Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999-10-12 City Council (5)
TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Repo ’ fo ,nc~ HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER PI~EPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONNENT DATE:OCTOBER 12, 1999 CMR:385:99 SUBJECT:DRAFT COMMUNITY PLAN AND GENERAL USE PERMIT FOR STANFORD UNIVERSITY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends to the City Council that the recommendations listed below, regarding the Draft Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GL~), be approved by the Council and forwarded to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and Stanford University. "Plan" shall include both the Community Plan and GUP unless specifically stated. Overall Staff Recommendations The City of Palo Alto supports Stanford’s efforts to create additional on-campus housing, and the concept to add new development on lands currently developed or designated for development within the core campus. However, Palo Alto strongly shares the County’s concern over lack of specificity in the Plan regarding land use and assurances for preservation, especially for open space areas. The Plan should incorporate the general recommendations of the Santa Clara County staff report entitled, Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit, dated October 7, 1999 (see Attachment C), and the direction given to Stanford by the Santa Clara County Planning Commission on September 2, 1999. In addition, the City of Palo Alto would provide the following direction for the subsequent revision of the draft Plan: CMR:385:99 Page 1 of 9 Land Use ¯Palo Alto agrees with the generalized land use designations in the Plan, which include support for the underlying concept of focusing all significant construction within the core campus. Areas presently shown as "Academic Reserve and Open Space" should be further clarified. A separate "Open Space" designation should be provided for areas to be used as long-term and/or permanent open space and that allows only limited uses and development. The total building square footage (2,038,000) allowed under the 1989 GUP included all new structures, regardless of use; housing was not excluded from the total allowable building area. The cu~ent Plan, which lists allowable numbers of housing units separately from allowable non-residential building area, should include the equivalent total square footage information so an accurate comparison can be made between this Plan and the 1989 GUP. The Community Plan should include a section on all of Stanford’s land holdings, since approximately half of their property is outside the scope of the Plan. This information should be specific as to use, building area, numbers of dwelling units, and location of development for both existing and future conditions. The information should be presented in both map and tabular form to enhance its usefulness. ¯Santa Clara County should consider new Zoning Districts that would best implement the land use elements of the Plan. Holising ¯The City of Palo Alto strongly supports emphasis on creating additional on-site housing by establishing goals and identifying potential sites within the core campus. ¯The unit types and development standards for the proposed housing are too general and should be made more specific to assess its compatibility with existing uses. ¯An assessment of needs related to housing, such as parks and schools, should be provided. Open space areas along E1 Camino Real, north Escondido Village, should be maintained. The loss of potential units at this location can be compensated by an equivalent increase in units elsewhere in the Escondido Village vicinity. CMR:385:99 Page 2 of 9 Any additional development along Stanford Avenue must be consistent and compatible with the existing development located across the street in the City of Palo Alto. Housing proposed in the area east of Hoover Pavilion at Quarry Road and E1 Camino Real should not be constructed unless a significant open space buffer can be provided and maintained along E1 Camino Real. ¯Housing construction should be phased to occur early in the lO-year period of the Community Plan to keep pace with additional non-residential development. ¯Consideration should be given to theneed for providing additional affordable housing for Stanford support staff. Circulation and Parking ¯ The goal of "no new net commute trips" should be retained and the Plan should be revised to clearly state this goal and how it might be accomplished. Monitoring of vehicle trips needs to be based on actual counts in and out of the Stanford campus. These counts need to be performed on a regular basis and the City should be included in determining at which locations the counts will occur. ¯The commitment of Stanford to regional transportation cooperation and solutions, and ways in which this can be done should be included in the Plan. ¯Measure the impacts of no new net commute trips on adjacent neighborhood streets, e.g. College Terrace, and mitigate as appropriate. The Plan should include information on Stanford’s trails and pathways and clearly indicate future intentions for enhancing these facilities and providing linkages from the foothills to the baylands. Open Space ¯ The City supports the Plan’s stipulated goal of maintaining the existing amount of open space but, as noted above, recommends that a distinct open space land use designation be created. The life of the Plan is only 10 years, but development is relatively permanent--the preservation of open space areas, therefore needs strong long-term assurances, well beyond the life of the Plan. In addition, Santa Clara County Zoning designations that are most reflective of open space uses, including the creation of new designations, should be applied to lands intended for this long-term open space uses. ¯The proposed limitation of a 20,000-square-foot maximum (5,000-square-foot maximum per building) development exception west of Junipero Serra Boulevard appears CMR:385:99 Page 3 of 9 reasonable so long as it is subject to further City review when specific proposals are submitted. This exception, however, should be included in the Plan. Any future land use changes that will intensify the use of open space areas should involve the City in a meaningful way in the decision-making process. Schools ¯Provision for a middle school of an appropriate size needs to be made in the Plan. Potential locations for the school should be clearly identified, and these locations should not include any areas presently used for open space purposes. ¯Elementary school impacts created by additional.faculty and staff family housing should also be assessed and addressed. Implementation ¯ The Community Plan and GUP need to include provisions for monitoring of development. Monitoring should be performed by an independent entity on an annual basis with public hearings held at a location in northern Santa Clara County. The Community Plan and GUP need to establish thresholds regarding the number of housing units that must be built prior to the construction of additional academic and support buildings. Vision for Long-Term Build-out of Stanford University ¯ The Community Plan should include a long-term vision, beyond the 1 O-year scope of the Plan, for the ultimate build-out of the University. While it is recognized that this vision would not be as detailed as the ten-year Plan regarding Stanford’s potential development, it would be helpful in providing insight into the University’s future evolution. BACKGROUND On September 20, 1999, Stanford University submitted a draft application for public review to the Santa Clara County Planning Office to modify its GUP that was approved by the County in 1989. The GUP regulates land uses and development for Stanford lands in the unincorporated portion of Santa Clara County; this accounts for 4,017 acres, approximately half of Stanford’s total land ownership. The remaining land is located in the Cities of Palo Alto, Woodside, Menlo Park, and Portola Valley and the unincorporated portion of San Mateo County. Stanford has submitted this modification to the GUP because it is nearing the established growth thresholds approved as part of the 1989 GUP. The 1989 GUP allowed Stanford to develop 2,100,300 square feet of building area for academic, academic support, and housing uses, 1,200 parking spaces, and allowed for an "adjusted daytime" University population of 33,905. As proposed, the GUP modification would allow an additional CMR:385:99 Page 4 of 9 2,038,000 square feet of building area for academic, athletic, and cultural uses; 2,780 dwelling units for students, faculty, and staff; and 2,795 parking spaces beyond what was allowed under the 1989 GUP. In addition to the draft GUP application, Stanford cor~currently submitted a Draft Community Plan to the County. Once adopted, the Community Plan is supposed to operate as a blueprint for Stanford’s anticipated growth over the next decade. Although both the GUP and Community Plan are intended to cover a.ten-year period (2000-2010), they will remain in place until they are formally amended by the Count).-. Like the GUP, the Community Plan’s geographic parameters are those of Stanford’s unincorporated Santa Clara County lands. This Plan will amend the existing County General Plan for Stanford’s unincorporated lands. During the course of this year, Stanford representatives had numerous discussions with, and solicited comments from, the County, neighboring jurisdictions, and interested community members regarding the future development plans of the University with the intent of addressing potential issues early in the GUP/Community Plan process. Submittal of the draft GUP and draft Community Plan at this time will allow for additional, more formalized public comments to occur. Stanford anticipates that the formal applications for both the GUP and Community Plan will be submitted on November 15, 1999 after it has received these comments on the drafts. Importantly, environmental clearance under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has .not been granted for the GUP/Community Plan. A draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is currently being prepared for the items; the County anticipates that the draft EIR will be published for public review in June 2000. At present, it is projected that the GUP/Community Plan will be set for public hearings before the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in the late summer and fall of next year. These hearing dates are tentative and may occur later in the year given the anticipated publication date of the EIR. DISCUSSION At present, the drafts of the GUP/Community Plan provide insight into Stanford’s goals and development intentions over the next decade, but both documents lack sufficient detail to be adequately understood and reviewed. This deficiency has already been brought to the University’s attention by Santa Clara County Planning staff (see attached staff report dated October 7, 1999). While there is a general lack of specificity throughout the documents, there are particular areas where the City of Palo Alto wants to provide specific direction. These are discussed below, but are by no means intended to be an exhaustive list of the draft GUP/Community Plan’s needed revisions. Draft Community Plan/General Use Permit Since the Community Plan is intended to operate as an amendment to the Santa Clara County General Plan, it needs to comply with State general plan requirements. California Government Code, Section 65302 mandates that all general plans contain seven requisite CMR:385:99 Page 5 of 9 elements: Land Use, Circulation (Transportation), Housing, Conservation, Noise, Open Space, and Safety. While State law allows flexibility in addressing these elements -- they may be combined or included with other non-mandatory elements -- they all must be addressed in some manner. The current draft of Stanford’s Community Plan does not provide Noise, Safety, or Conservation elements in any identifiable manner. This fundamental omission prevents even a cursory review of these issues. Given that portions of Stanford are in close proximity to seismically active areas and that a major portion of the University’s lands consist of undeveloped open space areas used and enjoyed by people throughout the region, it is especially important that thorough analyses of safety and conservation issues are provided. Though more precise in nature than the Community Plan, the GUP also needs more specificity to be reviewed adequately. This is particularly true given that the GUP is a land use entitlement mechanism unique to Stanford. More explanation should be provided regarding the GUP’s relationship to ottier land use mechanisms, such as zoning. Of the elements specifically called out in the GUP/Community Plan -- Land Use, Housing, Transportation, Open Space -- all are in need-of refmement and additional information. Specific comments on each element are discussed below. Land Use The Land Use element provides a basic framework outlining Stanford’s anticipated future growth and basic development goals, and as noted earlier, staff supports the basic land use designations. The Land Use element does not, however, sufficiently categorize proposed uses for the approximately 6.5 square miles covered by the Plan. Only four land use designations are provided and they are very broadly defined, including so wide a range of uses that it is not clear what type of development is likely to occur over the life of the Plan. For instance, "Academic Reserve and Open Space" includes two distinct land uses -- "academic reserve" indicates land that will ultimately be developed, while "open space" is indicative of property that will remain largely undeveloped and be used for low-intensity, ancillary purposes that will minimally impact the natural environment. Language found in the Plan references Stanford’s commitment to compact development and the preservation of open space areas. A tangible expression of this commitment would be for the Community Plan’s land use map to designate permanent open space areas as well as an ultimate "Academic Growth Boundary." Several jurisdictions in Santa Clara County with large amounts of undeveloped property (i.e., San Jose, Morgan Hill) have created self-established urban growth boundaries in recent years; it seems reasonable that Stanford could propose a similar development parameter at this time via the Community Plan. "Campus Residential" is another overly broad land use category that should be further delineated, at a minimum into single- and multi-family designations that provide density ranges for dwellings per acre, as is typically done with general plans, CMR:385:99 Page 6 of 9 In general, the land use maps contained in both the GUP/Community Plan need to provide more information (i.e., campus landmarks, street names, adjacent jurisdictions) and should be made more readable (i.e., use of color, larger maps). In many instances the maps do not convey key information, such as the time period covered by the Plan. Given the significance of the Plan, it is vital that the maps be integrated with the textual portion of the documents and convey as much information as possible. For many people reviewing the items, the maps will be the key source of information about Stanford’s intentions in the coming decade. Also, since the Plan covers approximately just half of Stanford’s property, for informational purposes, the Plan should provide insight (i.e., maps, tables) into Stanford’s additional area, including existing and future land uses and additional square footage anticipated for these properties. Overall, the absence of commonly used quantifiable measures, such as units per acre, floor- area-ratios, or building heights in the Land Use element, greatly limits the review that can be made at this time. It also raises the issue of how environmental clearance can be completed or assessed with this information unavailable. These quantifiable measures must be included in subsequent revisions of the Plan. School Site The absence of any designation that would allow for the development of a school is a concern to the City. It is not clear whether the Plan’s failure to mention this use means that schools are not allowed or foreseen during the life of the Plan. This issue needs to be resolved in the complete application submittal, and any potential school sites should be indicated on the land use plan. Stanford needs to work with the Palo Alto Unified School District to address the need for a middle school site. HollsJlt~ The Community Plan repeatedly acknowledges Stanford’s lack of on-campus housing for faculty, students, and staffand the GUP indicates that a significant number of dwelling units (2,608-2,780), of a wide range of housing types, could be added to the campus over the next ten years. The City strongly concurs that more housing is needed to adequately serve Stanford’s population. However, the Community Plan does not provide assurances that the potential growth in housing will keep pace with non-residential development at the University, and even more critically, the Plan does not indicate the minimum number of units that will likely be constructed. Also, as indicated above, the Community Plan’s stipulated maximum allowable residential density--up to 40 units per acre--is less than helpful without a specified density by housing type. This is particularly true in that much of the land designated as "Campus Residential" by the Community Plan already contains established neighborhoods unlikely to experience much redevelopment during the life of the Plan. The Community Plan should reflect the foreseeable character of these neighborhoods over the CMR:385:99 Page 7 of 9 next ten years rather thanapplying a one-size-fits-all residential density. Conversely, the areas of the campus that are realistically targeted for higher density development should be clearly shown. While the City strongly supports the proposed increase in housing for Stanford, it is particularly concerned about the possibility of new residential development along scenic areas of the campus, such as E1 Camino Real, and its potential intrusion into the setback on Stanford lands abutting this corridor. It is likely that any development proposed for this area could be accommodated elsewhere on campus through intensification of sites already anticipated to accommodate residential development in the Escondido Village vicinity. Circulation and Parking While the Circulation element does a good job of addressing Stanford’s pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation, it does so at the expense of analyzing how automobile traffic and vehicle movements will be accommodated and/or improved through the Community Plan. Stanford refers to its laudable goal of adding "no new net commute trips" to and from the campus for the life of the Plan; however, the means by which this goal can be achieved is not explored in any detail. No doubt more information on this will be provided via the upcoming Draft EIR, but the feasibility of attaining "no new net commute trips"---a central goal of the 1989 GUP--while adding over 2 million square feet of development and over 2,600 dwelling units needs to be fully explored. The GUP application acknowledges Stanford’s inadequate existing parking situation and proposes to add 2,795 parking spaces under the GUP over the next ten years. However, it is not clear how this number of parking spaces will alleviate the University’s parking problem when there will be an equal addition of dwellings constructed and over 2 million square feet of academic and academic-related development. Given the University’s existing spill-over parking into adjacent Palo Alto neighborhoods, this deficiency needs to be further addressed. A remaining area where the Plan should be revised concerns regional transportation issues. The Plan should describe Stanford’s commitment to being an active participant in resolving regional transportation problems with surrounding Mid-Peninsula jurisdictions. Stanford already has some involvement with adjacent cities concerning transportation issues (i.e., the Marguerite); however, its future intentions in this area must be made known. Open Space As with transportation, the Community Plan’s Open Space element strives for achieving a goal -- no loss of open space -- that the City strongly supports. The City believes that long- term and/or permanent open space areas (i.e., riparian corridors, the "Dish," the arboretum) clearly need to be described and mapped in the Community Plan. Moreover, the City would like a greater level of involvement in future land use decisions affecting open space areas. CMR:385:99 Page 8 of 9 Environmental Impact Report Even though Stanford wants to maintain flexibility to use its property and develop as needed, unless the GUP/Community Plan are revised to provide a greater level of detail, the potential environmental impacts of the proposal cannot be adequately addressed. Also, it is important ~’o acknowledge that until the EIR is received by the City, full review of the GUP/Community Plan cannot be finalized. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The subject items are outside the jurisdiction of the City and directly pertain to Stanford University’s unincorporated Santa Clara County lands. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Santa C- lara County Staff Report, dated October 7, 1999 Stanford University Draft Community Plan Stanford University General Use Permit Application "Draft Community Plan for Stanford University Lands in Unincorporated Santa Clara County, An Explanatory Document for Public Review and Comment" PREPARED BY:Luke Connolly, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY:Ray Hashimoto, Assistant Planning Official Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:G. EDWARD GAWFOJ~ Dir~or of Planning and unity Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CO"Santa Clara County Planning Department Stanford University Planning Department CMR:385:99 Page 9 of 9 County of santa Clara Environnl~21~tal Resources Agency Planning Office CtItdllty Govl3rlllllt311t Celll’12r. East Wing. 7th Floor 70 West Hedd|ng Street .San Jose. California 951 I O- 1705 ~4.08~ 299-2454 FAX 279-8537 Attachment A File: 7165-07-81-99GP STAFF REPORT /:/~ 12 8 ! V E/~lanning Commission OCT o ~ ~October 7, 1999 o,I tem # 1 -- ~ t~ro~e~t Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit Staff recommendations to the Planning Commission for the Commission’s comments to Stanford on the Draft Community Plan/General Use Permit application. Owner/Applicant: Ix)cation: 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: September 29, 1999 Sarah Jones, AICP Hugh Graharq, ~ Ann Draper ~,,~ PROJECT / PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION On March 30, 1999, the Board of Supervisors directed Stanford to prepare a Community Plan for its lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. As part of the Community Plan process, Stanford has released a draft version of its Community Plan and General Use Permit application for public comment, prior to submission of a formal application to the County Planning Office. Following a period of public input, including a community meeting hosted by the Planning Office and a series of public hearings in interested jurisdictions, Stanford will submit a formal application for County review and consideration on November 15, 1999. On September 2, 1999, the Planning Commission provided direction to Stanford for preparation of the Community Plan. This direction is discussed in this report and is described fully in the staff report for the September 2 Planning Commission meeting (see Exhibit A). This report describes staff’s recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding its comments to Stanford on the Draft Community Plan and General Use Permit application. Staff from the Planning Office and the County Counsel’s Office is working with Stanford staff to address the concerns outlined in this report, and as they arise in the upcoming public review. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommend that Stanford address the following issues in the Community Plan and General Use Permit application that will be submitted to the County in November 1999: The Community Plan and General Use Permit application should address the following overall issues: The P!an must provide the community with a full understanding of intended development and implementation actions. The language, structure and contents of the plan must commit to a level of accountability by Stanford that corresponds to the flexibility that the plan provides. The plan must serve as a valid and useful guiding document for decisionmakers. The Community Plan and General Use Permit application should reflect the direction given by the Planning Commission on September 2, 1999. Measures to incorporate such direction include but are not limited to: Land use designations that reflect all three land use "tiers" and an academic growth boundary. Specific designation of the future use of undeveloped parcels, particularly in the faculty/staff residential neighborhoods. A qualitative description of proposed new development, according to general campus location, in the Community Plan. Transportation policies that explicitly support no net increase in commute trips. Inclusion of trails as specified in the Countywide Trails Master Plan on the land use map and in the Open Space element. A minimum amount of housing to be constructed under the General Use Permit. A description of the types of performance evaluation factors that would be included in a monitoring program. 2 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1999 Item # 1 BACKGROUND Planning Office staff has reviewed the draft Community Plan and General Use Permit application prepared by Stanford University and released for public comment on September 20, 1999. Staff has several concerns about the documents which fall into two categories: the ability of the application to be considered complete for review when the it is submitted in November, and the conformance of the proposal with the Planning Commission’s direction to Stanford. County and Stanford staff have initiated a process for addressing the County’s concerns. Staff has three overall points of concern which incorporate several specific issues: The draft Community Plan and General Use Permit do not serve the purpose of providing a community understanding of intended furore development or actions by Stanford. The Community Plan should reference all required General Plan elements and should contain policies for all elements of significance to Stanford. Staff recommends the Community Plan be both more comprehensive and more specific if it is to provide an adequate level of community understanding. The provision of enough information for the Community Plan to serve as an adequate decisionmaking tool is a necessary component of the November 15 application. The concept of "flexibility with accountability" for Stanford was an important idea discussed during the summer’s public involvement activities and embraced by the Planning Commission. The draft Community Plan and General Use Permit as proposed would give Stanford a high level of flexibility without the corresponding level of accountability. This is most apparent in the Community Plan’s proposed land use designations, in the lack of an Academic Growth Boundary in the vague language used in the policies, and in the lack of discussion of several issues that have been of critical concern to the community such as future development in the faculty housing area or flooding. The Community Plan must provide adequate guidance and information for the upcoming environmental review process and for decisions about individual future proposed building projects. Inclusion of the missing plan elements and more precise maps, policies that will enable effective implementation, and better descriptions of proposed development and the analysis behind the proposals are critical to meeting this need. Without clarity of purpose, intent, or standards, there cannot be performance measures or accountability. Specific Areas of Concern Staff’s specific concerns are summarized below. These concerns address the overall form, structure, and content Ievel of the proposed plan and permit application rather than any specific polices. Staff’s issues fall into two categories: ¯Items that need to be included in the Community Plan and General Use Permit application in order for it to be considered complete at the November submittal; and ¯Differences in preferred planning approaches that will be addressed through the plan review process. Staff recognizes that the plan as proposed reflects Stanford’s viewpoints, which are sometimes contrary to the County’s priorities; while the Community Plan will ultimately be adopted by the County and will need to reflect the County’s preferences, this draft represents Stanford’s preferred approach. However, there are other components of the draft Community Plan!General Use Permit application as submitted by Stanford which are not currently included but which staff feels need to be a pan of the November submitt~il. This distinction is not meant to imply relative importance, but Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1999 Item # 1 to distinguish those aspects of the plan that need to be provided over the next two months from those that will be worked out with Stanford over the next year. The points discussed are illustrative of staff’s reactions and do not include all of the issues that will be considered either for application completeness or for conformance with staff’s preferred approaches. The points are summarized according to topic area. Within each topic area, those items which are needed for application completeness are listed first and those which reflect differences in approac.h are listed second. Community Plan Document Items Needed for Completeness The plan does not contain all 7 elements required by State General Plan law. While some elements can be incorporated by reference, such reference needs to be clearly stated in the text of the Community Plan. If Stanford has specific information about the campus in any of the areas, this information should augment the County’s general information. The plan elements must be consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65302, which identifies the contents of each General Plan element. Staff feels that the omission of a safety element is a severe oversight. Specific policies are needed for hazardous materials, flooding, and seismic issues, in order to guide consideration of these issues when making development decisions about future building projects. Conservation of habitat and cultural resources also needs to be addressed in more detail. The Community Plan contains no explicit policies and is difficult to understand without several supporting documents. Policies are needed to understand both Stanford and the County’s commitments under the Community Plan. The Community Plan should be organized in a manner that is clear and that seamlessly incorporates existing relevant policies about development at Stanford. Much of the language in the Community Plan is vague as to whether the County or Stanford is responsible for various actions. It is difficult to understand exactly what is being proposed to the degree needed for environmental analysis and decisionmaking. More information is needed on proposed changes, expressed through policies, supporting text, descriptions of analysis, and maps. Differences in Planning Approach The maps in the document should be larger, more readable, and more detailed, and should express basic information not included in the current proposal. ¯The draft Community Plan does not address monitoring, as directed by the Planning Commission. The Community Plan should call for the use of an annual performance monitoring procedure, which should cover more than just significant impacts noted in the EIR. Land Use Items Needed for Completeness ¯The land use element contains inadequate information, particularly with regard to a proposed range of building density and intensity and for areas which may be subject to natural hazards. The land use designations are vague and inconsistent with the Planning Commission direction. The designations in the Community Plan need considerably more depth and need to clearly express what uses would be permitted where. The land use map and policies do not differentiate between densities in the Campus Residential area and do not clearly identify proposed use for undeveloped parcels. As proposed, the 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1999 Item # 1 Campus Residential designation does not lend itself to implementation through zoning. This proposed land use is inconsistent with the Planning Commission’s direction. The draft Community Plan does not contain a qualitative description of proposed new development, as directed by the Planning Commission. The development districts described in the General Use Permit application should be shown and described in the Community Plan, along with a qualitative description of the district and the potential new development. Differences in Planning Approach ¯There should be a land use designation that corresponds to the area defined as "Tier 3" in the September 2 staff report and that is shown on the land use map and adequately described in the Community Plan policies. The Academic Reserve and Open Space designation should be defined in a manner that limits potential use to open space or uses that by their nature need to be there. There need to be policies regarding the approval for new development in this area. The title of this land use designation should also be changed to avoid confusion with the existing designation. The Campus Residential designation should either be split into two designations for single and multiple family housing or should have subcategories detailing density ranges. There is no Academic Growth Boundary shown on the land use map, inconsistent with the direction of the Planning Commission. The Land Use Element should also contain policies defining the boundary and the process for changing the boundary or for approving any development which might occur outside the boundary. ¯At least one land use designation should include a school in the description of allowable uses. Housing Items Needed for Completeness The description of proposed density of housing in different portions of the campus is limited to a blanket figure of 40 units per acre, which does not give an adequate understanding of the potential nature of new housing. The issue of housing density should be treated much more explicitly, with locations specified for single family and multiple family housing and density ranges identified for each. ¯There is no commitment on the use of undeveloped land in the faculty subdivision that are not listed as housing sites. Use of each undeveloped parcel should be specified. Differences in Planning Approach ¯Staff appreciates the amount of housin~ proposed in the Community Plan and General Use Permit. There is currently no explicit discussion of housing affordability. Circulation Items Needed for Completeness ¯Level of service or other circulation standards that Stanford intends to meet need to be made clear. Important circulation issues which are not adequately addressed include traffic related to special events, parking, and the relationship between Stanford and the surrounding circulation system. .A hierarchy of streets and travelways needs to be proposed. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1999 Item # 1 Differences in Planning Approach Continuation of the "no net new commute trips" approach is not explicitly treated, as directed by the Planning Commission. Open Space Items Needed for Completeness Open space policies do not adequately address recreation areas in the central campus or the footl-fills. Park and recreation areas are not shown in the plan. Trails should be indicated, at minimum consistent with the County Trails Master Plan and the Planning Commission’s direction. As with all of the elements, policies in the Open Space and Conservation Element should be supported by the Land Use Element. For example, the Community Plan’s Open Space Element currently includes policies that calls for protection of visual resources, serpentine soils and habitat areas. These areas should be identified and appropriate policies should be provided. Conservation Items Needed for Completeness Conservation issues are not adequately addressed in the Community Plan. The plan needs to have policies for habitat preservation and for protection of culawal resources. Conservation should either be explicitly included in the Open Space element or should be discussed in a separate element. General Use Permit Items Needed for Completeness ¯Staff needs a better understanding of the development proposed in the General Use Permit. The GUP should include an explanation of the analysis behind the proposed development and a description of the general character of development proposed for each district. Information on the size of each district and existing floor area and housing units should be included. ¯The housing proposals need to be considered in light of the projected on-campus population increase. New housing should be expressed as an approximate number of square feet as well as in units to allow for easier comparison to the current GUP and for better understanding of the proposal by the public. The GUP should provide a proposed density of housing in different areas. ¯The GUP proposes a policy regarding development in the foothills as a footnote to the table of development totals. Any policies regarding foothill development need to be included in the Community Plan and implemented through the GUP. Differences in Planning Approach ¯There is no minimum amount of housing to be provided, as directed by the Planning Commission. Although the GUP as proposed enables Stanford to build up to 2,780 new units, Stanford has no proposed obligation to build housing under the GUP. The Community Plan for Stanford University will be a portion of the County’s General Plan and will outline development of one of the County’s most unique and complex areas. Staff believes it should meet the highest professional planning standards for quality, clarity, and thoroughness. 6 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1999 Item # 1 During the process of deciding what type of planning tool would be most appropriate for Stanford, University representatives and Planning staff reviewed several examples of Community Plans and shared these with the Planning Commission. A table of contents and sample element of one of the plans is included as ExhibitB. Schedule Issues Planning Office staff is working closely with Stanford to address the issues of concern for the November 15 submittal of the Community Plan and General Use Permit application. Failure to adequately address core issues could have an impact on the overall schedule for completion of the plan. These core issues are identified in the preceding discussion. Staff also believes that the development of the Community Plan can be evolutionary and, as a next step, will be working with Stanford to develop the core information needed to supplement the plan as proposed and prepare an environmental impact report. Public Input on Draft Community Plan Members of the community have had and will continue to have several opportunities to comment on the Draft Community Plan and General Use Permit application before Stanford submits its formal application on November 15. The Planning Office hosted a community meeting for the purpose of input on September 29, 1999. Public hearings are scheduled in the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, and possibly East Palo Alto to allow the Planning Commissions and City Councxqs of those jurisdictions to comment on the proposal. A Community Resource Group meeting is also scheduled for October 28, 1999. EXH~ITS A.September 2, 1999 Staff Report to the Planning Commission B.Examples of Community Plan C.Articles from the Palo Alto Daily News, Palo Alto Weekly, San Francisco Chronicle, and San Jose Mercury News File name: draft plan sr 7 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1999 Item # 1 County of Santa Clara STAFF REPORT Planning Commission September 2, 1999 Item #6 File:7165-07-81-98P Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit Staff recommendations to the Planning Commission’s regarding its direction to Stanford for the preparation of the draft Community Plan and General Use Permit. 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: August 24, 1999 Sarah Jones, AI~ Tu"’a Hugh Graham Ann Draper Exhibit A (.:()u, lty l:.\l’(. LIIIVt’: ]<alinr(I \\lilt" llx’r,u PROJECT / PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION On March 30, 1999, the Board of Supervisors directed Stanford to prepare a Community Plan for its lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. An important objective of the plan was the provision of extensive opp0~nities for public involvement. Four Community Forums were held to_gain community input on major topics: housing, transportation, open space and conservation, arid land use and academic trends. The Planning Commission requested that a public hearing be scheduled following the Forums:-to allow the Commission to provide direction to Stanford for preparation of the Community Plan, based on the input from the Community Forums. Summaries of the.iCommunity ForumS.are included as Exhibit A. This report describes the Planning Office staff’s recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding its direction to Stanford. The recommendations are based on the input from the Community Forums and the application of County General Plan policy to the Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit. The recommendations address both Community Plan policies and approaches to implementation. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Provide Stanford with the following direction for preparation of the Community Plan: Community Plan Policies ¯Development Approach and Open Space Protection. The Community Plan should propose the location and definition of three types of areas or "tiers" for Stanford land as follows: Tier 1: Areas within an "Academic Growth Boundary". This area will include properties for academic and "urban" related uses and be the location of the most intensive land uses. Staff believes this tier would include the central campus and any land south of Junipero Serra Boulevard where development currently exists or where more intense academic uses might locate during the period in which the Community Plan remains valid. Additional recommendations for this tier are provided under the recommendation for "Description of development areas within the Academic Growth Boundary." Tier 2: Areas outside the Academic Growth Boundary. This tier would include lands outside the Academic Growth Boundary that are not included in Tier 3. Staff recommends a limited and well-defined set of low intensity academic and other uses ,which are consistent with the open character of the land and which require the natural setting for their functioning. The Community Plafi should propose the range of limited uses which might occur in this tier. Tier 3: Protected areas. These areas would include environmentally sensitive areas and would be in long-term or permanent protection. Uses consistent with this tier include open space, trails, conservation activities, field environmental studies, and agricultural leases. The Community Plan should identify these areas and their potential uses and propose the vehicle for protection of the open space. Description of development within the Academic Growth Boundary. Within the Academic Growth Boundary proposed development should be described and located in the following manner. Al! areas should have an appropriate land use designation in the Community Plan. ¯Facult3,/sraff/residential neighborhoods. Stanford should designate the areas which will be retained or developed as residential areas for faculty’ and staff. Staff proposes this Planning Commission Meeting September 2. 1999 Item # 6 portion of Academic Growth area be treated as traditional residential neighborhoods, with land use designations that lend themselves to implementation through either existing or new residential zoning districts. If new zoning is proposed, Stanford should provide a general description of that zoning within the Community Plan. Other compatible uses should also be identified and’could include: parks, schools, or support uses, as are consistent with the surrounding area. Staff recommends the inclusion of complementary uses such as child care or local services in new or redeveloper housing areas in a manner appropriate to the neighborhood involved. Areas for instruction and research. This portion of the Academic Growth area should include all existing and proposed academic, athletic, administration and support, and student housing. This area should be divided into approximately 5-10 sectors with projected new nonresidential development, housing and parking described qualitatively for each sector. Urban open space: Areas such as the Arboretum, the Oval and the area surrounding Lake Lagunita, should be designated as urban open space and protected through appropriate Community Plan policies and implementation mechanisms. Housing. Within the Academic Growth Boundary, the Community Plan should provide for development of housing in a manner that addresses the needs of students, faculty and staff and that augments the supply of housing in the region. Specifically, the Community Plan should: Propose a process and a timeline to develop an overall housing plan targeting the housing needs of matriculated graduate students and postgraduates such as postdoctoral fellows and medical residents. The plan should focus on extensive redevelopment and intensificatibn of Escondido Village as a primary location for graduate student and postgraduate housing. Staff recommends the Plan establish a goal of providing housing on campus for all graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who wish to live on the campus. Provide for additional housing on Stanford lands in either new or existing residential neighborhoods that would be appropriate for junior and retired faculty and staff members. Transportation. The Community Plan should include transportation measures to support continuation of the existing "no net new commute trips" policy, should propose a monitoring plan that is based on a direct trip count, and should include adequate measures to reduce the impacts of traffic related to special events The environmental analysis for the Community Plan and General Use Permit will evaluate the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed monitoring proposal. Open space uses. A formal trail should be shown and established along San Francisquito/ Los Trancos Creek across Stanford lands, as indicated in the Countywide Trails Master Plan. Participation with neighboring communities. Staff recognizes that the issues of adequate housing, transportation, resource conser~’ation and flooding are regional issues and that the surrounding communities will need to work with their employers and residential community to also help create solutions to these problems. It is possible that these off-campus solutions might actually help to address some of these issues better than on-campus solutions. Therefore, staff recommends the Community Plan provide for Stanford’s cooperation with surrounding communities on regional issues such as housing, transportation, resource conservation, and flooding. The Plan should also propose a mechanism whereby the Planning Commission could consider the accomplishment and participation by Stanford in off-campus solutions as partial fulfillment of their on-site improvements. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1999 Item # 6 Community Plan Implementation ¯Building area and parking cap. The General Use Permit should cont’.ain a limit on nonresidential; buildingarea and parking spaces that may be added on the campus, based on the developmem ..