HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3694
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3694)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/8/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: RHNA Agreement with County
Title: Approval of Letter to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to
Transfer 200 Housing Units of Regional Housing Allocation (RHNA) from City
of Palo Alto to Santa Clara County for the 2014-2022 Planning Period
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter (Attachment A)
to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), concurring with Santa Clara County’s
agreement to allow the transfer of 200 “moderate-income” housing units from the City to the
County for the 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
Background
On July 25, 2012, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) notified cities and counties
in the Bay Area of the proposed Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 2014-2022
planning period. The City of Palo Alto’s RHNA allocation is proposed for 2,179 housing units. On
September 11, 2012, the City requested that ABAG reduce the City’s allocation, based on
several concerns. One of the City’s arguments was that the allocations neglected to reflect the
extensive development and housing planned for the Stanford campus in Santa Clara County and
the resultant low allocation (77 units) for the County. ABAG denied the revision request, after
which the City appealed the decision on February 12, 2013 (Attachment C), requesting a
reduction of 350 units from the City’s allocation.
City staff has simultaneously been working with Santa Clara County staff to attain a voluntary
transfer of units from the County to the City. County staff has been coordinating the effort with
Stanford, whose representatives were concerned that any reallocation could affect their
General Use Permit flexibility. On March 29, 2013, the County informally indicated to City staff
that they would support a transfer of 200 “median-income” units from the City to the County
(Attachment B). City staff noted that the appeals hearing was set for April 1 and that the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Council would need to approve the agreement.
The ABAG RHNA Appeals Committee met on April 1 and denied the City’s request for the 350
unit reduction, but recommended the City and County continue to pursue a cooperative
transfer.
Discussion
Staff believes that the County offer to accept a transfer of 200 “moderate-income” (80-120% of
County median income) units from the City’s RHNA allocation is reasonable and should be
accepted. The basis for the “moderate-income” designation is that Stanford, as a condition of
its General Use Permit, already contributes substantial funding for affordable housing projects
that support “low” and “very-low” income households. Affordable housing projects in Palo Alto
have used the Stanford contributions as a key source of funding on more than one occasion.
Stanford indicates that units anticipated for construction during the planning period are likely
to meet the “moderate-income” household criteria.
The City’s resultant allocation for the 2014-2022 planning period would be reduced to a total of
1,979 housing units (as compared to 2,860 units for the current planning period). The
designation of the units to the “moderate-income” (80-120% of median County income)
category is helpful to the City’s apportionment of income levels, as “moderate-income” housing
is historically the most difficult for the City to attain.
Upon approval by the Council, the County and City would convey their agreement to ABAG in
advance of its April 19 transfer deadline. ABAG staff has previously indicated that it would
support such an agreement between the two jurisdictions. The Executive Board for ABAG is
expected to finalize the RHNA numbers in May.
Policy Implications
The agreement will help the City to develop a compliant housing element for the 2014-2022
planning period, and will be consistent with other City goals to address housing element
policies.
Environmental Review
No environmental review is required for the transfer of units. Environmental review will be
required for the 2014-2022 housing element.
Attachments:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Attachment A: Letter to ABAG Requesting RHNA Transfer (PDF)
Attachment B: March 29, 2013 County E-Mail re: City of Palo Alto RHNA Transfer (PDF)
Attachment C: April 1, 2013 Appeal Review Form by ABAG (PDF)
Attachment D: February 12, 2013 City of Palo Alto Appeal to ABAG (PDF)
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Planning
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
Transportation
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2520
650.329.2154
Building
285 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2496
650.329.2240
April 9, 2013
Ezra Rapport, Executive Director
Association of Bay Area Government
Joseph P. Bort Metro Center
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94607-4756
Re: Transfer of RHNA Allocation from City of Palo Alto to Santa Clara County
Dear Mr. Rapport:
The City of Palo Alto requests that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) accept the
transfer of 200 “moderate-income” housing units from the City’s RHNA allocation to Santa Clara
County for the 2014-2022 planning period, in agreement with the County’s concurrence to ABAG.
The City sincerely appreciates the cooperation and accommodation of Santa Clara County staff,
Supervisor Joe Simitian, and Stanford University in reaching this agreement. We also thank ABAG
staff, particularly Gillian Adams and Hing Wong, for their help and support.
The City looks forward to ABAG’s Executive Board adoption of the final RHNA allocations in May,
reflecting the City-County adjustment.
