HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-03 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting December 3, 2001
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................119
1. Options for Mayfield Site...................................119
2. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council that Future Art Center Programming Options be forwarded to the Council for discussion.....................126
2A. Recommendation from Parks and Recreation Commission
Regarding Stanford Trails Proposal and Possible Direction to Staff....................................................130
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................136
3. Ordinance 4724 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase
a Portion of the City’s Energy Requirements During the 2005 - 2010 Period under Specified Terms and Conditions”.........137
4. Ordinance 4725 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to change the
classification of Property at 2425 Embarcadero Way, From PC Planned Community at 3020 To PC Planned Community”..........137
7. Ordinance 4726 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.39 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Private Intrusion Alarms and
Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule Regarding Alarm Registration and Response Fees”.............................137
8. Ordinance 4727 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 9, Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Relating to Regulation of Noise) in order to Increase Restrictions on Construction, Demolition, or Repair Activities and to Amend the
Restrictions on Public Street Sweeping and Parking Lot Cleaning”...................................................137
12/03/01 93-117
9. Resolution 8123 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Results of the Consolidated
General Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, November 6, 2001”.......................................................138
10. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Stone Engineering Contractors, Inc., in the Amount of $79,750 for the Outfall Modifications for the Airport Storm Water
Pumping Station, CIP Project 47715..........................138
11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Robert A. Bothman, Inc., in the Amount of $1,132,202 for Construction
of Mitchell Park Facilities Renovation Phase I..............138
12. Utilities Fiscal Year 2001-03 Demand Side Management and
Public Benefits Plan........................................138
12A. (Old Item No. 5) Ordinance Adding Chapter 9.72 to Title 9 [Public Peace, Morals and Safety] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Mandatory Response to Request for Discussion of Disputes Between Landlords and Tenants”...138
12B. (Old Item No. 6) Ordinance Amending sections 18.04.030, 18.41.030, 18.43.030, 18.45.030 and 18.49.050 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit the Conversion in Commercial Districts of Ground Floor Non-Office Uses to Medical, Professional, Administrative and General Business
Offices.....................................................139
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................142
13. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation..................................................143
14. Conference with City Attorney - Pending Litigation..........143
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m. in memory of Betty Wright, famed swim teacher for the Community
Association for Rehabilitation (CAR) in Palo Alto, who passed away on November 17, 2001, and Edward A. Scoles, former director of Housing and Food Services at Stanford
University..................................................144
12/03/01 93-118
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle, Ojakian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Mossar
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the Matadero/Barron Creek project.
Roger Craig, 101 Waverley Street, spoke regarding a contract for overflow printing. Council Member Kleinberg said she had referred Mr. Craig’s email
to Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison.
Council Member Burch said he also referred the matter to the Assistant City Manager.
Wayne Martin, 3687 Bryant Street, spoke regarding rental rates for property.
Susan Stansbury, 741 Josina Avenue, spoke regarding the Community Garden.
John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, spoke regarding libraries.
Ellie Gioumousis, 992 Loma Verde Avenue, spoke regarding the Community Garden.
Elaine Haight, 166 Cowper Street, spoke regarding the Community
Garden.
REPORT OF OFFICIALS
1. Options for Mayfield Site
Council Member Kleinberg could not participate in the item due to a potential conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm represented Stanford in land use matters.
Council Member Beecham said he previously was conflicted when
Mayfield and Terman were linked together but did not have a conflict that evening.
12/03/01 93-119
Council Member Mossar could not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by
Stanford University. City Manager Benest presented options to the Council for the Mayfield site, assuming the Jewish Community Center (JCC) would no longer need the property. As part of the four-party
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approved the previous September, Stanford agreed to provide the six-acre Mayfield site to the City of Palo Alto for $1 a year for 51 years for the
express purpose of a community center. The City intended to sublease the site to the Jewish Community Center (JCC) as a
long-term home. In exchange, the City agreed to provide Stanford with vested rights to build 100,000-130,000 square-feet of office development within the currently allowed floor area ratio (FAR) in the Stanford Research Park (SRP). The transaction also included an incentive for Stanford to build 240 housing units
within the SRP. It was possible that the JCC would not need the Mayfield site as envisioned in the four-party MOU. Staff developed options related to the site. The first option was for the City to walk away from the transaction with Stanford. In doing so, the City would not have to expend further resources on
the effort and would avoid granting vested development rights in the SRP. The second option would be to develop a community
center plus housing. This would provide needed community service facilities with the guarantee of housing. The third option would be to develop a hotel plus housing. The hotel would provide a
desired amenity for SRP and for the Palo Alto community as well as the guarantee of housing. Option four would provide for the
development of office space plus housing. This option would provide the guarantee of housing and no increase in the total office development within the SRP. Staff believed the best
options were numbers two and three because of the guarantee of housing.
Paul Losch, 890 Lincoln Avenue, expressed concern that none of the options for the Mayfield site mentioned the expansion of field usage for youth sports.
Craig Laughton, 2321 Harvard Street, urged the Council to consider including athletic fields in the plans for the Mayfield site.
