HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-08 City Council (10)9
City o f Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MARCH 8, 1999 CMR:170:99
SUBJECT:SANTA CLARA COUNTY STAFF’S PROPOSED STANFORD
PLANNING PROCESS
REPORT IN BRIEF
Santa Clara County (the County) planning staff has developed a set of recommendations for
the forthcoming process to guide and establish new development entitlements and mitigations
for unincorporated Stanford lands in the County. The recommendations include a
Community Plan for Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. The Plan would
become part of the County General Plan. Implementation of the Community Plan would be
through a new General Use Permit. Public participation would be facilitated through the use
of community forums, public meetings and hearings and appointment of a Community
Resource Group to advise County planning staff. These recommendations will be considered
by the County Planning Commission on March 4 and the Board of Supervisors at a March
18 Committee meeting and March 23, 1999 Board meeting. City staff concurs with the
recommendations of the County planning staff.
CMR:170:99 Page 1 of 5
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion recommending to the County Board
of Supervisors:
1)Approval of the County planning staff’s recommendations to use a Community
Plan and General Use Permit (GUP) as the preferred mechanisms for
establishing new entitlements and mitigations for Stanford’s unincorporated
land in Santa Clara County, and to use community forums, public meeting(s)
and a Community Resource Group to facilitate public participation; and
2)Include in the County planning process an opportunity for early review and
comment on Stanford’s draft Community Plan and GUP application by the Palo
Alto Planning Commission and City Council.
BACKGROUND
Stanford University’s 1989 Santa Clara County (GUP) establishes levels of future
development and associated mitigations for Stanford unincorporated lands in the County.
Stanford’s 1997-98 GUP Annual Report (issued on January 20, 1999) indicates that the
remaining GUP development potential (446,870 square feet) has reached a level where active
consideration of a new development entitlement is appropriate (see CMR: 161:99). Appendix
B of the Annual Report, Possible Approaches To A New General Land Use Approval for
Stanford University Lands (Attachment I), contains Stanford’s assessment of alternative
planning mechanisms for a new entitlement.
On December 3, 1998, the County Planning Commission held a meeting in Palo Alto devoted
to Stanford planning issues. At that meeting, the Commission directed County staff to meet
with Stanford staff and City of Palo Alto staff to explore alternative planning approaches.
Staff members from the City, County and Stanford met in January, prior to a February 4,
1999 County Planning Commission study session on Stanford planning issues. County staff
issued a staff report (Attachment II) for the February 4 meeting that identified three
alternative mechanisms for a new Stanford land use approval: General Use Permit, Specific
Plan and Community Plan.
In February 1999, City, County and Stanford staffs met twice to continue the discussion of
the pros and cons of the GUP, Specific Plan and Community Plan approaches and ways to
achieve extensive and productive public participation. City staff participants included the
Chief Planning Official, Director of Planning and Community Environment and Deputy City
Manager/Special Projects. County planning staff’s conclusions and recommendations are
contained in a March 4, 1999, staff report (Attachment III). The next steps in the County’s
review and resolution of these issues include:
®
A March 4, 1999 County Planning Commission meeting;
A March 16, 1999 Town Hall meeting to be held by Supervisor Simitian (7:00 p.m. at
the Cubberley Community Center);
CMR:170:99 Page 2 of 5
A March 18, 1999 review by the Board of Supervisor’s Housing, Land Use,
Environment and Transportation Committee (10:00 a.m. at 70 West Hedding Street,
10th Floor Conference Room, San Jose); and
A March 23, 1999 Board of Supervisors meeting (1:30 p.m. at 70 West Hedding
Street, 1st Floor Board Chambers, San Jose).
DISCUSSION
County planning staff recommending a process that would combine a Community Plan with
a new GUP. The recommended approach is described on pages 3-5 of the attached March
4, 1999 County staff report (Attachment Ill). City staff concurs with the reasoning outlined
by the County staff. Like Palo Alto’s Coordinated Area Planning, a Community Plan
provides a mechanism to establish in the County General Plan detailed policies related to the
location, type and extent of future development on Stanford’s unincorporated lands in Santa
Clara County. Specific policies regarding mitigation measures would be part of the
Community Plan. The value of a new GUP as the implementing mechanism for the
Community Plan is that it is an effective tool to provide the legal framework for review and
approval of future development that is consistent with the Community. Plan.
Some members of the public have advocated use of a Specific Plan. The problems of using
a Specific Plan are identified on Page 4 of Attachment III. The major problem is that the
required public works capital improvement and financing components are intended for an
area with multiple properties and public infrastructure rather than a private university. From
a land use planning perspective, a Community Plan incorporated into the County General
Plan offers the same opportunities for land use control as a Specific Plan. Staff sees no
disadvantage in using a Community Plan.
Pages 5-8 of Attachment III describe the County Planning staff’s recommended public
participation approach. The recommended approach emerged from the previously noted
City, County and Stanford staff meetings along with suggestions from Supervisor Simitian.
A series of four Community Forums would address Housing, Transportation, Open Space
and Conservation and Land Use/Academic Program Trends issues. An additional County
public meeting(s) after the Forums is also proposed. Supervisor Simitian has suggested the
appointment of a Community Resource Group (CRG) of 12-16 members from agencies and
organizations with particular areas of expertise relevant to the planning process. The CRG
would be advisory to County staff and provide information, expertise, opinions and concerns
upon which County staff can draw in making its recommendation. The CRG would not
make recommendations to either the County Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors.
The three staffs have also discussed and agreed on the importance of participation by the City
of Palo Alto. In the staff discussions, City staff have circulated the November 5, 1998 report
of the Council’s Sand Hill Ad Hoc Committee (Attachment IV) with the important caveat
that this report has not been reviewed and acted upon by the full Council. There has been
general staff agreement that early review and comment by the City Planning Commission and
CMR:170:99 Page 3 of 5
Council (Page 4 of the Sand Hill Ad Hoc Report) can and should be accommodated in the
County process. Formal City Planning Commission and Council review and
recommendations on the Draft EIR, Draft Community Plan and Draft GUP would also be
part of the County process. There is general recognition that if the Council appoints a new
Ad Hoe committee as recommended on Page 2 of Attachment IV, the new Council
committee would actively work with Stanford on issues related to the County planning
process.
In summary, staff concurs with the recommendations of the County Planning staff as set forth
in its March 4, 1999. report. A Community Plan combined with a new GUP will be a good
mechanism to establish policies, mitigations and implementation processes for Stanford’s use
of Santa Clara County unincorporated area land for the first 10 to 15 years of the 21st
century. The public participation process as conducted by the County and supplemented by
the City will provide for numerous and extensive opportunities for public participation.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council could endorse the use of a Specific Plan rather than a Community Plan. The Council
could also identify an alternative process (e.g., Menlo Park Mayor Paul Collacchi has
suggested annexation of Stanford land to Palo Alto - see Exhibit B of Attachment III).
Alternative public participation approaches include not having a Community Resource Group
and having the County appoint a citizens advisory committee.
RESOURCE IMPACT
With whatever process the County Board of Supervisors adopts, there will be a significant
commitment of City staff time over the next two to three years. The impact on planning staff
will be identified in the Planning Division work program to be reviewed by the Council as
part of the 1999-2000 City budget process.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Policy direction regarding the use of Stanford land is set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Sand Hill Ad Hoc Committee report, currently scheduled for the April 5, 1999 Coun(il
meeting, includes a Policy Statement applicable to the County planning process. Resolution
of Stanford land use issues will require amendment of the Santa Clara County General Plan
and may involve amendment of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
TIMELINE
City Council action on this staff report will be forwarded to Santa Clara County for the
March 18 Board of Supervisor’s Housing, Land Use, Environment and Transportation
Committee meeting and the March 23 Board of Supervisors meeting.
