HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-11 City Council Summary MinutesCITY ow
COUNCIL
MINUTES'
Regular ng
Monday, April 11, 1983
ITEM
Oral Communications
Minutes .of March 16, 1983
Item #1, Public Hearing: Public Hearing
re Stanford West Draft Environmental Impact.
Report
PAGE
3 1 1 9.
3 1 1 9
3 1 1 9
Item #2, Request From Ad Hoc Committee Chair 3 1 4 3
regarding. the City's Financial Structure
Item #3, Request of Mayor Bechtel Regarding 3 1 4 3
Palo Alto High School Decathlon Team Victory
Adjournment 3 1 4 3
Regular Meeting
Monday, April 11, 1983
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:45 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel. Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher
Klein, Levy, Renzel (Arrived at 8:58 p.m.),
Witherspoon
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 1983
Counc i l member Renzel said she had a number of corrections but the
set of minutes she received in her packet had no page numbers. It
might be better to defer corrections until next week.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by
Levy, to continue the approval of minutes of March 16, 1983 for
one week.
Mayor Bechtel asked Counci lrnembers to submit any corrections
the City Clerk prior to next week's meeting.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #1, PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC HEARING RE STANFORD WEST DRAFT
Mayor Bechtel said the public would be heard tonight, and that
Council would discuss the Stanford West, Project on May 2, 1983.
Vice Mayor Fazzino asked Mayor Bechtel what procedure she intended
to follow with respect to public comments and any questions the
Council might have.
Mayor Bechtel said that many people in attendance at. the meeting
had asked to speak on the matter. She encouraged speakers to be
as brief as possible, up to a maximum of five minutes, and to try
and not repeat one another.
Robb Parker, Director of Personnel for Stanford University, said
access to reasonably priced housing in Palo Alto was crucial for
staff members of Stanford University and Stanford Hospital. The
Council was previously advised of ,the importance of housing for
Stanford's faculty, but might not have heard as much about
Stanford's ongoing need to recruit and house non farulty staff.
Approximately 11,000 staff members, in hundreds of occupations,
supported Stanford's mission of teaching, research and patient
care. Because of turnover and the ever changing nature. of
Stanford's programs, people were recruited to fill over 2,000 job
vacancies each year. Affordable and: proximate housing was the
single' largest barrier toward recruitment efforts. Stanford tried
to recruit from within the Bay Area for most jobs in order to
avoid the costs of relocating people frorfl other parts of the
country. Each year, Stanford had to widen the radius of its
recruitment • effOrts to reach' sources of applicants While people
in the East Bay, Santa Clara County and other outlying areas were
intrigued by the possibility of working, at Stanford, the ._ spectra
of the commute --both in costs and time -z -often made, them balk.
Stanford was concerned that the number of, attractive alternatives
between Stanford and the potential employees was growing.. Those
1
1
potential employees asked themselves why spend valuable time on
the road each day when they could work closer to home. For those
employees relocated by Stanford, many could not afford to live in
Palo Alto, Menlo Park or. Los Altos. The further away someone
lived, the less connection felt to the University life, and the
harder it was to take advantage of the qualities the University
had to offer. Consequently, the harder it was to retain those
employees. Stanford was not the only organization in the area to
have recruitment problems. The difference was that many of those
organizations had the option of relocating all or part of their
organization to other geographical areas, but Stanford could net.
In addition to the people Stanford was trying to recruit, there
were many others who already worked at Stanford who would like to
buy a home for the first time, or rent at a more reasonable rate.
Stanford West represented a significant way to help alleviate the
recruitment and retention problems for Stanford as well as help to
sustain the quality and contribution of Stanford to the area. He
urged. Council's support.
Donald Kennedy, President of Stanford University, said he had
lived in Palo Alto for 17 years, and attended the Council meeting
to reiterate the desperate need for reasonably priced housing both
at Stanford and in the general area. The University was prepared
to help ease that shortage in a substantial way, and the Stanford
West proposal was consistent with long standing Palo Alto policies
and zoning regulations. Stanford agreed to the City's require-
ments for below -market -rate units, and was determined to make the
other units affordable to the various segments of its staff for
which it wanted to provide housing. Stanford projected that half
the housing would he affordable even by the City's definition, and
was prepared to address the design of the site and the buildings
with seriousness and persistence. Stanford believed that some of
the controversies were based on misuhderstan.dings, but was ready
to make changes. Stanford was willing to pay for its fair share
of traffic and other mitigations legitimately attributable to the
project, and accepted that some needs for mitigation might be
identified late in the history of the process, but merited atten-
tion nonetheless. Later in the meeting, the Council would hear
questions about the adequacy of the proposed measures to assess
and protect the archaeological value of the site. If the consen-
sus of knowedgeable and affected people was that the plans were
flawed, Stanford would reconsider the approach. Stanford was
willing and ready to give careful attention to present and future
recreational needs of those who would live in the new Palo Alto
neighborhood, to redefine its land use intentions in the Willow
Road corridor between Pasteur Drive and the Golf Course, and to
seek ways of alleviating the impacts of development in that area
on Willow Road. He reiterated that the Stanford West project was
in response to the call for new housing which had been heard for
so many years, as well as a response to the kinds of internal
requirements described by Robb Parker. It was not a development
intended to bring new traffic and people into the City's midst --
those residents would work at Stanford each day. Stanford wanted
it to be possible for those hundreds of people who worked on
Stanford lands to own their own homes near _their place of work, or
to rent one at reasonable -rates. In doing so, new burdens might
be created on the community,` but others might be relieved. The
proposed project was a major step toward meeting an important
social need. Further, Stanford fully understood Menlo Park's
desire to see the 46 acres remain open or t;o accommodate the low-
est possible number of, housing units. It was human nature to want
as much of one's neighboring -open space preserved as p9ssible, but
as, someone once observed, None man's loss of open space was
another't new home. There was a strong _ and undeniable relation-
, ship between density and affordability, and between density and
the total need for housing in the area. Stanford would be social-
ly irresponsible if itwere to build a small number of high priced
units on : the 46 -acre site even if it were ..all,owed to do. He
emphasized ,..that point because it represented- one that he ::hoped
could be remembered as the discussion continued, Stanford was not
making. a choice between good and evil --instead, like all difficult
choic,es, the ones faced in the proposed project were likely to be
between competing goods. Not everyone could be happy with the
outcome of a. choice which involved a collision of values, but
everyone owed one another a presumption of integrity and goodwill.
Stanford pledged to be as flexible and reasonable as it knew how.
When all was said and done, he believed Stanford West would be a
welcomed addition to the area of which the community could be
proud. He urged the Council . to give the undertaking its blessing
as it passed through the current E.I.R. process and the various
project reviews which lie ahead.
Peg Gunn, Mayor Pro Tem of Menlo Park, said it was an honor for
her to be before her neighbors to,. te: I of the concerns in Menlo
Park. A copy of Menlo Park Resolution 3521, was previously for-
warded to the City of Palo Alto. That resolution was passed by
the City of Menlo Park Council and expressed Menlo. Park's policy
relative to the Stanford West Project. She pointed out that nor-
mally Menlo Park 'Mayor Billy Ray White would address the Palo Alto
City Council, but was prohibited from doing so because of a con-
flict of interest. She read the following City of Menlo Park
Policy on Stanford West into the record:
"This position is representative of the concerns expressed by
Menlo Park residents, the Planning Commission, Transportation Com-
mission and . City Council as a result of numerous discussions and
public hearings.
"1. All prior agreements regarding setbacks from San Francisguito
Creek shall be included in any development.
"2. On the 46 -acre site, the land next to the Creek be developed
at a density compatible with the adjacent Menlo Park and San
Mateo County neighborhoods of four units per acre.
3
The portion "of the 46 -acre site farther from the Creek to-
wards Willow Road be developed at a density no greater than
seven units per acre.
"4. The height of the buildings on the entire 46 -acre site be
limited to thirty-five feet.
"5. Stanford be allowed to build up to a maximum of 500 units
including both Stanford West sites: the 46 -acre and 4.3 -acre
(1100 Welch Road) site.
"6. Separate grade crossings of Willow Road to and from the
46 -acre site to enhance the project's > association with the
Stanford campus.
"7. Design the bike path in Stanford West so that it does not
connect the San. Mateo bike bridge with additional paths in.
such a way that will attract increased bike from the project
into Menlo Park.
. " Develop the project in phases with time between phases for
evaluation of the ` prior phase and relief from noise ,levels
and construction clutter.
• Establish a Joint Review Committee to evaluate each phase of
the project and future Stanford projects which impact Menlo
Park. The committee should include San Mateo- County and
Menlo Park residents as well as members from Stanford and
Palo Alto.
"10. Provide safeguards to ensure all drain out`all limes shall
not pollute San Francisguito, .Creek, nor cause harm -to the
Creek en vi ronment.
1
1
1
i
"11. Provide safeguards to ensure that -storm drain outflow to the
Creek does not increase in volume or velocity, in a way that
will cause harm to the Creek environment.
"12. Levels of- service "D" or better be attained and maintained
on the road system and intersections serving developments
(on Stanford lands) in the Willow/Sand Hill Road Corridor
from El Camino Real to Highway #28C.
"13. Menlo Park shall not be responsible for the costs re.,aired
to mitigate impacts to Menlo Park of current and future
development outside the City of Menlo Park."
Ms. Gunn asked that the City of Palo Alto and Stanford be particu-
larly sensitive to the small town of Menlo Park.
Bert A. Gerow, 3820 Carlson Circle, said he sent letters to. the
Palo Alto City Council requesting an independent review of the
archaeological sections of the DEIR prior to its approval. His
initial letter to Mayor Bechtel, dated March 8, 1983, spoke of the
lack of specificity of information in the report. He noted that
11 pages of generalized -biographical information and a summary of
secondary sources on Costanoan or Ohlone cultures were included as
an appendix, but only three pages were devoted to an archival
review, the method of investigation and proposed mitigation.
He said that mitigation measures regarding the impact of land
development and construction on archaeological resources were nec-
essarily linked to the information generated by the archival
review, the surface survey or transect and subsurface testing. If
that information was incomplete, inaccurate or confused, the pro-
posed mitigation would be inadequate. Information generated by an
initial surface survey was not likely to be conclusive in an area
such as Stanford West, which during the past was repeatedly sub-
jected to alluvial deposition at the rate of approximately one
foot in 250 years. Only the most recent evidence of prehistoric
activity would be revealed within the "flow zone." Consequently,
the archival review and subsurface testing assume primary impor-
tance in the process of designing measures of mitigation.
