Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-16 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES' ITEM Item #I, Stanford West Draft Environmental Impact Report Of - PALO ALTO Special Meeting Wednesday, March 16, 1983 Special Meeting Wednesday, March 16, 1983 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hal l , 250 Ham/ 1 ton Avenue, at 7:39 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel , Witherspoon Mayor Bechtel announced that the Stanford Vest item was a major one, and the largest . housing project to come before the City of Palo Alto in the last 20 years. The outline received from staff estimated that the consultant's presentation might, take one and one-half:hours, and she asked that Councilmembers hold their ques- tions until the end of each presentation. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber introduced Project Manager Linda Peirce and Planner/Economist, Assistant Project Manager Douglas Svensson from Environmental Impact Planning Corporation; Steven Pickrel1 and, John Peers of PRC Voorhees; City Attorney Uiane Lee; Panning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown; Architectural Review Board Chairperson John Schink; Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland; City Manager Bill Zaner; Assistant City Manager June Fleming; and Director of Transporta- tion Ted Noguchi. He said that the consultants had the major role of preparing the initial .draft Environmental Impact Report (ETR), which document was prepared with the assistance and approval of City staff. The consultants would also respond to questions and requests for additional information. He clarified that the con- sultants were paid by the applicants, Stanford University, but worked for the City because the EIR was a City document. Within the City's process, the City's project manager was Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland. Before turning the presentation - over to Mr. Freeland, he commended him for his outstanding management in organizing the tremendously complex process and the clarification he provided to a process that, under State law and regulations, was full of required procedures and many levels of detail which the City was required to follow. Chief Planning Official Bruce' Freeland said that the City Council would be required to certify the Elk. The Elk was originally pro- duced as a draft and ha 4.:L been through extensive ilearings at the Planning Commission. The final EIR, which -'the Council would be asked to 'certify, would -consist of the original draft plus all of the materials that were -,produced in the hearing process which Were contained in a blue binder. He said that for those who wished to examine the contents of the blue binder, copies were available at the Menlo .Park City Hail, Menlo Park Planning Department, Menlo Park Library, all .Palo Alto Libraries -and the Palo .Alto Planning uepartment. The Elk was ah-: informational document' and: in certi . fying it, the City Council. would certify_' that.. the environmental impacts of .the described project were --identified, that potential .mitigation measures. for those significant environmental impacts were described in the docu«ert,>and- that a., fair and complete pro- cess was undertaken to -review that . informatio'n. The Ell( was 'riot an action document -the City CouncilCOund le could either like the described projector- dislike it, but that Was irrelevant. to the ertificatioq' of the Elk -itself. T.he Council's job In certifying the Elk was v -to be .satisfied _tha ta` complete; and- )adequ'ate job- -wa._s done of descrlbing- _'the environrmental impacts of the --.described project. Stanford University Madnot yet ppl,ie.d for any specific approvals 1fr_om the City of Palo Aitn_ for- the project _Itsel_f. The project would eventual l,y r-equire approval of -the r tur achitec e and site design by the Architectural Review Board,,, several use permits -- for certain- features -of the project --,the "day care centerk and .the. 1 i proposed convenience store --and would require a condominium sub- division map, which map would be approved by the City Council after a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Those deci- sions would all take place after the Elk was certified and after Stanford actually applied for the project. The public hearing would take place on April 11, 1983. and the final Council action on the EIR on May 2,. 1983. It was important to remember that those future decisions would happen later with specific approval applications. Because of the ;project's complexity and importance, in addition to certification of the .EIR , the Planning Commission and staff had spent a lot of hours looking at various elements of the project itself and trying to reach some preliminary conclu- sions about it. Staff would ask the Council to also look at the concerns such as the design, the below market rate housing pro- posal that had come with the project, the number of other project related considerations, and to give some preliminary feedback t� Stanford about what was proposed. It was important to separate that from the certification of the EIR and to be aware that no actual or final decisions on such matters as the project design or the below market rate housing proposal could be made at this time because no application was yet before the .City. He said it was expected that by May 2, 1983, the EIR would have been considered . the public would have had an additional opportunity to make testi- mony on April 11, 19133, and Counci 1 would be asked to certify that the informational document --the El R --was complete and adequate. Further, there would nave been some preliminary discussion about the various aspects of the project, but the project approvals would take place later under separate application to the ARB, the Planning Commission, and to the Zoning Administrator for the use permits. Mayor Bechtel said that Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Freeland; and the entire planning staff had done an outstanding job in bringing all of the information together and organizing it in a understandable manner. Councilmember Renzel said a comment was made specifically that the bMR program specific design details wouldcome later, and yet gen- eral assumptions upon which the EIR was based were contained in the report. She asked to what extent those final decisions could differ from what the Elk was based upon, and to what extent would a modification EIR or an addendum be required. Mr. Freeland said that the EIR would only be valid if the project applied for by Stanford was.. consistent with the project described in the document. If Stanford applied for a project of many more units than what was described in the document, changed the set- backs related to the creek, or made other changes that would phy- sically impact the project, then the environmental document would not be. valid and would have to have a supplemental document to cover the discrepancies. The described project was understood to be a general description of the project. He said that staff believed Stanford could make many changes as long as they were changes in the direction of lessening the environmental impacts, but any change that would . increase or introduce some new environ- mental impact not covered would require additional work .later. Councilmember Renzel asked for clarification that at some later point, staff would make some recommendations for Council to pro- vide to Stanford in order to surface any strong concerns. She asked whether those would be within the. scope of the environmental document or would be augmented at that . time. Mr, Freeland said it was safe to say that everything staff would ask Council to discus was, in 'ore way or 'another, dealt with in the EIR documents. The issue Included Were, the below market rate housing contribution, whether the road that served the project should be a<: publ is or private street, and the design of thee. pria._ .ect described .in the document. Vice Mayor Fazzino suggested that one method of moving the process along would be for Councilmembers to ask the questions in list form, get them on the public record, but -have them answered by staff in a follow-up report. Mr. Freeland said that Vice Mayor Fazzino's suggestion was excel- lent. Council should feel free -to ask questions after each pre- sentation, and identify any additional questions in the list alluded to by Vice Mayor Fazzino at the end of all the presenta- tions. Planning Commission- Chairperson Jean McCown said she had mixed feelings of accomplishment and frustration concerning the Stanford West project and the FIR. The accomplishment related to the extraordinary, effort put forth by all of the participants in a more than five -month long process of scrutinizing the details of the project eand environmental issues. The -combined efforts of Stanford, consultants, city staff, members of the public, the Planning Commission and the ARB resulted in a thorough analysis that hopefully would prove valuable as.the Council undertook its review and deliberations. She echoed the comments of comnendation and appreciation for the work of the City staff in coordinating, analyzing and summarizing the vol uminous. data contained in a thick binder. She said the frustration related to the recognition that the five months of effort had not succeeded to resolve certain crucial points of disagreement about Stanford West. Although the Planning Commission was unanimous in its major recommendations on the project, both Stanford and members of the public --primarily the neighbors in Menlo Park --did not agree with the Planning Com- mission's conclusions. She said she would attempt to explain the rationale behind the Planning Commission's major recommendations in order for the Council to weigh the merits of the Commission's conclusions against the differing points that would be heard -from others. Ms. McCown said the Planning Commission reviewed the draft FIR and all of the written responses to comments and questions made or raised in writing or at public hearings both by members of the public, Stanford, and members of the Commission, and recommended that the Elk be certified as complete as of the date the Commis- sion transmitted the documents to the Council for review: Pur- suant to the California Environmental Quality' Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission identified significant environmental effects or impacts associated with the project,_ which were listed ire. detail in Attachment & of the February 24, 1983 staff report, .and, which were separated into effects deemedto be .individually si gni- ficant and .cumulatively significant. In addition, the Planning Commission concluded that there- were certain enumerated environ- mental effects which could not be fully alleviated by any possible mitigation measures. The principal effects in Ajiat category related - to traffic congestion in the Willow Road corridor, the change in. the character of the -land use on —the -46 acres frori open space to urban development,-. the visual change to the Willow Road scenic corridor, arid -the increased demand one certain City ser- vices. She said that Attachment D in the February 24, 1983 staff report contained- specific. recommended ,mitigation measures for each of_ the significant effects-Identi f.i.ed by the Commission, in -Attach- ment €i with the exception 'of,, those _about which the Commission co►n cluded that there was --no possible mMgation.i As an example, with regard to the impacts of the -project _on -.the City's neighbors in. Menlo Park, -the Commission recommended. mitigation measures ihclud- mrtg- a '90 -foot setba_ck--..iron ;.the creek bark on .the Palo Alto side for`all buildings, placement of smaller two-story ibuildings` cios- est to the creek, AlicreaSed `landscaping to screen the- project :long the creek,' _location of day care .facilities, tennis courts and`' convenience store in the.'interior. Of the -project _to buffer the Menlo Park neighborhood from noises- associated With -those uses,` a requirement .that, a frontage -road `nois'e barrier be.cornstructed to 1 1 1 protect homes along Willow Road that were in San Mateo County;_ installation of barriers_to motorbikes on the bicycle and pedes- trian b idge, provision of more guest parking in the project, restriction of hours for construction work, construction traffic, and a number of other measures. As to the traffic impacts of the project, the Commission recommended numerous intersection changes and improvements to the road network which were set forth on Table 14 --located in summary form at Page. 19 of the. staff report --and an ongoing mitigation proposal to address cumulative traffic impacts which might occur in the Willow Road corridor in connection with other intensification of land use in that area and in addition to the specific impacts of the Stanford West project. The model mit- igation approach was located on Pages 22 - 25 of the staff report, and because the Planning Commission concluded that certain impacts of the Stanford West project could Rot be adequately mitigated, the project was considered in l i°ght of potential overriding core-- siderations of public benefits .'which might justify the project even without mitigation of those certain impacts. The Commission concluded that the principal overriding consideration about the Stanford West project was its potential to provide a significant amount of affordable housing for the Stanford employees, who were the primary market identified for the housing in the draft' E1RC. The emphasis on affordable housing was consistent with major poli- cies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Commission related "affordable housing" to a component of the project aimed at house- holds of 120 to 150 percent of County median income as distin- guished from the below market --rate element of the project which was endorsed by the Commission. She said that throughout the course of the Planning Commission's review of the project. and based on information provided in the draft F1R, the issue of affordability was questioned acid, whether the project would be affordable to and serve the needs of the intended occupant groups. The Commission did not believe that Stanford had. adequately responded