~e.scribed in the Community Plan. This cap should be structured as follows: Projected nonresidential square footage and parking should be quantified for each sector described in the Community Plan, forming the basis for campus-wide building area and parking caps. The campus-wide caps should be versatile enough to allow flexibility in locating space among sectors. Although proposed housing development will be described in the Community Plan, housing for students, faculty and staff, and support uses in residential neighborhoods, should not be included in the building area cap for the campus. Housing. Staff recommends that the Community Plan propose specific incentives and requirements for development of housing. Such measures could include exclusion of housing from the building area cap, establishment of a minimum number of new housing units, requiring that certain amounts of housing be developed by key milestone dates, use of minimum densities, or allowing new housing built ,on Stanford-owned land in surrounding jurisdictions to count towards the attainment of stated housing goals. These incentives and requirements should be incorporated as appropriate into the overall housing plan. ¯Monitoring. The Community Plan should specify the use of independent, direct monitoring of conditions stated in the General Use Permit. The Plan should propose a method for that direct monitoring. Thresholds for permitting and environmental review. Staff recognizes that there could be different approaches to plan review and additional environmental review within the three proposed tiers. Staff recommends that the Plan propose permitting and environmental review procedures that will result in the use of the Academic Growth area for future growth and in the preservation of the other two tiers. BACKGROUND The Community Plan for Stanford University will contain policies for future use and development of the campus that address the seven elements required of General Plans (land use, transportation, housing, open space, resource conservation, noise, and safety). It will also identify the mechanisms to be used for implementing the plan. The Community Plan will be adopted as an amendment to the Santa Clara County General Plan and will be implemented through a General Use Permit, zoning, and other appropriate mechanisms. Specific requirements such as a building area cap and conditions of approval for development will be included in the General Use Permit. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Office staff recommendations address the policies to be contained in the Community Plan and the implementation measures that the Plan should identify. Although the recommendations outline a very strong direction to the University, they deliberately do no~ address many of the specific items that will be determined through analysis of Stanford’s proposed development program. Many issues that will be very important as the planning process progresses, such as the building area cap for the campus or the mitigation of any major environmental impacts, will be developed at appropriate stages of the planning process. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1999 Item # 6 The Community Resource Group (CRG) for the Stanford Community Plan/General Use Permit met on August 19 to discuss issues relevant to the staff recommendations to the Planning Commission. The purpose of the CRG is to offer local perspectives, viewpoints, expertise, and opinions that will inform the staff’s recommendations to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors throughout the planning process. Input from the CRG was extremely informative in formulating these recommendations. A summary of the CRG’s input is included as Exhibit B. Staff has identified 10 recommendations; the rationale or basis for each recommendation is discussed below: Community Plan Policies Development Api~roach and Open Space Protection. The Community Plan should propose the location and definition of three types of areas or "tiers" for Stanford land as follows: Tier 1: Areas within an "Academic Growth Boundary". This area Will include properties for academic and "urban" related uses and be the location of the most intensive land uses. Staff believes this tier would include the central campus and any land south of Junipero Serra Boulevard where development currently exists or where more intense academic uses might locate during the period in which the Community Plan remains valid. Additional recommendations for this tier are provided under the recommendation for "Description of development areas within the Academic Growth Boundary." Tier 2: Areas outside the Academic Growth Boundary. This tier would include lands outside the Academic Growth Boundary that are not included in Tier 3. Staff recommends a limited and well-defined set of low intensity academic and other uses which are consistent with the open character of the land and which require the natural setting for their functioning. The Community Plan should propose the range of limited uses which might occur in this tier. Tier 3: Protected areas. These areas would include environmentally sensitive areas and would be in long-term or permanent protection. Uses consistent with this tier include open space, such as trails, conservation activities field environmental studies, and agricultural leases. Stanford should identify these areas and their potential uses and propose the vehicle for protection of the open space. This recommendation is designed to recognize the County and the community’s interest in certainty with regard to protection of open space as well as Stanford’s interest in flexibility for future use of its land. It also applies the concept of urban growth boundaries, which have been used elsewhere in the County, to the Stanford lands. Most importantly, it implements the County’s policy regarding location of urban uses within urban areas. The specific location and uses of each tier can be determined through County review of the Community Plan and General Use Permit. In addition, a procedure for defining any additional uses that could be allowed in each tier as the need may arise over time would need to be defined. Although there has been interest in the public in establishing a growth boundary at Junipero Serra Boulevard, such boundaries are generally designed to provide adequate space for growth without creating the opportunity for sprawl development. Staff supports the concept of an Academic Growth Boundary that at minimum ac "knowledges the development already in the foothills, and that possibly provides limited additional room for growth if such a need is identified by Stanford. Staff’s concept for areas in Tier 2 outside the Academic Growth Boundary. would allow continuation of the conservation, infrastructure, and location-specific research activities (i.e. radio towers) currently occurring near the "Dish." Uses would be more closely defined than the current Planning Commission NIeeting September 2, 1999 Item # 6 "’University Lands - Academic Rese~’e and Open Space" designation, but would permit the location of academic and other uses which require an open and natural setting. These areas would be potentially available for more intensive academic use beyond the Community Plan period. Lands in Tier 3 would include those areas which are unsuited for development under County policies, such as areas with steep slopes or seismic instability, sensitive habitat or cultural resources, areas which would require extensive amounts of grading in order to allow for development, and important visual resources. Uses consistent with open space, such as trails~ conservation activities, field environmental studies, and agricultural leases would be permitted, similar to those allowed in open space easements in the County’s Hillside zoning districts. Mechanisms for open space protection would be established through the Community Plan and environmental review process. Description of development within the Academic Growth Boundary. Within the Academic Growth Boundary proposed development should be described and located in the following manner. All areas should have an appropriate land use designation in the Community Plan. Facul~. /staff/ residential neighborhoods. Stanford should designate the areas which will be retained or developed as residential areas for faculty and staff. Staff proposes this portion of Academic Growth area should be treated as traditional residential neighborhoods, with land use designations that lend themselves to implementation through either existing or new residential zoning districts. If new zoning is proposed, Stanford should provide a general description of that zoning within the Community Plan. Other compatible uses should also be identified and could include: parks, schools, or support uses, as are consistent with the surrounding area. Staff recommends the inclusion of complementary uses such as child care or local services in new or redeveloped housing areas in a manner appropriate to the neighborhood involved. Areas for instruction and research. This portion of the Academic Growth area should include all existing and proposed academic, athletic, administration and support, and student housing. This area should be divided into approximately 5-10 sectors with projected new nonresidential development, housing and parking described qualitatively for each sector. ¯Urban open space: Areas such as the Arboretum, the Oval and the area surrounding Lake Lagunita, should be designated as urban open space and protected through appropriate Community Plan policies and imPlementation mechanisms. This recommendation is meant to identify appropriate methods of planning and regulating the different types of uses within the Academic Growth Boundary. In this recommendation, staff is for the first time making a distinction between the faculty/staff residential neighborhoods and the areas of the campus in academic use. Faculty and staff are housed in siggle- and multiple-family residential neighborhoods that are relatively isolated from other types of uses on the campus. These areas are suitable for traditional land use regulation through General Plan designations and corresponding zoning. Undeveloped lands could be designated for single- or multiple-family housing, parks, or support uses appropriate to the residential neighborhood. Staff supports consideration of the use of some land within existing and new residential neighborhoods for complementary nonresidential uses, as well as the designation of some undeveloped land for multiple family housing. Staff feels that dividing the remainder of the central campus into its component academic, athletic, support, and student housing uses is not necessary and would not acknowledge the interrelationship between the functions. The most important consideration is the achievement of 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1999 Item # 6 some certainty with regard to development in this portion of the campus. Therefore, staff recommends the use of 5-10 campus "sectors," for which qualitative development of academic and administrative buildings, student housing, and parking is estimated. This estimated development will need to be quantified for the purpose of environmental review and to establish building and parking caps in the General Use Permit. Although the 3-tiered mechanism will be designed to encourage infill in the central campus, the area within the Academic Growth Boundary would contain some important open spaces, such as the Arboretum, Lake Lagunita, and the Oval. These lands are distinct from lands which are currently undeveloped but are appropriate for future new uses, and should retain their existing character through designation in the Community Plan as urban open space. Appropriate policies for their protection should be included in the Community Plan. ¯Housing. Within the Academic Growth Boundary, the Community Plan should provide for development of housing in a manner that addresses the needs of students, faculty and staff and that augments the supply of housing in the region. Specifically, the Community Plan should: Propose a process and a timeline to develop an overall housing plan targeting the housing needs of matriculated graduate students and postgraduates such as postdoctoral fellows and medical residents. The plan should focus on extensive redevelopment and intensification of Escondido Village as a primary location for graduate student and postgraduate housing, including location of support services in this graduate residential neighborhood as appropriate. Staff recommends the Plan establish a goal of providing housing on campus for all graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who wish to live on the campus. Provide for additional housing on Stanford lands in either new or existing residential neighborhoods that would be appropriate for junior and retired faculty and staff members. Stanford students, faculty, and staff have been affected by the high cost and low supply of housing in northern Santa Clara County and southern San Mateo County, as have other residents of the region. There was considerable input at the community forums regarding the impact of the housing shortage on Stanford’s ability to recruit and retain graduate students and faculty. Graduate students and postgraduates are particularly affected as a result of their low income relative to others in the area, and their interest in living close to the campus due to their unusual work hours. According to the University, approximately 45% of matriculated graduate students (3,500 students) and no postgraduates are housed on the campus. Approximately 1,000 graduate students did not receive housing in the lottery for the 1999-2000 academic year. A survey on housing organized by members of the Graduate Student Council last year indicated that 21% of eligible respondents living off-campus would apply to live on-campus for the next year, and that an additional 18% of these respondents would not apply only because they did not want to risk having to move off campus again at a later date. There is considerable demand in the graduate and postgraduate communities for on-campus or affordable, nearby housing. Stanford University has recently extended financial assistance and rented existing off-campug units for graduate students. While these programs begin to address individual student housing needs, they do not augment the regional housing supply over the long term, and actually remove some units from the pool of housing available to other County residents. County General Plan policy supports addition of new housing, particularly in job-rich areas such as the north county. Staff therefore recommends that housing policies in the Community Plan specif,v construction of new housing on Stanford lands, to be implemented through a set of incentives that remove barriers to housing construction as well as through requirements on the minimum number of units to be provided. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1999 Item # 6 Undeveloped sites for new housing have been identified by the University, particularly in the west campus area. However, staff believes that Escondido Village. a graduate student housing area on the east side of the campus, is a major opportunity for the addition of a significant number of housing units. Escondido Village opened in phases between 1959 and 1972 and houses 3,200 people, including student spouses and children. Structures include several highrise buildings and a large number of one- or two-story buildings, separated by expanses of undeveloped land. Planning Office staff believes that the entire site presents an opportunity for meeting a large proportion of the demand for graduate and postgraduate housing through redevelopment and intensification. Such redevelopment also provides an opportunity for complementary support uses such as child care and local services in this residential area. Transportation. The Community Plan should include transportation measures to support continuation of the existing "no net new commute trips" policy, should propose a monitoring plan that is based on a direct trip count, and should include adequate measures to reduce the impacts of traffic related to special events The environmental analysis for the Community Plan and General Use Permit will evaluate the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed plan and monitoring proposal. The primary transportation impact mitigation in the current General Use Permit has been the "no net new commute trips" condition. While staff would like to maintain this effective tool in the future, more direct monitoring of Stanford’s compliance is needed. Currently, commute trips are derived from population; new housing units and participation in TDM programs are subtracted from the increase in the average daytime population on the campus to determine if trips are being reduced enough to compensate for additional population. Staff is. recommending that monitoring through direct traffic counts be used in the future. This more rigorous procedure would most likely require that Stanford take additional measures to reduce trips; for example, under the current method, housing is assumed to reduce trips, without gauging the actual impact of the housing. Staff does not feel that requirements regarding specific transportation demand management programs, such as the Marguerite shuttle or parking, are appropriate. Establishing a standard for performance without specific prescriptions for meeting the standard will provide needed flexibility over the long term. The environmental analysis for the Community Plan/GUP may conclude that the "no net new commute trips" requirement is not feasible when monitored through traffic counts. Alternative mitigation measures may need to be identified if this situation occurs. ¯Open space uses A formal trail should be shown and established along San Francisquito/ Los Trancos Creek across Stanford lands, as indicated in the Countywide Trails Master Plan. The Countywide Trails Master Plan encourages dedication of trail easements when development is proposed on land crossed by a proposed trail shown on the Countywide Trails Master Plan map. There is one proposed connector trail, along San Franciscquito and Los Trancos creeks, shown across Stanford lands on the map. Other existing trails on Stanford lands are currently used extensively by campus residents and employees and residents of neighboring communities. This use is not formally established, although it has been occurring for several years. Staff believe.s that the process of defining uses for Tiers 2 and 3 of the Stanford lands will help settle the issue of whether recreational use of these lands should be formalized at this time. While community members value this recreational amenity, some have indicated that parking and user fees or indemnity for the University against liability may be appropriate if this use is to continue, 8 Planning Commission Meeting September 2. I999 Item # 6 Participation with neighboring communities. Staff recognizes that the issues of adequate housing, transportation, resource conser’,’ation and flooding are regional issues and that the surrounding communities will need to work with their employers and residential community to also he.lp create solutions to these problems. It is possible that these off-campus solutions might actually help to address some of these issues better than on-campus solutions. Therefore, staff recommends the Community Plan provide for Stanford’s cooperation with surrounding communities on regional issues such as housing, transportation, resource conservation, and flooding. The Plan should also propose a mechanism whereby the Plan~aing Commission could consider the accomplishment and participation by Stanford in off-campus solutions as partial fulfillment of their on-site improvements. Although the Community Plan will only address the portions of the Stanford campus in unincorporated Santa Clara County, the University owns land in six jurisdictions; new development at Stanford is often of interest to residents of many of the surrounding jurisdictions. Many high priority planning issues require regional approaches for the most effective solutions. Staff supports the inclusion of incentives and policies for cooperation with neighboring communities in the Community Plan, and would like to explore ways in which Stanford’s participation in multijurisdictional efforts could be counted towards attainment of goals expressed in the Community Plan or the condition !mposed through the General Use Permit. Community Plan Implementation Building area and parking cap. The General Use Permit should contain a limit on nonresidential building area and parking spaces that may be added on the campus, based on the development described in the Community Plan. This cap should be structured as follows: Projected nonresidential square footage and parking should be quantified for each sector described in the Community Plan, forming the basis for campus-wide building area and parking caps. The campus-wide caps should be versatile enough to allow flexibility in locating space among sectors. Although proposed housing development will be described in the Community Plan, housing for students, faculty and staff, and support uses in residential neighborhoods, should not be included in the building area cap for the campus. This recommendation refers to a similar mechanism to that found in the current General Use Permit, with a few important distinctions. The current cap was formulated in much the same manner as that currently proposed; however, while projections for different areas of the campus are discussed in the 1989 GUP EIR, staff is now recommending that this sector analysis be adopted as policy in the plan. Because some versatility is needed to allow Stanford to respond to changing conditions over time, the building area and parking caps would need to be structured to allow for some flexibility in the projected development in each sector. Another important distinction between current practice and the recommended future building and parking area cap is the exclusion of new housing from the cap. Staff feels that the building area cap should not act as a disincentive for the addition of housing on the campus, and does not want housing to compete with academic buildings for a portion of the allotted building area. Although the amount of housing to be constructed will need to be estimated for the purpose of environmental analysis and permitting, staff feels that housing should be approached from the perspective of a minimum rather than a maximum amount of housing to be provided. Housing. Staff recommends that the Community Plan propose specific incentives and requirements for development of housing. Such measures could include exclusion of housing from the building area cap. ~stablishment of a minimum number of new housing units, 9 Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1999 Item # 6 requiring that certain amounts of housing be developed by key milestone dates, use of minimum densities, or allowing new housing built on Stanford-owned land in surrounding jurisdictions to count towards the attainment of stated housing goals. Thege incentives and requirements should be incorporated as appropriate into the overall housing plan. Staff feels that a combined approach of incentives and requirements is most likely to result in the production of significant amounts of new housing on Stanford lands. Although housing has been considered in a similar manner as academic building development on the campus in the past, the high level of County interest in this issue merits the inclusion of additional incentives for housing development to be identified as implementation mechanisms for the Community Plan. The suggested mechanisms in the recommendation are preliminary ideas; a workable combination- of incentives and requirements will be identified in the County’s plan review process. ¯Monitoring. The Community Plan should specify the use of independent, direct monitoring of conditions stated in the General Use Permit. The Plan should propose a method for that direct monitoring. One of County staff’s concerns about the existing General Use Permit, which has been echoed by members of the community, is the lack of independent monitoring of Stanford’s compliance with the conditions of the permit. While the annual report format has been effective, several components of the report (such as traffic counts) may need to be completed by an independent party under contract to the County. Staff recommends that the implementation measures for the Community Plan include direction for an independent and direct monitoring procedure. Thresholds for permitting and environmental review. Staff recognizes that there could be different approaches to plan review and additional environmental review within the three proposed tiers. Staff recommends that the Plan propose permitting and environmental review procedures that will result in the use of the Academic Growth area for future growth and in the preservation of the other two tiers. Administrative tools such as permitting and environmental review can be important incentives or deterrents for development in a given area. The Community Plan and any implementation mechanisms should clarify the types of permits and environmental review procedures required for different types of projects, and should be structured to encourage inf’tll development inside the Academic Growth Boundary. ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS There are three notable topics which were either raised at the forums or are components of existing policies which are not included in the recommendations. Population Cap The current General Use Permit establishes a limit on the average daytime population of 1,995 people above the 1989 population. Although limiting population is an attractive concept in thai it is a way to better evaluate and control impacts of development than through the indirect measure of building area, it has proved difficult to implement over the last I0 years. Average daytime population is computed through a complex formula of students, faculty, staff, visitors, medical center users, and others. The County mainly uses the annual population estimate as a benchmark for measuring compliance with the "no net new commute trips" condition in the General Use Permit. 10 Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1999 Item # 6 County staff is proposing that the population cap be eliminated as a condition of the General Use Permit. Direct counting of trips rather than derivation from the population increase will meet the same purpose as the current population monitoring in a more direct and verifiable manner. An estimated population in.’:.rease will still be needed for the purpose of environmental analysis, as it is required for other use permit applications submitted to the County, Parking Limitation Participants at the transportation forum raised the concept of a "no net new parking" requirement, indicating that such a requirement could be more effective than the "no net new commute trips" standard for reducing trips. The concept was explored further at the Academic Trends and Land Use Forum. County staff has chosen not to include this requirement in its recommendations for the following reasons: Parking control is a transportation demand management measure. Use of the performance standard regarding commute trips rather than requiring specific transportation deman’d management measures gives Stanford the flexibility to experiment and select the most effective combination of transportation demand management approaches over time. ¯Severe caps on parking could result in less parking .available for those with a relatively low transportation impact level, such as on-campus residents, visitors to public facilities (such as the museum), and occasional visitors, without actually reducing trips at peak times. Staff is recommending that a cap be placed on additional parking spaces on the campus, similar to the cap in place in the current General Use Permit School Site The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) has requested that approximately 25 acres of Stanford land be set aside for a new middle school site as part of the Community Plan (see Exhibit C). Under the state’s Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, local government agencies may not require school impact mitigations beyond the payment of impact fees as determined by the state. The County therefore cannot require that the University set aside land for schools as a condition of Community Plan or General Use Permit approval. The PAUSD and Stanford have been involved in negotiations regarding a location for a new middle school site on Stanford lands. If a site is found, staff supports all efforts to facilitate development of a school, including exclusion of the school facilities from the building area cap and from the transportation impact mitigations required of the University. EXHIBITS A.Summaries of Community Forums B.Summary of August 19, 1999 Community Resource Group meeting C.Letters from interested organizations regarding the Community PlardGeneral Use Permit D.Articles from the Palo Alto Daily News, Palo Alto Weekly, and San Jose Mercury News File name: CP/GUP recs st3 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1999 Item # 6 SAN GERONIMO VALLEY ’...COMMUNITY"PLAN .... Adopted by the Marin County Board of Supe .rvisors on . . December 2, 1997 Exhibit B TABLE OF CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION ..............". .....................................................................I-1 A. PURPOSE AND LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COM241TNITY PLAN ...............I-I B. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ..................................................I-I C COMMUNIqT GOALS I-2 D. DEFINITION OF THE PLANNIN~ AREAS AND SUBAREAS ..................I-3 E NATURAL SEITING I-3 F. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIT?_S .............................................................I-3 (3. DEMOGRAPHICS.. .................................................. .... ... ... ... .... ....I-4 1. Population ................................................................ ............1-4 2. Housing. .......................................................... .. . . ... .. ... .......I-4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ...................................Kid A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ B. VEGETATION ............................................................................rrr-I 1. Th~ ValMy Floor ..................................................................KI-2 2. The South-facing $1trpes .........................................................m-2 3. The North-facing Slopes .........................................................rrr-4 4. Ridgelines .......................................................................... C. RIPARIAN SYSTEM AND WATER QUALITY ...................................III-5 1. Wamrsheds ......................................................................... 2. Creek Issues and Water Quality ................................................m-5 3. Aquatic Life .......................................................................111"-6 4. Sediment Reduction Programs ..................................................tiT-7 D. NATURAL RESOURCES FOR PRESERVATION .................................rl’l’-8 E. EaqERGY CONSERVATION ..........................................................rrt-13 F. NOISE ............................................- ........I1"1"-13 G. OB!ECTIVES, POLICIP_S, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS ........]II-15 RF.~IDENTI.AL! COMMERCIAL DEVELOPNIHNT .......................................IV-1 A. INTRODUCTION .................................. B. CO~-WIDE LAND USE ....................................................IV-1 1. Land Use .......................................................... ..................IV-1 2 Community Design IV-2 3. Housing .........................................................................~.. IV-3 4. Commercial Services .............................................................IV-6 C. VILLAGE LAND USE ...................................................................IV-7 1. Woodacre ..........................................................................IV-7 2. San Geronimo .....................................................................IV-8 3. Forest Knolls ......................................................................IV-9 4. Lagunitas .........................................................................IV-IO 5. Outside Vil!age Area~ ..........................................................IV-10 D. OB!S~, POLICIBS AND IIVfP~ATION PROGP.A!VIS ........IV-15 CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND ~ ....................................¥-I A. ROADWAYS ...............................................................................V-I I. Sir Prancis Drake Boulevard .....................................................V-I 2 County-Maintained Roads . 3. Non-County Maintained Roads ..................................................V-2 4" FJ.r~ Roads ~ .......................V2 5. Roadway Standar~ ................................................................ V-2 6. Traffic Patterns and ProbMras ...................................................V-3 B. TRANSIT ...................................................................................V-3 C. BIKEWAYS ................................................................................V-3 D. TRAILS ..................~ ..................................................................V-5 i. Trail Acquisition ....................................................... ¯ ............V- ~. Trail MaintmC~ce ..................................................................V-~ E. OBJ~’TIV’F~, POI/CIES, AND IMP~ATION PROGRAMS ...........V-7 C. DISASTER PP.EPAREDNF~S .........................................................VI-1 D. SCHOOLS .................................................................................VI-2 I. Day Care ...........................................................................VI-2 2. Elementary .........................................................................VI-2 3. High School ................................................: ....................VI-3 E. RECREATION ............................................................................VI-3 I:. POSTAL SERVICES .....................................................................VI-4 Go UTILITIES .................................................................................VI-4 H. WASTE TREATMENT ..................................................................VI-4 J. LIBRARY ............................................................................ . ... ...VI-6 K.PLACES OF WORSHIP .................................................................VI-7 i. Saint Cecilia’s Church ..................................................... . .. . . .VI-7 2. San Gexonimo Valley Community Pfesbyw.2ian Church ....................VI-7 3. ~lewish Congregation of the San Geronimo Valley ...........................VI-7 4. Spirit Rock Meditation Center ..................................................VI-7 L RECYCLING .....VI-7 M.OB]]ECTIVES, POLICIES, AND IMPI2.MENTATION PROGRAMS .........VI-8 NATUR~ HAZARDS .......................................................................VII-I A. GENEKAL DESC~ON ............................................................VII-1 B. GEOLOGIC, SEISMIC AND SOILS HAZARDS ..................................VII-1 i. Slope StabRity ....................................................................VII-I 2. Earthquakes .......................................................................VII-2 3. Ground Failure ..................................................................VII-2 4. I.~dalid~ .........................................................................VII-3 C ~"LOODING VII-3 D PIRI~ HAZARDS ........VII-4 IL OB/~CrlVES, POUCIES, AND IMPI2_MF./qTATION PROGRAMS .........VII-5 A BACKGROUND VIII-1 C. PRP.SERVATION 01~ AGRICULTUP~ ............................................VIII-2 D. O~, POUClP.S AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS ........V]II-S IX. I~CONOMIC ELI~M~qT .........................................................................IX-I A. OBI]~CrlVES, POUCIF.S AND DVlPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS ..........IX-I List of Figures 1. Lo~tion Map .........., ............................................................................vi~-3 2. San Gm’onimo Valley Vitlag~ .....................................................................I-5 3. Wamsh~ Boundary ...................: ...........................................................rrr-3 4. Open Spa~ and Agriculture . .................................................................. . . .~-9 List of Tables 1. San Ge~mimo Valley Population and Age Distribution ........................................ 2. San G~onimo Residmtial Potential ............................................ . . ... ........... .IV-3 3. San G~ronimo Comm~zial Pot~nti~ ............................................................IV-6 4. Woodac~ D~elopn~nt Poumtial ................................................................IV-8 5 San GemnJmo Village Development Pot=ntial ...................IV 8 6. Fore~ Knolls Devalopm~nt Potmtial ............................................................IV-9 7. LaguaitasDevelopm~ntPot~ntial ......................................... . . .... .. . .. . .o.. .. .. .IV-10 8 Outside Villages D,~,elopmeat Pot~atial ..................IV-11 B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Summary of Applicable Phns and Poli~fi~.s Regulations for Various Zoning Districts Zoning Maps Land Use Poticy Maps Noise Definitions Trails Maps Initial Study Board of Supervisors Resolution Vii.NATURAL HAZARDS A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION Hazards include the susceptibility to landslides, fire, and earthquake damage, the inability of ~ soil types to absorb septic tank effluent, and the pot~ial problem of erosion and wamr pollution. Potential seismic hazards include ground shaking and ground failure induced by shaking, causing landslides. The Planning Area is also subject to geologic hazards which exist independent of any seismically triggered event becanse the steep hillsides and ridges are subject to several types of landslides and downhill creep. These conditions occur in the following two disfin~ geologic areas of the Valley: Uplands: The uplands comist primarily of Franciscan melange, serpentine, sandstone, shale, and cherL The mat~i.’als represent some of the oldest geologic materials in the Planuing Area and are ~ by moderate to high leveh of in.ability. The ridgelines are relatively stable but there are large deposits of colluvium in swales and valleys of hillsides which are susceptible to debris flow avalanches. Valley Floors: Valley floors consist of olluvium and alluvium derived from upland geologic matezial. Anuvium consists of unconsolidated sedimentary deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel beneath streams and valleys. Colluvium is a general tm’m of deposits of unsorted and unconsolidat~ soil material and weathered rock fragments that accumulated on or at the base of slopes by gravitational processes. B. GEOLOGIC, SEISMIC AND SOILS HAZARDS The San G~ronimo Valley Pl~i~g Area is characterized by numerous seismic and geologic hazards and natural constraints. The California Division of Mines and Geology has studied the geology of the Valley and prepared a report in 1976 entitled Geology for Planning Central and Southeastexn Matin County, California (Rice, Smith and Strand, 1976). Like most of the coast range, essentially all of San Geronimo Valley is underlain by intensely deformed mexamorphic rocks and sheared and crushed melange from the Franciscan formation. The Franciscan formation is principally of graywacke but contains small bodies of greenstone, serpentine, and chert with some larger inclusions of sandstone, shale and conglomerate. I. Slope Stability Given the varied topography and geologic character of the Valley, there are many hazards associated with the land. The Division of Mines and Geology study yielded a slope stability analysis which included consideration of the following factors: San Geron,mo Valley Community Ran Natural Hazarcls (12/15/97) ¯Vii-1 evidence of landslides or downslope creep steepness of slopes soil characteristics ~md erosion potential moismre/precipir~Jon conditions seismic potential geologic character The analysis interpreted the relative stability of slopes and classified the San Geronimo Valley into four zones (I through 4). In this scale, Zone I is considered most stable and Zone 4 least stable. The~e classifications apply to large areas and are not suitable for site specific construction decisions. Mapping of these zones indicates that much of the VallcT is overed by categories 3 and 4 - categories of least stability. Thus, most of the hillside areas of the Vailey are classed in the lower stability category with the exception of a few ridge and knoll locations. Most of the low lying levd areas, such as the golf course, Spirit Rock, lower Woodnote and San Geronimo Valley $chooi, are considered relativdy stable. If a project is proposed in an area rated 3 or 4, a report must be prepared by a civil engineer with soils expertise, or a soils certified engineering geologist prior to consideration of site design or use. Special att~tion should be paid to properties with dopes in excess of 35%. There are no known active faalts in the San Geronimo Valley. The nearest known active fault traces are the San Andreas fault, about 4.5 miles to the southwest, and the Hayward fault, about 13 miles to the northeast. The risk from seismic shaking from events on these faults is high." The maximum predicted earthq~ke magnitudes for these faults are 8.3 and 7.0 respectively (Borcherdt, 1975). Although the risk of surface rupture along active fault lines is considered improbable within the Valley, seismically induced events such as ground failure and landslides are likely to occur. The San Andre.as fault., the :Hayward faul~ the slightly further away Calaveras fault, and other faults comprise a fault system, which has coilectively given rise to at least one documented "Great" earthquake (magnitude 8.3 in 1906) and fi~m four to eight other "major" earthquakes since 1800, based on historical re.cords of fdt intensity. Many smaller seismic events have aiso been instrumentally recorded in the Bay Area. Ground Failure Ground failure is the displacement of the ground surface due to loss of strength or failure of underlying earth materials during eardaquake shaking. Ground failure may take the form of "lateral spreading’. This phenomenon results in gradual or rapid loss of strength in foundation materials, and structures can either gradually settle or break up as foundation soils move, literally by flowing. Parts of San Geronimo Valley are underlain by alluvium and are potentially affected by this circumstance, if buildings are not properly designed. VII-2 San Geronimo Valley Community Plan Natural Hazards (12/15/97) Landslides constitute a major geologic hazard to structures, roads, and utilities in the "uplands" or hillsides of the Planning Area. These hazards exist independently of earthquakes. Principal factors affecting slope stability are the geologic materials underlying the slopes, steepness of slopes, and the presence of active or intermittent natural forces (rain, earthquakes) that tend m cause slope failure. Generally, the presence of existing landslides is indicative of unstable underlying geologic material. Slope instability and landslides, even in more naturally stable areas, can be brought about by indiscriminate cuts for streets, homes, and removal of trees and other stabilizing vegetation. Slope stability is also a problem along creeks where steep banks become undercut by high watt, and eventually flatten out by normal slope failures. Landslides may be hlIs,’slumps, or slides and may consist of bedrock or unconsolidated material. Prominent topographic features that commonly distinguish landslide areas include scarps, ten’ace-like benches that commonly have topographic sags or depressions on them, disrupted ground surfaces, and anomalous drainage patterns. The great majority of these damaging landslides develop on slopes underlain-by Franciscan melange, within preexisting landslide deposits. The slow downslope movement stra~ houses by cracking foundations, and cracking and disrupting stre~ and utilities. c. FLOODING The outstanding physical feature of the valley bottom area of San Geronimo Valley is San Geronimo Creek and its surrounding margins of riparian veg~tion. At one time, prior to development of the Valley, the =eck probably meandered down through the Valley, changing its ~ourse frequently with each flood flow which caused it to overflow its banks. Now, however, the stream is entrenched; that is, it has ~t into the alluvium of the valley bottom to a depth of ten to fifteen feet throughout and is mostly confined to its channel. Livestock overgrazing, grading and erosion of the thin top soil layer have had great .impacts on the creek. Silt laden waters ~ontinually scour the sides of the channel and tend to widen.the entrenched channel. With sung storm runoffs the ch~und has entrenched itself deeper and wider. Efforts have been undertaken to build check dams to prevent the channel from deepening any further, but it has been difficult to stop banks from scouring, sloughing off, and being carried away. Increased impervious surfa~ (roads and houses) incr~ses runoff, which further impacts the creek. In addition, a network of fire roads extend throughout many of the slopes and along ridgetops. Many of them are improperly drained and maintained and ar~ the source of erosion of steep canyon slopes. The 100-year flood plain, which is the basis for county flood improvement and requirements, is shown on maps available for review in the Department of Public Works. The annual maintenance of the creeks helps to prevent flooding and protects home~ located along the creek. There is also the need for voluntary organized inspections to identify and resolve existing problems with soil erosion and proper drainage. The following are options to solve the problem: San Geronimo Valley Community P~an Natural Hazar0s (12/15197)VII-3 Formation of a Flood Control District Cooperative community projects which reinforce crcskside improvements for properties subject to stre.ambank erosion. The Woodacre Fire Station provides service for both structural and wildland fires. Recently, water ~ have beau upgraded in some locations and fire equipment has been increased and modernized. "In 1995, the MMWD completed significant improvements to upgrade fireflow standards throughout the Valley. Nmv homes proposed for the Valley are re.quked to receive plan check approval from the Fire Dcparanent. The summer dry season, ombined with fire-prone vegetation and rugged topography, creates hazardous fire conditions in much of the San G=onimo Valley. The most significant fire hazard exists in the grassy and wooded hillside areas. The extensive grasslands of the northern Planning Area present the greamst ignition potential. However, the most hazardous zones occur in the Green Hill. area and other brush and shrub-covered uplands of the southen~ ridges. Besides having a high ignition potential, the nature of the chaparral veg~ation makes it very prone to damage by fast-sprmiing, high-intensity fires. Regular programs of fual load reduction and vegetation management for fire hazards around structures should be implemented. All woody debris and yard waste clippings should be. ompost~l locally. Major risk fairs related to fire danger in the Valley include the following: Narrow strc~s. Street width and illegally parked cars make access for fire fighting ~l~ipment dL~calt. Grassy areas. Grassy areas on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard are particularly susceptible o Faulty wood stove installation. One of the most frequent causes of home fires is faulty wood stove installation and the failure to properly clean chimneys. Summer homes built years ago may now be fire traps, much more so than houses built since the 1940s. Proper installation of wood stoves and fireplace inserts is imperative in every house and the older housing stock deserves closer inspection to ensure that existing wood stoves are installed properly for health and safety. High fire hazard areas. In these areas, particularly the high chaparral slopes, building should be discouraged or mitigation measures enforced, such as brush clearing around homes and drainageways, and the installation of sprinkler systems. San Geronimo Valley Community Plan Natural Hazards (12/15/97) E. OILIECTIVF~, POLICIES, AND IMP~’TATION PROGRAMS OB!EC’rlvE NH-I. TO PREVENT OR MININfIZE DAMAGE TO LIFE, PROPERTY, AND NATURAL RF~OURCF_.S FROM LANDSLIDES, EARTHQUAKES, EROSION, FLOODS, AND FIRE. , Policy NH-I.I Policy NH-1.2 Regulation of Development. In areas where conditions such as soil stability, geologic and sei~rnlc conditions, and hydrology prese, nt pomntial threazs to life, health, and the environment, development shall b, r~m’icted to v=’y low densities, designed to ~e or eliminar~ the hazard. Cluster Zoning. Single family cluster zoning should~ used as a tool to guide development away from hazardous areas. Cluste, deve.iopmen~_;_.