HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-17 City Council (11)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
3
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:NOVEMBER 17, 2003 CMR:511:03
SUBJECT:AMENDMENT TO THE SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT REGARDING STANFORD UNIVERSITY SPECIAL
CONDITION AREA B TO INCORPORATE A LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE REVISED BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
HOUSING SITE AND THE GOLF COURSE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Regarding Stanford
University Special Condition Area B, incorporating a legal description of the boundary
between the Area B housing site and the Stanford Golf Course ( Attachment A).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In March 2001, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Sand Hill Road
Development Agreement that modified a portion of Special Condition Area B on the
Stanford University Campus in order to allow the future development of faculty, staff or
student housing consistent with the Stanford University Community Plan and General
Use Permit approved in 2000 by the County Board of Supervisors. The amendment
approved by the City Council in 2001 "swapped" a 13-acre portion of the Area B housing
site for an adjacent piece of property of approximate equal area, previously identified as
an open space area, in order to develop all the housing envisioned in the Community Plan
yet prevent the loss of any portion of the Stanford Golf Course. At the time the Council
adopted the amendment, the boundary was established by a general planning boundary
identified in the field on an aerial photograph and subsequently mapped. The exhibit
prepared in 2001 for the amendment was a hand and computer illustrative planning map
showing the demarcation between areas. At the time of the Council adoption of the
CMR:511:03 Page i of 3
amendment, there was an expressed desire on the part of at least one Council Member
that a legal description should be included with the amendment. Stanford has now
prepared a legal description. The boundary that is proposed differs slightly from what
was approved in .2001. Staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission Chair and
representatives from Stanford and the golf course walked the area with the surveyor on
three separate occasions in order to establish the final boundary on which to base the
legal description. The intent of the field walks was to minimize use conflicts between the
proposed housing and the existing golf course.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning and Transportation Commission
On July 30, 2003, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval
5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cassel abstaining due to a conflict with this item and
Commissioner Bellomo absent) of the proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road
Development Agreement. The Commission supported the slight modifications to the
boundary and inclusion of the legal description. Two members of the public spoke during
the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. The first speaker requested a
legal description of hole number one of the golf course and that precise acreages of the
"swapped" areas should be identified. The second speaker raised issues regarding holes
three and four of the golf course and their relationship to a future pedestrian trail
connection. Staff noted to the Commission that its review should focus on the change
between what was adopted in the 2001 amendment and the revised boundary based on the
legal description. Holes three and four of the golf course or a trail connection are not
included within that area.
One Commissioner requested that staff provide additional information comparing the
change in acreage between the previously-approved planning description boundary and
the proposed legal description boundary prior to Council action. As a result, Stanford
quantified the relative areas of the housing sites comparing the original housing site
adopted in 1997, the "swapped" acreage approved in 2001 and the proposed surveyed
boundaries subsequent to the PTC meeting. This data is attached and illustrated as Table
1 and Figures 1.1 through 1.3 (Attachments B through E). The comparison shows that
the composite housing site area has decreased by approximately 0.5 acres from the area
approved in 2001. Staff considers that change to be minimal since the area excluded is
not considered viable acreage for actual housing development; the eliminated area close
to Campus Drive would most likely not accommodate housing. The revisions to the
boundary will, however, result in an improved buffer between the golf course and the
future housing. In addition, Stanford housing staff has indicated that the same number of
units can be constructed with the slightly reduced acreage.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Amendment to the Development Agreement
B.Table 1: Summary Table. ’Area B’ Housing Site
CMR:511:03 Page 2 of 3
C.Special Condition Area B (as originally approved, June 1997)
D.Special Condition Area B (as amended, May 2001)
E.Special Condition Area B (surveyed site, August 2003)
F.July 30, 2003 Staff Report to Planning and Transportation Commission
(without attachments)
G.Minutes of the July 30, 2003 Meeting of the Planning and Transportation
Commission
PREPARED BY:~
Advance Plannink-kNnage~@~~
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
ST~V-E EM~EIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~~~. ~_ ~~)
EMILY HARRISION
Assistant City Manager
cc:Herb Borock
Charles Carter
David Neuman
Larry Horton
Richard Harris, Erskine & Tully
Sanford M. Skaggs, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Emerson
CMR:511:03 Page 3 of 3
This document is recorded
for the benefit of the City
of Palo Alto and is entitled
to be recorded free of charge
in accordance with Section
6103 of the Government Code.
