HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-19 City CouncilTO:
FROM:
This staff report was at Council
Members’ places at their
meeting of 7/17/00, and is now
being published in the full City
Council packet.
City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
HONORA.BLE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JIJLY 19, 2000 CMR:335:00
INITIAL STAFF COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE STANFORD COMMUNITY PLAN
AND GENERAL USE PERMIT
The following are st~ff’s initial comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the Stanford Community Plan (Plan) and General Use Permit (GUP) for the
unincorporated area of the University. within Santa Clara County (Attachment A), which
includes approximately 4,017 acres of land, The Plan/GUP were submitted to the Santa
Clara County Planning.Office and made available for public review on November 15,
1999. Environmental review was initiated with the preparation of this DEIR. The DEIR
Was made available for public review and comment on June 23, 2000. The public review
period will close on August 7, 2000.
BACKGROUND
In October 1999, the City Council forwarded its recommendati~.ns and comments
(Attachment B) to the Santa Clara County planning Office regarding the preliminary Plan
and GUP proposed by Stanford University. The Council’s recommendations were’ made
following a series of hearings on the items before both the Council and the Planning
Commission. Council’s recommendations were made in advance of Stanford’s formal
Plan/GUP applications, which were submitted to the County on November 15, 1999.
Stanford did, however, acknowledge that an environmental impact, report was being
prepared by the County that would analyze both the Plan and the GUP, .and that a draft of
this document would be available for punic review and comment in June 20.00.
Purposeof the Community Plan/General Use Permit
The Plan and GUP regulate land use and development for Stanford-owned property in the
unincorporated area of Santa Clara County; this accounts for 4,017 acres, approximately
half of Stanford’s total land ownership. Stanford-owned land within Santa Clara County
CMR:335:00 Page 1 of 8
consists primarily of the academic campus and the largely undeveloped foothill property
southwest of Junipero Serra Boulevard. The University also owns land in the Cities of
Palo Alto (e.g., Stanford Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center, Medical Center),
Woodside, Menlo Park, the Town of Portola Valley, and unincorporated portions of San
Mateo County. Once approved by the County, the GUP operates as a broad-based land
use entitlement that allows a specified amount and type of development to occur.
Stanford and the County have utilized the GUP as a land use and development tool since
1962. Presently, development on Stanford lands occurs under the GUP approved in
1989. The 1989 GUP allowed 2.1 million square feet of building area (including
residential construction) to be developed; approximately 140,000 square feet of this
entitlement remains, leading to Stanford’s request for the approval of a new GUP. As
with the 1989 GUP, the current GUP is anticipated to accormuodate development at
Stanford for approximately 10 years. The proposed GUP requests the approval of
2,035,000 square feet of academic buildings and related facilities and up to 3,018
dwelling units. Assuming all of the proposed dwelling units are constructed, residential
development, would likely add an additional 2 to 3 million square of building area.
Unlike the GUP, the Community Plan isnot an entitlement mechanism, but is instead a .
long-range policy document that, if adopted, will amend the County general plan
concerning Stanford’s unincorporated Santa Clara County lands. Stanford has not
prepared a plan of this type before. Once in place, the goals, policies, and land use
designations contained in the Community Plan will be effective indefinitely, until
superseded.
Environmental Review (DEIR) Process: Purpose of the City’s Review
The City’s previous comments and recommendations to the County regarding the
PlardGUP have been project-specific. The subject of this report, however, is the Draft
EIR for both the Plan and the GUP. The primary purpose of a DEIR, such as the one
under review, is to provide full disclosure to the public and decision,makers about the
potential environmental, impacts of a proposal. Additionally, the DEIR is required to
identify ways to avoid impacts, mitigation measures to lessen impacts, and project
alternatives. When reviewing a DEIR, these are the key aspects to focus on.
Also, readers of the DEIR should be aware that impacts or issues of a non-environmental
nature (i.e., economic, social impacts) should be addressed through project-specific
comments, which can be made at a later date through the further review of the proposal,
as noted in the "Timeline" section, below. In commenting on the adequacy of a DEIR, it
is important to keep in mind that comments focusing on the "big picture" or major
impacts of a project are the most effective.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The DEIR analyzes the Plan/GUP’s impact (Attachment C) ona broad range of
environmental issues, including: land use; open space, recreation and visual resources;
CMR:335:00 Page 2 of 8
consists primarily of the academic campus and the largely undeveloped foothill property
southwest of Junipero Serra Boulevard. The University also owns land in the Cities of
Palo Alto (e.g., Stanford Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center, Medical Center),
Woodside, Menlo Park, the Town of Portola Valley, and unincorporated portions of San
Mateo County. Once approved by the County, the GUP operates as a broad-based land
use entitlement that allows a specified amount and type of development to occur.
Stanford and the County have utilized the GUP as a land use and development tool since
1962. Presently, development on Stanford lands occurs under the GUP approved in
1989. The 1989 GUP allowed 2.1 million square feet of building area (including
residential construction) to be developed; approximately 140,000 square feet of this
entitlement remains, leading to Stanford’s request for the approval of a new GUP. As
with the 1989 GUP, the current GUP is anticipated to accommodate development at
Stanford for approximately 10 years. The proposed GUP requests the approval of
2,035,000 square feet of academic buildings and related facilities and up to 3,018
dwelling units. Assuming all of the proposed dwelling units are constructed, residential
development would likely add an additional 2 to 3 million square of building area.
