HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-31 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting July 31, 2000
1. Appointments to the Planning and Transportation Commission..........................................................399
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................................400
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..........................................................400
2. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 1.04.072 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Expedited Judicial Review of Actions or Proceedings Related to Licenses or Permits for Activities Involving Expressive Conduct Protected Under the First Amendment”..........................................................401
3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 9.79.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Newsrack Permits”..........................................................401
4. 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 a Portion of Property Collectively Known as ‘Channing Park Tract..........................................................401
5. Rejection of Proposal for Design and Construction of Fiber to the Home..........................................................40
07/31/00 90-396
1
6. 2171 El Camino Real Final Map [1-SUB-00]: Request by Ananda Church of Self-Realization for Final Map Approval to Remove Seven Existing Lot Lines and Adjust One Lot Line to Convert Ten Lots Into Three Lots..........................................................401
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Sure Flow Inc., dba Roto Rooter, in the Amount of $100,000 for Sewer Lateral Cleaning Services..........................................................401
10. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval re Gas Commodity Purchases..........................................................401
11. Conference with Labor Negotiator..........................................................402
11A. (Old Item No. 14) Proposed Extension of the Rate Assistance Program to Include the Storm Drainage Fee 402
11B. (Old Item No. 13) PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of the Respective Properties Herein Described..........................................................402
11C. (Old Item No. 8) The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommends City Council Approval of the Proposed Mid-Block Crosswalks Guidelines, as amended..........................................................403
12. PUBLIC HEARING: re the Draft Environmental Impact Report Prepared by Santa Clara County for the Proposed Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit..........................................................412
15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..........................................................431
07/31/00 90-397
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to a Closed Session...........................................................431
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m...........................................................431
07/31/00 90-398
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:08 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar ABSENT: Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointments to the Planning and Transportation Commission Vice Mayor Eakins said there were applicants from all areas of Palo Alto, and she encouraged Khosrow Panahi, Donald Stone, and Yoriko Kishimoto to apply again in the future. The Council was fortunate to have two incumbents reapply who had proven to be excellent Planning Commissioners. Often it took many times of applying to become a Planning Commissioner and being passed by should not be taken as discouragement but as encouragement to try again. She supported reappointment of the two incumbents. Council Member Fazzino supported the reappointment of Pat Burton and Owen Byrd who each brought a great deal to the Planning and Transportation Commission. He prized their contributions. Mayor Kniss said the Planning and Transportation Commission was important because the decisions made about Palo Alto land affected the community’s well being and cost issues. She supported Pat Burt and Owen Byrd who had done their jobs well. She wanted the other excellent candidates to know they were not being bypassed, but the incumbents’ experience and willingness to reapply would serve the City well. Council Member Burch supported Pat Burt and Owen Byrd for reappointment. John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, said comments were made by Council Member Burch at a prior City Council meeting that he did not need to interview the two incumbents because they already had a record. At a July 17, 2000, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting, he listened to their recommendation to turn down the DeSoto Drive single-story overlay which the Council overrode. Either the PTC did not know the City’s governing ordinance or deliberately chose to ignore the ordinance. After reading the minutes from that meeting, he concluded that Commissioner Byrd was the ringleader in the decision to turn down the DeSoto Drive application, and he did not want Commissioner Byrd reappointed to the PTC.
07/31/00 90-399
Council Member Mossar strongly disagreed with the PTC’s recommendation relative to the single-story overlay for Channing Park I and II but felt that was not a reason for not reappointing an incumbent. The City was embarking upon a desperately needed rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance. New members of the PTC would not by definition be able to participate fully, and the experience of Commissioners Burt and Byrd was needed to successfully accomplish that rewrite. She was pleased by the applicant pool and looked forward to opportunities to bring others on to the PTC in the future. FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR PATRICK BURT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar VOTING FOR OWEN BYRD: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar VOTING FOR YORIKO KISHIMOTO: VOTING FOR KHOSROW PANAHI: VOTING FOR DONALD STONE: City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Patrick Burt and Owen Byrd, received five or more votes and were appointed on the first ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS David Coale, 766 Josiner Avenue, spoke regarding the possible extension of the sales tax for transportation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the minutes of July 19, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Ojakian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Kniss announced that Item Nos. 8 and 9 would be removed from the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 – 7, and 10.
07/31/00 90-400
2. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 1.04.072 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Expedited Judicial Review of Actions or Proceedings Related to Licenses or Permits for Activities Involving Expressive Conduct Protected Under the First Amendment” 3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 9.79.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Newsrack Permits” 4. 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 a Portion of Property Collectively Known as ‘Channing Park Tract 883 and Tract 909’ From R-1 To R-1(S)” 5. Rejection of Proposal for Design and Construction of Fiber to the Home 6. 2171 El Camino Real Final Map [1-SUB-00]: Request by Ananda Church of Self-Realization for Final Map Approval to Remove Seven Existing Lot Lines and Adjust One Lot Line to Convert Ten Lots Into Three Lots 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Sure Flow Inc., dba Roto Rooter, in the Amount of $100,000 for Sewer Lateral Cleaning Services 10. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval re Gas Commodity Purchases, the following: 1. Approve the resolution authorizing revised rate schedules to incorporate a 15 percent system wide retail rate increase effective August 1, 2000; and 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance providing an additional appropriation in the amount of $6,607,307 for Gas Fund Commodity Purchases. Resolution 7992 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedules G-1, G-2 and G-7 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Gas Service” Ordinance 4652 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of
07/31/00 90-401
$6,607,307 for Gas Fund Commodity Purchase and Transmission Costs MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 2-7, and 10, Ojakian absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager Frank Benest announced that Item No. 14 would become Item No. 11A, Item No. 13 would become Item No. 11B, and Item Nos. 8 and 9 would become Item No. 11C. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 11. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designee pursuant to Compensation for Unrepresented Employees (Frank Benest, Jay Rounds) Unrepresented Employee Groups: Management and Confidential Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 11A. (Old Item No. 14) Proposed Extension of the Rate Assistance Program to Include the Storm Drainage Fee City Manager Frank Benest said at various discussions regarding the Storm Drainage Fee, the issue of a Rate Assistance Program for people on fixed incomes and other low income households in Palo Alto was mentioned by Council Members. Subsequently, staff held several community meetings to find that one of the major issues was whether the City would extend the Rate Assistance Program. Staff requested specific direction from the Council in order to prepare the documents and return at the next Council meeting with a recommendation for approval of the Rate Assistance Program. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council direct staff to return to Council with a proposed extension of the current Utilities Ratepayer Assistance Program to include the storm drainage fee. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Ojakian absent. 11B. (Old Item No. 13) PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of the Respective Properties Herein Described