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Curtis Williams, the City’s
Director of Planning and Community Environment, at (650) 329-2321 or
curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
H. Gregory Scharff
Mayor
cc: Joe Simitian, Supervisor, County of Santa Clara
Kirk Girard, Planning Manager, County of Santa Clara
Palo Alto City Council
James Keene, City Manager, City of Palo Alto
1
Betten, Zariah
From:Girard, Kirk <kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org>
Sent:Friday, March 29, 2013 12:09 PM
To:Williams, Curtis; Aknin, Aaron
Cc:Carter, Charles S; Gonzalez, Nash; Phillips, William T; Palter, Catherine; McNair, Whitney;
Ross, Steve; Bill Shoe (bill.shoe@pln.sccgov.org)
Subject:RE: City of Palo Alto RHNA allocation appeal
Curtis and Aaron,
Based on our internal discussions and information provided by Stanford University, we would not object to an increase
in our RHNA allocation for the 2014-2022 Housing Element planning period of 200 moderate income units.
This is the number of moderate income RHNA qualified housing units we believe can be reasonably expected to be
constructed on unincorporated Stanford lands during the Housing Element planning period of 2012 to 2022.
The 200 moderate income unit estimate is based on a rough extrapolation of the 75 RHNA housing units currently
planned within Stanford’s three to five year capital improvement time frame (see correspondence below) to the end of
the Housing Element planning period.
As you know, the projected 200 RHNA qualified units will be a small fraction of the total number of housing units likely
to be constructed during the planning period on the Stanford campus. The majority of housing production will be dorm
units, which do not qualify as housing units for RHNA purposes. To illustrate this point, out of the 529 housing units
planned for construction within the next three to five years, only approximately 75 of these units will qualify as RHNA
housing units.
We sincerely hope, a transfer in this amount will be satisfactory to Palo Alto and is sufficient to avoid a formal ABAG
RHNA appeal process. If so, we’re prepared to make our position known to ABAG in whatever form would be most
helpful to Palo Alto. Please let us know.
Thank you.
Kirk
Kirk Girard, P.E.
Planning Manager
County of Santa Clara
70 West Hedding Street
East Wing, 7th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110
408-599-5772
kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org
2
From:McNair, Whitney [mailto:wmcnair@stanford.edu]
Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:26 PM
To:Girard, Kirk
Cc:Carter, Charles S; Gonzalez, Nash; Phillips, William T; Palter, Catherine
Subject:RE: City of Palo Alto RHNA allocation appeal
Kirk,
Stanford University supports the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara in their efforts to come to agreement
about the transfer of units from the City to the County for the 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
planning period. Stanford has no objections to a transfer of units as long as it does not change Stanford’s entitlements
under the 2000 General Use Permit or provide new or changed conditions or requirements relating to these
entitlements.
The 2014 Stanford University Capital Plan (Cap Plan) includes a plan for construction of three new housing projects. No
further housing projects are being contemplated at this time. The Cap Plan proposes construction of 528 student units
and 1 faculty/staff unit in the following projects:
·Manzanita (125 undergrad units, 1 grad unit, 2 visiting scholar units, and 1 faculty/staff unit)
·Lagunita (200 undergrad units)
·Schwab expansion (200 grad student housing units)
The design of the Schwab expansion is in the preliminary stages. The unit design may be similar to the existing Schwab
Residential Center, whereby two units share one kitchen, or it may be designed as individual studios. The unit count
may range between 150 –200 units. Conservatively, there may be 150 units designed so that two units share one
kitchen for a total of 75 RHNA qualified units. Manzanita has 1 faculty/staff unit, for a total of 76 RHNA qualified units
proposed in the Cap Plan. The remainder of the units are being designed as dorm rooms with a common kitchen facility,
which are group quarters.
No further housing projects are proposed at this time. I hope this information helps you in your discussions with the City
of Palo Alto. Please let me know if you need any further information.
Sincerely,
Whitney
Whitney McNair, AICP, LEED AP |Associate Director
STANFORD UNIVERSITY |Land Use and Environmental Planning
3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 | Palo Alto, CA 94304
(650) 721-2749 –office | (650) 799-4380 –mobile | wmcnair@stanford.edu
From:Girard, Kirk [mailto:kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org]
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:55 PM
To:McNair, Whitney
Cc:Carter, Charles S; Gonzalez, Nash
Subject:RE: City of Palo Alto RHNA allocation appeal
Hi Whitney,
Supervisor Simitian expressed his interest in a practical outcome for the County, Stanford and Palo Alto. His views seem
to reinforce an approach we had discussed earlier where a Palo Alto-to-County RHNA transfer would be no greater than
3
the number of “qualified” housing units reasonably expected to be constructed on unincorporated Stanford lands during
the Housing Element planning period (2012 to 2022).
