HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-23 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting October 23, 2000
A. (Old Item No. 11) Selection of Search Firm to Assist with Recruitment of City Auditor................................ 85
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS............................................. 85
1. Ordinance 4661 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 21.04, 21.08, 21.16, and 21.44 of Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) to Conform to the Provisions of the Subdivision Map Act”(1ST Reading 10/10/00, PASSED 8-1, Kniss absent).................................................... 86
2. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of Execution of the Western Base Resource Contract (Contract 00-SNR-00336: United States Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration Central Valley Project, California Contract for Electric Service Base Resource with City of Palo Alto)...................................................... 86
3. Request for City Council to Approve the Designation of a Silver Maple Located at 1872 Edgewood Drive as Heritage Tree #5 an American Elm at 4226 Ponce Drive as Heritage Tree #6. 86
4. Change Order No. 02 to Contract No. C0121253 Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Company in the Amount of $220,000 to Provide Unforeseen Structural Repairs to Remedy a Potential Safety Problem with the Fixed Film Reactors at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant....................... 86
5. Approval of Contribution to the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County in the Amount of $500,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund............................................... 86
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS........................ 86
6. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation........ 86
7. Conference with City Attorney - Potential/Anticipated Litigation................................................. 87
10/23/00 91:83
7A. (Old Item No 9.) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 30061, Title 3, Division 3, relating to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund to consider the Police Chief’s request for funding frontline law enforcement law enforcement programs, and per the requirements of the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants............................... 87
8. PUBLIC HEARING: County Planning Commission Report on Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (Public Testimony Closed).......................................... 88
10. Council Members Burch, Kleinberg, Lytle, and Mossar re City’s Sustainability Policy Discussion - Referral to Policy and Services Committee..........................................................106
12. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of November 6, 2000, Regular City Council Meeting..........................................................106
13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..........................................................106
ADJOURNMENT..........................................................107
FINAL ADJOURNMENT..........................................................107
10/23/00 91:84
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:13 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (via teleconference from Washington, D.C. at 7:30 p.m.), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to move Item No. 11 forward ahead of Oral Communications. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. City Manager Frank Benest announced that Item No. 11 would become Item No. A A. (Old Item No. 11) Selection of Search Firm to Assist with Recruitment of City Auditor MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Kniss, to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with John Shannon of Shannon Associates to assist with recruitment of a City Auditor. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mike Liveright, 260 Byron Street, spoke regarding ISP Channel questions. Tom MacFadyen 1225-380 Vienna Drive, Sunnyvale, spoke regarding conflict of interest. John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, spoke regarding Mayfield/Stanford proposal. Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding a lawsuit against ISP Channel. City Manager Frank Benest spoke regarding the cable modem issue. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Kniss noted on Item No. 3 that the designation for the Silver Maple tree located at 1872 Edgewood Drive would be reagendized. City Manager Frank Benest noted on Item No. 5 that issues raised in the staff report would be negotiated during the MOU process. Council Member Burch noted he would not vote on Item No. 3 because the American Elm at 4226 Ponce Drive was near his residence.
10/23/00 91:85
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 – 5. 1. Ordinance 4661 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 21.04, 21.08, 21.16, and 21.44 of Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) to Conform to the Provisions of the Subdivision Map Act”(1ST Reading 10/10/00, PASSED 8-1, Kniss absent) 2. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of Execution of the Western Base Resource Contract (Contract 00-SNR-00336: United States Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration Central Valley Project, California Contract for Electric Service Base Resource with City of Palo Alto) 3. Request for City Council to Approve the Designation of a Silver Maple Located at 1872 Edgewood Drive as Heritage Tree #5 an American Elm at 4226 Ponce Drive as Heritage Tree #6. 4. Change Order No. 02 to Contract No. C0121253 Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Company in the Amount of $220,000 to Provide Unforeseen Structural Repairs to Remedy a Potential Safety Problem with the Fixed Film Reactors at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 5. Approval of Contribution to the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County in the Amount of $500,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund MOTION PASSED 9-0, for Item Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5. MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item No. 3, Burch “not participating.” AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian to move Item No. 9 forward ahead of Item No. 8 to become Item No. 7A. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mr. Benest announced that Item No. 9 would become Item No. 7A. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 6. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation Subject: Wendy Hafner Smith, Justin Smith v. Palo Alto School
