HomeMy WebLinkAbout05081972MJ NUTES
J city of palo alto
May 8, 1972
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:35 p.m.
in a regular meeting with Mayor Comstock presiding.
Present: Beaters, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton,
Pearson, Rosenbaum, Seman
Absent: None -
.122./
Minutes of April 24,
wrnr +rn��rr��ri�r
Mayor Comstock referred to t1.1 last page of the minutes, Page 58, after
the name of the last speaker, and suggested alternative wording; - "A
member of the audicnce rose to his feet and initiated hand clapping for
three minutes, making it impossible for speakers to be heard or for
members of the Council to speak."
Councilman Henderson referred to Page 56, Item 22, third sentence, and
asked that it be revised to read "the tac squad moved in and threw a
woman over a fence..." The two revisions were agreeable to Council and
the minutes of April 24 were approved as revised.
Commendation to -Eileen Hancock
tra-M77771177uman Relations Commission
Councilman Berwald read in full a resolution commending the outstanding
public service of Eileen Hancock.
MOTION: Councilman Berwald introduced the following resolution and
moved, seconded by Pearson, its adoption:
Resolution No. 4590 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Commending the Outstanding Public Service of Eileen
Hancock"
The resolution was adopted on a unanimous voice vote.
aaue of District - 3201 Middlefield Road
Mayor Comstock noted a letter had been received from Richard B. Oliver,
the applicant, requesting a continuance of his application for rezoning
at 3201 Middlefield ,Road. He also noted that there were people in the
audience who wished to speak against continuance.
MOTION: Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Berwald, to continue until
May 22 the application of Richard B. Oliver for a change of district of
property known as 3201 Middlefield Road from R -1:B-7 to P -C (98 unit
multi --family development) .
7 0
5/8/72
Louis J. Fourcroy, Director of Planning and Community Development, com-
mented that the record should indicate the applicant did not provide
the plans usually forwarded to the City Council.
Discussion followed regarding continuance, with Councilmen Berwald and
Clark noting it has been Council practice to extend the courtesy of
continuance when requested by the applicant. Councilman Seman refer-
red to a newspaper article which quoted Mr. Oliver regarding a change
in plans.
City Attorney Stone stated, in response to question, that if plans are
changed substantially this matter :should go back to the Planning Com-
mission but there is no way of knowing at the present time, since there
are no plans before Council.
The motion was passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Reclassification of Pro erta -
7. Arastra ero Roa
MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Berwald, that Item 4 -reclas-
sification of property at 574 Arastradero Road - be taken up out of
order at this time for the purpose of continuance.
The motion failed for lack of unanimous voice vote, with Councilman
Pearson voting "no".
F -C District Develo ment Schedule -
4 A ma treet
Louis J. Fourcroy, Director of Planning and Community Development, re-
viewed the developer's letter dated May 3, 1972 and the Planning Com-
mission's recommendation for approval of the developer's request to extend
the development 'tme schedule.
MOTION: CouncilmanPearson int'roduc-:i the following resoletion and
moved, seconded by Berwald, its adoption:
ti
Rosa u[t e,No. 4591 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Al emending Ordinance 2615 to Extend the Development
Schedule for t ;P -C District at 4031 Alma Street"
The resolution was adopted on a unanimous voice vote.
Reclassification of Property -r
374 Arastradero o•
!Mayor Comstock noted that Council received a letter from the developer,
Ehrlich, Deft & Rominger, requesting that consideration of their pro-
posal for a low to moderate income housing pi'aject at 574 Arastradero
Read be continued for one week.
NOTION: Councilman Beahrs moved.;e conded by Norton, to continue until
(ay 15 the reclassification p;Property at 574 Arastradero Road from R-1
to P -C (low/moderate incomes:: busing) .
7 1
5/8/72
Councilman Semen requested that the record show she would abstain from
discussion or voti;.,a on this item.
Director of Planning and Community Development, Louis J. Fourcroy, at the
request of Mayor Ccvstock, eplained that the Planning Commission had
approved the reclassification subject to certain stipulations and the
applicant has requested continuation in order to comply with these con-
ditions.
The motion passed on a unanimous voice voe.