After Recordation, mail to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
SECOND AMENDMENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
A Chartered City
and
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
a body having corporate powers under the laws of the
State of California
031126 syn 0091325
SECOND AMEND~NT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This second amendment ("Amendment") to the statutory
development agreement ("Development Agreement") that was enacted
and entered between the parties as of August 14, 1997 is enacted
and entered into as of the day of , 2003
("Effective Date"), between the CITY OF PALO ALTO ("City"), a
chartered city and California municipal corporation, and THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a
body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of
California, ("Stanford").
RECITALS
THIS AMENDMENT is entered into and enacted on the
basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of
the parties:
A. This Amendment uses certain capitalized terms,
which are defined either herein or in Section 1 of the
Development Agreement, which was filed for record in the office
of the Santa Clara County Recorder on December 3, 1997 as
Document No. 13962429. The meaning of each capitalized term
used herein, unless otherwise defined, shall be the same as that
defined in the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement
was amended by the First Amendment to Development Agreement that
was enacted and entered as of April 23, 2001, and which was
filed for record in the office of the Santa Clara County
Recorder on May 16, 2001 as Document No. 15681749.
B. This Amendment is enacted and entered pursuant to
Government Code sections 65864-65865.5 ("Development Agreement
Act"), which authorize the parties to enact, enter into and
amend binding development agreements affecting the development
of real property within the City’s jurisdiction.
C. City Resolution No. 6597 establishes procedures
and requirements governing consideration and amendment of
development agreements.
031126 syn 0091325
D. Stanford is the owner of the Property which is
affected by the Development Agreement and this Amendment. Said
property is described in Exhibit A to the Development Agreement.
E. City has completed an Environmental Impact Report
("EIR"), which EIR has been certified as complying with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") and all applicable City regulations and which analyzes
development on the Property.
F. In order to amend the terms of the Development
Agreement, Stanford has applied to City pursuant to the
Development Agreement Act and Resolution No. 6597 for this
Amendment to the Development Agreement. City’s Planning
Commission and Council duly have given notice of their intention
to consider this Amendment, have conducted public hearings
thereon pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and Resolution
No. 6597, and have found that the terms hereof are consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
G. The terms and conditions of this Amendment have
been found by City to be fair, just and reasonable and, prompted
by the necessities of the situation.
H. This Amendment is consistent with the present
public health, safety and welfare needs of the residents of the
City and the surrounding region. City specifically has
considered and approved the effects of this Amendment upon the
regional welfare.
I. This Amendment will bind future City Councils to
the terms and obligations specified in the Development
Agreement, as previously amended, and this Amendment, and in
furtherance of the interests of City and regional residents and
the public generally, presently exercises, to the degree
specified herein and in state law, the City’s authority to allow
or preclude development of the Property.
J. This Amendment will precisely define the limits
of the portion of Area B in which housing may be constructed.
031126 syn 0091325
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby do agree as follows:
i. Section 6 (i) of the Development Agreement, as
previously amended, is further amended to read as follows:
"(i)Sand Hill Corridor Future
Development. Until December 31, 2020,
Stanford shall not develop the approximately
139-acre parcel known as Special Condition
Area "B," as defined in the 1989 General Use
Permit and shown on Exhibit B to the First
Amendment to this Agreement, except for
academic and recreational fields (including
the golf course) and associated support
facilities; provided, it may propose
Stanford University faculty, staff or
student housing in that part of Area "B"
more particularly described in Exhibits A
and B to the Second Amendment to this
Agreement.
2.Miscellaneous.
(a) Authority to Execute. The person or persons
executing this Agreement warrant and represent that they have
the authority to bind Stanford to the performance of its
obligations hereunder.