10/23/00 91:86
District, et al., SCC #CV780339 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 7. Conference with City Attorney - Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Written liability claim against the City of Palo Alto by Mountain Cascade, Inc. Authority: Government Code Section 54956(b)(1) & (b)(3)(C). PUBLIC HEARINGS 7A. (Old Item No 9.) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 30061, Title 3, Division 3, relating to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund to consider the Police Chief’s request for funding frontline law enforcement law enforcement programs, and per the requirements of the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants. Approval of Budget Amendment Ordinance Accepting Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Funds in the Amount of $133,435; Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Funds in the Amount of $22,620; and California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) Funds in the Amount of $121,259; Amendment to the Table of Organization Reflecting a New Sergeant’s Position MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $277,314 to reflect additional appropriations provided to the Police Department as follows: 1) $133,435 – Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program funds 2) $22,620 – Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG), and 3) $121,259 – California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) Ordinance 4662 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Accept and Expend Grant Funding in the Amount of $277,314 in the Police Department and Amend the Police Department Table of Organization to add a Sergeant Position” MOTION PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10/23/00 91:87
8. PUBLIC HEARING: County Planning Commission Report on Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (Public Testimony
Closed) Council Member Mossar noted she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Kniss said the Council was sending advice to the County this evening, and the County would make the final decision. Director of Planning and Environment Ed Gawf said the General Use Permit (GUP) was better than the GUP adopted in 1989. The academic growth boundary (AGB) was in place, and there was a Stanford Community Use Plan SCUP for Stanford’s growth over the following years. The GUP defined a core campus where academic events should have occurred. The AGB separated the core campus from the open space that would have been preserved. He suggested taking the portion of the staff memo entitled “Significant Issues” and making it the body of the City’s recommendation to the County. The time frame was very short; staff was revising the document and sending it to the County the next morning. The first recommendation was the issue of open space. The land on the opposite side of Junipero Serra should be preserved for a period of 25 years with permanent preservation being the final goal. The two questions were: (1) whether that time period was sufficient, and (2) should the Council try to make any suggestions to the County with the goal of permanent open space preservation. Mayor Kniss asked how the County could provide more permanent open space preservation for the foothills. Mr. Gawf said the County’s plan provided open space protection, but identified it for a term of 25 years or 5 million square feet of development. It was a medium-term protection, in his opinion. The AGB was going to stay in place until the County Board of Supervisors modified it. It was a phasing mechanism rather than a long-term protection. The most effective way of preserving the open space was through acquiring rights to the land through an easement or by transferring the density of development from the open space to the core campus. Stanford overall would retain the same density of development, but that development would be moved away from the open space. Zoning was an important tool to achieve that goal. Another way was for an agency to buy the development rights. Mayor Kniss understood the GUP was to be discussed again within the next 10 years.
10/23/00 91:88
Mr. Gawf said the GUP was for a 10-year period, and another one could be issued, or the old one renewed, after the 10-year period. The community plan was in place until modified by the County. Mayor Kniss clarified that meant the issue could be opened again within 10 years. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Mayor Kniss wanted to refer to the transfer of development rights as “density bonuses,” in order that everybody used the same terminology. Mr. Gawf said either term worked, there were no differences. Council Member Lytle said the AGB would not set aside open space. Mr. Gawf confirmed that statement. Council Member Lytle said there was a legal way to set aside open space on Stanford property that was consistent with methods used elsewhere in Santa Clara County. Mr. Gawf confirmed that statement. Council Member Lytle asked whether the City was in a position to transfer development rights within the current draft of the community plan. Mr. Gawf said no. Council Member Lytle said that they would need to establish zoning in the foothills in order to transfer development rights. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. He said there had to be a basis for determining what the development entitlement was. Council Member Lytle asked what potential zone choices in the County zoning plan they could apply to the foothills area. Mr. Gawf said one option was the foothills zoning district. Council Member Lytle asked whether there were any other choices of zones. Senior Planner Luke Connolly did not want to address the issue without a County representative present. The foothills zoning was fairly low density. The other option was to create a zoning type specific to Stanford.