By “qualified,” I’m referring to Housing and Community Development (HCD) definitions for housing units (bedrooms
w/kitchen) and the classification of the units by RHNA affordability level. We have discussed our position with Palo Alto
staff that we cannot accept a RHNA transfer of very-low or low income units. As you know, the Stanford General Use
Permit (GUP) allows Stanford to provide affordable housing unit on the Stanford campus or make an appropriate cash
payment in-lieu of providing the housing unit. In-lieu cash payments provide funding for affordable housing within a six-
mile radius of the Stanford campus in surrounding local government jurisdictions. HCD rules preclude us from “counting”
affordable units constructed with in-lieu funds outside of Santa Clara County’s jurisdiction. Even though the in-lieu
program does not result in “countable” units within the County, it has been very successful in creating affordable
housing. We don’t want to disrupt the in-lieu program and we don’t want to place a burden on the County to plan for
additional affordable units elsewhere in the County should Stanford continue to make use of the in-lieu program. We
believe Palo Alto staff understands this position, even though their current ABAG RHNA appeal is silent on the
affordability categories of the proposed transfer.
We also have discussed with Palo Alto staff your and our interest in avoiding specifying the location of the construction
of any housing units accepted with a RHNA transfer. We understand Palo Alto has based their 350 unit transfer request
to ABAG on the units planned on the Quarry/Arboretum (200 units) and Quarry/El Camino (150 units) sites but we do
not want to inadvertently impose limitations on the future uses of these sites or restrict the flexibility the GUP provides
for locating new housing construction on the campus.
Given this background, we have two fundamental questions: Does Stanford concur with the general approach that a
RHNA transfer would be no greater than the number of “qualified” housing units reasonably expected to be constructed
on unincorporated Stanford lands during the Housing Element planning period (2012 to 2022)? If so, what do you
anticipate to be the reasonably expected number of moderate and above moderate housing units to be constructed
from 2014 to 2022? If you tell us the type of housing, we can do the conversion into HCD “qualified” units.
We are prepared to write a letter to ABAG effectively saying that the County of Santa Clara does not object to the Palo
Alto ABAG appeal and would be willing to accept an increase in the amount of moderate and above moderate housing
units equal to the anticipated construction levels you provide.
I know Palo Alto is eager to get a response from the County on this issue. ABAG is scheduled to begin hearing appeals at
their April 1st meeting. I understand their deliberations are likely to extend into subsequent meetings but time is now of
the essence.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kirk
Kirk Girard, P.E.
Planning Manager
County of Santa Clara
70 West Hedding Street
East Wing, 7th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110
408-599-5772
kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org
4
From:McNair, Whitney [mailto:wmcnair@stanford.edu]
Sent:Monday, March 11, 2013 5:00 PM
To:Girard, Kirk
Cc:Carter, Charles S
Subject:City of Palo Alto RHNA allocation appeal
Kirk,
I’m checking in to see how your meeting with Joe Simitian went on Thursday and to see what position the County may
take on the City of Palo Alto’s appeal of their RHNA allocation. I can make myself available any time tomorrow to talk if
that is easier than an e-mail update.
Thanks,
Whitney
Whitney McNair, AICP, LEED AP |Associate Director
STANFORD UNIVERSITY |Land Use and Environmental Planning
3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 | Palo Alto, CA 94304
(650) 721-2749 –office | (650) 799-4380 –mobile | wmcnair@stanford.edu
1
Regional Housing Need Allocation
Appeal Review Form
Jurisdiction: City of Palo Alto
Appellant: H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor
(represented by Curtis Williams, Director of Planning
and Community Environment)
Date: February 12, 2013
Jurisdiction Background Information:
Size (in square miles): 23.88 Effect of Methodology Factors:
Households: 26,493 (2010 Census) RHNA Performance: ‐235
PDA Growth / (Share): 226 (0.17%) Employment: 525
Non‐PDA Growth / (Share): 1,763 (3.13%) Transit: 149
Subject to 40% Minimum? No 2007‐2014 RHNA: 2,860
Proposed Revision:
The City of Palo Alto asserts that there was a misapplication of the RHNA methodology, that ABAG
staff failed to consider information from the RHNA Factor Survey about the “housing needs
generated by the presence of a university campus within a jurisdiction,” and an unforeseen change
in circumstances. The City requests that 350 units be shifted from its RHNA to Santa Clara County’s
RHNA.
Issues/ Criteria Identified in the Appeal: Appeal Evaluation:
1. Stanford University's General Use Permit
allows up to 1500 residential units to be
built on Stanford lands within the RHNA
housing element timeframe. Specifically,
there are plans for approximately 350
planned units on two sites on Quarry
Road just west of El Camino Real. While
these units have not been otherwise
assigned to Palo Alto, they would be very
consistent with goals of SCS.
1. The RHNA is not site specific. The
availability of sites for housing in Santa
Clara County that would be consistent with
the goals of the SCS does not indicate a
misapplication of the RHNA methodology.
