Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-15 City CouncilTO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 9 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:OCTOBER 25, 1999 CMR:401:99 SUBJECT:DRAFT COMMUNITY PLAN AND GENERAL USE PERMIT FOR STANFORD UNIVERSITY RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve and forward the staff recommendations in CMR:385:99 (Attachment A), with the modifications noted below, regarding the Draft Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP) to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and Stanford University. In addition to the few modifications, the Commission made several recommendations not provided in Attachment A. These are also described below under "Planning Commission Review and Recommendations." Use of the word "Plan" refers to both the Draft Community Plan and GUP unless otherwise specified. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On October 12, 1999, a joint City Council-Planning Commission hearing was held regarding the Draft Stanford Community Plan and GUP. Extensive public testimony was given at this hearing, but neither body discussed the Plan. The following night, at its regular meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the Stanford Plan, with input from City staff and Santa Clara County and Stanford University representatives. Overall, the Commission was supportive of the staff recommendations contained in Attachment A, but had additional concerns and recommendations to convey to Council. These are described below. The headings correspond to those used in the "Recommendation" section of Attachment A. Housing Like staff, the Commission strongly encouraged Stanford to provide additional housing units, and to do so within the first couple of years of the 10-year GUP, and in advance of significant non-residential development. Stanford representatives clarified at the hearing that even though the Plan will provide up to 2,780 new dwelling units, the net housing gain is approximately 590 units. The Commission recommended that a greater net gain in housing CMR:401:99 Page 1 of 3 be achieved by either providing more dwelling units or less growth. The Commission also emphasized that Stanford needs to provide more detailed information on the types and locations of the proposed housing. A majority of Commissioners did not concur with staff’s recommendation that significant open space buffers should be maintained along Stanford’s E1 CaminoReal frontage in lieu of providing more urban-type housing along this corridor; other Commissioners believed that the existing buffer should be maintained to defme the University’s boundary from the City. Consensus was clearly reached by the Commission, though, that Stanford needs to provide more housing as early as possible. Schools The Commission supported staff’s recommendations pertaining to schools and further recommended that Stanford provide full on-campus child care services. While the Commission did discuss possible school locations, it did not choose specific sites. The Commission did, however, recommend that a new school location west of Alma Street and/or E1 Camino Real would be the most useful to the community. Circulation and Parking In addition to the staff’s recommendations, the Commission recommended that the Plan address off-campus parking that unofficially serves the campus (i.e., automobiles parked off- campus when the occupants take transit, such as the Marguerite, or some other means to a campus destination). Also, the Commission believed Stanford should explore the potential of providing structured parking on-campus as a means of reducing land devoted to the automobile. The Commission reiterated that the "no net commute new trips" goal postulated by Stanford is not a goal that the City currently strives to meet. However, the Commission also pointed out that Stanford is in unique position to control circulation issues throughout its extensive land holdings given its unified ownership. Open Space The Commission recommended that Stanford adopt an "Academic Growth Boundary" and commit to designating areas solely as open space for a minimum period of 20 years. Some Commissioners believed that Stanford’s proposed development exception (maximum 5,000 square feet per building; 20,000 square feet of total development) for lands located west of Junipero Serra Boulevard was too much for that area. Other Commissioners concurred with staff’s recommendation that the exception was appropriate if subject to subsequent project- specific review by the City when development is proposed. Land Use The Commission supported staff’s recommendations concerning the Plan’s land use element, but recommended modifying the language of staff’s recommendation that the County "should consider creating" new Zoning designations to read that the County "should create" new Zoning designations to implement Stanford’s Plan. CMR:401:99 Page 2 of 3 The Commission fully concurred with the staff recommendations in Attachment A listed under the headings "Overall Staff Recommendations," "Plan Implementation," and "Vision for Long-Term Build-Out of Stanford University," ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Prepared By: Manager Review: CMR:385:99, w/o attachments Planning Excerpt Commission Minutes, October 13, 1999 Meeting Luke Connolly~ Senior Planner Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:~---..LLLqP~ DW~GAWF ~)G.E CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: i~D ~irec ,at°nr ag°f,~~rrPlann ?/~~ying and’/d’3~"’ °mmunity Envir°nment ’,’FLEMING CC:Santa Clara County Planning Department Stanford University Planning Department CMR:401:99 Page 3 of 3 City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:OCTOBER 12, 1999 ,CMR:385:99 SUBJECT:DRAFT COMMUNITY PLAN AND GENERAL USE PERMIT FOR STANFORD UNIVERSITY RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends to the City Council that the recommendations listed below, regarding the Draft Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP), 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 current 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. Housing ¯ 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 l O-year period of the Community Plan to keep pace with additional non-residential development. ¯Consideration should be given to the need 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 lO-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 s.upport, 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:J85:99 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 concurrently 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 County. 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 other 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 refinement 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 t.he 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 inforv0ation as possible. For many people re.viewing 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. Housillg The Community Plan repeatedly acknowledges Stanford’s lack of on-campus housing for faculty, students, and staff and 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 than applying 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 ofnew 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 Universi~’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 conceming 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 to 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 Clara 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: ~ ~WF% G. EDWARD GA " Dir,~tor of Planning and/C.onynunity Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Santa Clara County Planning Department Stanford University Planning Department CMR:385:99 Page 9 of 9 EXCERPT DRAFT minutes of the 10/13/99 meeting of the Planning Commission. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 2 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL October 13, 1999 REGULAR MEETING- 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Room Civic Center, ]st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at 7.’05 P.M. Commissioners: Kathy Schmidt, Chairman -- absent Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair Owen Byrd Jon Schink Patrick Burt Bern Beecham Phyllis Cassel - absent Staff." Ed Gawf, Director of Planning Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney Luke Connolly, Senior Planner "~hair Bialson: First item is Roll Call. Okay, that is five in attendance. The first item o~da is Oral Communications.ORAL COMM13~,~ATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a lim~’~t~n of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must omplete a speaker re"~ card available from the secretary of the Commission. ~ Commission reseiR~e right to limit the oral communications period to 11 minutes" ~ I have one card~ndividual w~ishes to speak? I call Cleveland Kennard. You have three minutes. ~ Mr~everal times, I’ve fi’~ur hours of ~~re our City Counca~re. I’m a black for 25 me. I have been harassed by the Palo Alto police. They would say they are the Cir. of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ~ Oral Communications. We now come to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deleti0n~~.~.~~ AGENDA CHANGES,/~I~NS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up to 7~eting time. The ~eway Fa.c~en.continued to a future ~at item it~ontinued to a date uncertain at this point.~Next we proceed to Unfinished Business. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings: Draft Community Plan for Stanford University Lands in Unincorporated Santa Clara County: The Palo Alto City Council and the Palo Alto Planning Commission held a joint public hearing on October 12, 1999 in which they reviewed the Draft Community Plan and the application to Santa Clara County to modify the 1989 Santa Clara county General Use Permit (GUP) for Stanford University. This meeting is to discuss the Draft Community Plan. Last night the Commission met in a joint session with the City Council and we took public testimony or had a public hearing with regard to the Draft Community Plan for Stanford University Lands in Unincorporated Santa Clara County. I’ve been advised by the City Attorney present that the public hearing was duly closed yesterday and we cannot accept any testimony or public input tonight. This meeting today is to discuss the Draft Community Plan. In that regard I would ask if Staff has anything further to add at this point in time. Mr. Ed Gawf, Director of Planning: No we do not. We did make a presentation last night and we are available to answer any questions that you may have. I would add that Sarah Jones, a planner with the County that is working on this, is also present and available to answer questions as well as the applicant. Larry Horton from Stanford University will represent the applicant. Vice Chair Bialson: Thank you. With regard to how the Commission tackles this discussion it would be my suggestion that we break down the points to be discussed into the categories presented in the plan. I suggest that the Commissioners try as much as possible to limit their discussion and questions with regard to any of the specific items to the sequence that we are going to select. I know initially there will be some desire to make some introductory comments overall with respect to the plan and the process and if we could have those comments at this time that would be very good. First of all, are there any questions? Let’s first entertain questions that go to the housing element. City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Beecham: I’d like to start by saying that trying to make comments on this plan is difficult. In a sense there is so little to comment on. It has been said clearly by a number of organizations and people that this plan lacks the detail that one needs to really assess it as a planning document. So whereas there may be a huge number of questions. on housing based on the information we have it is difficult to start. From my point of view this might be more useful for us tonight, or for me to talk about as we get into it, our objectives or what we want to see in.it later on as opposed to going through any detailed questions. Also, we do have the three documents. One of which is the draft planning document. I understand this is not an official document. This is not part of the official submission for the plan. It may be cleaner if we do not use information in here as part of our discussions. Vice Chair Bialson: We can use the sequence in terms of the categories and nothing more in regard to this particular presentation. I do think that some preliminary comments such as the ones you just made regarding the lack of specificity are appropriate if you want to go into that. Is there some sense on the Commission that they want to tackle this discussion in some other way? I would be happy to entertain alternative approaches. Commissioner Byrd: No, in fact Annette, I think the subject matters track no matter what list you use. It is either in the Staff report that our Staff prepared or within the elements of the Draft Plan itself or within this explanatory document. Clearly we’ve got to cover all the biggies, i.e., housing, transportation, academic growth boundary, school site, open space, etc. I think you’re process makes good sense. Just for clarification, are you asking us at this time whether we have questions for Staff or comments on the housing subject? Vice Chair Bialson: I think we should begin with questions and then go on to comments. So I would rather have questions to begin with but I notice that we tend to merge the two after awhile. Commissioner Byrd: Then let me do my best to make this a question. In the Staff report on page 2, the fourth bullet under housing says that open space area along E1 Camino Real north of Escondido Village should be maintained, but it doesn’t say why. That seems to me to be a potential housing site. Mr. Gawf: The area that we are talking about is the open space buffer along E1 Camino at the intersection of Stanford and E1 Camino. So it is the area adjacent to Escondido Village. That area is approximately, I’m doing this from memory and help me if I’m off, is approximately 2000 feet or so from curb to the drive that surrounds Escondido Village. When I went there and started looking at trying to put additional units in that buffer area I think it really is bringing Escondido Village closer to E1 Camino in a way that would be very noticeable. I think one of the very attractive things about Stanford University and E1 Camino is a very clear definition between the street, the urban area on the other side of E1 Camino, and the sort of open area, parkland or play area along that point. This would sort of visualize