He believed that for an informed judgment to be made on the ade-
quacy of the proposed Mitigation I, it was important to know the
man-hours devoted to the survey, and the number, size, depth and
distribution of excavation units employed over the 46 plus acres.
That information could be included in a report prepared by EIP for
Stanford. in 1981, cited in Footnote 2, at tine bottom of page 110.
Further, there were several omissions and inaccuracies in the DEIR
and he was not confident that the proposed measures of mitigation
would adequately recover information or preserve it for posterity.
A considerable discrepancy was found between the archaeologist's
estimate of 50,000 cubic feet and the geologist's estimate of
47,000 cubic yards in the proposed mitigation. The geologist's
figure was the more reasonable since 50,000 cubic feet would cover
only one acre to a depth of 1.1 feet.
He said that despite his request to EIP and Stanford University
Real Estate, he was initially unable to gain access to a copy of
the presumably more detailed but sensitive report. On March 9,
1982, he received a letter from EIP. informing him that the origi-
nal report :was, located in the Regional Office of Sonoma State
University and that the standard procedure for qualified archae-
ologists to obtain such studies would be through the Regional
Office. He finally contacted what turned out to .he the Northwest.
Information Office, California Archaeological . Inventory, Depart-
ment of Anthropology,, -Sonoma State University. Subsequently, he
was given the same advice by the Director of City Planning in .
answer to his letter of March 8 to Mayor Bechtel, and Indirectly
by Stanford University Real Estate, when he requested information
on, the nature of the °trenching" conducted in 1981 at Stanford
West. The "trenching" might better be described as making holes
with a backhoe.
Mr. Gerow said that on March 1l, he received a 39 -page report
entitled: "Secondary, Subsurface Archaeological Evaluation of the
Stanford West Project on Willow Road in the City of Palo Alto,
County of Santa Clara, from the Northwest Information Center,
prepared for EIP by Archaeological Resource Management. The last
11 pages were Identical to the biographical sketch and generalized
summary of Ohlone or Costanoan culture culled from secondary
sources and included as an appendix to. the DEIR. In order to
obtain a copy of that report, he signed a statement that he would
respect the confidentiality of the information contained in the
records on the pain of being denied future access to archaeologi-
cal data. Written consent of the Information Center or State His-
toric Preservation Office was required for any exceptions to that
stipulation. Consequently, the. Council would have to take his
word for the fact that except for a specific site number attached
to what was designated as the core and peripheral areas or Zones 1
and 2. respectively in the DEIR, there was nothing of a sensitive
nature in the confidential report which was not already contained
in the DEIR or was not available in published literature at the
library. An examination of the report indicated that contrary to
professional standards, none of the subsurface test units were
surveyed in from datum points. Consequently, few if any of their
precise locations could be relocated now or in the future, He
suggested that the Council ask EIP if the Director of City Plan-
ning, or the representatives of Stanford University examined that
confidential report. Unless the Council was given access to. that
report, they would have to take his word that after reading the
confidential report, many of his original questions remained
unanswered.
He was given access to the report as an archaeologist, and had the
necessary expertise to say that the archival review was incom-
plete, inaccurate and confused, and that no objective subsurface
survey was conducted in 1981. He hoped the Council understood why
he believed an independent review of the proposed mitigation by
qualified archeologists was absolutely necessary.
He said that burials and other archaeological features were
recorded along the banks of the San Franci squi.to Creek, both up-
stream and downstream from the Stanford West parcel, since 1922.
rite record of human activity .spans a. period of about 5,000 years.
Stanford West was an extremely valuable piece of real estate,
archaeologically as well as commercially. In the development of
University lands, Stanford's responsibility to the academic com-
munity was to promote scientific inquiry and set an example for
commercial interests. It was important, therefore, that the DEIR.
for Stanford West not receive the sanction of the City of Palo
Alto and not serve as a precedent for the future development of
University or other properties -with .high archaeological: poten-
tial.
Bea Woodard, San Jose, said she was a full -Hooded American Indlian
and an enrolled member of : the Calvo Confederated Tribes of the
State of Washington, the contact person at the Date of American
Heritage Commission of the County of Santa Clara, and a member of,
the Indian Burial Ground Committee of the County of Santa Clara.
There appeared to be an argument between the archaeologists and
she did not attend the meeting to endorse the actions of Dr..
Cartier, or to say that Dr. Gerow was wrong. If she wereto have
her way, the area would remain in open space and there would, be no
development. Her culture was different, bet the fact that they
believed life was a - circle, and that where they.; started they must
end, did not make them wrong. Dr. Cartier's recommendations
regarding mitigation said to put culturally sterile filters on top
of areas that were extremely sensitive. Sterile filters would
have to be more than five feet because once buildings were there,
there would be utility trenches-, and a lot of other things going
down. She suggested that the land sit aside for future genera-
tions, and_ that Americans appeared to be dig happy.:' She suggested
that if aid of an .impartial group of archaeologists made a report,
1
1
1
that Drs. Cartier and Gerow_ not - be included in the list of impar-
tial archaeologists,- Dr. Gerow appeared to be a special interest
person, but the County of Santa Clara had the Guadalupe Corridor
where 14 sensitive sites would be destroyed. They were nonre-
placeable, cultural resources, and once they were destroyed, they
would never be back. Regarding the need for the people who would
be teachers at Stanford, her peoples had the lowest rate of unem-
ployment in the United States, the highest rate of suicide and the
lowest rate of adequate housing. She wished that a little more
time and thought were put into the project.
Bob Cartier, said that the archaeological testing of the Stanford
West Project followed a pattern format similar to other such tests
in other parts of California and specifically the Bay Area. He
personally had conducted over 100 tests in local counties, and
assured the Council that there was nothing- particularly unusual.
about the manner in which the proposed mitigation measure was.
approached. The phasing of an archaeological investigation usual-
ly started with an archival review to try and understand the pre-
vious work done in, the archeological communities so that if
archaeological" sites were recorded in an area, the big picture
would be laid out before going into the field. The State of
California's system for recording archeological sites was known as
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and was funded in
part by the federal government, the state government, and fees
paid by consulting archaeologists every time it was used helped to
support the system. The Archival Data Base at Sonoma State,
referred to by Dr. Gerow, cataloged the sites by location and pro-
vided a designation such as the license plates on cars. Each
archaeological site had a numeric designations,' and Stanford
West's was "California/Santa Clara County 464," which meant it was
the 464th site registered in the County. Other sites in the
vicinity were supposedly registered in the systems but unfortun-
ately not -all of them were. The data base presented by Sonoma
State recorded one site at the Willow Street bridge and nothing
further downtown all the way to El Camino Real. However, archaeo-
logical finds were made by Stanford University in the area, but
were never properly recorded with the State system. Following the
archival review, a surface survey was conducted, and in the' sub-
ject case, it included a team of three archaeologists, which he
lead, across the property. An archaeological deposit was obvious-
ly located in a fairly concentrated area on the site, and arti-
facts in the form of prehistoric tools and faunal remains from the
dietary customs of the people were found on the surface. Follow-
ing the surface reconnaissance, a test .program was proposed to.
find out if in fact a real deposit existed, how deep it might be
and the contents of that deposit. Contact was made with the
native Americans --Bea - Woodard --to form a liaison in the event
burials were accounted for during the testing, which might have to
be discussed for recordation. Bea provided that liaison in the
field for the testing program, which was aimed at ascertaining
whether a deposit existed in a subsuriace situation, the bound- ,
aries of that deposit, and the significance of the recourse. The
method consisted of six hand dug- units --a very standard method in
archaeology --excavating in one ':meter squares down through the
deposits in ten centimeter levels and reconstructing the chronol-
ogy and behavior of the people that once lived there. Outside of.
the apparent deposit 30 mechanical trenches were excavated to
ascertain whether buried' deposits might exist. As was previously
stated, alluvial deposits frequently covered archaeological sites
around the Bay Area, and deep testing by mechanical devices could
ascertain whether buried deposits were located in places with no
surface_ artifacts otherwise.:' The mechanical trenches did not
reveal any deposits beyond the one originally found on = the sur-
face. The findings revealed that the site was over 1,000 years
old, appeared to have`been a habitation site, and'very likely con-
tained Indian Burial remains. Thus, the recommendation was to -cap
the site. According to new state,legislation in AB 9520 one of
the most recommended means of protecting a site in the- face of
development was to cover_it with dirt not containing" archaeologi-
cal materials taken from another area, to protect the site so that
1
1
when construction went on top, it had a mantel or blanket or some
kind of insulation to protect the remains of the past from the
activities of the present and the future. The site might contain
an answer to the terminal and transitional phases of what archaeo-
logists called "the middle horizon," and might contain something
very important in the prehistory of the Bay --a time of apparent
contact between groups, unrest and conflict, which answers hoped
to be gained in the future. The mitigation in their opinion was
most logical.
Alan Henderson, former Mayor of Palo Alto, 565 Arastradero Road,
said he intended to make two small presentations --one on behalf of
the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), and one on his own be-
half. The PAHC was involved with Stanford West only in relation
to the below-market-rate,(BMR) units, and took no position on the
affordability issue for the remaining units, or any other aspects
of the proposed project. Many hours were spent working with
Stanford officials on the BMR units in question, and the final
result had the full endorsement of the PAHC. The City had guaran-
teed that 15 percent of the total units would be priced within the
City's defined BMR figures. In addition, Stanford was providing
the Mayfield School site on El Camino Real for a total price of
$100,000, which would hopefully make a substantial additional BMR
rental development possible. He joined his colleagues on the PAHC
in supporting the agreement., and urged the City Council to keep
the contribution in mind during their deliberations. Solely on
his own behalf, he had several concerns from following the
Stanford West process, the largest being an attitude problem.
Anyone following the story in the media over the past year or so
got a feeling of an adversarial situation. Stanford was trying to
jani some housing down the City's throat, and the City was fighting
Stanford off. That was wrong —the City had the responsibility to
see that the project was a good one aesthetically, that it pro-
vided adequate BMR units, adequate open space, gave maximum pro-
tection to the Creek and Menlo Park neighbors, provided traffic
mitigation features, etc. The City pushed very hard for multiple
unit housing on the property, and everyone should be working in a
positive, non -accusatory vein, toward a satisfactory project.