Unlike the GUP, the Community Plan is not an entitlement mechanism, but is instead a
long-range policy document that, if adopted, will amend the County general plan
concerning Stanford’s unincorporated Santa Clara County lands. Stanford has not
prepared a plan of this type before. Once in place, the goals, policies, and land use
designations contained in the Community Plan will be effective indefinitely, until
superseded.
Environmental Review (DEIR) Process: Purpose of the City’s Review
The City’s previous comments and recommendations to the County regarding the
Plan!GUP have been project-specific. The subject of this report, however, is the Draft
EIR for both the Plan and the GUP. The primary purpose of a DEIR, such as the one
under review, is to provide full disclosure to the public and decision-makers about the
potential environmental impacts of a proposal. Additionally, the DEIR is required to
identify ways to avoid .impacts, mitigation measures to lessen impacts, and project
alternatives. When reviewing a DEIR, these are the key aspects to focus on.
Also, readers of the DEIR should be aware that impacts or issues of a non-environmental
nature (i.e., economic, social impacts) should be addressed through project-specific
comments, which can be made at a later date through the further review of the proposal,
as noted in the "Timeline" section, below. In commenting on the adequacy of a DEIR, it
is important to keep in mind that comments focusing on the "big picture" or major
impacts of a project are the most effective.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The DEIR analyzes the Plan/GUP’s impact (Attachment C) ona broad range of
environmental issues, including: ~ land use; open space, recreation and visual resources;
CMR:335:00 Page 2 of 8
population and housing; traffic and circulation; hydrology and water quality; geology and
seismicity; hazardous materials; biological resources; historic and archaeological
resources; public services and utilities; air resources; and noise. The DEIR also examines
the project’s growth-inducing and cumulative impacts as well as providing alternatives to
the proposed project. The DEIR identifies significant environmental impacts that cannot
be mitigated to a less than significant level in the following areas: open space (loss of
recognized open space); traffic and circulation (traffic impacts to several intersections in
Santa Clara County, Palo Alto and Menlo Park); biolgical resources (loss of California
Tiger Salamander species and their habitat); historical resources; and construction noise.
Principal EIR Issues from the City’s Perspective
Open Space
o The DEIR should analyze an alternative that maintains the level of development,
particularly numbers of housing units, while prohibiting development in recognized
open space areas southwest of Junipero Serra Boulevard. The "Reduced Scale
Alternative" discussed in the DEIR limits the total amount of development proposed
by approximately 50 percent. It doesn’t, however, restrict development to a more
confined area of the campus. By more efficiently "clustering" development on the
campus, the amount of development may not need to be reduced, but significant
impacts to recognized open space areas may be mitigated or at least lessened.
Related to the preceding comment, the DEIR should provide an alternative that
includes an adjusted Academic Growth Boundary, specifically, a boundary that is on
the northeast (academic campus) side of .Junipero Serra Boulevard. The proposed
PlardGUP identifies up to 20,000 square feet of building area as allowable southwest
of Junipero Serra--approximately one percent of the total academic building square
footage proposed. Though a small portion of the overall development proposed by
the GUP, this 20,000 square feet is the cause of the significant impacts to recognized
open space identified in the DEIR. An adjustment to the Academic Growth
Boundary, as described, could eliminate this impact and should, therefore, be
included in the DEIR.
The Carnegie Foundation proposal, for which a draft environmental impact report was
recently circulated, should be included in the DEIR analysis for the Plan/GUP in that
it has a direct bearing on open space impacts. The near concurrent timing of these
DEIRs also raises the issue of "project splitting," which is explicitly prohibited by
State CEQA Guidelines.
Long-term (25 years or more) or permanent dedication of open space should be
looked at in the DEIR as a way to mitigate or lessen significant open space impacts.
Even though Stanford land, or portions thereof, may not be alienable, mechanisms
such as open space easements have been used by Stanford as a means to achieve
such long-term and/or permanent protections.
CMR:335:00 Page 3 of 8
Housing
The City supports Stanford’s intemion to add over 3,000 housing units to the campus
through the GUP, but wants to reiterate its concern that a considerable portion of this
housing (up to 1,050 units) abuts the College Terrace neighborhood, which consists
predominately of single-family detached residences. Traffic and visual impacts to the
College Terrace neighborhood should be addressed in more detail in the DEIR.
The DEIR estimates that development under the GUP would generate approximately
1,000 new jobs, and possibly as many as 1,500 to 2,000, if the standard multiplier is
applied. The City believes the DEIR should identify additionalhousing sites on and
off campus in order to meet regional housing needs or identify other means to address
this issue, including payment of fees to adjacent jurisdictions that may be impacted by
Stanford’s proposed development.
Schools
The DEIR proposes mitigation measures (payment ~f impact fees) for school impacts
that appear to be in accordance with pertinent statutory and case law. However, City.
staffbelieves that these measures will not address the actual impacts to schools within
the Palo Alto Union School District. (PAUSD).
Potential addkional options are outlined on pages 4.10-8 and 4.10-9 of the DEIR and
include the possibilities of constructing a third middle school on Stanford land to re-
opening closed schools to modifying existing schools. The City of Palo Alt0 believes
Stanford needs to be actively involved in the discussion and eventual implementation
of additional options for addressing school impacts.
Circulation and Parking
The DEIR identifies, various transportation measures t6 mitigate traffic impacts.
These measures need to be placed into a more comprehensive context. Therefore,.
