October 12, 1999
1. Appointments to the Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board 89-86
2. Train Whistle Noise - Refer to Policy and Services Committee 89-87
3. Proposed Changes to the Palo Alto Administrative Code Relating to the Office and Duties of the City Auditor - Refer to Policy and Services Committee 89-87
4. The Finance Committee Recommends that the City Council Accept the City Auditor's Priority List and Approve the Updated Study on the City's Landscape and Maintenance Costs 89-87
5. 1st Reading - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Byxbee Park and the City-owned Baylands 89-87
6. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation 89-87
7. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $170,000 for the Repair of the Hansen Way 21 Substation Transformer 89-88
8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements 89-88
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. to a Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission. 89-88
1. Recommendations to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and Stanford University Regarding the Draft Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit dated September 20, 1999. 89-89
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. 89-98
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m.
PRESENT: Eakins, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler
ABSENT: Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Appointments to the Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board
Council Member Eakins supported Francisco Alfonso for the Architectural Review Board (ARB). He was well-liked by his peers and a proven valuable member of the ARB for the past several years. Drew Maran was an experienced contractor, whose skill and knowledge would be a welcomed addition to the ARB. Paul Vadopalas made an impressive show of interest in serving the community and should watch and apply for other committees or community effort in residential design consideration.
Council Member Mossar said the City received two applicants for the Historic Resources Board (HRB) vacancy. She supported Michael Makinen because of his experience in implementing national standards for historic preservation in a real-world setting, which would be a valuable addition to the HRB. Ruth Sloan worked tirelessly with the community to complete the inventory and was greatly appreciated for her efforts. Other opportunities would arise through which Ms. Sloan's talents could be utilized, and she hoped Ms. Sloan would continue to work with the City on similar issues.
FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
VOTING FOR FRANCISCO ALFONSO: Eakins, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum and Wheeler
VOTING FOR DREW MARAN: Eakins, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum and Wheeler
VOTING FOR PAUL VADOPALAS:
City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Francisco Alfonso and Drew Maran received five votes and were appointed to the Architectural Review Board on the first ballot.
FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
VOTING FOR MICHAEL MAKINEN: Eakins, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum and Wheeler
VOTING FOR RUTH SLOAN:
City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Michael Makinen received five votes and was appointed to the Historic Resources Board on the first ballot.
Emily M. Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding the Squire House.
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics.
MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 5.
2. Train Whistle Noise - Refer to Policy and Services Committee
3. Proposed Changes to the Palo Alto Administrative Code Relating to the Office and Duties of the City Auditor - Refer to Policy and Services Committee
4. The Finance Committee Recommends that the City Council Accept the City Auditor's Priority List and Approve the Updated Study on the City's Landscape and Maintenance Costs
5. 1st Reading - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Byxbee Park and the City-owned Baylands
1st Reading - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Foothills Park
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider absent.
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
Closed Session removed from the Agenda at the request of the City Attorney.
6. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation
Subject: Written liability claim against the City of Palo Alto by Palo Alto Condominium Owners Association
Government Code Sections 54956.9(b)(1) and 54956.9(b)(3)(C)
7. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $170,000 for the Repair of the Hansen Way 21 Substation Transformer
Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and GE Energy Services for Repair of the Hansen Way 21 Substation Transformer
MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the staff recommendation as follows:
1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with GE Energy Services in the amount of $126,003 to repair and transport the failed Hansen Way 21 Substation transformer.
2. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with GE for related, additional but unforeseen work, which might develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $19,000.
3. Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $170,000 to cover the cost of the repair contract and related work by City Staff.
Ordinance 4593 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $170,000 for the Repair of the Hansen Way 21 Substation Transformer"
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider absent.
8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Council Member Rosenbaum requested information the following week regarding the status of the number of potential customers for the "Fiber to the Home" (FTTH) project and an information packet delineating what staff planned for the near future.
City Manager June Fleming said staff understood the need to return to the Council with further information on the FTTH project. Staff would provide a report addressing the issues raised by Council Member Rosenbaum the following week with accurate information, since the information published in the newspapers was misleading, confusing, and inaccurate.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. to a Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission.