to those concerns notwithstanding an eleventh hour pre- sentation by Stanford as the Commission was concluding its final work on the project. because the Commission believed that-. the overriding public benefit of affordable housing was not present in the project presently proposed and given the significant unmiti- gated impacts related to traffic, loss of open space, and impacts on the Willow Road corridor, the Commission recommended that the project density be reduced from 1,275 units on the -46 -acre project ..to -the lower end of the arm of 920 units --or 20 units per acre. That reduction in density would result in additional mitigation for the identified .impacts. On the other hand, if some guarantee of the affordability of the housing were introduced into the proj- ect, or it other steps were taken to preserve open space lan1s on a long term basis as an offset to the loss of open space of those 46 acres, the Commission would recommend that the City consider permitting some additional number -of units between the 920 recom- mended by the Planning Commission and the 1,275 requested by: Stanford. She said the specific formula for the trade-off between the affordability of the units and possible open space guarantees on the one hand, and the number of additional units to be_ added on ;the other, was. Set forth in the Attachment F to the Planning Corn - mission's transmittal letter `to the Council. Finally, the .Plan- ning Commission recommended that Council support the portion of the project proposed for the 1100 Welch Road site consisting of _.19.4_"Poptel", units to be associated with Stanford Hospital. It was unfortunate, in her opinion, that the Comniss_ion's ,focus on the difficult _issues of thee -10 -acre ,i . to were ` ov:ershadowed by the enthusiasm felt' fore the Welch . Road 'cbmp'onent.. She re-emphasized the -;fact that the concerns about the 46 -acre- ,site and the environ- mentar, issues. concerning that _ portion of. the project did not affect the recommendation in support -.for th_e :1100 Welch Road 'por- Mayor .Bechtel thanked Ms. McCown and all of the 'members of the Planning Comaiissi on for the amount of time spent, and for the letter highlighting the issues for the Council. Vice Mayor Fazz ino asked how the open space formula worked4 Me. McCown responded that the open space concept worked in a fash- ion similar to the affordable concept. First, the recommendation was that long-term open space commitments be made by Stanford, which was not intended to mean dedication in the sense that the City dedicated open space lands, but rather a long-term contract for open space, Second, dependent upon where. the proposed open -space was located, a certain number of additional housing units would be permitted in exchange for the commitment of open space. The closer in the` open space was to the site, the more immediately it related to the loss of open space in the location. The further away. the open space from the site would require more acreage to get an equivalent number of units. Vice Mayor Fazzin_o clarified that it was the specific acreage. Ms. McCown said that was correct-. Counci lmember Cobb Said the Plannir Commission recommendation was different then that described in the draft EIR in that it was at some.lower density and introduced the concept of 'an .,open space saving An return for density. He asked if that was within the context of the draft EIR, and whether the approval of the draft E1R would allow for the kinds of things suggested by the Planning Commission. Mr. Freeland said that under the Environmental Quality Act, ad- verse environmental . effects' of a proposed project must be mitigated. If they were not mitigated, the City -Council could only approve the project if it was able to make findings of over- riding considerations, so important for the approval of the proj- ect, that some harm to the environment could be accepted. The Planning Commission concluded that there would be many significant erivirenuental effects which could not be fully mitigated, and that in order to eventually be able to make findings of overriding con- sideration to jUetify the approval of the project, there would have tc;, be some major community benefits focused in on affordable housing'and open space dedication. He said those steps were con- sistent with what was looked at in the E1R and built on a particu- lar need that the City would face in the future. 1t was known that there would be unavoidable, unmitigated environmental ef- fects, and the findings of overriding concerns to justify the approval of the .project would have to be made or else the project could not be approved. Councilmember Menzel asked how the affordability of housing over the long-term was guaranteed since the impacts would clearly be around for the long-term. She asked if the public benefit, only had to be for a period of time or did it have to be permanent. Mr. Freeland said there was no set formula, but believed that it would be up to the City Council to be satisfied with the package that offered affordability. He believed that Stanford would wish to sake advantage of the kind of proposal being offered by._ the Planning Commission. He said the area, was subjective, and the finding of overriding considerations was a judgment call, and would have to satisfy the City. Uounci lmemb.er" kennel said that a public benefit would mean=perma- nent affordability in order to mitigate a permanent effect in her opinion. The words "irpact" and "effects" are ;interchangeable. The common term was environment impacts, but the California Environ- mentel quality Act .used the word "effe ts." 3 0 4 8 3/16/83' 0 1 1 Mr. Freeland said normally staff would expect either a very long- term contractual obligation for certain unity to be price con - .trolled one way or another, or deed restricted, but since it was a concept that came from the Planning Commission and not a fixed requirement, those details had not been addressed. Mr. Schreiber said the project also contained below market -rate housing which was proposed under the City's BMR-requirement in - the Comprehensive Plan. The •City would expect some type of deed 'restri.cti on if those BMR units came from any other developer. -Staff anticipated that in the process of further approvals, if they got to the point of going through the implementation process and the actual building of the housing, they would work with Stanford to come up with a guarantee• ---whether it be a deed re- striction or a similar document --which would be acceptable to the City. If there were additional affordable units with some type of guarantee, those guarantees would -have to be worked out either during or before the subdivision process to the satisfaction of the City Council. Counci lmember Renzel said staff typically negotiated for the BMR contributions of _various developments, aneL she asked if, in the instance where the BMR contributions were negotiated as an over- riding public benefit related to the LIR, it would require Council approval. Mr. Schreiber said that tt would be a point of information during the subdivision process and as a condition of tentative map ap- proval. It would be implementation of whatever was agreed to and Council would have the prerogative of reviewing the concept as worked out between the two staffs. He said that the Planning Com- mission would review the matter during tentative map approval. Councilmember Levy asked efor a report to be provided prior to the April 11, 1'983 meeting about the amount of acreage available for development on the Stanford property on Willow Road/Sand Hill Road and within and without the other constraints of the Palo Alto and Menlo Park spheres of influence. Architectural Review Board Chairperson John Schink said the ARB was concerned about design vis-a-vis density and general design failures in the project as presented, and Stanford West's isola- tion from.the community. The ARB believed that, a properly de- signed project of 1,275 units on a 46 -acre site could provide a pleasant living environment, and that positive statement should be emphasized because -the great densities proposed would require sig- nificant scrutiny. The ARB identified, several- general design failures `-in the project which demanded 'fundamental redesign -- specifically, the appearance of the tall buildings were of sub- stantial similarity. There were —three types of <,all buildings, each within .a. few feet,, of each other and of the same height, and the project suffered from a distinct lack eof variety.. While the need for continuity in the overall ,design was iretogni4ed, the project still needed to overcome -the design challenge. to control the repetition of building clusters in similar. building mass and create: aneenv.ironment that recognized the human need -for variety. `Regarding the isolation of Stanford West from the rest of- the com munity, the ARS emphasized the need to tie the project backe..Into Palo Alto through more extensive- transportation systems .and'.as it :met Willow Road, with. a "grade ceossi ng - separation spe that the residents of the project -were not- confronted, by the -significant traffic at Willow !load. The ARBecoMmended Stanford, University far making a-. significant effort to solve the housing shortage in Palo Alto. Vice President ° for Business and Finance. at Stanford,. William Massy, said that he and his colleagues= were pleased to be at the City Council meeting to talk about the proposed Stanford West housing project. Me did not feel the needto belabor the housing shortage in the area, and said that study after study during the past several years had reported on the serious., imbalance between jobs and homes. That theme ran through the City's interim Housing Statement of 1983, the two Comprehensive Plan reviews, the Coun- ty's 1917 call for action in housing, and in the present Council's own zoning decisions. President Kennedy at Stanford had described the housing shortage as one of the most serious problems confront- i_ng the University in the 1980's. The Institution's future qual- ity was directly related to the academic appointments made today, and housing was a key ingredient in the recruitment process. Mr. Massy said that •Stanford responded to the many internal and external pressures in a number of ways, it constructed 182 units in ' the Pearce Mitchell project, and 140 units on Peter Coutts Hill. It created the highly successful Stanford Second_ Mortgage Coinvestment Program, celled "COIN," which enabled those in Eligi- bility Pool 1--facuity and senior staff --to buj homes within com- muting distance of the University. By the end of June, Stanford hoped to have committed something on the order of $30 million to that program. Stanford also created a Housing Allowance Program (HAP) that pro- vided outright subsidies to help newcomers buy homes, and expected to spend up to $370,000 per year on the 'program in the next few years. He said the preparation of the .Stanford Comprehensive Housing Pro- gram, included a complete review of its housing policies for faculty, staff and students, as well as a detailed survey of their housing needs. Stanford now proposed the Stanford West project, whose first effort was aimed at the large group of Stanford staff and others who did not fall within Eligibility Pool 1. Stanford believed that the proposal was sound, and fully in keeping with the City's long-established zoning and policies on which Stanford relied in preparing its proposals. He said the 46 -acre site was identified in the City's 1983 General Plan as suitable for housing. The pro- posed project was',20 percent less dense than the zoning allowed, would -cover one -quarter of the site instead of the allowable 45 percent, would provide three times as much open space as that required, and called for buffer areas wider than stipulated. He said that Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown's letter to the Council of February 28, 1983 summed up the principal objec- tives of the project well, with one exception, That exception was the Planning Commission's definition of "affordable housing" as necessarily having to be "below market rate." Ms. McCown had listed the following objectives: • "2 To address the housing needs of the Stanford faculty and staff, and -graduate students respectively, followed by oppor- tunities for persons employed on University lands, then per- sons working in Palo Alto; To provide affordable housing: (and here is the exception) 'which we define as being below market rate but within the range Ofhouseholds earning 120 percent to 150 percent of the Santa Tara County median income.' "3. . To lessen the jobs/housing imbalance in the area. "J� T . To reduce the -adverse effects of commuter traffic by provid- ing housing cleser to Stanford jobs. To provide a significant, number of Below Market Rate units for households earning incomes 80 percent to, 120 percent of the County median." Fie sa"i,d that obvious ly _ Stan ford West would.. het p reduce the jobs/ housing i,ubalance in the area., and.. ;cut .commuter traffic. By .the same token, Stanford agreed to. a BMR program that could result in 220 below market rate units, or nearly four times the number pre- viously built in all of Palo Alto so far. The agreement contem- plated a project substantially the same as that currently before the Council, and for the four -acre Mayfield School, site to be made available to the City for only $100,000 --al, fraction of its market value. That would permit the construction of additional BMR units. ., 1 As to affordability, Stanford considered "affordable housing" to be that which was within the financial reach of the target buying group, wither it was below market or not. That, was where Stanford differed with the Planning Commission's definition, for the below market rate requirement could seriously jeopardize the ' entire project. He said that Ms.' McCown' s letter reported that the Planning Com- mission "strongly supports these laudable objectives," and he added that Stanford did too. Those were precisely the objectives _that led Stanford to commit the time, effort, and money it had over the past two years. its public statements, the location of the project, its density, the proposed BMR agreement, and the design concepts all testified to