Laserfiche WebLink
7.2.A. - Page 10 <br /> research and educational facilities in the area, and it will positively transform area. He <br /> noted this Project was approved by the Planning Commission and he commended Staff <br /> and the City Council for their work in being creative and providing a durable public <br /> benefit. <br /> M/S Gee/Seybert to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0 to close the public <br /> hearing. <br /> Council Discussion <br /> One Council Member spoke in support of the Project while commenting how <br /> neighborhood concerns were mitigated to the extent possible and that this will bring in <br /> needed open-space and beautification to the city. He also noted that this has been a <br /> negotiation where property taxes were taken off for Stanford, a nonprofit entity, and <br /> there is a need to ensure commitments made to the community are kept with Stanford <br /> as an active and contributing member into the future. <br /> Several other Council Members asked for more details relating to what distinguishes <br /> historic elements, including signs, and what the choice points are for the Project in <br /> leaving things as they are versus preserving historic resources. Mr. Ekern said the <br /> Historic Resources Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and all other <br /> consultants' analysis of three historic elements in the Project included the fountain, the <br /> relationship of the buildings, and the Ampex sign. They found that the relationship of <br /> Ampex to the city was historically relevant, but that there have been so many changes <br /> to the remnant and fragmented pieces from the 1960s going forward, that they are not <br /> historically significant at a state or national level. However, he noted that City Council <br /> makes the determination that can say if it is historically relevant on a local level and <br /> then they would need to work with Stanford on it as per the Precise Plan. <br /> Ms. Thompson, City Attorney, added that procedurally when the City Council considers <br /> the first recommended motion, they may consider adopting a resolution to adopt an EIR <br /> (Environmental Impact Report) and other items. She said the first resolution before <br /> Council, with minor modifications that Mr. Ekern had already reviewed earlier, says they <br /> agree with the Planning Commission's determination that the three items Mr. Ekern <br /> reviewed have local historic significance that is primarily based on the interest and <br /> meaning to the community. If this is the case, then there are various requirements that <br /> Stanford would need to fulfill and the Council would be making a statement of overriding <br /> consideration that the mitigations are not adequate to reduce the impacts to a less than <br /> significant degree. Alternatively, there is a second resolution that would have the <br /> opposite conclusion, that the Council does not agree with the recommendation of the <br /> Planning Commission and Council does not find these resources to be historically <br /> significant and there does not need to be mitigated except for the commemoration as <br /> articulated in the Precise Plan. <br /> One Council Member observed that there will be some ongoing memory of what <br /> happened with either option and Ms. Thompson agreed saying that the Precise Plan <br /> requires commemorative design elements in at least one publicly accessible area of the <br /> site that highlights the various important periods of land use on this site that included, <br /> e.g., farming, flower fields, air fields, and a center for technology and innovation. <br /> CITY COUNCIL September 9, 2013 <br /> MEETING MINUTES PAGE 10 <br />