Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2001-03-12 City Council (21)
City of Palo Alto City. Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY.COUNCIL FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT MARCH 12, 2001 CMR:165:01 ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFYING 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 RECENTLY-APPROVED STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN AND GENERAL USE PERMIT (GUP) AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE ’ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council (1) consider the addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects (EIR), certified by the City Council on June 30, 1997.; and (2) adopt an ordinance approving the proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement. Regarding Stanford University Special Condition Area B that would modify the portion of. Special Condition Area B on the Stanford campus that can be developed for faculty, staff or student housing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed amendment involves Stanford University-owned land in the unincorporated portion of Santa Clara County.. Specifically, the site is 6n land bounded by Sand Hill Road, Junipero Serra Boulevard and Campus Drive West within Special Condition Area B. Area B is one of four areas on Stanford’s unincorporated lands subject to special land use controls created in the 1970s and formalized in 1985 by a three-party agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara and Stanford University. Land CMR:I65:01 Page 1 of 4 use and-development standards within Specia! Condition Area B were further limited by the two-party Sand.Hi!l.Road .Development Agreement (Agreement) between the City and Stanford and approved by the Ci~ Council in June 1997. As part of the Agreement, Stanford was prohibited from developing any part of Area B with academic facilities or building until 2021;however, faculty, staff or student housing could be developed on a specified portion of Area B before that time. The southern portion of the Area B housing site includes all of Hole No. 1 of the Stanford Golf Course. As shown in Attachment B, the proposed amendment to the Agreement will exchange a 13-acre portion of the existing Area B housing for an adjacent piece of property of equal area, previously identified in the original Agreement as an open space area. This exchange will permit the retention of Hole No. 1 of the Stanford Golf Course and provide sufficient acreage to accommodate the planned housing development. The amendment to the Sand Hill Development Agreement is consistent with the Community Plan approved by the County Board of Supervisors in December 2000. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an addendum to the .Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects EIR was prepared by the Planning-Department. The addendum is attached to this staff report for Council consideration, as is required under CEQA. The addendum concludes that the ordinance results in minor changes to the project addressed in the EIR and does not raise important new issues about the significant impacts on the environment, iTherefore, no additional CEQA documents need to be prepared. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning and Transportation Commission On January 31, 2001, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Agreement (5-0-1-1, Commissioner Cassel abstaining and Commissioner Packer absent). The January 31, 2001 report to the- Commission is included as Attachment D. The Commissioners expressed some concerns about the lack of precision regarding the actual boundaries of the areas to be "swapped". Staff explained to the Commission that prior to any Council action on the amendment to the Agreement, staff would superimpose the boundaries on an aerial photograph and provide that information to the City Council. In addition,, staff would field check the boundaries with representatives of the Planning Commission and the Committee to Save Stanford Golf Course. One Commissioner emphasized that the exchange should not undermine the potential for housing development in Area B. Staff responded that the "swap" area should accommodate the number of units planned; however, at this time no actual development proposal has been prepared by Stanford. The Senior Assistant City Attorney explained that the amendment identifies only where housing should be allowed within Area B but does not recommend approval of any housing. She explained that CMR: 165:01 Page 2 of 4 future development of the site will be regulated through the County since the site is outside the City boundaries. ~ Three members of the public spoke during the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting.. The first speaker questioned the adequacy of the CEQA Addendum process that was followed for environmental review, expressed concern regarding the new housing site’s proximity to the Stanford hazardous waste storage facility and hazardous waste incinerator, and identified some typographical errors in the proposed Amendment. The second speaker represented the Committee to Save Stanford Golf Course. He expressed concern as to the actual location of the boundary lines for.the housing site and how they may impact the golf course. The third speaker, the Director of Athletics and Recreation at Stanford, supported the Amendment stating that it was a compromise that allowed maintaining the golf course and meeting the community’s housing needs. On February 28~ 2001 City and Stanford staff, one Platining Commissioner and representatives from the Committee to Save Stanford Golf course walked the proposed boundaries of the Amendment area. Minor changes were identified, and agreed Upon by those present. Those changes are reflected in the aerial photograph attached to this document. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects EIR AttachmentB: Ordinance Approving First Amendment to Development Agreement dated August 14, 1997 Attachment C: Excerpt minutes of the January 31, 2001 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting Attachment D: Staff report to Planning and Transportation Commission dated January 31,2001, w/o attachments - Attachment E: Aerial Photograph PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:165:01 Page 3 of 4 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant to the City Manager Planning and Transportation Commission Stanford University Richard Hands CMR: 165:01 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDENDUM TO AN EIR USE OF A FINAL EIR PREPARED FOR A PREVIOUS PROJECT Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alt0 has prepared an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because minor changes made to the project that are described below do not raise important new issues about the significant impacts on the environment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement modifying 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 recently-approved Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP). The environmental impacts of this project were addressed by a Final EIR entitled "Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects", and findings were adopted by City Council Resolution No. 7685 on June 30, 1997. Specifically, the following impacts were reviewed and found to be adequately considered by the EIR: Land Use Cultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Public Health and Safety Public Services and. Schools Visual Quality/Light and Glare Transportation Noise Geology, Soils and Seismicity Utilities, Energy and Infrastructure The attached analysis has been completed for this project to determine its eligibility for this addendum. Advance Manager Addendum to the San Hill Corridor Projects EIR The Sand Hill Development Agreement was identified as one of the discretionary actions included in the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects Environmental Impact Report. The Development Agreement addressed financial responsibility and other matters relating to the financing of public improvements or implementation of project conditions and mitigation measures for projects within the regulatory jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, the Development Agreement identified future uses in Area B located outside the incorporated boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. This area is subject to special land use controls including timing of future development. The component of the Development Agreement pertaining to land uses in Area B identified Stanford’splans for future development in this area consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Housing would be allowed on a 13-acre portion of Area B, but all other lands within Area B would be prohibited from developing until 2021. The specific environmental impacts of developing the area were not addressed in the EIR since the County of Santa Clara would conduct site-specific environmental analysis of future development wh~en housing development is proposed. The amendment to the Development Agreement reflects only an exchange of area for future housing development within Area B in order to make the Development Agreement consistent with Stanford’s recently adopted Community Plan. The amendment to the Development Agreement does not approve housing on the site but only identifies where the housing could be built. Site specific environmental analysis would be required at the time of development consistent with the assumptions in the 1997 EIR. This amendment does not raise new issues about the significant impacts identified the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects EIR; therefore, an addendum to the EIR has been prepared in compliance.with CEQA. SGOOOOCOQOOC’COCOCII $~3OOCOQOOO0000CO C’CO000C== oocc.~ © C 0 C d~ Revision to Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Special Condition Area B Special Condition Area B is approxi- mately 139 acres of Stanford Lands for which special land use conditions exist. This map shows the portion of Area B pertaining to a proposed change to the existing land use agreement. Under the existing agreement, the 13 acre site containing Hole #1 is desig- nated for housing. The proposed revision would exchange the13 acre site containg Hole #1 for the 13 acre site above Hole #2 as a housing sile. Note lhat portions of Area B not desig- nated for housing have the following allowable uses: ’ ¯ academic fields ¯recreational fields ¯support facililies N 500 1000 Legend Special Condition Area B Portions of Special Condition Area B that are affected by the revision to the Development Agreement Housing allowed in revised agreement but not original agreement Housing allowed in original agreement but not revised agreement Revision to Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Special Condition Area B Amended Exhibit H-3 March 23, 2001D:\Gloria ,\GlS\Stan/ord~su_stable_, .a,Attachment B Attachment B ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DATED~AUGUST 14, 1997 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. A. By Ordinance 4433, the City Council approved a Development Agreement between the City and the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior .University dated August 14, 1997, ("the Development Agreement") concerning the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects. B. An amendment tothe Development Agreement, ("the First Amendment"), redefining the area within Special Area B within which Stanford may construct housing for its faculty, staff and students, has been requested. Approval of the amendment will remove the first hole of the Stanford Golf Course from the area designated for housing. C.The City Council finds and determines that notice of intention to consider the development agreement has been given pursuant to Government Code section 65867. D.The Planning Commission and the City Council have each conducted a public hearing on the First Amendment to the Development Agreement. E.The City Council has reviewed the contents of the Addendum to the Sand Hill Projects Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Projects, and all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. F.The City Council finds and determines that the First Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Palo Alto, as amended. The City Council has .specifically considered the regional welfare ~nd the impacts of the development agreement upon the regional welfare. 