(b) Exhibits. The following exhibits to which
references are made in this Amendment are deemed incorporated
herein in its entirety:
Exhibit A:Description of Area "B" Housing
Site Boundary
Exhibit B:Plat to Accompany Descripton
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
031126 syn 0091325
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed
by the parties as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
STANFORD
The Board of Trustees of the
Leland Stanford Junior
University
By:Stanford Management
Company
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
By:
Michael G. McCaffery
Its:President and CEO
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
031126 syn 0091325
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
)
)
)
On , before me,, a
notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
031126 syn 0091325
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
)
)
)
On , before me, , a
notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
031126 syn 0091325
ENGINEERS ~ SURVEYORS ~ PLA,~N~E~S
EXHIBIT "A"
April 23, 2003
BKF No. 20026101-10
Page 1 of 2
Description
AREA "B" HOUSING SITE BOUNDARY
A line across a portion of the Lands of The Board of
Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University
Santa Clara County, California
Being a line situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, across a portion of the lands
of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at Point S-105, described as 2-1/2" brass disc monument with punch, mark., stamped
"S-105, LS 5797" in monument well in the intersection of the norihwesterly lane of Sand Hill
Road and Stockfarm Road, as shown on that certain Record of Survey, filed Apri! 10, 2002 in
Book 747 of Maps at Pages 40 through 49 inclusive, Records of Santa Clara County;
Thence South 44012, 12" West, 1472.58 feet to a point on the southeasterly line of Sand Hill
Road, as described in that certain Easement for street and roadway purposes, from The Board of
Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University .to the City of Palo Alto, recorded June 7,
2002, under Document No. 16304199, Official Records of said County, said point being also the
True Point of Beginning of this description;
Thence leaving said southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road, the following thirteen (13) courses:
1)South 09°03’59" East, 12.50 feet;
2)South 04005’08" East, 28.07 feet;
3)South 00°53’30" West, 32.13 feet;
4)South 05°39’44" East, 54.84 feet;
5)North 86°01’41’’ East, 98.98 feet;
6)North 89°30’34" East, 80.00 feet;
7)South 02036’42" West, 262.32 feet;
8)South 79°57.’36’’ East, 760.00 feet;
9)South 40047’55" East, 401.92 feet;
10)South 31°56’17’’ East, 332.15 feet;
11)South 77°45’58" East, 220.52 feet;
12)South 33°07’55" East, 694.32 feet;
13)South 09°19’46’’ West, 122.63 feet to a point and being the Terminus of this
description, from said point a line bears South 26°06’43,, East, 192.59 feet to Point S-
108, described as 2-1/2" brass disc monument with punch mark, stamped "S-105, LS
5797" in monument well in bike lane on the east side of Campus Drive West, 60 feet
more or less north of golf driving range entrance, as shown on said Record of Survey
(747 Maps 40-49).
As shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
This description was prepared by me or under my direction.
Davis Thresh, P.L.S. No. 6868
License expires 9-30-2004
Date
Area B Line.dot
Page 2 of 2
K:\Sur02\02610 lkLegalskArea B line.DOT
S04"05’08"E
S05"39’44"E
p ARK
;LARA
P.O.B.J~
1472,58’
0 200
LAN[:S OF LELAND
STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSI~
40O 8O0
POINT S-105
2-1/2" BRASS DISK W/ PUNCH, STAMPED
"S-105, LS 5797" IN MONUMENT WELL
PER RECORD OF SURVEY 747 M
;ITYOF PALO ALTO
ROADWAY EASEMENT,
DQC.~IO. 16304199
1472.58’
LANCS OF
STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVE~
"B" HOUSING
SITE BOUNDARY
SCALE IN ~
POINT S-108
2-1/2" BRASS DISK W/ PUNCH, STAMPED
"S-108, LS 5797" IN MONUMENT WELL
PER RECORD OF SURVEY 747 M 40--49.~..~["~
STANFORD, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
K: \SURO2\O26101-lO\DWG\STABLE.DWG
192.59’
’~" :" ~ ~
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION
ENGINEER~RVEYO~LAN N ERS
981 Ridder Pork Drive, Suite 100
Son Jose, CA 95131
408/467-9100
408/467-9199 (FAX)
Subject AREA "B" HOUSING SITE BOUNDARY
(STANFORD) EXHIBIT
Job No. 20026101-10
By JVK Dote 04/25/05Chkd.
SHEET 1 OF 1
Attachment. B
Stanford University Architect/Planning Office
09/22/03
SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Special Condition - Area B
- Summary Table. ’Area B’ Housing Site.
AMENDrvI~-’N~I’I Housing Site Recreation & Acadercfic Total
REVISIONS ]Area Fields &
I Associate Support Uses
........................................................... _Are~ ...............................
As Originally Approved,37.8 ac 97.6 ac 135.4 ac
(,Juice 1997, Fig. 1.1)(Reported 31ac in 1997)1 (Reported 108 ac. in 1997) (R. 139 ac)
As Amended,
(May, 2001, Fig. 1.2)
Surveyed Site,
(August, 2003, Fig. 1.3)
36.8 ac 98.6 ac 135.4 ac
(12.5 ac+ll.lac+ 13.2 ac)2
36.3 ac ~99.1 ac
(12.5 ac+10.5 ac+13.3 ac)
The acreages from the Original Agreement were estimated from hand drawn "planning level" maps. Subsequent
calculations were performed using more accurate GIS mapping.
The Amended Housing Site now includes of the new 24.3 acre site (13.2 ac + 11.1 ac) and the remainder 12.5 ac. at
the Red Barn Site.
Attachment C
.~.~97.6.ac
Course .
600
Red Barn
Legend
Housing Site BoundaryE E (Per BKF Survey & Description)
¯ ¯ I ~ Special Conservation Area B
¯ Until 2020 recreation &
~ ¯ ¯ ¯! academic fields & associatedsupport uses.