07/31/00 90-402
Fire Marshall Dan Heiser said throughout the years, the Fire Department inspected properties, and certain properties contracted had the Santa Clara County Fire Marshall’s office contract the to abate the weeds. Council Member Beecham said several of the properties were Stanford University or the City of San Francisco and asked how those properties got on the list. Mr. Heiser said that anything west of Interstate 280 within the Palo Alto City boundaries was on the list. He did not have a specific answer for those properties but would look into that. Marty Hicks, Weed Abatement Program Coordinator, Santa Clara County Fire Marshall’s Office, said the City of San Francisco parcels on the list were Hetch Hetchy water rights-of-way which his office cleared of fire hazardous vegetation. The Stanford University properties were typically done by request through Stanford. Stanford also leased some of its property to private organizations which his office had also done fire hazardous abatement on. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council hear and consider objections from affected property owners of proposed assessments related to completed weed abatement work and approve and/or modify the assessments for weed abatement. Resolution 7993 entitled Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment of the Respective Properties Herein Described MOTION PASSED 8-0, Ojakian absent. 11C. (Old Item No. 8) The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommends City Council Approval of the Proposed Mid-Block Crosswalks Guidelines, as amended (Old Item No. 9) The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommends City Council Approval of a Request to Install a Mid-Block Crosswalk on East Meadow Drive near East Meadow Circle, with an Amendment that the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology Fund the Final Design and Construction of the Crosswalk and Post a Removal Bond in the Event the Crosswalk is no Longer Needed
07/31/00 90-403
Chief Transportation Official Joe Kott said the staff recommendation was to establish guidelines to help staff with decisions on mid-block crosswalks. Presently, the City had no criteria or policy framework for establishing those facilities. The criteria staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended to the Council was set forth in the Attachment of the staff report (CMR:338:00) which were a combination of vehicle and pedestrian volumes, speeds, types of treatment, and advisory on location. Fair and rational guidelines were important. The transportation facilities, although not the most strategic, were important and could, if done well, enhance safety of pedestrians and something which the City policy and the Comprehensive Plan endorsed wholeheartedly. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said with regard to the Mid-Block Crosswalk Guidelines item, he felt the guidelines were an improvement but was unhappy the recommendations of some of the Planning and Transportation Commissioners did not put in an actual value, e.g., 200 or 300 feet from the corner instead of mid-block. He wanted the Council to seriously consider putting in an actual value when voting on the item. With regard to the specific crosswalk on East Meadow Drive, it was only 100 feet from the corner but was on a street that was not dangerous. It was not a hazardous location and staff had not looked at it as being a problem. He felt the only reason it was being put in was because the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology was paying for it. There were some serious problems with a crosswalk on Fabian Way over the past several months. He was disturbed about putting in a crosswalk in an area where there was not a hazard and not putting in a crosswalk on Fabian Way where there was a real hazard, which would cheapen the concept of crosswalks and pedestrian areas. Systems Loral was the largest employer in Palo Alto, and hundreds of people walked across that area every hour during lunchtime. It was a dangerous location. He was also sensitive to the danger in crosswalks because of people using them unsafely. He suggested that the Council not adopt the mid-block crosswalk on East Meadow Drive. Council Member Kleinberg referred to a description in the staff recommendation of crosswalks for school crossing. Her intuitive reaction was that it was dangerous, particularly when it was not an obvious intersection. She asked why staff felt that the crosswalk could safely be implemented. Mr. Kott said staff was not convinced that painting crosswalks enhanced the safety of that location; however, there was some interesting and important new research indicating that special treatments of mid-block crosswalk locations could enhance safety. A category of crosswalk that included a raised, lighted, or median
07/31/00 90-404
refuge were three particularly important treatments of crosswalks at a mid-block location enhanced safety. Staff would not recommend a painted crosswalk at a mid-block location under any circumstance. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether staff had given professional attention to the situation on Fabian Way that Mr. Moss described. Mr. Kott said yes. Staff had collected data with regard to East Meadow Drive on pedestrian volume, vehicle speeds, gaps in traffic that were required for pedestrian cross safety, and accident history at the location. There was not an accident history at that location in the last five years which was not uncommon in Palo Alto. An evaluation had not yet been done on Fabian Way; however, there had been e-mail correspondence with employees at Systems Loral. Staff was anxious to implement Mid-Block Crosswalk Guidelines such as the Council might deem appropriate in order to prioritize locations in the City that would be eligible for enhanced treatment at the mid-block. Council Member Mossar acknowledged there was an applicant asking for the crosswalk who had been waiting for some time. Not too long ago, the item was on a Council consent calendar which she removed Her concern was while living in the community, neighborhoods requested crosswalks on many occasions but were told “no” because crosswalks were not safe. She felt that, in this case, the applicant drove the process. Council should be setting policy about crosswalk guidelines for all crosswalks in order to deal fairly and equally with both the commercial and the residential sectors of the community. She did not blame Mr. Moss for interpreting the proposal as being recommended to move forward because the applicant was willing to pay for the facility. She believed that applicant’s request would probably have been denied or put on a future list if the applicant had not agreed to pay. She was concerned that the Council had not dealt fairly and equally and had not moved forward in a way that could give anyone in the community some assurances that should they feel a need for a crosswalk, they would receive fair treatment. For that reason she would not support either item. She felt there was an opportunity to return with a well-balanced policy that would have reassured her that the project was a good one to support. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He did not recall many times when the Council formally turned down a crosswalk. There might have been times when staff did. Most times when a neighborhood went before Council with a traffic mitigation proposal, the Council was good about responding. There were several near tragic incidents involving mid-block crosswalks, particularly on El Camino Real. He agreed with Mr. Kott painting lines was not enough and identifying ways to slow traffic down to catch drivers’
07/31/00 90-405
attention was critical. He hoped staff would get beyond the California Vehicle Code literature because the regulations were developed during an era when the freeway was king and pedestrians were incidental. The Council needed to take a different approach than the state might take and look at common-sense approaches. The key was to slow traffic down so pedestrians could cross the street safely. Council Member Burch agreed with Council Member Mossar’s comments that the time had come to formulate a policy, although he would support both items. He asked since the applicant was paying, whether there was a possibility of running a test on lights across the crosswalk or something more elaborate to see whether that really worked. Mr. Kott said staff would have to get back to the applicant because the cost was higher than the solution recommended to the applicant. Council Member Burch said if the applicant was willing to pay for part of it, maybe it could be used as a test. Mr. Kott said that was a good idea. He noted that the City did have funding through a grant from the Transportation Development Act (TDA Article III) for one lighted crosswalk in Palo Alto at an undetermined location. Staff was in favor of that technology and pedestrian center medians. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council had a specific duty to determine that the mid-block crosswalk guidelines were reasonable. If the guidelines were not reasonable, that created a dangerous condition of public property and, in effect, the City insured whoever used the crosswalk. He reminded the Council that in 1992, the City paid the heirs of a woman killed in a crosswalk on Hillview Avenue in the Research Park. Mid-block crosswalks were not standard and not used in general because they were unsafe. He understood Mr. Kott to say that the use of the unusual design features such as an elevated surface or bulbout made the crosswalk a reasonable design. That was not apparent in the report and he asked that it be made clear for the Council. Mr. Kott said in terms of alternative designs, there was considerable experience with designs such as pedestrian median refuge that were found in many cities in California. The city of Berkeley, which did a lot of those types of facilities in conjunction with traffic management in the 1970s, had a good safety record. Newer technology such as lighted pedestrian actuated crosswalks, was used in the cities of Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Menlo Park, Berkeley and had good results within the past several years. Raised crosswalks were not used as much in North America but had