Stanford's search for those goals. The location cut commuting. [he proposed density of 1,275 units spread the fixed costs, reducing the price of rent of each unit. A limit of 920 units_ would be disappointing, not fully. responsive to the area housing need, and conducive to higher costs. He said that Stanford West's design intended to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the housing, as would be discussed by Stanford's architects. Stanford listened to the concerns of its neiyhbors across San Francisquito Creek with great care. Clearly, they preferred an open field, or a less intensive development, to the 1,275 units proposed. Yet, housing held a 'competing high social value) or it could not be cemented in Palo Alto's Compre- hensive Plan as strongly as it .was. Then too, it was Stanford's hope that Stanford West would have far less impact than was feared, given the orientation of the residents `toward.Stanford and the broad buffer provided by the creek, a 90 -foot setback, and substantial landscaping.. In short., the density and design concepts at Stanford West were developed with affordability in mind, as well as functionality and aesthetics. -'He emphasized that the units at Stanford West were targeted to be affordable to a broad cross-section of Stanford staff_. and others, at market prices and rents, under economic con- ditions that were expected to prevail on average over the life of the project. The .half -million dol=lars Environmental Impact Report which accompanied the project was one of the most thorough Stanford had ever seen. It contained a considerable number of suggested mitigation measures. The Planning Commission also pro- posed a reduction of density on the 46 acres to 920 units, and some incentives for achieving what the Commission believed were overriding public benefits. He said that Stanford was prepared to work with the City staff to try -to reach an agreement with respect to mitigations. They could start this week, and hopefully could arrive at conclusions before the scheduled May 2 meeting, of the Council. A fair and reasonable solution with respect to traffic issues and similar mitigations should not be ,beyond reach. Stanford would approachv;.the negotia- tions' in a spirit of compromise, and he. was confident that an unders,tandi g could be -reached on most issues. At the same time, he urged everyone concerned to bear in mind the strong correlation between the cost of mitigations and -the ultimate price of units. He said that Stanford would approach the question of the project's desiyn with the same spirit of cooperation. That question was not officially before the Council at this time, ,but was a highly important element. Stanford West would be . Stanford's community too., and the quality of life for its residents was equally impor- tant to Stanford. With regard to those incentives with respect to density proposed by -the Planning Commission, Stanford appreciated the underlying thinking. The Commission tried to find away to allow the number of units proposed while at the same time advancing values of importance to the -_community. In examining those incentives, how- ever, Stanford found that they ran counter to some important University principles. He said that the open space allowance as proposed would tie up Stanford lands not related to Stanford West in long-term open space contracts. Stanford shared the concern of the citizens of the area for the_ environment, and also treasured their outlying vacant lands. Stanford's Land Use Policy emphasized the aesthetic and educational Amportance of that asset. That land was. given to Stanford in trust for University purposes. Stanford's policy was to evaluate each commitment of Stanford lands on its merits, in terms of the proximate values for that particular parcel. Commit- ting acres to long-term open space contracts would violate that pol icy, even when the land in question might very likely remain open for many decades. Stanford could nut gauge the relative values, in terms of Univer- sity purposes, of "incentive" units on Stanford West on th•e one hand, and the loss of irreplaceable resources that might be needed for future academic purposes, on the other. They feared that the precedent of "linkage" would come to have no limits, and Stanford was not prepared to take a step along that road, and respectfully declined an invitation to exchange its open land for additional units at Stanford West. The affordable housing incentive allowance also carried with it a number of implications that gave Stanford serious pause. In essence, i:t asked Stanford to guarantee, over the entire life of the project,_that additional:units (beyond the City's BMR require- ments) be "affordable" to those in a set income range. The prob- lem was in administering and paying for a system of such guaran- tees, and in relating, them to the University's role as an employer rather than a normal developer or a government regulatory or assistance agency. The value' of the land entered into the equa- tion, but -was not the most important factor. he said that Stanford' was unlike other developers in that it was a permanent employer Whose mission if life was education. The bur- den of instituting and monitoring forever the allocation of a scarce housing resource to a lucky few'.would be massive and com- plex. Like Palo -Alto, Stanford.strove to achieve equity in com- pensation. The principle of equal pay for equal, work would be. systematically and.. si gni f i cant ly violated under the incentive pro- posal._- A - relatively small number of fortunate_. employees `would receive disproportionate- benefits all the others would receive nothing. The original al locations were based _on_.,. -the ::need to .be sure, biut over time the perception of relative need-_ "coul-d—uecome 'blurred or change entirely. The list of problem_went on. The proposa l would foster a "company town." atmosphere in whi .ch hou >i ri g problem were injected . i lit° the working, place. Stanford already found °that.,to same extent on the tampu , When an - employee left the Uni versity, the ' pressure to ev ict that indiridpal fr'om_ the housing`'would be. great. Th link =9e of hous.- i rig a:_. -employment "also would_- tend to loCIC.peopTe, into working at Stanford 'whether or not that was sensible- from ,a -career point of 3 0 5 2 3/16/83 i view. The occasional need to lay off or terminate an employee would be made all the more difficult and painful. He said that such a benefit would lead to demands for other hous- ing assistance programs on the part of the 11,000 other employees at Stanford, the hospital, and SLAG. All in all, Stanford could foresee major problems from the incentive proposal. They could make the adjustment for the BMti units required under the City's regulations, for that would be a relatively small program, and a mandated one. i 8 The housing assistance programs for faculty and others were designed to minimize those problems. They were entitlements for everyone within el iyible subgroups. Stanford owed their success to the fact that they aided groups of people, rather than su bsi - dized housing for a few. It was a pol icy that worked for them in the past, and one they were anxious to continue. There was no question but that Stanford would realize the value of some of its land endowment as a result of market pricing. The benefits of that to the University's educational programs could not. be denied. He emphasized that' the realization of land value did in fact come about as a consequence of the market pricing decision and not as the cause of it. He said that Stanford could realize as much value with a smaller number of more expensive units on the 46 acres. The density and .unit mix they proposed was driven by Stanford's desire to provide as much affordable housing as possible, not to make money through land development. He summarized that Stanford's proposal was well within the City's regulations and policies, and responsive to the call for housing that they had heard from so many quarters for so long. Stanford believed that the impacts would be far less than feared, that most of their were anticipated by the City's zoning, and that they could be adequately mitigated. It ever there was an issue on which Stanford and Palo Alto should be able to reach agreement for their mutual benefit, it was this one. Stanford wanted Stanford West to be affordable to their tar- get groups, which were essentially those about which the City Council and Planning Commission were. concerned. The projea:t .was consistent with the City's and Stanford's goals.. Stanford was proud of its record in housing faculty and students, and looked forward to the day when Iaany employees of the Univer- sity and its tenants might share in the benefits of living close to their work, on Stanford land in the City of Palo Alto. He asked Council support in that undertaking. Vice Mayor Fazzino thanked Mr. Massy for the presentation, and said that regardless of the 'sCouncil eventual decision, he appre- ciated all the work done and money spent by Stanford in preparing the plans. He asked why there were 35 years on the Mayfield lease. Mr. Massy said they had no answer for that. It .was negotiated along with a whole series of other: points, and ,had not been thought. about; for -.a long time.. Vice Mayor- Fazzino said he would appreciate receiVing an answer to. that question. Further, ne believed Mr. Massy had thrown down the gauntlet fairly clearly with respect to the open space issue, and he asked what Stanford's_ reaction would be if Counci I decided.- that it was the onlyway it could accept the- project. Mr. Massy said ``he=°could not anticipat,e Stanford's :: reaction and he hoped it would not, come ; to that, He did not agree that' he had thrown down the gauntlet', ;and said that in the name of candor it_. was necessary to -'clearly communicate Stanford's posit,ion.`: Stanford's positiun" was based on strongly held principles, which 3 0 5 3 3/16/83 1 8 should be considered as part of the environmental underpinning. He did not know what Stanford would do if faced with that even- tuality. Vice Mayor Fazzine asked for clarification about whether Mr. Massy's rejection of the open -space benefit also included rejec- tion of the additional BMR proposal. Mr. Massy said yes. The BMR agreement for the project as present- ly constituted was one thing, but the incentive proposal from the Planning Commission was a matter of Stanford's personnel policies, and Stanford was not prepared to go forward on that basis. Vice Mayor Fazzino said that the question of affordability and whether or not many of the units would be within reach of the_ tar- get group was a critical tissue that perhaps separated members of the Planning Commission and Council from the feelings of Stanford. He asked if Stanford considered any sort of downpayment support for people who would occupy the units because he believed that was what they were really talking about in terms of being able to even have access to most of the units. Further, he asked if. Stanford had done any study of the potential target group which would oc- cupy most of the_ units. Mr, Massy said that studies were done, and Frank Morrow would speak more to those. Stanford was prepared to discuss the process projections on affordability with City staff and members of the Council whenever it was convenient. Regarding the downpayments for the -owner occupied units, Stanford would try very hard to make them affordable, but did not know exactly what the situation would be. On Peter Coutts, Stanford brought the interest rate down to 12-3/4 percent, and might do that at Stanford West. It was a decision that anyone trying to market units to people would consi- der. Stanford was not in the position to give money away to peo- ple willy-nilly across the 11,00U people in that category. Stanford was prepared to do things on an entitlement basis for people in that group that simply could not be done for everyone, but would try to market those units to the target. He found the Planning Comrriission's suggested incentives to be very creative in the good sense of . the word, but the problem was that Stanford was net a t Ormal developer. They were an educational_ institution with long-term problems, policies and objectives with respect to their lands ano employment relations. After great thought., and consulta- tion internally, ,Stan ford regretted that i t was not prepared to go that way. That did not mean they were unhappy -about the Commis- sion's having made those proposals. Councilmember Cobb said that without question, one of the major environmental issues of Stanford West would be its impact on the Willow Road traffic corridor unless some mechanism 'were undertaken to solve those problems. He asked if the. Stanford West project could be _used as a mechanism for finding a solution to the Willow Road traffic _ probl em that would not lust deal With the impact of Stanford West, but which would also deal with: the impact of other developments along that corridor in the future. Mr. Massy said he was a born Optimist-, and he Aid not believe that was out of Stanford's reach. He hoped they could find a- sol utian to .Willow Road_.together, =and said that Stanford was -willing to do its share. to extend Wil low. Road to it Camino at its. expense. He would„ personal ly..be overjoyed if they could find a evay to- solve the problem once- and for all. Counc1lfember. Cobb suggested that in the discussidn5 of the Willow Road solution, the City could encourage Stanford to "speak out in terms of all of its other plans. Mr. Massy responded that -Stanford would share all of its thinking, with respect to land use in the Willow corridor. Counc i lmeraber Renzel said it was commented that President . Kennedy defined housing as one of- the most serious problems facing Stanford University. Stanford played a quasi -governmental role with respect to the campus lands by providing` roads, parking, utilities and a variety of things, and she asked whether Stanford had addressed its quasi -governmental role in providing housing, as opposed to ,its role when leasing the shopping center. Mr. Massy said yes, Stanford was different from a government in that its resources were subject to the Stanford Trust and were to be -used for the purposes