HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-27 City Council (9)CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
February 27, 1997
TO:
SUBJECT:.
City Council Members
Stanford Sand Hill Corridor Projects -- Revised Staff Report Re:
Recommended Approach for City Council Review Of and Decision Making
On the EIR and Projects (CMR: 151:97)
¯ CMR: 151:97, distributed to the Council on February 24, 1997, contained a notation that a
revised staff report with references to the previously-issued reports for the Policy Level-and
Detail Level questions would be issued on February 27. The revised report is attached.
Staff has identified citations for background reading for the questions. Note that the cited
references are almost always not a complete list of places where a particular topic has
appeared in the EIR, staff reports and minutes. Compiling a complete index is beyond the
time resources available. However, the cited references should help Council Members in
their preparation for future Council meetings.
Respectfully submitted,
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Manager
Attachment
TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
DATE:February26,1997 CMR: 151:97 (Revised 2/27/97)
SUBJECT:Stanford Sand Hill Corridor Projects -- Recommended Approach
for City Council Review Of and Decision Making On the EIR and
Projects
REQUEST
This staffreport provides a recommended organizational outline for the City Council to use
in reviewing and making decisions on the EIR and individual projects that constitute the
Sand Hill Corridor. Projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that, at the February 26, 1997 City Council meeting, the Council discuss
and come to an agreement on the way that the Council wishes to approach subsequent review
of the elements of the Sand Hill Corridor Projects.
BACKGROUND
The Stanford Sand Hill Corridor Projects constitute, in terms of the scope and scale of the
projects, the interconnectedness of the projects, the amount of environmental information and
the amount of public testimony, the largest and most complex land use development issue
faced by the City in decades, and perhaps in the history, of the City. Approaching the
decision making process is an understandably daunting experience for the public, Staff and
City decision makers. However, the Council is fortunate to have the results of extensive
review by and recommendations from the Architectural Review Board and Planning
Commission. At this stage in the process, the most difficult task is to organize and begin the
review and decision making process. Once into the process, staff has no doubt of the
Council’s .ability to coherently sort out and resolve the issues.
ClVlR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97.Page 1 of 4-~ 19
DISCUSSION
The overall approach identified below has the Council taking up, in order:
2.
3.
4.
The EIR;
Policy issues;
Project detail issues;
Additional review of EIR.mitigations based on Council conclusions regarding
policy and project detail issues;
Final direction to staff regarding desired actions; and
Review of final resolutions, ordinances, and other actions.
The Council may conclude that, at points in the process, and especially after step 3, it will
want to direct staff to meet with the applicant to discuss and report back .on issues of
particular concern to the Council.
Within this six-step process, there are several observations:
First, there is not a precise dividing line between policy issues and project detail
issues.
Second, staff believes that the Council will benefit from a discussion of the broader
policy issues associated with the projects. There is an understandable danger of
becoming immersed in the details to the point where the big picture is hard to focus
on. Further, the ARB and Planning Commission have extensively worked through the
detail issues, and the broader policy issues are the appropriate initial major focus of
the Council.
There is no obviously correct way to order the Council’s discussion of the four major
projects. Staff suggests that the projects, at both the policy and detail levels, be taken
up in the following order:
1.The Stanford West Apartments,
2.The Stanford West Senior Housing,
3.The Roadway modifications, and
4.The Stanford Shopping Center expansion.
Following these project~related discussions, the Council also needs to discuss:
5.The new Pasteur parcel,
6.The Tentative Subdivision Map, and
7.The Development Agreement.
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 2 of 4~ 19
There are several reasons for the suggested order of the four major projects. First, in the long
run, staff concludes that the housing projects offer far more public benefit than the Shopping
Center expansion. The Stanford West Apartment project has the potential to be a regional,
state and national award-winning project in two areas. The quality of the site plan, building
design and open space is exceptional. Second, staff is not aware of another major employer
willing to build apartment housing on this scale in close proximity to work locations. From
the perspective of the automobile trip reduction, commute trip length reduction and air
quality benefits, the project would be a model. The Senior Housing project is also well
designed and.an appropriate replacement for the former Children’s Hospital facilities.