07/31/00 90-406
extensive application in Europe with good safety results. Staff was convinced that those types of treatments which provided good visibility, refuge, and advanced warning to drivers approaching crosswalks enhanced safety backed by good statistical evidence. Mr. Calonne referred to the last sentence of the proposed guidelines on Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:338.00) which basically gave the Chief Transportation Official discretion not to follow the guidelines in some circumstances and clarified that there might be circumstances where the unique treatment would not be used in a crosswalk. His preference would be that Guideline No. 5 be a mandatory feature of any installation and that the Chief Transportation Official not have discretion to waive that. Mr. Kott said his view was that the enhanced treatments should be considered exclusively and that it was reasonable to clarify that in the guidelines. Mr. Calonne asked that the last item of the guidelines be modified. Council Member Lytle said there were many cities that had mid-block crosswalks without enhanced treatments and asked why Palo Alto had a different standard and had to go to such great precautions. She agreed with Council Member Mossar’s experience and would not want the Council to develop a policy on crosswalks that was not fair. She felt there was a relaxation of the previous staff position toward allowing more pedestrian-oriented features in Palo Alto, but she was not sure why it would not be applied evenly. Council Member Mossar said the policy was not a crosswalk policy but a mid-block policy and her objection was to its generation because a commercial applicant asked for a mid-block crosswalk. What she hoped would return to Council was a crosswalk policy that dealt with intersection and mid-block crosswalks so there would be a set of policies that then could be applied fairly for anyone requesting a crosswalk. Mr. Calonne said the question was premised on the ideal that Palo Alto was doing something nonstandard by not having mid-block crosswalks. He understood the staff report to say that the trend was to remove mid-block crosswalks; and because San Jose might not have done so yet, should not be an indication that Palo Alto was doing something nonstandard by not having them. The staff report was attempting to find some unique circumstance that would make mid-block crosswalks acceptable. Council Member Lytle said her question was more why were other cities able to install mid-block crosswalks; whereas, Palo Alto was
07/31/00 90-407
finding them to be nonstandard and unacceptable except under certain special conditions. Mr. Kott said a review of policy was done and some of the results of that review were contained in the staff report. The trend seemed to be not to establish or to remove any more painted crosswalks, both mid-block and intersections. There was a lot of experimentation with alternatives that were more effective. Staff was interested in alternatives rather than doing nothing. Council Member Fazzino’s comment was important; using more effective and safer treatments in context with a lot more traffic calming in Palo Alto. The single most important variable with respect to safety was vehicle speed; and speeds could be reduced, particularly in residential areas, and more effective treatments in crosswalks could be implemented. There should at least be some type of policy framework from which to work. Planning and Transportation Commissioner Patrick Burt said the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) accepted that mid-block crossing proposals would go to staff, PTC, and Council because there were existing exceptional safety concerns at those sites that created greater pedestrian hazards than existed in other mid-block locations which would be candidates for the proposed guidelines. Those guidelines would be a departure from the basis that staff used in the past to routinely deny mid-block crosswalks for good reason, merely because painted crosswalks presented as many hazards as they reduced. The combination of new and old measures, a real set of measures, could work together to create not only a pedestrian safety enhancement but also traffic calming. Those types of things were what swayed the PTC in its decision. In addition, the PTC shared Council Member Mossar’s concern about other traffic safety measures. The PTC looked forward to the return of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, which was returned to staff due to concerns with its adequacy. The PTC felt the proposal merited going forward as a program that could be applied elsewhere. There were also concerns as to how the program should be used and considered in commercial and residential areas and should be applied in the future. Council Member Burch asked whether language could be added to the ordinance which specified actual value in relation to how far the crosswalk should be placed from the corner. Commissioner Phyllis Cassel did not support the proposal because she wanted the crosswalk to be at least 200 feet from a corner prior to being approved. Mr. Kott said staff researched the distance component and found no guide in the studies literature or municipal policy in the state or nation that was reliable. Staff’s opinion on variables such as road
07/31/00 90-408
curvature or geometry, site distance, and vehicle or pedestrian blinds were more important. There was no objective on a scientific basis to give a distance value and why that was left up to staff discretion. Council Member Burch asked if the distance was too close to the corner and not at the corner whether there could be a problem. Mr. Kott said if staff felt the crosswalk was too close to the corner, the staff recommendation would be for denial. Council Member Burch asked if a minimum could be set. Mr. Kott said it would be in the purview of the Council exercising its authority, but staff would not be able to advise the Council as to what that number might be. Council Member Mossar thanked her colleagues for their forbearance regarding her concerns. She said a good example where staff discretion was valuable was the crosswalk for Whole Foods. She could not imagine not having a connection between the parking lot and the market. She noted that she would not expect staff to simply approve a painted crosswalk in the future. She was looking for two things: 1) a policy to set guidelines for both mid-block and intersection crosswalks; and 2) to set conditions to permit crosswalks if funding were available; such as, could a neighborhood agree to pay for a raised crosswalk at a specific location and would the City accept that payment and install the crosswalk. Mayor Kniss was interested in knowing what cities did regarding crosswalks in other parts of the country and how those crosswalks worked. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation adopting the proposed guidelines for evaluation of requests to install mid-block crosswalks (Attachment A of CMR:338:00). Criteria for the proposed guidelines take into consideration attributes such as traffic volumes, speed, pedestrian volumes, location, and types of treatment. Further, need a rationale statement to explain mid-block crossings. The program must state clearly that enhanced treatment must be used for all mid-block crosswalks, not painted lines. Delete the final paragraph “The above guidelines to be referred to in evaluating requests for mid-block crosswalks. However, a mid-block crosswalk may be marked at locations not meeting these guidelines if the Chief Transportation Official deems that unique circumstances, such as those listed in criterion 4 above, warrant the installation.”
07/31/00 90-409
Council Member Kleinberg was concerned with uncontrolled crosswalks in the vicinity of schools. She felt a dangerous, mixed message was sent to children who were told they should cross where there was some kind of traffic control in order to be safe. She proposed language be added after the wording “or within an undetermined number of feet of a school,” to Guideline No. 2 “Uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks should not be considered where the 85 percentile speed is greater than 40 m.p.h.” She did not know how many feet or how that should be defined but felt it should be left up to staff to come up with a perimeter or circumference for that safety zone. Vice Mayor Eakins said she had a problem putting a whole new thought into the motion that evening. She knew in the south part of Palo Alto where there were extraordinary long blocks, there were painted only new block crossings in front of schools. She felt the wording needed more attention then she could take responsibility for that evening. She would welcome Council Member Kleinberg make a motion that staff add to the School Safety issues or in another set of guidelines having to do with crosswalks. She understood Council Member Mossar’s request to be that staff return with something with intersection crosswalks. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether that meant school crosswalks would be excluded. Vice Mayor Eakins said no. She did not know how to deal with the language that evening in relation to Guideline No. 4 because there were existing mid-block crosswalks in front of schools that were painted only. Council Member Kleinberg was interested in establishing a guideline to be used for mid-block crosswalks, not going back to remedy crosswalks that were already established. Vice Mayor Eakins said it would have to refer to enhanced treatment only. Council Member Kleinberg could support the motion if staff was being asked to return with a clarification about the crosswalks in school zones. Vice Mayor Eakins agreed. Council Member Lytle mentioned she was aware of a couple of petitions to have those types of enhanced crosswalks installed at schools where there were groups of parents who thought it would be safer located in the middle of the block. Council Member Kleinberg clarified her concern was for uncontrolled crosswalks.