of education and research. Stanford and its founders believed that was in the public interest and part of the-` pool is welfare, but did not cover all of the public welfare. There were things, such as welfare payments, that cities could do which Stanford could not. Stanford could do things if they could be justified in terms of University purposes, that was to say, furthering education and research now and in the future. Councilmember Renzel said a strong case was made for Stanford West'_s receiving top priority to Stanford faculty and staff, and they had 'built other ,projects which were purely liouting for the Stanford community, and those were found to be within the purview of Stanford's activities. She asked what made Stanford West dif- ferent. Mr. Massy said he was not sure it was different in that. sense. Peter Coutts was built and sold at market prices. Certain assis- tance programs were available to all eligible individuals in the faculty eligibility pool, but those programs applied not only to Peter Coutts , but to the single family homes on campus , homes in Palo Alto, homes in Menlo Park, and homes anywhere else as long as they were within commuting distance of the University. Stanford's strategy was to build and sell at market prices and rents, and where spec - al assistance could, be given to some groups of employ- ees it was done equally to everyone in those groups. Stanford was not prepared to make omnibus entitlement programs: to all the other 11,000 employees. Stanford West was- within the university's pur- pose the way it was proposed, and Stanford was anxious to build it. Councilmember Renzel commented that it had been said earlier that if Stanford had to provide the affordable housing guarantee over the life of the project, it would present administrative problems as an employer. She asked how that differed from Stanford's allo- cation of market rate housing among its employees. aStanford would be the same landlord one way or the other,- and she asked how Stanford could say that al location.,W housing to people who quali- fied within the affordability range would be any different from. Stanfora' s need to discriminate among those who were in an el i gi- bility' pool. Mr. Kassy responded -that first, if housing was -sold or rented within .what °- was- arguably market,'' Stanford-' provides access, but not additional -compensation. Secondly, it was particularly di€fi- colt when managing. a personnel program .for 11,000 employees when some received. subsidies that were net well. defined.'.Stanford felt-, strongly that it there were_ tq be subsidies-, they should be, on top of, the table. Providing subsidies An -.kind was difficult because then everyone could :fear` the worst. Thirdly, ft was 'easier to deal positively at the beginning df a. relationship than at,the 'end. regardless "of, Who initiated -.the; departure. If Stanford `prov:ided -a ,subsidy :in ki ne, given tn, . need to re Uni rer•si ty: assets for Uni- ✓ ersity purposes and a-. bunch__ of people .who wanted_ --those° .hidden subsidies, Stanford.. would be -under enormous pro_ssure to;ask people t o leave their 'housing _rhea having the Univers:ity4s .e00-l.oy re gardless-of--who initiated the. employment__de`parture..; Changin jobs was traumatic_ enough;' so why-addahousing Changes. 3 0 5 .5 3/16/83- , Those people whose_ careers would _be enhanced by leaving Stanford for employ within the City of Palo Alto would be inhibiteu from -doing so it they knew they would have to change their housing and lose a subsidy in kind, and that would not be healthful for them or Stanford. People would come to feel dependent on Stanford, and dependence led to feelings of anger or alienation. Stanford believed those were all good reasons for separating the employment relationship and the management of a subsidized housing program as much as possible. He said the Palo Alto Housing Corporation could rand ye a subsidized housing program because they did not have the employment kinds of problems. Stanford believed_. they could make the project go with a small number of 13MR units, but not for the larger number proposed in the incentive program. Councilmember Renzel asked how termination of employment was man- aged with respect to all of Stanford's other campus housing... Mr. Massy said Stanford's rule was that an-_ occupant must depart within two years of termination, and that rule was enforced to the best of Stanford's ability. The problem was not so bad because most people who left the faculty went to MIT. or Harvard and left the area. That was .not true for the broad range of staff members, however, because for the most part, when nonfaculty staff left Stanford's employment, they went to another local employment entity. In the case of a divorce, the eligible person could remain, but if the person who held title to the house was not eligible, the two-year rule applied. The death of a spouse pro- vided an. exception, that the surviving spouse could stay indefin- itely, and retired people could also stay indefinitely. Councilmember Renzel asked how resales were handled. Mr. Massy said people were free to resell a campus house at what- ever market price they could negotiate with a buyer providing it was sold to a person in Eligibility Pool I. The University. did not yet involved with the pricing of the units. The only excep- tion would be if the two-year rule was running out and the unit was not sold, Stanford had a process of obtaining three appraisals and buying the unit from the person at the average of the higher two appraisals.. Councilmember Renzel said it was indicated in an .informal way that Stanford expected about half of the units to be available to peo- ple in the 150,percent of median income category, which suggested that 740 individuals at Stanford earned $42,300. Mr. Massy responded that was probably true. Councilmember Witherspoon said that the:ARB was concern0 that the project be tied into the rest of the City as -well as the'fact that 79 percent of the occupants: would be employed by the campus it. self, and suggested other than grade crossing at Willow Road. She asked for Mr. Massy's reaction to „that. Hn Massy said` Stanford was yet to be convinced that significant benefit co.ulo be derived to make it wor=th, .the Million' .dollar- plus cost. if '.the crossing were below grade, it could provide for dif- ficult- and dangerous ci r°cumstances, but , if :it were , above grade, it cbUldebeeae real eyesbre. Stanford __wa:s..'not convinced that the benefits were "wor•th e;:.substanti.a cost,, ,and ._was" more interested in pursuing" other ways of tying the project. together. Co.uncf l aember• Levy said he appreciated Mr. -:.Massy -s discus.si,on ---of. the cost ot.:,houn:inq, "-and_ the various ,'compleiities in -determining those ;osts because it wa.s important for everyone to .- real-i xe that the cost of housing consisted of a .number., o_f different. items which` could, be` -related- in"a,i.,fferent ways He asked for clarification about Stanford's def n.i.ti>on of___ '"af.fordabl`e.hoUsIng in" cont_rast'to tie P;lanni=ny,'(.orhttis' ion``s: definition of H'affordabe 116u -sing,' Mr. Massy said that the Planning Commission's second objective was to provide affordable housing "which is defined as being below market rate but within the range of households earning 120 percent to 150 percent..." Stanford's tdefinition would be affordable housing within the range of households earning 120 to 150 per- cent. 1 1 1 i Councilmember Levy clarified that Stanford believed it could develop a satisfactory ,amount of housing that would be affordable to people in the 120 to 150 percent of median income area at mar- ket rate. Mr. Massy said that was correct. Stanford's objective was to be affordable to. that broad cross-section at market prices and rents under economic .conditions expected to prevail on the average over the life of the project. He said Stanford's concern was with the guarantees because they were trying to design the units and price them in ways that would be affordable. Stanford was not prepared to guarantee that under any economic circumstances the units would be affordable. Counci lmember,Eyerly asked whether the prices on the Peter Coutts development --particularly the ground value --were set appropriately or whether the prices had to be changed. Mr. Massy responded that by looking at comparable units in ePalo Alto which were not selling, u judgment was made about how far down the market was, and the prices were set considerably below those offered in. Palo Alto. The performance, was pretty good. A policy decision was made well before the first unit was finished to only offer 40 to 45 units for sale this year, and to spread the sale of the 140 total units over a three-year period. That pro- vided a faculty recruiting advantange because the units could be shown and potentially offered for sale upon employment. Current- ly, 20 units had closed and deposits were made on 15 more, which put Stanford somewhere below the projections. He said that up until two weeks ago, 'eligibility for Peter Coutts was extraordi- narily tight. About 1,500 families were in Eligibility Pool I, but Peter Coutts was only available to those in Eligibility Pool I who did not already own a home. About 400 families were eligible in that subgroup, and about ten percent of the eligible market los sold. Stanford was not doing quite as well as was originally hoped, but were pretty close. Counci lmember Eyerly said the EIR showed the increase in traffic with :Stanford West as compared to now as it related, to traffic on Arboretum in front of Saks and Bullocks and on Willow Road between Pasteur and Arboretum. He asked if Stanford had heard from the, - merchants in that area regarding the- traffic. He asked if the EIR addressed that impact.. Mr. Massy said that Frank Morrow would address the specifics of that question, but that Stanford heard from tenants in the shop piny center who shared the view that it ,:was a travesty, -with or without Stanford West,- to' have an. arterial highway through a park- ntig lot. Director of Real Estate for Stanford University_ Frank Morrow, said Mr. Freeland had described the process and various decisions facing the Council well. The essential. question. before the Coun- cil, was whether the creation of a large number of multi -family residential units at that site would be a benefit or detriment.. to the communityat large. Or. Massy discussed the project ,in terms that put Stanford West in context to the University, and he'would attempt to describe it within the context of the City. He said that Stanford's three major areas of ; concern r_ogaraing Stanford West Were: The site plan and density; The environmental impacts; and Affordability 1 he would only touch on the fourth item--traffic--because that would be dealt with by the City's consultant from PRC Voohrees. Stanford West was a proposed multi -family housing project .of 1,479` residential units to be constructed on two parcels of land owned by Stanford University within the City of Palo Alto. He said that the project as proposed met or favorably exceeded all the require- ments of existing regulations and was consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. He made the following comparison with regard to ;'he 46 -acre site: Under. the -City's current zoning, 1,666 units' would be allowed, and Stanford proposed 1,275. The unit per acre allowed was 33, and Stanford proposed 28. The allowed site coverage was 45 percent, and Stanford proposed 24 percent. The open space required by Palo Alto's_ zoning, was 1'9 percent or 8.7 acres, and Stanford proposed 56 percent open space or 28 acres. The rear lot setback required by zoning was 20 feet, and _Stanford proposed 90 feet.. The si deyard setbacks required were six feet, and Stanford proposed anywhere from 50 feet to 150 feet. The Willow Road setback required_was 24 feet, and Stanford proposed 100 feet. In summary, the proposed lot coverage was approximately one-half the al l owa_bl e, the proposed open space was three times greater than required, and the project density was 75 percent of that permitted. When considering the site plan, it was interesting to note that the proposed central green recreation area was larger than most parks within the City of Palo Alto. Specifically, of the 20 parks currently in Palo Alto, only five were larger. lie said the key to the. ultimate success of the proj- ect was people --both the residents who would live.. there in' the future, and the current citizens of the area who would be affected by those new people. The best way to measure the most tangible aspect of the site plan and people was density, but density was a function not only of the site's physical. and political con- straints, but also a function of (a) the planner's and developer's perception of the quality of life being created for future resi- dents within that project; (b) the estimates of the City's consul- tants and Stanford supported by research of the impacts of the environment external to the project in tree broadest sense of the word; and (c) who could afford the units. Stanford's planners would discuss the internal aspects of the proposal; that is, the environment to be created within the site. He said the city had reams of information and data on the environmental impacts and proposed mitigations, and Stanford would discuss- the specific findings and recommendations at length with City staff, and con- muni cate its viewpoints on the various aspects of their reports in writing. With regard to the EIR as it dealt with environmental impacts, Stanford agreed with most of the professional analysis that pertained to., the impacts and mitigations as 'presented in the draft E1R, and was prepared to pay its fair share of the costs- of miti yations associated with the project. In- the broader sense, the University was prepared to pay the rosts for -mitigating the impacts of _other -UntVersi ty projects occurring within Pala eAl to along the Willow Road corridor. Stanford discovered, particularly in the expanded version of the draft E R, three problems: 1. Certain impacts were insufficient to' justify the proposed mit- i gation; 2. a Certaina proposed mitigations were unrelated- to direct 'impacts of .ti is project or its environs; and 