-may be appropriate in some areas to avoid hazardous omtitions and to pt’~m’ve other ~ommunity assets such as vegetation Policy NH-1.3 Toxic Waste Contamination. The County should identify site, suslmcted of toxic wasm contamination, such as old gas stations, machin, shop or chemical storage sites, andrequire subsmffa~ contamination investigations:, at these sites prior to development OBYE~ NH-2.0. TO STIMULATE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL B.AZARDS. Policy NH-2.1 Community Awarene~ of Hazards. The County should support public awareness of environmental hazards by informing citizens of the availability of Countywide and local area hazards studies, sources of hazard information and public services. OBJECTIVE NH-3.-0. TO PROTECT PUBLIC t~_a2.,TH AND SAFETY FROM SLOPE INSTABR2TY AND LANDSLIDE HAZARDS. Policy NH-3.1 Restriction or Development. The Community Deveaopment Agency and the D~partment of Public Works should ensure that construction of buildings for human occupancy be r~zicted to a very low density r~sidential use in those portions of the Planning Area designated Zone 3 or Zone 4 on the slope stability index. Progxam NH-3. la.Low Density Zonir~. The County Community Development Agency should recommend and maintain low density zoning where appropriate and re.quire specific geologic studies for development proposed in hazardous areas. Policy NH-3.2 Mitigation of Geologic Hazards. Development proposed in areas of geologic hazards, should not be endangered by nor contribute to the hazardous conditions on the site, or on adjoining properties. The San Geronimo Valley Community Ran Natural Hazards (12/15197}VII-5 County should only approve new development in the areas of identified geologic hazards if the hazards can be reduced to suitable levels by approp.ri~ mitigation m~asures. Policy NH-3.3 C~omchniml Studies. Projec~ proposed for are.~s designated Zone 3 or Zone 4 in stability and landslide potential or in areas possessing sknilar stability characteristics shall be evaluated by the Department of Public Works prior to consideration of site design or use. The evaluation should include the structural foundation engineering of the actual site, the impact of the project on adjacent lands, as well as impacts of off-site conditions on the site itself. The applicant is responsible for submitting required reports. Poficy NH-3.4 Debris Avalanche Landsfide Hazards. Development sites in slope stability Zones 1 through 3 that may be affected by debris avalanche landslides, should be subject to special studies. Slope stability zones should be re~valuated by a Certified Engineering Geologist during site .specific investigation. Based upon such investigatiom, the slope stability zones in some areas may be upgraded or downgraded. Policy NH-3.5 Grading in Geologic l:la~ard Areas. In areas where slopes are ste~ (greamr than 20%), significant landscape changes on the contouring should be preceded by a detailed geologic investigation. OBH~CTfV’~ NH-.4.0. TO PROTECT PUBLIC I~ALTH AND SAYEI~ FROM GROUND RUPTURE RAZARDS. Policy NH-4,1 Earthquake Standards. The Department of Public Works should continue to ensure that new buildings and additions to existing buildings are onsu-ac*~I to ear.quake .resistant standards. The rehabilitation or elimination of structures susceptible to earthquake damage should be encouraged. Policy NH-~.2 Emergency buildings and Vital Utilities. The County Community Development Agency in conjunction with the Department of Public W~rks should ensure that emergency buildings and vital utilities, communication systems, and transportation systems are locamd and constructed so that they remain operational during and aher a major emhquake. OBJ-EC"ITVE NI-I-~.0. TO I~IVIIZE ~ RISK OF WILDLAND ANI) STRUCXX!RAL FIRF_~, AND F.NSUR~ ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION. Policy NH-5.1 Mitigate Risk. The County Community Development Agency should allow new subdivisions and land divisions in areas identified as having extreme fire hazards only when it is determined that adequate water for fire suppression is or can be made available, l:or residential subdivisions, access should be provided ~fom more than one source where feasibl. When necessary, fife trails and fuel breaks should be Vii-6 San Geronimo Valley Community Plan Natural Hazards (12/15/97} Policy NH-$.3 l~gram NH-5.3.a OR~ECTIVE N~-6.0 INUNDATION. Poli~ NH-6.1 required. If developmen~ is to occur in extreme fire hazard a~eas, fire- resi~r~nt materials, clearances from strucu~res, and landscaping with fire-resistant plans shall be required. I.~d Management in Fire Ha2ard Areas. The County Fire Department should continue m implement land mmagemem programs which include fire mad maintenance, periodic thinning of high-ignition veget~Jon, conm3lled gr-~zing, and fire prevent.ion education programs in fire hazard areas. Land surrounding homes should be kept cleared of vegetation which could easily igni~. Early Detection. The Coumy Fire Department in conjunction with the County Community Development Agency should prevent fires ~ enforce early det~don and quick response to fires by requiring smoke decJu~rs, spark arrest’s in chimneys, fire retardant roof maferials, and when appropriate sprinkler systems. Fire Prevention. The County Fire Department should continue t~ implement fire prevention programs of community education and home in~om and continue it’s business inspection programs. TO ASSURE PUBLIC SAFETY IN AREAS $IIBJECT TO Community Role. Utilize community organizations to the extent poss~le to implement flood control improvements (local funding, activities, organization). San Geronimo Valley Commun~tv Plan Natural Hazards (12/15/97)VII-7 Stanford Has Big .Plans for Expansion Proposal protects open space through 2010 By Bill Workman CHRONICLE STAFF WRITEI;~ To open the 21st century, Stan- ford University plans a building boom that Would include substan- tial new housing, expanded research and medical facilities, a 12,000-seat ! basketball arena and a regional per- I forming arts center. " . - The tentative projec~.~ were out- lined in ]o~ig-awaited documents. submitted yesterday.to Santa Hlara I Hounty that would govern universi- ¯ ty growth through 2010. :. The so-called "community plan" and a request for a new-use permit t ~re expected to get intense scrutiny from environmentalists and univer- sity neighbors who have grown in- ’creasingly disenchanted with such large-scale Stanford projects as the ! controversial Sand Hill Road d .evel-~ opment. Significantly, most of the pro. posed new construction would take place in the main campm northeast ofJtmipero Serra Boulevard,’leaving more than 99 percent of the foothill acres trader open-space designation free of development - but only for the next decade. Stanford’s refusal in the draft plan to guarantee open-space protection of the sprawling foothills beyond 2010 was met with immediate criti- cism. ’We agree that Stanford should | _have the flexibility to meet its aca- demic needs, but 10 years is not enough protection for the foot- hilIs," said Denice Dade, legislative advocate for the 1,200-member Committee for Green Foothills. Open-Space Development Issue While pleased with mahy of Stan- ford’s proposals, particularly for more campus housing, Palo Alto Mayor Gary Fazzino said he expects his city will urge the county,to re- quire at least a 25-year moratorium on any future development in the open-space lands above the campus. "Anything less than that will be unacceptable and will be dead on arrival in Palo Alto," said Fazzino. of community and g-o~ernme-r~t~i ~: lations, responded that "we think the open-space commitments in the plan are excellent." The university, he said, has pro- tected the foothills "[or well over 100 years. It’s in good hands with ,Stanford’s Board of Trustees." Submission of the draft ~ocu-’ ments was preceded during the summer by community meetings at which a wide range of views was heard by university officials. ’We have listened very hard to the community and pmd.uced a plan that we think is responsive to both the concerns of the communi- ty and to Stanford’s needs," said Horton. Housing Proposal Responding to appeals t6 help ease the high cost of housing in Silicon Valley, Stanford proposes to build 2,780 more units of campus housing in addition to the more than 1,000 apartments and oondo. miniums already under construc- tion pr planned. As many as 2,000 of the new units would be for single students, with all but a handful for graduate students. Many graduate students have corn. plained that Silicon Valleys skyr- ocketing rents are forcing them to live farther from Stanford or to con- sider gradtmte studies elsewhere. would be built for hospital residents and postdoctoral fellows, and..~ many as 430 new homes wotdd be set ~side for faculty and staff mem- bers. : :. - The hot)sing’ ~L4n~ Were widely praised. "It’s not going to solve the homing problem, but it’s definitely a step in thatdirecti6n," said Hhris Stromberg of Stanford’s Graduate .~tudent "It’s the issue we were with the most fervor," said Probst, president of the Palo League of Women Voters. Other Key Features : Other key features of the Stan- ford plans include: ¯ A projected campus population growth of a little more than 2,000 students over the next decade, to about 35,000. I More than 1.7 million square feet of new construction, including a Center for Interdisciplinary Biosci- ences, which would contain under. graduate and graduate-school facili- ties; an annex for the Gates Computer Sciences building; sever- al new laboratories; and a number of other academic facilities. ¯ A total ot 532,uuu square zeet space for new athletic and cultural construction, including a larger bas- ketball arena, major improvements to aging Stanford Stadium and a. performing arts center to be iointly nan by Stanford and Palo Alto. Athletic Director Ted Laland said the arena proposal was in the pre- liminary stages only. When built, it would go up near the old 7,400-seat .Maples Pavilion, which would prob- ably become an intramural sports ’center, he said. Horton pointed out that under new proposed zoning designations, Stanford would not only limit most development to the main campus, but would also create a new land- use designation that offers open- space protection for such areas as the Arboretum, the Oval, Lake gunita and the historic Stanford Barn. In the past, Stanford was not re- quired to produce such a detailed plan outlining potential growth and land-use controls. The plans were required earlier this year by the county planning commission. General-Use Permit Stanford’s existing general-use ¯ permit, which has guided campus growth, since 1989, is expected to reach its limit by next year. The new permit would apply only to the 5,000 acres of Stanford’s campus’~ : 8,100 acres that are in the county ;.~.uniricorporated area.~,.~.t::.:The rem-.dning portions of the .:;::campus are in Palo Alto, Woodside, Menlo Park, Portola Valley and un- incorporated San Mateo ~ounty. Both growth documents still. , have to be approved by the c~unty ’.and are expected to undergo chang- ’es before the final submission to the county Planning Commission in November. I Meanwhile, several hearings to .,~riew the plans will be in the chin- lag weeks by the county as well as I~ Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Porto- h Valley. _I Exhibit C PALO ALTO WEEKLY STANFORD Page 7, 10, Wednesday, 9/21/99 More hous!ng, no school in plans Mixed pubIic reaction greets university’s draft proposal by Doll Kaalk S mnford frnany mlm.~ its Iong- await~ draft community plma Morxl~y, aldaough qu~saom r~. ~ m © ~ ~’~ ~ .will opm~nt and i n~w Palo Alm-S~ard’ord I~.rfm’ming ml~ ~r~na, i~ng things. l~u~ Stanford did not s~ aside 2~ acres for a new Paio Alto middle board n~n~-r,lo~ Tuon~. ¯ ~ in ~ a~oramm,’ ~id ~ ~n~t in Smnf~’s ~;s m m~e s~ific ~mmitmenu for a school si~ ~nd open space ~ pl~ ~ls lordly minimal ~- ni~m ~ ~v~, but ~y ~- velopm~nt proposal oncerning the ~ h~ ~aditionally dm~ sh~ ~ny ~d opwsi~ ~m ~mmu-ni~ ~ups, ~e p~s~ in-fill hous~g amid ~xis~ng ~acu~ homes that spiked such strong criticism from facul~ ¯ hom~e~ ~l~r ~is ye~ is still ~ t~ pl~. but i~ faro de~n~s on what ~vost John HCnnssmy decide~ ~ do ~ut a housing ~k fume r~n ~ ~ived l~t ~th. fom’-story apartment complexes, "I’m pleased that they want to pro- teed forthwith with housing," Probst said. What hapl~rts in the foothills il of prime interest t~ several g~ups ~dmany r~. ida.nee, and Sttnford’s tanc¢ t~ us~ nn url~n, or ac~lernic, growth boundary~-~-plsnning toolconsistent with county policies and increasingly .used by other cities inthe county--probably .won’t win Stanford any applause. The Commit. ~e for Grin Foothills, among oth.eta, called for a ~mwth boundary. In addition, the Santa C~unty Plan- ning Commission on Sap~. 2 ado~ ed an academic growth ..bou .nda~ forthe =mpus. "Pro dis~:@ointed that them isn’tan ~n~lernic gro~h boundary," ~dDenice Dade of the Cornmitme for Green Foo~ills, ~ were sugges- tions for Stanford to limit its growthto the core ~mpus, "but Stanford sidestepped that," Dade said. Palo Aim may end up insisting o~ greater operi ~paee protection than Stanford is proposing. "! w~nt an open space designation (for. the foothills) and an ironclad, nondevelopment agreement," saidPalo Alto Mayor Gary Faz.zino. But Horton sa~d adding a~ many as four small, a~demic-related build-~ngs would have minimal impact .on th~ foo~ilis. Conmmplated uses m- elude those similar m existing artist studios and a student ebs~rvat~3,. But tl~ suggesmd 20,000.square-foot cap doesn’t include plans for the new Carnegie Institum building, which being consider~:l before approval of Stanford’s new genen~l us~ ~rmit.Stanford’s community plan will be discussed in a community meeting at 6:30 p.m. Sept. 29 in Room T:2 of " the Cubberley Community Center, 4000 Middlefield l~ad, Palo Alto.That will be followed by a countyPlanning Commission meeting Oct. 7 in San .lose a.nd meetings before .tl~ Menlo P~rk and Palo Alto planningcommissions and city councils, also in Oc~ber. ~ PALO ALTO DAILY NEWS Page 18, Friday, 9/24/99 PALO ALTO DAILY NEws . S.tanford plan" l ts, schools hard =~= I,~RE’$ i~o question Stanford has b~n generous | to the Palo Alto public schools in the past. land for both high schools and two elementary schools came from Stanford. Those four schools have a combined e~ollment of 3,939 srudznts, far more than the 465 pnpils from families u~ho live on campus. Given this history of helping the schools, ",~,e we.re surprised Stanford, in its 10-year plan released Mon- day, didn’t address the pleas of the Palo Alto school board, which is raking for land on campus.for a n~w middle school. Stanford’s expansion plans will certainly have an impact on the public schools, which a.m already over- crowded and continuing to grow. The university intends to build 2,000 apartments and dorms rooms for students who aren’t apt to have children. But it also intends to construct 350 apartments for hospital residents and pos~octoral fellows and 430 homes for faculty and staff. That’s 780 .mo~e families on campus~--- families likely to have kids. In addition, the university is now building 628 ap0amnents on Sand Hill Ro~.n one ha~. d, it’s great to see the unive~rsity cmarin housing on:campus. That will free up homes in Pa.lo Alto, Mduritain View, Menlo Park and other commu- niti~, But it’s wrong for Stanford to thrust the many new children into the Palo Alto Unified School Dis- trier without providing land for mo~e schools. Stanford should look at this situation as an opportu .nity, not a burden. The university could volunt~r to opera= th~ middle school as a lab for its School of F_,ducation, wh~re they main mac.hers and study class- room mchniques. "qCe have no doubt StaRford could provide a world class education to the middle ~chool. age children of its staff and faculty, i.Although Stanfo~:d has been generous in the past, i~ its expansion over the next i0 years exacerbates school crowding, then it’s only fair for the university .... to hdlp find,a solution, A middle school should bs a :~’. higher priority for Stanford than a new basketball¯~ena, which is also part of the university’s 10-year plan. PALO ALTO WEEKLY Page5, 6, Friday,9/24/99 Quad PALO ALTO WEEKLY Page5, 6, Friday, 9/24/99 PALO ALTO WEEKLY Page5, 6, Friday, 9/24/99 "h’s’hzr~ to ~nd [the stud.ants) dowla to (th’~,,former) Grtendell SUP~intend¢nt Don Phitlips said. ¯ "ideally, you want to hay= yourn=ighb~rhood school in your neigh- borhood," School officials also.=xlx=t a pro-po~xl 2,000 6nits of smdem ing to onrribum indir~tly to sn in- flux of school children st well..Smnford.smden~; living off campus would b¢ able to v~cam off-campus r=nml housing, leaying .it open to fro-allies with childr=n, Wa~,.said. ~ said ha’feels tak=ti by’Start. lord offi¢~ls. "/’think Smnford lied to gs Ln the Sand Hill negod~om," Way raid. During elks =onceminl~ the S~d Hill R~ pajama, th= districtfor land for =a elementary t~hool to serve children .li,¢ing in Stanford West. _A3 ~ tii~. Stanford officiabtold Way--who WaS’. the. school boa~’s r=p~s=nmive---~n’e wouldam ix= many child~n omin£ from Smnford W¢sr, m~ing ~ ¢l=men- r~u-y school sam unn=c=ssary. also r=pormdly assur=d him that no further housing projects were.inworks. ~ Horton, Smnfotd’s dLr~mr of gov¢rnment ,~nd communi~ r~la-dons, said hc do=sn’t me how any- one who atz=nded the. forum= held bcfor= the community plan w~s leased could not s~e that morn hous- ing was coming. Schools are impor- tant to Stanford, Honon stfid, 5’ut housing and academic facilities wer~ needed by the university to meet i~ purpose = an institution of higher learning.. "Stanford has a long history of making l~nd available for schools." Horton said. Four Palo Alto schools~Nixon and Escondido el- ementary schools, and Gunn and Palo Aim high schools---ar~ 6n land leased from Stanford, and Oak Knoll Elementary School in the Menlo Park CiW School District is also on Stanford land. I-I~rton met wir.h ~chool officials th~= rimes, but the m’~as where district Wanted m put the school in the co~ campus a.ma w-.m not ~tis- facetS’ to th~ university, Hormn mid. Stanford officials have not rul~ out making a site available to the district outside the or~. campus area, Hot’ton said. which includes the area west of Junipero Serfs Boulevm’d and the P~z=areh Pm’k. The school district does not have the power to condemn land from Stanford to build a school, thou{lh it will met the d~v=loper Ultimately. Stanford’s ¢ommuni- ty plan will have to b~ approved h.y the Board of Supervisor=, $~t- sor Joe Simitian, who r~pmsenu ~,’,hern Sam= Clara the board can require Stanford to identify a sit= for a school I~. lea,re of the ap!:mova{ "My cxp=tation Is a school sit=, or sims, will ~ identified before the general use plan and community pl~ a~ ~pproved," he maid. Horton’= stsertion that dae uni- versity marmot find spao~ for school dome not oonvlnce Simidan. "I don’t find that ]~rsumsive in dam t~a.%" Simidmn maid, "With due re.spear to Stanford, they aged to find spa== for 3,000 uni,., of housing and ,T. million ~uar~ fat of new facilities." Slmltian said Stanfo~l’~ draft plan was m=r=ly the first of four steps l~for= the plmn is ftnali=~l. TI~ pl= will. have to go through series of pub’lie me=rings, the coun- ty Planning Commission and really the Board of SUl:~awisort. ¯ STANFORD UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY ARCHITECT/PLANNING OFFICE Attachment B September 20, 1999 Ms. Anne Draper Planning Director County of Santa Clara Planning Office 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California 95110 Dear Ms. Draper: We are pleased to submit this Draft Community Plan for public review and consideration by the County Planning Office staff and the Planning Commission. As you know, Santa Clara County and Stanford University staff, along with hundreds of citizens and elected officials, have participated in an intensive planning process over the past several months to prepare a plan that meets both Stanford University and County planning objectives. In this letter of transmittal, we have prepared responses to the September 2, 1999 Staff Report recommendations to the Planning Commission. As we anticipated, we have found a gear deal of common ground on key issues related to housing, transportation, conservation and open space and land use. Where there appear to be differences in our approach to these issues, we expect that these will be resolved as we moved forward with the planning process. We propose that the Community Plan be incorporated in Part 4 of Book B of the General Plan, as the Stanford University Chapter. That will require minor conforming amendments to the Table of Contents of the chapter and to existing pages S- 1 through S-5. The attached includes those amendments to the index and the first four pages. Pages 5 and following are the new Community Plan. The map that formerly was page S-5 has been revised and moved to page 15. Community Plan Policies: Development Approach and Open Space Protection Although not specifically referenced as Tiers 1-3, the Draft Community Plan designates Academic Campus and Academic Reserve and Open Space lands, as well as Campus Residential and Campus Open Space lands on the Future Land Use Map and describes the allowable uses within each of these four land use districts. Per the staff report recommendation, the Academic Campus land use designation (Tier 1) includes "’academic and urban related uses.., in the central campus and land south of Junipero Serra Boulevard where development currently exists or where more intensive academic uses might locate during the period in which the Community Plan remains valid." 