07/31/00 90-410
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that staff would return to the Council at a later date with clarification of school zone policy and recommendations for school crossings. MOTION PASSED: 7-1, Mossar “no,” Ojakian absent. Mr. Kott said the mid-block crosswalk was included on an agenda several months prior, and the Council directed it back to the PTC. Staff again recommended establishing a mid-block crosswalk near East Meadow Drive and East Meadow Circle with the treatment being a pedestrian center median with enhanced zebra stripping and advanced reflectorized warning signs on the center median. The location met the guidelines adopted by the Council. Prior to the guidelines, staff had no basis for rendering an objective recommendation and was pleased with the guidelines upon which it could now act. The implementation would be funded by the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology and whatever maintenance was required over the years would be undertaken by the City Public Works Department. The maintenance costs were unlikely to be high. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the Resolution establishing a crosswalk between intersections on East Meadow Drive between Louis Road and East Meadow Circle. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation to approve installation of a mid-block crosswalk on East Meadow Drive in front of the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology near East Meadow Circle, with the following features: a median refuge island, highly visible advance pedestrian crossing signs, and highly visible striping (e.g. “zebra” crossing stripes) on the street. The Pacific Graduate School of Psychology will be required to fund design and construction of this facility and post a removal bond in the event that the crossing improvement is no longer needed. Resolution 7994 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Crosswalk Between Intersections on East Meadow Drive Between Louis Road and East Meadow Circle” MOTION PASSED 7-1, Mossar “no,” Ojakian absent. Vice Mayor Eakins said theoretically the crosswalk should not be necessary, but practically it was. The school and the City formed a partnership to make safer behavior that would take place anyway. The school was committed to the community and the area, and she would like to see the crosswalk happen after so many years.
07/31/00 90-411
MAYOR ANNOUNCED THAT THE CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF STREAMLINING BE CONTINUED TO NEXT WEEK. APPROVED BY CONSENSUS. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC HEARING: re the Draft Environmental Impact Report Prepared by Santa Clara County for the Proposed Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (Public
Testimony Closed) (Continued from July 19, 2000) Council Member Mossar would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Kniss said the Council would comment on the Draft Environmental Report (DEIR) which was the Council’s opportunity to make recommendations. The Council was usually the decision-maker but that was not the case that evening. Only Santa Clara County (the County) would have the opportunity to vote on the final EIR and the Stanford University Community Plan. As mentioned, the item was a Draft EIR involving a Community Plan and a General Use Permit (GUP). Together, the Plan and the GUP regulated land use and development for Stanford owned property in unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County that accounted for almost 4,000 acres, half of Stanford’s total land ownership. The land within the County consisted of primarily the academic campus and the largely undeveloped foothill property southwest of Junipero Serra Boulevard (JSB). Stanford owned much property within Palo Alto such as the Stanford Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center, Medical Center, and also land outside the county in Woodside, Menlo Park, and Portola Valley. Once the County approved the GUP, it would operate as a broad-based, grandiose entitlement that would allow a specified amount and type of development to occur. That tool had been used since 1962 and currently operated under the 1989 GUP which allowed 2.1 million square feet including residential construction to be developed. Only 148,000 feet remained, which amounted to the request for the new GUP. The GUP would accommodate development for approximately 10 years and was about 2 million square feet of academic buildings and up to 3,000 dwelling units. Unlike the GUP, the Community Plan was not an entitlement mechanism but a long range policy document and, if adopted, would amend the Santa Clara County General Plan concerning Stanford’s unincorporated County lands. Once in place, the goals, policies, and land use destinations contained in the Community Plan would be effective indefinitely until superceded. There were few things the Council would have a chance to speak to that would have that amount of significance on Palo Alto’s development in the future. Those land use decisions were critical environmental decisions which was what would be discussed that evening along with discussions about the City’s valued neighbor, Stanford University, that runs Palo
07/31/00 90-412
Alto’s economy as well as around the world. The Council should not look at Stanford as an adversary but as a neighbor who had applied to do a dramatic amount of development. She asked that the discussion be kept informal. Director of Planning and Community Development Ed Gawf said the discussion would be the preparation and finalization of the City comments on the DEIR for the Stanford Community Plan and GUP. He reminded the Council the County was the lead agency that prepared the DEIR, not Stanford, and the DEIR was intended to reflect the best judgement of the preparer. The City had a role as an agency reviewing the document and the project to make sure the DEIR was complete. The purpose of the DEIR was to be a full disclosure document and make sure the information reflected what the City and the community needed to fully evaluate the project. The process that would occur from that point on was that the City’s comments would be transmitted to the County, and the public’s comments were being made directly to the County. Those comments needed to go to the County in written form by Monday, August 7, 2000. The document would be refined and approved so it could be used when the recommendation was made to the County on the project. It was important to focus on the EIR comments and not the project comments. The process that would occur would be that the City’s comments would be made to the County who would evaluate those comments and respond to the environmental comments and include those in the Final EIR. He asked that the Council use the staff report (CMR:352.00) as a basis for the discussion that evening and follow it section by section. As the Council wanted to modify the language staff proposed, staff would take that information and refine it into a letter representing the Palo Alto. It was important to recognize the major points to be achieved. Five key points that should be emphasized were: 1. Analyze methods that will provide permanent, or long-term (25 years or more) dedication of open space. 2. Evaluate the Community Plan and GUP using the City of Palo Alto policy of limiting future urban development to lands within the urban service area/urban growth boundary. 3. Fully analyze the impacts and appropriate timing of 3,000 new housing units on adjacent residential neighborhoods in Palo Alto and provide data on the square footage expected to result from the new housing and how new housing relates to the existing housing shortage on campus.
