HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-23 City Council (15)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Repor
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
OCTOBER 23, 2000 CMR:400:00
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN AND GENERAL
USE PERMIT (GUP)
RECOMMENDATION "
The staff recommendations listed below indicate requested modifications to the
Community Plan and GUP. Recommendations are not given where the City supports the
positions taken in the documents.
Staff recommends that the City Council reaffirm its prior positions on the Stanford.
.Community Plan/GUP, recognizing the changes made by Santa Clara County staff.
The City has the further additional recommendations:
That Stanford’s open space lands south of Junipero Serra Boulevard be protected
and preserved from development for a period of 25 years or more, with the
permanent preservation of this open space area being the desired objective.
That the proposed Stanford Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) be modified and
maintained to be coterminous with the City’s existing Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB). Achievement of this will require the proposed Stanford AGB to be
modified so that the Lathrop District and the Stanford Golf Course are excluded
from the AGB.
That the GUP, specifically Condition of Approval "E3," be revised to eliminate
the allowance of any additional permanent development in the Lathrop District
beyond the maintenance of and, where appropriate, small additions to existing
facilities, including portions of the Stanford Golf Course situated on this site. This
would also include the elimination of the allowance by separate use permit of a
further 21,000 square feet (i.e., the Carnegie Foundation facility) in the Lathrop
District.
CMR:400:00 Page 1 of 11
That the Lathrop District, currently designated as "Academic Campus" in the Land
Use section of the Community Plan, be re-designated to either "Open Space/Field
Research" or "Special Conservation," consistent with the location and physical
character of the property.
That the Community Plan, and particularly GUP Condition of Approval "LI," be
revised to include development standards that preserve the existing landscape
buffer along E1 Camino Real.
That on-campus ’housing eligibility and affordable housing assistance be extended
to service workers and support staff who will be directly attracted to the Stanford
campus through its anticipated growth.
The City supports the "no net new commute trips" compliance requirement
proposed in the Community Plan/GUP, but recommends that Stanford develop and
implement an Integrated Transportation Management Plan to address impacts on
area streets due to increased traffic congestion during tl~e non-peak commute
hours.
That the Community Plan be amended to include policies that more specifically
target reducing run-off to San Francisquito and Matadero Creeks.
o Staff recommends that, in furtherance of the Stanford Community Plan, the City
Council direct staff to draft an amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development
Agreement that reflects Stanford’s recent proposal to allow housing development on
the identified 13-acre Area B Site in exchange for the retention of open space and
recreational uses of the Stanford Golf Course.
Staff recommends that the City Council direct the City Manager to initiate discussions
on Stanford’s proposal to lease the Mayfield Community Center Site, located at the
northwest comer of E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road, to the City in exchange for
100,000 square feet of new development in the Stanford Research Park.
BACKGROUND
For over a year, the City has been an active participant in the review of the Stanford
University Community Plan, which will act as an amendment to the Santa Clara County
General Plan, and General Use Permit (GUP). The City has provided Santa Clara County
and Stanford with extensi,¢~ comments and recommendations on them, particularly
through a series of public meetings held in October 1999 and July 2000. The City is now
formulating ~ its .fmal comments ~and recommendations tothe County. The County
Planning Commission met to make recommendations on October 19, and it is anticipated
that the County Board of Supervisors will take final action on the Community Plan/GUP
and the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for these documents on October 30,
CMR:400:00 Page 2 of 11
2000. Therefore, the City’s final recommendations need to be submitted to the County
prior to this date.
The City wants to recognize that the County Planning Staff and Stanford have addressed
themany of the City’s earlier recommendations on the Community PlargGUP and the
City is, therefore, pleased at the evolution of these documents over the last year. While
differences regarding specific issues remain between the City, Stanford and the County,
the City supports the core concepts and principles of the Community Plan/GUP and
considers the effort that has been made by all sides to be a positive step towards the
effective planning of Stanford University’s future development.
The comments below focus on the major issues from the City’s perspective. All previous
City correspondence on the Community Plan/GUP is included in this report as part of
Attachment A (CMR 394:00).
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Academic Growth Boundary/Open Space Preservation
The City recommends protection and preservation of Stanford’s open space lands for a
period of 25 3’ears or more, with their permanent preservation being the desired objective.
The establishment of mechanisms that would enable and ensure the long-term
preservation of Stanford’s foothill area south of Junipero Serra Boulevard has been the
primary concern of the City of Palo Alto throughout the Community Plan/GUP review
process. Accordingly, from the inception of the Community Plan/GUP review process,
the City has advocated the establishment of an Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) for
the Stanford campus and is, therefore, pleased that the AGB concept is the central
element of the Community Plan’s "Growth and Development" section. From the City’s
perspective, however, major issues remain concerning the AGB and the potential for
securing long-term, or permanent, open space preservation. These issues are discussed
below.
Duration and Modification of the AGB
The City is concerned that the use of an AGB alone will result in only in medium-term
open space preservation, since the Community Plan provides that the AGB will be
reconsidered when 25 years have elapsed and 5 million more square of development has
been constructed. The establishment of an AGB is a useful step in initiating open space
preservation mechanisms for Stanford’s foothills. However, beyond the 25-year
timeframe, the Community Plan does not give a clear indication of what should happen in
terms of open space protection. As the only element of the County General Plan devoted
to Stanford’s lands, the Community Plan operates as Stanford’s de facto long-range
development blueprint and it is, therefore, vital that the Plan should be clear that the AGB
is not just a phasing device concerning the timing of future development. In the case of
the Community Plan, the open space protection is particularly critical since Stanford has
CMR:400:00 Page 3 of 11
already indicated that it may not be able to develop needed housing in the future without
moving the AGB.
The City agrees with and supports the purpose of the AGB, as stated in the Community
Plan: ¯ "to direct all new development to in-fill sites rather than expansion areas," with
"lands outside the AGB remaining in open space." And, as noted in its previous
comments, the City supports firm open space protection for a period of 25 years or more,
but wishes to place emphasis on the "or more" portion of this recommendation. Given
the natural habitat, educational, recreational, and aesthetic importance of Stanford’s
foothill lands, their long-term, or ideally, permanent, preservation should be pursued by
Stanford and Santa Clara County.
Location of the AGB: Lathrop District and Stanford Golf Course Northeast of Junipero
Serra Boulevard
The City’s principal goal concerning the proposed location of the AGB is to have it be
coterminous with the City’s existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Achievement of
this goal will require the proposed AGB to be modified so that thee Lathrop District and
the Stanford Golf Course are excluded from the AGB. Attachment C shows the location
of both the Lathrop District and the golf course (primarily Hole #1) in relation to the
AGB.
The proposed AGB is aligned with the City’s UGB along Junipero Serra Boulevard, from
approximately Lake Lagunita eastward to the Palo Alto-Santa Clara County border, near
Page Mill Road. Despite the City’s consistent recommendation that the AGB exclude all
of Stanford’s lands south of Junipero Serra Boulevard, the Community Plan includes a
36-acre portion (referred to in the Community Plan as the Lathrop District) of the 154-
acre Lathrop property. The entire Lathrop property, which is not part of Stanford’s
original land grant, is situated south of Junipero Serra Boulevard. Moreover, Lathrop
contains only a small amount of existing building development (approximately 45,000
square feet of building area, for a floor-area-ratio of .007). Thus, not only Lathrop’s
location but its physical character define it as an open space site. Like the rest of
Stanford’s lands south of Junipero Serra Boulevard, the City believes it is crucial that
Lathrop not be identified as part of the academic campus and opened up to future-
academic development by the Community Plan.
Hole #1 of the Stanford Golf Course is immediately north of Junipero Serra Boulevard.
The site has been recently re-designated from "Campus Residential-Moderate Density" to
"Campus Open Space" in the latest version of the Community Plan. This re-designation
of Hole #1 was triggered by Stanford’s proposal to pursue future housing construction
nearby in a portion of Special Limitation Area B (this is discussed in more detail below,
under "Housing"). While the City supports the housing site "swap" component of
Stanford’s proposal, it believes that the AGB should be re-positioned so that the golf
course, as shown in Figure 2.2 of the Community Plan, is outside the AGB. The Hole #1
site is no longer proposed for academic development (hence the "Campus Open Space"
CMR:400:00 Page 4 of 11
designation) and is a key element ~f a larger recreational, open space resource (the Golf
Course). It is also located within a recognized sensitive habitat area (i.e., California Tiger
Salamander Management Zone). Given this, the City believes the Stanford AGB should
be adjusted to exclude both the golf course and Lathrop, making it coterminous with the
City’s existing UGB. ,.,
~!qO
The City also believes it is important that the Community Plan recognize the desirability
that these two growth boundaries remain coterminous" in the future, once aligned. Palo
Alto requests, that in order to facilitate this, an additional policy be added to the "Growth
and Development" section of the Community Plan. This could be done with language
similar to the following: "It is the intent of this Community. Plan, that to the maximum
extent practicable, the AGB be coterminot!~s with the Urban GrowthBoundary (UGB)
identified in the City of Palo~,Alto’s Community Plan. Therefore, the County and
Stanford shall coordinate with Palo Alto any proposals for changes in the AGB or UGB
to that end."
GUP Allowances for Development South of Junipero Serra Boulevard
The City_ does not support the GUP provi~ons, particularly Condition of Approval "E3,"
that allow up to 41,000 square feet of building area to be developed in Stanford’s
foothills south of Junipero Serra Boulevard. Condition "E3" allows 41,000 square feet of
additional building area, including the Camegie Foundation proposal through a separate
use permit, in the Lathrop District. The City recognizes the need to maintain the existing
facilities and even allow small additions in the future within Lathrop, but cannot support
the proposed doubling of the existing amount of development on the property. Condition
"E2(b)" allows the addition of 15,000 square feet of building area to be developed in
Stanford’s Foothills District even though this entire District is designated either "Open
Space-Field Research" or "Special Conservation" by the Community Plan. If the GUP
intends to make allowances for minor structures of a temporary nature to be built in the
Foothills that do not undermine open space preservation and field research, it should,be
conditioned to explicitly do so.
Open Space Access
The City_ recognizes that Stanford is the steward of its open space areas and should be the
entity in control of access to such areas except to the extent that they are dedicated to
public use, such as trails included in the County Trail Master Plan. As noted in the
Community Plan, Stanford’s foothill areas south of.Junipero Serra Boulevard provide
critical open space resources to both Stanford residents and students as well as to
residents of surrounding communitieslk The Community Plan proposes to re-designate
Stanford’s open space lands to more clearly identify them as such (i.e., "Open Space and
Field Research," "Special Conservation"), but it does not clarify how public access to
thes.e lands would be affected. As with most open space areas, there is the obvious need
for Stanford and the County to balance long-term preservation with on-going recreational
use and the Community plan should identify means to achieve and maintain that balance.
CMR:400:00 Page 5 of 11
Land Use and Development
With the exception of the Lathrop District, noted above, the City is supportive of the
proposed land use designations described in the "Land Use" element of the Community
Plan. In particular, the City supports the proposed re-designation of the majority of
Stanford’s foothill property, located south of Junipero Serra Boulevard, from the existing
"Academic Reserve and Open Space" to the newly-created "Open Space and Field
Research" and "Special Conservation" designations. The City does, however, have
additional comments and recommendations. They are as follows.
Community PlanLand Use Designations/Proposed Stanford Zoning
In accordance with our comments conceming the AGB and open space preservation, the
City believes that the Lathrop District, currently designated as "Academic Campus" in
the Community Plan, should be re-designated to either "Open Space/Field Research" or
"Special Conservation." As noted, Stanford’s property south of Junipero Serra
Boulevard is predominately undeveloped and is characterized by open space and
foothills worthy of long-term, or permanent, preservation. By designating even a portion
of the Lathrop property as "Academic Campus," the Community Plan expands the
Stanford campus area, intensifies the allowable use of the site, and undermines the
purpose of the AGB to "promote compact development" on the existing academic
campus.
The City supports the proposed Community Plan/GUP objective of adopting zoning
consistent with Santa Clara County General Plan designations for campus residential
areas within 9 months of GUP approval. The City believes this should be a high priority
for Stanford and the County so that development standards will be built-in to the zoning
ensuring compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods within and adjacent to the
campus.. Moreover, the City recommends that the text of the Community Plan be
modified to be consistent with the County Implementation Plan, which calls for the
creation and establishment of zoning districts for Stanford’s academic campus and open
space areas that is reflective of the land use designations proposed in the Community
Plan.
El Camino Real Corridor Development Strategies
The Community Plan, and particularly GUP Condition of Approval "LI", should be
revised to include development standards that preserve the existing landscape buffer
along E1 Camino Real. Presently all of Stanford’s property along E1 Camino Real,
between the Shopping Center and Stanford Avenue, is included in Special Limitation
Area A. Area A was established by the 1985 Three-Party Land Use Policy Agreement
(Agreement) and associated Protocol between Stanford, Santa Clara County and the City
of Palo Alto. The Community Plan acknowledges that the Agreement will be
maintained, but fails to point out that the Agreement does not allow development in Area
A, except through the approval of a separate use permit that is distinct from the GUP
entitlement. The Community Plan proposes two housing sites ("D" and "I") within Area
A and also designates over half of El Camino Real’s frontage as "Academic Campus."
CMR:400:00 Page 6 of 11
These designations would allow for a significant level of development in this area that the
City cannot support given the Community Plan’s absence of development standards that
would maintain this area as a landscaped setback and buffer between Stanford University
and the City of Palo Alto.
Moreover, the recently provided GUP Condition of Approval "LI" heightens the City’s
concern in that it would establish a 25-foot setback along Stanford’s E1 Camino Real
frontage. Since this same Condition also calls for the submission of a "streetscape
design" study by Stanford to the County for the E1 Camino Real corridor, it seems
appropriate to first complete the study as a means of determining the setback. If the 25-
foot setback is adopted prior to the study, the purpose and value of the study is
questionable.
Ho llsin g
The City strongly supports Stanford’s proposed development of over 3,000 new housing
units within the Academic Growth Boundar~ and is particularly supportive of the
elimination of Hole #1 as a potential housing site and the Crmmunit¥ Plan/GUP’s
inclusion of a housing "linkage policy," as specifically described in GUP Conditions of
Approval "FS" and "Fg." However, the City continues to have concerns regarding the
proposed lo~ation of housing along E1 Camino Real and the lack of specific affordable
housing programs.
Stanford Golf Course Hole #1/Area B Housing Site
The current version of the Community Plan contains a significant change from the earlier
drafts:, the elimination of Stanford Golf Course Hole #1 as a potential housing site. As
noted above, under the AGB and open space preservation discussion, Stanford is now
proposing that Hole #1 will be preserved and that faculty and staff housing will be
developed on the existing Driving Range property instead. Graduate student housing that
was earlier proposed for the Driving Range will be relocated to other sites on-campus.
As a result, Stanford anticipates that it will need to develop additional faculty and staff
housing in the vicinity of Hole #1. Accordingly, it has identified a 13-acre site (Area B
Site) north of the golf course where this future housing development could occur
(Attachment D). The 13-acre Area B Site, however, is affected by the 1997 Sand Hill
Road Development Agreement, which does not allow development on the site until
2021 and would, therefore, need to be modified for development to occur before that time.
The City’s recommendation regarding the preservation of Hole #I/provision of housing
issue has been that Stanford should seek a solution that would accommodate much-
needed on-campus housing but also maintain Hole #1. Staff believes that Stanford has
complied with the City’s recommendation through the recently proposed "swapping" of
Hole # 1 for the Area B Site, fostering an appropriate solution to both providing housing
and preserving Hole # 1. This would result in retention of an equivalent amount of open
space and provision of an equal number of housing units. Staff, therefore, recommends
CMR:400:00 Page 7 of 11
PaOJtm~S 3! ’uo!~puotmuoooa JJms s!ql aopufl "pa~pums ,,sd!a.1 omtmuoo ~ou :lou ou,,
m oouoaoqp~ ~o!aas ~ pm~ooApe ’gaunoo oql m s~uouroaoo ~uoooa ~sotu s~! u! ’33ms £l!0 oq.L
"m!S fl goaV oq~ uo podoloAOp oq plnoo ff~snoq
a~ os ~uotuooaffv ~uotudoioAaG peo~t II!H pu~s oqa £j!potu m jjms looa!p I!ounoo
did not comply with the "no net new commute trips" standard upon payment of the Tier 2
funds to the appropriate jurisdictions, Santa Clara County would have ceased issuing
building permits for Stanford development, not already entitled. Re-instatement of
entitlements would have occurred only when Stanford had again achieved compliance
with the "no net new commute trips" standard. Given the stringency and possible
infeasibility of this recommendation, the City has modified its recommendation to now
be less reactive and more proactive in fostering inter-jurisdictional traffic problem-
solving that does not focus solely on commute-hour vehicle trips. Specifically, the City
recommends that within two years of GUP approval, Stanford develop and implement an
Integrated Transportation Management Plan as part of the "no net new commute trips"
standard. The "no net new commute trips" standard is essentially a continuance of
Stanford’s 1989 GUP, which unrealistically treated Stanford’s County lands like an
"island." The extension of this standard to include the Integrated Transportation Plan,
discussed below, is both reasonable and logical given the area’s changing transportation
problems, which are neither jurisdiction nor commute-hour specific.
As an alternative, or in addition to staff’s recommendation, the City Council could
request that a "jurisdictional re-opener" mechanism be included in the GUP. This type of
re-opener would permit the County to easily re-open the GUP for analysis and possible
new commute-related conditions of approval. Without this type of re-opener, Stanford
will likely argue that failure to meet the "no net new commute trips" standard is not
grounds for proposing new or sufficient mitigation measures in the future.
Integrated Transportation Management Plan
Stanford should develop and implement an Integrated Transportation Management Plan,
for all of its land holdings, as a component of the currently proposed Community
PlardGUP to address impacts on Cit7 streets from increased traffic congestion during the
non-peak commute hours. As described in the Community Plan, Stanford is a unique
entity, in that it owns nearly 13 square miles of contiguous land in six jurisdictions that is
devoted to a wide range of land uses (i.e., academic campus, Research Park, Shopping
Center, Medical Center): As a result, Stanford has an opportunity to employ unique
transportation management methods, such as the development and implementation of an
Integrated Transportation Management Plan, to address the transportation impacts
resulting from the Community Plan. The Integrated Transportation Management Plan
should be developed in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions and provide for
efficient integration and optimal use of various transportation modes, including private
vehicles, bus and rail transport, and bicycle and pedestrian transportation. In particular, a
joint city-Stanford Marguerite shuttle program should developed that would allow an
expanded service throughout the area. The specifics of such a plan were conveyed by the
City to Santa Clara County through Palo Alto’s August 7, 2000 letter on the draft EIR.
The City also wants to state that it is encouraged by the Community Plan’s emphasis on
TDM measures and its recognition that Stanford’s campus is not autonomous from its
other operations.
CMR:400:00 Page 9 of 11
Community Facilities
The City’s consistent stance on the issue of community facilities has been that Stanford
address the impacts to jurisdictions affected by Stanford’s anticipated growth and
development as part of the approval of the Community Plan/GUP. In light of the recent
proposal by Stanford to provide the City with a community-serving facility at the
presently undeveloped, Stanford-owned Mayfield Site, located at the northwest comer of
El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, the staff believes this issue is beginning to be
addressed. "
Natural Resources ,
The Community Plan should include policies that more specifically target reducing ran-
off to San Francisquito and Matadero Creeks. These policies should include the
following: reduction of impervious area; clustering of development where multiple
structures are proposed; retention and enhancement of natural vegetation; use of on-site
storm-water detention facilities; construction of structured or underground parking
facilities; .construction of multi-story buildings that minimize building footprint areas
without a corresponding loss of usable square footage. Storm-~ater run-off from all
proposed Stanford development should be evaluated for its potential flooding impacts to
San Francisquito and Matadero Creeks as well as to the Stanford Channel and the City’s
storm drain system. In addition, policies promoting the use of vegetative swales and
pervious materials (particularly along open space area trails), that remove pollutants from
storm-water run-off should be included in the Community Plan. Additionally, Stanford
should continue to participate with the adjacent jurisdictions through the Joint Powers
Agency to improve habitat quality, flood control and overall management of the San
Francisquito Creek watershed.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
October 16, 2000 Staff Report (CMR 394:00), including attachments
Report and Minutes of the Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee
Map showing AGB, Lathrop, Hole #1
Map showing Hole #1 and Proposed Area B Housing Site
Prepared By:Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
BENEST
City Manager
CMR:400:00 Page 10 of 11
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission
Joe Simitian, Supervisor, Santa Clara County
Ann Draper, Santa Clara County Planning Office
Sarah Jones, Santa Clara County Planning Office
Larry Horton, Government and Community Relations, Stanford University
Andy Coe, Community Relations, Stanford University
David Neuman, Stanford University Planning Department
Kris Schenk, Community Development, City of Menlo Park
CMR:400:00 Page 11 of 11
Attachment A
City.of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND.