010326 syn 0090806 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and authorizes the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. SECTION 3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement to. be recorded with the County Recorder not later than ten (i0) days after it becomes effective. SECTION 4. The City Council adopts this ordinance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") findings adopted by Resolution No. 7685. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after its adoption INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM:City Manager Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 010326 syn 0090806 EXHIBIT "A" 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 FIRST 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 010326 syn 0090773 FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This first amendment ("Amendment") to the statutory development-agreement. ("Development Agreement") which was enacted and entered between the parties as of August 14, 1997 is enacted and entered into as of the day of , 2001 ("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. The meaning of each capitalized term used herein, unless otherwise defined, Shall be the same as that defined in the Development Agreement. 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. 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 hereto. 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") 010326 syn 0090773 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 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 permit construction of housing without undue interference with the Stanford Golf Course. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby do agree as follows: i. Section 6 (i) of the Development Agreement is 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 this Amendment, 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 i.n that part of Area "B" marked as "housing site" on Exhibit B." 010326 syn 0090773 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 Property Exhibit B -- Special Condition Area B Boundary and Housing Area Designation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST:CITY OF PALOALTO City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor STANFORD Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: By: Its: By: City Manager Its: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: .Director of Planning and Community Environment O10326 syn 0090773 4 CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Civil Code ~ 1189) STATE OF COUNTY OF ) ) ) On , be fore 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. O10326 syn 0090773 5 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. 010326 syn 0090773 April 16, 1997 BKF PriSject No: 896060 PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "A" (page 1 Of 3) All that real property situate in the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and The State of California,. and as shown on the Tentative Map and adjacent lands, a plat of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as "Exhibit E", more particularly described as follows:. BEGINNING at the intersection o.f the northwesterly line of the proposed Sand Hill Road right of way line as shown on said Tentative Map, with the City o! Menlo Park and the City of Palo Alto city limit line, last said line also being at or near San Francisquito Creek; thence northeas~’erly along said proposed northwesterly line of Sand Hill Road to a point on the southwesterly line of Parcel 1 as shown on the Parcel Map filed July 15, 1970 in Book 270 of Maps at pages 34 and 35, Official Records of Santa Clara County; thence northwesterly along said southwesterly line of Parcel 1 to its intersection with said Menlo Park and Palo Alto city I mit line (at or near San Francisquito Creek); thence in a general." northerly direction along said citylimit line to its intersection with the southwesterly rightof way line of El Camino Real; thence southeasterly alon.g said southwesterly line of El Camino Real,.50 feet; thence northeasterly, at right angles to last said southwesterly line, to a point on the northeasterly line of El Camino Real; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly line of El Camino Real to its intersection with the northwesterly line of University Avenue; thence southwesterly, at right angles to said El Camino Rea.l, to a point on the southwesterly right of way line of El Camino Real; thence, northwesterly along said southwesterly line of El Camino Real to its intersectio.n with the southeasterly .line of the .proposed Quarry Road right of way lin6; ..thence. southwesterly and souther!y along said proposed southeasterly and east~rly line of.Quarry Road to a point. 