The Sand Hill Ad Hoc Committee report is scheduled for review by the Council on April 5,
1999.
CMR: 170:99 Page 4 of 5
The County’s, Stanford planning process will extend for approximately 24 months starting
in May 1999.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council recommendations on the County planning process for Stanford lands is not a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act and no environmental action is necessary.
The County’s forthcoming planning process for Stanford land will include preparation of an
environmental impact report.
ATTACHMENTS
I.Appendix B from Annual Report #10
II 2/4/99 County Planning staff report
III.3/4/99 County Planning staff report
IV.Report from Sand Hill Ad Hoc Committee Including Recommendations on Palo Alto-
Stanford Land Use Issues dated November 5, 1998
PREPARED BY: Kenneth R. Schreiberl Deputy City Manager/Special Projects
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
and ComMunity Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Manager
Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian
Santa Clara County (Leode Franklin, Hugh Graham)
Architectural Review Board
Planning Commission
Stanford University (Andy Coe, Larry Horton, David Neuman, Catherine Palter)
Stanford Management Company (Curtis Feeny)
City of Menlo Park (Jan Dolan, Don de la Pena)
College Terrace Residents Association (Pria Graves)
Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (Carla Schneiderman)
Downtown North Neighborhood Association (Jim Newton)
University Park Association (Susan Beall)
University South Neighborhoods Group (Laarni von Ruden)
League of Women Voters (Ruth Lacy/Doris Petersen)
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (Susan Frank)
CMR: 170:99 Page 5 of 5
Attachment 1
POSSIBLE APPROACHES TO A NEW
GENERAL LAND USE APPROVAL
foi"
STANFORD UNIVERSITY LANDS
Prepared for Santa Clara County Planning Commission
January 1999
Background
Stanford University’s 1989 General Use Permit (GUP) with Santa Clara County
established conditions of approval and a mitigation plan that allows the University to
develop up to an additional 2,100,3(XI square feet in the central campus area for academic
uses, academic support and housing and/or to increase the Adjusted Daytime Population up
to 33,9(15. Prior to reaching either the population cap or the square footage cap, Stanford
must file for modification of the Use Permit. Under the GUP, 446,870 square feet remain
available for development. The population, 32,967 remains well below the cap.
in November 1998, Stanford prepared and submitted to the Santa Clara County Planning
Commission a Status Report on the General Use Permit that discussed development trends
on campus, Stanford’s expectations for the remaining square footage increment and its
current efforts to refine a preliminary list of its future program and infrastructure needs and
the associated capital requirements. In addition, the report noted that Stanford is conducting
analyses to estimate the types of environmental impacts that may be associated with future
development. Along with assessing the potential impacts, Stanford will be working to
identify measures that would mitigate these future impacts. Appropriate recommended
measu,’es to reduce impacts will be incorporated into Stanford’s next entitlement
application.
At the Planning Commission heating on the Status Report, on December 3, 1998, the
Commissioners approved Staff Report recommendation 3.d:
Stan.fin’d to include in the next annual report the following items...Stanford’s views ,
on the pros and cons of l~ossible approaches to a new general land use approval to
replace the current GUP. Possible approaches to be discussed shall include at
least the.lbllowing: modification of the current GUP and a Spec(fic Plan as set
.fbrth ttnder the Cahl/?n’nia Government Code.
Possible Approaches
Stanford University has prepared a table comparing various legal instruments for a.pproving
Stanford University’s long-term general land use. Attached, please find a comparison of
Specific Plan, Community Plan, and Use Permit, entitlement options organized under six
major headings:
,,General Comments,
*Necessary Components,
o Optional Components,
,CEQA Review of Subsequent Development Projects,
o Approval Process, and
-Approval of Subsequent Development Project.s.
Discussirm
Stanford appreciates having the opportunity to express our views on the pros and cons of
these various approaches, while at the same time we recognize that our initial thoughts will
benefit from the Cot, nty’s views on this subject.
Specific Plan Components: The legislative intent for the use of Specific Plans was to
provide for the comprehensive, orderly, and fiscally responsible development of lands by an
individual developer, consortium of developers, city or county who must incorporate the
numerous interests of existing and future landowners that have property interests in the area
covered by the Plan. The required components of a Specific Plan underscores this
intention.
Government Code, Section 65451: A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or
diagramx, which ,v~ec{~. all qf the.lbllowing in detail:
1)The tl£~’tribution, location, anti extent of the uses of land, including open space,
within the area covered by the plan.
2) The prtq~osed distribtttion, location, and extent and intensi~, of rnajor
coml~onents of lmblic and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage,
solid waste di,v~osal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be
located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses
described h~ the plan.
3) Smndard~’ aml criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for
the consetwation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where
rqv~licahle.
A program q[ inqffementation measures including regtdations, programs, public works
projects, and fintmcing measures to carry out paragraphs 1,2, and 3.
Community Plan Components: A Community Plan focuses on a particular region or
community within an overall planning area covered by a general plan. It refines the policies
ot" the general plan as they apply to a smaller geographic area and is implemented by
ordinances and other discretionary actions, such a.,; zoning.
A community plan rnust be internally consistent with the general plan of which it is a part.
Each community plan need not address all the issues required for a general plan if the
general plan already satisfies these requirements. Briefly the seven mandatory elements of a
general plan are:
1)Land Use, including the general distribution and location of land,
2)Circulation, inchtding the general location of thoroug~fitres
3)Houxit~g, inchuling an assessment of housing needs, objectives fi~r the
constrttction, rehabilitation and consem’ation of housing and a 5.year action
progr(m~ to meet these ol~jectives.
4)Conservation, inchulittg the consen’ation of natural resources,
5)Open Space, inchulin,;, the preservation of open sl)ace for n(tmral resources,
managed l~rodttction qf res(mrces, otttdoor recreation, and public health and
d) Noi,ve, i~c’huli~g the I~rel~aradon of noise co, tourS rmd policies to i~sure that
land use is compatible with the ~oise envirrmme~t,
7) Sq/~’b’, incl.ding policies ~o insure the protection of the commu~i~’~om natural
. disasters.
2
Use Permit Components: The County defines the contents of a Use Permit application. In
this respect, an application for a Use Permit provides the greatest amount of flexibility for
determirfing the ti~t’m and content of the entitlement application. This benefits both Stanford
and the County. The legal instrurnent which frames and implements Stanford land use can ’
be uniquely tailored to the needs and concerns of" Stanford and the surrounding
communities. The application may include not only a master plan that addresses future
building, environmental preservation and other salient issues, but may also include strategies
developed in partnership with the surrounding communities that address issues most
effectively dealt with on a regional basis.
Under any one of these approaches we recommend that a mitigation plan tied to specific
growth related impacts be incorporated as a part of the application. In the future, we would
like to explore the potential l’of using simple, independently verifiable measures of the
impacts associated with population growth and tying mitigations directly to impacts rather
than using poPUlation numbers as a proxy for assessing impacts and setting future caps.