Stanford should prepare an integrated transportation plan with both long- and short-
term elements. Long-term elements should include a variety of solutions to
mitigating vehicular congestion and parking demand. The plan should contain sub-
area analys.es for the core campus, the Medical Center, the Research Park, and the
Shopping Center and should be developed in conjunction with Santa Clara County,
Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto. The plan should emphasize transit,
transportation demand management (TDM), bicycling, walking, and traffic-calming
to create a safer environment for alternative modes of use.
The DEIR list of traffic mitigation measures includes evaluation of intersection
widenings. While intersection capacity increases may mitigate for peak hour trips,
they also have the result of inducing greater numbers of vehicle trips. Evaluation of
CMR:335:00 Page 4 of 8
each proposed intersection widening improvement should take account~of these
secondary effects.
With respect to pedestrian travel, all intersection widenings, including those discussed
in the draft EIR, lengthen pedestrian crossing distance and time. This effect should be
analyzed for each proposed intersection project and measures to enhance pedestrian
safety, including pedestrian median refuges, should be considered.
Intersection widenings have three possible effects on bicyclists: 1) creating more
complexity for cyclists navigating an intersection; 2) potentially a loss of bike lane
space to create a turning lane; and 3) lengthening the exposure of cyclists traveling
across an intersection that has been widened. These effects should be analyzed for
each proposed intersection project and measures to enhance cycling safety should be
considered.
Roundabouts have had an impressive safety record worldwide. As traffic-calming
measures, roundabouts can help slow vehicle speeds and create safer travel conditions
for pedestrians and bicyclists. Roundabouts should, therefore, be considered as an
alternative to such conventional intersection treatments as signalization, new signal
phases and intersection widening.
Stanford should consider market-based measures to manage parking demand, such as
implementation of parking prices that reflect the costs of both parking capacity and
traffic congestion.
Trip Generation rates are critical to the DEIR analysis. A discussion should be
provided of how the composite trip generation count is disaggregated to the various
categories of trip makers. The EIR should also clearly state that the trip generation
rates used for the project include the present level of TDM. In addition, trip
generation of visitors and contractors should be included in trip generation analysis.
Finally, the off-campus housing units to be vacated when the off campus graduate
students are relocated onto the campus will be backfilled by new residents, resulting
in continued trip generation from these off-campus units, but with a new trip
distribution. These backfill trips should be included in the EIR traffic analysis.
Whenever Stanford is required to fund roadway mitigations based on a "fair share"
contribution, the calculation should be based on all Stanford traffic using the facility
(i.e., existing and new)--not just the project component from the new CP/GUP.
As described in the DEIR, a coordinated trip reduction effort for the Stanford
Research Park was not used as a credit toward no net new commute trips because
CMR:335:00 Page 5 of 8
most of the Park lies south of Page Mill Road. The boundary of the cooperative trip
reduction area should be extended south to include all or most of the Park.
City staff strongly supports the "no net new COlnmute trips" mitigation strategy
instead of Tier 2 ~intersection improvements. Many of these improvements are only
minimally feasible from a physical or political perspective and/or have other negative
impacts. For all Tier 2 projects, conceptual-level cost estimates should be provided as
well as Stanford’s fair share contribution.
City staff supports traffic calming mitigation measures. However, the EIR should be
more specific regarding Stanford’s responsibility to determine the amount of cut-
through traffic it generates. Specifically, Stanford should be responsible to pay for and
conduct a license plate and/or origin-destination survey to determine which vehicles
are travelling to/from Stanford lands. Furthermore, the proportion of traffic
attributable to Stanford should be all traffic generated by the campus area, whether or
not it is related to the new GUP development.
Land Use
The area described as "Lathrop," located southwest of Junipero Serra Boulevard, and
shown in Figure 2-6 of the DEIR, is presently designated as "Academic Reserve and
Open Space" by the County general plan. The DEIR, as well as the draft EIR for the
Carnegie Foundation project, show that this area is proposed for re-designation to
"Academic Campus." This proposed re-designation causes and/or contributes to open
Space impacts identified in the DEIR and signals an expansion of the core campus
area. The City does not support this expansion of the campus into the largely
undeveloped foothill area. The DEIR should provide an alternative analysis with an
unchanged land use designation on the Lathrop property.
Development districts identified in the DEIR (Figure 2-6, Tables 2-1 and 2-2) give the
impression that proposed development described in the GUP is not only anticipated to
occur in these districts, but would be specifically limited to these areas. Language in
the Plan/GUP itself indicates otherwise. This inconsistency should be clarified.
Biological Resources
"Option 2" regarding the California Tiger Salamander should be incorporated into the
project since it avoids a significant impact to the species and its habitat that would
otherwise occur.
Implementation and Development
The DEIR includes information on the phasing of development (i.e., proportion of
residential development that needs, to occur in relation to academic development), but
is silent on how monitoring of development will occur and by whom it will be done.
CMR:335:00 Page 6 of 8
The DEIR identifies construction noise impacts as significant and not able to be
mitigated to a less than significant level, even though construction would be done in
accordance with Santa Clara County noise regulations. Construction should be
conditioned to a more strict standard when within 500 feet of sensitive receptors, such
as existing residential areas. For instance, the DEIR indicates that construction could
occur from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. Reduction in construction
hours and elimination of Saturday construction may eliminate or lessen significant
construction noise impacts.
