HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 208-05The City Attorney Report, dated February 3,2005 (Attachment F), reviews some of the
important terms of the Development Agreement and the proposed Ground Lease of the Mayfield
Site for use as athletic fields.
Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR -Attachment]) includes comments and
responses to comments received during the public review period which commenced on
December 14,2004 and ended on January 27,2005. The majority of the comments focused on
the following key areas of concern (see detailed discussion of each in Master Responses in the
FEIR):
• Land Use and Visual Compatibility of Proposed Housing Sites with College Terrace
Neighborhood;
• Soccer Complex Lighting;
• Views Along the California Avenue Corridor;
• Historic Resources;
• Traffic Impact in College Terrace Neighborhood;
• Noise; and
• Hazardous Materials.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (see Exhibit A of Attachment A) is separated into
four categories: Mayfield, R&D/Office, El Camino Real and California A venue. The MMRP
provides a timing schedule and specifies the responsible parties for implementing and monitoring
the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR.
Significant and Unavoidable Impact of Construction Noise Requiring Statement Of Overriding
Considerations
The FEIR establishes that all of the environmental impacts can be mitigated to less than
significant levels, with the exception of construction noise. The Draft EIR assessed the potential
noise impacts of the proposed project according to CEQA Guidelines and the significance
criteria outlined on page 3.8-8 of the Draft EIR. The Noise Ordinance restricts hours of
operation which would reduce the impact from construction noise somewhat, but not to a less
than significant level. The Draft EIR on page 3.8-11 acknowledges that construction noise
Mitigation Measure NO-l.l is not adequate to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level and,
therefore, determines that this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact
requires adoption of a statement of overriding considerations from t4e City Council if the
Development Agreement is to be approved.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning and Transportation Commission
Two public hearings were held before the Planning and Transportation Commission: January 12,
2005, to receive public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and
February 9,2005, to recommend to Council on the DEIR and the project (see staff reports and
CMR:208:05 Page 3 of8
minutes, Attachment K). The February 9th staffreport discusses the key potential environmental
issues raised at the January 12th public hearing: .
• Traffic on upper California Avenue;
• Traffic impacton the southbound 1-280 off-ramp at Page Mill Road during the period
after the construction of the first 100,000 square feet ofR&D/Office development and
prior to the demolition of the existing 300,000 square feet ofR&D/Office 'space;
• Effects of the presence of hazardous materials at the Mayfield and housing sites;
• Noise impacts associated with the Mayfield soccer complex and construction activities at
all sites;
•. Lighting impacts associated with field lighting of the soccer fields;
• Land use impacts associated with the size and scale of development of the EI Camino
Real housing site;
• Historic resources impacts associated with the development of the EI Camino Real and
Upper California housing sites that are within 300 feet of known historic resources.
These concerns and other comments received during the DEIR public comment period are
addressed in the Responses to Comments in the FEIR (Attachment J).
The Project was reviewed and recommended for approval at a public hearing on February 9,
2005, by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Commissioner Burt moved to approve
the staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Griffin (see minutes, Attachment K):
1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report.
2. Pass the ordinance approving the Development Agreement with Stanford University.
3. Adopt the resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan land use classification of the
Mayfield Site from Multiple Family Residential to Public Parks.
4. Pass the ordinance amending the zoning code and map in order to implement the
Development Agreement and related Ground Lease.
The motion passed 4-1 (Commissioners Lippert, Burt, Griffin and Packer in favor;
Commissioner Holman opposed).
Commissioner Burt moved to encourage staff to meet with Stanford to develop additional terms
of the Development Agreement that could then be considered by the City Council, seconded by
Commissioner Holman, and amended by Commissioner Lippert, to include:
1. Clarify design principals relating to the Upper California housing site.
2. Clarify development standards to ensure compatibility on the Upper California housing
site with surrounding neighborhoods.
J. Consider connectivity to Page Mill Road from the California site by means other than
California Avenue.
4. Develop an on-going community outreach program to inform the public regarding the
progress of elements in the Development Agreement.
CMR:208:05 Page 4 of8
5. Explore possibilities for development ofa Spine Road in the interior of the SRP between
EI Camino Real and Hanover.
6; Limit the density on the California housing site to 209 dwelling units, or 12 units per
acre that is comparable to the zoning in College Terrace. .
7. Limit the height to less than 50' in the California housing site, as recommended by staff.
8. Design and zone the California frontage to R-l standards.
9. Consider design alternatives to eliminate the potential cut-through traffic from EI
Camino Real to Page Mill Road through the Mayfield site parking lot.
The motion passed 5-0.
Staff and Stanford have since met and proposed the following revisions to the DA:
• New language in Section 6.4.10 of the Development Agreement addressing the
design principles of reflecting the eclectic design of the houses on the north side of
California Avenue, reflecting the existing relationship between first and second
stories and requiring similar opportunities for landscaping (see Attachment E).
• Modifications of Chapter 18.62.060 (AS2) reflecting the design principles outlined in
number one above (see Attachment E).
• Modifications of Section 18.62.020(c) limiting the maximum number of required
housing units on the Upper California sites to 209 (see Attachment E).
In addition:
• Connectivity of Upper California Sites to Page Mill Road or Hanover Street. The DA
neither precludes nor requires vehicular access directly to Page Mill Road or Hanover
Street. The DA does provide, however, for site plan review by the Architectural
Review Board, which would include site ingress and egress considerations for
development of the Upper California site. The College Terrace residents would have
opportunity during the design review process to review and comment on proposed
site plans.
• A draft Community Outreach program is outlined by Stanford in a letter to Kathy
Durham from Jean Snider dated March 22, 2005 (see Attachment G).
• ECRIPage Mill RoadlHanover/California Superblock Spine Road. None of the project
components preclude the Spine Road from being ultimately developed. Development
ofthe Spine Road however, is not included in the project description and is beyond
the scope of the Development Agreement. Stanford will support any City initiative to
study the Spine Road potential in more detail.
• Mayfield Site Parking Lot Cut-through Traffic. The traffic analysis in the EIR has not
identified cut-through traffic in the parking lot as a significant issue. However, the
City may add traffic calming devices or interior signage should such traffic prove to
be a problem once the fields are constructed an in operation.
CMR:208:05 Page 5 of8
Architectural Review Board
The ARB held a public hearing on February 17, 2005 to make comments to Council on the
Development Agreement as it relates to modifications to the design review process. The
following comments were made (see staff report and minutes, Attachme~t I):
1. Board Member Maran recommended allowing some neighborhood commercial within
the development of the Upper California housing site.
2. Board Member Maran recommended including sustainability in the future development.
3. Board Member Wasserman recommended using ARB as an advisory subcommittee for
proj ect development.
4. Board Member Wasserman recommended placing emphasis on sustainability issues.
5. Board Member Wasserman recommended supporting the Planning and Transportation
Commission recommendations.
In respect to the soccer complex, the ARB, on January 13, 2005, recommended approval of the
design of the playfields. ARB Board Member Judith Wasserman moved to approve the staff
recommendation and conditions with the additional conditions noted below, seconded by Board
Member Drew Maran:
1. Wood used for the project shall be FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) Certified. Plywood
shall be formaldehyde free.
2. Concrete shall contain 30% fly ash.
3. Architect shall consult with the Historical Resources Board on the design of the historic
plaques to be used on the site.
4. Time limits on the hours of play shall be listed on signs and placed on the site.
5. Details of the lights for the lighting of the playing fields and details of the fence
separating Wilson Sonsini shall return to the ARB subcommittee for review.
The motion passed 2-1 (Wasserman and Moran in favor, Solnick opposed). These conditions are
agreeable to Stanford and the Director will incorporate them in the approved design review if the
Council approves the project.
Parks and Recreation Commission
The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the project and contributed to the design,
recognizing the playfields will significantly contribute to the City's recreational needs.
Development ofthe playfields are consistent with the Palo Alto Fields Advisory Committee
Report to Palo Alto City Council, December 5, 2002, which identified an existing shortage of
fields. The playfields project was preliminarily reviewed by the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) on December 4, 2003 and by the Planning and Transportation Commission on December
17,2003 and received final recommendation for approval by the ARB on January 13, 2005
(included in Attachment I).
RESOURCE IMPACT
The approach used to determine the potential economic impact of the Mayfield Site
Development Agreement was to review seven components of the development agreement and
determine their value as itrelates to the City of Palo Alto and Stanford. The components are:
CMR:208:05 Page 6 of8
B. Resolution adopting ordinance approving a Development Agreement and Ground Lease
with Stanford University.
C. Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan land use classification of the Mayfield Site
from Multiple Family Residential to Public Parks.
D. Resolution adopting the Ordinance amending the Zoning Code and Map in order to
implement the Development Agreement and related Ground Lease.
E. Proposed Technical Corrections to the Development Agreement.
F. City Attorney Report, February 3,2005.
G. Stanford letters to Frank Benest, Steve Emslie and Kathy Durham, College Terrace
Residents Association.
H. Mayfield Site EconomicAnalysis.
1. February 17,2005 ARB Staff Report and Minutes (Council Members Only).
J. Final Environmental Impact Report (Council Members Only).
K. February 9,2005 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report and Minutes
(Council Members Only -previously distributed).
Note: All attachments marked for Council Members Only are available in the public file ot on
the city's web site at www.cityofpaloalto/mayfield/.
COURTESY·COPIES
Larry Horton, Stanford University
Jean Snider, Stanford Management Company
Bill Phillips, Stanford Management Company
Charles Carter, Stanford Planning Office
Kathy Durham, College Terrace Residents Association
Rod J eung, EIP Associates
Interested Parties
CMR:208:05 Page 8 of8
NOT YET APPROVED
F. Air Quality
Impacts AQ-l and AQ-5 concern potential short-term
increases in air pollution from demolition and construction
activities. Mitigation measure AQ-l.l, which requires dust control
measures, will reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
G. Hazardous Materials
Impacts HM-l and HM-7 concerns possible exposure of future
workers in replacement R&D/office space in the Research Park, or
future residents at the housing sites, to existing contaminants at
those sites. Mitigation Measures HM-l'.l, 1.2 and 1.3, which
require environmental site assessment, followed, if necessary, by
the preparation and implementation of a work plan and corrective
action· plan satisfactory to state or regional agencies, or the
implementation of site management plans, will reduce this potential
impact to a less than significant level.
Impacts HM-3 and HM-9 concern possible exposure of
construction personnel and the public to contaminated soil or
groundwater, or both, during grading, excavating, and construction
activities. Mitigation Measures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, and 3.1, which
requires site-specific health and safety plans for excavation and
construction, will reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
H. Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Impacts GE-l and GE-4 concern exposure of persons or
structures to substantial adverse risk of fault line surface
rupture. Mitigation Measure GE-l.l, which requires special
surveys, and if recommended, design changes, near the San Juan Hill
fault, the Frenchman's Road fault, and the Stock Farm Monocline,
will reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.
SECTION 4. Significant Impacts Which Cannot Be Fully
Mitigated.
Impact NO-l concerns the impact of noise from construction
activity on the El Camino Real and California Avenue housing sites
and new R&D/office construction in the Research Park.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NO-l.l, which requires the use
of "best management practices, /I would reduce construction noise
impacts but may not eliminate them. The impact would be an interim
6
050208 syn 0091561
NOT YET APPROVED
financial assistance from Stanford in providing additional
community services to new Stanford residents into a guaranteed new
public park for the next 51 years. The value of the park leasehold
and improvements far exceeds the val~e of any potential county-
ordered impact payments.
e. The Project has a beneficial impact on traffic,
and on the quality of life for those affected by that traffic, by
replacing commercial development on California Avenue with
residential uses that are more compatible with the adjacent College
Terrace neighborhood. It does this without creating adverse
impacts in other parts of the City.
f. The Project maintains and enhances the vitality
and viability of the Stanford Research Park, an important and
valuable employment center in the City and the region. While
housing and a park are provided, there is no significant decrease
in commercial space in the Research Park. The Project and the Final
EIR prepared for it provide both data on the likely impacts of
long-term development and redevelopment of the Research Park.
