HomeMy WebLinkAbout02211974CITY
COUNCIL
MINUTES
Thursday, February 21, 1974
The City Council and the Planning Commission of the City of Palo Alto
met on this date at 7:30 p.m. in a special joint meeting in the
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue. The purpose of the meeting
was to enable the Council and the Planning Commission to receive a
presentation by Stanford University officials concerning "Stanford
Land Use."
Council Members Present: Berwald, Henderson, Pearson
Council Members Absent: Beahrs, Clay, Comstock, Horton,
Rosenbaum, Sher
Planning Commission
Members Present:
Planning Commission
Members Absent:
Stanford University
Representatives:
City Staff Members:
Brenner, Cody, Gorden, Renzel,
Steinberg
Klein, Rack
Robert Augsburger, Vice President
for Business and Finance
John Breedlove, Manager, Land
Resources
Peter Carpenter, insistent Vice
President for Medical. Affairs
Andrew Doty, Director, Community
and University Relations
Robert Rosensweig, Vice -Provost
!Larry Sanders, Director of Planning
Office
George A. Sipel, City Manager
Robert K. Booth, City Attorney
Ann J. Tanner, City Clerk
Mr. Sipel introduced Mr. Robert Augnburger, Vice President for
Business and Finance, Stanford University. Mr. Augsburger introduced
the Stanford representatives.
Mr. Augsburger said Stanford feels it has a responsibility to advise
residents of the community and surrounding area of the University's
plans and policies, thus providing a coffin base for discussion.
He then reviewed two draft documents which will be presented to the
Stanford Board of Trustees for consideration and action at its
March 12, 1974, meeting:
1. Stanford Land Use - An Overview of Policy Determinants
2. Proposed Land Use Policies
1 6 9
2/21/74
(These documents are on file in the City Clerk's Office and have
been given full packet distribution.)
Summarizing the proposed land use policies, Mr. Augsburger made the
following comments on each policy listed in Proposed Land Use
Policies:
1. The endowment is academic as opposed to a financial
endowment;
2. Relates to problems of the University as set forth in
background statement;
3. The University wants to be proud of what exists on Stanford
lands and wants to cooperate with adjoining communities;
4. This represents a statement of a long time Board of
Trustees policy, going back to the mid -fifties;
5. This is a statement that the University will attempt to
utilize conservation contracts. The University has a
$600,000 per year tax burden on undeveloped lands;
6. Speaks to the issue that in the past the University has
not resisted, but has cooperated with condemnations, i.e.,
special district for Stanford Hospital;
7. ~peaks to critical elements in terms of interim uses;
a) This has been Board of Trustees policy for almost ten
years.
b) Represents a big change in policy arising out of
experience: -
1.) Tries to specify the rights the University would have
in the event any tenant tries to sell improvements;
2) Gives Stanford the right to recapture lands and
improvements if needed for academic uses.
c) This is a completely ue-i element that would he included
in all leases. Gives Stanford the right co prohibit
any material change in uses. For example, in the
Stanford industrial Park, there are change of uses
permitted by the zoning and beyond Stanford's control.
d) Self-explanatory.
e) Gives priority of housing uses on Stanford land to
Stanford -related people. Does not represent a
commitment by Stanford to provide such housing.
f) Self-explanatory. Liaeits commercial, retail or service
uses.
g) Irrelevant to Palo Alto.
Mr. Augsburger said Stanford representatives welcomed questions at this
time.
1 70
2/21/74
1
Councilman Henderson stated these are encouragirg and positive
documents. One area that could bring criticism re=lates to housing.
He asked Mr. Augsburger to comment more particularly on the housing
sections and whether Stanford is thinking entirely of faculty,
students and staff.
Mr. Augsburger said there are a number of elements involved here.
There is the fact that any extensive use of lands for housing
means that those lands are permanently committed and there is no
possibility of getting that land back for University purposes. If
the University builds any housing the priority for occupancy will go
to faculty, staff and students, which would be in support of University
programs. There would be less of a need to recapture these housing
units because they would always be needed.
Planning Commission Chairperson Gordon expressed concern that Mr.
Augsberger had emphasized the research aspects of the University and
that could be interpreted as a different category.
Mr. Augsburger clarified that references to "staff" m=ans all non -
faculty employment at Stanford University, i.e., the medical center or
SLAC, which is considered part of the University.
