HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-08 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting March 8, 1999 SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY...................................88-90
1. Resolution 7834 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Kathleen Hamilton
for Outstanding Service as the Interim City Clerk≅ .....88-90 2. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Human Relations Commission.............................88-90 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................88-90 APPROVAL OF MINUTES.........................................88-90 3. Recommendation to Amend Chapters 10.04, 10.36, 10.40, 10.44, and 10.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating the Stopping, Standing and Parking of Vehicles - Refer to Policy and Services Committee.................................88-91
4. Revisions to the City=s Flood Hazard Regulations (PAMC Chapter 16.52) to Adopt a New Flood Insurance Rate Map for the San Francisquito Creek Floodplain - Refer to Policy and Services Committee..............................................88-91
5. Resolution 7835 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Submit to the California Coastal Conservancy a Grant Application for Funds Which the City Intends to Expend on Trail Improvements Located Within the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve.........88-91 6. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C910678 Between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy Jenks Consultants for $350,000 to Expand the Turn Key Services to Include the Redesign and Upgrade of the Third Clarifier at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant..................................................88-91 7. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council Approval
of an Amendment to the Compensation Plans for the City=s Four Employee Groups (Classified, Police, Fire, and Management &
03/08/99 88-88
Confidential) to Allow the Establishment of an Employee Referral Program.......................................88-91 8. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation.....88-92
9. Stanford University=s 1997-98 Annual Report on Santa Clara County General Use Permit and Recommendation on Santa Clara
County Staff=s Proposed Stanford Planning Process ......88-92 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........88-104 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 9:20 p.m...................................88-104 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.......88-104
03/08/99 88-89
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Palo Alto Art Center at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Mossar SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution 7834 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Kathleen Hamilton
for Outstanding Service as the Interim City Clerk≅ MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the Resolution. MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Kniss, Mossar absent. 2. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Human Relations Commission City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Rosemarie Bednar, Roy Blitzer, Roberta Colin, Ronald Lee Jones, Randy Mont-Reynaud, Kenneth Russell, and Pat Singer, received unanimous votes and would be interviewed on Monday, March 15, 1999. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Tim Ray spoke regarding the Massage Ordinance. T.J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding real estate litigation. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic responsibility. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of January 11, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Ojakian Αabstained,≅ Kniss, Mossar absent. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of January 19, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Schneider Αabstained,≅ Kniss, Mossar absent.
03/08/99 88-90
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 7. 3. Recommendation to Amend Chapters 10.04, 10.36, 10.40, 10.44, and 10.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating the Stopping, Standing and Parking of Vehicles - Refer to Policy and Services Committee
4. Revisions to the City=s Flood Hazard Regulations (PAMC Chapter 16.52) to Adopt a New Flood Insurance Rate Map for the San Francisquito Creek Floodplain - Refer to Policy and Services Committee
5. Resolution 7835 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Submit to the California Coastal Conservancy a Grant Application for Funds Which the City Intends to Expend on Trail Improvements
Located Within the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve≅ 6. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C910678 Between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy Jenks Consultants for $350,000 to Expand the Turn Key Services to Include the Redesign and Upgrade of the Third Clarifier at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 7. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council Approval
of an Amendment to the Compensation Plans for the City=s Four Employee Groups (Classified, Police, Fire, and Management & Confidential) to Allow the Establishment of an Employee Referral Program
Resolution 7836 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7811 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7825 and 7831 To Authorize Compensation Under
the Employee Referral Program≅
Resolution 7837 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) adopted by Resolution No. 7782 and Amended by Resolution No. 7812 To Authorize Compensation Under
the Employee Referral Program≅
Resolution 7838 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Police Non-Management Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 7788 To
Authorize Compensation Under the Employee Referral Program≅
03/08/99 88-91
Resolution 7839 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Fire Department Personnel (IAFF) Adopted by Resolution No. 7730 and Amended by Resolution No. 7872 To Authorize Compensation Under
the Employee Referral Program≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 3, 5-7, Kniss, Mossar absent. MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item No. 4, Schneider Αabstained,≅ Kniss, Mossar absent. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 8. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: City of Palo Alto v. Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (re: Danton Camm), SCC# CV773215 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
9. Stanford University=s 1997-98 Annual Report on Santa Clara County General Use Permit and Recommendation on Santa Clara