The City Council finds that each of the overriding
considerations set forth above constitutes a separate and
independent grounds for finding that the benefits of the Project
outweigh its significant, but interim, adverse environmental impact
and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the
Project.
SECTION 7. Substantial evidence supporting each and every
finding made herein is contained in the Final EIR and records of
proceedings.
/1
II
II
II
10
050208 syn 0091561
NOT YET APPROVED
Exhibit A
Mitigation and Monitoring Program
Mitigation Measures are contained in the Draft EIR and
Final EIR. The Mitigation and 'Monitoring Program will be
distributed to Council and posted on the City's website on
Tuesday, March 29, 2005. Paper copies will be available at
City Hall, 5th Floor.
12
050208 syn 0091561
NOT YET APPROVED
the Development Agreement; that these projects will have
priority over certain other commercial development in obtaining
new utility and drainage capacity in the event of a shortage;
and that the architectural review of these projects will be more
limited than would otherwise be the case.
C. Under the terms of the Agreement, Stanford has the
right to terminate it, and the Mayfield Lease for the community
recreation fields, if this ordinance is subject to a referendum
or or if litigation is commenced seeking to rescind the City's
decision to enter into this Agreement.
Section 2. Findings.
The City Council finds and determines that:
A.
agreement
65867.
Notice of intention to
has been given pursuant
consider the
to Government
development
Code section
B. The Planning and Transportation Commission and the
City Council have each conducted a public hearing on the
Development Agreement and amendments to the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the Zoning Ordinance, and
Zoning Map.
C. The City Council has reviewed the· contents of the
Final Environmental Impact Report (\\FEIR" ) prE':!pared for the
Proj ects, and all other relevant information, including 'staff
reports, and all testimony, written and oral, prese~ted on the
matter.
F. The City Council finds and determines that the
development agreement is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Palo Alto, as amended. The City Counci.1 has
specifically considered the regional welfare and ·the impacts of
the development agreement upon the regional welfare. The City
Council finds and determines that the benefits of the proj ect
set forth in the development agreement, and findings including
statements of overriding consideration set forth in Resolution
establish the reasonable relationship of the
Projects and of the approvals to the regional welfare.
SECTION 3. The . Ci ty Council hereby approves the
Development Agreement between the Board of Trustees of the
Leland Stanford Junior University and the City of Palo Alto, a
2
050204 syn 0091565
NOT YET APPROVED
(b) The public interest, health and welfare of Palo Alto
and the region require an amendment to the Land Use Map of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2.
(c) Upon expiration or other termination of the ground
lease, Stanford University intends to seek redesignation and
rezoning of the site for other purposes.
SECTION 2. Amendment of Land Use Map. The Council
hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Al to Comprehensive
Plan to designate 2650, 2700 and 2780, a 5.9 acre parcel,
"Public Park" as shown on Exhibit "A" attached to this
resolution and a part of it.
SECTION 3. CEQA Review. The City Council adopts this
resolution in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") findings adopted by Resolution No.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be
effective· on the 31.st day after is adoption, but it shall be
suspended and inoperative unless and until the Ground Lease By and
Between the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
Uni versi ty as Lessor and the Ci ty of Palo Al to as Lessee for the
Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields has been executed by
the parties. The delayed effective date is intended and shall be
construed to provide a sufficient period of time between adoption
of the resolution and its effective date to allow a complete and
exclusive opportunity for the exercise of the referendum power
pursuant to the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the
Constitution of the State of California. A referendum petition
filed after the effective date shall be rejected as untimely.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
NOT PARTICIPATING: CORDELL, KLEINBERG, MOSSAR
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
2
050203 syn 0091564
Gross floor area
050203 syn 0091513h
affordable housing is permitted.
Gross floor area shall include all
floors of any building measured to
the outside surface of the stud
walls, and including all of the
following:
-halls and stairways;
-elevator shafts;
-service and mechanical equipment
areas;
-basement, cellar and attic areas
deemed by the director of planning
and community environment to be
usable;
-any porches, arcades, balconies,
courts, walkways, breezeways or
simiiar features when located above
the ground floor and used for
required access; and
-permanently roofed areas, either
partially enclosed or unenclosed,
building features used for sales,
service, display, storage or similar
uses.
Gross floor area shall not include:
-parking facilities accessory to
permitted uses on the site,
(excluding area used for storage,
mechanical equipment, and other uses
as noted above);
-unroofed exterior areas accessible
to the general public and not
devoted to sales, service, display,
storage or similar uses, including,
but not limited to areas above
podium parking;
Page 6 of 19
C. Zoning if ~ternative Site Needed
If, after a building permit for construction of an approved project
under the AS2 Overlay District has been issued for any part of the
Upper California Site, it is determined to be an Infeasible Site
because of environmental contamination, then, under the conditions
and in the manner described in Section 6.4.2 of the Development
Agreement, Stanford may have the AS2 Overlay District removed from
its lands and the previous zoning restored.
Page 18 of 19
050203 syn 0091513h
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
February 3, 2005
Page 2
RE: Development Agreement Between city and Stanford;
Ground Lease for the Stanford/Pale AltoCemmunity
Playing Fields
• square feet is referred to as "Replacement Square'
Footage" in the Agreement.
• Stanford is guaranteed the right to develop the
'housing and ,the Replacement, Square Feotage under the
rules ,in effect on,June 10,2003 ("the'2003 Rules"),
as modified by tl1e DA. (June 10, 2003 was in, effect
the date on which the nego'tiatien of the DA,
coinrnenced. ) .
• While the total square feotage available for n'On-
r-esidential development in the' Research Park will not
be increased by the Replacement Square Footage,
Stanford weuld. be permitted to exceed 'the floor area
ratio ("FAR")' currently allow~d on the relocation
sites by up to twenty five percent.
• The Ci ty also agrees not to' reduce
ratie 'Of the Stanford Research Park
year in which the City plans
Comprehensive Plan. This means that
not to "dewnzene, " in terms of the
a~lowed on a site, before 2011.
the floor area
until 2011, 'the
to review its
the Ci ty agrees
square footage
• The City agrees to accept the lease 'Of the Mayfield
Site 'as mitigation for any community s~rvice impacts
on the city resulting, frem the 2000 units of, student
housing, 350 units of postgraduate heusing, and 668
units 'Of. facuity/staff housing at Sta~f'Ord, that was
authorized by the General Use Permit approved' by the
County of Santa Clara in December 2000. ,(The General
Use Permit does not require any community service
impact mitigat:i,on for, the 2,000,000+ square feet of
new academic and academic support spaces.)
Seme of the terminology define'd in Section ,1 of the DA is
important ,in understanding the document. As noted above" the
"2003 Rules" are the City's ordinances, resolutions, rules,
regulations arid 'Official policies, including the Comprehensive
Plan, in effect' on June 10, 2003. The "Modified 2003 Rules"
050203 syn 0091560
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ....... .
February 3, 2005 ',,', .
Page 3
, RE:" Developm~nt-Agreement~; Between .city and Btanfordi
. ' .. Ground Lease :for ·theStanford/PalG: Al to Community
Playing Fiel~s ~,
simply referto'thefiact thattheDA may-modify" some .. of the 2003
Rules. The Agreement p~eserves the City's authority' to apply
certain other.rules subsequently enacted -: so-called "Subsequent
Applicable Rules /I (§ 6.8) -and Stan:E9.rCirr:l9-Y, choo$e .to.haye them applied in s(Jme instances.' . .. ......" " ....
. ........ .
THE' 'PROPOSED LEASE OF THE MAYFIELIY,SITE .
.. ,",.
'The terms of theprbpo$ed iMayfieldLease are described more
'fully -'below,', '. Under theDA, Stanford is required. to begin .,the
constl::,uctl.ori ·of the playing fields ,(described in Exhibit .eto
the' 'Lease) within 100 days of' the City'·s ,approval of theDA.The
·DA . specifies that no constr.u.ction sht;l.ll ·conunenceduring the
period .fiom;Octoberl 't6April' 15,';unle'ssthe parties.otherwise
. agree:;' ',,' ",
The City . receives possessJ.onof the playing fieldsuponi.t.s
.inspection and approval of the-.••. const.ruction, §§'5 :1') ;··5 .2.
Because the site is upderlain with coptaminated groundwater,
risk assessments were conducted by the,'Cityand~the.Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and eachdet~rminedthat: the sit.e
. is su.itab.lefor.u.se asplaying<'fields.TheDAprovides that the
eritire 'a~reement maybeperntinatedin' the unlikely <.event.that
Stanforddis.covers . that' it is .... infeasible to construct .. the
playing fie~ds on ·thesite. §20 .1B. '
. ',' .........:. .\.-:. '.. . .. ' ,-,'
. THE HOUSING STANFORD IS ,REQUIRED'TO BUILD'
"';"., .... :: .. "
." Stanford is required·to buildiand theCityisrequ~redto
approve, 250 ,dwelling; units 'of housing ;at· the .'EI Camino. and
C~liforniaAvenuesites.§· 5.4 .. '. If either of these sites proves
irifeasible,StanfordUi required to build on', a . substitute' site
within the Researc.h Park;§ 6V4.~2 ;'Applicati'onfor 185 units is
required hyDeceinbe:r 31J2013,' and the, remaining . units by
December 31, 2020. §. -5.-4. Therecah be no discrimination
against households with children' or on the basis of·theage of
renters or buyers.§ 6.4.4. At'least50.units mUet be below BMR
Units, under standards set forth in Exhibit C. Stanford has the
option 'to buildupt6 the 70. BMR units at the EICamino Sites.
Special procedures are established for review of the quality of
050203 syn 0091560
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATlON COMMISSION
February 3, 2005
Page 4
RE: Development Agreement Between city and Stanford;
Ground Lease' for the-Stanford/Palo Alto Community
Playing Fields
the BMR units if Stanford assigns their development to a third
party. § 5.5.
': ~": ..
Housing Development Standards
The development standards. for' the 250' units of housing are
set forth in § 6.4.4. For each of the housing si tes, Stanford
may choose to proceed under (a) the RM-15 for California. Sites'
and RM-40 for-the EI Camino Sites, as those Qistricts existed in
2003,· (b) .. the. zoning in· effect when it makes application, so
long as. the 'densities d9 n,ot exceed 15 units per acre for the
.California Sites' and 4·O ... units 'per acre for the EI Camino Sites,
(c) alternative ".' zoning;.:. dis·tr.ic;:ts tailored .. to the sites
specially crafted.:set of alternative development standards wi.th
a density of 15 units per acre at the California Sites and 50
units per acre at .the EICamino Site, or (d) a PC zoning
dist:.rictapproved by the' Council at some time in. the future
(covered by § 6.4.11 and Exhibit D) .
Ci ty Design Review of Housing" .
!. ,':
If ,Stanford·;·:propqses housing which complies with the
special development: standards in Exhibit D (or similar standards
developed fO+".a ·substitute site), the 'DA limits the Cityi s
"design review"" to approval of "lighting, noise levels,
landscaping arid of the exterior materials and finishes. II For
the Cal·if·ornia Sites and any such substitute sites,' the design
review also includes approval of "massing, roof forms, and the
site plan.i' These' latter· factors may not be reviewed at EI
Camino Sites and· arE!' <limited for the California Sites. Approval
of massing, roof forms and the site plan on the California Sites
is limited to "the California' Avenue edge of the California
Sites, and then.·only to the extent that the projects submitted
for approva). db· not already ,approximate the horizontal rhythm of
building-to~sideyard setback .and fa9ade areas of California
Avenue residential propertie:s.,.located across the street from, or
in the yic:l.nity of the California Sites."
