HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-07 City Council Summary MinutesCItY
COUNCIL
MINUTCS
Special Meeting
Monday, July 7, 1983
CITY
or
PAtc.�
r?LTJ.
ITEM PAGE
Item #1, PUBLIC HEARING: Stanford West 3 5 5 1
Draft EIR
3 5 5 p
7/7/83
Special Meeting
Thursday, July 7, 1983
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at
7:45 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb-, Eyerly, Fazz i no, Fletcher,
Klein, Le -.y, Renzel, Witherspoon
Mayor Bechtel noted that this was a special, meeting and the only
item to be discussed was the Stanford West Graft EIR.
ITEM # 1 PUBLIC HEARING RE STANFORD WEST DRAFT EIR
Director of Planning and Community Environment Kenneth Schreiber
reported that the Council had recently received additional items
to the original Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
material assembled in the blue binders. The various documents
were available in 'the Chambers, together with the June 30 letter
from Stanford University. Items from the public and a letter from
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, placed' before
Councilmembers that evening, were also available.
The June 23 staff report identified four items for review: (1)
Council questions -for clarification of new information; (2) Publ °ec
testimony on new information; (3) Council action on the EIR; (4)
Council discussion of issues outside the EIR. He re-emphasized
the distinction between Council review of, and action on, the EIR
and item (4). An environmental impact report -identified potential
project impacts, their severity and reduction or elimination. The
EIR did not modify a particular project nor did certification of
the EIR imply .approval. For Stanford West, imposition of mitiga-
tion measures would occur primarily during the design review pro-
cess, for which no date had been set, although Stanford hoped it
would be soon after Council action on the EIR. The City and advo-
cate for the Council should clearly specify, after review and
certification of the CiR,. its intentions regarding specific miti-
gation:measures. The staff report also identified - eight project
related topics for the Council's comments,
Mayor Bechtel asked if Councilmembers'had any questions concerning
the process.
Councilmember Renzel said Palo Alto staff had arrived.at an agree-
ment concerning potentiele mitigation with Stanford staff but not
with the Board of Trustees. There shou:d at some stage be a
statement from Stanford stating its official position.
Mr. Schreiber said Stanford was bound t\o adhere to Palo Alto City
regulationee Palo Alto did not at'present require a commitment
from Stanford to include mitigation measures in . the EIR and to
certify that document.
City Attorney Diane Lee added that the Council would make a
governmental decision on the EIR, and determine appropriate miti-
gation measures, although it could consider applicant's requests.
First the EIR must be approved. Any subsequent change on the part
of the applicant would require EIR re-evaluation.
councilmemieer Cobb asked if the formal ;j election mitigations on
the first page of Tithe staff report were specific and detailed.
He understood that whatever mitigations Palo Alto wanted had to be
'incorporated beforeapproval was voted. on.
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland replied that mitigation,
the Council. wished to -impose ' should be identified now, although
additions court be made later.
Counci lmember Cobh spoke of his concern with athletic fields, and
asked whether a general statement of the nature of mitiyation or as
statement of specific mitigations was to be decided on.
Mr.-Sc5reiber said the EIR identified all impacts on the project,
including the scarcity of athletic fields. This was not a major
impact. All significant impacts had suggested mitigations, and
were listed-. AM impacts and mitigations of concern 'to Council -
members should be listed in the document, which -was informational
only. The mitigations should be made a requirement after project
approval.
Councilmember Cobb referred to the report where it asked the
Council to give guidance on issues outside the EIR process. The
first aspect was density. Would disagreement by any member of the
Council require a motion, or only a statement for the. record stat-
ing his or her views.
Mr. Schreiber felt this was not germane to the certification of
the EIR, which was to identify the impacts -of the project as
described in the document. The report asked for a voluntary,
nonbinding communication of the Council's reactions.