Faculty/Staff/Student Housing
Recreational & Academic
Fields & Associated
Support Uses
Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Special Condition Area B
(As Originally Approved, June, 1997)
Amended Exhibit H-3 Figure 1.1
Attachment D
Golf
Course
600
Feet
Revision to the Sand Hill Road
Legend
IIII1|
¯
Housing Site Boundary
(Per BKF Survey & Description)
Special Conservation Area B
Until 2020 recreation &
academic fields & associated
Support Uses.
Housing Site: Faculty/Staff/
Student Housing allowed in
amended agreement but not
allowed in original agreement
Faculty/Staff/Student Housing
allowed in original agreement
but not allowed in amended
agreement
Housing Site: Faculty/Staff/
Student Housing allowed in
both original and amended
agreements
Development Agreement Special Condition Area B
(As Amended, May, 2001)
Amended Exhibit H-3 Figure 1.2
300
Feet
Golf
Course
600
Revision to the Sand Hill
Legend
Housing Site Boundary
(Per BKF Survey & Description)
Special Conservation Area B
Until 2020 recreation &
academic fields & associated
Support Uses.
Housing Site: Faculty/Staff/
Student Housing allowed in
amended agreement but not
allowed in original agreement
Faculty/Staff/Student Housing
allowed in original agreement
but not allowed in amended
agreement
Housing Site: Faculty/Staff/
Student Housing allowed in
both original and amended
agreements
Road Development Agreement Special Condition Area B
(Surveyed Site, August, 2003)
Amended Exhibit H-3
Figure 1.3
Attachment F
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANrNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Julie Caporgno
Advance Plalming Manager
AGENDA DATE: July 30, 2003
DEPARTMEN~r: Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT:Amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Regarding
Stanford University Specia! Condition Area B to Incorporate a Legal
Description of the Revised Boundary between the Housing Site and the
Golf Course
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of
the proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement incorporating a
legal description of the boundary between the Area B housing site and the Stanford Golf
Course (Exhibit A).
BACKGROUN~
In March of 2001, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Sand Hill Road
Development Agreement that modified a portion of Special Condition Area B on the
Stanford University Campus that would allow the future development of faculty, staff or
student housing consistent with the Stanford University Community Plan and General
Use Permit approved in 2000 by the County Board of Supervisors. Area B is one of four
areas--Although D--on Stanford’s unincorporated lands subject to special land use
controls. The land use controls specifically governing these areas were created in the
1970s and were formalized in 1985 by a three-party a~eement be~,een the City of Palo
Alto, Count5, of Santa Clara and Stanford University. Land use and development
standards within Special Condition Area B were further limited by the two-parb’ Sand
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Hill Road Development Agreement (Agreement) between the City and Stanford, and
approved by the Council in June of 1997. As part of the Agreement, Stanford was
prohibited from developing any part of Area B with academic facilities or buildings until
2021. The Agreement, however, did allow a portion of Area B to be developed with
faculty, staff or student housing irrespective of the 2021 development prohibition. The
southern portion of the Area B housing site included all of Hole #1 of the Stanford Golf
Course.
The amendment approved by the City Council in 2001 "swapped" a 13-acre portion of the
Area B housing site for an adjacent piece of property of approximate equal area,
previously identified as an open space area in order to allow the development of the
much-needed housing and to prevent the loss of any portion of the Stanford Golf Course.
The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the land swap to the Council.
At the time the Council adopted the amendment, the boundary was established by
superimposing a general boundary line identified in the field on an aerial photograph and
mapping that boundary (see Exhibit B).
DISCUSSION
The attached amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement precisely
defines the limits of the portion of Area B in which the faculty, staff or student housing
may be constructed. In order to identify the exact area allowed for the housing
development, Stanford University prepared a precise legal description and survey map
that documents the boundary between the Stanford Golf Course and the area for future
housing. The specific boundary line for the legal description was established with the
participation and agreement of City staff.. Planning & Transportation Chair Bialson,
Stanford Planning staff and golf course representatives. The group met on three separate
occasions on site with the engineer preparing the legal description to finalize the exact
bounda~,. Exhibit B illustrates how the surveyed boundary compares with the planning
level boundary that was originally incorporated in the 2001 amendment to the
development agreement.
The recent redesign of holes three and four and further study of the housing site enabled
refinement of the location of the boundary to optimize both uses. Field adjustments were
made to provide greater clearance for the first hole fairway and green and the second tee.
The modified boundary also provides a cleaner demarcation of the housing site
eliminating unusable area. The net change in land area on either side of the boundary is
considered minimal and will not affect campus development currently allowed under the
Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
RESOURCE IMPACT
There are no resource impacts from the proposed amendment.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy L-2, which states
that the City shall "maintain an active cooperative working relationship with Santa Clara
County and Stanford University regarding land use issues."