County Staff=s Proposed Stanford Planning Process Director of Planning & Community Environment Ed Gawf, distributed copies of a supplemental memo to the Council dated March 8, 1999,
regarding Santa Clara County staff=s proposed Stanford planning process. The memo described the action of the Santa Clara County Planning Commission (SCCPC) on March 4, 1999. On the first page,
under the heading ΑStaff Objectives≅, was a summary of the action which was supportive of the County staff recommendation. Attached to the memorandum were copies of transparencies that County Planning staff used to make their presentation. The final page of the memorandum included a copy of the motion made by the SCCPC. He stated that the discussion did not address specifics to Stanford land use nor did the discussion focus on the ad-hoc committee and its recommendations or comments. He believed the latter was planned for discussion at the April 12, 1999, City Council meeting. The discussion was focused on the process the County would use in developing, processing, and handling the request by Stanford to extend its planning entitlements for the unincorporated portion of
its campus. The County staff=s comments were divided into two parts. The first part was Planning Mechanisms, the methodology used to process a request. A community plan intended to implement the general plan did not include implementation measures, but identified the mechanisms. The community plan contained the seven
03/08/99 88-92
required general plan elements. In addition to the community plan, a general use permit (GUP) was recommended to implement the community plan. The GUP was the legal entitlement for development to occur. There was discussion as to whether there should be a specific plan rather than the GUP and the community plan. The specific plan: 1) intended to be a more specific development document; 2) discussed a need for infrastructure of a particular development; 3) involved multiple property owners; 4) included a financing scheme for the infrastructure improvements; and 5) included specific development requirements. In effect, the specific plan was intended to be a large multi-property planned development approach. The intent was to develop within 3-7 years. The SCCPC concurred with the staff recommendation of a community plan and a GUP as the appropriate planning mechanism. In addition to the planning mechanism, there was discussion of the public procedures used to process the application. There were three elements to the public process, 1) community forums hosted by the County Planning staff that would deal with specific topics such as land use, housing, open space and transportation; 2) a Community Resource Group (CRG) designed to assist the County Planning staff with its review and consideration of the request; and 3) public meetings, a series of meetings required by law that would go through the process with the SCCPC and the Board of Supervisors. The community forums and the community resource group would begin at the end of April 1999 with an application by Stanford for a general plan amendment. An amendment to the general plan to incorporate the community plan was a key element. A series of community forums would be held during the summer of 1999. Stanford would return in October to the Palo Alto Planning Commission to review the proposal Stanford anticipated submitting to the County. The review by Stanford was tentatively set for fall 1999. The entire schedule would take approximately 20 months with completion date slated for March 2001. The process was lengthy and allowed for many opportunities for public comment. Mr. Gawf said the unincorporated portion of the Stanford campus that was regulated by Santa Clara County was being discussed. Palo Alto played a special role in the process. He was involved in discussions with the Stanford staff as well as the County staff and would continue to be involved in the implementation of the process.
Stanford would review Stanford=s draft proposal with the City Council and the Planning Commission in fall 1999, prior to submission of the proposal to Santa Clara County. He anticipated City staff would be members of the CRG. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked what kind of information the Community Plan would contain that gave the community more concrete ideas of what or where development on the Stanford campus in the next 10 year period was going to look like. Mr. Gawf referred to the motion made by the SCCPC located on the last page of the memorandum. SCCPC wanted to see specific land use
03/08/99 88-93
designations and retain performance measures that were present within the GUP. Sara Jones, Santa Clara County Community Development Staff, believed the Community Plan would look much like a specific plan. Many jurisdictions had Community Plans or area plans because they did not want to be tied to specific state requirements of a specific plan. The Community Plan would contain policies related to regulation of future development. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether a group or groups of developments in a particular area of the Stanford Campus would represent some level of future development.
Ms. Jones said the County=s intention was to obtain more specific land use designations for the Stanford Campus. Mayor Fazzino clarified the County was trying to achieve a specific plan without the infrastructure and financing aspects of a specific plan. Ms. Jones said that was correct.
Mayor Fazzino asked to what degree would the County=s decision with respect to the final plan be consistent with neighboring
communities= comprehensive plans. When the last GUP was adopted there was a specific statement within the document regarding the
need for Stanford=s development to conform or be consistent with
neighboring jurisdiction=s general plans. Ms. Jones said the issue would be hammered out during the process. Certain urban development policies currently existed within the
County general plan concerning the relationship with Palo Alto=s comprehensive plan. There was a special land use policy agreement among the County, Stanford, and Palo Alto because Stanford was an
area where the County=s general plan was not consistent with Palo
Alto=s comprehensive plan. Council Member Schneider asked what recourse the City had in the event that the City disagreed with the community plan. Ms. Jones said through the three-party agreement which was part of
the land use policy agreement, the position of the City=s position was put forth clearly in reports that went to the SCCPC and Board of Supervisors. Because of the long-standing agreements among the jurisdictions, Palo Alto had a certain status on its comment
ability on Stanford=s plans. Council Member Schneider asked whether implementation was included in the 26-month process.