3, Certain- provisions seemed 'ate go beyond f the level of . review contemplated by CEQA regulations or ,:thee City `s `own guide-' lines. Regarding traffic, he urged the ;Council to closely question' Mr. Peers as to they data and the meaning of his analysis. Notwith- standing : the current conditions of Willow Road, they impact of the project on that system was less than the seasonal variation in traffic flow. flow. "Stanford opined that data on traffic clearly showed that the incremental contribution to traffic by the project was. not significant That was not to say that there was not a traffic 1 1 problem on Willow Road, but rather, with the project, .certa;n measures must be taken to improve the traffic flow in that area. - No additional steps needed to be taken because of Stanford West. If the road improvements were made,- the projected future roadway conditions, with or without the project, were nearly identical. Regarding the at grade crossing, he suggested that Councilmember Eyeriy's question be dire'ted to Mr. Peers. He did not believe that any of the data compiled by the City's 'consultants. would sup- port the notion of an off -grade crossing either over or under the road, and in facte he understood the consultant to strongly recom- mend not doing that in the EIR. Stanford believed that the costs of the off -grade crossing were nowhere near consistent with the benefits. Regarding the .issue -that' because the project consumed Palo Alto services albeit in small numbers which cumulated to a large impact, o'.e co -old only observe that the economic analysis done by the City's consultants and the EIR were clear that even in the worst case the project or the project's future residents paid their own way in the form of fees and taxes. He pointed out that since the project was proposed at a density considerably less than allowed, the impact Of the proposed development .on Palo Alto's capacity to service its entire community was posi t-i_ve--not nega- tive. In short, the project should use less than the City in his own Comprehensive. Plan determined it might conlsume. He asked the Council to remember during the review of the impacts and mitiga- tions that: 1) the project was in and of itself a mitigation of the current jobs/housing imbalance in the Palo Alto -Santa Clara region; and 2) the cost of every mitigation would directly impact affordability. Regarding affordability, the first question to ask was who was the desired or intended market. As -pointed out by Dr. Massy, Stanford wished to offer a large- cross-section of its faculty and staff the opportunity to obtain housing near campus. Extensive research was done as to who those people .were, their current incomes, their life styles, where they presently lived, how much they spent on housing, how they spent on commuting, and their housing preferences. Clearly, building homes aar apartments beyond those people's reach financially, or not suitable in design or arrangement would not be in Stanford's own self interest. The project, as -presented, could meet the mutual goals of the Univer- sity and the City of providing housing to a segment of the popula- tion currently priced -out of the Palo Alto market. Specifically, in current dollars, Stanford anticipated that those units had an average sales price of approximately $140 per square foot with a range of prices from $120- tro $170 per square -_foot. The antici- pated for sale units would range from $69,000 to $250,000 per unit with an`..average price of approximately $125,009 to $130,000.. -Giv- en .reasonable economic conditions, and rational interest. rates, those units would be affordable even in today's condition of 11.5 to 12.5 percent interest. For example, a large one-bedroam`or small two --bedroom unit could be purchased- with- a gross household income of approximately $33,000 to $34,000. Of the for sale units, Stanford anticipated that the- average unit --a large two -- bedroom or a .small three -bedroom unit would be affordability for a household with an income of $4$,000 to - $.45,000. It should be noted that numberwas well within the affordasbl l ity range of -the 1.20-t 150 percent range of the median County income. Rentals were targeted for the studios to. start: ate:or near_- $400 per month-, which would require a. 30- .percent eApend,itur:e or -e4160.00 per- year - income. Stanford anticipated the average .rental unit to_>be affordable to that gro;bp. with a household inco'e of $32,000 to $33,0u0,' which was the County- median. Aie stressed that the anaiy- sis was for the inventory remaining after 15 percent of the units -were _already set aside and dedicated to pri'te ICOntrols below market rate pr.ogram.' lie . noted that the ,;economic , ana lysi s pryovided by EI°P ,described nearly the precise conditiot:_= cif the worst --case a.t whioh the project ;simply .could not _ go , forward. Their ' -c(16.0 i.c assum►tions . were pr_oYen _ to make-- any project not viable as many residents of Palo Alto had seen in the past, and as was seen by the many unsold condominiums in the area. The balance between density :and affordability was delicate. As Stanford moved. from the number of units proposed, the costs escalated exponen- tially. Specifically, by reducing the density by 100 units, the costs to the remaining units would go up approximately $1,500 per - unit. Fur the next 100 units lost in density, the :costs to the remaining units would rise approximately $3,000 per unit, and if a third 100 units were lost, the costs to the remaining _units went up by nearly $7,000 per unit. In addition, Stanford's reasonable and sensible steps to produce affordable housing in and of itself, would have -a significant positive impact on the Palo Alto. -Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program. Fifteen (15) percent, or 220 units, as the project was presently proposed, would be priced to reach those eligible for the BMR Program. Withe the inclusion of the Mayfield School site, at least 80 to B5 _additional BMR units could be created bringing the total to over 300 units. The total Stanford West 8MR mitigation --that is the combination of on site 3MR units and in -lieu payments in the form of the Mayfield School for the site --was ' approximately a -25 percent BMR Program, which far•.exceeded any mitigation ever proposed by any developer in the area. He believed mention should be made that while state and local guidelines for housing suggested density bonuses for devel- opments with BMR components, Stanford had not only not requested a density bonus, but proposed a project that was 75 percent. of zon- ing capacity, and with the full state bonus would be at 60 percent of the full bonus capacity. He concluded that the reason for the - existence of any governmental body and its intendant regulations and controls was to promote the health, safety and general 'wel fare of the citizens. Too often, in the case of housing, that resulted in restrictive policies that increased the cost of new housing, which, in turn, raised the price of all housing. He urged that the Council not fall into that trap. He asked the Council to recall that the purpose of the project was to provide _an afford- able housing opportunity_ for a broad cross section of the popula- tion, with priority for Stanford employees, currently shut out of the Palo Alto market. In . considering the project, it was impor- tant to remember that goal, and what its accomplishment would mean for the entire community. The site plan, building type, and unit.. configuration were designed' to maximize the degree to which the development wo=old respono to the particular housing needs of its target group, including the need for affordability. The density, as -proposed, tended to minimize the pro rata cost of each indi- vidual unit, and the fixed onsite and offsite development costs. Some units -were designed to accommodate more than one household. Those and other features would hopefully help optimize the afford ability and desirability of all the units. He Urged the Council to keep in mind the following -Statements in order• to provide _a framework for their review: (a) H1 (b) ( 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: To encourage Stanford University to obtain a higher number- of housing units on the main Stanford campus; and To encourage local employees who participated in the develop- ment of new housing to► give first priority to those who worked nearby! The draft EIR "The development of Stanford West would serve as a mitigation measure for the-jobs/housing' imbalance in the. community by providing immediate affordable housing. to Univer- sity faculty and staff." The Palo. Alto Staff Report of October• 8, , 1982: 'The Stanford West project was unquestionably a major -step-in addressing the housing needs of the University and,,in,':confronting the jobs/ housing imbalance. 1 1 Mr. Morrow suggested that when the architects- made their slide presentation, questions concerning slides be asked at the time rather than waiting until the end. Councii-member Cobb said that the ARB made some critical remarks reg r'ding the- architecture and how the - project was laid out. He asked for comments .from Stanford. Mr. Morrow said he would comment in a broad manner, and that the architects would respond more specifically. He opined that given the trade offs and the constraints, there was tremendous variety in the project. He could only. contrast it to a multi -family. development next door, which was only one building type, and six floor plans as he -understood it. The proposed development would have five building types and some 35 floor plans. There were three four-story -big buildings,' and .one five -story building that were very close in -height. He preferred that the buildings not be that close in height, but the City had a 50 foot height limit. A five -story building was constrained to eight foot floors from floor to ceiling: An eight foot floor to ceiling height was fine, however, a nicer internal environment --was created, particularly in multi -family housing, by having some. nine foOt floor to ceiling hei ghts , which meant a four-story building. The four-story build- ings had nine foot floor to ceiling heights, which was why those buildings were nearly as tall- as the five -story building. If the City would +rant a variance, he would put nine 'foot floor to ceil- ing heights in the five -story building. There were trade-offs involved, which the architects would review in depth. As he read the ARO statement, it appeared that the main bone of contention was what was happening between the Main circulation road and Willow Road, There were a lot of multi -family. tall buildings that approached 50 feet. If Stanford were to build at the proposed density, it could only build to 35 feet within 135 feet from the top of the creek, thereby being constrained to the smaller build- ings. If all of the buildings within the 135 -foot range of the creek were going to be the smaller ones, in order to achieve the proposed density, the buildings would have to be clustered. Once the buildings were clustered, there were not 'too many choices, they could either be closer together or wider apart, and one tried `to obtain some cohesiveness of the various clusters, One argument might be that-every_cluster had the same combination of buildings, which could be worked out, but the proposed development was not yet that refined. Another argument was that the architecture itself was too uniform, that is, all the structures_ were odesigned by one architect and perhaps should be cut into several pieces. Stanford would argue that that would be inefficient and dishar- monious; -and when viewing the site as a whole, it would look like a hodgepodge. Counci lmember Levy said he was surprised by the comment, that the main open space Was larger than most parks Of Palo Alto, Mr. Morrow said there --were` approximately 12.7 -acres- .,,of green space, "and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan indicated that most of the parks An`Palo Alto.were'five acres or less. Counc:ilmember Levy asked that a response be provided . to 'the com- ments made related to the amount of recreation space that Would be - re u i red .not only by the approximate . 