HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-25 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting October 25, 1999 1. Public Employee Appointment ..........................89-126 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. ...........89-126 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................89-127 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................89-128 1. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Athens Administrators in the Amount of $170,000 for Workers' Compensation Claims Administration Services...........89-128 2. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Air Exchange, Inc. in the Amount of $92,342.20 for the Installation of the Plymo Vent Diesel Exhaust Removal Systems at Fire Stations No. 1, 2, 4 and 5...............................................89-128 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and J. W. Riley & Son, Inc. in the Amount of $473,663 for 1999-2000 Phase 2 Sidewalk Replacement Project...................................89-128 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Ranger Pipelines in the Amount of $1,479,520 for Water Main Replacement Project No. 13................................................89-128 5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University in the Amount of $275,000 for Design Development of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station Project...............89-128
6. Resolution 7897 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. 7890 to Change the Salary
for the Supervisor, Recreation Programs, Classification≅ . .......................................................89-128
10/25/99 89-124
7. Ordinance 4595 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to
Byxbee Park and the City-owned Baylands≅ (1st reading 10/12/99, PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider absent).........89-129
8. Ordinance 4596 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to
Foothills Park≅ (1st reading 10/12/99, PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider absent...............................89-129 9. Draft Stanford University Community Plan..............89-129 9A. (Old Item No. 12) Mayor Fazzino and Council Members Eakins and Schneider re Performing Arts Center Feasibility Study . . . .......................................................89-145 10. March 7, 2000, Special Election - Referendum on Historical Preservation Ordinance No. 4571, Requesting the Services of the Registrar of Voters, and Ordering the Consolidation of Said Election and Setting Ballot Argument Procedures . . . .......................................................89-146 11. Notice of Nonrenewal of Uniform Land Conservation Contract and Report of Williamson Act Contracts Within the City of Palo Alto..................................................89-148 13. Mayor Fazzino re Cancellation of the November 1, 1999, Regular City Council Meeting..................................89-149 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m............89-149
10/25/99 89-125
10/25/99 89-126
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider CLOSED SESSION 1. Public Employee Appointment Title: City Manager Authority: Government Code section 54957 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
10/25/99 89-127
Regular Meeting October 25, 1999 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Rosenbaum ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Stanley R. Smith, 610 Wildwood Lane, spoke regarding the Woodland Creek Apartments. Sophia Drymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding the Dan Lorimer Pages Palo Alto Daily News. Sylvia Smitham, 2514 Birch Street, spoke regarding traffic. Jim Burch, 177 Hemlock Court, spoke regarding parking garages. Mary Schaefer, 742 Desoto Drive, spoke regarding San Francisquito Creek. C.J. Myers, 1863 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding the Wind River Development. Jeffrey Shore, 1905 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding the Woodland Creek Apartments. Janet Levy, 1843 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding the Woodland Creek Apartments. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the controlled press. Jeffrey Levin, 683 Shady Creek Lane, Los Altos, spoke regarding the Wisteria project. Mary Davey, Los Altos Hills, spoke regarding the Stanford Community Plan. Gail Sredanovic, 2161 Ashton Avenue, Menlo Park, spoke regarding the Stanford Community Plan. Daniel Mash, San Jose, spoke regarding Vista Goebel - Wisteria project.
10/25/99 89-128
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding waste. Nonette Hanko, 3172 Emerson Street, spoke regarding the
availability of Planning Commission Minutes and City Manager=s Reports. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the Minutes of September 21, 1999, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Fazzino and Council Members Kniss and Schneider would abstain on Item Nos. 7 and 8 due to their absence from the meeting. Council Member Mossar would not participate on Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-8. 1. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Athens Administrators in the Amount of $170,000 for Workers' Compensation Claims Administration Services 2. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Air Exchange, Inc. in the Amount of $92,342.20 for the Installation of the Plymo Vent Diesel Exhaust Removal Systems at Fire Stations No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and J. W. Riley & Son, Inc. in the Amount of $473,663 for 1999-2000 Phase 2 Sidewalk Replacement Project 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Ranger Pipelines in the Amount of $1,479,520 for Water Main Replacement Project No. 13 5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University in the Amount of $275,000 for Design Development of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station Project
6. Resolution 7897 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. 7890 to Change the Salary
for the Supervisor, Recreation Programs, Classification≅
10/25/99 89-129
7. Ordinance 4595 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to
Byxbee Park and the City-owned Baylands≅ (1st reading 10/12/99, PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider absent)
8. Ordinance 4596 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to
Foothills Park≅ (1st reading 10/12/99, PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider absent) MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item Nos. 1-4, and 6, Rosenbaum absent. MOTION PASSED 5-0-3, for Item Nos. 7-8, Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider
Αabstaining,≅ Rosenbaum absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0, for Item No. 5, Mossar Αnot participating,≅ Rosenbaum absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. Draft Stanford University Community Plan Council Member Mossar would not participate on Item No. 9 due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Fazzino said on October 12, 1999, a public hearing was held on the Draft Stanford University Community Plan (the Draft Plan) jointly with the Planning Commission. Before the Council that evening was a staff analysis as well as Planning Commission recommendations. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said staff tried to identify the major issues that needed to be reviewed and considered by Stanford University (Stanford) which fell into seven broad areas with 28 specific recommendations. The Planning Commission comments used the staff recommendation to conduct its discussions and make its recommendations which might be a good starting point that evening. He distributed copies of exhibits to help guide the Council through the specific areas of the Draft Plan. Planning Commissioner Pat Burt said the Planning Commission carefully reviewed the staff recommendations and concurred with the majority of the staff analysis. There were a number of points the Commission wanted to emphasize and modify with regard to the staff recommendations. There was strong support for the Housing element proposed by Stanford. Out of the 2,780 units proposed, 2,200 would be removed by a population increase on the Stanford campus for a net gain of 580 in housing units. Instead of gaining 2,700 plus units from the Draft Plan, the prospective gain would be only 580 units. The Planning Commission recommended more housing or less
10/25/99 89-130
growth be incorporated into the Draft Plan with greater emphasis on the net gain in housing for the existing deficit on campus. Also, recommended was greater detail on the types and locations of the housing; the Draft Plan was inadequate. Finally, a majority of the Planning Commission believed having significant open space boundaries or buffers along El Camino Real was not critical, particularly in the area of Stanford Avenue and Hoover Pavilion. There was strong support in the Schools element for an additional middle school on the Stanford Campus area and recognition that there was a great need in Palo Alto for a school west of El Camino Real serving students west of Alma Street, the railroad tracks, and El Camino Real. Also recommended was full child care for preschool children that would be added to the new housing developments on campus. The Planning Commission strongly urged that there be an additional analysis of off-campus parking that officially served the campus and an evaluation of the ways in which that parking would be served. Also, the goal of the no net commute trips should continue as part of the future plan. In the Open Space element, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the academic growth boundary for a minimum of 20 years, preferably longer. There was a split vote on whether a 20,000-square-foot proposed development on the land west of Junipero Serra Boulevard was too much. In the Land Use element, the Planning Commission recommended changing the
staff proposal wording from, ΑSanta Clara County should consider
creating new zoning designations to implement Stanford=s Plan,≅ to Santa Clara County should create new zoning designations to
implement Stanford=s Plan.≅ Council Member Huber asked when the public comment would be heard again in the future. Mr. Gawf said the process was handled by Santa Clara County (County) process. Staff was making a recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors and to Stanford on the Draft Plan and General Use Permit (GUP). Stanford had attended several public sessions of which it received a lot of comment and feedback on the Draft Plan. Staff was in the process of revising the Draft Plan and would make a formal submission of an application for a GUP and Community Plan on November 15, 1999. Later there would be an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that would evaluate the proposed plan. The process for the next key point was approximately six to seven months in the future. There would probably be public meetings prior to that. He was actively involved in working with both Stanford and the County and had attended most of the public sessions which he would continue to do. The Ad Hoc Committee also met and would continue to work on the issue. Staff would bring the item back to the Council for review and consideration. After the formal application was submitted, there would be a pause for several months until the EIR was completed in order to know what some of the environmental impacts were regarding some of the decisions made.
10/25/99 89-131
Council Member Huber asked whether the formal plan would go back through the Council. Mr. Gawf said yes. Once the EIR was completed, it would return to the Council. The bonus was to have an opportunity to review the Draft Plan. The process would be the same for the formal plan in the timeframe mentioned. Ms. Sarah Jones, Santa Clara County Planning Department, said there would be a formal application submitted November 15, 1999, which was a public document. She understood there was a suggestion there might be some interest in additional items at the City level. On the formal application, just as the hearing that evening was happening at the request of the City, the County would be open to that if requested by the City. There would also be a scoping process for the EIR which would happen in December which would be an important piece of public involvement on the plan. Supervisor Joe Simitian indicated that he would like to have a hearing at the
Board of Supervisor=s level in early January. Council Member Kniss said her recommendation would follow the staff recommendation on page 1 of the staff report (CMR:385:99). There were considerable recommendations that followed and continued on page 2 through 4. She asked that the Council go through the individual elements one-by-one for comment. Council wanted to focus on those issues that involved Housing, Circulation and Parking, Open Space, and a number of the other elements as well. She felt the proposal for the core campus within the four corners was an ambitious and far-reaching plan that regarded housing and transportation. As they progressed, she recommended an equally ambitious and far-reaching plan for preservation of the open space, suggesting that it extend 25 years. The open space was that which was located west of Junipero Serra Boulevard. The length of time was essential given the impact of what infill projects would be underway after the GUP was approved. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the staff recommendations as follows: Overall Staff Recommendations
Χ The City of Palo Alto supports Stanford=s efforts to create additional on-campus housing, and the concept to add new development on lands currently developed or designated for development within the core campus. However, Palo Alto
strongly shares the County=s concern over lack of specificity in the Plan regarding land use and assurances for preservation, especially for open space areas.
Χ The Plan should incorporate the general recommendations of the Santa Clara County staff report entitled, Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit, dated October 7, 1999
10/25/99 89-132
(Attachment C), and the direction given to Stanford by the Santa Clara County Planning Commission on September 2, 1999.
Open Space
Χ The City supports the Plan=s stipulated goal of maintaining the existing amount of open space but, recommends that a distinct open space land use designation be created.
Χ The Plan is only 10 years, but development is relatively permanent. The preservation of open space areas, therefore needs strong long-term assurances of 25 years, well beyond the life of the Plan.
Χ Santa Clara County Zoning designations that are most reflective of open space uses, including the creation of new Zoning designations, should be applied to lands intended for long-term open space uses.