ENVIRONMEN~I’AL REVIEW
An addendum to the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects EIR that addressed the land
exchange was prepared when the Agreement was amended by City Council in March of
2001. That addendum provides environmental clearance for this additional amendment to
the agreement.
ATTACHMENTS/EX~IIBITS:
Exhibit A:Second Amendment to the Development Agreement
Exhibit B:Revision to Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Special Condition
Area B.
COURTESY COPIES:
Herb Borock
Charles Carter
David Neuman
Larry Horton
Richard Harris, Ers "kine & Tully
Sanford M Skaggs, Mccutchen, Doyle, Brown & Emerson
Prepared by: Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
Department!Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 3
EXCERPT MINUTES
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
:MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26:
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
REGULAR MEETING- 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CaliforTffa 94301
Attachment G
ROLL CALL: 7:05 PM
Commissioners:
Annette Bialson, Chair
Michael Griffin, Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burt
Bonnie Packer
Phyllis Cassel - conflict w/Item 2
Joseph Bellomo - absent
Staff:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
2. Amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement
Chair Bialson: I would like to call the July 30 meeting of the Planning and Transportation
Commission to order. Will the secretary please call the roll? Thank you.
Commission Burt will be with us in a few minutes as far as I have been told.
Th-~e ~~ agenda is Oral Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICAT~S. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with ~ion of three (3) ?Nnu~per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speak~rd available from the-e-e-e-~ .g~,etary..of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right " it the oral communications period to 15ngnt ~.__ .
minutes.
Chair Bialson: I have two cards for Oral Communications. First is BilI’Ha~, you have three
minutes. ~~~..._.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
"~k~m N,u,mber Three is continued to a date not known at this time. So the only item we
are goin~ tonight under New Business is the Amendment to the Sand Hill Road
D_ evel~pm, ent A_gxee~ . ,
~~_J~,~~r’Oaak~ didn’,t know the other one was being
~ for Stan-’figrg.U~ersity and my husband works for
S_.LA.C’_ .S~ we a_r~ really °ut_°i it °~ this °n~’. _ ~_ .~
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Given that would Staff care to make their presentation.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
o Amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement modifying a portion of
Special Condition Area B to incorporate a legal description of the boundary between the
housing site and the golf course. SR Weblink:
http://www.city~fpa~~a~t~.~rg/cityagenda/pub~ish/p~anning-transp~rtati~n-meetings/2265.pdf
Ms. Julie Capor~ono, Advance Planning Manager: Thank you Chair Bialson. This item is an
amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement that provides more detail and
specificity to an amendment that was adopted by the City Council in 2001. That amendment
identified the boundary between the housing and open space golf course uses in Area B that was
based on the Community Plan approved in 2000 by the Board of Supervisors. During the
Community Plan process the City and County decided that modifying the a~eement was
appropriate in order to swap a site designated for future housing with a site designated for open
space in order to preserve hole one of the Stanford Golf Course. In other words, the Community
Plan swapped the land uses of housing and golf courses, approximately 13 acres, and this was
followed by the Sand Hill Road agreement amendment to reflect the specific boundaries.
The exhibit prepared in 2001 for the amendment was a hand and computer generated illustrative
map, planning map, showing the demarcation between areas. At that time the Planning and
Transportation Commission reviewed the proposed boundary and recommended approval to the
City Council. The Council adopted the amendment although there was an expressed desire on
the part of at least one Council Member that a legal description should be included with
amendment. Incorporating that legal description into the agreement is what is now before the
Commission tonight. The boundary that is proposed differs slightly from what was approved in
2001. As indicated in the Staff Report, Staff, Chair Bialson and representatives from Stanford
and the golf course walked the area with the surveyor on three separate occasions in order to
establish the final boundary. The intent of the field walks was to minimize use conflicts between
the proposed housing and the existing golf course. Staff considers that the surveyed boundary is
consistent with a more conceptual boundary approved in 2001 and recommends that the
Commission support the proposed changes. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Are we going to have some presentation by Stanford or are we just
going to go on the basis of the Staff Report? I see we have a representative from Stanford.
Mr. Charles Carter, Stanford University Architect and Planning Office: I am the Stanford Staff
that has participated in the field and engineering exercises to establish this boundary. We are
City of Pa!o Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
supportive of the Staff Report and would like to see a favorable recommendation from the
Planning Commission. We are available to answer any questions if you should have them.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Any questions from Commissioners?
Commissioner Griffin: I will throw in a couple here. We are talking about, on page two, in the
last paragaph you say that the recent redesign of holes three and four and I am somewhat
unfamiliar with that portion of the golf course. Maybe you could tell me where they are. Holes
one and two are identified but not three and four.
