HomeMy WebLinkAbout0121.091.
January 17, IS91
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo A1to, California
County Referral··Draft Environmental Impa,t Rep~rt
Stanford Quarrv Road General Plan Am~ndm!nt
Members of the Co"ncll:
REPORT IN BRIEF
Tb1s report concerns a referral from Santa Clara County for City comments on a
Draft Enviro~ntal Impact Report (ErR) prepared for Stanford's application
for a General Plan Amendment tD cha~ge the iand use designation of three
parcels near Quarry and Arboretum Roads. The Santa Clara County Planning
Co,,!ssion held. public he.~lng on the Draft EIR on Oec~mber 6. 1990 and ~ill
consider tbe Amendment to the Co~nt1 Genera1 fl.n at a future date, after the
Final fiR Is completed. The Palo Alto Planning Commission rev;'~d the Drart
£IR on December i2, 1990, and t~eir comments ~ave been transmitted to Santa
Cllra County (see attached December 13, 1990 letter).
The City Council Is asked to commont on the Draft ElR and make a
rec~ndation to Santa Clara Coynty on the General Plan Amendment. A copy of
the Draft EIR was previously provided to the City Co"ooll on Novemhor 29.
1990.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project concerns a basic land use issue--tne determination of what land
uses are appropriate for an undevelop~d portion of the Stanford Campus which
fa'ls .;t~ia t~e C~tyls sphere of influence. Stanford 1s request;ng that th~
COYntl Plannfng Commlssion approve an amendment changing the ll~d use
des'9nat~O" for three parcels located at t~e intersection of Quarry and
Arboretus Roads. These sites are shown on figure I, and iTe identified as the
Rectangle site (7.4 acres). the Triangle site (11.9 acres) and the Campus
Orive site (3.2 acres).
The lDendment would change the designation of the Rectangle and Trlan91e sites
frOM ·University lands -Study Area-and 8Un;~ersjt1 lands -Academic R!serve
and Open Space-to ·University lands· Campus,-A request to chang~ the
designatlon of the Campus Drive site from "University Lands . Study Area-to
-University Lands -Academic R2serve and Open Space~ is also included in the
project.
CMR:121:91
-----. ------.----------.----c:~ ....
J , "
•
Rt:CTA"4U.1 liT d .. ""~
7.4 AC"ZI
1: 322,000 sq.ft.
{aft medic.aT uses}
Scenark> 2:155 units
DIAGRAM Of PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOlAGES FIGURE 1
CMR:1ZI :9)
.. ( }-~-. ~
,-". .',
1/17/91
Page 2
I
I
The cnanges reQ~ested by Stanford are to lJ allow medica1 cent~r-related uses~
including I possfbl. psyc~latrlc hosplt.l. on the Trlangl. site; 2} .llow
flexibility in future uses on the ReetangTe site, with efth~r r.edical,
aCldemic or residential uses j and 3) incorporate the Campus Drive sae into
the Open Space designation of the nefg~borfng Stanford Arboretum.
BACKGROUND
The City Coun(il taok act;Qn relevant to t~i$ prQject at t~! tlme of approval
of the City Wide land Use and Transportation Study. On August 7. 198~, th,
Cit] Council approved an amendment to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
changinq the designation of the Rectangle site to Major Institution/University
land./Campus Multiple Family R •• ldentlal, • designation that would limit
future use to h01Jsing. The Tr~i!ngle s;te was designated Ji4ajor
[nst1tutfon/University lands/Campus, which would allow for construction of
~edical Center~related uses, including a possible psychiatric center. These
actions were talten in part to 9~\le Stanford and tne County clear pol icy
direction on what future uses were desired.
T~e Palo Alto elty Planning Commission conSidered the Draft EIR and County
General Plan amendmeht on December 12. 1990. Planning Commission comments
were forwarded to the County In the attached letter on December 13, 1990,
prior to clast of tfte public review period en December 14. 1990. fn Drder to
allow for City Counctl ccoments on the Draft ElR, City st.ff requested and
recefved an extension of the public review period to January 25. 1991 for Palo
Alto City Council comments ooly.
ISSUES Of CONCERN
Tbe .. jor issue. of concero to the City raised by this amendment are: I)
whether the Triangle and Rectangle s1tes located at the i~terse,tion of Quarry
and Arboretum Roads should be for multiple-family resldenttal or Medical
Center~rellted ~ses; 2) what amount (sq~are footage Dr density) of deve~opment
is appropriate for these sites; and 3J what ~;tigation measures t particularly
traffic ~jti9ations~ are necessary for development to proceed?
Additional background information and a more detailed d~scussion of the issues
of cnncern to t~e City are provided in the attached Planning Commission staff
report dated Decem~er 1, 1990 (Attachment II).
PlANNING COMMISSION ACTIOH
The Plannfng Commission action on December 12, ]990 consisted of comments on
the Draft £IR and a ~ommendation to the Council on the proposed County
General Plan Amendment. The Plannlng Commission's comments on the Draft EJR
are provided as Attachment I.
Planning Corrmission. on iI yote of 4-2. concurred "ith the staff
recDRmendations (or County action on the General Plan Amendment~ wit~ some
minor revisions. The staff recommendation is to support Stanford's proposal
for land use designation which will a1low expansion of Medical Center~reTated
CMR: III :91
P:\CMR\QYCMR:CMR
i
•
1/17/91
Page l
•
•
uses on the Triangle site and preservation of open space on the Camp~~ Drive
site. but recommend a multiple·fam11y residential designation on the ~~ctang'e
site. Mttigatfor. measures recommen~ed b1 stiff to be conditfons of
doyoloPlEnt include: I) require development of • residenti.l project en the
Rectangle site, after I sprc1ffc amount of development has occurred on t~e
Triangle site; 2} incorporate .11 new development into the Stanford Use Permit
Transportation Demand H.nagement (TOM) Program; and 3) Implement specific
iMProvements on Quarry and Arb~retum Roads 1~ addition to participat~on in the
TOM pri19r am.
The amendoento made by the Planning Commission and supported by staff inv.lve:
1) .. king the development level allowed on the Tr;.n91e site without a
requfrEment for housing on the Rectangle site eq~iyalent to the amount of
developm~nt evaluated for t~e Psyc~iatrtc Center in the Stanford Use Permit
EU (apprOXimately 115,000 SQuare feet); 2) chr!fy;ng that t~is housing
requirement condition should be placed in th! text of t~e County's General
Plan, and 3) requiring roadway improvements f~r the roadway segments direct1y
affected by ~ew driveway locations (i.e., the im~royement impacted by the
driveway would be required). These changes are reflected ir. the
Recommendation section of t~1s report.
The Commission's detision t~ request a text amendment in the County General
Pl.n was based on infonoatlon provided by the tily Attornej that this would be
an effectl~e .ay to ~nitor the housing requirement condition and ~3ke sure it
W3S not overlooked -nen specified de~~lopment levels are reached fn the
future. Their decision. to aodifl the amount of deyelo~nt to be allowed Dr.
the Triangle site before ~ous;ng would be requfred on the Rectangle site, was
based on a desire to aYofd any double counting and double mitigating of
traffic i""acts from the possib1e Psyc~latrlc Center which were already
.ddressed in the Stanford Use Permit EIR. Their decl,lon. to modify the
timing of the implementation of the recommended roadway improvements to the
specific ~ections affected by new development driveways. was based or. the
desIre to improve tho roadway segments direct1y affected by future projects.
The modifications are based on the recognition that f.l1 deve10pment of the
Rectangl. and Triangle sit •• I. unllke1y in the next 20 years, the forecast
period, and t~at development whic~ does occur wi'l occur fncrementally.
Info~atfon presented at the hearing indicated that Stanford now is
co~sfdering ontl a posstb1e 60,OOO·square·foot ~edical offic~ building on the
Triangle site. Neft~er the Comrnfssion nor staff wished to place the houslng
mitigation conditions on an ~unt of de~elopment equivalent to tnat which had
already been incorporated into the mitigation measures established for the
Stanford Use Permit fIR. (The Psychiatric Hospit.l was Included in future
projects addressed i. that EIR).
Two Planning Comm1ssioners voted igai~st approval of the project. The
minority position was based on the belief that the Stanford proposal was too
.ague and iil-defjned to justify approval of • Genoral Plan Amendment at this
tfme, and such changes shou1d not be apprDved unttl more spec1fic information
about future de~elcpment is known. The .inority position was also based on a
strong belfef that ~ical center uses were not necessarily compatible with
CMR: 121 :91
P:\CMR\QYCMR:CMR
1/17/91
Page 4
\
the neIghborIng Arboretum, and the Rectangle and TrIangle sites provIded
valuable open sp.ce whIch should be preserved.
RECOIIIENDATION
It Is recomDOnded that the ~jty Council:
I. Make whatever addition.l commonts on the Draft ErR that the Council
conSiders appropriate.
[I. Approve the Planning Commission recommendat1ons t including:
A. Recommend to Santa Clara County that the following .1tlgatlon
measures be reQuired as conditions of approval for t~e proposed
Gener.l Plan Amendment:
-Th. Rectangle sIt. be redesIgnated to a multlple-f.mily
residential land use deslgn.tlon whIch precludes
nonreSidential deyelop~nt;
A condItIon be placed 1. the text of the County Gener.l Pl.n
Amendment whIch require, th.t .pproval beyond the fIrst
nonresidential prvject. not to exceed 175,000 square feet.
on tnt Triangle s1te be tied to approval and construction of
i h~~s1ng pr~ject on the Rectangle site;
The dev210pment permitted ~nder the 6eneral Plan Amer.dment
and future use pennlts. be incorporated into the
Transportation Oemand Management Program requfred of
Stanford for approval of the Stanford General Use Permit;
and
-Approva; of development on the Trl.ngle site be conditioned
on the wIdening of Arboretug Ro.d between Quarry Road .nd
Pal. Drive .s IdentifIed at the top of page 76 of the Dr.ft
EIR, with addItional .. asures descrlbe~ In Cooment No. 9 (a)
and (b) In Att.chment A of Attaohment II; and construction
of the further widening of Quarry Road between Arbor!tum and
~elch Roads as described on p.ge 4 of the attached July 20,
1990 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 0 of
Attachment II). These conditIons should be applied When
driveways .ssociated with development of the Triangle Site
directly Impact the Identified roadw.y segments.
B. Recommend to the Santa tiara County Planning Commission the
follo~ing changes to the Santa Clira to~nty General Plan land Use
!lap:
00:121:91
-Change the Triangle site from ·University Lands -Study
Area-and -University Lands Academic Reserve and Open
Space-to ·Universlty lands -Campus;-
P: \CMR\QVCMR: CMR
1/17/91
P.ge 5
Ch.nge the Rectangl. sit. fr .. 'Unlvers;ty land. -Study
Area-and ·University ll~S -Academic Reserve and Open
Space' to 'U.'versity lands· Campus· Multiple Family
Residential,' with. density of 20 to 30 dwelling units per
'cre. 1rH!
Change the Campus Drive site from 'Unlvers!ty lands . Study
Area-to "Unlyersit~ lands . Academic Reserve and Open
Space.-
*.
=~~!!d~7
Director of Planning and
tommunity EnviTonment
Attachments: 1. Planning tcmmiss10n Comments on Draft EtRt letter to
Santa Clara County dated ~c~r 13, 1990.
II. Plinnlng (oemi •• ;"" Staff Report of December 6, 1990
A. St.ff Com.ents on Draft EIR
9. Summary of Stanford Traffic Mitigations
C. Excerpt Minutes of Planning C~Tssion and
City Council Acticns
O. Planning Commission Staff Report dated
July 20, 1990
Cc: S.nt. Clara County Board of Supervl'ors
Santa Clara County Planning Commission
stanford University (And, Doty. Phil WilHams. Charlotte Strem)
Santa Clara County (leode Frank'f"~ Luke Starnes, ~ug~ &ra~amt Rebert l.
Sturdivant, Hurlel Fulford)
David Powers and Assocfates (Alicia Guerra)
00:121:91
P:\OO\QYCMR:CMR
1/17/91
Page 6
Department of Planning and
Communl1y Environment
(415) 329-2149
December 13, 1990
Ms. Muriel Fulford
". , ~ '\: . : ...
Santa CTara Co~ntl Office of Advance Planning
County Go~ernment Center, East Wing
Si~ Jose, California 95110
De.r Ms. F.lford,
250 Hamilton Avenue
Post Office 80x 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303-0862
Subje~t: Draft Environmental Impact Report for
ltinford {)u_arry Road General Plan Amendment
T~is i!tter is ! transmittal of the Palo Alto Planning Commi~sion's comments.
including staff (omments, on t~e Draft EIR for the Stanford Quarry Road
General Plan Amendment. Draft [IR Comments from the City Council and PaTo
Alto's recOIIITIendatioP"l for action on the General Pll;!'l Amendment will be
forwarded to you by January 25, after the January 22, 1991 Council meeting.
The Planning Commission held i public hearing on the item on December 12,
1990. Onl, one member of t~e public, Mr. R. Bruce Ricks, spoke on the
adequacy of the EIR and will be transmitting his comments to you directly.