Χ The proposed limitation of a 20,000-square-foot maximum (5,000-square-foot maximum per building) development exception west of Junipero Serra Boulevard appears reasonable so long as it is subject to further City review when specific proposals are submitted. This exception, however, should be included in the Plan.
Χ Any future land use changes that will intensify the use of open space areas should involve the City in a meaningful way in the decision-making process.
Χ Stanford should adopt an academic growth boundary similar to the urban growth boundaries adopted by several cities in Santa Clara County. Council Member Kniss asked Mr. Gawf to define the Open Space Land use designation on point 1 under Open Space. Mr. Gawf said point 1 under the Draft Plan was intended as an Academic and Open Space designation. Staff felt it was important to separate the two concepts. The area west of Junipero Serra Boulevard was an Open Space designation. If there were an exception, that should be identified. The Land Use Designation should be Open Space. Council Member Kniss asked Mr. Gawf to amplify in point 3 where Zoning designations were added under Open Space. Mr. Gawf said that was the result of a Planning Commission discussion. The existing Zoning designations in the County might not be appropriate for a particular kind of development that was being seen with Stanford. The Planning Commission indicated there was a need to create new zoning designations, and one would be an
10/25/99 89-133
open space type designation if that were the most appropriate vehicle to achieve the objective. Vice Mayor Wheeler supported the Open Space portion of the motion.
She thought the Planning Commission=s addition of the last point was important. She referred to a letter from the City of Menlo Park dated October 25, 1999, which addressed the concept of a transfer of development rights. Both the Planning Commission and Menlo Park had different approaches to the same issue, yet both were arriving at the same resolution. There was a ten-year period where there were 2 million square feet of development under the GUP, and the application for the next ten years growth was between
4 and 5 million square feet. In anyone=s terms, that was a lot of building going on in the core area. She believed in order to mitigate that and to recognize the amount of building in such a concentrated area, the Council needed to be clear that Stanford would hold the line on development in the other areas which were currently utilized and cherished for their open space character. Council Member Huber said the Open Space segment referred to the Plan and there were really two different issues. There was a Community Plan in which the zoning and land use designations referred to went on forever. He asked if that were correct; was there a limitation. Mr. Gawf said there was no limitation on either the zoning would continue until rezoned, and the Community Plan would continue until amended. Council Member Huber said he would like the strongest Open Space designation along with the most stringent zoning applied. He believed that was the emphasis which was different from the 25 years that was not figure in. He asked what was being recommended for 25 years; was it a Stanford commitment in its use permit process. Mr. Gawf said the time period was the time before the issue would be revisited. There was a point in time without making it permanent open space that Stanford would have the opportunity to return for some modification to the Community Plan and open space zoning. The question was whether that was a ten-year period as proposed or a longer period before Stanford could return with modifications. Council Member Huber asked where the 25-year figure belonged; was it part of the Draft Plan. It was part of a recommendation that was proposed and assuming the county planners or supervisors accepted that, where would it go. Ms. Jones said a specific number would somehow become a condition of the GUP.
10/25/99 89-134
Council Member Huber assumed the figure would be plugged in somewhere else as a condition and would not be part of the Draft Plan and zoning which existed until changed. There was a reference in the 20,000-square-foot building west of Junipero Serra Boulevard for further City review. He asked whether that was a contemplation similar to the tripartite agreement in that it was reviewed and recommendations were made. Mr. Gawf said yes.
Council Member Ojakian concurred with his colleagues= comments but wanted to reinforce the last point, asking Stanford to adopt an
academic growth boundary, seemed to be consistent with the County=s recent history. He was concerned about the 20,000-square-foot maximum. During the Sand Hill Road discussions, the issue was building within the 100-foot setback to the top of the creek and, after some deliberation, Stanford showed a willingness to move away from that type of building. Therefore, when the issue went before the Council, it was not a consideration. He hoped that would happen with the Draft Plan. He did not see any good reason for having some encroachment into an area which was seen already as pristine. Other than the 20,000-square-foot maximum, he supported the remainder of the motion. Mayor Fazzino asked that the issue of the 20,000 maximum development uses be addressed. Mr. Gawf said a process and potential for small exceptions to an Open Space designation seemed reasonable to provide some flexibility. One thing missing was the concept that there was a real key factor which was where the exception might occur. There was a difference as to whether the exception was on top of the ridgeline or next to the existing facility that was closer to Junipero Serra Boulevard. As the details of the Community Plan were explored in more detail, staff would focus on how to secure where the exception might occur. There were a few places which might be appropriate to consider some of the exceptions, but not the entire Open Space area. Council Member Ojakian said with respect to the County, he hoped the City would be extremely restrictive in its approach if any building was needed. Mr. Gawf said the Council might want to include that concept in its motion to the County. Council Member Schneider supported the motion. She was concerned with the lack of specific definition of how the City would review
the projects. She asked what was meant by Αa meaningful way≅ in point 5 of Open Space.