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: " OCTOBER 16, 2000 CMR:394:00
SUBJECT:STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN A~ GENERAL USE
PERMIT (GUP)
RECOMMENDATION
1.Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission
reaffirm their prior positions on the Stanford Community Plan/GUP, r~.cognizing the
ch~ges made by Santa Clara County staff.
2..Staff recommends that in furtherance of the Stanford Community. Plan, the City
Council direct staff to draft an amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development
Agreement that reflects Stanford’s recent proposal to allow housing development on
the approximately 13-acre area west of the Stable Site in exchange for the retention of
open space and recreational uses on Hole # 1 of the Stanford Golf Course
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to meet with Stafiford to proceed
with the development of a community-serving .facility on the Stanford-owned
Mayfield Site, located at the northwest comer of E1 Carnino Real and Page Mill l~oad.
BACKGROUND
On Tuesday, October 10, the County released the final draft of the Stanford U~versity.
Community Plan and General Use Permit and Final Environmental Impact Report. Staff
has reviewed these documents, within the brief timeframe provided, and is appreciative
that-many of the City’s concerns raised in previous correspondence to the County have
been addressed. Given the Iimited time for its preparation, this report highlights only the
major issues regarding the Community Plan and the General Use Permit that will be the
focus of the City Council and Planning Commission deliberations over the next week.. A
more detailed staff report will be available for the final City Council meeting on the
Community Plan/GUP, scheduled for October 23. All previous. City responses on the
Community Plan/GUP are included in this staff report as Attachments A, B.and C.
CMR:394:00 Page 1 of 6
Attachment A is the staff letter commenting on the Community Plan sent to the County in
late September. Attachments B and C are earlier letters from the City to the County
regarding the EIR and the Community Plan/GUP.
The Community Plan/GUP regulate land use and development for Stanford’s land in the
unincorporated portion of Santa Clara County. This accounts for over 4,000 acres,
approximately halfof Stanford’s total land ownership. .With the exception of an
established residential area located north of Junipero Serra Boulevard and west of Page
Mill Road, Stanford-owned land within Santa Clara County consists primarily of the
academic campus and the foothill-open space property, south of Junipero Serra.
Stanford’s ownership includes land in the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Woodside, the
Town of Portola Valley and unincorporated San. Mateo County. Stanford-owned
property in Palo Alto includes the Stanford Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center and
the Medical Center.
The GUP operates as a broad-based land use entitlement that allolvs a specified amount
and type of development to occur. Stanford and the County have used the GUP as a land
use and development tool since 1962. Presently, development on Stanford’s
unincorporated land occurs under a GUP approved by the County in 1989. The 1989
GUP allowed 2.1 million square feet of building area, including residential structures, to
be developed; approximately 100,000 square feet of this entitlement remains, leading to
Stanford’s request for County approval of the proposed GUP. As with the 1989 GUP, the
proposed 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 dwellings for students, faculty and staff.
Residential building square footage is exclusive from the 2,035,000 square feet of
building area that is requested.
The Community Plan, unlike the GUP, is not an entitlement mechanism, but is instead a
long-range policy document that, if adopted, will amend the Santa Clara County General
Plan concerning Stanford’s land. 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 guide development indefinitely, unless superseded.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Academic Growth Boundary/OpenSpace Preservation
The establishment of mechanisms that would enable the long-term preservation of
Stanford’s foothill area south of Junipero Serra Boulevard has been, and remains, the
primary concern of the City of Palo Alto throughout the over year-long Community
PlardGUP review process. The City supports development within an Academic Growth
Boundary (AGB) as an initial step in establishing such preservation mechanisms, but is
concerned that the AGB alone results in only medium-term preservation. The
CMR:394:00 Page 2 of 6
Community Plan includes an AGB, and as proposed, there are three major issues
associated with the boundary and its effectiveness at open space preservation: 1) Once
established, what assurances would there be that the AGB would be kept firmly in place?
2) How long would the AGB be kept in place, without modification? 3) Where would the
AGB be located?
AGB: Modification and Duration of the Boundary_
In the City’s initial response(Attachment C, letter dated October 28, 1999) to the draft
Community Plan, the Council recommended the establishment of an AGB, since one was
not proposed by Stanford at that time, that would define the area where academic
development would occur under the proposed and future GUPs. The Council. also
recommended to the County that Stanford’s open space lands should not be considered
for development for a period of 25 years or more, with their permanent preservation
being the objective. The Council maintained this position in its subsequent comments on
the Community PlarffGUP and its EIR.
The Stanford-prepared draft Community Plan, dated November r5, 1999, included the
AGB concept. The more recent August 2000 draft Community Plan, prepared by the
County Planning staff, expanded on the concept by including provisions intended to keep
the AGB in place for 25 years or until an additional 5 million square feet of development
occurred on the Stanford campus. In the City’s most recent comments (Attachment A,
letter dated September 25, 2000), staff recommended that the AGB remain in place,
without modification, for a minimum period of 50 years and that the AGB not have an
alternative "trigger" allowing it to be modified when development had reached a
specified level. The staff recommendation of 50 years was an attempt to quantify what
the City had earlier meant by "permanent" open space Preservation.
The final draft of the Community Plan, dated October 9, 2000, still recommends that the
AGB remain in place, without modification, for 25 y.ears but eliminates the alternative "5
million square feet of development" trigger, in accordance with the City’s most recent
recommendation. This ,f’trrning up" of the duration of the AGB is an improvement;
however, staff does not consider this to provide long-term preservation of the open space
south of Junipero Serra and prevention of the potential sprawl of the campus. Staff is still
reviewing this issue and potential alternatives.
Location of the AGB: Lathrop and Stanford Golf Course Hole # 1
The City’s principal goal concerning the location of the proposed AGB is to have it be
coterminous with the City’s existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). At present there
remain two areas where the City’s UGB and the proposed AGB are inconsistent: 1) the
Lathrop Property and 2) Stanford Golf Course Hole # 1.
When Stanford first proposed an AGB in November 1999, it was coterminous with the
City’s UGB along Junipero Serra Boulevard, from approximately Lake Lagunita
eastward to the Palo Alto-County border, east of Page Mill Road. However, the initial
CMR:394:00 Page 3 of 6
¯Stanford AGB proposal also included the entire 154-acre Lathrop property, located south
of Junipero Serra Boulevard, within the AGB, despite the City’s strong recommendation
that the AGB exclude all of Stanford’s open space land south of Junipero Serra. The
County’s August 2000 draft Communi~ Plan revised the AGB so that only a portion of
Lathrop was included in the AGB, but, like Stanford’s earlier iteration, it also included
the southern portion of the Stable Site (Stanford Golf Course Hole # 1) within the AGB.
At present, both a portion of Lathrop; which appears to be reconfigured from the August
2000 Community Plan, and Hole #1 remain within the proposed AGB. Staff still believes
that the proposed Stanford AGB should be re-positioned so that it is coterminous with the
City’s Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Service Area, thus placing both Lathrop, in its
entirety, and Hole # 1 outside of the boundary. Lathrop contains a low level of existing
development, but the site is overwhelmingly "undeveloped" in nature. And, like the rest
of Stanford’s lands south of Junipero Serra, the City believes it is essential that these
open space lands be preserved. Therefore, staff considers that the earlier City
recommendation that the AGB exclude the entire Lathrop property should be reiterated.
Even though the Hole #1 site is immediately north of Junipero Serra Boulevard, the site is
designated as "Campus Open Space" in the latest draft of the Community Plan. The
Community Plan has been modified to pursue housing construction nearby in order to ’
preserve Hole #1. Moreover, Hole #1 is located within the California Tiger Salamander
(CTS) Management Zone. Given that Hole # 1 is to be preserved as a key element of a
larger recreational, open space resource (the golf course), and given its sensitive location
within the CTS Management Zone, staff still believes that the proposed AGB should be
adjusted to exclude the Hole # 1 site.
Preserving Stanford Golf Course Hole #1 and Providing Housing
The most recent draft of the Community Plan contained a significant change from the
earlier drafts: the elimination of Stanford Golf Course as a potential housing site. As
noted above, the previous drafts of the Community Plan intended to develop faculty and
staff housing on the Hole #1 site. Stanford is now proposing that Hole #1 will be
preserved and that faculty and staff housing will be developed on the existing Driving
Range property instead. Graduate student housing that was earlier proposed for the
Driving Range will be relocated to other sites on-campus. As a result, Stanford
anticipates that it will need to develop additional faculty and staff housing in the vicinity
of Hole #1. Accordingly, it has identified a 13-acre site north of the golf course and
immediately west of the Stable Site where this future housing development could ’occur.
This 13-acre alternative housing site, however, is affected by the 1997 Sand Hill Road
Development Agreement, which does not allow development on the site until 2021 and
would therefore need to be modified for development to occur.
The.City’s recommendation regarding the Hole #l/housing issue has been that Stanford
should seek a solution that would accommodate much-needed on-campus housing but
also maintain Hole #1. Staff believes that Stanford has complied with the City’s
CMR:394:00 Page 4 of 6
recommendation and has found an appropriate solution to both providing housing and
preserving Hole # 1. Staff, therefore, recommends that Council direct staff to modify the
Sand Hill Road Development Agreement so that housing could be developed on the
alternative housing site immediately west of the Stable Site.
I~o li$iR g
As stated in previous correspondence to the County, the City supports the development of
3,000 new housing units within the Academic, Growth ,Boundary and a linkage policy that
ensures that as academic and other non-residential uses are developed, a proportional
amount of the planned housing is concurrently developed. The City continues to have
concerns regarding the housing development planned for sites along E1 Camino Real and
Stanford Avenue. Any future housing development along E1 Camino Real should be
designed to provide substantial setbacks in order that the existing view corridor will not
be impacted. Housing development along Stanford Avenue should be compatible with
the scale, type and intensity of existing adjacent housing.
Transportation ,
The City supports the "no net new commute trips" compliance requirement currently
proposed in the Community Plan including monitoring based on actual counts, and
Stanford’s payment of fees for Tier 2 intersection improvements, whether cities use the
fees for intersection improvements or not. If, as development proceeds, these measures
fail to achieve "no net new commute trips", the City recommends an inter-jurisdictional
approach to resolving these traffic problems. Stanford should work with the Cities of
Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto to identify additional mitigation measures to
offset the impacts from any increases in project traffic.
Community Facilities
The City’s consistent stance on the issue of community facilities has been that Stanford
address the impact to jurisdictions affected by Stanford’s anticipated growth and
development as part of the approval of the Community Plan/GUP. In light of the recent
proposal by Stanford to provide a City community center at the presently undeveloped,
Stanford-owned Mayfield Site, located at the northwest corner of E1 Camino Real and
Page Mill Road, staff requests that Council provide direction to staff to work with
Stanford to proceed with this proposal to address the City’s community facility needs.
TIMELINE
October 17:
October 18:
October 23:
October 30:
Special Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission meeting (if
needed, the meeting will be continued to October 19)
Santa Clara County Planning Commission meeting (evening meeting held
in Palo Alto City Hall).
Palo Alto City Council meeting to finalize the City’s recommendation
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors meeting (~vening meeting held at
County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose)
CMR:394:00 Page 5 of 6
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Prepared By:
Letter dated September 25, 2000, to Anne Draper, Planning Director,
Santa Clara County Planning Office
Letter dated August 7, 2000, to Anne Draper, Planning Director,
Santa Clara County Planning Office
Letter dated October 28; 1999, to Anne Draper, Planning Director,
Santa Clara County Planning Office
Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
BENEST
City Manager
Santa Clara County Planning Office
Stanford University Planning Department
CMR:39,~:00 Page 6 of 6
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment A
September 25, 2000
Divisions
Inspection Services
Planning
Transportation
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
Planning Office
County of Santa Clara
70 W. Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Subject:Stanford Community Plan, Santa Clara County Staff
Recommendation
Dear Ms. Draper:
Thank you for providing the Planning and Community Environment
Department with the opportunity to review the Preliminary Staff
Recommendation for the Stanford University Community Plan (Community
Plan), prepared by your office. The comments in this letter are based on
direction pre~viously given by the City Council and advisory Commissions and
Boards. The Community Plan and the proposed GUP, as well as the Final EIR,
will again be on the Council agenda in October.
Overall, the City staff is pleased with the Community Plan’s core concepts and
principles and considers this draft a positive step towards the effective planning
of Stanford University’s future development. Importantly, the present City staff
comments are based on the current draft of the Community Plan and could
change, depending on the contents of the final document. Also, we have not
had the opportunity to review either the proposed conditions for the General
Use Permit (GUP) or the Final EIR for the Community Plan/GUP, which will
include a response to the City’s comments on the draft EIR. The City,
therefore, wants to note that its previous comments and recommendations on
the GUP and EIR are not superseded by any contained in this letter. The City’s
latest comments on the Community Plan are described below in relation to the
plan’s individual elements.
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2404
650.329.2154 fax
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
September 25, 2000
Page 2
Growth and Development
As indicated through our prior comments, the City strongly supports the
establishment of an Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) for Stanford
University..Additionally, theCity is pleased to see that theCommunity Plan
includes an AGB that is more in accordance with Palo Alto’s existing urban
service area/urban growth boundary (UGB). It is our belief that the AGB, in
conjunction with other land use tools, will foster compact academic
development on the campus and prevent future sprawl into Stanford’s foothill
area south of Junipero Serra Boulevard. Accordingly, the City supports the
inclusion of the AGB described in the Community Plan, but has the following
reservations regarding its location and effectiveness:
The City recommends that the AGB remain in place, without boundary
modifications, for a minimum of 50 ),ears, regardless of the amount of
building square footage that is developed on the Stanford campus. The City
agrees with the stated purposes of the AGB: "to direct all new development
to in-fill sites rather than expansion areas," with "lands outside the AGB
remaining in open space." (Community Plan, page 10). As it stands, the
Community Plan indicates that the AGB is intended to remain in place for
25 years. Given the importance of these objectives, we urge the County to
ex~end this period to a minimum of 50 years. Fifty years is a reasonable
time frame given the additional development potential of the core campus
area and Stanford’s lands within the City of Palo Alto, because some of
these lands within Palo Alto are currently developed with uses that Stanford
defines as "interim.’’~
The City also believes that it is unwise for the Community Plan to include
provisions that allow the minimum period--whether it is 25 years or 50
yearsmto be shortened based on the amount of growth occurring at
Stanford. Thus, although the Community Plan states that "[t]he County
intends that the AGB will remain in the established location for a period of
at least 25 years," it also expressly allows for adjustment of this boundary
when the building area of academic and support facilities and student
housing reaches 17,300,000 square feet--or, approximately 5,000,000
additional square feet within these categories. (Community Plan, page 12).
Although the Community Plan projects that 25 years will be sufficient to
accommodate this amount of additional space at historic growth rates, it also
acknowledges that in just the next 10 of those 25 years Stanford has
requested authority through the GUP to develop 70% of this added space.
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
September 25, 2000
Page 3
The City believes that so long as there is a square footage threshold for
adjustments, the observance of a minimum time period for the AGB will be
illusory. It is vital to the integrity of the AGB that it be de-coupled from
any square footage threshold or "trigger"~.for modification. Otherwise,
Stanford will have little incentive to plan development in conformity with
the AGB, but will operate, rather, on the principle that the AGB can be
adjusted when it reaches a certain square footage, regardless of how much
sooner that may occur than the projections in the Community Plan.
The City believes that additional levels of protection should be incorporated
into the AGB concept. As described in the Community Plan, the AGB is
intended to provide long-term protection for Stanford’s foothill areas.
However, even if the minimum period of time that the AGB is intended to
remain in place is extended from 25 to 50 years and square footage
thresholds are eliminated, as Palo Alto has proposed, the Community Plan
would still lack assurances that the AGB would remain intact for this period
of time, since the AGB would still be subject to modification at any time.
The use of open space preservation mechanisms, such as preservation
easements, would strengthen the effectiveness of the AGB in precluding
development in the foothills. This is crucial, because of their importance as
a viewshed, habitat, and open space.
The City believes that Stanford’s AGB and Palo Alto’s UGB should be
coterminous; therefore, both parties should agree to reconcile discrepancies
along these boundaries. Community Plan, Figure 1.3 depicts a proposed
AGB for Stanford that expands Palo Alto’s UGB in two adjacent areas: 1)
the northern portion of the "Lathrop" site south of Junipero Serra Boulevard
and, 2) the southern portion of the stable site north of Junipero Serra
Boulevard (including Stanford Golf Course Hole # 1). The City does not
support an expansion of its UGB at this time. Also, as consistently
indicated by our previous comments, the City does not support
academic/urban-type growth on any portion of Stanford’s lands south of
Junipero Serra Boulevard, including "Lathrop." In addition, the City does
not support changing the AGB to include the stable site at this time.
However, the City understands the desire to use a portion of the stable site
to provide housing in the future, but encourages further study, prior to any
boundary change, that shows how housing can be integrated into the site
while preserving Hole # 1 of the Golf Course. The further study should also
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
September 25, 2000
Page 4
identify and take into consideration the environmental and wildlife value of
the existing golf course.
.It is important that the Community Plan recognize the desirability that these
two growth boundaries remain coterminous. Palo Alto requests that an
additional policy be added to the "Growth and Development" element of the
Community Plan to this effect. This could be done with language similar to
the following: "It is the intent of this Community Plan, that to the
maximum extent practicable, the AGB be coterminous with the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) identified in the City ofPalo Alto’s Community
Plan. Therefore, Stanford should coordinate with Palo Alto any proposals
for changes in the AGB or UGB to that end."
As noted in the preceding comments, the City does not support the
designating of a portion of the Lathrop area as appropriate for academic or
urban-type development. Page 31 of the Community Plan states that the
positioning of the AGB is based on the location of "existing developed
areas." However, the proposed AGB includes a portion of the "Lathrop"
property, which is located on the southerly side of Junipero Serra
Boulevard. Given the entire 154-acre area of the Lathrop property, the
approximately 45,000 square feet of existing development on the property
results in a very low floor-area-ratio (FAR) of .007, not indicative of a
"developed area." The existing FAR for the academic campus is .21, thirty
times greater than the "Lathrop" area and more typical of a developed area.
Moreover, Junipero Serra creates an easily identifiable boundary between
Stanford’s campus and the foothill area, and adjusting the AGB to reflect
this would not impact the development that already exists on the "Lathrop"
property since it could be maintained but not expanded through language in
the Community Plan.
In conjunction with the proposed AGB concept, the "Growth and
Development" element should include development policies that explain
how compact, transit-oriented development would be achieved within the
AGB. While the City agrees that the AGB will be a principal mechanism
in preventing the sprawl of Stanford’s academic development, it alone
cannot ensure that what gets built within the core campus area will adhere
to compact development principles that maximize the use of a site and
allow for a promotion of transit, pedestrian and bicycle usage. At present,
the Stanford campus has a significant number of under-utilized sites (e.g.,
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
September 25, 2000
Page 5
surface-level parking lots, single-story buildings) that should be
redeveloped and intensified through the pending GUP. The Community
Plan should, therefore, include policies that promote the most efficient use
of Stanford land within.the AGB and the County should create zoning
districts in accordance with these policies that will implement them. One
possibility would bethe development, in the future, of a zoning district
more suited to this use than the existing County "AI" zoning.
The Community Plan should be revised to include development standards
that preserve the existing landscape buffer along E1 Camino Real.
Presently all of Stanford’s land along E1 Camino Real, between the
Shopping Center and Stanford Avenue, .is included in Special Limitation
Area A. Area A was established by the 1985 Three-Party Land Use Policy
Agreement (Agreement)and associated Protocol between Stanford, Santa
Clara County and the City of Palo Alto. Pages 6 and 7 of the Community
Plan acknowledge that the Agreement will be maintained and enhanced,
but the Plan fails to point out that the Agreement does not allow
development in Area A, except through the approval of a separate use
permit that is distinct from the GUP entitlement. The Community Plan
proposes two housing sites ("D" and "I") within Area A and also
designates over half of E1 Camino Real’s frontage as "Academic Campus."
