Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0137.092I :~ - January 30~ 1992 HONOHABlE CITY CDUrie I l Palo Alto, California Attention: Policy and Services Committee STANFORD RESEARCH PABK STUDY Members of the Council: Report in Brief This report reviews the status of the Stanford Research Park Study. Sep;flr.at~ information from the Chamber of Commerce responding to the December 3, 1991 CUll1TIittee (onsideratioi1 of the Study is anticipated to be in the January 30, 1992 City Council packet. It ; s recorrmended that the Committee re"'ieYf and discuss the St'Jdy; review and discuss the information from the Chamber of Commerct!; ask Stanford University staff for iI status report on U"leir Research Park planning project; and, as the Committee deems appropri~te. make recommendations to the City (ouncil on the thirteen Potential Actions highlighted in the attached November 27, 1991 staff report. lliJIgJ:l!.!!.!ll! The attached Iktober 3, 1991 (CMR:428:91) and NDvember 27, 1991 (CMR:S34:91) staff repo~ts contain background infonmation or. the Stanford Research Park Study. Also attached are appruprlit.e excerpts of the October 29 and December 3, 1931 meetings of the Policy and Ser~ices Committee. At the December 3, 1991 Committee meet;n9~ review of the Study was continued in order to have the Chamb~r of Commerce, working with representatlves of firms located in the Research Park, develop priority ranking of the thirteen Potentia1 Actions identified in the Novemb€r 27, 1991 staff report. The thirteen P~tential Actions are items that the City could pursue in the relatively nea~ term and i~dependent of direct Stanford University involvement. Many of the other Potent~al Actions identified in the Study ire longer-term issues that need the direct participation of the University ana. in some cases, Park tenants. City staff ~ave been informed that the Chamber of Commerce h3s completed a review of the thirteen Potential Actions and infonnation or. the re$ults of their review will be in the City Council packet. CMR:137:92 - Purpose of the Febru~_..l992 Comill; ttee Meet i n9 The February 3, 1992 consideration by the PoTity and Services CO!!'mittee of t~e Researc~ Park Study should be oriented to several objectives. • Since an members of th~ C.omittee have not previously discussed the Study, time should be taKen to have Committ~e members raise questions and discuss re9ardi~g the purpose and content ~f the Study. • The Committee should review the information submitted by the Cnamber of Commerce and as necessary djscuss the Chamber's findings ~ith Chamb~r represent at i yes . • As noted in the Study and past Committee reviews, Stanf~rd University is in the process of prepa~ing a Research Park Plan. It would be appropriate to ask Stanford representatives for an update on the status of their planning efforts~ • The Committee may wish to make recommendations to the Council for assignments to City staff regarding implementation of ~ome of the thirteen Potential Actions. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review and discuss the Research Park Study. receive and d;~cuss the Chamber of Cemmerte priorit~ recommendations. and, as the Committee believes appropriate. ~ake recommendations to the Council, Onguing review of Ue Research Park Study should remain in Cornnittee. Tillling of the Committee's next discussion of this topic is likely to be inf1u!nced by the status of Stanford's planning efforts and the conte~t of the Committee's February 3 t 1992 review. Re.pectfully submitted, ;t;Md';/?~fA~,/ KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Directcr cf Planning and C~unity Environment :l 117 r;~~ ~s1stant Ci~ Man~ Attachment.: CHR:419:91 dated October 3, 1991 CHR:534:9! d.ted November 17, 1991 Cl1R: 137:91 p: \Df!:\S,R ,";IJd:t (~cerpt minutes of October 29? 1991~ Policy and Services Committe! m2eting Excerpt minutes of Oecember 3, 1991, Policy and Services Committee meeting 1/30/92 Page 2 :.: ..... cc w/o attachments: CMR:137:92 p:\OR"n~'t~y o Planning Commission Architectural R~~iew Board Stanford University (Sil1 Phill ips. Diane Healey. Zero Murphy, Scott lec,.rd, Andy Dot1, Phil William,) Stanford Research Park Tenants and leaseholders Barron Park Association College lerrace Restdents ~sscc;ation Chamber of Commerce 1/30/92 Page 3 , -' - October 3, 1991 HONORABL, CITY COUNC [l Palo Alto, Callfornh STANfORD RESEARCH PARK STUDY Members of tn€ (ouncil REPORT I~ BRIff His iter;, ',;rill be placed on the 'gend. of the 10/28/91 Palo Alto City Councl] meeting. with a req~Est for referral to tile 10/29/91 Pol icy and Services Committee meeting. This report transmits ~ study of Stanford Research Park-related issues. The Research Park Study identifies background information, trends, projections and pDtential actions that could be undertaken by the City, Stanford Uni\lersity and/or Park tenants. It is recom:nendE:d that the report be referred on October 28 to the Pancy and Ser...-lces Committae for their initial discussion on October 29. Foi1owing the initial Committee re'/lew, including h:)ped for reactions fro~ Stanford university and Research Park tenants. staff will develop a report addrtssing implement~tion issues and priorities. BACKGROUND The Stanford Res earCI1 Park. St udy ; s tl1 e result 0 f an e Ho rt in it i at ed by th e City Manager to devct€ limited staff resources to tne investigation of topics related primarily to Palo Alto's economy. Kenneth R. Schreiber, the Director of Planning and COIr"'l11.Hiity E!ll;ircnment, was rE'.s.p'Or,~ible for coordinatir"lg the Study and undertaking sorre of the research. Pet~r Govea, an engineer in the Utilities Department, serwed a s1x-morlth inter~al inte,"nship working on the Study. Substantia1 assistance ,,'as provided by Emily Harri~on, Director of Finance, Libby Dame, Senior Financial Analyst, and other staff members of numerous City d~partments. In addition, City staff have had num€rOUS discussions with Diane Healey, l~ra Murp~y and Scott Leonard of Stanford's lands Management organization. The primary objectives of the City Mar,ager's assignment ir1c!uded developing arl understanding of what Dccurs in the Research Park and how it impacts the City; identifying trends and making projecticns in are-as that appear to be especially important far the future Df tne Park and its interaction with th€ City; and identifying pctential actions tnat may be abTe to positi\lely impact the future course of ev€nts. CM~:42S:91 .. The Study's EX"ecf.l:ti\le Summ~r,,. ldentifies. 12 Major Findirlgs and contains t~~ potential City. University and P~rk tenant actions that are subsequently f~und in each c~apter of the Study. PROPOSED REVIE~ PROCESS For many of the Pr:lposed Actions identified in the Study, impler.l~I1taticn efforts need to focus an Stanford University and Par~ te;l;H'l+~S {including leaseholders), often with the assistance of the City. rather than focusing O~ unilateral City actions. Staff is also sensitjve to the likelihood that additiona.l infGrmation and discussior: win Itod!fy so;r,e of the data and Potentia1 Actions and identify additional actions that shcuTd b€: given serious consideration. Therefore t staff recommends that thE! Study be referred to the Pol icy and Sendces Committee with the intent that Committee meetings can sene as a forum for discussions among University. Park te~ant, and City representatives along with input from the public. FollOWing the inltial Committee meeting. staff woul~ prepare a propDsed implem~ntatiQn guide t~at wDuld identify priorities fer botM City actions and University and/or Park tenant actions that the City wished to encouragE. It is important to emphasize that c.ity staff agrees witn the reactions of some Park tenants that the ~alue of a study of this ~ind directly r~lates to what actions are implementEd. RECOMHEND4T!ON Staff recorMlends that U1e City Coullcil refer the Stanford Researc'h Park Study to the PQlicy and Services Committee fQr their lnitial revlew on October 29, 1991. Respectfully sutmltted, '/P!/lcdA' '1'f' 4{:fl(£&/~/ KENNETH R. SCHREI~ER Director of Pl~nning and C:omun; ty En\'; ronment Attachment cc: P1anning (omission Architect~ral Review Board --~, Stanford University (Bill Phillips, Diane Healey, Zera Murphy, Scott Leonard, Andy Doty. Phil Williams) Stanford Research Park Tenants and Leaseholders Barron ParK ASSOCiation College Terrace ReSidents Association CHR:418:91 p:\CHR\SRP,tudy 10/3/91 Page 2 ·,~~ft!~t·:~,- '.: -- • L Ilovl!!!lber 27, 1991 HONORABLE CITV COUNCIL Palo Alto, C.l Horni a Attention: Policy and Services Committee STANfORD RESEARCH PARK STUDY IMPLEMENTATION Of CITY-RELATED POTENTIAL ACTIONS Kembers of the Council: REPORT IN BRIEF This staff report prcvides information on implementation of thirteen Potenti21 Actions identified in the September 1991 Stanford Research ParK Study. The thirteen Actions are items where implementation is the direct responsibiiity of the City and implementatlon could be pursued in the next six tD eighteen months~ No Council actior. is recommendEd. ~owever, the Policy and Services Committee could~ if desired, forward to the (ouncil recommendations on any of the Actions. BACKGROUND On October 29. 19;1. the Policy and Services Committee held the inllial discussio~ of the Stanford Research Par~ Study (th~ Study ~iS distributed in the October 3, 1991 City Council packEt -CMR;42B;91). The Committe. requested t~at staff identify which of the 29 Potential Actions could be pursued independently by the City within a reasonably short time frame and pT'o~ide 1nfQrmation (1) lrnp1ementat~ol'l of these items. Ya.9~S 6 tnrough 10 {attac.ned} of the Study's Executive Surrrnuy c.onta-in the Potentiai Actions. DISCUSSION Thirteen of the Potential actions Mave been identified as candidat~s? in whole or in part. for near t!nn implementation by the City. As stated and numbHed in the Study. the thirtEen Actions include tne following: Potential Palo Alto Land Use Planning ana' De .... elopmentm_Actio.ns 1. Tn! City should continue to pursue simplification of the design review process for smaller scale changes to previously appr~ved site plans and buildings. Shortenlng the time neCEssary to {lbtain design approval plus continuation of the express one-stop buildir.g permit procedure can facilitate for Par, tenant. and other appl;cant. the completion of routine building and site modifications. CMF;534;91 • . . - DiScus.sicn: Planning shff is currently working on the draft 1 ililguage for an ARB ordinance amendment that WQu~d allow for greater flexibility in staff apprDvals for smal1er scale projects. That amendment 1S scheduled to go to the ARe en December 5? 