10/25/99 89-135
Mr. Gawf said there was no precision to the statement; it was more of a concept. The concept from a staff perspective was that the City was entwined with Stanford, and decisions which occurred in the incorporated areas of Stanford greatly affected the City. Thus, the City needed to be involved in the decision-making process. He anticipated that over the next few months, that staff would explore different ways in which that involvement might be increased. Council Member Schneider wanted to see that concept more clearly defined. Council Member Eakins said the City had site and design standards for properties west of Highway 280. She suggested those standards include building and roadway materials to be the least intrusive and the most reversible. Mayor Fazzino supported the proposal. He felt strongly about the proposal and other parts of the Draft Plan which was an accelerated development proposal. In other cities, in typical neighboring jurisdictions, implementation would take 20 to 25 years. Stanford was asking Palo Alto to implement the Stanford Community Plan in 10
years. He supported Stanford=s need to remain a dynamic institution to higher learning; but along with the accelerated development plan, there needed to be concomitant open space commitment of 25 years. Some Stanford partisans wrote to local newspapers claiming that Stanford was a great guardian of its open space, yet criticized neighboring communities for not making the same level of commitment. The reality was that Palo Alto dedicated over 4,000 acres of open space and Stanford had not dedicated one acre of permanent open space. That was the difference in the
City=s record with respect to open space. A 25-year commitment was a reasonable compromise. Council Member Kniss said clarified that the 25 years started from the adoption of the plan. With regard to the proposed limitation, point 4 of Open Space, the Council should incorporate Council
Member Eakins= comments regarding appearance and type of materials used in the roads. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar Αnot participating,≅ Rosenbaum absent. Council Member Kniss suggested the Council discuss Housing, noting the reason the Council felt strongly about the 25 years was that the amount of housing and academic development would approach between 4 and 5 million square feet. The use was intense and would be disruptive. However, the Council strongly supported the housing component in the Draft Plan. The location was good for affordable housing. The Council did not have enough specificity on where the housing would be located or the design. Additionally, she commended Stanford for realizing the needs for housing. She agreed
10/25/99 89-136
that much of what was built in the 1960s was in need of replacement. The Council hoped to see housing in the near future once the Draft Plan was approved. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: Housing
Χ The City of Palo Alto strongly supports emphasis on creating additional on-site housing by establishing goals and identifying potential sites within the core campus.
Χ The unit types and development standards for the proposed housing are too general and should be made more specific to assess its compatibility with existing uses.
Χ An assessment of needs related to housing, such as parks and schools, should be provided.
Χ Open space areas along El Camino Real, north of Ascended Village, should be maintained. The loss of potential units at this location can be compensated by an equivalent increase in units elsewhere in the Ascended Village vicinity.
Χ Any additional development along Stanford Avenue must be consistent and compatible with the existing development located across the street in the City of Palo Alto.
Χ Housing proposed in the area east of Hoover Pavilion at Quarry Road and El Camino Real should not be constructed unless a significant open space buffer can be provided and maintained along El Camino Real.
Χ Housing construction should be phased to occur early in the 10-year period of the Community Plan to keep pace with additional non-residential development.
Χ Consideration should be given to the need for providing additional affordable housing for Stanford support staff. Council Member Huber supported increased housing at Stanford. He encouraged additional efforts at the county level for increased housing. Council Member Eakins asked whether the Council knew what the shortfall of housing was on the Stanford campus. Mr. Gawf said 92 percent of undergraduates were housed on campus and an additional 3,000 undergraduates wished to be on campus.
10/25/99 89-137
Council Member Eakins said the Council should strongly urge a far more serious effort to close the gap on student on-campus housing. Mr. Gawf said one of the recommendations addressed identifying goals and objectives for housing. The real objective was to provide on-campus housing for all the students who wished to live on campus.
Council Member Ojakian agreed with Council Member Eakins= point which was also raised by Planning Commissioners Burt and Byrd in suggesting that the Draft Plan include wording that would reduce by 50 percent the unhoused population. That left a formula that said create higher densities in the housing or reduce the population. His perspective was to keep the population down. Council Member Schneider asked about the proposed growth of students at Stanford University over the following ten years. David Newman, Director of Stanford University Planning, said the estimated student population included no undergraduate growth, and additional graduate students were estimated between 650 and 700. He did not know where the 3,000 figure came from in terms of housing demand because he had no number near that. Council Member Ojakian said that figure was contained on page 15 of the Planning Commission minutes dated October 13, 1999, provided by an unnamed graduate student who had worked on the issue. Mr. Newman said housing was allocated by the number of people who lost the lottery the previous year, which was approximately 1,011 students. There were some approximations that showed the demand for the next ten years which got at the 3,000 figure. Council Member Ojakian said the unnamed graduate student mentioned 1,500 students and that figure along with those mentioned by Mr. Horton added up to 3,000. Mr. Newman said that figure was misunderstood. Council Member Schneider said looking at reasonable numbers instead of putting demands in place based upon an unnamed graduate student was important.
Council Member Huber referred to Commissioner Burt=s comments on page 8 of the Planning Commission minutes, which stated expanded programs of 683 graduate students, 583 post doctoral fellows, etc., which added up to the 2,200 new people. He asked whether those numbers were correct. Mr. Newman said the numbers were correct, there was no confusion about those numbers.
10/25/99 89-138
Mayor Fazzino applauded Council Member Kniss for including the issue of open space corridor along El Camino Real. The Planning Commission had a debate over the issue and disagreed. He felt the open space corridor was important and should be maintained. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER to add
the language Αstrongly urge a more serious effort to close the gap
on student on-campus housing.≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar Αnot participating,≅ Rosenbaum absent. Council Member Kniss said Circulation and Parking was discussed previously as to how it could be measured. There was discussion as to the last time an accurate measurement of the number of commute trips was done, how that would be counted, and how that much new
housing could be added without Αno new net commute trips.≅ The counts should be performed on a regular basis which should be quarterly or yearly. The regional issue was extremely important. It was all an inter-related and inter-connected plan. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the staff recommendation as follows:
Circulation and Parking
Χ The goal of Αno new net commute trips≅ should be retained and the Plan should be revised to clearly state this goal and how it might be accomplished.