These designations would allow for a significant level of development in
this area that the City cannot support given the Community Plan’s absence
of development standards that would maintain this area as a landscaped
setback and buffer between Stanford University and the City of Palo Alto.
Land Use
The City is generally supportive of the proposed land use designations
described in the "Land Use" element of the Community Plan and shown in
Figure 2.2. In particular, the City supports the proposed re-designation of the
majority of Stanford’s foothill property, located southwest of Junipero Serra
Boulevard, from the existing "Academic Reserve and Open Space" to the
newly-created "Open Space and Field Research" and "Special Conservation"
designations. We do, however, have additional comments and
recommendations. They are as follows:.
In accordance with our comments concerning the AGB, the City believes
that the portion of the Lathrop property proposed for designation as
"Academic Campus" in Figure 2.2 (page 23) of the Community Plan,
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
September 25, 2000
Page 6
should be re-designated to either "Open Space/Field Research" or "Special
Conservation." At a minimum, the area should be designated as "Open
Space and Field Research." As noted, Stanford’s property south of
Junipero Serra Boulevard is predominately undeveloped and is
characterized by open space and foothills worthy of long-term, or
permanent, preservation. By designating even a portion of"Lathrop" as
"Academic Campus," the Community Plan would expand the recognized
area of Stanford’s campus, potentially intensify the allowable use of the
site, and undermine the intent of the AGB to "promote compact
development" on the academic campus. Moreover, it would be appropriate
to consider to designation of this area as "Special Conservation." This
portion of the "Lathrop" property is proximately located to Lake Lagunita,
which is the area’s primary California Tiger Salamander habitat, and is,
accordingly, included in the California Tiger Salamander Management
Zone shown in Figure 6.1 of the Community Plan.
The City supports the proposed Community Plan Development Policy
"SCP-LU 28," that would allow the use, maintenance and preservation of
the existing portion (11 holes) of the Stanford Golf Course south of
Junipero Serra Boulevard. The City would not, however, support an
expansion of the golf course, or any other use that is not consistent with the
proposed "Open Space and Field Research" or "Special Conservation
Area" designations, in this vicinity.
The City believes that the Community Plan should be specifically amended
to require Stanford to pay impact fees for impacts to community facilities,
such as libraries, parks and recreation centers, located in adjacent cities that
are used by Stanford residents. The City of Palo Alto conservatively
estimates that Stanford residents account for five-percent (higher for
libraries) of its community facilities usage. The new development
authorized through the GUP process will increase these burdens and
directly impact the quality of the environment of the City of Palo Alto and
other neighboring cities. The Community Plan should require that
development authorized through the GUP will be required to mitigate these
impacts through mitigation fee programs, .provided that the affected
jurisdictions establish programs and standards for applying such fees. In
return, the staff would recommend that Palo Alto reciprocate appropriately,
for example, by treating Stanford residents in a like manner as Palo Alto
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
September 25, 2000
Page 7
residents in that "non-resident" fees that presently exist, and are paid by
Stanford residents, would be waived.
Housing ,~
The City has consistently expressed its support for Stanford’s intent to add over
3,000 housing units to its campus through the proposed GUP/Community Plan
and wishes to reiterate its support again. Additionally, the City has the
following specific comments based on the current draft of the Community Plan:
The discussion of Stanford’s jobs/housing balance on pages 34 and 35 of the
Community Plan should be revised to include all Stanford land that is
subject to the 1985 Three-Party Land Use Policy Agreement. Under the
Agreement, Stanford locates its profit-making, non-academic uses in Palo
Alto, and its academic, open space and agricultural uses in unincorporated
Santa Clara County. Therefore, any meaningful analysis of Stanford’s
provision of jobs and housing in the area must look at Stanford lands in the
County and the City of Palo Alto. For example, immediately adjacent to
Stanford’s campus, within Palo Alto, are the Stanford Research Park and the
Stanford Shopping Center. The Research Park contains approximately 150
employers in over 10 million square feet of office-research and development
buildings, and the Shopping Center over 1.3 million square feet of retail
floor space. Combined, these two Stanford-owned sites are major
employers and the Community Plan text should acknowledge their
relationship to the area’s jobs/housing balance.
The "linkage policy," described in the "Housing Element" of the proposed
Community Plan, must be maintained and strengthened as part of the
approval of the proposed GUP. Given Stanford’s existing housing
shortage, it is vital that the Community Plan and GUP require construction
of needed housing prior to, or concurrently with, approval for increases in
academic space as proposed in staff’s recommended Policy "SCP-H 7" on
page 46 of the Community Plan. The City also agrees that at a minimum
Stanford should be required to construct 1,510 dwelling units available to
students, staff and faculty within the first six years of GUP approval as
proposed in Policy "SCP-H(i) 4." This is only half of the total housing that
Stanford is proposing through the GUP and is a reasonable requirement that
is fully supported by the City. However, the City believes that it is
important that the requirement of linkage in "SCP-H 7" be carried forward
fully in the implementation so that it is not limited to this initial six-year
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
September 25, 2000
Page 8
commitment. Rather, Policy "SCP-H(i) 5" should be reworded as follows:
"Require through the General Use Permit that approvals for development
(based on building square footage) be conditioned on the prior or
concurrent construction of residential development (based on number of
dwelling units) at the same rate of development as the academic space".
The City recognizes the need for some flexibility in this determination, and
the County could alter the suggested language to provide that the rate of
development of the residential space be "roughly proportional" to the rate
of development of the academic space.
The City supports the Community Plan’s emphasis on providing and
maintaining rental housing for faculty and staff as a means of increasing
affordable housing opportunities. Additionally, the City recommends that
Policy "SCP-LU 2" be revised to expressly allow the inclusion of faculty
and staff housing within the "Academic Campus" land use designation.
The City recommends that on-campus housing eligibility and affordable
housing assistance be extended to service workers and support staff who
will be directly attracted to the Stanford campus through its anticipated
growth. The City supports the intent of proposed Community Plan Policy
"SCP-H 12(b)," which states that housing assistance and on-campus
residence eligibility would be extended to "populations which have
previously not been served." In order to achieve this, the City believes that
the County should require Stanford to institute an affordable housing
(below market rate) program to assist service workers and others who
would be attracted to the University through the approval of the GUP and
its resulting development. As an alternative or supplement to an on-campus
housing program, the County should require Stanford to pay such fees to
adjacent cities, such as Palo Alto and Menlo Park, which have existing
programs. This would ensure the provision of affordable housing in close
proximity to Stanford for those attracted directly to the University by its
growth.
The City supports the proposed Community Plan goal (page 50) of adopting
zoning consistent with Santa Clara County General Plan designations for
campus residential areas. The City believes this should be a high priority
for Stanford and the County so that development standards could be built-in
to the zoning ensuring compatibility with existing residential
neighborhoods within and adjacent to the campus. Moreover, the City
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
September 25, 2000
Page 9
suggests that the Community Plan allow for the consideration of future
development of zoning for Stanford’s academic campus and open space
areas that is reflective of the land use designations proposed in the
Community Plan ....
The City does not support the development of housing for Housing Sites
"D" and "I," shown in Figure 3.1 of the Community Plan. While the City
fully supports the construction of the amount of proposed housing under the
Community Plan/GUP, these sites, located in Special Limitation Area A,
along E1 Camino Real, are not appropriate to accommodate the significant
levels of dwellings that are proposed. This is especially true of, the four-
acre site "D," which is located along a very narrow strip of property located
at the northwest corner of E1 Camino Real and Stanford Avenue and,
according to the Community Plan, would contain dwellings for 250
graduate students.
Circulation
The City has already provided extensive comments to the County on the issues
of Stanford’s circulation and parking, particularly through its comments on the
draft EIR (see July 24, 2000 Transportation Division Memorandum, entitled
"GUP Mitigations") for the Community Plan and GUP. Accordingly, the City
is pleased to see that the latest draft of the Community Plan recommends that
the "no net new commute trips" policy, initiated through the 1989 GUP, be
maintained. Moreover, the City is in complete concurrence with proposed
Community Plan Policy "SCP-C 1," which states that the no net new commute
trips standard should be applied to the "fullest extent allowed by law." The
City has the fol!owing additional comments regarding circulation:
Regarding the no net new commute trips standard, the City wants to
reiterate its earlier concern that independent monitoring and enforcement
of the standard are vital to its effectiveness. While the Community Plan
acknowledges the importance of monitoring, it is not clear what, if
anything, would occur if Stanford failed to meet the policy, other than
"system expansion" (i.e., intersection and street widenings). The City
recognizes that roadway modifications are anticipated as one measure to
accommodate the extensive level of growth proposed by Stanford.
However, such measures should be considered only where absolutely
necessary and should not be undertaken in lieu of complying with the no
net new commute trips standard.
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
September 25, 2000
Page 10
The City supports the proposed TDM monitoring for no net new commute
trips with the inclusion of three compliance requirements. One, all
potentially impacted intersections will be monitored annually. Two, if the
no n.~t, new commute trips threshold is exceeded in either the AM or PM
peak commute period for any two years (not necessarily consecutive),
Stanford will make payment of fair-share mitigation for all Tier 2
intersection improvements (these were identified in the draft EIR) not
already funded. Three, should a third year of failure to meet the no-net new
commute trips goal requirement occur, no additional development
permitted under the GUP will be granted approvals by the County.
Reinstatement of development rights would be established once successful
compliance with the no net new commute trips standard had been achieved
in two consecutive years.
Stanford should develop and implement an Integrated Transportation
Management Plan, for all of its land holdings, as a component of the
currently proposed Community Plan/GUP to address impacts on City streets
from increased traffic congestion during the non-peak commute hours. As
described in the Community Plan, Stanford is a unique entity, in that it owns
nearly 13 square miles of contiguous land in six jurisdictions that is devoted
to a wide range of land uses (i.e., academic campus, office-research park,
shopping center, medical center). As a result, Stanford has an opportunity
to employ unique transportation management methods, such as the
development and implementation of an Integrated Transportation
Management Plan, to address the transportation impacts resulting from the
Community Plan. The Integrated Transportation Management Plan should
be developed in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions and provide for
efficient integration and optimal use of various transportation modes,
including private vehicles, bus and rail transport, and bicycle and pedestrian
transportation. In particular, a joint City-Stanford Marguerite shuttle
program should developed that would allow an expanded service throughout
the area. The specifics of such a plan were conveyed by the City to Santa
Clara County through Palo Alto’s August 7, 2000 letter (and accompanying
Transportation Division Memorandum) on the draft EIR. The City also
wants to state that it is encouraged by the Community Plan’s emphasis on
TDM measures and its recognition that Stanford’s campus is not
autonomous from its other operations (i.e., housing adjacent to the medical
center will reduce vehicle trips).
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
September 25, 2000
Page 11
Open Space
Many of the City’s concerns regarding open space preservation are discussed
under the "Growth and Development"~.and "Land Use" sections, above. The
City also has the following comment~ regarding the "Open Space" element of
the Communi~l~Plan:
The City recognizes that Stanford is the steward of its open space areas and
should be the entity in control of access to such areas. As noted in the
Community Plan, Stanford’s vast, undeveloped areas southwest of Junipero
Serra Boulevard provide critical open space resources to both Stanford
residents and students as well as to residents of surrounding communities.
The Community Plan proposes to re-designate Stanford’s open space lands
to more clearly identify them as such (i.e., "Open Space and Field
Research," "Special Conservation"), but it does not clarify how access to
these lands would be affected. As with most open space areas, there is the
obvious need for Stanford and the County to balance long-term preservation
with on-going recreational use. The City recommends that when limiting
access to certain open space areas, the Community Plan explain why access
is being limited.
The Community Plan should designate all geologically hazardous,
sensitive habitat, and ecological restoration areas as "Special
Conservation" and provide a map describing the significance of all areas so
designated.
As a condition of approval of the Community Plan/GUP, the City
recommends that all derelict, obsolete structures/facilities located in open
space areas south of Junipero Serra Boulevard be identified and, where
appropriate, removed.
The Community Plan should include policies that specifically target
reducing run-off to San Francisquito Creek. The upstream portion of San
Francisquito Creek is on Stanford lands, but as the Community Plan notes,
the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto are also affected by
development within this watershed. Policies promoting the use of
vegetative swales and pervious materials (particularly along open space area
trails) to limit the amount of run-off should be included in the Community
Plan. Additionally, Stanford should continue to participate with the adjacent
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
September 25, 2000
Page 12
jurisdictions through the Joint Powers Agency to improve habitat quality,
flood control and overall management of the San Francisquito Creek
watershed.
The Planning and Community Environment Department would again like to
thank you for including us in the review process for the Community Plan and
look forward to seeing additional information as it becomes available. We hope
that our comments and recommendations will contribute to the refinement of
the plan and we anticipate making future comments in October in addition to
the staff recommendations made in this letter.
Sincerely,
G. EDWARD GAWF
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
co:Joe Simitian, Supervisor, Santa Clara County
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission
Frank Benest, City Manager
Kris Schenk, Community Development, Menlo Park
C!tyof Palo Alto
Office of the Mmjor and City Coundl
Attachment B
August 7, 2000
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
Planning Office
County of Santa Clara
70 W. Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Subject:Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (-EIR) for the
Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP)
Dear Ms. Draper:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR for the Stanford
University Community PlardGUP. Overall, the City believes the EIR is a well-prepared,
informative document. However, the City hopes that through the inclusion of its
comments, the Final EIR will better enable decision-makers to fully understand the scope
of the proposal not only for Stanford but also for surrounding communities, like Palo
Alto.
In the month of July, the City of Palo Alto held three public meetings regarding the EIR,
resulting in the City Council recommendations and comments that are described, by topic,
below. In addition to these recommendations, memorandums from the City’s Public
Works Department and Transportation Division are attached with more detailed
comments in their respective areas.
Open Space Preservation
The EIR and Community Plan/GUP need to analyze mechanisms that will provide
permanent, or long-term (25 years or more) dedication of open space for the foothill
lands southwest of Junipe~o Serra Boulevard. The EIR should specifically address
what the impacts to open space would be if it is not permanently protected, as well as
what the benefits would be if open space is permanently preserved. The EIR
acknowledges that the project will result in the loss of recognized open space in this
area; however, the EIR does not discuss the inevitable growth that will occur in the
foothills as the core campus approaches build-out. Absolute assurance of
P,O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA94303
415.329.2427
415.328.3631Fax
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 2
conservation of the foothill open space areal must be linked to the substantial amount
of development being proposed.
As describedin the EIR, the pro~osed Stanford University Community Plar~GUP are
inconsistent with the City of P alo Alto’s adopted Urban Growth Boundary; the City’s
Urban Growth Boundary is discussed in Policy L-1 and shown in Map L-2 of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the proposed Community Plan/GUP
are inconsistent with existing Santa Clara County General Plan Policies C-GD-19
through C-G-22, which pertain to Urban Growth Boundaries within the County of
Santa Clara.
The proposed land use designation of "Open Space and Academic Reserve" for the
majority of the foothill property is further indication that this area is ultimately
"reserved" for development, though not necessarily within the timeframe of the
proposed GUP. The EIR sl~ould identify land to be maintained (as opposed to being
held in reserve) as open space and this land should be designated, accordingly, as
"Open Space" by the Community Plan. Further, the "Open Space" designation
should include a description of allowable uses and intensities of development that
would be allowed.
The EIR should include a discussion of the existing or proposed access to all open
space or conservation areas on Stanford lands. Analysis of open space access should
focus on how intensification of use could impact open space, and should also address
how implementation of the project could lead to further exclusion of public access to
areas that have historically been used for open space purposes.
It is not clear from Figure 2-4, "Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations," of
the EIR if the Dish is included within the "Special Conservation" area. The location
of the Dish should be shown on this map to clarify its location either within or
outside of the area designated for "Special Conservation." Additionally, the City
strongly believes that the Dish area should be protected and maintained for open
space purposes.
While much of Stanford’s land may not be alienable, mechanisms such as open space
easements have been used before by Stanford as a means to achieve long-term open
space protection. Accordingly, the EIR should analyze the use of easements as a
means to protect existing open space on a long-term basis. Further, the EIR should
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 3
describe existing open space protection measures used by Santa Clara County for
land within its jurisdiction and by Stanford for other lands under its ownership, such
as the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve in San Mateo County.
Since the Community Plan is long-term in nature, the EIR should discuss open space
protection methods and development ideals that are equally long-term in viewpoint.
For instance, the EIR should examine the placement of a "green belt" around the
campus that would identify the University’s long-term vision of academic build-out.
Project Alternatives
The EIR should provide and discuss an alternative development plan showing an
Academic Growth Boundary (Figure 7-1 of the DEIR) that is coterminous with the
City of Palo Alto’s urban growth boundary/urban service area. In revising Figure 7-
1, Palo Alto’s existing urban growth boundary/urban service area should be
illustrated on the southern portion of the map (Coyote Hill area) as well as on the
northern portion (San Francisquito Creek).
The EIR should analyze an alternative that would avoid impacts to, and preserve,
intact, the Stanford Golf Course. The EIR should also include a discussion of the
golf course’s value as a cultural resource, recreational open space and habitat for a
variety of native fauna and flora. It also seems likely that the housing proposed in
the area of Hole #1 could be constructed in a manner that would integrate it into the
existing fabric of the golf course rather than supplanting portions of the existing
course.
The EIR states that. the Reduced Project Aitemative does not avoid the significant
impacts of the project, so it is, therefore, not an environmentally superior alternative.
The EIR makes this finding even though the Reduced Project Alternative calls for
only 50 percent of the total development of the project. This approach treats
environmental impacts like an on/off switch--some impact or no impact at all--and
ignores differences in degree. Moreover, it seems likely that a 50 percent reduction
in development would be environmentally_s_u_p~iven the scale of t_he_pr_o_j_e_c_t..
The EIR should include a Reduced Project Altemative that reduces the amount of
proposed academic development (i.e., 1 million square feet instead of 2 million
square feet) but does not reduce the amount of proposed housing. Given the housing
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 4
deficit that Stanford presently has, it appears that a significant portion of the
proposed 3,000 dwelling units is needed to address the existing shortfall.
The EIR should provide an altemative that focuses on reducing the impact of the
proposed development, while not necessarily reducing the amount of square footage
or number dwelling Units being sought. This alternative should discuss the benefits
and/or lessened environmental impacts that would occur through the implementation
of more compact development patterns (i.e., "clustering") and the intensification of
under-utilized (i.e., surface parking lots, single-story buildings) sites in the core
campus. Additionally, a discussion of more compact development patterns should
include information regarding lessened impacts to the area’s transportation system
since this development pattern would be more transit-, pedestrian- and bicycle-
friendly.
Land Use and Development
Table 3-3 of the EIR concludes that the Community Plan/GUP are consistent with all
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies. However, Comprehensive Plan
Policy L-l, which is noted in Table 3-3, states, "Continue current City policy
limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban
service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the
urban growth boundary [see comments under "Open Space Preservation"]. Retain
undeveloped land [south]west of Foothill Expressway [Junipero Serra Boulevard] as
open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent
with the open space character of the area." Given that the EIR and Community
Plan/GUP identify up to 20,000 square feet of development outside the City’s urban
service area, i.e., on the Lathrop property, the conclusion of consistency with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan is not supported.
By continuing to prepare separate environmental documents for on-going
development projects, whose processing overlaps with the Community PlardGUP
EIR and approval process, the County makes it difficult for the public to understand
th-e imp~-ctg-o-f-all~ propos~-d-d~-~lo-p-m~fit-f6f stanfo~d’~-l~n-dg:~ The- exiStirig ~etting-
has become a "moving target" that makes it difficult to fully understand the
increment of environmental impact that will result solely from the implementation of
the Community PlargGUP. During the remaining approval process for the
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 5
Community PlardGUP, the City strongly believes that Stanford should cease
pursuing separate project approvals.
Related to the preceding point, the Camegie Foundation proposal,for which a separate
draft environmental impact report was recently circulated, should be included as part
of the Community PlargGUP proposal. Or, if not included, the Community PlardGUP
EIR should clearly specify that the 20,000 square feet of development proposed on the
Lathrop property, located southwest of Junipero Serra Boulevard, is not describing the
Carnegie Foundation project. The City recognizes that the subject EIR includes the
Carnegie proposal within its cumulative analysis. However, confusion persists that
the 20,000 square feet of development proposed in the Community PlardGUP for the
Lathrop area is in fact describing the Carnegie project, which is nearly identical in
area and would be developed on the same parcel.