CEQA Review ot* Subsequent Development Projects: As is in past, a Master or
Program EIR will be required for each approach; Specific Plan, Community Plan or Use
Permit, as outlined in this report. Future projects must be examined in light of the Master
or Program EIR to determine if additional limited environmental analysis is necessary. Ira
project may result in additional effects, or new mitigation measures are needed, a subsequent
or supplemental EIR, focused EIR or negative declaration must be prepared.
Approval Process: The requirement for citizen participation in the preparation of a
Specific Plan of Community Plan is consistent with the purposes such plans serve. At
minimum, one public hearing before the Planning Commission is required for approval
under any one of the approaches discussed here. Stanford is committed to and will soon
begin ongoing consultations with the County and the City of Palo Alto as approved by the
Planning Commission on Dcccmhcr 3, 1998. In addition, Stanford welcomes thoughtful
and considered discussions with other community representatives. We look forward to
defining a process for initiatin.g those discussions in our consultation with County and City
staffs.
Approval of Subsequent Development Projects; The conditions of approval will define
subsequent County review of individual pro.ject.s under a Specific Plan, Community Plan or
Use Permit. Once a Spccil’ic Plan or Community Plan has been approved and the zoning
ordinance amended to be consistent with the plan, future development projects may be
approved as or" right.
Next Steps: The comparative anali’sis presented here has been prepared as a point of
departure for discu.*qsion. We look forward to the detailed discussion of issues and options
that will det’ivc frorn the consultative planning process between Stanford University, Santa
Clara County and the City of Palo Alto.
This forum will provide un t~pportunity to discuss future land use and procedural objectives
for Stanford University’s lon.g te~’m land use, which in turn, may be used to further analyze
the pros and cons of the various approaches to a new land use approval.
County of Santa Clara
Department of Planning and Development
Planning Office
MEMORANDUM
Attachment II
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
February 4, 1999
Planning Commission
Hugh Graham, Principal Planner
Potential Approaches to Stanford’s New General Land Use Approval /
Work in Progress
This is an evaluation of potential approaches to the next general land use approval for
Stanford University. It is intended to inform the Planning Commission prior to any
decision on a land use planning and entitlement mechanism. A table comparing the
approaches is attached. Staff will recommend an approach to the Planning Commission
at its March meeting, based on discussions in the consultative process with Stanford
and Palo Alto staff. The Planning Commission’s recommended approach will then be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
General Use Permit
The use permit process is authorized by state law as one of the means to implement the
general plan. The County zoning ordinance contains a procedure and sets forth findings
necessary to granting a use permit (Chapter 5.60). The use permit may include any
conditions deemed reasonable and necessary to carry o.ut the purpose of the permit
(§5.20.090).
A general use permit is not defined or described in either state law or in the County Zoning
Ordinance. In Santa Clara County, the general use permit has been used to allow for a set of
undefined future uses to occur within the parameters (such as population and square foot
limits, as well as other conditions of approval) defined by the use permit.
A general use permit implies a planning relationship between the County and Stanford similar
to the relationship between the County and other landowners, whereby Stanford as the
property owner prepares a plan and acts as a proponent proposing a project to the County
Planning Commission.
Historical use - The general use permit has been used in at least two instances; UTC in the
1950’s and Stanford University starting in the 1960’s. In both of these cases, the GUP has
allowed for subsequent projects in conformance with the GUP to be approved with
architecture and site approval.
Need for findings - The Planning Commission may not grant a use permit unless it can
make certain findings. Because a GUP doesnot specify the actual location of future
development, the pertinent mitigations reached during through the environme:’,:al analysis
will be required as GUP conditions in order to reach the findings with certainty.
Page 2
Potential for open planning process - The project being authorized under a use permit is
initially proposed by the project proponent. Stanford therefore has the ability to propose a
project for presentation to the Planning Commission for approval of a GUP. There is no
requirement in the use permit procedure for public input beyond the Planning Commission
hearing on the project and the Board of Supervisors hearing if the project is appealed.
Stanford staff has indicated that they would intend to provide opportunities for public
input during the processing of the GUP application. The Planning Commission and staff
may impose conditions of approval in response to public input.
General Plan Amendment - Since the general land use project granted by the GUP will
differ from the current GUP, it will probably require an amendment to the General Plan,
particularly for references to specific implementation tools and policy instruments called for
under the current GUP. Because a use permit does not establish policy, a GUP may also
require the creation of an additional policy framework, which may involve either a General
Plan amendment or the creation of a new instrument.
Permit Streamlining Act - A GUP will be subject to the State’s Permit Streamlining Act.
Timelines set forth under the act should be reviewed to assure that they do not present any
time barriers to a multi-year permit process.
California Environmental Quality Act - CEQA authorizes the use of a Master or Program
EIR to facilitate the environmental process for future projects authorized under an umbrella
plan or permit such as the GUP. The goal of a Master EIR is to reduce the need for
extensive environmental review of projects that are in conformance with the GUP. Such
streamlining is not always possible in the case of a GUP that does not identify locations for
building projects, or if the mitigation compliance process for future projects is not clear and
easily enforced; extensive environmental review is often required for individual projects
under thecurrent GUP.
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan is authorized by §65450 et seq. of the California Government Code. The
applicable sections are attached. These laws prescribe contents, procedures, and CEQA
implications of a specific plan. The specific plan is authorized for the purpose of implementing
the general plan. As such, it acts as both a plan and an implementation mechanism for the area
it addresses. A specific plan is meant to provide for the orderly development of lands,
incorporating the interests of existing and future landowners with property interests in the area.
Stanford University lands are and will remain under single ownership.
Historical use - The County has not prepared a specific plan in more than 20 years; past
approaches are therefore obsolete due to changes in planning practice over the last two
decades.
Mandatory contents - State law identifies certain areas which must be covered in a specific
plan in order to maintain the specific plan’s implementation function. These contents are
required to facilitate implementation of a plan by multiple landowners. To fulfill the
implementation goal, the plan must address:
-infrastructure needed to support all land uses;
¯standards and criteria by which development will occur;
-standards for conservation and development of natural resources, and location and
extent of open space;
-development regulations and approval processes; and
¯financing measures necessary for implementation.
Page 3
As a private landowner, Stanford has assumed all responsibility for infrastructure and
sere’ices on University lands.
Potential for open planning process - Public participation is explicitly encouraged in the
preparation of specific plans. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has written:
The participation of those working or residing within a specific plan area or more broad
participation of the local citizens can play an important role in the preparation of a specific plan...
opport u n ities for the involvement of citizens, public agencies, public utilities, civic educa tion, and
other cotnmunity groups must be provided..,l
General Plan Amendment - Since the existing General Plan references Stanford’s current
GUP, adoption of a specific plan would require an amendment to the General Plan.
California Environmental Quality Act - As for a GUP, the EIR for a specific plan should
be a Master EIR that provides enough detail to streamline the environmental review of
subsequent projects. If a project may result in additional impacts beyond those evaluated in
the Master EIR or new mitigation measures are needed, a subsequent environmental
document must be prepared. Residential development projects are explicitly exempted
from additional environmental review unless substantial changes in the specific plan or the
circumstances under which it is undertaken should occur.
Because the data, analyses and studies needed for a specific plan will also be required for
the EIR, concurrent preparation of the documents may be desirable. Such an approach
would also allow mitigations to be incorporated-into the plan.