Tentative Co ni• um Subdivision Ma -
throuQ ndomiPoe Street
MOTION: Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Beahrs, to uphold the
Planning Commission recommendation and approve the application of
W. C. Yourieff for Gordon Dowsett for a tentative condominium subdi-
vision map for property located at 309 through 321 Poe Street subject
to conditions as set forth in the Planning Commission minutes of
April 26, 19 2.
The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.
City/School Community Recreation
fro rant Contract Amendment MR:262:2)
Mr. Kenneth Wilson, Managing Director of Community Services, reviewed
the staff report (CMR:262:2) dated May 4, 1972 regarding the, proposed
amendment to the contract.
Councilman Pearson stated she had a question regarding procedures and
asked why the amendment to the agreement was not sent to the City/School
Liaison Committee before being sent to Council. She commented that
traditionally the two groups went over the changes to make sure the
policy bodies both felt that they were complying and agreeing and that
the program was running smoothly.
Mr. Wilson replied that the School District staff and the Community Ser-
vices staff each year have reviewed the provisions of the contract.
During the review this past year it was felt that section 5(b) concern-
ing the flat fee the district was paying was not exactly in line with
the desires of the Business Manager's office of the School District.
They felt there should be some way to assess activities per registration
activity. He stated it is Council's prerogative if they wish the amend-
ment to go to the City/School Liaison Committee. The staff had felt
that there wasn't a major change in the contract and there were no con-
cerns among the residency in terms of students. It was just an amend-
ment to fix an actual basis and the library cards for those non-resident
students.
Council.Man Henderson referred to activity 5(b) and asked whether it was
likely that non-resident library fees and non-resident recreation acti-
vities could exceed the $12,500 figure paid by the School District.
Mr. Wilson replied that he doubted very much if it Weald exceed this
figure and noted that out of the 2600 non-resident : udents, possibly
600 would engage in one or more activities at an averabe of perhaps
$3.00. The opportunity to apply for non-resident library cards is a
72
5/8/72
_, i
little more, but he noted that the City has ample room for library card
privileges within the $12,500 figure.
MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Clark, that Council approve
amendment number one to Contract No. 3240 with the Palo Alto Unified
School District and that the Mayor be authorized to execute the amend-
ment on behalf of the City.
Councilman Beahrs stated he would like 'o know what facilf ties exist for
those non-residents in their own communities and, what the impact might
be upon their usage of the City's facilities. He stated that in his
opinion the availability of the facilities to Palo Altans is the num-
ber one consideration.
Mr. Wilson replied that the primary concern in this amendment is to make
the opportunity available, especially for elementary youngsters whose
use of the facilities will not be detrimental to the residents.
Discussion followed regarding referral of the amendment to the City/School
Liaison Committee, with Councilman Pearson commenting that before Council
gets the full contract for the recreation program that contract should
go before the City/School Liaison Committee for discussion before going
to Council. She noted this would be sometime before September.
EMOTION: Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by Norton, that the contract
amendment be referred to the City/School Liaison Committee.
The referral motion failed on a majority voice vote.
The motion to approve the amendment passed on a majority voice vote.
Ba Area Air Pollution Control
tem
City Manager Sipel referred to the staff report dated May 4, 1972 and
stated that the report tries to summarize a proposal to amend Bay Area
Air Pollution Control District regulations to ,institute a permit system
for various types of activities. The report indicates that staff supports
this proposal, the construction operation and permit system and several
other recommendations. The report also tried to indicate some of the
pros and cons about this proposed permit system and some of the practical
aspects of implementation. He stated that Stan Shelly, Environmental
Specialist, could answer questions and respond to Council.
Councilman Pearson referred to Page 2 of the report under Proposed Amend-
ments, the last paragraph "The amendments recommend that only the first
type of restriction, source emission standares, be effected initially,
since this is presently practical and feasible. Air Quality Standards
restrictions (2) and (3) would be enacted four years thereafter, allowing
additional time for development of the computer modeling techniques re-
quired.for successful implementation." She said she wondered if four
years later the City found something it had built or put up was not now
meeting the Air Quality Standards and restrictions (2) or (3) whether
or not the City would be require,•t to demolish it.