.... . ~ ...... -.
If . Stanford' propose's to develop housing under any standards
other than those. in" Exhibit D, the above-described limitations
on architectural review do not apply. If Stanford's housing'·
050203 syn 0091560
PLANNING AND TRANSP,ORTATION COMMISSION
February 3, 2005
page 6
RE: Development Agreement Between ci.ty and Stanford;
Grovnd Lease for the Stanford/Palo Alto Community
Pla.ying Fields
The Process for'Designating Building Sites and Projects
In order to rebuild any part of the 300,000 square feet,
Stanford must first identify one or more ,sites for ,that
development -"Designated Sites" -and then propose individual
projects for that"site ",Designated Projects." §§ 6.3.1 &
6 .. 3.2. These, designations may be withdrawn or surrendered by 1
Stanford any time' prior to construction, but notthereaiter., In
two respects, ,the DA allows Stanford to increase the size of
indiviqual'projects it rebuilds, as described next.
The Scope of Individual.:, Proj ectsi "
,"
Stanford may use its 300,000 square feet of Replacement'
Square Footage to construct new buildings, to enlarge existing
buiidings ,or to construct enlarged buildings 'to replace
existing buildings in the Research Park. § 6.1.1., When Stanford
proposes to eplargeor replace an existing building I, the' DA
contemplates that the' enti're ,bu~lding will be subject to a
single, set, of standarq,s (the Modified 2003 Rules). §§ 1. 8 &
6.1.2. For this' -';r;~~x:pos~e .. 'Sta:n'fbrd is required to identify the'
rest of the building as "Associated Square Footage." The 'DA
a~lows Stanford to designate a total of 1.2 million square feet
as Associated Square Footage in connection with' its use of
Replacement Square Footage.
Increase, in Floor Area Ra,tio and Site Coverage Allowed
The DA allow.s Stanford" to ,use its Replacement, Square
Footage to increase the floor area ratio on Designated Sites up
to 25 percent, over' what would otherwise be a.llowed by the
zoning. § 6.3.3'. This, provision does not give Stanford the
right to increase the' overall ,commerci'al square footage allowed
in the Research Park, and the.' FAR may not be increased on any
site fronting on California Avenue. 'Stanford may also apply this
"FAR bonus" to another dev:elopment that is not otherwise'subject
to the DA, if it has unused Replacement Square Footage that it
wa,nts to devot~ ,-to' that purpose. Stanford may increase the
permitted site cover'age on Designated Sites in the LM(5)
diptricts from 15% to 25%.
050203 syn 0091560
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
February 3, 2005
. Page 8
RE: Development ·Agreement Between city and Stanford;
Ground Lease for the Stanford/Palo Alto Community
Playing I"ields
6 . 4 . 6, 6.4. 7. However, when development is proposed
upstream of a ·storm drain system handling flows
a:lreaq.y at capacity, Stanford iE? required to either
(1) . design the 'development to maintain or reduce the
current peak .flow rate; or (2) upgrade the appropriate
downstream': City-· storm drain lines as part· of the
development. § 8.2. In addition,' the Agreement would
not affect . Stanfo:r;"d' sobligation to pay for or
cons·truct needed improvements in the sewer cOllecti6n
system in connection with proposed development~.:
§. 8.1.
.• Limitations oil. the Expense of Design Conditions. The
. 'Ci tymaY_':··riot .... r:e·quire landscaping ,des ign , materials,
finishes,:': or building methods which are substantially
more' 'expensive (after adjusting for inflation) than
thos.e generally used in the I{esearch. Park in the ten
year period prior .to the determination. Stanford has
the burden of establishing the greater expen~e.
§§ 6~.3.9 & 6.4.10.
• No Dedications. Except as may be required by state or.
federal1aw, the City agrees not to reqUire any
dedications for park, recreation, ox open space.
§ § 6. 3 . 7 & 6 .. 4 . 8 . However; the DA does . require the
onsite implementation. of Policy L-43' and Program L-44
of the Comprehensive' Plan regarding the provision of
sidewalks, peOes·trian paths and connections to the
c).. ty-wid~ bike~ay syst·em in Employment Districts.
• General Reservation of City Authority. The' DA
express'ly' "preserves the Ci.ty's authority to adopt,
modify, and apply to Stanford development under ·the DA
(1) 'building,' plumbing; . electrical, fire, and other
uniform codes under §. 8.7,' (2) rules and procedures
for the provisions' and use of.utility services under §
8.8, and P) future city-wide regulations conce'rning
the disposition of' construction and demolition
materials···u'nder' § 8.11. It also preserves the City's
general police power to the extent its exercise does.
not· conflict with the agreement. § 8.11.
050203 syn 0091560'
PLANNING ~D TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
February 3, 2005
Page 10
RE: Development Agreement Between city and Stanford;
Ground Lease for the Stanford/Palo Alto Community
Playing Fields
Limitations on Future Mitigation
• No Further Traffic:: Mitigation. Beyond the traffic
mi tigation measures described above, the DA provides
. that the C.i·ty·· GaMot impose any addi tional measures to
mitigate .-the traffic impacts of the' housing or. the
commercial Replacement Square Footage. However, these
limi tations do not apply to any Stanford proposal for
a substitute Housing site selected pursuant to section
·6.4'.2. " or to Stanford's continued conunercia1 use or
rebuilding on a site determined infeasible for housing
(an "Infeasib;te. Site").
• No Furthei' CEQA Mitigation.' Section 8.10 o.f the DA
states that the Agreement and the EIR are intended to
mitigate all impacts which can feasibly be mitigated,
and therefore conunits the City not to impose any
additional mitigation measures under CEQA, . except
measures that the" C~.t.Y is required to impose by other
state, regional or federal law or authorized to impose
. by the Agreement. '-This provision also reqUires that
the City .. no.t undertake addi tioria1environmental review
under CEQA unless required to 'do so by CEQA. Again,
this 'limitation does not apply to substitute housing
or an "Infeasible Site."
• No Reduction .in·· -Research . Park FAR. Section '6.5
provides that· prior :to 2011 (when the Comprehensive
plan is scheduled for revision), the City cannot
reduce the maximum permitted floor area ratio for any
portion of· the Research Park. from that set forth in
the' 2003 Rules. The City does retain the right to
red1,l.ce the square footage of any individual additional
development proposed in the Research Park (beyond that
for which vested rights have been granted under this
Agreement) .
• Fu11:M;i ti(gation . of GUP Conununity Service Impacts. The
DA provide:s that the Mayfie~d Lease constitutes full
satisfaction of Condition of Approval P.B of . the
050203 syn 0091560.
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
February 3, 2005
Page 12
RE: Development Agreement Between city and Stanford;
Ground Lease for the Stanford/Palo ,Alto Community
Playing Fields"
for the dev.elopment of the fields .prior to encountering the
problem. § 20.18. If the DA is, ter,minated by the City, Stanford
has a right ,to, terminate the Lea$e. § 20.18.
PROPOSED GROUND, LEASE" ::
.. ~: . : ~
Stanford will.:.;' lease the Mayfield site to the City for 51
years at a nominal rent ($1 per year) for the operation of
communi ty athletic fields and "other related public recreation
uses." Art. 1". The site will be identified solely as "The
Stanford/Palo Alto Communi tyPlaying Fields." § 11.1.
... ; .... : -"
Within' 100 days, o,f adoption of the Development Agreement,
the . playing field:: (.I~'the Initial Improvements") will ,be
constructed, by St,anford according to the plans attaChed as
Exhibit C to the Lease. § 11.1. After inspection and approval by
thecity,the City will' take possession of the pre'mises. § 5.1..
, Under' the Lease, the City accepts the premises "as is'."
§ 4.1. Stanford is not responsible for fixing any problems with
,the playing fields after their, acceptance by the City. § 11.1.
See also Art. 1.0 and §' 13.2. Th~re is a broad assumption of ;dsk
and waivers by ,the: City;-'§ 20:2. The City has the right to
self-insure in order to 'meet the irisurance requirements spelled
out in the Lease.
The Ci ty may enter into Use and Occupancy Agre,ements wi th
others (e.g., food concessionaires). § 23.1., Stanford's consent
for any such agreements or ,subleases is required only if they
exceed 5 years or ~nclude the City's transfer of obligations for
operation or maint~riance. of the premises or the payment of rent
based on the' market rental, value Per square foot of the,
premises. § 23.1.
The Ci:ty may also make future "Alterations"to the premises,
without Stanford's approval as long a,s they ,cost no more than
$30,000,. ,Art. 11. However, ""Alterations" is defined to exclude,
"replacement or, restoration of' any' of the Initial Improvements
consistent· with' theiror.iginal design and function. " Art. 2.
Thus, Stanford's approval is not re'quired for such items as
replacement of turf or light fixtures. There are elaborate
050203 syn 0091560
PLANNING AIW TRANSPORTATIONCClMMISSION ".
February 3, 2005
Page 13
: ".'
. '. 'RE: Developtnen.t Agreement: Between city' and:Stanford i
.' GrouridLe:a:se~::forthe 'Stanford/Palo Alto Corrunurti ty
.P.laying ... F·i .. el.Q~. ". : .>'.: ,' .. ," ..
p:iovisionsfor ,. r,eview :':'arid , .• :,approval
Staiifdrd"s conseri,tis·:rEh[,uired .• ' Art; 11.
'", :~. ": ;
of, Alterations .;' . when
..' ... : . . ,. :"~. '.~:
'As". previously nbted,thegroundwater ',mdertl1.e<si·te,·is
c6ntamina:ted'and is the subj ect' :of ongoing ',' remediat.ion ,l,lnder",the
supervision of regulatory agen<::ies. Under the Lease,.,the' City'
has no responsibility for this "Pre-existing Environmental
Condition," 2 but only f.or:a:n "Exacerbation" of this condition
arising out of' the" ,Ci"ty~':s" activities. on the site ("Lessee,
Enviromnental, Ac't,ivity~~,)~ .. Ar,t .. 1 (definitions). The City is
obligated to remedia:te· and indemnify Stanford against any
contamination the,Citycq,uses (§§ 18.6, 18.7, 20.1), and there
are limitations on the'Cify;s use of hazardous substances on the
property. §J.8. 5 . .' .... ' .,' '
.:, .... : ...
'There are also limitation on Stanford's responsibilities
and indemnities for this pre..::.existing environmental condition.
The Lease provides that Stanford will indemnify the City, only
against "reasonabl,e::·o.ut: of pocket ,investigation and remediation
costs" that arise:., out 'of the "Pre-existing Environmental
Condi tion. " § '18.12. Stanford is not responsible for any
investigation and remediation costs (or damages). that are caused
by 'a third' party (e. g., another of its tenants) that are not
part of' the "Pre-existing Environmental Condition" i any
liability for tort claims ,arising out of the use of the playing
fields; or any consequential damages of any kind.
The City has, the absolute right to terminate the Lease at
any time. §. 5.4. There is no automatic right of renewal of, the
Lease, but it provides for an opportunity to discuss renewal 10
years before its expiration. Market rate rentals are specified
in the event of a "holding over," unless the parties agree to
some other rental. Art. 36. The Lease also specifies how the
proceeds of any condemnation of the' premises by another
government agen<::y, or. from 'damage or destruction of the
property, are to be, shared between the parties, and the extent
to which the Lease would survive. Art.,. 2'1.
2 Schedule 1 of the Lease lists all.,reports identifying the existing hazardous
substances on or adjacent to the premises.