10/23/00 91:89
Council Member Lytle asked whether they could apply one designation with the intent of applying a more tailored designation in the future. Mr. Connolly said that would be an option. Council Member Lytle asked whether there were density standards in the community plan, and if not, whether that was acceptable under State law. Mr. Gawf said there were some density and intensity standards in the community plan. In the standards were weak in the non-residential areas. With regard to the legal question, he deferred to the County planning staff. Council Member Lytle asked whether it was possible to demand that the entire community plan comply with State requirements for land use density and intensity. Mr. Gawf said yes. The County felt the document complied, and the Council should be specific with any changes they wanted. Council Member Lytle understood that the Council, when discussing the draft Environmental Impact Report, wanted to require the maximum dedication of open space and access to those spaces that County land use and environmental policies and legal authority allowed. She felt that the Council was not at that point in the staff recommendation. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Burch, to waive the attorney/client privilege and make public two confidential memos dated October 20 and 23, 2000. MOTION PASSED, 8-0, Mossar “not participating.” Council Member Kleinberg announced she needed to recuse herself from the discussion due to a potential conflict of interest. She was recently informed that her husband’s law partner was working with Stanford on the land use plan. RECESS FROM 8:00 P.M. TO 8:06 P.M. Council Member Fazzino said it was important to remember that County Supervisor Simitian would make his decision the next day. The Council had already expressed its opinion on the Stanford land use issue. The Council was trying to make some last minute recommendations that night, but most of their input had already been delivered. Mayor Kniss recognized that fact, but it would not detract from the conversation that evening.
10/23/00 91:90
Council Member Lytle wanted to modify the City’s recommendation to encourage the County to initiate permanent open space designation for the area beyond the urban growth boundary. She recommended the County require a transfer of development rights density bonus so that Stanford could incrementally set aside permanent open space. The foothills should be zoned as foothills until a better designation could be found, and further protections should not be ruled out. Mr. Gawf referred to Attachment K of the County Work Plan, “Implementation Tasks Related to the Stanford 2000 Community Plan and General Use Permit”, in which the first task listed was the creation of zoning districts for the Stanford campus. The zones included were the academic campus, campus residential, campus open space, open space and field research zoning districts. Within the next three years, the County staff would undertake the creation of those zoning districts. He suggested including in the Council’s recommendation recognition that the County was planning to work on zoning districts. Council Member Lytle agreed with the suggestion, and wanted to encourage the County to make the task even more urgent. Mayor Kniss asked whether Council Member Lytle was suggesting permanent open space protection with a planning tool for achieving that goal. Council Member Lytle wanted to ask Stanford to follow a state law requirement by establishing a base line intensity standard. Doing so required a zoning designation for the affected area. Mayor Kniss said what Council Member Lytle was suggesting was not unusual within a city. The requirement was like a development cap the City had in the Downtown area, or zoning designations for property throughout the City. The Council was discussing suggesting a similar plan for Stanford. Council Member Lytle said those designations were used in other properties in the County. Council Member Ojakian asked why the County did not have population density or development intensity limits on Stanford, since it had limits on other properties under its jurisdiction. Mr. Gawf said he could not speak for County planning staff on that question. For a long time the County used an A-1 zoning designation for Stanford. That designation was typically for agricultural uses, but through GUP’s, Stanford had been allowed to develop the land.
10/23/00 91:91
Council Member Ojakian said there was nothing to preclude the County from applying population density or development intensity limits to Stanford. Mr. Gawf agreed. The way to decide the uses and development intensity of the land was to apply zoning designations to it. Because of the unusual way buildings were placed on the Stanford campus, the County felt the need to provide flexibility. The GUP gave that flexibility over Stanford’s entire parcel of land, instead of designating development by lot. Council Member Ojakian wanted to recommend requiring Stanford to establish a development intensity standard. He wanted to use the 25-year open space preservation time frame. He wanted to balance preservation of open space with the probability of over-development of other areas. Council Member Lytle also supported a 25 year time limit. Rights needed to be transferred within the campus. Intense development was preferable to sprawl. Council Member Beecham said the 25 year time limit was appropriate. A zoning requirement establishing clear densities for population and development was appropriate for the entire campus. The Council should recommend a requirement that before any future plan was approved, the County must have established zoning requirements. Vice Mayor Eakins said the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) would be pushed outward by development in the core campus. There was no data on the development intensity of the core campus. Without data on current development intensity, the Council could not determine what future intensity was acceptable. Council Member Burch wanted the open space preserved for as long as possible. He would accept 25 years if necessary. Council Member Lytle reiterated that the Council was willing to accept a 25 year time limit while recommending that the County apply development standards to set aside permanent open space before that 25 years passed. Mayor Kniss wanted the Council to decide whether it was going to recommend permanent open space on the other side of the AGB. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Burch, to recommend that the County preserve as permanent open space the area southwest of Junipera Serra Boulevard (the area outside the City’s Urban Growth Boundary) using all legally available planning tools and negotiation methods.