2. It appears to be an oversight in the
designation of PDAs that these sites were
not included in the Valley Transportation
Authority(VTA) Cores and Corridors PDA
and treated as a PDA under the RHNA
methodology. The City notes that
significant areas of Palo Alto, designated
by VTA in the Cores and Corridors PDA
have been treated as PDAs for the
2. The Palo Alto portion of the VTA Cores and
Corridors PDA was not treated as a PDA
for the purposes of RHNA because the City
did not agree to designation of the areas as
a PDA.
Draft RHNA: 2,179
Requested Reduction: 350
Requested RHNA: 1,829
2
purposes of distributing housing units,
even though the City did not agree to
their designation as PDAs.
3. While it is generally appropriate to focus
more intense growth in cities rather than
open space or rural unincorporated
county areas, these sites identified are
different from others in unincorporated
areas because they are located in an
urban area, near transit, across from
shopping, and adjacent to an extensive
hospital expansion; Stanford's expansion
and housing to support its growth are
unique among counties in the Bay Area
and ABAG has previously re‐adjusted the
allocation between Palo Alto and the
County in previous cycles to account for
this anomaly; and a tri‐party agreement
between Santa Clara County, Stanford
University, and the City of Palo Alto
precludes the City from annexing these
potential housing sites (although the
sites are served by the Palo Alto Unified
school district).
3. The RHNA is not site specific. The
availability of sites for housing in Santa
Clara County that would be consistent with
the goals of the SCS does not indicate a
misapplication of the RHNA methodology.
Staff Recommendation:
The issues cited by the City of Palo Alto do not meet the requirements of State Housing Element law,
which would warrant a revision.
The information provided by the City does not demonstrate that ABAG failed to apply the
RHNA methodology correctly or that an unforeseen change occurred.
Staff recommends that the Appeal Committee deny the proposed revision and supports the
continued efforts of the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, and Stanford University to
reach an agreement about transferring the identified units prior to April 19, 2013.
February 12, 2013
Ms. Gillian Adams, Regional Planner
Association of Bay Area Government
Joseph P. Bort Metro Center
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94607-4756
Ci!yof Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
Re: City of Palo Alto Appeal of Adopted RHNA Methodology for the 2014-2022 Housing Cycle
Dear Ms. Adams:
We are in receipt of ABAG's November 15'h letter, in response to the City of Palo Alto request for a
reduction to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) jurisdictional allocation for the 2014-2022
housing cycle. This letter denied the City of Palo Alto's request, briefly outlined the reasons for denial,
and provided the schedule and findings necessary to appeal this determination. The required appeal
template was also emailed to the City at a later date. With that in mind, pursuant to Government Code
§65584.05, the purpose of this cove r letter and attached completed appeal template is to officially
appeal the adopted RHNA Methodology determination for the City of Palo Alto. The following outlines
the criteria for which this appeal is based.
As noted in your letter, Government Code §65584.05 provides the following grounds for appeal:
1. ABAG failed to adequately consider the information submitted by the City of Palo Alto in the
survey ABAG"administrated in January '1012, or a significant and unforeseen'change'in
circumstances has occurred in the City of Palo Alto that merits a revision of the information; or
2. ABAG failed to determine its share of the regional housing need in accordance with the
information described in, and the methodology established pursuant to Section 65584.04.
The City of Palo Alto's "Request for Revision" letter outlined several reasons why the City of Palo Alto's
housing allocation was overstated. The following appeal focuses on one of these items.
The City of Palo Alto's grounds for appeal are as follows:
The proposed RHNA allocation assigns 77 housing units to the County of Santa Clara (unincorporated),
although Stanford University's General Use Permit with the County of Santa Clara County allows and
plans for up to 1,500 residential units to be built on Stanford lands within the RHNA housing element
timeframe.
1. Specifically, approximately 350 planned units on two sites on Quarry Road just west of EI
Camino Real appear appropriate to include somewhere in the housing analysis in this timeframe
(table and map attached). Indeed, there were active discussions with the property
owner(Stanford University) in the recent past about housing development on those sites in
connection with its current Medical Center expansion that was approved by the City in 2011.
Printed wilh soy-bued ink$ on 100'10 r«ycled paper procen ed without chlorine.
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto. CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.363\ fax
Ms. Gillian Adams, Regional Planner
Association of Bay Area Government
Page 2 of 3
2. While the City acknowledges that these units have not been otherwise assigned to the City of
Palo Alto, these two sites are proximate to EI Camino Real and the University Avenue Caltrain
station, and would be highly consistent with the objectives of the SCS and sB375. The sites are
located very close to developed land located within the City's boundaries. Furthermore, this
land is not protected agricultural land, and therefore should not be discounted as a suitable area
for growth.
3. It appears to be an oversight in the designation of priority development areas (PDAs) that these
sites were not included in the Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA's) "cores and corridors"
designation and thereby treated as a PDA under the RHNA methodology (attached map). The
City notes that significant areas of Palo Alto, designated by VTA in "cores and corridors," have
been treated as PDAs for the purpose of distributing housing units, even though the City did not
agree to their designation as PDAs.