400 youths, but also for the active adult population. Mr,_ Morro► said that in the interest of time, he would respond to that question in writing. FROM 9:25 p.m. TO 9:36 p.m. 3/16/83 1 1 A Mr. Morrow introduced Jim A. Babcock, a principal in the firm of Sandy & Babcock, Architects and Planners, 1349 Larkin Street, San Francisco, CA 94109. That firm commenced operation 20 years ayo. Mr. Babcock said he was the partner in charge of the project, and would make his presentation jointly with Dave Lewis, the Project Architect: The project was started two years ago. The firm had been involved with multi -family housing for over two decades, and most of their' clients were corporate entrepreneurs and developers. They were -currently doing about 10,000 living units in the United States and foreign countries, and had probably completed about 200,000 l iv ng units. He said they liked to do the projects from the very beginning, and sometimes even marketed them.. Planning was the essence of a large project like Stanford West, and -the end result was a combination- of many influences. The firm won over 50 national design awards for planning and architecture in their 20 years of operation, and -most of those awards were from the A, 1.A. He said the presentation would primarily be slides, and suggested that questions be asked at the timeto alleviate having to go back through the slides after the presentation. MayorAechtel asked if Sandy & Babcock were the concept designers, or the actual detailed architectural designers as wel l . Mr. Babcock said the firm was current) y in the latter phase of design. The site planning took over one and one-half years, and the last six to eight months involved -the detail design of the buildings. During the planning process, they were involved with the City of Palo Alto's planning staff, and in fact, after they arrived at a site plan, the City brought on a consultant planner. That process evolved the site -. plan, and Site Plan B was the one preferred by Stanford. David Lewis, Project Architect said the key issue was housing. Not only would the proposed development provide an opportunity for housing for the Stanford community,'it also alleviated the jobs/ housing imbalance`':in the community, which would also mitigate the transportation problems in the area. He showed a view of the site taken from the creek looking towards Willow Road and the inter- section at Pasteur Drive. The site was comprised of two parcels, one which consisted of forty-five acres, and one four -acre parcel. The site was bounded by the Oak Creek Apartments, San Francisquito Creek, and the Children's Hospital. Stanford University Hospital was only a ten minute walk away from the site, as was the Stanford Shopping Center. The site was predominantly flat, and the creek was s'l ightly higher than Willow Road and sloped down towards the road. The nearby Oak Creek Apartments were basically, a four-story building --three stories of residential over one level of parking. He showed a diagram which indicated some of the zoning .constraints they were up against. The 46 -acre site, which was actually 45 acres, was zoned kM-4 and allowed a density of 1,640 units. The density range was between 20 and 36 units per acre. He, said the 30 -foot setback from the "-top of the bank was an agreement not bound by zoning, but one made with the City, and the 150 -foot setbacks with tie 35 -foot height limit was a zoning requirement. The 100 -foot setback along Willow Road was one of Sandy & Babcock's setbacks, and really was only a 24 -foot setback, but the. 100 -foot was actually twice the setback as the Oak ::Creek :Apart- ments had from Willow Road. An archeology zone also existed on the site, which constricted the amount of buildable land to work with a He said that at the time of the open planning process meet ings, many studies were, done in terms of def ling, -tie building types that one could put on the 'site given the amount of buildable land. The diagrams actually: sh ed more 'buildable land that Was known at the time --there was actually about 35 acres of -buildable, land. He said the lower density range allowed_ by zoning permitted 940 units. The whole site could be accommodated by three-story buildings much like the Oak Creek Apartments, but there would be virtually no major open space --only that along the creek. A mix- ture of three, four and five -story buildings would bring the..proj- ect to the maximum allowable density .of 1,640 units. The mixture of the larger buildings allowed a. broad sweeping of open space that extended toward the creek. Given those constraints, and the fact -that Stanford was faced with a density requirement somewhere. in the , range of 20 to 36 units per acre, they met the dilemma of providing an urban development within a suburban and somewhat rural context.. Everyone liked to keep the rural context as much as possible, and the design tried to take elements of the d~ural environment .and incorporate the benefits of an urban situation. He said the- building. types were limited in terms of the amount of density and,open space. Mr. Lewis said another key factor was that the density `allowed the buildings to be clustered in order to form neighborhoods.. The notion of creating a neighborhood or space to be used by .those residents-- the sense of place --was also related to human propor- tion, In -,terms of the relationship and proportion between the height And width of a space for human comfort and for the sense of space, if it was less than 1.1, the. space was too oppressive, and if it was greater than one to 2.5, it lost its meaning. The site plan provided for that space in terms of the courtyards. Councilmember Renzel asked what the 1.1 and 2.5 meant terms of proportion. Mr. Lewis said it was , the height of the wall or building in pro- portion to the width. In a sense, outdoor space was much like a room, and the correct proportion allowed for a comfortable living situation, which formula was proven by many centuries of urban development. They were faced with a notion of an informal arcadia because Stanford was called "the Farm," a perfect example being one of the buildings on Welch Road. That notion was somewhat per- meated in the site plan and concept proposed._ The site plan was derived by several open planning process meetings, and by the nature and design of the units within it. The site was corprised of ten different subdivisions, each of which was different in terms of formation and density. The larger subdivisions, com- prised of about 187 units, were made up of three different build- ings, the smaller of which were the two and three story. The area with the 35 -foot height limit nearest the creek had a density of 11.6 units per acre, and the area along Willow Road had ,a density of 36.8 units per acre, which was still within the limits of the zoning for the site. He said that the two and three-story, small- est building was primarily used to buffer the open space thong the creek, and the larger density clusters. The same proportions were utilized as was the notion of creating a smaller social group .by creating courtyards within the smaller designed buildings. ,The higher density clusters used th{ ,ee buildings, all of the buildings were designed to form clusters, and they all worked together. The buildings would be entered through the courtyard space, and a visitor would be entering a personal space with the sense of a neighborhood. Each of the buildings in the large r cluster were different, and each were linked by a system of bicycle and pedes, t ri an paths, which system also linked with the open space at the creek, and the community, facility in the center of the site The smallest building in the development was comprised of ten units,_ and those units were organized around a`.central ;car court. Upon entering the central car court, one would, enter, an entry court, and then enter either a flat or townhouse. - All of the units . in the development tried .to maximize natural light and ventilation, and all the units:_ -had fireplaces. The townhouses would be entered by a second level entry deck. 3`0 6 3 3/16/83 Mr. Babcock showed the car court for the ten unit building, and said it was similar to the Peter Coutts concept although other adaptions were added. It was felt that the two and three-story buildings should not only be a private experience, but help to monitor the creek and keep it at a low activity level. The second largest building on the site was the four-story bridge building, which building had nine -foot ceiling heights and was very near the fifty -foot height limit. That building was made up of two and three -bedroom units with the larger units on the lower floors. It was called a "bridge building," because the units themselves had natural light and ventilation on both sides, and were entered via a system of bridges. One innovative housing type used was the four-story congregate building, which was somewhat of a hybred between the bridge building and the double loaded corridor, build- ing, but the units were very different. He said there' were two different congregate units --the ".l" unit was, comprised of five two -level studios organized around a larger living and dining area, and a "K" unit which had four master bedrooms and was also organized around a larger living and dining area.. That housing type would be more suited to transient type Stanford people, the elderly, and graduate students. It was an adaptable building type and allowed an affordable opportunity for people who needed a shared living environment. The largest building --the five -story building --was comprised of 99 units. Primarily the units were studios and one -bedrooms with a few two -master bedroom units. The first floor plan building wall undulated to allow the oppor- tunity for natural light and ventilation to all the units. All the units in that building contained operable fireplaces, operable windows and natural ventilation. The corridor also undulated and contained an opening along certain points to allow natural light within the corridor. The building stepped down in the fifth floor plan. That level contained several larger townhouses, a community lounge, and- a laundry area. There was a large public terrace which would be used by the residents. Mr. Lewis, said that regarding parking, zoning required that they provide 1.65 spaces per unit, which was the average based on the size of the unit. They proposed 1.4 spaces per unit, deferring 20 percent., based on a 'recommendation by staff. They were deferring because.. they were utilizing a shuttle bus system that would link with the Stanford and County transit systems. There would be four stops on the site. Councilmember Renzel asked how the deferred parking below the existing surface parking would be done. Mr. Lewis said there were actually several deferred parking schemes, and the one in the Elk utilized the opportunity to build a second level garage and linking that with the existing garage. It was very expensive to build garages, but there were a lot of alternatives._ Mr. Babcock said that particular deferred parking scheme would only be required if .a need were found for the .2 cars at a' lager time, Mr. Lewis said that if a need arose to build additional parking after the first phase was `•built, it could be accommodated in suc- ceeding:phases. Mr. Babcock said there was a lot of land for extra parking in the -first phase: if necessary. That solution would only be necessary as the project was completed, and then they would : go ahead to 1 design and depress the parking in the initial parking layout and put a garage over it. It was not one where an existing lot would. have to be excavated. - Councilmember Cobb asked if the 1.4 spaces per unit included guest parking. Mr. Lewis said that was correct. Councilmember Cobb asked whether a situation which required ratio of two rather than 1.4, could be accommodated. Mr. Lewis said that the parking ratio at the Oak Creek Apartments was 1.5 spaces per unit. Stanford was trying to encourage bicycle usage, and planned to _provide a shuttle bus system on the site. It was a matter of whether or riot those things worked, and whether they were able to discourage the use of the car. Councilmember Renzel asked if the "J" and "K" units were being counted as one. Mr. Lewis said that each of the studios in the "J" unit was count- ed as one unit, and five cars were provided for each "J" unit.. The "K" unit was four cars for each bedroom. Mr. BabcOck said they were a so providing 1.3 parking spaces for bicycles per unit within the building. Mr. Lewis said the community facility would have, three tennis courts above a parking garage, and a convenience store for the residents, a recreation center, and a management and maintenance facility would also be located there. All the buildings would be linked by a system of pedestrian and bicycle paths, and a system of arcaded walkways and promenades was used to link and act as a funneling of pedestrian movement. Councilmember Levy asked if the Palo Alto Recreation. Department was consulted regarding the amount of recreation facilities and whether the proposed amount was normal for the proposed popula- tion. Mr. Lewis said he understood that .they were within the guidelines of; trie open space requirement. There were no guidelines as to specific types of activities to unit development. Councilmember Levy asked if it was intended that the open space would be divided into baseball diamonds and soccer fields. Mr. Lewis said they could be from an informal sense. They did not want to encourage people off site to use the open space and gener- atea lot of traffic. It was seen more as an informal open space and could be used by the residents - for softball, etc. The 46 acres consisted of 5.7 acres of open space along the creek, about two acres in the community facility area, and the remaining larger open space was about 4.7 acres, for a total of 12.7 acres. Each. of the courtyard spaces within the larger units was about one-half acre, , and similar to Cogswell Plaza. The overall building reach was 24 percent, the roads and parking took up 20 percent, and the residue open space was about 56 percent -:all well below the zoning requirements. Mr. Babcock said the larger five -story portion of the building was at the top and center ; of the building and stepped down to three stories On the end ofeach building. The_vertfcal elements, such' uch "_- as fireplaces, were emphasized, and deep cuts were made in the building at entrances -and other places to break up.. the hori Yon-- tality of the:: building and set the top balconies back to bring it More in scale with some of the surrounding two and three-story buildings. 3 0 6 6 3/16/83. Mr. Lewis said that the longest length of the buildings were 280 feet, and were comparable to the Oak Creek building. The corridor length of the Oak Creek buildings were actually 100 feet longer than the five -story building. Mr. Babcock said that the parking structure was depressed one-half story off grade so that the first level was about four and one- half feet off the sidewalks, or walks around the building. A four or five -story building with a five -story parking structure, would be at the 50 foot height limit. Councilmember Renzel asked if the floors were eight feet high. Mr. Babcock responded that they were nine feet floor to floor leaving an eight -foot clear ceiling. Mr. Lewis said that each of the planes were different colors which helped to delineate the planes of the building and differentiate the separation of the masses. Councilmember Fletcher asked if the buildings had elevators. { Mr. Babcock said yes. He said they also had bay windows, and every unit had a private balcony. Vice Mayor Fazzino asked why the specific colors were chosen. Mr. Babcock said that a color consultant was hired, and the colors were from the palette of the Stanford campus. If colors became an issue, a presentation would be made to the ARB, and the rationale behind the color scheme would be defined. Mr. Babcock said the buildings were designed such that it looked like two buildings coming together with an entry in between. The fenestration was a little different than some other buildings. They anticipated breaking up the windows in smaller panes, approx- imately two -foot square to give -a certain scale and fenestration to a lot of windows in all kinds of openings. Many of the top floors over the decks contained trellises which threw shadow and texture into the building, Some of the lobbies on the top floors contained skylights which gave light into the elevator lobbies. Councilmember Cobb said they were talking about 1,200 to 1,400 housing units, and several thousands of people. The Council had been .through a struggle to try _and find enough school sites to preserve -:to provide recreational opportunities for all the child- ren for soccer, softball —and other. sports. It was nice to hear -that kind of; tai k about the pastoral uses of the open space-, but the fact was-that'the project -would create additional demand for a diminishing .number of recreational facilities. He asked if it was reasonable, as part of the project, to try and find some piece of land that could be used for softball -diaMonds, soccer fields, etc., to help relieve some of the additional pressure that the development `would create. Mr. Babcock said the concept was valid, and one of the mitigations to be discussed during the next phase. Councilmember Cobb_ said he would like the answer to that question to be provided in writing. ; He asked if the congregate units were viewed in the nature of - experimental housing, or whether it was a concept without need to be proven. If it was experinental in nature, and the experiment was not .successful would it be adapt -- able to more conventional. housing modes. 