HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-10 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting July 10, 2000
1. Study Session re Green Buildings/Sustainability .......................................................... 281
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. .......................................................... 281
1. Presentation from Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group .......................................................... 282
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................... 282
APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................................... 282
2. Resolution 7983 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for Funds to Purchase Four Compressed Natural Gas Fueled Medium Duty Trucks” .......................................................... 283
3. Resolution 7984 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association” .......................................................... 283
4. Resolution 7986 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recommending that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Take Immediate Action to Improve
07/10/00 90-279
Regional Water Supply Reliability and Quality” .......................................................... 283
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Raines, Melton & Carella, Inc. in the Amount of $70,000 for the Preparation of a Long Term Goals Study for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant .......................................................... 283
6. South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan – Phase II. Appointment of Six New Members to the SOFA Working Group .......................................................... 283
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Bay Area Geotechnical Group in the Amount of $45,000 for Soil Testing .......................................................... 283
8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for construction of a 218,000-square-foot Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention and Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTP/ACP) Located at 875 Blake Wilbur Drive and an approximately 1,035-space, four-level underground Parking Structure IV (PS-VI) in the Pasteur Drive Median Between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive (300 Pasteur Drive). .......................................................... 284
9. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an application by Zwick Architects, on behalf of the Lehman family for Site and Design review of the construction of a new residence, cottage garage, two barns and a pool cabana on a 12-acre site in the Open Space Zoning District located at 850 Los Trancos Road. .......................................................... 304
10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements .......................................................... 304
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. in memory of Ward Winslow, retired Palo Alto newspaper reporter, editor, and historian, who passed away July 7, 2000. .......................................................... 304
07/10/00 90-280
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Fazzino, Kleinberg SPECIAL MEETING 1. Study Session re Green Buildings/Sustainability No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
07/10/00 90-281
Regular Meeting July 10, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (via teleconference from Washington D.C.), Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Kleinberg SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Presentation from Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group Item removed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Philip Salsbury, 1345 Martin Avenue, spoke regarding the impact developers had on neighborhoods and lack of process for neighbors to litigate impacts. Peter Teale, 1174 Stanley Way, spoke regarding the Council imbalance. John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, spoke regarding the election of City Council. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding accountability. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding the Council’s size. Kip Husty, 922 Bautista Court, spoke regarding promises. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the Minutes of May 8, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham “abstaining,” Kleinberg absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-7. Council Member Mossar was unable to vote on Item No. 6 because of a conflict of interest.
07/10/00 90-282
Council Member Beecham was unable to vote on Item No. 6 because of a conflict of interest. His client owned a building on the periphery of the district. 2. Resolution 7983 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for Funds to Purchase Four Compressed Natural Gas Fueled Medium Duty Trucks”
3. Resolution 7984 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association”
Resolution 7985 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Police Non-Management Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 7788 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7838, 7903 and 7963 to Provide for Salary Adjustments” 4. Resolution 7986 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recommending that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Take Immediate Action to Improve Regional Water Supply Reliability and Quality” 5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Raines, Melton & Carella, Inc. in the Amount of $70,000 for the Preparation of a Long Term Goals Study for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 6. South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan – Phase II. Appointment of Six New Members to the SOFA Working Group 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Bay Area Geotechnical Group in the Amount of $45,000 for Soil Testing MOTION PASSED 8-0, Item Nos. 2-5 and 7, Kleinberg absent. MOTION PASSED 6-0 Item No. 6, Beecham, Mossar “not participating,” Kleinberg absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Eakins, to continue Item No. 9 to the August 7, 2000, City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kleinberg absent.
07/10/00 90-283
PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for construction of a 218,000-square-foot Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention and Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTP/ACP) Located at 875 Blake Wilbur Drive and an approximately 1,035-space, four-level underground Parking Structure IV (PS-VI) in the Pasteur Drive Median Between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive (300 Pasteur Drive). The Palo Alto City Council will consider approval of the project addressed in the EIR, which includes applications by Stanford Hospital and Clinics (formerly known as UCSF Stanford Health Care), as the applicant, for Stanford University, as the land owner, for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of 801 and 1101 Welch Road from Research/Office to Major Institution/Special Facilities; a zone change to rezone property at 801 and 1101 Welch Road (Assessor parcel numbers 142-23-004 and 007) from Office Research (OR) to Public Facility (PF); a permit to demolish the building at 851 Welch Road; and a zone change to remove the landscape combining district from the Public Facilities (PF) at the Pasteur Drive median strip between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. The applications also include a conditional use permit to allow operation of the CCTP/ACP at 875 Blake Wilbur Drive and 851 Welch Road and of Parking Structure IV in the Pasteur Drive median. Application numbers for the project are 97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-ZA-14, 97-UP-66, and 97-ARB-214. Mayor Kniss explained that the current meeting was a quasi-judicial meeting, where the Council sat more as a judge on the issue, and any Council Members present had to disclose contact with anyone involved in the project. Council Member Mossar would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest; her husband worked for Stanford University. Council Member Lytle disclosed a tour of the current facilities with Stanford University and hospital staff. Council Member Burch disclosed a tour of the current facilities with Dr. Jacobs. Council Member Beecham disclosed a tour of the facilities. Vice Mayor Eakins disclosed a tour of the facilities and discussions with some Stanford people.