Special Joint Meeting
of the City Council and Planning Commission
October 12, 1999
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:50 p.m.
PRESENT: Eakins, Huber, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler
ABSENT: Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider
PRESENT: Beecham, Bialson, Burt, Byrd
ABSENT: Cassel, Schink, Schmidt
Council Member Mossar said she would not participate in the Stanford Plan discussion due to a conflict of interest.
1. Recommendations to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and Stanford University Regarding the Draft Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit dated September 20, 1999.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the essence of the staff report (CMR:385:99) was divided into seven categories containing 28 recommendations. Stanford sought input from the City on its Draft Community Plan for Stanford University Lands in Unincorporated Santa Clara County (Draft Plan) prior to submittal of a formal application. Staff supported the idea of concentrating redevelopment in the core campus. Staff shared the County's concerns about the lack of specificity in the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan should be a guide, giving sense of what Stanford University (Stanford) was proposing for clear expectations. If the Draft Plan was interpreted in different ways, disappointment was bound to result when the plan was implemented. Staff recommended a clear, definitive plan, but staff had concern about some sites along El Camino Real and Stanford Avenue. Staff believed retaining the 1989 goal of no new net commute trips should be retained and included in the Draft Plan. Transportation and parking should be considered in a regional context. The area designated open space should be clarified as open space, not academic and open space. Stanford planned to cluster new development in the core area, which meant the area outside the core should be designated in the Draft Plan as open space for longer than ten years. An assessment should be made of the school impacts resulting from the additional housing on the school district. Special attention should be given to the middle school and provisions made either on or off campus. The Draft Plan should also contain Stanford's long-term vision for 100 years.
Santa Clara County Planning Representative Sara Jones spoke about the County's view of the Draft Plan which should provide community understanding of the development. Stanford should have a level of accountability corresponding to its flexibility. The Draft Plan should also be a guide for decision-makers and others making recommendations and interpreting the Draft Plan over the next ten years. The concerns were divided into issues of the completeness of the application and differences in the planning approach, going back largely to direction given by the Planning Commission to Stanford in September 1999. Stanford was encouraged to include several elements in the Draft Plan. Those elements included safety and conservation elements, along with clearer land use designations; an academic growth boundary delineating where academic growth would occur over the next ten years or policies by which such functions would be accomplished; Clearer descriptions of the proposed housing along with a commitment to a minimum amount of housing; and more commitments in circulation, particularly an explicit effort towards the goal of no net commute trips. The County's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would bear out whether no net commute trips were possible. The County worked with Stanford to bring the Draft Plan to completion by the November 1999 deadline. The timing of the public review process was unusual, as it was not uncommon for an application to be presented incomplete. Public comments were incorporated as much as possible into the process.
Stanford University Representative Larry Horton said the Draft Plan and draft General Use Plan (GUP) applications were submitted on September 20, 1999, with supplementary information. The issue of academic facilities was one of the most important issues for Stanford. The Draft Plan proposed academic facilities over the next ten years of slightly over 2 million square feet, with 1.2 million square feet for laboratories, research spaces, etc. Mayor Fazzino initiated discussion with Stanford about a possible joint Performing Arts Center to serve both Palo Alto and Stanford, the possibility of which was included in the Draft Plan. Specific facilities would not be determined until a later time. Flexibility was needed to adjust to new circumstances, such as the Internet. Many code requirements such as seismic and fire made it necessary to renovate or replace facilities. One of the most important elements of the Draft Plan was housing, particularly in light of the regional housing shortage and the desire to retain students and faculty. The Draft Plan called for 2,780 new housing units in the core campus, including childcare and neighborhood amenities to reduce automobile trips. Quality schools were important to Stanford, particularly in light of attempts to recruit faculty. Five public schools were located on Stanford lands, four of which were part of the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Stanford met with PAUSD to discuss a new site and would continue to explore the possibility. Two-thirds of Stanford lands were open space. All academic and housing development would be contained in the core campus, with no proposal for lands south of Junipero Serra Boulevard, and 99 percent of that land remained open space at the end of the Plan. Minor exceptions were for small educational facilities in appropriate spots. Transportation was a major concern of Stanford and was an important part of the Draft Plan. Among the mitigation measures was the expansion of some of Stanford's transportation programs, for which Stanford had received a number of awards.