199], to the Pla~r.ing Commission a5 inf{)nnatiofl en January 3, 1992 and to the City (oLincil in February 1992. A second code a~ndment that will shorten the time necessary for obtaining design approva1 involves a change to Title 17, the Hazardous Materia.1s Storage OrdinanCE. The proposed change would stream1,ne !nvironmental r~view for hazardous materialS permits. The changes to Tftle 17 are scheduled for Council revielli on December~, 1991. '7 A third acthity related to this Action ;s ali lnterna1 s.taff i!ffort to e .... aluate and im~lr<lve customer senices . .At the direction of Ule City Manager t representatives from all City dep3rtments are part~cipating in a project liffied at enhancing custo~er ser~ice to the City's residents and business (o!l'll'iunlty. Of partlcu1ar relevaf1ce to the reccrrrnendaticns in the Stanford Resea~ch Park Study are the effcrts being evalulted to provide easy-tc-understa1ld directories and f~nctional service listings to users of City service$ to facil itate their -entry-into the City system by providing points of contact, as ~el1 as efforts to improve interdepartmental (a~peration in order to ensure that the customer {resident or business repr!sentativeJ is moved quickly and effectively through the City's processes. Potential Transpqrtation Actions 2. The City shDuld continue pursuit of th! use of compressed natural gas powered or other a1ternathle fuel vehicles. by the City ami major employers owning vehicle fleets. A succeisful alternative fuel vehicle program (auld be an important e1ement in the CongestiGn Management deficiency plan process and retaining development fle~ib1lity for the Pirk. Discussion: ~n Tespo~se to the California C1eln .~lr ~ct lnd the abunda1'tce of lnexpenslve domestic supplies of natural gas. the Utilities Department is implementing a progtam to: convert approximately one-third of the City's light duty vehicle fleet to compressed natural gas (eNG) in the next three )ears; in5t111 i -fas.t-fi1) public refue1ing st3tion similar to existing retai1 gasoline outlets; and promote natural gas as a viable alternat;Ye to gasoline. Over the next two ye~is, approximately 100 cars wi)l be converte~ to eNG. During this period, the City will demonstrate the viability of CNS tD our customers and target f~eet operators for conversion. Palo Alto will be the on1y lotation between San Jose and San franCisco to offer CMR,S34:9! p:\CMR\SRPimpl 11/17/91 Page 2 ~----'L""""'.·. -..' _._._._. ':~;~~:f~ " - , ; ;,:;~ A', "if' ,~,~, .!";:.~' ;:fl ,:ct·· ~ ". r' i I - 4, ~. pu~lic eNG refueling in the short t~nr. and 1S willing to work with all potential customers en m~king use of tne Cityls program. T~e City should investigate augmenting ~esearch Park tr2ffic mitigation funds with other funds, includin9 City gas tax funds and (ounty and Sta~e fundi n9. ~.tiQ.n: Currently, a total of $558,000 has been collected from the Stanford Research Park Traffic lmpatt fee imposed on development projects fer use as fundin9 for several major inte~sectior. ~mpr~vements dire~tly related to the Researlh Park. Additional development, when it occurs, will generdte additional f~ndin9 for these inter5ectio~ improvements. Furthermore, the City is cOIDm1tting $50,000 per year of gas tax money to a~9ment the Traffic fmpact Fee and lccel~rite the implementation of the intersection improvements. In light of the continui~g projected deficit in the City's General f\.lr.d, staff has examined General FUnc spendirlg on streets and sidewalks and determined tnat reductions may need to be mlde in this area. Prospects for additional transportation mo~ey from tne State are \lirtually nonexistent, gi .... en the Statels chronic budget defic't. fn fa,t, legislat;\li! dt:\lelopments in Sacramento Dver th.-:; hst year have leo' to t~e State taking ta~ money bac( from cities, e.g., parking fines and motor vehicle fees. More recently, the Assembly Office of Research has floated the idea of di\lerting $2 billior. of State transportation money (pr1marily gas tax) to the State general fund, The County faces a projected budget deficit as we11, but staff will continue to pursue possible approaches to cost-sharing, particularly en Page Mill Read and Foothill Expressway imprcvements. 5. The City should pursue a capital impr(l\lement project to upgrade the appearance of He Page MH] Read median from El CamiM Real to Highway 280 . .?iScllssion: Aimost all landscaping in the Page Mnl median strip from El Camino Real to foothill Expressway has deteriorated due to the drought and the recent hard freeze. Also, over the years, plant materials have died due to poor irrigation and have not been replaced. Recommended improvements would include design, updating and repair of ;~rigation, and impiementation of landscape improvements. The med i an from F oothi 11 Expres sway to Hi ghllrtiay 280 has no e)(i s t i ng infrastructure. This area flas never been landscaped and the scope of improving this area wouid also include deSign, installat10n of a water source for irrigation, irrigation installation, and la~dscape improvement installation. CMR:534:91 p:\CMR\SRPimpl 11/27/91 Page 3 . - - o Both of these a~eas belong to Santa Clari County, Currently, the City maintafns the mediar.s from Highway ]01 to Foothill fxpressway, w;t~ the County re:mbursi.r"l9 tne City at approxilTlately SO percent ~f -actual costs. An~ adGitianal landscapfng for either of the above projects will result in "increased demands for fur,ds frem the City and/or the County. Improvements from £1 Cam1no Real to Foothill Expressway have been estimated to cost $325,000. No cost estimate is available for irnprayements frQm Foothill to 280. The $325,000 cost estimate is included in the Landscape ind Lighting District proposal scheduled far discussion by the Council's Finance Committee on December 10. 5. Tne City should inve.tigate with Stanford and Park tenant. a policy regardlng pro~is;on of and pa,YlT\€'nt for sidewalks. Discussion: A comprehensive Research Park sidewalk project ~ou1d involve approximately 20,000 to 25,000 lin£~r feet of sidewalk with a~ estimated ccnstruct10n cost of Sl.2 to SI.5 million. A planning type study is first reqdire-d to establish the necessary understanding and ilgreement of what is to be done. S~ch a study would include the following: 1. Oefine the area tc be cansidered (geographic boundaries}; 2. Inventory and cla!.sify existing si~ewa'ks/path5. including obstacles (poles. trees, landscaping. etc.) and right-of-way; 3. Establish standards and typical sections for one or more types/sty'~s (Width, material, with/without planting strip. o~e sfde or bot~ Sides of st~eet, etc.); 4. Prepar! plan relating type style to locat;;ons (new installationsl" upgrades, replacements); 5. Prepare cost estimate; 6. Prepare final plans? specifications and related documents; 7. Est.ablish funding ~chanisms (assessment district, City funds, individual businesses); and 8. Bid, award and construct project. Consultant resources would be needed to undertak.e the study. Steps 1 through 5 are estimated to ccst S60,000 to 170,000 .ith Steps 6 and 7 costing a" additional $30,000 to $40,000. CHR: 534;91 p:\CMR\SRPirnpl 11/27/91 Page 4 1. 1he City shou'rd de .... elop a cooroif"1ated water reuse and disposal policy. Key features would include conservation of potabl~ water supplies, re~5e of treated water from the Regional ~ater Quality Control Plant and facilititior. of the reUse of treated groundwater re~ultin9 from the ongoing environ~enta' cleanup of numerc~s Research Park sites. The City and Stanford should jointly facilitate ! fea~ib;lity study for the use of reclaimed water resuHing from char.up ;efforts. The initial studj could fotus an the Hil' .... ie~ Porter and Mayfield cleanup ~reas! but some a~a'ysis should be devoted t~ individual sites where imp'eme~tation of cleanup efforts is an independent company responsibility. T~is study should be closeTy coordinated with the Cltyls ilready ir.itlited wastewater reuse study. Potential use of the reclaimed ... ater f:'om both the Water Quality Control PTant and ~es~arch Park cleanup efforts could include Stanford campus landscaping as well as uses in the Park. QLscussion: The element of this Action that is already u~derway is the Water Re,lamat;~n Master Plan. The focus of this study is the reUie of reclaimed water from the Palo Alta Regional Wat!r Qualit) CQntrol Plant. The final repcrt is due in early J992. The preliminary (hIdings of the study identify se .... enl reclaimed watf:r projects that Ire financially and technically feasible and consistent with the preservition of the environment and public health. The use of reclaimed water for industrial processe~. such is cooling for heat exchangers, has pro .... en to be very costly. The master plan therefore focuses on landscap-e irr'!:gation. The reclaimed water chemistry is compatible with the 5011 and plant types in ~~st of the study area, Among the compatible sites are Stanford Research Park and Stanford Uni .... ersity. It is anticipated tnat the reclamation projects will be implemented in four to five pha~es over a period of five years. The ;.hasing af t~e projects is flexible. Depending on financing and us~r requirements, projects from the 1 atte,.. phas€ car, be moved ahead. Stanf.,;;:! Research Park is tentatively identified in phase 3 of the progrdm. Contaminated groundwater can be treated and used for an even wider variety of uses because it ge~e,..ally has a much lower salinity level than reclaimed wastewater. In addition to landscape irrigation, it can he used for certain industrial processes, dep~~d;ng on its quality. The prinCipal difficulty in treating and using contaminated groundwater is t~at it is typically more economica1 to discha~ge it to the sanitary sewer. Most extraction projects have a relatively sIIIa11 and varlab1e .... elume making reuse difficult. Howe .... er. the use of contaminated groundwater will increase for two reasons. first, the Regional Water Quality Control Plant is requiri~9 in .... estigation of alternati .... e uses prior t~ issuance-of permits for discharge into the sewer. Second, CMR:534:91 p : \CMR\SRPimp 1 lJ/27/91 Page 5 -;:·""l~H .... --.......... · ... ,"' ... ' .. r .. j' ......... _~;:""'---,;.-..... ""'- ·i:~~f:}:.~. L -«<, : .. .;~{~E~Y~:: larger extraction prcjects will be coming on 1 ine making use more economi~al. It would be difficult to inc1ude a specific contaminated groun~~ater ~se plan into the Reclamation Master Plan it this time ~ecause the Reclamation ~aster Plan is almost com,lEted and t~e City Tacks qua~titat've data on the volumes and locations cf upcoming extractlt. projects. TMh information can be deve10ped in the future, howe .... e-r, .. ,IJ" used in the more detailed design phases as reclamation projects are brought co line~ Potential Hazardoys Materia1 and Emerg~ncy ResPonse Act;Q~s 1. The City sho~1d increase the integration of Fire Oepartm€nt and Water Quality Treatment Plant data bases to facilitate permitting, inspection and enforcement fUnctions. 2. During the past year, the Water Quality Control Plant ,taff acquired the computer hardware to interface with the Fire Oepartment data base. As a result, access tc the Fire Department's data base by Water Quality Cootrol Plant staff has r.c.ntly been approved by the Fire Chief. In addition, the Fire O~partment is currently conducting i comprehensive review of its cGmputer software and hardware. ihis rfview will provide an assessment of the adeq~acy of the current and fut~re computing needs. Any future enhancements to the Fire Department's data base will take into acc~unt the inte9riti~~ of the other C,ty depar~ment dat. bases. T~e City should develop a funding plan for outfittinq with more hazardous material response equipment th! emergency response vehicle recently ordered and expected to be delivered in the Fall of 1992. Discussion: Funding for the hazardous material outfilling of the emergency response vehicle will cost S7~!OOO. The preferred financing alternative for this l'xpenditure is to inc1ude the costs in the 1992-93 Capital Im.pr<oliement Program. 