Prior to the City finalizing its comments and forwarding them to the County, staff
anticipates refinements to the preceding recommendations and additional
recommendations concerning community facilities (i.e., child care, parks, libraries) and
storm water run-off to affected creek watersheds, particularly to San Francisquito Creek.
TINELINE
With the consideration of the DEIR, the Plan/GUP process enters into the final phases.
The joint City Council/Planning and Transportation Commission public hearing on July
19 is intended to solicit comments to help shapethe City’s response. After the close of
the public hearing, the Comlnission is scheduled to continue the item until its July 26
meeting for a final deliberation and recommendation. The City Council will consider the
Commission’s comments and prepare the official City r.esponse at its July 31 meeting. A
second staff report with more detailed, comments and recommendations will be released
prior to the July 31 Council meeting. The City’s written response to the DEIR needs to
be to the County by August 7, 2000.
In addition, the County will hold a public hearing in Palo Alto on August 3 to provide a
forum for comments on the DEIR. These comments will be responded to directly by the
County as part of the DEIR process.
The following is the anticipated schedule for the project following this hearing:
August 7:
August 14:
September 7:
Late Sept. to
Early October:
October 9:
October 18:
Public comment closes on DEIR
Preliminary (County) staff-recommended Community Plan to be
released for review
Hearing of County Planning Commission to take testimony on
Preliminary Community Plan
Additional City of Palo Alto review and recommendation on
Plan/GUP
Final EIR to be released
Special County Planning Commission hearing on Community Plan
and EIR (evening meeting held in Palo Alto)
CMR:a35.00 Page 7 of 8
October 19:
October 3 O:
October 31:
November 9:
November 14:
Special Planning Commission hearing for Planning Commission
deliberation on recommendations (if needed only; evening meeting
at County Government Center, San Jose)
Special County Board of Supervisors hearing for testimony on
Community Plan and EIR (evening meeting) ’
Board deliberation on project
Special Board hearing for deliberation on project and EIR (evening
meeting, if needed)
Special Board hearing, for deliberation on project and EIR (evening,
if needed)
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Community Plan Boundary Location Map
Attachment B: October 28, 1999 letter from Gary Fazzino, Mayor, City of Palo to Anne
Draper, Santa Clara County Planning Director
Attachment C: Table "S-I," Impact and Mitigation Summary
Attachment D: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Stanford Lands
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Council and Commission Members only)
PREPARED BY:Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEWi
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: m ison-
Assistant City Manager
Santa Clara County Planning Office
Stanford University Planning Department
CMR:335:00 Page 8 of 8
PROPOSEDLANDUSEDEsIGNATIONS
Open Space andAcademic Reserve (E-SA) ~
Special Conservati,0n (E-SA-SC)
Academic Campus (E-SO) "
Campus Open Space (E-SCO)
public School (E-SPS)
Campus Residential - Low Density (E-SR)
Campus Residential - Moderate Density (E-SR-2),~,’
~, Proposed Academic Growth Boundary
EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
~ University Lands -/~,cademic Reserve,
’~ land Open Space ~’,
~ University Lands,- Camp0s : ,
Sources: Stanford University Draft Community Plan, 11/15/99, as amende(J 4/1’9/00’ S~nta Clara C~unty General Plah, 1995 i
Stanford University
CP/GUP Project EIR
EXISTING and PROPOSED
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Parsons
Harland Bartholomew
& Associates~ inc.
Figu~ 24
October 28, 1999
Palo Alto
Office @he Alia!jot and Ci~.j Co~mciZ
Attachment B
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
Planning Office
County of Santa Clara
70 W. Hedding Street
San Jose/CA 95110
Subject: Draft Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit
Dear NIs: Draper:
Thank you for the opp6rtunity to review and comment on the draft Stanford Community
Plan and General Use Permit (GUP). The City of Palo Alto has held three punic
meetings this month regarding the Community Plan and GUP, resulting in the City
Council recommendations, des.d..ribed below. As indicated, the City has two overall
recommendations that are. general in nature as well as more focused recommendations
categorized under specific headings. A major priority of the City is the preservation of
open space areas west of Junipero Serra Boulevard for a period of 25 years or more. In
addition to rezoning these areas to an "Open Space" land use designation, establishing a
25-year, no-build commitment, long-term open space preservation.should also
incorporate the most protective measures available, such as conservation easements. The
City anticipates making further comments on the Community Plan and GUP as
subsequent drafts of the documents become available. The term "Plan," below, unless
otherwise indicated, refers to both the Community Plan and GUP.
Overall Staff Recommendations
The City of Palo Alto supports Stanford’s efforts to create additional on-campus
housing, and the concept to add new development on lands currently developed or
designated for developrdent within the core campus. However, Palo Alto strongly
shares the County’s concern over the lack of specificity in the Plan regarding land use
and assurances for preservation, especially for open space uses.
The Plan should incorpora{~ the general recommendations of the Santa Clara County
staff report entitled, Stanford University Community _Plan and General Use Permit,
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
415.329.2’477
415.328.3631 Fax
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
October 28, 1999
Page 2
dated October 7, 1999, and the direction given to Stanford by the Santa Clara County
Plarming Commission on September 2, 1999.
The City supports the Plan’s stipulated gdal of maintaining the existing amount of
open space, but recommend.s that a distinct open space land uge designation be
created. .-...
The Plan is proposed for a period of 10 years, but development is relatively
permanent. The preservation of open space areas, therefore, needs strong long-term
assurances, of at least 25 years, well beyond the life of the Plan.