Mr. Shelly replied that the intent is not to make it retroactive to the
time that it is enacted. There would be only a requirement that facili-
ties that were constructed thereafter would conform to this regulation.
7
5/8/72
MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Hendersod, that Council
authorize the Mayor to prepare a letter on its behalf which:
1. Supports a facility construction and operation permit system to
assure a compliance with existing BAAPCD source' emission regu-
lations.
2. Recommends that provisions for a longer -range permit system
rased upon.ambieat sir quality criteria be written such as to:
a) insure participation in the appliea€ion review procedure
he other government agencies who have similar interests
and responsibilities in minimizing adverse environmental
impact in the Bay Area -- such as ARAG, BCDC, local planning
agencies and the Water Quality Control Beard, and
b) p.ovide a x+ .,re specific definition of the criteria to 'De
used in determining when kir Quality Standards are exceeded
in the District, particularly with regard to time frames.
3. Request the BiU,?CD to also begin work with the State Air Resources
Board to develop equally stringent measures to control the in-
crease in vehicle emissions in the Bay Area.
Councilman Seman urged that if the notion passes, copies should be sent
to all the people San Mateo County sent copies to -plus all Santa Clara
County Senators and Assemblymen,
The motion passed on a unanir:o::s voice vote.
"amok, in Th- ateEs (CMR:2b1:2)
Fire Chief Korff reviewed the staff report dated May 4, 3472 and con-
cluded that no further control is needed at this time.
Councilman Berwald commented that the presentation gave a lot of weight
to the convenience and profits of theater owners but very little to thee``•
subject of safety. He said there were two reasons why he was interested
and one was the citi.zen'sexpression, and the other was the thought it
would be timely to explore this subject in view of the potential hazard
where large numbers of people congregate.
Councilman Beahra said he thought there was a lot of truth in the Chief's
report and agreed with the theater owners that they are probably over-
regulated. He said that he has found there are sections in most theaters
eeserved=for smoking. He said his only question would be how successfully
are rbe fumes from smoke evacuated and added that if the City doesn't
have at? __standards the Council should in the fui:u's stive some thought to
ventilatiin; consideration.
Chief Korff reavonded that there have been some changes in the styli, of
theaters. There a_e some small intimate theaters where regulation of''
smoking would be very'4ifficult unless smoking was ell ainated all to-
gether, He said most of the a:beaters are air conditions& so they do have
a good exchange of air. The theater managers' attitude toward making
the customer as comfortable as possible, and Chief Korff s ..�.d he felt
they are -sincere in this. The theater mangers have been vary_good about
\\
7 4
518/72
exercising control and particularly where greater numbers of people are
in attendance, making sure that people were smoking where it is permitted.
He said that based on his department's experience in fires and inspec-
tions, smoking is not a safety issue. It is a matter of preference to
the individual rather than fire safety.
MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Berwald, that staff be
directed to prepare an ordinance to require movie theaters to maintain
at least a "no smoking" section. This should not be construed as re-
quiring a smoking section. Appropriate signs and messages on the screen
should be required. Exemption may be considered for special cases, for
example, very small theaters where it may not be practical to require
a separate section.
The motion passed on a majority voice vote.
Amendment to A reement -
omniunit. lo�csin .nc.
City Attorney Stone noted that on March 20, 1972 the Council had directed
the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the contract betwenn the
City and Community Housing, Inc. to impose an affirmative action program
on its contractors when and if that project is built. He stated that
Community Housing, Inc. has agreed to these changes and the amendment to
the contract is before the Council.
Councilman Pearson asked why it was taking so long for Community Housirg,
Inc. to get the project going on the Lytton School property.
Louis J. Fourcroy, Director of Planning and Community Development, replied
that basically the reason they have not received the application in at
this point in time is due to the fact that Federal officials have added
considerable in the way of requirements having co do with how the pro-
ject is going to be run after it is built.' It is the additional work
involved in putting this together, combined with the fact that Co +nunity
Housing, Inc. is not a single entity --- they are churches whose govern-
ing board has to clear any changes.