Second, the Council’s policy conclusions regarding the housing projects will be important
to know when discussing whether to undertake the Sand Hill Road extension and the two-,
three-, or four-lane Sand Hill Road alternatives.
Third, the Shopping Center expansion, as noted in staff’s response to Council question L.3
on page 78 of the attachment to the February 26, 1997 staff report (CMR:153:97), is a
significant financial facilitator for the roadway and other infrastructure changes in the
Corridor. While decisions on the four major projects (and the Development Agreement) are
closely interrelated, the Shopping Center expansion decision can be viewed as somewhat
dependent on the other project decisions.
The following discussion and decision making guide has been put into a question format.
Undoubtedly, there are other questions that the Council will wish to pursue. However, those
questions should be able to fit into the recommended format.
Review of the Environmental Irnpact Report
Are the descriptions of the projects Clear and understandable? (Volume 2, Chapter 3
and Volume 6, Chapter 11).
Are there questions and comments on the Summary of Text changes? (Volume 6,
Chapter 14 -- note that mitigations are addressed below.)
Are there questions and comments on the Frequently Referenced Consolidated
Responses? (Volume 6, Chapter 12.)
Are there questions and comments on the Response to Major Issues Raised by the
Planning Commission? (Volume 6, Chapter 13.)
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 3 of-l~ 19
o
.8.
Policy
Are there questions and comments on the environmental information? (It is suggested
that the Council take up environmental issues in the order they are addressed in
Volumes 2 and 3 of the EIR.)
Are there questions and comments on the impacts and mitigations? (Volume 1, pages
1-64 to 1-169, and Volume 6, Chapter 14.)
Are there questions and comments on any of the Comments and Responses
(Volumes 7 and 8) and public testimony?
Are there questions and comments on the .Fiscal Analysis? (Separate report that
accompanied the EIR and Response to Questions L. 1 and L.2 in the attachment to the
February 26, 1997 staff report, CMR:153:97.)
Level Review of the Projects
Apartment Project
For an overview of the Policy implications of the Apartment Project, seeAttachment 25 (Tab
19 in the CouncilMembers’ binders) of the January 27, 1997 staff report (CMR: 126:97).
See also amendments to the Policy discussion in the January 27 staff report, pages 23-25.
1.Is the Multiple Family Residential land use designation appropriate?
o
See above references to the January 27, 1997 staff report and pages 17-19 in the
July 24, 1996 Apartment Housing Project staff report to the Planning Commission~
Is the provision of rental housing rather than ownership housing particularly
important? ,
See above references tothe January 27 staffreport.
°How important is the provision of employee-oriented housing in close proximity to
the work place?
See above references to the January 27 staffreport and Consolidated Response 2 in
the EIR, Volume 6, pages 12-4 and 12-5.
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 4 of-l~ 19
4.Is the density of 628 units reasonable and acceptable?
See above references to the January 27 staff report and pages 3 to 5 and 26 to 28 in
the July 24, 1996 Apartment Housing Project staff report to the Planning
Commission.
5.Is the setback from San Francisquito Creek acceptable?
See Consolidated Response 26 in the EIR, Volume 6, pages 12-46 and 12-47 and the
February 26, 1997 staff report (CMR:153:97) providing responses to Council
questions, Response F.5 on page 19 of the attached Table 1.
6.Is the BMR Agreement acceptable? ¯
See pages 24 and 25 in the July 24, 1996 Apartments Housing Project staff report to
the Planning Commission, Consolidated Response 10 (including the BMR letter
agreement) in the EIR, Volume 6, pages 12-15 to 12-25, and the February 26, 1997
staff report providing response to Council questions (CMR: 153:97), items H. 1 and
H.4, pages 64-66 and 69 of the attached Table 1.
Senior Housing Project
For an overview of the Policy Implications of the Senior Housing Project, see Attachment
26 (Tab 20 in the Council Members’ binders) of the January 27, 1997 staff report
(CMR: 126:97).
Is the change in land use designation from Major Institution/Special Facilities to
Multiple Family Residential appropriate?
See above reference to the January 27 staff report and the February 26, 1997 staff
report providing responses to Council questions (CMR: 153:97), the first paragraph
of Response A.2, page 1 of the attached Table 1.
o Is the provision of senior housing and related medical facilities an acceptable land
use?