4. Lastly, the City of Palo Alto agrees that it is generally appropriate to focus more intense growth
in cities rather than on open space or rural unincorporated county areas, and to encourage
annexation of unincorporated areas proximate to transit stations and corridors. The Stanford
owned lands subject of this appeal present an anomaly, however, in that a) these particular
lands are located in an urban area, near transit, across from a vibrant Shopping Center and
adjacent to a very extensive hospital expansion; b) Stanford's expansion and housing to support
its growth are unique among counties in the Bay Area and ABAG has previously re-adjusted the
allocation between Palo Alto and the County in previous cycles to account for this anomaly, and
c)-a-tri~party agreement between Santa Clara C-ounty; stanford'UniversitY,-andthe (it yo! Palo '
Alto precludes the City from annexing these potential housing sites (although the sites are
served by the Palo Alto Unified school district.).
For these reasons, the City believes allocations should be adjusted accordingly.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appeal the adopted RHNA Methodology for the 2014-2022
Housing Cycle and the City of Palo Alto's allocation. The required appeal template is attached. If you
have questions or need additional information, please contact Curtis Williams, the City's Director of
Planning and Community Environment, at (650) 329-2321 or curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely
/J~ ~.l/"\----
H. Gregory Scharff
MAYOR
Attachments:
A. Completed Appeal Template with Attachments
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area o ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
ABAG
2014-2022 Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) Appeal Request
All appeal requests must be received by ABAG Februaryl8, 20l3, 5 p.m. Late submissions will not be accepted.
Send requests to Gillian Adams, ABAG RegIonal Planner:
GillianA@abaq.ca.aovorP.O. Box 2050. Oakland, CA 94604-2050
Date: 2/13/13
Contact: Curtis Williams
Phone: 650-329-2321
APPEAL AUTHORtZED BY:
Name: H. Gregory Scharff
Jurisdiction: The City of Pato Alto
Title: Director of Planning and Community Environment
Email: curtls.wllllams@cityofpaloalto.org
PLEASE CHECK BELOW:
iii Mayor 0 Chair, County Board of Supervisors
o City Manager 0 Chief Administrative Officer
o Other: ______________ _
BASES FOR APPEAL IGovernment Code Sectton 65584.0S(d))"
[!J Misapplication of RHNA Methodology
[!J Failure to Adequately Consider Information Submitted in the Survey Regarding RHNA Factors:
o Existing or projected jobs-housing relationship
o Sewer or water infrastructure constraints for additional development
o Availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use
o Lands protected from urban development under existing federal or state programs
o County policies to preserve prime agricultural land
o Distribution of household growth assumed for purposes of comparable Regional Transportation Plan
o Market demand for housing
o County-city agreements to direct growth toward incorporated areas of county
o L®.of llnits contained.in assisted.housing developments
o High housing cost burdens
o Housing needs of farmworkers
[!J Housing needs generated by the presence of a university campus within a jurisdiction
[!J Significant and Unforeseen Change in Circumstances
Brief Descrlptton of Basis for Appeal Request and Desired Outcome:
11'1. ~ AHAA ~1Io<o1l<lt\ ... 11 .... " ~O<I .. "U unil' '" thl CouHy 01 SonIa a. .. (uni"""'P"'aWd) .• ltOOJgh Slanford UnIY"";I,.. GMerlllllM P.rm~ ""'"" lila Coc.n!J' or &lr>lI ca.-~ eo.,.,ly.~'''''~' 10< up '" 1.Il00 ,.okIootlol unil. '" l1li bull on Stanford Iorcr'_I'I.IUiAA"""oI~ ..... n ......... fnI"' •.
I. ~""'!J'.e_ ..... ,.,.1 S!lllpIonn""""'."" ....... 1 .. onou"If)'Rood)J., .... ,oIfl eo ... "" Relll_'PP<"OP<loI. "'_ 0001 .... _1n 1111101 .. "11 ... IyoI. In "10 1 ...... "'0(111)'.'''''' "'.P • ....,,""). _0<1.,.... ... ,...""..dloaJ ....... ,,;u, 1111 ~_'($I~clu..t....rtyIlnll1a'''''"nl_'.boul_''II_oq,monlon_II\Ii.lI1coo_,.;'''IIt.,..,.",M_CO" .. r •• pto"IoIonll1l1 ..... pp"","O<Ib,hlCil:rIn2(JII.