Santa Clara County Zoning designations that are most reflective of open sp.ace uses,
including the creation of new Zoning designations, should be appIied to lands
intended for long-term open space uses.
The proposed limitation of a 20,000-square-foot maximum (5,000-square-foot’
maximum per building) development exception west of Junipero Serra Boulevard
appears reasonable so long as it is subject to further City review when specific
proposaIs are submitted. This exception, however, should be included in the Plan.
AnY future land use changes that will intensify the use of open space areas should
involve the City in a meaningful way in the decision-making process.
Stanford should adopt an Academic Growth Boundary similar to the Urban Growth
Boundaries adopted by several cities in Santa Clara County.
Housing
The City of Palo Alto strongly supports the emphasis on creating additional, on-site
housing by establishing goals and identifying potential sites within the core campus.
The unit types and development standards for the proposed housing are too general
and should be made more specific to assess its compatibility with existing land uses.
An assessment of needs related to the creation of additional housing, such as parks
and schools, should be provided. ,:
Ms. Anne Draper, Plarming Director
October 28, 1999
Page 3
Open space areas along E1 Camino ReaI, north of Escondido Village, should be
maintained. The loss of potential units at this location may be compensated by an
equivalent increase in units eIsewhere.in the Escondido Village vicinity.
Any additional development along Stanford Avenue must be consistent and
compatible with the existing development located across the street in the City of Palo
Alto.
Housing proposed in the area east of Hoover Pavilion at Quarry Road and E1 Camino
Real should not be constructed unless a significant open space buffer can be provided
and maintained aiong E1 Camino Real.
Housing c’onstruction should be phased to occur early in the 10-)ear period of the Plan
to keep pace with additional non-residential development, and it is strongly urged that
a more serious effort be made to close the gap between the University’s student
population and on-campuslibusing.
Consideration should be given to the need for providing additional affordable housing
for Stanford support staff.
Circulation and Parking
The goal of"no new net commute trips" should be retained and the Plan should be
revised to clearly state this goal and how it might be accomplished.
Monitoring of vehicle trips needs to be based on actual counts in and out of the
Stanford campus. These counts need to be performed on a regular basis and the City
should be included in determining at which locations the counts will occur.
The commitment of Stanford regarding regional transportation issues, including
cooperation with other agencies, should be included in the Plan.
Measure the impacts of "no new net commute trips" on adjacent neighborhood streets,
such as in the College TerraCe neighborhood, and mitigate impacts as appropriate.
Ms. Arme Draper, Planning Director
October 28, 1999
Page 4
The Plan should include information on Stanford’s trails and pathways and clearly
indicate future ir~tentions for enhancing these facilities and providing linkages from
the foothills to the baylands.
Schools
Provision for a middle school of an appropriate size needs to be made in the Plan.
Potential locations for the schooI should be clearly identified, and ideally these
locations should be west Alma Street and El Camino Real. These locations should not
inc’lude any areas presently used for open space purposes.
¯Elementary school impacts created by additional faculty and staff family housing
should also be assessed and addressed.
Laird Use
Palo Alto agrees with the generaiized land use .designations in the Plan, which include
support for the underlying concept of focusing all significant construction within the
core campus.
Areas presently shown as "Academic Reserve and Open Space" should be further
clarified. A separate "Open Space" designation should be provided for areas to be
used as long-term and/or permanent open space and that allows only limited uses and
development.
The total building square fo.0tage (2,100,000) allowed by the 1989 GUP included all
new structures, regardless of use; housing was included in the total building area. The
current Plan, which lists allowable numbers of housing units separately from
allowable non-residentia! building area, should include total allowable building square
footage information so an accurate comparison can be made between this Nan and the
1989 GUP.
The Plan should include a section on ai1 of Stanford’s land holdings, since
approximately half of their property is outside the scope of the Plan. This information
should be specific as to use, building area, numbers of dweiling units, and location of
development for both existing and future conditions. The information should be
presented in both map and tabular form to enhance its usefulness.
Ms, Anne Draper, Planning Director
Ocfober 28, 1999
Page 5 .... ..
Plan Implementation
The Community Plan and GUP need to include provisions for monitoring of
development. Monitoring should be performed by an independent entity on an annual
basis with public hearings held at a location in northern Santa Clara County,
The Community Plan and GUP need to establish thresholds regarding the number of
housing units that must be built prior to the construction of additional academic and
support buildings.
Vision for Long-Term Build-Out of Stanford University
The Community Plan should include a long-term vision, beyond.the lO-year scope of
. the.Plan, for the ultimate build-out of the University. While it is recognized that this
vision would not be as detailed as the ten-year Plan r.egarding Stanford’s potential
development, it would be helpful in providing insight into the University’s future
evolution. .....
Again, thank you for including the City of Palo Alto in the review process for the
Community Plan and GUP. We hope our recommen~lations and comments.are of
assistance.
Mayor
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
Attachment C
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact Pre-Mitigation Mitigation Measure I Post-MitigationSignificanceSignificance
1. Land Use
LU-1. Will the project Less than No mitigation is necessary.Less than
increase potential for Significant Significant
conflict as a result of
incompatible land uses?
2. Open Space, Recreation and Visual Resources
No mitigation is necessary.OS-1. Will the project be
inconsistent with the
Santa Clara County
General Plan regarding
Scenic Routes, Scenic
Approaches, or Scenic
Highways?
