Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11121973CITY COUNCIL MoUTES Monday, November 12, 1973 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:30 p.u. in a regular meeting with Mayor Comstock presiding, Present: Beahrs, Ber-wa1d, Clay (arrived 7:35 p.m.), Comstock, Henderson, Norton (arrived 7:35 p.m.), Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher Absent: None Mayor Comstock announced that this evening Council would be addressing itself to several matters which had engendered high public interest. He said that Council would allow people who wished to express theanaelves to do so. After the public had spoken, the matter would—be returned to Council for consideration. He stated that no one would be allowed to interrupt the business before Council and the conduct of the meeting. Penal Code Section 403 prohibits the disruption of a public meeting, and he hoped there would be no violation. If disruption did occur, he would announce the disruption and ask that the meeting be brought back to order. If the meeting were not brought hack to order, Council would adjourn or recess until order was restored. Persons violating Section 403 of the Penal Code would be prosecuted. Minutes of October 15, 1973 Councilman Beahrs referred to page 249, fifth paragraph, and said that the word "liability" should be "viability." Also, in the last line the word "line" ehould be "trend." Councilman Sher referred to page 248, next -to -last paragraph, second line, and said that the words "Union Bank" should be "Eldorado." MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, that the minutes of October 15, 1973, be approved as revised. The moticss passed on 4 unanimous vote. Commendation to Staff .lam Mayor Consto,:k said that he would like to commend members cf the city staff for the outstanding program this last Saturday morning. Visitors were enthusiastic about Palo Alto's efforts in behalf of the handicapped. iteco uition of ForeiAa American Fiefd gervGe Students Mayor Comstock commented that before the meeting he attended _dinner with three American Field Service students who are attending school 330 11/12/73 in Palo Alto this year. They have come to the Council meeting to observe how business is done in the community. He introduced Bill McKay from Scotland, Ljerka Panushka from Yugoslavia, Liliana Sero from Argentina, and their hostess, Mrs. Katie Lowe. 1 1 1 Re uest for Co+,aril. Conaid&ration of a tter or so ut n to oa roes. e. ,I.mpeac nt Ynqu• ry MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, that item 19 of new business be advanced to this point ou the agenda for the purpose of continuation to Tuesday, November 13, at 7:30 p.m. • The motion passed on a unanimous vote. MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, to continue item 19 to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday evening, November 13, at this location. Councilman Berwald commented that he thought Council members knew his feelhngs on this ratter; it is not .an appropriate municipal item. MOTION TO TABLE: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Beahrs, to table the motion. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Berwald, Clay, Norton, Sher NOES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum Continued Public Hearl . .Una xoveci atr_ct. 04 to ergroun onvers:..on Mayor Comstock stated that this is the time and place fixed for the public hearing on the formation of Underground Utility District No. 16, comprising that portion of Louis Road from East Meadow Drive to near Loss Verde, including all finished properties requiring underground service. He stated that anyone interested could address Council on the question of whether the public necessity, health, and safety require the establishment of said underground district and removal of poles and overhead lines and associated overhead etrectures, and the under- ground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric and telephone service in the district. He declared the hearing open and asks!! the City Clerk to report on the various affidavits and notices given in connection with the hearing, City Clerk Ann Tanner stated that the notice of the hearing was eublished and also the notice of the continuance of the hearing and that she herd affidavits on file. She also utated that no written protests were received. Mayor Comstock asked for the staff report, and .Assistant City Manager Warren Deverel replied that the report from the city staff was contained in a written stuff report dated November 8, 1973. )o members of the public wished to be heard. Mayor Comstock declared the public hearing cloned. 3 3 1 11/12/73 MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Pearson, its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12.16.020 OF CHAPTER 12.16 OF TITLE 12 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 16 The ordinance was approved for first reading on a unanimous vote. Air ort Land Use CossaisaAenoand a.nsen a o c th r Deed. o e g to of Ree. $yatem Vice Mayor Pearson commented that she had sent a memorandum to Council and attached the weighted voting system that was proposed and posed the question that came out of the committee. She asked that Council give direction on how to vote. She stated that her preference is to double the vote and allow Palo Alto to have four votes, and the Planning Commission would be an independent voting body, Mayor Comstock asked if the Planning Commission delegate is bound by the vote of the Council representative, is there any particular need to have the Planning Commission vote? What would be their incentive to particip: to in the meeting? Vice Mayor Pearson responded that the Planning Commission votes now. She did not know that one could say that the representatives will be bound by the council except in some instances where they are given direction by the Council to vote. Many times they vote without direction by the Council. In the past Vice Mayor Pearson and the Planning Commission have sometimes votedifferently from each other. Councilman fseahis stated that he did not have any quarrel with this particular proposal. He wondered if it would be within the spirit of the discussion to put a time limit on it and see what happens. Vice Mayor Pearson felt that would be worth while. She thought a year would be a good time, because they only meet once a month. It would give a chance if it did not work out for the members of the committee to take steps. MOTION: Vice Mayor Pearson moved, seconded by Norton, that she be delebated co vote for a doubling of the vote, an independent Planning Commission vote, and seventeen of thirty—two mt bers constituting a quorum. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. MOTION TO CONSIDER AGENDA ITEMS OUT OP ORDER: Councilman Norton said that he was sure that item 3 (proposed County "—ca" zone) would take some time. Items 4, 5, 6, and 7 seemed to be routine, and there were some people in the audience who were interested in those. MOTION: Councilman Norton moved, seconded by Pearson, that items 4, 5, 6, and 7 be brought forward for consideration at this time. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. 332 11/12/73 Application cf W. G. Yourieff for a Final ContominL un Subcftvision Ma 31 Hawthorne Avenue MOTION: Councilman Norton moved, seconded by Berwald, that Council approve the application of W. Gs Yourieff for a final condominium sub- division map (6 units) located at 131 Hawthorne Avenue, tract number 5422: The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Berwald, Clay, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Pearson M licati►on of San _Francisquito-Associates. £oE` amoral Condr.,,mtni ua. Sub'iivis a Ma an 3 Palo Alto Avenue MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Norton, that Council approve the ,application of San Francisquito Associates for a final condominium subdivision map (18 units) ..ocated at 320 and 330 Palo Alto Avenue, tract 547a< The motion passed on the folicwina vote: AYES: Bearers, Berwald, Clay, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Pearson lication of Construction S(steaaa. Inc for entat ve. C d i Buh�Sf�i►� i ir 617 forest Avenue AmmommemmoommmminMmarammow MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Norton, that Council approve the application of Construction Systems, Inc., for a tentative condominium subdivision map (18 units) located at 627 Forest Avenue, subject to conditions recorded in the Planning Commission minutes of October 31, 1573. Further, Council find that no significant environmental impact will result from this development. In response to Councilman Sher, Planning Director Kror, stated that the Architectural Review Board has reviewed this project on a preliminary informal basis. Actual formal review has not taken place. The condi- tion for it to go back to the Architectural Review Board covers the fact that that is yet to take place. The Planning Commission did not want to tie the hands of the Architectural Review Board by indicating they were approving a subdivision plan that would tie down the design. Councilmen Sher stated that he was concerned that there were some serious questions raised about this project and approval of the tenta- tive subdivision map not in any way prejudice or constrict what the Architectural Review Board might do. Be :asked when this comes back to Council if there would be a full and complete opportunity to take into account what the Architectural Review Board recoiaseewia. 333 11/12/73 - See p. 403 334 11/12/73 Mr. Knox responded that the action by the Planning Coamia;,ion said that they would approve the site for eighteen units, but sixteen units were permissible which, in effect, leaves open the opportunity for the developer and the ARB, if there are difficulties in arranging eight- een units on the site, to look at fewer units. The Planning Commission's action does not in any way constrain the ARB. (Council called a recess at 7:55 p.u. due to audience disruption.) Executive Session Mayor Comstock announced at 8:00 p.m. that Council would hold an execu- tive session to consider personnel matters. (Council reconvened at 8:20 p.m.) A ointments to Child_ Care. Task.Force Mayor Comstock announced that during Executive Session, names submitted by the Child Care Task Force for appointment to that organization were approved MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Beahrs, trtat the following appointments to the Child Care Task Force be approved: Linda. Benjamin 2211 Poplar East Palo Alto Starr L. Boetticher 991 bincoln Palo Alto Leslie Conley 201 Waiter Hays Drive Palo Alto Barbara H. Davies 3831 Carlson Circle Palo Alto Cathy Argo Dodds 1119 Mir nte Mountain View Edith T. Eddy 2579 Cowper Palo Altc Virginia Carlow 2451 Middlefield Road Palo Alto Wile H. Klein 10.59 Colorado Palo Alto Marjorie Carmel 3931 Duncan Place Palo Alto V'irgL i.a W. Debs 3145 Flowers Lane Palo Alto Robert D. Hess 3903 D Middlefield Road Palo Alto Eliot Levinson 71 E Escondido Village Stanford Jennifer Miller 3277 Bryant Palo Alto Betty J. RGgaway 1302 Greenwood Palo Alto Timothy 1). Trailer 936 Waverley Palo Alto The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Appointment to Palo Alto . DrugAk�use.. 