Councilman Henderson asked about the project presently under construc-
tion at Page Mill/Foothill Expressway. Mr. Augsburger noted that the
see- page 249 University had no control over this particular development but 7 b, 1)
and 2) will take care of this in the future,
see page 249
Frances Brenner, Planning Commissioner, r.sked if the University
considers itself part of the complete community, how can it divorce
itself from the problems of some of the community. The interchange
of students is an enriching experience. Palo Alto feels the burden
of the responsibility for housing people and knows it cannot house
them all. The City looks at any aldden increase in employment at
Stanford as an additional burden and does not want to let the
unbalance between jobs and housing shift any further.
Councilman Berwald commented on Mrs. Brenner's remarks that it is
useful to think about public and private universities/corporations.
Would we be addressing ourselves to these questions in connection
with policies of the University of California or the City of Palo Alto?
What can we expect from a private university whose interest is no less
in the public interest. It is unreasonable to place a burden on Stanford
University that we would not ask of another university or the City of
Palo Alto, Mr. Berwald added that he felt Stanford had done more than
he would be willing to do were he a member of the Board of Trustees at
Stanford.
Mr. Sipel commented that the documents reviewed tonight contain no
statement with regard to low/moderate income housing that would commit
the University to anything or would preclude the University from
having another project such as Franchman'a Terrace. The policy state-
ment present tonight is silent on the subject of low/moderate income
housing. .
Mr. Augoburger responded that there is no way to deliver low/moderate
income housing today, it requires a subsidy someplace and the
University is not in a position to deliver that subsidy.
Hr. Sipel agreed, but said the statement as it stands now would not
preclude the University from getting into low/moderate income
housing if some form of subsidy does become available.
1 7 1
2/21/74
Mr. Augsburger said that is why it is not in the statement on
purpose.
Planning Commissioner Anne Steinberg asked if there were plans
for a great deal more student housing on campus.
Mr. Augsburger gave the following statistics re student housing.
Stanford is housing 78% of the under graduate students on campus.
Enrollment stands at around 11,30'7 11,500 students of which
approximately 6,400 are undergrads and 5,000 professional or
graduate students, Stanford houses about half of the married
graduate students and 20% of the single students.
Commissioner Steinberg then asked what is going to happen to the
old people in Palo Alto who cannot afford to go elsewhere and need
the low/moderate income units so much in demand by Stanford students.
Mr. Augsburger noted that Stanford has a study group trying to examine
where the University is going insofar as housing is concerned.
Mr. Rosensweig commented that economically this is more of a problem
in East Palo Alto than in Palo Alto, since students drive ordinary
residents right out of the market.
N. Aucsbi yr said Stanford felt the test way to solve the problem
was to focus on their own people and their own people starts with the
students.
Planning Commissioner Cody suggested a joint policy resolution by the
City and Stanford. .If Stanford were encouraged by the City to provide
housing in addition to an increase in jobs, maybe Palo Alto could add
tothis by increasing their own opportunities for housing in Palo Alto.
The policy could be added to an estimated percentage increase in
employment in Stanford Industrial Park and the shopping center.
Vice Mayor Pearson said the City of Palo Alto is trying to do its part
to solve the housing shortage. There is a place on campus for low/
moderate income housing. Stanford University should not remain silent
but should lobby at state and national levels for programs to achieve
more housing. She spoke of Stanford's earlier success in lobbying for
example against the Ladera Dam and its power with the County regarding
the "-es" zone,
Councilman Berwald said he found the statements to be very construc-
see page 249 tive and innovative.
The meeting recessed from 9:20 to 9:30 p.m.
Vice Mayor Pearson asked about commercial expansion on campus. She
said there have been rumors that Stanford would like to have their
own "downtown" on the camrpua and this would be in competition with
Palo Alto's downtown.
Mr. Augsburger said this was proposed in a SES study made three
years ago but to his knowledge it is not under discussion right now.
it is something of a "dream.' In some respects it might be better
for downtown if there were some commercial outlets on campus in terms
of traffic and parking problems. Stanford would want to feel free
to establish a small co-op store for residents and do feel it would
be desirable fro everyone's point of view. There is nothing in the
wind of that nature but Stanford would want to permit that to happen
at some time in the future. Stanford has to respond to the needs of
1 7 2
2/21/74
the coimi:unity and in terms of political responsibility, the Board
of Trustees is in the same kind of position that the City Council
is in --it has to respond to legitimate interests and needs.