OS-2. Will the project
result in the loss of
recognized open space?
OS-3. Will the project
adversely affect
recreational opportunities
for existing or new
campus residents and
facility users?
OS-4. Will the project
cause an adverse effect on
foreground or middle
ground views fi’om a high
volume travel way
(excluding scenic routes
and scenic highways),
recreation use areas, or
other public use areas?
OS-5. Will the project
cause an adverse effect on
foreground views from
one or more private
residences or significantly
alter public views?
Less than
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Less than
Significant
0S-2: Cluster Development in Lathrop
Development District
OS-3: Improvement of Parks and
Dedication of Trails
OS-4: Protect Visual Quality Along E1
Camino Real
No mitigation is necessary.
Less than
Significant
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S.4
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact
OS-6. Will the project
create a high intensity
light source or glare
affecting private
residences, passing
pedestrians, or motorists?
OS-CI: Will the project
combined with other
cumulative projects be
inconsistent with the
Santa Clara County
General Plan regarding
Scenic Routes, Scenic
Approaches, or Scenic
Highways?
OS-C2: Will the project
combined with other
cumulative projects result
in the cumulative loss of
recognized open space?
OS-C3: Will the project
combined with other
cumulative projects
adversely affect
recreational opportunities?
OS-C4: Will the project
together with other
cumulative projects cause
an adverse effect on
foreground or middle
ground views from a high
volume travel way
(excluding scenic, routes
and scenic highways),
recreation use areas, or
other public use areas?
Pre-Mitigation
Significance
Significant
Less than
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Mitigation Measure
OS-6: Control Light and Glare
No mitigation is necessary.
OS-2: Cluster Development in Lathrop
Development District
OS-3: Improvement of Parks and
Dedication of Trails
OS-4: Protect Visual Quality Along El
Camino Real
Post-Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S-5
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact Pre-Mitigation
Significance
OS-C5: Will the project
along with other
cumulative projects cause
an adverse effect on
foreground views from
one or more private
residences or significantly
alter public views?
OS-C6: Will the project
along with other
cumulative projects create
a high intensity light
source or glare affecting
private residences, passing
pedestrians, or motorists?
3. Population and Housing
PH- 1: Will the project
result in a net loss,
through conversion or
demolition, of homes
occupied by low- or
moderate-income
households?
Less than
Significant
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation is necessary.
Significant OS-6: Control Light and Glare
No Impact No mitigation is necessary.
No Impact No mitigation is necessary.
PH-3: Identify Additional Housing Sites
and Condition New Academic Space on
the Construction of Housing
No mitigation is necessary
Post.Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
PH-2: Will the project
result in a net loss,
through conversion or
demolition, of
multlfamily rental
housing?
PH-3: Will the project
increase the demand for
housing thereby causing
indirect environmental
impacts?
PH-CI&2: Will the
project have a cumulative
potential to result in a net
loss of homes occupied by
low- or moderate-income
households or a net loss
of multifamily rental
housing?
Significant
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S-6
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact
PH-C3: Will the project
plus cumulative projects
increase the demand for
housing thereby causing
indirect environmental
impacts?
4. Traffic and Circulation
Pre-Mitigation
Significance
Significant
Mitigation Measure
PH-3: Identify Additional Housing Sites
and Condition New Academic Space on
the Construction of Housing
TR-1: Transit. Will the
project adversely affect
public transit service
levels or accessibility?
TR-2: Bicycle and/or
Pedestrian. Will the
project cause adverse
impacts on the use of
bicycle and/or pedestrian
travel ways?
TR-3: Parking. Will the
project create adverse
impacts to existing
parking or access to
existing parking?
TR-4: Vehicular Impacts
- Freeways. Will the
project create adverse
vehicular impacts on the
freeways?
TR-5: Vehicular Impacts
- Intersections. Will the
project create adverse
vehicular impacts for
intersections in Palo Alto,
Santa Clara County, and
Menlo Park?
TR-6: Residential Streets.
Will the project result in
traffic impacts to
surrounding residential
neighborhoods?
Post-Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Less than No mitigation is necessary.Less than
Significant Significant
No mitigation is necessary.Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Significant
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
TR-5A: Tier 1 Intersection Capacity
Expansion
TR-5B: Trip Reduction and Monitoring
TR-5C: Cooperative Trip Reduction
TR-5D: Intersection Capacity Expansion
TR-6A: Reduce Cut Through Traffic on
Residential Streets
TR-6B: Require Site-Specific Traffic
Studies for Large GUP Projects
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S-7
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact
TR-7: Construction. Will
the project create
additional construction
traffic causing a
substantial reduction in
access to land uses or a
reduction in mobility?
Pre-Mitigation
Significance
Significant
Mitigation Measure
TR-TA: Off-street Parking for
Construction Related Vehicles
Maintenance of PedestrianTR-TB:
Access
TR-7C:
TR-7D:
Hours
TR-7E:
Maintenance of Bicycle Access
Restriction on Construction
Construction Truck Routes
TR-7F: Protection of Public Roadways
During Construction
TR-7G: Protection and Maintenance of
Public Transit Access and Routes
TR-7H: Construction Impact Mitigation
Plan (Alternate Mitigation)
TR-7I: Construction During Special
Events
Post-Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
HWQ-I: Surface Water
Hydrology. Will the
project cause increased
runoff due to creation of
impervious surfaces?