'fib sory �oa.rd — 1 MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Henderson, that the appoint- ment of Geraldine L. Kinyon to the Palo Alto Drug Abuse Advisory Board be approved, The motion passed on a unanimous vote. MOTION: Mayor Comstock :coved, seconded by Henderson, that the appoint- ment of Ron Luyet to the Palo Alto Community Drug Abuse Board be approved; The motion passed on a unanimous vote. A plicatiun of Construction. S st2ma,. Inc. for a Tentative Condoz. la.ium. SubdUzLs1on M8 &17 Forest enue es t1u o7 Vv .onsidera o Councilman Sher asked how the Council would get the input of the Architectural. Review Board, and Mr, Knox responded that the Architec-'• tura? fzviesK Board would have a fu.Jl chance to complete review of this project. There is nothing unusual about the course of everts. The conditions set by the Planning Commission have to be complied with, Assuming the Architectural Review Board and the applicant agree on a deai n, then the applicant will file his final map. Councilman Henderson said he understood that the eighteen condominiums would replace six living units. He asked if staff had any idea of general rental figures on those units. Would the city be losing six low -to -moderate income units to obtain eighteen condominium units which are rether high in cost. Neither Mr. Knox nor the representative of the applicant who was present were able to answer, Councilman Henderson said he was concerned at potentially losing six low -to -moderate income units. Also, in reading the minutes of the Planning Commission, it appeared that the Planning Commission mode a quick change from opposition to unanimous approval, and he wondered if the representative of the Planning Commission could give a background as to what swayed their position so suddenly. He asked what were their doubts at the beginning. See p. 403 Kr, Kline indicated that he was not present during the discussion of that subject, and Planning Director Knox stated that the Planning Commissaion was concerned that this would be another project like Cowper-Chatming where the Review Board had one idea about the project and the Planning Commission had another. The Planning Commission did not want to do anything that might upset an action by the Review Board. One similarity to the Cowper --Chanting project was that the Architectural See p. Review Board did not have plans before it. As discussion continued, 403 it because clear that tha Architectural Review Board and the applicant were not very far apart. At the conclusion of the Planning Commieaian discussion, the commisaion wanted to be sure they were not tying the hands of the Architectural Review Board in working with the applicant on this design. Mr. Knox said he saw no problems with the present proposal by the PL&uning Commission. 3 3 5 11/12/73 Councilman Clay asked if the developer had seen the list of the thirteen, conditions. Mr. Knox responded that the representative of the applicant was present at the time conditions were established. He had seen all o` the conditions that were part of the Engineering Bulletin. The applicant was seeking to establish the validity of placing eighteen units on this site prior to spending further funds toward architectural plans. Vice Mayor Pearson commented that one of the problems when developments are built was that when air conditioning systems and swimming pools are installed, they create noise pollution to the detriment of the neighbors already there. She said she would like to see the developer be required to meet the standards established by the city's noise control ordinance regarding pools and air conditioning. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, to add another item which would be that the developer would install a pool filtering system and air conditioning system that would meet the anti -noise requirements of the City of Palo Alto. Councilman Beahrs did not see the necessity for the amendment, since there is an ordinance which would be enforceable against a developer in this connection. Vice Mayor Pearson, stated that one could wait until the noise is there and then try to correct it-, or when something ;s installed, make sure it is going to meet the requirements. City Attorney Booth commented that the noise ordinance would apply in any event, and staff is enforcing against full noise wherever appli- cable. The addition of the condition would call to the developer's attention that he will be expected to meet the standards. The amendment passed on the following vote: AYES: gerwald, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Beahrs, Clay The motion as amended passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Berweld, Clay, Comstock, Norton, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Henderson, Pearson A l i ca t ion of Div iAi.saci—Iadam iva_.a. en a vedrng ton o venue art • tr. eat soutonNa MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Beahrs, that Council approve the tentative condominium subdivision map entitled "Ownership Plan" on the application of Dividend Industries for a tentative condominium subdivision (34 units) located at the northerly corner of San Antonio Avenue and Alma Street subject to conditions recorded in the Planning 336 11/12/73 Commission minutes of October 31, 1973. Further, that Council find that no significant environmental impact will result from this develop- ment; and introduced the following resolution with recommendation for approval. RESOLUTION NO. 4839 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAN ANTONIO AVENUE AND ALMA STREET AND GRANTING EXCEPTIONS FROM LOT WIDTH, DEPTH, AREA AND FRONTAGE REQUIRFMENTS, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS" Councilman Henderson commented that one item of potential correction was the naming of one of the streets; San Alma Drive is at least tenta- tively approved as Ponce Drive. Mayor Comstock replied that the City Attorney has said that the resolu- tion as offered can go forward, because what it says is the name is subject to the condition that it may be referred to the Finance and Public Works Committee, so that any subsequent action taken by the committee will become effective. Councilman Henderson said that he is not completely sure, after reading this material, why the project was moving from a condominium plan to an ownership plan. It has been discussed as a condcminiuri all along, and new it is ownership of the lot out to the street. He asked what the difference is in the two approaches. Mr. Knox responded that his understanding was that members of the Planning Commission wanted to have individually owned lots with fron- tage on public streets, and that can best be accomplished by the owner- ship of the land. Councilman Henderson noted that it applies to all but the low -to - moderate income units, yet there is still maintenance by the entire group. Mr. Knox replied that the covenants, restrictions, and conditions cover that and quite adequately guarantee that there will be a home- owners' group to which fees will be paid, and they will be responsible for maintaining the front yards. Vice Mayor Pearson said that condition No. 6 states that ". . . the baffle fence -wall shall be so designed as to allow adequate visibility to traffic on both streets." She asked how you can have a wall that is going to be baffling of sound and yet allow visibility. Mr. Richard Oliver, representing the developer, said that his.under- standing was that the request was made so that the aightline of people turning from San Antonio Way would not have their visibility obstructed, He said there would be a curve in the wall. Vice Mayor Pearson commented that she felt this was one of the more successful projects that had been designed and that the developer bas been quite cooperative, and she thinks it is incredible when we find a cooperative one, we put iota of restrictions on. men they do not cooperate, everything is allowed to go through. Councilman Clay asked for further clarification between a condominium and the ownership plan. 3 3 7 11/12/73 Mr. Oliver said that in the market -priced units, the person who buys the unit buys the deed title to the land underneath the unit. That cannot apply to the low -to -moderate income unit because they will be stacked. Any person going and looking at the unit would not have any way of knowing whether a person owned the land under his unit or not. Although he owns the land out to the street, he has given up the right to maintain it. It operates strictly through the condi- tions, covenants, and restrictions which state that in the common area there are sitting on that common area two sets of buildings which contain the condominium units. The homeownership association, condi- tions, covenants, and restrictions say that same areas are restricted for use to those people who buy the airspace above the lard. Councilman Beahrs said that this was unique in his experience, and he would like to be assured that there will be a uniform standard of maintenance and protection of the general appearance of this develop- ment. Mr. Oliver responded that he is the legal counsel, and he has written the conditions, covenants, and restrictions to the satisfaction of his firm and rhe builder. The motion and accompanying resolution were approved en the following vote: AYES: beaters, Clay, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Eerw 1d Pr+;gored Count • "-cs" rope: Plant.; Conmis,s.1on ecQ -MB E i 0fi xOr t ffif of k ol4 Mayor Comstock noted that Council had received a report from the Planning Commission, containing a recommendation for an amendment to the proposed county "-cs" zone; a letter from: Councilman Norton concerning possible additionat