Jack Koch, 1466 Dana Avenue, supported the development of the
Mayfield site. He suggested the site could be used as contiguous open space for an athletic field, a 30,000 square-foot gymnasium and childcare facility, a 40,000-square-foot two-story housing structure, and a 60,000-square-foot nonprofit service building.
12/03/01 93-120
His plan would use 25 percent of the footprint because of multi-story buildings, leaving 75 percent as open space.
Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, said if the intent were to maximize revenue, a hotel would be the best use for the Mayfield site. If the intent were to provide services; housing for City, school, and Stanford employees would be a possibility.
Betsy Allyn, 4186 Willmar Drive, supported using the Mayfield site for affordable housing.
John Ciccarelli, 2065 Yale Street, favored housing for the
Mayfield site as opposed to a hotel. He urged the Council to use the site development as an opportunity to improve bike and pedestrian connections. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, supported housing on the Mayfield
site, but felt the City should walk away from the transaction with Stanford. The problem of the toxic waste clean up would still be there, the termination of the lease in 51 years would remain, and the property and buildings reverting to Stanford would also remain. Stanford was the property owner of the
Mayfield site and should be the ones to build housing on it.
Dan Logan, 126 E. Charleston Road, supported the City Manager’s proposal for the Mayfield site.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the Mayfield site should remain untouched until the property owner decided to build housing on
it. John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, supported building a community
center and housing for the Mayfield site.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Street, opposed the four-party MOU. She favored walking away from the transaction with Stanford. She believed Stanford was a major cause of housing shortage in Palo Alto and should be part of the solution.
Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Street, said the transaction with Stanford should be wiped clean, but the City did not have to walk away. It would be a bad precedence to trade development
rights for land use. Stanford should come forward and apply for rezoning if they want office space or a hotel.
Council Member Lytle asked what would happen if the City did not develop community services at Mayfield. How would Stanford mitigate their growth impacts for services to Palo Alto residential and daytime populations.
12/03/01 93-121
Mr. Benest said the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) indicated
there were community service impacts, which Stanford had not accepted. Providing a variety of community services at Mayfield would support the notion of minimizing the impact of Stanford development as it related to community services.
Council Member Lytle asked what alternatives were there for mitigating Stanford’s impacts.
Mr. Benest said there were none.
Council Member Lytle asked whether staff considered conformance with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) a plus and non-conformance a minus. Mr. Benest said that options three and four were contrary to the
Comp Plan. Council Member Lytle asked whether staff would bring the item back for discussion after the swearing in of the new Council Members.
Mr. Benest said yes. The discussion that evening was
preliminary. The present Council approved a MOU that provided the Mayfield site to the JCC, and that commitment had not changed.
Council Member Beecham asked what was the staff being asked to
do that evening. Mr. Benest said staff was not looking for direction. It would
help to get a sense of some of the issues, concerns, perspectives, and values of the Council.
Council Member Beecham asked whether development impact fees would be imposed on Stanford. Mr. Benest said Stanford was required to pay all development
fees for development within the City of Palo Alto. Council Member Beecham asked whether any aspect of the
development fees with Stanford would change if the City did not move forward with the MOU.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City could obligate Stanford to pay future development impact fees in the SRP. To what extent Stanford was obligated under the proposed development agreement varied.
12/03/01 93-122
Council Member Beecham asked whether 240 housing units was an
accurate number or was the number less than that. Mr. Benest said the number of housing units would be less than 240.
Council Member Beecham asked whether the options that included housing would involve negotiations with Stanford for housing location elsewhere in the SRP.
Mr. Benest said option two would suggest some housing onsite at
Mayfield. There would be an incentive for housing elsewhere in the SRP but that was not a guarantee. Option three and four would guarantee 240 housing units. Council Member Wheeler asked whether Stanford was pushing the
City to have these discussions at this time. Mr. Benest said no. Stanford was willing to work with the City with different perspectives on whatever options that the Council presented.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether Stanford was content to
wait while the JCC did their due diligence in determining the use of the former Sun Microsystems site.
Mr. Benest said yes.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said there was news coverage after the JCC, which suggested they had an alternative site and questions were raised about what would happen to the Mayfield site. Stanford
relayed to members of the City/Stanford Liaison meeting that options for the Mayfield site were left up to the City of Palo
Alto and Stanford was open to some adjustment of the MOU. Mr. Calonne said the City Manager was encouraged early on to look into options for the Mayfield site when the JCC suggested they possibly had an alternate site.
Council Member Wheeler asked what the basic elements of 40,000 square feet community center uses would be.
Mr. Benest said the community center would encompass a
gymnasium, a fitness/health area, dance studio, and programming spaces for multipurpose meetings and classes. Council Member Wheeler asked whether staff had discussed playing fields in any way.
12/03/01 93-123
Mr. Benest said no. If fields were included, housing would not
be. Council Member Wheeler clarified that the current language in the MOU limited the City’s arrangement of low-rent on the Mayfield site to community center use.
Mr. Benest said yes. The current MOU did not include housing on the site. It did allow for that possibility, but that would
require further negotiations.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether 40,000 square feet of community center use was the bulk of the site. Mr. Benest said no. In addition to the community center there would be at-grade parking and housing or field space if housing
was dropped. Council Member Burch asked what was the utility easement situation.