HWQ-2: Groundwater.
Will the project reduce
groundwater quantity?
Hydrology and Water Quality
Significant
HWQ-3: Groundwater.
Will the project degrade
groundwater quality?
HWQ-4. Surface Water
Quality. Will the project
result in a degradation of
surface water runoff
quality?
Significant
Significant
Significant
HWQ-I: Manage Stormwater Runoff
HWQ-I: Manage Stormwater Runoff
HWQ-2: Maintain Groundwater
Recharge
HWQ-3: Protect Water Quality
HWQ-3: Protect Water Quality
HWQ-4: Best Management Practices for
Preventing Post-Construction Urban
Runoff Pollution
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S-8
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact
HWQ-C1 : Wilt the
project have a cumulative
potential to impact
surface water hydrology,
groundwater quantity,
groundwater quality or
surface water quality?
Pre-Mitigation
Significance
Significant
Mitigation Measure
HWQ- 1: Manage Stormwater Runoff
HWQ-2: Maintain Groundwater .
Recharge
HWQ-3: Protect Water Quality
HWQ-4: Best Management Practices for
Preventing Post-Construction Urban
Runoff Pollution
=
G&S-I: Will project
facilities be damaged by
ground surface rupture?
G&S-2: Will earthquake-
induced strong ground
shaking damage project
facilities?
Geology and Seismicity
Less than
Significant
G&S-3: Will project
facilities be damaged by
co-seismic ground
deformation?
G&S-4: Will project
facilities be damaged by
liquefaction or settlement
during an earthquake?
G&S-5: Will project
facilities be damaged by
unstable slope conditions?
G&S-6: Will project
facilities be exposed to
damage due to expansive
soils or soils with
moderate to high erosion
potential?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
Post.Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S-9
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
I
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact
Hazardous Materials
Pre-Mitigation I Post.Mitigation
Significance Mitigation Measure Significance
PHS-I: Will the Project
provide safeguards to
protect the public from
exposure to hazardous
materials at
concentrations
detrimental to human
health?
PHS-2: Will the Project
provide safeguards to
protect the public from
exposure to hazardous
waste at concentrations
detrimental to human
health?
PHS-CI: Will the project
plus cumulative projects
provide safeguards to
protect the public from
exposure to hazardous
materials and wastes at
concentrations
detrimental to human
health?
Significant
Less than
Significant
Significant
PHS-1 : Risk Management Plan
No mitigation is necessary.
PHS- 1: Risk Management Plan
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
8. Biological Resources
BIO-I: Will the project Significant;
cause a loss of individuals California Tiger
or occupied habitat of Salamander
BIO-l(a) through (e) - Option 1: CTS
Mitigation Program Proposed by Stanford
Option 1 -
Significant
endangered, threatened, or
rare wildlife or plant
species?
No Impact;
Steelhead and
California red-
legged frog
BIO-l(a) through (e) - Option 2:
Alternative CTS Mitigation Program (not
proposed by project applicant)
No mitigation is necessary.
Option 2 - Less
than Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S-10
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact
BIO-2: Will the project
cause a loss of individuals
of CNPS List 3 or 4 plant
species?
BIO-3: Will the project
cause a loss of active
raptor nests, migratory
bird nests, or native
wildlife nursery sites?
BIO-4: Will the project
cause a permanent net
loss of habitat for
sensitive wildlife species?
BIO-5: Will the project
cause a permanent loss of
sensitive native plant
communities?
BIO-6: Will the project
substantially block or
disrupt wildlife migration
or travel corridors?
BIO-7: Will the project
conflict with the County’s
tree preservation
ordinance?
Pre.Mitigation
Significance
Potentially
Significant; Rare,
Threatened, and
Endangered
Plants
Less than
Significant;
American
Peregrine Falcon
and Willow
Flycatcher
Significant
Significant
Less than
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Mitigation Measure
BIO-l(f) through (k): Rare, Threatened,
and Endangered Plant Protection Program
No mitigation is necessary.
BIO-l(f) through (k): Rare, Threatened,
and Endangered Plant Protection Program
BIO-3: Pre-Construction Raptor Surveys
No mitigation is necessary.
BIO-5: Replacement of Oak Woodland
and Riparian Oak Woodland
BIO-l(a) through (e) - Option 1: CTS
Mitigation Program proposed by Stanford
BIO-l(a) through (e) - Option 2:
Alternative CTS Mitigation Program (not
proposed by project applicant)
BIO-7: Planting of Replacement Trees
Post-Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S.11
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact
BIO-8: Will the project
conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
BIO-9: Will the project
result in a net loss of
wetlands or other waters
of the U.S.?
BIO-C 1 through BIO-C3,
BIO-C7, and BIO-C8:
Will the project impact
sensitive biological
resources based on
evaluation criteria 1
through 3, 7, and 8?
BIO-C4: Will the project,
combined with other
cumulative projects, cause
a permanent loss of
habitat for sensitive
wildlife species?
BIO-C5: Will the project,
combined with other
cumulative projects, cause
a permanent loss of
sensitive native plant
communities?
BIO-C6: Will the project,
combined with other
cumulative projects,
substantially block or
disrupt wildlife migration
or travel corridors?
Pre-Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Significant
Significant
Less than
Significant
Significant
Significant
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation is necessary.