050203 syn 0091560
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION CO:MMISSION
February j, 2005
Page 14
RE: Development Agret:ment Between city and Stanford;
Ground Lease for the Stanford/Palo Alto Community
Playing Fields
Finally, the Leas.e contains procedures and remedies for any
defaults under the Lease. Art. 25. It incorporates the dispute
resolution mechanisms; including arbitration procedures, from·
the Development AgJ;'eement. Art. 38. The Lease provides for
attorneys fees if a party prevails in the unlikely event
litigation ensued. §39.7.
.Respectfully submitted,
LOIJtI~ ~.Th-AL;
WYNNV S. FURTH
Senior Asst. City Attorney
WSF: syn
050203 syn 0091560
No. Item Description
1 Mayfield Soccer Complex
a. Value ofland (under 51 year lease)
b.
c.
d.
Value of improvements
Value ofleisure and recreation experience for
youth and adults
Value to Community for developing park and
recreation complex now
2 BMR Housing
a. Value of all BMR units (required plus 20
additional)
b.
c.
Value of twenty additional BMR units under 70
unit project
Value of Stanford managing BMR project
(instead of City or designated agency such as
PARC)
Mayfield Site Economic Analysis
Value (in millions)
City of
Stanford Palo Alto
41.8
Intangible
Intangible
Page 1
Comments
91.67 The low figure represents the fee simple price
that Palo Alto might pay for 5.9 acres of 40 dulac
residential land, calculated from recent resale of
high density residential units in Palo Alto. The
high figure represents the estimated present value
of the lease payments that Palo Alto would have
. to pay Stanford over the 51-year term of the
agreement if it were to lease the land from
Stanford.
2.50 Construction cost
0.00
0.00
8.20 Based on estimated present value of current
annual subsidy amounts to bring market rate
rents to required affordability levels.
2.30 Figure represents 20/70ths of the total value
estimated above for 70 BMR units.
0.03 Value to Palo Alto of approximately $30,000
annually, ifBMR units are rental.
» --su (") ::r 3 CD ::l -::z:
No. Item Description
3 Market-Rate Housing
a. Value of anticipated 180 units on upper
California
b.
c.
d.
e.
Value of additional annual property tax and
other tax revenues to City
Value of reducing jobslhousihg imbalance and
traffic congestion
Value of improving interface between College
Terrace and Stanford Research Park (SRP)
Value of all development fees to City
Mayfield Site Economic Analysis
Value (in millions)
City of
Stanford Palo Alto
64.0 145.0*
Intangible
Intangible
Comments
0.00 The low figure represents the fee simple value of
the land calculated from recent resale of
townhouse units in Palo Alto. The high figure
represents the potential land value that could be
supported by construction of 180 units at the
density and FAR specified in the proposed DA.
This amount should be discounted to accoUIit for
the fact that Stanford will not sell the land to
homebuyers, but offer long-term leases and also
to account for the fact that requirements for
various mitigations, public benefits, and BMR
requirements will reduce the value.
0.58 Annualgeneral fund revenues to the City. Based
on a fiscal impact analysis prepared for the net
change in development that would occur under
the terms ofthe proposed DA. This figure
utilizes conservative property valuation
assumptions for the purpose of estimating
potential property tax revenues. This amount
may also be reduced if housing is dedicated by
Stanford to academic housing, which would
qualify for tax exempt status.
0.00
3.10
* This is a gross 'value and does not deduct the value of redevelopment of the property under current zoning without the Development Agreement
Page 2
No. Item Description
4 Replace Office and R&D
a. No significant change of SRP officelR&D space
5 New Services Required
a. Cost of providing new services to residents vs.
new tax revenues generated (annually)
6 Park/Soccer Fields as Satisfaction of GUP Community
Services Mitigation
a. GUP allows for City to request County to do
study (at Stanford's expense) to determine if
Stanford is adequately meeting the demand for
community services generated by approximately
880 new residential units that Stanford must
develop under GUP.
Mayfield Site Economic Analysis
Value (in millions)
City of
Stanford Palo Alto
41.8
Page 3
Comments
0.00 Increased property tax revenues due to
replacement of older research park buildings with
newer, more valuable research park buildings are
reflected in the City revenue figures above (3b)
0.08 This is the projected net annual fiscal surplus to
the City General Fund considering revenues
above (3b), less projected general fund costs.
This figure assumes no net increase in costs to
the City to maintain the soccer complex, because
the City had planned a soccer complex with or
without the proposed DA.
91.67 Figure represents the present value oflease
payments that Palo Alto would have made if it
was required to lease the land from Stanford for
the term of the agreement. GUP does not require
Stanford to fund any new community services. If
County were to do study using our City service
demands and if it were determined that Stanford
provides no community services and if County
were to determine that City should receive
funding, the amount of development fees is much
lower than the cost of acquiring and developing
the new complex.
Mayfield Site Economic Analysis
Value (in millions)
City of
No. Item Description Stanford Palo Alto Comments
7 TDM Program
a. Value of first tier programs 0.18 Approximately $175,000 per year for 25 years.
Totals 64.0 83.6 200.31
Page 4
The ARB has previously reviewed and approved (summarized below) development plans for the
community playfields at the Mayfield site and need not make any further recommendation to
Council on that element of the Development Agreement.
BACKGROUND
Overall Project Description
The Project consists of a Development Agreement and Lease between the City and Stanford
that allows for a 51-year lease of community playfields at the Mayfield Site at the corner of
Page Mill Road· and. EI Camino Real to allow construction of community playing fields,
construction of 250 housing units, and demolition and relocation of 300,000 square feet of
existing office development. The Project includes a zone change of the Mayfield Site from
High Density Multiple-Family Residence District with Site and Design Overlay (RM-40 (D»
to Public Facilities District (PP) with a zoning overlay and a Comprehensive Plan land use
designation change from Multiple Family Residential to Public Parks. The Project allows for
alternative development standards for the playfields at the Mayfield Site and for housing sites
at EI Camino Site and Upper California Site, Chapter 18.62 and modifies the zoning in the
SRP to accommodate the relocated square footage without increasing the total permitted
commercial development in the Stanford Research Park (SRP). See the Planning and
Transportation Commission January 12, and February 9,2005 staff reports for a complete
description and history of the Project and summary of significant impacts relevant to the
environmental review (included in Attachment A).
Significant Community benefits from the project include:
• Two lighted play fields and a warm-up field with parking at the Mayfield site,
• 250 units of housing located close to Stanford Research Park (SRP) jobs, with up to 70
below market rate (BMR) housing units which will help improve the City'sjobs/housing
balance and contribute to addressin~ the City's housing need as identified by the
Association of Bay Area Govemments,
• Improved interface between SRP and the College Terrace neighborhood, as new housing
replaces commercial development across the street from existing residences,
• Reduced traffic impacts in the College Terrace neighborhood as commercial development
is replaced with housing, and mitigated traffic impacts along other streets to reduce
impacts to a less than significant level,
• Clear standards and guidelines for the next phase of development in the SRP as supported
by the Comprehensive Plan,
• An agreed-upon framework for Transportation Demand Management (including
carpools, shuttles, a SRP transportation manager, and the use of other public transit) as
the City considers future new commercial development in the SRP with a goal of no
added net trips.
The Project was reviewed and recommended for approval at a public hearing on February 9,
2005 by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Commissioner Patrick Burt moved to
approve the staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Michael Griffin;
1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report.
2. Pass the ordinance approving the Development Agreement with Stanford University.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
3. Adopt the resolution amending the Comprehensive. Plan land use classification of the
Mayfield Site from Multiple Family Residential to Public Parks.
4. Pass the ordinance amending the zoning code and map in order to implement the
Development Agreement and related Ground Lease.
The motion passed 4 -1 (Commissioners Lippert, Burt, Griffin and Packer in favor;
Commissioner Holman opposed).
Coriunissioner Burt moved to encourage staff to meet with Stanford to develop additional terms
of the Development Agreement that could then be considered by the City Council, seconded by
Commissioner Holman, and amended by Commissioner Lippert, to include: .
1. Clarification of design principals relating to the California housing site.
2. Clarification of development standards to ensure compatibility on the California housing
site with surrounding neighborhoods.
3. Consider connectivity to Page Mill Road from the California site by means other than
California Avenue.
4. Develop an on-going community outreach program to inform the public regarding the
progress of elements in the Development Agreement.
5. Explore possibilities for development of a Spine Road in the interior of the SRP between
El Camino Real and Hanover.
6. Limit the density on the California housing site to 200 dwelling units, or 12 units per
acre that is comparable to the zoning in College Terrace.
7. Limit the height to less than 50' in the California housing site, as determined by staff.
8. Design and zone the California frontage to R-l standards.
9. Consider design alternatives to eliminate the potential cut-through traffic from El
Camino Real to Page Mill Road through the Mayfield site parking lot.
The motion passed 5-0.
Playfield Complex
The playfield complex at the Mayfield Site is the first element ofthe Development Agreement
and Lease Project that will be developed. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the
project and contributed to the design, recognizing the playfields will significantly contribute to
the City's recreational needs. Development of the playfields are consistent with the Palo Alto
Fields AdVisory Committee Report to Palo Alto City Council, December 5, 2002, which
identified an existing shortage of fields. The playfields project was preliminarily reviewed by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) on December 4, 2003 and by the Planning and
Transportation Commission on December 17, 2003 and received final recommendation for
approval by the ARB on January 13, 2005 (included in Attachment A):
ARB Board Member Judith Wasserman moved to approve the staff recommendation and
conditions with the additional conditions noted below, seconded by Board Member Drew Maran:
1. Wood used for the project shall be FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) Certified. Plywood
shall be formaldehyde free;
2. Concrete shall contain 30% fly ash;
3. Architect shall consult with the Historical Resources Board on the design of the historic
plaques to be used on the site;
City of Palo Alto Page 3
4. Time limits on the hours of play shall be listed on signs and placed on the site;
5. Details ofthe lights for the lighting of the playing fields and details ofthe fence separating
Wilson Sonsini shall return to the ARB subcommittee for review.
The motion passed 2-1 (Wasserman and Moran in favor, Solnickopposed).
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
The Development Agreement allows Stanford to elect either the 2003 Rules or Subsequent Rules
to guide development ofthe housing and 300;000 of replacement R&D/office square footage on
Designated Sites in the SRP, provided that only one set of rules would apply to the designated
proj ect. Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the Development Agreement discuss how a site becomes
designated for development and how the 2003 Rules apply to the site.
Frozen 2003 Rules for Designated Sites and Associated Square Footage
The Development Agreement vests, or freezes development rules in effect in June 2003 since
this was the time the City Council approved the framework for the agreement. These rules would
apply to the 250 units of required housing and the 300,000 of replacement square footage.
Replacement square footage may also be combined with existing square footage that would be
redeveloped on designated sites. In cases where there is a combination of both replacement and
redeveloped square footage, the vested 2003 rules would apply to both types of square footage.
This approach is essential since for review and·enforcement purposes, there can not be separate
standards related to the same project. When replacement and redeveloped square footage is
combined, the "non-replacement" square footage is referred to as "associated square footage".
The associated square footage is limited to a total of 1;200,000 square feet, and replacement and
associated square footage combined (1,500,000 square feet) are limited to 10% of the research
park.
While the City promises to freeze certain rules, most notably land use regulations, it reserves the
right to apply certain future rules, including uniform building codes as modified for the City as a
whole, rules regarding utility services, rules regarding disposition of construction and demolition
materials, and the city's general police powers. All City departments, including Public Works,
Utilities, Planning, Building, Fire and Police agree that the 2003 rules as listed in the agreement
will be adequate to cover anticipated development in the research park.
Subsequent Rules
Stanford may elect to develop a housing or replacement square footage site by subsequent rules,
rather than 2003 rules, which means the City rules relating to development that are in effect at
the time. For example, Stanford may prefer the new zoning ordinance rules once adopted and
would then develop a designated project according to those provisions. However, only one set of
rules may apply to any given designated project.