50 feet south of the southerly righ’~" of way line of proposed Vineyard Lane; thence .westerly, at right angles to the easterly line of said proposed Quarry Road, to a point on the westerly line of said Quarry Road; thence northerly, northwesterly and westerly along the-southerly return at the proposed intersection of Vineyard Lane and Quarry Road to a point on the proposed southerly line of Vineyard Lane; thence along said proposed southerly line of Vineyard Lane to its intersection with the southeasterly line of. the proposed Sand Hill Road right of way line; thence southwesterly along said proposed southeasterly line of Sand Hill Ro.ad to its intersection with the existing northeasterly right of way line of Pasteur Drive; thence sout.heasterly along said northeasterly line to its intersection with the westerly line of Welch Road; thence southerly along said westerly line of Welch Road to its intersection with the existing City of Palo Alto City limit line, said line also being the most southerly right of way line of existing Pasteur Drive; thence westerly along said City limit line and existing southerly line of Pasteur Drive to its intersection with the Page 1 of 2 ¯ (page 2 of proposed southerly right of way line of Pasteur Drive, said line also being the p’r6p’os;~’d City of Palo ;Alto City limit line; thence westerly along said proposed southerly line of Pasteur Drive and along said proposed City limit line to its intersection with the southeasterly line of the proposed Sand Rill Road right of way line; thence southwesterly along said proposed southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road to its intersection with the City of Menlo Park and the City of Palo Alto City limit line, last said line also being at or near San Francisquito Creek; thence northwesterly along said City limit line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This description was prepared under my direction. By: Davis R. Thre.sh:.P.L.S. No. 6868 License Expires: .9/30/2000 Dated: ML:k:~maln\89 ~060~Jegals\tentmap,not 2) Page 2 of 2 ¯ %4" X o o oz PROJECT DESCRIPTION MAP FOR DESCRIPTION LIMITS STANFORD" UNIMI~RSI’f y O00000000C I000000000000,00000000000~000000000 000 ~ooo oooooo oooooo ~oo6oooo~o oooooo Revision to Sand Hill Road ’ ¯ Development, Agreement Special Condition-Area B Special Condition Area B is approxi- mately 139 acres of Stanford Lands for which special land use conditions exist. This map shows the portion of Area B pertaining to a proposed change to .the existing land use agreement. Under the existing agreement, the 13 acre site containing Hole #1 is desig- nated for housing. The proposed revision would exchange " the13acre site containg Hole #1 for the 13 acre site above Hole #2 as a housing site. Note that portions of Area B not desig- nated for housing have the following allowable uses: ¯ academic fields ¯ recreational fields ¯ .support facilities N 1000 Legend Special Condition Area B Housing allowed in revised agreement but not allowed in original agreement Housing allowed in original agreement but not allowed in revised agreement Housing in both original and revised agreements Revision to Sand Hill D:\Gloria I~GIS\SIan ford~su_slable_2_BlackAndWhile.ai Road Development Agreement Special Condition Area. B Amended Exhibit.H-3 Exhibit BMarch 23, 2001 Attachment C 4 7 8 9 lO ll 12 13 14 15 16 i? 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ROLL CALL: "MEETINO~ ARE CABLECAST LIVEON GOVERNME~ ACCESS CHANNEL I(~ January 31, 2001 REGULAR MEETING- 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Room Civic Center, Ist Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Commissioners: Annette Bialson, Chairman. Patrick Burt, Vice-Chair Owen Byrd Jon Schink Kathy Schmidt Phyllis Cassei Bonnie Packer Staff: Ed Gawf, Planning Director Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney Phil Bobel, PWorks Env. Compliance Manager Julie Caporgno, Adv. Planning Manager Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary Chairman Bialson: I’d like to call to order the meeting of January 31. Will the Secretary please call the roll? I’d like the record to show that Commissioner Packer and Commissioner Cassel-could not come this evening because they are in conflict with agenda item one. ........--’ .........~ .....................BEGIN EXCERPT ..........., ......................... Chairman Bialson: That takes us on to New Business. Agenda Item Number 1. Could we have the Staff report on this please? Commissioner Cassel: May I please excuse myself from Item Number One? Chairman Bialson: Certainly, thank you Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I think I have to state the reason. I am now working for Stanford and my husband works for Stanford. City of Palo Alto Page 1 EXCERPT of Minutes of 1/31101 I 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 Chairman Bialson: We appreciate your comments. So now we are going to the Amendment of the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Regarding Special Condition Area B. Who is going to present on behalf of Staff?. . NEW BUSINESS. ¯ Public Hearings. Amendment of the Sand HillRoad Development Agreement Re~ardin~ Special Condition¯ Area B: Amendments to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement, modifying the portion of Special Condition Area B that would allow the future development of faculty, staff or student housing..The affected portion 0fArea B is bounded by Sand Hill Road, Junipero Serra Boulevard and Campus Drive West. Ms. Grote: I would like to introduce Julie Caporgno. She is our Advance Planning Manager. She has been with us for a few months and this is her first formal appearance in front of the Commission. So we welcome her and she will be giving the Staff report tonight. Chairman Bialson: Welcome. Ms. Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager: Thank you Lisa.and good evening ’ Commission. The item before the Commission is an amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement to modify the land use plan on a portion of Special Condition Area B. The amendment will basically swap a portion of existing Area B housing site for where the Stanford Golf Course hole one is located for an adjacent piece of property in order to prevent the loss of any significant portion of the golf course yet allow the development of the planned housing. Concern haa been expressed by the Committee to Save Stanford Golf Course, that the modifications to the agreement will still impact the existing golf course. City and Stanford Staff have been in discussion with the committee representative and generally agree on the boundaries. The map that has been provided to the Commission shows the general areas that will be swapped. City Staff and Stanford will refine these maps to depict accurately the boundaries and provide a more definitive description of the swap areas prior to the Council hearing in early March. ¯As stated in the Staff report, the boundaries will ensure that future housing development will not affect holes one and two. That concludes the Staff report. Chairman Bialson: Yes Owen? I understand you want to say something. Commissioner Byrd: How can we advise the Council on modifying this development agreement if we don’t know the boundaries of the areas to be swapped? Cit~ of Palo Alto EXCERPT of Minutes of 1/31/01 Page 2 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 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 Mr. Ed Gawf, Planning Director: I think you do know the boundaries. The boundaries are shown on the attached Staff report, which is more precise than the map that was included in the Development Agreement for Sand Hill~ if you remember that earlier map. What Julie is talking about is that for Council what we will do is take that boundary or that map and superimpose it on an aerial photo so that people can actually walk the land and see where the boundaries are. We’ve had extensive discussion on is there an issue or not. I think the general conclusion is there is not an issue; there is not a problem. One of the things that will help us is to superimpose it on an aerial photo so that we can walk the boundary and make sure: The intent iselearly one of preserving the golf course at hole number one and two and the playability of that, in fact the integrity of that as well as ’ providing land for housing. The amount.of acreage would be the same. The 13 acres of housing for the 13 acres of open space. Chairman Bialson: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I’m presuming, and maybe Stanford’s architect Mr. Neuman can speak to this, I am presuming that Stanford’s base data in its GIS system is pretty dam. accurate and will give the same result that imposing these lines on an aerial will. So what will be gained by imposing it onan aerial that will resolve whatever conflict may or may not exist about the impact to the course? Mr. Gawf: I think the question is, is taking the aerial photo and having the physical landmarks that when we go out to the field we can actually walk and see where we are in relationship to the line and landmarks on the ground. Chairman Bialson: Before I call on other Commissioners I’d like to point out that I have spoken to Mr. Horton, Mr. Harris and as sundry other members of the Stanford community with regard to this matter. I do sit on an advisory committee for Stanford Golf Course. I know it is not a quasi-judicial matter but I wanted to reveal that anyway. Are there any other items before I take testimony from the public? Why don’t we call Herb Borock? Herb, you’ve got five minutes. Mr. Herb Borock: Good evening Chair Bialson and Commission members. The Staff report indicates that an addendum to the Sand Hill Road Corridor Project EIR was prepared. The public participation in.review of an addendum to an EIR under state law is less demanding than for other documents however, I do believe that Palo Alto’s guidelines for reviewing environmental doeuments and Palo Alto’s ordinance for that may require a Commission recommendation to the Council on that document. Staff would need to clarify that. Tonight’s public agenda and the public ad notice and the posted agenda for the Brown Act don’t involve any action of the Commission on the environmental document. I believe you may need that under Palo Alto’s procedures to go forward. In regard to Commissioner Byrd’s comments I believe you can get a detailed map that has a site plan so that would match an aerial. So you can define a scale of one-inch City of Palo Alto EXCERPT of Minutes of 1/31/01 Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 -6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 equals 100 foot or something where people could actually tell from a map what is being talked about. The Development Agreement Amendment appears to have a couple of typographical errors to bring to your. attention. At the bottom of page three in the last paragraph in the third line has the word ’knows’ which should be ’known.’ On page four in the first paragraph it refers to an entity called ’The Foundation’ which would seem to be maybe the Palo Alto Medical Foundation rather than Stanford University. So I believe that would need to be corrected..--The Staff report itself was written apparently prior to the time of Stanford signing off on this.new use permit. So it is referring to special condition areas as if they are part of an existing use permit. I would suggest~bythe time this gets to Council those special condition area names are being referred to a use pe .rmit that no longer exists but just because of the change of use permits. It has nothing to do with the substance of what you are approving I am just making a suggestion about style of how the report is written. The County is the lead agency on any development of housing in this proposed area. Stanford’s new president seems to be more flexible in listening to comments and concerns of the community about environmental review. So I would like to bring up something that I brought up before and that I suspect will come up again when housing is actually proposed so that Stanford representatives, at an early date, will be aware of it. This proposed new housing area is next to Stanford’s hazardous waste storage facility and hazardous waste incinerator. The incinerator is being maintained to dispose of just two radioactive compounds. University of California at