3 0 6 6 3/16/83 1 A 1 Mr. Babcock said the congregate housing type had existed in Israel for many years, and developments were going on in Fairfax very similar to the one proposed. The concept was discussed between his firm and Stanford since its inception, but had not been tried and proven on the campus. If it did not work, it would probably be changed in the second phases and eliminated because it was found to be convertible to a standard housing type without any problem. Councilmember Cobb asked how any units were of that mode. Mr. Lewis responded that there were four congregate buildings, each containing 42 units, but each studio in the "J" unit was counted as a unit. There were ,,four "J" units and four "K" units in each congregate building. Mayor Bechtel commented that she liked the concept of the congre- gate units, and believed it made a lot of sense. Councilmember Eyerly asked if Sandy & Babcock had built any other projects in the Bay Area or Northern California which used some of the proposed building styles. Mr. Babcock said there :were no other similar building styles, but there were similar building types. The Peter Coutts project was similar to styles two and three, three similar projects were built in California, and there were a number of projects similar to the bridge building type project in Florida. Councilmember Eyerly asked to be provided with a list of the com- pleted projects in California. Mr. Babcock said that an Ocean Beach project was completed in San Francisco next to Golden Gate Park. A project was completed in Oakland called "Portobello," and another project completed in Sacramento was called "The Governor's Square." Those units total- ed about 400, and a four-story bridge building completed in Florida totaled about 280 units. Mr. Lewis said it was not intentional , but the }.00ve.r House at Stanford was actually very similar in style to the styles being proposed. Councilmember Eyerly asked whether. Stanford West would be wood construction as was Peter Coutts. Mr. Babcock responded that the two- and three-story buildings were wood construction, but the five -story was concrete. Mayor Bechtel said that completed the portion of the presentation by Stanford, and the next portion would be Major Conclusions from the EIR and Considerations for Project Mitigations. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland introduced Linda Peirce, Project Manager and Doug Dvensson, Planner/Economist and Assistant Project Manager from Environmental Impact : Planning _ Corporation (EIPC). Ms. Peirce said that, as was mentioned by Mr. Schreiber, EIPC's role in the project began in the Spring of 1981, and the assign- ment was to work closely with the City 01 Palo _.Alto staff to pre- pare an EIR that would be completely to their satisfaction. The project involved a great deal of citizen participation since its inception, the degree to which was somewhat unusual. The EIR was very long and complicated and so far it was comprised of the draft EIR (the red book) , as well as the materials in the blue -book and additional comments. which ° would be ..responded to in -__a series of. meetings with the City Council, public., testimony and minutes. 3 0 6 7 3/16/83.:= Ms. Peirce said that one of the most difficult aspects of the pro- cess was sorting through the impacts and mitigation measures iden- tified in the EIR. The first step in the iterative process was to compare the mitigation measures identified by the consultants and .. City staff, with the draft EIR. As the document passed through the Planning Commission, staff would recommend another level of identified impacts and mitigation measures, and a third level of impacts and mitigations would be suggested by the public during the course ,of the lengthy public hearing process. Staff prepared a summary chart of impacts and mitigations, which were included in the staff report of February 24, 1983, as Appendix D. She said the, chart identified significant impacts as well as those deter- mined not to be significant by the Planning Commission, and iden- tified mitigation. measures that were recommended,for inclusion as mitigation measures in the certification process, those not pre- cluded from later consideration, and those. about which no position was taken.' Also contained in the chart, but not separated, were those items recommended to be conditions during the project approval process and subsequent to certification of the EIR. Those items were clarified in the document entitled "Summary of Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Proposed Conditions of Approval as Recommended by the Planning Commission," and an attempt was made to delineate between those aspects of the EIR which related specifically to the environmental impacts and those aspects of the blue book as related specifically to project approval. She said it was important to maintain a distinction between those two items in moving towards certification of the EIR. She emphasized that the material in the new summary chart did not replace the material found in Appendix D, but rather reformatted the information for purposes of clarification. The chart was organized into two parts. The first part contained sig- nificant impact and all potential mitigation measures as consider- ed by the Planning Commission, which included those recommended as mitigation measures as part of the EIR, those which were consider- ed, but were not recommended, as well as those that were not recommended as mitigation measures at all for the time being. The second part contained aspects of the EIR that the Commission recommended for inclusion as conditions of -project approval. Those were separated in order to keep the two, processes distinct. An additional feature of the summary was the source of the mitiga- tion measures, and'; whether they were in the draft EIR (the red book) or whether they were developed during the public hearing process, and which included the staff, public and final Planning Commission recommendations.: She believed that the summary chart contained all of the significant impacts identified by the Plan- ning Comission and the ARB. The greatest area of concern was traffic, which John Peers of PRC Voorhees would address. Mr. Peers was a principal of PRC Voorhees, and introduced Steve Pickrell, who also worked very closely on the ,project. He pro- vided a general overview of the results of the traffic. Their purpose was not to make technical judgments about the appropriate- ness of individual mitigations or anything else. He said that everyone seemed to sense the major level of congestion on Willow Road as the key problem. The current level of problem was, bounded in an easterly direction between -the project site and the area of Pasteur and Willow going towards El Camino Real and the Shopping Center. The analysis prepared ` by PRC Voorhees indicated that by and large there were_ no significant -capacity problems in those areas. Some levels of backup existed, but in terms" of capacity were not a significant- problem for the majority of the day. There Was some question about whether the issue of traffic traveling through the Shopping Center was appropriate for discussion. The principal problem on the ; project was to the _w4st-that is traffic: traveling along Willow -Road going, across to Menlo Park`' in a west- erly direction. By and large, significant backups_.occurred, and significant problems at specific intersections--particuarly Santa Cruz and, Sand Hill. There .were a series of small queves which severely backed into each . other for about an hour each day, but on the hcur at aTh side of that critical peak, it was not too 1 1 difficult"to travel through that area. The average speeds outside the, peek were about 25 to 30 miles per hour, and the speed dropped to between 10 and 15 miles per hour during the middle of the Peak. The issue of through traffic close to the project site on Willow Road was also studied, and it was found that less than five per- cent of the traffic on Willow Road throughout the day could _argu- ably be located 'ate either end of the trip outside the general area from Portola Valley across through Menlo Park . and Palo Alto. About 40 percent of the traffic originated at one end of the trip a considerable distance away,`b►t those trips generated from those areas going to or leaving tended to have the other end of the, trip i.n the immediate vicinity of Palo Alto, the campus, Menlo Park or nearby. There was a significant problem during the peak hours; and -even without the project, other projects for the next eight or nine years included the extension of the Medical Center, the potential increase of about 100,000 square feet of the Shopping Center, and many other developments in the immediate vicinity. There would be a slow, moderate level of growth of about one per- cent _per year of general traffic, which was also added into their numbers. In terms of the road network in the area, -he said that an, extension was done of Campus Drive West down to Junipero Serra about a' " year ago, and in the near future it was expected to extend Welsh Road from Pasteur to that Campus Drive extension in order to provide a .parallel two-lane road to Willow Road for much of the length from the area close by the Shopping Center through to Junipero Serra. The effect -of all the traffic on the existing road system, without the project, indicated very severe congestion problems for longer periods of time than the half or three- quar- ters of an hour which now occurred. Therefore, PRC Voorhees made a variety of recommendations generally described as the Tableel4 Recommendations, which dealt with several intersections for local- ized improvement and also suggested a third lane on Willow Road from Pasteur down to the intersection of Santa Cruz and Sand iii l l He said the impact of applying those different improvements was to bring back levels of service at the critical intersections along the corridor to a point where they -Were at least tolerable and acceptable in that', key peak evening hour. It was difficult for many people on Willow Road, who had lived with levels of conges- tion, to realize that some improvement was expected in the future at least between the Welsh Road --extension and. the Campus Drive extension, and possibly - the intersection improvements and. addi- tional third lane recommendations as made by PRC Voorhees. lie believed there could be a significant improvement in that general area as a consequence of those individual improvements. With regard to the issue of project traffic, he covered the following areas: 1) trip generation, 2) directionality of traffic, 3) how those -numbers changed if the Stanford related population increased or decreased from those originally estimated, and 4) the kinds of mitigations suggested to -resolve some of the project related prob- lems. I. The term "trip generation" was defined as the total number of person trips or vehicle trips which occurred from a particular site on an average working day. The expected _ number of trips from the site for the total units was approximately, half the trips per day per unit that one would expect in dealing with the standard type of single family dwelling unit in the Palo Alto and Menlo Park area. The most important reason for that was because a substantial portion, or about 50 percent of the melts, were one bedroom or studio units. As a result, one. could expect a comparatively smaller number of- people per unit than one would have with the typical single-family dwelling unit in thearea around the project. 2. Directionality of traffic. One advantage of a residential development being close by commercial and the campus site was that the evening peak tended to draw traffic into .it rather than away from it as it did from the office, campus, or medi- cal center or many other locations. The benefit was that the great majority of traffic in the evening peak returning to the residential area would not add large quantities to the exist- ing capacity problems, but picked up spare capacity in the opposite directions. That was something the Council should keep in mind when considering the site. 3. Stanford -related traffic. PRC Voorhees was deliberately con- servative in making their estimates of trip generation and distribution numbers which ended up impacting the network of traffic. He opined that their figures were at least 50 per- cent and maybe 100 percent more than they might be if 70 per- cent of Stanford households were related to Stanford Univer- sity. However, a minimum of 30 percent of the households would have someone related to Stanford as were the numbers in the Oak Creek Apartments. They assumed the 70 percent number in making its analysis, but the difference between the 30 and 70 percent would not have a strong impact on their analysis because they were so deliberately conservative about the impact of the trip generation by vehicles. 