The Planning Comm;ssion's comments on the Draft fIR, which need to be
addressed in the Final EIR, are provided in Attachment A. The Planning
Cvmlssion's coments incorporate City staff COP.rl1ents on the Draft EIR ",'hich
are provlded as Attachment 8. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting ~ill
be forwarded to you as soon as they are available.
The (ity of"Palo Alto appreciates the County's allowing an extension of the
Public Comment period on the Draft ElR to enable our City Council's comments
to be incorporated into the Final EIR. 5hould you or your consultants have
any Questions about the attached comments. please give me a call .t (41S} 329-
2149.
Sirlcerely,
~~ SARAH CHENEY
Sen1cr Planner
Quarry_COIII/SC
.....
Attachment: A} Palo Alto Plannlog Coomission Commonts on Draft EIR
B} Palo Alto Staff Comments on Draft fIR
cc: Santa Clari County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Planning Commission
Palo Alto City Council
Pala Alto Planning Commission
CIty Manager
City Attorney
Stanford University (Andy Doty. Phil Williams, CharI ott. Strem}
Santa Clara County (leode franklir.. luke StimDs, Hugh
'raham, Robert l~ Sturdivant, ~uri~l Fulf~rd)
David Powers and Associates (Alfcia Guerra)
Korve Engineering, lnc. (Brent Ogden}
Quarry.COlII/SC
ATTACHMENT A
PALO ALTO PLANNING COMMISS!ON COHM£N1S ON ORAFT EIR
QUARRY ROAD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
page/~ilragrapb Corrrnent
8/4
IS/4
19/5
ZO/Z
26/4
39/5
49/Tabl. 6
Quarry. COlliS(
This paragraph should be corrected to indicate that
the Ope~ Space desfgnati9n proposed (or the Ca~pus
Drive slte ~111 allow limited use~ which could
generate some additional empioyment.
The second sentence in this paragraph is misleading.
Tne medicil center uses on the Triangle site would not
necessjrily reduce home to work travel distance or
distance to ser~ices.
The second sentence iD this paragraph is Questioned
The fIR does ~ot provide an in-dept~ evaluat;on of a
'housing alternative.
The purpose ~nd meaning of the first sentence in this
paragr~ph is questioned. It implies that an employment
increase wruUJ,L.D.21 be consistent wHh the Economic
Well·Being Policies of the County General Plan? What
15 meant by econom~c well·be~ng?
Re; Menlo Park General Plin -the accuracy of the
detenaination that t~e General Plan ~ndment is
(Onsl:tent wit~ the Menlo Park General Plan is
qu!st1oned. rt is incorrect to Cite the Re~10 Parks
policy regarding open space at Stanferd and state that
this project complies with this policy. The project
does not increase open space, it allows fOT removal of
open space.
Past abuses and degradation of the open s~ace on the
Rectangle and Trfangle sites should not b! cited as
reasons for justiffcatfon as to ~y these sites are no
longer v;abl~ open space areas, and ~hy pot!ntial
impacts of new development en these sites ~ill not be
as great.
rt should alsv net bE i$sumad that ~edical uses will
automatfcallJ be compatible with the Arboretum a~d open
space uses.
The accuracy of the existifig
and Arboretum ;s questioned.
shown t~is to be a congested
level of Service C at Palm
Actual experience has
intersection.
Page I
I
Traffic Section
&I!neril
ErR -Generill
110/4
114/5
115/7
116/4
118/10
lZIJ2
Qu,rry . C OGl/SC
I.
There needs to be ~tich .are specific
information on the Stanford Transportation Demand
M,n'gement (TOM) program in the Traffic Section, .s
this is cited as the ~ajor trifff( mitfsation measure.
111for.at ion on the current status of the pr{)gram from
the inter]1II monitoring reports needs to be fncl uded in
the fln.1 EIR. Monitoring the success of the TDM
program is Df particular importance as Stanford would
have to f~il reac~fng t~e 10M goal for two years before
being requir~d to im~lement backup physical
improvements.
A g~neral question regarding ~it19itions. Wh~ Iren't
the mitigations identified in the EIR required as part
of the project, p,rtlcu1.r1, those which .ou1d be
requfred of any project (e.g. confo~ance wit~ USC
requ1reme-nts]?
The requirement for placement of a buffer between the
medical uses and t~e Arboretum should be c~nside-red as
a mitigiilition in the Vegetatfoir and Wiidiife Section.
Prohibitions on iny f~rther d~mpln91 parking or tree
remo~al on the Triangle and Rectangle sites should also
be reqyired is mitigation to protect tneir value as
open spat! until they are d&velvped.
The percentages of students provided ~tk housing are a
little m1s1!ading. Stanford haS increased its student
bousing but has increased its student population as
well, so the overall gain in housing is not as great as
it appears.
Regarding the M,yfield School site .s , potential
housing site, past Citl discussions with Stanford about
development of tnis s~te have concerned a proposed
mixed commerciil/residential prJj~ct. This site should
n<lt nece.ssari1, be identified is an all housing site.
The se-cor.d sentence and cOI1c1t1sion of this paragraph
are misleading. The fact that the designation ~uld
·permit· housing does not .ean it will be provided and
does not ~et the County's housing goals.
It should be noted that this EIR does not attempt to
try to oltigote the identified significant housing
IMpacts which will result from the proposed project.
There is no analYSis of potenthl contamin.1tian around
the existing gas station.
P'ge 2
....
128/3
128//
!30/5
131
146/3
147/~
149
Q. arry . Cooo,ISC
Additional fnfonmitfon concerDing Stanford'~ recyclfng
pr~gra~ and current recycling rates s~ould be included
In the Final fiR.
Given our current drought conditions, the statement
that pIpe capacity is the only limit to the current
supply of water from Hetch·Hetchy Is erroneous.
The increased number of employees that could result
from the project cou1d have an impact on Palo Alto
school populations. Tne Palo Alto School District has
I policy .hl~h allows c~11dren of employees working
w!thin Pila Alto to attend Palo Alto schools
Section Ill. The alternat;v2s were ~ery poorly
described and not analyzed4
Section [V. The paragraph describing Palo Alto's
hc~sing mitigation programs is irrelevant unless a
similar type of mitigation fs proposed for the project
or recDmmended for adoption by the (o~nty. Why is this
discussion included?
ihe signIficance of the statement regarding the
potentili effects of seccndary jobs ;s not ,leir~ How
does the 580 job figure relate to Table 3. pages 11 and
121 Would all of the sao jobs be located at the
Psyc~iatry Center?
The ~st important irreversible c~ange which will
result from t~e project ~ich is not mentioned in this
section is the 105s of open spate on the Rectangle and
Triangle site. and a conti~uing incremental cha~ge from
a more rural to urban type of University Campus.
Plannfng Commission (~rnment$ also incorporate City
staff comments provided as Attachment B.
Page l
ATTACHMENT B
COMMENTS ON DR~T EIR FOR QUARRV ROAD GENERAL PL~~ AMENDMENT
PRO,lECT DESCRIPTION
1. A correction sho~ld be made to note that a EP gas station has replaced
the Mobil station bordering the ~e'tangle site to eliminate potential
confusion.
2. Page 26 1 Paragraph 4.
propose tc ;nclude the
Urban Service Area.
TRAFFIC
It should be clarified t~at Stanford does not
Triangle site or Rectang1e site in the City's
3. The sUl7lfI\ary does not state whether or not traffic. irr,pacts f\ave heen
mitigated. Section B ~f the Summary (page iv) i~plies that mitfgat10n
~easures ~ill be described a(~ording tc how well they mitigate the
identified impacts. HO"lfIIever t under IITraffic Circulation-(Page wi), the
description of mitigation ~easures does not state whether Qr not
significant impacts wa~ld be mitigated. As explained in comment No. 11
below t t~ere appear to be three intersections where significant impacts
reaaia u~itigated for Development Scenario 'I. The summary should be
so modified.
4. The understanding of the transportition section of the EIR is seriously
hampered by the confusing exp1an!tion of tne relations~ip between the
Project and General Use Permit. Under the best of c1rcumstances, this
~elationshfp ~s very hard to grasp, in part because it was not explained
well in the General Use Permit fIR. There should be one c1early-defined
se,tion 0; the [IR that explains t~e relationsh~p to the layperson. The
explanation should include spec1fic page references to the General Use
Permit Ela. The GPA EIR ,urrently discusses this relationshlp in
different ways l~ several To,ations~ including at Teast page! 5, 13. 23,
53, and 64.
S. There is c(lofusion between population and jobs. The discussfc-n of
project scenarios Dr. pages 8 and 13 talkS about numbers of jobs that
would be created. and the reader is referred to hble 3. However. Table
3 does net reflect those numbers--instead it is ~ tabulation of
pep~lations. Tiis confusfQn Cirries over into trip generitlon, which
appears to be based on yet another set of numbers (refer to comment No_
1 J •
6. The ElR Dverstites. patential impi.cts. The fIR is so consenative "
trying to analyze the ·worst cas!· that the resu1ts may be unrealistl(.
Attachmt/S{ Page I
.[
.:J'
For example, 1t appears t~at the popu1atfon of the Fsychiatry Center has
been counted twice in the SPA analysis {once in the &eneral Use Fermit
yeiT 2000 background condltions and on~e as the Projett). Also, the SPA
year 2000+ background condftfens issume that neither Stanford's Ceneral
Use Permit TOM pro9rl~ nor the backup intersection improvements ha~e
been i~plemented. In rea1ity. one or t~e other would ~aye been
Implemented. The re,ult I, that the GPA ErR may have ,ubstantially
overstated the peor traffic conditions fer the lOOO+ base condition
(p.ge, 62, 64, 66).
7. The basis of trip generatign is not clear. Table 3 pre5ents tne
popul ition of the Yarfous project scenarios. Yet, it appears tfo;at trip
generation was based On different numbers--those contained in Appendi~
A. Tables 3-1 and 4. The fIR should e~plain why the numbers fn Table 3
were not used.
8. The -triggered fmprQvements· cannot be assumed for the 1991 background
c~nd1tion. The analysis assumes that the triggered improvements a~e in
place in l~SI [page 53 and Appendix A, page, 2-15, 2-16). Thi' i. a
poor assumption wh;c~ caU5~S the 199] network to look better than it
l(tual1y will be. It is most likely that only an int~rim version of ene
triggered improvement will be in place by the end of 1991
(QuarrY/Arboretum ~ldenin9). The 1991 network should be modified
.according1y.
9. future deveTop~nt on the Triang1e site ne~ds to provlde space for a
widened Arboretum Road. This widening is described in three parts as
follows:
(a) The ea,t leg of Arboretum (adjacent to the project) need, to be
widened to accommodate two through lanes iB eac~ direction, a b1ke
lane 10 each direction, and two ~~stbound l~ft·turn lanes. Tbis
cro~: section needs t~ extend at l~ast as far east as the easter~
boundary of the project site. A sidewal~ and l;ndscape strip may
also be ~eeded next to t~e project.
{b) Two eastbound through lanes need to be pro~ided on Arboretum Road
l1, the way fro~ Q~arry Road to Palm Orive. as described in the
mitigation ~ea,ur. It the top of pag~ 76 of t~e Drift EIR_ The
eastbound approach at Palm Drlve should then incl~de two exclusiv~
left-turn lanes, plus a throug~·rfght lane. A biKe lane or
separate pat~ is also needed on the south side of Arboret~m
between th: projett sit~ and Palm Drive.
(e] Rfght-of-way needs to be preserved in order to allow for future
potential co",truction of t~e fully-improved Arboretum/Palm
intersection. as described in the ~itfgation measure f~ t~e center
of page 76 of the (lR. Tbis includes the nece~sary preservation
of right-of·way for a second westbound lane all the way from Palm
Or;ve to the Quarry/Arboretum Inter.ectlon. A westbound bIke lane
or i separite path also needs to be included f~ this section.
Atticluot/SC Pige 2
•
-....
Items (~) !nd (b) shDuld be (onditions of approval for the ~eneral Plan
~~dment and any future development projects proposed fcr the Tr;a~sle
site.
10. The main access for the future development on the Trian9le site
(possible Psychiatry Center] is proposed to be unsignalized'. Tne EiR
should analyze whether or not a traffic signal would be needed here.
espechlly as t~is 'is also a main erltrance to the st-roppfng center_
There may ~lso be many pedestrians desiring to t~css here. ~aving
another trafflt signal sa close to two existing signals sh~uld be
avoided. ldeaill. the primary entrance to the Triangle site should be
located at the "istlng Quarry/Welch slgn.1.
11. Table II needs explanation. The reader Cdn infer that th~ table
probably does not 1nclud~ the effect of the TOM and housing mitigations,
nor the Tist four intersection improvements on page 76. However. the
EJR s~ould stlte what mitigations have been issumed for this table.
The table, should a.l so incl ude the 2000-+ ba.5!-column from Table 10 and a
column showing the differences in vIc ratios between the 2000~ base
c~lumn and the ·~ith mitigations· column. The difference col~mn would
show that significant impacts [change io vjc ratio> .01) remal",
unmitigated at Ravenswood/El Camino, ~iddle/El Camino, and Santa
Cr~l/JuniperD Serra. ibis would help explain the boldface sentence at
the bottom of pagf 76 which refers to significant ~navoidable traffic
impicts.