07/10/00 90-284
Council Member Ojakian disclosed a tour of the facilities. Mayor Kniss disclosed a tour and discussions with some Stanford people. Council Member Fazzino disclosed a tour of the facilities and conversations within the prior two weeks about the proposal. Mayor Kniss said the Council would consider certification of a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the construction of a 218,000-square foot Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention and Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTP-ACP or the Cancer Center). The Council would also consider approval of the project addressed in the EIR and an ordinance and resolution. Council Member Lytle asked about the comments regarding the hearing being a quasi-judicial hearing. She understood the decisions before the Council were a combination of legislative actions which included the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the zoning request but questioned differentiating between the two. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Council Member Lytle was correct; the two issues could not be differentiated. Typically when decisions were mixed, the Council was held to the higher standard. The conditional use permit findings could be broken down in a more specific way if there were questions with the staff report (CMR:313:00). The Council was encouraged to focus on the conditional use permit. Council Member Lytle thought the legislative actions should be taken prior to issuing a conditional use permit since the use would not be permitted under the current zoning. Mr. Calonne said the use permit would not become effective until the actions were in place. Council Member Lytle said legislative decisions would need to take place first with the quasi-judicial decisions last. Mr. Calonne said yes. Mayor Kniss said the issue was complicated, and the finite parts were very important. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the staff report (CMR:313:00) represented a request for a 218,000-square foot outpatient medical center to contain two uses: an expanded cancer center, representing 60 percent of the proposed expansion; and an outpatient surgical facility. The second major item before the Council was a 1,035-parking space underground garage in the area between Pasteur Drive. During the prior year,
07/10/00 90-285
staff evaluated the proposed project to determine whether it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the environmental impacts of both aspects of the project. Staff worked closely with the Stanford Planning Office and tried to be creative and examine the larger issue in addressing the specific project request. An example was the innovative approach to traffic impacts. The money that would normally have been spent to widen roads was proposed for trip reduction. The action on the Cancer Center facility was contained within the first five recommendations in the staff report, including the EIR, the Comprehensive Plan changes, rezoning, and the use permit. The sixth recommendation addressed a study of the potential for housing and/or mixed use in the area referred to as the outward side of Welch Road, the area between Welch Road and Sand Hill Drive, presently used for private offices. Although not a condition of approval for the Cancer Center, as a separate item, staff analyzed the Stanford Medical Center (SMC) expansion and included a review of the SMC, the area surrounding the SMC, the area between the Stanford Shopping Center, and the core campus of Stanford, to determine what the area should be in the future as a context for reviewing the proposal. The results were contained in the area analysis. Staff examined the long-term land uses for the area in the outward portion of Welch Road, that is, the offices between Welch Road and Sand Hill Road. Expansion of the SMC would result in impacts, some of which were evaluated in the EIR. The other impacts included the housing shortage and were something staff considered when considering the proposal. Staff believed the proposal had merit, but an additional study was necessary to determine the implications of such action including the impact on community facilities, existing tenants, mixed uses of office and housing, appropriate density, etc. By way of a slight modification to the recommendation in the staff report, staff recommended removal of the item from the current meeting to allow staff to conduct additional studies, e.g., the Council would not be asked to make a motion on the initiation of the Comprehensive Plan change or initiation of the rezoning. Emphasis would be placed on the second part of the recommendation to study the issues to ensure all impacts were analyzed regarding the housing change, and staff would bring the information forward later. Staff believed in the basic concept of the desirability of acquiring additional housing close to a major activity center but recognized that the issue was different and was a non-traditional approach. The City needed to work with the residents, affected property owners, tenants, and the Planning Commission to achieve the goal. Mayor Kniss emphasized Mr. Gawf’s proposal regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning change for the outward parcels contained in Recommendation 6 on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:313:00) be removed. Mr. Gawf’s suggestion was appropriate.
07/10/00 90-286
Mr. Gawf said staff looked forward to working with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the affected parties on the issue. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the proposed project included a 218,000 square-foot Cancer Center and accompanying underground garage. The facility would be located north of the existing parking structure #3; the four-level underground parking structure would be located beneath the median of Pasteur Drive, providing 1,035 parking spaces, and exceeding the demand for the facility by 163 parking spaces. In order to place the new Cancer Center in the location north of parking structure #3, demolition of a 153-space parking lot would be required. In addition, the facility would require the removal of a 12,500 square-foot structure and 62-space surface parking lot at 851 Welch Road to allow for the additional square footage included in the new facility. The existing facility was about 82,000 square feet and was part of the existing SMC. The proposed facility would be 136,000 square feet of additional footage and was needed to accommodate updated medical facilities and equipment, updated Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, Title 24 requirements, additional operating rooms, wider aisles, and a pedestrian bridge to the existing SMC. The 82,000 square feet remaining in the existing SMC would be filled with other medical related uses. Five basic actions would need to be taken at the current meeting to approve the proposal, the first of which was approval of the final EIR including the draft EIR in conjunction with the response to the comments document. Four primary environmental impacts were identified, two of which were short-term associated with the noise and visual impacts associated with the construction. Staff recommended overriding considerations be made for the temporary, short-term impacts