approaches to the problem; a letter from Councilman Henderson responding to Councilman Norton's letter; letters from the Civic League, Committee for Green Foothills, and a letter from Stanford University • responding to the Planning Comiasior's recommendation. He asked the Planning Director and Planing Commissioner Klein to summarize the sal- ient featurea of the Planning CormsisAion's recommendation. Planning Commissioner Klein stated that he would speak to the background of the recommendation, and Planning Director Knox would cover the details of how the ordinance would work. Hr. Klein said that this is an issue which has aroused a fair amount of discussion, and particularly he would like to respond to some of the comments that he had heard. It has been suggested that passage of the "-cs" ordinance would som.ehew harm relation- ships between Stanford and Palo Alto. He failed to see how this could be the cese. He felt, to the contrary, that enactment of this ordinance, which would give Palo Alto a say in the development of the campus, would foster relationships. It has been suggested that instead of a mandatory approach, closer voluntary cooperation be sought. Voluntary cooperation is certainly not to be downgraded, but if one really wants to get a job done, the way to do it is through an ordinance. Comments have been made to the effect this would somehow be unfair since Stanford does not 1 3 3 8 11/12/73 vote in the City of Palo Alto. He felt it was difficult to support such an argument, because Stanford is neither one person nor one thing. It is ten thousand -plus students, plus faculty members, plus staff. There is no one voice except the board of trustees. The board of directors of Hewlett-Packard, for example, does not vote in the municipal elec- tions. It should be noted that many people who work at Stanford live in Palo Alto and participate in municipal affairs. It has been suggested that the "-cs" zone would interfere with Stanford's academic freedom. In Mr. Klein's view, it would in no way affect academie freedom. Every other major private university in an urban setting is subject to close local scrutiny. He failed to see why Stanford should be any different. It has also been stated that Stanford harp done a good job of planning in the past; therefore, Palo Alto does not need to have any say in its planning in the future. But precisely what counts is what is going to happen in the future. Good planning in the past is no guarantee of good planning ±.n the future. Stanford has mentioned on several occasions that they should be treated differently from other landowners, because they supply their own utilities. Planning for growth and for traffic cir- culation are what is important. The mere question of who provides utilities is far less important. Would the city allow a private cor- poration to build a fifty -story building on the condition that they supply their own utilities and fire and police protection? Another implication In the debate so far is that Palo Alto somehow cannot be trusted and would be a thorn in the side of Stanford. Hr. Klein dis- agreed with that contention. The _people in Palo Alto can be trusted to cooperate with Stanford; they have a great stake iri Stanford. It has also been proposed to have soTething not as strong as proposed by the Planning Commission because of the city staff time required to monitor development on the campus. It was pointed out that Stan- ford's budget was bigger than Palo Alto's. ?fir. Klein said he failed to see the importance of that. Many of the corporations located in Palo Alto have budgets far in excess of the city's. It has been stated that Stanford has much building going on. That is the very reason why something like the ' cs" ordinance is needed. The more building there is, the greater stake Palo Alto has in trying to make sure develop- ment on the campus is in accord with the goals of the city. With regard to Councilman Norton's memorandum, Mr. Klein stated that the idea of exempting in total the developed academic reserve is one that he could not support, because it would encourage Stanford to build any additional buildings in the developed academic reserve when proper planning might indicate they be constructed elsewhere. Secondly, the requirement that the city only receive notice of such developments leads away from a desirable situation which has existed in Palo Alto in recent years ----which is to encourage developers to come in and talk informally before conditions harden. Thin is the way the Architectural Review Board works, aac! it is effective. The earlier there is discussion on a project, the more likely it is the sessions will be cooperative.. The Planning Commission feels this is a unique opportunity and a very important one. Stanford has a major affect on citizens' lives. The County of Santa Clara has indicated it is not interested in monitoring local growth that it is to -ruing back that responsibility to the cities which are most affected. Stanford is within Palo Alto's jurisdiction, and Mfr. Klein urged that the Council adopt the recommendation of the Planning ommiseion or something similar to it. h'r. Knox projected on the screen a map shoving the urban service area as adopted by Palo Alto and by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFGO) and pointed out the categories of permanent 3 3 9 11/12/73 open space, long-term open spate, and urban service area. The establish- ment of an urban service area is an attempt by ?AFCO to get cities to look ahead to the five-year growth pattern beyond their city boundaries. In Palo Alto's [Urban Development/Open Space Plan, urban service area is defined as land which is either currently developed in urban uses and supplied with urban services, or land which is appropriate for develop- ment within the next five years. The developed Stanford campus hes been included in the urban service area because it is basically developed is urban uses and is already supplied with urban services. Under the pro- posed county "-es" zone, any development in the urban service area, other than a house on two and one-half acres, would be required to seek annexation to the adjacent city. The basic purposes of the "-cs" zone are to see that urban development takes place in cities and to foster annexation of the areas contiguous to cities so that urban development can take place. This zoning proposal has been developing since March 30 when the County Counsel first sent a memorandum outlining the zone to the County Board of Supervisors. A number of revisions and: amend- ments were sent to the Supervisors on June 20. Stanford University, in a letter of :lily 17, asked that they be exempted from the ?rovisions of the zone, because they supply urban services and because they would not be developing single residential units on two- and one-half acre lots. Stanford proposed an amendment, now labeled Arendment 6A, to exempt themselves. The falo Alto Planning Commission's action would allow the exemption of Stanford fret the normal provi,ions of the '-cs" zone in that it would not seek to force annexation of every development, but the Planning Commission would make some other re;uests of Stanford in lieu of the normal proviss.ons of the "-cs" zone. First, it would requite that any Stanford development proposal would be reviewed by the city rather that by the county. Second, it would require that the en- vironmental assessment be made by the city instead of the county. If no environmental impact was found, the university could proceed to develop by obtaining a building pewit iron. Ole county. On the other hand, if a significant impact was found, the staff, Planning Commission, and Council would have the choice of either denying, approving, or moeifying the pro- posal. If the proposal were approved either In its original form or modified, the staff would send a notice to the county that a building permit could be issued. If the project wee not approved by the city, the ct'unty would be notified that a building pewit should not be issued. In summary, the process of issuing building permits would remain with the county, but the prerequisite planning review would take place at the local level by the city staff, Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Knox noted that the planning Commission of the county would be hearing this matter in a special meeting on November 29, and they have asked informally that Palo Alto make some statement with regard to the two amendments that are now before them, 6A and 6B. Councilman Beahrs commented that Mr. Knox is quite experienced with the university of Chicago problems where a major university is an island within a core city, which is entirely distinguishable from the Stanford - Palo Alto situation. He asked if Mr, Knox could sketch out the philo- sophy and reasons that bring forwerd this whole problem. As Mr. Beahrs understands it, the purpose is to avoid the very poor, inadequate develop - sent in the county which has been characterized by a hedgehopping of urban development through open space, orchards, or agricultural land. He asked what validity there is to the application of this philosophy to the problem with Stanford, which is not in the midst of Palo Alto, and in fact, predates Palo Alto Ly years. He said Stanford is not worthy of comparison with Hewlett-Packard. They are entirely different insti- tutions, and their objectives are not comparable. 