Chair Bialson: Can you answer that question for us, Julie or Carter?
Mr. Carter: If I had a pointer I could show you. As part of the recent Menlo Park approval of
the extension of Sand Hill Road this is hole four and hole three plays back into here. Those
holes had to be redesigned to enable the expansion of Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park. That
design wasn’t completed at the time when this site was defined. We know better what kind of
room is needed around those holes to put a reasonable boundary on the golf course and they were
taken into consideration as this boundary was made.
Commissioner Griffin: So if I understand you correctly the map really doesn’t reflect holes three
and four.
Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. They are not shown on the map. Actually the only area that was
really revised is you can see the little tiny comer in that general area, that is the only change.
The changes that were made and I hope that it is clear on the maps. You see the dotted line that
was what was originally approved by the Council. The divided line extends along there is what
is currently proposed as part of the surveying exercise. So as you can see there are just a few
little tweaks that we did. A little portion of land near the tennis courts and then mainly we kind
of smoothed the line out. So the portions that we removed from either side probably don’t make
any difference particularly for the housing project because they we were considering them to be
more unusable space than anything else.
Commissioner Griffin: I am thinking that I have a terrible slice so I normally like as much room
on the right hand side of the fairway as I can get. I was please or sympathetic anyway with you
giving more room on the right however on balance it looks like the golf course accrued space
and the housing site lost a very slight amount. Care to comment on that?
Ms. Caporgno: That is true. Charles may be able to respond to this because we didn’t calculate
the actual square footage. I don’t think it is an acre but I am sure there is some square footage
that was lost. It is our understanding that they can still get the same number of units on a portion
of the housing properties. So it is not going to be a reduction in units. When the housing people
from Stanford were out there they didn’t feel that particularly this area that is probably closer to
Campus Drive that that area would really accommodate housing anyway. So putting it back a
little bit would be advantageous because they didn’t want the housing right on top of the golf
course anyway. That is really what we are trying to do, minimize the impacts from the two
different uses.
Commissioner Griffin: Impacts, that is the broken glass windows, I understand. Thank you.
Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Bialson: Great. Since I don’t see any other questions right now I would like to have the
one speaker from the public come up. That would be Herb Borock and you will have five
minutes.
Mr. Herb Borock. P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening Chair Bialson and
Commissioners. I believe I spoke on this issue two years ago and expressed the opinion that an
actual description was needed. My recollection is that it was Council Member Lytle that voted
against it at the Council for that reason. So I am pleased that we are almost halfway there. We
do have a description of the housing site but we don’t have a legal description of hole number
one of the golf course. We don’t have the actual acreage to the thousandth of an acre that we
should have for the site that is described and that should also appear for the other approximately
13-acre site that is involved in this trade. Staff makes a comment that the net change in land is
considered minimal, makes that in the passive voice, but since the acreage of the original trade
areas was never calculated we don’t know what it is. The amount of change is not what is
important. What is important is what are the existing total amounts of the final ones that we
have now. It isn’t how much got traded from what the original lines were to what the lines are
now. What you want to know is what is the acreage of the two pieces that are approximately 13
acres now that are described and divided by the line whose legal description is shown in the Staff
Report. So I would like to see in the description that is a part of the proposed amendment to the
Development Agreement the calculation shown to the nearest thousandth acre of the area that is
described. I would also like to see in the Staff Report for reference a similar description for that
approximately 13-acre are for golf course hole number one and the same acreage calculation so
the City Council as the policy maker can make the policy decision that these are approximately
equal areas.
Also I would like to see what can be built on the area under whatever is allowed for Stanford in
that area. I don’t know if there is even a particular zoning for that housing since it is part of the
academic campus. It has the same kind of individual zoning.
I find it unusual that the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Commission would be one of
the people going out and looking at this area. I had hoped that somebody who is an advocate for
trail usage and had a different opinion on County Trail 1 I guess it is still needs to be decided in
the County, that in some sense would be going near the golf course in this general area. I don’t
know whether this impacts that or not but in the absence of somebody who knows something
about that trail you are missing one of the parties who would be interested where boundary lines
might be. So I hope by the time this gets to the Council that those issues are clarified.