MOTION: Councilman Beahrs moved, seconded by Bervald, that Amendment
No. 1 to the agreement for sale of real property between the City of
Palo Alto and Community Housing, Inc. be approved and the Mayor authorized
to execute the amendment to the agreement on behalf of the City.
The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.
Chan a of District .....41.2212-22.2214
Mayor Comstock noted that the application of M. H. Podell Company for
a change of district at 2900 W. Bayshore Road from R-1 to P -C and for a
change of the P -C district development plan at 2800 W. Bayshore Road to
permit a 188 unit apartment complex had been continued from the Council
meeting of April 17th. He acknowledged receipt of a letter from Mrs. -
Gertrude Reagan, 967 Moreno, delivered to the Council office this date
concerning this project. He also noted that Council had received, in
this week's packet, a report from the City Manager concerning a neighbor -
i'5
5/8/72
hood study. He commented that the first order of business would be to
make sure it is clear to the Council, the proponent, and the neighbors,
what the view of this study is, what the deadline is, and the possible
completion dates for the study. He said if it was agreeable with Council
they would start with staff, then Council, then the proponent, and then
hear from those in the neighborhood who wished to speak.
Mr. Fourcroy suemarized the staff report, noting that as a result of a
meeting with residents in the area, as indicated in their report, staff
feels that to do those types of studies which residents feel are neces-
sary in their area will probably take a period of from ten to twelve
months. He concluded by stating it is staff feeling that the total issue
is best dealt with on a citywide basis, rather than on one section of
the City at a time.
Mayor Comstock asked Mrs. Cordon, Chairman of the Planning Commission,
whether a date has been set for the Planning Commission to discuss the
assignment further.
Mrs. Gordon replied that this assignment was given to staff by the Plan-
ning Commission. She commented that basically the points raised relative
to the Comprehensive Plan, of the desire of looking at alternative uses
of .laud in this area in relationship to the study as a whole in addition
to the study area itself ate very important and she sees it as a two -
pronged problem: 1) an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan; and
2) the Commission wantee to pursue ways in which to more effectively
encompass the feelings of those in the various neighborhoods within the
Comprehensive Plan process.
Mayor Comstock stated it was has feeling the reason for the continuance
was to establish what day the study would be entirely completed so Council
and Podefi Company could see whether there was interest on the part of
the developer to continue the matter. He said it was his view that if
there is not going to be a study, the proponent should understand that,
or if there is going to be a study, what the completion date will be.
Mr. Fourcroy replied it Was his understanding the applicant is interested
if the study will be done in a relatively few number of months. He
seated that even if the study were undertaken in a ten to twelve month
framework, this would not be of any benefit to the applicant— He added
that if staff were to undertake the study at this time they would have
to severely cut back some other aspects of the planning function.
Councilman Beahrs commented that every time someone objects to any pro-
posal, the City is up against a study. He noted that Councilman Pearson
proposed some time ago that the City require the developers to come for-
vard with arguments and specifics in respect to their projects and what
their impact might be in a given neighborhood or region, which, in his
opinion, makes sense. He stated that the City staff can't begin to
cover all the bases they are asked to cover.
Councilman Pearson expressed concern about the fact that each area is
supposed to have a neighborhood study and the Planning Commission and
staff find themselves in the predicament of having to drop their plena
for going ahead with a new Comprehensive Plan for these various individual
studies. She said she hoped it would be clear to developers that this
Council is not about to rezone whole areas and put in a lotof new devel-
opments before the study is complete, whether this kind of study or a
General Plan study, adding she had previously requested tie moratorium
7 6
5/8/72
on development for a one year period of time in order to allow the
Planning Commission to complete its studies.
Councilman Berwald stated it is two separate issue/ ; One, approval or
denial of the proposal before the Councils and two, the Comprehensive
Plan. He commented that this_Council adopted a policy of providing a mere
ample supply of low/moderate income housing and thus have encouraged de-
velopers to come in with projects that would fulfill this need. He stated
that now, a ch time the Council gets a unit before them, opposition is
received from the neighbors. He stated that in his opinion the City '_8
heading toward a deliberate prccedure of putting .impediments in the way
of low/moderate income housing. He asked if the Council was not in(
some way compromising the integrity of the City by adopting the abot
policy and then as projects come in, denying them.