FAR Shift up to 25% Over Base
Section 6.3.3 provides the option to exceed the FAR allowed by the 2003 Rules on a Designated
Site for replacement square footage by up to 25%, if the development complies with the
Modified 2003 Rules, with the exception that the FAR may not be increased on any site fronting
on California Avenue. It should be pointed out that the overall commercial FAR of the SRP may
not be exceeded by this provision. .
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Section 6.3.10. Limitation on Design Review -Replacement Square Footage
For new R&D/office projects covered by the Agreement, the City will still conduct design
review in the normal manner, with certain modifications. Staff believes that the agreed upon
limitations will not in fact require significant changes in the review process. Square footage can
only be reduced if necessary to comply with modified 2003 Rules; underground parking can only
be required to protect creeks; building and landscaping methods required cannot be substantially
more expensive (after adjustments for inflation) than those generally used in the SRP in the
previous ten years.
Section 6.4.4. and 6.4.10. Housing Development Standards and Limitations on Design Review
If Stanford chooses to develop the El Camino and Upper California sites under the Alternative
Development -Standards (Exhibit D of the Development Agreement), design review is limited to
determining compliance with those standards, approval of lighting, noise levels, landscaping, and
exterior materials and finishes, and, in the case of the Upper California site only, approval of
massing, roof forms and site plan along the California Avenue edge of the site. Required
materials, landscaping, et cetera cannot be more expensive than those used in similar housing
projects in the previous ten years. Because setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, parking and
open space requirements are specifically determined for the El Camino and Upper California
sites, Staff believes that the design review process can be more limited without adverse effects
on either the neighborhoods or the City.
Comparison and Development Standards
Following is a comparison of the site development standards allowed under existing zoning, and
development standards that would apply under the Development Agreement.
Upper California Avenue. One use allowed under the current Limited Maimfacturing (LM) zone
is an all residential use using RM-30 standards including a maximum FAR of .75. This is the
same FAR permitted in the Alternative Standards AS2 in the Development Agreement. The
maximum number of dwelling units under the Development Agreement would be one-half the
number allowed under current zoning, 15 versus 30 dwelling units per acre. The maximum
height allowed within 100 feet of California Avenue would be approximately the same under the
Development Agreement,but it could rise to 50 feet interior to the site, compared with a
maximum height of35 feet over the entire site under current zoning. Currently, the Landscape
Overlay (L) zone along the California Avenue frontage requires a 50 feet setback behind the
property line as a buffer between the research park and the residential properties across 'the street.
With the proposed change to residential use on the site under the Development Agreement, the
Landscape Overlay zone is removed and replaced with a 20 feet setback, similar to the existing
setbacks across the street. The useable open space requirement under the Development
Agreement is somewhat less at 25%, compared with the 30% requirement under current zoning.
However, that 25% is calculated on the entire site area, including streets. A comparison of
development standards for the Upper California Avenue site is provided in Table A below.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Table A: UPPER CALIFORNIA A VENUE SITE
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
LM RM-30 RM-15 AS2
Floor Area Ratio .4 .6 or .75 * .5 .75
Residential Density NA 30 units per acre 15 units per acre 15 units per acre
Height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 30 feet within 100
feet of Ca. Ave; 50
feet on
balance of site
Site Coverage 30% 40% 35% 40%
Setback along 50 feet** 50 feet** 50 feet** 20 feet
California Avenue
Daylight Plane NA 10 ft.l45° 5 ft.l45° None
Parking 1 space per 300 1.25 sp/studio 1.25 sp/studio 1.0 sp/studio
square feet 1.5 sp/1 bdrrn 1.5 sp/1 bdrrn 1.5 sp/1 bdrm
2.0 sp/2 bdrrn 2.0 sp/2 bdrrn 2.0 sp/2 bdrm
guest -.10 lunit + guest -.. lO/unit guest -.25/unit
1*** +1***
Useable Open Space NA 30% 35% 25%****
MultiFamily Design NA Apply Apply Do Not Apply
Guidelines 18.28
* .6 FAR allowed if parking is underground or detached; .75 FAR allowed if parking is above ground or attached
** Landscape (L) Overlay Zone along California Avenue
*** If more than one space per unit is assigned or secured parking, then guest spaces equal to 33% of all units is required
**** Open space calculated on entire site area
On the EI Camino Real site, the most intense development currently allowed is Mixed Use with a
FAR of 1.0 to 1. Under the Development Agreement the Mixed Use maximum FAR is increased
to 2.0 to 1; the residential maximum FAR is increased from.6 to 1 to 1.75 to 1, and the
commercial maximum FAR is reduced from 0.4 to 1 to 0.25 to 1. In addition, commercial uses
are limited to retail, eating and drinking establishments, personal services and child care centers.
The number of dwelling units allowed on the site would increase from 30 to 50 dwelling units
per acre. Table B shows a comparison of the development standards for this site.
Table B: EL CAMINO REAL SITE
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CS RM-30 CS RM-40 AS1
Floor Area .4 .6 or .75 * .4 1.0 1. 7 5 housing
Ratio 1.0 FAR allowed for mixed use .25 commercial
Residential --30 du/acre NA 40 du/acre 50 du/acre
Density
Height 35 feet for Residential or Mixed 35 feet 50 feet 40 feet 50 feet
Use wlResidential
50 feet for all commercial
Site Coverage No Limit 40% No Limit 45% No Limit
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Setbacks ** None 20,10+,10+ None 25, 10, 10 ft. 13 -17 ft., 0, width
ft. of easement
Daylight Plane None 10 ft.l45° None 15 ft.l45° None
Parking Varies wluse per PAMC 18.83 1.25 Istudio Varies w/use 1.25 Istudio 1.0/studio
1.5 II bdrm perPAMC 1.5 II bdrm 1.5/1 bdrm
2.0/2 bdrm 18.83 2.012 bdrm 2.0/2 bdrm
guest-guest-guest -.
.10lunit + .10 lunit .25/unit
1*** +1***
Useable Open NA 30% NA 20% 20%
Space
MultiFamily NA Apply NA Apply Do Not Apply
Design
Guidelines
18.28
* .6 FAR allowed if parking is underground or detached; .75 FAR allowed if parking is above ground or attached
** Front, side and rear setbacks listed in order
*** If more than one space is assigned or secured parking, then guest spaces equal to 33% of all units is required
The attached report from the City Attorney's office further explains the provisions of the
Development Agreement (see Attachment C).
TIME LINE:
• Construction of Mayfield Soccer Fields -Within 100 days after effective date of
Development Agreement (DA p.13) -projected for Summer 2005, open in Fall 2005
• Phase One 100,000 Replacement and Associated Square Footage -Approval may be
sought any time after effective date of Development Agreement (DA p.14)
• Transportation Demand Management program -within 6 months.after start of
construction of any Phase One square footage (DA p.14)
• Stanford files application for at least 185 housing units and associated BMR units* -
Before December 31,2013. (*At the time of this application, a decision on the 50 BMR
unit Basic Agreement or 70 BMR rental unit alternative.) (DA p13)
• Stanford files application for remaining housing units and associated BMR units -Before
December 31,2020 (DA p.13)
• Demolition of existing square footage -Any time, but no excavation of site (DA p.15)
• Phase Two 200,000 Replacement SF Building Permit Issuance -Any time provided that
the following are met (DA p.14):
a) Demolition of related existing square footage
b) Application for related housing as provided for in DA 6.1.5
• Phase Two Occupancy Permits -After commencement of related housing construction or
expiration of an applicable time period per DA6.1.5 (DA p.16)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Draft EIR for the Proj ect circulated for public review. and comment for a 45-day period
commencing on December 14, 2004 and ending on January 27,2005. On January 12,2005, a
public hearing was held by the Planning and Transportation Commission to receive public
comments and allow the public to provide testimony on the adequacy of the DEIR as required by
the California Environmental Quality Act (Minutes of the January 1zth meeting and comments
received are included in Attachment A). A second public hearing was held by the Planning and
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Transportation Commission on February 9,2005 where the Commission approved a motion to
recommend certification of the EIR to the City Council.
NEXT STEPS:
Following review by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review
Board, the adequacy of the EIR and the Project will be heard by the City Council. If the City
Council certifies the EIR and approves the Project, the first phase ofthe Project may commence
with the development of the Mayfield Site soccer field complex. .
ATTACHMENTS:
A. February 9, 2005 Planning and Transportation Staff Report and Attachments (Board
Members only) .
B. Development Agreement Between City of Palo Alto and Stanford University (Board
Members only)
C. City Attorney's Report (Board Members only),
. Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
City of Palo Alto
Tricia Schimpp, AICP
Contract Planner
Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official .
Page 8
1
2
3
4
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES BOARD HEARING
Draft Verbatim Minutes
Board Members:
Judith Wassennann (Chair)
Kenneth Kornberg (Vice Chair)-
absent
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Staff Liaison:
Lisa Grote
Staff:
Drew Maran
Susan Eschweiler-ab.sent
David Solnick
Steve Emsley, Director of Community Environment
Wynn Firth
Project Rep.:
Public Speakers: Bill Phillips, Stanford
Paul Garrett Marianne Welton -Rob Quigley -architecture company
5
6 Board Member Judith Wassennann: This is an information and discussion session. It is about
7 the Proposed Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University
8 concerning the Stanford Research Park, the Mayfield Site Community Recreation Fields, and
9 Housing on EI Camino Real and California Avenue and related zoning and comprehensive plan
10 amendments.
11
12 And Lisa Grote is going to start us off, and then there'll be various other people who will talk to
13 us and then we will have questions and comments more or less in the standard method with an
14 opportunity to hear from the public -let's hear from the public after the presentations and before
15 the questions so that we can maybe use the public commentary to inform our questions. Lisa.
16 Ms. Lisa Grote: Thank you very much Chair Wassermann and Board members. As you
17 mentioned, your review of the dv agreement today is to make advisory comments to the City
18 Council. Frequently, dv ags would not come before the arb. In this instance it is coming to you
19 because there several sections of the agreement that talk about future arb review of commercial
20 sites in the Stanford Research Park and housing sites that are adjacent to or in the Stanford
21 Research Park. And in addition, there are dv standards for the housing sites that we'll talk about.
22 So for those reasons this dv agreement is coming to the arb for review and comment as you
23 mentioned.
24 First, before we go into those specifics I wanted to give you an overview of the essential
25 elements of the agreement. The first of the essential elements are the two lighted play fields at
26 EI Camino Real and Page Mill Road along with the snack shack and the attendant improvements.
27 You have reviewed those and recommended approval of those.
28
29 The second element of the agreement is the understanding and the promise on Stanford's part to
30 build 250 housing units. Those housing units would be located on two sites -an upper
31 California site which is about 17 acres -it would actually be three sites that are combined. Also,
32 a site on EI Camino Real which again is a combination of three smaller sites into one building
33 site and a potential to extend that to the comer of California Avenue and EI Camino Real. That
34 isa possibility.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1 The third element of the agreement is to remove the existing commercial and office research dv
2 square footage that's on those sites now, both the EI Camino Real site and the upper California
3 site, and to relocate that 300,000 square feet of the 338,000 square feet that are there now to
4 relocated 300,000 ofthat square footage to other locations in the research park. It would not
5 increase the allowable commercial square footage or the floor area in the Stanford Research
6 Park. It would, however, allow specific sites to increase their FAR by 25% in order to
7 accommodate the relocated square footage. So overall, it's the same amount, in fact a little bit
8 less, in the Research Park, but individual sites could increase in order to accommodate that
9 square footage by up to 25%.
10 We believe that the benefits of the agreement include reduced traffic on California Avenue and
11 reduced impact on the College Terrace neighborhood. We also believe that there are clear
12 standards for future dv of the Stanford Research Park as allowed under the Comprehensive Plan,
13 and then we also believe a primary benefit of the agreement is a transportation demand
14 management framework for the Research Park as those sites in the Research Park continue to
15 redevelop.