03/08/99 88-94
Ms. Jones said the community plan and the general use permit implementing the plan would come for approval at the same time. The County wanted to do one set of environmental analysis on both
the plan and the GUP. County=s intention was to approve the community plan and have the implementation go forward at the same time. Council Member Schneider asked whether there were any restrictions placed on Stanford in the area studied while the planning occurred. Ms. Jones said none other than restrictions imposed by the GUP. There were 446,000 square feet of development remaining under the entitlement which Stanford had set as designated projects. Those projects would go through the normal application process. Council Member Schneider noticed that Stanford expected to use the 446,000 square feet by the year 2001. Ms. Jones said the idea of beginning the process while there was still building area left was to ensure a seamless transition from
the old GUP into the new mechanism so that there wasn=t a period of time without an entitlement. Vice Mayor Wheeler said that Mr. Gawf mentioned there were discussions with Stanford regarding a presentation to the City Planning Commission and City Council early in the process. The concept of early review within the City was an item of interest.
She did not see the concept of early review built into the County=s timeline. She asked whether the timeline was a concept the County did not think of or rejected. Ms. Jones said the timeline was designed specifically for presentation to the SCCPC and was not a primary item that the County was considering. She said the County hoped for an early review to resolve issues before finalization. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether there was a conflict in the process or timeline.
Ms. Jones said there was no conflict. The County=s intention was that there would be a certain time factor for City review.
Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether it was the County=s assumption that the agreement between Stanford, the County, and the City would continue to exist either in its present form or one that was more consistent with any changes. Ms. Jones said there was no intention of ending any communications. She was pleased with how closely the County worked with City staff.
03/08/99 88-95
Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the County felt the process and the timeline of the community plan and the GUP would entail potential changes in post-plan adoption approval processes at the County level. When a building in the core campus was in conformance with the GUP, it seemed that there was little discussion of the building. She believed that the flexibility of the GUP and the inability of the public to visualize what the overall development would look like resulted in discomfort. Ms. Jones said review procedures would be considered. From the
County=s perspective, the current GUP was an improvement over the prior GUP in defining approval processes each individual project to go through. The County had to establish some certainty with regard to environmental review.
Council Member Eakins understood that the term Αcommunity≅ was a State Planning term and using the term community would cause members of the community to think that they were entitled to a voice in the process. There would be community forums but no participation on a committee level by community members. Ms. Jones said the CRG had not begun to discuss the specific membership of the CRG. Council Member Eakins clarified the community advisory groups would be within the boundaries of the area the County was studying. Ms. Jones said correct. Council Member Eakins asked how community forums would be conducted. Ms. Jones said each forum would be conducted differently; however, the basic program was that Stanford would make a presentation and present their position on the given topic. There would be a panel of four to six members who would present their own positions, ask questions of the Stanford representatives, and then open discussions with the group for more dialog with the panelists as well as the Stanford representatives. The meetings, when opened for public comment, would be a facilitated process that would allow people to express their viewpoints. One of the key items the County Planning Commission added in their recommendation was that there be a status report to the Commission after the community forums summarizing the input. The Planning Commission could then provide direction to Stanford for final preparation of its draft. Council Member Huber asked what the function of the community advisory group was. Ms. Jones said the community advisory group was meant to be a technical group to make the County staff aware of the more salient
issues and concerns on the technical aspects of Stanford=s plans.
03/08/99 88-96
Mid-Peninsula Open Space District was an example of a community advisory group. It was likely that a representative of community services, such as the school district that might be impacted, could be a member of the group. Council Member Huber asked who decided membership on the community advisory group. Ms. Jones said County staff, City staff, and Stanford staff would recommend a group of people. Council Member Huber clarified that the group would basically be a non-political type committee. Ms. Jones said yes. Council Member Ojakian asked for clarification of the
incompatibilities of the County=s general plan and the City=s general plan. Ms. Jones said there were specific parcels that had different
designations in the County=s and City=s plans. The City=s Comprehensive Plan was more detailed about land use designations
than the County=s general plan. All Stanford land within the County were designated university lands, campus or university lands, or academic reserve. There was also a site at Quarry Road and Arboretum Road which had a conflicting designation.