Mr. Fourcroy replied that every case that comes in has to be evaluated
and in evaluating this particular item there are two issues coming into
focus. One i3 the cuestion of apartments and whether or not they should
have apartments in a particular area. The other is the question of pro-
viding housing for families of low and moderate income. He noted that
this area has an average of 30 single family homes in what might be
cared the low/moderate range. This particular area is also provid n
approximately 25% of low /r oderate income apat meats, so its this reg <d
the area is already providing a significant dimension of sow/moderate
income type of housing. He noted that since adoption of the V'63 Genera'.
Plan, in a number of instances the Council has used the Cenetal Flan and
in other instances they have departed from it, and for good purpose when
evaluating each one when it comes along. He commented that with that
background he could see no problem of the integrity of the City being
involved. Since there is this kind of background of action, any developer
who is going to deal in property in Palo Alto certainly has the record
available to him. He concluded by saying that he does not feel the City
is compromised in any way, shape or form.
Discussion followed with Councilman Berwald stating that Mr. Fourcroy's
response provides a legitimate reason for a municipality to turn down a
rezoning, His point was that Council was getting off onto the idea of
turning down a project in order to complete a study.
Councilman Semanstated that in her opinion, whether or not there should
be a separate study is a matter for Ohe Planning Commission to consider.
She stated that regardless of whether there is a study or not, it is
the decision fcr,the developer to make whether he wants to withdraw his
application,':eneoetiate his option with the landowners, or go ahead
with it.
Councilman Rosenbaum stated he does not think the Council has ever really
established a housing policy. He noted that developers have come in and
:offered to increase the density in .areas, which has been untenable to
the residents. He stated that in his opinion some other approach is go-
ing to be required and the City has'a Housing Committee set up and the
Planing Department is giving special priority to these issues.
NOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the study
described in the staff report (CMR:266:2) not be initiated at this time.
MOTION: Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by Seman, that the report be
referred back to the Planning Commission.
See
Page
106
7 7
5/8/72
Mayor Comstock noted that the same results could he accomplished by de-
feating the original motion.
MOTION WITHDRAWN: Councilman Rosenbaum, with the consent of his second,
withdrew his motion.
Mayor Comstock ruled that the referral motion was no longer pertinent.
He :stated they would now hear from Mr. Tory Douma, representing the appli-
cant. He noted that the matter for discussion now is the Planning Com-
mission recommendation.
Tom Douma, representing M. H. Podell Company, stated they had anticipated
the decision tonight would be whether or not the study would be made and
an answer as to how long it would take. He commented that they had pre-
pared certain studies, but not of the depth and quality to satisfy the
Council at this time. He said they would not be prepared to wait twelve
months and, therefore, would have to withdraw their proposal.
t Councilman Beahrs asked City Attorney Stone to explain to the applicant
what his options are.
City Attorney Stone explained that if the applicant wishes to withdraw
his application prior to a vote of ti!e Council, the matter will end as
though r.o ruling has been made by the Council, and a reapplication for
the same or different kind of zoning can be made at any future time.
He commented that if the appiican. does withdraw, it should be with
Council permission. if the applicant chooses not to withdraw and the
Council considers the natter on its merits and approved the application,
that is the end of that. If the Council denies the application, the
applicant has a period of one year to wait before he can snake the same
or substantially similar proposal,
Mr. Douma replied that on the basis of discussion he would withdraw the
proposal from :ohsidet`ation on behalf of his company.
MOTION: Councilman ISeahrs moved, seconded by Norton, to accept the appli-
c-me s withdrawal of the proposal.
The motion to accept the applicant's withdrawal passed on a unanimous
,voice vote.
Councilman Clark commended the Podell Company for a very thoughtful and
ff's_t rate project, although it is not appro}'riate at this time and in
this particular place. He stated he was distressed because Council has
indicated the need and their desire to do something about housing that
is moderate in cost, -and end up against a barrier each time because the
only thing that will permit this is an increase in density. He reviewed
proposals that had come to Council previously and the opposition against
them for various reasons. He concluded by saying it was his hope that
as the years go by, and fairly soon, the Council will be able to help
and to make decisions which will hurt the fewest and do the most good.