because the benefit of the project outweighed the short-term nature of the impacts. The longer-term impacts identified in the final EIR involved traffic congestion, intersection improvements, and air quality. Eleven intersections were identified in the EIR as having potentially significant impacts as a result of the project. Five of the intersections were also identified in the previous Sand Hill Road EIR, at which time the Council made “can and should” findings, i.e., the intersections were not within the City of Palo Alto but within other jurisdictions over which Palo Alto had no purview but could and should be made by the jurisdictions having control over the intersections. Staff recommended the same “can and should” findings be made for the intersections. As mitigation for the remaining six intersections identified in the EIR, staff required that Stanford pay its appropriate share of its impact through the intersections up front. The City could then use the money either for the intersection improvements identified in the EIR or other Transportation Demand Management (TDM) methods to reduce trips rather than expanding intersections. TDM measures went further to improve air quality and reduce trips. In addition, as part of the
07/10/00 90-287
use permit, Stanford agreed to a voluntary TDM effort to augment its existing TDM effort at the SMC and expand it to the new building and new employees, as seen in Condition 12 of the Use Permit on Attachment 5 of the staff report (CMR:313:00). Stanford could consider specific items as part of the overall TDM program, which were not mandatory but would allow Stanford to implement the most effective TDM program methods. In addition, yearly or annual monitoring by the City of the methods was included to determine how effective Stanford had been and whether other more effective methods should be substituted. Staff recommended a statement of overriding consideration for the long-term air quality impacts. However, with the implementation of the TDM program, staff believed over time, air quality would improve more than with expanded intersections. The other major items for the Council’s action, in addition to the final EIR, were adoption of a mitigation monitoring program and a statement of overriding considerations. The monitoring program outlined the timeframe when mitigation measures would be implemented and who was responsible for each, included in the Resolution of Certification for the final EIR as were the statement of overriding consideration which addressed the overall benefits of the project with regard to the potential impacts. A Comprehensive Plan amendment was necessary for the two parcels at 801 Welch Road and 1101 Welch Road, which would change from office research to major institution special facility. The change went along with a rezoning application to change the parcels from office research to public facility. The two actions were required in order to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowed in the overall area from .5:1 to 1:1 to allow for the 218,000 additional square feet of building area. The parcel was considered one parcel but contained one parcel on which a variety of designations existed. By changing the zoning in the Comprehensive Plan, the parcel would become consistent with what most of the rest of the area was designated. In addition, a landscape-combining district was currently over the Pasteur median thereby restricting the use of the median area to landscaping purposes only. Staff recommended replacement of the landscape-combining district with an open space easement, which would make allowances for minor appurtenances to project above-grade for the underground parking structure. The height would not obscure views or compromise the intent of the openness of the area, but would allow for minor appurtenances such as elevator shafts and vents in conjunction with the parking structure. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, Attachment 5 of the staff report (CMR:313:00). A memorandum was at places explaining minor changes to the wording of Condition 12, primarily changing the order of the last two sentences and other minor editorial changes. The intent of the condition remained the same, i.e., the TDM was a voluntary effort on Stanford’s part. Condition 23 was added, “The use permit does not become effective until such time as the rezone and Comprehensive Plan amendments are effective.”
07/10/00 90-288
Planning Commissioner Jon Schink said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the staff recommendation for the Cancer Center. Two recommendations were added to the proposal presented to the Planning Commission: 1) requirement for childcare; and 2) a request that the City examine mixed use or housing zoning surrounding the perimeter of Welch Road. However, staff removed the Planning Commission’s recommendation from the staff report (CMR:313:00). The Planning Commission thought the project was potentially a good location for housing. After further inspection, that might not prove to be true; however, the idea was worthy of consideration. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing open. Larry Horton, Director of Government and Community Relations for Stanford University, said the evening represented a culmination of over two years of hard work by all parties since the application for the Cancer Center was filed in December 1997. Stanford was grateful for the personal attention Council Members had given to learning about the proposed facility. City staff was thanked for its work on the proposal. Dr. Eugene Bower, Vice President of Medical Affairs of Stanford University, said the Cancer Center was the most important facility Stanford had put forward since the building of the Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital, meeting critical needs and allowing consolidation of cancer services while delivering the kind of innovative care for which Stanford was known. Stanford looked forward to working with City staff and the occupants on Welch Road to meet the professional, housing, and mixed-use needs. The mission of the Stanford School of Medicine was to train future generations of physicians and biomedical scientists to provide state-of-the-art patient care and to make discoveries leading to cures and prevention of disease. The clinical cancer program at Stanford epitomized that mission. The new facility would replace 30-year old facilities which inhibited rather than encouraged collaborative care of patients. The Council was urged to do everything in its power to facilitate construction of the new Cancer Center. Dr. Charlotte Jacobs, Professor of Medicine and Director of the Clinical Cancer Center, said Stanford worked hard to develop innovative therapies, discover the cause of cancer, and prevent cancer, which was impossible in the current facilities. The five major reasons Stanford felt it needed such a facility were: 1) the changes in cancer care; 2) the predominantly ambulatory setting in which cancer was currently handled, rather than hospitalization; 3) to provide beyond state-of-the-art care which required more space; 4) the fact the clinic was a laboratory for major clinical research; and 5) patients deserved a healing environment. The Council was urged to approve the Cancer Center.