See above reference to the January 27 staff report.
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 ~’age 5 of-l~ 19
Is the density of 388 condominium units,
nursing beds reasonable and acceptable?
66 assisted living units and 47 skilled
See the July 24, 1996 Senior Housing Project staff report to the Planning
Commission, pages 3 to 6 and 16 to 18.
Transportation System Changes
For an overview of the Policy Implications of the Roadways Project, see Attachment 24 (Tab
18 in the Council Members’ binders) of the January 27,1997 staffreport (CMR: 126:97). See
also amendments to the Policy discussion in the January 27 staff report, page 23.
Should Sand Hill Road, in some configuration, be directly connectedto E1 Camino
Real? (Note that the issue of two, three or four lanes for both the extension and the
existing road has both policy and detail aspects and is listed in the Detail Level
portion questions.)
See above references to the January 27 staff report.
If extended, should Sand Hill Road be connected to Palo Alto Avenue/Alma Street?
o
See above references to the January 27 staff report, discussion of Special Roadway
Consideration #6 and #7 in the EIR, Volume 3, pages 6.2-20 to 6.2-24, and
Consolidated-Resp0nses 41 and 42 in the EIR, Volume 6, pages 12-64 to 12-67..
Are the other proposed roadway changes desirable?
-Stockfarm Road
-VineyardLane
-Quarry Road
-Palo Road
See the EIR, Volume 3, Chapter 6.2 for consideration of no Stockfarrn Road (pages
6.2-32 to 6.2-34) and a two-lane Quarry Road (pages 6.2-34 to 6.2-36).
Should the roadway and other projects be expected to provide upgraded transit,
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure?
See the February 26, 1997 staff report (CMR 153:97) providing responses to Council
questions, Responses F.a.5, page 25 with attached maps, and Responses F.c. 1, 2, 3,
4 and 5, pages 45 to 50 of the attached responses (Table 1).
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27197 Page 6 of-l~ 19
How should Stanford’s project and mitigation obligations in Menlo Park be
addressed?
See the January 27, 1997 staffreport, pages 45 and 46 and the February 26, 1997 staff
report (CMR: 152:97) on Stanford’s January 27 letter, pages 7 to I0.
Shopping Center Project
For an overview of the Policy implications of the Shopping Center Project, see Attachment
27 (Tab 21 in the Council Members’ binders) of the January 27, 1997 staff report
(CMR: 126:97). See also amendments to the Policy discussion in the January 27 staff report,
pages 25-26.
Is an increase in allowable square footage beyond the current limit of 49,000 square
feet acceptable as part of an overall set of Sand Hill Corridor projects?
See above references to the January 27 staff report, also pages 34 and 35 in the
January staff report, and the February 26 staff report responding to Council questions
(CMR:153:97), Response K.5. on pages 78 and 79 of the attached responses
(Table 1).
2.Is the introduction of a significant amount of new structured parking acceptable?
See above references to the January 27 staff report and the February 26 staff report,
Response F.e.2 and 3, pages 55-56 of the attached responses (Table 1).
Development Agreement
The Development Agreement is Attachment 20 (Tab 15 in the Council Members’ binders)
in the January 27, 1997 staff report (CMR:126:97). See also pages 38 and 39 of the January
27 staffreport.
Is the Council interested in entering into a development agreement, assuming that
Stanford finds the final City Council actions to be. a feasible and desirable set of
projects?
See the February 26 staff report responding to Council questions, Response O.1,
page 90 of the attached responses (Table 1).
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 7 of 4~ 19
Are the draft agreement’s major benefits to the City acceptable?
-E1 Camino Park lease modification
-Child care at the Apartment site
-Construction-related sales tax
See January 27, 19/97 staff report (CMR:126:97), page 56, and Development
Agreement, Attachment 20 (Tab 15 in the Council Member’s binders), Sections 6(g)
and 6(f). See also February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Stanford’s letter
(CMR: 152:97), page 3.
DetailLevel Review of the Projects
Apartment Project
EIR, Volume 6, pages 11-1 to 11-6 for project revisions.