Mr. Benest said the utility easement presently ran down the middle of the Mayfield site. Any development would be built
around the easement or the utilities would need to be relocated, which was expensive.
Council Member Burch asked whether development could be built on top of the easement.
Mr. Benest said no.
Council Member Burch clarified that 240 housing units could not be built on that property.
Mr. Benest said it was unlikely given the development standards the City had, such as setbacks. Council Member Burch asked whether Stanford would build the kind
of housing the City wanted or what Stanford wanted. Mr. Benest said Stanford would build housing they wanted and
could conceivably decide not to build housing at all.
Council Member Burch asked whether the City could build the maximum number of housing units on the Mayfield site and restrict it to employees of the PAUSD, employees of the City, or people who worked in the City. Parking would be reduced because
12/03/01 93-124
of the close proximity to the Downtown area and California Avenue.
Mr. Benest said it was not inconceivable. One problem Stanford might have was the issue of what would happen after 51 years. Council Member Burch said he could not see Stanford moving out
teachers and City employees. Mr. Benest said if that was the desire of the Council, it could
be pursued.
Council Member Burch asked whether staff could address the question about the unevenness of 51 years versus permanent, and try to go for a more even level of exchange of what the City was giving Stanford versus what the City received.
Mr. Calonne said 51 years versus permanent assumed the future Council would not change existing development rules in the SRP. The present process allowed for changes in future developments. Mr. Benest said Stanford understood that after 51 years the City
would not walk away from a viable community center.
Vice Mayor Ojakian was opposed to options one, three, and four. He supported option two that offered the combination of the community center and housing. Being able to add additional
housing on the site was another possibility.
Council Member Wheeler favored option two. She would like to see Palo Alto and Stanford attempt to reach some version of that option. The City could argue to Stanford that housing dedicated
for City and school district employees could be a community serving use, which might be attractive to Stanford. Her only
hesitation to providing such designated housing was conducting a need analysis. She would like to see a more open process for more than one designated nonprofit organization to take part in the construction and operation of the facility.
Council Member Beecham said he did not accept the site to be high intensity use for community centers. There was still an offer by Stanford to talk and an existing MOU, whereby the City
could put a small community center at the site. He asked whether Stanford had 40,000 square feet to build in the SRP.
Mr. Benest said there was a minimum of 100,000 square feet that was based on the JCC’s need. The basic concepts of the proposed development agreement and the MOU would still be in effect but would need some renegotiating.
12/03/01 93-125
Council Member Beecham said the type of renegotiating with
Stanford that required them to give up those six-acres for something considerably less and development rights might be difficult. He favored option four that stated office plus guaranteed housing with reduction in office space elsewhere.
Council Member Burch said he was not ready to give up on building affordable housing at the Mayfield site. He was opposed to building playing fields at the Mayfield site because that
would increase traffic congestion. He was also opposed to options one, three, and four. The fact that the City would
develop and use the land for $1 a year and not take the land cost was a big savings. Mr. Benest clarified Council Member Burch had a preference for housing.
Council Member Burch said yes. Council Member Lytle favored option two. She believed the process for the site should be open and competitive. She
expressed concern about dropping community services at the site that had to do with impacts of all the growth from the Comp Plan
and Stanford’s General Use Permit (GUP). There was an issue of impacts from residents in the new housing being pursued, and the impacts from the City’s daytime population. She would like to
see staff monitor the growth in the daytime population. With the combination of Stanford and Palo Alto’s expected growth out of
the GUP, service and quality of life reductions could occur. She also expressed concern about the 50-year limit and what it would mean to renegotiate. She encouraged uses for an option two that
would include childcare, media center, and housing.
Mayor Eakins supported an emphasis of the public/private partnerships for the Mayfield site. She agreed with having an open and competitive process. She also supported combination housing on the site and small units and single-resident occupancy (SRO) units.
No action required.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
2. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council that Future Art Center Programming Options be forwarded to the Council for discussion.
12/03/01 93-126
Director of Arts and Culture Leon Kaplan said in preparing the staff report it was interesting to discover that the present
level of service and the set of programs at the Art Center were consistent with the original vision as expressed in the authorizing 1969 City Manager’s Report (CMR). The programming study would determine how to accommodate the current programs responsibly and how to accommodate programs not currently
offered. The programming study was commissioned by the Art Center Foundation (Art Center) and funded equally between the City and the Art Center. It was a working example of a
public/private partnership.
Brian Kreischer, Art Center Foundation Board, said the programming study commissioned for the Art Center was borne out of doing well with the programs and staff already in place. To date existing programs such as children’s programming and exhibition space were reviewed for enhancement and expansion
possibilities. Richard Yankwich, 1490 Edgewood Drive, said the public/private partnership with the Art Center had been a work in progress over the past ten years. He appreciated the teamwork with the City.
The Foundation was far along in the process of working with the City to find the best way to improve the Art Center, including
meeting with the library and community. He encouraged the Council to continue working with the Foundation to improve the Art Center.
Carolyn Tucher, Art Center Foundation President, 4264 Manuela
Way, appreciated the Council’s participation at the Art Center’s programming study session and their support in the public/private partnership.