3. Tne City should continue efforts similar to those involve~ with the Hazardous Hat!rials Storage Ordinance and Toxic Gas Ordinance to reguiate industry by design of fac11tties rather than mare precise regulation of uses. O,scussion; Tne implementation of this Action is an or.go1ng effort consistent with past City practices. It;s the intentivn of the Fire Department to continue to develop and refine local fire codes ba.sed upon He model code process used for the Hazardous Material Storage Ordinance ind th~ CHR:534:91 p:\CMR\SRPimpl 11/21/91 Page 6 ---, .. ,:.-.... .,c ... -.. ""'rll.iliJiIO._. "s'", -... .,.----~--..... -""_.,;.. .. -.- L , . - o Toxic Gas Ordinan'~. De~elQpm~nt of mode1 codes provides business representativ~s and the gen~ra1 publ~c with an active role 1~ design and review of the codes. 4. The City shouid initiate coordinated discussions with ParK tenants re9ard~!'l9 emergency response planning and the '!ppropriate equipment and f~cilities. . Discussion; Additicnal coordinated discussions will be provided to the Res=ircn ParK tenants by Fire De~artment staff upon req~est and according to resources availabie. Tne current fire Code provide~ l;nguage for industry responsi:biliUes regarding hazardous materials emergency response, including the reqL:irements for personnel training, written procedures, and Hazardous .Materia1s Management Plans and Hazardous Materials fnventory Statements. The Fire Department currently re .... iews industry plans o~d procedures relevant to these requirements. Potential Electric. Gas and Water Utility Actions 1. The City, in cOQperation with Resed~ch Plrk tenants and Stanford~ should develop Research Par~-specif;c el~ctric, gas and water forecasts. The forecasts shouid be closely linked wit~ the City's environmental and development review process. Pi sC:Js_si on: The Utilities Department annually develops a 20-year forecast for the electriC, water and gas consum~tion using end-use end e(onometric forecast techniques. These forecasts are disaggregated by customer C'!iSS (residential, commercial and industrial). To rep'~at the same work for the StanfDrd Research ParK, an addition of one fw:l time pOSition or an addition of $SO,OOO for consulting service will be needed. 2. Stanford and the City should continue to emphasize ne;.o Res2arch Park landscaping design guidelines for tne use of drought-tolerant plants. Discussion: lmplementation of this ;:tem is ar, ongoing effort. DrougM-tolerant landscaping guidel,nes have been developed by the City and are used by the Architectural Re~iew Board. Oe'llelopment and implemer.tation of th"e guidelines is cQordinated with the University's ~lanning and architecture staff. Potential Financial Actions 2. The City should evaluate the feasibility and desirability of auditing tho!! County property tax illocat~,or, process to determine whether the City receives its full share of secured and unsecured property taxes" CiolR:534:9! p :\CMR\SRPimpl 1I/27/91 Page 7 • ! , , Discussio,!J:: While the City Auditor's office has scheduled a property tax audit for the current fiscal ye~r. past experi~nce indicates that p€rforming audHs of this particu1,aT revenU2 stream can be quite time consuming_ Additionally, work ph, changes and staff turnoyer tUlle impacted the: office's ability to perform these audits in the current fiscal year. As a result, the City Auditor's office i1iill soon be assessing the resources it has ivaihb1e to perform property ti..\( audits. and may postpone them t, fi seal year i992/199J. CONCLUSION The 4bo\le thirteen Potential Actions are primarily or comp1etely the respor:sibility of the City. Other Potential Actions are directl" related, in ~arying degrees, to the policies and time commitments of Stanford University and, 1, some cases~ Research Park tenants. The pr~mary purpose of this ~taff report is tc provide infor.mat;o~ that ca~ facilitate further City-UnivErsity-Park tenant discussion of Research Park issues. The .?ol icy and Services COlTll1ittee should retill;n the Study in Cennittee for rlH'ther review is Stanford's tl:esearch Park planning efforts progress. At the same t lme, if the Committee conc' udes that one or mar!!!: of the thirteen items identified in this report merit pDl~cy directic~ from the Council, i Comm~ttee recommendation to the Council would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, £Ji?i£?f' f/ll,uh-> KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Commu~ity Environment ~~;:;~ c, ty Manager Attachment: Pages 6 to 10, Stanford Rese.rch Park Study cc: Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Stanford University (Bill Phillips, Diane Heale], Zeri Murphy, Scott Leonard, .'~ndjl Doty, Phil Will iams) Stanford Research Park Tenants and Leaseholde~s Barron Park Association College Terrace Residents AS50(iation Chamber of Conwnerce CMR:534:91 p:\CMR\SRPimpl 11/27/92 Page B ----.~~"!'"J!'tL~-i .. --.. ~ --_. - - r I - ··~)t "';.1? 'cO " :;:-~. ~~I.~ _____ v. rellt!d changes and de¥elopment and a CDntext for interpreting the 'TIonitore,d data. The Park is in a transition period and will be underguing many c~anges over the next 20 years. Many factors lI!ill be influenc~:"Ig those changes, m.:lst of which are outside of the City's direct or sOle control. Indeed~ those same factors will ca~se change within the City as ~ell. The direction change takes (an, to some degree, be influenced. and the CHy has the ability to exercise SOlTle influence. HIe positions and policies the City adopts regarding tne Pad:: will be viewed as either thw~rting change or trying to constructi~ely i!'lfl uence it. As with the Park at its beginning, He combination of tne right ingredients (commitment. resources. and long-term pers~ect;ve) and active cu1t,vatinn can bdng about a tremendous success. An opportunity preser.ts itself to continue that success through renewed cl.'lt'ivation and ilcti .... e inllolvemp.nt in the redevelopment master phnning of the Park. The City is faced' with the cha.llenge of defin1ng its commitment to and involvement in that work. The City's financial hea1th, in part, is depende;'\t upon it. This report identifies a variety of actions that could be pursued by the City~ the lJn1versity~ and Park. tenants. including businesses operating "n the Park and owners of leasenolds. The listing of actions should be ccnsidered an i,..itiiil agenda for disc'JsSion by representatives of the City, Unlversity and tenants. All of the three parties have critical ro1es. Estab1ishing an on­ gOing communi~ation process to evaluate issues and identffy appropriate courses of action is more important than the initial ~ording of any particular issue identified in this report. Pot~ntial actions contained in thlS report include the fo1,1 0\10'; r.g: potential Palo Alto Land Use Plannina and OeveloPJ''rent Actions 1. The City shouid continue to pursue simplificati~n of the design review process for smaller scale danges to previcusly approved site plans and buildings. Shortening the time necessary to obtain design approval plus continuation of the express one-stDp building permit procedure can (acllitah for Park. t2r;ants and <Jther applicants the cOlJlpletlon of rouUne building and site modifications. 2. A collaborative effcrt shou1d ~e undertaken by the City, Univers1t~ and Research Park tenants to ~dentify desired special facilities (e.g., ch11d care, recreation, meeting and training, and transportation fao:i1ities) and ways that the University's lease process and the City's deyelop~ent re~iew and approval process cou1d be used to obtain the facllities. 3. The City and the University shouid in~estigate ways (e.9.~ transfer of de .... elopment rights) to pro .... ide limited additional Page 6 P:~J ;;,!;-, ; r' {::-: ., - de~el~pment fl!xibility for sites that are developed to their ma~imurn potential under current zoning regulations. 4. The City shouTd encourage upgr2ding of commerc!aT prcperties on El Camino Real near the Research Park wit~ the primary objective of impr~ving the ~hysical appearance ~f El Camino Real and also encouraging commercial activities that compleme~t the Park. Potential Sta~ford land ~~n~gement ~ctions 1. Stanford should have a~ ongoing aggressive Research Park planning process starting ~ith the current strategic planning process. The pl~nning process should address longer-term Park issues such as desired Park tenant mix, potentiil changes to the current mix of parcel sizes, desired facilities and programs available to Park tenants. and ways of deve1oping~ throtJQh physical and program stratefi~es, a spechl identity fo~ the Park. 2. Stanford sh~uld deve1o~ ways of linking Park tenants and academic departments to facilitate identification of 3ctivities. that can be mutlJally beneficial to tenants~ faculty lTlembers and students. 3. Stanford should continue increasing participatlon 1n the Hil ~view/Porter and other grcundlol"ater c.leanup efforts. 4. Stanford should develop a marketing program to inform rea' ~state professionals and potential tenants of P~rk-related informatio~. 5. As identified in the Land Use Planning and Development Policies section, the City, University and Research Park tenants should undertake a collaborativ2-effort to identify desired special facilities and ways that the University~s lease process and the City's development review and approval process could be used to obtain the facilities. 6. As identHied in tne Employment section, Stanford should consider a strategy of a1locating leaseholds for start·up compa~ies. Potentfal Emoloyment Action 1. Stanford snould consider a strategy of alTociting leaseho1ds fer start-up companies. Specif~c measures cou1d include buy back of existing leases and use Ijmitations with ne~ leaseholds, especially associated with redeveiopmei:t of Park sites. Potentfal Transportation Actions I. R~search Park tenants~ the Uni'o'ersity and the (ity should deve10p a cDordinat~~ strategy responding to the changing congestion relief and air quality regulatory environment, including expanded programs and services. to facilitate (oIMluters using transit, car Page 7 P \SRP\5rudy r-, , 2. pools, bicycles and other aHernat;\les to the single-occupancy commute vehicle. The City should cont1nue pursuit of the use of comp~es~ed nat~ral gas powered or othe~ alternatlve fuel vehicles by tne City and major emp10yers owning yehic~e fleets. A successful alternative fuel yehicle program could be an impoitant element ir, the Congestion ~anagement deficiency plan process and retaining development flexibility fer th~ Park. 3. Park te~ants. with assistance from the Un;v~rs;ty. City and Santa CTa~a County Congestion ~anagement Agency, should exp10re the desirabl1ity of a Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association (TMA). A TKA might be the best mechanism for 4. de .... e1opment of a Research Park-wide transportation strategj and i~plementation effort. The: City should lnvestigate augmenting Research Par'j( traffic mitigation funds 'w!ith other funds, including City gas ta.x ft.mds and County and State funding. 