10/23/00 91:92
Council Member Lytle agreed with the intent of the motion. She wanted to alter the motion to mention preserving that open space to the maximum that County land use and environmental authority and policies would allow. Mayor Kniss suggested the motion say “using negotiating ability, planning tools, and legal means” when referring to the ways of preserving open space. Mr. Gawf said that was the direction the Council had given the staff over the past year. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth suggested revising the phrase to read “through the negotiation and the use of planning tools as permitted by law.” Mr. Gawf clarified the motion was to establish the Council’s goal with regards to preserving open space. The Council would then examine the proposal by the County Planning staff to see if it accomplished that goal. Mayor Kniss said the goal was permanent open space preservation. The decision on how to achieve that goal then had to be made. The goal of the Council’s recommendation would be to state the need for permanent open space preservation and identify some mechanisms for achieving that goal. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Fazzino, to recommend that the County preserve permanent open space, the Academic Growth Boundary be established as a 25-year boundary for academic growth, zoning shall be established setting population and development densities for both the core campus area and open space prior to issuance of the next GUP, and zoning strategies may include TDR dedication of permanent open space, or conservation easements, or bonus densities, or clustering techniques. Council Member Fazzino agreed that permanent open space was the Council’s long-term goal. Council Member Beecham’s motion worked toward that goal by identifying methods for achieving permanent open space protection. It was important to focus on what was possible politically. Stanford started negotiations supporting a ten-year term for open-space protection. It was currently accepting a 25-year term. The Council should work over the following years to preserve open-space, but should not try to establish that standard that night. Council Member Ojakian agreed with Council Member Fazzino’s statement. Vice Mayor Eakins asked how the two motions conflicted.
10/23/00 91:93
Council Member Lytle said the Council Member Beecham’s motion was more specific than Mayor Kniss’s, but the two were compatible. Mayor Kniss’s intention was to state the goal of preserving open space, and to begin identifying methods to achieve that goal right away. Council Member Fazzino was willing to accept that change. Council Member Lytle said the phrase in Council Member Beecham’s motion “before the next GUP” needed to be changed to “within the next year”. Mayor Kniss said the two motions were different. The 25-year term was not long enough. Council Member Burch said Mayor Kniss’s motion was unambiguous. It stated the Council’s goal of preserving open space permanently. He supported Council Member Beecham’s motion also, since it identified specific methods for achieving that goal. Council Member Beecham said the actions in his motion ensured that future GUP’s would have to use zoning techniques. Mayor Kniss asked for Ms. Furth’s interpretation of the two motions. Ms. Furth said Stanford’s original GUP had a ten-year term for open space protection. It was good to have achieved a 25-year term, but by authorizing development without a plan for permanent open space protection, the County would lose momentum for creating that permanent protection. If the Council asked the County to create development intensity and population density standards, there would be a method in place for creating permanent protection. The County could not wait for ten years because developing those standards was such a large project. Data needed to be collected before those standards could be enacted. The County’s proposal stated that urban zoning standards made sense on the Stanford campus, but the data did not exist to create those standards. The Council could recommend that the County begin zoning immediately, but the zoning would not be effected until the next GUP. If the motion only stated that the County should use all available tools, it might not be enough to get the County to establish zoning. Mayor Kniss asked what the most effective statement was to describe the Council’s objectives. Ms. Furth felt using both motions was effective. The first motion stated the Council’s goal, and the second suggested how to achieve it.
10/23/00 91:94
Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether Council Member Beecham would accept a statement that the actions in his motion be taken within two years. Council Member Beecham said he would accept a statement that the zoning must be in place before the next GUP. Ms. Furth said there was some advantage to starting early. Developing zoning standards would take a long time. Mr. Gawf said three years from then was a maximum time limit for beginning development of zoning standards. Mayor Kniss reminded that the Council was advisory, but tonight was the time to send a strong message to the County. Council Member Fazzino reiterated that Council Member Beecham’s motion was a substitute motion. Mayor Kniss reminded Council Member Fazzino that Council Member Beecham agreed to withdraw his substitute motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.” Mayor Kniss said she was impressed that the Council passed the motion unanimously. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Fazzino, to recommend that the County objective be permanent open space, that the Academic Growth Boundary at this point be established as a 25-year boundary for academic growth, that zoning shall be established setting population and development densities for both the core campus area and open space prior to issuance of the next GUP, zoning strategies may include TDR dedication of permanent open space, or conservation easements, or bonus densities, or clustering techniques. Vice Mayor Eakins supported the motion if Council Member Beecham would add a three-year time frame for establishing zoning designations. If the core campus was developed compactly, there would be no pressure to move the AGB. It was important to put zoning designations on the campus quickly. Mayor Kniss asked whether Council Member Fazzino supported the motion with Vice Mayor Eakins’s addition. Council Member Fazzino said yes.