Χ Monitoring of vehicle trips needs to be based on actual counts in and out of the Stanford campus. These counts need to be performed on a regular basis and the City should be included in determining at which locations the counts will occur.
Χ The commitment of Stanford to regional transportation cooperation and solutions, and ways in which this can be done should be included in the Plan.
Χ Measure the impacts of Αno new net commute trips≅ on adjacent neighborhood streets, e.g. College Terrace, and mitigate as appropriate.
Χ The Plan should include information on Stanford=s trails and pathways and clearly indicate future intentions for enhancing these facilities and providing linkages from the foothills to the baylands.
Mr. Gawf said the concept of Αno new net commute trips≅ contained within the 1989 GUP was an ambitious goal. It was tracked over the previous ten years through a formula based upon certain pieces of information and not automobile trips. The difficulty was he was still not clear on how that formula was calculated. It was
10/25/99 89-139
difficult for Stanford to administer and for the public to understand. The City and Stanford came to the conclusion that there needed to be something clear and simple which would be to measure real trips; automobiles on the road during the peak period. The cars on the street were what people saw when driving through the community, not a theoretical formula. That was the reason for both recommendations. Council Member Kniss said the important piece was the actual count, not theoretical, which was not made available over the past several years. Mr. Gawf said the intent was actual counts and the location of the counters became important. On the other hand, Stanford should not be penalized for trips that were not Stanford generated, cut-through trips. The count was intended to be an annual or more frequent evaluation so staff would have a better handle on what was happening. Council Member Kniss felt the count was an important part of that section of the motion. Being able to track car trips specifically for the area surrounding Stanford was extremely important. Council Member Huber said the difficult part was determining where to measure; what was fair to Stanford, and what was Stanford generated. He hoped the City would be involved in determining those areas because it would not be easy. Otherwise, he supported the motion. Council Member Ojakian said at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Gawf mentioned reducing trips; not necessarily in the core campus activities, but the Stanford Research Park. He asked how that played out. Mr. Gawf said staff needed to explore the concept in more detail over the next several months. Stanford was part of the region, and the commute trips were generated by several jurisdictions. Stanford could work with the City examining the regional area and there might be an alternative for Stanford to easily reduce commute trips in other locations in order to get credit on campus. For example, Stanford might generate more trips on El Camino Real or an internal street; but with a shuttle system or street improvements, the commute trips could be reduced in another part of the region and might balance that out. He was not sure how that would work but was part of what he would review with the EIR to see the
transportation implications. The City=s standard for Stanford was difficult. Staff needed to work with Stanford and be creative in how the problem should be addressed. Council Member Ojakian asked whether that concept had become a mitigation measure in the EIR.
10/25/99 89-140
Mr. Gawf said how the problem would be mitigated was the right direction.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether that was the County=s view also. Ms. Jones said yes. She emphasized the County was getting close to dangerous ground with the issue because housing was supported and wanted for the campus, but the real question was what the real commute trip impacts of that were. There was a point where hard questions would be achieved of which part would be defining what a commute trip was and would it include a trip into the campus or also include a trip out. The issue was complex, and the County was concerned about not putting policies or implementation recommendations into the Draft Plan that negated other policies or implementation recommendations in the Draft Plan. Council Member Ojakian said that was why he asked the question as he did and clarified that it was not necessarily a Community Plan level issue but was in the EIR and mitigation measures. Ms. Jones said yes. For example, when the regional issue of transportation was dealt with, the ultimate question was whether the County was willing to give Stanford credit for trips that were reduced in Palo Alto or Menlo Park. Speaking as a staff member, it was something she would like to see the County bring in. Council Member Schneider stated when the Comprehensive Plan was
being developed, the Αno net commute trips≅ issue was suggested for the City. The Council did not agree, so it was not included in the Comprehensive Plan. She felt sometimes Palo Alto had double standards because it was now proposed for Stanford. Mayor Fazzino supported the proposal. He said Stanford was a leader in the area of transportation and had done more with transportation management disincentives than the City of Palo Alto.
Palo Alto could learn from Stanford=s example. He hoped as part of the plan, the City would work with Stanford to address parking and traffic disincentives for the Stanford Research Park and Stanford Shopping Center, not only the core campus. That was as
much Palo Alto=s responsibility as Stanford=s. Stanford was doing much more than it had in the past with respect to being an active participant in regional transportation issues. Stanford needed to
be complimented in that area. Ms. Jones=s point regarding impacts
was correct. Palo Alto=s objective was more housing and fewer commute trips. During the discussions, Stanford made a commitment to place more services in the intercore of campus so there was less need for students to cross into Palo Alto on a regular basis. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar Αnot participating,≅ Rosenbaum absent.
10/25/99 89-141
Council Member Kniss said someone asked her why the schools, Stanford, and the City of Palo Alto could not interact and work out problems regarding schools. She clarified that the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), Stanford, and the City were separate entities. The PAUSD included portions of Los Altos Hills and all of Stanford, more than 10 percent of the district. When schools were discussed, the City did not have jurisdiction per se with schools other than hopefully to interact together. The better Palo Alto did as an entity, the better all entities did together. She mentioned the City of Menlo Park which was also involved. Clearly, the Palo Alto school population was growing dramatically which was a surprise and a challenge that the Council was addressing that evening. She supported smaller class sizes which meant increased need for school facilities. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the staff recommendation as follows:
Schools
Χ Provision for a middle school of an appropriate size needs to be made in the Plan. Potential locations for the school should be clearly identified and ideally these locations should be west of Alma Street and El Camino Real. These locations should not include any areas presently used for open space purposes.