3 4 0 11/12/73 Mr. Knox responded that the last two pages of the attachment to the report which he sent to the Council on November 8 speak partly to this. He read pages 8 and 9 of the attachment. He stated that the items which referred to overloading of city streets, parking facil- ities, and recreational services are the kinds of things the county felt the cities should control. The "-cs" zone works imperfectly in the Stanford situation, tsecause Stanford does provide urban services. That is why there has been discussion as to how the vehicle of the "-cs" zone could be utilized so that some control would be exercised over the planning and development of the Stanford campus by the com- munity most impacted by it. Mr. Knox stated that in discussing this matter with other members of the staff and Stanford and Council mem- bers, he has thought of this in terms of four words that bring out the objectives of the process. They are Information, Response, In- volvement, anc: Control. It seemed to him in the discussions in the Planning Commission, the first three were being requested» -Informa- tion from Stanford regarding their developments, Response from Stanford to proposals by the Council or citizens of Palo Alto when impacts need to be mitigated, and Involvement by Palo Alto in the Stanford planning process. Lacking any one of these three, there was an attempt to gain Control over the process. When staff dis- cussed this with Stanford University, Stanford felt it was a two- way street. Palo Alto actions also af`.ect Stanford; they need in- formation about those things; and Palo Alto should be responsive to their needs as well, They also felt there should be sore involve- ment on their part in the Palo Alto planning process. Mr. Knox noted that Star. -ford has been involved in discussions on the Comprehensive Plan at this point. Councilman Beahrs stated that he does not often agree with Mr. Ira Sonde, the mayor of Menlo Park, but Mr. Sande struck a few words of wisdom when he suggested Palo Alto might be somewhat presumptious in this whole situation. Palo Alto is only one of five communities directly contiguous to Stanford in two counties. There is a definite regional community of interest as compared to what Palo Alto's in- terest is. Mr. Knox responded that the "sphere of influence" boundaries adopted by LAFC© show that all of Stanford University's lands in Santa Clara County, almost without exception, are within the Palo Alto sphere of influence. The basis for that decision is which community is im- pacted most. Staff believes that the major impact is on Palo Alto. Certainly the impacts are -lees on communities like Menlo Park and Portola Valley. The traffic flows are experienced most in Palo Alto. Palo Alto is the community that has to provide the streets to carry the traffic. Mt. Klein said that it should be noted that Stanford is operating under a blank check from Santa Clara County based on a very sketchy general plan which the county approved eleven yeare ago, It seemed to him that with the county having said it no longer wants to be in the business of making these decisions, that the city impacted the most should be consulted. Perhaps regional government might be the better solution, but it generally covers other things, such as regional transportation and air pollution. Vice Mayor Pearson commented that the "-ca" zone had been under dis- cussion for almost a year, and a great deal of information has been given to Council. Council adopted a unanimous policy supporting a "-es" zone in the county. The Planning Commission has spent hours 3 4 1 11/12/73 working out a solution to the Stanford -Palo Alto problem, and it has become clear that the county does not want to be in the planning position any longer and wants to delegate to the city that will be most impacted. She felt it was time for the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission which came up with r. good proposal. The statement has been made that everything in the "-cs" zone has to come to the City Council and get a use permit, and has to be annexed to the City of Palo Alto. That is not true. Reading carefully the 6C amendment reveals that annexation is just one of many options. NOTION: Vice Mayor Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that Coun- cil uphold the recoamnendatiun of the Planning Commission and approve Amendment 6C amending Section 34-4 in Section 3 of the proposed or- dinance by adding paragraph 12 to read: (12) Education facilities and facilities incidental to the oper- ation of an education institution, including but not limited to housing for the students, faculty and staff thereof, provided that such educational institution owns more than 2,000 contiguous acres of land and provided (1) that said institution shall brig; its development proposals to the continuous city in whose sphere of influence said in-- stitut ton lies for review and approval; and (2) that said city may (a) deny such proposal, or (b) request modifi- cation of such proposal, or (c) approve such proposal and request annexation of the site and its 'evelopraent to said city, or (d) approve such proposal withcat requiring annexation of its site to said city. No such approval shall be required for any construction, including re -- modeling, whir‘t has no significant impact on housing, em- ployment, vehicular traffic, or open space as defined in the applicable General Plan. For purposes of determining significant impact, the contiguous city is considered the lead agency and its environmental assessment procedures shall apply. Councilman Henderson said he was responding to Councilman Norton's memorandum to leave the developed portion of the academic reserve completely outside of Palo Alto control. Councilman Henderson said that he could see a problem with the Planning Commission recommenda- tion in that there is at least a threat of annexation of the academic portion based solely on Palo Alto's determination, and at least at this point in time, he felt that was a sensitive issue and not a necessary adjunct to planning control by Palo Alto, Councilman Norton had proposed that, for the developed portion of the academic reserve, Stanford could go ahead and develop in that area without the city's approval. Councilman Henderson said that he would in- stead propose that Stanford submit a five-year master plan for this area, that this plan be put before the Planning Commission for ap- proval and the Councih for adoption. Subsequently, any development proposal submitted by Stanford for that area would go through the Planning Department of Palo Alto for a check with the approved roaster plan. If compatible with the plant, Stanford is notified that they can get their permit from the county. If contrary to or beyond the master plan, the proposal would go to the Planning Come - mission and Council for approval; so that there is a basic control with the master plan ---a control for anything that goes beyond the master plan, but no annexation being required by the city. The same exclusion would apply to projects under $25,000. For the undeveloped portion of the academic reserve, he would support Councilman Norton's 3 4 2 11/12/73 procedures on page 3 of his memorandum. Those give Palo Alto plan- ning control over presently undeveloped areas A and B. for Area C, Councilman Henderson said he would request further staff study to be assured this open space land is protected for the next five years. Thus, Palo Alto would have planning control over all areas, but to a different degree, and would have eliminated the threat of annexa- tion of the academic area. Councilman Rosenbaum asked if development could take place on a piece of land in the open space category, or if it first would have to be converted to the urban services category. Mr. Knox responded that the open space elements of the comprehensive plans of both the county and the city show the area west of Juniper° Serra Boulevard as being open space of some kind. Zoning which cor- responds to this planned designation exists in that area. However, under the 1962 use permit that Stanford has, they are able to build anything west of Junipero Serra Boulevard that has a low -density academic designation --things like the antenna farm, for example. No special review by the county would be necessary at this point ex- cept environmental assessment. Mr. Knox felt it would be appropriate that one of the actions to be taken in conjunction with any one of the approaches under discussion would be to seek revision of the use ►,ermit so that the area west of Juniper° Serra Boulevard is no longer under the blanket use permit, and developments would have to be treated on a case -by -case basis. His understanding from the county is that the provisions of a use permit may be revised, and a hear- ing on the patter can be held at the request, of any interested party. If the city so wishes, the county could be requested to review the use permit granted in 1962 for the purpose of excluding this portion. Referring to the annexation of the academic reserve under the Plan-- ning Commission recommendation, Councilman Sher asked if his under- standing were correct that if a project were approved or proposed to be modified within the academic area, the Planning Commission recommendation of the city cou.t.d suggest annexation, and would the annexation be automatic under those circumstances. Mr. Knox responded that Council could request annexation of the de- velopment site, but it would not be automatic. It would mean that Stanford would have to apply for annexation to LAIC°, and if the parcel were contiguous to the city limits, there probably would be no problem. If the parcel were somewhat removed and required an annexation corridor, LAFCC would be free to deny it, although state regulations -permit corridors up to a certain length. 1 Councilman Sher asked if the annexation were not approved, would the project therefore not be approved; that -is, if the city requested annexation. What happens if vexation does not occur? Mr. Knox replied that he was not sure the language stated it all that clearly, and it was something staff would want to work out with the County Counsel's office, but the way in which the "-cs" suffix oper- ates, without respect to Stanford, iirthat anyone proposing to de- velop must request annexation to the city. If that annexation is not granted for some reason, they are free to go to the county, and there is a variance procedure which enables there to develop. As this recommendation is now framed by the Plannicg Commission, it was the intent that should such an occasion come up, and if Stanford were to request annexation and west through the process, and the 3 4 3: j 1:/1x/73 annexation .ere denied by UAFCO, Stanford would then be able to go to the county, and the use permit and variance procedure would oper- ate. Stanford would get their permit from the county. Councilman Sher felt this was not clear from the Planning Commission's version. In his opinion, if the city thought annexation were appro- priate and requested it, it would be attached as a condition to approval. Apparently under the "--cs" zoning, the whole policy is to require annexation for anyone In the "•-es" zone who applies for a development project. What is being proposed here is that the city take a position of no annexation that is an exception to the overall scheme of the "r-cs" zone where the general principle is that there ought to be annexation of any development within the -ca" zone. Mr. Knox said that