Mr. Schreiber introduced Bruce Freeland, Chief Planning Official,
who played a critical role in the EIR; Linda Pierce, Project
Manager, Environmental Impact Planning Corporation? San Francisco_
primary Consultant; Douglas Svennson, EIP; June Fleming, Assistant
City Manager; -William Zaner•, City Manager; Diane Lee,- City
Attorney; Ted Noguch i , Director of Transportation; Jack Peers, PRC
Voorhees, principal traffic consultant; Jean McCown, Chairman,
Planning Commission; Richard Pollack, EIP Corporation, answering
questions on air quality, and Robert Cartier, EIP archaeology
consultant. Mr. Schreiber said the June 23 report noted the air
quality portion of the draft E1R, and with subsequent public com.-
ments was sent to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
whose September review did not generate criticism. The District
staff reported on revised carbon monoxide background values. Its
June 28 letter referred to adjustments of the air quality model
used in the E1P. An analysis based on these was in the June 23
packet. He emphasised the second item of the District's letter
which suggested the City include measures as mitigation for the
Stanford West project to attain standards set in the 1982 Bay Area
Quality Plan, and the need to identify,.and reinforce- the commit-
ment of the City, the developer and others to implement these
mitigations. Not all were applicable but improved public trans-
port, -ancouragerrent of alternative transportation, improved
bicycling facilities, and improved traffic flow were addressed in
the proposed Stanford West mitigation measures. Specific measures
in tne EIR were shuttle and school bus services, arranging ride -
sharing, etc., on site bicycle lockers, upgrading bicycle and the
pedestrian paths on site and to the Medical Center and campus, and
Palo Alto, and improvement of congested intersections in the
Willow Road area. The plan spake of the danger at Stanford West
that short-term improvements through traffic flow .control might be
negated by increased traffic._. Traffic volumes would increase in
any case, arnd an improved road system was an asset. Concern had
been voiced that no implementation responsibility was identified
for specific : mi ti gati on measures. Clearly, those should pr taari ly
be the responsibility of Stanford West. After discussion between
staffs on the long-term effectihness of shuttle and school bus
measures, the University wished.to commit funding. to this rather
than to ---specific- improvements and the City agreed. A Stanford
contribution of 4209 per unit, plus 410 per -month dues ,from home-
owners was proposed, payable for three years after full Occupancy,
after which the Homeowners Association would .decide on the proj-
ects to support. ,The Council was 'asked to decide whether to
impose =specific mitigat-ion-measures on project approval -or else
allow an established funding source with a future decision_ making
process for funds--and.if the discussed level was -appropriate.;- In
either case, the City and the University would discus the imple-.
mentation of mitigation after certification -and before -project
3.5 5 2
7/07/83
review and enactment, so substantially improved information should
be ready at project approval. Mr. Schreiber said Mr. Massey's
June 3U letter said "_because of 'costly and unwieldly' administra-
tion, Stanford was unwilling to guarantee another level of cheap
accommodation." He suggested the University guarantee some units
as market r'te rentals for a certain time, and noted the resale
price conteol mechanise' in limited equity cooperatives. An
important point in that letter was the assumption that University
funding of transportation and traffic mitigations would cover all
costs for Stanford West, hospital modernization, and.Willow Road
extension .. projects, and they would not be asked to pay other
costs. The statement was not valid for future project approvals.
The City -could not be bound before circulation of the EIR and
public hearings. The June 23 staff report included a review of
preliminary traffic analysis for the hospital modernization and
Willow Road extension projects. At present, the traffic mitiga-
tion funding level was thought adequate, but if it proved other-
wise, the State Environmental Law allowed the Council to impose
additional mitigation measures. The staff report contained a
modified below -market -rate housing agreement. The Palo Alto
Housing Corporation had not had an opportunity to formally review
it and could not take an official stand. Staff considered the EIR
consistent with City and State environmental review regulations
and, unless issues were identified in the meeting to warrant
delay, he recommended the Council certify the EIR. Regarding the
future project, staff concurred with the University for 1,000
units on the 46 acre site and 194 units on the 1100 Welch _Road
site, subject to inclusion of acceptable environmental mitigations
and development of an acceptable site plan and building designs.
The Council, after certification of the EIR, should explicity
indicate the mitigation measures it intended to apply and the
concerns the University should address in development of site and
building plans for the Cita' design review process.
Mr. Robert Cartier reviewed the archaeological program at Stanford
West. After a brief literature review, a survey had been made in
the field Which located -a 1,000 year old prehistoric site in the
central part of the property (#464 in the State archives). A
definite impact would occur unless the project were revised .or
other mitigating measures implemented. Revision to, incl,ude a
mantle of earth to insulate the deposit from damage of earth mov-
ing had been included. The draft EIR outlined mitigation measures
on which comments had been received. The testing was comparable
with similar work, and he had made 75 to 100 similar tests -in that
aree. _The recommendation was also comparable where preservation.
currently favored over relocation, of the. deposit was the focus.
There was concern about possible activity over the site before
covering. The .Chief building_ official had given some information
about -requirements. _
Mr. Freeland said that nocma'ily only the top six inches were
disturbed on a flat site. .
Mr. Cartier said the top six inches had earlier been cultivated
and subjected to alteration and movement. A comment to the EIR
was that not much excavation occurred along the creek, as it was
prohibited by the Santa Clara County Water bistrict, and so the
area was not tested. The use of Stanford generated maps had not
biased'\the survey. After discussion S. with the CI y, he recom-
mended' Minor changes in the draft EIR mitigations, pages ..109 and
1111. 'the top of page 110, concerning monitr;ring the project area
during - construction,., should read, "Monitoring for each area of
excavation' into- native soil," to protect the whole site. Also,
the last item on that, page concerning capping needed clarifica-
tion. Mays included three areas; main core, Secondary, and
tertiary or p,ripheral. He recommended tapping on the main core
and secondary areas.
$
3 5 5 3
7/07/83
Mr. Schreiber drew attention to the July / letter from ! ert Gerow
to which a map, of the Stanford West site was attached.
Mayor Bechtel asked Councilmembers for questions of staff.
Councilmember Cobb reverted to the recreation question and Mr.