16 Specifically, the two sections that address future design review and future arb review have to do
17 with the commercial dv in the Research Park, and that was in Section 6.3.9 of the dv agreement,
18 and also future dv of the housing sites on upper ca and El Camino Real, and that's in Section
19 6.4.10 of the dv agreement.
20 The future arb review of the commercial square footage would allow the arb the same basic
21 review that you have currently with the limitation that square footage would not be reduced for
22 individual projects unless needed to meet the standards or the requirements in the dv agreement.
23 So unless there was something that required a reduction in square footage, the Board would not
24 be able to reduce square footage of a proposed project. Currently there are some provisions in
25 the arb review section of the zoning ordinance which would allow you to reduce square footage.
26 It doesn't happen typically, but those provisions are there .. So this removes that provision unless
27 there is some need specifically for it to meet the dv agreement requirements.
28 There are specific provisions for addressing below grade parking in relation to protecting creeks.
29 It limits required below grade parking to be one level below grade in order to protect creeks. It
30 doesn't mean that Stanford couldn't propose two levels of below grade parking; it's just that the
31 Board's ability to limit parking would be to one level of below grade parking.
32 And then it also stipulates that finishes, materials, and building methods can't be substantially
33 more expensive than what has been used in the preceding ten years. So if a dv proposal comes in
34 in 2018 we would expect that the finishes and materials and the building methods would be
35 substantially the same as what had occurred between 2008 and 2018, within the preceding 10-
36 year period.
37 The design review for the housing sites would be limited to assessment or evaluation as to
38 whether or not the alternative design standards have been implemented if Stanford decides to use
39 those alternative dv standards, and those are in Appendix D ofthe agreement. It's AS-l for the
40 El Camino Real site, alternative design standards I, and then alternative design standards II for
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1 From the university's point of view the Mayfield deal as we call it is first and foremost a
2 response to the City's need for playing fields, number one, and house number two. The first
3 Mayfield agreement was basically an incentive to do some housing, but not a requirement to do
4 housing. In public hearings that have occurred over the time period beginning with 2000, we've
5 heard frequently, and we've heard frequently from the City staff itself, that the housing needed to
6 playa more prominent role in any revised or new or rearranged type of agreement. So this
7 agreement provides an absolute guarantee by Stanford to build 250 units of housing in the
8 Research Park. In return for that commitment and in return for a commitment to building the
9 playing fields, the City is granting Stanford vested dv rights, and vesting has real value to
10 Stanford because it brings certainty as to what can occur in the future and provides a framework
11 under which those benefits can finally be realized by Stanford.
12 What makes the Mayfield agreement particularly unique is our inability to build the housing
13 today. The housing sites are encumbered currently by ground leases that don't expire for 10 to
14 15 years. So this fact, combined with the commitment that we have to build it, is the
15 unpredictability that requires some parameters for what can be built and how we can build it.
16 The flexibility for us to design what would be needed by the marketplace in the future is what is
17 part of the principle that you see in this design outline and design restriction.
18 We call this an alternative overlay, and I think that'll be the subject of some of your discussion.
19 With respect to commercial development rights, Stanford has agreed that 340,000 square feet of
20 office, R&D -industrial even -type commercial that exists today, it's going to be replaced by
21 that housing, will come down, and we will be able to take 300,000 of that 340,000 and build it
22 elsewhere in the Research Park. So that is what we term the replacement square footage.
23 As we mentioned in the Planning and Transportation Commission last week, we strongly believe
24 the Mayfield agreement is beneficial to the Research Park. The certainty that defined vesting
25 provides allows us to do future commercial dv and leave the construction of new, modem,
26 efficient R&D buildings in the park. The house, both the BMR and the market rate will improve
27 the housing inventory in the region and also begins to better blend and buffer the relationship of
28 the Research Park to the College Terrace neighborhood immediately across the street on
29 California Avenue. So thank you for your consideration and review and evaluation of this
30 information in these documents and the plans and proposals. I'm now going to introduce
31 Marianne Welton to talk about the design principles.
32 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you very much. Hi, Marianne.
33 Ms. Marianne Welton: I'm going to follow Ken's lead, too, and just bring my boards right up
34 closer for you to be able to see.
35 When we worked with Stanford and the City to dv the design standards for upper California
36 Avenue we had three primary concepts that we were looking at, and the first one we call
37 "stitching the seam." This is California Avenue, this is the site, and this is the existing
38 neighborhood. The main thing that we wanted to do was to knit the new dv into the existing
39 neighborhood. The idea was that we would stitch this seam by having the houses along the
40 California Avenue frontage mirror the dv across the street and in the rest of the neighborhood, so
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1 you'd mirror the mass and scale, the space between the houses so that it feels like one
2 neighborhood so you don't feel like this is a project with a capital P that feels really different
3 from the existing neighborhood so that there would be a seamless transition as you went up the
4 street. We don't want to duplicate the houses or the architecture, we don't want some kind of
5 Disneyland little Victorian style houses, but something that relates to the same quality such as
6 lsg, arb shapes and rhythm.
7 Then we looked at how we cold fit the type of density on the site that would allow the number of
8 housing units that are part of the dv agreement. We have not designed this site, we do not know
9 how it will end up looking, they don't have a developer in mind. The three different parcels
10 become available at different times, so we're not sure hoV\' it will be developed, but the idea was
11 that there would be a hierarchy of form and texture so that you have a smaller scale here along
12 California Avenue that would probably increase in density and height as it steps back towards
13 the Research Park.
14 Then that leads to how you create some type of transition and buffer between the neighborhood
15 and the Research Park. We don't want to recreate this extreme transition right now between
16 small single-family houses and the research buildings that exist there right now. We don't
17 necessarily want to reproduce that here at the back of the site. We worked with an artist who
18 came up with just a rendering to show what's possible under the design guidelines. We didn't
19 design these, we just showed them pictures of houses in the neighborhood, gave him the design
20 guidelines. And if you were looking up California Avenue towards Amherst at the top, just the
21 idea that what's on this across the street matches this side.
22 Then on EI Camino we already had the EI Camino design guidelines, so we didn't have to come
23 up with the type of design principles that we're talking about on California Avenue. Once again,
24 this is the artist's conception, it's not a building that we designed, on what could happen on EI
25 Camino. Although David might think it's too articulated, the idea was to have a strong street
26 wall, a strong presence here on California Avenue.
27 As I mentioned, on California Avenue, we were trying to define the outside envelope of what can
28 be developed there. We're not really sure what type of housing will be wanted there, how many
29 units might be developed on EI Camino already, so that would limit or define the number of units
30 that happen here. But we just wanted to look at a range of possibilities and different scenarios,
31 so that's why we developed these principles. The stitching the seam is the only principle that
32 became part of the AS-II guidelines, and these two, we'll wait to see what happens.
33 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you very much. Are there any other presentations on this
34 subject? [none]
35 I would like to take comments from the public now. I don't have any cards, but I know that
36 there's at least one person here from the Collage Terrace Association. This is Paul Garrett. You
37 have three minutes.
38 Mr. Paul Garrett My name is Paul Garrett. I've lived at 890 California Avenue for 23 years, so
39 I'm halfway between the soccer fields and the upper ca housing. I worked in the research park
40 for twelve years, so I know this area extremely well. I'm on the College Terrace Residents
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1 Association board and have been for a few years, and I've followed this particular project from
2 its inception. Normally, Kathy Durham would be here. She's president of our association, but
3 she's out of town on a family emergency, but you have an e-mail statement from her. Also, John
4 Chicarelli would normally be here, but he's out of town and you have a statement from him.
5 And the statement was e-mailed at 1 :30 this morning from John Mark McCosta who lives at the
6 upper block of ca. He's working in a group on this project, and so I brought along a copy ofthat
7 e-mail to give to you in case it didn't get to you today.
8 Basically, my position on this as an affordable housing advocate -I've been on the board at the
9 Palo Alto Housing Corporation for six years, so I'm a strong advocate of affordable housing but
10 also of housing in general. I favor both the housing aspect and the soccer aspect, because
11 someday I think I can walk over and watch a soccer game after I retire from all this stuff. So
12 that's what Iplan to do; I'm going to retire from both boards and go watch the soccer games.
13 John Mark, in his statement, makes the same points that Marianne made here just now on
14 stitching the seam and the hierarchy and transition, and those are important points, but I'm not
15 going to delve into those. But he also added a point that he'd like to see favored, and that is that
16 there be no obstruction of views from Peter Coots housing, the condominiums on the hill, and
17 Peter Coots hill itself, which is dedicated as open space by the University, and that's on record
18 with the county. I don't think that a 50-foot height would obstruct those views, but there are
19 easy ways of testing that and adjusting if necessary. So that's my general position. I see I'm in
20 the yellow zone here, so I'll just give you this document and hope this goes through.· Thank you.
21 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you very much; I appreciate your coming in. Our next
22 speaker is Fred Balin. Sorry if I didn't pronounce you correctly. There are no other cards.
23 Mr. Fred Balin: My name is Fred Balin, I live at 2385 Columbia Street on the corner of
24 California Avenue and College Terrace, directly facing the proposed 17-acre upper ca residential
25 housing site. Among the items that staff recommends you review and comment on today is a
26 limitation on design review for this site under a new proposed residential zoning, AS-II.
27 Specifically -and I read from the dv agreement Section 6.4.10 -" ... with limitations to a
28 determination whether the housing complies with such standards, to approval of lighting, noise
29 levels, landscaping, exterior materials and finishes, approval of massing, roof forms, and the site
30 plan, and that it be limited to the ca edge of the ca sites, and then only to the extent that the
31 projects submitted for approval do not already approximate the horizontal rhythm of building to
32 side yard setback and the side areas of California Avenue residential properties located across the
33 street or in the vicinity of the ca sites; in other words, to a 100-foot strip adjacent to California
34 Avenue." My question to you today is -why.
35 AS-II zoning, as currently articulated in the appendix to the dv standards, allows a floor area
36 ratio of .75, R-l residential zoning, which is almost the entire College Terrace except for the
37 parks and everything west of Williams Street, is FAR of.45 for the first 5,000 square feet, and it
38 goes down to .30 for the balance. A maximum height of 50 feet under AS-II zoning after the
39 100-foot setback as opposed to a 30-foot maximum under R-l residential zoning. No daylight
40 plane required as opposed to residential R-l which requires it, and then a maximum density of up
41 to 15 units per acre of the gross area. I assume this implies that there'll be no public streets in a
42 large dv, because residential density is generally calculated on net acreage, which does not
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1 include public streets. But in any event, College Terrace R-l residential zoning, based on let's
2 say a 6,000 square-foot average lot, is 7.3 units per acre. There are some smaller lots in there, so
3 if we go down to 5,000 square-foot lots, we're at 8.7 units per acre.
4 Residential building under Phase II of the dv agreement as mentioned here, will not begin until
5 ground leases expire, possibly in 2011 or later, or until the first part ofthe housing request is
6 required under the dv agreement by the end of2013. Why should we recommend today a
7 limitation of design review for a new sketchily, potentially incompatible residential zoning for a
8 dv that will have a major impact on an old established eclectic neighborhood of single-family
9 residential homes. Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
10 Board Member Wassermann: Thank you very much. I think now we should ask our questions
11 and make our comments, and I guess whoever from the staff and from Stanford who's been
12 working on this agreement would answer, depending on what the question is. Let's start with
13 David.
14 Board Member David Solnick: I wanted to ask some more questions about the design limitation.
15 How is that getting incorporated into the dv agreement? Was this Stanford's position? What's
16 the history of that piece?