The EIR should include information and a discussion regarding all of Stanford’s
extensive land holdings. Even though the EIR is focused on Stanford’s
unincorporated Santa Clara County land, Stanford’s property is contiguous and it is,
therefore, vital that it be treated as a single entity. The EIR should, accordingly,
provide more detailed information about Stanford’s levels of existing and proposed
development for all its property, regardless of jurisdiction.
The EIR should include more detailed definitions of the proposed land use
designations included in the Community Plan/GUP and indicated in Figures 4.2-4 and
4.2-5. It should be clear what uses and levels of development would be allowed under
each land use designation. Also, it is ~ritical that the EIR describe what is meant by
the term "Academic Growth Boundary" and by what process such a boundary could
be altered in the future. It is the City’s view that the Academic Growth Boundary
should define the area in which urban levels of development could occur, and that
such a boundary should not merely be a "line on a map," that is easily changed to
accommodate future development. The City further believes that the Academic
Growth Boundary should be kept in place, coterminous with the City’s urban growth
boundary, for the maximum period of time permitted by County regulations.
The Development districts identified in the EIR (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.
Ms. Anne Drape~, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 6
Language in the Plan/GUPitself indicates otherwise.
clarified.
This !nconsistency should be
Housing and Community Facilities .....
The City supports Stanford’s intention to add over 3,000 housing units to the campus
.through the GUP, but disagrees with the conclusion reached in the EIR, that the
project will not have a significant impact on existing residential neighborhoods in the
City of Palo Alto. The subject EIR is a program-level document and does not contain
a factual basis for reaching this conclusion. Moreover, should future project-specific
environmental documents fred that significant impacts to existing Palo Alto
neighborhoods will occur, a supplemental EIR would need to be prepared providing a
revised analysis.
The EIR should provide an ~stimate of the building square footage that will result
from the construction of the proposed dwelling units to indicate the overall scale of
the proposed project.
The EIR should further discuss the "standard employment multiplier," referred to on
pages 5.4 and 5.5, and how it is used to determine the overall growth-induced impact
of the Community PlargGUP.
Given the shortage of housing and the acute shortage of affordable housing identified
in the EIR, it is likely that the project will result in a significantly increased need for
additional affordable housing, especially in regard to service personnel who would be
attracted to the area by the additional growth but would have limited affordable
housing opportunities in the Stanford-Palo Alto-Menlo Park area. Also, the EIR
estimates that development under the proposed GUP would generate approximately
1,000 new jobs, and possibly as many as 1,500 to 2,000, if the "standard employment
multiplier" is used. The City believes the EIR should identify additional housing
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.
The EIR should discuss the lessened environmental impacts or potential benefit that
would result through assurances of affordable housing being provided either on-
campus or in the immediate vicinity of the campus. These lessened impacts would
include reduced vehicle trips to/from the campus from outside areas.
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 7
The EIR should include information regarding the existing shortage of on-campus
housing, so that it is clear how the proposed housing will accommodate Stanford’s
total housing need, not just the need that would be created through the build-out of the
proposed GUP.
The EIR does not discuss the extent to which Stanford residents, faculty and students
use community facilities, such as libraries and parks, located in neighboring cities.
The City of Palo Alto conservatively estimates that Stanford residents account for
approximately 5 percent of the total usage of City facilities. Given the age of the
City’s infrastructure, the increased usage described in the Community Plan/GUP EIR
means an accelerated deterioration of their physical condition, which is not discussed
in the EIR. Moreover, should the EIR find a significant unmitigated impact to Palo
Alto community facilities, a Statement of Overriding Considerations should be
adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. The City of Palo Alto expects that the
County of Santa Clara shall require Stanford to pay City impact fees toward these
facilities.
Schools
The EIR proposes mitigation measures (i.e., payment of impact fees) for school
impacts that appear to be in accordance with pertinent statutory and case law.
However, the City wants to emphasize that these measures will not address the actual
impacts to schools within the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Since the
actual impacts to schools would remain significant after the payment of fees (i.e.,
mitigation), the EIR should note that these impacts would be significant and,
therefore, require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the
County Board of Supervisors.
The EIR should provide information regarding Stanford’s existing impacts to the
PAUSD school system. At a minimum, the EIR should state how many students
Stanford contributes to the District at present and how many would be added through
the proposed build-out of the project.
Potential additional options are outlined on pages 4.10-8 and 4.10-9 oftheEIR and
include the possibilities of constructing a third middle school on Stanford land, re-
opening closed schools, or modifying existing schools. The City of Palo Alto strongly
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 8
believes Stanford must be involved in the discussion and eventual implementation of
additional options for addressing school impacts.
The EIR should provide a inore viable alternative school site-one more proximately
located to existing Palo Alto neighborhoods--than the one shown in Figure 7-6. The
EIR also needs to address the impacts of the alternatives described on pages 4-10-8
and 4-10-9 that would lead to reclaiming school sites and displacing existing City
community centers. The recommendation from Stanford that PAUSD could use
property now devoted to Terman and Cubberley Community Centers would
potentially reduce the amount of land devoted to City community centers, services and
facilities. The City believes this reduction in land devoted to community facilities
constitutes a direct environmental impact that should be addressed in the EIR.
Moreover, the potential loss of community facilities is inconsistent with several Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan policies and goals described in its "Community Services
and Facilities" element, particularly Policy C-29: "Strategically locate public
facilities...to serve all neighborhoods in the City."
Related to the preceding recommendation, if a viable school site within the City of
Palo Alto’s urban service area!urban growth boundary is not included in the EIR, and
the City must surrender existing community center facilities for the purpose of a new
school in order to accommodate Stanford growth, Stanford must pay their fair share of
acquisition costs to mitigate the direct impact of their growth on Palo Alto community
centers. Stanford’s contribution should close the gap between the fair market value of
a new community center site and the unmet cost after City and School contributions
have been made.
The cumulative impacts to schools and community services facilities from the
anticipated 10-year residential and employment growth of both City of Palo Alto and
Stanford, using the latest available demographic information, has not been provided
in the EIR. The impacts from the recommended PAUSD/Stanford conversion of
community facilities to schools are in addition, and therefore cumulative, to the
impacts created from Stanford’s proposed growth, the City’s proposed growth, and
overall demographic turnover. Previously-prepared EIRs for the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and the Sand Hill Road projects used lower demographic
projections and growth assumptions than what actually occurred. In light of this, the
EIR needs to provide up-to-date, realistic information that better reflects the level of
population growth that is anticipated.
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 9
Circulation and Parking
The EIR identifies various transportation measures to mitigate traffic impacts. These
measures need to be placed into a more comprehensive context. Therefore, Stanford
should prepare an integrated transportation plan (see attached memorandum from the
City’s Transportation Division for more detailed EIR and project recommendations)
with both long- and short-term elements. Long-term elements should include a
variety of solutions to mitigate vehicular congestion and parking demand. The plan
should contain sub-area analyses for the core campus, the Medical Center, the
Research Park, and the Shopping Center; and should be developed in conjunction with
Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County VTA, 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 EIR should provide an analysis of the potential traffic impacts to existing Palo
Alto neighborhoods. For instance, the EIR identifies over 1,000 new dwelling units
proposed adjacent to the College Terrace neighborhood, just south of Stanford
Avenue. Additional vehicle trips along these residential streets would be in conflict
with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goal of reducing through-traffic impacts on
residential areas.
The City believes it is imperative that proposed GUP maintain the "no new net
commute trips" standard included in the 1989 GUP. Additionally, the EIR must
discuss how independent monitoring of Stanford’s vehicle trip contribution to the Palo
Alto street system would be done; and, importantly, if monitoring determines that
traffic levels have exceeded identified thresholds the EIR must describe what
mechanisms would then be used to reduce vehicle trips or their impacts to acceptable
levels.
In conjunction with comments made above under "Land Use and Development," the
EIR should discuss the lessened transportation impacts, or potential benefits, that
could-be derived from more compact development patterns on the core campus, such
as increased use of parking structures in lieu of surface-level parking facilities.
The EIR must address the impacts to the Palo Alto street network that would occur
due to increased truck-traffic related to construction activities that would result from
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 10
the significant amount of development proposed under the GUP/Community Plan.
The EIR list of traffic mitigation measures includes evaluation of several intersection
widenings. While intersection capacity increases may mitigate for peak-hour vehicle
trips in the short-term, they also have the result of inducing greater numbers of vehicle
trips in the future. Evaluation of each proposed intersection widening improvement
should take into account these secondary effects.
With respect to pedestrian travel, all intersection widenings, including those discussed
in the EIR, lengthen pedestrian crossing distance and time. This effect should be
analyzed for each proposed intersection project as well as measures to enhance
pedestrian safety such as median refuges.
Intersection widenings have three potential impacts on bicyclists: 1) Increased
complexity for cyclists navigating intersections; 2) Loss of bike lane space to create
turning lanes; and 3) Lengthening the exposure time of cyclists traveling across the
widened intersection. These effects should be analyzed for each proposed intersection
project, as well as measures to enhance cycling safety.
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 in the
EIR 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 ofb.oth parking capacity and
traffic congestion.
Trip generation rates are a critical element of the EIR transportation analysis. A
discussion should be provided in the EIR 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
transportation demand management (TDM). Additionally, the trip generation of
visitors and contractors should be included in the analysis. Finally, the off-campus
housing units that will be vacated when the graduate students living off-campus are
relocated onto the campus will be occupied by new residents, resulting in continued
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 11
trip generation from these off-campus units, but with a new trip distribution.
backfill trips should be included in the EIR traffic analysis.
These
As previously stated, the City staff strongly supports the "no net new commute trips"
mitigation strategy instead of the Tier 2 intersection improvements described in the
EIR. Many of these improvements are only minimally feasible from a physical or
political standpoint 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.
As described in the EIR, a coordinated trip reduction effort for the Stanford Research
Park was not used as a credit toward "no net new commute trips" because 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 Research Park.
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 generated. 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.
Storm Water Run-Off/Flooding
The EIR analyzes run-offimpacts based upon a 100-year, 24-hour storm event
instead of the typically used 10-year, 6-hour event. The EIR should be revised to
include an analysis of the 10-year, 6-hour standard, since mitigation measures
designed for the 100-year event would not necessarily mean that increased run-off
would not occur during smaller storm events.
The EIR cites the use of detention basins as the sole mitigation measure for
anticipated increases in run-off resulting from new development on the campus.
While detention basins are an acceptable means of controlling peak run-off, they
should not be used to the exclusion of alternative features. Therefore, the EIR should
be revised to include an analysis of more innovative measures (e.g., vegetative
swales, pervious pavement, reduced building footprints).
The EIR should include an expanded discussion of water quality impacts. For
instance, copper is a significant contributor to water quality impacts and much of this
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 12
is a result of copper’s use in brake pads and building materials (i.e., roofing). Since
the project would involve both increased vehicle trips (more brake pad wear) and
new building construction, the EIR should address the potential water quality
impacts that could occur.
Biological Resources
Option 2 regarding the California Tiger Salamander should be incorporated into the
project since it is superior from an environmental standpoint in that it avoids a
significant impact to the species and its habitat. Moreover, the EIR should examine a
"no-build" option on the Lathrop property that could potentially reduce impacts to the
California Tiger Salamander to an even greater extent.
The EIR should provide an analysis of the habitat value of the Stanford Golf Course.
Among other things, this analysis should examine impacts to the Western Bluebird
and other species should the golf course, or portions thereof, be lost to development.
Implementation and_Monitoring
o The EIR 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.
The existing 1989 GUP includes a provision that annual development reports should
be prepared documenting the development .that has occurred during the year. The
City supports a continuation of the reporting process under the proposed GUP and
believes that the EIR should indicate whether the annual reporting process would
continue under the proposed GUP.
The EIR 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. The EIR should analyze
construction standards that take into account the nature of adjacent development or
habitat that is more sensitive to construction noise. The standards would provide
greater protection for sensitive receptors, such as existing residential areas. For
instance, the EIR indicates that construction could occur from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm,
Monday through Saturday. Reduction in construction hours and elimination of
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
August 7, 2000
Page 13
Saturday construction may eliminate or lessen significant construction noise impacts
on adjacent residential areas.
Given the considerable scale and complex’staging ofthe’GUP/Community Plan, the
EtR should discuss the resources (i.e., staffing) Santa Clara County would have in
place to adequately monitor and enforce the all of the proposed development.
Thank you again for providing us with the opportunity to comment on this EIR and we
look forward to working with you on the finalization of this document in the coming
months.
Sincerely,
Mayor
Attachments:
Public Works memorandum, dated July 24, 2000
Transportation Division memorandum, dated July 24, 2000
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
Date:
To:
From:
July 24, 2000
Luke Connolly, Planning
Senior Engineer
subject:EIR for Stanford University Draft Community Plan
and General Use Permit Application
The Public Works Engineering Division has the following comments on the subject EIR:
Arastradero Creek is atributary of Matadero Creek (confluence is near intersection of
Arastradero and Page Mill Roads). It is not dear why Arastradero Creek watershed is
separated out from Matadero Creek in the analyses and tables. Data pertaining to Deer
Creek, another tributary of Matadero Creek, is included with the Matadero Creek data.
The 100-yea.r rainfall total arid average intensity appear to be underestimated in the
hydrology section (Page 4.5-9). Using the Santa Clara County Drainage Manual as a
reference, the mean annual precipitation for Stanford University is 16 inches, and the
runoff for a 100-year, 24-hour storm is 4.68 inches (not 4.32 inches), with an average
intensity of 0.19 inches/hour (not 0.17 inches/hour).
3.It is unusual that the analysis of the impacts of increased runoff resulting from the
proposed new development is based upon a 100-year, 24-hour storm. The 100-year
standard is normally.used to analyze the capacity of regional facilities such as creeks or
large flood control facilities. A portion of the developed campus area drains into the city
of Palo Alto;s storm drain system. Storm drain systems are typically designed to convey
the runoff from shorter, more frequent storm events, such as a 10-year, six-hour storm.
Impacts of the proposed development on the 10-year storm peak runoff rate are not
addressed in the EIN. Increases in the 10-year storm peak runoffwill have adverse
impacts on the City’s storm drain system. The fact that project mitigations wil! ensure that
-------~ere-wi!-- ---’-c- -~ e-:-- e-e - - -~mz~vear-sm~~-tzn~_essari-ly- .....
mean that there will not be an increase in peak runoff during smalIer events. Since the
design details of the proposed detention basins are not discussed, it is not clear what, if
any, runoff detention will take place during smalIer storms.
The EIR should be amended to include an analysis of the impacts of the proposed
¯ development on the peak runoff rate from the 10-year, six-hour storm event.
Comments on Stanford Use Plan EIR
July 24, 2000
Page 2
4. Runoff from portiois of the developed campus area flows through the City of Palo Alto
enroute to Matadero Creek, either through the City’s storm drain system or through the
Stanford Channel, a Santa Clara Valley Water District facility. The Stanford Channel has
less than 100-year flood control capacity. It overflows into a natural drainage course and
storm drain system that traverses the College Terrace neighborhood in Palo Aito when it
fills beyond its capacity.. This overflow has caused flooding in the neighborhood during,
moderate storms (less than 100-year stonns.)’in the past. Any additional runoff may
exacerbate this flooding threat. Portions of the campus drain into a Caltrans/City storm
drain that runs south along E1 Cam/no Real, east on Page Mill Road, and south along Park
Boulevard before discharging to Matadero Creek. Additional runoff may result in flooding
of this storm drain system. The EIR does not address the impacts of the proposed
development on either of these drainage facilities.
The EIR should be amended to include an analysis of the impacts of the proposed
development on the City of Palo Alto’s storm drain system and the Stanford Channel. As
discussed under item 3 above, these impacts may occur during storms smaller than the
100-year, 24-hour storm analyzed in the EIR.
Runoff from portions of the developed campus area flow to San Francisquito Creek. The
creek has less than 100-year flo6d control capacity. The EIR does not analyze the impacts
of increased runoff from new development on San Francisquito Creek during storms
smaller than the l(J0-year storm event. The fact that project mitigations will ensure that
there will be no increase in the peak runoff from a 100-y~ar storm does not necessarily
mean that there will not be an increase in pear runoff during smaller events.
The EIR should be amended to include an analysis of the impacts of the new development
on the potential for San Francisquito Creek flooding during events smaller than the 100-
year storm.
The EIR cites the use of detention basins as the sole proposed mitigation for expected
increases in runoff resulting from new deve!opment on the campus. While detention basins
are an acceptable means of controlling peak runoff, there are other drainage features that
can be incorporated into site designs that will reduce total runoff and improve storm water
quality, as well as control peak runoff rates. These features will also function to reduce
runoff during smaller, more frequent storms, when the proposed detention basins may not
be effective. These d.esign features include the following:
Directing roof and parking lot drainage into vegetated swales
Elimination of "directly connected impervious areas" by breaking up drainage paths
,,q[th-tandscaping-or-other-perviou-s-areas
Retention of native vegetation and minimization of disturbances to natural terrain
Use of pervious pavement materials
Use of underground parking and multi-storied buildings to minimize development
footprints
Clustering of development to minimize iand disturbances
Comments on Stanford Use Plan EIR
July 24, 2000
Page 3
These and other design techniques are described more fully in a manual entitled Start at
the Source Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection, published by the
Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies Association.
The EIR should be amended to require drainage design features in addition to retention
basins as mitigation measures that .will control the quantity of storm water runoff.
The EIR sections on groundwater and surface water quality impacts discusses the
preparation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention PIans (SW-PPP) and the use of Best
Management Practices as a mitigation measure only in the context of compliance with the
State of California General.Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activities. The EIR correctly states that the General Permit applies only to
projects that disturb five or more acres of land. Water quality impacts, both short-term
impacts during construction and permanent post-construction impacts, may, however,
result from projects of any size. In addition, the Municipal Stormwater Permit issued to
Santa Clara County (as one of 15 co-permittees in the County) requires the County to
"implement controI measures and best management practices to reduce pollutants in storm
water discharges to the maximum extent practicable" through development and
implementation of an Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). One of the required
components of the URMP is a plan to review and control the water quality impacts of new
development.
The EIR discussion and mitigation measures should be clarified to require Stanford to
prepare a SWPPP and’implement BMP’s on all new development projects, regardless of
size.
The EIR’s discussion of potential water quality impacts and mitigation measures is rather
limited and should be expanded to address the full range of issues. There should be more
discussion of typical Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that will be incorporated into the
proposed development to minimize both construction and post-construction storm water
quality impacts.
Potential construction-related water quality impacts include erosion of sediment as well as
non-storm water discharges resulting from improper material storage, site housekeeping
practices, and construction vehicle/equipment maintenance, fueling and cleaning. Certain
construction operations (e.g. paving, concrete truck washout, pavement sawcutting,
painting) also have a high potential to release pollutants if not performed properly.
Typical construction-stage BMP’s include stabilized construction entrances, catch basin
protection, silt fencing, berming around material and equipment storage areas, and
de-si-gnated-c-oncrete-wasl~out~reas:
Potential permanent water quality impacts include increased runoff, and the introduction of
pollutants including sediments, heavy metals, pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals
from sources such as parking lots and dumpster areas and activities such as landscape
maintenance, car washing, and tenant use and disposal of cleaning products and other
household chemicals. Typical permanent BMP’s that should be considered include site
pIarming concepts such as reduced impervious area, clustering of buildings, infiltration of
Comments on Stanford Use Plan EIR
July 24, 2000
Page 4
storm runoff, and retention of native vegetation. Specific BMP’s may include catch basin
~tenciling (No Dumping[ Flows to San Fraucisquito Creek), routing of parking lot and
building storm runoff to vegetated swales, storm water pollution prevention education for
eventual building user/residents, and the use of catch basin filter inserts, covered dumpster
areas, and pervious paving. Start at the Source, described in comment 6 above, is an
excellent guidance, document for selecting permanent storm water pollution prevention
cc:Glenn Roberts
Kent Steffens
Jim Harrington
TRANSP OR TA TION DIVISION
Memorandum
Date:July 24, 2000
To:Luke Connolly
From:Carl Stoffel ~
Subject:GUP Mitigations
The City supports the following transportation mitigations for the GUP’
"No net new colranute trips" (DEIR Mitigation TR-SB) and "Cooperative trip
reduction" (Mitigation TR-5C) should be the primary mitigation measures for.
intersection impacts on major ro~ds.
a
o.