10/23/00 91:95
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Kniss, to include a three-year expectation for the zoning and land-use standards to be put in place. Council Member Burch supported the amendment. Council Member Lytle said the three-year expectation was a compromise on her part. The City asked the County several years prior to create zoning standards for Stanford. Three years was sufficient time to give the County. Council Member Ojakian was concerned with creating protections without understanding what the tradeoffs could be. Vice Mayor Eakins said the motion was not for bonus densities outside the GUP. The amendment stated steps that were meant to be taken within the GUP. Council Member Ojakian said that should be made clear. Mayor Kniss said it was clear. The amendment asked for a three-year time frame for establishing zoning standards. The requirement was meant to be contained within the GUP the Council was proposing that night. Council Member Fazzino agreed with Council Member Ojakian’s concerns about tradeoffs. He preferred Council Member Beecham’s motion without the amendment. AMENDMENT PASSED 4-3, Beecham, Fazzino, Ojakian “no,” Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 6-1, Beecham “no,” Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.” Mayor Kniss said the passage of the two previous motions sent a message to the County regarding the Council’s position on protecting open space. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, to recommend that the proposed Stanford Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) be modified and maintained to be coterminous with the City’s existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Achievement of this will require the proposed Stanford AGB to be modified so that the Lathrop District and the Stanford Golf Course are excluded from the AGB. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the Stanford golf course practice green and turf farm were included in the AGB. Mr. Gawf said they were outside the AGB.
10/23/00 91:96
Council Member Ojakian said the turf area could be developed without impacting the Stanford golf course. He suggested changing the AGB so the practice green and turf farm were in the area that could be developed. He referenced a letter from Mr. Harris of October 17, 2000, in which Mr. Harris suggested allowing development on the Stanford golf course practice green and turf farm and protecting the first and second hole tee areas. Mr. Gawf asked Council Member Ojakian whether he was suggesting that areas of the golf course that did not relate to playing golf could be within the AGB. Council Member Ojakian confirmed Mr. Gawf’s statement. Council Member Beecham clarified that Council Member Ojakian’s suggestion added some space for housing. Council Member Ojakian agreed. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether the turf farm was east or west of Junipero Serra Boulevard. Mr. Gawf said it was east of Junipero Serra Boulevard. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether that meant the UGB would move into the Stanford core campus. Mr. Gawf said yes. Mayor Kniss asked what size the parcel of land was. Mr. Gawf said he did not know the acreage; the parcel of land was very small. Council Member Lytle supported Council Member Ojakian’s suggestion. She wanted to shift the AGB and UGB to exclude more of the habitat of the tiger salamander. The Council knew more about the tiger salamander’s habitat than when UGB was created. Mr. Gawf said there were areas of the tiger salamander’s habitat included in the UGB and AGB; the driving range was one of those areas. The driving range would most likely be preserved under the Sand Hill Road land swap. Council Member Lytle said the land swap was effective. Members of the community expressed concern that the Council broke an agreement so soon after it was entered into. She disagreed with those members of the community. The land swap supported compact development and brought more housing sites closer to the existing urban area, which was consistent with the UGB. There was concern that housing could
10/23/00 91:97
not be built near the hazardous waste facility. The Council determined from Stanford comments that it was safe to build near that facility. The land swap was an improvement on the original Sand Hill Road agreement. Mayor Kniss reiterated that no open space was lost under the land swap. The development rights were transferred from an environmentally sensitive area to a parcel of land that was not environmentally sensitive. Council Member Beecham agreed with the land swap. Council Member Ojakian agreed with the land swap. Mr. Gawf clarified that the Council discussed two changes to the motion. The Stanford golf course turf farm and practice green should be included in the AGB. The habitat of the tiger salamander should be excluded from the AGB. He intended to deal with the habitat as mitigation for individual housing sites. The Council should not suggest changing the AGB to exclude the tiger salamander’s habitat. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Burch, to recommend that the County revise the GUP, specifically the Condition of Approval “E3,” to eliminate the allowance of any additional permanent development in the Lathrop District beyond the maintenance of and, where appropriate, small additions to existing facilities, including portions of the Stanford Golf Course situated on this site. This would also include the elimination of the allowance by separate use permit of a further 21,000 square feet (i.e., the Carnegie Foundation facility) in the Lathrop District. Mayor Kniss said that portion of the recommendation was no different than what the Council had recommended in the past. Mr. Gawf confirmed that statement. Council Member Lytle asked what part of the Planning staff memo dealt with the buildings that could be built in the Lathrop district. Mr. Gawf said the motion addressed that issue. In the foothill district there was an allowance for 15,000 square feet of building area. The Council could take action on that allowance separately. Council Member Lytle said the Council should address that issue separately.