07/10/00 90-289
Bill Bloom, 216 Walter Hays Drive, said Stanford had the opportunity, the resources, and the will to develop a world-class cancer research and treatment center, with enormous potential benefits. The Council was urged to support and approve the proposal. Jack Liberatore, 3016 Greer Road, said working with Stanford University was important in order to make as much progress as possible to defeat cancer. Roger Winkle, 3347 St. Michael Court, supported the proposed Cancer Center and the need for more office space, since much of the land on which offices for many physicians were located was leased from Stanford. Changing the zoning from office space to residential could create problems with 200 to 300 doctors commuting to the hospital many times per day. Young doctors could not be recruited because of the cost of housing in the area. The Council was urged to support the Cancer Center without jeopardizing the future of the Palo Alto Community Physicians, particularly the doctors at 1101 Welch Road. Tom Mack, 703 Welch Road, #B-3, supported of the Cancer Center but cautioned about the potential future of other physicians and patients treated at the hospital if the proposed housing was approved. Dr. Larry Morrill, Orthodontist, 1000 Welch Road, said the present professional buildings represented treatment to thousands of residents. If the building in which he practiced was demolished, he would be forced to close his 29-year practice. Relocation would be impossible because of the increase in rents and the over $300,000 cost to relocate due to unique plumbing, wiring, etc. Dr. Andrew Newman, Pulmonologist, 1141 Harriet Street, supported a Cancer Center but was concerned about the outcome of the surrounding properties. Moving the practice of doctors close to the hospital was detrimental. Housing could be located anywhere on Stanford land and should not displace physicians who spent their lives treating the sick in the community. Sarah Donaldson, Oncologist, 819 Esplanada Way, Stanford, supported the Cancer Center to replace the outdated cancer treatment provided by Stanford. The new building would consolidate existing health care staff, currently scattered throughout the SMC. Andrew Au, Orthodontist, 750 Welch Road #102, supported the Cancer Center but was concerned about the impact of the possible changes on Welch Road for residential use instead of its current use for many doctors and physicians. The Council was urged to carefully
07/10/00 90-290
consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations. Jeanne Kennedy, 680 Lowell Avenue, supported the Cancer Center, which was a badly needed facility. Dr. Mark Beckstead, Periodontist, 777 Welch Road, supported the Cancer Center but opposed any change to the private practice of medicine, dentistry, or allied health fields on Welch Road. The Council was urged to give careful consideration to proposed changes for the destruction of the existing buildings that housed many practitioners and the thousands of patients in the community. Dr. Tim Mulcahy, 703 Welch Road, Suite 3A, supported the Cancer Center but was concerned about the destruction of the symbiotic relationship within the dental community on Welch Road and with the surrounding medical facilities. Charlotte Cagan, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, supported the Cancer Center, which would benefit both local business and the community as a whole. The Chamber was aware of the concern expressed by many physicians about the possible displacement of many offices. While the Chamber had not discussed the specifics of the recommendation, she was certain the Chamber would encourage the City to mitigate any negative impacts to the medical practices. Susan Boiku, 375 Parkside Drive, spoke about Stanford’s negative and compassionless treatment of cancer patients, more particularly her late husband. Stanford should be urged to not only provide a “wellness” center, but also a place for comfort and care for the dying. H. D. Thoreau, 426 Sand Hill Circle, Menlo Park, supported the Cancer Center not only for the good of the community but of the state and those who would benefit from it. Sally Probst, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA), 735 Coastland Drive, supported housing and transportation improvements on Stanford lands, the voluntary TDM, and the Quarry Road improvements leading to an inter-model center that would become an even more important transit hub. The City was encouraged to consider increasing the FAR on the inward side of Welch Road to accommodate buildings, and the community physicians could move across the street. Dr. Richard Ridgley, Orthodontist, 777 Welch Road, was concerned about the reference to “hospital employee trip reduction” which meant demolition of buildings. He expressed concern about Recommendation 6, particularly: 1) the lack of notification; 2) other alternatives had not been considered; 3) Stanford had sufficient amounts of land that could be used for housing; 4) the
07/10/00 90-291
sick who were turned away daily; 5) the lack of concern about traffic; 6) where doctors would relocate; and 7) the age of the population of Palo Alto and the care needed for seniors. He suspected the proposal was a means of Stanford terminating leases on the property prior to their expiration. Don Ostras, Dentist, 198 Yerba Buena Avenue, Los Altos, said moving the dentists currently on Welch Road would create undue hardship on both the doctors and their patients. Very few additional doctors had started practices on Welch Road and were, therefore, not contributing to the increase in traffic. The Cancer Center was supported. Dr. Donald Watters, Dentist, 777 Welch Road, agreed with the former speakers about not relocating doctors and dentists from Welch Road for housing. Support was voiced for the Cancer Center. Dr. Philip Ng, 1820 Mark Twain Street, opposed displacing several hundred doctors from Welch Road for housing. Traffic would not decrease if doctors had to commute back and forth to visit sick patients in the hospital. Susan Sorenson, 900 Welch Road #202, practiced medicine on Welch Road for 11 years for 2,000 patients and represented the recently formed Welch Road Professional Tenants Steering Committee. The Cancer Center was supported, but opposition was voiced for the destruction of an essential part of the health care community. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, said traffic and mitigation measures should not be handled by Stanford. Stanford should not be the only source for performance evaluation for determining whether or not it achieved its performance goals. An additional left turn lane at the intersection of Junipero Serra and Stanford Avenue was opposed. The collection of funding for the intersection improvements was questioned. Charlotte Martinez, 18 Fairview Place, Millbrae, was a cancer patient at Stanford and supported a new facility for cancer patients, the doctors, the support staff, Palo Alto, the state, and the country. Dr. Gary Zweig, 770 Welch Road, supported the Cancer Center for both professional and personal reasons. Providing a variety of health care alternatives was imperative. Opposition was voiced to tearing down the office spaces where many physicians served the Palo Alto community. The Council was urged to talk to the doctors and take the issue back to the table for further consideration to seek other alternatives. Mayor Kniss announced that the Council would take a ten-minute break and that no more speaker cards would be accepted after the
07/10/00 90-292
break. Council Member Burch spoke about media responsibility. Many of the members of the public were present at the current meeting because of a misunderstanding. The minutes of the Planning Commission suggested the possibility of moving housing to the outward side of Welch Road. When reported in one of the local papers, the suggestion became a hot story that the housing would, in fact, happen. There was no way the Council would do anything at the current meeting. The public was mislead by media hyperbole and a lack of media responsibility. Recess: 9:33 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Schink said the speakers seemed to indicate the City did not appreciate the value of its community doctors. The nature of the Planning Commission’s recommendation was to meet the need to study. Housing was emphasized, but the need to examine zoning for the area was also emphasized with an emphasis on mixed use. An important example and concern was that the Planning Commission was trying to look to the future and recognize the problems the community faced. One of the problems was that the physicians and dentists would soon be challenged in the space being leased by dot-commers and venture capitalists. Unless some zoning district was crafted to protect the doctors, as well as provide for housing, doctors would soon be unable to pay the high rents. He hoped the doctors would understand that the concerns should be brought to the Planning Commission to build a stronger community, one that protected the doctors in the long run. Susie Richardson, 1322 Martin Avenue, supported the Cancer Center, recognizing that 40 percent of the facility was for ambulatory care. Concern was expressed about the traffic backup on Welch Road when she visited her doctor and about the loss of private physicians, which were important as a piece of the community. The Council was urged to carefully consider whether the understandings with Stanford were tied down before approval was given. Orv Miller, 572 Sand Hill Circle, Menlo Park, spoke as a cancer victim and the difficulty of having to visit various sites in the SMC and eventually transferring to University of California at San Francisco to the Melanoma Cancer Center, which was what Stanford’s Cancer Center would accomplish. The Council was urged to approve the Cancer Center. Beth Shuman, President of the Board of Directors of the Community Breast Health Project, 116 Primrose Way, said her organization was a Palo Alto based nonprofit serving clients challenged by breast cancer. The Board unanimously supported the proposed Cancer Center and asked the Council to approve the Cancer Center on behalf of Stanford.
07/10/00 90-293
Peter Drekmeier, Director of Stanford Open Space Alliance, 570 Matadero Road, said his organization had collected 10,000 signatures in support of protection of the foothills. The Cancer Center was a “pretty good” use of Stanford lands; however, projects that were approved in the past created the traffic and jobs/housing imbalance. Mitigation measures would be needed. The draft EIR, general use permit, and community plan recognized the multiplier effect of the extra 500 jobs, acknowledging that of the 2,200 new people Stanford would bring to the campus, 1,000 would be employees. David Shields, M.D., 770 Welch Road, supported the Cancer Center. He suggested the physicians create a committee to examine the needs of the physicians on Welch Road and have a better line of communication. Dr. Karl Blume, 1085 Catacart Way, Stanford, was a Professor of Medicine and physician who treated cancer patients at Stanford. He also served as a clinical investigator and was often asked by the National Cancer Institute to review other cancer centers in the country, all of which were superior to Stanford’s. None of the cancer patients in other facilities had to endure the kind of conditions that currently existed at Stanford. The Council was urged to approve the proposal as soon as possible. Sara Maas, 25 Nelson Avenue, Mill Valley, supported of the Cancer Center on behalf of her fellow cancer patients. Arthur Boyer, Medical Physicist and Director of the Radiation Physics Division, 1695 Fairway Drive, Los Altos, supported the Cancer Center on behalf of patients and the technical staff working at the Cancer Center. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, supported of the idea of TDM instead of enlarging intersections but suggested specific, measurable goals be attached to the approach with outside monitoring. Housing should not be a mitigation for traffic. For each housing unit added, 13 trips were added daily, only two of which were commuting. The City was encouraged to protect the enclave of medical services along Welch Road. Agreement was voiced to Mr. Schink’s comment about redoing zoning to protect the use from being priced out of the market. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke about the current zoning, which permitted residential, RM-30, and mixed use. If the City wanted housing, it should require housing. The issue was whether the parcels on the other side of Welch Road would become housing or part of the medical center. Rezoning would provide an entitlement of over 400,000 square feet; however, Stanford’s practice had been to demolish buildings, which would add over 500,000 square feet.