Cornelia Pendleton, Art Center Foundation Board, 267 Hamilton
Avenue, reminded the Council that the Palo Alto Art Center was a regional community draw. People from all over had experienced the programs and exhibits that had received wide acclaim. The talent associated with the Art Center produced world-class artists; however, without updated facilities the level of talent
could not be maintained. She urged the Council to move forward with the proposed recommendations.
Council Member Lytle said the idea of having to trade-off parking space with garden space raised the question of how many
more visitors the City was willing to attract to a center that was thought of as being local community serving. The Policy and Services (P&S) Committee did not want to expand the parking space to attract a broader draw of visitors, instead scale the expectations to being the improvement of the existing
12/03/01 93-127
facilities. One aspect still missing from the committee composition was the Youth Council member contribution to the
programming study. She asked whether the inclusion of a young person had been added to the planning and review process. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said the request to include a Youth Council member was for the Mitchell Park site
planning and had been done. If the Council wanted to request a Youth Council member for the Art Center programming study that could also be done, but was not already in place.
Council Member Lytle requested having the youth involved in the
programming options for the Art Center as well as every community center where the youth were big stakeholders. Mr. Kaplan said staff had done a good job of cosmetically concealing the flawed areas in the video, but if one was to look
behind the scenes there was a lot of decay and facility deficiencies that were covered up. Council Member Lytle said the video produced by the Police Department uncovered all of their deficiencies, which did well
for public outreach.
Linda Craighead said one problem with producing an unedited video was the difficulty in showing the ventilation, heat, and movement of air.
Council Member Kleinberg said she was confused about the CMR
language that gave the background for the Art Center and the Holly Report. “In February 1969, the City Council approved the establishment of the Art Center based on the recommendations of
the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC)... chaired by William Holly. The Holly Report recommended, among other things, that
the facility should be available to people of all ages, for all levels of skills, and for residents of neighboring communities as well as citizens of Palo Alto. The staff noted at that time, that there was a great value and benefit to the City by extending programs to residents of surrounding communities.” One
point listed was to look at the facility as more than just a neighborhood enhancement, but something that was shared by the Greater Palo Alto area. She asked for clarification from the P&S
Committee whether the Art Center was a neighborhood-serving or regional-serving facility. That principle needed clarification
before the Council could answer the question of how big the facility should be in terms of the programs, and whom it was serving.
12/03/01 93-128
Council Member Lytle said on page 4 of the P&S Committee minutes of October 16, 2001, she had agreed with Chairperson Mossar that
the facility was a not a neighborhood-level center but a community-level center. Council Member Kleinberg clarified that Council Member Lytle’s point of view was for the Art Center to be a community-serving
facility. Council Member Lytle said yes. The P&S Committee was dealing
with was question of how much vehicular expansion should be given to make the Art Center an even larger attraction to the
broader community. Mayor Eakins asked whether the P&S Committee was referring to size or quality.
Council Member Lytle said the quality of programming was not the concern. The concern was cost and how much parking was needed and the trade-off to that. Council Member Burch agreed that parking was the committee’s
concern. In addition, the Art Center was showing exhibits by local artists as well as receiving exhibits created elsewhere
that required the correct temperature and conditions. Emphasis was placed on a community-serving facility as opposed to a region-wide Art Center.
Ms. Craighead said the main focus of the programming study was
based on the current programming. Mark Caballero conducted the Joint Site Survey (JSS) for the Mitchell Park Library and the Art Center and based the initial parking studies for the Art
Center on current usage.
Council Member Burch said he did not feel there was a conflict with the long-term view expressed by the Foundation and that of the P&S Committee. Ms. Craighead said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Ojakian agreed the Art Center was in need of renovation, and believed parking and traffic could be addressed
during the first phase of the project. Because the Art Center was being offered money from third party interests to help
repair the building, it was to the City’s advantage to have the best quality facility possible. He was comfortable proceeding forward and was proud to have an active art community in the City that would take an interest in the facility and the types of programs offered.
12/03/01 93-129
Council Member Lytle requested that staff include a member from
the Youth Council to the programming study. Ms. Tucher asked whether the Council could be flexible about the youth member recommendation. There was already some difficulty in scheduling meetings. The times varied because of the
availability of contractors and staff. If meetings could only be held after school hours, it would complicate the assignment of the Library/Art Center/Community Garden Joint Committee.
Council Member Kleinberg suggested that rather than including
the youth in every single meeting to find some point in the decision-making process where the Joint Committee would meet with the Youth Council and the current class members of the Art Center for discussions and decisions.
Ms. Craighead said the Art Center presently had an influx of teens that had an interest in volunteering at the center. The Center had been serving the youth, was including them in the process so far, and would continue to do so.
Mayor Eakins asked Council Member Lytle whether that type of involvement met the need she expressed.
Council Member Lytle said yes. No action required.
RECESS: 9:45 p.m. – 9:55 p.m. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
2A. Recommendation from Parks and Recreation Commission
Regarding Stanford Trails Proposal and Possible Direction to Staff Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in the item due to a potential conflict of interest because her
husband’s law firm represents Stanford in land use matters. Council Member Mossar could not participate in the item due to a
conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford University.
Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen stated that at the most recent meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) staff presented a recommendation for the Council to consider regarding the Stanford Trails proposal.