17 Ms. Grote: The design limitation on the housing sites -we did discuss this at length. First of all,
18 I did want to mention a couple of things about the upper ca site. Currently the zoning under LM,
19 which is the limited manufacturing, refers to the RM-30 zoning should it be a residential project,
20 so that's 30 units per acre. So the first place we started with is what makes more sense with
21 regard to what is happening in College Terrace, which is right across the street -obviously
22 they're not developed at 30 units per acre -so we selected a density that was more in line with
23 College Terrace as a neighborhood. The density in College Terrace overall, when you look at it
24 as a neighborhood, is between 10 and 11 units per acre, so it's not as low as other single family
25 neighborhoods which are R-l neighborhoods, which have a 6-7-8 units per acre. So that's why
26 we selected the 15 units per acre because that is significantly less than what is allowed now and
27 more in line and reflective with what is happening in College Terrace overall. So that was the
28 first point.
29 The second was what is the relationship along upper ca to College Terrace and where are
30 buildings located now. Even though there is a IS-foot required setback along that north side of
31 upper ca, when you go out and measure them, they are closer to 20 feet. They vary, but they're
32 around 20 feet on that side of upper ca, and that is a standard R-l setback. So that's what we
33 selected for that first 100 feet along upper ca -100 feet is a typical R -1 depth lot, so we said, for
34 the first 100 feet there would be a 20-foot front setback and a 30-foot height limit, which is again
35 the standard R-l height limit and the typical depth of an R-l10t. So that's where we started to
36 better reflect what was happening on the other side of upper ca.
37 Then on the remainder of the site we did look at the reduced density, how that could further
38 buffer the College Terrace neighborhood from the dv in the Research Park, so we did have a
39 higher height limit. We said it could go up to 50 feet. That is higher than the allowed height
40 now, which is at 35 feet, but again, it was in order to buffer the College Terrace neighborhood
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1 and that row of single family along upper ca from the Research Park uses themselves. So that
2 was another factor.
3 The desire to have the Board continue to look at landscaping, lighting, noise levels, was very
4 important, so we discussed that. The recommendation is to retain that kind of review in the
5 future.
6 Board Member Solnick: That was all very helpful, but about the limitations. You mentioned in
7 your presentation that there's a whole bunch of things where the idea is that we're not reviewing.
8 Was that something that came from Planning or came from Stanford?
9 Ms. Welton: There are actually a few things, not a whole bunch of things, but a few things.
10 There's massing, there's the roof forms that would not be reviewed. That was really an agreed
11 upon limitation that the dv standards themselves would address those issues sufficiently enough
12 that there wasn't a need to have further arb review in the future.
13 Lg(?): To add to that a little bit -Bill Phillips talked about certainty being of great importance to
14 Stanford. It's literally bankable. As you know, if you have an entitlement, you're much more
15 able to enter into dv agreement, get a loan on a property, and Stanford is making a promise to
16 actually building this housing, and they're making a promise a long way in the future. Although
17 it's hardto believe in the last ten years of Palo Alto and even ca real estate, markets go up and
18 they go down, and universities in the state have sustained big losses on housing projects they
19 have been obliged to build in the recent past.
20 He also mentioned that they wanted to be able to build to the market whatever it might be at that
21 time. So the design standards that the City staff developed, as you notice, focus almost entirely
22 on site externalities. They talk about noise, light, interface along California Avenue, there's a lot
23 of work on circulation in the environmental review. Those are all things that have to do with the
24 impact of this dv on existing neighborhoods or on surrounding uses. They say very little about
25 what happens within the site, because Stanford wanted to be free to build the mix of housing
26 types -detached, attached, multiple stories, single story -depending upon what they found most
27 suitable for their uses at that time in the future. That's why for example there are no daylight
28 plane standards, because they have a big constraining impact on attached units and may get in
29 the way of open space or other things that would be more desirable. And because this property
30 would not have any daylight impacts on adjacent residences, because those have been dealt with
31 by peripheral setback requirements, there are no daylight plane requirements. That means that
32 this is really designed to let Stanford make its own decisions about what's a desirable mix within
33 the project. And that was something that they bargained hard for.
34 Board Member Solnick: I understand most of that, but I don't think you can legislate designing
35 with words. I think it's absolutely impossible. I can understand them not wanting to mess with
36 it, that seems okay. But why not allow design review of the California Avenue elevations? Am I
37 misunderstanding this restriction? Is that true that there won't be design ...
38 Ms. Grote: It's very focused. It's on materials, and it's on -does this -it's not "mirror," but it's
39 something close to that -the rhythms of what's across the street. This is how they feel most
40 comfortable designing this, and they may be able to articulate it more than we can. But they are
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
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
concerned that other than committing to have something that is a good fit with the very eclectic
landscaped varying scale neighborhood across the street, they wish to be free to decide what to
do.
Board Member Solnick: That's what I still don't understand. I understanding wanting to be free
to discuss for the mix, the housing mix, and to work it in, although in general it is something we
review as sort of private streets and interior streets, and I can imagine giving that up. But I still
don't understand what are they afraid of us looking at on California Avenue?
Ms. Grote: Well, Stanford may want to address this as well. The terminology in the dv
agreement is "approximate the horizontal rhythms across the street." So that was really an all-
inclusive concept that talks about the same kind of general setback, the same spacing between
buildings, that those very essential qualities of what makes that street appear the way it does
would be reflected or approximated across the street, so there wouldn't be a further need to
review it, because that would be an obligation to design the buildings that way.
Board Member Solnick: And who determines -that statement -"to match the horizontal. .. " -
even as an architect I'm not sure what that means. But who reviews that compliance?
Ms. Grote: We would at stafflevel be reviewing that. Now if there were an issue or a
disagreement about how that horizontal rhythm is reflected or approximated, then we would be
bringing that to the Board. But if we determine that at staff level that is well done, then it would
not come before the future board. And again, Stanford may want to address some of the nuances
as well.
Board Member Wassermann: Would Stanford Jike to address this?
Mr. Steve Bmsley: Before they do, I just wanted to tag onto what Lisa was saying. The
determination of the ca sites in terms of the horizontal rhythms would be with the arb. Staff
would do their review and report to you, but it would be a public major ARB process that you
would typically follow with the restrictions in the review listed in the agreement, but it would
come to the Board.
Board Member Wassermann: Thank you.
Bp: I was only going to say that I'm not surprised by David's initial reaction, and maybe other
members of the Board hold that. I go back to the Sand Hill Road projects, and I remember
coming before the Board on a number of items and having Lee Lippert abstain from the vote on a
lot ofthese items, simply because he didn't like the way the dv agreement had limited the
discretion of the ARB. But a dv agreement is a dv agreement. It is a promise that we are going
to do something. If for some reason we are not able to do that because the Board at the time
simply doesn't like what we put forward, then that halts the dv agreement for us. In other words,
we have not performed according to our promise because we have not completed the housing
that's required. That's a big deal in terms of gutting the dv agreement and the rights that we
have under the dv agreement. So there are examples ofprojects -to answer David's "what are
you afraid of' -there are examples of projects that the ARB has Come out unanimously opposed
to from a design standpoint that haven't been able to go ahead. We could face a situation where
simply because the ARB has a different idea of good design within the limits that we are
City of Palo Alto Page 9
· .
1 controlling here, we'd be prevented from doing the housing that we think is right, proper, and
2 meets the market at the time. So what we've tried to do is cover all those design elements that
3 we think are the key important and priority issues, give the ARB the flexibility that it needs with
4 respect to those things. You are going to be looking at this form, rhythm, pace, whatever -along
5 California Avenue. That is something that you're going to be determining is or is not in
6 compliance with our agreement. But the flexibility to move this housing around, to have
7 different densities, match-ups, different styles of housing, that meet the market at the time, is
8 very important to us because that's the only way that housing is going to get completed.
9 Board Member Solnick: I think that's a good point. I want to make it very clear what I'm
10 saying. I'm not having issue with those sort of distribution of different types of housing to match
11 the market, any of those things. I don't have any problem with the ARB personally not
12. reviewing those big things. Those are really the big things. The ARB recently denied an office
13 building on Embarcadero and 101, and I didn't realize it at the time, but that was sort of historic.
14 It was historic in the sense that it almost never happens. One of the comments; there was a
15 former mayor who got up and said -I've forgotten her name -but she had a history of25, 30
16 years, and this was unprecedented from her. So the idea that the ARB is going to can a project
17 because we don't like the particular style you chose, there just isn't a history of that. There isn't
18 a background to suggest that. Quite independent of the people on the Board now, going back
19 decades, there just doesn't seem to be a history ofthat. That's the part I don't understand.
20 Bp: Well I agree, the past history of the ARB, the example of the unanimous disapproval of
21 design is certainly an exception to the rule. But look at what'we've got here now because of
22 conflicts, looking at Stanford projects, the three members. So it wouldn't take very much to
23 either drag out the process or belabor the process to the point where we are not complying with
24 our agreement, and therefore we can't go ahead with the other vested rights that we think we've
25 earned under that agreement.
26 Board Member Wassermann: Did you have other questions, or was that the ...
,
27 Board Member Solnick: That's fine for me.
28 Board Member Wassermann: Drew, did you have questions about this?
29 Board Member Drew Maran: Am I understanding correctly that the shape of the roofs is
30 excluded from the design review?
31 Ms. Grote: On the residential portion, that's correct.
32 Board Member Maran: And why the roofs?
33 Ms. Grote: Again, that's interior to the site that Stanford would have the flexibility to design
34 those the way they saw fit at the time. And the massing and the bulk would likewise be decided
35 at that time by Stanford.
36 Board Member Maran: I guess it's a question for Stanford then. Why choose roofs? Why not
37 windows or siding or foundations? What is it about roofs, just so I can better understand why
38 that was specified.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1 Bp: I don't know whether I can give you a good and specific example of a roof issue at this
2 point, but I do know that the roof element could become an important part of something that we
3 feel needs to be incorporated in tenns ofthe overall program for whatever housing we're doing.
4 The roof style and the roof look is an important marketing feature. I think everybody up on the
5 Board knows that. So a particular board's preference for a certain rooflook could be something
6 that interferes significantly with the marketing program for this product. I also think we get into
7 a fonn thing, particularly along California Avenue where the roof really becomes part of that
8 element.
9 Board Member Maran: Are these units going to be sold?
10 Bp: That has not definitely been decided. We are so' far off in the future that I think we'll be
11 looking at a market that really expresses a preference either for rental or sale type housing.
12 Board Member Maran: Can you describe the typical scenario from the point at which the deal
13 goes through to the houses are turned over to either renters or sellers. Would typically Stanford
14 entertain proposals from developers such as Summer Hill or Clarem Homes or somebody like
15 that to do the project completely through completion?
16 Bp: I think under any scenario of ownership, rental use, that is certainly a possibility, a
17 developer/consultant contractual relationship to complete the housing element.
18 Board Member Maran: I think this goes to Marianne as well. I'm trying to get a better sense, if
19 there is such a thing, as to what "seamless integration" means. The stitching and the seamless, it
20 sounds like we're all becoming tailors out here. Can you help me with that?
21 Ms. Welton: Like I said, the idea was that we want it to appear when you're driving up
22 California Avenue that there isn't a newdv on the left, but it's just obvious that it's new. For
23 instance, like the houses that were built here in the SOFA area, the idea that they matched the
24 type of housing -of course I'm talking about the smaller houses -that was there. The idea that
25 you go up the street and you can't tell that there are two completely different types of
26 neighborhoods, that it feels like one neighborhood. And the way that we chose to do that was by
27 trying to follow the setbacks, the size, the massing and scale of the houses across the street
28 Board Member Maran: And is that part of the dv agreement?
29 Ms. Welton: That is part of the dv agreement. That's part ofthe AS-II regulations.
30 Board Meinber Maran: Why don't you want to define it as a newer dv? It is one, right?
31. Ms. Welton: It is a new dv. Right now it's a really abrupt transition between the College Terrace
32 neighborhood and the Research Park, and we wanted to try to make that disappear so that the
33 new dv tied into what was already there, and we felt the best way to do that was to preserve the
34 single family dv along California Avenue. We could have had it be a complete, abrupt transition
35 again with multi family, multi story, RM-30 type dv, but we felt it was being more sensitive to
36 the College Terrace neighborhood by preserving that California Avenue fac;ade.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1 Board Member Maran: I think I understand that, and I also think I understand what you're
2 referring to when you say the College Terrace neighborhood. Does anybody object when they
3 go up on the north side of College Terrace between Stanford Avenue.