Massey's letter, agreeing to a 65 by IOU foot recreational field
on site. The staff report spoke of yards, and he asked which was
correct.
Mr. Freeland confirmed it was -65 by 100 yards.
Councilmember Cobb mentioned the staff report which said the
fields would be for residents only.
Mr. Freeland said it read "for the benefit of the residents." He
understood the Homeowners Association would ultimately control and
set policy for the field. It could mean an outside league might
play there; but it would not necessarily he open to the public.
Councilmember Cobb said that was his impression. In view of the
considerable sum offered by Stanford for general traffic mitiga-
tions, he asked for a summary of work involved.
Mr. Schreiber said the staff report, Table E, showed the inter -
.section ImpNyiewteriti aiic; a %ii r u iuine i ii i i iuw Rudd envisioned,
possible modifications from the Willow Road environmental review
procees--an added loft turn lane at Arboretum, Jun: Serra lane a VUIII�CI ii JCI l
Boulevard northbound right turn lane at Alpine and an added left
turn lane on El Camino at Galvez and Embarcadero. Those, plus a
substantial contingency and -a potential mitigation measure --a
Frontage Road sound wall in San Mateo County and Stanford at
Leland Avenue --were eligible for part of the $2 million.
Councilmember Cobb referred to the crucial Santa Crui Avenue/Sand
Hill intersection and asked if that was dependent on the coopera-
tion of San Mateo County and Menlo Par .
Mr. Schreiber said both would be involve... If it failed, an
assessment of its importance and impact would have to be made.
Mr._Cobb asked Mr..Noguchi if he considered there was a viable
solution -for the traffic impact here, or would everything crumble
without the cooperation of those jurisdictions.
Jack Peers, of PRC Voorhees, said the improvements would bring the
area to a Service 0 level and be acceptable to_ Menlo Park and Palo
Alto.
Councilmember Cobb said he understood Service 0 meant heavy and
congested.
Mr. Peers agreed it meant heavily congested, but generally con-
sidered tolerable for most conditions of urban peak hour .travel,
_and approximately half a service worse than at present,
l:oun i lmember Cobb asked if that would be the situation when the
projec=ts had been finished and Mr. Peers agreed.
l;ouncilmember Cobb asked what would happen if the work. was not
done because of disagreement with other jurisdictions.
Mr. Peers said, assuming physical conditions remained stationary
until 199U, the level would drop to . Service E if that and other
.proi,ects in the immediate Willow Road vicinity took place.
Mr. Freeland added that noncooperating jurisdictions would cause
problems. The Council would consider the many unmitigated impacts.
Acquiescence from other jurisdictions might be 'necessary before
approving the project.
3 5 5 4
7/07/83
Counci l7ae ,ibcr Cobb. said if that improveffief t fell t:iruugh, it would
form a basis for .riot appruviriy the project, because it would be an
unmitigated impact.
Mr. Freeland agreed. He thcuyht it prudent to point out the
acceptability of the projects prior to dealing with the project.
Mr. Peers clarified a point. Service E would not constitute a
breakdown in traffic. People would either change their time of
travel or find alternative routes.
Councilmember Fletcher clarified a mistake in the Stanford West
Responses to Comments of July 7,_ page 6, which referred to 116
units per acre. She assumed that was 11.6.
Mr. Schreiber confirmed that.
Councilmember Fletcher followed up Mr. Freeland's suggestion of
Council action; first certification of the Elk and then a list of
mitigating efforts to be considered.
Mr. Freeland said he felt it very important that 1iiey list in the
Ilk all mitigations the Council wished to enterta tri for the proj-
ect. The decision to require mitigations for the project would
occur at project approval. Discussion of those mitigation items
c a L...
:: :. ✓ v•. v r : i r: i v v i v w- i �. i; ai i s - r J i i V M : w V V .i (. r% V W % / .% f l! 4 i i v+ s J cussion of whether sufficient mitigations were listed in the EIR.
For certification of the FIR; the Council shnsiiri he satisfied that
the mitigations were identified and listed in the document.
Ms. Lee emphasized that certification of the EIR and the suggested
steps by staff were required by law under the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA). It must be certified that Council
found the Elk complete, if that was the case. The other step
asked for by Mr. Freeland as a separate and distinct action was to
give guidance to staff if and when the project came in. That was
an informal process not required by CEQA, but desired by Council,
staff, the public, and Stanford.
Councilmember Fletcher 'envisioned the Council would voice its cor-
cerns, which would result in requests that they implement those
particular mitigating measures. Perhaps there would be two pro-
cesses, first, that the";EIR addressed all mitigating measures and
then that the Council consider measures not already addressed.
Mss. Lee said that the range of mitigation measures necessary to
certify the Elk was sufficient. Information might show a project
-to be inappropriate when it was received. The Council might wish
to see other non -mitigation matters incorporated, not necessarily
required under CEQA but which Stanford should be sensitive to.
Councilmember Fletcher said she understood that,
Councilmember Levy asked questions concerning development on
Willow Road and terms used in the Stanford University Land Use
Plan. There appeared to be a setback in the Willow Road area
opposite Oak Creek. He asked if it had a specific size.