Community Plan
A community plan focuses on a defined geographic portion of the overall area covered by a
general plan. Its purpose is to further define and refine general plan policies as they relate to a
specific area. Public resources code §21083.3 identifies two primary, salient characteristics of
the community plan:
¯The plan must include or reference the seven required elements of the general plan; and
¯The plan does not include implementation measures, but must identify the mechanisms such
as zoning or a GUP that will be employed for plan implementation.
Because a community plan does not provide specific measures for implementation, this
approach would require the use of an additional implementation mechanism. Because the
communiD" plan is so closely related to the policies of the general plan, it could be implemented
through a GUP. A combination community plan/GUP could provide a clear and
comprehensive policy direction and adequate measures for effective implementation that could
achieve both the County and Stanford’s objectives.
Historical use - The County has not prepared a community plan as defined under state
law, but has incorporated area policies or area plans into its General Plan for a number of
geographic areas, including Stanford University. Area plans are authorized but not defined
under state law. State law merely says the GP mav be adopted to apply to a particular
area under the GP’s authority.2 Area plans and poiicies have been accompanied by other
lGovernor s Office of Planning and Research, The Planner’s Guide to Specific Plans, April 1998,
p. 10.
2Ibid. p.7.
Page 4
instruments for implementation, such as the Protocol and GUP for Stanford or the San
Martin Integrated Design Plan for San Martin.
Mandatory contents - According to state law, community plans must include or reference
the seven required elements of the General Plan:
¯Land Use
o Circulation
o Housing
¯Open Space
o Conservation
¯Noise
°Safety
Development policies and programs in the community plan must be consistent with the
General Plan. A primary difference between a community plan and a specific plan is that a
community plan must identify the mechanisms for implementation, but is not required to
include specific implementation measures such as development regulations.
Potential for open planning process - The process for adopting a community plan is
similar to that of adopting a General Plan, including the provision of opportunities for
involvement of interested individuals and community groups. At least one hearing before
the Planning Commission and one hearing before the Board of Supervisors is required.
General Plan Amendment - Since the existing General Plan references Stanford’s current
GUP, adoption of a community plan would require an amendment to the General Plan.
California Environmental Quality Act - As for a GUP, the EIR for a community plan
should be a Master EIR that provides enough detail to streamline the environmental review
of subsequent projects. The use of Master EIR would be most effective for a combined
community plan/GUP. If a project may result in additional impacts beyond those
evaluated in the Master EIR or new mitigation measures are needed, a subsequent
environmental document must be prepared.
Because the data, analyses and studies needed for a community plan will also be required
for the EIR, concurrent preparation of the documents may be desirable. Such an approach
would also allow mitigations to be incorporated into the plan.
Comparison by Santa Clara County Planning Office of Potential Approaches to Stanford’s
New General Land Use Approval
Characteristics Use Specific CommunityI Area
Permit Plan Plan Plan
Authorization under the law
Authorized under State law q q ’/‘4
State law sets forth contents ‘4
Zoning ordinance provides criteria for issuing or den’ying
Explicit flexibility re optional contents necessary to implement GP ‘4 ‘4
Enablinq legislation by omission allows flexibility in contents ‘4
County General Plan (GP) component related to a specific area
Instrument for, implementing the General Plan "4 ‘4"
Modifications or amendments are not limited by state I~w
Normal Preparation Process
prepared by,,,,proponent
Potential for open public planning process
Advisory committees are encouraged
County explicitly authorized to impose fees to defray costs
County in general authorized to impose ,,fees to defray costs
Common or mandated characteristics of contents:
Statement as to relationship with General Plan (,GP)"4 "4 ,, ‘4
Consistency with the General Plan
Policies related to subject area
Required reference to each mandato, ry elements of GP
Specified location & extent of land to be developed
Speci,,fied location & extent of open space
Infrastructure needed to support all land uses ’4 ....
Standards and criteria by which development will proceed
Conditions indicating how development shall occur & function ’4 ,
Standards for conservation & development of natural resources
Development regulations & approval processes, ,,
Financing measures necessary to implementation
Method of approval I ’
Would require accompanying amendment of GP
Legislative Act- May, be adopted by resolution
Legislative Act- May be adopted by,,ordinance
Subject,,,t,,o voter initiative and referenda
Judicial Act .........‘4
Time Limitations
Subject to Permit Streamlining Act" ‘4 ..........
Statute of Limitations - 90 days to ’~hallenge issuance
Consequences of approval
Subject development must satisfy specific findings
Future development must be consistent with instrument
Program EIR may streamline processing of subsequent projects
Consistent residential developments,,, exempt from CEQA
Reauires additional mechanisms for implementation
In the case of a general use permit,
Needs to be consistent to the extent that requirements are clearly stated in the conditions..2/2/99
County of Santa Clara
Fvwiroluncntal R(.’sottrces Agency
PImlv ~i~ ~g Offi(’c
70 West Hedd.lg Street
San .t~s(’. Catilornia 951 I ~ 1705
~408j 29~2454 FAX 27~8537
Attachment III
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission
March 4, 1999
Item #2
File:7165-07-81-98P
Stanford University Land Use Approval
Staff recommendations for the future land use planning instrument for Stanford
University and for the planning process.
Staff Recommendation: Recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct staff
and the University to prepare a community plan and to apply for a new General
Use Permit to implement the plan. Also recommend that the Board of
Supervisors endorse a public process to include community forums and a
Community Resource Group.
Owner/Applicant:
Location:
Property Address:
Stanford University
Stanford University
N/A
Gen. Plan Designation:
Current Zoning:
Property Size:
Present Land Use:
Supervisorial District:
Williamson Act:
Major Educational and Institutional Uses, University Lands
A1
4,017 acres
University
#5
No
Staff report prepared:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
February 23, 1999 ,~
Sarah Jones, AICP
Hugh Graham
Mike Lopez
PROJECT / PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
Development on Stanford University lands in Santa Clara County is currently governed by a
General Use Permit approved in 1989. The General Use Permit specifies total increases of
population and building area in the central campus area, beyond which a new land use approval is
required. Stanford University expects to exhaust its development potential under the 1989 General
Use Permit in 2001, and is initiating its request for a new land use entitlement.
Based on consultation with representatives of Stanford and the City of Palo Alto and public input
received at the December 3, 1998 and February 4, 1999 Planning Commission meetings, staff is
recommending that a combined Community Plan/General Use Permit approach be used for
Stanford’s future land use entitlement. The Community Plan would, in essence, become an
element of the County General Plan, to be implemented by the General Use Permit. Tiffs approach
will create a policy framework for future development at Stanford, while still maintaining the
advantages of streamlined review and flexibility provided by the use permit.
Staff also recommends a two-tiered approach to community participation, to include a series of
forums providing opportunities for expert and community input on major issues and a Community
Resource Group providing technical expertise to assist County staff in making an informed
recommendation on Stanford’s plans to the Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
1.Recommend that the Board of Supervisors endorse preparation of a Community Plan, to be
adopted through a General Plan amendment, and an application for a General Use Permit for
Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County.
2. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors authorize a community participation program, to
include a series of community forums and a Community Resource Group convened to aid staff
in providing informed recommendations to decisionmakers.
BACKGROUND
Land use at Stanford University in unincorporated Santa Clara County has been governed through
’ a General Use Permit since 1962; the current mechanism is a revised General Use Permit approved
by the County in 1989, following an extensive planning and environmental review process. The
permit authorizes a net increase of 2,100,300 square feet of building area and a total on-campus
daytime population of 33,905. Stanford anticipates that the building area limit will be reached.by
the. end of 2001.