Mr. Gawf said it was important that the City=s Comprehensive Plan
was consistent with the County=s general plan with regard to the Stanford campus. Deputy City Manager Ken Schreiber said there was one parcel on the corner of Quarry Road and Arboretum Road where there was a
difference between the City=s plan which was for housing and the
County=s plan which was an academic/campus designation. The overall difference was that the County had more general land use
categories and the City=s Comprehensive Plan was more specific. The County land use plan did not have the level of detail as the
City=s Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the parcel was similar to the lands west of Junipero Serra Freeway. Mr. Schreiber said the lands west of Junipero Serra Boulevard in
the City=s plan were primarily open-space control development. Ms. Jones said in the County plan the lands west of Junipero Serra Boulevard were designated academic reserve.
03/08/99 88-97
Mr. Schreiber said open-space control development and academic reserve were reasonably compatible land use classifications which was the reason why in the current use permit there was no entitlement for development west of Junipero Serra Boulevard. Ms. Jones said Stanford University indicated some intention of building housing at the site on the corner of Quarry Road and Arboretum Road. The housing would be for medical residences. Mayor Fazzino understood that under the tri-partheid agreement, the City had a unique relationship with Stanford with respect to any GUP or community plan proposal and that even though a community advisory group or CRG might meet and even though Stanford held public hearings on its own that the City had the right to have public hearings within the City. The City heard public comment and
in turn met with Stanford and the County to provide the City=s formal comments and recommendations. Mr. Gawf said that was his understanding. The City had a unique role in the process, and staff devoted a great deal of time to the process and would continue to do so. Mayor Fazzino believed the CRG was a good idea. Ms. Jones said the County wanted to maintain its timeline and implement City hearings as appropriate in the process. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Avenue, supported the staff recommendation in the staff report (CMR:170:99). The staff report mentioned a need for commitment of staff time and budget. He urged the Council to go on record as supporting the commitment. He referred to attachment II of the staff report (CMR:170:99), a memorandum from Hugh Graham that outlined the various types of plans and use
permits. Based on the memorandum and discussion at that evening=s meeting, he concluded that a specific plan should be requested. He recommended that the CRG be an ongoing body with one or two members of the community appointed to the group by the City Council. Information should flow openly and quickly so that the City was not faced with surprises in the future. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto, said the ad-hoc committee discussed the characteristics of the new GUP for Stanford in the proposed policy statement. One of the things the ad-hoc committee noted was that the committee was originally formed to discuss projects in the Sand Hill Road Corridor. The committee decided it needed to address broader Stanford University land issues. He suggested having Palo Alto as a jurisdiction trying to get its views heard by the County was not enough. A broader view that
covered all of Stanford=s land holdings in both Counties and a single environmental document reviewing future Stanford land use was needed. He asked the Council to consider that not all of
03/08/99 88-98
Stanford=s land was subject to the founding grant, because it was acquired after the founding grant. The current Board of Trustees policy might be to not sell the other land, which was approximately 1,900 acres out of approximately 82,000 acres including almost 1,200 acres in the foothills on both sides of Highway 280 in the vicinity of Felt Lake; however, a majority vote of the Board of Trustees at anytime could decide to change its policy and sell the land. He suggested the Council and the County consider treating the alienable land differently than other land within the County. In regard to the question of consistency between the City and the County, page E-9 of the staff report from the City of Menlo Park showed the exemptions for Stanford that was different in terms of consistency with plans. The only difference between the City and Stanford was that the City had three land use designations to the
campus to Stanford=s one. Edie Keating, 3511 Waverly Street, said what caused the County and community to look for something different was how developed the area already was. She hoped the Council would determine the limits of development before a crisis occurred. There were places where limits could be set. She asked whether the open space areas could be made permanent so that in 25 years there would be no need for discussion as to what should be done with the open space areas. When Stanford made decisions that did not impact the community,
those decisions should be solely Stanford=s; however, Stanford made decisions that did impact the community. She was glad that the community had the opportunity for input. Terry Trumbull, 1011 Lincoln Avenue, said Stanford indicated in August 1998 a strong preference for continuing its existing system.
The system was now indistinguishable from the City=s land use. The general plan would include all seven elements of a general plan.