Vice Mayor Pearson said she would not be supportive of that idea
because commercial development on campus would be a deterrent
to shopping in downtown Palo Alto and she felt the presence of
students in downtown Palo Alto is attractive and desirable and
she felt downtown Palo Alto should be responsive to them. She
asked about the status of the Dillingham development and the
Mayfield school site.
Mr. Augsburger said the Palo Alto Unified School District exercised
their option for at least another 50 years about one year ago.
Regarding the Dillingham rear parcel, that is to come before the
City Council for approval of use. The proposed hotel use has ex-
pired so it would have to be rezoned for any other use.
Responding to Planning Commissioner Renzel, Mr, Augsburger said he
was not able to comment on the status of rentals .in the Dillingham
project.
Vice Mayor Pearson referred to the study made by Livingston &
Blayney for Stanford University and asked it this company had been
involved in preparation of these documents.
Mr. Augsburger replied that Stanford had asked Larry Livingston how
he responds to that document and he said it sounds like one of the
alternatives in his report. The Livingston & Blayney report has
had an influence in that it has ideotified a number of issues. What
is being presented tonight is Stanford's land use policy rather than
land use plan. It sets parameters rather than saying a specific site
will be used for specific purposes.
Mr, Rosenswetg added that the L&B report aas not commissioned as a
plan for the University and was not accepted by the Board of Trustees
as a land use plan. Rather, it represents options. The University
can go in any direction on any piece of the plan and that was in-
tended when the Board o. Trustees accepted, rather than approved,
the report. There were actually six plans in the report providing
useful analysis that will continue to be useful.
Mr. Augsburger noted that one of L&B's recommendations to Stanford
was to attempt to get legislation on the Williamson Act changed.
The University tried and failed.
Planning Commission Chairperson Gordon asked if they could pursue
whether Stanford University has designated any lands that would fall
into a :permanent OS category. She wondered if there might be nose
way to relieve Stanford's tax burden by working in conjunction with
the Regional Park District.
Mr. Rosensweig asked what was meant by open space.
Emily Renzel wondered if the Park District might be a condemning body
rather than a prospective body.
Councilman Henderson asked about the lands out west of Stanford's
property and why they were not acceptable to be zoned OS under the
Williamson Act.
1 7 3
2/21/74
Mr. Augsburger explained that San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
has a policy that would not allow it. If land is an academic
endowment, Stanford must be able to respond to an academic need and
it is difficult to say in advance that there will not be a need. He
cited the current energy crisis and research that might evolve to
solve the problem as the kind of land use need that could arise any
time in ;he future.
Responding further to Councilman Henderson, Mr. Augsburger said that
San Mateo County will not permit payment of a penalty for rezoning to
OS. The contract has to run to its termination. We are talking
about a scenic xestr action, he noted.
Vice Mayor Pearson said this is a perfect example of a need for
cooperation between Stanford and the City. You should come to us
and ask us to help you with San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.
She said she knows they use the Williamson Act extensively in San
?Mateo and Santa Clara County,
Mt. Augsburger said they did not think about asking for Palo Alto's
supp.err with the County, but it is good to know for the future:.
Maly Gordon suggested they think about intensifying the link
pedestrian -wise and said ,she would like to see a joint policy by
both Palo Alto and Stanford that would facilitate the movement of
people in the intensive areas, i.e., campus core to California
Avenue, or the Medical Center to downtown- She did not -know how
it could be worked out but would like a policy statement on the
part of Stanford. She said it pleased her to hear Stanford repre-
sentatives speak of Stanford as a residential university. It
should be possible to intensify that. For example, Palo Altans
participating in Stanford courses, stucents shopping in and visiting
downtown, the Civic Center, etc.
Mr. Augsburger responded that Stanford has people working on a joint
bus transportation system between the SP Station and the Medical
Center and other campus locations, for. example. They are trying to
encourage people to use the trains and busses to get to and from
their work. If it works, the plan will be expanded. There is some
very early discussion taking place on the possibility of including
public transportation in the price of tickets for public events.
This is a new idea and he did not' know if it was appropriate to
this segent of the discussion.
Mary Gordon said she felt more integration, rather than greater
isolation to be of the utmost importance=
Artie Steinberg asked about future use of SLAC or its lands.
Mr- Rosenswelg responded that they hope SLAC is a long life develop -
event that will extend its life. The Federal research policy in
nuclear research makes the life of SLAC look more optimistic now
than it did five yeara ago.