12. On page 74. paragraphs 1-3, It is not clearly stated whether the TDM
aitigatfon is incl~ded in the proje,t. The use of TD~ should be
required is a mitigation measure for this project. All development
permitted under the General Plan Amendment should be incorporated into
the TDH Program required ~f Stanford for approva1 of the General Use
Pennit.
13. The description of intersection improvements needs much stricter
def1nition~ Pages 74-76 list )S intersection improvements that tould
mitigate many of the ;nter5e~tion impacts of Development Scenario '1.
To the informed reader, the list ;s cor.f~sing because seven of the
improvements have already been identified as mitigations for previously
approved Stanford de'{elopments t and two others are infeasible. and two
are not actually improye~~~t5. T~is leaves four to specifically
mitig~tE SPA impacts_
NotWithstanding. the EIR shows that the first )] improvements~ no matter
.hi,~ Star.ford dewelcpments they are a5socfate~ with, can ~iti9ate the
sfgnificant impacts of Deyelopment S:enario ,j at all b~t thre!
intersections, plus all impacts of Use Permit development and ill other
cumulative development. vith no TOM assumed for any development.
Th. ElK does not clearly d.fine whlc~ of the inters,ction Improvements
should b. tied to this project. Giy,n the potenti.l impact of the
General ~Jln Amendment, it is recDmmended that the improvements needed
AttaohOlt/SC Pig. 3
..
I.
/
I.
~t tnttrsections directly affected by increased development on the
Rectangle and Triangle sites, be required is conditi~ns of approval as
descrfbed in c-onrnent No. 9 aboye~ These impruvements should b~ requfred
in addition t~ ttl! TOM lIitigation described in coment No. 1.2, with no
option for deferral of tf'le irrtprovements~
DRAINAGE AND HQQQING
14. Page ]04, paragraph 2. What is the approximate time frame (or
instillation of Phase II main trunk?
15. Page 104. Section 2 (Impacts), Development Scenario '1: If the runoff
coefficient will 1r.crease fr~m 0.20 and 0.95 as a result of t~e project,
why does peak runDff increase by on'! 60 percent? Tnis statement needs
further justifIcation.
16. Page 104, paragraph 7. The extent of flooding due to failures of the
Searsville lake Oam would app1, equa1Ty to Development Scenario 1 is
... 11.
11. Page IDS, paragraphs 6, 7. There appears to be conf~sion as tD which
m1tfgatfons are included in tne project, i.e" part ~f the General Plan
Amendment, o!'" as part of future development lpproval s, such as the
Psychhtric HospitAl?
18. Page 107, Sect10n 3 (Mitigation), Development Scenarios II and It: The
report simply states that the e~i~ttng storm drainage lines have the
capacity to carry the additional runoff produced by th! project. This
~~ be true, but there are other issues to consider_
The Tocal agencies of the South Say, i~cludfng the County of Santa Clara
and the City of Palo Alto, have been required by the Regional Water
Qyality Control Board [Board) t~ imp1ement control measures that will
improve the qua1ity of sto~at~r runoff. The provisions of the permit
are schedu1ed t~ be implemented over t~e next five years.
~en and if the projPcts are constructed. they sho~ld be required to
incorporate appropriite measures to control the quality of stormwater
runoff. Since the project falls witn'n the jurisdiction of Santa Clara
County, the specific meisures to be implemented will depend en which
measures ha~ been form2l1y adopted by the County IS requirements at th~
tfme of act~a' development. P~tt~tfal control measures ~ay include such
things as on-site detention/infiltration of stormw!ter runoff, oil-water
separators for on-site drainage, reQuirementst for e'ea~ing cf parking
lots. etc.
VEGETATION AMP VIlDlIF[
19. Page 109, paragrapb I. Tne last sentence should be corrected to reflect
that the widenIng of Quarry Road has been appro.ed and the .a' trees
have been removed.
Attachot/S( Page 4
•
YISUAl A~D AESTHETIC QUAI ITI
20. Pi9t lJZ. page 4~ Abov~ ~entfoned correction related to Quarry ~oad
oaks needed here also.
HOIJSING
21. Page 118. paragraphs 2-S~ Tr.e [IR 1dentifie~ the project as having
significant housing impacts, but the housing mitigations proposed are
vague references to f~ture studies. plan updates and tontinuttion of
EXisting programs. which ire ~~t true mitigations. Development of a
housing project on one or both of the Rectan~le and Tri;ng1e sites
should be listed as the most effective housing mitigation.
UTILITIES AND URBA~ SERVICES
ELECTRICiTY
22. The irea studied in the EIR is outside the city limits and is therefore
outside the service territory of the electrit utility. Power for
development of the site would be Stanford's responsibility.
23. The Quarry Road Substation site would be affected b1 development of the
Possible Future Psychiatry Center as shown on location ~ap, f19ur~ 1.
The substation is partially located within an easement on Stanford
lands. The easement encompasses 30 feet along the westero side of the
substation.
24. The 60kY overhead line serving the Quarry Road Substation may lisa be
affected by any de~elopment in that it dOES crQSS Stanford lands. The
maps and photographs do not c1early shQW whether the existing 60kV line
'Would be affectelj by the site de't'elopment.
25. The Study are~ is outside the City Jf Palo Alto Gas Utility Service
arei. A correction should be made to page 126 of tne report under
Section M. Utllities and Urban Ser~ices. -The proSect area lies within
the Co~nty of Santa Ctara~5 jurisdiction, and outside the City of Palo
Alto's Utility Service Area.-Cas for the study ~rea will be supplied
by Stanford through PG&E. There is l 6·inch gas main on Arboretum which
may need ROdifjcation~
IIASTEWATER
Attac""tlSC Pig. S
26. Tbe information given under the headi~g -Wa~tewater Servfee-on page 121
h outdated~ The planned expansion of the RWQCP has been completeC'.
The plant "OW has. tap.clty of 38 mgd.and currently d!sc~arg.s 22 mgd,
(s~e attached marked up page l1). A torrection needs to be made to th~
last paragraph on page 121 regarding the size of the eXlsting se~er line
on Quarr~ Road. The existing CPA line is 18 inches in diameter not 12
it"lche!..
/
27. All wastewater flows from this study area will be required to be
directed through Stanford is f10w ~eter at Yale St~eet and Stanford
Avenue.
28. Tne study area is outside the City ~f Pa10 Alto Water Utility service
area~ Please have the proposed 10-inch water line that is discu5sed
under the heading -General P1an ~endment Area-on page 129 plotted on
figure 34 on page J3l. It is (.Iur understanding that Stanford will be
supp1ying water to the st~dy area.
See also c~rrections needed as shown on the attached excerpt from the
Draft ElR.
AIR QUALITY
29. Table 16 t page 92, should include ~redicted carbon monoxide
concentratfons f~r Case 7 t the all reSidential deve10pment scenario (see
reference to Case 1 fn paragraph I. page 91).
30. Table 17. page 93, should provide an asterisk to show that th~
Ps,)"cbhtrfc Hospita.l h included in the l1edical a.nd medical/residentia1
development $cenarios~
3]. Page 94. Arf all the air qua1ity m;tig~tion measures part of the
project at this time even including dust control measures] {i.e., no
construction project is proposed at t~is time) (refer a1so to page 7.~
paragraphs 1-3).
GEOlOGY ANP SQl1i_
32. Page 100, paragraph 5. Tkis paragraph should be expanded to address the
likelihood of interceptfon of an)' contaminated grour.d water$ and what
mitigation ~asures may be required sho~ld suth occur.
FIRE SERVICE
33. The following comments related to future de,elop"~nt projects W~;c" •• y
b<! propos~:
Attacluat/SC Page 6
•
I . . '
-"Any ~dfcal labs and pools should compl~ with provisions equivalent
to Title ]7 of th! Palo Alto Municipal Code for c~emic~l storage and
use. and toxic gas Drdinance.
All new buildings should be req~ired to be full, fire sprinklerea.
[levators should be required to accommodate Fire Depart~nt gurney
consistent with Tit1e ]5 of the Poll0 Alto Municipal Code.
Future fire alarm requirements will require 24-holJr monitoring to an
approved Ul centri1 station. Connection to the municipal system .nll
not b. all owe<!.
POtIer PROTECTION
34. Page 130. paragraph 3. Palo Alto has 90 sworn officers, not 98.
Speci fie pol ice service impacts cannot be determined until acteal
development plans are propos~d. Gen~ral impacts would be relatfve to
traffic volume and enforcement since mast of the affected roadways and
intersettions fill lnto Palo Alto's jurisdictfon. Additionally, because
the Palo Alto Communication Center handles calls/dispatches fer not only
police, but also ffre~ utilities, p~blic works and medication
emergencies, some work load impact is expected fn increased calls for
service.
Attachmt/Sl: Page 7
I .
·c ,"
Four :Lltions will have I Wtal peU capacity of applOti.maLely 4.8 million cubic:
feet ot ,as per bour. A] n mile nctwor.i:: consisting of fwO to t'wc:lvc·i.'lch eily.
owned pipes will distribute ,as 10 .pprotimate!y 23,000 customers (CI!)'Wid< Land
Use &OJ TranspotUlioa S,.dy ElR. 1988).
SW\ford provides ste:arn and electricity through its cDgcneration SYStem. This plant
uses W waste heu from the generation process to supply steam 10 the r.:arnpus mod
Medical Ccruer. Excess powu is s-old to PG&E.
Ge.r.e.raJ pltJr. .4mendnu:nr Area
Thm. ~ no uses on the Rectangle. Triangle and Campus Drive Sit~ which
prese:uly use c1cccricity or ga.-'s:. As a result. electrical and gas networks do not
e:ti.st on me project sile. ,
~6 Wastewater Service -ftA"~G
The Harold VM.y (palo Aho) Regional Wa!,r QuaJi~ontro! Plant (RWQCP)
provides rrfiWGter trea4T.1ent for MC\lntain Vlew, Los tos., Los Altos Hi.lls., Palo
Alto. East P 0 Alto and Stanford.. This plant provides" I"CSRd8:!!j treatment whh a
..:apacity or' mgd (million gallons per day) ead tC.bftll atarme'l At 39.6 mgd.
"'With lob tetdaty oeaUIlt.tt antic:ipated hi die heM ~. Treated c:ff1ueru is
diseYlarged into the Bay.
Stanford's existing san.iUi''Y se-.'CI" syslem consists of an underground network of
pi~ .ranging from lour to 21 inches in S""..u and openting on gravily flow. A
new 12 inch sewer line is being instalIed in Quat!)' and .Arbo.retum Roads.
Stanford's sy.stem empties imo I 21 inch diameter pipe in Ole City DC PaTo Aho
system at. the Yale SIl"eef/Stanford Avenue intersection.. On Yale SlP;et,. the
sewage is me~ and flows 10 the R WQCP.
/ '1-.' "'''Ic1
A conJ:1aO: be~ Stanford .and Palo Aho peI'Tlits the regional facility to treat
santoro wastewa!U. Stanford presently dlsc.'urgeli aboot l.0 mgd (abool half of
the/IGIWU Ilf S,il69& of the pIant capacity permirted by the contract) into the
Ciry., system which treats the wastewater. The capacity of the. UniversLry's sewer
s)'SltJD. !s adequate 10 handl:e wa.stewaleI flow fram aD existing facilities.
"'2,2 "5e' ~~ ?eo
Palo Aho currenay dischargeli ~ mgd (R'JI, of til< ~ rr.gd capoclIy). The
RWQCP is reoulatro by !h< Regior.al Water Q1JalilY Coruml Board through •
discharge permit under Ihe National Pollutant Discharge El..imin.ation System
(NPDES), This permit sDpulates that when flow reaches 15% of capacify. the City
must dcmonsttatt bow if: will accorrunodate increased flows. :A3. tesu:1C; Palo
AhO L '::6! a pI t~d dte filar!" Cl,-til" nidi implO'i'Emdlf~ Niiti.d)
WAdeR' I). 'flit cxptcce:d ItlDd2j ue:auneuc capacity .iH: be 38.6 llI;&J ~J 74%
in .. R''''
The. etisting saniwy sewer network· in du: projeCI area consists of. 12 inch sewer
fine J.ocaIed in Quany Road "'hicl-~ is expected to be u!cnded by 1990. The Iir:e
)21
I • )
I
I •
I
I • I
:I
•
~I ,
I. I.
Police Prol~c:tion
Two pollee deparun.nlS provide protection Co< !he Stanforo community. The
Stanford C\mpI1s Pollee, under .uthorlty 60m Ihe County of Sarua Clan Shcrl!f'.
DcpartI'DelU serves Ihci unincorporated areas on. tht u .. npus. The Palo .Alto Police
Depamnent se:ves th"", "",as within Palo Alto', City limits (Le., Stmforo
ShOWing 0._ and porn"", DC Ihe MediClil Cente:). The Call'"",' Police
cooperate """ the City Police, and also 'h= the .ame dispalCh :wvico.