07/31/00 90-413
4. Identify a more viable alternative school site than currently shown. The site should be close to the population it is to serve and should be within the Palo Alto urban service area. 5. Include a mitigation measure requiring Stanford to prepare an integrated transportation plan that places all transportation measures into a comprehensive context. Mayor Kniss said there was an earlier discussion regarding how the Community Plan and the GUP related to each other, and some Council Members felt the Community Plan was not addressed efficiently enough. Mr. Gawf said the Community Plan was the proposed amendment to the County General Plan. It was intended to provide a framework of policy direction for the implementation of the GUP which implemented the General Plan. The GUP was the Planning entitlement document that implemented the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In the DEIR, there was much focus and discussion on the GUP. The general, overall reaction to the EIR was that it was well prepared by the County. Staff made comments that would help improve the quality of the information the County provided. Mayor Kniss said in the future when those types of recommendations were made, they should come under the auspices of a community plan rather than a GUP. Mr. Gawf said the Community Plan was intended to be the vision of what should occur from a development standpoint on Stanford’s property, and there was no timeframe. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth wanted to discuss two things: 1) the CEQA aspects; and 2) the unusual set of land use approval procedures the County was using for Stanford which were unique under its General Plan. The existing County General Plan had a separate chapter regarding Stanford, which was unique, because it had an urbanized core. The general practice in the County was to encourage annexation of urbanized areas. That approach was not recommended in Stanford’s case as it was a large piece of property under single ownership. Instead, following its treaty with Palo Alto and Stanford, the County proposed that the academic portions of the campus and open space remain in the County and the commercially developed sections remain in the City of Palo Alto. The impetus of what the Council was doing that evening was Stanford’s desire to have permission for another 5 million square feet of development over the next ten years on the County lands. The land was zoned for agricultural uses at various intensities. Under Stanford’s recent application, the County decided it needed
07/31/00 90-414
to modify its General Plan so it would have a range of specific land uses for Stanford’s land. In looking at the Community Plan portion of the project and EIR, it would be helpful to think about the Community Plan as setting up the land use designations for the various areas in the same manner that the City’s Comprehensive Plan did for land within the City. As those GUPs came before the Council over the years, the question would be whether the GUPs were consistent with the land use designations that were established by the Community Plan. If not, the GUPs would have to be denied or the Community Plan would have to be amended. The specificity of boundaries and content of that Community Plan designations were important in understanding what the future of that land would be. That evening, the Council would give its comments to the County on the adequacy of the DEIR and should look for a stable not altering project description: a clear, adequate description of the existing situation, including the existing development and the legal framework; whether there were impacts of the proposed project on the physical environment and ways to reduce those impacts (mitigation measures); and alternatives to the project that would reduce or limit adverse impacts while still accomplishing most of Stanford’s basic objectives. Once the County received the Council’s comments that had to be based on facts, the County would respond, and the comments and the answers to the Council’s comments would be bound in with the DEIR, which together would make up the final EIR. The County would not hold another hearing on the final EIR. The Council needed to tell the County whether enough was told, enough alternatives looked at, and were effective ways to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts addressed in order for the County to make the best possible decision. Planning and Transportation Commissioner Patrick Burt thanked staff for capturing the prime comments and prospectus of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). The PTC viewed the GUP as the most important north county land-use project in the upcoming decade. The EIR did not adequately address the long-term protection needs of open space nor access thereof. Stanford should be viewed as a single, large landowner with property in multiple jurisdictions. In that context, open space set asides were appropriate to offset more dense development within the core area. Alternatives that should be evaluated included intensified development within the current building growth boundary and/or an alternative development that would reduce the proposed academic growth but not reduce the number of housing units provided. The EIR should provide clear information regarding existing and foreseeable growth of all lands including those outside the GUP boundaries. The environmental impact of the GUP could be significantly reduced by effective monitoring of the project implementation in a jurisdictional authority that might be created in the future to monitor implementation of the plan. The housing aspect should discuss Stanford’s existing housing shortage
07/31/00 90-415
not just population growth induced by the Plan. In addition, staff pointed out the need to evaluate an employment multiplier; and when that was incorporated, the net impact of the jobs created resulted in no net reduction in the jobs/housing imbalance currently existing. With regard to the impact upon the schools, the EIR should identify a more appropriate site on Stanford land for a school. Council Member Lytle said as the Council fashioned its comments toward the EIR adequacy, would the Council see further analysis or would the additional information return to the Council before the Council made comments in the Plan. Ms. Furth said she did not know what the timing was for commenting on the Plan, but the Council would see a response to those comments from the County prior to the Council’s final testimony and recommendations to the County. Council Member Lytle thought the final EIR was after the Council’s comments were scheduled. Mr. Gawf said by law, the County had to give the City written responses to its comments 10 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing date. He would make sure to get the comments to the Council before it made a recommendation on the project. Council Member Beecham said according to the schedule provided by staff, on October 30, 2000, the County Board of Supervisors would hold a special hearing on the Community Plan and EIR. He presumed the Council could prepare comments in advance for that special hearing. Mr. Gawf said the Council’s hearing was tentatively scheduled for October 16, 2000, to make its recommendations on the project. He was trying to make sure the Council had the comments prior to the Planning Commission’s hearing. He recommend that the staff report (CMR:352:00) should be used as a basis for what would be sent to the County and suggested the discussion section be the proposed body of the letter with an introduction based on Council direction and a closing paragraph. Mayor Kniss said the Council would not wordsmith. What was important was that the Council’s comments be incorporated into the staff and PTC recommendations. She wanted the Colleagues memo’s additional comments incorporated into the staff and PTC recommendations. Council Member Burch supported the Colleagues memo recommendations from Council Members Lytle, Kleinberg and Mayor Kniss.
07/31/00 90-416
Open Space Preservation Council Member Kleinberg said there was a need for the DEIR to adequately analyze mitigations for environmental impacts from the developments. She suggested the DEIR analyze more completely negative impacts of the west side of Junipero Serra Boulevard if not permanently preserved. She preferred it be permanent open space. There should be an affirmative analysis of environmental benefits of permanent open space protection. She would like the DEIR to take official notice of the urban growth boundary adopted a few years prior, and Stanford establish a complementary urban growth boundary. She would like an analysis of environmental benefits of growth boundary that was complementary. The boundary should remain in effect for a maximum number of years permitted by County regulation. A golf course would be included and more carefully analyzed for its value as open space and as a wildlife habitat, recreational, use and cultural benefit to the City. There should be a project alternative to preserve the golf course as permanent open space and have alternative benefits so that preserving the golf course as it existed would be preferred. Mayor Kniss asked that the recommendation require the maximum dedication of permanent open space and maximum public access to those areas that County land use and environmental policies and legal authority would allow. Council Member Kleinberg said that while Stanford was an academic institution, it had many of the earmarks of an urban center. As it became urbanized, some of the better activities and responsibilities of other regular urban centers might be adopted by Stanford. The Council might want to have the DEIR analyze the benefit of Stanford developing a permanent green belt. Mayor Kniss said in February 1997, when Sand Hill Road was dealt with, she asked how Palo Alto could get permanent protection of the open space west of Junipero Serra Boulevard. The next day, the newspaper stated that Stanford rejected the deal. She asked how the City could get that protection. The urban growth boundary, which was adopted in other parts of the County and the Bay Area, was an important protection. She asked Santa Clara County Planner Sara Jones if the County saw any problems with that as it currently existed. Santa Clara County Planner Sara Jones, Project Manager for the Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit project, said urban growth boundaries within the County were discussed a lot in relation to the County General Plan. It was a major strategy the County promoted to support the concept of compact urban development
07/31/00 90-417