Withthe pending expiration of the current GUP, Stanford and County staff have initiated the
process of preparing a new land use entitlement for the University. Per the direction of the
Planning Commission at its December 3, 1998 meeting, a staff consultative process between the
County, Stanford University, and the City of Palo Alto has been established. These three entities
are included as the parties in the 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement, an ongoing protocol
arrangement for land use decisions. It is essential that staff of these entities are able to confer on an
ongoing basis to ensure coordination in proposals to the Planning Commission and the public.
The first step in the land use approval process is the determination of what instrument will be used
to define future development. No discussion has yet occurred as to the policies or land use
designations to be contained in this planning instrument. It is traditionally and legally in the
purview of the staff of a jurisdiction to determine the type of planning process under which a
landowner may process a proposed development. Two recent Planning Commission meetings
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1999 Item # 2
(December 3, 1998 and February 4, 1999) have addressed the topic of Stanford’s future land use
planning approval. The provision of an open process for discussion of plan content is a priority
for staff.
In consideration of planning alternatives for Stanford, it is important to note that Stanford is in a
unique position relative to County planning. Although it performs many of the functions of a
municipality, including provision of a large base of jobs and housing and urban services, Stanford
is in fact a single landowner entitled to the same set of land use rights and protections as other
landowners. Activities at Stanford have the potential to affect a large number of people within and
outside the University, but only Stanford can assess and articulate its own academic and
infrastructure needs. The recommendation put forth by staff attempts to acknowledge and
reconcile this unique situation.
Recommended Planning Instrument
Potential planning instruments have been discussed in the joint staff consultative process and were
analyzed for the February 4 Planning Commission wor "kshop. Instruments that were considered to
have the potential to meet the County, Stanford University, and the City of Palo Alto’s goals were
a General Use Permit, a Specific Plan, and a Community or Area Plan.
Following assessment of the potential planning options, which included discussions with staff and
policymakers, comments received from the public at the December 3 and February 4 Planning
Commission meetings, and consideration of state law and County General Plan policies, staff is
recommending that a joint Community Plan/General Use Permit be prepared for Stanford
University. This recommendation is based on the following considerations:
The General Use Permit has not provided enough of a framework to stand alone without a
more detailed statement of policy. Much of the information regarding future development at
Stanford, including diagams showing general locations of projected new projects, is contained
in the EIR and not in the GUP itself. This lack of more specific policies is probably a strong
factor in the current level of public interest in the preparation of a more detailed plan.
Many aspects of the General Use Permit have functioned very well from an administrative
standpoint. The GUP has provided a broad use entitlement, eliminating the need for repetitive
analysis of questions regarding cumulative development, while still providing for public and
staff review of projects. Many of the mechanisms initiated by the GUP, such as establishing a
"no net new commute’trips" goal, have been driving forces behind substantial efforts on the
part of the University to pursue creative solutions to housing and transportation issues.
Under state law, a community plan (also called an area plan) is a plan that focuses on a
particular region within the general plan area and refines the policies of the plan as it applies to
the smaller area. According to the State Office of Planning and Research, the process of
adopting such a plan provides a forum for resolving localized conflicts; perhaps for this reason,
community plans are most commonly used in large cities or counties with distinct communities.
Staff recognizes that the 1989 General Use Permit has provided valuable lessons for future land
use regulation at Stanford, and therefore proposes that the GUP mechanism be supplemented by a
Community Plan that creates a policy framework for development at Stanford. As staff envisions
the end result, the Community Plan would:
¯Articulate policies related to the location, type and extent of future development and define the
r::echanisms for implementation of those policies,
-Xcknowledge the position of other jurisdictions in which Stanford owns land, and consider the
effect of development at Stanford on those jurisdictions,
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1999 Item # 2
Contain, update or expand much of the type of information and maps that are currently
supplied in the 1989 General Use Permit EIR,
Incorporate impact mitigations specified in the EIR as policy where appropriate.
The General Use Permit would:
Implement the policies specified in the Community Plan,
Provide the legal entitlement for development to occur at Stanford over the term of the use
permit,
Establish requirements for monitoring the successful completion of the conditions of approval
of the use permit,
Incorporate impact mitigations specified in the EIR as use permit conditions where appropriate.
Several interested citizens have called for a specific plan to be prepared for the Stanford campus.
Staff is not recommending a specific plan for the following reasons:
Because they establish implementation regulations and financing for capital improvements,
specific plans are particularly useful in situations with multiple landowners or areas undergoing
major changes in land use. Neither of these situations is applicable to the Stanford campus.
Specific plans traditionally contain a relatively inflexible set of land use and design
specifications, which could be incompatible with the University’s efforts to accommodate its
academic needs as they change over time. For example, there has been much greater demand
for housing on campus than projected in 1989.
The required components of a specific plan, particularly such as infrastructure distribution, a
public works program, and the financing of capital improvements, are not appropriate to a
single landowner that provides its own utility services.
Staff believes that the many issues of concern, particularly the use of existing open space areas,
impacts on surrounding jurisdictions, and the establishment of a defined direction for growth at
Stanford can be adequately addressed in a community plan. Stanford University has submitted a
letter supporting a community plan approach, which is included as Exhibit A.
Community Plan Examples
In response to a request from the Planning Commission, staff researched community plans to
determine how they had been used in other jurisdictions. The examples summarized below briefly
illustrate the range of circumstances addressed through community plans.
East County Area Plan (Alameda County, 1994). This plan was prepared to balance growth
and prese~’ation perspectives in the Livermore-Amador Valley area. The plan identified land
uses for various areas, directed methods to attain regional housing share objectives, and created
trusts for open space and agricultural land. The County focused on regional issues of open
space and resources. Public participation activities occurred throughout the planning process.
The area plan was adopted through a General Plan amendment.
Whisman Area Plan (Mountain View, 1997). The Whisman Area Plan was prepared in
response to changes in this residential and industrial area. Rather than proposing major
changes in land use, the plan focused on areas in transition or where change was needed,
Public involvement included mapping exercises, workshops, and questionnaires. The plan
was adopted in conjunction with a General Plan amendment and zoning changes.
Auburn/Bowman CommuniO’ Plan (Placer Count~’, 1994). The territory contained in this plan
comprises 40 square miles in the Sierra foothills, including some of the City of Auburn’s
sphere of influence. The plan was prepared to guide physical and economic development,
4 Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1999 Item # 2
increase the level of certainty regarding future development, and reconcile conflicting goals
regarding the plan area. The plan preparation process involved public input and a community
advisory group charged with aiding staff in preparing the plan.
Project Timeline
The diagram on the next page illustrates the proposed project timeline. The anticipated steps are
discussed below:
Stanford University would submit a General Plan Amendment application to initiate the process
of preparing a Community Plan. The Community Plan would become the amendment to the
General Plan.
Stanford University would assessits needs and translate these into a land use program in
preparation of a draft Community Plan and GUP application. This process would be informed
by a series of Community Forums (see "Public Participation" below). Meanwhile, the EIR
consultant could perform baseline analyses to determine current conditions.
Stanford would submit its draft Community Plan and t-de a Use Permit application, at which
time a Notice of Preparation for the EIR would be distributed.
Concurrent review of Stanford’s proposal by the County and analysis by the EIR consultant
would occur. The draft plan and GUP would be refined based on this review, which would
include a community meeting and meetings with the Community Resource Group.
The Draft EIR would be presented at a public heating before the Planning Commission.