People in the community would be aware of Stanford=s position because the community would be notified in advance of development. Stanford was committed to have a plan to present to the County by fall 1999, so the last 15 months could be public review of the plan. He expressed concern over the exclusion of City, Palo Alto Schools, and Mid-Peninsula Open Space Districts in the CRG. He believed that a public participation process would be a better way to focus and raise issues on an ongoing basis. The four specific community forums were, 1) academic needs; 2) open space; 3) housing; and 4) transportation. Council Member Ojakian asked what the difference was between an area plan and a specific plan. Mr. Gawf said the community plan in association with the GUP achieved what the City was trying to accomplish, which was to provide a certain level of specificity to the land uses to give the City a vision for the next 10 years for the Stanford campus and to integrate the Stanford campus plan for the unincorporated portion
03/08/99 88-99
of the County with the City=s plan for the Stanford land as other holdings. The specific plan must address, 1) infrastructure needed to support all land uses; 2) standards and criteria by which development would occur; 3) standards for conservation and development of natural resources and locations; 4) development regulations and approval process; and 5) financing measures necessary for implementation in order fulfill the implementation goal. The specific plan tended to be more developer driven and used when there were multiple owners in a specific geographical area that were trying to work together in a cohesive fashion. The state law was less clear in regard to what a community plan include. However, the general characteristics tended to be that the plan included a reference to the same seven required elements as the general plan, and the plan did not include implementation measures, but had to identify the mechanisms, such as zoning or GUP that would be employed for implementation. City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted differences between the County
Planning Commission=s action and County staff recommendations. The Council could consider how the differences sat with the recommendations made by City staff. One difference was the beginnings of the definition for community plan by specifying that the definition should have the seven elements of the general plan. The second difference was the statement that the plan or its implementation should achieve a zoning level of specificity. Mr. Trumbull stated that the plan would include zoning. He felt that the statement was ambiguous and that Council might wish to clarify the language somewhat. Council Member Eakins said that the usage of the word community would bring about the expectation that there would be more public participation. She understood that Stanford was the only landowner; however, Stanford had many neighbors that would be affected by whatever happened at Stanford and were extraordinarily sensitive to the change. Palo Alto residents closest to the campus were concerned that they would not have an adequate amount of participation. She recommend more public participation. Mr. Calonne expressed concern over the definition of implementation. He understood the GUP process was implementation. He was unsure whether the language encompassed all that Mr. Trumbull believed it did. Ms. Jones said the language was not based on the analysis of the best way to achieve that level of specificity. The County had not entered into discussions about whether specificity involved zoning ordinance changes to the County zoning ordinance or whether land use designations contained in the community plan would be sufficient. The County had not determined how the level of specificity would be accomplished or implemented.
03/08/99 88-100
Mr. Gawf said the plan should include some level of specificity of the designated land use on the campus so that people would have some understanding of the development. Mayor Fazzino clarified that the Council would continue to support a separate parallel process for City participation. In regard to the community advisory group issue, he was not concerned about whether other political leaders participated as long as the City was able to lead a parallel political public policy influencing
process focusing on the City=s concerns. Supervisor Simitian stated that the intent of the group was to have organizations and individuals identify significant issues which need to be taken into account. The issues, once raised, needed to be addressed with the public policy decision makers for action. The community advisory group would not be a separate de-facto decision making process. Council Member Schneider asked whether Mayor Fazzino meant that the members of the CRG would meet separately with Palo Alto residents or other concerned individuals. Mayor Fazzino did not want to place too much emphasis on the CRG. The decision would be made by the County but with significant input from the City as co-signer of the tri-partheid agreement. He wanted information given to the City and the County and back to Stanford from the CRG. Ms. Jones said that Technical Working Group was an appropriate term
for the CRG. The basis of the CRG=s input would be their individual area of expertise on the topics. The CRG was not intended to be a grassroots type of group. Council Member Schneider asked Ms. Jones who would be members of the CRG. Ms. Jones suggested representatives from the Transportation Department, the school district, and Mid-Peninsula Open Space District would be potential candidates. The County had not discussed the CRG membership in depth. Council Member Schneider assumed that staff would rely on the
City=s Comprehensive Plan in order to make recommendations. Ms. Jones said yes. Council Member Huber did not agree with the selection of a technical committee.