Tier 1 intersection improvements (Mitigation TR-5A) should be implemented. These
are Arboretum/Palm and Welch/Campus Drive West, both of which are Stanford
campus intersections (Arboretum!Palm signal is operated and maintained by Palo
Alto). For each location, we support giving Stanford the option of implementing a
configuration other than that specified in the DEIR if the alternate improvement is
equal or better. Specifically, we support the option of a modem roundabout a.t
ArboretmrdPalm, if so desired by Stanford.
Generally, Palo Alto does not support Tier 2 .intersection projec% with the following
exceptions:
E1 Camino Real/Churchill (Palo Alto): This project is already in the Palo Alto
CIP. Stanford’s fair share for this location should be given to the City upon
approval of the GUP, with the proviso that Palo Alto may wish to use the funds
on an alternative project (refer to discussion below).
We do not support other Tier 2 intersection projects in PaIo Alto or Santa Clara
Countzy-for-r --eason~ctat e d-els ew-here.
For Menlo Park intersections, Menlo Park should determine whether or not it
would like to pursue the improvements and, if so, receive Stanford’s f~ir share
contribution for them.
GUP Mitigations
July 24, 2000
Page 2 of 6
Palo Alto supports the’"Sand Hill Road Widening as Alternative Mitigation"
for the certain intersection impacts in Menlo Park and on Stanford campus.
Palo Alto supports Stanford participation in future neighborhood traffic studies
initiated by Palo Alto and Menlo Park (Mitigation T-6A). Palo Alto suggests that
this mitigation measure be modified to require that Stanford 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 through traffic’ attributable to Stanford should be all traffic generated by the
campus area, whether or not it is related to the new OUP development.
So Palo Alto supports the proposed TDM monitoring program for "no net new commute
trips" described under Mitigation TR-5B. Palo Alto requests that the following
requirements for compliance be added to this monitoring progam:
Monitoring will be conducted annually.
Stanford’s failure to laect the "no net new cormnute trips" requirement by any
amount in either the AM or PM peak hour for any two years (i.e., not
necessarily consecutive)will constitute. "triggering" of Stanford’s full
payment of fair share mitigation funds for all Tier 2 intersection
improvements, for which Stanford has not already made payment to the
respective jurisdictions.
"Fair share" should be based on all Stanford traffic using a particular
intersection (i.e., existing and new traffic)--not just the project component
from the new GUP.
f.
If a third year of failure to meet the TDM requirement occurs, Stanford will
not be permitted to conduct further development projects permitted under
the GUP that have not already been approved for construction by the
County.
Reinstatement .of development rights will occur following two consecutive
years of successfully meeting the "no net new commute trips" requirement.
For Palo Alto and County Tier 2 intersections for which fair share funds are
received per item (b) above, Palo Alto has identified the following possible
"alternative mitigations" for which the funds should be spent and/or for
which Stanford should be responsible. This list may be modified by Palo
Alto or the County.
GUP Mitigations
July 24, 2000
Page 3 of 6
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Increased shuttle service in the Stanford Research Park (all-day bi-
directional service between all major Research Park locations and the
California Avenue Caltrain station).
Establigtunent of a transit center for Stanford and Palo Alto at the
University Avenue Caltrain station.
Bicycle .lane projects on Junipero Serra Boulevard between Foothill
Expressway and Alpine Road and on Deer Creek Road between
Arastradero Road and Page Mili Expressway.
Sidewalk and!or multiuse path along the north side of Stanford Avenue
between E1 Camino Real and Escondido Road.
planned new pedestr.ian&icycle undercrossing of Alma and Caltrain
tracks at California Avenue. This undercrossing would be part of the
proposed Stanford/Palo Alto Bay to Foothills trail in which Stanford
may participate as part of the GUP.
(vi)Planned new pedestrianYbicycle undercrossing of the Caltrain tracks at
Homer Avenue. This undercrossing would link pedestrian and bicycle
traffic to the Stanford campus via the existing PAM/ECR traffic signal
and a potential new pedestrian/bicycle path throughthe Stanford
arboretum area to connect to the Medical Center area (see next item).
(vii)Construction of a pedestrian]bicycle path in the Stanford arboretum area
between the PAMF/ECR traffic signal and the ArboreturrffPalm
intersection.
(viii)Construction of a pedestrian/bicycle path between the new Cancer Center
and the new signalized intersection on Sand HilI Road leading to the
Stanford West apartments and the bike bridge over San Francisquito
Creek. This would include a crossing of Welch Road, which might be
signalized.
(ix) Expansion of the Palo Alto/Stanford shuttle integration project hours of
operation.
GUP Mitigations
July 24, 2000
Page. 4 of 6.
Increased Stanford responsibility for traffic calming projects in Palo Alto
(beyond mitigation measure TK-6A), to include collector streets and
residential arterials.
Note: Some of the aboye alternative mitigations were also listed for the recently-
approve~ Cancer Center project.
The impact of the GUP extends beyond the peak hour impacts specifically identified
in the DEIR. These impacts are increased traffic congestion and impacts during
the non-peak hours on major streets and, in some cases, on local residential streets.
As mitigation for these impacts, Stanford should be required to implement an
"Integrated Transportation Plan" as described in the attachment to this
memorandum.
cs
Attachment: "An Integrated Transportation Plan for Stanford"
OUP Mitigations
July 24, 2000
Page 5 of 6
ATTACHlVIENT
An Integrated Transpo.rtation Plan for Stanford
Stanford lands are served by a complex, multimodal transportation system. Elements of this
system are the campus road net, Marguerite shuttle bus routes, bike Ianes and paths, sidewalks,
and a travel demand management program. Stanford’s transportation system interconnects with
the roadway, bus and rail transi’~,~bicycle, and t~edestrian networks of the surrounding region.
Both Stanford’s and the region’s transportation needs and possibilities are dynmnic. Prospective
changes in the region’s transportation system over the next five to ten years include:
Doublin.g of Caltrain service
Deployment of"articulated" (double capacity) VTA buses to and from the University
Avenue Caltrain station
Creation of a high-speed "baby bullet" passenger train between San Francisco and San Jose
Development of a Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center
Construction of a new bicycIe/pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain near Stanford lands at
Homer Avenue in Palo Alto
Creation of an east-west "bicycle boulevard" in Palo Alto
Construction of a continuous off-road bicycIe path between ChurehilI and the University
Avenue depot in Palo Alto
Improvements to Palo Alto’s Shuttle and other local transit service
Arterial and local street traffic calming initiatives in Palo Alto
Major upgrades to Palo Alto’s traffic signal system
Successful, citywide travel demand m.anagement efforts in Palo Alto
Potential transportation system changes in the ten- to twenty-year horizon include:
Inau~tration of high-speed rail’passenger service between Los Angeles and San Francisco
Creation of commuter rail service paralM to the Dumbarton bridge, with shuttle service from
an East Palo Alto station to Palo Alto and Stanford
Extension of light rail service from Mountain View to Palo Ako
Continued improvements in bus transit services, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the
region -
These shorter- and longer-term changes will take place in context of and in response to rising
travel demand, increased levels of roadway congestion, and heightened concerns about air
pollution and quality of life for the region.
An integrated transportation systems or master plan needs to be developed in order for Stanford
to respond effectively to these concerns and the opportunities. This plan should be integrated in
two ways: 1.) developed in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions: Palo Alto, Menlo Park,
East Palo Alto, and the County of Santa Clara; and~ 2.) provide for efficient integration and
optimal use of the various transportation modes, including private vehicles, bus and rail public
transport, bicycle and pedestrian transportation. The integrated transportation plan should have
OUP Mitigations
July 24, 2000
Page 6 of 6
shorter-term (perhaps one to ten year) and a longer-term (perhaps ten to twenty year)
components. In addition to addressing each transportation mode, the Plan should include several
ancillary facilities or functions. Plan elements should comprise the following:
Vehicle Circulation and Roadway Network
PuNic Transit
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Parking
Travel Demand Management
Transportation System Management (including use of Ia~telligent Transportation System
technologies in place of conventional increases in road capacity)
Traffic Calming (including use of innovations such as roundabouts in place of conventional
traffic signals or stop control) elements.
City of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
October 28, 1999 Attachment C
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 Ms: Draper:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Stanford Community
Plan and General Use Permit (GUP). The City of Palo Alto has held three public
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 development 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.t38x 10250
Palo Alto, CA94303
415.329.2477
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
Planning Commission on September 2, 1999.
The City supports the Plan’s stipulated goal of maintaining the existing amount of
open space, but recommends that a distinct open space land use 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 applied 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
proposals 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, Planning Director
October 28, 1999
Page 3
Open space areas along E1 Camino Real, north of Escondido Village, should be
maintained. The loss of potential units at this location may be compensated by an
equivalent increase in units elsewherein 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 along El Camino Real.
Housing c’onstruction should be phased to occur early in the 10-year 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-campus ti0using.
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 Terr~de neighborhood, and mitigate impacts as appropriate.
Ms. Anne Draper, Planning Director
October 28, 1999
Page 4
The Plan should include information on Stanford’s trails and pathways and clearly
indicate future intentions 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 school should be clearly identified, and ideally these
locations should be west A[~a Street and E1 Camino Real. These locations should not
include 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.
Land Use
Palo Alto agrees with the generalized 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.otage (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-residential building area, should include total allowable building square
footage information so an accurate comparison can be made between this Plan and the
1989 GUP.
The Plan should include a section on all 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 dwelling 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
October 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 in~dpenden~t’~ntity 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 regarding 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 recommendations and comments.are of
assistance.
Mayor
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
Attachment B
October 20, 2000
TO:
FROM:
City Council Members
Ad Hoc Advisory Committee Regarding Stanford University Community
Plan and GUP
SUBJECT: Comments on Stanford’s Community Plan and GUP
At the October 16, 2000 joint City Council/Planning and Transportation Commission
hearing on the Stanford University Community Plan/GUP, the Council appointed an ad
hoc Advisory Committee to represent the Commission in providing comments on the
Plan/GUP to the Council due to a lack of a quorum of Commissioners: The Committee
was comprised of Commission Chair Bialson and Commissioners Burt and Schmidt. The
Committee met on the evening of October 17 and discussed the Community Plan/GUP
for approximately two hours. The Committee generally supported the revised
Community Plan/GUP, noting that the modified Plan addressed many of the previous
issues raised by the Planning Commission in July during the EIR comment period. The
following is a summary of comments made by the Committee and arranged by individual
topics.
Academic Growth Boundary/Open Space Preservation
All three Committee members accepted a period of 25 years as. the minimum timeframe
for preserving and protecting the open space lands outside the Academic Growth
Boundary (AGB) from future development, although permanent open space is the
preferred objective. The Committee also supported staff’s recommendation of an AGB
coterminous with the City ofPalo Alto’s Urban Growth Boundary. Commissioner Burt
advocated greater public access for open space lands outside the AGB. Recognizing the
potential conflict between open space retention and public access, he supported
monitoring and policing the area through a cooperative program between the City and the
University. Commissioners Bialson and Schmidt supported the exclusion of the Lathrop
area within the AGB.
Stanford Golf Course Hole #I/Area B Housing Site
All three Committee members supported the preservation of Hole # 1 of the Stanford Golf
Course andthe development of housing on the Area B Site presently included in the Sand
Hill Road Development Agreement as a "no-build" area. The Committee was pleased
that the Plan saved Hole #1 but did not result in a loss of housing.
Housing
Given the shortage of housing in ~the area, the Committee supported housing along E1
Camino Real near the campus entrance as identified in the Community Plan and contrary
to the staff recommendation. A study to determine the appropriate setback from the E1
Camino Real was supported by Commissioner Schmidt. Commissioner Bialson
recognized the significance of the El Camino Real as a view corridor but considers
housing along E1 Camino Real an important component of the Plan, since transit services
already exist along the street and housing in this area should alleviate impacts to the
College Terrace neighborhood. Commissioner Bialson further pointed out: 1) The
present "Arboretum" can be viewed as an impediment to pedestrians and bicyclists who
wish to go from Palo Alto to the campus; 2) the type of housing being proposed will
likely have additional Occupants that are not attending or working at Stanford and, as
such, might be commuting and using transit facilities; 3) the location of the proposed
intermodal transit hub and the plans to make the entire Palm Drive/University Avenue
connection more attractive to pedestrians would appear to make it more appropriate to
intensify housing along El Camino Real; 4) services in addition to transit, such as
neighborhood-serving retail, could easily be located at nearby pedestrian-accessible
Town and Country Village; and, 5) providing housing along E1 Camino Real would act as
a replacement for the loss of housing currently planned for the Mayfield site.
The three Committee members also supported intensification of the campus to provide
additional housing. Commissioner Burt suggested that the Plan should encourage retail
service expansion within housing developments on campus to internalize trips and
thereby reduce impacts off site.
Transportation
The Committee supported the no net new trips concept and preparation of an Integrated
Transportation Plan to address traffic/circulation impacts from the campus on
surrounding areas. It was proposed that the Marguerite shuttle be extended to East Palo
Alto and that campus bicycle routes be improved to provide better linkages to other areas
to further reduce traffic impacts. Commissioner Bialson supported the cessation of
building permit issuance subsequent to three years of non-compliance of the no net new
commute trips standard. In addition, Commissioner Bialson also emphasized the need to
develop a monitoring methodology for the standard that would accurately capture trips to
and from the campus.
Community Facilities
All three Commissioners were supportive of the proposal by Stanford to lease the
Mayfield site to the City of Palo Alto for a community facility. Commissioner Burt felt
that any transferable development rights given to Stanford as a result of the lease
agreement should be for additional housing, not office development, since the site is
currently planned and zoned for housing.
In closing, the Committee recognized the significant amount of growth that the Plan
proposes and the importance of careful planning and wise management of that growth.
The Draft Minutes of the ad hoc Advisory Committee meeting are appended to this
memorandum.
1
2
3
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
Special Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting
of the Planning and Transportation Commission
October 17, 2000
DRAFT VERBATIM MINUTES
Chair Bialson: I will call this meeting of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Planning
Commission to order. (The roll is called) Present: Chair Bialson; Commissioner
Schmidt, Commissioner Burt. Am I correct in assuming that we do not have to take any
public comment this evening?
Ms. Furth: You are an ad hoc advisory commission, so at this point, since you do not
have any continuing jurisdiction, I do not believe there is anything on which to hold
public comment.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. We are going to use this meeting to give our thoughts to staff
with regard to the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) and the public testimony that we
heard yesterday. I am trying to determine, considering all the participants, what would be
the best format to use. Commissioners, I am of the mind to allow questions of staff, and
then from there, go on to allow each commissioner, in turn, to give their general
impressions, and then speak to the significant issues that were identified by staff
yesterday, five in number. In the handout that indicated the summary of significant
issues, we had the Academic Growth Boundary/Open Space Preservation, Preserving
Stanford Golf Course Hole # 1 and Providing Housing, Housing, Transportation and
Community Facilities. Is that agreeable to the commissioners? It seems to be. Let’s start
with questions of staff. I see we also have Mr. Horton and other representatives from
Stanford. Should there be some questions of them, I think they would be happy to come
up and answer those. Let’s start with Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: First, I would like to ask .Ed if there are any follow-up comments or
thoughts that you have had since last night, as a result of the public comments or for any
other reasons?
Mr. Gawf: I have several thoughts from last night, but I am trying to collect them and
focus them on our item tonight. The major thing we, as staff, are trying to do is to take
the comments from last night, plus your comments made tonight, and over the next two
days, we will be working on a report that will go to council next Monday night that will
be a draft of a letter that will eventually go to the Board of Supervisors as the formal city
recommendation. So I would encourage you to give us your thoughts tonight, even if they
are somewhat random, because we are trying to put them into a logical organization, and
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
we can plug them in at the right location. I would say that of the five items we identified,
as I went through them last night, most of them have been addressed in some way or
another. I would ask you to comment on how they have been addressed. There are a
couple of other that are still issues, especially the open space. I think that is a question of
how we define at least 25 years with the ultimate goal of permanent preservation. What
does that mean, and how does this work toward that goal? I think the other two that I
mentioned were the housing item, with housing being okay along E1 Camino Real,
especially Parcel D and, I believe, Parcel I. Especially troublesome is the county staff
recommendation that the setback be 25 feet from E1 Camino Real. Even if you allow
some development along the E1 Camino frontage, 25 feet seems extremely small.
The final one for which we are still trying to craft some final language is the one on
transportation. That is one where the county planning staff has identified intersections
that would be impacted and that the No Net New Commute Trips standard would be
adhered to. If some reason that is not met within, I believe, a two-year period, then the
cost of those intersection or transportation improvements would be calculated, with the
monies given to the appropriate jurisdiction, which could spend the money either on
intersection improvements or other transportation improvements. That is very similar to
what we did with the medical center, which I think is good. It is also one that we were
looking at whether that is it? Or should we be looking at some other approaches to that.
So that may be another area where you want to make comments.
Finally, I would say that we have gone through the documents, and like you, we got them
last week. If you have gone through them and seen things that you think we should really
look at, I would ask that you call our attention to them. We are asking you to help us
review the documents, as well. I would anticipate a fairly free form kind of discussion
tonight, giving us your thoughts. We will try to organize them into a planning
commission and staff response to the council next Monday.
Commissioner Burt: Ed, is it Thursday night that the County Planning Commission
meets?
Mr. Gawf: The County Planning Commission is meeting two nights. The first meeting
is tomorrow night in the council chambers. Thursday evening, I believe they are meeting
in Santa Clara County, and I assume, at the courthouse.
Ms. Furth: Their agenda says that tomorrow’s meeting is the hearing, and the following
evening is the deliberation.
Commissioner Burt: And are you planning on presenting city positions at the meeting
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2,~
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3,~
35
36
37
38
39
,~0
tomorrow evening?
Mr. Gawfi That is a good question that we have been discussing today, because as of yet,
we do nothave a final city position. If I did go, I think I would propose to give them a
status report as to where we are, that is, hand out the materials that you received in your
packet, outlining the major issues, plus the prior formal communications that we sent the
county on this. I would indicate that we are still reviewing it. I know that when the
Board of Supervisors reviews this on October 30th, there will be a council presence at the
Board of Supervisors meeting to present the city position.
Chair Bialson: Just a thought. I think it would be important for you to be there to make
whatever presentation you feel comfortable in making, in light of how recent the
thoughts, etc., that were put forward to you both from us and from individuals in the
public, and also to be available for questions and also to indicate where we have areas of
great interest, and perhaps need a little more input or assistance in reaching resolution
with Stanford.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would agree with what Annette said. I feel it is very important
to have a city presence before the Planning Commission there, too.
Chair Bialson: Kathy, do you have any questions of staff or Stanford?
Commissioner Schmidt: Yes. For clarification on the proposed community plan, to
clarify that indeed, this is still with both documents, it is still general in the way that
Stanford must still come before the county for specific.projects for review, and the county
still may say yay or nay, or modify per project. Is that correct?
Mr. Gawf: Yes, that is correct. Let me also add that Luke Connelly is present, and he has
reviewed the documents, as well as Lisa Grote, our Chief Planning Official, so feel free to
help me on this, as well.’ The way I read it, it is exactly the way it has worked. That is,
this is an overall approval, but individual projects and the details of those would come
forward. They would be referred to the city for our comments and recommendations
through planning staff, and it would go through the normal county processes, primarily
architectural and design review. But the broad impacts, the square footage, items of that
sort, would be set as part of this document.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would like clarification from staff. In one of your recent
letters and recent documents, you talk about the 50-year time frame for the academic
growth boundaries, but were talking about 25 years for preservation of open space.
Would you comment on 25 versus 50, and do they fit together?
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4~
5
6
8
10
11
12
13
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3~
35
36
38
~0
Mr. Gawf: Yes, they were intended to go together. What we were looking at was, again,
the council direction was at least 25 years, with the ultimate goal of permanent
preservation. So we were looking at a time frame that was beyond the 25 years, trying to
quantify, if you would, what might not be absolute, permanent preservation, but at least
something that was more extensive or longer than the minimum of 25 years. That is how
we came up with the 50. As the staff memo indicated, it was our attempt to quantify, if
you will, that more permanent designation. Clearly even at 50 years, it is not permanent,
but that was the thought process behind it. It was intended to be open space and the
AGB. They are one and the same, in effect, for that purpose.