Vice Mayor Pearson expressed her feeling that Stanford had presented
a fine statement. She said she liked what she heard tonight. She
would like to see further discussion of use of public transportation
and how it does affect Palo Alto. Also, less negative emphasis is
on condemnation and more positive emphasis on how Palo Alto and Stanford
can assist each other. Stanford has heard the City's ideas on housing.
1 74
2/21/74
Councilman Henderson said he wished to make four comments.
1. His overall pleasure with the statement and his support
for any policy that would limit business establishments to
those connected with academic purposes of the University.
see page 249
see page 249
see page 249
2. He has some concern about Stanford's housing policy in terms
of students and the employees of facilities on Stanford
lands.
3. A desire to assist Stanford to obtain legislation to reduce
taxes on Stanford lands, for example amendments to the
Williamson Act, working with County Assessors.
4. Reinforcement of Vice Mayor Pearson and Mrs. Gordon's
remarks - he is pleased with the overall report:
Councilman Berztald apologized for Councilman Stanley Norton's
absence and said Mr. Norton is representing the City at another
meeting tonight otherwise he would be here. Mr. Berwald said he
wants Stanford to exist, continue to grow and be a quality educa-
tional and research institute and have anciiiary services such
as the medical center. Palo Alto should do everything it can as
a City to recognize the contributions Stanford makes to the
community. He said he would like to make Stanford's mission
easier and not more difficult. Mr. Berwald continued that ABAG
that very day had been talking about energy conserving land use
policies. He said he tho'ight it risky to plan a policy on the basis
of some temporary emergency such as the energy crisis. He said it
cotes tc, mind that perhaps as an integral part of Stanford's
policy and as part of the educational mission, the idea of con-
tinuing to be creative and innovative in land use policy would be
in order. For example, locating housing over parking lots and
looking at alternative types of transportation,
Planning Comissioner Brenner stated she was in agreement with comments
generally and wanted to underline whether Stanford would be interested
in exploring mixed uses in L -M districts it areas already developed as
an addition to the directions the City is taking.
Mr. Augsburger said Stanford has an open mind on this, He said he
thought that realistically the crux of that exploration has to be with
current lessees. There is not that much land left in Palo Alto that
is not in academic research
`ors. Brenner expressed the idea that a tenant or lessee could trans-
fer the lease to another /arty without Stanford control. She found
this interesting and wondered if, for example, Lockheed were to move
elsewhere and left that property to somebody else, are they limited
simply by the L -M district?
Mr. Augsburger replied that they probably are,
Vice Mayor Pearson said this had been a very pleasant meeting. She
was glad the Stanford representatives had come tonight and was happy
with the outcome. She said she would like to mention that she felt
it woad be very interesting and educational if the Board of
Trustees could hold at least two meetings a year that are public
meetings and allow people to see who they are and see the Board in
action. It would be a good thing for the community and the Board of
Trustees.
175
2/21/74
Ad_i ournmen t
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clar
APPROVE:
Mayor
1 7 6
2/21/74
sl ANI l. Y t , ii ` ,.1 •
A191 1 ,,b iii 11i
VICE i?,ESSDFNT roR tut;NF.SS AND MAY !
Mr, George Stpel
City It/lllner, City of !':1 6': gilt„
Civic Centti,r
Palo Alto, t,':=:lafornt:; �`? l
Dear G1orge:
Luring recent ;',nt'. , -.i` ti.iv='
the use of St;ti` s s t i rit!'r Is,l tt i, f, l, t
done .o becilw,e 0,4 -0,4 -re s • , 1 .-:/ 1
t,
current and cle4r 4.1., l I ,.,• Ft iuis l>t i
the. nano Yet etlt Of ;,ttt 1, I, .' ,
This wCe:i' the Lind ;l ; ,I
discussed two draft - ;, . ,I, , ,► ,� �, f , 1.
use policy, ' r r3,..
has asked me to r4:1Qt' t =ts: . ,
Develo 'Cent Com.l tee t r F'
cements and advice pri.fri d tt ;
s ch l 2 i i:•.
its tia� :.tr�'t°.fll�;y i�;stt !it j e � s..i ,es 3F o t _. k i ,,
and other inte're i ('d
,ft:t ' ' 91I
!lift! Hi{
et t, ! +, i . . ,
4
eti: j? :ii it i
Cop eT of thc' t'=<o drnit i :Ile en; nil l it i•1
like to discuss thy-:; with r;ti _; f i
A
`t `i
.I :ti , c -t 11,'. 1
y !'
it