The EIR would be revised based on written and oral comments, with additional revisions to the
draft Community Plan and GUP as needed. The Community Plan, GUP, and EIR would be
presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for approval and certification.
It is anticipated that the entire process will take approximately 20 to 26 months from the time that
the Board of Supervisors endorses a planning instrument and approach.
Public Participation
Ongoing input will be essential to the success of the Community Plan/GUP and its ability to
provide for Stanford’s future academic needs in the most beneficial way possible. Based on
discussions with Stanford and Palo Alto, as well as requests from the public for opportu.nities for
involvement in the planning process, staff is recommending a two-tiered approach:
A series of Community Forums, designed to elicit meaningful input and give those with
particular interest in the project an opportunity to speak; and
A Community Resource Group providing ’a source of information, expertise and opinions that
will aid staff in making an informed recommendation to the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors on the Community PlarffGUP.
The proposed input mechanisms are described in detail below, and summarized in the table that
follows the descriptions:
CommuniO, Forums
The Community Forums are meant to provide opportunities for input from interested members of
the community in an in-depth manner. A series of four forums is proposed to occur during the
time that Stanford is preparing its draft Community Plan and Use Permit application. Each forum
would focus on one of the following topics:
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1999 Item # 2
0
Housing
Transportation
Open Space and Conservation
Land Use/Academic Program Trends
The forum program would involve presentations by Stanford on past, present, and possible future
needs and conditions. A panel of 4-6 speakers knowledgeable on the topic, which could include
representatives of citizens’ and environmental groups or agencies as well as campus residents,
would provide comments and suggestions. After the presentations, the session would be opened
to all in attendance for questions and comments. The forum could be broken into small groups at
that point, depending on the number of participants. All suggestions, comments, and main points
of the discussion would be recorded in summary form and made available to all interested
individuals. The Land Use forum would occur last in the series to give Stanford an opportunity to
integrate the f’mdings of the previous forums into a presentation on its overall academic needs.
An additional community meeting beyond the forums is also proposed to elicit response after
Stanford has submitted its draft Community Plan and General Use Permit application. Particular
attention would be devoted to a review and explanation of items raised in the forum series.
The Community Forums would be organized and conducted by a meeting facilitator, whose
purpose would be to ensure that the meeting is conducted in a manner that encourages dialogue and
discussion of ideas. The facilitator would not have the role of forging consensus.
Community Resource Group
The Community Resource Group (CRG) is intended to inform staff on the technical issues and
community concerns involved in planning for future development at Stanford. As envisioned by
Supervisor Joe Simitian, the CRG would be a source of information, expertise, opinions, and
concerns upon which staff can draw to make an informed recommendation. Discussions with the
Community Resource Group at key points in the process are meant to help the Community Plan
and GUP conform with the goals of other interested parties and aid staff in making
recommendations that accurately reflect the likely success of the plan.
As proposed, the CRG is not a recommending body to the Planning Commission or the Board of
Supervisors, but is advisory to staff. CRG members would not be representing an interest group
or agency but instead would provide their individual expertise to comment on plans.
It is anticipated that most CRG meetings would occur after Stanford has proposed a development
program and filed an application for a General Use Permit. This meeting schedule would allow the
CRG to react to proposals as they are presented by Stanford and evolve through the County review
process. Meetings would be open to the public. The meetings would be chaired by staff and
facilitated by a private consultant. Supervisor Simitian has indicated that, inasmuch as staff will be
held accountable for the recommendations and given that the CRG will be a resource to staff, staff
should preside at the meetings, with assistance from a professional facilitator.
Areas of expertise needed on the CRG parallel the required elements of the General Plan.t
Additional expertise on community services and other areas could also be valuable. Staff is
recommending that the CRG consist of 12-16 members from appropriate agencies and
organizations. Membership would be solicited by staff in consultation with Supervisor Simitian’s
office and reported to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
~ Required General Plan elements in California area Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation,
Noise, and Safety.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1999 Item # 2
COMMUNITY FORUMS CRG
Purpose
Structure
Composition
Timing
Oversight
Provide broad-based opportunities for Aid County staff in providing informed
input and discussion related to future recommendations to P[anning
development at Stanford.Commission and Board.
Community meetings with panel
presentations and question/comment
periods¯
Working group with areas of expertise
relevant to Stanford’s plans.
Panels of 4-6 speakers; community
members invited to attend and
comment. Facilitated by private
consu[tant.
Group of 12-16 individuals with
expertise in areas relevant to
Stanford’s plans. Facilitated by
private consultant¯
Series of four forums before Stanford’s
draft Community Plan is submitted;
additional meeting during review of
draft plan and GUP application.
Meetings at key points in the planning
process, primarily during review of the
draft Community Plan and GUP
application.
County of Santa Clara staff ¯ County of Santa Clara staff
Clarification of General Plan Policies
The Planning Office received a letter written to Supervisor Simitian by Mayor Paul Collacchi of
Menlo Park, dated February 16, 1999 (Exhibit B). This letter presented two additional alternatives
for land use planning at Stanford, both of which Mr. Collacchi indicated would be consistent with
the County of Santa Clara General Plan: amending the General Plan to make the land use
designations for Stanford identical to those in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and
annexation of unincorporated Stanford University lands to the City. The letter cited policies in the
County General Plan which encourage these approaches for urban unincorporated areas.
The County General Plan also contains policies specifically for Stanford University which create
exceptions to the policies discussed in the letter (specifically Policies U-LM 1 and U-LM 6).
Policy U-ST 3 states that "academic development on unincorporated lands of Stanford University
within Palo Alto’s urban service area shall not be required to conform to the city’s general plan",
while Policy U-ST 7 states that "academic land uses, for which the University provides or obtains
its own services, should not be required to annex to a city." These policies are included in the
General Plan because of the existing land use agreements between the City of Palo Alto, Stanford,
and the County, and because Stanford provides its own urban services.
EXHIBITS
A. Memorandum from Stanford University regarding use of a Community Plan
t3. Letters from Mayor Paul Collacchi of Menlo Park
File name:instrument staff report
8 Planning Commission Meeting
March 4, 1999 Item # 2
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
PLANNING OFFICE
February 22, 1999
Mr. Hugh Graham
Santa Clara County
Department of Planning and Development
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
As distinguished from land owned by many individuals, corporations, or public entities,
where the numerous interests of these existing and other future landowners must be
incorporated, Stanford University land is, and will remain in perpetuity, under single
ownership, governed by the Board of Trustees. To this end, we believe that the next land
use instrument must be built on this fact.
As noted in the January 1999 Santa Clara County General Use Permit fo~ Stanford
University Lands: Status Report, "as academic programs change, so often must the spaces
in which they are housed. Stanford’s academic excellence stems in part from the ease
with which research and teaching programs can originate and flourish particularly across
departmental and school boundaries". For example, currently the University is
developing an interdisciplinary program in biology, chemistry, physics, engineering and
medicine to bring together new fields of inquiry in biotechnology.
In addition, Stanford University has, since its founding, defined itself as a residential
university, and as a matter of policy, has given high priority to housing faculty and
students. The 1989 General Use Permit and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
anticipated devoting 8% of the 2.1 million square foot allotment to housing construction,
however, because of our programmatic commitment and the fact that a critical housing
shortage developed, Stanford is devoting 25% of this allotment to housing.