Commissioner Schmidt: I still have potentially the two different time frames.
Mr. Gawf." Yes, something that could be that, although I think the purpose of the AGB is
to define that line between what is open space and what is urban development. So how
long that line stays there does influence how long the .open space stays as open space.
That is why they are tied together.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. I need another clarification related to my first question.
You were saying that each project still needs to go to the county. I believe it says that it is
also possible that things could be in different locations. There have been housing sites
identified, but there may be different housing sites ultimately proposed three years from
now, or next year, whenever, as Stanford does more specific planning about specific
projects. Is that also correct?
Mr. Co .nnolly: Yes, it is, and it is the way that-the general use permit is laid out. It has a
lot of flexibility with square footage, whether it housing or not even being able to be
transferred from what they have identified as the ten districts. I look at that mostly
conceptually as to where that development is supposed to go. The unit counts are actually
pretty precise, but it does give them flexibility to move them from certain areas to other
areas.
Chair Bialson: Commissioner Burt, do you have some other questions?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. Last night, when there was discussion about the linkage
between the academic development and the housing, Stanford expressed a concern that, in
essence, there is potential for them to be held hostage on their academic development if
they get external pressure or resistance toward some. of the housing locations. That would
be an unfair constraint on their growth if they were willing to build the housing but were
City of Palo Alto Page 4
6
7
8
9
I0
II
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
2~
25
26
28
29
3O
31
32
33
3~
35
36
37
38
39
&O
constrained from doing so for other reasons. What are your thoughts on how much that
might occur? To what degree are the housing locations being specified in the GUP would
prevent or mitigate that potentiality?
Mr. Gawf: I think your last point is probably the most significant point. That is, there has
been a lot of community discussion about housing locations, and yes, there may be some
flexibility. I think we all have looked at the map and have seen the locations they are
proposing to provide housing, what type of housing, and what number, actually. In any
kind of longer-term planning document, I guess there are always some unknowns - - ifs,
ands, things like that. That certainly could be argued in this case. I think that housing is a
community need. I think it is recognized not only on the Stanford campus, but off the
Stanford campus, as well, so I think that if it is an issue or a potentiality, I think it is a
very minor or low potentiality. The housing will be reviewed on its own merits, and the
idea of linking it to the academic construction I think is a good way of tying the impacts
together that you are adding space for potentially more employees, more students, and
you ate accommodating that increase in students at the same time. It is a good way to link
the two.
Commissioner Burt: Annette, .in our forum tonight, can we be informal and ask Stanford
to comment at different points in time on subjects as we are asking questions of staff’?.
Can they provide their input concurrently?
Chair Bialson: Yes, I would appreciate Stanford’s input. I would also appreciate
commissioners asking specific questions, having just those questions be what Stanford
responds to, rather than going on. If those are the ground rules, I am comfortable with
that. If we go beyond that, I will have to interrupt either the commissioners or Stanford. I
see that our counsel has input here.
Ms. Furth: As you know, since you are an ad hoc advisory committee, you have some
interesting questions here, but I think that your approach is correct. There was a public
hearing, and it was closed. Under your ordinary procedures, you are free to question
anybody who spoke at that hearing who is present tonight, not just Stanford, and of
course, staff. It probably would not be appropriate to have essentially new testimony.
Chair Bialson: So given that constraint, are there questions that you have specifically to
direct to staff’?.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, there is. Wynne can tell me when I get off base. I was
interested in Stanford’s response to the perspective that Ed just provided on whether the
plan specifying housing locations will go far enough to alleviate some of your concerns
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1z}
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
2~
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
3~
35
37
38
39
~0
about the linkage between academic growth and housing growth.
Mr. Hortom I am glad that you asked this question about linkage, because it is very
important to us. We accept the notion of linkage. We accept the idea of linking housing
commensurably with academic development. So we are there. In fact, we also accept the
notion that Stanford should apply for the housing, that we should pursue it diligently
through the process, all in compliance with the community plan, in compliance with
zoning, and that when the housing is approved, we accept that it should be constructed in
a rigorous time schedule to put it online. We want the housing. Our sole concern is that
we not be penalized for decisions on anything that is beyond our control. If there is any
way to link our access to this, we support it, but if for any reason, in any location, there is
a decision made not to build the number of units we wish to, and which we have been
directed to, if we have applied for those, and for reasons beyond our control, it is not
approved, we do not think that should prevent us from building classrooms or other. So
we really are very pro-linkage. We want the linkage to be through our actions, and we do
not want to be held accountable for other people’s actions that deny us what we really
want to do.
Commissioner Burt: Larry, would it be accurate to say that you would be comfortable
with a program that would require that your applications for housing be concurrent with
your applications for academic construction, and that you would be applying not only on a
concurrent time line but have a construction time line that would be concurrent?
Mr. Horton: Let me ask Mr. Newman wken we get to technical details and make sure that
he does not have a different point of view.
Mr. Newman: The question you are asking about concurrence is technical in the sense
that there are different schedules for different sorts of construction. I think that within a
certain degree of tolerance, yes. There is the issue of how much construction can occur, in
a certain area at a certain point in time. So the answer is yes and no, in terms of doing it.
In certain proportionate categories, yes, but to have them exactly tied to one another, I
think, would be extremely difficult.
Chair Bialson: Let me interject here. I think we are getting into too much of a detailed
point here. What we are talking about now can quite often be worked out between
attorneys more easily than between parties. What is good faith advancing a project versus
whose fault it is that it does not go forward, I think, is something that our planning staff
and planners at Stanford can work through.
Ms. Furth: I have one comment, which is that in the County’s report, Pages 11-12, it talks
O~y of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
3~
35
36
37
38
39
~0
about Stanford’s concern about linkage and the County’s acknowledgment that not
everything is under Stanford’s control. So county staff does not hold up housing as
penalties but rather, that housing is essential mitigation for the impacts of the
construction, so they need to come together. Their procedure for dealing with these
unknown and unknowable events, such as the discovery of a new fault or a~new rare
species or recategorization of an existing species, is to have a provision in the use permit
itself that allows Stanford, if these circumstances arise, to petition to have the linkage
waived. The county would make that decision at the time, rather than having an
automatic decoupling ahead of time.
Commissioner Burt: That sounds good. At our previous review of the EIR I think it was,
a number of commissioners, including myself, expressed concerns about how the public
access to open space might be addressed. In last night’s presentation, I did not hear
anything that was a follow-up to that. Is that addressed in some way in the plan?
Mr. Gawf: I am going to ask Luke to help me as to whether it is addressed in the plan, or
not. Let me go to documents where it is addressed in Attachment A. It is the letter to
Ann Draper from myself and the City Planning department. We do talk about access, and
we do recognize Stanford’s role as steward of the property, responsible for the
maintenance of it. That is on Page 11, the first bullet point. The city recognizes that
Stanford is the steward of its open space areas and should be the entity in control of
access to such areas. However, I think we also tried to recognize that it is important for
the community, and there is a need to balance this long-term preservation with ongoing
recreational uses. What we said at the time is that the city recommends that when
limiting access to certain open space areas, the community plan explains why access is
being limited. There needs to be some process in which this is done, rather than just
unilaterally without any explanation or communication. That is how we addressed it. I
know that it was raised again last night, and it is still an issue, which I feel is one of the
more difficult ones, because we are dealing with a private property owner. But it is one, I
think, that is used and is important to the residents in this area, in some ways, as a relief
from the more urban growth on the Stanford campus, as well as the rest of the City of
Palo Alto. In our comments previously, Owen even spoke of it as a mitigation for loss of
open space in the core campus. Is this an occasion where it is appropriate to ask Stanford
for additional comment on this?
Ms. Furth: If you want to direct them specifically to what they have. I believe they did
comment in one of their previous statements, which they could perhaps reiterate. If you
look in Chapter 5 of the Community Plan, Pages 78-79, the Community Plan is basically
an element of the General Plan. It is a little drop-in general plan that covers Stanford
lands. It has policies such as requiring dedication of Stanford trails consistent with the
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
6
8
9
i0
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3~
35
36
38
39
~0
county-wide trails master plan, a plan to design and development trails on Stanford lands
in a manner that is consistent with the policies articulated in the county trail plan,
encourage access to the foothills, but as far as Luke and I know, there is not any
implementation of that in the proposed general use permit.
Mr. Connolly: Again, I just want to add that on Page 73 in the same document, Stanford
is acknowledging that there are popular recreational destinations throughout the area for
open space. This is not in the policy but just in the text. They acknowledge that they are
pretty much not in that business, however, and do not have the staff to necessarily
maintain and operate this as public open space. Essentially, this land was originally
intended as academic reserve, so I think there is an acknowledgment that this is used
widely by the public, but nothing locking in the maintenance of that, other than those two
trails, I believe, that would be dedicated as easements.
Chair Bialson: I would like to ask a question about the so-called Arboretum. I think it is
identified as core campus open space. Does that have the same number of years applied
to it with regard to how long it is to maintain status as open space? I do not believe so,
but I am questioning you.
Mr. Connolly: I do not believe it does. My read on the document is that it is things that
would be outside the academic growth boundary, not inside. So the county, if they were
to want to develop on that land, would need to change the land use designation, but not
modify the academic growth boundary.
Ms. Furth: And essentially, none of the open space designations have time lines on them.
Those that are designated as open space on the southwest side of Junipero Serra do not
have a time line on them, and neither do the core campus ones. It is the academic growth
boundary that raises questions about whether this is transitional or not.
Chair Bialson: I appreciate what you are saying. That is both a concern and a hope that
the Arboretum is not off limits, so to speak.
Mr. Gawfi The community plan, I think, is just that. It is a community plan that stays in
place until and unless it is amended, but it can be amended from time to time. Certainly
within the academic growth boundary, it may be amended from time to time as conditions
change.
Chair Bialson: It seems to me, as we go on, that the academic growth boundary and the
length of time, the location of it, as well as its length in time, is something that is a key
issue and should probably be a point that is addressed by the commissioners and allow all
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
of our thoughts out at one time. Is that okay with staff and commissioners?
Commissioner Burt: Are you referring to questions to staff, or are we now getting into a
comment phase?
Chair Bialson: I would rather get into a comment phase at this point with regard to that,
unless you have some questions related to that particular point.
Commissioner Burt: No, I am just trying to understand what is going to be our process
this evening. Are you going to want to go through each of the main subject areas with
questions and comments on that subject area? Or do we go through questions on all of
the subject areas, then comments later, as you had originally indicated?
Chair Bialson: I think this open space item is of such import and colors a lot of the other
issues that we have that I, as Chair, would prefer to have the discussion with regard to
open space and the length of time that the AGB discussed at this point. If that is not in
line with your thinking, perhaps you could share why.
Commissioner Burt: I just wanted to know which process we are going to follow. I guess
I have a follow-up questio, n to staff on it which has to do with the location of the
boundaries. We had some discussion last night about the latest sculpting of the Lathrop
property as the primary issue, and then also some of the issues about the growth boundary
in the vicinity of the golf course, our current growth boundary versus the prospective one.
Maybe Ed or Luke can refresh us on your position at this time.
Mr. Gawf: Yes, and we are going to put this on the overhead, too, as the map illustrates
very clearly the two areas that we are referring to. The first is the area on the south and
west side of JSB and is commonly known as the Lathrop property. This is an area that is
beyond our urban growth boundary, and I feel that it should be beyond the proposed
academic growth boundary, as well. We do recognize that there is existing development
there, but it is not uncommon, in fact, the county proposed plan does talk about
nonconforming uses may continue, and that is exactly what .would happen. The existing
development that is beyond JSB is a very low-intensity kind of development, as well.
You can see the area that is being referred to, and the way I read the proposed county
community plan, it does allow for additional development to occur in the so-called
Lathrop property of approximately 20,000 square feet, and also an additional 20,000
square feet for the Carnegie Building. More simply stated, approximately 40,000 square
feet of additional development could occur there, including the Carnegie building. We at
staff are saying that we do not think that should be within the urban growth boundary, and
that should occur at this time.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
The other area is referred to as Hole # 1. What we are proposing is that the academic
growth boundary parallel the housing development shown in orange on the map. So the
golf course, in its entirety, would be outside of the academic growth boundary to reflect
the open space nature of it, and the fact that if the development agreement for Sand Hill
Road is changed, Hole #1 is also then identified as open space for that period of time. So
those are the two areas of concern.
Commissioner Burt: The status of the Carnegie permit is what at this time?
Mr. Gawf: I will give you my best understanding of it at this time. Stanford may have a
more complete understanding. My understanding is that it is in process, it is being
reviewed, it has not gone before the Board of Supervisors, and I am not sure of the
Planning Commission, as of yet. My assumption is that it is being delayed until after the
community plan and GUP have been acted upon, which is, at least, our recommendation
that we made last summer.
Commissioner Burt: Does staff have any opinions on the prospect of allowing the
Carnegie permit and not the additional 20,000 square feet that requested?
Mr. Gawf: Yes, in fact, I would look at it in a couple of ways. One is that there should
be some potential for expansion of some of the existing buildings and uses that are there.
There may be some growth that should occur, and very appropriately over the years. I
think it is a different question when you are talking about a new use that goes there. The
40,000 square feet (and Luke help me on this as I know there are different versions and I
want to make sure this is correct), the 40,000 square feet includes 20,000 square feet for
the Carnegie Building, which is a new use in a 20,000-square-foot building. The other
portion, at least in the past, was divided into up to 20,000 square feet with no individual
building being more than 5,000 square feet. I do not know if that is still in the plan or
not.
Mr. Connolly: What there is in the general use permit conditions of approval that we
received what is now called the Foothills District, which is pretty much everything on the
south and west side of Junipero Serra that is not Lathrop. You could have 15,000 square
feet of development still occur in the Foothill District with no individual structure being
allowed larger than 5,000 square feet. The general use permit community plan allows
20,000 square feet of development on Lathrop. That 20,000 square feet is not the
Carnegie project.
Commissioner Burt: The 20,000 square feet that is not the Carnegie project, can that be
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
2~
28
29
30
31
32
33
3~
35
36
32’
38
39
,~0
built as one 20,000-square-foot building, or must it be built in smaller increments?
Mr. Connolly: It is my reading that it could be one 20,000-square-foot building.
Commissioner Burt: Ed, what would you think about separating the 20,000 square feet
that are currently requested for the Carnegie facility from the additional 20,000 square
feet that they are perspectively wanting for some undefined building?
Mr. Gawf: One could certainly do that, In my mind, I am lumping those two together,
saying that it is new development beyond what I think should be the academic growth
boundary. Certainly, one could look at it is as the Carnegie coming in requesting prior to,
and therefore, actually prior to the submission of the plan itself, the community plan and
the general use permit application. It therefore has different status, if you will, than
anything that might come in in the future. So one could look at it that way. I am looking
at it as additional uses beyond what I think should be the limit of urban growth.
Chair Bialson: So you are saying that possibly the Carnegiecomes in there with some
sort of vested rights?
Mr. Gawf: No, what I was trying to say is that one could look at the Carnegie in a
different light than as a new use coming in tomorrow or next year, because they did
submit prior to the application for the community plan and the general use permit. They
were using the procedures under the old general use permit, which did allow that kind of
amendment to be proposed. I am saying that from my perspective, I would put the two
together, and say, both of them are proposing to put significant buildings beyond what I
think should be the academic growth boundary, and I would not support them.
Chair Bialson: Including the Carnegie building.
Mr. Gawf: Yes.
Chair Bialson: Does that answer your question, Pat?
Commissioner Burt: Yes.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a small question about the academic growth boundary.
Just a clarification that what is shown there that is proposed by Palo Alto would put the
13 acres that would potemially change to be housing that is currently open space on the
Palo Alto side, or the El Camino side of the academic growth boundary, so it would be
included in a growth area.
City of Palo Alto Page I I
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
I0
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3~
36
37
38
39
40
Mr. Gawf." Yes, it would.
Chair Bialson: At this point, I would like to discuss the boundaries and location of the
academic growth boundary and the length of time we would want to see that in existence.
Is that something that would assist you at this point so that we can clarify that, and then
go on to the other issues?
Mr. Gawf: Yes, I think it would. Any ideas or any thoughts you have on it, again, I will
be sure to collect those and pass them on to the City Council, plus we, as staff, will use
them or consider them as we make our final recommendations to the council.
Chair Bialson: Are any commissioners prepared to speak to this specific point now?
Commissioner Burt: Well, I think the community has struggled over whether a 25-year
limit adequately meets their long-term vision of protection of the open space. I think that
a year ago, we probably were hoping that we could achieve some long-term protection, a
minimum of 25 years. Now we have arrived, through a lot of negotiation and additional
efforts on behalf of all parties, with quite a narrowing of the differences between the
city’s position and Stanford’s position on it. I am really encouraged by Stanford’s
willingness to accept a 25-year limitation. My long-term vision is that the long-term
growth of Stanford should remain in the core campus area, but I think that if we have the
adequate safeguards so that we do not revisit this in three years, as we have done with the
Sand Hill properties, albeit that is a tradeoff of open space, then I would be willing to
accept a 25-year limitation on it.
Chair Bialson: And location?
Commissioner Burt: Well, I think that the staff proposal of limiting the boundary at
Junipero Serra Boulevard is the appropriate limitation. The revision of the growth
boundary reflecting the exchange on the Sand Hill property is also a reasonable one, so I
support staff’s position on both of those.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question for Pat. When you were talking about 25
years, is it for the academic growth boundary, and therefore, the open space on the south
and west sides of Junipero Serra?
Commissioner Burt: Yes, and perhaps Ed can clarify, but it seems that if they cannot
grow academic facilities, including housing supporting the academic in that zone, then it
is a de facto 25-year open space preservation. Is that a correct interpretation?
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2 Mr. Gawf: That is my interpretation of it. And let me just refer you to Page 12 of the
3 county staff dra~ Stanford community plan, where it does talk about this topic. The 25
4 y~arts, and it is importantcto note in the first paragraph, last sentence under Academic
5 6rowth Boundary timing, it says, "The county intends that the AGB will remain in the
6 established location for a period of at least 25 years." And somewhere else, it does talk
7 about thedefinition of the academic growth boundary, which is basically the line that
8 separates urban growth from open space. Linking those two together, that is how I would
9 read it.
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
Commissioner Schmidt: What Pat is saying and what you are saying is different from
what Ed, you said earlier, where you would want to keep the academic growth boundary
at a 50-year time frame.
Mr. Gawf: Earlier, we were Wing to reflect the longer-term preservation of open space,
so we were trying to come up with a number that could reflect that. That is how we came
up with 50. But the duration is really a political decision, a policy decision when I say
that, that the Planning Commission should weigh in on and on which the council should
give direction next Monday.
Commissioner Schmidt: I wanted to clarify that. I think we all have the goal of
permanent protection of that open space, but as Pat said, I think there has been a lot of
discussion and compromise that has gone on since this started, so it would also be helpful
if we start out with a 25-year time frame so that we can later go to more permanent
protection.
Commissioner Burt: I just wanted to ensure that the language reflects that it is a
minimum of 25 years, not just 25 years.
Mr. Gawf: Again, I think one can read it, and it says that the county intends that the AGB
will remain in the established location for a period of at least 25 years. So it does say, at
least 25 years.
Ms. Furth: Actually, in their last draft, they took out "intends" and it says, "it will." One
of the things we have all been struggling with on the staff side is that we have the
council’s clear desire and direction that much of this foothills land essentially be
permanent open space. It is very hard to figure out what is the best way to move toward
that goal. Roger Pierce, who does a lot of the environmental work for the city on this,
pointed out to us that we should not get overly entangled with the academic growth
boundary as opposed to the land use designations. This is a great big parcel of land, and
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
34
35
36
38
39
40
some of it, of course, is in the city. Some of the most intensively developed land is in the
city. From an environmental point of view and from a legal point of view, you look at the
land as a whole. Then the question is, of course, what level of development is appropriate
for this land, viewed as a whole? It may be that in that context, the open space
designation is appropriate for a very long time, if not forever. If this were designated, for
example, under the hillsides designation, the foothills portion, which the county uses for
other privately owned hillsides, the of-right development potential is 13 houses. Of
course, instead, they prefer clustering, in which 90 percent of the land is permanent,
dedicated open space, even if it is not necessarily accessible. So, one of the interesting
things about this that we have commented on, as have other cities, is that not only is
Stanford unique in the world as itself and rare among universities because of its extensive
land holdings, but it is unique in the zoning and planning system for the county. It is the
only urbanized area that is unincorporated, so it presents them with a unique set of
challenges in terms of both zoning and general plan designations. Their strategy in the
past has essentially been to have a Stanford lands designation in the general plan which
has, unlike other general plan designations, no intensity of development standards in it.