Vice Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open.
MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Ojakian, to limit each public speaker to three minutes.
MOTION PASSED 5-1, Mossar "not participating," Kniss, Fazzino, Schneider absent.
Dr. L. Koran, Professor of Psychiatry Stanford Medical School, 710 Alvarado Row, Stanford, supported the Draft Plan, and urged the City and County to work with Stanford in a spirit of mutual respect for win-win situations. The Draft Plan would increase housing while decreasing the housing pressures in surrounding areas, preserving open space while strengthening controls and protections in many areas, and providing new academic facilities devoted primarily to information technology and biological and medical sciences. The Draft Plan should benefit many groups.
Jerome Coonen, 4035 Orme Street, was as interested parent in education issues of PAUSD and supported more schools, particularly a new middle school in Palo Alto. She urged Stanford to join in the sense of community and continue its tradition of being a good neighbor.
Dr. Judith Swain, Physician at Stanford School of Medicine, 747 Santa Ynez Street, Stanford, supported the Draft Plan. Stanford had two critical needs: 1) to recruit the best and brightest students and faculty members; and 2) to continue the kind of programs that made Stanford a premier university in the country, both of which were impacted by the lack of ability to expand academic space. She encouraged the Council to support the Draft Plan.
Ronald Levy, Professor of Medicine Stanford Medical School, 966 Mears Court, Stanford, supported the Draft Plan, primarily because it would alleviate the critical need for housing and the affect that lack of housing had on recruiting. The campus primarily housed senior faculty, retirees, and surviving spouses of former faculty members with only 10 percent of junior faculty members.
Garry P. Nolan, Faculty Member Department of Microbiology and Immunology, 784 Alester Avenue, supported the Draft Plan. Although two million square feet seemed large, the space was critical not only for the machines for therapy but to facilitate ideas and innovations and bring in some of the best and brightest graduate students. Students needed to feel wanted by both the faculty and the community.
Helen Blau, Professor and Chair of Molecular Pharmacology Stanford School of Medicine, Menlo Park, supported the Draft Plan. Stanford provided the community with world-class medical care, one of the best universities in the country, jobs for residents, and eventually a performing arts center. Although Stanford was renowned in the world, it would not continue to be so unless Stanford could attract students and faculty, for which affordable housing was critical.
Peter Drekmeier, representing the Stanford Open Space Alliance, 570 Matadero Avenue, said there was a need for Stanford to make a firm commitment about the lands designated open space. In exchange for developing the large project along Sand Hill Road, Stanford assured the City no other development plans were intended for the area, making a commitment to protecting the open spaces for 25 years. In 1989, the results of an EIR conducted by Stanford revealed the lands south of Junipero Serra Boulevard and the golf course were designated open space; however, the new plan extended the core campus to the southwest of Junipero Serra Boulevard. The City was encouraged to do what it could to ensure Stanford preserved its open space.
Jean Drouin, 680 Serra Street, #E477, Stanford, supported the Draft Plan. As a fourth-year medical student, he chose Stanford for its academics as well as open space, community, people, and its promise. The two main reasons students left Stanford were housing and the quality of the current medical facilities. The need for academic and housing facilities from a student's perspective was true.
Victor Perlroth, 216 Corte Madera, Portola Valley, said he was a current student at Stanford School of Medicine and Stanford Business School in support of the Draft Plan. Palo Alto owed much of its prosperity and benefits to Stanford. The Draft Plan was necessary to allow Stanford to compete with other universities.
Elsie Begle, 501 Forest Avenue, said Stanford had a neighborly attitude with its open space. Palo Alto, on the other hand, purchased the land for Foothills Park and then restricted its use to Palo Alto residents. She hoped advocates for open space would work together for the best possible use of the Stanford lands.