Finally, the Exhibit A to the Staff Report refers to the description as Exhibit C however the
description is Exhibit A. The Staff Report also refers to an attachment to the Staff Report of
Exhibit B and we have two pages that are labeled Exhibit B. They both may be part of the same
Exhibit B. We do need clarity on those exhibits because they are all referred to as "Exhibits"
both for the Staff Report and for the Agreement. I suggest you may want to refer to ones that are
attached to the Staff Report as attachments rather than exhibits and refer to the others as exhibits
and also to get the cross-reference consistent. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you and thanks for the observations. The second speaker is again John
Easter. You will have five minutes.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Easter: Thank you Chairman. I am looking at the map and I am thinking back to the time
that I walked that just to see where the trail should be. That is a dangerous walk through there. I
am not sure what this does if you are talking about moving hole three and four and pushing it
out. I think you are going to push the people that are hiking on over across the road. I could be
wrong about that but I would like to have you look at that. Look at the situation of the trails as
they are affected by this movement because the only way you can get through if the trail runs
along the road is you have to dive down underneath a tunnel that goes from hole four that allows
you to go over and across under and to get into the other side of the Stanford property. I know
that the trails have been a contention and are in contention. I like to walk and I just am
concerned about that. I am sorry I don’t have five minutes and I am not going to speak anymore
but I think you ought to look at that very seriously if you are going to be part of any kind of
recommendation to the trails. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I have no other speaker request cards so I will close the public
portion. Would anybody care to speak on behalf of some of the questions that were raised? I am
sure we would like to hear about that.
Ms. Caporg-no: I wanted to discuss a couple. Mr. Borock correctly mentioned that there is some
confusion with the exhibits and we caught that after they had been prepared. The amendment
refers to three exhibits and Exhibit A is something from the original Development Agreement.
Exhibit B was the map that was attached to the amendment that was reviewed in 2001. Exhibit
C is the legal description that you have attached here. Unfortunately the surveyor labeled it
Exhibit A. We will correct those before it goes to Council. Then the maps are also labeled as
Exhibit B and are really not part of the amendment they are just Exhibit B in your Staff Report.
So before we send this to Council we will identify them as attachments as Mr. Borock suggested.
We appreciate his observation.
As far as the trail issue and the holes three and four what we are doing tonight is not looking at
any sort of reopening whether or not the land should be swapped. All we are doing is looking at
the change between what was addressed in the 2001 amendment that the Council adopted and
then this new boundary proposal based on a legal description. So really what the Commission
should be concentrating on is just those areas that we showed on the maps that are different from
what had been looked at previously. None of those to my understanding and Charles may want
to comment on this but that shouldn’t affect the trail alignment at all. Holes three and four are in
Menlo Park anyway and the City doesn’t have any control over their location. I believe that has
already been approved. I don’t know when if you want to discuss the legal description and
whether or not we need a legal description for hole one or the housing boundary legal description
would satisfactory.
Ms. Furth: Well, this is a matter for the City to decide. If you recall what we are dealing with
here is an area where Stanford has promised to keep this in sort of lower intensity uses. This
corner of the Sand Hill Development Agreement has a reserve area, which is a commitment to
some lower intensity uses until 2020. At the same time in the original Development Agreement
there was a provision for reserved areas for housing. Subsequently the City and Stanford
determined that that wasn’t the optimal arrangement and they did the swap. So the City Council
has already approved the swap but that was done basically by drawing a line on an aerial photo.
Before they go further they want more specific lines and a major issue as I am sure you know
Cir. 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
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
was how to accommodate the slices and the hooks and how this should be implemented. We
have a legal description. We have a surveyed line where you see that it is dotted. It was felt and
I have no reason to believe that it was a poor exercise of judgment that the other area, the other
lined area closer to Junipero Serra Boulevard, is adequately defined already and that this
straightened out line adequately accommodated the golf course and housing. I don’t believe that,
although it is entirely up to the Council and the Planning Commission, but you may feel that you
have adequate information about the reasonableness of this line drawing without calculations of
square footage. That is up to you.
Chair Bialson: So by the calculation of the square footage you mean an actual survey?
Ms. Furth: Well, we have a survey but doing the map, doing the math, making all the little
triangles and calculating the area. Then Mr. Borock is also suggesting that a new additional
survey be required down in this lower hatched area. That is for you to decide whether you think
you need that information in order to decide this. That area is not as far as I know affected by
the swap, right?
Ms. Capor~o: That is correct.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: If we felt that we had adequate information to make a recommendation to
Council would that information still be available by the time this goes to Council so they could
have it?
Ms. Furth: - Legally this is fine. You don’t need more position for this kind of agreement. This
is not a proposal to deed something and even if you were deeding it you don’t need acreage all
you need is a means and bounds description.
Commissioner Burt: That is not my question. My question is is it Staff’s intention or would it
be Staff’s ability to have that information ready by the time this goes to Council?
Ms. Caporgno: We could provide the information regarding the acreages. We don’t have the
wherewithal to provide a means and bounds and description of, and I know if Stanford is willing
to do that, of the golf course of hole one. We could calculate the acreage.