10/23/00 91:98
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. Mayor Kniss commended City Attorney Ariel Calonne for ten years of service for the City. Council Member Lytle said the City was fortunate to have an attorney as good as Mr. Calonne. Mr. Calonne completed a term as President of the California League of Cities attorney’s office. He was well spoken within the community and of outside of the City. She was pleased with the way he worked with City Manager Frank Benest. RECESS FROM 9:20 P.M. to 9:39 P.M. Council Member Lytle said there was a provision in the GUP that allowed construction of large buildings. Mr. Gawf said there was a provision in the GUP that allowed 15,000 square feet of development in the foothills area. It was meant to provide for temporary structures that would support field research or conservation in the foothills. The GUP did not clearly state that fact. The Council should recommend adding some language that would make the purpose of the provision clear. Council Member Lytle asked why that development was necessary. Mr. Gawf said under the current GUP an additional use permit had to be issued for any development in the foothills. The County Planning staff wanted to eliminate that process for up to 15,000 square feet of temporary structures supporting the use of the foothills for field research and open space preservation. Council Member Lytle was concerned about having that amount of development in an open space district. She wanted to eliminate the provision. Council Member Ojakian clarified that the development could only be used to support open space preservation or field research. Council Member Lytle said she could support the provision if the development were coupled with permanent preservation of open space. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kniss, to recommend that the purpose of any additional square footage of building space in the foothills not only be to support Open Space/Field Research uses, but also be coupled with a permanent dedication and protection of open space.
10/23/00 91:99
Council Member Beecham supported the original form of the provision. He wanted Stanford to have buildings in the foothills to support field research. MOTION PASSED 5-1, Beecham “no,” Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Lytle, to recommend that the Lathrop District currently designated as “Academic Campus” in the Land Use section of the Community Plan, be redesignated to either “Open Space/Field Research” or “Special Conservation,” consistent with the location and physical character of the property. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kniss, to recommend that the existing landscape buffer be maintained on Site D. Mr. Gawf said that part of the staff report dealt with the housing sites along El Camino Real next to Stanford Avenue and the Hoover Pavilion. The County Planning staff indicated that a study of the streetscape should be done prior to any housing being built on those sites. The County recommended setting the housing back 25 feet to preserve the streetscape. The City felt that setback should be determined from a study. Council Member Lytle said the City needed to encourage more urban development. She wanted a development pattern where the front stoop and the sidewalk were close together and the housing faced the street. Allowing high intensity housing along El Camino Real would give Stanford the opportunity to fulfill the development requirements the City wanted to impose. She asked Mr. Gawf whether the City Planning staff’s recommendation was to accept the County Planning staff’s proposal for this issue. Mr. Gawf said yes. There were two sites, D and I. Site D was much closer to the road, and any development there would be more prominent than at Site I. Council Member Lytle wanted to relieve Stanford from having to preserve open space on either of those housing sites. Mr. Gawf said there were two issues. The first was whether the housing sites were appropriate, and the second was whether Stanford should maintain a 25-foot setback from the road and why the area along El Camino Real designated as open space in the 1985 agreement was now designated academic campus.