12/03/01 93-130
Park and Recreation Commissioner Edie Keating said the PARC was
excited about the possibilities of Stanford Trails linking to the Arastradero Preserve. Stanford was expected to meet with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (Board), that week but there were no recommendations to agree to. Staff had reviewed certain option that could be implemented and other, more
desirable options, they would like to implement. The PARC expressed the lack of safety, connectivity of open space areas, and recreational value of the trails that was presently proposed
by Stanford University. The PARC therefore recommended that Santa Clara County (the County) reject Stanford’s current
proposal and demand acceptable trail proposals. The main concern with the possible outcome was getting trails that paralleled busy roadways for most of their length. Stanford’s proposal for the C1 Trail that followed along Sand Hill Road to Alpine Road was inappropriate for recreational use because of the busy
roadways and noisy traffic. The County Trails Master Plan (CTMP) described an adequate trail as having a 12-foot easement, which the Alpine Trail did not have. A possible alternative for the Alpine Trail was along the edge of the Stanford golf course, however safety and environmental concerns were raised. The S1
Trail to Page Mill Road needed a Caltrans easement to get to the cow tunnel. Otherwise the trail veered away from the Arastradero
Preserve, along the edge of Page Mill Road extending further south under Highway 280. Safety concerns were an issue because both Deer Creek and Coyote Hill were busy commuter roads.
Mayor Eakins asked whether the PARC had seen the recent press
release from Supervisor Liz Kniss. Ms. Keating said yes.
Mayor Eakins asked why the Stanford Trails Proposal was on that
evening’s agenda and what the Council needed to provide. City Manager Benest said there was a December 2001 deadline for there to be an alignment of trails as proposed in the GUP.
Mr. Thiltgen said Stanford had a year to come up with the alignment of trails to present to the Board. The proposed recommendation coming from the County Parks and Recreation
Commission was to make sure the City Council had the opportunity to say state its desires about the proposal before it went to
the Board. Mayor Eakins asked whether the Council would receive a response from Stanford as to the County Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendations.
12/03/01 93-131
Mr. Benest said it would be beneficial to have.
Council Member Wheeler said the press release the Council received that evening referred to the compromise plan. She asked whether the County Parks and Recreation Commission had the compromised plan to refer to at their meeting.
Ms. Keating said the PARC heard of the compromise plan that evening. If the plan did not come to fruition, the fallback
would not be beneficial to the community. The County Parks and Recreation Commission would prefer to have the Board advise
Stanford to find more certainty. Vice Mayor Ojakian said another concern raised at the PARC meeting was that Stanford’s proposal packaged the trails together.
Larry Horton said during the GUP process staff worked carefully with the County on the requirement for dedication of trails. The trails specified on the CTMP were the C1 and S1 Trails on the periphery of Stanford’s land but not through the interior.
Stanford had negotiated for most of the year with the County and came to an agreement with the County Park and Recreation
Commission and County Counsel. The staff report recommended approval of two routes with certain provisions. The staff report did meet the legal compliance of Stanford’s acquirement under
the GUP. Stanford had agreed to offer, with the County, a voluntary joint exploration of the route offered by City staff,
which traveled down Old Page Mill Road, turned sharply right near Highway 280, and took the Caltrans right-of-way to the cow tunnel. If easements could be obtained on non-Stanford land,
then Stanford would grant easements on their land, from the cow tunnel to the Arastradero Preserve. On the non-Stanford parts of
the trail, Stanford would like the County to be the primary applicant, and they would join as secondary applicants, if so desired. He would like to see the City of Palo Alto work cooperatively with Stanford and the County.
Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, stated that after he attended the November 15, 2001 informational meeting about the Stanford Trails, he visited various locations that were suggested by the
speakers. He was convinced that the route proposed by Stanford was worth looking into. He planned to speak to the County Board
of Supervisors and requested they continue the issue for six months to provide time to investigate alternatives and gain community support for the best possible routes.
12/03/01 93-132
Patty Ciesla, 11990 Page Mill Road, Los Altos Hills, said Stanford waited too long in getting the process moving and did a
poor job of proposing trails without involving the community. She urged the Council to encourage the Board of Supervisors to allow Stanford more time to work with the community and County staff to find better alignments for the trails.
John Nagle, 999 Woodland, Menlo Park, said according to the CTMP, a portion of Trail C1 on Sand Hill Road trailed across private property. Stanford’s proposed route had a section that
went through Menlo Park.
Cedric de La Beaujardiere, 3153 Stelling Drive, said he suggested the Council adopt the recommendation to urge the County Board of Supervisors to reject the trail alignment proposed by Stanford and instead request that Stanford accept the trail alignments proposed by the Stanford Open-Space
Alliance (SOSA). John Ciccarelli, College Terrace Resident Association (CTRA) Board, 2065 Yale Street, said the CTRA was most interested in the S1 Trail alignment because it was conceivably the extension
of the existing walking route being used up Stanford Avenue. City staff’s readiness with resources and suggestions could play
a large part with the other jurisdictions, such as County roads, Los Altos Hills, and Caltrans to making the trail alignment successful.
Walter Sedriks, 325 Waverley Street, expressed amazement and
disappointment with the City’s low-level of attention to the proposed trail alignment.
Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Street, disagreed with the proposed C1 Trail alignment as held up by Mr. Horton. The “hook” that was in
the “bait” of the December 3, 2001, letter which stated that the County must agree with the package proposal of S1 and C1. The C1 route in Menlo Park could not be met by Stanford until Menlo Park accepted Stanford’s offer to the final Sand Hill Road improvements, or until the seven-year offer expired. The C1
Trail was under San Mateo County environmental clearance and trail standards.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the proposal the environmental groups originally presented was that the S1 Trail should make
use of the existing gate at Junipero Serra Boulevard/Stanford Avenue with existing trails. The November 30, 2001, letter from environmental groups somehow left out that language.
12/03/01 93-133
Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, urged the Council to express to the County there were some clear criterion that acceptable
trails should make, such as maximum connectivity to historically existing trails, have full access, and be away from major roads. Palo Alto was a community that shared most of its resources with the residents of Stanford and the trails should be a pride to the Mid-Peninsula.
John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, said he had walked along the Sand Hill corridor and found it to be a dangerous place to walk.
There were existing trails on Stanford land that should be available from over the top of the “Dish” and down to the other
side. He urged the Council and persons in the community to contact County Supervisor Liz Kniss and raise the objectives expressed that evening. Ellie Gioumosis, 992 Loma Verde Avenue, agreed with the
editorial printed in the Mercury News stating that Stanford’s idea of routing the trail along the expressway was like “sucking exhaust”. She reminded the Council that unlike Palo Alto, Stanford residents did not have their own elected representatives and no voice in the governance of Stanford.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the Stanford Trail was
subject to the Three-Party Agreement of referral provisions. Mr. Benest said he did not know.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether the Council had to approve the
proposal because part of the S1 and C1 Trails were on Palo Alto land.
Mr. Calonne said he did not believe Palo Alto had any GUP requirement for trails on open space.
Mr. Horton said the trails shown on the map were trails approved as part of the Sand Hill Road projects, and were thereby constructed as per Palo Alto standards. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether that included the S1 Trail.
Mr. Horton said no. He was referring to the trails on the C1 route. When the trails were finally built, it would be
constructed according to Santa Clara County standards.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether staff had any proposals or recommendations to present to the County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Benest said staff would communicate to County Supervisor Kniss whatever the Council voted to do that evening.
12/03/01 93-134
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether Palo Alto would have any
representation at the Board’s meeting. Mr. Benest said staff had not planned to attend the meeting, but would communicate the Council’s recommendations first thing the following morning.
Council Member Burch clarified that County Supervisor Kniss’ letter stated she looked forward to continuing to work with
Stanford officials and the community to explore the feasibility of the trail proposal.
Mayor Eakins said County Supervisor Kniss implied the trail proposal would be continued. MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Eakins, to ask the
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to delay the trails proposal for three to six months in order to allow opportunities to develop an adequate proposal. The revised trails proposal needs to meet the following criteria: a) the trails proposal should maximize connectivity to other trails, access for the
public and user safety; b) the trails should not be adjacent to major roadways; and c) the trails should connect to historic and
existing trail routes, as well as the Arastradero Preserve. Vice Mayor Ojakian said he would like to see the County
Supervisors provide trails that could be enjoyed and used by everyone in the community. From the Council point-of-view,
little information had been presented on the issue and where the various trails would lead. He thanked the PARC members for their foresight on the issue and the decision to weigh in on it.
Mayor Eakins requested that the three- to six-month extension be
used to explore how best to meet the criterion laid out by the Council. Council Member Lytle said she would like to reference the PARC’s memo and send it along to the Board of Supervisors. She wanted
to add language to avoid constructing a trail through Coyote Hills and Ramos Ranch area. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to avoid intrusion into the Ramos Ranch area and Coyote
Hills. Council Member Wheeler clarified that the letter from Stanford received that day spoke of a possible “fall back position”. She
12/03/01 93-135
urged the County Supervisors to work for a solution on the trails and not to accept the “fall back position”.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said by following the motion set forth, it would be hard to use fall back on the original proposal. Council Member Wheeler said she wanted to make that clear.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the Board of Supervisors should reject the
original S1 and C1 proposals.
Council Member Wheeler clarified that Mr. Horton asked the Council to consider alternatives as they came forward and if they met the criteria. Vice Mayor Ojakian agreed that Palo Alto would cooperate in
getting the trails as they met the criteria. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that Palo Alto will offer its full cooperation and
support in realizing the preferred trails alignments.
Council Member Wheeler said perhaps it involved more than those segments that crossed Palo Alto lands.
Council Member Beecham supported the effort to continue discussions to find better trail routes and looked to Palo Alto
being a part of those discussions. One frustration he saw was trying to find ways to achieve objections and criteria that were
not in the GUP. He was glad to see Stanford’s new trail proposal and was optimistic that the parties could reach an agreement that would use the cow tunnel.
Council Member Burch stressed getting away from trails that were
along roadways. Vice Mayor Ojakian said avoiding trails along roadways was in the motion. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar, “not participating,”
Fazzino absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
approve the Minutes of October 9 and 15, 2001, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Mossar absent.