Commissioner Burr: Yes, I was referring to the acreage.
Chair Bialson: Are there any other comments or questions? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I just have one question and I hope no one takes offense at this. It is a
matter that didn’t get asked earlier. I was surprised when I read the Staff Report that our Chair
had been selected to represent the Commission in this discussion. Typically what happens is the
Commission will select a representative or a liaison or a subcommittee or depending on what the
issue is and to my knowledge that didn’t happen in this case. So I was just curious as to how it
happened. This is not a complaint it is just trying to understand how that happened and if this is
a change procedurally.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Chair Bialson: I can respond. Generally the Chair determines committee and assignments with
regard to things such as this. Because of my familiarity and my slice I took it upon myself. It
sounds like I should have sent Michael out but I took it upon myself. If you want to volunteer
for the next few assignments I am very happy to hear that.
Commissioner Holman: That wasn’t the intention. I just wanted clarification on how it had
happened. I think usually that happens at a meeting, I think but maybe I am wrong. Maybe this
is the first time this has occurred since I have been on the Commission.
Chair Bialson: Generally the assignments are made outside, I mean if you were going to be
appointed to something I would call you and let you know it was yours and see if you had any
objections and then I might make the announcement or it just might appear. I may ask for
volunteers, etc. and when I say T I mean.the Chair. Again I don’t know if this is written
anywhere or this is something that we have just done for years and years and years.
Ms. Caporgno: I think it has just been done. I just wanted to add one thing. Chair Bialson had
participated previously. In 2001 we actually walked the site at that time and she participated at
that time so I think it was just kind of a natural assumption that she would be participating now
because she was familiar. All of us who had participated then were the ones that Stanford had
contacted when they had prepared the legal description. I don’t recall but at the time you may
have been the Chair or not but I think there was some discussion at that time though about who
was going to do it at a meeting.
Commissioner Holman: I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. It was just something I
hadn’t run across before so thank you.
Ms. Furth: Incidentally, often there is no formal appointment. The Director asks the Chair’s
advice as to whom he might consult on a project.
Chair Bialson: Sounds like we are ready to vote.
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: I move that the Commission recommend to Council approval of the
proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement incorporating a legal
description of the boundary between Area B housing site and the Stanford Golf Course.
Chair Bialson: Is there a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: Second.
Chair Bialson: Second from Bonnie. Let’s have a vote unless you wish to speak to it. Do you?
MOTION PASSED (5-0-1-1, Commissioner Cassel abstained from voting due to a conflict with
this item and Commissioner Bellomo was. absent)
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1 All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say nay. That is all in attendance voting
2 aye. This matter is closed. Thank you.
~MiSveaby Vice Chair Griffin.comment
SION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
8 Comrr~ssioner Griffin: I would like my collea=ues,, to take a look at this. This is the American
9 Plannin~ssociation publication. I think we all get it. I am giving some consideration to going
10 to the conl~ence. I have never been to a conference like this before and I am curious to see
11 what happen~,,~nd participate and learn. I am trying to drum up a little interest among all of you
12 here at the desl~onight to see if anyone else would like to go down and share a room or not
13 share a room. "~
15 Chair Bialson: We w~l~, duly note that. I am sure that we will =et back to you in private to
16 discuss that. C~e to di~ny deeper?
11~Commissioner Griffin: Iti~y understanding that the City does provide a ce~ain amount of
19 ~se expends. Is that right, Lisa?
21 Ms. Grot~re is some confere~ and semin~ bud=et. It has been reduced to some budget
22 ~on~cently but the~ a~ted amount and we can check into that for you.
~Co~io~fiffin: Thank you.~25 ~~26 Chair B~: Are ~here a~y.oth~r Member ~estions, Comment, Announcements. I hear none
27 so we will ~n Representation~ Council meetings. We ~e cove~d for the
28 next two months~aHy want to do Oct~er? I am out of the state so don t look at me.
29 Okay, I have a November~ael Gn~or Nov~ber. October? K~en I see you really
30 wanting to.~
~sure where I am going to be in
34
35 ChairBialson: Th~’s’ fine.~
~Commiss~ner Holman: I will volunteer for December.~38
~39 Chair Bials0n: Ok}y. Are you qkaY for October, Bonnie? Okay why don~we put Bonnie down
40 for now and ~at will take c~ of the r~t of the year.~
42 APPROVAL OF MINUTES~ngs ~ 11 ~d 25, ~03.
44 Chair B nd 25.
45 Any ch
46 .~’..47 Commiss~ner Holman: I have a request. I have been noticing in the ~nutes that often t~m~it
48 just says Motion Passed or Motion Fails. I really think it is helpful if the vote on the motions i
Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 11