that section. This would probably be the closest encroachment if you will of buildings to the street. So that is one. The second point is when I went and City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 looked at Escondido Village I think there are oppommities for additional in-fill beyond what they are proposing in the village itself. So it is not a question of not having units there and therefore those units not being built. It is a question of moving those units from that location to more internal to Escondido Village. You will still retain or end up with the same number of total units. ..,C, ommissioner Byrd: This comment is made in the Staff report under the housing sub- head. I presume from Staff’ s perspective it applies also to the search for a school site in the sense that I hear a desire to maintain the aesthetic condition of the openness adjacent to E1 Camino but I’m wondering if ultimately other values and other uses may trump. Mr. Gawf: It certainly could. Part of our consideration was the fact that we think there is an option for the housing. If you don’t put it there you can put it somewhere else and still end up with the same number. I hadn’t thought of it actually from a school site but you’re right. At some point you start weighing two equally good values especially if you can only choose one of the two. So I would say that is a different consideration if indeed we ever got to that point where that is the choice. Commissioner Byrd: Let me ask the same question slightly farther north. On page 31 the second bullet speaks about any housing in the Hoover Pavilion at Quarry and E1 Camino should not be constructed unless there is a significant open space buffer provided and maintained along E1 Camino. So you don’t feel fed up, when we went through the Sand Hill drama here I was a great enthusiast of considering housing in that portion of the campus and still think that its orientation near the train station makes a lot of sense. Mr. Gawf: I think that is a persuasive argument. The way this is worded is slightly different than our Comprehensive Plan which shows that it is open space. What we are saying is there are some differences in that area. The way E1 Camino aligns to this property is less visible than the other site we were talking about. There is more distance between the curb line and the pavilion. So I think there is more area to work with. One other factor, it also is very close to the medical area where they do need additional housing. So for those reasons what we’ve done is say yes, let’s look at the potential of putting housing in that area but let’s also keep in mind that we need to keep some kind of buffer along E1 Camino. It is not saying don’t consider that area for housing at all. Commissioner Schink: I had basically the same question but taking a little different angle. I was wondering if there was some way you could tone down the request for open space buffer. It is obvious that if that area is developed we would want to minimize the impacts from E1 Camino but the way this reads to me it seems like you’re just saying it can’t happen there. This is something that Owen and I were on the same team pushing unsuccessfully once before. I would hope that we could keep that option open. Mr. Gawf: Let me just respond by saying that the intent was not, in fact the intent was just the opposite. It was to indicate somewhat of a change from our Comprehensive Plan and say I think we should consider housing in this area. I also don’t want to forgo the intent of the Comprehensive Plan of keeping an open space buffer. I would also say City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 though, that.clearly this is why we go to a Planning Commission and a Council to refine these recommendations and give the final City direction on it. The intent was not to say be so restrictive that housing could not be considered in this area. Vice Chair Bialson: Bern. Commissioner Beecham: It seems as though we are handling the rest of Palo Alto differently than how we want to handle Stanford here. In the rest of Palo Alto we’ve said along E1 Camino make it dense. This is the right place to put dense housing, dense uses, putting a park on El Camino - gee, it’s not a great place for a park. You’ve got a lot of noise, traffic, fumes, etc. It is not necessarily great for housing either. That’s what we’ve said for the entire rest of E1 Camino - put bulk along there. Then transition down to lower densities away from E1 Camino. Is there a philosophy why we’re not doing that here even though [Backner] did Sand Hill Road and I was not supporting the option at the time? Mr. Gawf: I think that’s the key. There is a difference. Stanford is a different entity than the other sections of E1 Camino. I think there is that tradition of the open area along E1 Camino. From my perspective I think it creates a very great edge to a great university along there. It really sets it aside as different than the other sections of E1 Camino. Commissioner Butt: The previous general plan had a total square footage for development at Stanford of I think around 2.0 million square feet. Is that correct? Mr. Gawf: I’m not sure if it’s the previous Comprehensive Plan or the previous general use permit. Commissioner Burt: General use permit. Mr. Gawf: It was approximately 2.0 million square feet. Commissioner Burt: That included both academic and residential development? Mr. Gawf: Correct. Commissioner Burt: This current proposal speaks about the academic development and then sites 2,780 residential units. Do we have any kind of approximation of how many square feet would be involved in those 2,780 units? I realize we can only have an approximation of that. Mr. Gawf: I don’t. Maybe someone from Stanford or the County may have some better information. Just in my own mind I was using a figure of 4-5 million total square footage. So 2 million for the non-housing building area and another 1.5-2.0 plus for the housing area. If you wanted to compare the two, the 1989 plan that indicated 2.0 million square feet for all additional building without restriction of housing or non-housing to the present plan than it would be 2.0 million square feet compared to approximately 4.0 City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 million square feet. Again, someone from the County or Stanford may have better information. Vice Chair Bialson: Ed, before we get too far offI wanted to weigh in on the issue of using more density on E1 Camino. I agree with Owen, Bern and Jon. Any other issues with regard to housing? Bern. Commissioner Beecham: The.question has been brought up about a schedule for housing, a minimum amount of housing build or building housing prior to building other square footage that requires either additional workers or allows additional students, faculty, etc. Is Stanford going to be able to provide that kind of a schedule or a minimum that they will commit to doing? Mr. Larry Horton, Stanford: There have been a lot of questions asked intemally and externally about that-. Our November 15 plan will address that. I can’t tell you what we are going to do right now but it is our intention to move immediately on some of the housing, particularly the student housing that is critical, so we will be putting some of that up front. I would also like to comment that it is very important that since the direction of the Planning Commission and in our meetings with the Palo Alto Council’s ad-hoc committee everyone wanted us to concentrate housing and academic facilities in the core campus and to leave the foothills free. That has required that we do things with density and setbacks and things in order to enable us to do that. I also recall very vividly Commissioner Byrd’s comments in the Sand Hill Road process and our position was always that that was quite an appropriate housing spot and it would be used at a later date. We hoped to use it now but it wasn’t suitable as a substitute for what we were planning there. Vice Chair Bialson: Jon. Commissioner Schink: I want to make one general comment for the record. I was not at the meeting last night because I was out of town and my transportation options didn’t allow me to get back in time but I had a chance to watch the tape today and heard all the public testimony as well as the presentations. So I feel like I am up to speed to participate tonight. My last question on housing that I wanted to throw out is has Staff given any consideration to an option of allowing taller buildings in some of the housing locations? Mr. Gawf: Yes, we have especially in Escondido Village where I think there is oppommity to go up even higher than some of the proposals that are in the Stanford plan. It is sort of interesting, when I was told that there were higher buildings, six/seven story buildings, in Escondido Village I couldn’t visualize or recall them. I only noticed them when I went out there and specifically looked for the taller buildings. So I think there are some opportunities and that is one area. Cir. of Pa!o Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Just a follow up to the discussion of the potential for greater g’~ housing along the west side of E1 Camino and north of Palm. I’d like to ask the university representatives whether there have been any thoughts about a pedestrian corridor that would not only provide a linkage between that housing and the transit area Downtown but also a pedestrian linkage between Downtown, the transit station and the Stanford Shopping Center? Mr. David Newman, Director of Stanford Planning: Good evening. !’m David Newman, the university architect. Yes, as part of what had been dubbed a few years ago the "dream team project" the site at Quarry/El Camino was clearly considered to be transit oriented development wit the notion that at some point that three-way intersection at Quarry and E1 Camino would be extended at least from a pedestrian and potentially a shuttle but perspective to the train and bus station at University Avenue. Vice Chair Bialson: Any further questions on housing? Bern. Commissioner Beecham: For the Sand Hill Road project our call to Stanford talked about Stanford affiliated people having priority there but I don’t recall anymore what the commitment was that it would be a required affiliation. For the housing that we are talking about now on campus is the affiliation going to be a requirement and a commitment from Stanford? Mr. Gawf: Let me say that I’m trying to go through all the sites but yes, I believe it is. Mr. Horton: Yes. That is, this housing is for Stanford students, Stanford faculty, Stanford staff. People could directly connected with Stanford. We also hope that it will help relieve the housing shortage elsewhere but it is to house people near their jobs and near the school. Commissioner Beecham: Is it going to be limited guaranteed to those who have affiliations? Mr. Horton: Other will not be eligible to live there. Vice Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Ed, do I understand the general numbers correctly as I’ll cite them to you? The plan calls for a maximum but no, as yet established, minimum number of residential units. The maximum being 2,780. Then an increased estimated population due to the expanded programs of 683 graduate students, 583 post doctoral fellows, 303 faculty, and 632 staff, equaling 2,200 increased jobs or academic rolls on campus. Are those the basic numbers? Mr. Gawf: Yes, that is my understanding. That results in a net of approximately 590 additional units of all the additional individuals who are housed on campus. City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Burt: will be a net gain? So out of 2,780 housing units that we’ve heard about only 590 or so Mr. Gawf: That is my understanding. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Vice Chair Bialson: Any other questions with regard to housing? If not, then I will ask mine. This goes back to the issue of perhaps using a little more density along E1 Camino. I don’t know the exact boundaries of that site that is called the Arboretum at this point. It seems to me that it would be very helpful for Stanford to let us know what they consider the Arboretum and could we possibly get some, not massive amounts of housing, but some higher-density housing along the periphery of the Arboretum. Mr. Newman: As part of the process of the Sand Hill Road development we did look at the Arboretum and a site that Commissioner Byrd mentioned earlier, Quarry/El Camino. The trustees at that point in time designated that site as perspective housing at some point in the future as Mr. Horton said. At the same time we basically established that line that would be drawn if we took what was the former Lameta Drive which is on the west side of the main quad and extend that line that goes basically parallel to Quarry Road. It is where the tree line is, there is fence and so forth behind the psychiatry building, heads towards E1 Camino beside the Arboretum child care center. If you extend that straight out to E1 Camino the site that we designated in this Draft Plan would basically be to the northwest of that line. So everything from that line is basically the Arboretum child care center to the east to Palm Drive would be considered the Arboretum. Does that answer your question Commissioner? Vice Chair Bialson: It answers the first phase of it. Mr. Newman: The second side of Palm Drive we basically say that line includes the area between Galves which is Embarcadero in Palo Alto and Arboretum Road. That whole segment in there. Then again an area that is bounded more or less by the line from the comer of Galves and Arboretum near the Stanford Stadium directly down to Campus Drive and La Swain Street, then La Swain extends on in to the campus. So it is not quite straight it is triangulated towards the Stanford Stadium more or less. There used to be facilities in there and it is used sometimes for over-flow parking particularly at football games and special scheduled events like the Native American Pow-Wow. Vice Chair Bialson: So the Board of Trustees has named this the Arboretum but is there anything that would keep the Board from at some point in the future determining that it would not be set aside, that it does not have the function of an arboretum but rather can be used for other purposes? Mr. Newman: It is our proposal in this community plan process to identify a specific land use designation called "campus open space." That arboretum that I just described to Cir. of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 you would be so designated by the County if the community plan is accepted that and would be designated such by the Board of Trustees of Stanford University. Vice Chair Bialson: That would be applicable to them in terms of a commitment