5. The City s.hould pursue .a capital impro',lement project to iJpgrade the ipp~arance of th~ Page Mill Road median from [1 Caw,lno Real to Highway 2BD. 6. The City shou1d lmrestiga.te with Stanford and Park tenants a pollcy regarding provision of i:1d paymer.t for sidewalks. Potential Groundwater Cleanup Actions 1. Th~ City should develop a coordinated water reuse and disposal policy. Key features would include conservation of potable water supplies, reus.e of treater:! Wi!!tH from the Regional Water quality Control Plant and fGciTitat;on of the reuse of treated groundwater resulting from the ongoing environmental cleanup of numerous Research ParK sites. The Clty and Stanford should jointly facilitate a fea.sibility study for the USB of reclaimed w~ter resulting from cle~nup efforts. The initial study could focus on the Hillview Porter and Mayfield clea~up areas, but some analysis should be devoted to individual sites ~here implementation of cleanup efforts is an independent company responsibility. This study should ba cTosely coordinated ~ith the City's already initiated wastewater reuse study. Potential use of the reclaimed water from both the Water Quality Control P1~nt and Research Park cleanup efforts cou1d include Stanford campus landscaping as well as uses in the Park. 2. Repres€ntatives from companies in'.!olved in groundwater clean-up acti',lities along with Stanford and the City should petition the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to ~aiye the pump tax, a charge levied by the District on any ey.traction of groundwater in Page 8 <-"io--, 1 • Sarlta Clara County. A possibh ;::utcome could be a requirement to spend an amount eQLJivalef1t t[;' the pump tax 01'1 reel amat ion equipment to facilitGte the use of recTaimed ~ater, witn p€rhaps a nominal payment made to SCYWD. Potential H!zardous ~eria' ~nd Emerg~sponse Actf~n5 1. Th~ City should increase the integration of Fire Department an1 Water Quality Treatment Plant data bases to facilitate permitting, inspection and enforcement functions. 2. The City should develop a funding plan for outfitting ~;th more hazardcus material response equipment the emergency response vehicle recently ordered and expected to be delivered in the Fall of 1992. 3. The (ity should continue efforts similar to those involved with the hazardous materials storage ordinance and toxic gas ordinance to regulate industry by design of facil Hies rathet' than more precise regulation of uses. 4. lhe City should inithte coordinated discusslofis \lrith Park tenants regarding emergency response planning and the appropriate equipment and facilities. Pote~tial Electric. Gas and Water Utility Actions 1. The City. in cooperation with Researcn P~rk. tenants and Stanford, should develop Researc.h ParK-specific electric, g(ls and water forecasts. The forecasts should be closely linkea with the City's environmental and development rev1ew process. 2. Stanford and the City should continue to emphasize new Re5earch Park landscaping desigr. guidelines for the use of drought t~lerant piants. 3. The City should cDntlnue to monitor deve1op~ent of compressed natural gas and other alternative fuel vehicles and explore the feasibility of locating a fue1ing station within ti1e Research Park. Potentia' Wastewater Utility Act jon J. The City should continue to explore use of reclaimed water within the water service area. Subsequent to completion of the feasibility study, commercial building plumbing system modifications required to utilize reclaimed water should be identified and, where appropriate, incorporated into new development. Page 9 p:WlP\SWdy . : Potent1al Storm Drain Utility Act!on 1. The City should undertake a small pilot effo~t betwe .. I the Ri!Sionai Water Quality Ccntrol Plant and the Storm Drainage Utility to treat a small portion of the stormwat~r prior to dis~harge to the 8ay or reuse by Research Park tenants . Potential Financial -",ctions 1. The Cit.1' and the Un;\lersity shQuld develop a rnt.:tual1y acceptable strategy to retain e)(lstirlg and obtain new sal'!!s tax gen€rating uses. 1. The City should evaluate the feasibility and desirabilitj of auditing the CIJU!1ty property hx allocation proces:s to determine whether the City receives its full share of secured 3.:10 unsecured property taxes. Page 10 • -.-~.--- r , <- EXed;? ~ ,lr~uTES of trle Pol icy and Servi ee'i Comi tte.:: ;nee"'; ng of 10129/91 2. Stanford Research Park Study -Initial Review (L"MR:428:911 City Manager Bill Zaner explained ho'" ~irector of Planning anc community Environment Ken Schreiber began approximately one year ago workinq with a project called the Corporate Planning Process. The 'Word "'~orporate" .. 'as used because it best described the planning process covering the whole organization in one simple phrase. The City of Palo Alto was a :municipal corporation. There were several pieces to the project, but the piece concerning the m!O".fE!tinq was the Stanford Research Park Study (SRPS). Mr. Schreiber had been directed at the onset of the project to review Palo Alto's economic picture. It ~as possible to look at some of the major pieces to discover programs or policies the Cj ty Counc .. i.1 might adopt to push the community's economy in the desired direction. Mr. Schreiber spent hours ~ith the various groups and had outstand­ ing cooperation from th~ tenants in the Research Park. Stanford University was making a parallel effort regarding the Research park, looking at its O\ri'n long-te.rm strategic plan and working closely with the City of Palo Alto. Stanford had not cvmpletad enough of its study to ~pproach the public. The effort had been truly cooperative up to the present point. He suggested the Policy and Services (P&S) committee use the SRPS executive su~ary as a ~~ide for the study's findings and conclusions. Staff hoped to open a dialoque and get some feedback from the committee and the community. Since the document had nowt become public, staff expected people to react to it. So~e ite~s in the study might be put into place in the relatively near future. Other items listed could not be approached until stanford ~oved on some of its ideas and more discussion occurred ~ith industrial tenants. The stUdy should help figure out how to strengthen and stabilize Palo A1to's economy, which was the major objective. Director of Planning and community Enviror~ent Ken Schreiber explained the study was not a one-person project. Project CoordinatoI, Energy Services, Peter Govea spent a siX-month internship working on the project and was an extremaly valuable resource. Director of Finance, Emily Harrison, ...... as heavily involved, along with Financial Analyst, Libby Dame. Mere than twenty of the interviews occurred with major tenants. The process used. involved providing the corporations 'With a long list of questions and topics. Staff was able to speak with very senior people: senior vice presidents, chief financial officers, chief e.x:ecutive officers, and people 'Who had a broad view of their particular organizations. Staff 'Was interested in the Research 10/29/91 p&s: 2 ':.'-~ .,.'~~~". ! L - Park because not much ~as known, only bits and pieces of informa­ tion (e.g., square footage, traffic , sales tax, utility usage~ etc.). Mr. Govea spent long hou.:rs ""'ri ting co:rnpllter programs, accessing data bases and sorting infonaticn gleaned from thE:: Research Park. A reasonably good data base 'Was created. The information generate~ did not have ahsolute accuracy but provided what 'Was essential for determining major policy trends for-the next ti ve to ten years. The thinking behind the st'Jdy was to detennine wh~t the City could do if it wished, to have some positive effect over time. To that e)(tent~ th'2 study 'Was not a Plar.ning Depart:ment project. He lW'anted to highlight what stood out after a year of intense research~ Both stanford and the city found the biggest finding was competition (p. 3, SRPS)~ In the past, the City of Palo Alto did not pay much attention to competition for business activities in the. Bay Area because for a lang time it ..... as felt Palo Alto was a very special place · .... i th desirable types of facilities. What the study identified vas extreme competition for the types of activities found in the Research Park. In numerous interviews tenants 'Were asked .-hat they would do if they had a choice of ~hether or nat to be locdted in the Park. Many said they would not locate there or not locate ~s much of t.heir firms in the Park. Tenants felt there were other locations in Santa Clara county, the Bay Area, other states or even world'wide "Which were better. council Member Faz~ino asked if the statement ~not in the Park~ meant nnot in Pal~ Alton. P~. Schreiber said yes. It ~as an extremely important conclusion which took time for palo Alto and Stanford to digest. Chairpe~son Andersen stated the conclusion ~as very humbling. The second important point was timing. Many leases were at the point of renegotiation or tenants .... ere making decisions about ~hether to stay in the Park. The length of the leases created problems for financing major capital projects. Five years from now the problem would escalate because amortizing the capital facility over the length of a lease would cau~e a conmercial banker, bonoing agent or corporate financial officer to question tha investmcnt$ Chairperson Andersen questioned JO-rear ieases. Whether Stanford "",,auld be able to extend any leases or add to current leases was arl issue for future consideration. Mr. Schreiber said the issue of timi~g as it related to environ­ mental issues, \r,Ihich included air qua 1 i ty and transportation, "",ould be drawing a lot of attention over the next fe~ years. The third major finding concerned the City/Universityl tenant cooperation opportunities, Many of the items discussed concerned all three parties. The city could not regulate the findings in the study in any traditional sense. It ¥las difficult to regulate with any precision what 'Went on in the Park, ~hich was an understandable feature of the City's regulatory role~ The study revealed aspects not fitting the traditional city's regulatory approach to an issue. The fifth finding involved the City's financial relationship to the Park, an important and previously known issue. What was not 10129191 P'S: 3 - ree:lized WI!:.S just ho.,... imoortant finances ..... ere. In the Execut:ve SWClCary, the word Ifdependence Pl 'Was delibe;-at~ly used because approximately l5 percent of the Gen'?:ral runG. carne frQrI'. the P,e5earch Park, represent.illg $20 million. Sales tax was almost equ.al to 'wr.'t.at was g~nerat~d by the Stanford Shopping CenteL'. Property tax had been sta}:lle and increasing over t.ne last ten years. Given the redevelopment and sales sites, etc., property tax had been strong. utility sales e~llalled about one-third of all utilit~· sales, and about 50 percent of electric sales were in the Park. utilities contribution to t!1e Gene.ral Fund from. the Res.aarch Park 'lJas extremely importa!lt. The last major finding relateti t:> the functional use of land and buildings, indicating many oppor­ tunities. "Natural" changes ""'ould continue in the Park, such as redevelop-ment changes, occupational change, etc. Anoti"".er type woUld oe "encouraged" change, which was outside the City's regulatory role. However, Stanford and th.a tenants had oppor­ tunities for leasing policies, parcel size, and configuration policies where the City of Palo Alto might have a role. He noted a paraqraph on page 6 of the SRPS Which began tlThis report identifies ••• • and explained how staff used the term ~shouidn to encourage discu~sion. Staff recognized there would be additions, delet.ions ~nd changes which Would spark. suggestions and dialogue between the University, the