BIO-9: Wetland Avoidance and
Replacement
BIO-l(a) through (e) - Option 2:
Alternative CTS Mitigation Program (not
proposed by project applicant)
BIO-l(f) through (k): Rare, Threatened,
and Endangered Plant Protection Program
BIO-3: Pre-Construction Raptor Surveys
BIO-7: Planting of Replacement Trees
No mitigation is necessary
BIO-5: Replacement of Oak Woodland
and Riparian Oak Woodland
BIO-l(a) through (e) - Option 2:
Alternative CTS Mitigation Program (not
proposed by project applicant)
Post-Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S-12
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact Pre-Mitigation
Significance
BIO-C9: Will the project,Significant
combined with other
cumulative projects, result
in a net loss of wetlands
or other waters of the
U.S.?
9. Historic and Archaeological Resource.,
HA-l: Will the project Significant
cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
HA-2: Will the project
cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource as
defined in Public
Resources Code 21083.2?
HA-3: Will the project
directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or sit.e or unique geologic
feature?
HA-4: Will the project
disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Mitigation Measure
BIO-9: Wetland Avoidance and
Replacement
HA-l: Protection of Historic Resources
HA-2: Protection of Known and
Previously Undiscovered Archaeological
Resources
HA-3: Protection of Undiscovered
Paleontological Resources
Post.Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
HA-2: Protection of Known and
Undiscovered Archaeological Resources
HA-C1 : Will the project
combined with
cumulative projects have
a potential to disturb
historical resources?
HA-l: Protection of Historic Resources
Less than
Significant
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S.13
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact
HA-C2-4: Will the
project combined with
cumulative projects have
a potential to disturb
archaeological, unique
geological, or
paleontological resources,
or htnnan remains?
Pre-Mitigation
Significance
Significant
Mitigation Measure
Archaeological Resources
HA-2: Protection of Known and
Undiscovered Archaeological Resources
Unique Geologic, Paleontological
Resources and Human Remains
No mitigation is necessary.
10. Public Services and Utilities
PS-I: Will the project
increase demand for
police, fire, water, power,
sewage treatment and
disposal, or solid waste
removal to such a degree
that accepted service
standards are not
maintained?
PS-2: Will the project
create a demand for
additional school capacity
that cannot be met by
existing or planned ,
capacity?
PS-CI: Will the project,
combined with other
cumulative projects,
increase demand for
police, fire, water, power,
sewage treatment and
disposal, or solid waste
removal to such a degree
that accepted service
standards are not
maintained?
Significant; Police
Significant; Fire
Significant; Water
Significant;
Wastewater
Less than
Significant; Solid
Waste
Less than
Significant;
Electrical Power
Significant
Significant
PS-1A: Maintain Police Services
PS-1B: Maintain Fire Services
PS-1C: Water Conservation and
Recycling
PS-1D: Improve the Wastewater
Collection System
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
PS-2: Payment of Statutory School
Impact Fees
PS-1A: Maintain Police Services
PS-1B: Maintain Fire Services
PS-1C: Water Conservation and
Recycling
PS-1D: Improve the Wastewater
Collection System
Post-Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S-14
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT
SUMMARY
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact
PS-C2: Will the project,
together with other
cumulative projects,
create a demand for
additional school capacity
that cannot be met by
existing or planned
capacity?
11. Air Resources
Pre-Mitigation
Significance
Significant
Mitigation Measure
PS-2: Payment of Statutory School
Impact Fees
Post-Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
AQ-I: Will there be
inadequate mitigation for
potential construction-
period emissions?
AQ-2: Will the project
produce local CO
concentrations that exceed
federal and state
standards?
AQ-3: Is the project
inconsistent with emission
growth factors contained
in any BAAQMD air
plans or does it result in
an emissions increase
greater than the listed
significance thresholds?
AQ-4: Will the project
create objectionable
odors?
AQ-5: Will the project
significantly alter air
movement, moisture, or
temperature, or change in
climate, either locally or
regionally?
AQ-6: Will the project
expose sensitive receptors
or the general public to
substantial levels of toxic
air contaminants?
Significant AQ-I: Reduce Diesel Emissions Less than
Significant
No mitigation is necessary.Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S.15
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
|
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact
AQ-Cl: Will the project
have significant
cumulative air quality
impacts?
12. Noise
NOISE-1: Will
construction of the project
expose the public to high
noise levels?
NOISE-2: Will operation
of the project expose the
public to high noise
levels?
NOISE-3: Will operation
of the project expose the
public to high traffic noise
levels?
NOISE-4: Will vibration
from project construction
cause any disturbance?
NOISE-C1 : Will
construction of the project
combined with other
nosie sources expose the
public to high cumulative
noise levels?
NOISE-C2: Will
operation of the project
expose the public to high
cumulative noise levels?
Pre-Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Significant
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Significant
Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 Reduce Diesel Emissions
NOISE-l: Reduce Construction Noise
NOISE-2: Provide for Noise Reduction
Designs
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is possible.
Post-Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less thin
Significant
Less than
Significant
Significant
L~ss than
Significant
NOISE-2: Provide for Noise Reduction
Designs
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S-16
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN/GENERAL USE PERMIT EIR
SUMMARY
Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact
NOISE-C3: Will
operation of the project
expose the public to high
cumulative traffic noise
levels?
NOISE-C4: Will
vibration from project
construction plus
cumulative projects cause
any disturbance?
Pre-Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation is necessary.
Source: Parsons, 2000
Post.Mitigation
Significance
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
JUNE 23, 2000 PARSONS PAGE S.17
;(