not to develop that area for a ten year period, is that what Stanford intends? Mr. Newman: An indefinite period on that campus open space which also would include Lake [Loganita] area, the general Palm Drive area in front of the quad and the original red barn or stable area which is about 13 acres. Mr. Horton: May I just add that campus open space designation for the arboretum for Lake [Loganita] and for the oval was one of the specific items that the Santa Clara County Planning Commission gave us as a recommendation. Ms. Wynne Furth, senior Assistant City Attorney: I had one comment I wanted to make. This is the first time that Stanford has been subject to a community plan. This is also the first time that the County has considered adopting a community plan. So it is a different regulatory framework than anybody is used to working with. With Stanford community plans were sort of invented backwards. In state law they were described as a feature under CEQA that entitled you to a comprehensive environmental review at the time that you adopt the community plan and very little environmental review afterwards. A community plan is basically a general plan for a specific geographic area within the County. The County at this point is considering a community plan which may or may not but probably would be implemented with zoning as well. Right now Stanford’s land is I believe all zoned in that area a A-1 which is one of their older and more open-ended zoning categories. So one of the things that may come out of this process is either the application of existing County zones to land within this planning area or the creation of new zones somewhat similar to the experience that your having with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation SOFA plan. I think what prompted me to say this that while the general use permit might have a ten year life the community plan isn’t bounded in time that way. Think of it as being like a general plan with underlying zoning and it is not intended to disappear after a certain number of years. It will be in place. It may be modified and reviewed but it is within the terms of government, permanent. Commissioner Schink: Could I ask Stanford a follow up question to one we were alluding to before? That has to do with the height of buildings. We wondered if you have looked at any eight story prototypes for housing to see if they fit anywhere within the character of the campus? Mr. Newman: Yes, Commissioner Schink, we have. There are two issues that quickly arise in that. The necessary recreation and community space around those buildings. We do have six and eight story buildings in that area right now. To introduce too many of those of course is to introduce a fairly intensive population in a small zone. I haven’t talked to Director Gawf about what sites he’s seen that I haven’t maybe but the area that is.in the center of that is kind of like a green belt city. It has community gardens, tennis courts, basketball facilities, it has tot lots for the parents with children, and it has parking. Cir. of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 We have proposed a very low parking ratio, in fact half of what Palo Alto’s would be for similar housing, but even at .75 people do need cars for some uses. Rather than burden them with the cost of structured parking that might come with higher-rise apartment buildings we’ve been thinking of trying to keep it low-rise and keep the surface parking. When I say low-rise we’re building four story right now and we’ve been generally looking at that as kind of an option that keeps the cost of the housing down and allows us to do surface parking. As you probably well know, you can go four stories in wood frame which is normally considerably cheaper than go.ing to a steel or concrete frame type of construction which higher-rise buildings or mid-rise buildings would require. So it is a cost issue. It is a support space, social space issue. And it is also, even at the lower parking ratio, a parking issue. We are trying to keep, if you understand of course these graduate students would be lower income averaging somewhere around $15-16,000 a year. In creating this housing we still have to keep that in mind as to how to amortize the cost of that housing over time and keep the rents affordable for the students that would live there. So all of those things push and pull against what might be just an urban design problem by itself. Commissioner Schink: I don’t want to dwell on this too much but I think it is an important issue and consideration of how you use your land. Have you looked at a prototype that maybe had very minimum parking with it up around the Hoover Hospital area to see if you could go eight stories in that area? Mr. Newman: No, not at the Hoover Hospital area. We are just starting to model that. In fact we’ve been looking at your SRO facility that you just completed in Palo Alto as very nice affordable type of housing. That sort of housing we really haven’t gotten into the depth of programming with the post-docs and the medical residents other than to start to look at the basic demographics. Again, there are a lot of people that are in that case single parents and so on that may still need a car for one reason or another. Although we are intending to provide day care facilities as part of this package. Vice Chair Bialson: Bern. Commissioner Beecham: If you are willing I’d like to return to something Wynne said that is not exactly housing but is more framework for us. Wynne mentioned that the community plan is more or less a permanent document. I guess I need a clarification of what are the meanings of these various documents and what’s enforceable in them. I presume in fact what’s going to be enforceable is the general use permit -- not the application but the permit itself. I have been kind of imagining that the community plan is words that help us understand the application but the community plan itself is not enforceable by anybody upon anybody. Can you clarify those two documents? Ms. Furth: I can say a bit and others from the County or from the City Planning Staff may wish to say more. You are correct in the sense that a community plan is an aspect of a general plan. It is not something that you ordinarily cite somebody as a code violator for violating. But it does govern the terms of the permits that are issues. Depending upon what kinds of provisions come up in this community plan, depending upon what the City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 42 43 44 County determines needs to be enforceable, some of it may well be translated into zoning as well. Operational issues that don’t involve issuing building permits for example, or occupancy permits, typically aren’t included in either zoning or comprehensive general plans/community plans. Those are more typically in use permits or development agreements. I suspect that it is accurate to say that at this point the County couldn’t tell us exactly how this will all turn out. They have made it clear in their comments that they are looking for something which provides a great deal of flexibility to Stanford in lots of kinds of decision-making but which is coupled with essentially performance standards which will be enforceable. This is what they requested in their comments in their most recent Staff report. I think one of the challenges for the County and for the City in commenting this is determining what might be appropriate mechanisms for enforcing whatever kind of performance standards ultimately turn out to be important. Mr. Gawf: Sarah Jones is here from the County. I know that the County has spent a great deal of time looking at this issue and exploring this issue. I would ask her if she has any comments on this. Ms. Sarah Jones, Santa Clara County Planning Office: Just to expand on what your attorney said, the community plan will be adopted as an amendment to the County General Plan. So anything that is in community plan can only be then later amended by the County Board of Supervisors. All policies in the community plan have the same stature as general plan policies or comprehensive plan policies in Palo Alto. Anything that is done to implement the plan has to be consistent with the policies that are in that plan. That would include any new zoning designations that are used and the zoning could also only be amended by the Board of Supervisors. That also applies to the general use permit which would need to be consistent with the community plan which is granted by the Planning Commission not the Board of Supervisors and could be modified by the Planning Commission not the Board of Supervisors. You are correct in your assumption that it’s the general use permit and not the general use permit application that will be enforced. The general use permit we are anticipating, and I see no reason to think this would be different, the general use permit will have a number of conditions of approval. Those will come from the community plan possibly, also from the environmental impact report, things that are identified as mitigations will probably be folded in as conditions of approval for the general use permit. One other point that I wanted to make, this is maybe going a little farther into the details of the existing general use permit than you really want to go. The areas that are the E1 Camino setbacks are what’s called special condition areas under the current general use permit. Those special condition areas basically involve requirements for additional use permits for any development in those areas. So by bringing those portions of the arboretum and the El Camino Real setbacks into the larger community plan area Stanford really is looking at development at the edges of the arboretum as Commissioner Bialson was suggesting. Ciw. of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Beecham: Let me try to understand a bit more the relationship between the community plan versus the use permit. Can the use permit have anything in it that is contrary or inconsistent with the community plan as finally adopted? Ms. Jones: No, I’ll give you an example. The commum~y plan we would not recommend approval of any community plan that didn’t have policies regarding development in the open space areas, south of Juniper Serra Boulevard. The general use permit or any other use permit that would be granted under this plan it could propose but could not be approved development in the foothills that is contrary to the policies stated in the community plan regarding that development. Commissioner Beecham: The community plan at this point has no end date, no end of life basically. I presume it would be looked at it again at the end of whatever this permit period is but that document goes on until and unless changed. Ms. Jones: Exactly. Commissioner Beecham: So that if there were a condition put in there with no end date that condition just continues perpetually until someone comes to the County with reasons to change it. Ms. Jones: Exactly. Just as with any general plan that is reviewed at a 15 to 20 year period so would the community plan as well. Vice Chair Bialson: Do you have a follow up to that? Thank you. Owen. Commissioner Byrd: This may be too technical to interest anyone but me. Why didn’t you call this a specific plan since specific plans are defined in the government code and community plans are an amorphous creation of CEQA? Ms. Jones: We didn’t call this a specific plan because specific plans have certain requirements in the government code that we didn’t really think were fitting to Stanford. They are also used in cases that are not really comparable to the situation of Stanford with a single property owner in an area that is really already developed. It was partially a semantic issue but partially issues related to government codes are just for financing plans and things like that. Commissioner Byrd: Then one last follow up to Bem’s question. In our community we understand the hierarchy of the Comp Plan which is implemented by zoning which in certain zones require permits that are consistent with zoning. Would it be safe to say that Stanford’s land use will be govemed by a community plan that will be implemented by zoning which will require under the general use permit specific permits for specific activities consistent with the zoning consistent with the plan? Ms. Jones: I think it is clear if you take the word general off the use permit. The way that the general use permit came about or the reason that a general use permit is used is City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ,.3 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 that the A-1 zoning district which your attorney referred to essentially requires a use permit for any use other than a single family house or a farm. So rather than requiring separate use permits for each individual building at Stanford in 1989 and actually previously, I think the first general use permit was in the 1960’s, these sort of more blanket use permits were given for development activity at Stanford. So the general use permit is just a big use permit. It is consistent with the zoning as it stands right now. If we don’t make any changes in the zoning they’ll still be an A-1 zoning district that still requires a use permit. That’s why we are going to pursue a general use permit. There is a very strong likelihood however that new zoning districts will be created for at least portions of the campus which would also require use permits. Vice Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. That framework helps us understand this. Pat. Commissioner Burt: This question is probably directed toward the Stanford representatives. Can you review for us the shortage of on-campus housing for particular categories of students and other campus needs? Mr. Horton: With respect to students we now house about 92% of our undergraduates. We think that is about full capacity. So we house essentially all the undergraduates on campus that we can. With the increasing difficulty and the increasing rents we may see some more coming on campus. We are essentially full for undergraduates. With graduate students we now house about 45% of our graduate students. After we complete the housing that is under construction it will be about 50%. Last year in the housing draw, every year the graduates have to go in to get a draw, over 1,000 students were unable to obtain housing. So there has been a very severe shortage for graduate students even though we’ve implemented some temporary measures such as leasing apartments nearby and re-renting them out at student rates to the students. There is unquestionably a very severe shortage for students. We also have in the audience one of the graduate students who’s worked most closely on this and is full of data on that subject. With respect to post doctoral fellows and hospital residents, post doctoral fellows we actually have almost no housing now for post doctoral fellows. Post doctoral fellows are people who have their Ph.D.’s but still are going back for additional training especially in the bio-medical area there is an extremely long period of training. They have exceptionally low salaries and are a very needy category. We have almost no housing for them. This will provide some housing for them. With hospital residents, we have housing for some hospital residents on campus fight now but they are clearly a category that has a great deal of need. Commissioner Burt: Can you convert these percentages into shortfalls of numbers of students and add the category of shortfalls for faculty? How many students? You say you have 45% of the grad students housed what the need? Mr. Horton: David do you have those numbers? We have some numbers here. City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ._3.3 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Vice Chair Bialson: Pat, are you looking for number of housing units? Commissioner Burt: No, number of students who need housing on campus and currently can’t receive it. Grad Student: Currently last year 1,071 students were denied housing on campus when you count in spouses and children that is about 1,300 beds. That is not counting 200 off campus leasedapartments who didn’t have to go through the lottery. So that ups the number to over 1,500. In addition to that, there are a lot of people who don’t apply through the lottery because either they don’t think they have a chance or they don’t want to get kicked off later, or don’t want to wait for results, or they don’t want to move. When you combine all those together that is almost half of the off campus people who probably would apply if the housing was there, they knew they could get into it, and they knew it was possible to keep renewing on campus. So it is easily 1,900 students and could be more than that. It is hard to know until it all plays out. Commissioner Burt: Are these grad students gpecifically that you are referring to? Grad Student: Yes. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Mr. Horton, how about among the post doctorate fellows what is the shortfall, approximately? Mr. Horton: We probably have about 1,200 post doctorate fellows and we have essentially no housing for post doctorate fellows. Commissioner Burt: How many would be seeking on campus housing or how many would you like to provide housing for? Mr. Horton: I think for the post doctorate fellows we’re going to make a contribution to housing post doctoral fellows. That is we 350 apartments that would be set aside for hospital residents and post doctoral fellows. They will be divided among those categories. I should make it clear, we do not at all believe that we are solving the regional housing problem. We are making a contribution in housing building what we think we will be able to do over the next decade but it is not going to be enough. Commissioner Burt: Among the faculty? Mr. Horton: Among faculty we did report on the faculty housing recently. We have about 841 homes both condominiums and single family homes on the campus. There has been a marked increase in the number of retired faculty, emeritus. That is true in all of our society that we have a graying society. So we are housing far fewer of our active faculty as a percentage than we were ten years ago. What we are hoping to do with this housing, if you look at the trend lines you will find that our population will continue to be graying. We will continue to have increasing numbers for at least the next decade or so. City of Palo Alto Page 15 So that by adding more housing we will be able to try to go back to the percentage of ~ ~*~ active faculty that we were housing. Commissioner Burt: What percentage are you hoping to house among the faculty? Mr. Horton: I believe right now it’s about 30% of the active faculty that we house. I hope we could take that up to 40%. Commissioner Butt: How many families would that be? The additional 10%. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 4! 42 43 44 Mr. Horton: We have 430 units that we will be adding. There will be some single faculty or staff there but predominantly it will be family housing. Commissioner Burt: But you are also planning on adding faculty. Mr. Horton: Yes. It is projected because of research opportunities. There will be a modest increase in faculty. Vice Chair Bialson: Does that answer your question Pat? Commissioner Butt: I think so. Vice Chair Bialson: Any other questions from the Commission? Commissioner Beecham: I’ve got a follow up on that just to make sure that some in some drawing are approximately correct. Pat pointed out earlier that the net new housing, the net gain in housing, over gain in employment was about 600 housing units. Mr. Horton: I didn’t do those calculations. Yes, that’s about right. Commissioner Beecham: As I look at the numbers that were just run off here in terms of those desiring campus housing that comes up to maybe 3,000. So if there is a net gain of about 600 that’s taking care of roughly 20% of those who do not live on campus but desire to. Is that roughly correct? Mr. Horton: Yes. As we all face right here because of transportation and the commute problems we expect to see increased demand from people who may live elsewhere who would like to live on campus. Vice Chair Bialson: Seeing no other questions with regard to housing it would be my plan to hold off on making comments until we questions all the elements unless the Commission feels otherwise. Owen? City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1| 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Commissioner Byrd: Because we’ve now briefed ourselves on housing I would find it easier to make housing comments now before me move on to questions on a different subject. Vice Chair Bialson: Memories being what they are I think you are probably right. Okay, do you want to start? Commissioner Byrd: Sure. I think as we begin this comment process it is important to remind ourselves about our jurisdiction. This is a plan that is under the County’s jurisdiction. So the City is only advisory to the County and we’re only advisory to the Council. So we are way down the food chain. Having said that I think it then makes sense for us to speak to the recommendations that are in the Staff report and if we want to modify them or add to them and speak in broad brush strokes, I think that is the most likely way that we will be heard. I am very enthusiastic about the plan’s emphasis on providing additional housing. I think it is one of the plan’s most exciting elements. I also think that our City Staff report is correct that the unit type and development standards need to be made more specific. I am enthusiastic about Commissioner Schink’s suggestions that we look for example at truly urban densities in at least certain locations for all the obvious reasons, i.e., efficient use of the land base, and supporting transit and all those sorts of things. On the issue of the net gain I remain concerned that we are only picking up about 600 units when there is a need as Bem deduced of about 3,000. You can chip away at that two ways. You can either add more units which I would encourage you to consider. You can also scale back on those activities that generate additional demand for housing by generating fewer jobs or creating fewer new student opportunities or research opportunities. I think that Stanford and the County would be well served by looking at that equation and seeing if there is a way to get it in better balance. In terms of the open space area along E1 Camino Real north of Escondido Village that is my preferred school site so we’ll have to circle back on that. Whatever use emerges there, I think we can state more forcefully that that is an area that should be considered part of the core campus and is appropriate for development if the nature of the uses proposed there justify the toss of the open space amenity. I also think that the reference to the area of the arboretum, or the area east of Hoover Pavilion, could be further modified to make clear that in fact the City is very enthusiastic about housing opportunities in that space. That if it wants to preserve some modest open space buffer to mitigate visual impacts from E1 Camino, well so be it. But frankly, as other Commissioner’s have said, E1 Camino is an urban corridor and is appropriately an urban corridor and if it become urbanized along Stanford that is consistent with its treatment in the rest of our City. Vice Chair Bialson: Thank you Owen. Bem. Ctty of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Beecham: I’ve got a procedural question for the Chair and the Staff on ", whether the output of this meeting is going to be a series of our individual comments or does one expect to have a motion on different aspects? Vice Chair Bialson: My understanding that there will be no motion. What is the Staff’s request? Mr. Gawf: Actually it is whatever the wish of the Planning Commission is in transmitting their comments to the Council. I actually anticipated a motion at the end and that is why we did our Staff recommendations so that you could take those add or subtract or modify those. Again, it is however the Planning Commission thinks you can best transmit your thoughts to the City Council. My assumption is that the City Council will then at the end of their discussion provide some type of motion that I will then take forward to the County. Vice Chair Bialson: Owen? Commissioner Byrd: We’ve had some success on other policy based subjects in having Staff synthesize our comments into fairly accurate summaries of what most or all of us think. They also are pretty honest about noting where we are not in full agreement. So I’d be comfortable trusting that process. Vice Chair Bialson: That would be my preference. What do the Commissioners think? Commissioner Beecham: I think it is much easier on us and quicker maybe a little more difficult for Council but that way we don’t have to wordsmith some consensus among ourselves. Vice Chair Bialson: I would appreciate being able to go forward that way if Staff is agreeable. Mr. Gawf: I am if I could clarify two things. One is I like the comment about quicker but secondly, I think we are beyond pretty honest, I think we try our very best to reflect your comments to the Council. That sounds fine. Vice Chair Bialson: Thank you. Bern do you want to make any additional comments to those made by Owen? Commissioner Beecham: I’ll try to make mine quick as well. On housing, sooner than later more than less. On E1 Camino in spite of our discussion, it is funny how one gets attached to what’s there. I’m certainly attached and I think the community is attached to a green belt. I think there is a real value in having that as the entrance to the campus so you see this is Stanford and it is in fact a separate institution. So in that regard I don’t favor housing or necessarily other development coming fight up through E1 Camino. Vice Chair Bialson: Jon. C’i& of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Schink: I believe that Owen did a good job of summarizing what my feelings are. I would just like to add a little bit of emphasis on including some recommendation from the City where we think that flexibility in housing concepts that are greater than what might be allowed in our current zoning, i.e., taller buildings, minimal parking requirements should be available to Stanford. Vice Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Butt: I would like to explore discussion among the Commission members of whether there should be a goal in the plan or at least one recommended by the Staff report to reduce the unmet housing needs by some specified percentage of the existing unmet housing. That the combination of new housing demands and new housing units would end up an achievement of a certain reduction in the current unmet housing need. Vice Chair Bialson: I think that is something that you can certainly address in your comments and they would be incorporated by Staff. I don’t necessarily feel we need to go through a discussion on that point unless the Commission members feel strongly otherwise. I think after you make your comments with regard to that matter we can support or not support you with regard to that. Is that okay with you Pat? Commissioner Burt: That’s the sense of what I meant. Vice Chair Bialson: The stage is yours. Commissioner Burt: First I wanted to actually get a sense of whether a concept of a percentage goal is one that is something that other Commission members think of in concept and then we can discuss what percentage we might look to. Vice Chair Bialson: Could I just get some indication of whether or not that is something that the Commissioners here feel is appropriate? Commissioner Beecham: I’m certainly willing to talk about it. Commissioner Schink: I think it is such an obvious need and for us to spend a lot of time and effort defining goals that I just have to believe we are all in the same page on, is going to detract from our ability to really discuss essential policy issues that are going to be hard to reach consensus on anyhow. So I’m not sure that I want to try to come up with a formula for something that I sincerely believe the applicant and everyone else in town is on the same page. Vice Chair Bialson: I’ll weigh in here and say that I sort of look to the position of this Planning Commission and what I believe Owen referred to as the bottom rung and perhaps we would best be served by making our comments succinct and something that Staffcould put in our report to both Council and to the County. So I’d rather not go through discussion on such a basic point as that. City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Byrd: If the numbers that we were given were true and that roughly 20% of the unmet need is proposed to be met by this plan that seems inadequate to me. I wish that that plan was making a far larger dent in the need, closer to 50% or more. Perhaps that could be communicated in some form. Otherwise we are not getting far enough fast. enough which was the genesis of my comments about either chipping away at the jobs and/or the students. You either chip away at the jobs or you add more housing but you do a better job with the percentage and meet the unmet need. Vice Chair Bialson: I think your comments are well taken and they are as substantial as I think are needed but why don’t we let Pat speak to this and see how the Commissioners feel with regard to supporting his position. Commissioner Burt: I think Bern had a comment. Commissioner Beecham: In a way I think this issue is going to be taken