Mr. Philip Williams, Stanford Planning Director, said the green
belt varying. in depth along Willow Road indicated Stanford's
intent to accommodate` topography and'existing trees. The setback
averaged IOU feet in depth `_:zd was intended as a soft transition.
Councilmember Levy said the area behind it was called "low density
instruction and research". He asked for a definition of that.
Mr. Williams said future -research was always . an unknown factor.
It was intended for individual projects that -even cumulatively did
not increase density, such -as biology pl,ant growing experiments e
1
1
3 5 5 5
1/. ..183
grE:e.ihouses, and individual research facilities that were primar-
ily open space. The Carnegie Institute. of Plant Biology at
Stanford was an example.
Councilmember Levy asked how certain it was th-at the land use
designations mould hold over a course of time.
Mr. Wi 1 liams said there was a clear distinction between academic
and commercial use. Only academic uses were permitted in the
unincorporated area. Commercia.1 uses were controlled by Palo
Alto.
Councilmember Levy asked if they were free to change the density
of academic uses.
Mr. Williams referred to the County Use Permit tailored to
Stanford's Land Use Plan. That was being revised, so any use not
in conformance with the Land Use Plan would require a special
permit entailing a public hearing and participation by the City of
Palo Alto.
Mr. Freeland agreed that was so, although, of course, any plan
could be changed.
Councilmember levy referred to Stanford's intent to harp most
the development facing into the campus and not Willow Road,
that ingress and egress would be from the campus.
„E
SO
Mr. Williams said it was Stanford's concept that the interior
campus streets would be neighborhood and collector streets for the
academic community, and peripheral streets used as erteries. The
area would be serviced from the newly constructed Campus Drive and
the future Welch Road extension.
Councilmember Klein said the policy requiring annexation of land
to a city to allow industrial development was a policy only, aird
could be changed by the Board.of Supervisors.
Mr. Freeland agreed.
Councilmember Klein said there was therefore no assurance that
development would be purely academic.
Mr. Freeland said with the caveat that the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFf'J) would have partial jurisdiction in that it had
land use control -. urban service areas.
Cuunci l member Klein said that those two bodies could thwart Palo
Alto's control over such areas.
Mr. Freeland agreed Pa3o Alto had no extraterritorial jurisdiction
over unincorporated Santa Clara County.
Mayor Bechtel opened the public hearing.
William Massey, Vice President for Business and Finance at
Stanford, said Stanford West was a most significant opportunity to
provide .badly needed affordable houstny. Palo Alto's zoning pre-
cluded other than multi -family housing. Stanford had tried.hard
to meet the concerns of the City at a total cost of $12.8 to $15
million. The BMR commitment was $10 -.,million, i.e., over double
that of other housing projects as. a percentage --a sum that must
affect teaching and research programs. Stanford was concerted by
the cost- and nature of impacts, the propriety of the BMR program,
and the open-endedness of the projects. It must pay all the BMR
premium and substantial roadway improvements at a ten to o'ne.
ratio. With the Willow Road extension, the ratio was fifteen to
one ratio. Stanford agreed to that, but was not willing to - hay.e
Palo Alto continually add requirements., Stanford had already
spent $2 million, costs would escalate and incur financial risk.
3 5 5 b
7/07/83
Stanford would pay some premium in order to minimize future
regulations on environmental and regulatory areas. Its planning
standards were very high, and went beyond the year 2010. He made
a distinction between land use planning and its control. Stanford
pledged responsible planning, but could not allow -P.iio Alto
control over unincorporated land beyond its limits, nor trade use
of Stanford Land endowment for the right to build 'the project.
Proyrese had been made since January 1981. Palo Alto had directed
an expenditure of $100,000 of Stanford's money on the EIR.
Stanford asked ,for clear and unambiguous d4rection from the
Council before peoceeding. Stanford was prepared to go ahead, but
only if it was assured that no costly or unacceptable measures b2
added to a project that so well met Palo Alto's needs.
Councilmember Cobb asked what would happen to the the Children's
Hospital site.
Mr. Massey said the situation at present was if sufficient funds
were raised the site would revert to Stanford and a decision would
then be made. He thought it would have a medical character,
possibly life and care. Very preliminary talks with such
operators had been initiated. It could also become the Department
of Psychiatry for the medical school, but sufficient funds would
have to be raised.
Councilmember Cobb asked if any conceivable use could result in
hip traffic generation_
Mr. Massey said "high traffic generator" needed definition. He
referred to the uses mentioned, which he did not think were high.
Melba Walton, 290 Ventura Avenue. #2, an employee of Stanford
Medical Center, said many Stanford employees _earn less than
$20,000. She would like to see the 8MR allotment extended to
allow, more staff affordable housing.
Peg Gunn, Mayor pro tem of Menlo Park, addressed the density
question. Menlo Park found 1,100 units high, and would prefer the
92U possibility because of the 24 -hour impact on Menlo Park.