Χ Elementary school impacts created by additional faculty and staff family housing should also be assessed and addressed. Council Member Ojakian said there was some discussion regarding lands that Palo Alto held that were previous school sites and the simplicity of turning those back over to the PAUSD. He believed that would be difficult to do. City Manager June Fleming said staff was preparing an informational report which attempted to provide some clarity around the conditions under which the three sites could be returned to the PAUSD. There were significant cost implications for those sites. Council Member Ojakian was concerned not only as a Council Member but also as a parent. Beyond the cost, the difficulty was that some of the sites were utilized extensively with community activities. If displaced, he was not sure where they would go. Currently, the elementary schools were crowded and there were two middle schools at 1,200 each. Solutions needed to be examined by the PAUSD which were limited, and the City was not in too good a position to help. Hopefully, Stanford would be an entity that would step forward to help alleviate what was happening. Even though the PAUSD, Stanford, and the City were different agencies, there was a responsibility at the end when considering additional housing to look at the impacts on the infrastructure, specifically the schools. With the additional housing, there was a potential of
10/25/99 89-142
doubling the student population at Stanford which would have a large impact. Hopefully, Stanford and the County could help resolve the situation. Ms. Fleming said the Council was in receipt of a communication from the PAUSD School Board asking the City to be included in any discussions regarding the two large sites, Terman and Cubberley.
That was a reflection of the PAUSD=s serious concern about its ability to house the expanding school population. Mayor Fazzino said from a historic perspective, the issue was discussed during the Sand Hill Road project discussions six to seven years prior. The PAUSD had serious concerns about being included in the Sand Hill Road agreement, and the Council and Stanford punted at that time. It was now time to confront the PAUSD as part of the long-term development plan. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar Αnot participating,≅ Rosenbaum absent. Council Member Kniss suggested addressing Land Use, Plan Implementation, and Vision for Long-Term Build-out of Stanford University together. One reason the Council was at the point it was that evening was because back when Sand Hill Road was being discussed, the Council wanted to know exactly what would happen over a long period of time as the plans went before the Council. Finally, having a fair and balanced plan as everything was taken into consideration was important before referring it back to the County. The Council was simply an advisor, and the comments and suggestions from the Council were extremely important. She hoped those comments would be heeded when the Draft Plan went to the County to be voted on by the Board of Supervisors. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: Land Use
Χ Palo Alto agrees with the generalized land use designations in the Plan, which include support for the underlying concept of focusing all significant construction within the core campus.
Χ Areas presently shown as ΑAcademic Reserve and Open Space≅
should be further clarified. A separate ΑOpen Space≅ designation should be provided for areas to be used as long-term and/or permanent open space and that allows only limited uses and development.
Χ The total building square footage (2,100,000) allowed under the 1989 GUP included all new structures, regardless of use; housing was included from the total allowable building area. The current Plan, which lists allowable numbers of housing units separately from allowable non-residential building area, should include the equivalent total square footage information
10/25/99 89-143
so an accurate comparison can be made between this Plan and the 1989 GUP.
Χ The Plan should include a section on all of Stanford=s land holdings, since approximately half of their property is outside the scope of the Plan. This information should be specific as to use, building area, numbers of dwelling units, and location of development for both existing and future conditions. The information should be presented in both map and tabular form to enhance its usefulness. Plan Implementation
Χ The Community Plan and GUP need to include provisions for monitoring of development. Monitoring should be performed by an independent entity on an annual basis with public hearings held at a location in northern Santa Clara County.
Χ The Community Plan and GUP need to establish thresholds regarding the number of housing units that must be built prior to the construction of additional academic and support buildings. Vision for Long-Term Build-out of Stanford University
Χ The Community Plan should include a long-term vision, beyond the 10-year scope of the Plan, for the ultimate build-out of the University. While it is recognized that this vision would
not be as detailed as the ten-year Plan regarding Stanford=s potential development, it would be important in providing
insight into the University=s future evolution. Council Member Eakins said when Sand Hill Road was discussed, it became clear to her that everything was connected, thus, the sensitivity to the complexity of the effects. Everything was connected which made the Land Use, Implementation, and Vision for Long-Term Build-out of Stanford University important elements; for example, a separate academic reserve and open space designation. Everything was more built up and intense, and even though it was more efficient for roads and delivery of utilities, the intensification had an effect. Additionally, Stanford was land-locked and everything had to be moved through surrounding communities which was why Palo Alto was so sensitive. The Vision for Long-Term Build-out was important. The vision could always be changed, but describing it had the benefit of increasing community trust and confidence that things would move along in a predictable manner. Council Member Huber said Stanford was one of the truly great educational institutions and an engine that helped drive what was made of Silicon Valley, good or bad. The University needed to adjust to accommodate changing disciplines and everyone would
benefit. The University=s role was to propose what it wanted to do
10/25/99 89-144
over the next ten years, and the County=s role was to regulate that. Uncontrolled growth of any kind regardless of the reason was not acceptable. There were limits that needed to be proscribed by the regulators that allowed for reasonable change at the University level while accommodating the needs and desires of the surrounding
communities. He had the pleasure to serve as the Αnominal≅ head of the Ad Hoc Committee which met many times with Stanford and was helpful in forming opinions. The Committee learned a great deal about how the University functioned and what it needed to do. The Committee generated a report dated November 5, 1999, which stated that no additional development in or out of Palo Alto until such time that Stanford saw to extend it GUP. Speaking for the Committee, the current process which was underway was exactly the kind of process which the Committee was asking for in that report. He felt the project was well underway and looked forward to what the County ultimately came up with.