was generally correct, except the general prin- ciple of the "--es" zone is to give cities control over developments ter!iacent to them which are not in the incorporated limits at the present time, and the method for achieving that objective is .o re- quire annexation under the umbrella of the "-cs" zone. In Stanford's case, the method needs to be somewhat different, because the con- trol under the general principle is still needed, but annexation may not be the method, and there may be some. other way to obtain the information and a response and to be involved in the planning process without necessarily requiring annexation. (Council recessed from 9:35 to 9:50 p.m. due to audience disruption.) Councilman Sher as'lfed the difference between the Norton and Henderson proposals regarding the nonacademic lands. He asked if the basic underlying assumption is the same in both of them. Councilman Henderson said that he used the Planning Commission's wording. Since "nonacademic" included some of the staff -faculty housing area, it is not necessarily true that nonacademic lands . would be annexed each time. Industry or commerce would have to be annexed. Councilman Norton's statement is that such lands will be annexed to Palo Alto. Councilman Norton th )ught part of the problem was that he wrote his memorandum based on a map supplied to hiss by someone other than staff. That map showed the faculty housing as being in the academic reserve. In addition, it showed the area up to the freeway as also being entirely in the academic reserve. The map provided by staff leaves the housing area out of the academic reserve and also shows an arbitrary line drawn roughly half --way between Junipero Serra Boulevard and the freeway demarking the limits of the :academic re- serve in Area C. What is significant is that Pine Hill. 1 and 2 and Frenchman's Hill are not in the academic reserve on the staff's map. He would not propose to ar.i ee those out -of -hand. If the map had been as shown initially to him, those areas would be automatically excluded from his recommendation for annexation. In Area A,"if there were a proposal for student housing, and it was proposed to be kept in the academic category, be would want to have the option of disapproving or approving it and also have the opportunity to annex or not. Councilman Sher co ented that he hoped Stanford would address it- self to the master plan feature of Councilman Henderson's proposal. 3 4 4 11112/73 Councilman Norton continued that the principal difference between the Planning Commission's proposal and his is that, while the same rules would apply in terms of procedure and ultimate decision making, he would exclude the traditional or built-up academic campus whereas the Planning Commission would not. He felt it was not really impor- tant to the city to have a handle on that development. The require- ment that he would like to install is the assured receipt of envi- ronmental impact reports in the academic area. How the city would respond is not entirely clear, but it would be an improvement to have such reports for any substantial developments on campus. He conceded that his plan is a compromise. It is an effort to carve out the undeveloped areas that are now in academic reserve which would be of sufficient interest to the city to have control. If in the future it appeared that the city had insufficient control in the development on the academic campus, it could take another look at its position. He saw some problems in administering Councilman Henderson's five --year waster plan approach. Councilman ferwald commented that Council had had the Planning Comm - mission recommendations before it and certainly had studied them and had an understanding of them. The Norton proposal moves more in the direction of what he thought would be reasonable, and the Henderson proposal adds some other definitions, and points out some of the areas that are in the developed academic reserve that do not shoe on the map attached to Councilman Norton's recommendation, and also the five-year master plan suggestion. Those are new, and Council has not had an opportunity to study them. Council has also received a proposal from Stanford. He felt it was at least worthwhile to con- tiLue the matter and refer it to co.aittee so that Stanford would have the opportunity to explore in depth the recommendations of Norton/Henderson in comparison to their own. His personal feeling was that, with some minor modifications, particularly if Stanford would be interested in vorl-ing toward a mutual deveiopc:;ent of a five-year plan, he would move more in the direction of the Norton proposal. He felt that the city and Stanford were probably close to a fairly mutually satisfactory agreement. He thought the word "control" had been used a good deal, but he was not sure that Stanford's land development policies of late were threatening to Palo Alto. Also, Stanford had indicated a desire to work with the city, and perhaps some interim or voluntary arrangement would give the city the protection it needs, and if it did not work, the city could move into more of a control situation. Vice Mayor Pearson referred to Councilman Henderson's proposal for a five-year master plan and asked what happens in the interims while Palo Alto and Stanford are adopting Stanford's caster plan. Councilman Henderson replied that another sentence might have to be inserted that would give Palo Alto control during that one --year period. He was assuming Stanford would be ready rather soon with a five-year plan. Vice Mayor Pearson expressed concern that if Stanford had their plan right now, it would have to go before the Planning Commission which is presently involved deeply in the city's general plan, and this is asking for review of another general plan which would take a lot of work on the part of the Planning Commission. Councilman Henderson said that he a de his assumption partially an what was presented zy Stanford on October 30, and it did not sound like this was going to be a great problem. 3 4 5 11/12/73 Mr. Klein noted that Amendment 6C provides for a categorical approval of any Stanford project that does not have any impact on housing, employment, traffic, or open space. Those would not cone before the Planning Commission. '.Hike Hudnall, associate staff counsel at Stanford, stated that Stanford University's letter to the County Planning Commission in July set out the reasons that Stanford was seeking to have academic use of its lands treated as a permitted use under the "--cs" ordinance. Basically, the reason was that the ordinance was not intended to cover the situation which exists at Stanford, and that situation was not in the minds of the people who drafted the proposed ordinance. If the ordinance went through unchanged, instead of reducing dupli- cation of services, it would probably increase duplication of ser- vices. Stanford already has a full complement of quasi-municipa1 services on campus. It would represent a tremendous administrative burden. It had potential to result in piecemeal annexation on a building -by -building basis which is opposite to L.AFCO's goals. The Planning Commission's Amendment 6C is extremely troublesome to Stanford, because it would give Palo Alto total control over Stanford's land use on the academic campus at the same time that the city would have no political responsibility to the people who live on the campus. Palo Alto would have no obligation to provide any of the services that the city would hale to provide to lands that are within the city limits. Amendment 6C is unac._cr'table f on Stanford's• point of view. Mr. Augshurger wrote last week spelling out Stanford's will- ingness to share with the city all of its planning for construction on campus far in advance of the time Stanford would seek a building permit. He expressed the hope that the city would see fit to follow that arrangement at this time. Mr. Hudnall commented that the medical center is probably going to undergo expansion. The city staff has attended two planning ses- sions on that. Stanford plans to brief the city on that plan at the earliest possible time. Secondly, Stanford is exploring a capital budgeting method for a three- to five-year period. This would give Stanford a longer -term fix on what will be going on the campus. Hr. Hudnall said that Stanford very much appreciated the concern that Councilmen Norton and Henderson had shown in looking at this matter. The Norton proposal presents the same legal diffi- culties that the Planning Commission proposal presents, although it :.elates to a more limited area of land. There is a question of whether the county can or should delegate its authority to the city, and again there is the question of whether it is appropriate for the city to be making decisions with respect to the land while it has no responsibility to the landowner. Hr. Hudnall said that he did not have an opportunity to study the Henderson proposal as yet. Counciirscar, Sher referred to the comments about the legal difficulty and the county delegating its autho- tty and asked if that did not apply to all of the "-es" zoning everywhere in the county. Mr. Hudnall responded that it does not, because as drafted, the "-cs" zone does not delegate any decision -making power to the city. All it says is that a landowner has to seek annexation of his property as a condition preceding development in the county. If he is turned down on annexation, he has the option of seeking a special use per- mit under the "-cs" zone from the county. There is a very substan- tial difference. 