Bert Gerow, -3820 Carlson Circle, referred to his July 7 memo. He
was a professor emeritus of anthropology. Since 1974 he had
advised Stanford on archaeology, and claimed the archeological
section of the EIR was incomplete, inaccurate, and confused. The
capping requirements were inadequate and he felt the evaluation
proposals inadequate also. l'ne area had been continuously
occupied for the last 5,000 years, and even in the capped area the
record of the past 1,000 years would be seriously affected.
Katherine Dickson, 380 Hayes Street, 11, San Francisco,
represeiteel Citizens for Sensible Planning. She urged restraint,
saying there was no deadline as there was no application file yet
and no final Ellt_ No one could tell what the final EIR would be,
therefore;, certification was impossible. She spoke of the lack of
availability and cost of the document. She referred to her
statement and offered to answer questions. She suggested the
Council find the final. Elk inadequate..
Mat -hew Steinle of the. Bay Area Council said the Bay Area Council
endorsed the latest Stanford proposal because of the need for
increased housing. As Stanford agreed to fund the .traffic
mitigation measures, the City Council should now allow 1,100 units
to be built. The questions raised by Palo Alto concerning
Stanford open land should not affect the issue, and he asked Palo
Alto not to use the Statement of Uverrir±ing Considerations as a
point of leverage. The benefits o_ f Stanford West were too
important.
Paul Wilson, 45 Willow Road! Menlo Park-, cpeke of the magnitude of
the. traffic problem that would be created at the Alameda, Sand
Hill Road, and Alpine Road with the 28% projected increase, and
3 5 5 7
7/07/83
tne Zl percent increase at El Camino Many areas would hive a
Service F rating. This would not be in Menlo Pa;k's interest.
The mdtigatiees available were: insufficieat for 1995's traffic
flow.
Sue Cottle, 971 Mears Court, Stanford, a Boardmember of Co-op
Housing in Palo Alto, was pleased Stanford Wee considering limited
equity co-ops fur its BMR requirement, but felt there should be
more.
Rose Ballen, 4290 Wilkie Way, was also a Boardmember of Co-op
Housing. She applauded the effort to provide ample housing. She
referred to 75 percent of the Stanford staff meeting the BMR re-
quirement who had to commute large distances, . and hoped Stanford
would provide co --op housing to meet their needs
Irene Sampson spoke for the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
and South San Mateo County. The leagues approved the 130 units
for 51 years of low cost housing, road and intersection improve-
ments, and decreased density to help mitigate traffic impacts.
She warned against piecemeal planning, and urged a more specific
plan for the Willow Road corridor. Multi -jurisdictional coopera-
tion would be important.
Or. Roy McDonald represented Geodynamic, an envir3nmental consnit-
i riy r i rm in Beverly Hi l i s that had submitted a report on the in-
adequacy of the E1R. Palo Alto staff had given a very poor
i caNuiise lu questions raised concerning traffic analysis, carbon
dioxide modeling, use of bikeways and paths, level of service im-
pacts at intersectiuns, and to his alternative of building 10
units per acre for 503 units. He pointed out that 50 percent of
the units might eventually go to non -Stanford employees. Certifi_
cation was not a procedural matter, and he did not think there
would be another decision making forum after that. The Architec-
tural Review Board could then implement construction of the site
without Palo Alto's agreement.
Jean McFadden, a member of the Housing Co-op, was a Stanford staff
would l 1 gip_:e � 4 .. 4n
member, one of many who _ ��u. d ; .,.. �;r:+ buy � -fi)_�me. _.. She, asl;ed the
Council to keep the housing r'fforuaoie, allowing • Stanford staff to
buy homes and walk or bike to work.
Mrs. Giovacchini, 500 San Mateo Drive, Menlo Park, was concerned
about possible inconvenience caused by Stanford West. She would
like to see fewer units, and hoped that Willow Road would be ex-
tended. She hoped it meant affordable housing for the staff of
Stanford, and feared future disagreement between the Housing Asso-
ciations.
Mary Ruth Gross, 2102 Almaden Road, San Jose, representing the
Building and Construction Trades Council fur Santa Clara County,
strongly supported the project and urged speed. The union needed
the jobs and the housing -- the commute problem was acute. Some
impact was unavoidable, but Stanford had done very well.
Betsy Crowder, speaking for the Committee for Green Foothillsz
asked for clarification of "Willow Road Connecti,fon FIR." She
found the FIR excellent, but suggested the Stanford Shopping Cen-
ter parking lot be modified for through traffic -- the Willow Road
east entrance. to Oak Creek eliminated and combined with project
entry opposite Pesto Drive, and the bridge over the San
Francisquito -Creek on Jun1i er° Sc.rra, northbound, be .improved.
She suggested Stanford set aside ,th_e land opposite Oak Creek
apartments for non -buildable /recreation. She supported the
League of Women V tern' proposal f,r a Sand Hill/Willow Road cor-
ridor study to include- all empty c ,., S t f _ . -i
yarn= rw��d ;� ,�.a - :�� � ; r-�m �i
Camino Real to Interstate 2110, and for Menlo Park, Palo Alto, the
County of San Mateo, and Por.tola 'Valley to talk to Stanford about
that.