Specifically regarding affordability, as a councilmember, he said
he played a leading role in 1977 in attempting to approve and
extend Willow Road. Among the trade-offs he insisted upon from
Stanford, and which the Council agreed to, was completion of
Campus Drive, and the development of the 46 acres in averaged
price housing. Specifically at that time, the Council said that
Oak Creek type rentals and $250,000 and up in deluxe condominiums
were not acceptable. Stanford's offer was totally in line with
that. original demand. In addition to about a 25 percent BMR con-
tribution, which included the Mayfield site, the pricing of the
remaining units was in line with the lower end of the pricing
scale not seen in Palo Alto. Lately, the City was entangled with
the term 'affordability, and had put specific terms and limits in
its definition. That might be acceptable in cases where the City
was allowing increased density in exchange for affordable units,
but that was not the case. The City had no business dictating
prices to Stanford outside of being assured that sufficient. BMR
units were provided and that the overall project was average mar-
ket priced housing. The proposed project clearly met those speci-
fications, and if the units were not affordable, Stanford would
have a lot of empty units on hand. Regarding mitigation, he asked
that the Council not ignore the mitigation which already took
place. Campus, Dri ve was completed at a cost of around $850,000,
and carried a large amount of traffic that would otherwise be on
Willow Road. Another $250,000 was being spent to extend Welch
Road so as to connect Willow Road and Campus Drive. Originally,
the City's shire of the cost -to extend Willow _ Road to El Camino
was to be around $650,000 --Stanford now proposed` to pay that
entire cost. Regarding open space and soccer fields, he did not
see how anyone could expect Stanford to dedicate lands along the
Willow corridor for such purposes: permanently:. The Trustees could
not do that legally even if they wanted to. They could, however,
3 1.2- 5
4/11/83"
create playing fields for stated time periods, and that possibil-
ity should be pursued. He said he was in the forefront in voting
for the 50 foot height limit in Palo Alto, and stated then, and
several Councilmembers agreed, that the one exception he might
consider for exceeding the limit would .be to facilitate or improve
a specific housing proposal. In the case of Stanford West, sever-
al eight to ten story buildings to house studio and one bedroom
units would result in significantly increased open space around
the two and three bedroom family units, and might even provide the
playing fields the City was anxious to have. There might well be
other reasons why going up might not be practical, but he hoped
the Council would at least take a look at the possibility. Re-
garding Menlo Park., he recalled their many public meetings a
couple of years ago lead by Stanford staff. The Menlo Park City
Council did not object to the project at that time. As the Coun-
cilmembers knew, any multiple unit development brought opposition
from the neighbors, and the opposition to Stanford West was
responded to. Ninety foot setbacks from the Creek, which resulted
in no buildings less than 250 feet from Menlo homes. The largest
structures would be in the middle of the project, and there were
no connecting streets adding traffic to Menlo Park, The City of.
Palo Alto had told Stanford for years that it expected the
University to provide more housing for its students and staff and
others working on Stanford lands. The City had also stated empha-
tically that it wanted that housing in the flatlands, rather than
the foothills. If Stanford proposed a development such as
Stanford West in the foothills, everyone would be opposed. There
was no quarrel regarding aesthetics. The project should be, and
was, subject to full design review and the approval of the Archi-
tectural Review Board. The key point was cooperation. Stanford
sought to meet the housing needs of regular staff and faculty --not
Vice Presidents and department heads --and the units must be
affordable or Stanford could not accomplish its purpose. The City
and Stanford had mutual goals, and he hoped the Council would do
its best to make the project with the highest number of units pos-
sible within the necessary, practical and aesthetic constraints.
David .Blumenthal', 1766 Willow Road, #210 s sa :,d he was president
for six years of a homeowner's group of 86 homes on 75 acres in
White Plains, and negotiated many improvements through cooperative
meetings. He was elected to the Board of Trustees of the United
States Olympic Committee and was a member of the Board of Direc-
tors of two corporations. Mainly, he served on theeRational Board
of Arbitration for 20 years; = and during that time, he learned how
to understand both sides of many questions. It was an education
that no university could match. Last year he was elected first
citizen of the year at Oak Creek. Much was said on the project,
so he would address the intent as he saw it because that was the
essence of anything anyone wanted to do. One member of the
Stanford Real Estate group referred to the Planning Commission as
"false finding." He informed that person and the test of the
Stanford group that the Planning Commission and City Council and
all governmental, departments in the City of Palo Alto were fact
finding. The City's evaluation of the facts presented required
that truth be separated from fiction, and he believed the City had
done a good job in that. respect. Regarding density and legality,
Stanford had consistently told the City that the density was
legal. He believed Stanford was scraping the bottom of the barrel
to come up with the fine print in an, attempt to justify what they
knew was. a little out of dine --the heavy, density. Stanford had,,
140 units at Peter. Coutts on 20 acres. Legality alone never made
anything justifiable. It must not oily conform, but not cause
harm at the same time. That was the true measure of legality.
The side :.:effects of legalities could be disastrous, and at
Stanford West, the legality of the density would -create havoc and
a catastrophe. Affordability perpetrated the worst offense ° in
Stanford West. The City- was advised that, _, if 100 units were
dropped, the other units would have to be raised $1,500. each,
which was nonsense in his opinion. He
discussed the matter with a builder who had built over 6,000
homes, and was unequivocably told that even if the project were
cut in half, the cost of building the units would not vary one
cent. The greed involved the value of the land Stanford put on.
the project. When the land was donated to Stanford, the stipula-
tion was that it could not be sold. The IRS had decided that any-
thing that could not be sold had no market value. The land was
assessed at about $822,000, and that could be a good figure to
use, but by Stanford's own admission, they valued the land at $2.5
million. If Stanford wanted to make the units affordable, they
could use the assessed value as a base. The Stanford . Real Estate
people were out to squeeze every last dollar they could get.
Stanford said it was not a charity organization, but should be
more community minded in his opinion. He recommended that only
750 units initially be put in to see whether the area could absorb
that amount.
Wray H. Huertis, 415 San Mateo Drive, Menlo Park, said she lived
about one block from the proposed development. Five or six years
ago, a bicycle pedestrian bridge was imposed upon the residents at
the end of her street, and as she expected, it turned her street
into a motorcycle thoroughfare, with other attendant problems like
dog owners who believed her lawn was a latrine, and joggers who
stole her newspaper if something interesting was going on in the
world. All of those things were coming in tens, twenties and
hundreds, and hence their trepidation when they understood that
Stanford proposed to place a town of 3,000 a block from her front
door. She asked the Council to seriously consider the Menlo Park
City Council recommendations that every effort be made to mitigate
the impact on the people who lived nearby, and to encourage those.
who lived in Stanford West to work and play at Stanford and not on
Menlo Park's already crowded, streets. As a matter of contrast, a
rising controversy on the Stanford campus was the proposed instal-
lation of a facility for the disposal of hazardous waste. On her
own behalf, she would rather have the hazardous` waste disposal as
her neighbor if Stanford West was put somewhere else.
Irene Sampson, represented both the League of Women Voters (LWV)
of Palo Alto, and the LWV of South San Mateo County. ,The LWV had
studied Stanford's land.:. use and had several positions which
applied to the Stanford West proposal. First, the LWV was pleased
to see the City of Palo Alto and Stanford working together to help
alleviate some of the pressing housing problems which had long
been in the City.. Further, they were pleased about the proposal
regarding the Mayfield School site for developing some affordable
rental units, and endorsed the modifications to the proposal
recommended by the Planning Commission. With regard to the 46 -
acre Stanford West site, the LWV agreed with the Planning Commis-
sion's recommendations for a slightly lower density which could be
increased with additional provision of affordable units. ' The
density of the project was the key totraffic problems which would
ensue, and those were obviously major impacts. of Stanford West.
The LWV's major concern with the proposed project was that it pro-
vide a maximum amount of affordable housing for the target popula-
tion as defined by Stanford in the DEIR. The traffic impact was
arrived at with a major segment of the Stanford population expect-
ed to work on campus or on Stanford lands. Yet, ` at the proposed..
cost for condominium units, the LWV was riot sure that the target
population would be able to afford them. If that was true, and .-a
larger proportion of the inhabitants of Stanford West would work
off Stanford lands, traffic impacts would be greater and proposed
mitigation measures would not be sufficient. Therefore, ' the LWV
urged the Council to see whether there was a way to assure that
the majority ,of the Stanford - West -..population was employed on
Stanford lands. The LWV was aware that Stanford currently admin-
istered the resale of faculty staff housing on Stanford lands in
ways which accomplished that, and believed it was -not unreasonable
to require some similar system for at least a - portion of ; the
Stanford West units. The LWV realized that was ,a difficult task,
but hoped the Council and Stanford could find some innovative
solutions. The LWV was impressed at the staff's model for miti-
gating cumulative traffic impacts --it included an interjurisdic-
tional group to study traffic problems, a device long supported by
the LWV: It further included a multi -jurisdictional agreement for
implementation of. mitigation measure. Without the active coopera-
tion of all jurisdictions involved, mitigation could not be
assured, but mitigation was necessary both for Stanford West and
for future development in the area. The LWV hoped that such a
program could be implemented prior to City Council approval of: the
Stanford West Project. They. were grateful to the staff, Planning
Commission, City Council and Stanford for the many hours spent in
public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. In a
project the size and importance of Stanford West, maximum public
participation and input were vital.
Paul F. Wilson, 45 Willow Road, Menlo Park, President of the
United Menlo Park Homeowner's Association, said that the Home-
owner's Association met with Stanford officials before the forum
meetings on the project. During the forum meetings', the Home-
owner's Association collected traffic data from both cities and
counties, and found that traffic on all the major carriers from El
Camino. to Interstate 280 had been growing at a near rate of three
percent for the years prior to 1980. DEIR page 240, figure 35,
showed the average daily traffic without the project for 1995. He
pointed out that the project included a lot of construction, and
the proposed traffic would require a lot of construction if the
1995 data were met. The increases were 26, 27 and 28 percent at
Sand Pi 1 l , Santa Cruz, Alpine and Junipero Serra. Those kinds of
volumes would be faced by the two cities and there was no other
way for the project to be properly started. DEIR page 260, figure
42, showed the peak hour service levels with the project and road-
way improvements as Tables 14 with the additions of December,
1982. With the major construction projects, D and E service
levels at many of the major intersections. Page 262 of the DEIR,
figure 43, showed the 1990 peak hour levels of service with the
project with roadway improvements including a three lane Willow
Road. The problem was that those projects were written as mitiga-
tions. Figure 43 did not include the attracted traffic if Willow
Road were open to El Camino. The roadway improvements as mitiga-
tions to traffic generation impacts would fall to Menlo Park in
the \whole of the Santa Cruz area. At the meeting of December 15,
1982, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that "the
model of cumulative traffic impacts, which contained a package of
cumulative traffic mitigations consisting of improvements, and
Tables 14 with additions should be made a prerequisite condition
for the approval of the Stanford West Project." That was hard to.
understand because it was a major problem. "A proposal to be
jointly developed by the City and Stanford for the implementation
of that package of mitigations should be accepted by the City
Council prior to approving the Stanford. West project...The pro-
posed implementation should include agreements with the County of
Santa Clara, County of San Mateo, City of Menlo Park, and'
ee
CalTrans, for those improvements in their respective juT-1sdic'
tions. The Palo Alto City Council should see that there was no
way to provide the traffic construction projects of Table.. 14 with
their additions. Menlo Park had,said it would not be responsible
for those costs. The conclusion was not a mistake-- major reduc-
tion in the project was the only answer when getting down to how
it would get done.