346 11/12/73 Councilman Sher said he understands that the University does not like the "-cs" proposal as it originally stands in requiring the applica- tion for annexation in every case --that the University wants an ex- emption from that. Mr. Hudnall cited as a practical problem the proposed emeriti housing on the old school site surrounded by inhabited territory in which the residents could oppose and prevent annexation. That project, under the ordinance as it is now drafted, could not go forward unless the county found Stanford could meet the stringent standards required after Stanford had applied fruitlessly for annexation. The appli- cation would be fruitless because LAFCO cannot legally grant an annexation of that site. Stanford would have to apply, be turned down, and then go in for a special use permit. Councilman Sher asked whether Stanford -likes the Planning Commission proposal or the Norton proposal any better than the "-cs" as proposed. In responding to the county, one possibility is for the city to op- pose Stanford's request for an exemption; another is to propose something in substitution for it; and another is to support Stanford's request. Regarding the first two possibilities, he asked which Mr. Hudnall regarded as preferable. Mr. Hudnall responded that the Norton proposal is preferable, ;;excuse it is limited in scope, It does not solve the legal, philosophical and practical problems, but it limits them a great deal. Councilman Henderson asked if Stanford has a five-year master plan prepared at this time. If not, ;.could it take a great deal of time to prepare, or how far along are they on such a plan? Mr. Hudnall responded that he did not know, and the planner was un- able to attend this meeting. He introduced Mr. John Breedlove, another representative from Stanford. Mr. Breedlove said that he was not ,aware of any plan other than the 1962 plan on display Which defines specific areas for specific uses. He was not sure what Councilmen Henderson had in mind. Councilman Henderson said that he had heard a number of proposals for buildings to be constructed in the next one to three years. He assured those were pretty well in mind. Mr. Breedlove said he was not certain whether that would represent a five-year plan or not. There is certainly some preplanning, but he did not know if it covered the specific areas Palo Alto would be concerned with. Councilman Beahra commented that as he understood it, Mr. Augsburger's proposal exempts Stanford entirely from the "-cs" provisions. He noted particularly paragraph 4 of his letter: "We recognize that if we are, in our judgment, unable to accommodate your views, you may stake your viewer known to the appropriate persons or agencies of the County of Santa Clara." Councilman ears asked what Palo Alto would get out of that. Mr. Hudnall responded that the county could reconsider the existing use permit. Stanford would hope the situation would not arise where something could not be resolved mutually. Stanford la required to file an environmental impact statement, and Palo Alto would have the opportunity to appear and make known its objections. 347 11/12/73 Councilman Beahrs referred to an earlier comment that Stanford had been given a blank check by the county. Assuming that the Augsburger proposal should prevail, and there is lack of agreement on some major facility, if the county feels Palo Alto has some meri~ in its case, would the county have to revoke the blank check? Mr. Hudnall replied that the count, could modify it or revoke it. Stanford feels that the county is the appropriate body to b.: making those decisions. Regarding comments that the county has decided to get out of the planning business, Mr. Hudnall said that is not the case. In his view•, the county is an appropriate forum where Palo Alto could make itself felt strongly if Stanford could not accommo- date the city's views on a project. Councilman Beahrs asked, assuming Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, and perhaps Portola Valley and Woodside are all vitally interested in a project, how would differences be reconciled? Mr. Hudnall responded that any one of those bodies could raise a question with the county in which the project was located. That is where it would be solved, and that would be the appropriate place, because that is where the land lies. Councilman Clay stated that on October 30 the Council heard a lengthy description of some of the things Stanford. is planning. He assumed that to be at least part of a general plan. He asked if there is no such thing as a general plan for five years. Mr. Hudnall replied that there is a voluminous amount of planning going on all the time; however, he was not aware of anything called a "general plan" which would be rigidly adhered to aver a five-year period. Councilman Clay said that the proposal emphasizes city services such as utilities, and fire and police protection. He said the two en- tities are not on the same wave length. Palo Alto is talking about community impact. Mr. Hudnall stated that his understanding of the °'-cs" ordinance is that it was to prevent the type of leap -frog development which has destroyed the Santa Clara Valley and reduce the duplication of ser- vices between municipalities, and to help implement the county's open space plan. Stanford feels that it already meets the purposes of the ordinance. Stanford recognizes Palo Alto has a legitimate interest in knowing what is going on at Stanford so that the com- munity impact can be considered. That is what Stanford is proposing to give Palo Alto. City Manager Sipel referred to Councilman Henderson's earlier com- ments on current planning efforts at Stanford. Staff has had a number of conversations with Mr. Augusburger on that subject. Mr. Sipel's understanding is that the medical school planning is in process, std in the next several months, these plans will be re- viewed at Stanford followed by a complete briefing of the City Council. With respect to the academic plans, staff and Council heard on October 30 some of the things thst might come to pass in the near future.Mr. Sipel understands that the University plane to get into a process by which they can formalize their academic plan- ning over a three- to five-year time horizon, and that plan will include some of the projects that were suggested the other evening. That leaves a fair amount of land that is unplanned. It was planned 348 _11/12/73 to the extent that it appears in the Livingston and Blayney Report and it appears on older 1962 -vintage plans. He did not know what activities were going on to update that material, but there are at least two plans he knows of that are in the offing, and in a six - to nine -month period, the Council will become involved in that pro- cess. Elsie Begie, 1445 Bryant, addressed Council in opposition to the Planning Commission recommendation. Harrison Otis, 909 N. California Avenue, addressed Council in sup- port of the proposal by Councilman Henderson and part of Councilman Norton's proposal. Councilman Norton stated that his memorandum indicated there is a November 28 deadline for modifying the urban service area. Also there is a deadline which was imposed because the Planning Commis- sion of the county was meeting on the "-cs" zone on November 29, having continued the matter a number of times, mainly for this problem. That may be further continued if additional time seems to be necessary. The only real constraint seems to be the urban service area modification which can only occur once a year, and there is a deadline. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Norton moved, seconded by Berwald, that an ad hoc committee of Palo Alto and Stanford delegates be formed; that the four approaches (Planning Commission, Stanford, Norton, and Henderson) be considered by the committee, and that as its principal guideline -the Norton -Henderson formula be used as a starting place. Councilman Norton said that some direction should be given to the committee, and he favored something like his proposal plus con- sideration of the major difference between his proposal and Council- man Henderson's, which is the production of the five-year master plan. He asked if the direction were strong enough. Mayor Comstock responded that if he were on the group, he would want to say to the Council, "what kind of direction are you giving me --- Planning Commission, Augsburger, Norton, or Henderson?" Council can say to staff "work this out at the next liaison meeting," and staff will say, "Work what out?" if someone besides Council is going to do it, Council should be explicit philosophically, but per- haps not in every detail. Councilman Norton asked if there were any feeling that Council should not for an ad hoc committee as a next logical effort to resolve som of the differences. Mayor Comstock stated he would prefer to see Council do it. Vice Mayor Pearson stated that she was prepared to sake some decisions and thought it would be poor policy for Council to set up another com- mittee to fiddle around with Stanford. She said she was willing to sit here until Council could reach an agreement. Councilman Clay thought the only difference between the Norton and Henderson proposal was the general plan; so there are three alter- natives rather than four. Two of them are a compromise between the other two. He did not see how a committee could get closer. 349 1.1/12/73 Councilman Sher commented that he had a special problem with this whole subject and wished to explain his position. He said that in- asmuch as he was employed by Stanford University he had a serious problem about whether to participate at all in this matter. He ad- vised that he discussed the matter with the City Attorney who advised that there is no conflict of interest. Obviously, he said, he has made his decision to participate. He explained further that he is a tenured member of the faculty and does not have any connection with Mr. Augsburger's office, the business and finance office which handles the land development aspect of Stanford's affairs; therefore, there is no conflict of interest. It would have been easiest for him, he said, to dodge this whole natter, obviously, but he did not think that is the proper way to handle it in view of the fact that there are a number of Stanford matters that come before the Council, and he did not think it is proper to have only eight people partici- pating on those. Regarding an ad hoc committee, Councilman Sher said it seemed there would be virtue in the committee if the Council could reach some consensus about a proposal that it agreed on, and then try to get Stanford to join the. Council in takit,g it to the county. He agreed with some of the earlier comments that, if there is no change in position, there is no point to go through the procedure. Also, he thought as part o: the motion, Council would have to make sure the county would give the extension. Councilman Beahrs stated that he was opposed to the idea of a com- mittee. Council has engaged in a huge amount of discussion, and the record is complete. He thought Councilman Norton's proposal vas about as close to e reasonable compromise as was possible. He said he could never bring himself to support a veto power over the academic area of Stanford University. It is beyond reasonableness for politicians to interject themselves in the