Vice Mayor Wheeler agreed with Council Member Huber=s comments and the spirit in which they were intended. She felt the last paragraph under the Vision was the core item of the Draft Plan and mandatory for inclusion. A Stanford twice as big as it was
currently would not be in Stanford=s or the neighboring
jurisdictions= best interests. Part of the discomfort sensed in the community two years prior during Sand Hill Road discussions which the Council continued to hear from its constituents was there
seemed to be a pattern in Stanford=s development with a history of over 2 million square feet in the past 10 years and a proposed 4 - 5 million square feet in the next 10 years. There was no indication nor a promise that the pattern would not continue in the decades to come, which caused concern to the Palo Alto constituents and the residents of communities surrounding Stanford. The Council should urge the County and Stanford in strongest terms to include the Vision as part of the Community Plan. Council Member Kniss, as part of the Ad Hoc Committee, was grateful for the time spent in meetings and attempting to make decisions that were fair, consistent, and made sense. Further, the ability to bring those decisions forward. She felt the Council was sending its most clear visions to the County which was most important. Council Member Ojakian said Stanford was a great University which helped shape the community. On one hand, there was appreciation for Stanford as a neighbor but, on the other hand, there was the concern for Stanford to develop and what that impact had on Palo Alto. He was concerned with the need for 2 million square feet of building in the next 10 years. As things progressed, the Council would revisit the EIR and the specific impacts generated by it. Hopefully, in the process, there would be the specificity needed and some of the impacts on Palo Alto could be determined. The Council could then balance the facts and make clearer suggestions
10/25/99 89-145
on how things would be impacted and work for Stanford and the surrounding communities.
Mayor Fazzino said it was in everyone=s interest that Stanford
remain a dynamic institution. Palo Alto=s history and future were inextricably linked together, and it was important to keep that in mind while moving forward. The Draft Plan was a reasonable start toward an acceptable plan. He thanked Stanford for its efforts with regard to housing and transportation which he felt were strong elements of the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan was inadequate in open space, but he was sure that would be rectified. He also thanked
Stanford and the County for being respectful of Palo Alto=s participation and committed to the tripartite agreement signed in 1985. The amount of time the County had spent working with Palo
Alto said Palo Alto=s input was taken seriously. Also, the meetings with Stanford were constructive. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar Αnot participating,≅ Rosenbaum absent. RECESS: 9:40 p.m. - 9:55 p.m. MOTION: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to move Item No. 12 forward ahead of Item No. 10 to become Item No. 9A. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar Αnot participating,≅ Rosenbaum absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 9A. (Old Item No. 12) Mayor Fazzino and Council Members Eakins and Schneider re Performing Arts Center Feasibility Study Mayor Fazzino met with Larry Horton and President Gerhard Casper at Stanford University regarding the possibility of initiating an informal feasibility study to pursue a long-term joint performing arts center which would meet the needs of both communities. An informal group was set up which came to a preliminary conclusion that given the perspective performing needs, the possibility should be considered for: 1) a joint facility, 2) identifying land at the University for the site, 3) an opportunity for joint control, and 4) an opportunity to raise sufficient funds, mostly private and some public to pay for the facility. Based upon that, the group was recommending a proposal to move ahead and support a formal feasibility study. Council Member Eakins said having a multiple venue of a performing arts center in the Palo Alto-Stanford area was an appropriate project. There was a shortage for venues for all types of performances such as music, dance, theater, and touring groups, and the center would fill a need. She was also persuaded by the benefit of having improved venues, stages, concert halls as it would be good for Palo Alto audiences who supported cultural
10/25/99 89-146
events. It could also provide opportunities for children from surrounding communities to enjoy the benefit of exposure to high quality performances. The long-term project would be costly, but the City needed to participate in backing the feasibility study. The feasibility study would take approximately nine months to complete. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Schneider, to refer to the City Manager consideration of the expenditure of up to $50,000 to be matched by Stanford University to proceed with a feasibility study for a Performing Arts Center. Council Member Schneider said a joint performing arts center was a great opportunity to work jointly with Stanford on something that would benefit both communities. She strongly urged her colleagues to proceed with the feasibility study.