3 5 5 S
7/07/83
Uenny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, endorsed Stanford's interest
in limited equity housing co-ops. There could be a much higher
number of such units at no cost to Stanford. She suggested a cer-
tain number of regular units be made co-ops, to put a ceiling on
rentals and obtein a tax cut. She thought units would become less
affordable in the future. There was not a large demand for pro-
fess'orial housing, which was eligible for subsidy. She was con-
cerned that the needs of Stanford staff of median family income
below $25,000 would not be met.
Fran Wagstaff, 3524 Waverley, also spoke to her concern about the
affordability of Stanford West. The limited equity format was the
best way to ensure that, and she asked the Council to endorse co-
op housing, which would not rost more to Stanford.
RLCESS FROM 9:45 .m. TO 9:58 .m.
Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa, passed around photos of equity co-
-ops. A two bedroom unit in Twin Pines, Santa Clara, built in 1964
cost -$167 per -month; the same unit at Mayfield Golden Manor in San
Jose built, in 1970 cost $255. If a large portion of Stanford
West was turned into a co-op, by 1995 it could also become such a
bargain. She asked the Council to include mitigation that non-BMR
units be organized under limited equity co-op. This would impose
no financial burden an S arf arii urnix1ri hu m_re adventa.....�..r- •
_ .. .. .�. � ,.L ... ., ..w yetis is ..
occupants than renting because of the ease of moving, the low down
payment and the tax deduction on nort.eage-payments. .
bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said the Palo Alto Civic League had taken a
strong position that the Willow Corridor should be addressed as an
entity and the planning should consider all the prospective devel-
opment. He spoke of Coyote Hill which had been set as' fie in ex-
change for industrial development. Stanford referred to the abil-
ity to build up to 5,000 square feet projects, without further re-
view, in the academic reserve area. An accumulation of such proj-
ects would have an impact. The City of Palo Alto's advice need
not be taken for larger projects. Palo Alto had asked the County
of Santa Clara nut to approve any commercial project on Ei Camino,
but. had- been ignored. He proposed that as part of the mitigation,
Palo Alto require that Stanford pre -agree that for projects with a
cumulative size over a specified limit the City be given the same
review privileges as the County. In speaking of affordability, 85
percent of the units could be charged at full market cyst, i.e.,
for incomes over $42,000. He suggested Stanford subcontract to
the Housing Corporation or form a limited equity co-op. He found
the density bearable. He mentioned that the mitigations benefited
the project as a whole and all parties concerned.
Sylvia Martinez was glad Stanford was to provide co-ops, and asked
for as many such units as possible. She was a housing planner for
development economy and originally from Mexico. Sweden, the coun-
try that had the most progressive housing plan in the world, used
co-ops extensively, and the municipalities played a strong role in
housing. Sne saw Stanford West co-ops as a step in the right dir-
ection.
Anne Saldich, 1500 Bryant -Street, was an editor at Stanford, but
spoke as a political sociologist, a private citizen, and a local
resident. If Stanford West was not- built, everyone wouldlose;
lose;
Stanford, because new faculty Could not afford housing, local finer-
chats through less business, local government through theloss`of
tax revenue and the critical housing shortage. The experience of -
setting up 150 coops would be lost. Local governments did not
have a solution to the problem. She was committed to conserve the -
environment, but pointed out that people were part of it and deed-
ed housin .-
3 .5 5 9
7/07/83
Edward Luck, 216 Robin Way, Menlo Park, urged the Council to re-
ject the proposal on the grounds of public safety, traffic conges-
tion, and the quality of life. Reduced density _and recreational
opportunities could alleviate internal and external problems of
the project. Mot only a small number of local residents opposed
the project. He questioned whether the setback.was deep enough to
protect the .creek and the adequacy of recreational facilities.
The project was restrictive and confining, with no gardens, pets,
or private outdoor areas, garages and workshops. Trees were being
felled and insensitivity to the environment shown. He found it
ironic to expand the shopping center but reduce parking for Stan-
ford West.
Janet Owens, 863 Moreno, Palo Alto, understood the need for more
housing, but asked where poor people would live. Minorities were
overrepresented in that class and discrimination must be miti-
gated. She saw co-ops as the only possible answer.
Paul -uermeraad, 200 San Mateo, Menlo Park, asked the Council to
modify the Land Use Plan, that the density would be,inconsistent
with that of Menlo Park. It would cause problems for Menlo Park
and not Palo Alto. He thought it unfair that other sites in Palo
;Alto with lower densities_ had not been chosen, and suggested one
of those lower densities would be acceptable to all. Specific
rm.icaei m nrekkl m to Mdmnln Omni, O. ulna neuremAur.ei
the BMR units and Stanford, the housing
Park would have the traffic problems_
should bear a larger percentage of the
benefits, whilst Menlo
Stanford and Palo Alto
traffic by routing the
traffic through Stanford property to Alpine Road. The proposed
bicycle bridge should be removed or moved, or at least be prohib-
ited to motorcycles. No single solution was obvious, so he asked
the Council to delay the decision, and for Stanford to be asked to
produce a creative solution. Quantity is not quality. Menlo Park
and Palo Alto would have an •adversary relationship, and there
would be unnecessary, costly legal action. He asked for an en-
lightened decision and one that did not cause division among the
communities.