Tbc: Campus Police employs 33 swcm cfficcn and 20-25 eommuray service
officers for traffic: and parking viola!.ions. An additional eig,ht to twelve sru dents
.an: employed in the education-oriented criminal p~vemj{)n unlt. The Campus
PoUce NVc I. .response time of approximately two minutes for a'D incidents with
mD" of Ihme incidents involving propeny crimes (0.,..,.1 Usc Permit EIR. 1,88). ,.
'The Cicy Police emplO)ls K .swom. offktrs. One-person pallol cars axe assigned 10
beat.e. based on c.UImlI. trends in crime: loc2tions. The beat boundaries also c:hange
as crime tte.--ds charlge. The City Police have & response time of thn:e minutes or
Jess for-emergency incidc:nts.. ten minutes or less for incidents ""im .. :immt:dia.te"
status, ~1 60 minuteS or leu for an other incidents (0er-.er-A1 Use Pemtit EIR..
19GG).
G~ ... tral Plan AnurldmulJ Aua
PoI:ic:t: protection is. provided' (c the Rectangle. Triangle and Campus Drive Srres as
described above.
SchoolS
The Stanford Community is kx:."d within the Palo Alto Unified S<:hool District.
This district includes two cloll1<llW)' schools, CO< middlo school and ""0 high
school!. An.endance-It lhe (wo elemema.ry and two high schools is cielennined by
tIJ< ruidenllal loc>tico of Ihe students on !he ~\lS. AD of these schools h>ve
been operating at or near capacity. thuug.'f} enrollment trends m expected 10
dec:o ....
130
i' '. r~r
') ->" ,.':", -'.-o
.. --
,,~ ..
·"~~::'·:1i: ,-
l.!S&!:!2
Prl'lpo'~«;,rr Main bl'\~\l-w."" llnp N
"'OPOI~~,.w81#t Mam..6
1~ i-~-':::-'--S;-:-~-.'7 '(u rr
• /Off ~,p-~/(f.~
" -1-'-I lP;f'fC:.?t,. t:../IV.e , "'~: /~i, ....... ' _.-.."...... &,,,,. "'''1 ,r:: :,:~,<;(~,;~. . v~ .
• :" .. ~, '1:, ,,~ ~~ -'.t( ""~-~-.-' '---"., ...... , " ;.a-U. ~U:,r ~~.",...:--: . ".' '<', ....4,~'t-t!iP. .• " .. """,..;;.L iK..
...... t 'f'
, 11-....
j/~',
/2,/ ,
-:. ." \\"~ ~-.~-.. ~-.-"c'-+t'f. It..
r---------------------------------------------------~ EXAMPLE OF A PSYCHIATRY CENTER WAHRANO SEWER PLAN FICURE 3~
III -, .. '
~ ,.-)
, .
~
Deeembe r 7, U90
PlAItNING COIftISSION
Pal. Alto, C.llforRI.
County Referr,l··Or.ft En"lronment., lopaet Report
Stanfgrd Quarry Ro~d General Plan Ame~dment
~er. of the Commission:
REPCRT IN BRIEF
This repQrt concerns I referral from Santa Clara County fo~ City comments on l
Oraft E"vlronDental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for St.nford'. application
for I Ge~eral Plan Aaendment. The County Planning Commission will be
consl~erlng the Draft E[R on December 6, 199Q, and ~il1 conSider the Ceneral
Plan Amendment .t • future date after preparation of the final EIR. A copy of
the Draft EIR was provided te the Plannl,g Coom;,,;on on November ZB, 1990.
The C1t1 Council Is scheduled to re~iew t~e Draft EfR on Jan~iry 22, 1990.
The review period for $ubmlttlng comment, on the Draft fIR ends on December
14, )990. Stoff has $ubmitted 0 request t. the County Planning Commission to
e.tend the public review period on the Draft EIR until January 25, 1990, to
all .. Cltl Council COMment, t. be addre,sed in the final EIR. The Plannln9
Commission Is asked to both c.-ment on the Oraft EIR and .ake a rec .... r.d.tion
on the proposed General Plan Amondoent at this time. Staff will transmit
Planning Cogols.\o" comment, on the Draft EIR to the County on friday,
December 14th.
Major I$s~es of Concern
The major ;$$Ue5 of cancers to Palo Alt~ are the ty~e of land use and
deyelo~nt potent1al proposed and their related environmenta1 effects. These
issues are discussed i~ separate sect10ns wkich fol1ow~
PROJ£CT D£SCRIPTION
The project concerns a b~s1c land use 1ssut--the determinit10n of what 'and
vses are ap~roprjlte for an undeveloped portion of the Stanford Campus Which
f.l1s within the City's sphere of Influenc •. The project Stanford Is
requesting approval of I •• General Plon Amend •• nt t. change the land u ••
designation fDr three parcels located at t~e ir.tersect1on of Quarry and
Arboretu. ~oads. These sites are sh~ on Figure I, and Ire lcent1ffed as the
Rectangl. site (7.4 acres), the Triangle ,ite (11.9 acre,) and the Camp",
Drive site (3.2 acres).
Sugpln.sr
SC
12/1/90
Page I
> ...
~Lc:::~.::C::T"":::::Q:::L.:::J .. IJIT":I:::::1
1.4 A':"'I.
Scen.1,io 1 '322,000 sq.fI.
(aU medical uses)
Scenario 2; 15 5 dweaing un; Is
DIAGRAM Of PROPOSED D£VElOPMENT SQU\RE f()()TACES flCURf 1
"", ,
• ,
The proposal is to c~ange the de$1gnat1on of the Rectangle and Triangle Sites
frOM ·Uniyersfty Llnds -Study Are.-and wUnivers1ty lands -Academic Resetv!
and Open Space· to ·Unfversity tan~s -timp~s.· A request to change the
designation Df the Campus Drive site from ·Univers1tj lands -Study Area· to
·University Lands -ACldtmit Reserve and Open SpaceR is also intluded in th~
project.
The changes requested by Stanford are to lJ a11Gw medical center related uses,
fncludfng a possible psycbiatric ~ospit,l, on tMe Tri,ngle sit.; 2) allo~
flexibility in future uses O~ the Rectangle site, with either medica',
academic or res;d!~tial uses; and 3) incorporate the Campus Drive site into
the Open Space deSignation of the "eig~borfng Stanford ArOOretum. ThIs last
change is essentially a clean-up action w~ich fs needed to correct the
boundary o( the Op!n Space designation to accurately reflect the configuration
ef the eX~$ting Arboretum. T~fs chang! will help to assure the continued
protection of the Arboretu~t ~il1 have no significant enwironme~tal impacts
and should be supported by the City.
Co~nty Review Process
Tke reYie~ process for this project consists of review of the Draft and Final
[IR, and iec~ndatiGn for action on the General Plan Amendment b1 t~e County
Planning Commission followed by final actfon by the County Board of
Supervlsofs. Specific development approvals will require approval of separate
use permfts by the County PlannIng Ccomfss!on. The Gen.rll PT.n Amendment
~ill only establish tho types of ",es wnfch would be permitted ,nd not the
sin of future develol"1>Ont. The use penlit process ~i 11 establ ish the
specific site dev~lDpment par~ters that any f~ture project aust aeet. as the
County's underlyfng zoning of the area, -Agricultural,· does not establis~
speclfie site deve10pment regYTat!ons suc~ as floor area ratios or height
limits~ However, no amount of future development would be able to exceed a
le~el Df deveTopment for these sites, either separate Dr combined. equivalent
to the 1:] floor area ratio ,S41,OOD square feet} analyzed as the ·worst cise
I. the Draft fl~ without further envlronment,l a"alys;s. It is possible t~,t
this amctJl'lt of noor af.ea (ould be redistributed betweiCn the t"'o sUes with
one developfng to • hi9~er ~AR and the other to a lo.er F~R.
BACKGROlJllD
Stanford originally iBitiated the genera:~ plan amendrDPnt alld preparatton of
this Dr,ft fIR f. order to .btlf. approval of a new psychiatric hospital on
the Triangle Site. This hospital was to be constructed fA jOint partnership
with a privlt& organization, the Charter Hospital Corporltio~. Stanford
'lanning staff and ~edi(al Center representatives informed the Cit! of the
need for such I hospital on the Triangle site and lohbied effective', for such
I use in 1999, during the Citywide Study process. ~owever. plans for the
hospital wer~ p~t on hold after Charter Hospital reconsidered and chose not to
participate in the project. At this time, Sta"fcrd staff estfmates that there
is onl, a SO percent chance tMat the Psychiatric Hospit,l ~ill ,ctuall, be
buflt. Currently, tMe need for psycnfatr!c hospital beds nos been absorbed
SUSP1 •• sr
SC
1217/90
Page)
,-.. '
.
Into the Main He.pltal. (40 bed, In East Pavilion). The need for a ,eparate
psyc~l.tric hospital "1 be reduced should t~e Increa.ing trend for outpatient
eire contfnut. Hcwever, Stanford staff estimates that there Is an 90 percent
ch.nce that the laS.740·squ ••• ·foot Ic.demlc/cllnlc buildIng on the TrIangle
sit. will be needed for Medical Center' related ,.e, In the near future.
Citywide lind U.e Ind Transporht!on Study Actlo,lS/Ree"""",ndatlons
Actions tlk.n by the CIty In 1989 •• s plrt of the Citywide land Use and
Transportatfo~ Study, have supported a land use designation whlc~ would allow
.. dleal uses on the Triangle site. However. the Clt, Is opposed to further
expansion of the Medical Center to the Rectangle site Ind, consistent with a
reQuest from tI,e Golden Trlangl. Task Force for Identlffcation of addition.'
housing sites, filS formaH.)' destgrlated the site for Major
Institution/University lands/Campus!Multlple'Fam;ly Residential {10·30
dwelling units/acre) on the land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan.
Th. origin.l Citywide Study recommend.tlon, Whic~ was supported by the
'l.nnlog Commission ... as for I multiple·famlly designation for both the
Rectangle ~nd Triangle Sites {unanimous at Planning Commission meetfn2 of
Oecember 14, i988. vote of 5·1. Planning Commls,lon Meeting of February 8,
1989j. Amendments to the P,'o Alto Comprehensive Plan wer. considered
appropriate In order to send a clear pollc1 ... sage to Santa Clara County.
The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation for use
of the aectangl. site. but supported I Najor Institution/University
lands/Campus designation Whlc~ would .110 .. for construction of Stanford's
proposed Psychiotr;c Hospit.l on the Triangle .It. (vot. of 6·2. City Council
... tlng of March 6. 1999. vote of 8 to O. City Council meeting of March 10.
1990 and yote of 7-0, City Council .. etlng of August 7. 1989). The Pianning
Ca.atss;on liter relff1naed the Council's action (unanimous it Plinntn~
CommiSSion meeting of June 14, 1989). The specific tom~re~er.sfye Plan
Amendments approved are described below. Excerpt cople, of Planning
Comelsslon and Council .Inutes of thes. let Ions are provided In Attachment C.
Rectangl. Sit •. the Rectangl. site (borderln9 the BP g.s st.tlon) va,
redeSignated from "Major [nstltutionfUnlverslty lands/Acadeolt Preserve
and Open Space' to 'Major InstltutlonfUnlversity lands/Compu, Multiple·
family Resfdent111.· T~is actio" was taken to encourage ~se af th! site
for multlple·fomlly bouslng and make. strong policy statemont to
St.nford .nd tne County.
Triangle Site -the Triangle site, previously referred to as t~e
Trapezoid site, was redeSignated frca "Major [nstltutlonfUnlver,;ty
L.nds/Academlc Reserve and apen Space' to "Major InstitutionfUnlver,lty
l.nds/Campus" to reflect tn. City's acceptance of Stanford's propos.1 to
use the site for camp~$ development, possibly incl~ding construction of
a new psyc~l.trlc hospital.
Sugpl •. sr
SC
11/7/90
Page 4
. :
.:~.
."
LAND USE ISSUES
MedIcal Offices Versus Housing
7~e project area is designated is a ·Study A~el· 'n the Santi Clara Ccunty
~n.r.l Plan, which states that the future us. of the area is to be determined
t~rcu9h a jOint County/Stanford/City process. Such a study has not occurred
despite the fact tht recent CHy actions have emphasized that Stanford and
the City disagree on the appropriateness of use of the Rectaogle site for
~ical Center-related uses. However, the City believes that the fIR prep~red
for t"e General, Plan Amendment and subseqlJent County Board of Supervisors
action will fuoction a. a substitute for the Study.
Stanford considers the ·University llnds/Ca~pu5· desfgnatfon to be appropriate
for both the Triangl. and Rectangle sItes because it is consistent with tne
land use designation for the portions of Stanford located to the northwest and
will accommodate ill wide range of uses, tncluding bousing. The be~eftts of
such a flexible designation to Stanford a.re obviolls. It i.5 also ick.nowledged
that the designation does not preclude housfng and 1$ consistent with ather
existin9 Stanford land US! designa.tionsj ~owever. such a deslgnat~a" does not
provide cleaT dir~ct10n on what specific type of land use is appropriate for
each site.