care of by the daily trip limit. If the daily trip limit is kept where it is then Stanford must keep housing apace with job growth or student growth or whatever other growth there is. It doesn’t necessarily say they are going to begin beating the curve but it means they at least stay even with it. Commissioner Burt: As Stanford has stated one of their objectives is to meet some of the unmet demand then the commute limit would not actually address that I don’t think. I would also say that I think the percentage that Owen referred to is approximately what I had in mind. I’d like to see 50% of the unmet demand be met by this plan. Vice Chair Bialson: Is there anything further? Commissioner Beecham: I just wonder if this is clear enough for some of Pat’s purposes. What I tried to clearly say is I prefer more housing than less. I’ve asked for a schedule, a build requirement, a minimum commitment for those items. If those things come in their final plan I think we will have that information to deal with at that point. Vice Chair Bialson: That is my sense as well. We’ve already indicated we want more and I think getting specific at this point is a little premature. Owen. Commissioner Byrd: As you know I too want more but if more comes along with more jobs we’re not catching up. So I want more framed in a way that describes more catch up. Maybe we’ve now said enough on this for Staff to synthesize. I think that’s a more subtle definition of more than just gross more. Vice Chair Bialson: I think we agree with you on that point. I think it is something that has been said enough times for Staff to appreciate. Is there any other comment that you have, Pat? I think we’ve spoken to the housing element and all indicated that I also support Owen’s comments and Jon’s comments. I would appreciate more housing along Ci& of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 E1 Camino and the reflect my feelings fringe of the arboretum. I think that again Owen and Jon’s comments on the matter. I think at this point we should address the middle school position in the Staff report although it is not in anything that Stanford proposed it would seem to be very directly related to housing. I’d like to have the Commissioners speak to that issue. Owen, would you care to start? Okay, I think Bern should. Commissioner Byrd: Clearly the demographic data suggests that we need an additional middle school site in town. As someone who’s children will reach middle school age within the life of this plan that makes great good sense to me. The question of course from a map perspective is where is there a site if at all? I don’t mean to substitute our modest review for Stanford expertise in its own land base, the work that has been done by the Council sub-committee, the work that’s been performed by the district in its supporters. So at a basic level I would second Staff’s desire to provide for a middle school of an appropriate size somewhere in the plan. I happen to think that the site north of Escondido along E1 Camino is in fact the best site of all because of its proximity to so many different neighborhoods. It would essentially serve most or all of the neighborhoods west of the tracks in town, from Ventura to Barron Park to others. It would provide an opportunity for the district and the Department of Education at Stanford to pursue this notion of some sort of a model school together. So that’s a site. The idea makes sense to me. The need seems compelling. The site I think deserves some exploration. And finally, I think that it’s justified. I think the County would be assisting this community in working this issue to closure with Stanford or imposing it on Stanford because the need is so great and the demand generated by Stanford is so great that in land use terms there is a nexus. It should be done. Vice Chair Bialson: Thank you Owen. Bern. Commissioner Beecham: I certainly agree with Owen that there is a need for a school. Carolyn [Tukers] last night talked about some of the numbers behind schools and the students on campus and so on. There is a issue that I think the plan should clarify in terms of how does the university contribute to the enrollment here in Palo Alto. How do they contribute in every way that they do toward fulfilling the cost of those? There are a number of ways that they do already. There are a number of ways that one would expect a normal homeowner to do it that Stanford doesn’t do. I think we need to have that entire picture before us as we go forward to make sure we make a fully informed decision on the school. I understand Owen has a site in mind. As I looked at the plan one thing I decided to do was not to try to pick the best site and have anyone say no, we can’t do it there pick another one. I think it’s up to Stanford generally and the school district to come up with an appropriate site with an appropriate design and go forward with it. I certainly think what I’ve heard in general and in the press about Stanford and the school district working on a state-of-the-art school is a wonderful idea and the community would be so much richer for it. I think it is clear to me that the need is there and I will leave most of the negotiations in my mind to be between Stanford University and the school district. My presumption is that there will be a school site in this plan in the end. C?ty of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Vice Chair Bialson: Jon. Commissioner Schink: Stanford made some good arguments yesterday about their contributions to the school districts. However, after you listen to Carolyn [Tukers] remarks it certainly would seem to me that they’re not fulfilling all of the responsibilities that they should. I think we all have the same goal to see good education for our children and Stanford more than anyone would be on the same page with that. I think Stanford needs to go back and look at what their fair share is on this question and at least be able to come forward and clearly answer the questions that were put forward on the public record yesterday. Right now I feel that the school district has made a very compelling case that Stanford needs to make a much more significant contribution on this issue. Vice Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Ed, does Staff have any calculations or did they receive from the school district any calculations on the revenue that is lost to the district as a result of either the present students or the anticipated students? Mr. Gawf: No, I have not. I’m not sure if the City Manager has but I have not. I’m sure if she had I would have received that. So I think the answer is I have not received that information. Commissioner Burt: Owen has just pointed out that we have the school superintendent in the audience. Is that an issue that he could shed any light on? ’Vice Chair Bialson: That would be very much appreciated. Ms. Furth: I would remind you that we are limited at this point to asking questions of those who provide information at the earlier hearing. I was not there and I don’t know if the school superintendent was. Vice Chair Bialson: Can Staff take the question that was posed to them and refer it to the school district representative in the audience? Ms. Furth: We really shouldn’t be gathering that level of information here. I think it is obviously important information. It is clearly something that we need to develop for you in the future. There is another important series of questions that we don’t have answers to, we checked briefly with the County and they’re going to do further research. That is the extent of the County’s ability to make any requirements of Stanford in this area. Of course, parties can always agree to do things when they have consensus on an issue but you will recall from our own planning efforts in the City that we have been preempted by the State. It was while comprehensive plans were originally intended to make sure that cities were not developed without adequate schools and other public resources in recent years our ability to require the provision of school sites or school funding has been CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 preempted and replaced with school fees. Neither we as the City or the County has the kind of broadly based power to require that as we once did. Commissioner Byrd: May I ask a follow up? Because this isn’t a legislative decision within the jurisdiction of the City and our comments are purely advisory, under that situation when our own Staff can’t give us the information we need and has at its disposal consultants or experts it seems appropriate ’and the Commission has a desire to at least get the information so that its comments can be informed, does that make sense in this setting? Ms. Furth: I don’t think you will fatally jeopardize anybody’s fights by getting additional information. I understand your frustration. It’s your discretion. Vice Chair Bialson: I think we would like to get the information so I’ll decide on this matter and take the heat if there is any. Mr. Don Phillips, Superintendent, Palo Alto Unified School District: We are in the process of doing an analysis of the projected units and development in Stanford to try to understand the costs that will be associated with that growth. At the present time all of our school sites are at capacity or exceeding capacity. So if you look at it as kind of an equilibrium what we do know is that we are going to either need to be able to open up additional sites, which means we need remodel, renovate or build new sites. We also know at the high school or middle school level we do not have a site presently to utilize to fund that. Vice Chair Bialson: Mr. Phillips if you could respond to Commissioner Burt’s request for information I think that would be the most helpful rather than making a general statement. I think that has been covered by a member of your Board that appeared yesterday before us and also I see a 15 or 24 page letter from the district that was delivered to us. Mr. Phillips: The reason I was making broader comments is I do not have the specific numbers tonight to give to you. We are doing that analysis presently and we can clearly have that in a timely manner following up from the new projections from the demographers which is what we needed to have to actually run those numbers. We are in the process of doing that analysis now. Commissioner Burt: My question was more specifically the financial shortfall per student that resides on Stanford campus as a result of not receiving typical revenues that we would have from Palo Alto residents. Mr. Phillips: There really are two funding sources. There is both the short term for facilities and then the ongoing operations costs. You’re question is around the operating costs. Presently the utility tax is not paid by the residents on the Stanford University nor in the Los Alto Hills that are part of the school district. So as new students move into the district those dollars are split and cover children from Stanford University and from Los City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 4! 42 43 44 45 Altos Hills who are part of the school district. So it really reduces the number of dollars behind each child that we are able to provide. As a basic aid district our funding comes from the local property tax. There are 123 properties, is our understanding, that are exempted on Stanford University, Escondido Village being one of those. Those students coming to our schools only receive $120.00 from the State yet we spend close to $7,000 per student to educate them. So as more units come on campus that are either exempted or new units or new units that come on, once again the broader tax base, the broader community will-be covering and carrying the cost for those in terms of the ongoing operational costs. Vice Chair Bialson: Bern. Commissioner Beecham: I just want to say that I think there is a lot of information that we need on this. We need to look at it comprehensively. As Mr. Phillips mentioned there is an operating Cost, there is capital cost to the schools, there are many costs associated. We are not going to get that in the short-term. I would suggest that we need the details which we must have for the future report. Vice Chair Bialson: Any Commissioners wish to speak to that? I tend to agree with Bern. I appreciate the availability of Mr. Phillips but at this point in I think that’s about all the information. Thank you very much. Mr. Gawf: If I could just add, what we have tonight is the draft application and plan. The kind of information that you’re asking for is exactly the kind of feedback we need so that we can go away, get that information, and either they can include it in the formal plan submission or we can get it during the formal plan review process. So I think it is good to identify the additional information needs that we have. Vice Chair Bialson: Did you have further comments, Pat? Commissioner Burt: I had a question for the Stanford representatives. Last night they mentioned that there would be child care facilities as part of the development. Can you provide some additional information on how much child space is planned? Mr. Horton: It is our intention and it is something that we will have as part of the plan. " We’ll have child care nearby the new housing units and complexes we develop. Let me also say we too are also deeply interested in the school problem. We to want to find a lot of the facts, get the information, to make sure that everyone of those facts are available. The schools are extraordinarily important to Stanford and we are still working with the school district and want to have a positive outcome for all. Commissioner Burt: Mr. Horton, is it Stanford intention to provide all the child care requirements that would result from the additional residents and young children that would be added to the campus population as a result of this plan? City of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Horton: You’re asking are we planning to provide child care for all the children that we are adding? Commissioner Burt: Correct. Mr. Horton: The reason I can’t answer that question immediately is I don’t know. We are going to be providing child care. We obviously want to provide it for those who are there. David may have a more precise answer to that. Mr. Newman: Simply put, 2,000 of the 2,780 units are single students. They are efficiency apartments or SRO type of things. So we are talking about up to, in our proposal, a maximum of 780 units. A good percentage of which will also house single individuals in the areas ofpost-docs and hospital residents. What we estimate is that we will have one child care facility available for each of housing approximating the scale of the child care facilities we have on campus like the arboretum facility. So we haven’t reached any stage of programming to give you an exact answer to that question knowing a bit about child care centers and specificity therein. I think it would be premature to answer that either yes or no. What we are trying to do is get to being able to answer that question yes in terms of all of the family housing being provided with child care facilities pre-K6 for people on campus. Both for the simple reason of providing adjacent child care facilities as family support and also from the standpoint of managing trips on and off the campus in association with child care. Does that answer your question Commissioner Burt? Commissioner Burt: I wasn’t presuming that you would be able to cite specific numbers of students and child care spots that you would be providing but just whether it is your overall intention to meet the new child care demand that would result from this housing. Mr. Newman: Yes, it is our goal. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Vice Chair Bialson: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: Pat I think you should go a step further. I think that you should recommend that the City encourage the County to require, in its community plan, Stanford to meet on campus whatever new child care demand is created by new development either residential or staff, bringing their children with them during the day, as a result of the community plan. Commissioner Burt: I would concur with you on that Owen whether you state it or I do. Vice Chair Bialson: With regard to schools let’s try to wrap it up. The one issue that is mentioned in the Staff report and I don’t think we discussed I believe because it is generally accepted by the Commission is the elementary school impacts created by the Ci& of Palo Alto Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ..3,9 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 additional housing should be assessed and addressed, I thin what we are saying is that is a perfectly appropriate thing for us to request from Stanford. I see your hand. Commissioner Burt: One other brief comment. There has been discussion of a need for a third middle school in the school district. I think there is an additional need for that third middle school to be located certainly to the west of Alma and preferably to the west of Ei Camino. If we look at the breakdown of the City and where we have the physical barriers of major arterials of E1,Camino, Alma and the train tracks, we presently have all of the middle school students who reside to the west of Alma having to cross anywhere from one to all three of those major arterials to reach the two current middle schools. So there is an added advantage to locating the school to the west of E1 Camino. Vice Chair Bialson: I would speak to this issue by saying that I understand Owen’s desire for the particular location he mentioned but I tend to agree with Bern that it would be up to Stanford to determine what site would be best. I think that Pat’s comments with regard to the desirability of a location in that area for a middle school is fight on. I think at this point we are through discussing the issue of schools. I’d like to go to circulation and parking at this time. I’ve started with Owen each time. How about you Bem, would you care to address that issue? Commissioner Beecham: I’ve noticed Jon always goes last. Commissioner Beecham: He didn’t seem as anxious as you did. Why don’t you start Bern? Commissioner Beecham: I was trying to get out of this one. I think the issues on circulation and parking, Stanford is asking for 2,700 parking spaces? Most of that is going to be used for the residential applications, some I presume for additional job growth on campus. One concern I have is that I understand anecdotally at least that more and more people are parking off campus and taking the Marguerite into campus. If that is in fact a true condition I think that Stanford needs to be aware of it and address that type of problem which I think is probably new from history. On circulation I think the key point probably is the daytime car trip limit. I think it is critical that we keep that limit. I think that will force Stanford to keep their housing apace at least with job and student growth. I think Stanford has done a good job in the past in their car element. In fact, we kind of look at Stanford and say, "oh they’ve got a Marguerite we can do that too. They’ve got parking controls, we can do that too." So I look forward to more creative uses by Stanford to address those problems. I think a key on the circulation issue is to keep the daily trip limit in place. Vice Chair Bialson: Pat would you care to say something? Commissioner Burt: Ed, can you review for us the parking proposals for the Draft Plan? How many of them would be for the new residences and how many would be for essentially new jobs on campus? Ctty of Palo Alto Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Gawf: It will take me a second to find the information. I think the total number of -- ,-" ~-" ~ spaces is 2,795 or approximately 2,800. Let me look up what the breakdown is between ’ ~ them. Vice Chair Bialson: Is there someone from Stanford who has that number handy? Mr. Gawf: I think David spent a lot more time writing this plan than I have reading it. Mr. Newman: The parking ratio for the student housing as I said earlier is .75 which is about half of what Palo Alto’s is for similar housing at 1.5 spaces per bed. So that’s about 1,800 ! think Ed. I think other parking is approximately 950 which is less than half of the 2,200 that we are estimating would come through either new graduate students, post-docs, faculty or staff. That approximates the rate of single occupancy vehicle use at Stanford. It was last verified in the 1990 census to be over 50% of the people were using some form of what We call TDM as opposed to driving alone. Our expectation is that that’s continued so that the ratio here is somewhat related to that. It is also related to that there has been some increase in people from the general community coming to Stanford for such things as the Stanford Museum, continuing education activities both at the medical center and the general campus and so on. So while certainly a percentage of that 2,200, not 100%, will live on campus because they want to live on campus and we’ll provide parking at that .75 ratio for rental housing, the remaining would be for some increment of growth in staff and students but also to accommodate the desire for the community to use a lot of the facilities that exist at Stanford. Commissioner Burt: We may be looking at this whole formula on the basis of monitoring the commute trips. When I look at the number of spaces we have I think 945 new non-resident parking spaces created. Out of the housing that would be provided for non-single students, maybe another 700 potential off campus commute trips, from the campus leading off for spouses or whatever. Are you reconciling these numbers so that they make sense in a no new commute trip formula? Mr. Newman: Yes. Commissioner Butt: They add up? Mr. Newman: Yes. That’s why it’s 945 and not some other number. Commissioner Burt: Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Bialson: Owen? Jon? Commissioner Schink: I wanted to see ifI could get a little bit more information. I think it is going to be a critical question. On page 8 of the County Staff Report there is a comment about two-thirds of the way down the page that says, the environmental analysis for the community plan may conclude that no net new trips requirement is not City of Palo Alto Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 3...3 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 feasible. Alternative mitigation measures may need to be identified if the situation occurs. What mitigation measures would those possibly be? Mr. Gawf: I want to ask Sarah to help me on some potential mitigation but as Sarah is coming up let me talk a little bit about this no net new commute trips. In the 1989 general use permit there was that goal. The way it was determined whether it was met or not was through a fairly complicated program that actually was explained to me and it took a couple of hours.to understand all.the nuances of it. It was in some way I felt much more theoretical than actually counting real trips. One of the things that we’ve said, one of the things that Stanford has proposed, is that we would go and count real trips during that period of time so we would really know whether there are net new trips or not. The significance of this among other things is that in 1989 formula housing was counted as a good trip. In other words, not a net commute trip. In fact I think it may have been subtracted from the number that you may have had. As you know, housing trips even if they are on campus, ~here are other trips besides just work trips. So it may have an impact that will be different than what the 1989 formula and sort of conclusion has been over the last ten years. We’re not quite sure how that will turn out but I think it puts more emphasis on Stanford to really look at that peak period of time and to be more creative or innovative in addressing that need. Some of the thoughts that I would have is stepping back and looking at the commute period of time and include Stanford in this consideration as a regional issue which it is. We’ve just recently set up a transportation committee of representatives from Stanford, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Palo Alto to look at shuttle systems since three of the four jurisdictions are either in or starting shuttle systems, transportation issues, parking issues, the whole transportation and parking issue from a sub-regional basis. So I could see some mitigation coming out of Stanford’s efforts that might deal with commute trips off campus for example. So there may be an increase on campus of commute trips but they compensate because a trip is a trip. Going through Page Mill whether it comes from Stanford or whether it comes from another jurisdiction it is still a trip. So there may be ways that they can compensate that may not be directly reducing a trip going through the campus. That’s at least, as I read the material and thought about it, that’s at least one of the thoughts that I had. I’m sure Sarah had something very specific mind as she wrote the County Staff Report. Ms. Jones: I think what we were thinking on the County Staff level was exactly what Ed was referring to. Currently we are using a formula and the short version of that is that adjusted daytime population is calculated using something very complex that is extremely difficult to understand or monitor. So we have a calculation of population and then we have a calculation of how many housing units or beds have been added on the campus during the same period. They are subtracted from the population so the trips that need to mitigated are the population minus the number of housing units added. Then those trips need to be mitigated through means such as the Marguerite Shuttle or bicycle systems or other kinds of transportation demand management measures on the campus. So it is done purely through a formula. Housing units are in fact subtracted from trips. As Ed mentioned, we all know that people who live on the campus are still going to drive on and offthe campus sometimes even though it probably would be an overall reduction in work trips. So one thing that is a really important consideration for us is we don’t Cir. of Palo Alto Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 want to have policies that are canceling each other out. We’ve just talked about how important housing is and the need for more housing, if the transportation side of it is a limitation on that that’s an issue of concern that we -eally need to be very aware of and very understanding of throughout this process. So need to be structuring our policies in a way that we’re not canceling things out. Havil~. said that, we also need to be structuring them in a way that we’re not creating a huge impact on local streets. So if our analysis bears out that once you’re really counting trips on the ground you can’t say there will be no net new commute time trips, and I always emphasize that commute time because it is really important to remember. We’re talking about commute trips. We’re not talking about people going out to dinner. We’re not talking about graduate students driving to campus at 2:00 a.m. None of those things. We’re talking about commute time trips. So if the analysis bears out that that’s not possible we will need to look at other things. I think that Ed’s ideas are really going in the right direction. Just offofthe top of my head maybe another possibility is lot:-~:ing at trips on other portions of Stanford lands to the extent that Stanford has any control over that, as those are leased tenants on those lands, but possibly coordinating some kind of trip reduction efforts in the Research Park. There are a lot of questions that are really go to need to go through the EIR analysis in the area transportation. So we really need to see what that shows in terms of where the impacts are and how the mitigations can best be structured for that. Vice Chair Bialson: I was just recently at a seminar where the figure each household generates ten non-commute trips a day. They actually cited to 12 no one could believe them that they were actually supported by research. So I think the additional trips beyond commute trips needs to be considered. In looking at parking and circulation myself, I was wondering if parking structures were being considered for use in meeting some of the needs. I’m seeing a nod. Could you please tell us about that? Mr. Newman: Yes, basically as we explained earlier the notion of keeping the campus as an in-fill site for this community plan and next general use permit requires that all land be considered even more valuable than it may have been in the past in terms of its functioning and intensity. That goes for sure with parking. We are looking at several sites for additional parking structures. One of them has currently been submitted to the City as part of the application for the cancer treatment center and ambulatory care pavilion. It’s an underground structure in the Median and Pasture Drive area. Several other sites on campus including in the west campus and also what we call the west campus which is over near the medical school. The other area being over near the athletics area and the Sierra Street buildings. We are pioneering for us this year, starting this fall it is underway, a shuttle that is dedicated to going between those two locations from what is now the stock farm surface parking area and the large parking areas near the football stadium and so on. It goes