HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-26 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
CITY MANAGER
February26, 1997
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
CMR:152:97
SUBJECT:Stanford Sand Hill Corridor Projects--Stanford University’s January 27,
1997 Letter to City Council
REQUEST
This staff report reviews the outcome of the City staff-Stanford staff discussions, including
agreements, regarding the 21 substantive items raised in Stanford’s January 27, 1997 letter (attached)
to the City Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific recommendations are contained in the Discussion section of this report for each of the 21
items of concern raised by Stanford. For 18 of the 21 items, Stanford staff concurs with the City
staff recommendation. City and Stanford staff disagree on two items (7 and 8) and further work
needs to be done on item 17.
BACKGROUND
On January 27, 1997, Stanford University submitted the attached letter to the City Council. The
letter raises a variety of concerns regarding the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board
and/or staff recommendations on the Sand Hill Corridor Projects. On January 30, 1997, the City
Council adopted a motion directing staff to meet with Stanford representatives to discuss the
concerns raised in the January 27 letter. City staff have had numerous meetings with Stanford
representatives to clarify and, where possible, resolve the issues identified in the January 27 letter.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The issues addressed in this staff report are primarily technical. Issues that have a significant policy
aspect include:
Item 2 - Oak Creek Connector. Staff does not support the connector, because there is no
policy basis for doing so.
Item 3 - Child Care. Staffhas supported the inclusion of a child care requirement based on
the Council’s child care policies.
CMR:152:97 Page 1 of 17
DISCUSSION
The attached January 27, 1997 letter from Larry Horton and Curtis Feeny to the City Council
contains 21 issues. Twenty issues are contained in the 12-page attachment to the letter and one issue
is described on pages 9 and 10 of the letter. The remainder of the’letter contains background
information for Some of the 20 concerns addressed in the attachment. The item numbers used below
refer to margin numbers added to the January 27th letter.
The following discussion will review the issues as they are presented in the 12-page attachment to
the Stanford letter, followed by the one issue identified only in the body of their letter. City and
Stanford staff have reached a recommended agreement on 18 of the 21 items.. The City staff
recommendation differs from Stanford’s position on items 7 and 8, and item 17 needs further staff
discussion.
ltem 1 -Apartment Project Mitigation Measure 4. 7-3(g) (implemented through Condition 2).
This mitigation measure requires "The applicant to provide a performance bond or
other financial security to replant any replacement grasslands found not to be alive
at the end of the required five-year maintenance period." The issue is long term
maintenance of the grassland proposed for the area between the Apartment project
and the Creek. Stanford’s primary, concern is the cost of providing bonding, as
elaborated on in the January 27 letter, pages 3 and 4. This issue relates to Item 1, as
well as Items 6 and 18, discussed later in this report.
City staff understands Stanford’s concerns regarding the costs of bonds and agrees
that there are alternative ways of providing the City financial guarantees that future
work will be done.
Mitigation Measure 4.7-3(g) contains the wording: "The form of the bond or other
financial security shall be found acceptable to the City...". City and Stanford staff
concur that the wording of the Mitigation Measure be modified to "acceptable to the
City Attorney...". The revised wording of Mitigation Measure 4.7-3(g) is
recommended to be:
The City may require, as a condition of approval, the applicant to
provide a performance bond or other form of financial security
acceptable to the City Attomey to replant any replacement
grasslands found not to be alive at the end of the required five year
maintenance period The f~rr,; ~’~ "-^ ~--- -~ ..... ’.~.=~;-, ....... -’.-.
~ amount of the bond
shall be sufficient to cover the City’s cost to replant native grassland
A qualified biologist approved by the City shall, upon written request
of the applicant at the end of the maintenance period, and in
consultation with CDFG determine the health of the replacement
grasslands and release the security, in the event that all replacement
grasslands are alive.
CMR:152:97 Page 2 of 17
Item 2 -
Item 3 -
Apartment Project Condition 7(g) (same as Condition 5(q) for Roadway
Improvements).
This condition, added by the Planning Commission, would require a vehicular
connection between the Oak Creek apartments and the proposed Apartment .project.
This issue is discussed on pages 16, 17 and 49 of the January 27, 1997 staff report
(CMR: 126:97); the planning Commission meeting minutes of September 3, 1996
(pages 17-22) and October 30, 1996 (pages 128-130); letters 42 and 118 in the Final
EIR (Volume 7, pages 15-42-1 and 15-118-1); and in the Draft EIR (page 6.2-39).
City staff has consistently recommended against the connector road, because there
is no established City policy basis upon which to impose this requirement. City and
Stanford staff are thus in agreement that Apartment Condition 7(g) and Roadway
condition 5(q) should not be included among .the Apartment project conditions.
Apartment Project Condition 14(a).
This condition, added by the Planning Commission, requires that "The applicant
shall provide adequate day care for the number of children expected to reside in the
apartment housing in a manner that achieves the a) reduction of car trips by parents,
and b) contribution to community-building among the residents of the projects."
This issue is addressed in the January 27, 1997 staff report, on pages 14 and 15; the
Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 29, 1996 (pages 29-44) and
October 30, 1996 (pages 114-119 and 147-152); and in the Final EtR (Volume 6,
pages 13-38 to 13-41). In the January 27, 1997 staff report, staff recommended that
on-site child care be required for the Apartment site.
Stanford’s January 27, 1997 letter requested deletion of any child care requirement.
After discussions with City staff, Stanford staff now propose adding the following
wording to the Development Agreement:
Stanford will make available an approximately one-half acre"
parcel on the Stanford West Apartment site between the Village
Green and Governor’s Lane (vacant in the current proposal, but
originall.v designated for two apartment buildings)for lease to
qual{fied chiM care provider, at a rent of $1 per year, for the
construction and qt~eration of a chiM care facili_tv subject to issuance
of all applicable permits. At such time as the Stanford West
Apartments are no longer permanent!v occupied, Stanford shall have
~ation pursuant to this covenant.-
City staff believes that this proposal appropriately responds to the recommendations
made by the Planning Commission and staff. City. staff recommends that the
proposed wording be added to the Development Agreement and Apartment Project
Condition 14(a) be deleted.
CMR:152:97 Page 3 of 17
Item 4 -
ltem 5 -
Item 6-
Apartment Project Condition 26 (same as Condition 30 of the Senior Housing
project).
Stanford’s request was to reduce the term of the BMR agreement from 59 to 51
years. City staff recommends, and Stanford staff has agreed, that the proposed BMR
59-year term remain as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff.
Apartment Project Condition 62.
Condition 62 is a Planning Commission recommendation that the Apartment project
contain a small on-site retail facility. This issue is discussed in theCity’s January 27,
1997 staff report (pages 15 and 16 and 49); Planning Commission meeting minutes
of October 30, 1996 (pages 11, 23, 24, 62-78, 88-116 and 142-146); and in the Final
EIR (Volume 6, pages 13-38 through 13-41).
The conclusion in the January 27, 1997 staff report is that Condition 62 should be
deleted and the City should support "a request to the applicant to voluntarily include
it in the project." Therefore, City staff is in agreement with Stanford’s January 27
request and does not recommend approval of Apartment Project Condition 62.
Senior Housing Project Mitigation Measure 4. 3-4(a) (implemented by Condition 2).
The Mitigation Measure and related Condition address protection of the Old Carriage
House. Stanford’s concern is with the wording which requires posting of"a bond
during the demolition and construction phases to ensure retention of the Old Carriage
House."
Staff discussions have clarified that the key concern is protection of the Old Carriage
House during construction. Discussions with several people familiar with historic
preservation techniques indicated that a more direct and substantial penalty inserted
into the construction contract will offer a better level of protection than a bond. As
with item 1, staffs have agreed to modification of the Mitigation Measure and
Condition to include the wording "bond or other form of financial security acceptable
to the City Attorney." This wording creates the flexibility to achieve the most
appropriate and effective level of protection for the Old Carriage House.
The revised Mitigation Measure 4.3-4(a) would read:
Mitigation Measure 4.3-4(a) (implemented by Condition 2): The Old
Carriage House shall .be protected in place. Fencing or other
appropriate protection should be installed prior to construction to
avoid impact to this important historic resource. The applicant shall
submit to the City a plan for protection of the Old Carriage House,
that shall include the partieh responsible for long-term protection,
and the specific protection requirements (from structural stabilization
CMR: 152:97 Page 4 of 17
to funding, for example). The City of Palo Alto shall approve the
Carriage House protection plan prior to issuance of a demolition
permit for the Stanford West Senior housing project. The project
applicant shall post a bond or other form of_t2naneial securi.ty
acceptable to the Cir. Attorney during the demolition and
construction phases to ensure retention of the Carriage House.
Item 7-Senior Housing Project Mitigation Measure 4. 7-9(b) (implemented by Condition 2).
The Mitigation Measure and Condition require redesign of the Senior Project to
relocate the Pool House and Mechanical Building outside of the 100-foot ~etback
from the calculated top of bank.
The references to the Mechanical Building are no longer applicable, because the
Mechanical Building has been eliminated from the plans. The Pool House issue is
addressed in the January 27, 1997 staff report (page 51); the July 24, 1996 staff
report to the Planning Commission (pages 21-22); Planning Commission meeting
minutes of August 3, 1996 (pages 94-105) and October 30, 1996 (pages 79-86 and
119-124); and ARB meeting minutes of October 16, 1996 (pages 68-69 and 88-91).
City staff and the Planning Commission ~ecommended relocation of the Pool House
and the ARB recommends approval as proposed by Stanford.
Recent City and Stanford staff discussions have not resolved this issue, and staff
reaffirms the recommendation to relocate the Pool House.
If the Council wishes to approve the applicant’s requested Pool House location, the
following changes would need to be made to the Planning Commission and staff
recommendation:
¯Adopt a motion to reject Mitigation Measure 4.7-9(b);
Adopt a statement of overriding considerations for an unmitigated significant
environmental impact;.