Betsy Crowder, Committee for Green Foothills, said the. committee'
believed that the current review of the EIR of the Stanford West
housing proposal provided an ideal opportunity for the City to
take a crucial step toward the City's land use future . and the
development of a specific plan for land use for a large:: section of
Stanford . lands. The committee supported expansion of _housing sup
ply within the existing urban area and on the Stanford West site.
Stanford's claim with respect to the benefits of added housing in
the area were undermined to:- the extent that construction of
Stanford West and several other projects nearby, along with
construction of an additional access: to El Camino from Willow Road
stimulated additional growth. The overriding issue as seen by the
Committee for Green Foothills was the opportunity to replace
piecemeal incremental planning with a comprehensive approach. A
specific plan for the Willow Corridor would require examination of
the incremental and cumulative impacts of the currently planned
and possible future projects in the Willow Corridor. Those
included the Neiman Marcus Store, the Hospital Modernization Proj-
ect and the use of lands opposite Oak Creek Apa.; tments adjoining
the golf course as well as Stanford West. As President Kennedy
had said, Stanford stood ready and willing to reconsider possible
uses of those lands --presumably the vacant parcel opposite Oak
Creek. Those were currently designated as low density instruction
and research on Stanford's land use plan. The specific plan would
a 1 so require examination of the affect that an additional connec-
tion of Willow Road to El Camino would have on incentives to
expand density along the Willow Corridor beyond what was currently
planned. The Planning Commission's approach to tie the density of
Stanford West to housing affordability and the designation of
open space represented an important first step in the right direc-
tion, and the Committee for Green. Foothills supported their recom-
mendation. Additional commitment regarding the likely demographic
characteristics of the Stanford West residents, including their
place of employment, should_ be required of Stanford. That would
allow for adjustment of the density to reflect likely traffic pat-
terns. The concurrent emergence of the issue of an additional
Willow Road/El Camino connection suggested the need for a planning
approach which went beyond Stanford West's density adjustments and
should be treated at the same time as the project. Therefore, as
part of its actions on Stanford West, the Committee for Green
Foothills proposed that the Council require Stanford to prepare a
specific plan for the entire Willow/Sand Hill Corridor providing
for comprehensive land use definitions. Such a plan would address
the issues of traffic, job growth, housing needs and open space
from El Camino Real to Gernsy Field west of Interstate 280, and
would take into account, the concerns of all affected jurisdic-
tions. It should also deal with the future use of Stanford's
other lands as they contributed to congestion in the Willow Corri-
dor. Considered in the context of specific plan, conclusions
could then be drawn as to whether an additional access from Willow
Road to El Camino was desirable. An access already existed, and
re -engineering of the traffic circulation in the shopping center
parking lot could alleviate some of the existing congestion. One
lesson of modern transportation development was that construction
ofan additional infrastructure did not relieve bottleneck if the
affect of that intrastructure was to stimulate ever greater
growth. The City Council should also consider the incremental and
cumulative impacts of currently planned and future projects else-
where on Stanford lands, i.e., such lands as Industrial Park and
Stanford North! and South which had existing open space contracts
that would began to expire in 1992. The committee's additional
concerns regarding the Stanford West project were addressed in
their letter of October 7, 1982, to the Planning Commission, and
in oral testimony both to the Commission and to the . Architectural
Review Board. Specific suggestions on the project design' itself
were to avoid repeating the planning errors of the past. Green
Foothills believed the first priority must be an overall design
and urged the Council to cease the unique opportunity which was
before it when considering mitigation measures in the context of
the EIR review.
Irene Weinreb, 348 World Trade Center, spoke on behalf of the Bay
Area Council, and said her speech tonight was a new thrustof the
Bay Area Council. The Bay Area Council represented businesses
throughout the Bay Area, ht'wever, were ,,not general 1y- involved in
housing because they were not particularly a developer oriented
business group.. About three years ago, : it ; became apparent to the
Bay Area Council board that housing affordability had had become such-
a Serious problem in the Bay Area that it did not only _: affect
developers in what they could :or could not do, but it was
1
1
1
beginning to affect the business climate and the economic health
of the entire Bay Area. The Bay Area Council, then became involved
in a study, which was followed by an action phase. The initial
traffic concerns were dealt with exhaustively in the EIR, and the
growth inducing impacts read that, "the capital improvements con-
structed to meet the gas consumption, and transportation demands
by the project residents would increase the service capabilities
of_ these, facilities beyond the requirements of the project." At
least it would not make the traffic situation worse. Regarding
the reduction in density, the Bay Area Council prepared a staff
analysis which showed that if the density of the project were
significantly reduced, a different design would be required, which
would use more open space, and which would mean a different kind
of housing and a loss of affordability. Significantly lower den-
sity would mean the loss of the opportunity to provide greater
affordability. She realized that people who had worked on the
project for a long time were disappointed because more affordable
housing was not being provided, but compared to the rest of the
Bay Area,, the Stanford West Project represented a significant
amount of affordable and below -market -rate housing. In addition
to providing 15 percent, which was over the City's 10 percent
requirement, and ended up being close to 200 units, five acres of
land was to be leased to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation at less
than its market cost for affordable housing. That was consider-
ably more than could be obtained under most circumstances, and
greater than most other communities in the Bay Area whose needs
were also for affordable housing., She urged the Council, despite
the fact that everyone would like to have more of what was a good
thing, that the effort was significant, and that the Environmental
Impact Report should be certified. The report dealt well with the
number of environmental concerns, and she hoped the Council would
look favorably when approaching their final decision on the
project.
Dolores Harrison, 2050 Camino a los Cerros, was in favor of
Stanford West. She was a long-term employee of Stanford Univer-
sity and a long term renter in the area. The Stanford complex --
the hospital and the university --was lauded the world over. for its
excellence in high standards in health care, research, and educa-
tion, but had no room for people. The people were as much a part
of the environment as trees, open space, creeks and the rolling
hills. In the past three years, rent levels in the area had
tripled, and that was after Proposition 13 which cut taxes for
property owners in half. ._:.Two weeks after Proposition 13 went
through, she received a rent increase, which had nothing to do
with inflation. , She was certain that many other renters in the
area were subjected to the same measures. Knowing the two sides
of the coin enabled her to form some definite opinions about the
human cry of some well intentioned people who were not subjected
to the inferior housing offered at the atrocious rent. levels,
"Slum learning," a term not heard too often, was the only term she
knew to describe what had transpired and what was being silently
condoned. It was easy to, justify inferior housing packed with
students and personnel being, charged atrocious rents- under the
-
guise of an investment. It was not acceptable because there was a
difference between a profit and blood letting. The blood letting
was weakening the entire Stanford complex --and the hospital and
university were hanging by fine threads and in real danger :of. suf-
fering mortal wounds unless the housing problems ceased. The
private sector which surrounded Stanford had enot answered its
needs for decent affordable housing, .and the realization that : the
t above would transpire shortly se ; Stanford's wheels in motion to
protect all that was there. She suggested that the Council think
about supply and demand factors which should upgrade the area, and
the same landlords who -would haveto upgrade and invest in enhanc-
ing rental properties to keep them rented. . Theover inflated 'rent
levels =should level off. It was no accident that elementary
schools were closing in the area --the senior, citizens in the area
could not survive on ' fixed incomes. She wondered what kind of
people the citizens of Palo 'Alto wanted. Her tenure at Stanford
3 1,2.9
4/11/83
had included working for three houses on campus while working and
observing immediate responses to plumbing, electrical and other
maintenance problems. "Immediate" responses meant within the
hour. The clean-up, paint -up, and fix -up which took place every
summer on campus assured her that Stanford was an excellent land-
lord. Her observance of pre-existing structures built and main-
tained by Stanford which neither offended nor violated anyone or
anything, but blended and enhanced, and at the same time provided
a needed housing, lead her to trust that Stanford did not intend
to ruin the environment surrounding Stanford West. The proposed
project would engender a lot of jobs for people in the building
trades, some of whom had been out of work for months on end. She
believed that most opposition to the Stanford West Project was
brought about by Stanford's generosity. She fully supported the
project.
Judith Freed, 1380 Oak Creek Drive, said there was little left to
say except that she continued to be greatly opposed to Stanford
West in its present proposed location. At the moment, many people
at home were looking at Oscar selections with all the fanfare that
only Hollywood producers could activate. The City had its mini.
Oscar with selections almost as unpredictable, and soon talks and
judgments would be concluded with a decision on the Stanford West
proposal. "Sophie's Choice" could be Stanford's choice, but from
reading about Mr. Leland Stanford, she gathered that while he was
an astute entrepreneur and a very rich and thoughtful one, he was
also a most foresighted and democratic man. The University was a
free one when founded in 1885 and first opened in 1891. In fact,
it was tuition free until 1920. How time and economics had
changed. She reiterated that the City did not want Bayshore High-
way activity on Willow Road even with efficient traffic lights and
infinite widening measures. She submitted that as a neighbor, she
did not care to see Time Square, New York activity at the proposed
site. The slides shown at a previous meeting were stills of the
architect's drawings, but the complex 'was not to be a still life.
She asked the Council to picture 4,000 people of various sizes,
ages, activities and dispositions with different vocational and
recreational aims in 46 tight acres, and submitted that it would
be a mini Time Square even to the children's squeals and buses
honks. She did not want the beautiful bounty to become a human
tragedy --a Willow's folly. Senator Leland Stanford would cringe
if he envisioned that inappropriate plan for his chosen land.
There were over 1,000 reported acres of Stanford reported land
other than Willow Road, and the view would be less like Time
Square in any other complex. She inquired whether anyone had
thought about all the flat land surrounding Foothill Expressway.
Then "Foothill Flats" and "Coutts Contingent" could easily get
together. She suggested arriving at a prudent end to Stanford
West on Willow Road.