City and the tenants. Listed in the study were plannin'.;-oriented actions, not in the senS9: of tradi­ tional municipal planning processes, but a master plann~ng process .... hich might encourage the UniverS:ity. The study identified a variety of smaller: actions the City or others could take regarding amenities. So~e were being pursued now; for example, reclaimed water study. Identified ~ere 28 specific actions ~orth discussing. Council Me~r Fazzino asked about process. Hr. Schreiber desired the P&S COnL~ittee to have a sense of timing. Stanford had an issue regarding timing. Ti:n= next step "Was a detailed commenta.ry on limitation of actions, feedback in terms of content and questions. Staff would then have specific discussions of appropriate actions for the City and University. staff wanted the item to stay in committee. Council Member Fazzino asked if a fo~al process or vehicle through which Stanford, the Research Park and the City could work on items had been formulated. Y:.r. Schreiber stated staff had not thought about any s.eparate process other than discussions in Committee. Chairperson Andersen stat~d if there were a policy decision, then that portion might be referred to the full Council. Mr. Zaner agreed. If an issue needed Council approval, staff should be inforroed. The initial draft implementation list should ultimately be presented to Council. < Council Kember Woolley asked about those things the city could act on now. 10/29/91 P&S: 4 I I I i ~ l' . • , c < \: \' \ .s \ I --- Mr.. Schreiber indicated page 5 of the SRPS under "Potential Actions w , Nu~ber l~ per sue simplification of design review FrCfCesa,which needed to be brought to Council to modify the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process. Chairperson Andersen asked 'Wn-e.the.r the slo'Wdo'\ofn ""as caused lUore by citizen review or staff review. Mr. Schreiber explained ho'. relatively simple items vent through the full ~ process causing a month to a rnonth-and-a-half aelay .. The ARB was receptive to expanding the initial existing staff approval process to include additional minor items and get an ordinance change to the council.. The current process was extremely aggravating for ~any applicants 'Who had small projects and must attend a public It:eeting. The second. potential land use action, a collaborative effort between the City, University and tenants~ 'Would be long-term.. The third item, regarding site developI!lent flexibility, could be either short-term or long-term. Council Member Woolley asked if the item was more in Stanford's hall park than the CityTs. Mr .. Schreiber indicated it would be a joint efto.r:t. A zoning co~~isslon would be necessary to allow small ~ncreases fo& flexibility that firms found desirable in ~pgradinq or maintaining a facility. CO\lncil Member Woolley aske.d 'Whether transfer of development rights (TOR) was possible within the Park .. Mr .. schreiber said yes; but a formal TDR program containing many legal ramifications was not necessary. The City had a program downto~n ~ith a cap on floor area ratio (FAR). There were vays of dealing with transfers with Planned community Zone and benefits. Item Nu."nber 4, upgrading properties along El Camino Real, was a longer-term problem. Regarding potential Stanford Land Management ~ctions, page 7 of the SRPS, there ~as an ongoing Research Park planning process. The City of Palo Alto should encourage Stanford to continue with the process .. ChairperGon Andersen asked if Stanford could have an opportunity fer input and invited Diane Healy, Managing Director of Real Estate, Stanford Management Company and Bill Phillips, Executive Director of Real Estate, Stanford Manaqement company to join the P&S Commit.tee. The stanford Manaqenent company was r-esponsible for management of the endow:llents and assets of the University .. Diane Healy, Managing Director of Real Estate, Stanford Management company~ explained stanford's plan ~as similar to the City's but differed pril'n.arily in its emphasis; for example, vith regard to sales tax and the fact stanford was more concerned with academic issues.. Stanford intended not only to have recommendations but "implementation plans, ~hich ~ere the most difficult components. The key element 'Was the physical development plan, which Stanford referred to as the Master Plan. The goal was to identify parcels appropriate for Stanford's repossession as the leases terminated or 10/29/91 P&S: 5 L • L expi::r:ed in order to put in centraliz.ed am.enities and services. stanford's desire w~s to keep the Research Park consistent with the competition. From a timing perspective, stanford "'anted to request proposals over the I"l.ext fe ... ~ weeks. Reexamining Stanford's role as a landlord would also be done. council Member Renzel referred to ~cad.emics related to business, and stanford to renew a lease. the reinstitution of the asked what factors caused Ms. Healy stated the academic departments relation business al~ay5 existed. .In intel·vi~ws tenants said the cost of living and the cost of bu~iness in the area, as well as the other business issues ~ould affect a decision to leave, ~er~ it not for their association with Stanford. Some tenants voiced concern about allowing tenants into the Research Park "Who did not have a r-elationship with stanford. Hr. Schrai:ber indicated staff found St.anford 's academic connections were not at all ccnsistent. One organization or firn: would have a strong connection with Stanford and the next firm would have almost no connection. Many times in the last five or ten years the existence of the strong connections between Stanford and tenants had been happenstance. Staff had talked about trying to strengthen those con..~ections in a more crganized way rather than allowing nature to take its ccurse. The items under Potential Transpor­ tation Actions (p. B., SRPS) which could be accomplished fairly quickly were NUlIlbers 4, 5, and 6, investigating the use of gas tax funds to supplement mitigation funds, an upgrade of a road median and investigation of a poli~y regarding sidewalks. The road median project was to improve the appearance, not to add more turn lanes. The Park tenants seems4 to have an interest in emergency service and initiating discuso;ions for Park tenants regarding the addi­ tional coordination of em~rgency resporsc plans which was Item 2 under Potential Hazardous Material and Emergency Response Actions (p. 9,. SRPS). Under-potential Electric, Gas and Wa:'er utility Actions., Item 2., drought tolerant landscaping was in place~ The city had a study underway to look at alternative fuel v~hicles in response to the Clean Air Act limitation, which ~as Itec 3. Under potential Wastewater Utility Waste· ... 'ater Action, Iteo 1, the City had a feasibility study ur.derway to look at recla~:med -...ater use which ~ould be coming forward in the early part of next rear. Those were relatively short-term items. The City Auditor had an item regarding property tax issues. Council Member Fazzino asked why the sal~s tax did not follow the retail tax cycle. Mr. Schreiber answered what w3s known was that it did not. Council Member Fazzino asked about business to business trans­ actions producing the type of sales tax revenue received from the Park. He believed it was very different from sales tax revenue from the Shopping Center. Focus was generally on the latter, and the City should also focus on the loss of retail sales offices in the Resear-ch Park. 10/29/91 P&S: 6 - Mr. Zaner indicated th~ two ~ere different objectives. business sal~s follo~ed an entirely diffecent cycle. Business to Council Member Renzel asked about the status of retail sales and business sales. Mr. Zaner indicated they are unrelated. There ~ere some retail sales in the Research Park, but they ~ere not a predominant sales tax source. Council Member Renzel concluded the tax might lag and sometimes be totally independent. Mr. Schreiber indicated the cons~~~us was the business to business sales were not increasing. There 'Were pressures causing sales taxes in the Rese3rch Park to decrease, as there were pressures to move sales offices out of the Park. council Member Fazzino confirmed the concentration 'W~s on the loss of sales offices, and it was an issue he. 'Wished to understand better. He did not think business to business sales tax revenue was as healthy as retail sales tax over the last coupl~ of years in the Research Park. Mr. Zaner stated it ... ·as more cOlnplicated. The ::lessage Mr. Schreiber was transmitting was as the nature ot the Park shifted to pure research, the sales tax generating part of the Park moved away. Th~ net result was the drop in ~ales tax revenue. Council Member Fazzino referenced one-stoop shoppi!"Jq or point of contact within City Hall which app&ared to be an important issue for tenants in the Research Park, and he asked abo~t progress in that regard. Mr. Schreiber indicated one.-stop shopping did in fact exist. Council Member Faz-zin":) asked if one person cou.ld be called when a tenant had a problem with refuse or planning, or any problem with City Rall. Mr. Zaner did not beli~ve anyone could come to City Hall ~ith a problem and go to just one place. The City was a multi-service industry. The City was tryirlg to establish a process to identify people in the organization who had very clearly defined respon­ sibilities with regard to industry in the community. It 'Was not possible to have a one-stop place because there was almost no way one person could cover every problem. Chairperson Ande:sen understood the nature of the frustration, but at the same time it was difficult for businesses to know who to contact. Be asked if there was a way to set up a system where questions could be directed so ansvers were ret~rnea as quickly as possible. lO/29/91 P&S: 7 r - .,,-..., --/ HI'. Zaner did n~t think there 'Were many complaints abo',.lt not being able to qet to the correct person. ne thought the problem 'W~s the inability to get an answer or that the process was too long. Chairperson Andersen asked 'What could be done to shorten that time. Mr. Zaner said one-stop shopping in the Planning operation did solve the prohlem tor the land use: issues. In some cases, the process itself needed revision because there 'Were too many steps. Councll Member Fazzino asked if Stanford intended to addre~s the issue of lack of opportunity at the present time for start-ups to find places in the Park. Ms. Healy indicated Stanford 'Was looking at the issue. She had visited some "incubators" across the country, and ~ost of them ~ere eKecutive suites with m~ny mature but small companies. stanford 'WaS trying to find a prototype, which 'Was financially viable~ There were tenants ~illing to work 'With the incubator concept but the process ill'culd take some tiDie. Chairperson Andersen understood a start-up company very often 'Was not ahle to afford such a facilitr to make the linkage and asked if Stanford was working on connecting more effectively. Ms. Healy stated Stanford had talked abo~t actually setting up an office to handle and facilitate the linkage. The big companies had the relationships, but the newer, potential tenants did not know how to develop a relationship lr."ith the University. Council Member Renzel thought many st.art-ups ",'ere not cor:::.iTlg to the Research Park because the right types of facilities were not there, and the