Amend the resolution accompanying the Land Use Map change for the ’
Senior Housing project, which now describes the allowable dimensions of the
project as being 80 to 100 feet from the creek to be within 30 feet; and
Modify the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to narrow
the dimension of Streamside Open Space to be within 30 feet from the ereek
for the area where the proposed pool is to be located.
CMR:152:97 Page 5 of 17
Item 8 -Senior Housing Project Condition 7(g).
Stanford’s Senior Housing site plans show 24 parking spaces (12 to be constructed
and 12 in landscape reserve) adjacent to the rear access road that is located between
the buildings and the creek. The issue is discussed in the January 27, 1997 staff
report (page 50); the October 16, 1996 staff report to the ARB (page 13); ARB
meeting minutes of October 16, 1997 (pages 58-60, 70-81 and 90); and Planning
Commission meeting minutes of October 30, 1996 (pages 124-128). Staff and the
Planning Commission recommend relocation of the parking spaces, and the ARB
recommends the parking as proposed by Stanford.
Recent City and Stanford staff discussions have not resolved this issue, and staff
reaffirms the recommendation to relocate the parking spaces.
If the Council wishes to approve the applicant’s requested parking location, the
following actions would need to be taken:
¯ Adopt a statement of overriding considerations for an unmitigated significant
environmental impact re intrusion in the 100-foot setback from the top of the
bank;
Modify the currently recommended Comprehensive Plan Streamside Open
Space land use map amendment to exclude from Streamside Open Space the
portion of the parking and trail located between the access road and the creek;
Modify the currently recommended Comprehensive Plan text amendment;
and
Add the following new condition on the trail location:
The recreational walking path that is coincident with the paved
service road behind the ’Health Care Center shall be removed_from
the service road Where parking stalls are located on the service road,
Up to the point where the service road becomes perpendicular to the
creek This relocated portion of the path shall be placed between the
creek and the service road. At the point where the service road
becomes perpendicular to the creek, the path will cross the service
road at a crosswalk and rejoin the planned acceptable path
alignment along the east side of the Health Care Center.
The impact of the new condition is illustrated in the site map and diagram that
constitute Attachment I to this staff report.
CMR:152:97 Page 6 of 17
ltem 9 -Road Improvements Condition 1 (¢) (modifying Mitigation Measures 4. 4- 7(e) and (d),
and
Road Improvements Condition 9.
Item 9 relates to Palo Alto’s expectation for Stanford mitigation of the Sand Hill
Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and the Junipero SerraJAlpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
intersections. Stanford’s concern in Item 9 relates to Palo Mto’s expectations for the
amount Stanford will pay toward these mitigations.
Item 13 relates to the process by which Stanford will make an offerto the City of
Menlo Park for construction of roadway improvements and mitigations and the
content of that offer.
Staff discussion of Item 9 overlapped discussion of Item 13. The combination of
Items 9 and 13 resulted in the following issues:
What is the form of Stanford’s offer to undertake roadway improvements and
related mitigations in Menlo Park?
Technically, it is not clear whether Stanford could apply for a roadway
project (i.e., there may not be an application process available). The Palo
Alto objective should be that Stanford make an offer or offers to Menlo Park
to construct certain improvements and mitigations. City staff is comfortable
with this being a letter offer to the Menlo Park City Council.
How often should Stanford be required by Palo Alto to make an offer to
Menlo Park?
In Item 13, below, the Condition states that "...the applicant shall file the
request for approval with Menlo Park on an annual basis...". The concern
raised by Stanford staff is that an annual offer to undertake the roadway
improvements and mitigations could result in a cycle of offer, analysis, public
hearings and denial. City staff is comfortable with a one-time offer that can
be considered by Menlo Park when their Council desires.
For how long a period should the offer to construct be valid?
Item 9 (Road Improvement Condition 1 (e)) does not have a time limit. In
Item 13 (Road Improvemen~ Condition 9), the Condition states that the offer
for construction shall be "for a period not to exceed 10 years or until approval
is granted, whichever comes first." While Stanford would like a shorter
period, they have agreed to accept the 10-year period for Roadway
Improvement Condition 9 and it has been agreed to add a 10-year period to
Roadway Condition 1 (c).
CMR:152:97 Page 7 of 17
To what extent should the City shape/limit what Stanford is required to offer
Menlo Park?
City and Stanford staff agree that Palo Alto should expect Stanford to offer
to Menlo Park a set of physical construction elements that includes the
bridge, Sand Hill Road to the Sand Hill/Santa Cruz intersection,
improvements to the Sand Hill/Santa Cruz and Junipero SerraJAlpine/Santa
Cruz intersections, related mitigations including the frontage road and noise
mitigations and other intersection mitigations as identified in the EIR.
Should the City establish an expectation for Stanford’s maximum financial
exposure?
Stanford’s concern is that, given the physical constraints in the Sand
Hill/Santa Cruz/Alpine/Junipero Serra area, there could be a substantial range
of.construction costs. They do not want to proceed with the projects with an
0pen-ended construction cost exposure in order to satisfy Palo Alto’s
mitigation and condition of approval expectations. To address this issue,
city and Stanford staff agree that Palo Alto’s conditions of approval should
include a process to establish Palo Alto’s expectations for Stanford’s
construction cost exposure. The way to do this is to have Stanford develop
a set of road, intersection and related improvement plans consistent with the
City’s understanding of Menlo Park construction standards. Then, before
Stanford’s offer to construct is made to Menlo Park, have an engineer’s cost
estimate prepared that is done to the satisfaction and approval of the Palo
Alto Director of Public Works. This estimate would then establish Stanford’s
fmancial obligation in terms of satisfying Palo Alto’s condition of approval.
For the Sand Hill/Santa Cruz and Junipem SerraJAlpine Road/Santa Cruz
intersection mitigations, what portion of the intersection mitigation costs
should Stanford be expected to pay?
This issue is addressed in the January 27, 1997 staff report (pages 2 and 45);
the July 24, 1996 Planning Commission staff report (page 33); and the
Planning Commission meeting minutes for August 7, 1996 (pages 87-97).
City staff has recommended that Stanford should be responsible for full
funding of these mitigations: Stanford disagrees, and believes it should only
be responsible for a smaller, proportionate share.
Discussion of the issue resulted in a staff agreement under which Stanford
would offer to pay the full cost of the improvements provided that Menlo
Park (and, where applicable, San Mateo County) agreed to establish a
developer impact fee mechanism that would obtain, from future development,
their fair share of the intersection costs, which funds would then be
reimbursed to Stanford.
CMR:152:97 Page 8 of 17
The result of these issues is the following modified Item 9 (Road
Improvement Condition l(c)) and Item 13 (Road Improvement Condition 9).
The new Conditions would read:
l(c) The applicant shouM pqv the _full cost dud!--be.~_.... _1..,~,~,, of implementing Mitigation
Measures 4.4-7(c and d), which require improvements to the
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue and the Junipero
Serra/Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue intersections. ~
These
improvements should ~ be constructed during the same
time frame of the remainder of the proposed road
improvements in the Santa Cruz/Oak Avenue area, and
should ~ be included in the final construction phasing
plan. (See Road Improvement Condition 9..)
9. . (a) Within 5 days o_f delivering to the Ci_tv of Palo
Alto imp~:ovement plans_for the Sand Hill Road improvements
as required bY condition 5, the applicant shall deliver to the
Ci_tv of Menlo Park and the Count. of San Mateo a full set of
the plans and drawings prepared to show the proposed
improvements of SHR and related physical mitigations to
intersections in ’the recipient’s jurisdiction, together with its
written offer, in a _form acceptable to the Palo Alto Ci.ty
Attorne.v. to fund the construction of those improvements in
accordance with this condition* The referenced intersections
are Santa Cruz/Sand Hill and Junipero Serra!Alpine/Santa
Cruz. The proposed improvements to Sand Hill Road and the
intersections are those shown in the proposed plans as
modified and approved as 96-ARB-92. (See Roadw~.
Improvement Conditibn 1(c).)
CO) Applicant shall p~_ its fair share (as set_forth in
the FEIR) of the costs o_f the road and intersection
improvements constructed within the Cir. of Menlo Park and
the Coun_ty of San Mateo as_follows. Applicant shall fund the
total cost of the improvements in the Ci.ty of Menlo Park ~f
*[footnote] The specific process by which the proposed road improvements would be
formally considered by the City of Menlo Park is unclear. Nonetheless, the intent of this
condition is to place the burden on the applicant to do whatever is necessary (a) to communicate
that it is required by this condition to fund those improvements and to offer to do so, and (b) to
. facilitate that funding in a timely and prompt manner whenever that City decides to proceed with
construction.
CMR:152:97 Page 9 of 17
Item 10 -
that Cir. offers to enter into an agreement to reimburse
applicant for the portion qf the costs, including an amount
attributable to interest, in excess of the applicant’s_fair share.
Applicant shall_fund the total cost of the improvements in San
Mateo Count. ~f the Count_ offers to enter into such a
reimbursement agreement. If there is no reimbursement
agreement, applicant shall p~. its_fair share of the total cost.
The total cost of such improvements shall not exceed the
amount o_f an engineer’s estimate based on the plans and
drawings described in paragraph (a). The engineer’s
estimate shall be done to the satisfaction and approval of the
Ci~_ o_f Palo Alto Director of Public Works and shall include
an annual inflation adiustment.
() This condition shall apply until the end of the
tenth full year_following_final approval qf 96-ARB-92.
Roadway Improvements Condition l (d) (modifying Mitigation Measure 4. 4- 7(e)).