that was the centerpiece of the General Plan and one the County hoped to see at Stanford. With regard to Palo Alto’s specific urban growth boundary, the General Plan recognized a number of different growth boundaries in different situations. Probably the firmest one that existed in the County currently was the long-term urban growth boundary around the City of Morgan Hill which was meant to accommodate 20 years of growth and one that had not been challenged, as was the one adopted for the City of San Jose. The Palo Alto urban growth boundary was not adopted in conjunction with the County. The matter became murky because of the 1985 land use policy agreement between the County, City of Palo Alto, and Stanford University which was one basis for the one exception to the General Plan policy which basically stated that in urban service areas, the County would follow the land use designations and development legations of the city in the service area. The General Plan specifically stated that policy did not apply to Stanford, so the urban growth boundary for Palo Alto was established through the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. In the case of Stanford, the County was not bound to follow that Plan. One concern which came up in discussions about the Palo Alto urban service area and urban growth boundary was that immediately looking at the possibilities to locate the substantial amount of housing proposed in the Stanford Community Plan that the County hoped to see developed, the County could not identify areas which were located entirely within the existing Palo Alto urban service area and coincided with the campus designation in the County General Plan. The areas that were outside of the campus designation that currently did not read academic reserve and open space were areas that were outside the Palo Alto urban service area as well. The stable site housing was outside the current Palo Alto urban service area, and one alternative that was brought up was the Arboretum which was also outside the area. A third possible alternative might involve some kind of reconfiguration in the areas around the golf course but had limitations due to the development agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. There was a lot of history that brought up challenges in reaching some of the goals that the County hoped to achieve in the process if it stayed strictly within the confines of the existing Palo Alto urban service area. Mayor Kniss wanted to see a slide of the small area that seemed to diverge from the urban growth pattern and the urban service area in order to define that area clearly. The area she firmly thought was protected was not. Mr. Gawf said the overhead slide showed the project as proposed by Stanford. He also showed two alternatives [A and B]. Staff recommended that one of the project alternatives include a third
07/31/00 90-418
alternative [C] that would correspond to Palo Alto’s urban growth boundary. Council Member Lytle recalled the County was involved in the adoption of the urban growth boundary for the City, and there was much discussion about the distinction between the urban service area and the urban growth area. Stanford was exempted specifically from urban service area policies. The drawing of the urban growth boundary line and the wording used in the Comprehensive Plan was debated at the time. The Council decided to adopt the urban growth boundary and specific wording in order to evoke the County language in that distinction. The golf course was drawn specifically around that area to put it on the outside of the area where the Council wanted the urban development to go. There was clear distinction in everyone’s minds about the difference between those two terms and where the boundary should be. Council Member Fazzino supported the proposal. He felt it was the most important recommendation the Council could communicate to the County without question. The reality was that Stanford was proposing a new city of, and the Council needed an essential commitment to open space based upon the realities of that new city which any other new city in California would be required to make part of a plan. There were 20 to 25 years of development in a 10-year period. He hoped there could be 25 years of open space commitment. He endorsed the urban growth boundary and was pleased the issue about the golf course was included. Ms. Furth said Council Member Kleinberg commented on two aspects of the open space. One was open space environmental habitat and the other was that open space be accessible to the public with sound open space practices to preserve. With respect to the urban space boundary, the Council’s desire was for the Community Plan to have a significant life beyond the length of ten years. Council Member Lytle said the Council was asking for an analysis of those mechanisms. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City of San Jose boundary was challenged for lack of improper environmental analysis, so the boundary needed to be analyzed. The time period the Council chose might be important to the urban boundary. The rationale justifying the urban boundaries had often been linked to a particular development time frame. He was not suggesting the Council pick a number of years, but it was something to think about for the end of the process if it was something less than permanent. Mayor Kniss said the maximum that could be negotiated should be set legally.
07/31/00 90-419
Council Member Lytle said under urban growth boundary in the County policies sited in the Colleagues memo, a 20-year objective was stated. Project Alternatives Council Member Kleinberg addressed the project alternative with reference to the golf course. She encouraged staff to add that alternative wherever they felt it should be mentioned or repeated. Mr. Gawf noted the first two points of the Colleagues memo would be addressed as a general topic and then expanded upon with the Council’s comments that evening. Under Open Space, the first bullet dealt with the basis of asking the County to analyze the impact on the open space and potential to preserve it for a long period of time if not permanently. On the Urban Growth Boundary under Project Alternatives, the first bullet tried to get at that concept. Council Member Kleinberg said instead of the Council looking at all the negative impacts of development, a preferred way to look at that was to look at the positive benefits of nondevelopment and open space. Vice Mayor Eakins said the Project Alternative of using Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Boundary was already covered, but she wanted to reinforce the third bullet regarding the Reduced Project Alternative. She concurred with staff that it was not analyzed adequately and should be reanalyzed, and a 50% reduction in development would be far superior given the scale of the project. Mr. Gawf said the PTC discussed a reduced project alternative that would not have academic building expansion but only housing expansion as a potential alternative. Staff might try to weave that thought into that bullet as well. Vice Mayor Eakins supported that. Mayor Kniss supported intensifying development on underutilized sites. Stanford utilized a different height limit than Palo Alto, and there were different ways to look at that as the Council looked at how to keep the development in the four corners which was where the Council would like to reemphasize the PTC’s recommendations sited in the PTC minutes dated July 26, 2000. Council Member Burch supported the third bullet regarding the Reduced Project Alternative. He felt it should be looked at and
07/31/00 90-420
judged fairly. The statement that it did not avoid the significant projects of the project made no sense. It was a huge project. Land Use and Development Mayor Kniss wanted to draw attention to the comment where the PTC noted the confusion associated with monitoring the Stanford Development due to the different jurisdictions and different development entitlement mechanisms involved. It was a real crossover issue and one she wanted to be reemphasized. Council Member Fazzino asked when the question of measuring the development would come up; the actual developments measuring the impacts, having an opportunity during the 10-year period to have public hearings, and evaluating the impacts to ensure what was being done was consistent with what was approved. Mr. Gawf said for Circulation and Parking there was a specific proposal to monitor that and have a verifiable system for that. One of the project comments that should be made was that there should be a system to have annual evaluations or review after so many years in order to understand what had occurred. Such a system was done with the current GUP, and it served the City well. Council Member Fazzino said having public hearings to discuss the issues on an annual or semi-annual basis would be important Council Member Kleinberg asked that the comments from the PTC minutes dated July 26, 2000, regarding an analysis of a compact development on the core campus be incorporated. Mr. Gawf said the PTC recommendations indicated that the DEIR should examine a development alternative that focused on underutilized sites, service level parking lots, single-story buildings, etc. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether compact development could be added. Mr. Gawf said that could be included as a concept. Council Member Burch referred to the second bullet under Land Use and Development, “By continuing to prepare separate environmental documents…” made it difficult. He appreciated the last sentence, “…Stanford should cease pursuing separate approvals.” He wanted to underscore that, it was extremely difficult to look at the cumulative effect and to get a sense of what was really ahead.
07/31/00 90-421
Council Member Beecham said Stanford had not used up all of its 1999 GUP square footage, and he understood that even though the County was not certain, the DEIR in took backgrowth into account. Ms. Furth understood from Ms. Jones’ comments at the Planning Commission meeting that Stanford would file for the balance of 100,000 square feet before the existing permit expired and would, therefore, be part of Stanford’s expectation of what would happen. Single-family housing and development in sensitive areas, such as the Carnegie proposal, were not covered by the GUP ceiling. The existing GUP did not have a total square footage limit, which was planned for change in the next GUP. She forgot to mention the land use regulatory framework, and it was hard to count up the development when some of it was expressed in square footage and some expressed in dwelling units. Stanford proposed applying residential zoning designations to those portions of the campus that were presently used for faculty staff kinds of housing which were relatively low-density designations. She did not know how the Council felt with regard to the proposal for more intense development in the core campus area. That would split out those residential densities and perhaps let the Council make more sense of what the intensity of the development was on the nonresidential portions of the campus. Council Member Burch agreed and felt that was critical. Council Member Kleinberg would like the DEIR to clarify in its analysis what the net square footage was. Mr. Gawf said that was already stated in the staff’s comments. Ms. Furth said the PTC felt strongly about that, and the County was looking at ways to make counts also. A problem was when there were a number of individually developed homes, there was not usually a cumulative count in an area. They would have to come up with proxies. Council Member Lytle asked that all the PTC recommendations be incorporated. The total square footages should be looked at in relation to the Comprehensive Plan total square footages because both documents were 10-year documents to look at growths and impacts on the City at the same time. She did not think anyone had taken a look at how the City and Stanford’s growths would squeeze the same population, which should be done in the cumulative impact section. She did not know if that was addressed in the comments, but she had made that request at the last joint hearing.