Emily M. Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said there was a need for a comprehensive plan to address the desire for an urban boundary and open space preserve. Stanford was part of the overall community and the major traffic congestion points surrounded the university. She agreed with Mr. Gawf's quest to see Stanford clearly state its ultimate goals. Stanford did not set limits on itself and, because of the mixed jurisdictions surrounding the campus, a comprehensive study on urban boundaries was not conducted. Limiting commute trips alone would not address the issues.
John A. Stern, 2303 Cowper Street, supported the Draft Plan. Stanford was an excellent neighbor of Palo Alto but required facilities to remain competitive in a highly academic world. Stanford provided schools and education for the children, contributed to the Silicon Valley, was a world-class university, and was on the cutting edge. However, Stanford was not competitive in the area of housing.
Channing Robertson, Professor of Chemical Engineering at Stanford, 1089 Vernier Place, Stanford, said there was a close relationship between Stanford and Palo Alto, both of which fundamentally had the same goals. The concern to maintain the level of faculty and students was directly related to the amount and quality of the housing and facilities. He urged the Council to support the Draft Plan.
Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Avenue, said there was a need to acknowledge Stanford as a private land owner, with all the rights and obligations thereto. Palo Alto's policies should be applied to Stanford to recoup some of the housing and school funds.
Ted Leland, Director of Athletics & Recreation at Stanford, 680 San Juan Street, Stanford, supported the Draft Plan. The growth in stature of Stanford was in part due to its relation with the local communities. The specific plans for improvements to Stanford Stadium and Maples Pavilion were incomplete but both would require significant upgrades. If 25 acres of core Stanford land was given for the use of the PAUSD, it would come out of recreational usage. If a middle school was built, a tradeoff between Stanford land and previous sites would result.
Keith Guy, Associate Vice Provost for Stanford Student Housing and Dining Services, 693 Pampas Lane, Stanford, supported the Draft Plan. Housing was a critical element of the Draft Plan. The quality of life at Stanford was directly affected by shortages in housing, the need for commuting, and poor living conditions, all of which affected student's ability to concentrate on their studies.
Sally Probst, League of Women Voters (LWV), 735 Coastland Drive, supported the Draft Plan, particularly the housing element. Encouragement was given to constructing the housing at the beginning of the period, with target completion dates of two to four years. The childcare, amenities, and conservation element were appreciated.
Edward Shortliffe, Professor at Stanford School of Medicine and Computer Science, 457 Homer Avenue, supported the Draft Plan. As a member of the Advisory Board responsible for reviewing applications for appointments and promotions of faculty, he saw ideal candidates take positions elsewhere, mostly due to the housing problems in the area. Although Stanford's location seemed like an ideal place for innovation and creativity, the limitations on academic growth and academic space resulted in his own decision to leave Stanford.
Doug Owens, Associate Professor of Medicine at Stanford School of Medicine, 211 Manzanita Avenue, supported the Draft Plan, particularly with regard to open space and housing, both of which were critical.
Mary Davey, Los Altos Hills, said there was a need to have the same standards applied to the Stanford community as any other community in the Bay Area. Therefore, more clarity about Stanford's plans for the future was desired. The area south of Junipero Serra Boulevard was treated differently in the "official" Draft Plan and the Draft Plan submitted to the public.
Dr. Suzanne Pfeffer, Professor and Chairman of Biochemistry at Stanford School of Medicine, supported the Draft Plan. Better facilities were necessary to treat patients with the cutting-edge abilities of Stanford. Researchers at Stanford who had too little space impacted the future of pathology.
Edie Keating, 3511 Waverley Street, said nothing in the Draft Plan guaranteed what was promised, such as how much land was preserved for open space, where facilities would be located, and where roads to the facilities through open space were located. The Draft Plan made few real commitments to the community.
Jim Spudich, Professor of Biochemistry at Stanford School of Medicine, supported the Draft Plan. Stanford's academic excellence contributed to the community.
Oly Olson, 638 Kirkland Drive #1, Sunnyvale, Stanford construction management graduate, said there was a give-and-take element in any project. With an over 3 million square feet total project, Palo Alto could require Stanford to protect the hill around the Stanford "dish."
RECESS: 9:30 P.M. TO 9:48 P.M.