Item 10 relates to the Middlefield/Willow intersection in Menlo Park. This
intersection is a very unusual situation, in which the EIR found that construction of
the project would result in less total traffic using the intersection than not having the
project. However, the distribution of traffic would change, and that change would
decrease the future level of service from D to E. This issue is discussed in the
January 27, 1997 staffreport (page 46); the July 24, 1996 Planning Commission staff
report (page 32); and the Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 7, 1996
(pages 99-103). Stanford contends that no mitigation should be required because of
the improved traffic voltunes, and City staff has recommended Condition 1 (d) to
establish a mitigation for the decreased level of service.
City and Stanford staff have agreed on a revised Condition 1 (d) which clarifies that
the first Choice mitigation is modification of traffic signal timing. The revised
Condition 1 (d) would be:
(d) Should the City of Menlo Park, within ten (10) years qf this
a_~t~roval, desire to make improvements to the Middlefield/Willow
intersection, to improve an LOS E or worse condition, the applicant
shall be required to contribute its fair (proportionate) share of the
cost to either make signal timing improvements sufficient to return
the intersection to LOS D or, ~f it is not possible to achieve LOS D
through signal timing mod~[ications, construct the improvements
listed in the EIR, rather than making no contribution, as the DEIR
currently states.
CMR:152:97 Page 10 of 17
Road Improvements Condition 1 (e) (modifying Mitigation Measures 4. 6-3 (c) and (d).
After discussion, Stanford staff decided to withdraw their request and retain Road
Improvements Condition l(e) with a clarification regarding the noise level that
triggers mitigation. The revised Condition l(e) would read:
Condition l (e) (modifying Mitigation Measures 4.6-3(c) and (d):
This mitigation requires the applicant to monitor interior noise levels
of properties identified as being potentially impacted by increased
noise attributable to the projects. Compensation to these owners to
provide acoustical upgrades is required under certain conditions, as
described in the Mitigation. This mitigation shall only be required
to be implemented for those areas where the contribution from the
projects is greater than 50% of the total impact. These areas are
shown on Exhibit A. An acoustic study shall be performed both
before and afier construction of all projects, at the applicant’s cost.
The study shah document pre-project interior noise levels for aH
sensitive receptors identified on Exhibit A immediately following
project approval. Post-construction noise levels shall be established
immediately following completion of all approved projects or
following December 31, 2000, whichever comes later. For those
receptors where post-construction interior noise levels are higher
than pre-construction levels and exceed 45 dBA, the study shah
identify measures and costs necessary to: A) return noise levels to
pre-construction levels," and B) achieve ne~ptnb~ a 45 dBA interior
noise standard~..
ltem 12 -
ltem 13 -
The project applicant shall be required to pay the cost identified to
return the interior noise levels to pre-construction levels or to_L_O__~
dBA. whichever is higher, ff there is a difference in costs between
options A and B, the property owner may elect to make up the
difference in cost to implement option B. It is possible, and likely,
that there will not be a difference in cost between option A and B.
Road Improvements Condition 5(k).
Item 12 requires that the Sand Hill Road bicycle lanes be 7 feet wide. Stanford asked
for 6-foot-wide bicycle lanes. After discussion, Stanf6rd staff agreed to accept the
7-foot lane width requirement.
Road Improvements Condition 5(k) - discussed with 1tern 9.
CMR:152:97 Page 11 of 17
Road Improvements Condition 25.
Item 14 relates to the edge of roadway treatment for Sand Hill Road between
Vineyard Lane and Oak Creek.. The area currently has an earthen swale for carrying
storm water. Maintenance of earthen swales is a major problem for Public Works
crews. Condition 25 proposed for the widened roadway that if earthen swales were
to be used~ Stanford would be responsible for maintenance. Stanford’s January 27
letter requested City maintenance. After discussion, Stanford agreed to accept
maintenance responsibility for the swales, but asked for the flexibility to make the
decision regarding curb and gutter or earthen swales at the time of construction
drawing approval by the Director of Public Works. City staff is comfortable with
either the curb and gutter or earthen swale technique and agrees with giving Stanford
the flexi’bility to make tiffs condition. No change to Road Improvements Condition
25 is needed.
Item 15 -
Item 16 -
Road Improvements Mitigation Measure 4. 4-2(e)
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2(e) requires Stanford, for a five-year period following
project construction, to fund an annual review of accident data for the 1-280/Sand
Hill Road interchange to determine whether a significant increase in bicycle/auto
conflicts has occurred. If an accident increase is documented, Stanford would be
responsible for working with Caltrans, Menlo Park and San Mateo County to design
and seek funding of safety improvements. After discussion, it was agreed that the
Mitigation Measure would not be changed. Stanford would be fully responsible for
the annual accident analysis.
Tentative Map Condition 7.
Item 16 relates to the public access guarantees for the future bicycle and pedestrian
path in front of Oak Creek Apartments. Review of detailed maps clarified that, with
one small design change, the bicycle and pedestrian paths will be located within
existing public right of way and not on the Oak Creek Apartment leasehold.
Tentative Map Condition 10 (applies also to Conditions 29 and 30 of the Roadway
Improvements.
Item 17 involves a number of technical issues related to the granting of public access
to improvements intended for public use (e.g., roadways, utility lines, bicycle paths).
Santa Clara County do.es not require Stanford to provide dedicated access or other
easements for the Campus. Stanford wishes to continue to not provide easements,
but is generally receptive to providing other forms of access provisions in non-
Campus areas. In addition, Stanford wishes to have access provisions be related to
the life of the project that generates the condition, rather than in perpetuity. None of
this will change what is being proposed for construction. City and Stanford staffs
have found this to be a complicated technical issue and more time is needed to
CMR: 152:97 Page .12 of 17
explore possible solutions. City staff will report to the Council in the next weeks
regarding Item 17.
Tentative Map Condition 11 (b).
1tern 18A -
This item relates to Stanford’s concerns about having to provide bonds for public
improvements, rather than other forms of financial security. The recommended
revised Condition 11 (b) would read:
The subdivider, shall submit improvements plansfor the design of the
improvements proposed for all public rights-of-way and all
improvements within public access easements and all public utilities.
These improvements shouM be installed by the subdivider, at the
subdivider’s expense and shall be secured ~ by a_ bond or
other form of financial securi~, gnavnntee acceptable to the City
Attorney....
Modification to identified Conditions regarding financial security for public
improvements.
Staff work on the bonding and other financial security issues led to the identification
of identical Conditions that address financial security guarantees for the Road
Improvement Project (Condition 40), Apartment Project (Condition 38), Shopping
Center Project (Condition 39) and Senior Housing Project (Condition 40).
It is recommended that all of these Conditions be modified to read:
The appBcant shall enter into an agreement with the City in a form
approved by the City Attorney which guarantees the completion of the
required public nnd-pvi,~ improvements, including public utilities
as well as any area subject to public access requirements and shall
post a bond or other form of financial ~ security acceptable
to the Cir. Attorney in an amount determined by the Director of
Public Works, as security for performance of this obligation.
Tentative Map Condition 12.
Item 19 relates to Stanford’s obligations for maintenance of improvements in pubfie
rights of way. In drafting Condition 12, it was not the City staff’s intent to have
Stanford be responsible for maintaining roadway pavement, curb and gutters and
sidewalks adjacent to public roadways. Maintenance obligations focus on roadway
landscaping (median and in the area between the road and sidewalk) and special
paving.
CMR:152:97 Page 13 of 17
Regarding roadway-related landscaping, it is standard procedure for the City to
maintain the landscaping. With the Sand Hill Corridor projects, a more elaborate
level of landscaping is proposed for the public roads than would be typical of other
developments. This landscaping, to remain vigorous and healthy, will require a
different and higher level of maintenance than the City provides. Further, the
landscaping adjacent to the Shopping Center is intended to be an integral part of the
overall Center landscape plan.
Condition 12 has five bullet points regarding maintenance responsibilities that are
addressed as follows:
¯ All publicly accessible improvements located on private property within a
Public Access Easement, such as sidewalks and landscaping -- Stanford
accepts responsibility for this category.
All rights-of-way along Sand Hill Road, E1 Camino Real, Quarry Road and
Arboretum Road -- As noted above, City and Stanford staff clarified that the
City did not intend for Stanford to be responsible for maintaining the paved
areas. Staff recommends that this bullet item be deleted.
All landscaping within median strips on Sand Hill Road, E1 Camino Real,
Quarry Road and Arboretum Road -- The wording needs to modified to "All
landscaping within the public right of way on...". Stanford proposed in their.
January 27 letter that they would maintain landscaping adjacent to the
Shopping Center. This takes care of Arboretum Road, Quarry Road, the
Stanford Shopping Center side of E1 Camino Real (the State’s responsibility
for the north side of E1 Camino Real does not change because of this project),
and Sand Hill Road from E1 Camino Real to Vineyard Lane. For Sand Hill
Road from Vineyard Lane to the bridge, City and Stanford staffs have agreed
to:
Stanford assuming responsibility for maintenance of the roadway
landscaping, and
The City reimbursing Stanford an amount equal to the average cost
the City incurs in maintaining other roadway landscaping in the City.
With this agreement, it is anticipated that Stanford can have one contractor
maintain all the roadway landscaping so there will be uniform landscape
maintenance quality andappearance. Stanford will be responsible for the
cost attributable to the higher standard of landscaping that they have
proposed as part of the project.
CMR:152:97 Page 14 of 17
Special paving located on public streets, such as Sand Hill Road, or within
any Utility Access Easement -- A standard City requirement is applicant
maintenance of special paving, and Stanford has agreed to this provision.
Any other improvements as may be agreed to by the City of Palo Alto and
Stanford University -- Staffs do not believe that there are any situations that
apply to this bullet, but the point is worth keeping in the event it becomes
applicable.