Development Potential
Bct~ oral and written communications rece1ved from Stanford during the
Cftywide Study and more recently during review of the Zone Change application
for the 8S] Welc~ Road site, have indicated that Stanford ;s Interested in
retaining o~ttons for fyture expansion ~f the Medfeal Center to l~e Triangle
.Ite, and possibly the Rectangl. site and the In-board Welc~ Road sites that
are not currently part of the Medical Center. The City has already supported
Medical Center-rel.ted uses on the Trlangl. site but has not yet taken.
position on what development potential I. appropriate. The City has .150
requested that Stanford provide the City with Information .s to the prOjected
space "eeds of tne Medical Center tn t~e f~ture and the gener~1 type and
location of projected expansfans. As Gf this date staff has had several
neetings with Stanford on the issue but has not rec~l~~d any expa~sion
project f ons.
Under the t~o de~elopment scenarios evaluated in the E1RJ I 1:) Floor Area
RatIo (FAR) with. maximum of 519,000 square feet of development could occur
on the Triangle sIte and maximum of 3ZZ,OOO square feet of development could
occur on the Rectangl. site. Alternatel" If the Rectangle site were
develcped at I density of roughly 20 units per acre, appro~imatel, ]55
ooltiple-famlly units could be provided. for comparison, the 1100 Welch Road
project has I density of roughly 36 units pe~ acre, witn 108 condominiums and
42 ho.etel units.
A total of il],345 additional square feet of development could be built on the
six i.·board Welch Road site. (in,lud!"g 851 Welch Road) under the existing
SugpTo.sr
SC
;;' '
]2/7/90
Page 5
; <!'
0.5:1 FAR. Were these five slt.s ~o be developed at a FAR of 1:1, 409,900
square feet of additIonal develop .. nt could occur.
r. ov.l"atlng what development potentIal would b. appropriate for t~es. sites.
the specill nature and unique ~eed5 of the ex1st1ng Medic,l Center, potentia'
Psychiatric KQspital and related medicI' off1re uses are recognized. [f
considered separately, staff ~;ght consider development to • 1:1 FAR to be
appropriate for the Trlangl. sIte, or a portion of the ~.lch Road In·board
parc.ls, to accommodate future e~pansiQn of tne Medical Center and continue to
.llow consolidation of suc~ uses. However. staff would not be supportive of
Illowl"9 I 1:1 FAR for both the Tria"91e .nd Welch Road sites c~lned. "or,
iSld. frOll the housing issue, would stoff support allowln9 develop"",nt en t~e
Rectangle site It a 1:1 FAR. This position Is b.s.d on consideration of the
projected traffic conditions in the area, as well .s the fact that Stanford
hi' not proyided sufficient justificatIon ~hlc~ d~nstr.tes the ne.d for such
a large and IntensIve e.panslon of Nedic.l Center relltod use.. It would al.o
be Inconsistent with the preyious ~ftywldo Study attlons t. reduce the
developoent potentl.l for areas outside of the ftedlcal Center, such as the
lower .25:1 FAR )Imlt for the Hoover sit. and 65,COO·square-foot cap on
additional development at tn. Shopping Center.
Staff does consider a 1:) fAR to be reasonable Ind appropriate for the
Trfangle Site despite 'ts~s traffic and housing impact, {see environmental
diSCUSSIon which follows), provided that the Rectongle Site bo developed .lto
housing, and the remaining In-board Welch Road porcels remain at a .5:1 FAR.
It Is highly unlikely that. psychiatric hosplt.l and .ssocllted medical
office, would build to a 1:1 FAR given parking requirements, Ind the site
development constrliots presented by the Irregu'ar site configurltlon. A.
stated prevlou,ly, the additional devolopoent potentlll ~Inlng could be
used on the Rectangle site. However, beciuse the parcels are under the
Jurfsdiction of the Caunty, such floor Irea could not be ~sed els~ere within
the medical center without annexation of the parcels to the City of Palo Alto,
or creation of soat yet to be defined joint City/County approva1 process.
At the concl.slon of recent Deetlngs of City and Stanford stiff on the future
d.veloP"Ont pl.ns for the Nedlc.l Center, .nd use of Welch Road parcels, it
.as determined that It would be issumed by both t~e City and Stanford for the
perIod covered by the Quarry Road EIR t~at the Welch Road sites would remalo
ot the current 0.5:1 FAR, and .nythlng above this level would require a
.eparate studY and envlron~ntal analy.ls. Thl. po.ltion was based on 1) t~e
'act t~lt the sites remain ~nder leases whf'~ will not expire for a minimum of
20 year., with little likelihood of Stanford control before the l .. ,e. expire;
and 2j at such time a, Stanford requ.sts a .19her Floor Ar.a Ratio for the
Welch Road sites, it would n •• d to justify the higher deyelo~nt level.
EWVlRONM£NTAL ISSUES
The Draft E1R prepar-ed for the Gene"! Plan Amendment s~ows that development
.t I 1:1 FAR for either, Dr both the 1rlangle or Re,tangle site will likely
re •• lt 10 significant triffic and housing impacts whIch cannot fully be
12/7/90
'age 6
•
. '
.ltfgated. The effetts of the ~roJett are signffltant bec.u.e they wfll
contribute to existing c~mulatfve triffic congestfon and h~using dEmand.
Stiff" ftojor comments on the Draft £lR involve the overstatement of pot.ntlal
tr,fflc I~atts for the Trlangl. site .nd the Ylgueness of the tr.fflc and
housing .ftfgatfon meas~re$.
TrofHt
Though staff concur •• Ith the g.n.ral tonclusions of the traffic analysis I,.
t~e Draft EIR, staff believes that the impacts of the m!dical uses on the
Tr'i~gle site ire overstated. T~1s Is because the pop~'ation of the
Psychiatry C.nt.r (911 people out of • total a.sumed popul.tion of 1810 on the
Triangle site -see pages 11 and It of the Draft ErR). Is counted twice, once
fA the Generill Use-Permit year 2000 background corjditions and' a second Ume as
~.rt of the ~roject.
I\ddi~g to the confuston in dehnn1njng a reaHstft trafffc impatt for the
project are the assumptions used i~ the traffic analysis which relate to
fmplementation and timing of traffi( mitfgatfon measures currently required of
Stanford. These mitigatfon measures include the Tran~portation Demand
Management (TOM) ~rogram ldopted as the principal mitigation me.sure for the
retently approved Stanford Use Permit. the ~backupR intersection fmprovements
that could be constructed if 5tanford's TDM program does not meet its goal,
and t~e ·tri9ger~-intersection improvements w~fch are reQ~ired .itigation
for Ilrfady approved Stanford projects. Attachment 8 provides. more detailed
summary description of these Measures and their current status~
The assumptions whfC~ are questioned relate to implemcr,tatio~ of these traffic
~Itjg.tlons. first, the year 2000+ bac~ground traffic conditions .ssume that
neit~&r Stanford's General Use Permit Transportati9n Demand Management {TOM)
program nor alternate backup intersection improvements have ~e:n implemented,
wkich t.nds to oyerstat. how poor the traffic conditions will~. [t Is
unlikely that neither of these would have occurred by the year 2000. Second,
the 1991 background traffic conditions issume th!t intersectio~ improyen~nts
required of other approyed Stanford projetts, whic~ are to be triggered by
ann~al traffic counts~ have bee" implemented. Yet, ~t is new December of
1990, cr.d only an initi.l version of one of these lQuarry Road w'd~"ing) bas
been completed. Tb1s ass~ptfon tends to understate how poor traffiC
conditions will be in 1991.
Tr.fflc "ltig.tions
The Draft ErR does not Identify th. specifIc traffic mitigation measure. which
should be required fOT the 'aneral Plan Amend~nt. Instead it makes wigue
references to the lDtersecti~n improvements required of already appraved
proJects, which will be -triggered-~h!n a~nual traffic counts S~DW that the
intersections have reached a Le~el of Serwice (lOS} E, or w~ich art back-up
improvements for the T~ progra~ for the ~eneral Use Permit~ It also
acknowledge. that. doubling of the TOM program required is mitigation for the
Genera1 Use Permit would be r~Quired to mitigate the fncreased triffic froa
Sugpl •. sr
SC
r ' .
•
12/7/90
Page 7
•
the General Pl~n Amendment, the achievement of which is recognized IS
unlIkely. The fact that the project wIll result In slgnlflc.nt lap.cts that
cannot fully be .ltlg.ted, further emph.sl •• s the need for. housing
design.tlon on the Rectlngle site. Such .ctlon Is the mo.t readily Iyallable
.. ans of Iltlg.tlng • portIon of the significant Imp.cts of the project even
If only the Triangle site is used for academic/medIcal center uses.
Staff concludes that the traffic mltlg.tlons .hould focus on TDM and provision
of housing on the RectangTe sit.. Two p~stcal traffic improvements direct1,
rel.ted to the two sites proposed for developoent should .lso be ~ad.
conditions of the lnltl., development of this area, and not subject to
def.rr.l. The flr.t ~ltI9.tlon fs the wIdening of Arboret •• Ro.d between
Quarry Road and P.l. OrlYe ,s Identified .t the top of page 76 of the Or aft
ErR, w!th additlon.l roeasur.s described In Comment Ho. 9 (i) and (b) In
Attachment A. e.istlng conditIon' .nd the direct relationship of t~I' rcadway
segment to the proposed development lftes warrant this mitigation. Tne second
.Itlg.tlon i. the further widening of Qu,rry Road bet .. en Arbor~tum and Welch
Road. (IncludIng two through lanes, bit. lane., sidewalks, and appropriite
turoing l.nes and lan~sc.ped ~l.n, .s descrIbed on page 4 of the July 20,
1990 Planning Ccomls,lon St.ff Rep?rt provIded a. p.rt of Attachment 0). Th.
reeently completed project was regarded as an joitl.l .. asure, with further
iapro.oment, possible i. conjunction ~ith development of the Triangl. sfte.
Though not considered necessary IS a spec~fic mit~9at1Dn measure for this
project, the rlght·of-way necessary to .llow for future construction of the
f.ll1-I~royed ArboretuojPalN intersection, Ind related addition of • second
west bound ian. on Arboretwa bet .. en P.l. and Quarry (as described on page 76
of the Dr.ft ErR ind In Comment No. 9(c) of Attac~nt A) needs to be
preserved.
H<lu,lng
Under the Draft [lR r , ccnservatfve assumption t~at eac~ new employee creates,
d~nd for one new ho~sehold t~. project could generat~ I demand for between
1,030 t. 1,691 new housIng units. Even .s.umlng • less ,onservatlve 1.8
eapl.yees per bousehold, (consf.tent with 1980 census data) the project could
potentl.lly res.lt In I demand for between ~7Z to 939 houslog "nits. The
project Is Identified IS havlog signIficant housing Impact I. the Dr.ft [[R.
yet the only housing mltlgltlo", Identified I. the Dr.ft [IR (e.g. future
studies and plan updates) ar. not true mitigations. Palo Alto, Santi Clar.
County and the remainder of the B>y Ar.a ,uff.r fro. I jobs/housing I.b.lance
which is becom1"9 more critfcal is housfng costs i~crease and IVlil,ble
development sites decrease. The opportunity for Including housing as part of
a commercial or institut~onil project which generites I significant housing
impact Is rare, and ,oould not be .I.sed. Thl. Is partlcul.rly Important 10 •
situ.tion where the developer Is • large employ •• which can glYe pref.rence to
Its own employees and ~Itigate the fncr.ase In housing demand generated by Its
expansion. For .11 of these r.asons development of housing on the Rect.ngle
site should be Identified .,d requIred IS a both a traffic and housIng
.,ltig,tlon.
Sugpln.sr
SC
12/7/90
Page 8
•
•
,
The ~il~e of additional housing development is so great and th! impacts ~f
d~.elop~nt of the Trl,ng1. ,;te 1.rge enough th.t staff recommends that
development of the Triangle site be conditioned on .ppro •• 1 of • housing and
construction project on t~e Rectlng1e sfte. A specific connect;~n would be
either to condition the !nitia1 Trlangl. parcel de •• 10pmont on a housing
proj~ct or llm;t the Triangle parcel'. development to the 14S,740-'Qu.re-fco~
.edicll/acidemic building until a ~ousing project is approved and constructed
on the Rectangle ,Ite. SI.en the .. verHy of this mitigation, staff
recommends t~e second llternative.
Addltlon.1 staff cooments on the Oraft EIR are proyided In Attachment A. Of
particular note is that Santa Clara County and Stanford will need ta (ompl~
with Region.l Water Qu,lity Control Board requlN!lIH!nts to implement measures
to Improve the Qu.llty of stormwater runoff, (see comment No. 18 I. Attachment AJ.