655 SERRA STREET ¯STANFORD. C.4LIFORNM 94305-6II5 ¯’o50) 723----3 FAX (650) 725-8598 The Academic Reserve and Open Space land use designation (Tiers 2 & 3) describes lands outside of the core campus area which are reserved for future academic use and have an open space character. These lands are important for their biological and environmental resources of academic value, scenic beauty and visual relief. Appropriate uses include low intensity academic and conservation uses in keeping with the open space character or dependent upon unique open space resources, grazing and visually compatible agricultural uses. Higher intensity academic land uses will be limited to the Academic Campus. Lands proposed for.inclusion in Tier 3 are described in the staff report as, "those areas which are unsuited for development under County policies, such as areas with steep slopes or seismic instability, sensitive habitat or cultural resources, areas which would require extensive amounts of gading in order to allow for development, and important visual resources." The report goes on to state, "uses consistent with open space such as trails, conservation activities, field environmental studies, and agricultural lease would be permitted, similar to those allowed in open space easements in the County’s Hillside zoning districts." Stanford believes that the objectives for establishing Tier 3 may be met through further environmental analysis and discussion with the County, prior to submittal of the final DraftCommunity Plan in mid-November. Description of Development within the Academic Growth Boundary Per the staff report recommendation, specific land use designations have been created for faculty/staff residential neighborhoods (Campus Residential), areas for instruction and research (Academic Campus) and urban open space (Campus Open Space) that provide for the land uses recommended in the staff report. Land Use The development policies of the past GUP and three party ageement have been incorporated and adjusted as appropriate in pages 1-4 prior to the Community Plan. Included among the adjustments are the designations of Academic Campus and Campus Open Space lands along E1 Camino Real, Galvez Road and the Quarry, Road parcels as indicated in the map on page 15. Housing Analysis of housing needs, campus and city development patterns, and land capabilities has led to the identification of 158 acres for future undergaduate and ~aduate housing and over 63 acres for hospital resident, post doctorate, faculty and staff housing in the core campus. These sites are identified in the Community Plan. Transportation As noted in the staff report, the existing, "no net new trips" policy is based on a formula where increases in population are offset by increased transportation demand management participation (TDM) and increased on-campus housing. A number of areas for increasing TDM participation including the extension of Marguerite and exploring the feasibility of a Universal Transit Pass have been identified in the Plan. However. determining an accurate, reliable and equitable means for future monitoring must be informed by the research in this area that Stanford is currently undertaking, and recommendations from the EIR transportation consultant based on their analysis during the development of the draft EIR. Open Space Uses The Draft Community Plan proposes to balance recreational use with protection of research areas and conservation of sensitive biological and cultural resources. The proposed trail easement along San Francisquito/Los Trancos Creek must be further studied to determine if this trail can meet these objectives and address idemnification and liability. Participation with Neighboring Communities Stanford’s interest in regional problem solving is reinforced throughout the Draft Community Plan. The Land Use Element specifically states, "Identify opportunities to work with Stanford and the Cities of Menlo Park, Palo Alto and other surrounding communities for ways to address regional housing, transportation and similar land use issues." Community Plan Implementation: Building.Area and Parking Cap The Draft Community Plan Future Land Use Map depicts Academic, Academic Reserve and Open Space, Campus Residential, and Campus Open Space land use designations for Stanford land in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Because campus planning requires many levels of analysis that cross all sectors (for example, circulation and utility systems) and we will continue to have many multi-use facilities, the Draft Community Plan does not include the staff recommendation that sector analysis be adopted as policy. Therefore, nine Development Districts have been identified only for the purpose of preparing the General Use Permit application. Proposed academic, academic support, and athletic and cultural development projections, as well as additional parking requirements, have been quantified for each Development District. An estimated number of potential student beds and housing units for hospital residents, post doctorates, faculty and staff are also identified by Development District. Per staff recommendation, only housing unit types are quantified for purposes of environmental analysis. Housing The Community Plan includes objectives, strategies and implementation measures designed to support a variety of housing types to meet the needs of students, faculty and staff. The General Use Permit application proposes an additional 2000 under~aduate and gaduate student beds, 350 units for hospital residents and post doctorate students and over 400 units for faculty and staff, which would be developed as demand and economic feasibility were verified. Monitoring Under the direction of County staff, a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is under preparation for both the Community Plan and General Use Permit. CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting applies when a public 3 agency has made findings that, "changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR". A program for monitoring and reporting to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR are implemented will be submitted for review and approval concurrent with the preparation of the draft and final EIR. Thresholds for Permittin~ and Environmental Review. The Community Plan describes allowable land uses and development policies. The Plan further recommends regulation of density and intensity through the issuance of a Use Permit. Future projects will be considered under the Program EIR to determine if additional limited environmental analysis is necessary.. If a project could result in additional effects beyond those described in t’he Progam EIR, or if new mitigation measures would be needed, a subsequent or supplemental EIR, focused EIR or negative declaration would be prepared. Subsequent permitting and environmental review procedures for individual projects will be further defined during the preparation of the final EIR and included in the General Use Permit Conditions of Approval. We look forward to continued productive dialogue with you and \’our staff as we continue the Community Plan process. Sincerely, euman t [~.~X.~,~- University Architect / ~ ,ssoclate Vice Provost for Planning John Hennessy Curtis Feeny Larry Horton Mike Roster Ed Gawf, City of Palo Alto 4 Background Strategies, Policies & Implementation Strategy # 1: Strategy #2: Strategy #3: Strategy #4: Strategy #5: Accommodate Planned Growth Mitigate and Monitor the Impacts of Growth Meet Urban Service Needs Facilitate Local Planning Coordination Develop a Community Plan 2 3 4 5 6 6 The Community Plan Introduction Land Use Element Housing Element Circulation Element Open Space Element 7 9 16 20 24 Illustrations: Stanford Community Plan, Governmental Jurisdictions Santa Clara County: Stanford Community Plan, Future Land Use Santa Clara County: Stanford Community Plan, Housing Sites Santa Clara County: Stanford Community Plan, Regional Circulation Context 12 15 19 23 LAND USE AUTHORITY OVER STANFORD LANDS Stanford University owns approximately 5,178 acres of land in Santa Clara County. Some of its lands have been developed for interim nonacademic uses and have been annexed to the City of Palo Alto. These lands, including the Stanford Research Park and Stanford Shopping Center, are under the city’s land use authority. The main campus area and most of the Stanford foothills in Santa Clara County outside of the Stanford Research Park remain unincorporated and thus are under the land use jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY CAMPUS: A UNIQUE "URBAN UNINCORPORATED AREA" Although it lies outside the city limits of Palo Alto, the main campus area of the University is within Palo Afro’s urban service area, and therefore constitutes an "urban unincorporated area" as defined by this Plan. The Stanford University campus lands are, however, unlike all other urban unincorporated lands in Santa Clara County in a number of significant respects in that they: ¯are used entirely for academic and related purposes; ¯are entirely under the ownership of a single landowner that: o is both a major employer and a major provider of housing; o provides many of its own urban services and facilities; and o has its own land use planning staff; ¯have limitations on their sale (due to restrictions in the original grant deed founding the University); ¯are the subject of unique interjurisdictional agreements involving the Court .ty, Palo Alto, and the University [see sidebar]; and ¯encompass a unique integrated community whose members are all related, in one way or another, to the University. EXCEPTION TO BASIC URBAN UNINCORPORATED AREA POLICIES In recognition of Stanford University’s uniqueness, its campus lands are exempted by the County from the two basic General Plan strategies applicable to other urban unincorporated areas: ¯unincorporated lands within city urban service areas should be annexed to the cities in whose urban service areas they are located, and ¯land uses for unincorporated lands within city urban service areas should conform to the general plan of the city in whose urban service area they are located. The exceptions to the above policies are provided for in formal agreements entered into by the City of Palo Alto, the County, and Stanford University. These agreements also acknowledge that both Stanford and Palo Alto have legitimate interests in the planning decisions made by the other and establish procedures for assuring that each of them will have adequate opportunity to review and comment upon projects and proposals that may affect the other. BASIC STRATEGIES REGARDING STANFORD LANDS This General Plan has five basic strategies for addressing issues relating to land use, growth, and development at Stanford University: Strategy #1: Accommodate Planned Growth Strategy #2: Mitigate and Monitor the Impacts of Growth Strategy #3: Meet Urban Service Needs Strategy #4: Facilitate Local Planning Coordination Strategy # 5: Develop a Community Plan Strategy #1: Accommodate Planned Growth Stanford University is a preeminent educational institution whose student, faculty, and staff populations are likely to grow, at modest rates, along with its campus facilities. The "net adjusted daytime population" increased from 31,194 persons in 1988 to 32,967 persons in 1998. The County acknowledges the potential for increased growth in the future and therefore requires that Stanford’s growth be carefully planned, reviewed, and monitored to assure consistency with County plans, policies, ordinances, and permits. Growth at Stanford was limited by the General Use Permit issued to the University by the County in 1989, which established limits on both (a) the amount of square footage that might be added to the campus for academic uses, academic support and housing, and (b) the total "adjusted daytime population" of the University. As the 1989 Use Permit required, when those limits were approached, Stanford filed for modification of its use permit. The County then began the process that led to the adoption of this Community Plan to refine the General Plan policies as they apply to Stanford lands. Policies and Implementation U-ST1 The use of Stanford lands in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara Coumy shall be consistent with: a.the County General Plan, including this Community Plan; b.the County Zoning Ordinance; c.a Stanford Community Plan and a conditional use permit known as the Stanford University General Use Permit, as applicable; d. other use permits and approvals as required; and e. the three-party interjurisdictional agreement. U-ST2 Growth and development of affected Stanford lands shall be consistent with the Community Plan and General Use Permit from the Count?,, as may be amended from time to time. U-ST3 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. Strategy #2: Mitigate and Monitor the Impacts of Growth The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Stanford University General Use Permit in 1989 identified several potentially significant impacts of Stanford’s proposed growth and development, particularly impacts related to traffic and housing. Consequently, Stanford agreed to take various actions to mitigate these impacts. The County adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program to work with the University to assure that the impacts of its growth are mitigated in accordance with the provisions of the University’s General Use Permit. STANFORD UNIVERSITY INTER JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENTS Stanford, the County, and Palo Alto have entered into two joint agreements that provide a framework for the relationships among the three parties with regard to annexation of Stanford lands, multi-jurisdictional review procedures, and provision of urban services. 1985 LAND USE AGREEMENT This agreement, adopted in 1985, sets forth the policies of the County of Santa Clara, the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University regarding land use, annexation, planning, and development of Stanford lands in Santa Clara County. It presents four areas of agreement among the three parties: ¯General policies,¯Specific policies governing academic use of Stanford lands, ¯Specific policies governing non-academic use of Stanford lands, and ¯Implementation of the policies. ¯General Policies The general policies outline Stanford’s uniqueness and document the agreement that all academic, open space, and agricultural uses should remain unincorporated while non-academic uses of University land should be subject to city annexation. These policies also include agreements regarding the multi- jurisdictional review procedures, which will occur prior to any project or proposal. ¯Specific Policies Governing Academic Use of Stanford Lands All Stanford lands are held by the Board of Trustees for ultimate academic use. These policies define "academic uses", describe the County’s review and approval procedures, state Stanford’s intention to continue to provide all municipal services, and articulate the agreement between Stanford and Palo Alto that neither seeks annexation of lands designated for academic use. ¯Specific Policies Governing Non-Academic Use of Stanford Lands The Trustees allow interim non-academic use of certain designated parcels to produce income to support the University and its programs. These policies define "non-academic uses", state Stanford’s intent to request annexation for parcels on which any nonacademic use is proposed, and describe the City of Palo AIto’s review and approval procedures. ¯Implementation of the Policies The staffs of the three parties, in cooperation, will maintain an information document known as the Stanford Protocol, which outlines all adopted land use designation, regulation, restrictions, and review and referral procedures. The staffs will continue to refer development applications to each other and will, as necessary and appropriate, join in requests to other jurisdictions. REVISED STANFORD PROTOCOL FOR 1985 LAND USE POLICY AGREEMENT A revision to the 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement was adopted in 1990 following the 1989 adoption of the revised Stanford University General Use Permit. It lists designations for unincorporated Stanford University lands in Santa Clara County and procedures for referral and review of Stanford developm.ent applications. The County review section specifies which projects will require Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) or Design Review and which will be exempt from both as specified in the General Use Permit. The document also contains public notice procedures. Policies and Implementation U-ST4 Stanford shall mitigate, as appropriate, significant environmental impacts of its growth and development in accordance with the conditions 0fthe General Use Permit. U-ST5 When reviewing any significant proposed future changes in the University’s designations on the Land Use Map of the County’s General Plan or in the General Use Permit, the County shall assess the impacts of these proposed changes on (a) the natural environment, and (b) adjacent jurisdictions, and shall require appropriate mitigation where necessary. Strategy #3: Meet Urban Service Needs The County’s basic policy regarding urban unincorporated lands within a city’s urban service area is that they should be annexed to that city. This policy is intended primarily to (a) allow for more efficient provision of urban services and facilities, and (b) assure that development within these lands is consistent with development plans for the surrounding community. Stanford is an exception to this basic policy because (a) it is responsible for the provision of its own urban services, and (b) the planning and land use decision-making processes affecting it are the subject of special joint agreements among the County, Palo Alto, and the University. Policies and Implementation U-ST6 The provision of urban services to the academic lands of Stanford shall be the responsibility of the University. This may be accomplished through appropriate contractual relationships with local jurisdictions. U-ST7 Academic land uses, for which the University provides or obtains its own services, should not be required to annex to a city. U-ST8 Open space and agricultural uses of land of the University held for future academic use should remain unincorporated. U-ST9 Other non-academic uses of University land should be subject, in appropriate cases, to city annexation, as agreed to in the three-party interjurisdictional agreement. Strategy #4: Facilitate Local Planning Coordination The County, the City of Palo Alto, and Stanford have all acknowledged that their individual planning decisions have the potential to impact one another. In recognition of that fact, they have established formal agreements to assure opportunities for mutual review and comment concerning projects and other proposals that may affect each other [see sidebar regarding joint land use agreement on page 4]. Policies and Implementation U-STIO The County shall, in accordance with adopted protocols and agreements, provide opportunities for the City of Palo Alto to review and comment upon projects and proposals involving Stanford University that may affect the City. Strategy #5: Develop a Community Plan The County and local communities have sought more clarity in planning for Stanford’s land use and development. In order to achieve these objectives, the County, in consultation with Stanford and Palo Alto, has determined that a Community Plan should be adopted for Stanford. U-ST11 The County shall work with Stanford to develop and adopt, as an amendment to its General Plan, a Stanford Community Plan that describes allowable land uses and development policies for all of Stanford’s unincorporated lands in Santa Clara County. The unique character, size, and role of the University as part of Santa Clara County makes a Community Plan a useful tool for establishing the development goals and policies concerning Stanford. The Community Plan is intended to be an integral part of the Santa Clara County General Plan. It is not intended to replace entirely provisions of the Santa Clara County General Plan, but rather to establish more tailored objectives and strategies as appropriate for the development on Stanford lands. To the extent that necessary elements of a General Plan are not addressed in this Community Plan, they are considered to be adequately addressed in the existing provisions of the County’s General Plan. The objectives and strategies of this Community Plan will be implemented through the issuance of a General Use Permit. A General Use Permit allows for flexible application of Community Plan goals and policies in keeping with the academic needs of Stanford, while also providing for greater certainty concerning the controls on development at Stanford for the life of that permit. The objectives that follow are chosen to be consistent with State of California General Plan requirements. LAND USE OBJECTIVES Preserve Stanford lands for present and future academic purposes, in accordance with the trust. Continuously renew Stanford land uses in support of the University’s nationally recognized leadership in education and research. Provide flexibility in land uses that enables Stanford to meet new challenges and opportunities. Support Stanford’s responsible stewardship of its lands and its unique assets within the regional land use planning context. Provide a well-designed campus core that supports the academic community with educational facilities, support services, housing, cultural facilities, and athletic/recreational facilities appropriate to maintain the University’s preeminence. HOUSING OBJECTIVES ¯Support Stanford’s function as a residential university. ¯Provide incentives for, and remove constraints on, university housing development. ¯Develop residential areas that enhance the campus environment. CIRCULATION OBJECTIVES Develop and maintain a safe and easily understood system of roadways, transitways, bikeways, and pedestrian pathways that not only provide access, but also structure and reinforce land use relationships. Create an environmentally sensitive circulation system that promotes walking, biking and transit through facilities design and transportation demand management programs. Integrate the campus circulation system with regional transportation systems. OPEN SPACE OBJECTIVES Preserve open space in service of the University’s role in teaching and research. Incorporate open space elements in order to maintain the quality and character of the campus. Provide and maintain recreational open space to meet existing and projected recreational needs of the Stanford community. Emphasize development within the core campus, allowing lands in the Academic Reserve to continue as open space. Balance recreational use with protection of research areas and conservation of sensitive biological and heritage resources. (See SCC General Plan Section Q-12.) Objective 1: Preserve Stanford land for present and future academic purposes, in accordance with the trust. Stanford University is a trust, established by law and recognized in the California State Constitution. Stanford is governed by a Board of Trustees, which is bound by law to devote Stanford’s resources, including its lands, to the furtherance of higher education. Strategy 1: Protect Stanford lands for the purpose of its educational programs. Implementation Measures: LU-I Carefully consider the long term implications of all land use decisions to assure the ultimate availability of Stanford’s lands for its academic mission. LU-2 Encourage Stanford to continue both formal and informal communications with community .organizations and interested citizens to define land use objectives and the various means for attaining those objectives in the context of the University’s mission of education and research. Objective 2: Continuously renew Stanford land uses in support of the University’s nationally recognized leadership in education and research. Stanford University is an academic institution committed to excellence in education and research. This excellence is supported by, among other things, the continuous renewal of its land to create a place and community of enduring value and scholarship. The renewal of land uses, either through conservation, redevelopment, or new development, is critical to facilitating new initiatives in education and research. Strategy 2: Encourage Stanford to provide opportunities for initiatives by faculty, staff and students that enhance teaching, research and university life. Implementation Measures: LU-3 Assist Stanford in responding to land use implications arising from the changing environment. LU-4 Plan for services and amenities that support the University’s educational and research missions. Strategy 3: Strengthen the University’s capacity to support students and faculty through the University’s endowment, including its lands. Objective 3: Provide flexibility in land uses that enables Stanford to meet new challenges and opportunities. In our rapidly changing technological society, advances in science and other fields will require new types of campus research and support facilities. For example, the relationship between residential and work environments is evolving due to new technologies and regional housing and circulation conditions. Flexibility is necessary in order to adapt to changing circumstances and new learning and research opportunities. Strategy 4: Provide for land use flexibility within a planning framework that reflects program affinities. Implementation Measures: LU-5 Establish flexible land use and development regulations. LU-6 Adopt a General Use Permit that allows for interchangeability of uses and flexibility in their siting. Objective 4: Support Stanford’s responsible stewardship of its lands and its unique assets within the regional land use planning context. The provision of housing and transportation, the enhancement of air and water quality, and the conservation of natural and heritage resources need to be coordinated with regional planning issues and not