back and forth on ten minute headways or 12 minute headways during the regular part of the day and then five to six minute headways during the commute periods or the normal 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. So the notion is to when we do the facilities to build structured parking potentially the first one being at the stock farm area. That is so indicated in our general use permit submittal with locating that number of parking spaces there. Then prospectively building another parking facility near athletics particularly if either the performing arts facility or the basketball facility Ci& of Palo Alto Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 "9 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 were to proceed in that time period as well. The notion of collecting people at those points and then shuttling them to the center of campus. Vice Chair Bialson: Have you considered or are there plans for parking structures associated with the housing especially in the Escondido Village area which is dense and we’re talking about potentially four to six story high residences? Mr. Newman: Another driver that might exist for that parking structure on the east side near the Sierra Street could well be the housing in the Escondido Village. As I said earlier, we are concerned about keeping the cost of the housing down. Of course if we built structures specifically for housing that tends to drive the cost up on amortizing those along with the housing itself. Vice Chair Bialson: I appreciate that. Just as an observation, quite often when people have cars in a structure they sometimes are more quick to take the bicycle out than the car. So there is a desire for land’use and also a psychological sort of impact. Thank you very much. In looking at Staff’s reco .mmendations with regard to circulation and parking I assume from the lack of comments disputing or refuting any of the requests made by Staff that we are of the mind to support Staff on all of the five bullet points named and set forth. Is that correct Commissioners? I did not get any objections so I think we’re moving ahead. Is it the Commission’s feeling that we should take a five minute break at this time? Let’s take a five minute break. Thank you. [tape starts mid sentence] Commissioner Schink: ...a goal that we are not willing to ask ourselves as a community. I thin it is a goal that is worth asking for but it’s probably a goal that we should also be asking of ourselves as we look to development in Palo Alto that we ask for no net new commute trips also. I think it is good to recognize that we are asking more of them than we are willing to ask of ourselves at this time. Mr. Gawf: If I could just briefly respond to say that Stanford has brought that to my attention as well. I think it will be an interesting experience as we go through the EIR to really see once we start really counting trips in and out what that means. I think it is going to be very helpful. Vice Chair Bialson: On that point, I think we should keep in mind as well that there is no other land owner or developer like Stanford who can determine all aspects of their land use. It is dealing with control shall we say for the people’s lives who are occupying its campus and doing jobs there which no other developer or City owner has. So I think asking Stanford to meet certain things that we do not ask of others is appropriate in this situation. Any other Commissioner care to speak to that issue? No, great. City of Palo Alto Page 30 1 2 3 We have the matter of open space at this time. I would like to have some comments andlor questions on that subject. Would you care to go first on that one Jon? Owen? 4 Commissioner Byrd: I’d never pass up an opportunity. I want to start with what Annette 5 just said which is there is no other land owner exactly like Stanford. If you think about 6 this in terms of one 8,000 acre holding then it is appropriate to have portions of that 7 holding off limit for development. Just like on my lot I can’t develop in the setbacks. Or 8 just like as the County imposes in its hillside areas where you have a 95% rule with 9 clustering and the rest is required to remain open. It is theoretically legitimate to require 10 absolute open space conservation in a certain portion of Stanford. So I want to cross that 11 theoretical threshold first and then talk about the specifics of how it is implemented. 12 There has been talk that it is overly burdensome or it is unfair to Stanford to say you 13 should put a conservation easement or use some other mechanism to absolutely guarantee 14 that this portion of your land will never be developed. Well, if you just look at that piece 15 you’re right, that’s unfair. You’re preventing all economically viably use in that piece 16 but you can’t look at it in isolation. You have to look at the whole 8,000 acres. From 17 that perspective setting aside a portion of it permanently is fair. Having said that, I think 18 the notion of an academic growth boundary is absolutely consistent with the County 19 General Plan. That’s a general plan that, in my professional life, I’ve worked with as 2o much as many of us have worked with the Comp Plan here on our own Commission. In 21 Santa Clara County it was the County that got out in front in encouraging urban growth 22 boundaries to be established around cities in doing its fair share on its side to prohibit 23 inappropriate urban development, to encourage concentration in the cities, and so it 24 would be entirely consistent with previous County policy to require that Stanford 25 establish and academic growth boundary within the community plan just as the County 26 plan calls on cities to establish urban growth boundaries within the County. Also the 27 issue has been raised about how long restrictions on development in open space areas 28 should apply. Some have said that ten years is too restrictive. I know from my years of 29 working with Green Belt Alliance that open space commitments are not very meaningful 3o in increments of less than 20 years because of the underlying timeline that accompany 31 planning documents and development projects. So while I would encourage the County 32 and Stanford to arrive at a plan that establishes an academic growth boundary that 33 delivers permanent protection for the area west of that boundary if it can’t be made 34 permanent and if Stanford is unwilling to put conservation easements on or use other 35 tools it ought to at least prohibit development beyond that boundary for a minimum of 20 36 years. Otherwise it doesn’t create the incentive structure that you need to make land 37 conservation work. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The final subject I want to address is the notion of what uses are appropriate within an open space zone. A number of speakers pointed out that there was this notion of academic use combined with open space and that those may be compatible. I don’t think that is compatible. I think one speaker talked about the linear accelerator encouraging open space values because you can look out the window and see the deer romp. That’s development and that’s in an open space zone and open space is by its own terms supposed to be open space. So I think when we look at escape hatches such as 5,000 square foot increments or 20,000 square feet total of allowable development within an City of Palo Alto Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 open space zone I think that is too permissive. I think that there will be certain narrowly targeted research needs for a small station to study some species or to do some academic activity that we ought to have the flexibility to accommodate. But 20,000 square feet of a new institution is incompatible with open space values. So I would like to see the plan expressly prohibit that sort of development in an open space zone and simultaneously define that zone in a way that is explicit open space. Vice Chair Bialson: Thank you Owen. Bern. Commissioner Beecham: One thing I want to get back to is something that Ed said last night. That is that we need Stanford’s vision. As we look toward what is going to happen in the open space somebody from Stanford said the future picture when you look from University Avenue and you’re on a 100 foot tall tower and look over at the University you’ll still see nothing on the foothills. That’s not quite as detailed a vision as we need. I think Ed-was very perceptive in saying we want to know where the City thinks they are going to be in 20 or 50 years. I know that 50 years is impossible to imagine. Fifty years ago Stanford could not have imagined life today. But we nee.d to know generally where they think they are going to want to go both in developing the overall campus and if they ever think they are going to have any realistic intents of building in the foothills which I think will probably never be acceptable to the City or the community. But we need the vision to help clarify what is or is not going to happen in the foothills. I think Owen is right as he mentions the urban or academic boundary that is not in the Staff recommendations and I think it should be. Also as I’m just talking here for a moment I think I finally figured out over the years what academic reserve and open space means. It is really academic reserve or open space. It is open space until we want to use it for academic purposes. As I think has been pointed out by the County report that definition does need to be changed to clarify at this point we at least are talking about open space out there. I do understand that there is a likelihood that Stanford Trust conditions prohibit in whatever sense assigning rights away from academic purposes. I don’t know how that might limit us. One reason I was asking earlier about the meaning of the community plan is that I wonder still and I don’t know if this would work but I wonder still if in the community plan the space on the other side of Juniper Serra is defined as open space, if that is more or less and evergreen statement that stays there until the community for whatever reason has some agreement to make a change in it. I certainly reserve for future generations to make their own decisions but at least for our statement it would be this is in fact open space. I would differ a little bit with Owen, I do understand there are some limited facilities already in that area. What I understand on a very generally basis is they are in some restricted areas and areas generally not either visible or accessible to others. I would not necessarily prohibit some additional development there but it would be very site specific. As the Staff recommendations here indicate must have specific approval for anything that goes in there. Vice Chair Bialson: Pat. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: I largely agree with Owen and Bern’s comments. I would lean toward the boundaries that Owen had suggested regarding not allowing additional development west of Juniper Serra. I had one other small question for Mr. Newman. The driving range is proposed to be moved to housing. I don’t know if you are currently classifying it as open space. Is it the intention to replace that elsewhere on campus or eliminate it? Mr. Newman: It is in the academic area right now and we are looking at several options for that. We haven’t found a spot to replace it as yet. Commissioner Burt: Okay. Is it your intention to replace it? Mr. Newman: Yes, if we can because it is utilized by a lot of Stanford students and Stanford individuals as well as a lot of people in the community. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Commissioner Schink: I find myself in general agreement with the comments that Owen and Bern have made. I think one point that I’d like to focus on is that Owen brought up the 20 year period of time and I would feel great if out of all this process we got a 20 year commitment. I think that is the best we could hope for realistically. I wouldn’t expect any more at this point. The world is just changing too fast. I don’t know where we’ll be in 20 years but 20 years would be a wonderful commitment to the community from my perspective. Vice Chair Bialson: I also share both Owen and Bern’s comments as my own. I too would like to have a 20 year period. I understand Stanford’s needs to have some ultimate flexibility unlike many other land owners and users of property in this area they have a long term perspective. They’ll be around a lot longer than we will or any regulations that would pass. So I think a 20 year period is called for for certainty for us and also some predictability which is what we’re trying accomplish here. I see in the Staff report that the items addressed in the three bullet points have been essentially accepted by us and comments made to all three. Does Staff need any further clarification on the point of open space? Mr. Luke Connolly, Senior Planner: Excuse me. If I could just ask one question. The academic growth boundary as it was noted by Commissioner Beecham is not in our recommendation presently. It is mentioned in the body of the Staff report. Is that an item that you would like to see included with the recommendations? Vice Chair Bialson: I believe the Commission would. Is that correct? Yes. I see the beginning of the Staff report starts with overall Staff recommendations. I sensed from the Commissioners’ preliminary statements that we are all in agreement with Staff’s recommendation in that regard. You next have a title of Land Use. Is there a Cir. of Palo Alto Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner who wishes to speak to that item? Essentially what we are asking for it seems there is the layout and procedure that is going to be used. As far as I see it, Ed, it’s perfectly appropriate to ask for these things to be done such as including a section of all of Stanford’s land holdings, etc. Is there anything further that you would need from us? Mr. Gawf: No. I think this is one issue where the basic concept of concentrating new development within the core campus is an excellent one. We’re expressing our support for it. Then we had additional information especially on the square footage. Then in regard to the next to the last comment I think it is important for all us to see all of Stanford’s campus and all the development, the Stanford Research Park, the campus that is within the unincorporated portion of the County, as well as Sand Hill corridor and the shopping center area so we have a sense of the total development presently and in the future of Stanford. So we have a comprehensive way of looking at it. I understand that this is a County document that we’re talking about but I think it provides proper context for that review. Vice Chair Bialson: Something that was not addressed as a bullet