Councilman Pearson referred to those projects which have be2n approved,
and commented that Council is taking the right step in saying to developers
that the City does not want high-priced housing with a few units of low/
moderate income housing added into the project
Counci1i.' n Beahrs commented that from public reaction it seemed to him
that this City is not about to accept monumental high -dens ty development
78
5/8/72
of any sort, and in this way they are overlooking the hard economic
facts. He stated if this is the case, it occurs to him the Council
had better come forth with some statement of policy, otherwise it was
his feeling the Council will definitely be exposed to the problems
expressed by Councilman Berwald.
Councilman Berwald stated that it might be worthwhile to ask staff, at
some point, to look bac:k at the record and synthesize the policies of
the Council including:its adoption of the housing element, and see what
has really been agreE'd upon as far as low/moderate income housing is con-
cerned. In regard to ?rojects that have been presented, he stated in
his opinion it is not fail to say than all we have are some high priced
units with a few low priced,units mixed in. He referred to some of the
projects that have been approved and stated that private developers
have given the City housing that was not available in the City before,•
and he suggested some public forums to discuss this point.
Mayor Comstock stated he sha .ed his colleague's frustrations but felt
they must face the fact that they can't say "yes" to everything and
they can't say "no" to everything and at the present time the Council
is judging each project on its individual merits and are taking progress
in learning as they go along.
Stanford Amendment to the
i11iamson Act
Councilman Pearson read her letter dated May 4, 1972 regarding the Stan-
ford amendment to the Williamson Act, and stated her concern was that the
Palo Alto City Council had not been approached and what she wanted was a
review from staff as to the possible impact on Palo Alto and whether or
not the City should be origina"oing or supporting conditions to the amend-
ment.
MOTION: Councilman Pearson moved, seconded by ,ienderson, to direct the
staff to prepare a report for the Council investigating the implications
of the Stanford amendment to the Williamson Act and waat, if any, action
the Council should take.
Councilman Beahrs asked City Attorney Stone to explain briefly what Stan-
ford's problems might be under the Williamson Act as it now exists.
City Attorney Stone replied it was his feeling it was best for Stanford
to comment on their position and what they feel their problems are re-
garding the Williamson Act. With respect to his report on the Williamson
Act he commented that if Council gives him the proposed assignment it will
be completed prior to the assignment on the Williamson Act by about a week,
which is partially dependent on when the Stanford bill is going to be
heard in the Legislature. He commented that Council would want to know
the impact of that bill prior to the time it gets heard in the Ways and
Means Committee.
Discussion followed regarding the impact of such an amendment on the City
of Palo Alto, the desire to help Stanford keep its lands open without the
continuing penalty of high taxes, what it is that Stanford wants and what
conditions may be placed upon the amendment.
Mr. Stone commented that per -Nips it would suffice to say what Stanford
is asking for is legislation amending the Williamson Act. That is, Stan
79
5/8/72
ii
ford is going to the State Legislature asking for an amendment to that
Act which would affect Stanford's going under the Williamson or not going
under the W iliamson Act in the future. Some of Stanford's lands which
may go under• the Williamson Act in the future do lie in Palo Alto. The
issue before thn Council is whether or not they should look into the mat-
ter,of the prcposed amendment to the Williamson Act as proposed by Stan-
ford.
Mr. Cassius Kirk, Attorney for Stanford University, stated that Stanford
did approach Mrs. Gordon, Chairman of the Planning Commission, asking
tat the Planning Commission support Stanford's pYoposed emaendment.
Mrs. Gordon advised that she did talk with Stanford's attorney and other
representatives regarding this matter. She commented that the Planning
Commission schedule was such, at that time, that they did not have an
opportunity to put this on their agenda. She stated she had also talked
with City Attorney Stone and he had advised her he was preparing a
memorandum fur Council regarding the Williamson Act, and it was her
understanding that any action the Planning Commission would take would
not be available at a time that would do Stanford any good.