J. ~'Ol'l. CI!\I.~ ......... _ unil."..,..nao.bMnolho ...... ...y,.d "' ... C>!yolPr.oAl"'. '-Mo ~10 • .,.~10 '" El c.rrinol\OoI .... 1111 UnlYonll,A..,.... C.", ..... 1110\ ""'_IIII~IghIJ~.,...,";tII'" "'*""" ....... SCSatld
&ellS I1'It oIII .......... Wd • ...,. do .. ",_.-..,.rio"" IocoWd_ "a Cily"._arfeo. F-.,..,. .. Ih .. lord 10 ""'~ ~_Iord ..... """!,,, •• _ ""bo_ .... It~ It ..... ~"'_Io<O-'
a .• ___ IoIlll"'~I'I".dH~ .. IIon.tp!looi!J'd~ ...... (PON)""_.Ilu .. e,.nao."'-Io""V.I,.,lrw<1>p<>1-._~.(V1I1·')·co ... _<O"II6ilr.·d .. Ig ... IIon.""I'I ... tIo/"_ •• l roll ......... RIflII .... ~ (.II.:I_"""'~ n-.C~_ ...... IgtIiIIt.Inl ........ P.IoAl"' ..... """'Wdb,VlIlIo· ........ ""~:I>ov._"~_ .. ro .... fbr".~ .. dlottl<J!lro,1_"IU"l .... _~ ... CIf1~~"""II"'IIoI'IN""Qtoo,;on .. roN..
~'"-:~==~~"::: .. :..=~~=::~~~~::~~,::,n=t>!:::.~-=.,."':"~:='t~~..;~..;::.~~.=:.~'==~ .rcr~oInglo.-' •• ~_..,.q.,...........r"'"""'"'Io ... II.o,Ar ....... JSlAO,...pr--,.ro.......-l'Io_bo""-'P."'AlIo""" ... CoutII)'n~qdo.IO_,.,b'Na.'""""'*."'"<) ... ~I9_ .. __ Cl>r. eo.,.,l\'. '~I:rd o.w._t .• "" .. I 0:1 01 Polo ....... pr.a..do ..... Ci, /tom ...... .<Ins!"'" poIoooIioJ _"II oiIo. (."'-91 ..... 11 .............. ~, 1'10 POI<> No> Un __ dIorll;l.}
,00 ......... _ ..... CI!\IboI"lY •• __ "" ......... ~.
List of Supporting Documentation Included In Submittal:
1. Relevant Pages from Stanford University General Use Permit (June 2011)
2. VTA Cores, COrridors, and Station Areas Map for Palo Alto
3. __________________________________________________________ __
·Per Government Code Section 65584.05(d), appeals to the draft RHNA can only be made by jurisdictions that have prevIously filed a
revision request and do not accept the revIsion request findings made by ABAG.
GENERAL USE P E RMIT 2000
""'-.,..,,--..-::.-~=-~.---.. -'. -~~-
ANNUAL REPORT NO. 10
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
COUNTY OF SANTA C LARA
PLANNING OFF ICE
}UIU 2011
TY
GENERAL USE PERMIT 2000 ANNUAL REPORT No.10
Non-
Building Cap
Category
Remaining 1989
GUP Square
Foolage
Temporary Surge
Space
Childcarel
Community
Center
Housing
Annual Report
II. Development Overview
TABLE 2
ANNUAL REPORT 10
OTHER SPACE CAPS -PROJECT SUMMARY
Maximum
Allowable
Square
Footage
92,229
50,000
40,000
ASA Building Cumulative Cumulative Total Balance Building Permits Approved Permit Approved (sq. ft.) Building Permits Remaining
(sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) in Previous ARs Approved (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.)
0 0 92,229 92,229 0
0 0 28,085 28,085 21,915
7,895 0 27,947 28,144 11,856
The 2000 OUP allows for the construction of 3,018 net new
housing units on campus, with allocations for faculty and staff,
graduate and undergraduate students, and postdoctoral and medical
students as shown in Table 3. The OUP identified potential
housing sites for students, staff and faculty (Map 3, Appendix A).
As with academic/academic support building space, the housing
units will be distributed among the 10 devel()pment districts (~ee
Table 3).
Housing may also be developed on sites other than those shown on
Map 3, and the estimated distribution of the type and location of
housing among development districts may deviate from the
locations described in the 2000 OUP pursuant to 2000 OUP
Conditions F.2, F.3, and F.4. As explained under 2000 GUP
Condition A (A. I.c, A. I.d, and A.3.b), the square footage of
housing units constructed is tracked but does not count toward the
2000 GUP building area cap (see Table C-2, Appendix C).
During the AR 10 reporting period, two housing projects (Olmsted
Terrace Faculty Homes -File Number 9923, and Olmsted Road
Staff Rental Housing -File Number 9792) were approved. For
purposes of the housing linkage requirement, as provided in GUP
Condition F.8, the housing requirement is counted at the time of
the framing inspection. The Olmsted Terrace Faculty Homes and
Olmsted Road Staff Rental Housing projects were framed during
this reporting period. In addition, two student housing renovation
projects resulted in a slight change in housing units.