The revised Tentative Map Condition 12 would read:
A maintenance agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney, shall be executed between the City and subdivider,
establishing continual maintenance by the applicant of the following
improvements:
All publicly accessible improvements located on private property
within any area subject to public access requirements ~
~, such as sidewalks and landscaping.
CMR: 152:97
All landscaping within public rights qf way (including_median strips2
onfar. Sand Hill Road, El Camino Real, Quarry Road and Arboretum
Road and installed t~ursuant to project plans or conditions of
a_~t)roval of the Sand Hill Road projects;
Special paving located on public streets, such as Sand Hill Road, or
within any Utility Access Easement;
Any other improvements as may be agreed to by the City of Palo Alto
and Stanford University.
City shall reimburse to Stanford an amount equal to,, the cost that
would be.incurred by Cir. to maintain the median landscaping along
Sand Hill Road_from its intersection with Arboretum to the Ci~_ limits
at San Francisquito Cree£
Shopping Center Condition 53 (Roadway Improvement Condition 44, Apartment
Condition 57, Senior Housing Condition 57 also have this condition but without the
requirement for a separate maintenance agreemenO.
Discussion on Item 20 clarified that Stanford agrees that the cost of installing any
traffic signals that are part of the project is fully Stanford’s obligation. For traffic
Page 15 of 17
signal work related to mitigation measur(s in Palo Alto (e.g., Page Mill Road and E1
Camino Real), Stanford is responsible for its fair (proportionate) cost of the signal
work as identified in the EIR.
Regarding ongoing maintenance of traffic signals, City staff researched how the costs
of other traffic signal maintenance are handled. City staff found that the City is
routinely responsible for all of the signal maintenance costs if all legs of the
intersection are in the City. For the E1 Camino Real/Park/Serra intersection, Stanford
reimburses the City 25 percent of the maintenance costs, because one of the four legs
(Serra) is on County and Stanford campus land. Using this precedent, City and
Stanford staffs agreed that Stanford’s traffic signal maintenance responsibility would
apply to portions of the two signals with a leg in non-City land. The signals are
Stockfarm/Sand Hill andPalo/Quarry, and in each case, Stanford will pay 25 percent
of the maintenance costs.
The revised Shopping Center Condition 53 would read:
All new traffic signals and proposed modifications to existing
traffic signals shall be per City of Palo Alto Traffic Signal Standards
.and costs Shall be borne by the applicant. Separate approvals for
signals located on El Camino Real must be obtained from Caltrans.
A_~tdicant shall reimburse Cir. _for 1/4 of the annual costs of~
maintenance o_f the traffic signals installed at the intersections of
Sand Hill and Stock_arm Roads and of Quar~_ and Palo Roads.
Timing of Mitigations (This item is addressed by Stanford on pages 9 and !0 of their
January 27, 1997 letter).
City staff agrees with the conclusion on page 9 of Stanford’s letter "that because of
the comPlexity of the projects, some of these timing conditions may ultimately prove
to be impractical, unreasonably costly or even physically impossible for reasons that
¯ may not be possible to foresee." Therefore, it is recommended that the Development
Agreement be clarified to include a process whereby, in her discretion, the City
Manager, or her ¯designee, may vary the time for performance of any condition as
required by the terms of a condition, a mitigation measure or the mitigation
monitoring program.
ALTERNATIVES
Clear alternatives between the City staff recommendations and Stanford requests are available for
Items 7 and 8. For the other items, alternatives include the original staff recommendations and/or
the Stanford-requested change.
CMR:152:97 Page 16 of 17
FISCAL IMPACT
While there are no items that would have a substantial fiscal impact on the City, the combined
positive fiscal impact to the City of Stanford’s maintenance agreement is on the order of $40,000
to $50,000 per year. The three maintenance issues are maintaining earthen swales (Item 14),
maintaining all median landscaping to the high standard of the proposed projects (Item 19) and full
maintenance of the two traffic sigpals (Item 20).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
See the January 27, 1997 staff report (CMR: 126:97).
STEPS FOLLOVCING APPROVAL
See the January 27, 1997 staff report (CMR: 126:97).
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Two Maps Related to Senior Housing Project Recreational Trail Location
J.anuary 27, 1997 letter from Larry Horton and Curtis Feeny
CC:Planning Commission
Architectural Review Board
City of Menlo Park (Jan Dolan, Don de la Pena)
Stanford Management Company (Curtis Feeny, Bill Phillips, Diane Healey)
Stanford University (Larry Horton, Andy Coe, David Neuman)
PREPARED BY: Kenneth R. Schreiber
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
C°mmunityEnvZ ~ nt
CMR:152:97 Page 17 of 17
U
Health
Care Center
Health
Care Center
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDEN’r
January 27, 1997
Hon. Joseph H. Huber, Mayor
and City Councilmembers
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Sand Hill Road Projects
Our file 4678-020
Dear Councilmembers:
At long last, we bring before you Stanford’s applications for its Sand Hill
Road Projects: the Stanford West Apartments, the Senior Housing Project and the expansion
of the Stanford Shopping Center. These interrelated projects have been the subject of
Stanford’s public outreach process, countless hours of public meetings and hearings, a
comprehensive environmental impact report and an extensive evaluation by your staff. As a
result, the applications come to you with the favorable recommendations of your staff, the
Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission.
The proposals now before you reflect many changes as a result of the
community’s and staff’s input and the environmental review process. For example, the
number of apartment units have been reduced from 750, as originally proposed, to the current
628, both of which compare favorably with the 1,180 units allowed by the zoning; two
buildings previously located between the Village Green and Governor’s Lane have been
relocated; the shopping center parking structure has been relocated from a site along the
extension of Sand Hill Road to a Site on Quarry; the Senior complex has been reduced from
five stories to four; the separate mechanical building at the Senior site has been eliminated;
and the intersection of Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real has been relocated’to preserve
more of the wooded gateway to the City adjacent to the creek.
The economics of these projects are interrelated and frpgile due to the
combination of very high infrastructure costs, including costs to address existing problems in
addition to the impacts of the projects, and the many changes to the proposals made to
address community concerns which have increased the cost and reduced the profitability of
the projects.
GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS ~ BUILDING 170 ¯ STANFORD, CA 94305-2040 * TEL (415) 725-3323 o FAX (415) 725-3326
Hon. Joseph H. Hubert: ,ayor
and City Councilmembers
January 27, 1997
Page 2
As you know from the size of the staff report submitted to you, the
recommendations before you are complex and lengthy. There are 270 proposed conditions of
approval on 63 pages, many of which contain subparts, as well as innumerable mitigations
measures not separately listed which have been made conditions of approval. The mitigation
monitoring programs comprise 203 pages.
Many of the conditions are costly and, in Stanford’s opinion, unnecessary and
inappropriate. Nevertheless, it is willing to acquiesce to most in a spirit of compromise and
cooperation. Stanford does object to. approximately 20 of the proposed conditions and its
objections are summarized in an attachment to this letter. Below we discuss some policy
issues that relate to certain of the objections.
Dedications. Historically, the roads and trails on campus have been owned
and maintained by Stanford. These roads and trails are outside of the City and within the
jurisdiction of the County. This policy should be continued. The County has not indicated
any desire to accept responsibility for those roads or trails and any conditions that purport
to require dedication of public easements over some campus roads or trails should be
eliminated.
Maintenance. Historically, Stanford has maintained the private roads and
trails and it intends to continue to do so. Public streets and easements have been maintained
by the public entity to which the streets and easements are dedicated. Stanford believes this
simple and understandable policy should continue. The conditions that purport to require
Stanford to maintain improvements dedicated to the public should be eliminated. (At a
¯ minimum, the conditions should be clarified to confirm that they do not require the
maintenance of roadway improvements.)
These conditions appear to be a thinly veiled attempt to avoid the effect of
section 65913.8 of the Government Code (made applicable to charter cities by section
65913.9) that prohibits the City from imposing as a condition of development a charge for
the maintenance or operation of a public improvement. Generally, cities are reluctant to rely
on third parties to maintain public improvements because of quality, liability and
enforcement concerns. Although Stanford is trustworthy and competent, this is not a reason
to require it to bear the cost of maintaining public improvements.
Hon. Joseph H. Huber, ,..:~yor
and City Councilmembers
January 27, 1997
Page 3
The staff report attempts to justify this unusual exaction by stating that the
upgraded landscaping would outstrip the City’s normal maintenance capabilities. (pg. 46.~)
It also reports that the cost of maintaining the medians in question would be approximately
$7,500 to $10,000 per year. (pg..53.) The positive cash flow that the City will receive from
these projects, approximately $495,000 per year, is more than sufficient to fund the
maintenance. (pg.54.) In the alternative, the landscaping could be reduced to the City’s
normal standards so that the City can maintain it. Stanford should not be penalized for
proposing and offering to fund better landscaping than the City requires.
Excessive Contributions. The Constitution, as interpreted by a number of
recent Supreme Court decisions, requires that there be an essential nexus and rough
proportionality between a condition of approval and the impact of the project addressed by
the condition. Stanford has volunteered to do more than could be constitutionally required of
it -- for example, fully funding the widening and extension of Sand Hill Road that will
address existing traffic problems as well as the traffic impacts of the proposed projeets and
future unrelated growth. In addition, assuming the approvals are otherwise acceptable,
Stanford will comply with other conditions proposed by the City that could not meet the
rough proportionality test; for example, installation, at its sole expense, of oversized utilities
and off-site bike and pedestrian paths and rental concessions related to El Camino Park
valued at more than $12 million by your staff.
There are several conditions, however, to which Stanford objects either
because they seek to address situations that are not caused by the projects at all or because
the proposed conditions seek to require Stanford to pay more than its proportional share of
the cost of the improvement that is only partially required by the projects. Conditions, other
than those to which Stanford has voluntarily agreed, that require contributions,
dedications or payments in excess of that which is proportional to the impacts created
by the projects, should be revised to reflect the proportionality or eliminated if there is
no nexus.