Julie Jerome, 726 Greer Road, former PAUSD Board member, supported a school site for the PAUSD on Stanford land and the need to continue to provide quality schools through collaboration.
Mike Levin, President Stanford Student Body, P.O. Box 16300, Stanford, supported Stanford's right to prosper and maintain its status as one of the premier universities in the world through more affordable housing and academic buildings.
Kelley Skeff, Physician at Stanford School of Medicine, 546 Jefferson Drive, supported the Draft Plan. The recruitment of the type of medical students, physicians, and faculty needed to keep Stanford at the cutting edge was critical, hence the need for affordable housing and better academic facilities.
Christy Holloway, representing the Stanford Citizen Initiative (SCI), 730 Santa Maria Avenue, Stanford, said SCI consisted of over 500 Stanford campus homeowners in support of affordable housing tied to responsible planning and the same land use protections given to any other subdivision in the state. SCI desired: 1) protection of parks, playgrounds, and open spaces; 2) designation of campus residential areas with specific zoning indicating allowable uses, lot sizes, lot coverage, height limits, and population density compatible with what currently existed in each residential neighborhood; and 3) a requirement that future development be compatible with what was in the current neighborhoods.
Diana Dutton, board member of the Stanford Campus Homeowners Association (SCHO), 747 Dolores Street, Stanford, said there was a lack of ability of Stanford homeowners to provide input in land use planning and growth. Even if Stanford built all 430 of its proposed new faculty and staff housing units, 505 new families would still need housing in surrounding towns. Stanford should be required to pace its growth according to the housing it provided. Congestion on and off campus would increase with the additional housing.
John Cooke, Physician at Stanford Medical Center, 4022 Ben Lomand, supported the Draft Plan because a significant portion of the Draft Plan provided for student housing which was a serious obstacle for students desirous of attending Stanford.
Mark Sabin, 4274 Wilkie Way, supported the Draft Plan because it provided for advances in biomedical research in the future and the additional housing units on Stanford campus. He urged the Council to consider innovative ways to solve the housing problem in the community.
Denice Dade, representating Community for Green Foothills (CGF), 3921 East Bayshore Road, said there was a lack of sound land use planning in the Draft Plan. She urged Stanford to incorporate the directives given by the County for a zoning level of specificity. The Draft Plan failed to accurately reflect what was contained in the full Stanford Community Plan. Language in the Draft Plan was crafted in a way to make a goal of the County ensuring the academic preeminence of Stanford, which was inappropriate. The County was responsible for ensuring a broader perspective and balance of the benefits and costs of the community.
Leannah Hunt, Chairperson, Local Government Relations Committee of Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, 245 Lytton Avenue, supported of the new housing proposed in the Draft Plan, particularly rental housing for single students. A buffer area of open space was desired, rather than rental space adjacent to El Camino Real. She agreed with the LWV's desire for a timetable to expedite the housing as a first priority. She urged Stanford to assist in repairs of erosion damage along the creeks caused by the 1998 floods.
Franklin Orr, Dean of Stanford School of Sciences, 669 Mirada, Stanford, supported the Draft Plan and the job it did in balancing long-term needs with short-term needs. The benefits of more affordable housing outweighed the cost of less open space and denser housing.
Jeb Eddy, 2579 Cowper Street, supported the Draft Plan but said the Draft Plan failed to go far enough in the area of traffic and transportation for such a world-class institution. He agreed with prior references to discrepancies between the Draft Plan and the other plan documents.
Curtis Feeny, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, supported 95 percent of the Draft Plan and encouraged everyone not to focus on the 5 percent disagreement. Stanford was working hard to provide more details, having until November 15, 1999 for final submittal.
Steven Aronowitz, 592 Mayfield Avenue, Stanford, said he was a long-term resident of Palo Alto and student of Stanford and supported the Draft Plan. He particularly supported the way it enabled Stanford to thrive in its contributions to the community in the areas of performing arts, athletics, and educational vitality.