1.Is the housing area site plan (i.e., arrangement of buildings, roadways and other
features) acceptable?
o
1
See the July 24, 1996 Apartment Housing project staff report, pages 3-7. See the
February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions (CMR:153:97),
Responses H.3, page 68 of attached responses (Table 1).
Is the setback of the buildings from Sand Hill Road acceptable?
2A. Is the Council willing to grant the recommended variance?
See the July 24, 1996 Apartment Housing Project staff report, page 19. See the
January 27, 1997 staff report (CMR:126:97), pages 9-10 and Attachment 8, page 8.
Is the housing design (i.e., proposed appearance of the buildings) acceptable?
3A.Is the Council willing, to grant the recommended Design Enhancement
Exceptions?
See the July 24, 1996 Apartment Housing Project staff report, page 19. See the
January 27, 1996 staff report, Attachment 8, pages 9 and 10.
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 8 of 4~3 19
4. Is the treatment of the area between the Creek and the housing acceptable?
Distance
Natural grassland
Preservation issue
See the July 24, 1996 Apartment Housing Project staff report, pages 17 and 18.
See the January 27, 1997 staff report, pages 12-13.
See the February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions
(CMR:153:97), Response E.5, page 19 of the attached response (Table 1).
See the February 26, 1997 staff report on Stanford’s 1/27/97 letter (CMR: 152:97),
Item 1, page 2.
5.Are the Creek protection features of the project acceptable?
See EIR, Volume 3, Chapter 4.7, references to riparian habitat and the Apartment
Project.
o
°
1
Is the method of handling storm water runoff acceptable? Are there concems about
downstream flooding from the projects?
See the EIR, Volume 6, Consolidated Responses 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, pages 12-49
to 12-51 and references cited in those responses.
Is the amount and location of the automobile parking acceptable?
See the February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions
(CMR: 153:97), Response F.e. 1, pages 54 and 55 of the attached responses (Table 1).
Are the bicycle and pedestrian features of the site plan acceptable?
See the July 24, 1996 Apartment Housing Project staff report, pages 22-24..
See the February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions
(CMR: 153:97), Response F.a.7, pages 27 and 28 of the attached responses (Table 1).
Are the transit features of the site plan and conditions of approval acceptable?
See the January 27, 1997 staff report, page 12.
See the February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions
(CMR:153:97), Response F.c.2, pages 45 and 46 and F.c.4, pages 47 to 49 of the
attached responses (Table. 1)..
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 9 of-l~ 19
10.
11.
12.
13.
Should there be a connector road between the Apartment Project and the Oak Creek
Apartments?
See the February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions
(CMR: 153:97), Response F.a.6, pages 26 and 27 of the attached responses (Table 1).
See the February 26, 1997 staff report on Stanford’s 1/27/97 letter (CMR:152:97),
Item2, page 3 and references cited on that page.
Is Stanford’s child care proposal acceptable?
See the February 26, .1997 staff report on Stanford’s 1/27/97 letter (CMR:152:97),
Item 3, page 3.
See the February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions
(CMR:153:97), Responses I.b.1, 2 and 3,pages 71 and 72 of the attached responses
(Table 1).
Should there be a requirement for an on-site retail facility or service?
See the January 27, 1997 staff report, pages 15, 16 and 49.
See Volume 6 of the EIR, pages 13.38 to 13.41.
See February 26, 1997 staff report on Stanford’s 1/27/97 letter (CMR:152:97), Item
5, page 4.
See the February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions
(CMR: 153:97), Response I.a., page 70 of the attached responses (Table 1).
Are there questions about and/or changes to the recommended Conditions of
Approval?
See the January 27, 1997 staff report, pages 42 and 43, and Attachments 8 and 9
(Tabs 6 and 7 in the Council Members’ binders).
14.Is the modified project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
See earlier Policy Level citations for the Apartment. project, and Attachments 7 and
25 (Tabs 5 and 19 in the Council Members’ binders) of the January 27, 1997 staff
report.
Senior Housing Project
EIR, Volume 6, pages 11-6 to 11-16 for project revisions.
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 10 of~ 19
1.Is the arrangement of buildings, roadways and other features acceptable?
July 24, 1996 Senior Housing Project staff report, pages 3-6 and 16-17.
January 27, 1997 staff report, pages 28-29.