Bonds. The proposed conditions and mitigation measures require Stanford to
post many bonds. In some cases, the law requires the City to obtain a bond or other
.acceptable financial security, generally to guarantee the construction of public improvements.
In some situations, however, the proposed conditions require bonds that are not required by
law; e.g., to secure replanting of grasslands and to "ensure retention of the Carriage House."
1 Citations are to the Staff Report for these.items, dated January 27, 1997.
Hon. Joseph H. Hubet, tayor
and City Councilmembers
January 27, 1997
Page 4
Given that Stanford is financially solvent,- will always be available and has an ongoing
interest in good relations with the City, Stanford suggests that no bonds are necessary.
Instead, the City should rely upon its other enforcement powers, including the default
provisions in the development agreement that allow it to withhold permits if Stanford has
failed to perform any material covenant of the development agreement including the
conditions of approval and mitigation measures.
Certainly the long-standing relationship and interdependence of the City and ~
Stanford together with the other enforcement mechanisms available to the City, make it
unlikely that the City will ever have to resort to the courts to enforce the conditions of
approval. In the unlikely event that the City would have to sue to enforce a condition,
Stanford is as able to respond to a judgment as a bonding company. Stanford has
volunteered to accept heavy financial burdens on this project, and the City has imposed
additional burdens, that will benefit not only the users of the projects but the community as a
whole. By eliminating as many requirements for bonds as possible, the City will reduce the
costs to Stanford by the amount of the bond premiums without sacrificing any, reasonable
security for compliance with the conditions of approval. To require Stanford to post bonds
not required by law is completely unnecessary and serves no reasonable public purpose. This
is an unnecessary cost that can be cut without harm to any party.
Stanford requests that all conditions requiring bonds, other than those
required by law, be eliminated and, as to those required by law, that the conditions be
modified to expressly allow the use of performance guarantees by Stanford in lieu of
bonds whenever allowed by law.
Child Care Facility. The Planning Commission proposed an additional
condition which the staff now supports2 to require Stanford to provide child care for children
residing in the Apartment project. Stanford objects to this proposal and requests that the
condition requiring the provision of child care be deleted.
The EIR does not recommend any child care measures. Instead it correctly
notes that "[f]or the purposes of CEQA, child care is not considered an environmental impact
to be analyzed within an EIR. It then proceeds to provide an informational discussion and
2 It is not clear whether staff supports the imposition of this condition over Stanford’s ~bjection, as the staff
recommendation appears to be dependent upon Stanford’s agreement. (See, pg. 14 ["Should the applicant agree to
this condition, as with all other conditions of project approval, it will be added to the development agreement by
reference."].)
Hon. Joseph H. Huber, ~_ayor
and City Councilmembers
January 27, 1997
Page 5
concludes that "existing licensed facilities.., may not be able to meet the child care demand
that may not be served by Stanford facilities. Additional staff and facilities would likely be
needed." (DEIR, pp. 4.12-30 to 35.) This speculative "analysis" is insufficient to establish
that there is a need for additional child care facilities created by the project. The DEIR notes
that the "methodology [used] may tend to overestimate the number of children that would
reside in the Stanf6rd West Apartments and that therefore would create a demand for child
care services" and "the data required to make a project specific estimate are not available."
The authority of the City to impose the condition is questionable. The
condition is proposed to be attached to the design approval for the Stanford West
Apartments, a permitted use in the RM-30 zone. Nothing in the Municipal Code authorizes.
the imposition of such a condition to that approval.3 Nor does the ComprehensivePlan
include any goal or objective relating to child care that might be implemented by this
condition, although it does expressly call for the City to encourage child care facilities on
industrial sites.4 The site is zoned RM-30 and that zoning district does not include child care
facilities among its permitted uses, although they are a conditionally permitted use requiring
a use permit. (PAMC § 18.04.030(a)(43)(A).) No one has applied for such apermit here and
we submit it is beyond the authority of the Council to require that Stanford include that use in
its plan.
Nevertheless, as demonstrated by its existing child care programs, Stanford is
concerned about providing child care facilities and services for its employees, students and
faculty. It intends to continue its efforts to address this community issue.
Menlo Park Street Improvements. Sand Hill Road is four lanes in Menlo
Park from its intersection with 1-280 to its intersection with Santa Cruz Avenue. It then
3 Staff suggests that the Condition be based upon PAMC §§ 16.48.120(a)(9) and (e)(3). Read separately, these
provisions arguably support imposition of the condition. However, Section 16.48.120 provides standards to "be
used by the architectural review board in reviewing projects within its jurisdiction." In the context of a Chapter
requiring approval of the design of projects, it is difficult to glean an intent to provide jurisdiction to the board (or to
the council) to require an applicant of a project that is a permitted use, to substitute a conditionally permitted use for
¯ which it did not apply. An owner has the right to make use of his property for a permitted use subject only to
approval of the design of the project and conditions reasonably related to that approval; the right to the use is not
subject to the discretion of the City.
4 The staff, without citation, implies that the City Council has an "explicit policy" to support the provision of child
care in residential neighborhoods. (pg. 16, first line.) We have been unable to find any such policy. Even if such a
policy exists, it does not provide authority for requiring child care as a condition of design approval.
Hon. Joseph H. Hubet;: :~ayor
and City Councilmembers
January 27, 1997
Page 6
narrows to two lanes for a short distance and enters Palo Alto, continuing in that
configuration until it intersects Arboretum and empties into the parking lot of the Stanford
Shopping Center. Stanford’s proposal to widen Sand Hill Road and to extend it to El
Camino Real therefore necessarily includes the widening of the Road in Menlo Park and
related improvements to its intersection with Santa Cruz Avenue.
City policy provides that further expansion of the Shopping Center will not be
considered until the existing traffic problems have been addressed. Further, Stanford realized
that improvements to Sand Hill Road would be necessary to mitigate impacts from its
projects. For these reasons, . and with the concurrence of your staff, Stanford engaged traffic
engineers to study the existing Sand Hill Road corridor and to propose improvements for
consideration by the City. The proposal as modified is recommended by your staff, the
Architectural Review .Board and the Planning Commission. Although not expressly stated,
the construction of the Sand Hill Road improvements, in Palo Alto, is a condition of approval
of the three projects.5 Stanford has indicated its willingness to accept such a condition and to
pay the full cost of those improvements.6
However, the Menlo Park portion of the project has proved problematic.
Menlo Park opposes the proposed widening of the Road and bridge within its jurisdiction.
Palo Alto has no power to require that City to make the improvements. At most, Palo Alto
can provide funding for the improvements by converting Stanford’s offer to a condition of
the entitlements grantedto Stanford for its projects.7 There is no approval or entitlement for
which a private party may apply to-build a public road in Menlo Park, or in any other
5 The conditions of the development approvals state only that they are conditioned upon approval of the road
improvements. (See, for example, condition 1. to the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project.)
6 In 1992, Stanford proposed that the City share in the cost of the roadwork. (pg. 8, Project History.)
Subsequently, Stanford withdrew that proposal and indicated it would pay the entire cost even though the
improvements are necessary, in part, to address existing problems .that would preclude the City from requiring that
Stanford do so..
7 Palo Alto could adopt a condition that would require Stanford to obtain the approval or agreement of Menlo Park
to the improvements of Sand Hill Road before commencing construction on its projects. That would give Menlo
Park a veto over public and private projects within Palo ,~lto, an unprecedented action which ha~ not been suggested
by any Palo Alto official. We note that by offering to fund road improvements ih Menlo Park, Stanford and Palo
Alto are proposing more than has ever been done before. Menlo Park has never required payment to Palo Alto to
offset traffic impacts resulting from a project in Menlo Park.
Hon. Joseph H. Huber, ,:_.,yor
and City Councilmembers
January 27, 1997
Page 7
jurisdiction to our knowledge. Public works projects are exclusively in the control of that
City.
For that reason, Stanford objects to the condition that purports to require
it to seek approval from Menlo Park. In summary, Stanford’s position is:
Stanford should be the "banker" for the proposed road improvements to be
constructed in Menlo Park and should pay its fair share of intersection
improvements and the entire cost of the improvements to Sand Hill Road.
Stanford shouldnot be required to make any application to Menlo Park
regarding such improvements but should be required periodically to formally
offer to fund the improvements as required by the conditions of approval.
Stanford’s financial responsibility should be quantified and capped.
The time during which Menlo Park can require Stanford to fund
improvements should be limited.
Unfortunately, the conditions, if read literally, require Stanford to submit to an
unspecified approval process in Menlo .Park. This is not desirable and is not necessary to
accomplish the goal of providing Menlo Park the means to construct the improvements if it
desires to do so.
. The explanatory footnote proposed by staff (and not considered by the
Commission) indicates that the intent of the condition is "to place the burden on the applicant
to do whatever actions are. required by the City of Menlo Park to submit the matter to formal
consideration by that City." If read literally, this condition allows that City to create an ad
hoc process, where none exists now, and to require Stanford to expend money and time to
meet its requirements. Absent this condition, Menlo Park would have no power to require
Stanford to do anything. Considering Menlo Park’s oft stated opposition to Stanford’s
projects and the proposed improvements to Sand Hill Road, the City should not place
Stanford and the projects in the control of Menlo Park.
Instead, the City should require Stanford to fund the improvements proposed
(as modified by you), if and when Menlo Park decides to construct the. improvements and
should require Stanford to provide all plans and drawings of the !mprovements to Menlo
Park.