Ira Sonde, 113 Princeton Road, said it was a few years ago that
Menlo Park's City Council sat in the Council Chambers with the
Palo Alto City Council on the Willow Road problem. It seemed as
though the creek was lef. t out of the environmental problems to a
great extent. It was not mentioned in the EIR, but he did not
believe that Stanford. and: Palo Alto fully recognized the value of
the creek to the environment of both Palo Alto, Menlo Park and
Stanford. An additional 72 inch drain line was proposed to be
dumped into the creek. Great damage had been done to the creek
over the years by water flowing into it stagnant water ponds,
etc. Stanford was a great institution, and a lot had been heard
about housing. One could not have both housing and the creekand
have the creek maintained at its current standard. There was con-
cern that the bridge which crossed the creek into Menlo Park would
become_ a main traffic_ route. He asked where the 400 children
would play --were` they to be -raised in a -n environment that the mid -
peninsula area was not used to. ' Palo Alto had developments over
the :.years . which did not speak to that sort of thing. He asked the
Council to make a field trip to the creek area to see how much
damage was done during the last storm, and to take that into con=
sideration.
1
3 3 0
4/11/83
Janet Owens, 863 Moreno, said she continued to be concerned at the
changes taking place in Palo Alto. Incomes by any measure were
increasing faster than inflation --more than county, state cr
national incomes. She did not want to live in a wealthy, elite
city. Stanford was not the only housing developer that preferred
to maximize returns. With City pressures, Stanford, more than
many others, had been willing to make some concessions. She was
concerned that if the City report on Stanford West affordability
considerations might leave the impression that affordability meant
getting as close as possible to serving those with 100 percent of
median income. That would still mean a wealthier city because no
one in the lowest half of the income scale could afford that hous-
ing. At Stanford West, families with several children would find
that the affordability point was much higher than that. The fed-
eral government had taken the position that it was up to the pri-
vate market to replace previous_ government programs. If the big-
gest and ohe best could do no more than Stanford West, it should
be clear that governmental subsidies were indeed a continuing
need. Stanford was building company housing, but it continued to
leave those needs that were the hardest to meet to Palo Alto and
other cities. She did not mean to play down what Stanford had
offered --including the very favorable price for the Mayfield site
if it could be developed as specified. The word "if" had no
potential for families with children. The Council should consider
that a no housing option clearly did not meet any needs and also
that housing for higher income people did not induce benefits for
lower income too. There was net now and never had been trickle
down housing except in the theories of self- serving pundants.
She continued to look for ways in which Palo Alto could maintain
what so many people had enjoyed in the past --a good and comfor-
table city for raising families, for knowing a wide variety of
people and for growing old in familiar surroundings. Palo Alto
policies might not be adequate in view of the changes in federal
assistance. In the past, negotiations between developers and City
staff based on good faith and flexibility had created miracles. A
willingness to try further compromise could find a way to provide
some housing for those below median income.
Dr. Roy McDonald, a professional consultant in the Environmental
Regulatory and Planning fielde, working with the firm of Geodyna-
mic from Beverly Hills. He had a PhD from the University of
Oxford in England, and a Bachelor's Degree from Berkeley. Before
becoming a consultant, he was a professor at Columoia University
teaching environmental science. Since becoming a " consultant in
the environmental field, he had prepared a dozen EIR's and also
had the experience as a planner in county government responsible
for reviewing EIR's and determining their compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He was retained by a
group of people who lived next to the Stanford West site. They
were not wide eyed environmentalists, were not against develop-
ment, and were not against Stanford University. Many of them were
alumni, and were'very concerned that the impacts of the project
would cause an unnecessary severe hardship. His firm was retained
to evaluate the EIR. Not only did his firm review the EIR, but it
subcontracted with the Guodrich Traffic Group. The Goodrich Traf-
fic Group was a pioneering firm in Transportation Planning, and
invented the capacity index and trip generation. His presentation
was both verbal and - contained -a written statement which he would
submit to the City Council for careful consideration. He attended
the Council meeting on March 16, and had heard a presentation by
staff which set forth that Stanford university had not yet submit-
ted an application for a permit --that they were considering a plan
that after the CEQA review process would be _carried out adminis-
tratively. He had asked: the Director of Planning for the City of
Palo Alto and Mayor R:echtel how CEQA was involved if Stanford had
not yet put in an application, and he was told that Stanford just
asked to have it reviewed. He went back to the California Envi-
ronmental Quin ity Act to find out how that could happen. He as-
certained that when a planner was contacted by an applicant, the
r
first consideration the planner must make was whether the proposal
was a project. The intent of the California Environmental Quality
Actwasto put a specific project before the public for considera-
tion. CEQA was clear that a project was- an activity involving the
issuance to a person or a lease, permit,` license, certificate or
other entitlement for use. A project involved application for a
permit. CEQA went on to say what was not a project. A feasibil-
ity or planning study was not a project. The planner,- with a
planning study before him, being asked to carry out the California
Environmental Quality Act must ask whether it was a project before
kicking in the law. The planning proposal put forth by Stanford
did not meet the test of the California Environmental Quality Act
for CEQA review. The certification of the DEIR that was submitted
in the current proceeding would not constitute compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act. He suggested that the Coun-
cil get together with the City Attorney and Planning Director to
discuss thematter prior to May 2. -
Mark Crane, 345 Burnett Avenue, San Francisco, was a principal
with the Goodrich Traffic Group in San Francisco. He said that
Dr. McDonald requested their services to evaluate the traffic sec-
tion- only of -the Stanford West EIR. His firm had conducted more
than 501) traffic engineering projects in the Northern California
area over the past ten years. A lot of those projects involved
the traffic sections of EIR's, and they were familiar with what
was included in the traffic, section. When his firm reviewed the
project, they strictly reviewed the adequacy of the EIR and had no
opinion about 'the merits of the particular project in question.
They were only interested in whether the EIR adequately addressed
all the issues at hand. A lot of traffic engineering was logic,
and when his firm first looked at the report, certain things
started waiving red flags. On page 19 of the EIR, where it listed
the projects specific impacts and mitigations, one would assume
that if there were over 1,400 units and over 7,000 vehicle trips
produced in a day, which was the impact of a small town, the proj-
ect would require a fair number of mitigation measures. All that
was seen in the report was that Stanford proposed some improve-
ments and constructing a new access into the project. Nothing was
mentioned about any improvements to any of the other intersections
in the area which was a little strange. He referred to pages
255-257 whi :h listed the intersection impacts due to.the project.
One could see by looking at those tables that the impacts at many
intersections were one half up to two service levels, which were
significant. Yet, the EIR did not clearly spell out any mitiga-
tions that were needed at those other intersections.. The _bottom
line of their review indicated no clear presentation of project
impacts, and they recommended that the people who did the traffic
section of the EIR keep their 100-150 pages of the traffic sec-
tion, use it as an appendix, and. come back with a 10 or 15 page
concise treatment of the problem. Further, the Goodrich Traffic
Group recommended that instead of looking at a 1990 or. 1995 future
condition where some improvements might, be in and some - might riot
that they do the typical method in traffic sections --to take a
look at the existing roadway system, add the project directly on
to_.that, and see what impacts the _ project would cause, and then
provide mitigation measures for those impacts. That way the issue
was not confused with things that ; might or. might not happen. His
firm had several problems with the assumptions made, " the main one
being that all of the results of _ the traffic section in the report
assumed that rapidly rising prices - in gasoline would_ reduce the
traffic on the roadway system such that one would get a uniform
improvement at all the intersections analyzed :-:of one service
level. However, the report went on ,,to state that if that did not
happen, everything contained in the report would be at . least one.
service level worse. It seemed logical to Goodrich Traffic Group
that such a criteria should not be. used in EIRs since it was spec-
ulatiof' at best. He recommended that a 10 to 15 page -traffic sec.
tion be done clearly setting 'forth the impacts of the project and
not confusing them with, anythi ng else happening i n the area,
3 1 3 2. .
4/11/83 -
1
1
Donald A. Phillips, 1850 Willow Road, said he wanted to speak
aboute the architects- retained: on :the project. He first became
acquainted -with the architectural firm of Donald Sandy -_and James
Babcock about ten years ago. At that time, he owned property in
Monterey, California, and he hadan idea about what might be devel-
oped on the property, and an unsatisfactory set of working draw-
ings, He told Donald Sandy and James Babcock about: the problem
and retained them to do a concept review. The contract would
terminate if it was determined that the concept review did not
work. The land use plan and concept of how the land could be
developed provided not only the 'required density, but the sort of
living space and the kind of environment in which people would
live And have a good home. Sandy and Babcock were winners of the
First Honor Award for Better Homes, an award for the excellence of
design, .and numerous other pub l tcati ons, -etc. , and probably worked
so constructively because they listened eand good ideas were
incorporated as they -came along. They did not just adapt in those
situations where the design ideas were not good or when it was not
appropriate. They mere thoughtful and professional and did good
work, -He believed they could make the plan work,
Robert Linn, 1416 Hamilton Avenue, said he was not an expert and
had no qualifications other than the fact that he had been a resi
dent of Palo Alto for many years, and was, deeply concerned_ about
the City and his own neighborhood. He believed the City Council
was obligated to the thousands of people unlike himself who were
not in- attendance at the meeting. He recognized Stanford's need
for housing, but he believed they had more than enough adequate
land to develop elsewhere on or near the campus other than the
proposed site. Further, he believed the site was chosen because
it would leave the least amount of interest on the part of people
living in Palo Alto, and thatethe affected people in Menlo Park
had the least to say about what was done with that land because it
was in another city. He lived in Crescent Park ..._because it was a
comfortable neighborhood with both medium and higher priced homes.
He said that the current levels of traffic of University Avenue
and his neighborhood were bad enough without the effect that addi-
tional housing units and people would have. It was hard enough to
get from the Stanford campus to University Avenue, and very diffi-
cult to get down University Avenue through the improved traffic
flow in the downtown area. He had such a difficult time when he
wanted to shop at Stanford Shopping Center, and it was -becoming
less desirable to shop there. He spent 25 minutes at Cirri stras '
time trying to get out of the parking lot let alone the access and
egress on Willow Road when one got up around Junipero Serra. It
was the only shopping center 1 n the entire United States where. one
happened to have a through street that ended up in a parking lot.
If the particulare project were' approved, the current problems
would be 'increased, and he did not concur with,any of the 13
points recommended by the Mayor of Menlo Park. It was _ good common
sense to look at the current. traffic patterns and- add the. impacts
.of the additional 7_;000 trips from the --additional, 1,400 units to
'see what happened. Those who prepared the reports' did elot live i n
the area-, and did not struggle with the problem. every day. He was
retired and had nothing else to ---do but try to stay out of the
traffic and -off --the, - streets.. -:Unfortunately, he did have errands
to do ,and it was. becoming- more: di fficult every d.ay for a :Man his"
age to- face- the problems.- He- hoped `the -Council would --°consider his
comments in. the spirit they- were givens --_not as 'an expert, -but as a -
citizen of Palo Alto, •and one 'of the people living in the -area who
wanted to continue to do so in peace, quiet and comfort. He
believed Stanford was becoming greedy.