cost per 6quare foot was high. The ball was in Stanford's court regarding the price of the facilities. She asked if stanford intended to do something to create an open door. )Is. Healy said Stanford had not really gottel1 far in terms of successes. Their research indicated they did n~t ~eet the needs of high tech cOIl".panies in terms of very specific lab requirements, which were harder to provide on a generic scale, as what ~as needed for an incubator. Executive Director of Real Estate, Stanford M;anagelIlent Company, Bill Phillips, said Stanford observed incubators across the country which were set up by new research parks subsidizing people so wh~n businesses grew they could fill their particular research parks. The proble~ was the need for expansion ~ith a ~arket which did not facilitate the incubator idea~ Ms. Healy said the number of start-ups in research parks was pheno~enal in et.her cities because Palo Alto 'Was not able to accommodate them~ Mr. Phillips said in a larger company capital was inunediately present. The amount of money required to support a company was eisht or nine times ~hat it was six to eight years aqo~ 10/29/91 P&S: 8 - - council ~embe~ Renzel asked about the difference between the kind of planninq in ~uestion and adQitiDnal land use planning. Mr. Schreiber said the interfac€s related to land use categories. In the CitY'*'ide St.udy, the Research Park .... ould be the Research Park in terms of the zoning. There might l:)e areas 'Within the '&cr.ing ~here changes should b~ made, for example, contractibility. Municipal planning did not tend to get jnto the issues of lease­ holds, parcel site issues, child care centers. or transportation facilities. It ~as much more private. In large research parks, undet' one ownership or a sm311 ownership group, there was acreage with specific amenities designed in and the designers were willing to make trade-ofts. When developing a research park, it was still the property owner's priJr,ary responsibility to decide. There might be ways to use the City's process and not impede or encourage the types of facilities desired. If a child care center, recreation facili ty, or restaurant · .... as desired, the City should ]:lake sure there were no zoning processes which impeded. those. Right now zoning imped~d restaurants in the ?ark. Council Member Renzel asked how the New Leaf Restaurant was in the Research Park. Mr~ Schreiber thought the New Leaf began as an internal operation. Over time, the r-E:staurant provided such good food that other companies patronized the restaurant. It qrew outside the city's zoning. No one in the City ever said there could be expansion into a full restaurant. Denny Patrosian" 443 Ventur-a Avenue, commented on the recommen­ dation to develop businesses on £1 Camino Real .hich were compli­ mc~tary to the industrial park. Business developing on El Ca~ino Real encroached into the subject of Comprehensive Plan review because it had heavy implications for land use~ She was concerned the emphasis was on the convenience of the Park, as though El camino Real was a service alley for the industrial park. What ~as missinq in the recommendations was potential for housing behind ~he east side of E1 camino Real near Page Mill Road on the Maximart property. The toxic waste dump in her ~eighborhood and El Camino Real needed to be looked ~t carefully. E1 Camino Real served an import,ant business function apart from pig business in Pale .1t.lto. Palo Alto needed a small family business plan as well as a research park plan. Trje city should look closely at what share of the burdeJ"l. companies bore with regard to the handlinq of ttle hazardous materials. k~ important part of the cost of doing business ~as to handle toxic waste. She would not like to see fu~ding of special procedures in the Fire Department for handling toxic emergencies developed tv the advantage of the businesses and to the detriment of the city. TORs ~ere a good concept but she was concerned about the precedent of trading child care for square foetaqe. The strongest emploree benefit 'Was housing first, and child care and the others were second. The Mayfield site should be a housing site.. There "'as reference to toxicity on the site, but many potential housing sites 'Would have toxicity since sites had been rezoned industrial sites. The handling of the Mayfield site in the study seemed in conflict ~ith the next paragraph which dealt with 10/29/91 pos: 9 'L "~ \ . -' 1 '" .t.- :-\ j 1 • -.;,!-:,~ , .~< . ,5,;:· ~,'. ------------' :) the j?bs/housing balance. In the Economic Outlook. Coll'Utittee minutes, housing and transportation were cited as the two most important problems of the Park. The focus of the City needed to l:Je coordinated better in the stUdy. E1 camino Real and Page Mill Road looked the way it did because seIDe important land usc goals to brin9' benefits to the cit}~ were laid do .... n some time ago in the comprehensive plannir.g process. Housing ",as on one corner, a reduction of the traffic generating commercial pvtential was on the other corner, pu'blic bE~nefits fro'!!'. the county lot on t!'le othe.r corner, and on the remaining corner was the industrial park. Council Me-rnber Fazzino stated for the record that there ",as a difference betveen toxic and haza~dous waste. He asked Mr. Zaner to share a report from the Fire Department regarding the drums. Mr. Zaner :believed there was a prescribed cleanup ... ·hich the Ci ty was required to permit. and inspection ~ould be by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. council Member Renze! asked wby that particular site was used. Mr. Zaner explained the materials on the site Would be transferred and were required to b~ dealt with on that site. It was not a repository to which people were bringing materials. Edie Dorosin, 1221 Waverley street, Director of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, saie the report 'Was good. The Chamber of Commerce had a committee composed of Research Park facility managers which had been dealing with some of the issues for over a year. A mode.£~ process was i!l place which could be seen as a forum:, not a.t a policy making level, .but at a 1:echnical l'2vel. The Chamber of Commerce WQuld like the opportunity to work on items the P&S Committee considered could be done quickly. There was hope the past year of interviews, surveys and stUdies ~ould result in some actions which would benefit all. c..'ttairperson Andersen asked what Commerce was hopeful would be mentioned. specific things the Chamber of add.:-essed ·.!hich had not been Ms. Dorosin responded some issues 'Were sidewalks for safety, access to buses, and reclaimed water. John Lovewell, Keenan Love~ell Ventures, 700 Emerson Street, interacted extensively with t£nants throughout Silicon Valley and had a sense of v~at businesses ~ere ~ooKing for and ~hy they wanted to be at Stan.ford~ Keenan Lo."e'W~ll Ventures had spoke.n about the lower power costs in the Research Park, and the improved commute as the result of CalTrain, the widening of Highway 280 and improve­ ments of Highways 85 and 81. The common drawing card, besides the issues, was the desire to be close to Stanford University. The conclusion was Stanford was the source of Silicon Valley and the main fuel which drove the 'Whole economy. It 'Was clear 'When probl~ of co~petition with the Japanese increased. traffic congestion, infrastructure and lack of venture capital were faced, a positive influence offering hope for continued success and. 10/29/91 P&S: 10 , l :~ . '.: '~':' . : ~ , i i t_· ...• ~~ L > , economic soundness ~as stanford University and its relationship to the conmunity and to the Park itself. The report ~as qr~at as a beginning point~ Ability to p~ocess apPLovals, particularly ARB and hazardous materials appro:.rals, was a key issue. A fine biotech company might have left the Research Park recently because of slo11/' response froIt the city to a request. A $15 million investment might not have occurreG ~ithin the Park had the company left. As redevelopment \rr'as revie'w'ec!, it ..-as important for Stanford to present a cohesive pr~gram for lease £xt2nsions, which was not much of an issue for the P&S cocmittee but a key issue for the future of the Park. Council Member woolley stated one wor~ which came to her mind was "alert .. ~ The research provided an alert to the City COl.1I\cil that certain things co~ld happen and it was up to the P&S committee to pursue the qoals in a timely rnanner~ She would like an implemen­ tation plan for the items Mr~ Schreiber listed earlier which could occur in a re~a.tively short time fra'me to come back to the P&S Committee as soon as possible. Meanwhile~ Stanford 'Would be ~orkinq on its plan. Then the City and the University could work in cooperation with one another on the project~ Council Member Renzel found the report very interesting. Some of the factual aspects of the Park 'Were useful and helpful in all areas ct planning. She learned by a~tendance at a stanfo~d forum ho* ouch 'Was in stanfordls hands regarding operating the Park, and much concern was expressed about Stanford's management practices and the City's interrelationship with the Park. There might be ti~es when Sta~f~~d's and tenant~t ~oals might conflict with land use planning goals. There IJas much -work to be done to find is common g~ound and find exactly ~hose responsibility various actions were. She asked 'Why side'fro'alks .. ere not included in the Park because sidewalkS were required everywhere else. She -would hope the P&s committee would continue to bear the importa~t relationship about land use and housing balance in mind when aeciding what would be done in the industrial Park and everywhere else in the city. The Park contributed a large part of the jobs~ That situation combined with the student/faculty population added to the housing market pressure. She agreed \o'ith Council M€l'r'.b-er Woolley about the need for immeoiate action. Council Member Fazzino agreed with comments about the importance of the study and found the report very well written and easy to read. He agrees there should be ~n action plan developed, both short-term and long-term. He would like a more forma.l process by which Stanford, tenants, ~e City and the neighbors ~ere able to work together on issu-es. He ,*,ould like the report back to the P&S committee on a regular basis, and he did not believe once a quarter was excessive. Over the short-term, being aggressive was not inappropriate. putting in place the tools necessary to deal with some of the long-range issue.s ... ·ould also be appropriate. He was interested in establishin9 an agreed-upon vision for the Research Park which should be cons istent ... ith the Comprehensive Plan process. Reducing the "ha5s1e factor" "Was a significant concern to the people in the Research Park~ He was interested in long-term restoration, start-upsr and all ties to Stanford ~hich would help 10/29/91 F&S: 11 Of ... W· •. 0'.""_ ..•. t L -.