/housing imba L ance. He also felt that a lot of the people who had spoken against the project had spoken in favor of the zoning previously. He felt the project was -well- designed, and felt the developer had worked conscientiously. He felt Ceunyi l should keep in mind that the project was . less than the existing zoning would allow-eand felt it was a plus for the community and for all of Palo Alto. He understood the traffic concerns and was sensitive to them. He felt the traffic problem was one that all neighborhoods faced in Palo Alto and for which there was no easy answer, but thought that their best shot was to be constantly vigilant and to monitor the problem and see where it was going. He would support the ARB decision. Councilmember Levy felt there were two significant issues, the Evergreen neighborhood and the specific elements of the. project. He thought the two major elements were the impact on traffic and the project's own mass and scale as related to the California Avenue area. He felt he was very, sensitive to the traffic flow in that area. According to staff, about 80% of the rush hour traffic came through the Oregon/Page Mill thoroughfare. and he thought the ARB and the developer had handled that problem by using the unused viaduct and giving a somewhat straight shot into the southern entrance of the project. He said he had gone over the various _turns and patterns and felt it was viable. He felt the traffic impact would not be that substantial. He said that was not to ignore that there :.would be an impact on Evergreen, but he felt it could be handled by the Evergreen Study. He commented that he agreed with the ARB that the com- mercial entrywey looked hard and needed softening. He said that the prospects down California Avenue and Grant Avenue were good and the prospect down Sherman could be improved. He thought the parking element : had been_, handled well and that there would be less people using their cars than in a normal project. He would support the ARB. recommendation and commended the ARB for the amount of -time and effort given to the project as well as the work they 'had done. Counoilmember Bechtel agreed with her colleagues who had -spoken and felt it was a difficult decision when so many of the citizens' neighborhoods were affected. She felt the project had been extensively mitigated, and that the difficulty for her was that the Council had affirmed the zoning designation when the Comprehensive Plan was reviewed in November. She would support the motion. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to refer immediately to the Planning Commission that next year during the Comprehensive Plan revisions the Planning Commission consider and evaluate the C -S zone where Maximar t site i s. Councilmember Fazzino was concerned that the EIR alternative would bring delay and little else. He said that four years of study were done for the Comprehensive Plan and he agreed. -with Councilmember Klein that there. Would be some tremendous legal problems if -a project were denied which did not utilize _a -tremendous amount of the space on. the property. He thought that the project was in and of itself generally sensitive to zoning, density, needs for mixed use of housing and office use, and sensitive to the needs of necessary mitigation. He pointed out that not even an outstandingly -planned project occurred in a vaccuum. He said there was a concern that the project was not wrong in and of itself, but that it represented another in a long line of projects which had negatively impacted local neighbors. He thought the concerns were legitimate. He thought the concept of studying California Avenue use was a good one. He said he would like to see the Planning Commission conduct a committee of the whole session to look at the issue. He realized that the traffic was the key issue, and that the major problem area was Evergreen Park. He was concerned about the traffic impact and other_ possible projects along Park Boulevard unless stringent mitigation measures were adopted. He supported adoption of a traffic mitigation measure when traffic was i ricreased beyond five percent or. so in the Park Boulevard area He thought the measure must be implemented before private projects were finalized. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Renzel, that a specific traffic mitigation plan be prepared and submitted together with the Evergreen Park traffic study that identified .actions to be taken in the Evergreen Park area utilizing the $130,000 traffic mitigation payment to maintain present levels of traffic on neighborhood streets, and that this become a condition of formal approval. Councilmember Renzel stated that she seconded Councilmember Fazzi no' s amendment because she felt more study of traffic mitigation was needed. She said that although $130,000 sounded like a lot of ,money, it would buy about one, signal and would not address anything, more than that ..so that any further cost to mitigate traffic would be a public cost. She thought that one of the purposes of an EIR or a negative declaration, which sub- stituted for an EIR, was to, make sure that all of the environ- mental affects - were addressed and most particular iy in a neg-, tive declaration= that was supposed to occur. She said she had heard most of the Councilmembers say was that this and that ought to be- :looked at. She pointed out that Council did not have another opportunity to look at it, and that within the confines of the project approval, there was no further project review. Ms. Renzel said she thought that even though the ,zoning and Comprehensive Plan and land use designations were establ ished, in a secondary review process, there was the EIR process, which required the Council to look at major projects in "a,different way than whether or not they simply conform to the zone in .:the Comprehensive Plan. She did not think the Council was dealing 1 0 6 4 7/13/81 with their responsibilities if they did not take.a thorough look when a negative declaration was made on a project as major as the one before them when so many Councilmembers were raising additional questions. She said she was willing to have the mitigation moneys be utilized to protect adjacent neighborhoods, but thought there were not enough and that there would be public costs associated with the project. Director of Planning and Community Environment, Ken Schreiber, said that staff would have no problem coming back to Council, but that 45 days would present problems. He felt Council was really talking about