4. Regarding mitigations, the "red book" contained a variety of reccnnmendations made by PRC Voorhees related to a shuttle bus service between the campus and project area, bicycle program, a coordinator to. try and generate a shared ride program, and -to maintain and market the transit system and the bicycle pro- gram on the site. He believed that the impact of these combi- nations would substantially reduce the quantity of traffic by vehicle to and from the site. However, their analysis did not take that into account because they were deliberately conser- vative and did not reduce the trip generation to half of what- ever it might reasonably be. Many- people were concerned that a lot of trucks would be traveling to and from the site for a longer period of time. One mitigation of that problem was to' identify the truck route which was done as part of the proj- ect. 5. He added the issue of crossing Willow Road as a consequence. PRC Voorhees stated in the "red book" that their analysis of the amount of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic, indi- cated that if the improvements recommended by them were car- ried out, there would be no need, in terms of capacity or safety, to have a separate grade crossing for vehicles, pedes- trians or cyclists. Further, if a pedestrian or bicycle sepa- rate bridge or undercrossing was put in, it was PRC Voorhees experience that a large portion of the people would not use them because of having to chanee heights in the overcrossing issue, and the issue of security for an undercrossing. Councilmember Witherspoon said the "red book" did not address the idea of depressing Willow Road which solved the two problems of forcing pedestrians and people from the project to either ge up over or down under. lr. Peers said that issue ":.was looked at since the "red book" was completed. The cost for depressing Willow Road would be in the region of $5,000,000, which was an extremely large amount of money to. have to pay for that particular project. He clarified that was not tc suggest that it was inappropriate, but rather that it was a large Individual qoa it ity. " Regarding '-the Willow Road extension project, PRC - Voorhees_.,initi,al review of the separate "issue of the. Willow Roadextension going through the Shopping -Center, indicated an additional >3,0"4d to 4,000 Vehicles_ .on Willow Road; as a conse_; quence of that extension that would go from El Camiono Real to the 1 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill --Road intersection. About six intersections - were impacted- by ,the presence- of the Willow Road extension --a couple were worsened, a couple -remained about the same, and -_ a couple got a little better. A marginal change was indicated as a result of the Willow Read extension, and because of the issue of through traffic, there was no major relocation for many of those other potentially hazardous east to west arterials, As far as traffic in the immediate vicinity of the project area was con- cerned, -there was a need to make some major highway improvements to accommodate the - expected level of traffic that would take place. Without such improvements, the existing levels of service within the vicinity of the site would be substantially worsened. He believed that a series of responsive mitigations --both highway and nonhighway related --were identified to satisfy the project impacts. -He further believed -that--the project impact itse';f, when added specifically on the highway side to the'other cumulative traffic that would occur in 1990, were marginal. On a day to day basis, a half- level of service change occurred, which was the kind of change that would occur with the proposed project. - Councilmember Eyerly asked if the impact on travel time for Saks and Bollocks customers were weighed. He asked if - there were - Si g- nifican.t increases in travel time from places like Portola Valley and Ladera into those stores or from Palo Alto or Menlo Park. Mr. Peers said that was not done in the, EIR process, but the year 1990 indicated that they needed to consider which individual com- binations of facts- might take place before he could answer the question. If no change to :the network occurred, other than the Welsh Road extension and the connection of Campus Drive, which had already taken place to Alpine and to Juni pero Serra, then there would be a fairly substantial reduction in peak hour travel times out to those areas. However, he believed --the recommended mitiga- tions --the addition of the third lane and the various intersection improvements --would improve the present travel times. Councilmember Eyerly asked how the weekend traffic would be im- pacted, Mr. Peers said that the stress times tended - to be- during the week. Councilmember Eyerly Asked if the weekends might not create a higher demand for a connection of El Camino with Willow Road. Mr. Peers said he did not believe there would be congestion at the critical intersections between the project and - El Camino Real assuming that either no changes were made in allowing traffic to continue through the _Shopping Center, Or the improvements as sug- gested by PRC Voorhees. Councilmembettl_ Eyeriy--asked about the additional travel times for customers . com,p9 from . Portola Valley in terms of the number of extra signal lights. Mr. Peers said he did not believe that the amount" of travel time for Portoi a Valley customers would change dramatically as a- result of the , project. There could be at least one additional inter sectionrtu::be signalized but that might not even be required. ,asked if ..a - connection through to. Alma - Street Mr. Peers- responded that _they_ had assumed no connection going across through to -Alma Street. In the process of generating new information for .the' Willow Road EIR they looked at a number of alternatives and within those alternatives the Alma Street connec- tion was as-sumed An one and not assumed in others. The purpose was 'to understand the kinds of concerns. involved. Counci lmember Cobl: said he was struck by the fact that the staff report stated that the Willow Road connection did not _make the kinds of improvements anticipated. He was surprised at that con- clusion and said he would be interested in staff's remarks regarde i n g the Willow Road connection An light of the results of what could still happen. Chief Planning Official Bruce. Freeland said that staff planned to provide some additional information in terms of the affordability of the housing, but suggested that in view Hof the lateness of the hour, that he provide an additional report prior to the next meet- ing in order to convey that additional -information. Mayor Bechtel reminded the public that Council was not making its final decision tonight, and that a public meeting was scheduled for April ?1, 1953. She Urged all interested members of the pub- lic to attend that meeting. She said another meeting was sched- uled for May 2, at which time. Council would make its final deci- sion, Vice Mayor Fazzino congratulated the consultants for an out- standing job in putting the EIR together and for some good mitiga- tion proposals. He asked that the following comments and ques- tions be responded to in writing. 1. Wno would pay for intersection improvements after cumulative traffic impacts grew to unacceptable proportions ("no inter- section could be allowed to deteriorate beyond.a "D" level")? -Clarification about the importance ofe Galvez/Embarcadero intersection •improvements if Willow Road was not ::extended through Stanford. • 3. He was interested in the open. space allowance issue despite Stanford's rejection of it, and asked for additional staff evaluation of alternatives available to Stanford and the City particularly `along the Willow Road corridor. . 4. He was interested in water quality and sewer mitigation con- cerns particularly as related to the cumulative impact of additional usage on the system even . though sewer lines and mains would be provided by Stanford., He asked if. Stanford would pay for improvements to the Water Quality Control Plant. h. lie asked for more information about the drainage impact on the creek despite proposals made to avoid direct run off. 6, lie asked for more background on the archeological issues raised by Or. Gerow,' and particularly if there was any reason why the project would be stopped later on due to archeological concerns 7. How long the construction would take, d. Recreation mitigation: Given the impact of _.new residents. associated with Stanford on Palo Alto programs, he asked City staff to explore':.an agreement with Stanford.' to allow recipro- cal use of Stanford fields at prescribed times. 1 1 9. He asked for further evaluation of the lighting issue along -- the back side of the site both ensuring security for residents together with the problem of view for people from Menlo Park. 10. He asked for new information from -Stanford and staff about the target group for occupancy of the site, and Stanford's -sug vested alternatives for getting that target group successfully located there. 11. He asked for specific impacts'on Oak Creek and its neighbors. 12. He asked about the sidewalk. issue along Willow Road as a pose siDle mitigation measure. 13. The question of private security on the site, and ensuring a lack of additonal burden on the Palo Alto Police Department. 14. Protection of oaks on Willow Road from too much water once the project was completed. 15. Mayf i el d' s issues and their relationship to the proposal need- ed tte be clarified, and why 35 years was proposed as the lease term. Councilmember Fletcher asked for information regarding the acces- sibility for the handicapped particularly in the common areas, and assumed that the "hoptel" would have handicapped access to the units. Regarding the Title 24 regulations to go into effect in 1983, she asked about whether- they could be applied to the project since most of it would be built out over a period of years to come. She asked regarding the increase in electricity rates, whether a cost comparison should be done between space heating for the units, gas versus electricity, and 'the impact of the increased electric use on Palo Alto's reaching its limits sooner. She requested that conservation be taken into account with the thought that in the long run the units would be more affordable as well as the overall benefit of conservation including the clotheslines and solar orientation and whatever else could be done to minimize energy usage. Councilmember Renzel said she was shocked by the- model .and some of the photography of the architecture and could not decide whether the project was new urban or new rural. It looked very urban in her opinion, and she said the Council -had heard a lot of figures about how much better it was than what the City's zoning allowed.. She was interested in having a comparison done about what a con- ventional City grid system would permit with normal sixty foot streets, and the normal kinds of things that would be done in that' kind of circumstances. She believed that was a more apt compari- son in order to determine how much. -benefit was: derived from amal- gamating those properties into one large site. Streets, _even though they were thought of as detrimental soruetimes' _because they were pavement: and had cars on them, provided a lot of storm drain- age capacity, excess parkin -g < capacity;, and provided open . space between.buil-dings and units of buildings. She was not arguing for more streets but suggested -that those benefits,_ needed to be tome pensated iri some way, and comparisons_ should be madee in that regard. She found it-: hard to believe from prof-ec,t3- that were built €tensely. within Pala Alto. In the normal grid__ systei , that such massive buildings needed to be built to- get the jeinde of .densities being proposed. Councilmember Witherspoon said it :was mentioned that the gross - floor area of the _convenience stores would be -:about 2,600 square feet. She thought that was . incredibly small to ,be even minimally effective' for the,number off People' that would be using it. She was concerned that the project_ was to benefit Stanford and the majority of whom` would be working . at 'Stanford which meant those people. would have to cross the` maj r arterial at Willow Road -and there was absolutely zero provision .,made for making that easy without increasing the congestion. Further,:. she was concerned about the Oak Creek apartment complex being able to Use.. the non - grade crossing. A lot of the problems identified by the -consul- tant could be alleviated on Willow Road even without the project.' A $b,UUU,UUU nongrade crossing was not absolutely essential, but there should be some creative ways of getting those people across. that road in conjunction with a network of bike and pedestrian trails. Councilmember Levy commended everyone involved with the project, for the clarity in which a lot of information was distilled. He was interested in seeing the information on the site line from Menlo Park and the neighbors across the. creek. He was concerned about the recreation requirements, and wanted the City's input as to what the recreation. facilities and needs should be for those residents. Further, he assumed there would be another impact that the employees on Welch Road and in the shopping center were likely going to be using the site for. lunch and recreation. during the work day. He wanted some indication about the effect of that. He asked if the - restdents of the site would be able to support the services and maintenance of the site. He was particularly con- cerned ab ut: the future of Willow Road and the effect future develop dents along the Willow low corridor might have on Stanford .West. He suspected .that data was -in the EIR, but he asked for summaries about the effects if the vacant land now further up on Willow Road was developed.' He did not have the ability to visua- lize architectural designs., but was dismayed by the apparent mas- siveness that seemed to be reflected in the pictures, and assumed the project could bedone without that feeling of massiveness. ADJOURNMENT Council. adjourned at 11:-10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 1