07/10/00 90-294
The Council was urged to adopt a mitigation for the project requiring the City Council to adopt by a date certain a maximum FAR for the SMC and both sides of Welch Road. The Council was also urged to require Stanford to agree to deduct the increased entitlements from rezoning for the project and future parcels from the entitlements from the County of over 2 million square feet of additional non-residential entitlement. Edie Keating, 3511 Waverley Street, said there was a need for housing and to monitor the transportation issue associated with the project. Independent comprehensive monitoring of the jobs and housing issues was also important on an ongoing basis. The housing impact fee of only $700,000 was not a lot considering how much housing would be required. Babak Alizadeh, 325 E. Middlefield Road, Mountain View, was a graduate of the cancer biology program at Stanford and supported the Cancer Center. His wife was a dentist on Welch Road, so he was in support of seeing the City consider optional zoning issues. Stanford had a great deal of land on which housing for cancer patients and their families could be located. Mr. Horton said Stanford believed the extensive record before the Council and the virtual unanimous views of the community supported the Cancer Center, which was desperately needed. Stanford was not seeking the approval process in order to make changes in the outboard properties on Welch Road. If the City chose to study the proposal, Stanford would work vigorously with community physicians, dentists, and other health care providers and with the City staff on the appropriate long-range zoning for the outboard properties on Welch Road. The essential work of the community physicians located near the SMC was valued ,and Stanford would work to see that the functions continued. Council Member Burch asked whether the streets of west Menlo Park were examined to determine whether there were any significant impacts. Mr. Gawf said yes. Of the six intersections staff discussed for the TDM approach, three were located in Menlo Park, two on El Camino Real and one on Sharon Drive. Council Member Burch said when one doctor spoke about analyzing the different hospitals in the country and found that Stanford was the bottom of the barrel, he queried that with all the building that went on over the years at Stanford, how the hospital got to the bottom of all the cancer centers. Vice Mayor Eakins asked about the comments made by members of the public regarding 500 additional employees compared with data on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:313:00) which did not mention the
07/10/00 90-295
same numbers. Ms. Grote said the total number of new employees was calculated by backfilling the vacated 82,000 square feet, which would be approximately 430 some employees. Approximately 89 or 90 new employees would be located in the new Cancer Center. The total then was approximately 500 new employees. Vice Mayor Eakins asked what kind of employees were currently in the backfill. Ms. Grote said the 82,000 square feet currently had about 400 employees in the cancer facility who were moved over to the new facility. There were approximately 420 employees that were moved to the 218,000 square feet plus 90 more. There would then be a backfill in the 82,000 square feet of 420 employees. Vice Mayor Eakins asked if the patient visits would increase. Ms. Grote said the number of new patients would be generated by the new space for the cancer facility. The other medical facility that was being backfilled would not increase its numbers of patients; however, there might be more employees. There might also be some incremental change but not significant. Vice Mayor Eakins asked the applicant to clarify. Lou Saxon, Vice President for General Services for the hospitals and clinics, said the backfill area, according to one of the assumptions in the EIR, would be occupied by the exact same density as the space being vacated. Stanford did not plan to establish all clinical programs. The program would include a transportation center, eating facilities, storage facilities for documents, and expansion of existing programs. The 400 backfill was assumed to be occupied at the same density as the number moving out. It was highly unlikely that many people would occupy that space; however it was included in the EIR as a “worst case scenario.” Vice Mayor Eakins asked how many new employees would be seen. Mr. Saxon said including the backfill and 87 in the new facility, 210. Vice Mayor Eakins asked about the number of new patient visits. Mr. Saxon said patient visits were all counted in the new facility; the patient visits in the old facility would not change because of the lunchrooms and expansion of office space and storage space.
07/10/00 90-296
Vice Mayor Eakins repeated her question. Mr. Saxon was not sure of the exact number. Vice Mayor Eakins asked about the 23 percent increase in patient visits in the Cancer Center. Mr. Gawf said from staff’s standpoint, EIRs took a conservative position. EIRs tried to assume the worst case. In the current situation, the assumption was that the area being vacated would be reoccupied at the same intensity. Council Member Ojakian asked whether there was a way to legally restrict the number of employees in the backfill. Mr. Gawf said the City could restrict the number with the use permit, which staff would not propose, and was why the worst case scenario was used. Council Member Ojakian asked whether there was any reason not to propose the restriction since it would reduce the elements people had discussed and were causing difficulties. Mr. Gawf said staff’s analysis assumed the worst situation so the traffic issues being addressed were at the higher level. The foreseen difficulty would be trying to monitor counting people in a space. If a restriction was utilized to limit the number of employees to 200 to occupy the 82,000 square feet, some way would have to be found to monitor to ensure it was being done. Council Member Ojakian said the City had placed restrictions in the past, although not necessarily medical, placing a ceiling on the number of employees. Mr. Calonne said the Council placed a physician population limit on the first round of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) in 1991. Council Member Beecham wanted to move quickly beyond the question of whether there should be a Cancer Center, and focus instead on the conditions needed to support it. There should be no question about whether the Cancer Center would save the lives of friends and families. The resource was not an unalloyed benefit to the community. There were impacts, both in Palo Alto and Menlo Park as discussed in the staff report (CMR:313:00). The impacts should be addressed and a determination made about how to minimize the impacts as the Cancer Center progressed. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kniss, to
07/10/00 90-297