---" ... :: .. -" . ,'!,. ",g " I in marketing the Park. Open space had not been discussed. Support for continuinq open space in pa~ts of the Park was not inconsistent \!lith support for rer::ovat,ion of other aspects of the r-ark. He hoped to identify ways in which the ucility Advisory Commission could 'Work 'With the P&S committee to better understand the needs and interests of the important utility custo~ers. Chairperson Andersen \o'as pleased "'ith the report. He thanked the City Manager and all who w~re involved. He suppcrted the ARB review process modification. Gas tax funds for some of the modifications 'Was prcbably an appropriate approach .. He ..... as pleased with the strong interest of putting in side"ol'alks and the lr;edian strip.. The TDR concept had some interestin9 potential although these might be difficult with leases. The clean up problem was ~ot discussed. The City needed to be more than an enforcer of clean ~p efforts.. He hoped the 1>&:5 Committee \IIould have creative ideas for the s2rious issues to allow the Park to be used to the fullest, environmentally appropriate extent~ Another area not addressed in the report regardea the companies' needs for highly technical communications bet~een business communities. If coaxial hook-ups were possible or appropriate} he i,:!Is:ked ",'he:ther Stanford or the community would explore such a system. Chief Planning Official, carol Jansen j indicated state of the art digital eq'..lipment and state of the art communications should be used.. It was a subject which should be reviewed. Mr~ Zaner explained when the City became involved in the Cable Co-op venture, including the B cable, the technology was in the ground ready to cake connections.. Whether ar not technology ",,'as what the Park wanted or ~as necessary for the Park was question­ able. Another possibility was a seventh utility, a communications utility, an idea presented eleven years ago by a Council Member. Council Member Renz~l referenced the transfer of development rights question and asked ·whether the Park ",,'as properly stibdivided or parcelled as welch Road wa5.. Before any transfer of development rights took place, there should be a prop.:!!'" map fiJ..e. Mr.. Schreiber said vast areas of Stanford lands ..... 'ere never subdivided} for example, Welch Road and the Shopping Center. There were no legal property lines; it was all one parcel with a complex of lease 1ine5.. The lease lines were recorded back in the 1950's and 60's and beqan to be shown in the accessors' record as property lines. He believed most of the. Research Park had leg'al property lines, but he would check on the issue.. Everyone was operating under an assumption that the Coyote Hill Open Space Ease~ent ended afte.r-20 years} in January of 1993, then there ..... ould be rao easement} normal zoning would take over, and the land was ~oned agricultural in the city and designated open space in the C~mpre­ han&ive Plan so it could not be developed. However, the easement documents were patterned after the Williamson Act l with a ten-year roll-over4 If Stanford had wanted to end the easement in 1993, a l~tter should have been submitted in January of 1983. Tbe Open Space issue as identified in the SRPS was addressed as an eminent land use issue with no recognition of the ten years. : ;, .1": \ :-:; ................ 0;' ..... '1.", ,,,.,," L P5iS: 1.2 CO~Lcil Member Renzel asked if coyote Hill itself was a 50-year easeme.nt. Mr4 Schreiber said yes; but it ~as not an emin~nt issue. Mr. Phillips said the Xerox site on Coyote Hill ~as like the other; no action had been taken. Mr. Zaner reempha~ized the SRPS ~as only one ~iece of the economic puzzle in Palo Alto. Ms. Jansen's a~signment vas to look at an economic resource planning function to fo~ a frame work or strateqy under which the study could fit. .An outline or draft of a strategy .. ould be put together to shoW' how Palo Alto could stabilize and enhance its economic position. Chairperson Andersen asked .. 'hen the item .. ould return to the P&S Committee4 Kr4 Zane~ said staff hoped to return to the P'S Committee in a few weeks afte~ people talked about the study. Ms. Healy expressed her appreciation for what had been done so far. She recognized the tremendous effort and the fact the citl of Palo Alto was as concerned about th~ Park encouraged Stanford. NO ACTION TAKEN • o EX[~RPT Ml NUTES of the Pol j Cj and Services CC1i1T1ittee Pleeting of 12/3/91 5. Stanford Research park study I~plementation of City-Related Potential Actions Director of Planninq and Community Environment Kenneth Schreiber said the staff report (CMR:534!91) vas in response to a request by the P&S Committee to identify items the city had reasonable control over vhicb could. be worked on 'Within the next 16-24 months. Thirteen items were identified., a number of which were ongoinq; others were vell underway and -would be going to Council. Som.e could be identified as CIP projects such as sidewalks. The next step involved acquiring CQmments and reactions from the P&S Committee, Stanford, and roe tenants of the Research Park as to their priorities and then establishinq a basis for a.n exchange of information. Staff had no recommendation to proceed ~ith ~he next st.ep. 12/3/91 p&s: 16 .--'~ ... ---.. . r . I ! - :.J; ":-.r.J", . Council Member Fazzino asked hoy often staff intended to pre~ent to the P~S committee info~~ti~n acquired. Mr. Schreiber said staft wanted to return quickly, but there vas nc schedule. The TI".I.ess4ge tenants 'Were giving, that an important part of studying 50mething was the subsequent action, encouraged staff to send a message to the tenants that there would be work. stanford should be consulted for its timing. Chairperson Andersen said the P&S Comcittee: should revieW' the report. Mi. Schreiber indicated a typographical error (page 2, paragraph 2, CKR:S34:91); December 2 should be D~cember 9. Council Member !'azzino had a particular interest in Item 1, lithe city should continue to pursue si~plification of the design review process for sUialler scale changes to previously appro .... ed site plans and buildin9s~, after reading an article in the newspaper by Mr. Freeman about Syntex. He asked what changes a Park tenant would see as a result of the proposals contained. Mr. schreiber intended to sen~ a letter to Mr. Freeman seekinq an opportunity to converse with hie. He thought Palo Alto had a good relationship 'With Syntex:, especially on a staff-to-staff level~ The article in the paper did not reflect that, and he desired to find out why~ It would take some ti~e to eliminate Palo Alto's reputation for being a difficult community to deal with. When Park tenant executives were interviewed, complaints cited were 5 to 15 years old yet viewed as something recent. Modifying the Architec­ tural Reviev Board (ARB) process would produce a better day-to-day working relationship with those individuals dealt with on a regular basis. There would be an attempt to get back with people to rectify situations, but ~any times past approaches had left a bad taste, and 'Work would be necessary to alleviate that. It 'Was important to rec~nize the degree of competition. Council Member Fazzino queried if there was one individual a Park t,enant could Ctmtac:t should someone have a prol:llem 'With a City department O~ serv~ce. Hr." schreiber said no. The one-stop issue was legitimate and should be investigated and researched, but ~ithout a formal person with the role it would be difficult for anyone individual or depart~ent to take on that responsibility. Mr. Rudin said a staff group was compiling a directory Which was in-depth enough to assi~t anyone to correctly direct a phone call. Council Member Fazzino said that was not enough for him~ Council Member Renzel said the directory would be an index specialized to prcject orientation as opposed to the regular binder directory currently being used. She said under Potential electric, gas, and water utility actions (page 7, CMR:534:91) regarding the suggestion to develop Park-specific electric. gas and water 1213/91 NS: 17 I - forecasts, it appeared in the past there 'Were only a few major users which drove the demand fro~ the industrial park. She asked 'What additional information would be gleaned from forecasts 'Which vould be different from the o¥erall 20-year forecast. Mr~ Schreiber said the data identified in the last four to five years did not re\o'eal the same correlation with square footage historically seen. It 'Was assumed expanding s~uare footage generated the greatest demand. To the extent of the larger trend or. projf!ctions of utility usage ~nd plannin9 for the tj"Pes of se.rvice the Park 'would need in 10-20 years, it would not be a casual assignment but a different approach. Council Member Renzel said her question was sparked by the need for an additional full-time position or $50,000 for consulting services. If there were not a 1:1 correlation of square footage and electrical demand, a smaller marginal increment 'Would indicate overblown forecasts. Mr. Schreiber said the indications were underestimated; there was qreater conswnpt!on t,han square footage ~ Council Member Renzel said the lor:g-tenn forecast could come up short. Mr. Schreiber said yes, it could. with the data identified from 1986-~390 -... he.ther it was a longer-term trend or not 'Was unkno....-r.~ A longer forecast woula be necessary. council Member Renzel asked if the forecasts "",ere going forward regardless. Mr~ Schreiber said no~ council Member Renzel said it would require a recommendation fro~ the P'S committee in order to proceed. Because the Budget Guidelines indiGated new pOSitions 'Were not to be funded without identifyinq a funding source, she asked wnat the funding source would be. Mr~ Schreiber did not believe there · ... ould be a non-City funding source for the position. The response '""as outside the Budqet Guidelines~ Council Member Woolley said all the items fell into one of two categories: either an item was in progress or it vas one which required substantial dollars and would not fit ~ithin tne Budget Guidelines. She asked what was the appropriate recommendation the P.S Committee could make to council 'When a large expenditure ~ould not be recommended while something already in p~ogress would not need recommendation. Hr. Schreiber said there were currently items, like sidewalks, Which could be a CIP project and evaluated in the overall priori­ ties. Council always had the pr~rogative to establish priorities. 12/3/91 P&5: 18 I --- Chairperson Andersen askerj to 'What exter.t stafr had cOmlllunicated: with stanford aDout the reco-m.mendations and. "Wh~'t response had beer. received if communication had occurred . .Mr~ Schreiber said the only communicat;,on .. as distribut.ion of the staff report~ People ~ere alerted about the meeting t but he had not received any direct feedback. The issue of sidewalks came up a number of times. Chai~erson Andersen asked about the ab~lity to make major p~iority shifts eithEr trom the elP or the General Fund and t it shifts ver~ possible I he asked whether it would be an investment 'Which made sense with re3pect to the long-range plan. Hr. Schreiber said the.re were a number of items which clearly involved l or could involve, a priority shift. If the City undertook a sidewalk program with the expectation that nO!1-Park tunds would not qo to the assessment district but insteac be runded out of the, CIP prograza, a significan't change. of priority would be necessary. Internally, the decision was made to co~it $50,000 a year in qas tax money to augment ~itigation funds because mitiga­ tion tunds or transportation improvements were not coming in at a rate consistent with projections a few years ago~ To supplement the .