07/31/00 90-422
Mayor Kniss said an interesting comparison was that the CAP on the Downtown area was mostly redevelopment more than new; therefore, the CAP had not come close to the 350,000 square feet. Mr. Gawf said the comment was the cumulative analysis should include Stanford’s proposed development and Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and its protected development. Housing and Community Facilities Council Member Kleinberg said that the Housing Analysis in the DEIR should analyze the service personnel housing, not academic, which would mitigate traffic problems. A means test should be applied and assurance from Stanford that a percentage of housing should remain affordable to the service personnel. Council Member Fazzino wanted to make a recommendation to the County that the County retain the Green Open Space Corridor along El Camino Real from Stanford Shopping Center to Stanford Avenue, including the area in front of Escondido Village. The urban open space corridor helped define the gateway to Stanford University and should be protected. Mr. Gawf said from an environmental standpoint, the staff would take another look at that section, but he was pretty sure it was addressed in some way in the fundamental document. Council Member Fazzino said if development was there, it would have a huge impact on residential neighborhoods. He was willing in the future to reevaluate that and consider trade-offs or alternatives; but, at the start, he would like to see protection of that corridor. Council Member Kleinberg said if the City was trying to protect the Green Belt and refocus Stanford’s development into the core campus, the more restrictions put on the use of the core campus, the harder it was to make a case for preserving the open space outside. While she agreed with preserving the open space, there needed to be some balance and offer Stanford some uses that the Council might find hard to swallow in order to preserve the open space. Mr. Gawf reminded the Council that those decisions did not have to be made that evening. The Council only needed to make sure that the DEIR had the information in it needed so an informed recommendation could be made. Council Member Lytle said the sites that Stanford picked were the least sensitive portions of the open space and green areas; and if
07/31/00 90-423
Stanford was going to develop housing, the Council needed to encourage them to do so even though it would infringe on those open territories. Mayor Kniss said what she heard throughout the PTC discussions was compact, intensify, do what could be done to get more on less. Council Member Lytle said the school site should be included in the GUP and Community Plan because without having a designated school site on Stanford land, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) would come back to displace community facilities on former school sites. That direct impact was not addressed in the DEIR to date. Staff addressed the issue of Stanford’s growth and the impact of new populations and community demand for community facilities, but eight acres of Palo Alto property was being requested by the PAUSD with Stanford’s support in order to reclaim the school site rather than locating the school site on Stanford territory. Schools Council Member Beecham wanted included in the DEIR an assessment of Stanford’s total contribution to the PAUSD. The Council needed to know what Stanford was interpreting in total. Vice Mayor Eakins referred to Housing and Community Facilities and Schools on page 5 of 11, and said staff recommended the revised EIR should find significant unmitigated impact to the Palo Alto school facilities, and that adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the County Board of Supervisors should be adopted, both with the school and facilities impacts, especially the ripple effect from having more population on the Stanford lands. She felt the Statement of Overriding Considerations should be required if those effects could not be mitigated. Mr. Gawf clarified staff’s preference with the first option was that the impact be mitigated to less than significant which was missing from the statement. Staff would correct statements under both topics. Ms. Furth said the State of California greatly limited the City’s practicability to address school issues in any context with each succeeding year. Staff was trying to recommend that project be approved with those impacts. Simply stated, “If they wanted to approve what Stanford proposes, they would have to acknowledge serious adverse consequences.” Council Member Lytle clarified that the case law did not apply to community facilities. It needed to be made clear that the City was in a unique situation and that Palo Alto’s school sites and
07/31/00 90-424
community facility sites were currently competing for space. Although case law does not let the City go very far, planners were obligated to disclose the impacts. Community facility impacts could be addressed and mitigated, and the County should not let that cloud the issue for the City. Mr. Gawf said the Council directed staff to look at additional impact fees within the community because of those types of problems. Staff was undertaking that study and would have something for the Council within the next year dealing with impact fees for community facilities. Mayor Kniss said even though it was not always evident, schools were an area where there was crossover, the City and Stanford were separate. The PAUSD included Stanford, which was a real different effect. The PAUSD had a real stake in the project and the better the PAUSD was, the better the community was. City Attorney Ariel Calonne referred to Housing and Community facilities page 5 of 11 and emphasized the italics, “The City of Palo Alto expects that the County of Santa Clara shall require Stanford to pay City impact fees toward these facilities.” He did not think that was automatic. The Council established appropriate regional policy with the Sand Hill projects requiring impact fees be paid for the benefit of Menlo Park should it choose to use those fees. He was uncertain as to whether the County had a duty to compel Stanford to pay. He suggested that establishing that as a policy precedent with the County would be very important for the City. From his perspective, at the top of the list for community facilities should be a statement, “It is the establishment of clear County policy to require Stanford to offer to pay for improvements the City might choose to construct.” Council Member Lytle was concerned that the impact mitigation measure was used several times in the City’s EIRs, such as Sand Hill Road and the Comprehensive Plan. The City was currently saying the same thing with Stanford and the PAUSD, and the City was still in negotiations in solving what had become a crisis. She would like to see the issue finally be addressed realistically rather than waiting to accumulate impact fees somewhere in the future. That was why the Colleagues memo stated they should be responsive now if the City was going to end up in a situation where it lost eight acres of community facility property for paying their fair share of the value of replacing that property. Mr. Gawf clarified that the thrust of the comment was not to tie everything to the future adoption of impact fees, there were impacts that could be handled in a different way than impact fees.
07/31/00 90-425
Ms. Jones said the County would have difficulty to performing the analysis without quantified information from the City of Palo Alto regarding the estimated impacts of Stanford on the various community facilities identified. She asked whether the City could provide that. Mr. Gawf said staff could provide that to the County. Vice Mayor Eakins referred to the second bullet, last sentence, under Schools on page 5 of 11, “The City of Palo Alto strongly believes Stanford needs to be actively involved…” There had been much correspondence from the public stating that also, and she wanted to change that sentence to, “The City of Palo Alto and many members of the community strongly believe…” Council Member Fazzino agreed with Vice Mayor Eakins but would change the wording to, “The City of Palo Alto strongly believes Stanford needs to be involved in decisions regarding identification of options for additional schools.” Circulation and Parking Mayor Kniss said there was a lot of interest as to how the traffic impacts were going to be mitigated, and where people felt the most consternation was the area of “no new net trips.” For instance, under bullet #2, how would the analysis of traffic impacts to the existing neighborhoods be provided. College Terrace was alarmed about what they saw as a greater impact. How to use modern technology to be able to have an easily seen measurement system had not been discussed. She reemphasized the statement in the Colleagues memo, “Mitigation measures must include independent and verifiable monitoring using modern technology, backed with concrete performance standards.” With regard to surplus parking, under no circumstances should that be permitted. Additionally, transportation alternatives should be constantly considered. Council Member Kleinberg said in the PTC discussions there was mention to analyze the compact core campus that would benefit design transit systems and preserve environmental open space, which she felt was important and should be included. If there was compact development in the core campus, the transportation design or mechanisms worked better, which would take some of the pressure off development in less desirable areas the City was trying to preserve and protect. Council Member Lytle said monitoring realistically was important, but it was equally important to include a trigger for some kind of agreed upon performance plan so something happened to offset the impacts.