Evergreen Park traffic study, and staff wanted to have enough time to work with the neighbors and work with the California Avenue folks, to collect the data and answer the questions. Councilmember Fazzino said he felt that staff had most of the data already. Mr. Schreiber said there was a considerable amount. of data that still needed to be collected regarding what cars were actually using the areas,. haw much of that was through traffic, and how much came -from the residential areas, multiple families, etc. Councilmember Eyerly pointed out that there were two -issues which..he did not think should be mixed. First, the issue of the ARB decision before the Council on the project.; and, the traffic mitigation for Evergreen Park was another item. He did not think that staff should be rushed or that the two issues sh_uld be tied together. Councilmember Witherspoon was not sure what was to be accom- plished by the amendment, She said that the developer was com- mitted to the money, and she would like to see hoar some of the traffic patterns worked out. She would prefer to have the emendrnent _worded differently and would vote against it. Councilmember Fazzino responded that one of the greatest con- cerns about the project surrounded the issue of traffic. He said that for a year, Council had been looking at the issue of traffic in the Park °Boulevard, Evergreen Park area, and he did not think that 45 days or two months was an excessive period of time to get the information. He felt that by getting the infor- mation and by Council's committing themselves to implementing mitigation alternatives to what they believed was a good pro- ject, would satisfy a number of the neighbors and address a number of the concerns. Councilmember Bechtel asked for clarification that the amendment would be a general plan for what one might do assuming traffic impacts as projected on the. various maps, but that it could be changed if circumstances indicated that it were somehow different than projected. Councilmember Fazzino stated that he wanted to identify trigger Writs and: thought the Council should commit themselves to _ those points for payment of those dollars toward .mitigation. Councilmember Renze-1 said she hadsome reservations about using the entire mitigation money in one neighborhood, when there were five neighborhoods affected by the project. She was not sure what was going to be done with , the money in the interim. She asked Councilmember Fazzino if the entire moneys were to be used to do a study to solve the problems. in Evergreen Park alone, or what. 1 Councilmember Fazzino said he would like the Council to pull together the data prepared by staff about potential traffic problems in the area and commit itself to trigger points when the money was paid to the City by Mr. Reller and Mr. Cox and to spend that money to alleviate traffic increases in that area. Councilmember Renzel felt that the EIR and mitigated negative declaration were supposed to have addressed those problems, and she did not feel they had, and she would not second the amendment to the amendment. Bill Reller, one of the developers, asked for clarification that if he understood the amendment, it was to come back with considerations for mitigation of the traffic in Evergreen Park, but it did not alter the decision in terms of the approval of the ARB.• Couriciluiember, Fazzino said that was correct. Councilmember Klein did- not see what would be accomplished by Councilmember Fazzi no' s amendment. Councilmember Levy said he felt that all the Councilmembers were sensitive, to Councilmember Fazzino's concerns to the Evergreen Park neighborhood and the other neighborhoods affected by the project, but that he was more interested in not setting ,ecerds for time, -but setting records for the quality and excellence of their work. He felt that when it came to Evergreen Park, that would be a major and complex study, and set of projects to implement. Evergreen Park when looked at was simply a series of square blocks and one barrier at one point could not just be put in and solve the problem. He said it would be a complex pr ob- iem, and Council would probably have to go through what they went through in Southgate. He felt several different mitigation ,techniques would have to be tried, and several would probably fail, He did not think anyone's hopes should be raised that with the snap of a finger, the Evergreen Peek neighborhood 'tr af= f i y problem would be solved, but he was dedicated to doing i t . AMENDMENT FAILED to have the Evergreen Traffic mitigation report done at the same time as the Evergreen Traffic study, by a vote of 5-2, Fazzino and Bechtel voting "aye,!! Henderson:and Fletcher absent. Councilmember Renz.el still felt that .there were major impacts from the project which had not_ been addressed -by the -mitigated negative declaration and she felt that one -sixth of the project which was ,commercial , and was_, generating ov . .er half of the traffic was.significant. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, that the commercial portion of the project be reduced by 50% so that the traffic would then be cut by 25%. AMENDMENT FAILED for lack of a second. Councilmember Witherspoon said that regarding the amendment to have the Planning Commission review; the Comprehensive Plan with regard, to the C-5 zoning,, it should be part of the: overall review of the City. Councilmember Eye i y a;;ked i f the amendment was ,for an immediate study=, by the Planning Commission, or at year -_end, Mr. Schreiber suggested that the review be included as part of the review which would commence in December or January. He said that the Commission had a long, detailed review of the site, including an extremely vocal public hearing in which everyone, including representatives of the surrounding neighborhoods, came in and spoke in favor of the C -S zone and against multiple family residential. AMENDMENT PASSED to send the zoning questions to the Planning Commission for consideration in accordance with their schedule by a vote of 4-2-1, Eyerly and Witherspoon voting "no," and Levy "abstaining," Henderson and Fletcher absent.. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote to €-1, Renzel voting "no," Henderson and Fletcher absent. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Levy, to adjourn the meeting to 7:30 p.m. on July 20, 1981 (Items #8, 8A original item #4, and #9 will be first on the Agenda. MOTION PASSED unanimously. A0JOURNMEN7 Meeting adjourned a; 12:12 a.m. to July 20, 1981. ATTEST: APPROVED: ayar