Vice Mayor Norton raised the question of what »ould be wrong if Stanford
and the City entered into a contract that stated there would he no
penalty to Stanford if, under certain circumstances, it convert its
land to academic use. He asked why this wouldn't be binding without
the benefit of additional leg4slation.
Mr. Kirk replied that there could be a question about existing Councils
biding future Councils, and noted that there is also the problem Stanford
faces of not knowing whether they could get the land out with or w#the ut
penalty. He stated that is their essential problem with the Williamson
Act as it stands. He noted that some land is very near the present campus
and Stanford cannot look ahead and be sure they will not need it for an
educational purpose. He advised that Mr. Livingston, when he did a report
for Stanford, had suggested this amendment to the Williamson Act.
Vice Mayor Norton commented Oat in every Williamson Act contract one
Council hinds another, so it is a ratter of in what mart^gr is this
Council going to bind a future Council. He asked Mr. hone if he felt
there is a serious legal question that the City couldn't agree to waive
the penalty if Stanford converted its Williamson Act land to academic
purposes in ten or twenty years.
Mr. Stone replied that without looking at it in quite some detail_ he did
not -think he could answer that this evening.
Mr. Kirk stated that under the Act as it exists now, if land is put
under the Williamson Act, the Board of Supervisors or the City Council
must consent to its removal, with or without a penalty.
Vice Mayor Norton_a;ked if Stanford is asking the State to remove the
power of consent of the City of Palo Alto, or whatever City or County
with whom Stanford contracted.
Mt. Kirk replied Stanford is asking in the amendment that -if an -educa-
tional institution, not just Stanford, places lands under the Wi.l i on
Act under open space restrictions and if, during the contract perik'd
they feel that they need it for an educational purpose, they could get
80
5/8/72
b
t.
the land back for an edecational purpose only, without payment of a
penalty. He commented that they were talking mostly aoout property in
San Mateo County.
Mayor Comstock stated he felt they needed.more information and suggested
Mi. itirk contact the City to know when the matter is before the Council
again in _order that he could respond inmore depth to the questions
T.ais•�,? ,
T -t. motion passed on a unanirou,s voice vote.
e-Permanente. uarr in ' 0 erati-c' s
'- -mac .- seam"-
. -..lead. Henderson referred' toe letter received by Council fro:n Mrs.
Steinberg regarding Kaiser-Permanente quarrying operations.
%cted that this item will be can the agenda for the Board of Super-
;' 75ors at their meeting May 10, and suggested Council hear from Mrs.
.-iseinber,; at this time.
Joan Brown, 2374 Deod.zra Drive, Los Altos, Co -Chairman of Friends of
the Foothills, stated she was speaking on behalf of Mrs. Steinberg who
had been called out of town because of a death in the family. Mrs. Brown
reviewed the background on the Kaiser-Permanente quarrying operations,
which begot: about 1939, and stated they were asking th,: Board of Super-
visors: 1) that they take affirmative action in controlling Pe nnanente's
quarrying operations; 2) that the Supervisors require Permanente to sub -
m c some acceptable plan for future development of both the quarry opera-
tion and the ultimate dispo.ition of the land, and that this include some
sort of engi.teFr,ng drawings in cooperation with County staff; 3) that
there be a binding commitment on the ridgeline that would be again worked
oc;: between County staff and Permanente; 4) some guarantees that the
hillside will not be further scarred, and that when one section of quarry-
ing is finished then that section be replanted. before going on to another.
She'concluded by stating that potent:al.ly they have a whole hillside Chat
can be permanently scarred, -She listed various organizations that are
behind their request.
In response to questions from Council, Louis J. Fourcroy, Director of
Planning artd Community Development, advised that Permanente owns approxi-
mately a quarter section within the City of Palo Alto in the most southerly
regions, that is 160 acres. He noted that at the time the area was . annexed
to the City the Council indicated they should be given some rifhts in this
respect. A use peewit was issued with a number of conditinns,/ Mr. Fourcroy
quoted from the use permit "Inasmuch as the considerable nut'ber of years
may intervene between the issuance of this permit and the start of quarry-
ing operations, this use permit shall be subject to review prior to start
of operationto the end than conditions may be amended, added to, or
deleted, as conditions at the time of review may warrant." He stated it
was his feeling the City has a tight control over anything they might
do in terms of; quarrying.