Hon. Joseph H. Hube~, ,ayor
and City Councilmembers
January 27, 1997
Page 8
As currently written, the conditions do not include a maximum cost for which
Stanford is responsible. That is unreasonable. It is likely that Menlo Park will defer a
decision to construct the improvements. If it does, Stanford will have to decide whether to
proceed with its projects without knowing the extent of its obligation. Stanford should not be
expected to make that decision without knowing the amount of its contingent liability for
road improvements in Menlo Park. For that reason, Stanford requests that its monetary
obligation be capped at the estimated cost of construction of the improvements proposed (as
modified by you). The estimate should be prepared and reviewed by the City in the same
manner as estimates for bonds.
Finally, if the road project is approved by you, Stanford assumes that it is in
the mutual interests of Stanford and the City to have all of Sand Hill Road, including the
portion in Menlo Park; improved in a timely manner. In order to encourage Menlo Park to
cooperate, Stanford requests that its obligation to fund the improvements in Menlo Park be
time limited; i.e. that the obligation be to fund the improvements in Menlo Park if they are
constructed on or before December 31,2001. Otherwise, Menlo Park might delay
construction without any adverse consequences to it other than the continued use of its
residential streets by motorists trying to avoid the Sand Hill Road bottleneck.
Stanford also proposes that the condition be modified to provide additional
flexibility to Menlo Park. While Menlo Park may accept the improvements approved by the
City of Palo Alto, that City also should be able to modify those improvements or to decide to
implement other improvements and configurations and to use the funding made available by
the conditions of approval for any improvements that will contribute to the objective of
improving traffic circulation on Sand Hill Road and the related intersections. The condition
should be revised to expressly include this flexibility.
Stanford requests that the above objectives be accomplished by revising
condition 9 to read as follows:
9. (a) Immediately after receiving this approval, the
applicant shall deliver to the City of Menlo Park a full set of the
plans and drawings prepared to show the proposed improvements
of SHR in Menlo Park, together with its written offer, in a form
acceptable to the Palo Alto City Attorney, to fund the
construction of those improvements in accordance ~with’this
condition. *
Hon. Joseph H. Huber,
and City Councilmembers
January 27, 1997
Page 9
(b) Applicant shall pay its fair share of the costs of the
road and intersection improvements to be constructed within the
City of Menlo Park as follows. The total cost of such
improvements shall be determined by an engineer’s estimate.
Applicant’s fair share shall be as set forth in the specific
condition.
(c) Applicant shall reimburse the City of Menlo Park only
for expenditures made before December 31, 1999,. for (i) the
construction within that City of the improvements to SHR as
proposed by Stanford in conjunction with its application for this
project; (ii) for intersection improvements set forth in adopted
mitigation measures; or, (iii) for alternative work to improve the
circulation and.flow of traffic on SHR and/or those intersections,
as determined and approved by that City (without the requirement
of any further action by Stanford); provided that the reimbursement
shall not exceed the lesser of the actual cost of such improvements
constructed or work done or the amount of the engineer’s estimate.
* [footnote]The specific process by which the proposed road improvements
would be formally considered by the City of Menlo Park is unclear.
Nonetheless, the intent of.this condition is to place the burden on the applicant
to do whatever is necessary (a) to communicate that it is required by this
condition to fund those improvements and to offer to do so, and (b) to facilitate
that funding in a timely and prompt manner whenever that City decides to
proceed with construction.
Timing of Mitigations. Several of the conditions require that Stanford
complete them before ’beginning another portion of the project. For example, Shopping
Center condition 33 provides that applicant may not begin work until.utility plans have been
approved and Seniors condition 34 requires that utility mains be installed in Main Street of
the Apartment project before construction can begin on the Seniors project. Finally, each of
the approvals contains a condition providing that the timing of the mitigation measures is as
set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan which is only now being prepared.
While our review has not disclosed a timing requirement that is problematic,
Stanford is concerned that because of the complexity of the projects, some of these timing
conditions may ultimately prove to be impractical, unreasonably costly or even physically
impossible for reasons that may not be possible to foresee.
Hon. Joseph H. Hube~,: iayor
and City Councilmembers
January 27, 1997
Page 10
Stanford suggests, that flexibility be given to your staff to modify the timing of
performance of conditions. We propose that the following provisions, or something similar
be added either to the Development Agreement or to each set of conditions:
In her discretion, the City Manager, or her designee, may vary
the time for performance of any condition as required by the
terms of a condition, a mitigation measure or the mitigation
monitoring program.
Attached is a summary of the conditions to which Stanford objects including
Stanford’s proposed revisions. Also attached is a matrix identifying a few other conditions
that should be clarified.
Very truly yours,
Larry
of Government and
Community Relations
cc.’City Manager
City Attomey
Curtis Feeny
Executive
STANFORD WEST APARTMENT PROJECT
% Mitigation Measure 4. 7-3(g) (implemented through
Condition 2): The City may require, as a condition of approval, the applicant to provide a
performance bond or other financial security to replant any replacement grasslands found not be
alive at the end of the required five year maintenance period. The form of the bond or other
financial security shall be found acceptable to the City and the amount shall be sufficient to
cover the City’s cost to replant native grassland..4 qualified biologist approved by the City
shall, upon written request of the applicant at the end of the maintenance period, and in
consultation with CDFG determine thehealth of the replacement grasslands and release the
security, in the event that all replacement grasslands are alive.
Proposal: Delete in entirety.
Rationale: See Letter (discussion of bonding requirements). For this grassland
area, Stanford already has the burden of complying with a mitigation measure requiring approval
of a yearly maintenance and monitoring report, as well as seeking approval from the City for a
remedial plan if the success criteria is not met (see Mitigation Measures 4.7-3(e) and 4.7-3(0).
% Condition 7(g) (same as Condition 5(q)for Roadway
Improvements): A vehicular connection shall be provided between the Oak Creek
apartments and proposed Stanford West Apartment project, as specified in option 3 of Special
Roadway Consideration 15 in the Draft EIR.
Proposal: Delete inentirety.
Rationale: There is no justification supporting this condition. The EIR does not
recommend imposition of this requirement. DEIR, p. 4.12-30 (dearly states that this is not an
environmental impact caused by the project); FEIR, p. 13-38. First, the DEIR identifies
archaeological impacts resulting from the eonstrue.tion of the connector. DEIR, p. 6.2-39.
Second, even without the road, there are connections between the Oak Creek Apartments and
Stanford West Apartments via pedestrian and bike paths along Sand Hill Road and the creek.
Third, although left turns will not be possible from the existing driveway, the Proposed..~rojeets
offer improved access. The current left turn is unprotected. The Proposed Projects-~nq|~low U-
¯ turns from a left turn pocket with a protective signal.
% Condition 14(a): The applicant shallprovide .adequate day care for
the number of children expected to reside in the apartment housing in a manner that achieves the
2
3
STANFORD WEST APARTMENT PROJECT - Continued
a) reduction of car trips by parents, and b) contribution to community-building among the
residents of the projects.
Proposal: Delete in entirety.
Rationale: See Letter (discussion of child care). The staff report’s discussion of
this proposed condition does not acknowledge the overly optimistic assumptions supporting its
imposition. These assumptions include:
1) that none of the households with child care eligible children would have a
member who would drive off-site for some other reason (such as work) that could be combined
with the child care drop off;
2) that none of the households would use off-site day care centers;
3) that none of the households would have other children that would need to be
driven to elementary schools or other off-site destinations; and
4) that the alleged benefits of reduced parent trips would not be offset by trips
generated by employees traveling to and from the center.
However, there is no evidence in the EIR to support these assumptions.
% Condition 26 (same as Condition 30 of the Senior Housing
project).: The applicant shall agree to a program for providing Below Market Rate Units in
fulfillment of Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as
provided in the Letter of Agreement dated October 15, 1996 and included in the Conditions of
Approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map covering this project (File No. 94-SUB-6).
Proposal: Delete in entirety.
Rationale: The BMR program is no longer a condition of approval of the
tentative map. Instead, it will be made a part of the development agreement. Further, the
October 15, 1996 Letter includes a 59 year period. However, Stanford University policy requires
a limit of 51 years. Thus, the condition should be deleted and the development agreement
amended to reflect the term of 51 years.
%Condition 62: The applicant shah make avail~tble to residents of the
project a small retail facility on-site. The facility shall be put in place at the time offull
occupancy of the project. If the facility is not generating enough demand and revenues to carry
itself two years from the start of the service, the applicant may request that the City allow the
.service to be discontinued. If such a request is made, information relative to the facilitys ~
4
5
Ccltrat
2
STANFORD WEST APARTMENT PROJECT - Continued
operation shall be provided to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, who may,
at his option, make a decision regarding the request, or forward the request to the Planning
Commission for their action.
Proposal: Delete in entirety.’
Rationale: Neither the staff, the ARB nor the EIR support the inclusion 0fretail
space on the site for several reasons. Staff Report, pp. 15-16, p. 49; FEIK, 13-39 (no evidence
that this condition has a trip-reducing impact). First, the proximity of the Shopping Center and
other retail uses to the site are sufficient to meet the needs of the residents. In fact, this proximity
is superior to that of most Palo Alto neighborhoods. Second, there has been no evidence that
providing the retail on-site will provide any benefits. A small retail facility will not be able to
offer the variety of goods necessary to effect any meaningful impact on air quality or congestion.
See FEIK, p. 13-38. Furthermore, inclusion of the retail facility is not authorized by City codes -
it is not a permitted or conditional use in the RM-30 zone. CEQA provides no authority to the
City to require more than it could otherwise impose. Thus, as with the child care condition, this
also cannot be justified as a quasi-mitigation measure.
SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
% Mitigation Measure 4.3-4(a) (implemented by Condition 2):
The Old Carriage House shall be protected in place. Fencing or other appropriate protection
should be installed prior to construction to avoid impact to this important historic resource. The
applicant shall submit to the City a plan for protection of the Old Carriage House, that shall
include the parties responsible for long-term protection, and the specific protection requirements
(from structural stabilization to funding, for example). The City of Palo Alto shall approve the.