12/03/01 93-136
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Beecham could not participate in Item No. 6 due to a conflict of interest because a client had a financial interest in one of the properties. Council Member Kleinberg could not participate in Item No. 6 due
to a potential conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm represented Stanford in land use matters.
Mayor Eakins announced that Item Nos. 5 and 6 would be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of staff to become Item
Nos. 12A and 12B. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding Item No. 8.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-4 and 7-12.
LEGISLATIVE
3. Ordinance 4724 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase a Portion of the City’s Energy Requirements During the 2005
- 2010 Period under Specified Terms and Conditions” (1st
Reading 11/13/01, Passed 8-0)
4. Ordinance 4725 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending section 18.08.040 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to change the classification of Property at 2425 Embarcadero Way, From PC Planned Community at 3020 To PC Planned Community” (1st
Reading 11/13/01, Passed 8-0) 7. Ordinance 4726 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.39 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code Relating to Private Intrusion Alarms and Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule Regarding Alarm Registration and Response Fees” (1st Reading 11/13/01, Passed 8-0)
8. Ordinance 4727 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Title 9, Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Relating to Regulation of Noise) in order to Increase Restrictions on Construction, Demolition, or Repair Activities and to Amend the Restrictions on Public Street Sweeping and Parking Lot
Cleaning” (1st reading 9/24/01, Passed 8-0)
12/03/01 93-137
9. Resolution 8123 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Results of the Consolidated
General Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, November 6, 2001” ADMINISTRATIVE
10. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Stone
Engineering Contractors, Inc., in the Amount of $79,750 for the Outfall Modifications for the Airport Storm Water
Pumping Station, CIP Project 47715 11. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Robert A. Bothman, Inc., in the Amount of $1,132,202 for Construction of Mitchell Park Facilities Renovation Phase I
12. Utilities Fiscal Year 2001-03 Demand Side Management and Public Benefits Plan MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 3-4 and 7-12, Fazzino, Mossar
absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 12A. (Old Item No. 5) Ordinance Adding Chapter 9.72 to Title 9
[Public Peace, Morals and Safety] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Mandatory Response to Request
for Discussion of Disputes Between Landlords and Tenants” Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there were any questions
concerning the City Attorney’s memo dated December 3, 2001.
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Beecham, to
incorporate the two suggested administrative/implementation
changes in the City Attorney’s memo dated December 3, 2001, as follows: 1) to request that any mediation dismissal be undertaken by a facilitation administrator rather than by individual mediators; and 2) that the facilitation administrator take the responsibility for compelling attendance at mediation
sessions. Ordinance 4728 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 9.72 to Title 9 [Public Peace, Morals and Safety] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
Relating to Mandatory Response to Request for Discussion of Disputes Between Landlords and Tenants (1st Reading 11/13/01,
Passed 8-0)
12/03/01 93-138
Council Member Lytle understood the City Attorney’s memo to mean the wording could be changed, but as it was repeated it seems
that “mediator” was now called the “facilitation administrator.” Mr. Calonne said the wording could be changed that evening without another first reading to substitute “facilitation administrator” in place of “mediator.”
Council Member Kleinberg clarified that the first part was the change to the ordinance and the second part would be the
direction to staff to use a certain strategy and methodology for the implementation of the ordinance.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Mossar absent.
12B. (Old Item No. 6) Ordinance Amending sections 18.04.030, 18.41.030, 18.43.030, 18.45.030 and 18.49.050 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit the Conversion in Commercial Districts of Ground Floor Non-Office Uses to Medical, Professional, Administrative and General Business Offices
Council Member Beecham could not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because a client had a financial interest
in one of the properties. Council Member Kleinberg could not participate in the item due
to a potential conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm represented Stanford in land use matters.
Mr. Calonne said there were two versions of the ordinance in the Council’s packet, and the one under the City Attorney’s cover
reflected what the Council requested, which was additional housing protection on El Camino Real. The Planning Department
staff was unsure of that and drafted other recommendations that were reflected in CMR:441:01. Senior Planning Official Lisa Grote said the alternate ordinance would protect ground floor housing in all commercial zones, not just those on El Camino Real, and was therefore a broader
application. Council Member Wheeler stated her previous motion not only
preserved housing along El Camino Real, but also preserved ground floor housing in all commercial districts. Mr. Calonne said the item would be constituted as a first reading of the ordinance due to the change.
12/03/01 93-139
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, said the ordinance failed to provide adequate protection of the neighborhood commercial
zones. The Comp Plan stated neighborhood commercial was for neighborhood-serving retail and the new ordinance would allow new ground-floor office and non neighborhood-serving office on any property or building that was vacant as of March 19, 2001. The loopholes were huge and the ordinance did not begin to
approach the protection that Midtown and Charleston neighborhood commercial zones had. If the ordinance was the result of the Colleague Memo, that memo halted and preempted all prior
progress made toward protection of the neighborhood commercial retail. She urged the Council to correct the ordinance to
provide true protection for the neighborhood commercial zones. Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, requested protection for vacant store office fronts and vacant lots from conversion to office uses. She suggested adding a staff member whose position
would be to actively recruit and encourage the appropriate retail use, which was the additional ingredient to find a home in Palo Alto to provide the needed, diverse, and vital retail mix for the residents.
Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, said El Camino Real was a long stretch of roadway and in thinking about the Comp Plan and a
walkable neighborhood, the community would like to have walkable retail divided up similar to that in Charleston Meadows, Barron Park, College Terrace, and others. She hoped the March 19, 2001,
date of vacant lots where no application was on file could be excluded from the ordinance. She expressed concern about some El
Camino Real frontage sites that had addresses off of El Camino Real, such as El Camino Way and Sherman Avenue. Those sites should be given direction in the ordinance. She urged the
Council to support the vision of the Comp Plan.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether the rules of the Comp Plan covered in the C zones applied to El Camino Way. Ms. Grote said yes. The rules applied to El Camino Real, El Camino Way, and all the other streets that were in CN, CS, CC,
or CD zones. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked why the ordinance was being changed
from the second reading to the first reading if there was no change.
Mr. Calonne said there was a change to the ordinance. The Council broadened the application from just El Camino Real. They requested language to add housing to the protected uses along El Camino Real.
12/03/01 93-140
City Clerk Rogers said at the previous meeting, Council Member
Wheeler stated El Camino Real only and that motion was seconded. She agreed with City Attorney Calonne that the item should come back for second reading. Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified that if the Council approved the
item that evening, then the second reading would be on December 17, 2001.
Mr. Calonne said yes.
Council Member Lytle requested to include vacant storefronts and lots that were formally occupied by uses. Vice Mayor Ojakian said he had discussions earlier that day with Ms. Grote about the vacancy rates in the Downtown area and
believed the number was approximately 5 percent. Ms. Grote said that was correct. There were close to fourteen vacant spaces downtown out of 292.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether 5 percent was the threshold in the ordinance.
Ms. Grote said yes. The threshold was one of two criterions, the second criteria was that an individual space had been vacant for
six months or more. If both of those criterions were met, then the property owner could request an exception. The present
ordinance did not apply to the Downtown area. Council Member Lytle said that the Council had previously
protected from office conversion a lot of uses, such as restaurants, retail, and personal services. In addition she had
requested adding storefronts that were vacant on the date of the colleague memo and were formally occupied by uses listed in the ordinance, including vacant lots, and for which no application had been filed.
Mr. Calonne clarified that the way the ordinance presently read that the places that were vacant on March 19, 2001, were not covered in the Comp Plan, so either one of those uses vacant on
that date would be retail protected.
Ms. Grote stated if it was a vacant lot it would be covered as long as no application had be made as of March 19, 2001, for Architectural Resources Board (ARB), site and design, or other discretionary reviews.
12/03/01 93-141
Mr. Benest asked whether staff had any concerns about that issue.
Ms. Grote said no, it was more inclusive. Mr. Calonne said the Council should brace themselves for some concerns.
Mayor Eakins said there was no notice given to the public.
Mr. Calonne said the item was in the scope of the previous discussion and would not request rehearing.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what was the number of votes required to pass the first reading. Mr. Calonne said five.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said he was uncomfortable voting in favor of the item that evening because of the late hour. Mayor Eakins said she could not support dropping the first
reading of the ordinance that evening. She would like to see the ordinance finished before leaving the Council.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
approve the ordinance for first reading and that the previous
motion approved on November 19, 2001, be changed to not only preserve housing along El Camino Real, but to also preserve
ground floor housing in all commercial districts. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending sections 18.04.030, 18.41.030, 18.43.030, 18.45.030 and 18.49.050 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit the Conversion in Commercial Districts of Ground Floor Non-Office Uses to Medical, Professional, Administrative and General Business Offices” MOTION PASSED 5-0, Beecham, Kleinberg “not participating,” Fazzino, Mossar absent.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Ojakian requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Betty Wright. Council Member Burch requested that the meeting also be adjourned in memory of Edward A. Scoles.
12/03/01 93-142
Council Member Kleinberg handed out a brochure developed by the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County.
Council Member Kleinberg noted that in January the Council would elect new leadership (Mayor and Vice Mayor) on the Council and requested that discussion about the process for selection be placed on an agenda for open public discussion.
Council Member Beecham asked that the new Council Elect Members be included in a study session.
Council Member Lytle asked that the study session include the
outgoing Council Members. Council Member Kleinberg said the study session would be instructive for the public to know what kinds of criteria and perspective were brought to the decision making process.
Council Member Burch agreed with including the Council Elect Members in the study session, however if any voting took place only the current members could participate.
Council Member Beecham said he did not believe any type of voting would take place.
Mayor Eakins suggested that Council Member Kleinberg consult with the City Attorney and arrange for a study session.
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 12:00 a.m.
13. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation on One Matter Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1)& (b)(3)(A)
14. Conference with City Attorney - Pending Litigation
Subject: California Hearths and Homes, et al. v. City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County Superior Court No.: CV790616 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Potential/Anticipated Litigation and Pending
Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 13 and 14. Mayor Eakins announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 13 and 14.
12/03/01 93-143
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m. in memory
of Betty Wright, famed swim teacher for the Community Association for Rehabilitation (CAR) in Palo Alto, who passed away on November 17, 2001, and Edward A. Scoles, former director of Housing and Food Services at Stanford University.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Vice 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.
12/03/01 93-144