Mr. Gawf recommended inserting the phrase, Αwhich shall include a zoning level of specificity in designating land uses on the
campusΑ, after the first recommendation in the fourth line after
03/08/99 88-101
Santa Clara County. The phrase was taken from the County Planning Commission motion and inserting it in the staff recommendation. Council Member Huber added an amendment to the motion that included a group that had a greater community voice, not a technical one. Council Member Eakins supported the motion. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation that the City Council adopt a motion recommending to the County Board of Supervisors:
1) Approval of the County planning staff=s recommendation to use a Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP) as the preferred mechanisms for establishing new entitlement and
mitigations for Stanford=s unincorporated land in Santa Clara County, which shall include a zoning level of specificity in designating land uses on the campus and to use community forums, public meeting(s) and a Community Resource Group (CRG) to facilitate public participation; and 2) Include in the County planning process an opportunity for
early review and comment on Stanford=s draft Community Plan and GUP application by the Palo Alto Planning Commission and City Council. 3) Include an amendment that CRG is not composed only of technical staff members, it should include a broader group of citizens with their concerns, not just technical staff, and support for having one or more County planning SCCPC meetings in Palo Alto. Vice Mayor Wheeler recommended support for inclusion of one or more of the County Planning Commission meetings or public hearings to be held in the City of Palo Alto. Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian said the CRG as a technical advisory group was not being proposed. What was being proposed was a group of 12 to 16 individuals who would bring expertise, points of view, concerns and issues to the CRG. Mayor Fazzino clarified that the CRG included both technical and political people. Supervisor Simitian said that people with policy making responsibilities would be included. Mayor Fazzino said clarified that the CRG would not be a public policy decision-making body.
03/08/99 88-102
Supervisor Simitian said yes.
Mayor Fazzino asked whether Council Member Huber=s motion captured what the County was trying to achieve with the CRG. Supervisor Simitian said there was more than one way to obtain adequate public participation. He believed the creation of a committee was not a guarantee that there would be a successful public participation process. The goal was to provide a mix for participation. The CRG, town hall meetings, meetings between the
ad-hoc committee and himself, and the City=s public meetings were ways to include public participation in. The important thing was obtaining the right mix and provide a range of different opportunities for participation. He believed there would be plenty of opportunities for participation at convenient times, directly and conveniently in the community. Council Member Eakins asked whether there could be neighborhood representatives. Supervisor Simitian said there would be neighborhood perspectives. Council Member Schneider asked who appointed the CRG. Supervisor Simitian said the Planning staff indicated they would put together a list of proposed members of the CRG. The list would be brought before the Board of Supervisors. The Planning staff recommended 12 to 16 people be appointed to the CRG. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the seven stated required elements to the Comprehensive Plan would be included into the motion. Mr. Gawf said yes. Council Member Ojakian supported the motion. He was not as concerned with the composition of the CRG because he was more focused in ensuring the City retained its role in the tri-partheid agreement. Council Member Schneider supported the motion. She was reassured by Supervisor Simitian that there would be ample opportunity for public participation. Larry Horton, Stanford University, said Stanford agreed with the staff recommendation and supported the community plan. Stanford believed that the community plan would improve public understanding
of Stanford=s land use by making the Stanford=s Community Plan an amendment to the County general plan, and the public could better
understand the content of Stanford=s land use. Stanford was especially pleased that the process called for four forums to be
03/08/99 88-103
conducted in Palo Alto by the County. He noted that Stanford looked forward to receiving community advice before final recommendations were made. The process adopted by the County Planning Commission was the product of extensive consultations among County, City, and Stanford staff. The cooperative and consultive arrangement was precisely the type of special working relationship that was envisioned in the three-party agreement. Stanford expected the three-party agreement to remain the governing document for all relationships.
City Manager Fleming clarified that Stanford=s land use was a high priority with the City. Mr. Gawf would take the lead regarding this item. Regarding the budget, staff did not anticipate any additional financial resources would be needed. Mayor Fazzino supported the motion with respect to approval of the
County=s Planning staff recommendations to use a community plan and a GUP with a focus on zoning level of specificity and the call for more meetings within the City. MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Kniss, Mossar absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the staff report (CMR:171:99), Amendments to Dames & Moore Contract for Phase 2 of the Historic Survey Project, included in the packet as an informational item, and asked that the contract be placed on the agenda for the March 15, 1999, Council meeting. Mayor Fazzino said to place the contract as an information item in the Council packet and if the Council decided to agendize it, they could do so. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 9:20 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 8. Mayor Fazzino announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 8. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
03/08/99 88-104
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.
03/08/99 88-105