~ney for the projects and to de~onstrate to the Park tenants improvements were impo~tant, the City was willing to invest some resources. Chairperson Andersen asked about Mr. Schreiber's initial comment that the ~ajor purpose was to do something. He was interested in finding out what staff needed frem the P,S Committee and Council to see some a.ction. Mr~ SChreiber said there were items upon which the City could establish a hiqh~r priority or which could be accelerated4 It was not to be assum~d the $7S,OOO for outfitting a response vehicle for hazardous materials would fit within the elP. It might tie appropriat~ for the City to accelerate efforts to reuse groundwater rather than for companies to independently work on solutions to the problem~ Chairperson Andersen asked if staff needed feedbaCK as much as the P£S Committee did. Hr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Renzel asked about the water reuse problem as it applied to conta~ination. Mr~ Schreiber said all groundwater discharges which went into the sever sYlite-m. contained some contaminants and increased flo ..... into the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP). The policy was to ask people who wanted to dispose of water it t.."ter-e was not another beneficial use. To ~eiJse the water, it needed to be clean enough. Council Kember Renzel asked if it vas not chan9ing ene pollution problem for another. 12/3/91 PaS: 19 L \ ~" , , L -'." Mr. Schreiber said the question of filtered ~ater evaporatin9 into the air vhich required air regulations was beyond the city's control. Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, said the Chamber of Commerce had two standing committees regarding: the F.esearch Park, Stanford Research Park Forum, and Environmental Health and Safety. They vere very focused on issues in the report and the study. In leasing space, the two import_ant major attractions 'Were the proximity to Stanford and the utility rates 4 Regarding the ARB process, :be-thought it was critical, especially as the situation with ALZA was observed. The transportation actions vere not on the top of his list. He had a concern ~ith Item 4, reducing General Fund expenditures while needing ClF. He ~ould like to see nexus between the tax and capital improvements to ma}ce it possible. Upgrading page Mill Road median was not a priority. Each company vould have its own opinions. Provision of side~alks ..,as an excellent choice. Regarding groundwater clean-up action, Stanford asked the various City agencies for concepts On pumping. Syntex researched qoing to drought-landscaping ~ith a cost of $3.6 million bUt admitted the look and feel of the Park was critical. ~erqency response action was excellent. The Mayfield School Site deserved attention. Chairperson Andersen asked if it WOuld bit;O possible for Mr. Keenan to give the P&S committee his top ten priority items. Mr. Keenan said yes. He said the Stanforo Research Park Forum would also be doing the same thing. He suggested Councilor the P&S committee members meet 'With the Forum from time to time for input. The Forum met once a month; the next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, Dece~er 10, 1991, at 8:00 a.m. council Member Woolley asked if the Forum would be doing its prio~itizir.g at that mee~inq. Mr. Keenan Gaid he believed so. He said it ~culd be advisable tor the P&S committee members to attend the following meeting, after the prioritiZing had been acco~plished. Gene Endicott, He~lett Packard {HP}, 25 Sherland Avenue, Mountain View, said HP appreciated the effort put forth in the initial study as well as follo'W-up activities. He suggestec3. staff not lose sight of the lonqer-ranqe issues 'Which 'Were as equally i:cportant as the short-term issues. Specifically, child care, recreation facili­ ties, development flexibility, anQ transportation were very important to HP. He encouraged the City, Sta.nford, and tenants to talk more actively in the future to enable dealing ~ith the pro~lem regulations. {council Me~r Fazzino excused himself during Mr. Endicott's speech to avoid conflict of interest.) Diane Healey, stanford Management Company (sMel, said SHe had been working with !tr~ Schreiber and staff in terms of asseSsing the viability and the priority of the actions. She agreed with Mr. Endicott rega.rding the long-term/short-term issue. People 'We.re tired of the rhetoric and were looking for action, but much ",,"as 12/3/91 P&S: 20 ". , .' \' . ..J '- "-" overdue attention to necessities. Caution sho\J;ld be given to ensure an ov~rall commitment. In terms of Mr. Keer.an's priorities, not as far as SMC ~as concer~ed, she reiterated his comment about leasing as it related tc ~tilities. She had heard ~any co~ments from tenants about the negative feelings invoked by the Jo..RB process. The City's and stanford I s processes should both be revie'~ed to avoid redundancy. Jo,.n RFP 'Was issued for land planners for the master plan, the key component from Stanford's perspective, and Stanford expected the selection to be accomplished by December 16, 1~91, with results back in final torm around March~ SMC would approach its board some time before the su~er~ vhile ~ttemptinq to maintain an aggressive schedule. Chairperson Andersen was very pleased to see the City and Stanford working together. Mr~ Schreiber said it was important to recognize that many of the biqqer land use and policy issues had such a direct relationship to Stanford... that Stanford IS research park planning needed to be encouraged. Many of the smaller issues were critical to effectively implement some of the larger issues. Council Member Renzel asked about his comment concerning the concurrence of the property own~r, She asked if he was speaking to the tenants or the City with regard to planning with stanford's concurrence~ Mr. Schreiber said any nu~ber of the longer-term issues addressed features of the Park in terms of location of activities, types of special amenities provided, leasing policies, and changes in parcel sizes. Those were the types of issues where Stanford's input would be critical because there would be little the City could do to bring about the desir~d outcome if Stanford did not move in that di ["act i on • Denny Petrosian, 44J Ventura Avenue, said it ~as ~mportant to keep the right perspective and not feel Palo Alto was a l::ad cit}" Instead, Palo Alto vas a distinctive place. It was ~ecessary to recognize there vas a built-in adversarial relati~nship between an industry a~d a city. While the city was putting forth an effort to go ~ore than halfway, industry needed to come at least halfway and recognize the City ha.d leqitimate interests which might not line up with the business interests. If the ARB precess became the most important priority, then the focus should be put there. She observed there did not appear to be a direct correlation between major land use changes and economic health. She was ccncerned vith the vagueness of a couple of the items. Regarding the CIP issue, she thought businesses were drawn to Palo Alto on a more funda­ mental issue than merely appearances, like the per square foot issue. She was concerned ~ith the cost amounts, She thought it should be recognized that businesses which enhance the City also pollute the City, which should necessitate a geod faith contribu­ tion. she asked about the necessity of the $50, oeo for the electrical, gas, and water forecasts in light of the cuts in human services. She urged recommending those issues Which did not cost money and retaining the remaining items in the P&S Committee. 12/3/91 NS: 21 r--l. ..' ..... ~ -'~C·' " . t, ~ . . [ [ ! L .' 1I0000IOl!l.: Council Heuer Woolley m.oved, seconded by Faz zino, to (1) retain the ~tudy in Com:ai'ttee l (2) direct staff to ar-ra:nge a meeting in January with the Stanford Research Par/( Forum and Council and the Policy and Servic~s Committe~ members to discuss priori~ization of Ehort-term projects, (J) consider in the February meeting of the policy and services Committee recommendations to the City Council" and. (4) direct staff to set up a process for determining ttle long-term priorities. Chairperson Andersen stated the priorities which were e~tablishe~ by the Forum yould not be con~rol1ed by the P&S Cc~ittee. Hr. Schreiber said it was better to separate the long-and short­ term items because stanford ~as not at the point of addressing the long-term isslJ~s in a definitive ","ay. Council Member Woolley said the staff repo~t only dealt with short­ term issues. Another woman representing the Chamber of COmI<lerce' s Stanford Research Park Forum Committee said the staff report had just been receiv~d in the mail, so none of the committees had looked at it. The initial discussions looked at the study and prioritizing. It would make sense to look intc the short-term issues. Mr~ Schreiber encouraged not losing sight of the long-term issues. The short-teI1l1 issues should be dealt with in a more exact way, with long-tent! issues dealt .... ith in a general 'Way. Ms. Healey said it should be stated the list .... as not all inclusive. Mr. Schreiber said it was just a place to start. Counc i 1 Member concerning the priorities. Woolley meeting said clarification could be included in January primarily for short-term Chairperson Anderser. said one minor modif ication should be includ.o:d to ensure staff was in communication .... i th the interests of Stanford and tenants $0 their input was in~luded: Mr. Schreiber said possibly the fourth item shoul~ direct staff in consultation with Stanford and the ~enants. Council Member Renzel aske~ about the invitation to the Forum's meeting, the fact that the P&S Committee members wculd be guests, and the app~op~iateness of the part of the motion which included discussion with ~~e Forum. MOTIOH RESTATED: 1) Retain the study in committee; 2) direct staff to york with the Chamber of Commerce-sponsore~ Stanford Research Park Forum to arrange a January meeting at which the Forum shall discuss with the City council, especially members of the Policy and Services Committee, its priorities among the Potential Actions identified as candidates for short-te~ implementation by the city; J) at ~e February m~etinq of the Policy and Services Committee, 12/3/91 P&S: 22 '----~-.. ---~ -- ~ .. - consider recomcendations to the City Council; and 4) direct staff I in consultation .ith Stanford University and Stanford Research Park tenants, to set up a process for determining recommendations and priorities for long-terE Potential Actions. ChairperE;on Andersen ma·1e an additional request the motion be referred to full council so the Council would be aware it vould be coming up. Ms. Rudin said the minutes would be ready in January and coule be coincidental with the meeting. Chairperson Andersen said city Council Member~ and futu~e Council Membe~B should be notified. Ms. Rudin said there were several orientation mee'tings :being scheduled. When Mr. Schreibe:!' met with the new Council Member's, he could brief them. Chairperson Andersen appreciated those' 'Who attended the meeting fro. tbe community. council Member Fazzino commended Hr~ Schreiber on the significant progress made over the months. Chairperson Andersen was excited about the prospects of renewed relationships. He bad a concern, as it was incumbent upon the City not to drop the ball, for Council not to neglect to do the necessary follow-through. lrOTIOlr PASSED 4-0. •