Ward A. Myers, President of Medical Student Association, Stanford, 410 Gilbert Avenue, Menlo Park, supported the Draft Plan which was about reinvesting in core values such as the arts, science, and medicine. The Draft Plan addressed many issues of concern such as open space, traffic, housing. He urged the Council to work with Stanford to solve some of the problems.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto, said there were additional recommendations the ad hoc committee submitted to staff a year prior regarding protecting open space areas for 50 years and a medical center plan. Palo Alto should make a statement by rezoning as open space the area next to the Arastradero Preserve. Stanford should also be encouraged to place the housing away from El Camino Real.
Olya Nilenkayo, 440 Cesano Court, #110, a senior of Los Altos High School, supported permanently preserving the open space in the foothills. She encouraged Stanford to develop a stronger environmental conscience, creating housing without destroying valuable open space.
Edward R. Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, said there was a premier standard of education available at Stanford and a desire to keep Stanford a world-class university. He urged the Council to concentrate on items in the Draft Plan that made sense and to move forward.
Mary Liz Cortese, Government Relations Director for Tri-County Apartment Association (TCAA), 792 Meridian Way #A, San Jose, supported the Draft Plan. Authorizing building 2,700 units would put Stanford in competition with TCAA members.
Richard Morris, 930 Hamilton Avenue, supported the Draft Plan, particularly due to the development of a third middle school. PAUSD's enrollment was over 15,000 in 1967, 7,500 in 1989, and 10,000 in 1999 and still increasing. The schools benefited both Stanford and Palo Alto.
Sylvie Way, 320 Kellogg Avenue, supported the Draft Plan and education of the children of the community. Palo Alto's schools were overcrowded, a new middle school was needed, and Stanford had the land.
Mark Shepherd, 1556 Madrone Avenue, supported continuing dialogue. With regard to open space, although Stanford needed some flexibility and nothing remained forever, ten years seemed too short a time. She believed consideration should be given to a longer timeframe. The middle schools were overcrowded, and since Stanford was part of the problem, it should also be part of the solution.
Nancy Shepherd, 1556 Madrone Avenue, desired top-notch education facilities for her children. The additional housing in Stanford would also mean additional school children, so Stanford should assist in creating a solution.
Carolyn Tucher, 4264 Manuela Way, said the number of students in the PAUSD was increasing. PAUSD projected an excess of 500 new students from the project and 290 students from Stanford West. A new middle school would accommodate an equivalent number of students. Currently, the PAUSD spent $7,800 per student, of which over $5,000 was raised from local sources. None of what money was paid by Stanford or families living in housing owned by Stanford. The addition of 800 students meant a cost to the PAUSD of $400,000 per year in annual operating costs, all of which would be borne by PAUSD taxpayers.
Paul Hartke, Stanford Graduate Student, 350 Sharon Park Drive I-1, Menlo Park, supported the Draft Plan, particularly with respect to the shortage of affordable housing it would address.
Christopher J. Stromberg, Stanford Graduate Student, Rains Houses Apt. 14A, 704 Campus Drive, Stanford, supported the Draft Plan because it would increase the regional housing supply. Timing was critical, and plans for the housing had begun. The vast majority of parking spaces were associated with new housing. The spaces would be filled by the same car 99 percent of the time. The no-net new trips was a theoretical model the County thought would give an informative comparison, not an actual measure of actual traffic. It was not realistic to expect the comparison to be valid.
Dori Allen, Stanford Graduate Student, 40 Newell Road #2, East Palo Alto, supported the Draft Plan because it addressed the issues of housing and additional research space.
Susan Orr, Stanford University Trustee, 669 Mirada Avenue, Stanford, supported the Draft Plan and the necessity to take a long view of decisions for future generations. Stanford was a good neighbor, limiting growth to the core campus, working hard to have an excellent transportation plan, and providing school sites over the years, first class medical care, and world-class cultural and athletic events.
Vice Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Vice Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to continue Item No. 1 to the Regular City Council meeting of October 25, 1999. (Public Hearing closed)
MOTION PASSED 5-0, Mossar "not participating," Kniss, Fazzino, Schneider absent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
ATTEST: /s/ Donna Rogers - City Clerk
APPROVED: /s/ Gary Fazzino - Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.