.RECESS !ROi1 9:30 �r.m. TO 9:50 p.m.
.e-..ir�a�e�isprir.r�.�n��.�.rrri..G.rrwre�.g.�.+w�sr��
3 1-3 3
4/11/83
Arthur Bolton, 1161 Bay Laurel Drive, agreed with the need for
additional housing, but not entirely that everyone from hither and
beyond needed to become a part of Stanford. He believed that
other universities should also be given the chance to survive, and
asked what happened with the_ first proposed site. Pictures of the
creek illustrated what had happened with the storms. .Undercutting
took place at the Allied Arts. Guild and part of their area and
walkways were going. According to the contractor, $64,000 was
spent to stabilize the bank on the Menlo. Park side opposite
Emerson Street to keep the lot in tact. Me heard a lot about the
amount of dumping of concrete blocks, etc. on the Stanford side of
the project which was pushing the water over so that it was under-
cutting in Menlo Park. If Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Stanford were
going to cooperate, they should to work together to protect the
creek.
Elsie Bugle, 1319 Bryant, said she supported the Stanford project.
For some time, the City Council had exhorted the major employers
of the area to do something about the jobsihousing imbalance, and
Stanford West was the first significant approach towards allevia-
ting that problem. Stanford had done a sensitive job of making
concessions to the environmental concerns and to the affordability
concerns. She hoped the Council would keep its eye on the main
issue and not be pressured to reduce and dilute the density. She
was a realtor and well aware of the terrible need for moderate
housing. Stanford West did more to address that need than any-
thing which had come along for a long time. Open space was an
upper middle class luxury and the 1980`s produced the socio-
political reality of the need for people space. The project
addressed that need, and she hoped the Council would continue to
support it without tearing it down.
Howard Ross, 1605 Bay Laurel, Menlo Park, said: he had lived in his
home for ten years and in the Menlo Park area since 1965, He had
been a transportation and traffic engineer for about 19 years, and
had some professional interest in the DEIR. His home was in Menlo
Park, but his office was in Palo Alto, and he had also been
through a couple of environmental impact statements from the
standpoint of transit projects. His comments related to the
aggregate affect of the large projects on Palo Alto and Menlo.
Park. By themselves, the effects were not too different from
those stated in the DEIR, but the cumulative effects of it togeth-
er with the 38 other planned projects up and down the peninsula
would ultimately consume everyone. If in 1990, 1995 or 2000, peo-
ple complained about traffic, parking, noise, air quality and the
quality of life in Menlo Park and Palo Alto, they would have no
one else to blame but themselves, and would have to live with the
decisions. He showed a diagram from the 1982 report by the Metro-
politan Transportation Commission (MTC) in conjunction with the
Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) MTC wa.s an
umbrella planning agency for the Bay Area and the report showed a
20 to 60 percent increase in the 101 Corridor traffic in about 10
yea's. There were 38 projects planned between Mountain View and
San Francisco of which Stanford West was only one. There were 20
million square feet of retail and office space going into that
corridor; 6,000 hotel rooms, and 7,500 residential units. The,
entire Bayshore Corridor would see an increase in traffic of about
25 percent because of all the developments, which would add about.
62,000 cars primarily on 101. The traffic would also=.increase in
the residential areas because ultimately the congestion on the
major arterials would be too hard to handle. Transit was : general-
ly weak in the area, ". and his figures showed that nine percent of
the peninsula commute trips were made by transit --or about three
percent of _, all trips. in the area. The developments were piecemeal
like everything else in the region, and there were piecemeal addi-
tions to the problems of transportation. The aggregate effect was
the important issue --and a solution to the larger system problems
could not be piecemeal. The D€IR was "a piecemeal approach, and a
Band-Aid on a big problem. Long-term solutions such as regional
transit „or freeway widening were needed, '`but were not likely
1
1
1
were not likely because it was not realistic to think that state
or federal funds would be available for those large scale improve -
.,^„f in the region., He urged that the Council take those face
tors., which would influence the quality of life in Menlo Park and
- Palo Alto, into account. -Further,' he asked the. Council to think
of what it would be like in 1995 when rendering its decision.
Dave aildea, 435 Hermosa Way, said everyone agreed that Stanford
West would be a huge and dense project. It would he six percent
of the population of Palo Alto and 50 acres. A project that size
would inevitably have large impacts on the surrounding area. Most
people also agreed that the negative Impacts would fall most heave
i ly on the immediate residential neighborhoods —Oak Creek and
Menlo Park. The portion of Menlo Park next door to the Stanford
West site was an established single family residential neighbor-
hood. The Stanford West proposal called for five story cement
block buildings to be built within about 200 feet of the nearest
residence, which was less than a house three doors down the
street. Everyone Just be willing to make sacrifices -if the mid -
peninsula housing shortage was- to be solved, but, Palo Alto and
Stanford was asking Menlo Park to make sacrifices they were not
willing to make. themselves. He presented a slide which compared
Stanford West with Palo Alto's plans for the development of its
six school sites compared with Peter Coutts and compared with the
five other sites listed in Stanford's 1982 Comprehensive Plan.
Palo Alto, Peter Coutts, and the ether Stanford sites were all
being developed at a density of about eight units per acre. For
some reason, Stanford West was being developed at 29 units per
acre. More impressive was the range of densities within the Palo
Alto schools. Palo Alto was allowing six school sites to be
developed, and the range was from three to sixteen units per acre.
The school sites nearest residential neighborhoods were being
developed in the three area; Hoover, between the Middlefield resi-
dential areas was being developed at sixteen units. There was a
large buffer zone --2.7 acres --being left on the Hoover site be-
tween the high density development, which was in the midst of the
commercial zone, and what residences were already there. He com-
pared that with the five story buildings going in 200 feet next to
the Menlo Park residences. Stanford's proposed densities -were
between five and seventeen units per acre --far short of the 29
-units per acre being proposed for Stanford West. The Quarry Road
site was half the distance to Stanford, and just as close to. the
.:shopping_ center, yet Palo Alto and Stanford proposed to develop
that site at 12 units per acre rather than at the 22 or 29 pro-
pesed at Stanford West. The most troublesome problem with the
Stanford West proposal was not its density, but its density com-
bined With the great size. High density alone was not necessarily
detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. A few hundred Units
would not have a great negative impact whether they were tightly
or -loosely packed. Palo Alto had. shown its willingness to allow
some very dense developments to be done, however, none of them
were much mere than one -tenth the size of Stanford West: The neg-
ative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood would be correspond-
i ng1,y one. -tenth as great. One of Palo -Alto's most dense develop-
ments was Waverley Plaza, which was 15 units --Stanford West was 97
times as large. The Stanford West proposal would be six percent:
of the- entire Palo Alto population: if Oak .Creek were added, it.
would be eight percent of Palo Alto's population.. The Council was.
considering stuffing eight percent of the entire population ono a
narrow strip: -one-quarter mile wide, next to- a Menlo Park single
family nei gh_boehood. If the _Council approved that proposal„ he
believed It''was unlikely -,anyone, would think the Council acted in a
moral, reasonable and fair manner.
Bob Moss, `4010 Orme, said that John Parsons, President of the Palo
Alto Civic . League asked him ,to make ;a statemtnt .to the Council on
Its behalf. The League discussed the Stanford West Project sev-
eral times :at Steering Committee meetings, and transmitted a
letter, dated October 29, 1982, to the Planning Commission. The_
3 1 3 5
4/11/83
League preferred fewer than the proposed 1,429 units be con-
structed -on the site, and. that -there be a great separation across
Willow Road at ,Pasteur. At the March 16 1983 meeting, the Steer-
ing Committee discussed the project further and basically con-
:curred with the recommendations of the -Planning .Commission. The
committee also discussed the gist of the letter received from the
committee for Green Foothills, and concurred with their comments
and specifically with the need for planning on a. comprehensive and
specific basis for the entire Willow Corridor. Personally, he
raised the issue of affordability. As the Council had heard a
number_ of times, the land .cost was a key issue. The land at
Stanford had no true market value because it could not be sold
according to the terms of the Will and the Deed restrictions..
Marketability, not existing, the affordability, based on land, was
difficult to justify. Density, therefore, could not be justified
strictly on the basis of land cost. Excessive density could have
serious adverse consequences without adding anything to the
affordability of the project. Further, there was 178 acres in the
Willow Corridor which was open for development and which had no
present plans. Some.of that land might be developed'or proposed
for development before the 1990-1992 period when the Stanford West
Project would be completed. That could have a serious cumulative
impact. He was glad to hear the Stanford representatives talk
about reevaluating provisions, for recreation and open space near-
by and to providing a little more insight into future developments
in the Willow Corridor. That was a serious aspect of the mitiga-
tions to the project, and he suggested that the Council wait for a
more precise definition from Stanford -as to what was meant for
those areas before going forward. He asked the Council to remem-
ber that land had a carrying capacity. Stanford had chosen to put
other than housing uses on the Willow Corridor land up Until
recently. Land was proposed to be used for housing many years
ago, and was only now being put forward. He suggested that much
of the carrying capacity of the land had already been consumed by
the existing uses. A comment made during one of the Planning Com-
mission's hearings was that maybe at some point in asking for
projects, the City had to tell an applicant or developer that it
was sorry but that carrying capacity for the area was already con-
sumed, The carrying capacity -of the Willow Corridor was consumed
by other than housing projects previously. With regard to the
flooding.aspects, the EIR comments of April 11, 1983, suggested
covering the 46 acres currently in open space fields with imper-
vious cement and buildings. That was never addressed and he
believed it was a serious problem. . Further, the DEIR said that
the area of, the site was outside the flood zone according to the
1980 Map. It might be true, but 'irrelevant because many areas in
the City, not covered by the 1980 Flood Map, were flooded in
January.
Claudette Gregg, 1.10 Arbor Road, said she represented about 600
people and would present two different petitions. She pointed out
that although there were 600 signatures on the petitions, 99 per-
cent of the people asked to sign. The community most directly
affected in terms of location was Menlo Park, and yet Palo Alto
had jurisdiction over the project. The people of Menlo Park real-
ized they were not constituents of the Palo Alto City Council, but
asked that they tare about their :concerns. The people of Menlo
Park recognized that in 1978, the PaloAlto/ Stanford Forum stated
that since the ;location of the site was not near Palo Alto single
family dwellings, there would be minimal political opposition.