limited to jurisdictional boundaries. Stanford’s planning must be coordinated with the six jurisdictions having authority over its lands. (Stanford Community Plan - Governmental Jurisdictions map, page 12.) Strategy 5: Work with Stanford and other jurisdictions on regional planning issues. Implementation Measures: LU-7 Identify opportunities to work with Stanford and the Cities of Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and other surrounding communities for ways to address regional housing, transportation and similar land use issues. Objective 5: Provide a well-designed campus core that supports the academic community with educational facilities, support services, housing, cultural facilities, and athletic/recreational facilities appropriate to maintain the University’s preeminence. Campus growth in support of the educational mission emphasizes infill and redevelopment within the existing core campus. Compact growth facilitates interaction within the University community and efficient use of campus resources. It also promotes a pedestrian-friendly environment. Strategy 6: Focus development of additional academic buildings and related housing and support facilities within the core campus area. 10 Strategy 7: Build upon and enhance the existing scale and character of the campus environs. Implementation Measure: LU-8 Continue to support campus core buildings and spaces that have distinct values of their own, while contributing to the overall campus character. Strategy 8: Integrate End connect land uses through intensification of uses and well- conceived and designed circulation and other infrastructure systems. Implementation Measure: LU-9 Provide alternatives to vehicular circulation by emphasizing walking and the use of bicycles and shuttle buses on campus. Strategy 9: Focus campus development in close proximity to local and regional transit corridors and complementary land uses. 11 The following land use plan designations describe the uses that are allowed on Stanford lands. The designations correspond to those depicted on the Santa Clara Count), - Stanford Community Plan -- Future Land Use map (page 15). Academic Campus (E-SC) Description and Allowable Uses Academic uses of University land, as defined in the County General Plan and the University Land Use Plan, include: instruction and research (including teaching hospital facilities); administrative facilities; housing intended for students, postdoctoral fellows, and other designated personnel; athletics, physical education, and recreation facilities; support services (such as the bookstore and the post office); infrastructure, storage, and maintenance facilities; and non-profit research institutions with close academic ties to the University (such as the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences and the Carnegie Institution of Plant Biology). Development Policies Urban services are the responsibility of the University. University and lease uses that are consistent with the purposes of the University and the character of the campus may be developed to appropriate intensity and densities as established through the General Use Permit. Academic Reserve and Open Space (E-SA) Description and Allowable Uses This designation applies to lands outside the core campus area which are reserved for future academic use and have an open space character. These lands are often important for environmental resources of academic value, scenic beauty, and visual relief. Appropriate uses include low intensity academic and conservation uses in keeping with the open space character or dependent upon unique open space resources, grazing, and other agricultural uses. Development Policies Limited low intensity academic use may be allowed at intensities and densities established through a special use permit granted by the County. Urban services and development appropriate to the campus character are limited to areas with an Academic Campus designation. 13 Campus Residential (E-SR) Description and Allowable Uses This designation applies to lands immediately adjacent to the Academic Campus area which have a residential character and are reserved for housing University faculty and staff. These lands are important to the campus for maintaining the residential character of the University. A variety of housing types, densities, and typical residential amenities should be encouraged to meet the varied needs of the targeted populations. Development Policies Preserve and develop housing types, including detached single family housing, condominium, flats, and townhouse and high density apartments, to serve the needs of targeted campus faculty and staff populations. Encourage residential neighborhoods that promote compact urban development and campus interaction that supports the purposes of the University. Campus Open Space (E-SCO) Description and Allowable Uses This designation applies to land retained as open space essential to the character and historic fabric of the campus (for example, Palm Drive, the Oval, the Arboretum, the Red Barn area, and Lake Lagunita). Park-like areas, unimproved open space, landscape buffers, and conservation areas will be allowed with limited academic or temporary related use in keeping with the landscape character and subject to special use permit. Development Policies Limit use and development to protect essential campus open space and landscape resources. Allow campus type uses, by special use permit only, that are compatible with the open space character and/or are of a temporary nature and subject to full restoration. 14 (See SCC General Plan sections E, L.) Objective 1: Support Stanford’s function as a residential university. Stanford has three long-standing housing goals: to enable students, faculty, and portions of its staff to live close to the academic core of the campus; to give access to faculty and designated staffto affordable housing; and to provide a variety of housing types to meet different needs and levels of affordability. Fulfillment of these goals is important to recruit and maintain a world- class faculty, and to enhance the campus experience for students. Strategy 1: Adopt appropriate zoning and development standards to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of university housing in adequate numbers to maintain and enhance the residential character of Stanford. Implementation Measures: Adopt zoning that allows development of student, postdoctoral fellows, and hospital residents housing units as a permitted use within the Academic Campus areas. I-t-2 Adopt zoning that allows development of faculty and staff housing as a permitted use within the Campus Residential areas of Stanford to densities that will permit a variety of housing types in adequate numbers to meet faculty needs. H-3 Support priority occupancy to Stanford owned housing by Stanford faculty, students, and designated staff. Objective 2: Provide incentives for, and remove constraints on, University housing development. Development of additional University housing is a matter of high priority to Stanford, while also providing significant regional benefits in bringing housing opportunities closer to places of employment. Those regional benefits are particularly available to campus environments, where housing occupancy can more easily be restricted to faculty, students, and designated staff. Identifying and adopting reasonable incentives for construction of new housing at Stanford, and identifying and removing constraints to University housing where feasible, are accordingly matters of public importance. Strategy 2: Provide flexibility in density and development standards to permit construction of a variety of housing that can meet the specific needs of the University and its day-time residents. Implementation Measures: H-4 Permit densities of up to 40 units per acre for faculty and student housing to allow and encourage construction of a variety of housing types to meet a range of affordable housing needs. 16 I-I-5 Allow a range of housing types, with flexible development standards, within faculty and graduate student housing areas to promote a more integrated campus community. Strategy 3: Streamline the review and permit approval processes for University housing. Strategy 4: Review County policies and requirements periodically to identify and, where appropriate, modify policies and requirements that constrain the development of needed and affordable housing. Objective 3: Develop residential areas that enhance the campus environment. The fundamental land use pattern of the campus consists of a compact academic core surrounded by residential areas populated primarily by those engaged in academic pursuits. The academic and residential core is further distinguished by landscape elements that buffer residential areas and uses, and infuse the campus core with a sense of the natural environment. Strategy 5: Protect the quality of Campus Residential areas, while allowing for economical use of existing infrastructure. Implementation Measures: H-6 Adopt development standards to protect the quality of existing Campus Residential areas. /-/-7 Encourage a mix of housing types - such as single-family homes, condominiums, and apartments - that appeal to Stanford’s diverse campus population. Strategy 6: Locate housing near compatible and supporting uses and facilities, such as child care, shopping, health care, and recreation. Implementation Measure: 1"-1-8 Provide and maintain parks and facilities in accordance with local and state guidelines for faculty/staff residential areas. Strategy 7: Plan housing districts and facilities to take maximum advantage of existing and planned transportation services and facilities. Implementation Measures: H-9 Develop on-campus graduate student housing that focuses on single-occupancy units and moderately sized units designed for either single individuals or families. This housing should take into account surrounding uses and transportation links. H-IO Develop on-campus faculty and staff housing that focuses on moderately sized single-family homes, and well-designed, medium-density condominiums and townhomes. This housing should take into account surrounding uses and transportation links. 17 Housing Sites Meeting Stanford’s housing objectives will require significant land area and/or intensification of use in existing housing areas through redevelopment. Analysis of housing needs, campus and city development patterns, and land capabilities has led to the identification of potential housing sites, (Santa Clara County - Stanford Community Plan - Housing Sites, pg. 19). Location, acreage and types of housing associated with each of the sites are listed in table below. Code Location A Manzanita B Mayfield/Row CI Escondido Viii: Infill C2 Escondido Vill: ECR Frontage C3 Escondido Vill: Stanford Ave. D Driving Range E Searsville Block F1 Quarry & Arboretum F2 Quarry & ECR H The Lower Knoll I1 Lower Frenchman’s I2 Gerona/JSB I3 Dolores 14 Mayfield J Stable Site Area(ac) 1.6 1.3 116.4 4.3 9.4 17.5 12.8 7.7 6.0 3.6 2.8 1.7 1.0 0.6 34.3 Users Undergraduate Ugrad/Grad Graduate Graduate Fac/Staff Graduate Graduate PD/HR PDPAR Ugrad/Grad Fat/Staff Fac/Staff Fac/Staff Fac/Staff Fac/Staff In addition, sites outside Santa Clara County may be considered to accommodate Stanford faculty and staff housing needs, subject to relevant jurisdictional approval. 18 SANTA CLARA COUNTY STANFORD COMMUNITY PLAN HOUSING SITES Faculty / Staff / PD / HR’s Undergraduate / Graduate Students F] 0.5 Scale 1:40 000 1 State Plane, California Zone rfl 2 Miles University Architect/Planning Office, September 15, 1999 19 (See SCC General Plan Sections F, M.) Objective 1: Develop and maintain a safe and easily understood system of roadways, tranMtways, bikeways, and pedestrian pathways that not only provide access, but also structure and reinforce land use relationships. In general, the campus transportation system has three relatively distinct areas: the inner pedestrian core, a middle transition zone, and an outer vehicular zone. The design of transportation facilities and services will continue to adhere to this basic premise, with the goal of a logica!, understandable, and practical campus circulation system. Strategy 1: Maintain and improve upon the traditional campus circulation system design, which includes a pedestrian’/bicycle core, transition zone, and outer vehicular and service zone. Implementation Measures: C-1 Maintain and periodically update a vehicle access map which clearly defines access and circulation within each campus zone, in particular showing access limitations in and near the pedestrian / bicycle core. C-2 Prepare a bicycle circulation map denoting bicycle routes on campus and clarifying preferred routes in the pedestrian / bicycle core. C-3 To the extent possible, focus new development densities within the campus core and along designated transit corridors. Strategy 2: Work toward consistency in the system of travelways, so that the function of each travelway is clear to all users. Implementation Measures: C-4 Prepare a set of streetscape design guidelines which reflect existing campus roadway types to guide future roadway improvements, extensions and modifications. C-5 Plan new inter-modal interfaces (including pedestrian street crossings, bike/vehicular intersections and transit stops), placing emphasis on safety, convenience, and amenities. Strategy 3: Promote public understanding of the campus circulation system through brochures, signs, maps, and consistent design standards. Implementation Measures: C-6 Maintain brochures and other media related to Stanford’s transportation system and services. 2O Periodically review and enhance campus way-finding sign systems for all modes of travel. Objective 2: Create an environmentally sensitive circulation system that promotes walking, biking and transit through facilities design and transportation demand management programs. As congestion grows throughout the Bay Area, employers, government agencies, and the general public are increasingly concerned with the inability of existing roadways to meet current and future needs. Stanford has a long tradition of emphasizing and encouraging non-auto travel, as evidenced in its well connected system of bicycle and pedestrian routes to and through campus, and the free campus shuttle system (Marguerite). Strategy 4: Provide transit service serving intra-campus travel and connecting the campus to key off-site destinations including other transit hubs. Implementation Measure: C-8 Monitor Marguerite ridership and add buses / extend routes to serve new or increasing on-campus demand areas. Strategy 5: Work toward complete and continuous bicycle and pedestrian networks, integrated with the regional system, and provide safe connections between campus residential and academic areas, parking facilities, and off-campus transit hubs. Implementation Measures: Maintain pedestrian and bicycle facilities in good condition. C-10 Review the pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems and develop a prioritized list of improvements to close gaps, improve access, or otherwise improve campus-wide pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Strategy 6: Continue to provide incentives to promote alternatives to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commuting. Implementation Measures: C-11 Explore the feasibility of expanding transit use through incentives (for example, a Universal Transit Pass). C-12 Maintain a guaranteed ride home policy for non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV) commuters. 21 Objective 3: Integrate the campus circulation system with regional transportation systems. Stanford should continue to coordinate with local and regional jurisdictions in identifying areas where improvements (for additional accessibility, impact mitigation, or other benefits) can enhance travel conditions for all users. Stanford’s circulation system must be planned within the context of a larger regional system (Regional Circulation Context map, page 23). Strategy 7: Construct improvements (as needed) at the campus gateways to improve access. Implementation Measures: C.13 Coordinate campus congestion monitoring with local agencies at locations at or near campus gateways C-14 Review and comment on local agencies’ roadways and parking management plans and studies particularly with a view to an improved regional grid oftransitways; and provide input where needed to coordinate such programs. Strategy 8: Provide adequate transit service to the Caltrain stations and links to regional bus routes. Implementation Measures: C-15 Monitor Marguerite ridership on Caltrain routes and add buses/increase frequen.cies as appropriate. C-16 Participate in multi-agency study of potential improvements to the Palo Alto downtown/ University Avenue Caltrain station, including terminal and streetscape improvements, and improvements to access/circulation for feeder buses. Strategy 9: Support regional and local system improvements for all transportation modes, which will improve circulation to and from the campus. Implementation Measures: C-17 Review and comment on local and regional agencies’ transportation improvement plans and provide input where needed to coordinate other agencies’ improvement plans (for example, transit route extensions). C-18 Provide campus transportation data (traffic volumes, transit ridership, etc.) to other agencies, if needed, in planning service or capacity improvements. C-19 Participate in pedestrian and bicycle system planning efforts undertaken by neighboring communities. 22 SANTA CLARA COUNTY REGIONAL CIRCULATION CONTEXT N Freeway Collector SWeets Campus Arterial ~ Local SWeets Arboretum Rd To 101 via University Av. / To 101 via Embarcadero Rd. N A Scale 1:40000. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles State Plane, California Zone HI University Architect/Planning Office, September 15, 1999 23 (See SCC General Plan Sections G, H, N, 0.) Open space is currently set aside to support teaching and research, to meet the recreational needs of the University community and to preserve the beauty and character of the core campus and adjacent areas. Further designation of open space to maintain balanced use of University lands should occur in support of the University’s academic and related needs. The principles included in the General Plan’s Resource Conservation element should be applied to lands designated Academic Reserve and Open Space, taking into account the natural resources and special habitats present in those areas. Continuity of open space should continue to be incorporated into overall land use planning, with emphasis on conservation in the Academic Reserve and Open Space areas. Objective 1: Preserve open space in service of the University’s role in teaching and research. Many academic programs require specialized environments that are not urban in nature. The student observatory, the linear accelerator, and the radiotelescopes, for example, have physical requirements that do not allow for their integration into the main campus. Other research and teaching programs benefit from the close proximity of undeveloped lands in order to conduct basic research and course-related exercises, and to test field equipment and experimental protocols. Many undergraduate and graduate research projects are also conducted annually in Stanford’s undeveloped lands. Objective 2: Incorporate open space elements in order to maintain the quafity and character of the campus. For the purposes of this Community Plan, open space is defined as lands reserved for recreational use and/or essential to preserving the natural and heritage resources of the campus, includes the are.as designated as Academic Reserve and Open Space. Strategy 1: Identify, protect, and restore historic campus features essential to the organizing principles of the campus plan. Strategy 2: Protect Stanford open space areas essential to the visual character of Stanford’s outlying rural lands. Objective 3: Provide and maintain recreational open space to meet existing and projected recreational needs of the Stanford community. Implicit in the stated objective of maintaining Stanford as a residential campus is the provision of all of the physical elements of a complete residential community. Expansion of campus academic and residential facilities includes new spaces for members of the academic community to gather for reflective and active interaction. Planning for expansion of the basic academic facilities will include open space necessary for a balanced environment. 24 Strategy 3: Maintain campus parks and open space in the residential neighborhoods of 5 acres for 1,000 population, the maximum that can be required under State law. Strategy 4: Provide campus recreational facilities convenient to student residences. Strategy 5: Plan campus land use and infrastructure to facilitate access to athletic and recreational facilities. Strategy 6: Plan for sufficient open space to balance building intensity in the redevelopment of the central academic campus. Objective 4: Emphasize development within the core campus, allowing lands in the Academic Reserve to continue as open space. Although all Stanford lands are dedicated to academic use, concentration of academic development within the core campus allows continued stewardship of Stanford’s undeveloped land south of Junipero Serra Boulevard as Academic Reserve and Open Space. Strategy 7: Prioritize and support central campus infill sites for new development. Strategy 8: Protect significant natural resources present on University lands. Implementation Measures: 0S-1 Develop and maintain database on natural resources found on Stanford lands. 0S-2 Protect areas supporting significant concentrations of natural resources, including riparian zones and serpentine grasslands. 0S-3 Support efforts to restore or enhance areas suitable for native species. Objective 5: Balance recreational use with protection of research areas and conservation of sensitive biological and heritage resources. Stanford lands accommodate several trails in environmentally sensitive riparian areas: for example, the Streamside Open Space along San Francisquito Creek at Stanford West and the trail between Alpine Road and Los Trancos Creek. Improvements in these sensitive areas require careful review to avoid inappropriate damage to biological and heritage resources. Strategy 9: Support development of guidelines that restrict public access to environmentally sensitive areas. Strategy 10: Encourage Stanford to consider trails that minimize impacts on environmentally sensitive areas and other open space areas while allowing for connections between existing trail systems and regional open space areas. Strategy 11: Develop strategies to protect and restore environmentally degraded areas. 25 STANFORD UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY ARCHITECT/PLANNING OFFICE Attachment C September 20, 1999 Ms. Anne Draper Planning Director County of Santa Clara Planning Office 70 West Hedding Street San Jose. California 95110 Dear Ms, Draper: Enclosed you will find an application to modify the 1989 Santa Clara County General Use Permit (G~’I:’) for Stanford University. The enclosed draft applicanon packet includes the: ¯Master Land Development Use Perrmt Application and Fee ¯Project Description and Maps ¯Environmental Information Form ¯Assessor’s Parcel Maps ¯Well Information Questionnaire ¯Hazardous Substance Sites List Questionnaire ¯San Mateo County Mailing List We understand that the Santa Clara County Mailing List for notlclng will be provided bv your office. If we can provide additional detailed information piease call me at {650) 725-7845, uman v Architect / As :iate Vice Provost for Planning John Hennessy Curtis Feeny Larry. Horton .Mike Roster Ed Gawf, City of Palo Alto 655 SERRA STREET ¯ STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305-6115 ¯(650) ,-23-7773 FAX (650) 725-8598 SANTA CLARA CO,..~TY MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT F,.,-(MIT APPLICATION Address ~Z~p Phone (r~ t:~s) ~ (Appa~t) Addr~s C~y 7,p Phone (ms/bus) David Neuman~ Associate Vice Provost for Planning/University Architect 650-725-7845 655 Serra Street~ 2nd. Floor Stanford~ CA 94305-6115 14z-u4 to 16 ~ofS~~:Stanford~ California AP.R 142-19~21=22~25~26 Pa~e Mill Rd./ S~: South s~of E1 Camino Real ~w~Sand Hill/Alpine Rd.