Carriage House protection plan prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the Stanford West
Senior housing project. The project applicant shall post a bond during the demolition and
construction phases to ensure retention of the Carriage House.
Proposal: Delete last sentence requiring bond.
Rationale: See Letter (discussion of bonding requirement). The Carriage House
is not part of the pr0jeet, is not a public improvement and is not a proper subject for the bond
requirement. Requiring City approval of the protection plan and the bond is excessive and
unnecessary.
% Mitigation Measure 4. 7-9(b) (implemented by Condition 2):
The Stanford West Senior Housing project shall be redesigned such that no new development
occurs within.the 100-foot setback from the top of the bank based on a 2:1 slope from the toe of
the San Francisquito Creek channel. This will require relocation of the proposed mechanical
building and the pool/spa facility.
6
7
SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT - Continued
Proposal." Delete in entirety.
Rationale: In its review, the ARB supported the location of the pool building,
while requiring relocation of the mechanical building. As a result, Stanford has agreed to
relocate the mechanical equipment within the primary building, eliminating the mechanical
building. However, Stanford, supported by the ARB, believes the current location of the pool
building balances the functional requirements necessary for the seniors, creek sensitivity and tree
protection. The pool building will not encroach into the existing riparian corridor. Staff has
recognized that the Streamside Open Space and riparian corridor varies in size and proximity to
the creek. The pool building is a one=story, transparent structure to be located on a site that is
already currently developed. Thus, it will not result in any adverse impacts on the. riparian
corridor. Furthermore, the pool is an integral component of the wellness therapy and
rehabilitation program to be offered at the Senior Housing. Therefore, it needs to be centrally
located to be accessible to all residents.
% Condition 7(g): No parking shall be allowed along the access road at
the rear of the Health Care or Condominium Buildings. The 24 spaces shown on the revised
plans dated October 16, 1996 shall be removed from the area presently shown on the plans.
This parking may be eliminated entirely, or relocated to acceptable areas of the site subject to
the approval of the ARB.
Proposal: Delete in entirety.
Rationale: During its review, the A1LB supported the parking plan. These 12
parking spaces and 12 landscape reserve spaces located behind the Senior Health Care Center are
needed to support the program. In additioh, they will serve to prevent any future conflict with
the Ronald McDonald House. Under the terms of its lease with the Ronald McDonald House,
Stanford is required to provide 35 parking spaces for Ronald McDonald House’s use. If there is
an insufficient number of parking spaces at the Senior site, people may try to use the spaces
allocated to the Ronald McDonald House or go across Sand Hill Road to park. Neither option is
desirable. It should be noted that Stanford is not proposing to actually build 24 spaces at the
outset, but willhold 12 spaces in a landscape reserve. After gauging the needs of the project,
Stanford and the City will determine whether the additional 12 spaces will be necessary. The
proposed area already includes an access road. Thus, the location of the parking spaces
¯ adequately balances the needs of seniors accessing the Health Care Center and the sensitivity for
the needs of the creek.
projecO.
Condition 30 (same as discussion for Condition 26 of the Apartment
Ccltrat
4
SAND HILL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
% Condition l(c) (modifying Mitigation Measures 4.4-7(c)and
(d)): The applicant shall be required to fund its ’fair share" of implementing Mitigation
Measures 4. 4-7(c and d), which require improvements to the Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
and the duniperro Serra/Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue intersections. "Fair share shall be
defined to mean ’full cost". These improvements shall be constructed during the same time
frame of the remainder of the proposed road improvements in the Santa Cruz/Oak Avenue area,
and shall be included in the final construction phasing plan.
Proposal: Delete in entirety.
Rationale: The EIR includes specific mitigation measures requiring Stanford to
pay for its fair share of the improvements at the affected intersections. This measure was based
on the environmental analysis of the project impacts. In this ease, project related use represents -
about 7% of the growth in use of the intersection between 1995 and 2000. DEIR, Figures 4.4-7,
4.4-8 and 4.4-9. Even Without the projects, the Juniperro Serra/Alpine/Santa Cruz intersection
will operate at LOS E or F in the year 2000. DEIR, Table 4.4-18. Even if the projects are
assigned full responsibility for existing traffic drawn to the intersection by the improved
conditions in the Sand Hill Road Corridor, their responsibility would be far less than 100% of the
growth in intersection traffic. See DEIR, pp. 4.4:109, 110 (stating that cumulative project
contribution to these intersections ranges from 52-71% of impacts).
Thus, it should be recognized that the traffic growth at these two intersections
which the DEIR assigns to Stanford will largely occur only because the Sand Hill corridor
roadway improvements will enhance traffic flow, and remove traffic from alternate routes. As a
result, Menlo Park will benefit from improvements to traffic levels on a number of its streets and
intersections. This will presumably reduce the need for Menlo Park to fund traffic improvements
which would otherwise be required. See DEIR, Table 4.4-10, pp. 4.4-29, 30 (Menlo Park
General Plan identified these intersections as requiting improvements even in the absence of
Stanford’s projects).
However, staff proposes to modify the condition to redefine "fair share" to mean
"full cost," contrary to the conclusions in the EIR. Requiring Stanford to fund the full cost of
these improvements is excessive. See Letter (discussion of excessive contributions). Therefore,
the current Mitigation Measure should not be modified.
9
Ccltrat
SAND HILL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - Continued
% Condition l(d) (modifying Mitigation Measure 4.4-7(e)):
.Should the City of Menlo Park desire to make improvements to the Middlefteld/Willow
intersection, the applicant shall be required to contribute its fair (proportionate) share of the
cost to construct the improvements listed, rather than making no contribution, as the DEIR
currently states.
Proposal: Delete in entirety.
Rationale: The DEIR concludes that the projects will reduce traffic at the
Middlefield!Willow intersection. SeeDEIR, p. 4.4-110. As a result, the DEIR states that
Stanford should not be required to participate in funding future improvements to this
intersection. Furthermore, the staff report states that Menlo Park has a policy not to improve this
intersection. Staff Report, p. 46. Thus, there is no rational nexus for requiring Stanford to
contribute to improving the intersections further. See Letter (discussion of excessive
contributions). Nevertheless, the Planning Commission has recommended that Stanford be
required to contribute to the cost of improvements to this intersection in the event the City of
Menlo Park desires to undertake them.
At the very least, Stanford requests that this recommendation be modified.
Because the projects will reduce traffic volumes at this intersection, any adverse changes in delay
times could be remedied through signal timing modifications. Stanford’s mitigation
responsibilities, if any, should therefore be limited to its proportionate share of the cost of signal
timing modifications.
% Condition l(e) (modifyingMitigation Measures 4.6-3(c) and
(d)): This mitigation requires the applicant to monitor interior noise levels of properties
identified as being potentially impacted by increased noise attributable to the projects.
Compensation to these owners to provide acoustical upgrades is required under certain
conditions, as described in the Mitigation. This mitigation shall only be required to be
implemented for those areas where the contribution from the four projects proposed by the
applicant is greater than 50% of the total impact. These areas are shown on Exhibit A. An
acoustic study shall be performed both before and after construction of all projects, at the
applicant’s cost. The study shall document pre-project interior noise leveIs for all sensitive
¯receptors identified on Exhibit A immediatelyfollowingproject approval. Post-construction
noise levels shall be established immediately following completion of all approved projects or
following December 31, 2000, whichever comes later. For those receptors where the
post-construction interior noise levels are higher than pre-construction levels, the study shah
identify measures and costs necessary to: A) return noise levels to pre-construction levels; and,
(B) achieve acceptable interior noise standards.
10
11
Ccltrat
6
SAND HILL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - Continued
The project applicant shall be required to pay the cost identified to return the
interior noise levels to pre-construction levels, option A above, lf there is a difference in costs
between options A and B, the property owner may select to make up the difference in cost to
implement option B. It is possible, and likely, that there will not be a difference in cost between
option A and B.
Proposal: Delete in entirety.
Rationale: Again, the EIR includes a specific noise mitigation measure requiting
Stanford to compensate property owne~:s who experience an increase above the noise standards
used by the City (See FEIR, p. 15.33-7, Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(d)). The measure calls for a
proportionate contribution from Stanford based on the projects’ contribution to the impacts,
satisfying the rational nexus test. There is no reason to modify the requirements imposed by the
EIR to mitigate noiseimpacts.
% Condition 5(k): The bicycle lanes along the entire length of SandHill
Road shall be a minimum of 7 feet wide. This width may include up to 2feet of concrete gutter
or-V-drain. Where a curb and gutter or V-drain is provided, the asphalt section of the bicycle
lane shall be no less than 5feet wide. Where no formal edge treatment may be approved (please
refer to Condition 25for related information regarding the drainage plan for Sand Hill Road),
the clear width of the asphalt in the bicycle lane shall be 7feet.
Proposal: The bicycle lanes along the entire length of Sand Hill Road shall be a
maximum of i5 feet wide, regardless of edge treatment provided. This width may include up to 2
feet of concrete gutter or V-drain.
Rationale: First, as safety is a design priority for Stanford, extensive research
was conducted prior to developing the proposed bike lanes. Sources included federal and state
guidelines as well as consultation with members of local bicycle advisory committees. Wider
lanes are not recommended primarily because of the desire to maintain single-file operations in
the bike lanes. Studies regarding the bieyele riding characteristics of children found that wider
lanes ene0uraged riding side-by-side. Stanford believes that side-by-side riding in a bike lane
adjacent to vehicle travel should be discouraged because of potential safety problems.
Wider bike lanes may also result in motorists using the bike lane to pass other
motorists on the tight. For example, vehicles queued at an intersection could be passed well in
advance of the intersection by a motorist who desires to make a right-turn at the intersection.
These maneuvers, although prohibited by law, often occur in wide bike lanes and increase the
potential for vehiele/bicyeie conflicts.