academic community. He hoped there would be consultation on developments, but if a de- cision is finally made, it should be exclusively within the purview of Stanford. Councilman Henderson commented that in writing his memorandum, he had inserted the words, "Personally, I would be most pleased if a recommendation could be obtained from the Palo Alto/Stanford group or from an ad hoc Council/Stanford group or from our staff follow- ing discussion with Stanford perscnnei." He said as he listened to the discussion, he did not see that as coming about. What he would have offered if he had been making a substitute motion would be to move that the staff prepare a statement of Palo Alto's posi- tion on the proposed county "-cs" zone for Stanford lands for action by the Council by the meeting of November 19, such statement to be based upon his letter of November 12, which incorporates a majority of what Councilman Norton presented in his letter. That statement would also hove included a reaffirmation of Council's support of the "-cs" zoning as stated in the staff recommendation. He thought it would be fine if the City -Stanford group came together to discuss this, and marvelous if they came to an agreement on it. He thought Council was ready to set some guidelines for the staff to prepare this statement; therefore, he did not favor going to the ad hoc committee. Councilman Rosenbaum stated that the only virtue of an ad hoc com- mittee was that it offered the two parties one more attempt to reach a settlement. In the last analysis, the Board of Supervisors is going to make a decision. There is a certain amount of uncertainty 3 5 f 11/12/73 1 1 as the matter is going now, whereas if there could be a meeting of the minds, the uncertainty would be removed. He thought the Board of Supervisors would prefer the two bodies to come to an agreement. He felt it was worth one more effort of speaking to Stanford on it. SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN: Councilman Norton, with the agreement of his second, withdrew the substitute motion. Mayor Comstock stated that the Planning Commission recommendation was before Council. Councilman Henderson said that if the Planning Commission recommen- dation were reJected, Council would-be lost with nothing before it. He would rather propose a substitute motion, knowing that if it fails, the Flannng Commission recommendation would be there to fall back on. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Henderson moved, seconded by Pearson, that staff prepare a statement of Palo Alto's position on the pro- posed county "- s" zone for Stanford Lands for action by the Council by the meeting of November 26, such statement to be based upon the recommendations in the Henderson letter. of November 12, 1973, which incorporates a majority of the points in the Norton letter and such statement to include the statement from the staff report that the Council reaffirm its unanimous support for the "ecs" zone and for the principle that existing and future urban land uses should be in cities. Councilman Norton cemented that Councilman Henderson stated that in most respects his recommendation covers the Norton recommendation. Councilman Norton said he was aware that it added to his recommenda- tion by talking about a five-year plan effort. He asked if there were any other material respects in which the two recommendations differed. Councilman Henderson responded that the other difference was with respect to the nonacademic lands where Councilman Norton's recom- mendation wee not that specific. It merely said that atanford lands will continue to be annexed to Palo Alto. Councilman Henderson in- serted the words of the Planning Commission in which the city had the choice of requesting or not requesting annexation. He suggested that perhaps there would be areas that it would not be wise to annex, such as housing areas. Councilman Norton asked if Frenchmen's Hill -Pine Hill would be an example of that. Councilman Henderson responded affirmatively and said there is also land along San Mateo County that might be developed for housing or any other portions where housing might be added outside of the aca- demic reserve. Councilman Norton said if those were the only differences, he saw no difficulty, He asked if staff understood what the Henderson motion meant. City Manager Sigel responded that he thought he had a fair under- standing. Be asked if it were anticipated that staff would go back to Stanford to seek its concurrence. Mayor Comstock replied that through the liaison channel, staff could avail itself of the opportunity. 3 5 1 11/12/73 Councilman Beaters stated that this was a start; however, he could not bring himself to the degree of control which was proposed on the academic reserve development. It is much beyond what he was prepared to do. He agreed with the idea of reasonably requesting consultation with Stanford, and he was sure they would be agreeable to consulting, but he did not see in the established, well -developed academic area that Palo Alto should have veto powers. Councilman Rosenbaum stated that he had always thought favcrably of the master plan idea until he started thinking what the master plan would specify. He noted that there was a pier( on the wall which represented what Stanford had been using in connection_ wit's their use permit. He asked if that were a master plan. Councilman Henderson responded that he was thinking in terms of what Council heard the other night, a chemistry building here, a new such - and -such building there with specifics including any road changes. It is a situation where they wole?d have to put on paper as much as they could in terns of what they could anticipate, and as new things came up, they would have to come to Council for consideration. Councilman Rosenbaum said that Council's interest is on the impact that Stanford will have on Palo Alto. That is an ill-defined quan- tity at the r.oment, and ht was not sure it could be worked out. What happens until the ra ter plan is presented? Staff could think of a whole raft of consideiat.iots which relate to this approach. He would like to give them a chance to do that thinking and suggest areas where more definite policy is going to be required. He felt that if Palo Alto i3 to go to the Board of Supervisors with a disagreement with Stanford, it should go with a tight package that could be de- fended. Councilman Berwald stated he would oppose the motion, because it represented a substantial retreat from Councilman Henderson's letter of November 12, where he says he would be pleased if we could go back to this group and have a discussion with them. It leaves open to Stanford the opportunity to respond, but it would be more precise to say that Stanford would vied this as a fait accompli. Stanford has only a limited opportunity to accede or say no. It was said earlier we should not fiddle with Stanford, and nothing would be accomplished anyway. He said he rejected this notion. Palo Alto has recently said it would capitalize on the opportunity to meet and confer in good faith with Stae__ord. Here we have two great in- stitutions that have a real responsibility to deal with each other in a manner that elicits mutual trust. This motion is a retreat from that. Councilman Berwald hoped the motion would be defeated, and Council could move ahead with the earlier Norton motion that was withdrawn. Vice Mayor Pearson stated that she supported this recommendation, because it is very explicit. It says what Council wants it to say. It defines the area. Regarding the five-year plan, Council learned from the meeting with Stanford that there is enough building antic- ipated in the academic area, including the hospital with over 400,000 square feet of planned development, to have impact on the city of Palo Alto. Palo Alto does not know how tall the buildings will be in the academic area. Council heard about a building in the hospital plan which will be 132 feet high. That is more than a standard eight -story building. She concurred that there is a great new liaison. She is concerned that it tasks about subjects in its 3 3 2 11/12/73 closed meetings that should be public. She did not feel that Stanford would be threatened with the "-cs" zoning that is proposed here, and Stanford will bring its development plans to the city and that the friendship will blossom, because developers who want something are very friendly until they get their permits. As to those things Stanford has done in the past that may not have been the best, it Pale Alto had been in a position to have some planning in conference with staff, maybe something different would have been done. Perhaps the monstrous traffic condition that exists in Palo Alto might have been inconsequential today. The future can be controlled. Council should remember that Stanford would like to close Junipero Serra Boulevard and put Foothill Expressway into the foothills. It is important that Palo Alto have a say in that planning. She had nega- tive feelings about Mr. Augsburger's letter. Mr. Klein made several valid points in his Planning Commission meetings, one of which she wished to stress. We are not talking about two parallel govern- mental units going to the county for a decision. We are talking about one. city, Palo Alto, and a parcel of land in the county, which is Stanford, which is subject to intense development. The county has stated it does not want to stay in the planning business. By requiring under the "--cs" zone that developers go to the cities means that those cities have to be in the planning position and pass on those particular developments. The decisions regarding the de- velopment of Stanford belong in the city of Palo Alto and not in the city of San Jose. How independent is Stanford, really? They talk about all the services they provide. They do in a sense. On the other hand, they have a serer contract which alloys them to con- nect their sewage system with Palo Alto's. their garbage is dumped in Palo A1,.o's dump. Stanford purchases water from Hetch Hetchy, but Palo Alto backs them up with an emergency system. Palo Alto police were used on the Stanford' campus when they were having prob- lems. Their industrial park and annexed lands are supplied gns and electricity by Palo Alto. Councilman Norton commented that some of Vice Mayor Pearson's argu- ments seemed to support something that has not even been suggested-- thet the entire Stanford campus be annexed. The Planning