~ Hill View Ave. (mx~ s~th, e~t, west)(n~d or stzeet)(m~ or stzee~)(n:,~d or F..xis~ngUseofPmpe~y: Academic and Housing None ~ NOTE: (1) ALL APPLICATION FEES ARE NONREFUNDABLE. (2) THE OWNER/APPUCANT OR REI:~ATIVE SHOULD BE PRESENT AT ALL PUBLIC FEARI~. (3) A DENIAL OR GRANT MAY BE REVERSED ON APPEAL NO PERMIT WILL BE !~ EFFECT UNTL TIE APPEAL PERIOD HAS EXPIRED. The umdemgned owners) of subject property h~’eby author~ t~e ~?ing of this ap~icaJ~, a~ aulho~ o~.~i~ ~ by authorized staff. FOR DEPAR~:MENT USE ONLY FILE #: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: FEE(S)COMMENTS App~dto: PC. BS "Da~eo~Ac~:~:Atmdm~e~s: Y N TYPE OF APPLICATION(S) ~APPFJIL ~ ARCHITECTURAL AND SIrE APPROVAL BUILDING SITE/zPPROVAL / BA CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE DESIGN REVIEW E~CRO~CHMENT/C~"rRUCTK:~ PERM~" ENWRON~NTAL ASSESSMENT ~ E~R GEOLOGIC REPORT REV. / LET’rER REV. LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT I LOT MERGER USE PERMIT vARuu, r.,E ZONE CV, ANGE OTHER TOTAL FEES $5~870.0( $5~ 870.0C DA~ES ~178 REV 1;93 RESUBMITTALDATES Dist~bution App~ica~m Deemed Date of.,k~o~(s) ( CPO / ASA / ZA / PC / BS ) Apcxova~ Ex~m~n Dam Date of Prelim. Report Date of No~ng 500’ Scale Ma,o 7.ordng USA / SOl Par~ S~ze Supervisor~ D~trt:t Prev~s Fi~s) DRAFT General Use Permit Application Project Description Stanford requests amendment of its 1989 General Use Permit (GUP) which allows the land use activities and development necessary and appropriate for the operation of a university. The permit shall apply to the 4,017 acres of Stanford land located in unincorporated Santa Clara County. The activities will be in accordance with land use policies for the four land use designations defined by the Draft Stanford Community Plan (Academic Campus, Academic Reserve and Open Space, Campus Residential, and Campus Open Space). (See exhibit ’a’, Stanford / SCC Community Plan Map.) The amended permit will allow Stanford, subject to Architectural and Site Approval and appropriate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to: Construct academic and academic support facilities totaling approximately 1,706,000 new square feet, Construct athletic and cultural facilities totaling approximately 332,000 new square feet, ¯Build up to 2,000 housing units for graduate and undergraduate students Build up to 780 housing units of for medical residents, post doctoral fellows, faculty and staff. Construct approximately 2,795 additional parking spaces (1,850 for student/ hospital resident/post doctorate fellows residential use and 945 for non- residential uses) along with associated utilities, roads, landscaping and other infrastructure. Nine Development Districts have been identified only for the purpose of preparing the General Use Permit application. Proposed academic, academic support, and athletic and cultural development projections, as well as additional parking requirements, have been quantified for each Development District. An estimated number of potential student beds and housing units for hospital residents, post doctorates, faculty and staff are also identified by Development District. Per staff recommendation, only housing unit types are quantified for purposes of environmental analysis. The development will occur on vacant and redeveloped sites in seven of the nine Districts of the campus as shown in the Development Districts’ map and the Development Projections table (exhibits ’b’ and ’c’). All building will be located in Academic Campus and Campus Residential Community Plan Areas. Stanford has developed an anticipated facilities needs forecast for the next 10 years. As has been discussed in recent community forums, it is impossible over such a period of time to anticipate precisely the 9/20/99 DRAFT University’s teaching and research mission or their exact location. However, for the purposes of the environmental analysis, Stanford has estimated development that might occur in all nine planning districts of the campus. The GUP will specify parameters, evaluation criteria and review / permitting procedures for uses in all the Community Plan Areas. BACKGROUND Stanford University’s 1989 General Use Permit (GUP) with Santa Clara County established conditions of approval and a mitigation plan that allo~v the University to develop up to an additional 2,100,300 square feet in the dentral campus area for academic uses, academic support and housing, with an Adjusted Daytime Population up to 33,905. Prior to reaching either the population or the square footage levels, Stanford must file for modification of the General Use Permit. Over the past ye~, Stanford and the County have been working to craft a Community Plan amendment to the County General Plan and a renewal of the GUP entitlement. The goal of this effort is to retain flexibility to meet the University’s land use and development needs, while providing greater clarity for the County and the general public about that future land use and its effects on the surrounding communities. 2010 DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECTIONS Future development projections include new academic, academic support, athletic and cultural facilities, and housing for undergraduate and graduate students, hospital residents and post doctorates, faculty and staff. Academic Academic development is proposed to include teaching and research facilities. It can be described in terms of somewhat more specific types of facilities and sites for CEQA purposes; however, the permit should allow for flexibility in siting and in space allocation within a total limit to accommodate sudden changes that often occur in a dynamic academic environment. Academic Support Academic support buildings include libraries, student organizations’ spaces, administrative offices, utility structures and other uses essential to the normal operation of the University. 9/20/99 2 DRAFT Athletic.s & Cultural Athletic facilities are proposed to provide for the physical education and recreation activities of students, faculty and staff, and for events for intercollegiate and intramural sports. Cultural facilities provide settings for the academic and the broader community to enjoy cultural events. All of these activities serve to further the academic mission and enrich community life. Housing Stanford faculty, staff and students, along with other residents of the County, are facing enormous challenges finding housing. Land available for housing development in the surrounding communities is limited, and housing prices, both rental and for sale, have increased dramatically in the last several years. Stanford has proposed, and has been encouraged by the County to pursue, an aggressive housing progam to reduce the institutional impact to this regional problem. In addition, this housing program can have a notable impact in reducing daily commute trips to and from the campus. Infrastructure Circulation and Parking Improvements A total of 2,795 additional parking spaces are proposed to serve specific campus districts as shown on exhibit ’b’. The parking includes 945 spaces to accommodate non- residential development, 1,500 spaces to support additional undergraduate and graduate student housing (at an assumed rate of 0.75 spaces per bed) and 350 spaces to support hospital resident and post doctorate housing (at an assumed rate of 1.0 spaces per unit). Anticipated roadway changes include: narrowing and lowering Campus Drive West right-of-way between the Medical School and the Biology/Chemistry Quad. and widening it to four lanes from Junipero Serra Boulevard to Welch Road; extending Via Ortega from Panama to Santa Theresa. and abandoning Samuel Morris Way; ¯realigning the Campus Drive East / Junipero Serra Blvd. intersection; and modifying the Serra Street alignment from Campus Drive East to E1 Carnino Real. 9/20/99 3 DRAFT Landscape bnprovements There also is expected to be continuing renewal of central campus landscape and open space elements including improvements to the Oval, Stauffer Lawn in the Biology/Chemistry Quad, Campus Drive East median, White Plaza, Serra Street frontage and medians, and Governor’s Avenue. 9/20/99 4 EXHIBIT’a’ SANTA CLARA COUNTY STANFORD COMMUNITY PLAN FUTURE LAND USE Academic Campus (E-SC) Academic Reserve and Open Space (-E-SA) Campus Residential (E-SR) Campus Open Space (E-SCO) N Scale 1:40000 0.5 1 1.5 State Plane, California Zone IH 2 Miles University Architect/Planning Office, September 15, 1999 EXHIBIT ’b’ 2000- 2010 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS SANTA CLARA COUNTY GENER.~ USE PERMIT ARBORETL.’M WEST CAMPUS ENGINEERING, SCIENCES, & MEDICINE LAGUNITA RESIDENCES CAMPUS CENTER D~ER& ~MINISTRATIVE EAST RESIDENCES FACULTY / STAFF HOUSING Stanford University Scale 1:150 000 Scale 1:24 000 0.5 State Plane. California Zone III Miles University Architect/Planning Office, September 15, 1999. EXHIBIT ’c’ Amendment to the Santa Clara County General Use Permit for Stanford University DRAFT Development District West Campus Development Projections Est. Add’tl Est. Add’tl Est. Add’tl GSF Units Parking Spaces 1,009 Acadermc Support :0.000 Faculty & Staff Housing 160-320 Foothills No GUP development is projected. (1) Lagunita Residences Student Housing 925 Faculty & Staff Housing (13) 250 Engineering, Sciences & Medicine 35O Academic 933.000 Academic Support ; 96.000 Hospital Resident & Post Doc Housing 350 Arboretum No development is projected. Campus Center Academic 290.000 Academic Support 92.000 Athletic & Cultural ~30.000 Daper & Administrative Academic Support z5.000 Athletic & Cultural 202.000 672 East Residences Academic 60.000 Academic Support 50.000 Faculty & Staff Housing Student Housing 75 1,075 Faculty / Staff Housing Faculty Housing 36-48 450 Total Academic 1 ~.283,000 Total Academic Support 4Z3,000 Total Athletic & Cultural Total: Student Housing Total: Hospital Residents & Post Doe Housing Total: Faculty & Staff Housing Total: Student Housing Parking Total: Hospital Residents & Post Doc Parking Total: General Parking 332.000 2,000 350 258-430 1,500 350 945 Grand Total General Use Permit Application: ~ 1) No development is forecast in this district; however. Stanford x~ ill follow policies of the 1985 Three Party Agreement and may apply for a separate use permit(s) not to exceed 5000 gfs per project and 20.000 gsf in aggregate. 2.038,000 2608-2780 2,795 9/16199 DRAFT University Arctutect / Plannmg Office County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Planning Office Development Environmental Information Form (To be completed by Applicant or his/her representative) IfeCOUnty Staff person will visit the site of this project. Failure to provide accurate information in th~ vironmental information form will result in your application being declared incomplete under the[ quirements of state law. Such a declaration will result in a delay in the processing of your[ plication until the require information is submitted and declared complete. Merely making[ rence to a site plan will not constitute an adequate response. Person Completing Form:Name:Catherine Palter 655 Serra Street Address Stanford, CA 94305-6115 Phone:(650) 723-7773 Date September 20, 1999. [Please answer the following questions in the space provided. Use additional sheets if necessary. [~he question does not apply, mark NA or ’none’ in the space provided. A.PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.Project location/address: Stanford University; Parcel Book 142, pages 04 thru 16, 19, 21.22, 25 and 26. 2. Describe the proposed projeci (What will be constructed, how wil! it be used, etc.): (The project description provided in this application provides most of the information requested in in this section). . ........ 3.(a) Parcel size (acres or sq. feet): __ (b) Project floor area (square feet): (c) Proposed buildings: Number ~ Max. height. (d) No.of parking spaces provided on site: (e) Indicate approximately the percent of the proposed project site dedicated to the following purposes (total should equal 100%): buildings %, parking/driveways %, outside storage %, landscaping %, Undeveloped(vacant)%, other(indicate use and % coverage).%. (a) Number of daily customers, residents or other users of your project? Faculty. staff, and student increases in the central campus, including the School of Medicine, have been forecast for 2010. Undergraduate enrollment is expected to remain the same. However, the number of graduate students and post doctoral fellows are forecast to increase by 683 and 583, respectively. The number of faculty is forecast to increase by 303. To support the increase in graduate students, post doctoral fel!ows, and faculty, the staff is forecast to increase by 632. This results in a total increase of facuttv, staff, and students of 2,201. (b) Basis for this number?(Based on amount of seating, type of business - specify, number of residential units, number of beds, etc.) 5. Number of employees? (a) Total:(b) Max. at any one time: 6. Name street(s) to be used as access to project: E1 Camino Real, Sand Hill Road and Junipero Serra Boulevard provide access to Stanford Universitv. Discuss briefly the physical and engineering aspects of the project (e.g.,building materials to be used, significant grading required, etc.): The desig-n of additional facilities will be consistent with the existing Stanford University buildings. Site and design guidelines will be developed for each new facility. It is anticipated that buildings will be less than 75’ in height (excludin~ mechanical penthouses), unless specific pro~am needs require a taller building. Significant gading is not anticipated, due to the relatively flat topo~aphy of the central campus. o Utilities: (a) Source of water (check one): w existing well(s) ~ new well(s) X water utility or other, (name of utility) Stanford Utility System from San Francisco Water Department (b) Distance to nearest water line?Miles feet (if less than a mile) (c) Proposed method of sewage disposal (check one: ~ standard septic system ~ other on-site septic system X sewer line (Name of utility) Stanford Utility System to Palo Alto Utilities. If method proposed is other than standard septic or sewer, describe proposed method: (d) Method of storm drainage: Stanford’s existing storm draina_e system with improvements, as necessary.. 9.Project objectives: Why project proposed at this site at this time? (see project description) B.ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1.Describe the natural characteristics (Topography / slope, drainage, vegetation, soil stability, etc.) on the project site. Generally. the project area north of Junipero Serra Boulevard is gently sloping downward to the north and contains most of the built environment. Land to the south of Junipero Serra Boulevard is primarily rolling terrain with some steeper hills, and a lower level of development. Describe the extent and type of existing man-made features on the project site: (Size in square feet and uses of existing structures; number and size of lakes or ponds; nature and extent of existing roads, bridges, graded changes in topography, etc.) The unincorporated campus lands include approximately 12.3 million gsf of development, including the student housing. In addition, it contains 883 units of faculty/staff housing. The project area contains two lakes: seasonal Lake Lagunita near Junipero Serra Boulevard and Felt Lake in the Foothills. A developed infrastructure of roads, paths, parking lots. utilities an-d landscaping supports the facilities. Name any professional reports regarding the property that are possessed by or known to applicant (ie., geologic, floralfauna, archaeological, environmental impact reports, etc.):~ 1989 General Use Permit EIR. Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects EIR, numerous project- specific CEQA compliance documents, biological and cultural resource inventories. 4. Name similar developments in the area to the one proposed, whether planned or existing: The existing campus facilities and the 1989 General Use Permit. C.ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF PROJECT Land Use: Will the project be a land use not presently existing in the surrounding neighbor- hood? Yes__ No X If yes, has the project been discussed with neighbors? Yes X No__ If yes, indicate below what issues were discussed with neighbors. Community forums on housing, transportation, conservation and open space, and land use and academic trends were held in summer 1999. Geologic: (a) Are you aware of geologic hazards on the site or in the immediate area (Landslides, subsidence, earthquake faults, extremely steep slopes, etc? Yes X No ~ If yes, describe: San Andreas fault to the west. Steep slopes in portions of the foothills. (b) Will construction occur on slopes greater than 10%? Yes w No .X If yes, indicate percent of slope:% and describe how erosion!siltation will be prevented? (c) Will grading or filling be required? Yes ~ No ~ If yes, provide the following information: Cut: volume in cubic yards; depth in feet Fill: volume in __cubic yards; depth in ~feet *Project-specific information to be provided with future applications. If volume of cut exceeds fill, where will the excess soil be disposed? Approved location Are retaining walls proposed? Yes m No X If yes, what is maximum height? Resources: (a) Will large amounts of any natural resource (rock, sand. gravel trees, etc.) be removed as a result of the project? Yes __ No X (b) Is the site currently under Williamson Act contract? Yes ~ NO X~ and/or used for any agricultural purposes? Yes No ~X (c) Are there agricultural uses adjacent to the project site? Yes X No o If yes, describe the agricultural uses: There are agricultural leaseholds in portions of the foothills. Sewage/Water Quality: (a) If the proposed method of sewage disposal is by septic system, have percolation tests been made to assure the adequacy of the proposed septic system on this site? Yes __ No ~ NA ~X (b) If yes, who made the tests and what were the results? (c) Are there existing wells on the property? Yes ~ No X If yes. how many are functioning ~ or abandoned? ~ (d) Are the abandoned wells sealed? Yesm No m NA ~ [Show any wells on the site plan.] Drainage/Flooding: (a) Is there any drainage swale, stream course, spring, pond or lake within 200 ft. of proposed construction? Yes m No ~ (b) If yes. describe and indicate location Stanford University has an existing storm drainage system utilizing drainage swales, as appropriate. Lake Lagunita is also located near Junipero Serra Boulevard. Flora and Fauna: (a) Will the project require the removal of trees or shrubs? YesX~ No __ If yes, explain below. (Show on plans all trees 12" in diameter or gxeater which are to be removed.) It is anticipated that future projects will result in the loss of some trees. These will be evaluated more extensively in future approvals. (b) Do you know of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered animals or plants residing on the site or in close proximity? Yes X~ No m (c) Could the project affect wildlife or fisheries? Yes X No ~ If yes, explain: The California tiger salamander I CTS), a candidate species, is located in the Lake Lagunita area. Stanford. California Department of Fish & Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Santa Clara County have signed a CTS Mana2ement Agreement. Future 4 development in the West Campus and Lagunita Residences. plannin2 districts would result in negative impact to CTS habitat. In order tO mitigate these impacts,..Stanford will continue to build on the mitigation measures developed in the CTS Management Agreement. working with the appropriate resource agencies. Steelhead trout and red-legged frogs..~ccur in San Francisquito and _VIatadero creeks. It is unlikely that the anticipated development described in the project descrption would directly affect either of these species. 7. Transportation*: (a) Will the project affect pedestrians or horse riders or vehicular traffic (including bicycles) in the immediate area? Yes ~X No ~ If yes. explain: . This will be fully analyzed in the EIR. (b) Approximate number of vehicle trips per day to be generated by project? see (a) (c) Indicate the days & times you expect most trips to occur see (a) .. (d) Is there traffic congestion during commute hours at any nearby street intersections providing access to the project? Yes ~X No __ If yes, list the intersections see...(.a) o *Transportation impact analyses (TIAs) using the Congestion Management Agency’s methodology must be prepared for all projects that generate 100 or more peak hour trips. Housing: Will existing housing be removed to allow construction of the proposed project? Yes ~X No __ If yes, describe: It is possible that existing,,housing could be removed to allow redevelopment of housing, at a higher density .............. Safety/Health: (a) To your knowledge, do potentially hazardous materials exist on either this site or nearby property? Yes X_N_ No __ If yes, describe: Hazardous materials used in teaching and research, and during Qperation of the. University. are fully regulated by the appropriate agencies. (b) Will the project require the use, storage or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables, or explosives? Yes X No __ If yes, describe: Hazardous material use similar to existing usage could occur in the new facilities. (c) Will the project be located on a cul-de-sac or dead-end road over 800 ft in length? Yes ~ No X_.N_ If yes, describe: (d) Are any proposed roads or drives in excess of 15% grade? Yes ~ No X__X_. 10.Air/Noise: Will the project generate dust. smoke, fumes, odors, or noise? Yes X No__ If yes, circle the ones involved and explain: Construction activities would result in temporary_ noise and dust. 11.Aesthetic: (a) Will the project be more visible to the public than are its neighbors? (Larger than average, not screened by landscaping, etc.): Yes __ No __ If yes, explain: The locations and desi~ of the anticipated projects is not determined at this time, but they will be similar in scale and materials to other campus facilities, and be sited in complimentary, fashion. (b) Does the property contain natural features of scenic value or rare or unique characteristics? Yes X No __ If yes, desc.ribe: Undeveloped areas are located south of Junipero Serra Boulevard, and in isolated areas north of Junipero Serra Boulevard. (c) Will construction occur at or near a ridgeline or hilltop? Yes ~ No X (d) Will the project introduce glare, reflecting materials or unusually bright colors? Yes ~ No X If yes, describe: 12.Historical/Archaeological: Are you aware that the project will affect any archaeological or historic resources? Yes ~ No u If yes, explain: The anticipated development described in the project description would not likely affect prehistoric resources, depending on the precise location of the facilities. However, redevelopment of existing areas of the campus could result in changes to historic resources. 13.Growth Inducing: Could the project serve to increase development pressures in the vicinity or encourage changes in the use of nearby properties (Be realistic and objective)? Yes __ No X If yes, explain: The addition of academic, housing, support, and athletic and cultural facilities to the Stanford University campus would not be expected to induce growth elsewhere in the neighboring communities. Do REDUCTION OR AVOIDANCE OF IMPACTS Discuss possible actions which reduce or avoid any adverse environmental affects discussed in section ’C above (Use appropriate numbers for reference): The Environmental Impact Report that will be prepared on this application will include mitigation measures to reduce impacts of the proposed project. Certification: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits pre- sent to the best of my ability the data and information required. The facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. If any of the facts represented here change, it is my responsibility to inform the County of Santa Clara. Date: September 20, 1999 ........Signed: ~.~L2. ~ Name & Address (Please print): Catherine PaTter, Stanford Planning Office, ... 655 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305-6115 ....................... For Staff Use Project File #: Information form reviewed and found to be complete: Date:Signed. Yes No 10-20-92