10/23/00 91:100
Mr. Burch felt Site I was a good site for additional housing, but was concerned about the traffic along College Terrace that Site D would cause. Mayor Kniss suggested separate motions for Sites I and D. Council member Ojakian wanted to recommend keeping the setback. Vice Mayor Eakins did not agree with relaxing the setback for Site I. She asked whether it was possible to maintain the setback and build housing on Site I. Mr. Gawf said no. Mayor Kniss clarified that the motion was to maintain the existing landscape buffer, not the 25-foot setback. MOTION PASSED 4-2, Beecham, Lytle “no,” Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. Mr. Gawf clarified that at Site D, any housing would intrude on the setback. At Site I, next to the Hoover Pavilion, there was enough flexibility to maintain a setback. Council Member Lytle said she did not want to restrict Stanford by including a setback. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Burch, to recommend to allow housing on Site I with no requirement of a setback or landscape buffer. MOTION PASSED 5-1, Eakins, “no,” Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kniss, to recommend that on-campus housing eligibility and affordable housing assistance be extended to service workers and support staff who will be directly attracted to the Stanford campus through its anticipated growth. Mr. Gawf said Stanford’s housing plan did not help service workers and support staff. That portion of the staff memo recommended that Stanford adopt a program that aided those individuals. Council Member Beecham pointed out that Stanford intended to charge below market rent for much of its new housing. He supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. 10/23/00 91:101
MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kniss to recommend that the City supports the use of a “reopener” provision in the GUP for transportation and the “no net new commute trips” compliance requirement proposed in the Community Plan/GUP, but recommends that Stanford develop and implement an Integrated Transportation Management Plan to address impacts on area streets due to increased traffic congestion during the non-peak commute hours with the intention of achieving some alternative transportation such as a joint shuttle program with the City. Mr. Gawf said there was concern about traffic during parts of the day other than during commute hours. That portion of the staff memo dealt with that concern and with enforcement of the “no new net trips” policy. In September, 2000, the City Planning staff recommended to the County that they include a penalty of no new development if Stanford violated that policy. The Council needed to decide what type of penalty to recommend in that evening’s recommendation. Council Member Lytle wanted to modify the condition to focus on results. She wanted to implement a joint shuttle service with Stanford. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether Council Member Lytle would like to consider the City Planning staff’s idea of reopening the GUP if Stanford did not comply with the “no new net trips” policy in order to determine whether the extra trips were avoidable. Council Member Lytle wanted to consider that idea and to include some additional results that Stanford and the City should achieve together. Mr. Gawf said the motion was good because it not only addressed the need for a traffic program but communicated some examples of what the traffic program should achieve. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Lytle, seconded by Burch, recommends that the Community Plan be amended to include policies and programs that more specifically targeted reducing run-off to San Francisquito and Matadero Creeks such as those currently under evaluation by the Joint Powers Authority, including Stanford, and that require participation of the private landowners. Council Member Lytle said Stanford should be included as one of the landowners required to mitigate impacts on San Francisquito creek. Council Member Ojakian said the County should be involved in the problems surrounding the watershed.
10/23/00 91:102
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. Council Member Ojakian wanted to know why the issues of academic/housing linkages and access to the foothills were not considered in that section of the staff memo. Mayor Kniss referenced pages 5 and 7 of the City Planning staff memo, which discussed those two issues. Mr. Gawf said the memo recognized that Stanford owned the foothills and could control access to it, but recommended that access be as open as possible because the foothills were so important to members of the Palo Alto community. Council Member Lytle said she wanted to ensure public access to the foothills in exchange for access to Foothills Park for Stanford residents. Mayor Kniss said she was interested in that possibility, but that recommendation would take more time than the Council had that evening. Council Member Ojakian said the Council would need discussion and a legal opinion before opening Foothills Park. Mayor Kniss pointed out that the foothills were private property. Council Member Beecham agreed with Mayor Kniss. Council Member Burch hoped public feedback would influence Stanford to relax the controls it had put on access to the foothills. Mayor Kniss said the issue should be re-examined in the future. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Burch, to recommend to the County to require the maximum public access to those areas that County land use and environmental policies and legal authority will allow. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. Mr. Gawf said the City Planning staff memo supported the County’s proposal regarding linkages. Council Member Ojakian agreed with the policy. Mayor Kniss asked if there were any issues to be discussed before Section 2 of the City Planning staff memo.