February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions (CMR:153:97),
Response N.1, page 89 of the attached responses (Table 1).
2.Is the setback from Sand Hill Road acceptable?
January 27, 1997 staff report, pages 10-11.
3.Is the setback from the Creek acceptable?
3A.Is the proposed location of the Pool House acceptable or should it be
relocated?
July 24, 1996 Senior Housing Project staff report, pages 21-27.
January 27, 1997 staff report, pages 10 and 51 and references on page 51.
February 26, 1997 staff report on Stanford’s 1/27/97 letter (CMR!152:97),
Item 7, page 5.
3B.Is the proposed location of the 24 parking spaces acceptable or should they be
relocated?
January 27, 1997 staff report, page 50 and references on that page.
February 26, 1997 staff report on Stanford’s 1/27/97 letter (CMR:152:97),
Item 8, page 6.
4. Is the design of the buildings acceptable?
4A.Is the Council willing to grant the recommended Design Enhancement
Exception?
July 24, 1997 Senior Housing Project staff report, pages 17-18.
January 27, 1997.staffreport, pages 29-30.
5.Are the Creek protection features of the project acceptable?
See EI1L Volume 3, Chapter 4.7, references to riparian habitat and the Senior Housing
Project.
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 11 of-l~ 19
o
o
Is the amount and location of automobile parking acceptable?
February 26, !997 staff report responding to Council questions (CMR:153:97),
Response F.e.1, pages 54-55 of the attached responses (Table 1). .
Are the bicycle and pedestrian features, of the site plan acceptable?
July 24, 1996Senior Housing Project staff report, pages 20-21.
Are the transit features of the site plan and conditions of approval acceptable?
January 27, 1997 staff report, page 12.
February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions (CMR:153:97),
Response I.c.2, pages 45-46 of the attached responses (Table 1).
Are there questions about and/or changes to the recommended Conditions of
Approval?
January 27, 1997 staff report, page 43, and Attachment 11 (in Tab 8 of the Council
Members’ binders).
10.Is the modified project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
See earlier Policy Level citations for the Senior Housing Project and the January 27,
1997 staff report, Attachments 10, 12 and 13 (Tabs 8, 9 and 10 of the Council
Members’ binders).
Transportation System Projects
If Sand Hill Road is extended to E1 Cam°no Real, should the extension and the
roadway from Arboretum Road to Santa Cruz Avenue be a two-lane, three’lane or
four-lane configuration?
July 24, 1996 Roadway Projects staff report, pages 33-34.
January 27, 1997 staff report, pages 17 and 35-37.
February 26, 1997 staff report responding, to Council questions (CMR: 153:97),
Response F.a.2, pages 21-23 and F.b.3, 4 and 5, pages 36-4-1 of the attached responses
(Table 1).
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 12 of 4-~ 19
In relation to the answer to # 1:
Ao Is the design of the proposed Sand Hill Road/El Camino Real intersection
acceptable?
July 24, 1996 staff report, pages 20-23.
What level of assurance would the Council want from Caltrans regarding
making decisions on any future connection to Palo Alto Avenue/Alma Street?
February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions (CMR: 153:97),
Response F.a. 1, pages 20-21 of the attached responses (Table 1).
What bicycle and. pedestrian features are desired?
January 27, 1997 staff report, page 48.
February 26, 1997 staffreport responding to Council questions (CMR: 153:97),
Response E.1, page 16 of the attached responses (Table 1) and the two related
maps attached to the staff report (Figures 1 and 2).
In the Shopping Center area, is the proposed alignment’s distance form the
Creek acceptable?
Eo
Fo
January 27, 1997 staff report, page 10.
February 26, 1997 staffreport responding to Council questions (CMR: 153:97),
Response F.a.3, page 24 of the attached responses (Table 1).
How should the San Francisquito Creek bridge be designed-?
EIR, Volume 2,~ Chapter 4.2, pages 4.2-43 to 4.2-57.
Are there aspects of the design of the road and frontage road in Menlo Park
that should be addressed?
See 2.E, above.
Are there concerns with the design, of the proposed Stockfarm Road?
EIR, Volume 2, Chapter 3; pages 3-65 to 3-77, with illustrations.
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 13 of 4-~ 19
4.Are there concerns with the design of the proposed Vineyard Lane?
J
o
EIR, Volume 2, Chapter 3, pages 3-65 to 3-77, withillustrations.
Are there concerns with the design of the proposed Palo Road?
EIR, Volume 2, Chapter 3, pages 3-65 to 3-77, with illustrations.
Are there concerns with the design of the proposed modified Quarry Road, including
the Quarry Road/El Camino Real intersection?
July 24, 1996 Roadway Projects staff report, pages 4, 5, and 23-25.
February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions (CMR:153:97),
Response F.a.4, page 25 of the attached responses (Table 1).
Are there concerns with the proposed bicycle and pedestrian features of the project?
July 24, 1996 Road Projects staff report, pages 5-6 and 25-29.
°
°
10.
Are there concerns with the proposed transit features of the project?
January 27, 1997 staff report, page 12.
February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions (CMR:153:97),
Responses F.c.1, 2, 3 and 4, pages 45-49 of the attached responses (Table 1).
Is the agreement with Stanford regarding maintenance of the roads, landscaping and
traffic signals acceptable?.
February 26, 1997 staff report on Stanford’s 1/27/97 letter (CMR: 152:97), Item 14,
page 12; Item 19, pages 13-15; and Item 20, pages 15-16.
Are there questions about and!or changes to the recommended Conditions of
Approval?
January 2.7, 1997 staff report, pages 41-42 and Attachment 6 (Tab 4 in Council
Members’ binders).
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 14 of~ 19
11.Is the project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
See earlier Policy Level citations for the Transportation System Changes and
January 27, 1997 staff report, Attachment 1 and 2 (Tab 2 in the Council Members’
binders) and Attachment 5 (Tab 3 in the Council Members’ binders).
Stanford Shopping Center
January 27, 1997 staff report, pages 21-22 and 30 and Attachment 16 (Tab 12 in the Council
Members’ binders).
EIR Volume 6~ pages 11-16 to 11-22.
1.What amount of new floor area is acceptable?
January 27, 1997 staff report, pages 11, 34 and 35.
EIR Volume 3, pages 6.1-23 to 6.1-26, 6.1-38 to 6.1-43, 6.1-54 to 6.1-58, and 6.1-106
to 6.1-112.
EIR Volume 6, pages 12-80 and 12-81 and 13.20 to 13.32.
February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council questions (CMR:153:97),
response K.5, pages 78 and 79 of the attached responses (Table 1).
2.What are the acceptable locations for the additional square footage?
July 24, 1997 Shopping Center Project staff report, pages 3-4.
See also EIR Volumes 3 and 6 references cited in 2, above.
Is the number and location of surface parking spaces and the size and location of
parking garage(s) acceptable?
July 24, 1997 Shopping Center Project staff report, page 5.
EIR Volume 6, pages 11-16 to 11-22.
February 26, 1997 staff report responding to Council.questions (CMR:153:97),
response F.e.3, page 56 of the attached responses (Table 1).
4~Are the bicycle and pedestrian features of the site plan acceptable?
EIR Volume 3, page 4.4-100.
5.Are the transit features of the site plan acceptable?
EIR Volume 3, pages 4.4-97.
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 15 of-l~ 19
6.Are there questions about and/or changes to the recommended Conditions of
Approval?
January 27, 1997 staff report, page 44, and Attachment 17 (Tab 13 in the Council
Members’ binders).
7.Is the project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
See earlier Policy Level citations for the Shopping Center Project and the January 27,
1997 staff report, Attachment 16 (Tab 12 in the Council Members’ binders).
Pasteur Parcel
July 24, 1996 Overview staff report, pages 5, 6, 11 and 31 and Attachment 1.
1. Are the recommended Comprehensive Plan changes acceptable?
January 27, 1997 staff report, page 7 and Attachment 1.
2.Are the recommended zoning changes acceptable?
January 27, 1997 staff report, page 8, and Attachments 21 and 22 (Tab 16 in the
Council Members’ binders).
Tentative Subdivision Map
1.Are the recommended street names acceptable?
January 27, 1997 staff report, page 40.
2. Are the recommended findings acceptable?
January 27, 1997 staff report, Attachment 18 (Tab 14 in the Council Members’
binders).
3.¯ Are the recommended Conditions of Approval acceptable?
January 27, 1997 staff report, Attachment 19 (Tab 14 in the Council Members’
binders).
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 16 of 4-~. 19
Development Agreement
1.Are the recommended provisions of the Development Agreement acceptable?
January 27, 1997 staff report, pages 38 and 39, and Attachments 20 and 23 (Tabs 15
and 17 in the Council Members’ binders).
Following completion of the review of the projects, tentative subdivision map and
development agreement, the Council should assess changes that have been made or are
desired for the environmental mitigation measures. After that review, Council should
provide direction to staff regarding its desired action. Staff would then retum to the Council
with the resolutions, ordinances and other actions necessary to carry out the Council’s
direction.
ALTERNATIVES
Regarding the structure of review and decision making on the Sand Hill Corridor Projects,
the Council could conclude, after the Policy Level discussion, that support for the projects
is not sufficient to gain approval and direct staff to provide the Council with the findings and
actions necessary to deny the projects.
The Council could, as described below, decide to pursue one or more of the alternatives in
the EIR.
Regarding the order of review and decision making, the Council could change the order
recommended by staff into any other configuration deemed appropriate.
Following is the Alternative section from the January 27, 1997 Stanford Sand Hill Corridor
Projects staff report (CMR: 126:97):
Staff is recommending approval, with Conditions, of all of the proposed projects.
The Council could choose to approve any of the projects individually, with or
without any of the others; however, staff recommends that the Council approve the
Apartment, Senior Housing or Shopping Center Expansion projects only if the Road
Improvements project, or some form of road improvements as may be determined by
the Council, is also approved.
The Council,s decision making choices are to consider the projects as applied for by
the applicant, and either approve, approve with conditions or deny the application.
The Final EIR analyzes a number of project alternatives. These alternatives involve
reduction or modification to a proposed project, and for the housing projects, include
off-site locations. For the Road Improvements project, a series of modifications to
CMR:151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 17 offf-~ 19
the network is also analyzed as Special Roadway Considerations (SRCs). Staff is not
recommending approval of any of the project alternatives .or any of the SRCs;
however, the Planning Commission recommended approval of SRC #15, the
connection to Oak Creek Apartments (Condition of Approval 5(q) for the Road
Improvements project).
Some of the SRCs, such as SRC #15, are variations that could be adopted as
conditions to project approval, because implementation of them would not
fundamentally change the project. However, most of the alternatives, including the
off-site alternatives, are, in essence, a different project than that applied for, and
approval of any of them would constitute a denial of the project that is before the
Council. It might be possible for the Council to conditionally approve an on-site
alternative (e.g., reduced density alternative) without further environmental review;
however, some refinement of the site plan, and revised conditions of approval would
likely be necessary in such case.
If the Council finds that an alternative is environmentally superior to any of the
projects before it, and also finds that such alternative is feasible, the Council must
deny the application for such project unless the project as proposed can be further
conditioned so as to render its impacts less than significant. Staff does not believe
that any of the alternatives is both environmentally superior and feasible.
The project Altematives and Special Roadway Considerations analyzed in the EIR
are listed in Attachment 31. Additional discussion regarding the two Alternatives
and one SRC analyzed in Volume 6 of the Final EIR can be found above in the
"Discussion" section of this report.
If the Council were to deny a project and the applicant were willing to consider
alternatives to that project, the Council could direct staffto work with the applicant
to undertake review of such alternatives based on detailed site plans of the
alternative.
.FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impacts of the projects are discussed in the January 27, 1997 staff report, Stanford
Sand Hill Corridor Projects (CMR: 126:97), on pages 52 to 56, and in the February 26, 1997
staff report responding to Council questions (CMR: 153:97)in responses L. 1 and L.2.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Please see pages 56 to 59 of the January 27, 1997 staff report, Stanford Sand Hill Corridor
Projects (CMR: 126:97).
CMR!151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 18 of-l~ 19
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Please see pages 56 to 59 of the January 27, 1997 staff report, .Stanford Sand Hill Corridor
Projects (CMR: 126:97).
ATTACHMENTS
None.
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
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 151:97 Revised 2/27/97 Page 19 of4~19