Berkeley has to dispose of the same compounds and they are able to do it off-site. So it seems to me that in orderto get the housing actually constructed here Stanford may have to do away with that incinerator and have an alternate way of disposing of those compounds. The second issue is that this site is much closer to the incinerator than the closest housing laws at the time of the EIR for the hazardous waste facility. The closest housing at the time was 1,200 feet and the housing here will probably be less than 300 feet. That was one of the issues in that EIR as to whether this was a proper place to site thi~ facility. That issue will probably come up again at the time that the lead agency is reviewing any housing proposals. Thank you. Chairman Bialson: Thank you Herb. The next speaker will be Richard Harris. Mr. Gawf: As Mr. Harris is coming forward if I could make an add-on to that, Herb is right the foundation should be replaced by Stanford. I think it Stanford-Universityis the proper name and I should have pointed that out. Mr. Richard Harris: Good evening. Speaking on behalf of the Committee to Save Stanford Golf Course I have written a letter to Ed Gawf and to members of the Commission. I believe I’ve distributed it. I have rather technical concerns about exactly where the lines are and how they impinge on the golf course. I’ve set them out. One involves the safety in the vicinity of the first green. The second involves whether the City of Palo Alto Page 4 EXCERPT of Minutes of 1/31/01 I 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 4i 42 43 44 45 46 second tee would be affected or not. The third involves the precise western boundary of the first hole. As shown on the City’s new Attachment B it is a different boundary than is shown on a prior map that Stanford’s attorneys presented to a joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting last fall. I’ve attached both maps and you can see the slight difference. These are just questions that I believe and recommend should be resolved before the matter goes final. If there is no affect on the second hole then the Committee to Save the Golf Course won’t beopposed. If it there is safety for the first green, again we won’t be opposed. But the rather conceptual map that you have attached here, you can’t tell. -We just~ask thatthese matters be ctadfied. Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Ed, do you have something to say with regard to that? Is that the reason that you are going to? Mr. Gawf: Yes. First let me step back and say as we discussed the issue I think the general conclusion is there is not a problem. I think Mr. Harris would say that as well as the Stanford representatives. One of the things that we did commit to doing whether it is the GIS or an aerial photo but get something that you could walk the land and have an aerial photo or something so you could see where the line is in relationship to the landmarks on the ground to make sure that there is no problem. In addition, the Stanford Golf Course Director has also been involved in this from Stanford’s standpoint. I’ think he has reviewed this as well and has commented on this as far as whether it would impinge on the play of the golf course or on the golf course itself. So that’s one of the issues. I think the other is one that will be of greater concern but one that will occur when we actually review the proposed residential development. I think the placement of the structures becomes very important in relationship to the flight of the ball or the play on the course itself. So what we are proposing to do between now and Council again is have this so that everyone can take a look at it and spend some time if they want to walk the proposed line and see if there is a problem. Our best guess at this time and our best determination by everyone involved is that the line is appropriate where-it is proposed and the changes would be very minor. Chairman.Bialson: Thank you Ed. We have one more speaker, Ted Leland. Mr. Ted Leland: Yes, thank you. I’m Ted Leland, the Director of Atb_letics and. Recreation at Stanford. I rise just to say what a great step this is for this community to be able to work out this very complicated compromise" that allows us both to maintain the integrity and the elegance of our golf course yet at the same time meet some of the University’s and the community’s needs regarding housing. So I speak for a lot of constituents on the campus and in our golf community and say that we’re fully in favor of this. I think it is appropriate that we have some maps where people can walk. I think the golf community is very concerned about particularly where some of these lines are and the best way for them to site those lines and get a feel for that is to be able to know where the landmarks that are out there now are. I think it is also important that we have a little more time to pull all the constituents together to make sure that the lines are in the right City of Palo Alto EXCERPT of Minutes of 1/31/01 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 spot because I think that there is.some competing needs. The land is very valuable and very much coveted by all kinds of different groups. I think that I amconvinced though that this compromise is the appropriate way to go and to meet all those different constituencies. I have to. compliment everybody for finally getting to where we got to on this. I think there were times when many of us felt, a few months ago, that there was not a way that a golf and all the things that golf brings to our community and the open space, etc. could coexist with the University’s housing needs. I think we have found a way to do that and appreciate all of your support and the Council’s support and all the people that work for the County and Staff. Thank you. Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Any comments or questions by the Commission? Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I want to follow up on Mr. Bor0ck’s CEQA concern. Why wasn’t the addendum attached as an exhibit to the Staff report so that we could evaluate the environmental effects of relocating the housing? Ms. Caporgno: The addendum was prepared. Under CEQA it is an administrative process and it is a project file. It is my understanding that in the past it is not a requirement under the municipal code and it has not been forwarded previously.- Commissioner Byrd: Did theaddendum evaluate this concern of locating housing adjacent to the incinerator facility? Ms. Cap0rgno: The addendum was based on the analysis that the County prepared when they evaluated it for the Community Plan Process. As far as the actual location of housing further environmental review is going to be required at the time any housing development goes on that site. At that time whatever is proposed would be looked at in the context of the adjacent facility. Ms. Furth: I think certainly in the future we could attach addenda or supplements if that would give you a better record to review. But one of the odd things about the Development Agreement Amendment is of course this provision that we’re asking that you amend was put into the Development Agreement to talk about preserving open space outside of the. City’s boundaries. What the Agreement originally said, and you know from the attachment here that the map is quite conceptual as is the boundary of Special Area B itself, all this .land will be kept open for 20 years but you can build housingin a portion of it. You don’t have a covenant with u’s not to build housing there. In other words, it is all supposed to be kept for recreational open space except for a portion of it, which can be used for housing. All this amendment does is slide around the place where they haven’t promised not to build. But we .are not by asking you, and we can’t we don’t have any authority to, we’re not asking that housing be approved. We are asking that the City move its constraints on the site. Whether the housing will be built will be up to the County and Stanford. Mr. Gawf: IfI may add onto that, I know as part of the discussion of the Community Plan at the County level there was considerable discussion of the relationship of this City of Palo Alto EXCERPT of Minutes of 1/31/01 Page 6 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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 housing site to the surrounding uses. I’m sure it must have been covered as part of their environmental clearance as well. There was considerable discussion with the understanding that there will be an even more detailed environmental analysis of it when a housing proposal was made for the site. Commissioner Byrd: Let me ask it a different way. Does ree0mmending approval of this swap undermine the ability to deliver the maximum amount of housing on this 13 acres because it is going to be very constrained by having hole two on one side and a difficult use on the other side? Mr. Gawf: I don’t believe so. Although I don’t remember if thequestion as you posed it was posed as clearly as that during the discussion.. That was certainly part of my thought process and I think others. So at least from my perspective and my understanding, no it would not. Chairman Bialson: Any other Commission member? So I understand the process is one of taking the map and applying it to the aerial and actually doing.some sort of walkabout. Is that what’s intended by Staff and Stanford? Mr. Gawf: Yes, and I think the Committee to Save the Golf Course as well. It is to give whoever would like to take the opportunity to actually be able to walk the ground and see where the line is in relationship to the existing landmarks. Chairman Bialson: What procedure will we use if there is no agreement? Will you come back here or what will you do at that point? Mr. Gawf: I’m confident that there will be agreement. Again, the issues that we were talking about prior to the meeting were very minor kind of differences. I think from a conceptual standpoint we are in agreement. It is .making sure that we are all saying the same thing and we understand what each other is saying I think as much as anything. If for some reason there is a major disagreement I would bring it back-to the Planning Commission. If it is minor I will just let the Council resolve it. I don’t think there will be a disagreement. Chairman Bialson: Okay. We all intend that to be the case I’m just looking at the possibility. Wynne. Ms~ Furth: I think one way to phrase the question that Staff is asking you so they can forward your advice to the City Council is, do you recommend approval of a Development Agreement which would move the possibility of housing from an area that impinges on the golf course to this other mapped area closer to Sand Hill Road. We can’t tell you exactly where the line should be drawn but the goal is to move the housing that would impinge on the golf course over to this alternate site closer to Sand Hill. That’s what we are asking for your advice to the Council on. City of Palo Alto EXCERPT of Minutes of 1/31/01 Page 7 Chairman Bialson: That certainly clarifies it. I’m still interested in the boundaries and I’ll probably be one of those people who will attend the official or not so official walkabout. I would appreciate notice about it. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Is the Commission ready at this point to make a motion to advance this to the Council? If so, would someone make the motion please? Jon. MOTION Commissioner Schink: I’ll move the Staff recommendation. SECOND Commissioner Burt: I’ll Second. MOTION PASSED Chairman Bialson: Thank you. That motion is made by Jon and seconded by Pat. All in favor please say aye. (ayes) All against say nay. That motion passes with all five Commissioners in attendance voting for it and with Commissioner Cassel and Commissioner Packer not in Commission vote at this time. Okay, I think that is all for agenda item number one. .END OF EXCERPT ........................................ City of Palo Alto EXCERPT of Minutes of 1/31/01 Page 8 Attachment D. . 1 PLANNING DIVISION " STAFF REPORT Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: January 31, 2001 Planning and Transportation Commission Julie Caporgno,Department:Planning Advance Planning Manager Amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Regarding Stanford University Special Condition Area B: Amendment of the Sand Hill Road Development. Agreement modifTing 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 recently-approved Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement (Attachment A, language modifying Section 6(i) of the Agreement), that would modify the portion of Special Condition Area B on the Stanford campus that can be developed for faculty, staff or student housing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project area is located on Stanford University-owned land in the unincorporated portion, of Santa Clara County. Specifically, the site is situated on land bounded by Sand Hill Road, Jtmipero Serra Boulevard, and Campus Drive West within the 140-acre, Special Condition Area B(Attachment B, map showing "swap"). Area B is one of four such areas--Areas A through 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 wereformalized in 1985 by a three-party agreement between the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, and Stanford University. Land use and development standards within Special Condition Area B were further limited by the two-party Sand Hill- City of Palo Alto Page 1 standards within Special Condition Area B were further limited by the two-party Sand Hill Road Development Agreement (Agreement), between the City and Stanford, and approved by the Council in June 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 did, however, designate a portion of Area B (Attachment C, original Exhibit H-3, Sand Hill Development Agreement) that would allow the development of faculty, staff or student housing irrespective of the 2021 development prohibition. The southern portion of the Area B housing site-includes all of Hole #1 of the Stanford Golf Course. As shown in Attachment B, the proposed amendment will specifically "swap" a 13-acre portion of the existing Area B housing site for an adjacent piece of property of equal area, previously identified as an open space area. This swap will allow the development of much-needed housing and prevent the loss of any portion of the Stanford Golf Course. Both Holes 1 and 2 would be unaffected by any housing development. The housing development would occur only on the vacant area currently designated as open space area under Special Condition Area B. This swap would be consistent with the recently approved Community Plan developed by the County for Stanford University. BACKGROUND The issue regarding the potential loss of portions of the Stanford Golf Course, particularly Hole #1, came to light, in the latter stages of the City’s review of the Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP), approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in December 2000. Inclusion of Hole #1 as a housing site was an unintended consequence of the Agreement; through the City’s review of the Community Plan/GUP, the City recommended that the Agreement be amended so that the amount of additional housing could potentially be accommodated as well as the golf course preserved in its present form. (Attachlnent D, page 9, October 24 letter to County). Staff believes that the current proposal achieves this goal; the exchange will result in an appropriate solution to both providing housing and preserving Hole #1. POLICY IMPLICATIONS : The project site and all of Special Condition Area B are located on the Stanford campus, outside the jurisdiction of the City. The proposal is, nevertheless, consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, specifically "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." SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES The primary issue associated with this proposal is preserving the Stanford Golf Course without losing the opportunity for creating future faculty,, staff and student housing in the project area. This proposal resolves the potential trade-off between housing and golf City of Palo Alto Page 2 course preservation by maintaining the same physical area (13 acres) eligible for housing development. In addition, the swap will move potential housing further from Lake Lagunita--the primary habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, presently designated as a species of "special concern" . by the California Department of Fish and Game. Staff considers the proposed housing site is a more appropriate location for future housing development than the area presently identified in the original Agreement. TIMELINE Following review and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the project is tentatively scheduled for final action by the City Council on March 5, 2001. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, staff has prepared an Addendum to the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects EIR, which was previously certified by the City Council on June 30, 1997. The Addendum is incorporated in the project file. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Revised text to Sand Hill Road Development Agreement, Section 6(i) Attachment B: Amended Exhibit H-3, indicating future housing site "swap" in Area B Attachment C: Existing Exhibit H-3 Attachment D: October 24, 2000 letter from Liz Kniss, Mayor, City of Palo Alto to Ann Draper, Planning Director, County of Santa Clara Prepared By: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Manager Review: Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: LISA GROTE Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 3