They are now moving to a community plan which is much more elaborated, but still, does
not use the kind of quantification that we are used to thinking about, and the zoning for
all but the residential subdivided areas is still agricultural. We have suggested, but we are
not sure whether they agreed with us, that it really would be important, as part of our
moving toward a longer term strategy, to think about what is the appropriate zoning for
this area so that this notion of long-term planning, which permits transit-dependent
development and clustering, essentially, of development happens in a way that gives
Stanford what it need~ while preserving the open space.
Chair Bialson: Kathy, do you have any further comments?
Commissioner Schmidf: I definitely support staffs recommendation on the location of
the academic growth boundary. I think that following Junipero Serra and then going off
around the golf course Hole # 1 to Sand Hill Road is the right location for it. I would also
support the separate recommendation on the lack of development in the Lathrop area, and
the two 20,000-square-foot allotments I would not support. I also want to comment that I
looked at our minutes from the EIR discussion, and indeed, we all spoke of permanent
protection for the foothill lands. I certainly hope that that is where we are going. A 25-
year chunk is a good start, and I hope that we are there even before 25 years, and that we
have an opportunity to make it a permanent situation.
Chair Bialson: I very much appreciated Wynne’s comments, because they go to my view
of this situation. I think the use of an AGB, somewhat like an urban boundary, is driven
by two things. One, most of all, is the encouraging of Stanford to use compact
CRy of Paio Alto Page 14
1
2
3
5
6
8
10
11
12
13
lz~
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
28
29
30
32
33
35
~6
38
~0
development principles, and two, to appropriately intensify development. Since we do
not seem to be able to have zoning that requires a certain minimum intensity of use, the
only other tool we seem to have is this AGB. I, too, appreciate open space, but I also
appreciate Stanford’s needs for flexibility. I would not expect them to dedicate this land
for our open space visual and other enjoyment for permanent purposes, so I agree with the
25 years. I am a little frustrated that we do not have the tools to accomplish what we
want, which is the intensification of uses of land that is within the boundaries. As to the
location, I agree with staffs placing of the boundary so that the Lathrop District is outside
of that boundary.
As to the uses within the Lathrop District, I am feeling a little more flexible about those.
I just do not have enough information with regard to the fairness of putting this boundary
on Stanford after the fact, that is, the application for the Carnegie Institute. I would like
to work with Stanford to see what could be accomplished if they wished to put Carnegie
there, because I can understand the desire to put a think tank somewhere that is a less
intensive use than I hope the core campus is ultimately going to be.
I also want to make a comment that several speakers talked about the issue of Stanford
being willing to lease land for 51 years, etc., somehow tying the application of permanent
open space to that same length of time. I see the two as being totally unrelated on a
number of bases, but for the purposes that Stanford may have, it always has the
_opportunity, when it leases land for 51 years, or 99 years, to buy that land back, should it
so choose, should it find that its needs have changed and that it must use the land for
whatever purpose of its own. It has done so, which is my understanding. It has actually
bought back some of its leases that it granted previously, so to impose an extraordinarily
long time would not seem appropriate to me. I think we may have addressed your
significant issue # 1 through this discussion, which is AGB/open space. Is that correct,-
Ed? (Yes)
Commissioner Burt: I have a comment on the open space issue. I want to speak a little
more on the third major aspect of it, which is the access. But before doing so, I feel that
the point that was made on leases maybe is not relevant, one way or the other, but when
Stanford buys back a lease, I believe they do it only with the consent of the lessee. I don’t
think there is a prerogative to unilaterally drop the lease, so it would be the same
circumstance whether it is 25 years or 50 years, that it needs to be a pretty firm
preservation, no matter what the number of years that we place on the open space.
Chair Bialson: I believe I was speaking of permanent open space, rather than something
that is limited by a number of years with regard to open space. I may have misspoken, or
you may have misheard. Let’s proceed to the next item.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
3~
35
36
37
38
39
~0
1
2 Commissioner Burt: Yes. On the access, as we heard from staff, some of the language
3 that is in the county report suggests that Stanford’s position on the access is one that
z~might be willing to acknowledge some regional objectives in trail systems, etc. From my
5 perspective, I would like to see a greater acknowledgment from Stanford of the role of
6 public access to the open space. I think that the claims that they do not have the ability to
7 police it or regulate it in that way might be able to be addressed in some other ways. For
8 the areas that they preserve right now, they have volunteer organizations that help in
9 ¯ preservation and monitoring of the open space. There may be ways in which that can be
10 done. We have seen recently a lot of expense for having enforcement of~estrictions on
the dish area. I think there could be a cooperative program that would truly help preserve
the ecology of the open space areas while providing public access without having undue
financial hardship on Stanford to achieve that. Frankly, I think it creates an opportunity
for a cooperative approach between the surrounding communities and the users of that
open space and Stanford to build a greater relationship there. Some of the recent actions
that Stanford has taken, for whatever reasons, have helped undermine some of the support
that Stanford has had. I would certainly like to encourage not only staff to pursue this
issue, but also for Stanford to reexamine and explore opportunities to create some
partnerships that truly preserve the open space and treat the public access of it as a way in
which Stanford could help build support for their efforts.
Chair Bialson: If there are no further comments, do you want to go on to Item #2,
Commissioner Schmidt?
Commissioner Schmidt: Yes, as long as we have an opportunity at the end to have some
general comments other than on the five areas.
Chair Bialson: Absolutely. Are your thoughts, fellow commissioners, such that we can
address these items separately? What I am concerned about is the amount of time we are
going to spend on them, considering how much time we have spent on Item # 1. Are your
thoughts organized in such a fashion that you can speak to the five issues where Stanford
is looking for some direction on just simply, or do you want to have a general dialogue? I
am concerned about a general dialogue taking a very long time.
Commissioner Schmidt: We may have some more questions about each of these items as
we move along.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, I agree.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question on the next item. In last night’s public
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
testimony, Herb Borock mentioned the hazardous materials facility. I believe it says
somewhere in the county plan or in responses that that would not be relocated. If the
housing goes to that 13-acre area, would the hazardous materials facility then be
relocated? What is the situation there?
Mr. Gawf: I have a couple of responses, and then you may want to direct the question to
Stanford, as well. One of the advantages that this has is that there is one owner of both
parcels. So both can be controlled. Obviously, prior to any development at all, there
would be an examination of the environmental impacts of locating housing next to this
facility. My understanding is that the issues can be addressed, or it would not have been
proposed for housing. Prior to any review of the site for a specific housing plan, there
would be an environmental assessment conducted to determine that for certain.
Commissioner Schmidt: Would anyone from Stanford like to comment on this?
Mr. Newman: Could you repeat your question, Commissioner?
Commissioner Schmidt: It is in regard to putting housing in the newly proposed 13-acre
area and its relationship with the hazardous materials facility that is fairly close to that.
Mr. Newman: We did research that ourselves before we proposed that, and I think what
Ed just said is accurate, from my understanding of it. We would do a site-specific review
of that when any project is proposed for that area. In terms of the activities of that, there
are two functions that occur at the environmental safety facility, both of which are fully
permitted by the state, as well as by local agencies. One of them is the storage of
biochemical and low-level radioactive waste, principally from the hospital. That is stored
there for a period of time before it is removed by a licensed carrier..That is by law.
The second thing that is done there is that approximately every one-and-a-half to two
years, there is a burn of Certain low-level radioactive waste. That is the incinerator there.
It is also fully licensed and inspected under the current general use permit. As part of our
annual report, there is an item on that specific facility. There is also a community
oversight committee that is called at least once a year. In the early years, it was more
frequent than that. Very recently, the City of Menlo Park raised a question about that
with regard to some other activities, and they investigated it and decided that being a
licensed property, it was safe for the surrounding residential areas, including the Oak
Creek Apartments and the Allied Arts area. Once again, we would review that with the
county and by the three-party agreement with the city when and if we would proceed with
housing in that specific area, or with any other activity.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
Commissioner Butt: I have a question for Mr. Newman on another subject. As we look
at the great concern that has been placed on preservation of Hole #1 in the golf course,
treating it as an important open space area, it does not really strike a great chord for me as
being a real environmental issue. There may be other reasons, such as recreational, or
other values placed on it, but from an environmental standpoint, if we are going top
switch the boundary and place the golf course in our open space preserve, what sort of
practices are exercised by Stanford.to minimize the environmental impacts of a golf
course in the open space? There are a lot of poor environmental practices that are
traditionally exercised by golf courses, such as the use of fertilizers, pesticides, excessive
irrigation, a lot of things that go on in golf courses that have, in recent years, caused a
rethinking of a lot of these practices. Is Stanford exercising certain environmental
practices that will help preserv.e the native habitat and mitigate the damages?
Mr. Newman:. There are two answers to that, Commissioner Burt. One is that we are
trying, not only on our own lands but also on our lands that are leased, to establish best
managed practices, a kind of standard term of art now. That specifically is with regard to
the use of pesticides, fertilizers, over use of water, runoff crossing to the creeks, etc., the
same standards that we are applying to the various ranch areas, as we call them, the Pierce
Ranch, etc., as well as the nursery and our own golf course. So we have come a long
way, from the reports that I have read, in the last five years, in terms of abating those sorts
of practices that would lead to the sorts of concerns that I think you have expressed in
your question.
In terms of Hole #1 specifically, it is in within the agreed upon California Tiger
Salamander Management Zone currently, so in that regard, it has a second level of
oversight with regard to environmental practices. That includes the county, as well as the
state and federal agencies associated with that specific creature. Also, I might add, the
steel head trout are in the creek that abuts the golf course, as well. So we have those
issues, as well as working with the Joint Powers Authority in that regard, also. Last but
not least, I should mention that we are very proud of our oak trees, and as you have heard
from the golf community, as well you will hear from me, there is quite an effort to
preserve them as well as planting additional oak trees on the campus and the golf course.
Commissioner Burt: Do you have some prospective language that you think would
strengthen the goal of public access to the open space areas? Is that something that staff
could work up and present to the City Council?
Mr. Gawf: I have made note of your comment, and we will try to draft something so that
the council has an opportunity to determine whether they want to add that to their
comments in moving forward to the county.
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 18
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chair Bialson: I have no questions on Item #2, so would Commissioner Schmidt like to
make comments?
Commissioner Schmidt: I feel that it is a reasonable tradeoffto preserve Hole #1 and use
the 13 acres for housing that were previously preserved. It was noted in previous
testimony that the wholesale moving and recreation of a golf course is potentially an
environmental disaster. So keeping the golf course intact, whether it is an historic golf
course or just that it would be a better environmental practice, I think is the right way to
go. I am happy to hear that Stanford is promoting the best practices in the use of
irrigation, pesticides, etc.
Chair Bialson: I also support the trade for this reason of avoiding the disruption to plant
life and animals that. would be brought about by the switching and placement of the holes.
The fact that this in the tiger salamander management zone, it is certainly far better to
keep it as open space than to have it as housing. I also appreciated the testimony from
Mr. Lane, I believe it was, the ex-publisher of Sunset Magazine, that the historical
resource, which I think we can all agree on - - if we cannot agree on the golf course, I
think we can all agree on the red barn. For two reasons, one an esthetic reason and one of
having an appropriate setting of that barn, the open space around it allowed by Hole #1 is
far better than housing. I also think that for the individuals living there, if they were
around the aroma of the stable, they might find that a little distressing. I know that as you
walk along that area, at times it does have quite an aroma. They also have a lot of events
there which involve the use of loudspeakers with a lot of trailers on the site and a lot of
people on the site, going outside the area of the precise boundary of the red barn. So in
light of that, it makes sense for all parties concerned to keep Hole #1, and as long as the
view corridor along Sand Hill Road is not impacted, to have what is known as Parcel B
traded for that. That completes my comments with regard to that. Have we provided all
that you are looking for with Item #2, because Item #3 is also with regard to housing.
Mr. Gawf: Yes. Area #2 really was in regard to Hole # 1, and you have responded
sufficiently to that.
Chair Bialson: Are there any further questions with regard to Item #3?
Commissioner Burt: Ed, earlier in your comments, you had expressed concern with the
25-foot setback along E1 Camino. Is there an alternative setback that you think would be
more appropriate?
Mr. Gawf: Our recommendation is that housing not be placed on Parcels D and I. So that
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
3
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
35
36
38
39
would eliminate the need for consideration of the setback. Secondly, if that is not done,
what I would suggest is tagging on to the county wording some wording about Stanford
must prepare a streetscape plan along E1 Camino to b~~ .~pproved by the county and
reviewed by the city prior to any residential developme~t to establish what are the
appropriate setbacks buffers relationship of the building to the street hnd to the
community at large. That is fine as astatement, if you are going to have Some
development, and in addition, adding a 25-foot setback I think sort of predetermines
something that should not be done at this time.
Commissioner Burt: Your proposal sounds like a good one. I will be interested in
whether the other commissioners like that concept as a way to address the setback.
Commissioner Schmidt: The county staff report suggestion? I do.
Commissioner Burt: Was it the county staff report that suggested that, or the city staff
report?
Mr. Gawf: The county staff report suggested the 25-foot setback as part ofa streetscape
plan. It was the city planning staff that said, we prefer not having housing at either
location, but if you did, not predetermining what the street setback should be is a more
appropriate action.
Commissioner Schmidt: Then I would support what you have just said about not
predetermining the 25 feet. I will say that I actually would not mind seeing housing in
those two locations. Area I is an area that we talked about with the Sand Hill Road
project. I think it actually could be very useful in linking Palo Alto and Stanford in a
couple of places along E1 Camino. That particular one could be an ideal place to link, if
we do carry through with the intermodal transit center development, really bringing a new
front door between Stanford and Palo Alto at that transit station, tying across at the
Quarry Road location, that pedestrian and bicycle link, as well as vehicular links. I think
it would be quite reasonable to have the development link at that point, as well. I think
that the setbacks, as you have noted, should be determined by what the proposed plan
would be.
Also, it is potentially a good idea to do it at the other site, at Location D. Again, it is
already very close, and could link a little better. That is more of a small scale,
commercial with some housing across the way anyway. ,I think it would be reasonable to
have kind of a link at that point. I do not feel that we need to have a complete separation
the entire length of E1 Camino along the Stanford/Palo Alto interface.
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chair Bialson: I would follow up by agreeing with Kathy. This preservation of the so-
called wasteland, which some may consider the Arboretum, but I consider it somewhat of
a wasteland, a barrier between the city and the university. I think it is an impediment to
pedestrians and bicyclists, and it does not further any of the so-called new urbanism goals
weaving into the fabric of a community. You do not have a distinct community of
Stanford and Palo Alto, once you put certain types of housing up there. If we are talking
about housing for staff and housing,for graduate students and for others who have
perhaps spouses residing in the same housing unit who do not work at or spend most of
their time at Stanford, they are going to be commuting through Palo Alto. They are going
to be using Palo Alto city resources or county and state resources for transit. To have
those types of housing placed on campus such that they have to perhaps go through the
entire campus to get to transit makes absolutely no sense. So I would like to see the
Arboretum, to the extent that it is historically important, maintained, but otherwise,
eliminated. I would like to see some view corridor along E1 Camino, and that could be
several hundred feet or whatever is appropriate for the project being put up, but we must
encourage the types of use of public transit and also pedestrian and bikeways that can
only come about once you break down that barrier.
Chair Bialson: Pat, do you have any thoughts on Item 3?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. Ed, could you once more refresh us on what would be the staff
recommendation, if it at all differs from the county staff on the linkage issue between the
pace of academic construction and housing. Are there any differences that you would
recommend?
Mr. Gawf: No. I think we are now in agreement with the modified county staffproposal.
Commissioner Burt: Good. Then I would support the county staffproposal.
Chair Bialson: One further thought. One of the reasons the Mayfield site was zoned for
housing was because we saw the desirability of housing along the E1 Camino corridor.
That is another reason why I feel that for purposes of the planning process, there is
support in this community for putting housing along E1 Camino rather than putting it in
places on campus where it might be scattered and not too close to the services and transit
that can be provided along E1 Camino, certainly around the intermodal transit center. I
would think it would further be encouraged by having more dense housing along there. I
think it would also alleviate some of the concerns of the College Terrace neighborhood.
What you have across E1 Camino from there, whether it be the high school, Town and
Country, the hotel and the medical center, are not going to be neighbors who will be
offended or fearful of the impact of having housing. We already have a lot of stores,
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
supermarkets, etc. that could be used by those individuals. If we create that link between
Palm Drive and University Avenue that we were talking about, that would be a wonderful
place, again, a meeting place of "town and gown," whether it be the one large loop area
that we discussed, or whatever, but I see the housing in that area as adding to whatever
project goes in there.
Commissioner Burt: On-one other related subject, I understand that Stanford is interested
in pursing a number of opportunities for,limited retail services to be provided amongst or
adjacent tothe greater density housing that will be occurring on campus. I do not know
whether the staff report specifically addresses that, but I feel that it is an important issue
as we are going to have housing that will provide people with housing that is adjacent to
their jobs and to their academic uses and a lot of their recreational activities, but if they
have to get into the car every time they need a loaf of bread, we continue to compound
certain problems in the community. I would certainly like to encourage an expansion of
those services. I do not believe it would have any significant negative impact on
supporting our retail services in the area, in fact, the adjacent retail services would
probably have a net benefit from this growth in housing. Ed, is there any language in the
report that addresses this issue, and is it appropriate to include it in our comments?
Mr. Gawf: I am sure there is language in the report. I do not recall exactly where it is
located, but I remember having discussions about it. Our one concem was to ensure that
it was not of such a size that it competed with the California Avenue area, for example. It
was clear that it was intended to be the neighborhood-serving kind of commercial/retail,
your most immediate kinds of needs. I am sure it is in the report, but I will look and make
sure. If it is not, we will make the comment to that effect.
Chair Bialson: Having housing in those areas would further be a reason for having the
Town and Country Village kind of rural shopping center that we have there perhaps come
to life a little more if we did have housing in that area. It is there. We can use it.
Commissioner Schmidt: I want to say a few more things about housing. When I made
my initial comments, I was talking primarily about the two identified sites on the Plans I
and D, and then the link at Palm Drive. I believe you, Annette, were speaking more about
the length of E1 Camino and keeping some representation of the Arboretum, as it is
historically important.
Chair Bialson: Yes, exactly.
Commissioner Schmidt: We talked in our previous discussions on the EIR about the idea
of linking land use and transportation. Maybe it is because I have not lived and breathed
this plan as many people have for months and months, but it still appears to me that some
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
of the housing sites will just be taking up some space, and said, okay, we can put housing
here because there is nothing else here, and we have some transportation plans, and
maybe we could put some retail somewhere. In my mind, it still does not coalesce as a
good land use and transportation look at all of Stanford. This is going in that direction,
but it is still a general community plan concept. I encourage Stanford to really take a look
at making everything really work together. It would seem that there is enough open space
within the developable area that one could make things really work well. We have talked
about making things more dense, a more intense use, get them closer to transit, get them
closer to facilities that they can walk to instead of getting to their cars. I just feel that that
is a critical next part of this, to real!y make everything work. It is hard to see if that is
there. I do not know if that is there with just some colored blocks on the plan.
I desperately want it all to work well with blockable communities and things that really
make that community work like we would like to make Palo Alto work.
Chair Bialson: I think that Kathy’s idea is a very tempting sort of project. Most of the
time, we are reacting to individual developers who come to us, and it is possible to make
it coalesce into something that, if not immediately works, at least is going towards a goal.
Here we are asking Stanford to look at things in terms of a long-range plan. It is a
frustration that we do not have a statement of values, of principles that will be reassuring
to surrounding communities, as to, if not their academic sites, their housing sites going
towards the goal of having access for all of the residents to the services and to the
amenities, trails, etc., that have come to be so important and recognized in the planning
world. Is that what you were getting to, Kathy?
Commissioner Scl~anidt: I was getting into a broad philosophy here. I just wanted this to
work really well, and I do not see that yet. We are talking about intensification, making
areas more dense, bringing them close to transit, making the transportation work with it,
making land use and transportation work together. Since I have not lived and breathed
this for a couple of years, like Stanford and city staff has, that may be there, but I think
there is still more to be done to make everything really work well.