She quoted from. the Forum "..-..-because _the —site is not near- estab-
lished single family Palo Alto residential neighborhoods, it was
likely to encounter minimal political opposition from Palo Alto
neighborhoods, and, therefore, offered a unique opportunity for an
open Planning cooperative process between Stanford and Palo Alto."
She asked the Council to consider that Menlo Park citizens would
be the most impacted because. they would face Stanford West,. listen
to their concerns and that presented by the-. Mayor Pro Tern of -Menlo
Park. Those who intensely situdi,ed_ the. FIR were very -concerned
about the kind of -traffic that would` be engendered by such a
project, and page 260 of the DCIR noted the five signalized inter-
sections between Santa Cruz and Pasteur Drive would operate at
Level E or worse, even with the roadway improvements. Page..258
pointed out that there would be 10,635 person based trips per day
because it was estimated that 40 percent of the people would use
bicycles. The people were concerned that the overly congested
Willow Road would not be able to bear that amount of traffic in
addition to the 3,000 people needing to cross back and forth. The
citizens wrote a petition to the Palo Alto Planning Commission and
City Council requesting that between each phase of the proposed
construction, an open planning process take place to review the
actual environmental impacts, of the previously completed phase of
the traffic on Willow Road and related streets, the foot and bicy-
cle traffic to adjacent Menlo Park neighborhoods, the noise and
air pollution and the condition of the creek. Based on that re-
port, the construction of subsequent phases could be adjusted to
meet acceptable standards of the Menlo Park, Palo Alto and
Stanford communities. If Palo Alto were to accept the proposal in
phases., it would have some control over the .actual statistics gen-
erated rather than projected ones. Menlo Park was invited to open
planning processes in 1980 after the Palo Alto/Stanford Forum.
The site's location was already stated when Menlo Park was invited
to the open planning process. Regarding the comment that Menlo
Park's objections were unknown at that time, records from both the
Menlo Park City Manager and City Council indicated that several
communications were documented that. Menlo Park continuously
objected to the density levels. The second petition offered a
more reasonable alternative for the area. The additional 500
names proposed that the 46 acre site be developed with single fam-
ily dwellings along the Creek, and pointed out the Palo Alto's
Cottage ` Zoning law could be used to have attached smaller dwell-
ings which could be used as the BMR units. That way Palo Alto
would still get the affordability of the BMR units, and 66 percent
of Stanford's faculty had indicated their preference for single
family dwellings. Stanford's 1982 housing report stated that some
parcels of land would be dedicated for future single family dwell-
ings on quarter acre lots. If any other residential units were
placed on the site, they should be limited in height to two stor-
ies. That also fit in with the 1982 housing report from Stanford,
which stated that for the other staff in addition to faculty, the
buildings as stated on page 45, should be tiered flats or town-
houses, and that mid to high rise buildings should be avoided.
She suggested that the proposal contained in the petition, which
provided for lower density and lower housing would be more appro-
priate to the area and also would meet some of Palo Alto's and
Stanford's housing needs.
Dick Myquist, Santa Cruz Avenue, Menlo Park, said his house was
not fancy or expensive and would not be any more expensive than an
average house in Palo Alto. Development of the Stanford West..com-
plex would be the equivalent to ten percent of the population of
Menlo Park, or six percent of Palo Alto's population, in a 46 acre
area.: The idea that the residents, would all work at Stanford was
a myth. The President of Stanford described their problem re-
cruiting a large number of personnel each year. He sympathized
with that problem and the problem of finding housing for those
people, but the large turnover indicated a reasonable transient
academic community. When those people left Stanford, there was no
requirement that they sell to other Stanford people. Even if each
of the living .,units . initially had a Stanford employee, there would
still. be 1,000 to 2,000 non -Stanford employee spouses and children
making trips each day. After a few years of normal turnover on
the open market, the majority of residents was likely to be non -
,Stanford employees. The idea that 40 ,Percent of all the trips
would be on bicycles to : Stanford was ' a myth. The Menlo Park
neighborhoods wou 1. d.. be damaged, and Stanford would still be faced
with finding living, space .. for 2,000 = new bodies each year. The
only real mitigation for the project, would be to reduce the
density to correspond with the surrounding community. Stanford
claimed it would benefit from affordable housing, and he suggested
that it be provided at a reduced density.
George Cody, 941 Emerson Street, spoke for Stanford West,
Stanford, and concepts in keeping with what he saw as a quality of
the City, the site and the institution. Stanford West was an ex-
cellent site for housing, however, the proposals for building the..
housing had met with less enthusiasm than a packing plant for dog
meat, which was understandable under some circumstances. The
project was enormous, but was composed of tiny ideas. The intui-
tive response to reduce the size of the project to the size of the
ideas was appropriate. The density was correctly a function of
design concepts, and was determined after considering how a site
might be used. If the present site plan was insisted on by
Stanford, he believed that while drastic reductions in the density
were appropriate -arid defensable, they were an unacceptable misuse
of an extraordinary asset. In other words, h.e did not- think the
project should be low density. He believed that a density of
1,200 or more units was a reasonable minimum, and was an important
enough decision for the Council to reject out of hand the a proposed
site plan. Traffic was generally a bogus issue, The main point
of the project was that people who worked at Stanford would live
within biking and walking distance of work and would not be in-
volved in the commuting process that now taxed the streets. The
EIR failed to present a plan . and a demonstration of how people got
back and forth from where they lived to where they worked. The
real problem was Willow :,Road and until that was dealt with, the
problem would not be solved. The EIR did not seriously consider
any alternatives other than the stop light. The critical internal
site failure was treating the streets from a traffic engineer's
viewpoint which was that of a roadway. That was an essential
feature, but a minor one. There was little other conscious con-
sideration or understanding of what the street might do. Open
space in an urban area was not the same a.s open space in a sense
that most people felt when thinking of words like the Mid -Peninsu-
la Regional Open Space District. The principal , public open space
in most towns and cities was the public street though rarely
thought of as anything besides a roadway. Effective open space
had to have a purpose clearly stated and understood. It was not
enough to leave a formula space between buildings and color it
green. In reading the EIR and its consideration of the effect of
the site plan, he saw no clue to the psychology of space, the in-
volvement of buildings with, the ground or the sky, the character-
istics of a neighborhood that would make the site work for its in-
habitants, or the basic design features that would make such a
place an experience sequence of long lasting value. He saw no ex-
pression of the art of building cities, He proposed that the
Council congratulte Stanford's representatives for their patience,
and stay out of the management and allocation of ..their units, and
_heave the density to be a site design function and reject the pro-
posed site plan.
Frank Patitucci, 1437 Dana Avenue, said he was concerned about the
issue because he was a Palo Alto resident, a Stanford graduate,
and taught a course at Stanford. His profession involved relocat-
ing employees to the San Francisco Bay Area. Everyday, the indus-
try dealt with problems of trying to bring people -to the area.
The fact that the proposed housing would. be used . for Stanford em-
ployees and those who worked. on Stanford lands would not create
more jobs. The student body of the Stanford campus was still the
same as when he was there 20 . years ago, but if other industries
could follow the pattern °of Stanford University, - or could somehow
develop housing commensurate with some attempt to try and balance
jobs and housing, the City,. of Palo Alto would have less of a prob-
lem, He had not studied 'the EIR in detail and had not participat-
ed in the discussions about the environment, design and traffic.
He;. had traveled .Willow Road for many hears, -and _ had some awareness
of the Oak Creek 'development. Net many people would complain that
Oak Creek etas an unacceptable place to live' or had not added to
the general character of the area. A project with densities
8
1
approximating those of Oak Creek should be accommodated with some
reasonable mitigation between. Stanford and the City Council. He
urged tht the Council support the project because in his opinion
1,200 units in the proposed location would be a reasonable addi-
tion to the housing stock.
Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, 301 Vine. Street, Menlo Park, :spoke as a
clean air transport systems designer, personal representative of
the 2,000 people - in the area of the Sand Hill/Willow Corridor, and
the Committee for Safe and Sensible San Franci squi to Creek 'Area
Routing. She presented a chart entitled "Carbon Monoxide Hot
Spots by City Bay Area." A "hot spot" was a place' where there was
more carbon monoxide than was compatible with health by the
Federal National Ambient Air Quality.standards. All the major
cities in the area were included on that chart. Menlo Park ,and
Palo Alto were among the hottest spot cities in the entire. Bay
Area. All the intersections along the Willow/Sand Hill Road and
all the intersectiris An the, vicinity and all of Palo Alto s down-
town were intensely polluted with too much carbon monoxide.
Twenty or thirty years ago, Palo Alto had a reputation of clean
air. Once in awhile in a newsletter entitled "Air Currents from
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District" made comments like
the Bay Area's air quality was the cleanest in 20 years, That was
a misrepresentation,- -and a careful reading of the article would
indicate that it specifically related to "O -Zone," and not carbon
monoxide and other pollutants. The Bay Area Air Quality Manage-
ment District was charted with the control of stationary sources,
which did not include vehicle resources. That 'was the type of
pollution in the area. They realized there were many questions
from Councilmembers and planners as to the total development
Stanford had for the area. Those answers had not been forth-
coming. A hearing was scheduled for Wednesday at the San Mateo
County Planning Department in the Supervisors' Chamber regarding
another development. Stanford was doing piecemeal planning.
There should be a full disclosure before a decision was made, and
there should be a clean air transport systems design of the area
before any development took place, That would not necessarily
close the area for housing, but it was not acceptable to the Com-
mittee for Safe and Sensible San Francisquito Creek Area Touting
to put in any more development. The committee asked the Council
to defer the proposition until a clean air transport system was
designed and in operation.
Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said she was stuck by the fact
that there had not been Council meetings of the type tonight for
about ten years. The reason could ``be the fact that the people
were in an era of agreement --there had not been many changes, and
people had not.; found it necessary to protest changes in the.
offing. People did not want increased urbanization, and she
emphasized that the. 46 acre project was increased urbanization.
When one was told the number of dwelling units would be greater
than the entire number of dwelling units in the last ten years,
one had to be impressed with the density change that represented.
R-4 zoning was inappropriate for an area as large as the one pro-
posed. There were many such zones in Palo Alto, but they were
usually small sites. She was not aware of any project in Palo
Alto or the immediate .area that was as dense as Stanford West or
anything approaching the 46 acre site. The people were told the
proposed development was necessary to decrease the jobs/housing
imbalance, but no one ever talked about the other side of the coin
and how to curtail job growth so that it was not another step in
an endless chain. Many people in the community were willing to
support something like Stanford West if they were convinced that
the housing would really be affordable, but it was hard to tell
whether the Stanford West housing would remain affordable. It
appeared that::many people who worked at. Stanford would notNbe able.
to afford living at Stanford West. Stanford apparently was _charg-
ing top dollar for their ..land, determining t'e . value of the land
and charging the full .price of : the land against the project. The
r
cost of the land could be subsidized as the City of Palo Alto had
chosen to do, but she did not see that happening. Stanford had
even failed to control the resale prices. If the housing were to
become less affordable than it was initially, everyone would lose.