approve the staff revised recommendations not including rezoning facilities on Welch Road to residential, adopt the resolution certifying the adequacy of the final Environmental Impact Report, approving a mitigation and monitoring program, and adopting a statement of overriding considerations for the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by changing the land use designations for 801 and 1101 Welch Road from Research/Office Park to Major Institution/Special Facilities (Stanford University Medical Center CCTP/ACP and parking structure IV), introduce an ordinance amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning map) to change the classification of property known as 801 and 1101 Welch Road from “OR Office Research” to “PF Public Facilities” and remove the Landscaping Combining (L) District from a portion of the median of Pasteur Drive between Welch Road and the (Stanford University Hospital (Stanford University Medical Center CCTP/ACP and Parking Structure IV), and approve the use permit for the Cancer Treatment Facility. Mr. Calonne said staff had conferred with Planning staff during the break and wanted authority to conform the mitigation and monitoring report, pages 51-54, with the text of Condition 12 in the motion. Council Member Burch liked the idea of monitoring traffic by an independent outside organization in order to obtain the most objective data as was required in other situations. Council Member Lytle said the modification proposed by Council Member Burch was supported. In addition, she wanted to vote separately on the EIR because of concerns about the adequacy of the document and wanted to vote against its certification; however, she was not opposed to the project in general. Council Member Beecham agreed to separate the two items. City Manager Benest said there was no problem with independent monitoring. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that Recommendation #6 on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:313:00) be removed and modifications to Condition #12 of Attachment 5 of the staff report (CMR:313:00) be included as follows: “12. Stanford has an existing extensive transportation demand management program that includes employee trip reduction programs. Stanford shall augment this program with goals of 200 peak-hour trip reduction from the Medical Center, which is the number of new peak hour trips expected to be generated by the Project, and other total daily trip reduction. The impacts of peak hour trips on intersections is also addressed by Condition
07/10/00 90-298
#11, above. The condition is an additional effort by Stanford to develop, implement, and evaluate TDM measures in conjunction with the City of Palo Alto. Should the condition, in combination with condition #11, result in peak trip reduction in excess of 200 peak-hour trips, Stanford shall be credited with the additional trip reduction during environmental review and consideration of future Stanford development projects within the City. Failure to meet either or both goals shall not be grounds for revocation of this permit. If circumstances change, Stanford shall be permitted to petition for modification of this condition at any time and the City shall consider the matter within 90 days of Stanford's petition. Any modification of this permit will acknowledge that Stanford has voluntarily agreed to this supplemental employee trip reduction program and that state law currently prevents the City from imposing employee trip reduction programs without Stanford's consent. Among the trip reduction measures Stanford may consider are:” Council Member Lytle said several questions she asked earlier of staff related to the cumulative impacts of the recommended legislative actions when considered together with the impacts of other concurrent Stanford and City development proposals and the facility impacts in the joint communities. The questions focused on the environmental impacts of continued growth and economic pressure on the currently crowded schools, parks, recreation, and community center facilities. Total numbers of employees should be obtained from several projects that were either recently approved in the development process or were currently before the County or the City’s own development process. The number of new residents expected from the variety of projects was also requested. The cumulative calculations of the population thresholds had not been determined, nor had the City anticipated what the new populations would require in terms of space needs according to the City’s community standards for schools, parks, recreation services, and community centers. The City was already in a crisis in that area in terms of the staff report (CMR:261:00) and trying to solve the issue together with the PAUSD. Staff had assured the Council that the analysis would be conducted and comments could be made on the general use permit for Stanford University. Other services should be keeping pace with the City’s growth. She appreciated the need for the Cancer Center to modernize and bring Stanford into the new millennium with a world-class facility; but she hoped Stanford would appreciate that the City’s centers and schools were also 40 years old or older and were in similar shape. The City should not move forward on widening intersections as a mitigation measure. The option to use the mitigation fees for other purposes was a possibility, but intersections should not be widened without analyzing the impact on pedestrians, bicycles, and other service levels. She would vote against the certification of the environmental document and in favor of the project. She was in favor of Recommendation #6 to investigate potential rezoning of
07/10/00 90-299
the property on the outboard side of Welch Road. The idea had been explored in the past and had almost the same reaction from doctors in the 1970s as the current evening. However, it would be beneficial to see what could be done to offset the jobs/housing imbalance. The community could not continue to create new jobs without considering how to house people who would be employed Council Member Ojakian asked whether the project could move forward if the Council failed to certify the EIR. Mr. Calonne said no. Mayor Kniss asked how many votes were needed. Mr. Calonne said an absolute vote of five was required to approve the resolutions and ordinance. Council Member Ojakian supported restricting the number of employees who could backfill into the space that was made open. The benefit of limiting the number of employees would address some of the issues Council Member Lytle raised, although not to the degree desired. The potential impact of reducing employees from 400 to 200 was great. In the meantime, testimony was heard from the public that it might be closer to the real number anyway. Council Member Beecham supported Council Member Ojakian’s comments. He thought the intent of Council Member Ojakian’s comment did not address the EIR but was a later item. Council Member Ojakian agreed. The EIR stood on its own and could be voted on separately. Then the Council could examine the project on its own. Mr. Calonne said the Council was doing both and was dealing with an EIR by adding a new mitigation measure and should be picked up in the conditions of approval as well. Mayor Kniss agreed. Council Member Fazzino agreed with half of what Council Member Lytle said and had concerns about the focus on intersection improvements as the primary transportation objective once the approval of the plan moved forward. Focusing on intersection improvements rather than implementation of alternative TDMs was a mistake. However, he disagreed completely on the idea of housing. Replaceing critically important doctors and other services with housing was wrong. Housing should not be placed in every nook and cranny in the City while forgetting critically important services. Mayor Kniss hoped staff was aware of the Council’s concerns and asked for a vote on certification of the EIR.