Mr. Gawf: If I might add on to that, as you were making the comments, I was thinking
that, in some ways, because of the procedures we have in the different jurisdictions, we
are looking at this as an island, and it really is not. What we should be looking at are all
the colors that are now shown as white around it. Again, the housing sites that we have
been discussing along E1 Camino are actually closer to California Avenue in one case, or
downtown in another case, than they are to the more interior parts of the campus. I think
it illustrates again how the county and the city and Stanford need to work together as a
single planning entity in looking at these kinds of land use issues, rather than one here
and one there as separate proposals.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4~
8
9
10
11
12
13
14~
1,5
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23
2,~
2~
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
3,~
3~
36
38
39
4~0
Chair Bialson: I appreciate that, and also keep in mind that not every resident of some of
those housing developments is going to be directed toward Stanford in their travels.
Some will be directed outward. I would now like to go to the transportation item.
Commissioner Schmidt: I am happy to see the concept of No Net New Commute Trips
goal that is ba~::~cally agreed to in the plan. I would also.like to still support the idea of the
integrated, transportation plan that has been suggested by staff. That goes back to what I
was talking about before, that we really do need to integrate transportation and land use
and integrate everything working together. I have mentioned previously that the campus
plan is more of a mid-century suburban layout, and we are now talking about a much
more intense use now. So looking at the transportation plan and looking toward the
future is really an important piece of the whole puzzle.
Commissioner Burt: Ed, can you review the "hammer portion" of the linkage between the
No Net New Commute Trips and academic growth? What is the language that exists, and
what might staff recommend ~to ensure long-term compliance, albeit that we acknowledge
that Stanford is committed to this in principle.
Mr. Gawf: Yes, it is a good point to make that I think there is a commitment to it. It is in
their self-interest, as well, so that is a nice way to tie them together. In addition, I think
there should be some recognition that this is a tough standard. We have talked about this
before that it is not something that we have required of others to do, but it is also a
different situation. It is one property owner that controls many thousands of employees
and residents in the land area, and 4,000 acres of unincorporated Santa Clara County. So
there is an opportunity here that most other developers and developments do not have.
On Page 10 of our September 25th letter, we did talk about what would happen if the goal
is still not met after the monies have been paid for an intersection or other transportation
improvements. It is the first bullet point on the top of Page 10. Again, the first step is
that of Stanford meeting the goal of No Net New Commute Trips, and doing it by actual
counting of cars. That is different from what we have had over the last ten years, which
was the methodology, that is, through credits and debits, in effect, one would determine
whether there was adherence to the No Net New Commute Trips goal. In this case, the
county is proposing to do away with that and go to counting cars going in and out to
determine whether that has increased, a much more accurate situation. If that goal is not
met within a period of time for any two-year period, not necessarily consecutively, then it
goes to the next level. That is, Stanford will make payment of a fair share mitigation for
all Tier 2 intersection improvements. Those were identified in the EIR, and the monies, I
think, would be available to the applicable jurisdiction. So for Palo Alto, any
intersections that were in Palo Alto, those monies would come to us, and we would
City of Palo Alto ’Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
decide whether to do the intersection improvements, or do other kinds of alternative
transportation improvements, again very similar to the concept that we proposed and
adopted with the medical center. I think it is a much better way of going beyond looking
at the intersection widening kind of approach.
What we were looking at is, what happens if there is a third year? What happens if it
continues to not occur? So what we have proposed as part of tl~e September 25th letter is
that failure to meet this goal in three years would cause a stopping of any additional
academic construction, or "any construction" I think is the way westated it, until they
were back in sync. It is a pretty tough penalty, and we recognize that. We threw it out for
several reasons, but primarily to indicate that you need to think beyond just the
immediate, and the long-term of that. One thought I have had, and we mentioned it in our
recent memo to the City Council, is that comment that we had talked about, I think, with
the EIR comments, about this interjurisdictional Stanford working with Palo Alto, Menlo
Park and East Palo Alto in developing a broader interjurisdictional kind of transportation
plan that would work. That is the real answer.
Again, we were talking a few moments earlier about islands. Of all the areas where we
are not an island, it is transportation. All you have to do is to look at East Palo Alto and
the Dumbarton Bridge to see the impact that we, Stanford and Palo Alto, have on that
community. So somehow trying to get at that is what we are working on right now. If
you have better suggestions, let me know. We are looking at some alternatives.
Commissioner Burt: So in the three-year linkage is that if there are three consecutive
years that they do not meet the No Net New Commute Trips goal, that is when the
constraints would kick in?
Mr. Gawf: It was not consecutive. It said, "the third year" so two years, not consecutive,
would trigger the Tier 2 for payments or improvements. A third additional year after that
would then trigger some other type of action. Again, part of our thinking now is to look
back and say, instead of that approach, maybe we need to look at the approach of
emphasizing more the intergovernmental interjurisdictional kind of relationship. One of
the comments I heard when I talked to the county about this was that from a traffic
connection standpoint, what the county has proposed should address the problem. That
is, if they do not meet the No Net New Commute Trips goal, they would have impacted
intersections. Through this county proposal, they are already addressing those impacts,
either by improving the intersections or with money. So from that strict standpoint, they
have satisfied the impact standpoint. So that is why we are looking at some different
approaches to making it. I think that stepping the larger issue is this one is, how can the
four jurisdictions work together to solve problems.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
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
~0
Commissioner Burr: In this circumstance, it seems that the county approach emphasizes
more of a traditional traffic management resolution to the problem. As we know in our
community, we not only have impacted the intersections, but since a high percentage of
the commute to and fro Stanford is through residential streets in Palo Alto, there is no real
way to accommodate a significant increase in those commute trips merely by improving
the congested intersection flows. Consequently, I would strongly support not only the
mechanism that requires compliance with the No Net New Commute Trips after three
years, but these sorts of alternative approaches that you are advocating. This has come up
before us in the past, but I would like to add additional emphasis on what I think is a
missing link right now in a very excellent transportation program that they have. That is,
service to East Palo Alto via the Marguerite. There many Stanford employees who
commute from East Palo Alto, and whereas the shuttle system is valued in the community
as a way to alleviate congestion and having environmental advantages, the communities
that it serves right now have less necessity for public transportation than East Palo Alto
does. So the community that is in the greatest need of that transportation is perhaps the
most poorly served by it. Wherever we may be able to encourage Stanford or work with
Stanford cooperatively to achieve that end in as short order as possible, I would like to
see it as something that is discussed when we address the cancer center, as well.
Finally, one point on bike transportation. Like many campuses, Stanford has a great deal
of its transportation occurring by bicycle. Historically, the real bike corridors, east/west,
north/south through the campus, are not laid out in as cohesive a fashion as I would like
to see, and they are not connected with the city bike corridors as well as we would like. I
know that we have our new program coming forth, and I would certainly hope that we
have a real linkage between the housing on the Sand Hill corridor all the way down to the
Industrial Park and the school systems, and that we do a better job of creating really
smooth bike flows not only within the campus but also between the campus and Palo
Alto.
Mr. Gawf.’ I think that is an excellent suggestion.
Commissioner Schmidt: I appreciate Ed’s statements about working with the adjacent
communities, with transportation in particular. None of Us are islands, and it is very
critical that we all work together in this area. Also, I support Pat’s comments about the
bicycle lanes.
Chair Bialson: A lot of my comments are in support of Pat. With regard to the
transportation sanction, should the transportation standards not be met, I think they must
be strong, even Draconian, otherwise you will not get adherence. You want people not to
go right up to the line, but rather to avoid it as much as possible. So having something
City of Palo Alto Page 26
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
where the construction can be stopped if there is some problem is very appropriate, so
that it is watched very carefully. I think that the sanction, if it is dollars going to
improving intersections or dollars for transportation purposes, they are not going to
benefit our citizens who are impacted by the failure to meet the No Net New Commute
Trips standard, just as Pat pointed out. It is not going to be very helpful to have slightly
better intersections.
With regard to the Marguerite going to East Palo Alto, that may be something that we
want to put right up front in our request, because part of what I can see during the couple
of times that I go through Stanford at 8 a.m., and whether this is in regard to the medical
facilities there or Stanford in general, people who live in whether it be East Palo Alto,
East Menlo Park, tend to have not a single occupancy vehicle going in but a single
occupancy vehicle leaving. There is often a person who is dropped o.ff, and the other
individual goes home again, or on to some other location. That seems to be the worst
type of commute, because you have people coming in four times, rather than coming in
once and the leaving again, so you are not going to be able to judge them. The measure
that you used of the actual count of people going in and going out is not going to catch
those people. As I went through Stanford, they were doing a count today, and I went
down Welch Road, came on campus off Embarcadero, then went off campus on the other
side. I could see them counting me going in, and counting me going out. Along Welch
Road, especially, but also going down Palm Drive, there were a number of people with
two occupants that looked like one person was going to be dropped off and the other one
was going to come back. So I lay that out to you as a problem in the methodology and
also a sociological observation that we may need to address that point.
So I like the idea of creating assigned bike trails. I do not see that anywhere in Stanford,
and I do not feel there is enough encouragement of people to use bicycles if they are
gOing off campus. If we can somehow manage some sort of coordination with Palo
Alto’s trails and Stanford’s trails, that would be very helpful, especially if we are going to
build that gateway or the’intermodal system. Other than that, I agree with staff’s position
as indicated in the letter and also the statements made by Pat. Is that sufficient for you,
Ed, or do you have any questions of commissioners?
Mr. Gawf: No, that is sufficient. I would like to make sure that one point is clarified.
The way that the county planning staff has proposed the Tier 2 improvements, if the goal
is not met, the money is identified that would be required to construct the intersection, but
the monies are given to the appropriate jurisdiction, and the jurisdictions can spend the
money on intersection improvements or any other transportation improvement. I wanted
to make sure that that was clear.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
~0
Chair Bialson: I believe the commissioners understand that, but we would still have the
effect on our residents unless we put up gates at the boundaries, something like that, as a
transportation enhancement. Let us go on to Community Facilities.
Commissioner Burt: I think that the recent developments from Stanford’s proposal for the
Mayfield site have really an excellent job of addressing the concerns that have been
addressed on community facilities. I realize that it is not a completely done deal, and
must go through the proper process, but I think that Stanford is really to be commended
for the efforts that they have made, and it is a reflection of the improvements in the
working relationship and the efforts being made by both parties to find win/win solutions
to these issues. I certainly commend Stanford for what they have done in that regard. I
feel flaat that has done an excellent job of addressing the issue.
Commissioner Schmidt: I feel that the community services and community facilities are
something that we were concerned about when we reviewed the EIR. There will be an
additional impact on community services and facilities with the addition of more people
at Stanford and with the addition of this growth. So I am happy, too, to see that some
solutions are coming forward and that Stanford is making proposals that fit in with the
need for added services and facilities.
Commissioner Burt: Just one additional comment. While I recognize that the preliminary
agreement between Stanford and the city for allowing Stanford to build the 100,000
square feet of facilities elsewhere in the Industrial Park suggests that that would be
commercial land, I would hope that the process would leave open the possibility of that’s
being housing, as has been discussed recently. There may be opportunities for similar
circumstances where under-utilized industrial park land might be able to be utilized for
housing in the future. I would hope that this agreement would not preclude that use, even
if it is not prescribed.
Mr. Gawf: That is interesting, and I look to Lisa for confirmation, but I think the zoning
in the Industrial Park does allow for housing as a permitted use. So as you say, it is not
required, but it is not prohibited, either, and that is very important. I also think it is
important that as staff, we were looking at other sites, too, not within the Industrial Park,
to see if there are some other housing sites that we might look at, as well, not to replace
the housing units here, but at least to help address some of that housing issue.
Chair Bialson: In the staff report, you had asked that we provide some direction as to
how to work with Stanford to proceed with the proposal.
Mr. Gawf: I think this is really a question for the council. They have received the
City of Palo Alto Page 28
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
proposal from Stanford, but the process is for them to accept it, and then direct it back to
staffto work with Stanford on addressing a lot of the details that you are talking about
tonight. So it is more of a council direction to us.
Chair Bialson: All right. I think Pat’s comment in regard to trying to keep the land use
with the transferable development rights into housing is one that we support. Although
what we say is not binding nor of much sway, that would .be important.
I also would like to throw in the observation that it would be nice to be as flexible as
possible, whether it be that we be able to trade that land for some other land. I know
there are not many other opportunities to place the ’JCC or other community resources at
this time, but this is so new and we have such a short period of time within which to try
and strike the parameters of the deal, if not the exact deal itself, I would like it to be as
loose as possible. So I would recommend to staff that that may be something we would
like to keep.
Also with regard to the transfer of development rights, in talking about 100,000 square
feet, or at a minimum of whatever may be placed on it, this is a plot that may have quite a
bit shoehorned into it, because we have such great needs. To have that number of square
feet transferred to some commercial use elsewhere in the park does not feel very good at
this point. I would like to cap that at 100,000 square feet or whatever would be
reasonable. I see Pat somewhat nodding in agreement with that. To think as we are
planning how different community-serving uses are put on that parcel, always having in
the back of our mind that that means another foot of commercial that could be built
somewhere in the park. It really detracts from this so-called gift if what we are doing is
merely transferring. Land is worth what you can build on it, and if we are giving Stanford
what they could build on it somewhere else, it really demeans their gift to a certain extent.
I am sure that is not what they intended to have happen.
Mr. Gawf: Let me take those comments, and we have a very good working committee
made up of representatives from the school district, Stanford, the JCC and the city. We
have had excellent discussions, and we will continue to have those. I know there is a lot
of work ahead of us, but we are fortunate to have the opportunity to have that occur.
Chair Bialson: I think that is a wonderful opportunity. It sounds like what you would ¯
like at this point is perhaps just general observations. I think the commissioners would
now like to share whatever general observations that they have not been able to articulate
until now.
Commissioner Schmidt: I want us to do the general things that we often do that are
City of Paio Alto Page 29
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
extremely appropriate here. I thank the community and Stanford and Palo Alto and the
county for an incredible effort. Everyone has tried really hard to get appropriate input
into this and to really develop something that works. It looks like generally a good plan
that most parties are fairly content with.
I like the county’s statements here that the general policy directions of compact urban
development and resource .conservation are the primary policy directions. Having said
that, I also want to mention something that we have mentioned before that this is a very
impactful plan. The last impactful element that has happened around here recently was
the Stanford Sand Hill project. What Stanford is doing is making a huge difference and a
huge impact on our community, and we still do not really know what those impacts will
be. We hope that we have been thoughtful enough and careful enough about what is
going to happen here, and we will find out.
I still feel a little unsure that I know that all of Stanford’s lands and all of the entities in
which the property exists, and what does all of that mean? We know what is in the
county, and that we have 12.3 million square feet, and we are saying that we are going to
add another five million over 25 years. The GUP only addresses ten years, and that is
only 70 percent of that 5 million square feet. The county report also refers to 10 million
square feet in the research park, and 1.3 million in the shopping center. So we are right
up there around 25 million now and getting up to 30 million. That may be all of it, maybe
not.. I do not know, but that is a lot! And it has a big impact on everything surrounding it.
At any rate, I think we have all tried our best to come up with something good here, and
it would appear that those of us on this ad hoc committee feel reasonably good about what
is here. I look forward to seeing the completed document, and I am hopeful that as
Stanford develops the plan, that indeed it ties well into Palo Alto, as we have suggested,
and works with regional transit and with all of the surrounding communities. Thanks
again to everyone who did an outstanding job on this.
Commissioner Burr: I have one narrow comment, plus a broader one. In a narrow sense,
I would like to support the last comments that Annette made regarding the Mayfield site.
The concept of whether the amount of square footage that Stanford would be allowed to
build elsewhere should be tied to the square footage that Palo Alto ends up building at the
Mayfield site. It seems that this is a creative and generous proposal by Stanford. I do not
want to be unappreciative of that, but the generosity I would hope would be based upon
also looking for compensation for what they have lost, not based on a formula of what
Palo Alto would gain. In the sense of what Stanford loses, it is the ability to construct on
that site, and they even have a potential gain of losing less valuable medium density
housing and building commercial. So I would hope that Stanford would agree to limiting
the transfer of development rights to whatever square footage they would lose by giving
City of Palo Alto Page 30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
up that site.
In the broader sense, I think that over the last few years, the positions of the county and of
the public and Stanford and the city have converged to a great degree. I think that this
process has been really predominantly a successful one as it looks like it is heading
toward the finish line. But I think we need to reflect along the lines of what Kathy was
pointing out. This is a good plan for managing four to five million square feet of growth
in ten years. It is a great deal of growth. It is not the growth that the community asked
for. This is the growth that Stanford is seeking. It is a very sizeable growth, and it really
calls into question whether the growth pace at which Stanford has been proceeding over
recent decades and in the coming decade is sustainable - - sustainable for the region and
the community and the impacts on it, sustainable in the long term for the environment and
the protection of open space, and sustainable as an academic institution, given the
constraints that are likely to be placed upon them in the future of where they can grow.
These decisions on allowing the full amount of square footage growth for academic and
housing have been largely decided upon. They do not seem to be in dispute at this point
in time, but the overlying context needs to be revisited. This is a very large amount of
growth in the next decade. Stanford cannot continue at this rate of growth in the future
and have it be supported by the infrastructure that surrounds it, and at the same time
preserving the open space that we have agreed we want to preserve. So as we end our
discussion at this point, I hope we are looking forward to our vision of the upcoming
general use permits in the future.
Chair Bialson: I agree with the comments made by Pat and by Kathy. I particularly
appreciate the last comments made by Pat. I, too, acknowledge the input of everyone into
this whole process. I know it has been frustrating along the way. I even acknowledge
having some frustration myself, rare that that occurs, but it was there. I think we have
ended up with a very good project, and it sometimes takes some conflict and some sparks
flying rubbing up against one another to come up with a good project and a good result. I
think we are part way there.
I feel that Stanford has to experience the urbanization that they have, by dint of their
success, brought to this community and imposed on the rest of us. We are all going
through an era of transition from a rural or suburban environment into an urbanized
environment. I think that we must have Stanford agree to experience that same level of
urbanization. In doing so, it would be helpful to have our community and Stanford not go
through parallel systems but go through an integrated system where we can have
somewhat of a seamlessness between Stanford and Palo Alto, and integrate systems just
as we are speaking about the bike trails and such. This is a goal, and I would like to see
maybe in a preamble to this, some sort of statement of a goal or a philosophy, perhaps, as
City of Palo Alto Page 31
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
28
29
~0
31
~2
33
3~
~5
to what they are Wing to achieve, where they are trying to go, to the best of their
knowledge. Obviously, they cannot anticipate too far into the future, and that is why we
asked for a lO-year document. I feel very strongly the same frustrations that Kathy has
been expressing. We do not know where we are going with this. If we can encourage
Stanford to express something, even a belief in certain systems or philosophies of
planning, that would be helpful.
I would like to say why the commissioners who normally sit with us are not present
tonight. For two of them, they are in conflict with the item - Bonnie Packer and Phyllis
Cassel. Two of our other commissioners are out of town and not available - Owen Byrd
and Jon Schink. I am sure they would have wanted to be here to share in this process.
With regard to the Stanford GUP, I believe we are finished with our comments. We very
much appreciate staffs and Stanford’s input.
Commissioner Schmidt: In regard to something we have talked about a little tonight,
putting other uses like housing on parking lots, in a couple of weeks, there is a regional
urban design charette sponsored by a couple of the local AIA chapters. If anyone is
interested in information about that, I have it with me. On November 4 and 5, the San
Mateo County Chapter and the Santa Clara County Chapter and the East Bay Chapter are
having a charette at the San Mateo County Expo Center. It will be all day Saturday with
presentations on Sunday afternoon. The San Mateo County Chapter has identified several
sites they are going to work on to look at housing opportunities. The Santa Clara County
Chapter is going to work on parking lot problems, taking different types of parking lots
and look at the possibilities of doing housing on them, such as a corporate campus, an
industrial park strip mall, that sort of thing.
Chair Bialson: Academic campuses?
Commissioner Schmidt:. Not exactly academic, but we think it could be easily
transferable. Everyone is welcome to come to the presentations and participate in them.
Chair Bialson: I will now adjourn the meeting and I thank everyone again.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed at 9:15 PM.
City of Palo Alto Page 32
Use Designations
Attachment C
13,0 al
’:’"::::":: Attachment D
24.8 ac,