07/31/00 90-426
Council Member Burch referred to bullet #2, “The EIR should provide an analysis of the potential traffic impacts to existing Palo Alto neighborhoods,” which specifically identified College Terrace. College Terrace took more of an impact from Stanford, and the City needed to do whatever it could to make sure the EIR pointed out the accumulative effect. Mr. Gawf said in addition to the staff report, there was a more detailed attachment. Performance requirements were included in the attachment, but there were some items in the attachment that should be moved into the main body and t would cover that issue. Council Member Fazzino said the City had as much responsibility with respect to implementation of circulation, parking, and traffic management programs as Stanford did because many of the problems associated with the issue had to do with Palo Alto growth as opposed to Stanford growth. He wanted to ensure that the recommendations regarding circulation related to housing on the periphery and not only the central core, that Stanford and the City work together on a joint shuttle system, and concerns with intersection widening needed to be a last resort. Mr. Gawf said that was the way the EIR was drafted and was the philosophy that was conveyed. Mayor Kniss said regarding impacts of construction, the mitigation measures should underscore those impacts. Council Member Burch said construction impact had also been a bone of contention with him. Storm Water Run-Off/Flooding Vice Mayor Eakins emphasized the comments in Senior Engineer Joe Teresi’s letter dated July 24, 2000, which were summarized in the two bullets under Storm Water Run-Off/Flooding on page 8 of staff report (CMR:352:00) but described why the DEIR should provide a more complete analysis. Council Member Lytle added that recommended mitigation measures calculated runoff detention basins and should be permanent open space. That way floodwaters could be held to keep the water from affecting the creeks and contributing to worse flooding. Mayor Kniss asked whether it was detention or retention basins. Ms. Jones clarified that detention basins held the water until the peak flow passed, then released the water more slowly. With
07/31/00 90-427
retention basins the water just sat. The County did not permit retention basins because of vector control problems. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the environmental impact could be mitigated in terms of compact design: the less spread of buildings, the more ground absorption. Biological Resources Mayor Kniss said there were no comments regarding Biological Resources. Implementation and Monitoring Mayor Kniss said many significant impacts were discussed, but construction noise standards and where construction should occur were identified. Mr. Gawf said Council Member Fazzino mentioned earlier about public hearings to evaluate the performance of the GUP on a regular basis, and staff would put in some language to that effect. Mayor Kniss said it was important to emphasize that the 3,000 units of housing have a program included for affordable housing. Once the letter was drafted, it would be circulated among the Council Members for additional individual comments. Mr. Gawf said many comments were made, some were project comments rather than CEQA comments, and staff would try to separate those out. Council Member Burch complimented the staff on an excellent report, and the Council echoed that comment. Council Member Fazzino said the City to get out in front on the issue and, in effect, lobby the County with its points of view. MOTION: By a consensus of the Council, approve the staff recommendation in the staff report (CMR:352:00) that comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP) be forwarded to the Santa Clara County Planning Office. Further, that staff will address the main Council concerns as listed in comments below. Open Space Preservation
07/31/00 90-428
Need for DEIR to fully and adequately analyze mitigations for environmental impacts from the developments – suggest DEIR analyze more completely negative impacts of the west side of Junipero Serra if not permanently preserved. Would prefer it be permanent open space. Affirmative analysis of environmental benefits of permanent open space protection. Would like DEIR to take official notice of urban growth boundary adopted a few years prior. Stanford to establish a complementary urban growth boundary. Would like an analysis of environmental benefits of growth boundary that is complementary. Boundary should remain in effect for maximum number of years permitted by county regulation. Golf course would be included and more carefully analyzed for its value as open space and as a wildlife habitat, recreational use, and cultural benefit to the City. Project alternative to preserve golf course as permanent open space. There would be alternative benefits so that preserving the golf course as it exists would be preferred. To require the maximum dedication of permanent open space and maximum public access to those areas that County land use and environmental policies and legal authority would allow. Preserve urban growth boundary, maximum dedication of permanent open space and maximum public access to those areas that County land use and environmental policies and legal authority will allow, Community Plan to include General Plan, and the golf course. Open space to be accessible to public, desire the plan to be significantly beyond the length of ten years. Project Alternatives Intensify development on underutilized sites including Planning and Transportation Commissions recommendations (Planning and Transportation Commission minutes dated July 26, 2000). Land Use and Development Include Planning and Transportation Commission comments from Planning and Transportation Commission minutes dated July 26, 2000. The DEIR should clarify the net square footage versus dwelling units. Cumulative analysis should include Stanford’s proposed development but also Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan growth projections. Housing and Community Facilities
07/31/00 90-429
The Housing Analysis in the DEIR should analyze the service personnel housing, not just academic, which would mitigate traffic problems – apply a means test and assurance from Stanford that housing would remain affordable to the service personnel. Recommend to County to retain the green open space corridor from Stanford Shopping Center to Stanford Avenue, including area in front of Escondido Village. School site should be included in the general use permit because without having designated school sites, the PAUSD is coming back to displace community facilities in former school sites. Schools An assessment of Stanford’s total contribution to the PAUSD. Revised DEIR should find significant unmitigated impact to school facilities (page 5 of 11 in the CMR:352:00). Emphasize top list of establishment of clear County policy for Stanford to offer to pay for school impact fee mitigation (page 5 of 11 in italics). Add wording to second bullet under Schools, last sentence, page 5 of 11, “City of Palo Alto and many members of the community strongly recommend…” City of Palo Alto strongly believes that Stanford needs to be involved in decisions regarding implementation of additional schools. Circulation and Parking Mitigation measures must include independent and verifiable monitoring using modern technology, backed with concrete performance standards. Analyze the compact core campus to benefit design transit systems and preserve environmental open space. Equally important to trigger some kind of performance plan. Recommendations regarding circulation relate to housing on periphery not just the central core, Stanford and City work together on joint shuttle system, and concerns with intersection widening which need to be a last resort. Impacts of construction should mitigate measures.
07/31/00 90-430
Storm Water Run-Off/Flooding Recommendations from Senior Engineer Joe Teresi’s letter dated July 24, 2000, summarized in the two bullets under Storm Water Run-Off/Flooding on page 8 of CMR:352:00. Add recommended mitigation measures calculated runoff detention basins should be permanent open space. In terms of compact design, the less spread of buildings, the more ground absorption. Implementation and Monitoring Emphasize 3,000 units of housing have a program included for affordable housing. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar “not participating,” Ojakian absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Kniss announced a Special Meeting at 5:30 p.m. on August 1, 2000, regarding the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) tax. ADJOURN TO STUDY SESSION 1. Continued Discussion of Streamlining. BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL continue the Study Session re Streamlining to August 8, 2000. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to a Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiations as described in Agenda Item 11. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 11. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
07/31/00 90-431
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.
07/31/00 90-432