07/10/00 90-300
MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING FIRST PART OF MOTION to adopt the resolution certifying the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Resolution 7988 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report, Approving a Mitigation and Monitoring Program, and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act” FIRST PART OF MOTION PASSED: 6-1, Lytle “no,” Mossar “abstaining,” Kleinberg absent. Mayor Kniss said the Council would bring its comments back to the main motion regarding approval of the Cancer Center. Council Member Beecham said part of the main motion included approval of the conditions of the use permit. He understood childcare was not currently in the use permit. Ms. Grote said no. The requirement for childcare was Condition #22 in the use permit. Council Member Beecham asked about the intersections and traffic mitigations. He understood staff’s recommendation was to have flexibility in how to apply the funds Stanford would pay for the intersection improvements, including intersections that were in the County, not necessarily the City. He asked how the City would continue funding the softscape programs as the City examined other methods to reduce impacts other than hardscape changes, when the set amount of money ran out. Mr. Gawf said Council Member Beecham’s question was one of the considerations to make when deciding which things to fund. Unless there was some provision for ongoing funds, it was probably not appropriate to spend the money. Some type of physical improvement would be considered, e.g., a bicycle path, etc. Clearly, the fund was intended as a one-time fund, rather than an ongoing fund. Council Member Beecham clarified staff was considering hardscape improvements. Mr. Benest said yes, or improvements that were definitive and would not entail an ongoing operational component. Mr. Gawf said Stanford had committed to enhance its TDM program, many components of which were ongoing operational costs. There
07/10/00 90-301
were two TDM components. One was where the City took the money that would normally be spent on intersection improvements and taking the appropriate share the Cancer Center would normally contribute for the intersection improvements, and put them into a fund that could be used in other ways. The City would work with the Planning & Transportation Commission in the allocation of that money for a strategy. The funds would have to be tied to reducing congestion in the intersections identified. The funds were not a general pot of money but needed to be used to reduce congestion in the area of the Cancer Center. The second was Condition #12, which was Stanford’s voluntary commitment to an ongoing TDM program and exploring ways to enhance or augment that program, which could be ongoing, operational expenses. Council Member Beecham said several comments were related via email to encourage the design to be more bicycle-friendly. Staff was encouraged to give every possible consideration to that suggestion. The Planning Commission was commended for its thoroughness. Vice Mayor Eakins agreed with Council Member Beecham in his commendation to the Planning Commission. Support was voiced for using the traffic mitigation fund creatively, emphasizing bicycle and pedestrian benefits, not just automobiles. If people wanted to travel in cars, they would just have to accept the fact that they would have to sit around a bit in the cars, which might be an inspiration to use other methods. Staff was also encouraged to keep roundabouts on the “menu” of ideas from which to chose. She objected to the term “improvement” for intersections, which failed to say what it was. Support was given to the League of Women Voters’ sentiments about using innovation and flexibility for the potential rezoning and better use of some of the land. The time had come when the City could not have all surface parking surrounding large buildings, especially in an area with such high land values. The Planning Commission’s hopes for finding good mixed use, medical offices, support offices, and residences, might work out, but probably all the parking would have to go underground to do so, which was just the way of the future. Council Member Fazzino agreed with his colleagues. He was happy to support the project. There was no question that it was critically needed. Stanford was currently using inadequate, out-of-date facilities, and was at the top of his list of Stanford projects, even though it would create some negative traffic impacts. The City had seen significantly increased urbanization over the past few years. To some degree, approval of the Cancer Center would contribute to the growth. He agreed with Vice Mayor Eakins’ comments about the term “intersection improvements” which was a euphemism for increased organization and less pedestrian friendly environment. He hoped the City would put an effective TDM in place. An effective TDM would not be put in place unless
07/10/00 90-302
the City had alternatives available, one of which was a shuttle system like the merger of Stanford and the City’s shuttle system. He had real concerns about the Planning Commission’s proposal to throw doctors out of offices to build housing, particularly when focusing on providing critically important medical services. Mayor Kniss thought the issue was one of the more difficult ones the City had faced. Not only did the project represent a building, but also it represented people’s lives. Anyone who had faced cancer in a family member knew it struck terror in the heart of the family and patient. Council Member Burch’s comment about the facility as it existed was an interesting one. The facility was a dismal and dreary place. The comments about traffic should be weighed very carefully and be considered as the project moved forward. Thanks were given to City staff, Stanford for its improved care, and the public for expressing its experiences. Council Member Beecham said during his visit to the facility, he was shown drawings for the Cancer Center, which went back five to ten years since the planning of the Cancer Center. Consideration should be given to Stanford for how long the process had taken and not tar Stanford with the implication that was not caring for improving its facilities. Mr. Calonne provided language for the employee limitation condition: “No more than 200 new employees shall reoccupy the 82,000 square feet of space representing the existing cancer treatment facilities. The mechanism for limiting the number of employees shall be determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment and after consultation with the applicant.” INCORPORATED INTO THE SECOND PART OF THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to approve independent monitoring of traffic to be done by an outside contractor. INCORPORATED INTO THE SECOND PART OF THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that a mitigation measure and use permit condition be added that “No more than 200 new employees shall reoccupy the 82,000 square feet of space representing the existing cancer treatment facilities. The mechanism for limiting the number of employees shall be determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment after consultation with the applicant.” Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 801 and 1101 Welch Road From “OR Office Research” to “PF Public Facilities” and Removing the Landscaping Combining (L) District From a Portion of the Median of Pasteur Drive Between Welch Road and the
07/10/00 90-303
Stanford University Hospital (Stanford University Medical Center CCTP/ACP and Parking Structure IV)” Resolution 7987 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designations for 801 and 1101 Welch Road from Research/Office Park to Major Institution/Special Facilities (Stanford University Medical Center CCTP/ACP and Parking Structure IV)” SECOND PART OF MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kleinberg absent. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an application by Zwick Architects, on behalf of the Lehman family for Site and Design review of the construction of a new residence, cottage garage, two barns and a pool cabana on a 12-acre site in the Open Space Zoning District located at 850 Los Trancos Road. The total impervious surface coverage for the site is proposed to be 15,336 square feet, or 3.23 percent. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been prepared, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Item continued to August 7, 2000. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Burch spoke regarding Redwood trees and requested City Manager examine the ordinance regarding trees and provide the Council with a report. City Manager Frank Benest said staff would explore working with the applicant. Council Member Lytle spoke regarding testimony about considering a Charter Amendment to reduce the size of the Council and to consider district elections for Council Members. She requested those items be taken into consideration on the same night. Council Member Beecham stated he would be out of town for the next two days to meet with Palo Alto’s representatives in Washington, D. C., regarding energy related matters. Council Member Burch said he would like the meeting to be adjourned in memory of Ward Winslow. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. in memory of Ward Winslow, retired Palo Alto newspaper reporter, editor, and historian, who passed away July 7, 2000.
07/10/00 90-304
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
07/10/00 90-305