point or a heading in your Staff report was the academic facilities, the amount of square footage. We had quite a few speakers on that specific point yesterday. I want to know if there are some comments that the Commission cares to make on that item? Is there anything that you have Pat you want to speak to? Commissioner Burt: Well we largely addressed it earlier among some of the housing questions and addressed my concern. I think Staff’s third bullet under land use starts to zero in on the issue. We basically in the 1989 general use permit had about 2.0 million square feet of total building construction allowed. It is not stated anywhere but it sounds like under the new plan for the next ten years we have 4-5.0 million square feet. That seems to get to the crux of the amount of development we are having there. We c+rtainly have a very important issue which is within whatever amount of total square footage what’s the portion that is devoted toward housing versus other uses. I think that’s going to be an issue that we need to look at very carefully. Vice Chair Bialson: Jon. Commissioner Schink: I would just back up and try to make a more general comment. One of the difficulties or frustrations I’ve had in looking at this, and my colleagues have made comments that we wish there was more of a vision statement at times in this document. I could agree with that. I know that this is a land use document but also with that vision statement I feel like we need in the record somewhere the recognition about how vital Stanford is ,to the whole soul of this community. It is our predominant cultural resource. It is where we go for the academic events. It is our best open space. It is integral to Palo Alto and it is truly what makes Palo Alto the great community that it is. We can’t put too much of that in this document obviously but if there is a vision statement I hope it recognizes how essential Stanford has been in creating and providing the soul for our community and bringing many people here at least from my perspective. City of Palo Alto Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice Chair Bialson: Stanford is my alma mater for graduate school I agree it has brought a lot of people here who have decided to stay. I count myself as one of them. I commend Stanford for all it has done for the City and region. I do think we recognize its uniqueness and its contribution to the community. However, what we are looking at here is a situation which we acknowledge the needs of Stanford, we acknowledge the ability to control that Stanford has, and we also acknowledge the communities need to monitor and to ask for Stanford to essentially deal with the consequences of its success. Just as we have to deal, as a City, with the consequences of our success. I think Stanford has to as well. As much as they’ve contributed to our existence they also contribute some issues that we have to deal with which they to a certain extent are in many ways exempt from having to allow us to impose our view of what the correct use of property is, the amount of funds that the property must generate to add to our City and school district coffers, etc. In that regard I appreciate your comments and I very much appreciate Stanford. I think’ what we are going through here is a balancing and nothing more than that. So there is no reflection. There is no we versus them sort of situation being established and I hope everyone understands that. In the regard of the academic facilities I really understood, especially after the public speakers yesterday gave us specific examples of essentially vying with one another for space, and that that space is highly sought after and somewhat different again from what we are used to. We sit here and say well 1,000 square feet of office space has four employees in it. We extrapolate from that the needs for parking or various school impact fees, etc. I had the impression from the speakers who appeared before us that we can’t extrapolate that. Can somebody from Stanford give us a formula that we might be able to use in terms of the number of bodies per the type of academic facilities that would be created? Mr. Newman: I smile because, Commissioners, I’ve been asked this question a lot since I’ve been at Stanford. I also was at ~he University of California before I came here and I was asked a lot there as well. The first answer, the simple answer, is no I can’t do that. In terms of certain categories of buildings like the building I’m in, yes it’s an office building. You might be surprised though in terms of the high intensity in one area and the lower intensity in another area based on the volume of records and so on. But that is the most similar thing we’d have. The academic facilities are very diverse and I’ll give the example that was shown last night. There were two speakers who were mentioning this new bio-sciences center that they are quite excited about and referred to other universities in the country that might be embarked on those same sorts of cutting-edge future. We did an analysis of 35 of our premier faculty in the engineering bio-sciences, chemistry, medical school and so forth. Each of those faculty we called principal investigators or PI. They each have different equipment needs as some of the graduate students mentioned last night. They each have a number of support personnel, which I count the graduate students and post-docs in particular. The range of space for each professional investigator ranged from less than 2,000 square feet to more than 7,000 square feet per person. The irony in thatis that the one with the 7,000 square feet had the fewest number of assistants working with him but had huge requirements for like magnetic resonance imaging facilities and laser facilities and so forth. So it is almost City of Palo Alto Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 4! 42 43 44 45 impossible to do that because of the specialized nature of the research in nearly all of the sciences. Again, last night we mentioned the sciences and engineering as where the major growth and space need is located. It’s not in the English Department so much or the Humanities. Those are much smaller and easier to predict in terms of their space per faculty member. As you well know we just finished remodeling most of the quad. That is where the majority of those people are housed as well as some of our older buildings ir~ the east part of campus. So it’s not a simple answer. I’m sorry to take this long to give you the explanation but I thought an example in particular fresh from last night might be pertinent. Vice Chair Bialson: I very much appreciate it and I agree with you it does help. Are there any plans to increase the density of the support staff just in a general way in terms of the University staff not after some academic purpose but just to minister to the students, etc.? Is there any plan to increase the number of students? I’ve been operating under the assumption there isn’t but is there the need for additional support staff of those functions that might support students? Mr. Newman: Did you ask me also if there were going to increased number of students? The answer is yes, graduate students but not under graduate students. I think the number we have in here is around 630 to 640. We’re making projects out here as best we can for ten years. In terms of supporting students, yes, there is some increase in that. I think the majority of staff increase is related to the oversight that comes with the research that is done there. I include in that the health and safety types of oversight that are associated with that as well as basic record keeping that goes along with the government contracts and grants and so forth that proceed forward. The other staff or other sort are technical support. They take care of the lab equipment. That is a good example of it as well as your basic building support personnel that need to keep the air conditioning and fume hoods and so forth all in operational order. Vice Chair Bialson: One last question. If there is an unwinding of the UC Stanford Medical system would there be a need to bring back some administration and other types of services that would result in people having to come back to the campus and be given office space in that area? Mr. Newman: I don’t know the answer to that because that hasn’t been resolved. There are no proposals currently in this general use permit draft nor anything coming from the hospital that would indicate that we’d need additional space for that. Vice Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burr: We heard last night a number of comments about the need for additional space for the same population on campus. Can you sort out for us a little bit how much of this 2.0 million square feet of increase in academic space is to serve the existing population and how much of it is for the 2,200 new members of the population? C’i~. of Palo Alto Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Newman: No, I can’t do that right at the moment. I think that is a very excellent question. I think that as part of our issues around the EIR I’m sure that sort of a question will develop and we’ll have a method for answering it. Just as I gave that example about the bio-science area it is re. |y difficult to answer that simply. Commissioner Burt: In a very rough sense do you know the current square footage, on average, per member of that population right now? Do you have a total? You have a total population on campus of all.the academic functions and it averages out to x number of square feet per person. Mr. Newman: Yes, that’s simple arithmetic but it’s a meaningless number. Commissioner Burt: If you took the same proportions that you had now and you add 2,200 new members to the population how does that pencil out compared to how much each person has now? Mr. Newman: I’ve never done that calculation. Again, I think it could be done readily enough. I think one answer to that question is that a lot of it is driven in relationship to the Federal funding of some of these projects. So as our national government wants to continue to be on the cutting-edge of bio-sciences and engineering developments and Stanford is at the front end of that along with a handful of others that drives these programs. As was said last night, they are very complex. So while we have a list that in that general use permit application can appear to be very exact it is not exact. That’s why the notion of the flexibility is very high on our agenda as it was in the last use permit. My colleague, Mr. Horton, has frequently pointed out in the past that when we looked at our summary of that proposal after the 1988/89 EIR and then we compared it to what we actually built the real change is that we built more housing and a few less academic buildings. But by and large the types of space that were thought about in one version or another came about at exactly the square footage and exactly the personnel, no, we can’t do that. We can keep it in a range which is what we are saying. So that the academic square footage, I think the easiest benchmark is the academic square footage that we believe will happen in the next ten years is comparable to what we believed would happen and more or less did happen in the last ten years. Vice Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Any other Commissioners wish to speak? Owen. Commissioner Byrd: Following up on your desire to have us speak to this land use sub- heading of the Staff report. I want to speak just briefly to its final bullet point which concerns the issue of developing new zoning to implement the community plan. ! think it is absolutely essential. I say that as someone who has worked with the County’s zoning ordinance. As Annette said earlier, Stanford is unique and I don’t think the Courity’s current zoning will provide the tools in the tool kit that the County needs to implement this plan regardless of its content. The only word-smithing I’ll do tonight is that I wish that would say that Santa Clara County should develop appropriate new zoning districts and not just consider it. In the absence of that new zoning we won’t be able to implement Ci& of Palo Alto Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 the plan which also leads me to suggest that over on page 4 under Implementation the notion of developing implementing zoning should also be considered in that section as well. Vice Chair Bialson: I absolutely support that point that has just been made. Pat. Commissioner Burt: Mr. Newman I realize I have one follow up question. In the last ten year period do you know what was the increase in population that occurred? Mr. Newman: I think as Director Gawf indicated earlier there is this calculation that goes into developing what was average daytime population. A footnote of that is that that was developed by the City of Palo Alto for the County in terms of how to do that calculation, not by Stanford. At any rate, that allowed for roughly an increase in population of 2,000 average daytime population. We are not using that equation in this number. One of our graduate students mentioned last night in talking about the new known net commute trips that if you move from one formula to another you could be counting apples one day and cows the next. So this 2,000 ADP or average daily population is not parallel to the 2,200 specifically. The numbers we can provide are the difference in raw numbers between what graduate student population was added in the last ten years and what we are projecting for the next ten years. Again, I’m sure that will be part of the EIR submittal as well. Commissioner Butt: That would be very helpful because just on the face of this if we’re talking about trying to increase the academic space per person in some of these areas and yet we’re adding a greater population increase for the same 2.0 million square feet just like we did ten years ago then that wouldn’t seem to add up. Mr. Newman: I know enough about the raw numbers to be able to tell you that’s not the case but I don’t know the exact numbers by memory. Commissioner Burt: Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Bialson: Thank you. I think we can start wrapping this up at this point. With regard to the Implementation, I think Land Use has been addressed. With regard to Implementation and the item Vision for Long Term Build Out, I think the Commission agrees with Staff’s recommendations and would ask you to move those forward. Are there any concluding comments to be made by Commissioners? Seeing none I think we have hopefully supported all our comments so that you can come forth with another Staff report to Council. Is that correct? Mr. Gawf: That’s correct and thank you very much for your comments tonight. REPORTS FR City of Palo Alto Page 38