David l3`umenthal, 1766 Willow Road, #210, asked if Willow Road
could absorb the number of units requested by Stanford West.
He thought 75U units should be built and lived in for one year.
The Council could then determine whether._further units should be
built. The Welch Road housing should be held in abeyance until
the first section had been completed. Widening Willow Road would
create a biger problem. Stanford threatened to drop the project,
and he agreed it should do so.
Kay Par, 1321 Hobart Street, Menlo Park, Councilmember of Menlo
Park, represented many reelden,ts. She reaffirmed the Menlo Park
City Council statement, and asked Palo Alto to take time in coming
to a decision. Although Menlo Park valued its relationship with
Palo Alto, its. primary concern was constituent representation.
Charles Ty-,lgle, 656 Kingsley,, Palo Alto, who worked at Stanford
Medical Center and had -lived i n Europe and Africa, had been sur-
prised that such a progressive area had no co-operative housing,
only standard-, traditional rental units and:expensive housing. He
had to commute at first, and spoke` -for commuters, whose housing
needs far outweighed all other needs. He thought a limited equity
co -!op -was the best solution to the problem.
Herb borock, 3401 Ross Road, reminded the Council that during the
last major revision of the Comprehensive Plan 1-.imited equity hous-
ing had been endorsed. The way land was evaluated.under ch a
plan could negate any benef.its.. He. believed And:er State ;Law such'
housing could not be rented. He'thought Mr. Zaner's memo of April
28 cancelling the `scheduled meeting of May 2 and Indicating that
City staff work on the Stanford Elk way already complete 'and ready
for Council -consideration was an identifiable public document.
3 5 6 0
7/07/83
The Jane 23 staff report had attachments dated later than April
2B. He asked-weat the differences between the two were, in parti-
cular for pages 7 trough. 22. Council should be aware of any dis
parities, or a statement should be made if there were none.
Ur. Nancy Jewell Cross, 301 Vine Street,. Menlo Park, represented
the Committee for -Safe and Sensible San Francisquito Creek Area
Routing. Present air quality would not tolerate the development
on. Willow Road. Before further projects were undertaken in the
Willow Road/Sand Hill/Alpine Road corridoe a clean air transport
plan should be developed by all communities working together.
Stanford drew traffic from a very large area, it planned a new
parking lot and condominiums, which would make the Alpine/Sand
Hill intersection even more dangerous. -Many people would walk or
cycle if off road_bike paths were available. She suggested Stan-
ford allow use of their open fields and golf course bridge; Menlo
Park and Palo Alto should erect a bridge at Pasteur, Oak Avenue
and Oak Creek Drive. Much could be done to make development com-
patible with air quality.
Peter Giles, 186 East Meadow Drive, spoke on behalf of the Santa
Clara County Manufacturing Group, representing 85 firms and
180,'J00 employees, endorsing the project. A compromise position
had been reached and Stanford had shown flexibility on the afford-
ability iSSii Thy± lack of wff.ir-ii.ai'!e a,imrarl etr,,..,
the long-term economic health of area, and this plan showed will-
ingness of the northern counties to provide housing for their em-
ployees.
Beverly Lawrence, 457 Kingsley Avenue, represented Mid -Peninsula
Citizens for Fair Housing, which had intermittent correspondence
with Stanford since 1971 concerning the need for affordable hous-
ing for people with below $20,000 incomes. They were pleased
Stanford was considering limited equity co-ops, and asked for eas-
ily affordable housing for low paid workers.
Charles Brandon, 1165 Bay Laurel Drive, said citizens could pre-
vent development through concerted effort. The project was real
estate development for profit clothed in. sheepskin, and therefore
a shame. It was cynical because voter opposition was not expected
due to the distance from residential Palo Alto, and. a 'shame be-
cause it was planned to house 430 children. A mitigation read
that the creek bank should be protected from degradation due to
excessive use by children, and that access to the creek bottom
should be discouraged -.,,by non -maintenance of paths and encouraging
growth of poison oak. 'He urged rejection of project
Mayor Bechtel closed the public hearing.
Ms. Lee said she found the Environmental Impact Report adequate
and certifiable. She' was satisfied it was a complete document
that met the standards And guidelines of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act. She. quoted Section 15163, requiring the EIR
to be made available in libraries at cost. = She thought 50f for
the first page and lU f for further pages reasonable. She failed
to see why- the new project was ""unacceptable, as it was smaller and
therefore less dense. The Elk was not required to -.discuss all
alternatives, only obvious ones. It met the basic standards Of
adequacy any.- was an effort to make full disclosure.
Councilmember Levy asked. i f there was one document available to
the general public that represented the recommended EIR.