9 June 2011
A 1I1I11lI1 Rep () I' flO
June 2011
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
FIGURE 4 Distribution of Residential Development
20~ ---.!:,};:~~~u.-
_Cumulative framing Inspection Approved Units (1,358)
8 ASA Approved but Not Framed Units (0)
DAIIocatlon of Additional Units (3,018)
As illustrated in Figure 4, the cumulative total of approved units
under the 2000 GUP allocation is 1,358 units.
The Olmsted Road Staff Rental Housing includes the construction
of 25 units of staff housing -17 single family detached homes and
four duplexes.
The Olmsted Terrace Faculty Homes entails the construction of 39
single-family detached houses on lots ranging in area from 3,200
to 7,500 square feet each. The three-and four-bedroom homes
will range from approximately 1,930 to 2,400 gsf, and include a
two-car garage and a designated guest parking space.
10 Annual Report
I I. Development Overview
TABLE 3
ANNUAL REPORT 10
DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
ASA Final Framing
Allowable 2000 Approved Inspection
Development GUPNet Units but Not Pa,t Approved
Districtl Additional Unit' Yet Framed CumulaHve2 Unit, Cumulative
West Campus
Stable Site 372 Faculty/Staff 0 0 0 0
Lathrop 0 0 0 0 0
Foothills 0 0 0 0 0
Lagunlta 195 Faculty/Staff
Drlving Range 367 Graduate 0 0 0 0 Searsville Block 125 Undergradl
Mayfield/Row Grad
Campu, Cen ter 352 Grad.ot. 0 35 1 0 351
Quarry
Quorry/Arboretum 200 Postdoe 0 0 0 0
Ouarrv/EI Camino 150 Postdoc
Arboretum 0 0 0 0 0
DAPER&
Administrative 0 0 0 0 0
East Campu,
-Manzanita
-Escondido Village 100 Undergradl -Crothers Graduate 2
-Olmsted Rd Rental 1,043.Graduate 1-25 --Olmsted Terrace 75 Faculty/Staff 39
Ea,t Campu,
Sublotal 0 937 66 1003
San Juan
Lower
Frenchman's 18 Faculty/Staff
Gerona 12 Faculty/Staff 0 0 4 4
Mayfield 9 Faeulty/Staff 717 Dolores
San Juan Subtotal 0 0 4 4
Total (l,OI8 AlloWeU' 0 1288 70 11,358
1. Housing may be developed on other sites and development may vary from the estimated distribution with regard to citller tllC type
(student, postdoctoral, or faculty/stafi) or amount of housing on the site (2000 aup Conditions F.2, F.3, and FA). Redistribution
occurred in AR 6.
2. Cumulative totals include results from previous annual reports. Sec Appendix C and/or previous annual reports for more delailerl
background on these cumulative totals.
Annual Report 11 June 2011
B
c
A Manzanita
Mayfield/Row
Escondido Village
D Escolldido Village
E Escondido Villuge
F Driving Range
G Sears ville Block
H Quarry/Arboretum
J Quarry/Et Camillo
K Lower Frenchman's
L GerOIlU
N MayfieM
o Stable Sites
()
t)I
Faculty IStort (Low Donsity)
H
B a
• Faculty IStort (Modorato Density) o Undergraduate' Gladuale Students
~N
Appendix A
Reference Maps
-(). "1.300 H .,.. -
Source: SlonjOt'd University General Use Permil. December 2000
MAP A-3
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Fiscal Year
Annual Report I
(2000-0 I)
Annual Report 2
(2001-02)
Annual Report 3
(2002-03)
Annual Report 4
_(2003-04)
Annual Report 5
(2004-05)
Annual Report 6
(2005-2006)
Annual Report 7
(2006-2007)
Annual Report 8
(2007-2008)
Annual Report 9
(2008~009)
Annual Report
10
(2009-200 I 0)
KEY TO MAP C-2
Appendix C
Cumulutive Projects
ANNUAL REPORT 1 THROUGH ANNUAL REPORT 8
CUMULATIVE HOUSING PROJECTS
Map Housing Square Annual
No.* Project Units Footage Units
I Mirrielees -Phase I 102 0 102
2 Escondido Village Studios 5 & 6 281 139,258
3 M irrie lees -Ph ase II 50 0 331
Branner Student Housing Kitchen 0 1,596
N/A None N/A N/A 0
N/A None N/A N/A 0
N/A None N/A N/A 0
Drell l-iouse (conversion to -I (-906) academic)
579 Alvarado I 3,258 (-8)
Casa Zapata RF Unit 4 Replacement -8 (-691 )
None N/A N/A 0
5 Munger Graduate Housing 349 267,683' 349
5 Munger Graduate Housing 251 192,517
Schwab Dining Storage N/A 464 511 6 Blackwelder/Quille,,-Dorms 130 N/A
7 Crothers Renovation 133 N/A
8 717 Dolores 4 0
9 CrOlhors 2 0
10 Olmsled Terrace Facully. Housing 39 103,127 70
II Olmsled Staff Rental HOll,inll 25 53,831
Arrillag. Family Dining Commons N/A 28,260
Cumulative Net Contribution toward 2000 GUP Housing 1,358 788,397 1,358 Units
"'Map C-2 illustrates the locations of housing projects that add more than one unit. Individual housing projeets are not shown
on Map C-2.