Larry Horton, Stanford University, appreciated Palo Alto=s participation and believed the potential for a performing arts center that would meet the academic needs of the Drama and Music
Departments, the Lively Art program, and the City=s needs was a collaborative project worth pursuing. The Committee reached that conclusion recognizing that a more serious study would need to be undertaken. There were some serious issues, but it was a worthy project. He assured the Council that Stanford would be glad to match the City in the matter. Mayor Fazzino thanked Mr. Horton for his leadership on the issue. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the City of Palo Alto birthed several performing arts companies which grew and evolved over the years and had outgrown in professionalism and stature the accommodations that could be offered. There was an awareness that something significant needed to be done to retain the fine performing organizations that were in the community, while attracting others to visit Palo Alto. Some concerns were the expenditure of funds for the study, as well as how the feasibility study would be conducted and what kinds of resources other than monetary were involved. She was glad Council Member Eakins clarified the intent was to hire a consultant. She assumed by the time the study returned to the Council, there would be an agreement on who would be in charge of the study, who would do the hiring, and how the oversight would be carried out. She urged her colleagues who would see the study through, to be clear along the way as to what direction the project would be taking. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar Αnot participating,≅ Rosenbaum absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 10. March 7, 2000, Special Election - Referendum on Historical Preservation Ordinance No. 4571, Requesting the Services of
10/25/99 89-147
the Registrar of Voters, and Ordering the Consolidation of Said Election and Setting Ballot Argument Procedures Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Submitting to the Electors the Question of Approval or Rejection of Ordinance No. 4571 Concerning Historic Preservation, Calling a Special Election for Tuesday, March 7, 2000, and Requesting Consolidation of Said Election Council Members Huber, Kniss and Schneider, and City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted they would not be participating due to a conflict of interest. City Clerk Donna Rogers recommended the adoption of the resolution. In accordance with the Election Code, the Council needed to determine whether it wished to exercise its right to author and sign ballot arguments with respect to the ballot measure regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The filing period for direct arguments was November 23 - December 3, 1999, and for rebuttal arguments December 3 - 13, 1999. Staff recommended the following action: 1) If the Council as a body wished to author and sign the ballot arguments, action should be taken to appoint members of the Council to write the arguments on behalf of the Council; 2) If the Council did not wish to author and sign ballot arguments, action should be taken by majority vote to determine whether any member or members of the Council who might wish to author and sign a written ballot argument for or against the measures would be authorized to use their titles as City Council Members; 3) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis; and, if the Council chose to, allow individual board and commission members to sign ballot arguments for or against the measures and use his/her respective titles. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynn Furth said there were two matters before the Council. The resolution as drafted included: 1) direction to the City Clerk to take the steps to consolidate the Special Election with the Primary Election in the spring; and 2) direction to the City Attorney to write an impartial analysis of the ballot measure ordinance and to the City Clerk as to the
Council=s preferences on the ballot measure arguments. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the resolution calling for a special election for the purpose of the referendum on the Historical Preservation Ordinance No. 4571, requesting the services of the Registrar of Voters, and ordering the consolidation of said election. The City Attorney will prepare an impartial analysis, and the Council will exercise rights to author and sign ballot arguments, and authorize the Mayor to appoint members of Council to write arguments.
Resolution 7898 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Submitting to the Electors the Question of
10/25/99 89-148
Approval or Rejection of Ordinance No. 4571 Concerning Historic Preservation, Calling a Special Election for Tuesday,
March 7, 2000, and Requesting Consolidation of the Election≅, Council Member Mossar supported the motion. She asked when the arguments were written, whether the Council signatories could include one outgoing Council Member, one ongoing Council Member, and one newly-elected Council Member. Vice Mayor Wheeler said it was possible. In the past, the Mayor had signed on behalf of the Council with selected representatives of community organizations to sign as well. The Council had the flexibility within that direction to select the signatories, both on the direct arguments and rebuttal arguments. Council Member Mossar said it would serve the community well to know that both the outgoing and newly-elected Council supported the ordinance. She asked with regard to board and commission members signing, whether that was done before. Mayor Fazzino said it was a political call, and was done before. He understood the decision did not have to be made that evening. Council Member Eakins supported the motion and recommended that the Council have that flexibility. Ms. Rogers said the Council needed to be cognizant of the December 3, 1999, deadline for direct arguments.
Mayor Fazzino clarified further Council Member Mossar=s previous question. In the past, if the Council strongly supported a ballot measure, it wanted to make the ballot argument and the names listed on the argument as powerful as possible. The Council had turned to community leaders whether on boards and commissions or not and added their names to the ballot arguments. There was flexibility, and the Council could turn to boards or commissions as well as the community. Assuming the Council passed the motion, he appointed Vice Mayor Wheeler as chair of the Ballot Argument Committee who would in turn appoint members to the committee to draft the arguments. Ms. Fleming reminded the Council that there was a narrow period of time with which to return to the Council.
Ms. Furth said the City Clerk=s Report dated October 25, 1999, suggested the appointment of a committee or subcommittee to draft and sign the measures, thus the item did not have to return to the Council for action. Staff wanted to be clear as to what the
Council=s intentions were.
10/25/99 89-149
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER to appoint Vice Mayor Wheeler as chair of the Ballot Argument Committee. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER to allow individual board and commission members to sign ballot arguments for or against the measures and use their respective titles. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Huber, Kniss, Schneider Αnot participating,≅ Rosenbaum absent. 11. Notice of Nonrenewal of Uniform Land Conservation Contract and Report of Williamson Act Contracts Within the City of Palo Alto MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to acknowledge receipt of Notice of Nonrenewal for Richard G. Geiger, Trustee and Barbara A. Geiger, Trustee for the property located at 3981 Page Mill Road, and review and file the current listing of properties in Palo Alto that are contracted under the California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider absent. 13. Mayor Fazzino re Cancellation of the November 1, 1999, Regular City Council Meeting MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Ojakian, to cancel the Regular City Council Meeting of November 1, 1999. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/25/99 89-150
10/25/99 89-151