Mrs. Gordon stated that she would like to.add that this is one of the
major areas in the Santa Cru: )fountain Study Area, Phase 'Ile that the
Planning Policy Committee is now studying and certainly is of grave con-
cern on the part of that committee representing all the cities in the
County. She commented that they are part of this concern before the
Board of Supervisors.
81
5/8/72
MOTION: Councilman Henderson moved, seconded by Berwald, that the Mayor
be authorized to write to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
u:'ging them to take action to establish reasonable land use control on
the Kaiser-Perueanente quarrying operations in order to protect the
ridge from desecration and to prevent scarring from mining %tperations
that defaces the natural teauty of the hillside.
The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.
Pro owed �cules' and Peaulat{,r..s
o the Business and Transportation
ency o� t►e tat a California
City Manager Sipel explained that this natter relates to ar, Act which was
passed last year (and which has been dubbed the MAD Act) and refers to
the Mills-Alquist-Jeddah Act. It relates to transit and the substantial
amount of funds that were made available for transit. The Business and
Transportation Agency of the State is charged with the administration of
this particular Act, and in their proposed rules they have indicated that
the funds available can only be used for new transit systems or the ex-
pense of existing transit systems. In effect, this would preclude the
City from using these funds unless the City changes the system substanti-
ally. He stated it would be his recommendation that Council direct the
:Mayor and staff to take appropriate steps in opposition to the proposed
rules and regulations.
MOTION: Councilman Beahrs moved, seconded by Pearson, to direct the
Mayor and staff to take appropriate steps in opposition to the proposed
rules and regulations referred to.
The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.
Lea ue of California Cttiea -
��is at ve u etin
Councilman Pearson called Council's attention to the Legislative Bulletin
received in th€ir.packete, and commented there were three items she
thought the majority of the Council should ask the staff to investigate.
One,was the Lease Purchase Prohibited. She noted that this covered the
type of thing the Council Aid on the Lytton School project and which
Council may or may not do some time in the future. This Bill would pro-
hibit that and it was her opinion the Council would not like to see this
happen. Number two was Freeway Agreements Limitation. This proposed
Bill states that if a City has less than 60,000 or a County less than
4,000,000, the State can come in and put their freeway through regard-
less of the City's feelings, and it was her thought the Council should
oppose that Bill. Third was Compensatory Zoning. :his Bill talks
about open space and compensating people for their zoning. She stated
she thought this one should be supported by the Council.
Oral Communications
Co=,uitilmari •Berwa?.d referred _to the urgucenf. against Proposition K
and read from that argument "A-250 ro ,n hotel is being constructed
by Dillingham at Palo Alto Square to serve the same interests as
Holiday Inn." He asked City Manager Sipe1 if that is a true and
correct statement.
8 2
„5/8/72
Mr. Sipel replied that a part of the permit for that particular
development includes a 250 room development. He added, however,
that there is presently no action toward that development.
1
1
Ceunet]a+wn Berwald stated he wanted to bring to the Council's
attention that that statement is simply not true. There is no
hotel under construction at Palo Alto Square and he added that
if anyone wanted to take the time to check with staff they would
find out that no plans have been submitted or a building permit
applied for to erect s hotel there.
Councilman Pearson responded that inasmuch as she had signed
the argument against Proposition K she would tike to state that
the Dillingham project did, indeed, include the 250 thorn hotel
complex en that site and they have not said they are not going
to build it. She referred to the chronology on the old corpo-
ration yard site, and stated she would like to have ueen added
what the City was paying on that site before the rezoning re-
quest car.:e in from both Tan and Eichler for high-rise projects.
She commented Oat it was after those projects were proposed
that the County Assessor came in and said that was the highest
and best use for ti:e corporation yard site.
Executive Session
s
The Council adjourned to Executive Session from 9:45 to 9:50 p.m.)
Ad j ournmaen t
The Council adjourned at 9:5:5 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:'
Mayor
See
Page
106
83
5/8/72