I. Based on an average of767 square feet per unit constructed for the Munger Graduale Student Housing projecl.
C-s
Menlo Park
.. • Ootf Cour •• •
I)
o 1,000 2,000
,
• ~J
• • ....
•
Appendix C
Cumulative Projects
Palo Alto
ESC::>""""""" feet
Slfnlon;l Unln flily LI"" th. Ilo (nvlronn~nt~ PUn"....,.
.,
l..m VpdA,.d; f,brwry 17.1011
MAP C-2
CUMULATIVE HOUSING PROJECTS
C-6
Neighborhood Features
liD City or County Admlnlstrollon
f'" College/University
di K-12 School
[g] child Core Facility
• Community FoClllty
(i) Cullurol Center
o POlice Stotlon
.... Fire Stotlon
III Llbrory
III Post Office m Hospltol *' Resldentlol Heolthcore focility
)I) Hedlcol Clinic
~ Orocery Store or Supermarket
,. Speclolty Food or Formers Horket
Public Transportol! on
1(1 • 20 Hlnllle SII. Serrlce
Son to Cloro VTA
Stonford Horguerlle Shuttle
Dumborton Express
~ Coltroln Roll Stollon
Bicycle Hetwork
off street pOlh
••• on-street, striped lone
••• on-street loute
Identified by Sign/stencil
Po t.ntlal Prlollty Development Area
r :A-ln.lde PDA
~OuhldePDA
• Protected Open Space
SouIC": .\uoclolloo of SOu .\roo \)(.J'(erofO(lo\S.
Street 8018 Hop CI 2006 Tel9.\tlos. loc. All rights reseryad
l'BAO OISllvlU 2006
Scale: "'~ ~ o 0,125 0.25 0.5
~< 0""", ~
"0 qt-~<i'..?
$ ~ $ E ,-/,~.... .. ~ast .
Menlo
Park
<-.f""". ....:J Avenue ,J-. u\ r.r. ~ "----.palo Alto
I ."'''\ 0·~ ~~.., / '< -.. '\ " ~ , ~~
.'" /i " ~ j
,', .' .. ,
"', I -.. ? '4' '. '. '. I ' ,. .~,
I "
?-oa.O
~&';Ga.ae.,;o
~
~
'" .~
+
~
~
\ T
-v
I ,,0
j "",<-0 .--t it~'~'~) I / '~''':
; .,
". ", ~
'" o
<o
0, "'" ,. .,'
~o~ ,D
'" • " o ..
$
Stanford University
.. .. ~ " o. <$
~
~ ..
<T
"
"
"
" ;
". ,
; ; ,,-,
;
( .......... , .... ;
,,-,
;
".
'"
Legend ~
VTA Cores, Corridors & Sta~ons (Palo Alto)
Palo Mo California Avenue PDA
r=:~ City Jurisdictionallimrts .. Transportation Stations
~ !f ' ..... -..
..... '!Io _ .......
.\
<'00 ~ q .;
././ ,. .' ~ ... ..
~
~ .. " .. ~o. ~$
, -e-0 •
<T
./$~ /' J ~j~ ol" , ,
0./ /' ; ~\..:.
/'1 ~ .'~ o tz. :3 ,
/ <fIQ-../ r: ..
/' ¢ .,.._1
(
~o :; 0" ~ " . ~ ~I o ·
o ! ., \
~,., i ~. .~ -",' "', ~'). .'., -' ~. ,.r
V Mountain
View
G)
T be Cit y ~r
Palo Alto
< ~ Cl ~
,90-. .g
-(1) .-r.Il <" t: '" o§ 0 ~
t;>"'OU"'O< Q...« s::: cn"s:::: c ~~C':lo)cuo 0._ 0 0";::
bE u ~ 'u-t8 -< I/)
::: f-o U >
This map is a product 01 the
City of Palo Alto GIS
~ --• ".,
......... 2012-06-07 \\:45:51 CPA "DI'(\Ic:<>n1aps~lc\fodrninlP_~..-.db)
ThiII'"""""'-t ... ~~."",,,,, ____ _
The Cil:\l"'PwIo,., __ .... ~b""1""""-OI_.:l'OI:zCi\y"' ..... Mo