SlMlARY
T~ ~or impetus behind this General Plan Amendm!nt 1s Stanford·s desire to
construct a futur~ psyc~i'trfc ~ospftal on t~e Triangle site and ma!ntain
flexib1& options for development of the Rectangle site. The City has taken
formal action supporting medical uses on the Triangle site ,and ~ltiple-family
uses on th! Rectahgle site, thro~g~ Compreb~nsfve Plan Amendments. Staff
considers allowing i development pot~ntial of 1:1 for the Triangle site to be
rea$o~able given the un'que ~ature of the medit~l center uses. provided that
the Rectangle site be developed with housing. In light of the potentially
significant traffjc and housing impacts and vagueness of the applicable
traffic and housing ~iti9at1on measures identtfied. the use of tne Rectangle
site for housing sho~Td be required is I traff1( and bousing mitigation
me~$~re to offset the impacts whic~ ~ill be created by future deve'opment of
the Triangle Site. Specific.lly. deyelopment of the Triangle site beyond the
initi.l I'S,740-square-foot medic.r/academlc building s~ou1d ~ conditioned on
approval and co"struct1~n of nousing on tn! Rectangle site.
Stanford should J150 be put on 1mtice that ttle City will Mlt conslder any
future single parcel c~anges to the zoning or development potential of the
~~lcb Road office sitts until Stanford has prcvid~d a projection of the
Medical Center ey.pans~on r.eeds as a who1e, which are supported w~th I
sufficient justification for, and public benefit from such expansion.
R ECOIIl'I.EHDA T! ON
Staff recommends that the Plann i rig COf1lTIi ss. i on:
A. c.ornnent on thl9! Draft fIR and recommend that the City C:ourlctl recolTlTlend
t~at the following mittgation measures be required as. conditions of
approval for the proposed Gener.l Plan Amendment:
SugplD.sr
SC
The Rectangle slt~ be redesignated to • "ultiple-famil, resident ;al
Jand use designatinn whic" precludes nonres;d~ntjal de~elopment;
12/7/90
P.ge g
A tondltlon be pi aced on t~e &eneral Plan Amendment which requires
that Ipprov.l beyond the first nonresldentl.l project, not to e.ceed
148,740 square feat, 0" the Trlang1. site be tl~ to approval .nd
construction of • ~ouslng project an t~. Rectangle site;
The dev.lopoent pereltted under the 'onoral P1.n Amendment and
f.ture us. perelts be incorporated Into the Transportation Demand
""n.g .... fit Progr&M requl!'@d of Stlnford for oppr.al of tne Stanford
General Use Permit; and
Approval of the first d.velo~~nt on the Trlang'o site be
tondltioned on the widening of Arboretum Road between Quarry Road
and Pa18 Drive as Identified .t the t.p of page 76 of the Draft EIR,
with additional melsures described in Comment No. 9 (0) and (b) I.
Attachment A; and co~stroctl.n of the further widening of Quarry
Road between Arboretwo and Welch Ro.ds .s described on page 4 of the
attached July 20, J990 PlannIng Comal.sl.n Stiff Report (Attachment
OJ.
B. The Planning CommIssIon recoonend the CIty Council recom.end the
following changes to toe Santa Clarl County Gener.l Plan land Use Map:
Change the Trlangl. site fr .. "University Lands -Study Are." .nd
"University lands -Acad .. !c Reserve and Open Space" to "University
lands ~ Campus;-
Change the Rectangl. sit. from "University Lands -Study Are." and
·Un~yers1tl lands -Academic Reser~8 and Open Space-to ·University
tands -ttmPus -MultIple F~lll ResIdential," wIth a densIty of 20
to 30 dwelling units per acre; and
Change the Campus Drive Site from 'Unlversity lands Study Area" to
"UnIversIty Lands -Academic Reserve and Open Space."
Res~tf.llY submitted,
£!~dv el~,-
/ SARAH CHENEY ' -tI
Se!\ior Planner
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Plapntnq and
CommunIty [nvfronaent
Attach"",nt"
Sugplo. sr
SC
A.
B.
C.
D.
Staff Comments on Drift EIR
Sumaary of St.nford Traffic Mitigations
Excerpt Minutes of Planning CommiSSion and City
Coundl Act! OM
Planning CommissIon Staff Report dated Ju'y 20, 1990
12/7/90
Page 10
_ .
•
.'
eel S&nh Cllra. County Board Qf SupeTvhors
Slnt. Clar. County Pl.nnlng (omml,,!on
CIty Ma.agor
t I t1 Attorney Stanford Unlver,lty (Andy Doty, Pbl1 WillIam" Chirl.tt. Strom)
Santa Clara County (leode franklIn, luke St.mos, Hugh Graha., ~ob.rt l.
Sturdivant, "urlel F.'ford)
Da.ld Powers and Assoel.te, (Allel, Guerra)
Sugpl •. sr
SC
11/7/90
Page !I
' .... . . ~,
/ ·;:i~:/:~~·-
.... ..::.;-.;.;= ___ ." _. __ ~ ___ ·c
ATTACHMENT A
COMKENTS ON DRAFT EI~ FOR QUARRY ROAD GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT
PRQJfCT om RJPT!!l!l
I. A correction should be made to note tnat a BP ga, ,tot Ion ha, replated
the "'obil shtfon bor-der~ng the Re-etangle site to eliminate potential
confusion.
2. Page 26, Paragrapn 4. It should be clariffed th.t Stanford does not
prop~se to include the Triangle site or Rectangle site in tne City's
Urban Service Area.
TRAFFIC
3. The summary does not state whether or not traffic impacts hive been
.itigoted. Section B of the Summary (page iv) impll.s that mitigation
.. asures .ill be described according to how well they mitigate the
identified impacts. However, under 'Tr.fflc CIrculatIon' (Page yl), the
description af e1tigatfoD measures does not stlt~ whetner Dr not
significant impacts would be mItigated. As explained in comment No. II
below., there appear to be three .ccternc:tions 'Where signHicant impacts
remain unmltlgatod for Development Scenario '1. The swomary should be
s.o modified.
4. The understandIng of the transportatlo. section of the ErR Is ser!ousl]
~L~ered by the co.fusing explanation of the relationship between the
Project and General Use Permit. Under the best of circumstances, t~is
relatfonsh1p is very hard to grasp, in part because it was not explained
well i. the '.neral Use Permit EIR. There should be on. cl.arly-defined
section ~f tho EIR tnat explains the relationship to the l.yperson. The
explan.tlon should Include specific page references to the Senerol Us.
Pe~it E1.. Tn! GPA EIR currently discusses this relationship i~
~iff~rent ways in sever.l locattons , ineludin9 at least pages 5, ]3, 23,
53, and 64.
5. There fs tODfuston between population and jobs. The-discussion of
project scenarfos on pages 8 and 13 talks about numbers of jobs tnat
would be created. and the reader fs referred to Table 3. However. Table
3 does not reflect those numbors··lnstead It is a tabulation of
populat1oni. This confuston carries over into trip gen~ritfon, wh1c~
appears to be based on yet another set of numbers [refer to comment No.
7).
5. The [IR overst.tes PQtentf~l fmpacts. The [IR fs so conservAtive fn
try1ng to analyze the ·worst else-that the resu1ts may be unrealistic.
Attach.t/St Poge 1
for ..... pl •• It oppears thot the populotion of tne Psychiatry Center has
been counted twice 10 the 'PA onalysis (once In the Generol Use Peno!t
yelr 2000 background conditions ond once IS the Project). Also. the GPA
yur 2000+ background conditions ISsum! that neither Stanford's Gene .. l
Use Penait TOM program "or the bockup Intersection Improvements hive
been Implemented. In reolltl. on. or the other would have been
lople.onted. The result Is that the GfA EIR •• y have subst"tiolly
overstated the poor tr.ff~c conditions for the 2000. bas~ cond,tion
(pages 62. 64. 66).
1. The basis of trip generation is not clear. Table 3 presents the
po~ul.tlon of the various project scenarios. Yet. it appears that trip
gener~t1on was blsed on different numbers--t~Gse containad in Appendix
A. Tables 3-1 and 4. The ErR should explain why the numbers In Table 3
were not used.
8. The -triggered improvements-cannot be assumed for the 1;9J background
conditfon. The analysis assumes that the triggered 1~provements are In
,lace i. 1991 (page 53 and Appendix A. pages 2-15. 2·16). Thl. is 0
poo~ Issumption which causes the 1991 oetwork to look better than It
Ict •• llJ will be. It I. mo.t likely that only an Interia version of one
triggered i~rov..ent will be in place by the end of 1991
(Quarry/Arboretum widening). The 1991 network should be DCdified
accordingly.
9. Future development Gn the Tril"gle site needs to provide space for I
widened Arboretum Road. fbis wlder.lng f. described in tnree parts IS
foll ... "
(a)
(b)
(c)
Attachmt/SC
Th •• a.t Jeg of Arboretum (adj.cent to the project) needs to b.
widened to accooaodat. two through l,n •• In each direction. 0 biko
lane I. each direction, and two westbound left·turn lonos. This
cross section needs to extend at least IS far east IS t~ eastern
boundary of the project site. A sidewalk and landscape strip .a,
.lso be needed .ext to the project.
Two .astbound through lon •• need to be provided on Arboretum Road
all the way froo Quarry Road to Pol. O-Ivo, is described 1. the
mitigation ~asure ot the top of page 76 of tho Draft {lR. The
eastbound approach at PaIN Drive .""uld then include two exclusive
left·turn lane •• plus a through-right lane. A bi~. lane or
separate path Js also needed on the south sfd~ of Arboretu.
betw •• n the project site lnd Paim Drive.
Right·of-.lY needs to b. preserved in order to all •• for futuro
potentlol construction of the fully· Improved ArborotuOVPalm
fntersection, as descr1bej 1~ the .1tfgation aeasure in the center
of page 75 of the EI~. Thl. fncludes the nece.sary preser.,tion
of right·of·way for 0 second westbound lane all the way roo. Pilm
Drive to the Quarry/Arboretum intersectIon. A westbound bike l.n.
or a separate path ,1.0 needs to be includod In this section.
Page 2
•
-.-"
•
Items (l) and (b) shD"ld be condItion. of approval for the Ce,erol PIon
Amendment and any future development projects proposed for the Triangle
site.
10. The main access for the future development on the Triangle site
(possible Psychiotry Center) Is proposed to be unsign.llzed. The EIR
shol,;ild inalyze whether-cr nl'J:t i tnff1c stgnal woyld be needed here,
especially is t~fs is also a main ~ntrince to the shopping center.
There NY aha be many pedestrian.$-~~;ring to cross here. Havi!'ig
anQther traffic signal so cTose to two existing Signals should be
avoided. Ideally. the primary er.trance to the Triangle site should be
located .t the existing Quarrj/Welch sign.l.
11. Tabl. Il needs explanation. Th. reader can infer that the table
prcbab11 does not lnclude the effect of the TDH and housing mitigations,
nor the l&st four fntersect1~n improvements on page 76. However. the
ErR should state what mitigations have bee. assumed for this table.
The table should also include the 2000+ base column from Tabl~ 10 and a
column showing the difference. in vic ratios between tho 2000. b,se
column and the ·wlth mitigitionsW coTumn. The difference column would
show that significant Impacts (change in vic ratio> .01) remaIn
,nmltlgated at RavenswoodiEl Camino, "iddl e/EI Camino, and Sanh
Cruz/Junipero Serra. This would help oxpl.i. the boldface .entence at
the bott~ of page 76 which refers to significant unavoidable tr.ffic
!lIl»acts.
12. On page 14, par.graph. 1-3, it is not cle.rly stated whether the TOM
.itigation is Included i. the project. The us. of TOM should be
required IS I .~tigation measure for this project. All development
permitted under the General Plan Amendment should be lncorpor.ted into
the TDM Program requIred of Stanford for approv.l of the Sener.l Use
Permit.
13. The description of intersection improvements needs much stricter
definition. Pages 74-76 list IS intersection impro·,.ments th.t could
mftigate many of the intersectt~n impacts of ~veTop~nt Scenario fl_
To t~e fnformed reader, t~e list is co~fus;ng beciuse seven of the
improvements-have ilreadjl been fdentiffed is lrIitigetions for prev;ously
approved Stinford developments, and two others are infeasible. and two
are not actually improvements, T~fs leaves four to specif1cally
mitigato GP~ impacts.
Notwithstanding, the EIR shows t~4t the first 11 improvements, no Matter
whic~ Stanfo~ deyelop~~nt$ they are assO(iated with. can mitigate the
significant impacts of Cov.lopment Scenario II at .11 bot tnree
1ntersectfons, plus all Impacts of Use P!rmit devel~pmer.t end all other
cumulatiye development t with no 1DK assumed for Iny development.
Tne fiR does not c1early dof,"" which of the inter.ection improvements
sho"ld be tied to this project. Given the potent,.l imp.ct of the
Generi1 Plan Amendment, it is recommended that the improvements needed
AttachaltjSC Page 3
---"':""''"''--. ----.,
..
at intorsections directll affected by increased development on the
Rectangle Ind Triangle s~tesJ be required as conditions of approy.l IS
described in comment No. g aboye. Tnes. improvements should be required
I. addition to the TDM eltlg.tlon described In comment No. IZ, with no
option for deferral of the !oprove.ents.