Exhibit A
These two examples illustrate the need for us to continue to have land use flexibility
within agreed upon parameters. This is essential in order for Stanford to meet new ’
challenges and opportunities over the course of the next entitlement.
We believe that a modified General Use Permit supported by a General Plan Amendment
incorporating a Community or Area Plan offers this flexibility within mitigable
parameters, which will take into account the seven elements of any General Plan within
California.
We look forward to continuing our dialogue with both Santa Clara County and City of
Palo Alto representatives to that end.
Sincerely,
David J. Neuman
Associate Vice Provost,for Planning and University Architect
Leode Franklin,Santa Clara County Environmental Resources Agency
Ed Gawf, City of Palo Alto Planning Department
Larry Horton, Stanford Government & Community Relations
Kristina Loquist, Santa Clara County Supervisor’s Office
Page 2
701 LAUREL STREETI MENLO PARK, CA 9402.6-34~3 ! 6S0.858.33~0 / FAX 6~0.32t1.7935
Feb~a~ 16, 1999
Sups-visor Joe Simi6an
County Government Center, Eut Wing
70 West Heddin= Street, 10* Floor
Saa Josr., CA 95110
Stazfford Unlv~Ity G~eral Use l’ermlt (GUP) Update Process
,4 short-i~st of
planning
tool~ has
chosen...
non-public
meetlng~ ....
...without a
wdl.dcfufed
prOCeSS,
...and
without real
participation
from
i~gitim=re
stakeholders.
We regret that o~r letter of Janua~ 13e~ v.~ aFFtrently lost and not d~stn’bu~l to Planning
Commissioners in time for the February 4~ workshop. Menlo Park ~sk~d to participate in a well-
deft.ned C_,meral Use Permit (GUP) plam~ng pro¢~4.
On March 4~, 1999 the Santa Clara ~unty Planning Coz~nission vdll meet to recommend a legal
planning Instrument to update the Stanford GUP. Clmlces to be onsid~l f~Jt appeared in a Januazy
! 5* letter from Stanford Ualwnity, and they =ea-vut as the onteat fox a February 4~’ Planning
Commission study se4slon. They inrJude:
¯~ry" plea
÷
Thee options wet~ cho~n, al~’~t~, ~" = scrl.cs of non-public meetlng~ bctw~-n the staffs of the
County and Palo Alto with r~r~n~ativ~ of Stanford. The County did not notify Menlo Park about
these meetings or invite us to participat~ in any stuff level meeting, despite mul@le requcs~ from us
a~ki~g to receive no~fic~tion ~nd to participate i:n the GUP ]~ss.
Op~ion~ were selected without me~ participation fi-om the num~ou~, legitimate s~akeholde~
who attended the December 3’~ meeting, and wltho~t a clearly defined GUP im~cess, To my
knowledge, County staff did not notify ~ny st~krhold~ groups of any meetings at any time. Limited
nmtfi~ations inviting stakcholden to attend the February 4’*’ meeting were made ~t the request of
Plan.n[ng Commission Chairman Terry Trumbull.
In lig~t of coxnrn~ts made publicly by y~u and by Planning Commisslonrrs in re~onse to
ove~helm~g public outc~ on Dcc~ber 3~, Memo P~k ~ct=d a more p~c~a~o~ r~gionzl
process ~at would include subsmn~ve s~hold~ ~ut W s~ect ~ legal pl~g i~ment as well
~ i~ content, Wr a~r~ wi~ Smnford’~ D~vid Ne~ who u~d for "a well defm~d proems ~th
identifiable milestones, rol~, and r~ibfli~es." To ~, we have not s~n one. ~ Febma~ 4~
mesting se~ed only to publicly ~ ~e non-~blic pr~=s that p~ceded it In subst=ce, ~ G~
process h~ not yet ~¢n opened ~yond ~at ~y ~uked by ~ Bro~ Act.
Pdnt~ on recyrJed paper
Exhibit B
~’he short.lift
unsolicited
option, ...
The ahort-li~ of legal planning inxtrum~t~ selected accz~ aornewh~t gr~ilx~’y and incomplete.
It contains a "community plan", though t~ my knowledge th¢~ h no public record of any s~akeholder
asking for on~. S~akeholders have asked for a ~p~cific plan. Pale Alto has asked for consistency with
Its Compr~he~ive Plan. Mrnlo P~rk h~ yet to take a position, h Stanford requ~dng a con~nuniry
phn?
and ~velude.f
ebnsiste~t
with County
and Pale Alto
polio, and
t¢que~ed by
aH
~takeholde~
The menu exclhdes ~m obvious option; n~mely, modify the Santa Cl~r~ County Oenezal Plan to b~
consistent with the. Palo Alto Compr~hensiw Plan for ~he .an~u~. Policy statements of both
jurisdictions requir~ ~Ls.
L~nd u#es for unincorpora~=d !~.~ within city mban s=rvtce ~ ~hould conform to the general
plan of the city ~n whose urban s~’vice ~ they axe located. (S~nt~ Claza C~n~ral Phn)
The new [Stanford] use permit must be ozuhtent ~ith tho Pale Alto C~rxrprehen~ivc Plan (Palo
Alto Policy)
Recall that the "carr~us" pordon of Stanford lies in the ruben ~.-rvicr re’ca of Pale Alto. Hence, Rndrr
County policy, c~mpus development should conform to Pale Afro’s Comprehensive Plan. All
sta.kckolders, ~xcluding Stanford, h~ve asked for unification of Stanford lind-use plannlng.
hax not been
formally
considered.
Annexation ghould aho tpprar on the li~t of opt~o~ ~nce it i$ ¢omistcnt with Cotmty planning policy
¯nd h~ be~n endorsed in the past by m,nnbers of the P~lo Alto City Council
°Unlncorpom~ [ands within city ttrban a~rwi¢o sx~as should b~ m~n~od to th~ cities in whose
u~bsn service ar~as they ~r~ locamd (Santo ~ County ~ Plan)
Annexation should b~ discuss~ and it should b~ scr.~ted or rej~’~d consciously in a public d~iMon
made by el~ted officiah. Annexation sh~ ~t ~ ~s~:~ by non~l~d offic~ wi~out ~b~
/cview.
Our public
scl~eduled for
Both thepl~nning in~aument and it~ ~ntent s.re iznl~rtant m us. We w~uld like m help sel~,~ ~t¢
ins~umrnt. Bcfor~ Menlo Park cm pmvldc input into ~he pr~ce~, we must first l~Id a public hearing
to g~th~r input from the public and m form a c~rtsens’us among our council menibers. W~ will
expedite this process, but we cannot circtm’rz~t It. Our meeting ~ scheduled m r~ke pla¢~ on March
9~’, 1999 which is after the M~reh 4~ meeting of the Planning Comm.is~[on.
We would appreciat~ your support for re-scheduRng the Mar~h 4* m~tlng tv take place after Ma~ch
22’~, 1999. Thank you for your.cansidera~n.
Paul Collaccld, Mayor
Santa Clara Count’/Planning Corranissioners
Santa Clara County Board of Sup~’isors
City of Palo Alto Mayor and City Counci~
Stanford University
S=keholdcr groups
701 LAUREL ~’REET I MENLO PARK, CA 94025-~183 1650.858.33301 FAX 650,32B,7~5
Fe~y 19. 1999
Terry Trumbull, C~irrnan
Santa Clara County Planning Commission
County Government Cent~, Ea.~t Wing
70 Wen I-ledding St~eer~ 7th Floor
San Jose, CA. 95110
Re: Sunford University General Use Permit (GUP) Update Process
Dear Chak-rnan Trumbull:
We reger that our lettar of January 13tb was appare.ntly lost and not disrn’buted to Plain’ring
Commissioners in drne for the Febrmry 4~ workshop. Because of the mishap. Men’lo Park has
lost a step in its attempt to provide timely input into the plannh~g process. We w~r~ not aware
that :t shordist of pb.Rnin~ instruments had been selected tmtil we atread~ the 1%bruary 4tl~
meeting.