10/23/00 91:103
Council Member Lytle asked Mr. Gawf to explain how the County planned to handle protection of the Tiger Salamander’s habitat. Mr. Gawf said the primary method for protecting that habitat was specifying mitigation during review of individual development projects. Council Member Lytle said the County’s procedure for reviewing projects had not produced adequate mitigation in the past. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Burch, to recommend stronger and more sensitive mitigation regarding the preservation of the Tiger Salamander and Red-legged Frog in the Community Plan and to be included as part of the review for any proposed development in the habitat area. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Lytle, to recommend that in furtherance of the Stanford Community Plan, the City Council direct staff to draft an amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development agreement that reflects Stanford’s recent proposal to allow housing development on the identified 13-acre Area B Site in exchange for the retention of open space and recreational uses of the Stanford Golf Course. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. Mr. Gawf said Section 3 of the City Planning staff memo was intended to make Stanford address the impact their development had on community services. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Eakins, to recommend the County request Stanford to address adverse impacts on community services by adding language to page 16 of the Community Plan directing a study of these impacts and that, based on that study, the County impose appropriate mitigation requirements. Further, Stanford has now proposed to mitigate these impacts by leasing the Mayfield site at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road to the City for 51 years for development of a community-serving facility. Among the terms of the proposal is a requirement that Stanford be granted the right to an additional 100,000 square feet of development in the Research Park. A necessary first step is for Stanford to file an application for these entitlements. Staff recommends that Stanford be requested to do so. Council Member Ojakian asked what the City’s fallback was if the Mayfield site did not work out. 10/23/00 91:104
Mr. Gawf said the City would look for alternatives even while proceeding with the Mayfield deal. Council Member Ojakian said the intent of the deal was to have Stanford mitigate its impact on community services. He asked how Stanford would mitigate that impact if the Mayfield deal failed. Ms. Furth said the recommendation stated that Stanford should participate in a study with the City to see whether there were impacts on community services. If so, they would then have to mitigate them. Council Member Ojakian wanted to know how the Council could strengthen that recommendation. Mr. Gawf said the City had asked the County to require Stanford to pay impact fees for its impact on Palo Alto community services. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the City recommendation for Stanford mitigation of community services impact be either the Mayfield site or impact fees. Mr. Gawf said the recommendation should state that the City believed Stanford had an impact on its community services, and should be required to mitigate that impact. Council Member Lytle said the EIR was supposed to assess impacts. City Manager Frank Benest believed the County and Stanford did not feel that Stanford impacted Palo Alto’s community services. The offer of the Mayfield site was a greater benefit to the City than the impact fees the City could negotiate. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Ojakian, that the City believes there will be significant impacts on community services and that Stanford should mitigate these impacts by leasing the Mayfield site at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road to the City for 51 years for development of a community-serving facility, or by impact fees or other monetary contribution for the purchase of another site. Further, staff is directed to work with Stanford to move forward with the process immediately. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. Council Member Lytle thanked the City Planning staff, the County Planning staff, Stanford, and the public for their participation in developing the Stanford GUP and Stanford Community Use Permit.
10/23/00 91:105
Mayor Kniss said Stanford had a challenge ahead of them in building housing and academic space while trying to keep traffic low. She thanked Stanford for its work in developing the GUP and SCUP. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Members Burch, Kleinberg, Lytle, and Mossar re City’s Sustainability Policy Discussion - Referral to Policy and Services Committee MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to refer this item to the Policy and Services Committee. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent.
12. Mayor Kniss re Cancellation of November 6, 2000, Regular City Council Meeting MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, to cancel the November 6, 2000, Regular City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Lytle “no,” Fazzino absent. 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Vice Mayor Eakins read a letter from Heide Page who commended Police Officer Chris Hammet because he gave her a ticket for not giving a pedestrian the right-of-way, noting it was a wake-up call. Additionally, the City of East Palo Alto thanked many of the City’s police officers for their participation in Operation Summer Heat. Council Member Mossar noted a memo put at Council places which thanked the Mayor for bringing forward the idea of appointing a citizen committee to look at the City's finances. There was a need to work with staff to make policy decisions regarding the City’s financial picture, infrastructure needs, and putting together a program to implement them. The idea would be considered in the future. Council Member Burch commended Mr. Benest on a recent meeting he held with the residents of Midtown. Mayor Kniss said in current booming times, the assumption was that cities had far more money to spend than they actually did, and the assumption was that their largess should be shared. Council Member Ojakian thanked staff for the ceremony acknowledging the Lucie Stern Theatre improvements.
10/23/00 91:106
Mayor Kniss noted the last time a blue ribbon committee was appointed was in 1992. The group was astonished at how well the City was run. Council Member Kleinberg noted Council received a CMR concerning Palo Alto’s investment activity. She was amazed, given the roller coaster activity nationally of investments one would normally see, that the City had come through a difficult period with a tremendous return on its investments. Mayor Kniss noted a special forum on infrastructure issues would be held on October 30, 2000, at the Palo Alto Art Center, at 7 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 11 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation and Potential/Anticipated Litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. 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.
10/23/00 91:107