That would mean the housing was by and for Stanford, but in Palo
Alto. It would be housing in the community that .many people did
not want in, it represented more people, a- denser- situation and -a
more nearly metropolitan area. The Council might be willing to
compromise and give in if the housing were going to be affordable
and remain that way. The residents would be Palo Alto residents,.
and all residents of Palo Alto were entitled to the same level of
services and amenities. Any complaints to come later because of
the way the project was built would all go back to Palo Alto.
While it was tempting to compromise and think the project might
not be ideal, but the need was great and it could be made to work,
one- really needed to look ahead and think down the road a few
years about what the City would be faced with and how the concerns
would be answered. It was encumbent on everyone to consider the
proposal carefully and look, plan and think just as carefully for
what it would -do to the community just as Stanford was carefully
planning what it would do for them.
Frank Morrow, Director of Real Estate for Stanford University,
said that in view of the hour and number of statements, he was
available to answer questions.
Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing closed.
City Attorney Diane Lee responded to the legal issues suggested in
the comments prepared on behalf of the Citizens for Sensible
Development by Geodynarnics. She construed the comments and docu-
mentation in support of those legal issues to say the EIR was
being reviewed too early, that it could not be reviewed prior to a
specific application ---that was not the case. Subsection A(3) of
the section from the EIR guidelines which was quoted 'to support
that contention read, "...an activity involving the issuance of a
lease permit or other entitlement," but did not say for which an
application was recieved. Section 15013 of those same EIR guide-
lines, which governed the City's activities under CEQA, contained
a section entitled "Time for Preparation," was .specific on the
issue and said, "Environmental documents are useful planning tools
to enable environmental constraints and opportunities to be con-
sidered.before project plans are finalized. Environmental docu-
ments should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning pro-
cess to enable environmental considerations to influence project,
program and design." She construed those sections to mean that
the Council's conduct was appropriate and proper under CEQA, and
that the timing of the particular environmental review was more
than proper. She planned to follow-up her oral comments to the
Council with a written report on the issue.
Mayor Bechtel said that for the record, the Council received let-
eers at their places tonight from the following -individuals:
Jeannette K. Ringold; Carlton W. Dawson; Herbert Stone, President
of- Tragon Corporation; Edna Lee Tompkins; Julie Marx;, Angela
Haight; Charles Brandon and Burt Avery as well as numerous other.
letters to which responses were already made.
Mayor Bechtel -said -staff requested that if Councilmembers-had
quest -tons ons which were not already- asked, that they present them now
,i n:, order to have -0e answers "ardor to the next meeting on May 2,
1983.
Counci lmembee Renee) . asked staff --,to briefly review the Council 's
latitude within the scope of approving an EIR in order for -Council
to think about what type of action would be taken later.
i
1
1
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland responded that the major.
action the Council would take on the EIR would be a decision
regarding certification of the EIR as a complete document. The
question would be whether the Council was satisfied that all of
the environmental impacts of the project as described in the docu-
ment were satisfactorily addressed, and whether potential mitiga-
tions for those were identified in the document. To that extent,
he believed the Council's latitude was simply to be satisfied that
an adequate job was done. Beyond that and after the certification,
of the EIR, . staff would ask the Council to take a number of pre-
liminary passes through matters of substance in the project itself
for the purpose of advising Stanford on many aspects of the site
plan, the proposed below -market -rate housing agreement, and other
features. The Council would be free to give such advice on those
matters as it was, ready to give at this point in time, but they
would not constitute decisions.
Councilmember Renzel ` said some of the mitigations proposed by the
Planning Commission involved the affordability, open space and
other issues. She asked what would happen if the Council approved
the EIR and the concepts presented by the Planning Commission and
no subdivision was requested, what further review the Council.
would have of the project to assure that the . contemplated mitiga-
tions took place.
Mr. Freeland said, that if there were to be no subdivision of the
property, it was possible that it might not return to the Council.
The future discretionary review of the project would be the archi-
tectural design of the site plan and the buildings, which would
occur at the Architectural Review Board. That would only get to
the Council if the ARU decided to invoke the new provision in
their ordinance which allowed them to refer a matter to the Coun-
cil or if the matter went to the Council on appeal. The other
discretionary approval would be the use permits for the day care
center and the convenience store . which would go to the Zoning
Administrator unless that was appealed, in which case it would be
before the Council. The subdivision map was the only future
approval guaranteed to he before the Council. . He understood that
the subdivision was basic to, Stanford's proposal, and expected it
tosbe before the Council.
Councilmember Cobb asked for clarification that the certification
the Council was supposed to undertake on May 2.would at least con-
tain the mitigations already in the. document. He asked if the
Council ...would need to identify all mitigations to be either added
or elaborated upon or otherwise incorporated that were not expli-
citly or implicitly there by May 2.. He asked if the Council would
have another opportunity to add mitigations if one were missed or
not completely addressed. An example was the question of some
kind of recreational component. Various mechanisms were discussed
whereby the University might provide additional playing fields to
all residents of Palo Alto including the new residents of Stanford
West. Another one was that there were other intersections besides
Willow Read that would be badly impacted even If modifications
were made to Willow Road, He could imagine the Council raising
questions of some-. mitigations there as well, and that was not
clearly specified.
Mr. Freeland - urged the Council to bring forward any, specific valid
mitigations which were missing from the document. He believed
that given the course of the next few months after the EIR was
certified, if whole new thoughts occurred, they could- still be
dealt- with in that the City would have its own land use powers of,
conditioning projects. to deal with future approvals. He did not
know whether it was possible to :bring- in new mitigation measures
later.
Ms. Lee.. said _anewmitigation, measures ._could not be presented later
unless they met the requirements of subseq uen'et EIR's. She asked
the toundl to remember that r itigation measures was a term _ of
3-1'4 1
4/14/83
art that related to the environmental process. That did not
necessarily_exclude the Council from proposing other types of con-
ditions in other. contexts and other types of approval.
C-ounci i member Cobb said it appeared that the Council had a bit of
homework to do between now and May 2. ,Specifically regarding_ the
recreational fields. If the Council:wanted to do something in
that particular area, it was better to have something worked out
in advance that made sense and was thought through by staff. He
asked about the Council's best mechanism to' fra ie those kinds of
things An order .to be contained in the document as sensible miti-
gations.
Mr. Freeland said that if staff had a general intent to find a
mitigation to accomplish a certain purpose in terms of providing
recreational needs of the project, that left latitude for the
future to work out the details. He believed the Council would
find that the question of recreation was dealt with on a general
level, and referred to the March 16, 1983 Summary of Project
Impacts and Mitigations prepared by EIP Corporation. That was
probably the best starting point for reviewing the recommended
mitigation measures as seen by the Planning Commission. He
believed that would be the best common format to work from prior
to the next meeting.
Councilmember. Cobb said if the Council compiled the general com-
ments of particular mitigations it desired to be included in the
approved document, there were points downstream from May 2 where
the Council could work out the specifics and details.
Mr. Freeland believed the details could be worked out as long as
the intent was contained in the mitigations.
Councilmember Renzel asked if the suggestions from members of the
public to phase the project and evaluate the validity of the envi-
ronmental impacts on a phase by phase basis, could be done, and
when that type of condition would be plugged into the process.
She had watched projects for a long time, and it seemed like the
environmental impacts attempted to identify what would happen, but -
a lot of things happened that were not necessarily identified.
She believed it was appropriate for a project as large as Stanford
West to have re-evaluation points.
Mr. Freeland said if he understood Councilmember. Renzel, it would
be nhaseu approval of the project itself. Rather than approve
\the general layout for. the whole project, the Council might only
approve a few hundred units at one pass, and approve a few hundred
more units later on dependent upon how the first ones worked and
so on until the Council reached a number with which it was satis-
fied. He believed the City had the power to insist on a smaller
project and to phase it. That approach worked an extraordinary
burden on Stanford in staff's opinion and might work against the
City's ability to get many of the -overall mitigations it believed
wereneeded for the project. If Stanford was going to be asked to
commit a lot of money up front and,early in the project for land-
scaping, and for putting in the major utilities for committing
that large open space, it would be difficult for them to make
those kinds of major'commitments if they only had the ability to
rely on a few hundred units ir, an initial phase. While he
believed techniques could be found to accomplish phasing, staff's
position so far was that it did such harm to the practical ability
of Stanford to carry out a project with affordability and major
mitigation commitments, such as a third lane on Willow Road,. that
staff would not recommend i t .
CouncilMember.;Eyerly clarified that it would be advisable for the
Council to bring forth and debate the process of mitigation mea-
sures it might wish to negotiate with Stanford, 'and for a policy
stand to be taken .:by the Council. on Kay 2. That way staff would
have an ample opportunity to discuss. the- pros and cons of the
Council's desires, and could negotiate with Stanford University,
prior to the subdivision request.
1
Mr. Freeland said that was correct. He asked Council to remember
that the actual decision regarding mitigation measures to be im-
posed on the project would occur with the future subdivision and
Architectural Review Board review of the project. The Council was
currently trying to ensure, on an informational basis, that all of
the pertinent ideas were contained in the Environmental Impact
Report itself. Those were the requirements for certification, and
beyond that, staff and Stanford were looking for advice as to the
Council's preference at this point in terms of the mitigations in
order for Stanford to work on its plans with that in mind, and for
staff to work with Stanford. In that way, hopefully when the
project itself came in, the City would have a better chance of
securing all of those mitigations. Staff's format to answer the
questions previously raised by the Council was to put them in
writing for distribution to the Council. Staff did not intend to
spend any time on additional presentations of those answers unless
specifically requested by the Council.
Councilmember Eyerly said a lot had been said about the price of
the units and the ground value Stanford had placed on the proper-
ty. He believed it would helpful if the Council knew what ground
value was placed on the property.
Mr. Freeland said staff would ask Stanford to submit a letter to
the City Council in regard that question.
REQUEST FROM AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR REGARDING THE CITY'S FINANCIAL
Mayor Bechtel said that the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee regard-
ing the City's financial structure requested that Counci l members
be present at a meeting on Thursday evening, which would need to
be called as a Special Meeting.
REQUEST OF MAYOR BECHTEL REGARDING PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, that staff pre-
pare a resolution congratulating the Palo Alto High School Decath-
lon Team on its victory.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 11:00 p.rn.
ATTEST:
APPROVED: