HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-23 City CouncilC ty
City of Pal0 Alto
Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
September 23, 1997 CMR:396:97
PLANNING COMMISSION-RECOMMENDED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LAND USE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1998-2010
MAP AND FINAL
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
Find that the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) has been prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and that the EIR adequately analyzes the potential impacts of the
project;
o Review and approve the Planning Commission-Recommended Comprehensive Plan,
including the green insert pages to the Draft Comprehensive Plan, and the Proposed
Land Use Map as described in this staff report; and
o Return the adopted Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Commission for review of
the Council’s significant revisions, if any, to the Plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Each city and county in the State of California is required to have a general plan. Locally,
the City of Palo Alto has adopted a Comprehensive Plan. State law requires that "each
planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt
a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city,
and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgement bears
relation to its planning."
CMR:396:97 Page 1 of 9
The Comprehensive Plan is to be an integrated, intemally consistent and compatible
statement of development policies, with diagrams and text setting forth objectives, standards
and plan proposals..The Plan must include land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open
space, noise and safety elements. In addition, local agencies may adopt optional elements
to reflect and accommodate local conditions and circumstances. The Planning Commission-
Recommended Plan includes optional elements on Business and Economics, and Community
Services and Facilities; combines open space, conserv~ttion, safety and noise into one Natural
Environment Element; adds an Introduction; and includes chapters on Governance and
Implementation. The Plan is intended to be flexible and amendable to reflect changing
conditions.
BACKGROUND/PROJECT HISTORY
10/19/92 City Council initiated the revision and update process for the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, including appointment of a Comprehensive Plan
Advisory Committee (CPAC),. approval of a work program, schedule and a
$507,000 budget. (Later budget changes brought the total budget to
$845,000.)
10/6/93 City Council endorsed, as amended, the Comprehensive Plan "Community
Visions, Goals, and Issues" document prepared by CPAC during Phase I of the
Comprehensive Plan Update Process.
11/7/94
2/21/96
Planning Commission forwarded to the City Council its recommendations, as
well as those of CPAC and other Boards and Commissions, on the goals,
policies, and programs.to be included in the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Commission forwarded to the City Council its recommendations on
the Land Use and Circulation Map for the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
1/94 - 4/8/96 City Council completed review of all goals, policies, programs and land use
and circulation maps for inclusion in the Draft Comprehensive Plan,
completing Phase II of the Plan process.
12/20/96 Draft Comprehensive Plan was distributed and made available to the public,
completing Phase III of the Plan process.
12/31/96 Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR and Housing Element Technical Document
were distributed and made available to the public, initiating Phase IV of the
Plan process.
2/19/97
and
2/20/97
Planning Commission public hearings on Draft EIR.
CMR:396:97 Page 2 of 9
2/26/97 to
7/2/97
Planning Commission conducted 20 meetings at which it considered the Draft
EIR and the Plan and made tentative recommendations.
8/7/97
8/13/97
Planning Commission completed review of Draft EIR, Draft Comprehensive
Plan and Proposed Land Use Map and forwarded recommended Plan to City
Council for action.
Planning Commission took fmal action on the issue of unincorporated santa
Clara County and Stanford lands.
Previously transmitted to the Council, on September 4, 1997, were copies of the Planning
Commission-recommended changes in the Draft Comprehensive Plan (green insert sheets),
a set of revised pictures and captions, minutes of Planning Commission meetings from
February 19, 1997 through August 13, 1997 and letters commenting on the Draft Plan
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Most of the policies from the 1980-1995 Comprehensive Plan have been retained, extended
or strengthened. When the City Council in April 1996 adopted the Draft V goals, policies
and programs, significant new policies included: new land use designations of mixed use,
village residential and commercial hotel; transportation emphasis on pedestrian, bicycle and
transit alternatives; balancing of housing polices with regard to both market rate and
affordable housing; increased emphasis on maintaining and restoring the natural
environment; expanded policies and programs, for commtmity services and facilities;
recognition of the role that business, plays in the community while imposing the 1989
Citywide Study new development limits on a citywide basis; and adding the Govemance
Chapter emphasizing citizen involvement. ,.
The following is a summary of issues that received significant discussion by the
Commission, in the order they appear in the Plan:
Unincorporated Colmty and Stanford Lands (insert pages L-5, L-5A and L-5B):
The Commission had extensive discussions about the City’s policies regarding use of
Stanford unincorporated lands. They added Policy LA and Program L-OA that reinforce the
City’s existing policy of working cooperatively with Stanford and Santa Clara County (the
County) on land use issues, as established in the three-party 1985 Land Use Policies
Agreement. They also added text that describes this agreement and summarizes the existing
land use regulations that apply to Stanford unincorporated lands under the existing County
General Use Permit, the County General Plan and County zoning. A second program was
added regarding monitoring of Stanford development proposals and traffic conditions within
the Sand Hill Road Corridor, as provided in the conditions of approval for the Sand Hill
Road projects.
CMR:396:97 Page 3 of 9
At their August 13, 1997 meeting, the Commission modified the wording of Policy L-l,
adding the words, "the County’s" to read: "...Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill
Expressway and Jtmipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for development based
on the County’s agricultural zoning; .... " The Commission deleted a staff recommended
modification of this program to add "including academic uses" after the word
"development." Upon reviewing the proposed wording, staff believes that Policy L-1 should
be further refmed. Policy L-1 refers to all unde;celoped lands west of Junipero Serra
Boulevard, including lands within Palo Alto with several zone designations as well as
unincorporated lands. Rather than referring to County. agricultural zoning to indicate the
intensity of development considered acceptable, preferred wording would be, "with
allowances made for very low intensity development consistent with the open space
character of the area." Staff recommends that Policy L-1 be modified to read: "...Retain
undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with
allowances made for very low intensity development consistent with the open space
character of the area."
Stanford unincorporated lands are specifically addressed in new Program L-0A, and text
under that program (see green page L-5A) clarifies that the City’s land use designation for
Special Condition Area C, University Lands/Major Institution/Academic Reserve and Open
Space allows academic uses, provided they are low intensity and compatible with the open
space qualities of the area. Staff believes that the Comprehensive Plan should acknowledge
the legitimacy of low intensity academic uses consistent with open space character of the
area for unincorporated lands in Palo Alto’s plannin." g area.
Open Space Density Limits and Development Criteria (insert pages L-9, N-4, N-4A and N-
After notifying affected property owners and holding public hearings, the Planning
Commission modified the definition of the Open Space/Controlled Development land use
category to increase the minimum parcel size from 10 acres to a range of 20-160 acres,
depending on slope and other factors. In the Natural Environment Element, the Commission
added two new policies and four new programs .to minimize the impacts of development on
the open space character of the hillside open space area of the City. The 20-160 acre
minimum parcel size, with density determined by steepness and other site factors, makes the
City’s density limits consistent with those of Santa Clara County. The new programs added
by the Commission call for consideration of further limits on impervious surface, possible
maximum allowable house size, and require that for proposed houses larger than 6,500
square feet"story poles" be erected to show the outline of the proposed structure to facilitate
the City’s design review process. One of the new policies incorporates into the
Comprehensive Plan the City’s existing Open Space Development Criteria, and adds three
design criteria from the County’s recently adopted West Valley Hillsides Study regarding
avoiding development on hilltops, privacy for neighboring properties, and preservation of
trees and other vegetation where possible.
CMR:396:97 Page 4 of 9
Village Residential and Transit-Oriented Residential (Insert Page L-10):
The Planning Commission recommended that the proposed new Village Residential land use
designation be split into two categories to acknowledge the difference in densities and
appearance that might result in locations as disparate as near a multimodal transit station and
near single family housing. Village Residential land uses would include single family houses
on small lots, second units, cottage clusters, courtyard housing; duplexes, fourplexes and
small apartment buildings with densities up to 20 units per acre. Land designated Transit-
Oriented Residential must be located within walking distance (i.e., within approximately
2,000 feet) of a multi-modal transit station; the designation Would allow higher densities up
to 75 units per acre, to maximize use of transit facilities. Neither proposed new land use
category has been applied to any parcels on the Land Use Map.
Caltrain Extension to Downtown San Francisco (Program T-14 on Page T-6)
Program T-14 reads: "Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San
Francisco." qhe Joint Powers Board (JPB) recently voted not to pursue the downtown San
Francisco extension as originally envisioned, but to focus instead on electrification, speeding
up service and a feasibility study of nmning trains on Muni Metro’s new light rail right-of-
way along the Embarcadero. At their fmal review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan on
August 7, 1997, the Planning Commission briefly discussed whether Program T-14 should
be modified in light of the JPB decision. The Commission decided to leave the Program as
written.
Below Market Rate Housing Programs (Insert Pages H-12 & H-13):
At the recommendation of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and with the concurrence of
staff, the Planning Commission reconsidered the proposal to raise the Below Market Rate
requirement from the current three-unit threshold to projects of 10 units or more. After
considerable discussion, the Commission recommended that the BMR threshold be set at
three or more units in for-sale projects and five or more units in rental projects. The
Commission felt that this would help facilitate the development of more small rental projects.
The Commission, at the recommendation of staff, also recommended the adoption of a
revised density bonus program that would allow for up to three, additional market rate units
for each BMR unit provided above that normally required, up to a maximum increase over
zoning of 25 percent and including a comparable increase in Floor Area Ratio. The change
will provide an incentive to the production of housing units and bring the City into
compliance with State Housing Law on density bonuses.
Commercial Hotel at Page Mill Road and E1 Camino Real (Program B-18 on Page B-14):.
No Planning Commission recommendation is made regarding placing a Commercial Hotel
Overlay land use designation on the Stanford-owned lands on the northwest comer of Page
Mill Road and E1 Camino Real. The Commission had four members who had conflicts of
interest in discussing this item. In accordance with state law ("the role of necessity"), the
four Commissioners with conflicts drew straws in order.for one of the conflicted members
to participate. The resulting vote on placing a Commercial Hotel designation on’ the site was
CMR:396:97 Page 5 of 9
3 to 1 in favor. Since a majority of the Commission was not in favor, the item is brought
forward with no recommendation (See Planning Commission minutes of 1/22/97, pages 2-12;
6/18/97, pages 29-35; and 8/7/97, page 25). Staff continues to recommend application of the
Commercial Hotel Overlay land use designation for this site.
Noise (Insert Pages N-23 & N-23A):
The Planning Commission substantially revised the Draft Plan policies and programs relating
to noise in response to two concerns. First, the Comprehensive Plan EIR concluded that the
proposed noise policies and programs were not adequate to mitigate noise impacts, due to
their qualitative rather than quantitative nature. Secondly, the Commission had a strong
desire to allow sufficient flexibility in the City’s policies such that higher density multiple-
family residential developments could be allowed along transit corridors, recognizing that
such corridors typically have relatively high background noise levels. The new policies
applied quantitative guidelines for determining the compatibility of residential uses in
particular noise environments, with an emphasis on achieving interior rather than exterior
staiadards. The new policies also provide quantitative thresholds for determining significance
in California Environmental Qualitiy Act (CEQA) evaluations.
Changes to the Land Use Map:
A revised version of the Proposed Land Use Map is not being distributed at this time. Since
distribution of the Proposed Land Use Map on December 20, 1996 with the Draft
Comprehensive Plan, several land use map changes have been approved by the City Council,
including: 1) designation of Palo Road, Vineyard Lane and Stock Farm Road as collector
streets, changing the designation of Quarry Road between E1 Camino Real and Arboretum
Road from Proposed Collector Street to Proposed Arterial Street and approving the extension
and widening of Sand Hill Road (consistent with its previous arterial, status); 2) establishing
the Streamside Open Space area located between Sand Hill Road and San Francisquito Creek
as ranging from 180 feet to 310 feet from the center line of the creek; and 3) deletion of
Homer Avenue and realignment and extension of Urban Lane at the new Palo Alto Medical
Foundation site. The Commission-recommended action on the Land Use Map includes
previous Council actions, i.e., this action does not rescind previous approvals. The Land Use
Map will be distributed to the Council with the Final 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Sites that were considered by the Commission and recommended for change in Land Use
designation included changing the property fronting on Maybell.at rear of 4170 E1 Camino
Real from Multiple-Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial; changing 491-493
Charleston Road and 4201-4227 E1 Camino Real (Hyatt Rickeys) from Service Commercial
to Multiple Family Residential with Commercial Hotel Overlay; and adding the Commercial
Hotel Overlay to the Service Commercial and Multiple-Family Residential at 4261-4271 E1
Camino Real and 431 Dinah’s Court (Dinah’s Garden Hotel). The Commission retained
1795-1885 E1 Camino Real as Neighborhood Commercial after considering a change to
Multiple-Family Residential. (See the Planning Commission minutes of 6/18/97, pages 26-
42.)
CMR:396:97 Page 6 of 9
Changes in the Land Use Map will be made for future projects when approved by the
Council during processing of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. These might
include the CabafiaJGlenbrook Court subdivision and the Los Altos Treatment Plant site.
Other changes not related to content of the map will be made prior to fmal Council action,
including changing the spelling of Valparaiso Boulevard and Glenwood Drive in Menlo Park,
changing Stevens Creek Boulevard to Highway 85 in Mountain View, breaking the
Streamside Open Spa.ce as it crosses the Highway,280 right-of-way, changing the legend
from "City or County Conservation Lands" to "Publicly Owned Lands", and adding a
secondary title for the map to be placed in the upper left comer.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Comprehensive Plan is the primary policy tool for guiding the future development of the
City. Its purpose is to direct decision making toward a shared vision of what Palo Alto
should be like in the intermediate and long-term future. The Plan provides the policy
framework for decisions of both private and public projects. Through the Implementation
Chapter, the Plan is linked to the Capital Improvement Program, the City budget and Council
priorities.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
The Planning Commission-Recommended Plan and Final EIR identify many costly public
improvements, legislative changes, plans, studies and programs that are proposed over the
life of the Plan. Significant additional staff time and staff resources will be required to
implement the proposals. These costs will be the subject of a separate staff report that will
accompany the Implementation Chapter. It is anticipated that the Implementation Chapter
will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in November 1997 and available to the City
Council in December 1997.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in the Alternatives Section of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, pages 366 through 399.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Changes by the Planning Commission to the Draft Comprehensive Plan did not result in any
significant changes to the assumptions used in preparing the DEIR and recirculation is not
necessary. The DEIR Summary reveals 38 potentially significant impacts. Of those impacts,
21 can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation
measures, and 18 are significant or potentially significant and unavoidable. The Summary
Table, on pages 39 through 53 of the DEIR, provides a concise description of the measures
that staff recommend be taken, in conjunction with the implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan, to mitigate significant impacts of the Plan. Also identified are impacts for which the
Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt statements of overriding
consideration. Many of these impacts, most of which relate to transportation, had no feasible
mitigation, while others are not within the purview of the City to mitigate.
CMR:396:97 Page 7 of 9
The DEIR recommends many mitigation measures to reduce anticipated significant impacts
to less than significant levels. The majority of those measures are intended to be
implemented over the life of the plan at various milestones or when certain thresholds are
achieved. Implementation of the mitigations will be monitored through the Mitigation
Monitoring Program included in the Final EIR. A few, however, have been incorporated into
the Comprehensive Plan as programs or policies~ such as the noise policies discussed above.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Any substantive City Council changes to the recommended Plan will return to the Planning
Commission for review and back to City Council for fmal action. Staff will prepare a final
document at that time that incorporates all changes and modifications into the 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Palo Alto.
ATTACHMENTS
Letter from City of Los Altos dated 2/11/97
Letter from City of Menlo Park dated 2/17/97
Letter from Stanford University dated 2/20/97
Letter from Town of Portola Valley dated 2/20/97
Letter from Stanford University dated 2/26/97
Letter from Town of portola Valley dated 3/17/97
Letter from Stanford University dated 8/7/97
Letter from City of Mountain View dated 8/25/97
Final EIR and Response to Comments (Council Members and Librariesonly)
(Note: The Draft EIR and Draft Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission-
recommended changes in the form of green insert sheets, Planning Commission’
minutes, comment letters, additional pictures and caption modifications, and Tracking
Lists from Draft V to the Planning Commission recommended Plan were previously
distributed.)
CC:Planning Commission
Architectural. Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Human Relations Commission
Public Art Commission
Utility Advisory Commission
CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee
Neighborhood Associations
Chamber of Commerce
Former CPAC Members
Stanford University
Stanford Management Company
City of Menlo Park
City of Mountain View
CMR:396:97 Page 8 of 9
City of Los Altos
City of East Palo Alto
Town of Los Altos Hills
Town of Portola Valley
PREPARED BY:James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Brian Dolan, Senior Planner
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
J~E FLEMING
City Manager
C!VIR:396:97 Page 9 of 9
See a1-q the Final EIR for
respc%~3s to issues related
to the Environmental Impact
Report.
February 11, 1997
CITY OF LOS ALTOS
One North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3088
Tel: (415) 948-1491
Fax: (415) 941-7419
RECEIVED
FEB ,1 8 1997
Oepart~en: "~ nninr,_, end
Communit, ...
Mr. Brian Dolan
Planning Division, 5th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
1997-201.0
Mr. Dolan:
3
I appreciate the opportunity to review the above referenced project. The project seems
carefully prepared and we note that no land use changes are proposed which would likely
impact existing residential areas in the City of Los Altos.
Please note that the reference tO the E1 Camino Real/San Antonio Road intersection.on Page
174 of the draft EIR should state that the intersection is within the City of Los Altos rather
than the City of Mountain View.
I look forward to receiving a copy of the final comprehensive plata document when it is
completed. Again, thank you for the chance the review the project.
Sincerely yours,
Planning Director
RESPONSI\rE -INNOVATIVE - CONCERNED
STEPHEN M, SCHMIDT
MAYOR
RNIE NEVIN
~YOR PRO TEM
ROBERT N. BURMEISTER
COUNCILMEMBER
PAUL COLLACCHICOUNC~LMEMSER
CHUCK KINNEYCOUNCILMEMBER
CITY OF
February 17, 1997
Brian Dolan
Planning Division, 5th Floor
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
See also the Final EIR fc
responses to issues rela~ ~
to the Envlronmental Impact
R~port.10
701 LAUREL ,STREET / MENLO PARK, CA 94025-3483 / 415.858.33801 FAX 415.328.7935
RE: Palo Alto Draft Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear~.Mr. Dolan:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
prepared for the City of Palo AIto’s Draft Comprehensive Plan.
The City of Menlo Park has reviewed the Draft Comprehensive Plan and the DEIR. The
sections of these documents that would have the most significant impact on the City of Menlo
Park are those related to the Stanford Sand Hill-Road Corridor Projects. The City of Menlo
Park’s comments contained in this letter focus on the relationship between the Comprehensive
Plan DEIR ~nd the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects.
The City of Menlo Park’s primary concern is that the Comprehensive Plan DEIR contains
multiple references to the project-specific Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor projects DEIR
distributed in June of 1996. Based on the current status of the Stanford Sand Hill Road
Corridor Projects EIR, the City of Menlo Park believes that the document is inappropriate for
use in the Comprehensive Plan DEIR.
The Stanford Sand Hill Road corridor Projects Final EIR (FEIR) was released in Janua~ of
1997. In addition to comments from the public, the City of Menlo Park, and the City of Palo Alto
Planning Commission, the FEIR included project revisions initiated by Stanford University. The
Draft Comprehensive Plan and the DEIR do not reflect the most recent proposal for the
Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects as described in the FEIR for the Projects.
The City of Menlo Park found both the DEIR and the FEIR for the Stanford Sand Hill Road
Corridor Projects inadequate for reasons that have been transmitted previously to the City of
Palo Alto. The findings of environmental significance in the Comprehensive Plan DEIR are
based on the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects DEIR. Therefore, the City of Menlo
Park also questions the adequacy of the Comprehensive Plan DEIR.
Printed on recycled paper
City of Palo Alto
Draft Comprehensive Plan and DEIR
February 17, 1997
Page 2
The City of Menlo Park recognizes that Stanford University is pursuing amendments to the
existing Comprehensive Plan independent of this Comprehensive Plan Update process.
However, the City of Menlo Park believes that the Comprehensive Plan DEIR should reference
a certified FEIR forthe Stanford Sand Hill Road Corri,dor Projects in the same way the’
Comprehensive Plan DEIR references the Palo Alto Medical Foundation FEIR, which was
certified by the City of Palo Alto in February of 1996. The Draft Comprehensive Plan and the
DEIR need to accurately reflect the impacts of the ultimate form of the Stanford Sand Hill’Road
Corridor Projects, if and when they are approved.
The remainder of this letter covers specific comments which the City of Menlo Park has
regarding the Draft Comprehensive Plan and the DEIR.
Relationship between Comprehensive Plan DEIR and Stanford Sand Hill Road FEIR
The Corfiprehensive Plan DEIR does not include the most current information on the
Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects as described in the FEIR. The City of Menlo
?-ark requests that the Comprehensive Plan DEIR reflect the FEIR for the Stanford Sand
Hill Road Corridor Projects.
If the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects are modified from their current form, how
will the changes affect the Comprehensive Plan EIR?
The City of Menlo Park is of the opinion that the Comprehensive Plan EIR should be
based on a certified FEIR for the Stanford Sand Hill Road Projects and not the DEIR that
Menlo Park considers inadequate.
°Based on the multiple references to the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects DEIR,
what are the implications for the Dr~ft Comprehensive Plan and the DEIR if the adequacy
of the Stanford Sand Hill EIR is the subject of litigation?
Growth Assumptions
The Comprehensive Plan DEIR states in a footnote that "while 400,000 square feet of
development are assumed at the StanfordMedical Center.for a conservative estimate of"
future growth in this EIR, this assumption does not imply that this level of growth at this
location is a policy of the Comprehensive Plan." Does the Draft Comprehensive Plan
contain a policy regarding the projected 400,000 square foot expansion to the StanfOrd
Medical Center? By including the assumed 400,000 square feet in the DEIR, would the
Draft Comprehensive Plan enable a change in the zoning, which currently does not allow
the expansion? The DEIR states that the Low Development alternative includes a policy
to be added to the Comprehensive Plan which would prohibit the approval of additional
Stanford Medical Center facilities in the Sand Hill Road Corridor.
City of Palo Alto
Draft Comprehensive Plan and DEIR
February 17, 1997
Page 3
o
In response to the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects FEIR, the City of Menlo Park
commented that the document acknowledged that the project would be growth inducing
because the road improvements would remove obstacles to the Stanford Medical Center
expansion. How does this growth inducing impact relate to the Comprehensive’Plan :
DEIR? The Comprehensive Plan DEIR states that "the Comprehensive Plan.Update
would not induce growth except where development incentives are provided through the
Update in special circumstances." This Comprehensive Plan DEIR finding is inconsistent
with the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects FEIR.
The assumed growth at the Stanford Campus (not including the Medical Center) in the
unincorporated area is not adjusted in any of the project alternatives in the
Comprehensive Plan DEIR. The City of Menlo Park assumes that this is due to the fact
that the City of Palo Alto has no jurisdiction over this part of the Stanford campus.
Nevertheless, does this assumption include total development potential at Stanford
through’the Year 2010 or only the remaining amount of development permitted under the
.existing Santa Clara County Use Permit?
How did the Comprehensive Plan DEIR arrive’at the non-residential development of
960,000 square feet and residential development of 280 dwelling units at Stanford
Campus, not including the Medical Center? Under the Project Description chapter, the
DEIR states that the 1989 General Use Permit allowed 2.1 million square feet of new
development. Of the approximately 800,000 square feet available for additional
development, approximately 400,000 square feet of this has been identified with projects
anticipated in the next few years. Under the Land Use and Public Policy Chapter, the
DEIR includes a list of five current Stanford University projects as regulated by the ,1989
General Use Permit. Four of the projects that are under construction total 403,000 net
new square feet, including 504 beds. The fifth project is the Center for Clinical Science
Research with a proposed .floor area of 229,000 square feet. The DEIR states that with
’ the completion of these projects Stanford will have 400,000 square feet of development
remaining in its current Use Permit. Is the Center for Clinical Science Res.earch included
in the remaining 400,000 or not? Does the County Use Permit differentiate between
residential and non-residential development in terms of the 2.1 million square feet?
The Comprehensive Plan DEIR recommends that the City of Palo Alto initiate addi.t onal
environmental analysis when 75 percent of the development anticipated through this EIR
is reached. The Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects are by far the largest
component of Palo Alto’s assumed growth. Is the 75 percent threshold based on th’e
growth in the City limits or the entire sphere of influence? If it is limited to the City limits,
then the threshold would be reached more quickly through the construction of the
proposed Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects based on the following rates: 19% vs.
14% for non-residential and 47% vs. 41% for residential.
City of Palo Alto ~- ~.
Draft Comprehensive Plan and DEIR
February 17, 1997
Page 4
Transportation, Circulation and Parkin.q
The Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR contains a number of transportation policies and programs
(Policies T-23, T-26 and Program T-22) that characte~rize the City of Palo AIto’s approach to
traffic congestion. The City of Palo Alto expects to have increasing traffic congesti,on on its
arterial and residential streets and accepts the increase in traffic congestion, instead of
widening roads, as a significant and unavoidable impact of future development. This
acceptance on traffic congestion on the Palo Alto streets pushes the traffic problems to the
Menlo Park neighborhoods and arterial streets. Most notably, this problem can be seen in the
Willows neighborhood, along Willow Road, and Bayfront Expressway.
Figure 10 (pg. 26): The Palo Alto Truck Route map needs to identify that Sand Hill Road
from San Francisquito Creek to Santa Cruz Avenue, in Menlo Park, has a three (3) ton
weight limit.
Land Use and Population (pg. 151): This section identifies that land use information for
M.~illo Park is based on its General Plan. Three specific proposed projects in East Palo Alto
were included: Gateway 101, the Ravenswood Industrial Area, and the Gloria Way housing
development. The analysis fails to include the University Center development which is an
approved East Palo Alto project..Given the location and size of the proposed development,
the exclusion of the project and its traffic impact is a sLqnificant oversight on this important
roadway corridor.
Table 11 (pg. 165): Summary of Intersection Impacts in the PM Peak Hour
This tabie summarizes the analysis results for 20 intersections in the area. The
intersections of Sand Hill/Santa Cruz in Menlo Park and University/Woodland in East
Palo Alto were the only intersections studied outside.of the City of Palo Alto. The Palo
Alto traffic analysis failed to address many of the roadways that were identified by the
City of Menlo Park in response to the Notice of Preparation. Some of the more
impacted roadways in Menlo Park tha( should have been analyzed include Willow Road,
Middlefield Road and El Camino Real.
This table identifies the Sand Hill/Santa Cruz intersection for the 2010 project condition"
at LOS E. The table indicates that there is no significant impact at this intersection. In
response to the Notice of Preparation, the City of Menlo Park identified that.intersections
that operate at LOS E in Menlo Park ar.e considered to have a significant impact..
This table identifies the University/Woodland (East Palo Alto) intersection at LOS O for
the 2010 project condition. This analysis is invalid since the East Palo Alto approved
University Center project was not included in the land use section of the traffic model.
City of Palo Alto
Draft Comprehensive Plan and DEIR
February 17, 1997
Page 5
Table 12 (pg. 178): Summary of Intersection Impacts and Results of Mitigation Measures in
the 2010 project PM Peak Hour
This table identifies the Sand Hill/Santa Cruz intersection for the 2010 project condition
at LOS E. The table indicates that there is no significant impact at this intersection. In
response to the Notice of Preparation, the City of Menlo Park identified thatintersections
that operate at LOS E in Menlo Park are considered to have a significant impact. The
analysis fails to identify necessary mitigation measures at this intersection.
This table identifies the University/VVoodland (East Palo Alto) intersection at LOS C for
the 2010 project condition. This analysis is invalid since the East Palo Alto approved
University Center project was not included in the land use section of the traffic model.
The analysis fails to identify necessary mitigation measures at this intersection.
Table 13 (pg. 180): Summary of Residential Street Impacts
&This table identifies that the 2010 traffic volumes on Chaucer north of University Avenue
will have an increase of 1180 vehicles per day. The existing dally volume is 2,120 and
the projected 2010 volume is 3,300 vehicles per day. Such an increase of traffic would
have a significant impact on the residential streets in the Willows neighborhood.
(pg. 183): The text states that "traffic volumes on some local residential streets may
increase significantly, due to future congestion on adjacent collector and arterial streets."
Palo Alto proposes to implement a local and collector street traffic calming program. There
is no mention of how the traffic that will infiltrate the Menlo Park neighborhoods will be
accommodated.
Impacts on Freeways (pg. 185): The analysis identifies that there will be a significant
impact on Route 101 with the project. Palo Alto is proposing to participate in the Santa
Clara County countywide Deficiency Plan to address these significant freeway impacts.
Such a deficiency planning process does not guarantee that the traffic congestion problem
on Route 101 will be directly addressed. This is a significant concern for Menlo Park
because the lack of a Santa Clara County connection from Route 101 to the Dumbarton
Bridge has caused a significant impact to the Willow Road and Bayfront Expressway .
corridors in Menlo Park. Palo Alto should identify a new roadway section in Santa Clara
County that connects Route 101 to the Dumbarton Bridge to mitigate the signifi .cant freeway
impacts.
Neighborhoods (pg. 191): The report identifies that "significant congestion on Route 101 in
2010 due to regional and subregional traffic growth could result in some additional cut-
through traffic in the Crescent Park and Willows neighborhoods between Willow and
Embarcadero Roads." To mitigate this potential safety and quality of life problem, Palo Alto
should, in conjunction with Santa Clara County, improve Route 101 and provide alternative
access from Route 101 to the Dumbarton Bridge. Again, this does not sufficiently
guarantee that the cut-through traffic problem would be negated.
City of Palo Alto
Draft Comprehensive P!an and DEIR
February 17, 1997
Page 6
Policy T-52 States that the City of Palo Alto should "Resist construction of a southern
connection between the Dumbarton Bridge and Highway 101." Based on the two comments
above, the City of Menlo Park requests that City of Palo Alto consider revising this policy to
fully explore the viability of such a connection. , ;
Policy T-24 of the Comprehensive Plan reads as follows: "Participate in the design and
implementation of comprehensive solutions to traffic problems near Stanford Shopping
Center and Stanford Medical Center." Under this policy, program T-33 states the following:
"Extend Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real and construct related improvements consistent
with neighborhood and community interests. Do not extend Sand Hill Road to Alma
Street." The City of Menlo Park has previously expressed concerns about not exploring a
connection of a Sand Hill Road extension to Alma Street. The City of Menlo Park believes
that a connection with Alma Street probably will not result in a comprehensive solution to
such a problem and requests that the impacts on the regional transportation system of not
connecting "Sand Hill Road to Alma Street be examined.
Misce’.i~ineous Comments
Under the Alternatives Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan DEIR, the alternatives for the
Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects present an all or nothing approach. In most
cases, the Project is the same as High Development and the No Project is the same a’s
Low Development. For example, the shopping center expansion is 49,000 square feet for
the No Project and Low Development alternatives and 160,000 square feet for the Project
and High Development alternatives. As the City of Menlo Park has stated previously, the
expansion of the shopping center could fall between 45,000 and 160,000 square.feet,
reflecting a two lane Sand Hill Road extension to El Camino Real. The same relationship
between alternatives applies to the Sand Hill Road extension and widening and the
expansion of the Stanford Medical Center. More reasonable alternatives for the Stanford
Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects which reflect the City of Menlo Park’s previous
comments should, be studied.
How does the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the 46 acre
apartment site component of the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects compare to
the existing zoning? The existing Comprehensive Plan shows a maximum of 315 u.nits,
the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects propose 628 (630) units, and the existing
zoning allows approximately 850 units. Is the existing zoning inconsistent with.the existing
Comprehensive Plan land use designation?
Why is the development potential of the. Pasteur Drive parcel not identified in any of the
summary tables in the Comprehensive Plan DEIR? Why is the Pasteur Drive parcel not
included in the alternative analysis?
The Comprehensive Plan DEIR mentions several minor associated changes for the
Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor. What are these changes? The minor associated
changes are not included in summary Table 5 on Page 86.
City of Palo Alto
Draft Comprehensive Plan and DEIR
February 17, 1997
Page 7
Will the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects comply with all of the mitigation
measures contained in the Comprehensive Plan DEIR such as noise, cultural resources,
etc.? ’ :
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on these documents. We trust tha{ our
comments and requests will be professionally addressed.
Sin~,erely,
Development Services Department
c:Mayor Schmidt and Menlo Park City Council
JanDolan, City Manager
Bill McClure, City Attorney
Palo Alto City Council
Febmary20,1997
STANFORE
Mr. Brian Dolan
Planning Division, 5th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
See also the ~inal EIR for
responses ~ ~ssues related
to the Environmental
Impact Report.
2UNIVERSI-I~"
PLANNING OF£1CE
P.~/5
Dear Mr. Dolan: :
Stanford University has been actively involved with early community involvement
opportunities during the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan and appreciates this
opportunity to review the Comprehensive Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Our comments are provided below.
Paoe 21. The no~daern end of the University, Avenue Multi-Modal Transit Station Area,which in~ludes E1 Camino Park and the Umverslty Avenue transit station, is owned by
Stanford University and leased by the City of Palo Alto for public purposes. ._
a~d change in zoning designation.is not being p(~-~gtf~t-b~; thd prrperty owner, but h.".~.
pr6posed by the City as a result’rf Stanford’s Sand Hill Road application (as stated 6~
3-81 of the Sand Hill Road DEIR). ::
Pages_31 and 278. Th~ additional 400,000 square ~eet at the Stanford Hospitals that is
anticipated in the environmental analysis is hecessary as "Stanford Medical Center
anticipates future changes and possible increases in its facilities to respond to changes inthe way health care is provided" (page 361)’: Therefore, Stanford cannot support the
identified environmentally superior alternative (the Low Development alternative) because
it would not include the development of 400,000 square feet at the hospitals.
Pages 75 and 279. The Stanford Medical C~nte.r population, as reported in the General ¯
-Use Permit Annual Report #8 (December 1996) is approximately I0,000. II,s, hould benoted that the Medical Center includes the Stanford University School of M~dieine, which
has a population of more than 3,000 in Santa Clara County. In addition, the 2.5 million
square feet of the Stanford Medidal Center includes the School of Medicine.
Approximately 1.9 million square feet are located in the City of Palo Alto and 600,000
square feet are located in Santa C!ara County. .
~. The statement ~hat refers to the 3~5,000 square feet of pending non-residential
projects that have been proposed as part of the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects should be
revised to describe the projects as pending Sand Hill Road Projects and other anticipated
projects in the Sand Hill Road Corridor Area (as shown in Table 1 on page 31). ,
gSS SERRA STP, EET . STANFORD CALIkORNIA ~4"~0.%fil IS ¯ (41.f) 723.7773
?z,~’,-~ 9. ~.~J 5:58 P~,! 41- 725
FEB ~0 "97 04:57PM ST~MFORD PL~NIMG P.B/S
~. The list of roadway projects includ, ed in the Sand Hill Road P~oject~ should be
revised to include Palo Road.
page 128. Table 8 indicates average speed a, nd 85%tile speed for Palo Alto roadways.
The table also includes Jtmipero Serra Boulevard, a county road, and estJ_mates
associated speeds. Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department has recently
conducted speed studies along this roadway iand could provide the City with more accurate
speeds to include in this table.,,
Page 143. Figure 14 shows tlie transportatitn modes for work trips for the combined Palo
Alto/Stanford area. As indicated in the Sand Hill Road EIR, those who live at Stanford
actually have a much lower auto dependency than the City as a whole. Stanford residents
drive alone at only about one-third the rate of Palo Alto and Menlo Park residents,
P_a~e 153. Stanford’s future expansion of th~ Marguerite service are dependent on routing
efficiencies, overall need and the higher level of funding which could be required from all
participants, along with Stanford, in the Marguerite. These partielpants include CalTrain, .
the City of Palo Alto, Stanford Medical Cen.ter and Shopping Center, and, possibly, the
City of Menlo Park. ~
Page 216. The BAAQMD criterion related it VMT mad population seems heavily biased
in favor of-housing development and agains! jobs. ]For example, the air quality discussion
suggests that the growth in travel (¥MT) in Palo Alto would be four times the growth in
population. Coincidentally, according to pages 93 and 96, Palo Alto population is
P_a_ge 216. The air q~ality analysis s~h~.s-~o i.ov~rlo~)E tee fadt ih,qi"the types of uses-
planned in Palo Alto actually more benefici~ to regional air quality than the typ~typically developed in outlying parts of the ~egion? Palo A1to’s planned development is
relatively dense, infilI, and mLxed-used in nature with very good access to transit and high
walk and bicycle tendencies. In common-sense terms, it is likely to have lower impacts
than the same amount of development locat6d in more suburban settings aadlor spread
over a larger area. Please comment on why the ai.r quality analysis yields results that are.
so contrary to common wisdom. Please alsq comment on whether the BAAQMD criterion
is a reasonable means of judging the region~il air quality benefits/impacts of
accommodating a share of regional development in a commurdty such as Palo Alto,
compared with allowing that same regional growth to occur instead in places such as
Gilroy, or Clayton, or Livermore.
Pages 236 and 239. Identified reservoir sources of potential flooding include Felt Lake,
Searsville Lake mad Lagunita Reservoir, which are located on Santa Clara and San Marco
county lands. Mitigation Measure HYDRO’-2 states that all technical reports pertinent to
the stability of man-made levee should be re’viewed, and a status reported should be
prepared. Who will be responsible for these reviews and document preparation? Does this
mitigation pertain to the reservoixs on.unincprporated county laud? -
Page 303. The School capacity used in the Comprehensive Plan DEI~is stated to be
higher than the capacity used in the Sand Hfi! Road, because it.consid,zs useab~.e "
classroom space rather than capacity based on the State Department of General Services
Office of Public School construction guidelines for classroom size. Using the school
capacity figures in the Comprehensive Plan ~IR, the conservative, estimate for children
i
FEB 20 ’97 ~4:57PM STAMFORD PLI:U~’qIHG P,4/5
associated with Sand Hill Road Projects woiald be better accommodated by the existing
school facilities, than was determined in the’Sand Hill Road EIR.~
P.age 331. The San Francisco forktail damselfly has not been located in Lake Lagunka.
The California tiger salamander located in the A.rastradero Preserve/Foothills Park area is
likely based on reports from the 1940s and this species has not been reported in this area in
recent time¯ i
The co.neentration of figures for sensitive Sp:ecies on Stanford Land along San Franctsqutto
Creek west of El Camino Real suggests that;these species are concentrated in this area.
However, the American Kestrel, Sharp-shinned hawk, Great Homed Owl and the Northern
Harrier are present throughout the area. The red-legged frogs have been spotted
approximately 1 mile upstream of the Sand Hill Road bridge on San Francisqu~to Creek,
not directly by the Stanford West site. Steelhead trout migrate from the Bay (also along
¯ Palo Alto land), up into San Francisquito dr.alnage (including Los Trancos Creek on San :
Marco County land). Western pond turtles are found in low numbers scattered up San
Francisquito creek to Searsville Lake. ,
Page 343. The DEIR refers to a corporate efitity, the Ohlone Indian Tribe. The local
descendants of the Costanoan have created further distinct groups. The Muwe "kma Ohlone
Indian Tribe, the Amah-Matsun Tribe of Oh.lone/Costanoan In.aliens, and The Esselen
Nation ar~ the only local tribal organizations that have completed the required paperwork
to be considered Native American tribal gro.ups by the federal government.
.P.age 344. Statemer~_.tl~a.t suggest
lifestyle cea~ff~-~~3.~ad "~~-~d:"r’~H~d’.~- ~~i~--7
There are probably as.many li%ine d~sdeni~tt%~(-t~t~;---~.~iHete-W;~’~nh~bit~{~ :_ef-thb.B ay
Area ~n 1770 and a number of promment-antnropolo~sts l~aw attested to the persistence of
some important elements of their ~h!tfkal pi4~tic-e-(H-.L,-r--=i~igtori;’Ki-eeber,. Merriam and
Bean, for .example).
~ag&345. While detailed information regar~ling locations of recorded archaeological sites
may be on file at the City, it should not be n’iade "available" to the general public. The
State of California restricts such information to qualified archaeologists, land owners, and
professional land plan~ers in order to protect sites from vandalism.
Page 345. Is there an Alamo Creek in Palo ,~dto? Is the reference to Adobe Creek?
~age 3,4,:7,. Figure 31 appears to identify 0nl~ recorded sites as those areas of Extreme
5ensid~ity. Other sensitive areas, such as portions of Matadero Creek, are not indicated
this way. All likely areas of scnsitivity shodld be reassessed and the map revised
accordingly. As stated on page 346, this m~ip should be seen as a template for planning
purposes only. Determinations regarding the need for archaeological survey on
architectural evaluation should continue to be made on a project-specific basis consistent
with state and federal historic preservation regulations.
P_age 357. Figure 33 shows a limit of urban !development corresponding with the Urban
Service Area (USA) boundary. It should beinoted that that line is Palo Afro’s USA "
boundary. Stanford provides services to the’. foothill area beyond Palo Alto’s USA. It is
possible that academic development could o,ccur in the foothills, consistent with Stanford’s
1980 Land Use Plan and Santa Clara County’s General Plan, if the. appropriate pe .rmirting
approvals were received.
FEB ~0 ’97 B4:58PM STAHFORD PLAHHIM~P.S/5
~ ~_ARp!Ii~ql~e 25~ ~nd Appendix E (page 24"~. Hoover Pavilion should not be
considered a sensitive receptor in Noise and:Air Quality Analyses because it contains an
administrative use, not,a direct patient care 6se.:
We look fonvard to the responses to these comments in the Comprehensive Plan Update
Final Environmental Inipact Report. ,
Sincerely,
Catherine Palter
Environmental Planner
See also the Fin-- EIR for resPor~s~~ to issues re]r ~ed to the Final Environmental
~O~~ Of ~O~~O~A ’~]A£’~~ Impact Report.
Town Hall and Offices: 765 Portola Road, Portola Valle); CA 94028 Tel: (415) 851-1700 Fax: (415) 851-4677
Ms. Nancy Lytle
Chief Planning Official
¯ City of Palo Alto -
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Calif. 94303
Subjec[:
RECEIVED
FEB 2 4 1997
Planning Commission Hearings on Draft Palo Alto General Plan
and Draft EIR
February 20, 1997
Dea~ Ms. Lytle:
The Portola Valley Planning Commission wishes to thank you for referring- the above
referenced documents to the Town for review and comment. The Commission considered
these documents at its meeting last night. Following are the comments the commission
would like to relay to Palo Alto. ¯ ’
First, the town ~as already commented to Palo Alto with respect to the Sand Hill Road
Corridor Projects and indicated concerns with respect to the amount of development and.
the adequacy of the Sand Hill Rd. - S~inta Cruz Ave. - Junipero Serra Blvd. - Alpine Rd.
intersection. Those comments are not repeated here.
Beyond the above mentioned concerns, the town is most interested in those parts of the
proposed plan that affects areas along the town’s boundary. Following are the
commission’s comments and requests:
The portion of the plan from IS 280 to Foothill Park is shown as Open
Space/Controlled Development. It is defined as follows:
Land having all the characteristics of open space but upon which some
development may be allowed. Open space amenities must be retained in these
areas. Residential densities range from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre and
population densities range form 0.1 to 2 persons per acre.
Since much of this area adjoins the town, the town would request an addition at an
appropriate location in the plan that would in essence state: Such dev.elopment shall
not result in significant negative visual, geologic, biologic or traffic impacts on
adjoining communities. The commission noted that -
the Open Space/Controlled Development designation is placed on the Arrillaga lahds
plus other nearby lands, all of which could have major impacts on Portola Valley.
San Francisquifo and Los Trancos Creeks are shown as "Streamside Open Space" on
the "Proposed Land Use & Circulation" plan. The planning commission supports this
category, but requests that the designation extend to San l~rancisquito Creek west of its
junction with Los Trancos Creek. Even though this is outside of Palo Alto, this would
indicate agreement with Portola Valley’s plan and be consistent with the extensive
work underway to protect San Francisquito Creek.
o The Pedestrian Ways map (Map T-5) shows a proposed path segment from Junipero
Serra, Blvd. to Arastradero Road along San Francisquito Creek and Los Trancos Cre~k.
It appears that the location is on the Santa Clara County side of the creeks. The
planning commission supports this proposal. In addition, the commission urges that
text be added that would indicate when trails are planned in Palo Alto, they be
designed to connect with existing and planned trails in adjoining jurisdictions,~
The Bikeways map (Map T-4) shows a "Needed corridor connections" between
Junipero Serra Blvd. and Arastradero Road. It appears that the location is on the Santa
Clara County side of the creeks. The planning commission supports, this proposal.
The Natural Resource Areas map (N-I) shows San Francisquito Creek from th6 bay to
Los Trancos Creek and then Los Trancos Creek as riparian habitat. The planning
commission supports this category, but requests that the designation extend to San
Francisquito Creek west of its junction with Los Trancos Creek.
The Corn.munity Design Features map (map L-4) shows a number of scenic routes such
as IS 280, Junipero Serra Blvd., Page Mill Road, and Sand Hill Road. While Alpine
Road is outside of the .planning area, so are extensions of Junipero Serra Blv.d. and IS
280 that are shown as scenic routes. The p.lanning commission supports these
designations but requests that Alpine Road be shown as scenic route since it adjoins
the planning area and is designated a scenic route in the Portola Valley General Plan.
Alpine Road in fact serves an important scenic route for many Midpeninsula
residents.
Again, the Portola Valley Planning Commission wishes to thank Palo Alto for the
,opportunity to review the proposed plan. This has been a major undertaking for Palo Alto
and the city is to be congratulated for such a thorough job.
Sincerely, ~
~o Ow:ngepl a’~nn: rder, AICP.
Ed Davis, Chairman, Planning Commission
Leslie Lambert, Planning Coordinator
Richard Merk, Mayor
Susan Whelan, CAO/Clerk
FEB 27 P. 2/4
See also tP Final EIR for
responses issues r3.0
to the Environmental
)act Report.
STANFORD UN’IVERSITY
PLANNING OFFICE
Mr. Brian Dolan
Planning Division, 5th floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear l~-. Dolan,
February 2.6, 1997
Thank you for the opportunity to continue our participation tn development of the
Comprehensive Plan Update for the City ofiPalo Alto. Stanford appreciates the City s
efforts to include it in the process and believes the resulting plan reflects that involveme.nt.
We are generally supportive of nearly all of the goals, policies, and programs expressed.
The comments included here are meant to identify those policies and pro~ams that
Stanford intends to support.with some near term action, to suggest changes that could
increase Stanford’s support, or in rare cases, to indicate policies and programs that
Stanfordcannot support.
Page 1-2. The first paragraph might n/ore accurately state that "The sphere boundary
has been established by agreements with adjacent cities and the County and includes
some Stanford University&ands aad geveral unincorporated parcels in the foothills.";
and in the last sentence of the paragraph "...benefits of mutual cooperation and have
entered into agreements to insure that cooperation" (all italics added).
Page I.,-2&3. We support the discussi6n of Stanford lands but would recommend
revising the last sentence of first paragraph to read "...Utfivcrsity supports the
concept of compact development and w. ould pr~’er to meet ctt.rrent and future
academic program and facility needs within ~t~e currently developed central campus
Page L,-5. Stanford cannot support poticy L-1 of retaining the’ "undeveloped l~d
West of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra Blvd. as open space." The Board
Of Trustees is expressly charged with protecting the land endowment to support the
academic mission of the University. Stanford does, however, recognize the regional
importance of the open space character of its Academic Reserve foothills aud has
committed to protect that character un~ler applicable Count?’ land use regulations2 We
could suooort a policy that ’Retains the open ,wace character of low intensity .
acadenuc uses m the undeveloped land west of Jumpero Serra Blvd. as prescribed
for those areas in the Santa Clara Cou,nty General Ptan and the 1985 Land Use
Agreement between Stanford, the County and Palo Alto. Such policy would be
consistent with the University Lands Academic Resery. e and Open Space Designation
in the Comprehensive Plan. :
Page L-5. The use of the term "massive" in poliey L-4 and in the following
discussion is based on subjective asse’.ssment- We believe that terms such as
and scale*’ and "large" are more objec!ive and convey a similar policy intent.
o~5S SERRA STREET ¯ STANFORIS, CALII-’ORNI, A 94,’10.i-61 IS . (41.~) 72.1-7773 FAX (415)
FEB 27 ’97 09:53AM STAMFORD FLP#~{II",IG P.3/4
5.Page L-11. We support additional designations and definitions within the Major
Institution categories, to further distinguish the variety of Stanford t~es and achieve
greater consistency with Santa Clara County cbsignations. Within the University
Land/Campus Educational Facilities definition, the language requires that t.,’ag~c md
housing impacts resulting from student and faculty/staff population increases be
mitigated. We are committed to mitig~ing those impacts through our current General
Use Permit with the Cotmty. Supply~g new housing is an hnportant method ofreducing traYfic. ,
6.Page T-9. In order to .,support the Goal T-3 to ~ncouraga and promote walkin~ and
cye].ing, we. believe the City shou_ld c~nsider policies and programs that allow for
greater flexibility in providing bike an~d pedestrian enhancements with projects. For
instance, rather than requiring 80 class I bLke racks at a 200k gsf medical FaciLity, as
requk~ trader the current zoning, it rni~t be more effective to r~quJre a contribution
to completing a bike route, or establishing a bike commuter training program.
7.Page T-12. Program T-23 suggestA ev.aluating a bay-to-foothills path and that
Stanford lands offer the best bet for ro.’uting. While Stanford would not mb out
permitting public access for r~creation on its lands, ther~ are some issues that must
considered. Our Land Use Policies and terms of the Founding Grant do not permitthe p~.,’manent transfer of our lands foi" public use. We are concerned that Stanford
does not have. resources to adequately hanage current levels of publ.b recreational
of its foothills, and are, concerned ab0,ut procures adding to this resource burden.
8.Page T- 17. In considering,changes to ~Palo Alto’ s truck routes (Program T-37), the
City shoutd understand the de, very sad service access to Stanford and demonstrated
impacts of that traffic to Start.ford residential uses along Page Mill, Junip~ro S~rra
Blvd.(]’SB), Stanford Avenue, and EllCamino Real.
-9.Map T-6, 3SB is designated ~ arterial but is trader County jurisdiction. The
Stanford Campus Residential Leasehdlders find this designation objectionable. The
University understands its functioning as an arterial but would like lot’s1 agencies to’
cooperate in reducing or mitigating the negative impacts of speed and noise affecting
the adjacent residential uses, and use of academic lands and facilities on both side,s of
the road.
10.
12.
Page T-25. Stanford supports Policy T.-48 to encourage strategies to maximize
parking efficiency at the Medical Center and is considering remote p~ldng with
shuttles as an element og parldng prog.rams that will respond to anticipated newdevelopment. ,
Page T-26,.Policy T-53. The current ~outhem connection from Palo Alto md 101 to
the Dumbarton Bridge forces traffic to use the local street networks wittfin East P.alo
Alto, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto, We’believe it is quite premature for the City to
adopt a policy to resist an improved cbnneetion based on an analysts of two
questionable alternatives. The plan slxould encourage consideration of alternative
improved designs and further analysis of how-such connections would affect local. "
street networks, n.earby residential neighborhoods and the economies of the
communities.-
Map T-4. Should be revised to inclucie planned and existing bikeways intern’,d to
Stanford. Many provide important linkage to bikeways in surrounding communities.
FEB 2? ’97 09:54AM STAMFORD PL~bI~IM(S P.4/4
13.Page N-4. Policy N-,4 notes importance of Stanford’s foothills as open space. As
previously discussed, Stanford is com~nitted to preser~’ing that character m,.d to
maintaining its right to use tho~¢ land~, for academic purposes conslste~t with that
character and the controlling agency’s’(S~ta Clara County) permitting requirements.
14.Map N-8. What is the source of the information for toxic gas facilities shown on
Stanford campus?
We look forward to responses to these comment in the discussion leading up to or in the "
documentation of the final Comprehensive Plan. ¯
Sincerely
Charles S. Carter, ASLA
Assistaat Director ’
A~.dy Coe
Curtis Feeny
Michael HudnalI
David Neuman
Peter Van Etten
See also the Final .~,IR for responses to issues related to the Environmentall ~
Impact Report.
UOLOqg. of ’POCR O£. DAC.tLE’ - .
Town Hall and Offices: 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 Tel: (415) 851-1700 Fax: (415)851-4677
March 17, 1997
Mayor Joseph H. Huber and City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Calif. 94303
Subject:Portola Valley Town Council Comments on Draft Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and Plan EIR
Dear Mayor Huber and Council members:
The Portola Town Council wishes to thank you for referring the above referenced documents
to the town for review and comment. Our planning commission considered these documents
in February and forwarded comments to Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle for
consideration during your planning commission’s hearings on the comprehensive plan. The
town council wishes to take this opportunity to reinforce and somewhat expand on our
commission’s comments. Therefore, we ask that you consider the following during the city
council hearings on the comprehensive plan and plan EIR.
First, the town has already commented to Palo Alto with respect to the Sand Hill Road
Corridor Projects and indicated concerns with respect to the amount of development and
the adequacy of the Sand Hill Rd. - Santa Cruz Ave. - Junipero Serra Blvd. - Alpine Rd.
intersection. Those comments are not repeated here.
Beyond the above mentioned concerns, the town is most interested in those parts of the
proposed plan that affect areas along the town’s boundary. Following are the council’s
comments and requests:
The portion of the plan from IS 280 to Foothill Park is shown as Open Space/Controlled
Development which is defined as follows:
Land having all the characteristics of open space but upon which some
development may be allowed. Open space amenities must be retained in
these areas. Residential densities range from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit pec
acre and population densities range from 0.1 to 2 persons per acre.
Since much of this area adjoins the town, the town would request an addition at art
appropriate location in the plan that would in essence state: Such development shall
not result in significant negative visual, geologic, bio. logic or traffic i~npa~ts on.
adjoining communities. The council notes that the Open Space/Controlled
Development designation is placed on the Arrillaga lands plus other nearby lands,
including significant parcels within the Los Trancos Road corridor. Development on all ’
of these lands could have major visual and other impacts on Portola Valley. The
council asks that prior to any approvals, Palo Alto extend to the town the courtesy of
sharing proposed plans for any development of these lands for review and comment.
While we are obviously concerned with subdivision proposals, we are also concerned
with the impacts of plans for development of individual sites. Our Architectural and
Site Control Commission (ASCC) has considerable experience in reviewing hillside
development plans and we would particularly appreciate the opportunity to have the
ASCC consider and comment on any development proposals.
Palo Alto City Council, Dr~ -?omprehensive Plan and EIR, March .~ -997 Page 2
2.San Francisquito and Los Trancos Creeks are shown as "Streamside Open Space" on the
"Proposed Land Use & Circulation" plan. The town council supports this category, but
requests that the designation extend to San Francisquito Creek west of its junction with
Los Trancos Creek. Even though this is outside of Palo Alto, this would indicate
agreement with Portola Valley’s plan and be consistent with the extensive work
underway to protect San Francisquito Creek.
3.The Pedestrian Ways map (Map T-5) shows a proposed path segment from Ju.nipero
Serra Blvd..to Arastradero Road along San Francisquito Creek and Los Trancos Creek.
It appears that the location is on the Santa Clara County side of the creeks. The town
council supports this proposal... In addition, the council urges that text be added that
would indicate when trails are planned in Pato Alto, they be designed to connect w, ith
existing and planned trails in adjoining jurisdictions.
o
°
The Bikeways map (Map T-4) shows a "Needed corridor connections" between Junipero
Serra Blvd. and Arastradero Road. It appears that the location is on the Santa Clara
County side of the creeks. The town council supports this proposal.
The NaturalResource Areas map (Map N-l) shows San Francisquito .Creek from the bay"
to Los Trancos Creek and then Los Trancos Creek as riparian habitat. The town council
supports this category, but requests that the designation extend to San Francisquito
Creek west of its junction with Los Trancos Creek.
The Community Design Features map (Map L-4) shows a number of scenic routes such
as IS 280, Junipero Serra Blvd., Page Mill Road, and Sand Hill Road. While Alpine Road
is outside of the planning area, so are extensions of Junipero Serra Blvd. and IS 280 that
are shown as scenic routes. The town council supports these designations but requests
that Alpine Road be shown as a scenic route since it adjoins the planning area and is
designated a scenic route in the Portola Valley General Plan. Alpine Road in fact
serves as an important scenic route for many Midpeninsula residents.
Again, the Portola Valley Town Council wishes to thank Palo Alto for.the .opportunity to
review the proposed plan. This has been a major undertaking for Palo Alto and the city is
to be congratulated for such a thorough job.
Sincerely,
R~~~rk, Mayor
Town of Portola Valley
CC.Ed Davis, Chairman, Planning Commission
Leslie Lambert, Planning Coordinator
Town Council members
Susan Whelan, CAO/Clerk
Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official, City of Palo Alto
George Mader, Town Planner
AUG 0~ ’~7
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
PLANNING OI::FIGE
P. 2/2Bee also t]~ Final EIR for
responses issues related
to the Environmenta5 3
Impact Report.,
August 7, 1997
To:The Pale Alto Planning Commission
From:Charles Carter
Subject:Draft Comprehensive Plan Recomm~dations
Stanford is generally in support of Staffs recommendations for Plan PoEtics related to.the
City’s role in Stanford’s use of unincorporated Santa Clara Co~anty lands within the Pale
Alto sphere of influence (SOI). Recognition of the 1985 three party Land Use Agreement
and Protocol in Program L-0a, and the Special Condition areas identified in that agreement
and the General Use Pemait issueA by the Comat3’, as legitimate land use control devices is
consistent with the County General Plan. We agree that the County’s designation of :, ~
University Lands Academic Reserve and Open Space is appropriate in its objective to limit
use to low intensity academic use consistent with the open space character of the Stanford
foothills, and we remain committed to p~rsuing only those kinds of uses wiflfin areas so
designated.
We do not, however, see the need to add additional regulation through the e’stablishrnent of
art Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra
Boulevard. The current urban service area limit at that location is sufficient indication that
Pale Alto does not intend to extend urban services and encourage urban development
beyond that point. Our concern is that the addition of an UGB eou.ld be misconstrued as to
limit Stanford from continuing the academic uses that are currently permitted. If the intern
is not to limit compatible academic use or convert the lands to public open space (just as
UGB’s are not intended to limit or corivert compatible agricultural uses), we would not
object to its application here. We as_k that additional clarifying language be added such as;
"...allowances made for development based On current Count. land .use designation and
zoning, and existing SCC/SU/CpA. lar~d use agreements."
We alsosuggest that since the 1985 agreement specifies that Stanford lands within the Pa!o
Alto SOI developed for commercial purposes should be annexed to Pale Alto that the added
t~xt indicar_ingth~ n~d for a PA Comp Plan auxmendment make reference to that doemrtem:
"If these lands were sold or leased for non-academic purposes, a~mexation to Pale Alto
(and a change to the Comprehensive Plan) would be required ~o~cler the terms of th~ 1985
Agreement,.
Finally, ~ve believe any suggestion to annex "all, enable" parts of the Academic Reserve and
Olx~n Space lands is contrary to the Agreement whiel"; calls for mmexatlon of lands intended
[o~r non-academic dev,lopment. Tlxe Agreement specifically states that "Open space and.agricultural uses of lands held in rescue for futt~re academic use should likewise remain
unincorporated.", with no reference to their status fis original land endowment or .
subsequent acquisition.
~55 S~;~RA STP,~;ET * STANI:ORDo CALIFORNIA 94305-6115 " (,115) /23-7~7.~ FAX (415) 725.S$9~
¯
~,~F ’ also the Final EIR for respons " to issues related
~~.-’.~~ ~ ,he Environ~mental Impact Repot-.
CITY OF MOUNTAIN
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street ¯ Post Office Box 7540 ¯ Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 : 415-903-6306 ¯ FAX 415-903-6474
Mr. Ken Schreiber,
Director of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301 Oepartmenl ot Planning and
Community Environment
August 20, 1997
Palo Alto 1997 Comprehensive Plan draft
Mr. Schreiber:"
Thank you for sending the draft City of Palo Alto 1997-2002 Comprehensive Plan to the
Mountain View Community Development Department for our review and reference. I have
completed a review of the draft plan and offer the following comments from the City of
Mountain View. Overall, the plan document is clear, graphically interesting and, obviously, the
result of much dedicated effort on the part of your consultants, staff and residents. The following
comments for your consideration relate to areas where the draft Comprehensive Plan relates to
parts of the Mountain View community or issues where the two communities share interests.
1)
2)
On page L-7, there is discussion of a general limit on new non-residential floor area. This
discussion is linked to the 1989 Palo Alto Land Use and Transpgrtation study. We did not
find a discussion of any linkage between the future jobs production in non-residential
floor space to the projected demand for housing. This amount of additional jobs
producing floor area, especially if it is primarily job-intensive office/R & D space rather
than lower job intensity retail floor area, could have a significant adverse impact on
housing prices and traffic congestion in.the North Santa Clara County area. Perhaps this
relationship is discussed elsewhere in the plan and we missed it in our review. We do
note the several innovative programs to increase the potential supply of housing
contained in the draft plan which partially address this regional concern.
As a general comment, there is a statement in the draft plan, page T-2, that only abou.t’
10% of total daily trips in the Palo Alto/Stanford area were through trips, neither
originating nor ending in Palo Alto. We were surprised by both the low overall total
number of trips in your community and the 10% figure. Do these figures include only
Palo Alto local streets and exclude freeways and other regional network streets?
3)Regarding Program T-13, about evaluating extending light rail from Mountain View to
Palo Alto, Mountain View expresses concern about the routes shown on Map T-2 that
shows possible use of local streets in Mountain View for this extension. Mountain View
Recycle,:
4)
5)
6)
7)-
8)
does not support or approve of the altematives showing use of Castro Street, El Camino
Real between Castro Street and Palo Alto, California Street, Villa Street or San Antonio
Road for light rail. Mountain View supports the further expansion of the regional light
rail system as appropriate, including an extension to Palo Alto. However, the only
possibly feasible route for that extension would be along Central Expressway/Alma
Street with routing to E1 Camino, if desired by P.alo Alto, to occur within Palo Alto. :
Regarding Program T-20 and extending the Bryant St. bicycle boulevard into !~,Iountain
View, Mountain View feels the proposed extension as shown in Map T-4 is not
acceptable. The route shown extends into a residential neighborhood in Mountain View
without a clear connection to any of Mountain View’s bike route or path system or clear
destination point. In addition, the proposed route involves a crossing of San Antonio
Road at the base of the overpass over Central Expressway in an area that is already
confusing for the driver. This crossing would appear to present an unsafe exposure of
bicycle traffic to high volume and high-speed automobile and track traffic. A better route
may be.to extend down San Antonio Way to Alma St./Central Expressway bike lanes.
This route’ could also be coupled with an underground pedestrian/bicycle walkway to
provide access for Palo Alto residents and workers to the San Antonio Caltrain stop.
As a suggestion in conjunction with Policy C-25, a t;ossible implementation program
could be to explore with neighboring communities possible joint use/expansion/
maintenance of existing neighborhood park facilities that are near city borders and serve
people from both cities. In particular, Mountain View would be interested in exploring
possible expansion of Monroe Park to provide enhanced services to this joint jurisdiction
neighborhood. There may also be the possibility of a park facility in Mountain View to
serve Palo Alto residents on the southeasterly side of San Antonio Road, northwesterly of
Alma St./Central Expy.
Map C-2 shows a relatively small portion of Shoreline at Mountain View as Park Land
and Open Space Preserve. The park/open space preserve area in Mountain View should
show all of the lakes area shown on the drawing. In addition, there is a 70 acre area at the
northeast comer of’Amphitheatre Parkway and Permanente Park, called Vista Slope
which is in the final landscaping stage as an open space preserve. This area includes a
designated Burrowing Owl refuge area being developed jointly by Mountain View and
the adjacent property owner.
Regarding Policy B-25 related to pedestrian oriented retail centers along E1 Caffaino, we
note that Mountain View (and Los Altos) have such centers at.the comer of E1 Camifio
Real and San Antonio Road which may ,serve the nearby residential areas of Palo Alto.,
Mountain View expresses some concern about Policy B-33 which "discourages actions"
that could increase the cost of business space in the San Antonio Road area. Our copy of
the draft Comprehensive Plan did not contain any programs iml:rlementing this policy.
Our concern is that the policy is broadly worded and could, depending on interpretation
and specific implementation, preclude upgrading landscaping, construction of buffer
walls next to residential, environmental controls, etc. While these measures may increase
the" cost of business space, we have always felt that some measures to upgrade older, non-
conforming developments are appropriate and provide benefits to adjoining
neighborhoods and communities that outweigh there relative low costs.
Thank you for providing this opportunity to participate in Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan
update process. Please accept our comments in the spirit of regional communication and "
collaboration in which they are offered. If you have any questions concerning these cqmments,
please call Michael Percy at (415) 903-6306, or fax at (415) 903-6474 or E-mail at
Mike.Percy@ci.mtnview.ca.us.
Sincerely,
Elaine Costello,
Community Development Director
CC: Subject: Palo Alto General Plan; Chron. File; CDD