We hesitat~ t~ choose a legal insmn’nrnt before defining the process, its milestones, and before
building a consensus for ira goals. We respect-fully point ou~ that the shorflist is incomplete, it
do~s not contain tWO opt’ions---anne.xatiozx and G~n~ral Plan ammadrn~t--that would sads~
County general plan policic~ applicable to Stamford. Reg’~dless, both the planning instrument
and its content are important to us. We would LLk= to help select both.
Before Merd6 Pa~k can provide input to you, we must first hold a public hearing to gather input
from the public and to form a consensus araong our council members. We will expedite this
process, but we cannot ¢ircumv~t it. Our meeting is scheduled to take place on March 9, 1999
wb.ich is a~er the March 4th meeting ofth~ Plazming Commission.
Wc understand that P~]o A][o has delayed its public hcaxing until Mar~h Ist, Palo Alto may not
have enough time to respond either.
We would g-ready appreciate your re.scheduling the March 4th meeting to take place aR~ M~rch
22, 1999, Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul Co!lacaki
b~ayor
Printed on ¢acycl~d paper
Attachment IV
Office of the City Council
MEM ORAN D U M
DATE:November 5, 1998
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Our Colleagues ,
Council Members Hubcr, Fazzino, Kniss and Wheeler
Report from Sand Hill Ad Hoe Committee Including Recommendations on
Palo Alto - Stanford Land Use Issues
On June 30, 1997 the Council authorized formation of an Ad Hoc City Council Committee
to meet with Stanford representatives to discuss longer term planning issues associated with
future development in the Sand Hill Corridor. The four of us were appointed to the Ad Hoc
Committee by Mayor Huber in December, 1997.
In 1998, the Committee held four meetings with a group of Stanford representatives
including a member of the Board of Trustees and a representative of the Stanford
Management Company. City and University staffs provided extensive background
information. Committee discussions have ranged over historical, current and future land use
issues. The relationship of the City and University, in planning for future use of land has
been an underlying theme in our discussions.
As the Commitlee discussion process progressed, it became clear that trying to discuss the
Sand Hill Corridor without considering broader University land use issues was not in the best
interests of either the City or Stanford. Our discussions evolved to include Campus growth
and the next Santa Clara County General use permit tbr Stanford lands. Early on in our
discussions, Stanford announced itg intent to build tt-~ree housing projects on Campus lands.
The first of these projects, redevelopment of segments of Escondido Village to add 480 beds
of much needed housing for single graduate students, is likely to be pursued by’ the
University in early 1999. We felt strongly that the housing proposed should be processed
under the existing Santa Clara County General Use Permit (GUP) rather than through a
separate use permit, so as to respect the existing campus growth limitations. The graduate
student housing will have approximately 240,000 square feet of floor area and reduce the
undeveloped floor area to approximately 350,000 square feet. \Ve appreciate the University’s
decision to proceed under the existing CUP and locate the housing in the central campus that
decision avoids one point of serious potential disagreement between the City and Stanford.
Notwithstanding Stanford’s decision to seek housing under the CUP, we have concluded that
it is essential to resolve the next County use permit prior to m~ior new University
development eitherin the City or in Santa Clara County except as provided for in the current
GUP. Our recommendations build on that fundamental conclusion.
We have been especially mindful of the City-Stanford-Count?’ 1985 Three Party Agreement
that sets forth procedural agreements with respect to processing Stanford development
applications. The basic questions are whether that agreement is the appropriate vehicle to
address 21st Century Stanford-City concerns, and, if so, whether the agreement has enough
"teeth" to protect the City from Stanford development, while at the same time encouraging
Stanford development that the City may desire. The Three Party agreement is a sound
document that provides a starting point which should not be overlooked.
Development of the next use permit is a very important process that, if resolved successfully,
will provide development certain"l-y to the University and the City for an extended time
period. The University is beginning the active phase of planning for the next use permit. We
believe it is time to recommend to the Council how to proceed with that process.
Accordingly, our focus is directed at the next use permit and the City’s stance on that County
action.
We will move approval of the attached policy statement and direction to the City Manager
regarding staff involvement with University and Count?’ staff" in the drafting of a proposed
new use permit.
The ad hoc committee also believes that Council should maintain a focused interest in the
process described by the policy statement by creating another ad hoc committee. We will
move that the Mayor appoint an ad hoc "Stanford General Use Permit Committee" to
consider Stanford CUP issues and to report back to the City Council on or before January 30,
2000.
POLICY STATEMENT
While the City is sympathetic to current University h~using problems,
supports the development of new housing on Campus, and the provision of
new Medical Center treatment facilities, in all likelihood it will not support
applications for development either outside of the existing Santa Clara
County General Use Permit or, in the City, prior to resolution of a
new/extended General Use Permit. A wide variety of land use issues and
.impacts need to be analyzed and appropriate mitigations developed in the
- context of overall Stanford development.
In addition to resolution of a new Santa Clara County General Use Permit,
expansion of the Medical Center needs Comprehensive Plan and zoning
changes. The Comprehensive Plan includes a variety of Medical Center-
related policies and programs, including Program L-46, "Work with Stanford
to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical Center." This program
should be addressed before the City takes actions that are necessary for
additional floor area to be added to the Center. Thus, the City should
probably not, at this time, support Comprehensive Plan and other zoning
changes necessary to permit expansion of Medical Center facilities.
The process of preparing the new County use permit needs to begin in the
very near future. In drafting the new use permit, we have concluded that
several policy directions are particularly important. The new use permit: ’
must be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan;
should continue to have limitations on Campus
population and the floor area of new development;
should address traffic impacts that occur both during
peak commute periods and at other times of the day
and week, as well as on appropriate monitoring
methodology;
should identify targets for the amount of on-Campus
housing needed by students, staff and facility;
should include provisions for long term (e.g., 50 or more
years) protection of some key open space areas;
should include an independently verified annual
monitoring procedure for a variety of growth and
community impact factors related to implementation of
the new use permit; and
should have public notice procedures that facilitate
public review of Stanford land use issues.
The preparation and review of a proposed new use permit will involve
considerable City, University and County staff time. Therefore, the Council
directs the City Manager to have staff meet with Stanford and Santa Clara
C.ounty representatives.and develop the wording of a proposed new use
permit ahd scope of the environmental review.
To facilitate the public review process for the new use permit and to provide
opportunities for the City to directly communicate with Stanford and Santa
Clara County regarding the proposed new use permit, the following two
processes should be used:
prior to filing an application with Santa Clara County for
a new use permit, Stanford should submit the
application to the Palo Alto Planning Commission and
City Council for review and comment; and
prior to beginning substantive, environmental review
. work, the proposed scope of the Draft EIR should be
reviewed by the Palo Alto Planning Commission and
City Council.
Subsequent formal review of the use permit application and environmental
documents will, of course, be reviewed by the Planning Commission and
Council prior to the Santa Clara County review process.