Commission's recommendation was that certain select parts of it, if developed, be deemed worthy of annexation. Further, having heard Councilman Henderson's motion and having once again read his treatment of the academic reserve area, Councilman Norton said he was going to vote against the motion, because it does something different from what he thought at first, in that it imposes the five-year plan on the entire academic axda, thereby doing something he was toying to avoid. Concerning the academic area, Councilman Norton wished to stay out of the planning process and receive environmental impact reports and see how that works, and if it does not work, then take another look at U . His philosophy is to involve F'alo Alto in a minimum way in the established academic campus beyond receiving in- formation. He repeated that he did not favor the motion, but he thought there was some merit In the five-year plan. If this motion fails, he would propose to offer his, with the memorandum of November 7 as the basic motion; and as a separate motion, he would be willing to discuss the five-year plan. He did not see that they were inconsistent. Councilman Sher commented that Vice Mayor Pearson made a number of stimulating and provocative remarks in her statement. One of the most interesting was the statement about the problems that have been created for the city, such as traffic from the commercial de- velopments and the hospital. The city was involved in those original 353 11/12/73 developments. Perhaps there were undesirable results and unforeseen consequences, but in both the Henderson and Norton proposals, with respect to the nonacademic areas, there would be similar pre - annexation hearings and city participation in zoning. He saw in the motions the danger of an onset of a hard freeze after the partial thaw in the cold war that has existed in recent years. He would hate to see that happen. For a large part, this is turning out to be a kind of symbolic fight. When Mr. Klein presented the position of the Planning Commission and wanted the city to have control over all Stanford lands, he said that the power has to be there in order for it to be effective. On the other side, in connection with Mr. Augsburger's proposal, Mr. Hudnall said that tha problems were con- ceptual, legal, and philosophical difficulties. Stanford is assert- ing ite sovereignty and does not want any kind of city involvement, at least not beyond the informal letter of understanding that gives the city no powers. Councilman Sher said he was faced with a diffi- cult problem, because the county apparently does not want the review process. It was suggested before the Planning Commission that there might be a second level of appeal. The county staff suggested they do not want that appeal procedure. Councilman Sher felt that what. was required was responsible compromise. As a minimum in those areas where significant impact is seen, the city :should be concerned and should recommend to the county some mechanism where Palo Alto can be involved in a procedure that has some teeth. He felt that was what Councilman Norton had tried to do in Areas A and B. If Stanford opposes the application of the "-cs" zoning.to Area A, that is sym- bolic, because there is no prospect at present for development in the athletic fields and the arboretum. On the other hand, if there were plans for the area along El Camino, clearly the city does have direct and significant interest in and where there should be city control. Area B is partly the golf course and partly open space. It does not involve the expansion of the hospital. Expansion of the hospital would have significant impact but that would be annexed to the city. There might be some medicalschool expansion, and that is adjacent to a strip of land that la in Faio Alto along Willow Road, the Oak Creek Apartoents, and Palo Alto does have a legiti- mate interest there; so that the Norton -Henderson prapoaai is appro- priate in that area. Regarding Area C, there is no proposal to in- clude that with the "-cos" zoning. The proposal under both plans is to change the blanket use permit that presently exists and go to more ad hoc proposals for iadtvidual developments as they occur where a use permit fro the county would be required, and perhaps even a change in zoning would be required before there could be any kind of development. Councilman Sher said he favored the kind of compromise :which he hoped would serve to continue the improvement in relations and hoped Council could agree on it tonight and take it to the University; and that they would join with Council in sup- porting it before the county, which has the ultimate decision. Re- garding the toaster plan for the academic area, Councilman Sher said he was persuaded by Councilman Norton's arguments that it is proper to exclude the area involving academic buildiv.ga as distinguished from commercial and industrial buildings where there is a history of planning by the University, with condition that information will be given to the city early in the planning stage so that the city will be able to object in connection with the environmental impact report if there is a problem. Be said he would support the Norton substitute motion when it was presented. 354 11/12/73 1 1 The substitute motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum NOES: Beahrs, Berwald, Clay, Norton, Sher SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Norton moved, seconded by Clay, that the Norton proposal as embodied in the letter of November 7 to Coun- cil be adopted as the City Council's desired approach to solution of the "-cs" zoning as it applies to Stanford lands, and that staff be directed to return on November 26 with a statement that reflects the motion as outlined in the November 7 Norton letter. The substitute notion passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Berwald, Clay, Comstock, Norton, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Henderson, Pearson Vice Mayor Pearson stated it was important that the carte blanche 1962 lase permit be reviewed by the Council, by the county, and by Stanford. MOTION: Vice Mayor Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that the County Planning Commission review the 1962 Stanford use permit and exclude from that permit Stanford lands lying southwest of Junipero Serra Boulevard. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Clay, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Berwald Councilman Berwald asked what happened to the part of the earlier motion regarding an ad hoc committee to review this with Stanford. Councilman Norton responded that he concluded from the consensus that Council felt it would not be fruitful to have a separate liaison committee set up for the next two or three weeks. Vice Mayor Pearson asked Councilman Norton if he were prepared to make another motion regarding the general plan. Councilman Norton suggested that Councilman Henderson should make the motion. He indicated that before he could favor it, it would have to be limited to Areas A and B. He could not favor it if it applied te all of the academic campus. He felt it had some merit, because it Is conceivable it could become in effect a substitute procedure for the one that would be gained by the Norton approach. If the master plan were refined enough, perhaps ell Stanford would have to do is bring in a proposal to the Planning Department, and they could approve it es being consistent with the master plan or decide instead that it has to go to the Planning Commission and Council for policy input. He could support a motion to direct staff to explore with Stanford staff the possibility of the five-year effort. Unless this plan is more specific than he thinks Stanford is used to, it is probably not going to be very helpful. All it 353 11/12/73 shows is an Area X for a hospital without showing any indication of size, number of patients, parking, etc. Staff will not be able to say whether a proposal is "in conformity" with such a plan or not. He was skeptical thae it would work but would support an effort to see whether it could be made to work. Vice Mayor Pearson wished to assure Council that she was not going to nail Stanford to the wall when she asked staff to go out and see if they could get a plan from Stanford. In response to Councilman Sher, she said that Council knows from past experience that bull- dozers were out there recontouriag the Stanford industrial lands before Stanford even got permission from Palo Alto for the plans or the annexation. When the county built Page Mill Road it was amazing to see,that the two turnoffs for the roads that are presently there were built in. Apparently there were some plans given to some- body at some time. It is very possible that Stanford now has a plan they could give to the city, and the city should be aware of what Stanford is proposing. MOTION: Vice Mayor Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that the staff be directed to communicate with Stanford and attempt to get a plan of the academic and the A and B areas of Stanford and bring the plan to Council. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Clay, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Beahrs ABSENT: Berwald (Councilman. Berwald had left. the Council Chambers) NOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved that as an alternative to project - by -project approval, the University have the option of submitting a five-year master plan covering areas A and B for approval by the City Planning Commission. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Beahrs, that this meeting be continued to 7:30 p.m., Monday, November 19. Vice Mayor Pearson commented that Council would have ,smother agenda then, and it seemed it would pile up until it could not be finished. She suggested it would be better to adjouse the meeting to Tuesday. night., November 13. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Pearson coved, seconded by Henderson, that the meeting be continued to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 13: The ame€idment passed oa the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Clay, Comstock ABSENT: Berwald The motion as amended passed on a unanimous vote. 3 5 6 11/12/73 1 Adjournment in Memory of Marshall V. Virello Mayor Comstock adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. in memory of Marshall V. Virello, who passed aw.:y recently. ATTEST: APPROVED: Mayor 1 5 7 11/12/73