4 Ms. Welton: You mean between the university and the Escondito Village and College Terrace?
5 Board Member Maran: Right. Does anybody raise objections -maybe this is more for Stanford
6 -when they drive there and they find the old 1900 bungalows on the south side and the Stanford
7 University campus on the right side. Is that a similar objection, or is it just that the office park
8 has raised that kind of conflict.
9 Ms. Welton: I have not heard an objection about it, but I know that there is a real concern, at
10 least that I've heard, from College Terrac.e residents, about what it feels like to be in those
11 houses on California Avenue and look across the street to a big huge office building. You can
12 feel it when you walk up the street, that it's not the type of transition that you usually like to have
13 in a neighborhood.
14 Board Member Maran: Is there anything at all in the dv agreement about sustainability such as
15 the City has been developing its program over the years?
16 Ms. Welton: No.
17 Board Member Maran: How come?
18 Mr. Emsley: We have a couple of follow-up comments. One, we wanted to clarify the question
19 about ownership. That decision, we understand, is still not made, it's pending. But we need to
20 point out that all of this would be predicated on the land being leased. So none ofthis could be
21 subdivided and sold. The agreement does provide for long-term leases, and that would be the
22 construct of any potential ownership in the future. And then I believe Wynn wanted to address
23 the question about the design standards.
24 Ms. Wynn Firth: I wanted to say a couple of things. One is that yes, in fact, Stanford treats this
25 as -it may in fact be original Stanford land -so that they lease it on short or long-term leases,
26 but they don't sell it. As you all know, in Stanford's faculty and staff residential neighborhoods
27 on campus, they do actually subdivide land and people do hold long-term ground leases. They
28 can finance them with something that looks like a mortgage, so it feels very much like private
29 ownership. But it would not literally be for sale units, whatever they do.
30 Secondly, in terms of what the dv agreement says and what the City can demand when this
31 comes in, you should only look at what's in 6.4.10 and what's in the zoning. There's nothing in
32 there about stitching the seam, there's nothing in there about having this neighborhood not
33 appear to be a new neighborhood. There are size standards and there's a statement about
34 horizontal rhythms, and there is your ability to impose requirements with respect to materials and
35 landscaping and lighting, and there's an ability to look at massing, roof forms, and site plan in
36 the front row essentially, to see whether it approximates the horizontal rhythm of building to side
37 yard setback and fa«ade areas. So the other statements are not part ofthe agreement. They give
38 you an idea of Stanford's current thinking, but that isn't something that the City could take to the
39 bank.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1 don't interfere with their rights and there's a disagreement, then they could be applied. In
2 addition, any locally adopted uniform code -the building code, the fire code, and so on -could
3 be applied as well. But as you all know, we're limited by state law in terms of the local variance
4 that we can impose on the uniform building code, so we can't assume that we could do
5 everything that we might want to.
6 Mr. Emsley: I wanted to also point out that there's a time limit for all this. This agreement is not
7 in perpetuity. This is a fixed 25-year agreement. It is no forever. So Ijust wanted to make sure
8 that was clear.
9 Board Member Wassermann: But it is forever for these projects. These projects have to be built
10 by then.
11 Mr. Emsley: for the housing projects and replacement, that's correct. But in terms oftegulating
12 future impact on the entire Research Park, this has a limited term. And I wanno point out that
13 the replacement square footage, when it's combined to create this animal called the associated
14 square footage, represents approximately 10% of the entire Research Park. Everything else, that'
15 90 other percent, is fair game, under full scrutiny of the City.
16 Board Member Wassermann: So what I understand is that this is a negotiated deal, and one of the
17 things that got negotiated was design review standards. So just to put a fine point on what
18 happens along California Avenue, suppose that Stanford designs a project that has a whole bunch
19 of little cubes along California Avenue that are the right width and the right spacing but are all
20 the same and are just little boxes. Do we have any control over that? When we review whether
21 this stitches the seam, even though stitching the seam is not in the thing,but is compatible or
22 whatever it says in the magic part ofthe code that Wynn found, can we change those roof forms
23 for example along California Avenue?
24 Ms. Firth: The roof forms, no. The landscaping and materials, yes, that would still be subject
25 to ...
26 Board Member Wassermann: So we can get a bunch of little cubes along California Avenue and
27 it is not subject to our say-so.
28 Ms. Grote: You can plant ivy over it. You can put trees in front of it, you can say those should
29 be shingled and those should have brick overlay. And you can discuss things and suggest that
30 this would work better, that would work better, but in terms ofthe requirements that you
31 recommend to the director that he apply, you're limited to the horizontal rhythms.
32 Board Member Wassermann: Did anybody ask this when you gave this away?
33 Ms. Firth: The other thing I wanted to say is while we understand our negotiation partners
34 concerns in this area, I did also want to say, quite aside from what the ARB's practice has been
35 and how they might feel comfortable based on that, the City has an obligation under this
36 agreement to work on it in good faith. And the ultimate approval, as you know, lies with the
37 director and then the City Council. And the City does have an obligation under this agreement to
38 operate in good faith. We're going to find ourselves sitting down with an arbitrator if we don't.
39 So I understand Stanford's concern that we need to honor it, but our powers are not unlimited.
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
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
We have no legal right to abuse our architectural review discretion or any other kind of
discretion.
Board Member Wassermann: The Planning Commission passed two motions the other night.
One was to support everything that was on the table, and the other was a series of recommended
requests for continuing discussion. I think from my point of view I would support those. I don't
think we need to take a vote, I think we can individually say or not say or whatever we want, but
I think from my point of view I would support the Planning Commission recommendations.
I also want to go on record as being in tremendous awe of the College Terrace association. If
you look at the map, they are surrounded on three sides by Stanford, and they have managed to
get to :"yes".on a number of negotiations that have been extremely impressive, that have been
win/win forboth sides, and Ijust can't say enough in support of those people, and I only wish
they could figure out a way of exporting it and putting it in the water. I just think it's a
tremendous example to the rest of the City on how in fact when you have technically no real
power to get things that you want by being good at it, I'm just incredibly impressed. I took my
comments out of order, but I think you guys are also both entitled to comments and whatever
else you want to say on the subject. David, did you want to continue?
Board Member Solnick: A couple of comments. On the stitching the seam thing, I'm a little
worried about the problem of overcompensation. I think overcompensation is as much a
problem in design as under compensation. And I think right now it sounds like there's obviously
just a horrible transition across California Avenue and everybody unanimously wants that to go
away, and that's a good thing.
But I think this is what Drew was getting at, is there's the possibility of overcompensating and
trying to make them exactly the same on the two sides,and I don't think the badness of the past
should necessarily come to that result, to go from a difference of a thousand say, to go to a
difference of zero. There's a lot of space in between.
Drew asked why roof forms. I would not have asked that question, because I think it's very
clever. I think Stanford knows exactly what they're doing. Roof forms are in my experience one
of, if not the most important design elements in a building, and that is partiCUlarly true on low
buildings of course. The roof form on this building is probably not as important as on a two-
story house. So by not allowing review of the roof forms they are essentially not allowing
review of the design. To say they just picked that out of a hat I think would be disingenuous. I
think it's quite intentional.
And I still don't understand it for the California Avenue or the E1 Camino. Ijust don't
understand what they're afraid of. And in fact to the contrary, I think personally some of the best
architecture anywhere around here is on the Stanford campus. We just went through the design
award thing for reviewing Palo Alto architecture to give some design awards, and I was sorry
that we couldn't go over to the Stanford campus and include those, because there's just no
question that some of the best architecture anywhere around here is on the Stanford campus. So
I just don't understand the fear on either side. I think the ARB - I can only speak for myself-
but there's probably a lot of respect for what Stanford has done and I would hope that Stanford
would have respect for what the ARB has done.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1 One suggestion along those lines is, is there some way of considering that a subcommittee of the
2 ARB could advise - a subcommittee would not be passing motions -but a subcommittee of two
3 could advise the staff in reviewing these designs and perhaps limiting it only as it pertains to the
4 street frontages?
5 Ms. Grote: If you would like to make that comment, that the Council consider the subcommittee
6 have an informal advisory roll along the upper ca edge, you could make that comment certainly.
7 Mr. Emslie: We understand the agreement does not curtail any advisory capacity of the ARB.
8 What it limits is what you can demand.
9 Board Member Maran: Thanks. There's a lot here, and I really support the thrust of this
10 agreement and the cooperation and effort that's gone into it from all sides. I think it's a
11 tremendous step forward for achieving goals on both sides, for the City for getting more housing
12 in the right places and for Stanford for getting some developtp.ent opportunities. The concerns
13 that I have that I've expressed are largely based on -as everybody has expressed here -some
14· past histories. So here are some concerns.
15 One, in terms of the actual architectural forms, I could only go by what was described in
16 Marianne's description. You referred specifically to the Summer Hill dvm within this
17 neighborhood that we're in now, and actually I completely disagree that that was a positive step.
18 I think that there was a lack of inventiveness and creativity. I was on the Board when we
19 reviewed some of that housing and said so at the time. So my point is that in my 5-1/2 on this
20 Board I've seen and I've participated in a lot of effort to create innovation and inventiveness in
21 the architecture, and that somehow often seems to be placed in opposition to what I would call a
22 retrospective desire or a traditional desire for architectural forms. I don't think one is right and
23 one is wrong. I however believe that one of the great things about this ARB is that it generally
24 stands up for forward thinking architecture as opposed to ersatz traditions. And I don't mean
25 that to be insulting, I just believe that when people talk about compatibility and blending or
26 fitting in, that to me in my 5-1/2 years on this Board has generally meant to say something that
27 looks like past forms, and I'm just saying that that's an inference that I get from that phrase that I
28 don't agree with. We could debate this forever; the fact is that in ten years the whole issue can
29 look very different. Knowing Palo Alto's history for process I'm sure that when this housing
30 comes around this process will look very different and that everything we think is going to go
31 smoothly from here on out will have some road blocks along the way, so I don't want to debate it
32 forever.
33 In terms of the neighborhood associations, I agree with Judith. I think that College Terrace has
34 done tremendous things. I would certainly encourage the association to look at the use of this
35 land in a couple different ways. Number one, within College Terrace there is multi-family
36 housing. There are apartment units and most of them are awfully damned ugly. We've had
37 . some of them to look at on this Board, and it's been pretty consistently -try to minimize the
38 ugliness rather than try to create something really attractive. I think high density housing on this
39 California Avenue site can be very attractive. I think it can be very interesting, and I think it can
40 be something that doesn't either repeat the ugly housing, that multi-family housing that's already
41 in College Terrace, nor does it try to imitate some perceived form of what fits in as I alluded to
42 earlier.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1 to perhaps have a subcommittee or a representative or representatives, depending on how many
2 people are conflicted -participate in this process to emphasize sustainability issues as this goes
3 forward and to support the Planning Commission recommendations -the spine road and all those
4 other good things.
5 This is kind of an unprecedented thing and I congratulate you all. I believe this meeting is
6 adjourned. This concludes the c,liscussion ofthe Mayfield agreement.
City of Palo Alto PagelS