12
Ccltrat
SAND HILL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - Continued
Furthermore, as overall bike lane widths reach or exceed 7 feet, there is an
increased likelihood that motorists will park along the curb, blocking the bike lane. Bicyclists
would then be required to shift over into the vehicle travel lane, increasing vehicle/bicycle
conflicts.
ProjecO.
Condition 5(q) (same as discussion for Condition 7(g)for Apartment
%Condition 9: The applicant shah seek approval from the City of Menlo
Park for all improvements proposed tO be located within the City of Menlo Park immediately
following any final approval by the Oty of Palo Alto for improvements within the City of Palo
Alto. If approval of the proposed improvements is not granted by Menlo Park, the applicant
shall provide design details, to be approved by the Chief Transportation Official, for handling
the transition from four to two lanes on Sand Hill Road near the San Francisquito Creek bridge
crossing. Furthermore, the applicant shall re-file the request for approval with Menlo Park on
an annual basis for a period not to exceed 10 years or until approval is granted, whichever
comes first.
Proposal: Revise to read as follows:
9. (a) Immediately after receiving this approval, the applicant
shall deliver to the City of Menlo Park a full set of the plans and
drawings prepared to show the proposed improvements of SHR in
Menlo Park, togetherwith its written offer, in a form acceptable to
the Palo Alto City Attorney, to fund the construction of those
improvements in accordance with this condition. *
(b) Applicant shall pay its fair share of the costs of the road
and intersection improvements to be constructed within the City of
Menlo Park as follows. The total cost of such improvements shall
be determined by an engineer’s estimate. Applicant’s fair share
shall be as set forth in the specific condition.
13
* [footnote]The specific process by which the proposed road improvements
would be formally considered by the City of Menlo Park is unclear.
Nonetheless, the intent of this condition is to place the burden on the applicant
to do whatever is necessary (a) to communicate that it is required by this
condition to fund those improvements and to offer to do so, and (b) to facilitate
that funding in a timely and prompt manner whenever that City decides to
proceed with construction.
Ccltrat
8
SAND HILL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - Continued
(c) Applicant shall reimburse the City of Menlo Park only
for expenditures made before December 31, 1999, for (i) the
construction within that City of the improvements to SHR as
proposed by Stanford in conjunction with its application for ihis
project; (ii) for intersection improvements set forth in adopted
mitigation measures; or, (iii) for alternative work to improve the
circulation and flow of traffic on SHR and/or those intersections,
as determined and approved by that City (without the requirement
of any further action by Stanford); provided that the reimbursement
shall not exceed the legser of the actual cost of such improvements
constructed or work done or the amount of the engineer’s estimate.
Rationale: See Letter (discussion of Menlo Park improvements).
% Condition 25: The applicant shall submit afinal grading and drainage
for review and approval by Public Works Engineering. The grading and drainage plan for the
Sand Hill Road Improvements shall indicate drainage improvements of Curb and gutter or
concrete V-drain in locations subject to the final approval of the Public Works Directors.
Earthen swales may be provided in some locations in-lieu of concrete V-drains, subject to
approval of the Public Works Director and subject to approval of a maintenance agreement.
specifying that Stanford will be responsible for maintenance of the earthen swales. The shoulder
area of Sand Hill Road shall incorporate the requirement for a bike lane, to be 5feet in width
when adjacent to curb and gutter or V-drain and 7feet in width when adjacent.to pavement edge
(should any earthen swales be approved).
Proposal: At the end, add "The applicant is not required to replace the existing
earthen swale along Sand Hill Road between Oak Creek and Vineyard Lane." .
Rationale: The swale is a public improvement, currently maintained by the City,
and is both environmentally and aesthetically superior to a curb and gutter or concrete V-drain
replacement. Further, the roadway improvements will not have a significant impact requiring
replacement of the existing swale between Oak Creek and Vineyard Lane. As the swale is a
public improvement, the City should continue to be responsible for its maintenance.
% Mitigation Measure 4.4-2(e): Forfiveyearsfollowingproject
construction, the project applicant shall fund an annual review of reported traffic data at the
Sand Hill Road/I-280 interchange to determine whether a significant increase in bicycle/auto
conflicts has occurred In the event that such an increase is documented, the applicant shall
work with Caltrans, the Oty of Menlo Park and San Mateo County to design and obtain funding
for safety improvements to minimize these conflicts.
Ccltrat
SAND HILL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - Continued
Proposal." Add sentence "The applicant’s obiigations under these measure shall
be on a proportionate basis."
Rationale: See Letter (discussion of excessive contributions).
TENTATIVE MAP
% Tentative Map Condition 7: Public Access Easements shall be
provided along the Sand Hill Road frontage along the length of the Oak Creek Apartments, and
along the south side of the road between San Francisquito Creek and Arboretum Road The
easements shah be similar in width and nature to that provided along the proposed Stanford
West Apartment Housing frontage.
Proposal: Add sentence: "This condition shall be subject to any existing ground
leases or other legal restrictions."
Rationale: Under the terms of its ground lease with the Oak Creek Apartments,
Stanford cannot provide an easement in front of the Oak Creek Apartments at the present time.
While Stanford could grant the easement as part of the final map dedications, the easement will
not effective until the term of the ground lease expires. ...
% Tentative Map Condition 10 (applies also to Conditions 29
and 30for the Roadway Improvements): The subdivider shall dedicate the proposed
rights-of-way and all necessary public utility, storm drain, and public access easements as
shown on the approved tentative subdivision map, or as modified by conditions of approval or
the final design detail plans to be approved by the Architectural Review Board. These
dedications shah be shown on the face of the map. ¯
Proposal: Make clear that Stanford is not required to dedicate any easements
within the academic earnpus area.
Rationale: See Letter discussion of Dedication requirements. The appropriate
language for conditions relating to public access is under discussion with the City staff. The
legal mechanism for ensuring adequate public access will vary depending on the nature and
¯ location of the access to be provided. The specific legal mechanism to be used in each instance
should be determined with the approval of the City Attorney.
%. Tentative Map Condition l l (b): The subdivider shall submit 1improvement plans for the design of the improvements proposed for all public rights-of-way and
all improvements within public access easements and all public utilities. These improvements
Ccltrat
10
TENTATIVE MAP - Continued
should be installed by the subdivider, at the subdivider’s expense and shall be guaranteed by
bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. All pubtic improvements shall
he.constructed by a licensed contractor and shall conform to the City’s standard specifications,
except as otherwise modified by the project conditions of approval.
Proposal: The subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the design of the
improvements proposed for all public rights-of-way and all improvements within public access
easements and all public utilities. These improvements should be installed by the subdivider, at
the subdivider’s expense. All public improvements shall be constructed by a licensed contractor
and shall conform to the City’s standard specifications, except as otherwise modified by the
project conditions of approval.
Rationale: See Letter (discussion of bonding requirements).
MISCELLANEOUS (affect all projects)
% Tentative Map Condition 12: A maintenance agreement, in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be executed between the City and subdivider, establishing
continual maintenance by the applicant of the following improvements:
19
¯ Allpublicly accessible improvements located on private property within a Public
Access Easement, such as sidewalks and landscaping;
¯All rights-of-way along Sand Hill Road, E1 Camino Real, Quarry Road and
Arboretum Road.
oAll landscaping within median strips on Sand Hill Road, El Camino Real,
Quarry Road and Arboretum Road;
¯ Specialpaving located on public streets, such as Sand Hill Road, or within any
Utility Access Easement;
oAny other improvements as may be agreed to by the City of Palo Alto and
Stanford University.
11
MISCELLANEOUS (affect all projects) - Continued
Proposal: The subdivider shall maintain the medians adjacent to the Shopping
Center and all publicly accessible improvements located on private property within a Public
Access Easement, such as sidewalks and landscaping.
Rationale: The condition, as currently drafted, calls for Stanford to maintain
public improvements which are owned by the City of Palo Alto. Maintenance of public
improvements should be publicly funded. Once the City accepts the dedications, the City is
responsible for maintaining the improvements. See, e.g., Government Code § 65913.8, Streets
and Highways Code § 1806. While Stanford has no objection to maintaining rights-of-way it
owns, dedications and easements to be dedicated to the City should be maintained by the City.
For instance, under the terms of the condition as currently written, Stanford would be required to
maintain Sand Hill Road and E1 Camino Real. There is no reason to implement such a change 4o
the historical policy. The Staff Report indicates that Stanford should bear the maintenance
responsibility because the landscaping standards exceeds those of the City’s and the City could
not afford to maintain the landscaping to the proposed standards. Staff Report, pp. 46. However,
if necessary, Stanford will submit revised landscaping plans in compliance with City standards.
In any event, the increased cash flow to City coffers generated by the projects, as demonstrated
in the financial analysis, will be sufficient to fund this maintenance. See Staff Report, pp. 52-53.
% Shopping Center Condition 53 (Roadway Improvement
Condition 44, Apartment Condition 57, Senior Housing Condition 57 also have
this condition but without the requirement for a separate maintenance
agreemenO: All new traffic signals and proposed modifications to existing traffic signals
shall be per City of Palo Alto Traffic Signal Standards and costs shall be borne by the applicant.
Separate approvals for signals located on El Camino Real must be obtained from CalTrans.
Separate maintenance agreement will be required for any new signals.
Proposal: All new traffic signals and proposed modifications to existing traffic
signals shall be per City of Palo Alto Traffic Signal Standards and applicant shall bear its fair
share of costs. Separate approvals for signals located on E1 Camino Peal must be obtained from
CalTrans.
Rationale: This proposed language clarifies Stanford’s understanding that the
¯costs of the signals will be apportioned like the costs of other mitigation improvements. Again,
this is consistent with the rational nexus test. Also, any new traffic signals will be public
improvements owned by Palo Alto.
20
Cctt~at
12
Z
0