Mr. Schreiber said all the information available had been compiled
into the blue -binder, which had been made available to the public
in both Menlo Park and Palo Alto.
Ms. - Lee said the contents of the---f-i-na-1 - EIR were established by
section 15146 of the State EIR Guidelines. -which she. considered -
had been -met. -
3 5; 6. 1
7/07/83
Coiincilmemaer Eyerly asked what would happen if the Council certi-
fied the LIR, stipulating mitigation measvres beyond those agreed
to by Stanford and Palo Alto staff, If Stanford brought the mat-
ter before the Arbitration Review Board, would the Council have an
opportunity for further discussion, or would an appeal have to be
made to the ARB.
Mr. Schreiber said the Council was being asked to approve the im-
position of potential mitigation measures in the certified docu-
ment. He agreed the ARB had the responsibility of reviewing the
design of the project and making a recommendation. He himself
could either approve, return, or send the recommendation on to the
City Council, and the ARB could also send it to the Council. If
the Council had a strong desire to review the design of tho proj-
ect, it would be consistent to review both the mitigation measures
and design. -
Counciloember Eyerly asked what procedures would be followed after
approval of the EIR and the statement of mitigation measures sug-
gested. Stanford could either ask for further discussions or go
to the ARB .
Mr. Schreiber said Stanford would consider the implications of
potential mitiyai iori meaiUf es and decide whei, er to file for the
des i an review process. Then the Council would decide what mitiga-
tion measures would be imposed.
Councilmember Cobb said they were then approving the red book plus
the blue book.
Mr. Freeland agreed, with the addition that there was also an up-
dated list of comments which would have to be expanded in the mo-
tion to include the evening's contributions.
Councilmember Cobb referred to the last staff report containing
various mitigations, some of which had been agreed to by Stanfora,
others did not agree but allowed to remain, while still- others had
been crossed out.
Mt. Schreiber said items that were not crossed out may not be
recommended by Palo Alto at this time but were still a part of the
mitigations that were on table and subject to possible future
Council action.
Councilmember Levy asked for assurance that the June 23 memo con-
tained all the mitigations now on the table.
Mr. Freeland said the impact had to be found significant. The
Planning Commission reviewed and made recommendations for all po-
tential impacts of the .project. If the Council found other im-
pacts significant, they' should be identified and mitigations sug-
gested. All impacts identified were shown .on charts' on pages 7
through 21. in the latest staff report. The first column showed
impacts the -Planning Commission found Significant; the second
showed whether they. were favored, valid but not favored, or not
desirable or feasible. The third column showed additional ideas
developed between staff and Stanford, i.e, payment. schedules. for
various roads, etc. The middle column and third column formed an
inventory of all identified project mitigations - for impacts found,
to be significant. For 'Certification of the EiR the. Council;.,_should
first be satisfied that -all the significant impacts were fdenti-
fied and found.to be significant and that -an adequate list of .
mitigations for all of those impacts were included in the docu-
ment. For certification it was not at present --necessary to indi-
pate which must be imposed on the project.
.Councilmember Levy asked at What point would --;the council
implementation of a mitigation.
demand
1
3 5 6 2
7/07/83
Mr. Freeland asked that there later be a nonbinding discussion of
the Council's feelings. The implementation would occur wheil-the
City approved the project.
Councilmember Levy asked if it would be the Council , the ARB, or
some other body that would approve the project.
Mr. Freeland•said the Council should say if it wished to become
involved in the design review. A clause in the ARB ordinance
allowed the ARB or the Director of Planning to make the City Coun-
cil the final decision maker on controversial or complex cases.
Otherwise, the ARb could make the decision. He was sure there
would be a condominium subdivision which would come before the
Planning Commission and City Council; although there was a remote
possibility that Stanford might prokose an entirely rental proj-
ect, one large apartment project., or one large co-operative hous-
ing project, in which ca<e a condominium map would not be neces-
sary.
Councilmember Levy asked if it would be appropriate before certi-
fication of the EIR to indicate the Council would like to see it
again, after the ARb.
Ms: l e e said i d that was s part o f the discussion before
. r.. � .. that nom. v part v v l �.l1�.
certification, how they wanted the project handled,
>nvm v l pus L -
MOTION TU ADJOURN MEETING TO JULY 11, 1983 Al 8:OO P.M.
MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the
item be c9ntinued to 8:00 p.m. on Monday, July 11, U83, the regu-
larly scheduled Council meeting. Any items on the Consent Calen-
dar not concluded before 8:00 p.m. would be handled after the
Stanford West item.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY OF MARY UEhhISON WILT THOMAS
MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Fazzino, that
Council adjourn in memory of Mary Denison Wilt Thomas, Palo Alto's
first female Councilmember, who died on July 1, 1983, at Charming
House, at the age of 108 years. Mrs. Thomas was a member of the
Polo Alto City Council from 1919 to 1923.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to 8:OO o.m. on Monday, July 11.,
1983.
APPROVED:
3 5 6 3
1/O7/ti3