PRAIHAG[ AND fLOOPING
14. Pige 104, paragraph Z. What Is the .pproxi~.t. tine fr ... for
lost.llitio. of Ph.s. II siio trunk?
15. fige 104, Section Z (Impacti), Oeyelopaent Scenario '1: If the runoff
c~fficient will Increose from 0.20 and 0.95 as a result of the project.
~y do •• pe.k runoff Increase by 2nll 60 percent? Thl. statement "eeds
further justification.
16. Pago 104, paragrap" I. lne :.toot of flooding due to fiilures of the
Searsyill. take Dam would >Ppll equally to Development Scenario I .s
well.
11. Pige 105, paragraphs 0, 7. There appears to be conf~sfon IS to ~fch
~Itlg.tlons are Included In the project, I.e., part of the General Plan
AMe~nt, or IS part of future development apprbva15, such as the
Psyc~l.tric Hosplt.l?
18. Page 10?, Section 3 {Mitigation!. Cevelopoent Scenarios '1 and '2: The
report slmp!y state. that the exIsting stor. draio.ge lines have the
capacity to carry the additional "noff produced by the project. This
~y be true, but tnere are other Issues to consfder~
The local agencle, of the South eay, Including the County of Santi Clara
and the City of Palo Alt., h ••• been required by the RegIonal Water
Quality Control Board (Board) to Implement control ... sures that will
improve the Quality of .toMIW,ter runoff. The provisions of the permit
are scheduled to be Impl.mented over the next five years.
Whon and if the projects are constructed, they .hould be required to
Incorporate appropriate measures to c.ntrol the Quality of stonowator
runoff. Since the project f.1l, within the jurisdiction of S.nta Clara
County. the specific mea$~res to be 1mple.ent!d .111 depend on which
.. asure. have been formally adopted by the County as requirements ot the
time of actual development. Potential control .... uros ~'Y Include such
t~ln9s 'S on·slte detentlon/IAflltrat!.n of stOMIW.t~r runoff, oll·.,ter
separators for on-s1te dra!nage, requ'rementst for cleanfng of parking
lots, etc~
VEGETATION AMP WILOll(£
19. Page 109, paragraph I. The last sentence should be corrected to reflect
th.t the widening of Quorrl Road has been approved and the ook tr •••
have been removed.
Attachat/SC Page 4
•
.'
YISUAL &No AESTHETIC QUALITY
20. ,oge 112, page 4. Above mentIoned correctIon reI_ted to Quarry Road
oaks needed here 01'0.
HOUSING
21. 'age 118, par.graphs 2·B. The fIR Identlfl., the project IS h.ylng
significant hOLlsing impacts, b'jt the flous1n; mitigations proposed are
vigue references to futUre studies, p'a~ updates and cont1nuat1on of
existing programs, which are not true mltigatlons. Development ot .a
housIng project On one or both of the Rectangle and TriangTe Site,
should be lIsted .s the most effectlYe housIng mItigation.
UTILITIES AHD URBAH SEgVICES
El£PI\!CID
22. The are. studIed in the EIR 1. out,ld. the city limits .nd Is thereforo
outside the .er,lce territory of the eTectrlc utility. Power for
deyelopoent of the site would be Stanford's responsIbilIty.
2~. The Quarry Road Substation site would be affected by deyelopment of the
'ossible Future Psychiatry Center .s 'hown on loc.tlon Map, figure 2.
The substation Is p,rtlally Tocated wIthin an .asement on St_nford
lands. The .asement .ncompass.s 30 feet .long the western .Ide of the
substat~on.
24. The 60kY overhead li~e serving the Quarry Road Substation .~ a1so bE
.ffected by any development In th.t it doe. cross Stanford lands. The
.. ps and photographs do not clearly show whether the eXistlog 60kW lIne
WDuld be .ffected by the site development.
25. The Study ire, Is outSide the City of Pilo Alto Sa, UtIlity Service
.rea. A correctIon 'hould be .ade to p.ge 126 of the report uoder
Sectlon~. Utilitiei and Urban Services. -The project ar~a lfes within
the County of Santa CT.ra's jurisdiction, .nd outside the City of P.10
Alto's Utility Service Ar ••• • Sas for the study are. will b. supplied
by Stanford through PG&E. There is a 6-1nc" gas .ain on Arboretum which
may need ~dtfi,atton.
I/ASIEilATER
Attach,.tjSC Page 5
26. The iRfo~tfon g~ven under t~e heading ·WastewateT Servfce· on page ]21
Is outdlted. The planned expansion of the RWQCP ha' been completed.
Th. plant now his I capacity of 38 mgd •. lnd currently discharges ZZ ogd.
(see attached .. rked up pag. 27). A correction needs to be •• de to the
last paragr.ph on page 121 reglrdlng the size of the •• Istlng sewer lIne
on Qulrry Road. The •• istlng CPA lin. Is 18 Inches in dllOeter not IZ
Inches.
27. All wastew.ter flows from this study area will be required to be
directed through St.nford's flow meter at V.I. Street .nd St.nford
A .. enlie~
ZB .. The study are. Is outSide the City of Filo Alto V.ter Utility service
lrel. Pl •••• hl.e the proposed IO·lnch .ator line that Is discussed
under the he.dlng ·Se.eral Plan Amendment Ar •• • on page 129 plotted on
figure 34 on p.ge 132. It Is our understanding th.t Stlnford will be
supplying water to the study Irel.
See .1so correct1o~5 needed IS shown on the att!ched excerpt from the
Draft EIR.
AIR QUALITy
29. Table 16, page 92, shc.ld Include prodicted carbon .. noxlde
concentrltfons far Case 1, the all residenttll development scenarlo (see
reference to Ca.e 7 In paragraph I. page 91}.
30. rable 17. page 93, should provide an a.terl.k to shoo th.t the
P,yc~l.trlc Hospital Is Included In the Dedlc,l and nedicil/residentill
developaent scenarios.
31. Page 94. Ar •• 11 the air quality .Itlg.tlon .. asureS Plrt of the
project at t~!s time even Ineludlng dust control .. a.ures? (i .•.• no
construction project Is proposed at this time) (refer .1$0 to page 74.
paragraph. 1·3).
SfOI.QGY A.~O SOILS.
32. Page 100, paragraph 5. Thh paragraph shou1d be .xpanded to addre .. the
likelihood of interception of .ny co.t&alnated ,round waters and what
.ltlgatlon ..... ure ... y be required should such occur.
fm SERVICE
33. The f0110wlng cooments r.l.ted to future development projects which .'Y
be propos ed:
At tochlllt/SC Page 6
• <
Any oed I cal l.bs and pools should co~ly with provisions equlv,lent
t. Title 17 of the Palo Alto ~uniclpal Code for chemical storage and
use, and toxic gas ordfnance.
All nE. buildings should be required to be fully fire !prlnklered.
Elevltors should be requfred to accommodate Fire Department gurrey
consistent with Tltl. 15 of the Pil. Alto Kunlcipal Code.
Future fire ,1irM reQuireaents ~111 require 24-bour ~nttoring to an
approved Ul central station. (cnnection to the lIunfc:1p.(lil system will
not be allowed.
potlcr PROTECTION
34. Page 130, paragraph 3. Palo AltQ has 90 sworn officers, not 98.
Specific: pcl~ce service impacts cannot be determined until actual
development plans are proposed. Seneral Impacts would be rol.tl,e to
traffic volume and enfGrc~~r.t Since oost of the affected roadways and
j~tersectfons fall fnto Pile Alto's jurisdiction. Additionally, because
the Palo Alto Communication Center handles calls/dispatches for not only
po1ice l but also fire) utt1ittes, public w~rks and medication
emergencfes. some work load impact fs expected in increased calls for
service.
Attach_tlSC Page 7
""'" _OIlS will hive • Iotal peU <&pocily of opprotimalely 4.8 mi!lion cubic
'COI of , .. per bo.Ir. A 192-rile .. !work ca>sisting of two to twelve-ino;!, City
_ pipes will disIribll .. , .. to .pprotimale1y 23.000 customm (c:nyw;de Land
U .. Ind 1'nnspanaIim Study EIR. 1988).
SUnfonl ptI:)Vldet SlUm ond tIeetrlci!)I Ihrousb iu cogeDcntiOO ,ys .. m. This plant
.... tile waste beat from tile generation pr!>CeSS '0 rupply stUm to the campus and
Medi<aJ CenIu. Ex=s pawer is IOId to PG&l!.
GtllVl11l'lan Amtndm<IOl Area
'I'beft, oro IIQ uses on tile Recta:lgle. Triangle IItd Campus Drive Sites whicll
;nsentIy ... e1e<:triclly or ilS. As I .... lI, electrical IIIld ,as networks do DO<
eIist 011 the project m..
~fo Wast .... ler Senko -Io-f'"C
'I1Ic HaroId~MiY (Palo Alto) Regional W.ter Q.I.t: Plant (RWQCP)
provide< wattr troatmen! fae Mountain VJ<"'. Los 0<, UlS AlIos Hills. Palo
AlIa. East 0 Aha Ind Sunford This pIaru pnlYide treOlmet1, with •
capacity or· mgd (millioo. ,pDons per day) L .. i utib, beabi£td lit 39.6 mgd.
-wich jtt!1 IEidil) UUllIa' anticipated III :th: mas tuttie. Treated efflucru is
dlschar8ed into !lie Bay.
Sunfo:d', eJ<isting wtltary sewer system ""nsists of an unde;ground ".""ott of
pipet; MeiDl from four to 21 inches in .iz.e mel cpenting 00 gravity flow. A
..,. 12 inch ....... line is being installed in Q\wty and Attotetum Roads.
SUnfonl'l sysrem empties into I 21 ",ell dWneI<r pipe in Ill. CUy of Palo All.
')'IIeJD • tIIc Yale SmeVS'..wfonl Aven~ itumection. On Yale Sine!. tile
sew ... is ...... red Il1d flows to tIIc R WQCP_
A:E·:"'::::k.'Sunfonl and Palo AIIo pennils tile regionai facility to .....
S On! ...... ,._. Stantonl presently discbarges about 1.0 mgd (abou. half of
Ibe __ I DI' S.~ of IDe plant capacity pcrmiUed by the c:OIlU'aCt) into me
City'. sysrem wbich treal$ !lie ~wator. The copaci.'Y of !lie Univetsily', .. wer
system II ado.,"1UIe to handle ....... warer flow froro aD existlng faciliti ...
-22. '5l'~" ~
Pale All. ClImntly tli>dl"l<.l ~ mgd ~ of the ~ mgd capacily). '!be
RWQCP is JtgUWed by tho Regional Water Qu>!ity Control Boord <hrough •
discharge penniI 1mder the National PD!lutaru Disdlarge Elimination 5!fS\<m
(NPDES). This permit stipulates that wb<n flow ... ches 75% of Clpacily. the Cily
must d.em.onstrtte how k will acwmmodilLc increased flows. A::I. iWaiL. ,tlo
Alro t· " 1 1l! P L~!he ']W~I "',ISit,. Widl [1!4'IUPCn:euts NfCilli}
~ I). 'flit exj£citd tidal) UeaUlEi4 apM; aiR be 98.8 "-Dd (I ''41,
iI : "iI)
G.norl11 PIlvc .4m<ndm<.r Ar",
The existiDg smitaty sewer DC_ in the projea .,... ooruislS of • 12 inch sewer
line Iocoted ill Quarry Road wbiclI is upc<;1O<\ to be .".nckd by i 990. The line
127
•
"'''-.
Pollee I'J'1>Uoctioa
T1rto potioo cIepamnevrs proYlde pnxtCtioD fill' !he Stanford community. The _ani ~ Pollee, under aUIborily from !he Ccwlty of s.nu Clara Sheriff',
J:l<pArtmmI -. 1IIc W';IIC<Xporat«I .,.... DO die campus. The Palo Aho Polic.
IlcpuImont '""'"" diose __ Palo Aha', City Iimils (Le.. _on!
SboppiI>J ~ III<! pordooo of !he McdiW Centtr). The Campus PoE«
CODpOriIIC with 1IIc City Polk%, III<! alIo _ die ...". dispxloh ""'ice.
The Campus Police empIo)oI 33 IWQIII offioera III<! 20-25 communi.oy S<rVjce
officcn for tnffic IIld pamq vio!atioos. An o&Iitjm,l e.i8ht to twelve studcn!s
.... .,..,loyed in !he od___ .::rimin.oI ~OD unit. The c.mpo,
Polic< hove • re5JXlIlI" time of approximalcly two min,... for aD incidents with
IIIDOI of those lncidenu iovoJvina pn>perty <rimes {Geuor>l Usc Penni! EIR. .988). ,,,
Tho City Police .,..,lOY5 W" owom ofIken. Ono-persoo palrol c:m L"O assigned to
buts based DO tumlIlI _ in crime loca!ioos. The beat boundaries also change
as crime _, c:IwIse. The City Police _ • IOSpOIIS< time of Wee min, ... Dr
less for '""'1<""1 _. .... minulCS or less for incidcnu with "immodia!e"
_ ond 60 mmures or less fur aD other _ (General lise Permk E1R,
1988).
G<1IUaI PI4II .4m<rutm.Jtt AT ••
Police proceaion is provided 10 !he Re<:l.malt. Ttianslc .wi Campus on., Sires ..
dosaibcd &bo.-e.
Tho 5Wlfanl Com .. mily is Ioco/.td _ die Palo Aha Unified ScbooI 0Utrict
This _ iDch!doa ..... elemcIIIary -. ODe middle school I!Id two high
ICbools. __ &I !he two elementary IIId ..... hiih ICbools is dctenninod by
!he =idcotiaI loca!ioo of !he &IIIden!s ... die ~ All of _ schools bve
bceo opcraIiDs &I or .... capIICiIy. """"" cnrollmmt IfeDds .... expected 10 -....
130
. ,
{
'-i"l~-' J.'l,
!, . ' .. / o
:~.(
", 4*~l;i? : "r-r;>
llim!
~edS-"'1n -··-·~c," --
..... bii\~U" w... lint -.-.......... ~..!':.
I ?z:!-' _.-:...
.:~-:5~7hn
" /pH _"'/::;
-/' , tP~ G,#(./ .. ",i1' -C-:>--~. 4""". ..
"--,,--""".",-:'.. ~~
" . ~ ... -,,~~'; ~--"'-'.. '"' .,..., lI.:o~~~"fl:-<.:'?"-:~~ ,\.. ',--. ..../ .... "'1'1'" " ,::1, ,iC..""::"':~ 'l, ~,
,c ... <:... '
.J!,._
I}
,
r.:~~~6~~~9~rti~·~~2itt~~~~f~t~~~s eN;t f;/"C'~~~ 't:.L-.-h;...\ ,. k-=·-0'", \. ('0"·»'1.C!'·,,;;;. ~ .. ~, ... ~~. f'f
"
EXAM!'lE Of A PSYCHlIITRY CENTER WATER AND SEWER PlAN flGU1lt£ 3~
'"
'.-_ ... ~.,.
'\
\ ,-,;
, '.~
. .,.
AnACHIIENT B
SUMMAP.V OF T~AEFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR STANFORD UNIVERSITV
Traffic mitigation requirements for Stanford tite the form of fntersectl~n and
roadway improvements, and transporht;on demand management (T~)~ Pila Alto arId
Santa Chra Cotlnt.)' have fmposed these requirements as l1itigatloflS and conditions
Df approval for several projects in the ~~dical Center area and the General Use
Peralt .
INTERs{CTION AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection and roadway ~mprQye;TM!nts are required only on the acct:rf!nce of
certain trafffc and TOM conditions wMch Stanford measures annuall)"~ Attachment
1 lists all int~rsect1Dn and roadway improvements associated with the following
Stanford projects in ttle Medical Center .area: Medfcal Sc'f1oo1 Office Bullding
(MSOB) , Center for Molecular and Senetlc Medicine (CMGM), !lOO Weld Road
(Hometel), and Hew Child",n,' HospHll (NCHfS). Stanford Is required to
construct the improvements in Attachment 1 only if level of serviCe (lOS) exceeds
~o· at the specific int~rseclion. These improvements are sometimes referred to
is the -triggered improvements-. Stanford issues a level of service monitoring
report on these intersections annually on May 31. As Gf ~ay 31. 1990. three
j~tersectfons ~!d exceeded lOS 0; Quarry/ArboretQm, Pasteur/Welch, and Alpine
Road/Junipero Serra/Santa Cruz.
The Quarry/ArboretUil improvements tlU! just been completed (future potential
hrger~scale improvement! llJay be constructed in conjunction 'With the developiTlent
of the psychiatry cellter site). Improvements for the other two triggered
inters€ction have bee~ requested. For the Pasteur/Welch intersection
{Intersection No.2 in Attachment I}, the City has requested an iniHal project
to restdpe the west leg of Pasteur to accomodate the new right turn lane within
the existing cur!:! lines. The Ci t1 is also pursufng prel iBinary design for
installation of the traffic Signal, (which may require a .i61 •• 1 roadway
widening}, and the restriping of Pasteur which will occur after the Signal ;~
1nstalled. For the Alpine Road/Jun1pe~ro Se~ra/Santa Cruz intersection
(Intersection Ho. 5 in Attachment I), the City is asking Stanford to pursue
imple~ntatior. of an improvement in Menlo Pa~k whic~ was to be r!qu1red if the
Sa~d Hill extension has not been built, the add1tfon a separate right turn line
on Alpine Road, northbound.
Attacfm2ent 2 lists ill 11ltersection and roadway improvements associated with
projects that cOl.lld be buil t und!r the 1989 Santa Clara County General Use
Penllit. This lfst of improvements is part of the May ]0. 1989, -Traffic
Mitigation Plan for Stanford's General Use Permit-. Stanford is required to
construct these improvements o~ly if (a) Stanford~s TOM participation rate fails
to reach its goal for two consecut1'JS' years. (b) the County determines thilt other
mitigation measures would not be effective, and (c) Stanford's level of service
IIIOnitoring report described ,boY. (.hic~ would be expanded to include til.
intersections listed in Attac-hement 2) shows that an intersec.tion listed in
Athc.hment 1 exceeds lOS D. None (If these improvements has yet betOllle necessary.
~----~~-~ ~--. ~-'",.......
-z-December 6, 1990
TRANSPORTATIQN DEKANQ MANAGEMENT
The prfDiry mitigation for the 6eneral Us. Permit is TOM, as described in the
afor.mentioned 'Traffic Mitigation fl •• ', Palo Alto, Santa Cl,ra County, and
Stanford Univers.ity hi.ve a IlUtull desire to Jl1tigit!! triff1c congesHon by
reduclng the number of single-occupint caTS. Thf Generll Use Permit fIR found
t~at Stanford coulci, . 10 fact, reduce the nU1lOber of single-occupant cars
suffic1i!'ntly tG offset t~e popuh.t'iort fncrease pel""llltted by the General Use
PersiL Stanford will accomplis" this redu..::tion by building new on-campus
housing and by expanding Its existing TOM program.
The gOil of the TOM program lS -no net new cammute trips-, This is defined is
no increase in commute trips on public streets during t~e three-hour afternoon
cotlmUte peri od due to 1 ncreases i ~ Stanford's di:,tt i tie populat 1 on from the Gen-en 1
Use Permit. Stanford will count III known caTpool, vanpoo', Ind transit riders,
and possibly bicyc11sts ~~ pedestrians. and will report annually to Santi Clara
County on the.e nWibers. If the number of new TPM participants since the bise
y.ar of 1987 equals or exceeds the n""beT of new trips allowed In the '.ner.l Use
Permit, the TPM program will be considered to be • successf"l mltig.tion.
Should Stanfor6 fail to meet its TPM goa1 for two consecutive years, It would
potentially be required to con$t~~et t~e intersection improvements descrlbed in
t~e first part of t~is ~rindum. Stanford has not yet subDitted a formal
annual TOM ... Itoring report, as Its daily population to .. not yet reached the
miBim~m baseline established in the General Use Perm1t. Stanford, however, has
conducted two interim TOM counts iA October ]989 lnd ~ay 1990. and his noted
increases in TOM parttcipation.
Attachments:
1~ Sept~r 21, 1987 -Mister list of I~tersection and Roadway Improvements
Agreed to by Stanfor6 University as Mitigations and Conditi.ns of Appr·."l"
Z. Attachment 3 fTOOl May 10, 1989 'Traffic Mitigation Plan for Stanford's
Senerll Use Penl1t-
,:" . .,.
'.
.. "
~evlsed Sept~~beT 21, 1987
KASTU LIST OF )NTEFlS£CTlON AND JlOAD~A.'t lMPROVtJo!E.NTS
AGREED TO &Y STANFORD UNlVERSITY
AS I1ITlGIITlONS AND CONDlnO~S Of APPROVAL
{Source dOCUlllents are .sholffl in brackl!'ts. Se.e p. } for citations and
notes .1
Ceneral pIOYisi~~s
During ApL11 or May of each year, St.nford monitors the level of service at
eacb of the intersections listed belov, and submits a reFort to Santa Clara
County and the City of Palo Alto by Kay 31. The counts and analyses are to
be $upervised by an independent registered traffic en&ineer, using tbe
OpeTations Met~od of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. He[hod~lo&y can be
changed by ~tual consent.
If at any of the Intersectlonz the overall level of servIce exceeds ·D~. the
lIsted improvements .r~ to be completed within 18 months. subjec~ to approval
by the &Seney having jurisdiction.
Sand Hil~oa~~t Pasteur Drive
Either of th~ following:
ea) tf ~he Sand Hill Roa4 Extension bAJ not been built. add a thro~,h lane
en Sand Hill ~oad southbound (toward Santa Cruz Avenue Avenue)4 exte~ding
{TOG 200' north of Pasteu~ Drive to ~DO' south of Pasteur Drive. with
associated signal modifications; ~
(b) ]f the Sand Hill ~oad ExtensiOD ~ been bUilt, add a secQnd throuth
]ar~ on ~and HIll Road north~ound (toY~rd £1 Camino Real), ex~endlng from
lOO' south cf P~steur Orlve to 100' north of Pasteur Drive, with associated
signal oodifications.
[MSOB/llOO ~elch/CHGMI
2 Pasteur DriVe 8t ~plc~ Road
All of the following:
<.) Add a signal. [Welch Road Extension Proje't; deadline postponed by the
Clt,_ J
(b) Add a right tUTO lane 00 ~elch Road at the corner or the 1100 Welch Road
proJect-, fer tiJrns to'Ward Sand lUll 'load. [1100 Yelcb]
ee) Re-stripe pasteur to create two l~nes on each apprc~ch of Pasteur Drive
(~astbound and ve5tbound) near ~elch. [NCH@S)
•
~ ;: z
~ o • " c z
~ • ~ ::; ..
•
• i o • ,.
z
" c
~
•
= • z
is ;::
c ,.
~ : ::; ..
•
•
~ ;: z
2
" c
Z
~ :: ::; ..
•
11:
i o • ,.
Z
" c
11:
, ~elc;tJ p;p.d It O\Jarry Road
Add an exclu51v. l.f~ turn lane on ~elch. and a 5econd lane .long Quarry Road
from Yelc~ to Arb~retum, (NCH@SJ
4. Quarry Road It Arbonturt Road
Both of the following:
(~) ]f the 58~d Rill load Extension has not been built. add. turn lane on
Quarry Road northbo·.lnd:, foy separate accommodation of right tuyns to'iolard: Palm
Drive, lef~ turns to~ard Sand Hill Road, and through tT9ff1~ toward Hoover
Pavilion. lJ1.S0B/lIOO Velch/OfGMj .
(b) Re-5tripe Arboretum ~o.d ~estbound, co provide exclusive lefe. throu&h
and through/right lanes~ vith related signal modifications. iNCH@S]
The 1987 counts sh!;)V that. Quarry/ArbClutum hu reached t.he tdg.ger peine.
5. Campus DTh" 'W"ut. and' Junfpero Suu Boulevard
Add a second right turn lane on Campus Drive, w{th .sso~!ated 51gnal
DOdificat!ons; provide a right turn &ree~ phase and a 150' accelerat.io~ lane
on Jun{pero Serra v~$tbound. for ~urns from Campus Dr[vr tovard Alpine Road.
1"506/1100 we1ch/CKCHj
6_ Alpine Road at Juniperp Serra !oulevard
If the Sand Rill Road Extension has nc~ been buile, and only af~er eompletion
of the San Francisquito Creek Rridge replacement FToject. add. 5epatate
right turn lane on Alpir.e Road northbound. for turns tovard Campus Drive.
1"506(1100 llelcb/CHCHj
Notes on source documents
Yelch Road t~tension Proftss. ay letter dated Septe~ber 23. 1~t3 (·~elch
~oad/PBsteur Drive ConnectIon to C&Qpus Drive Yest-), Stanford agreed to
install a traffic sl&n~l no later than December 31. 1984. At Stanford's
request, Pelo Alto has extended the deadline several times.
~. -Mitigations of Projected CwrJlative Traffic Impacts of the Medical
School Office Suildins Project-, dated Hay 21. 1985. Requires 4OnitoTing and
improvement of four intersections: Sand Hill/Pasteur; Qyarry!Arboretum;
Campus Drive Yest/Junipero SerrA; and AlpinejJuntpero Serra. The numbe~ is
reduced to two if the Sana Hill Road Extension is built. Expires Kay 31.
1995.
~. ·State~nt of Intention Regarding Tr~ffic Related Improv~ments in
Connection with the Center for Molecular and Cenetie Kedieine-. filed
pursuant to Cou~ty approval of e~e CKGM proj~et in June 1986. Contains the
same provls1ons as the MSOS agreement. Expires May 31. 1995.
~Ve)eh Road. Subdiv1s!~n Agreement da~ed March 12. 1986. ~ifrer5 from
MSOB agiee~ent in two respects: (1) adds lasteur/Welcb to the list; (2) adds
language on perCoraa~e of york. warranties. ete. Expires May 31. 1995.
NCH@S. -Agreement Concerning ~r.rf1c Improvements in Connection vi~h the Nev
Children's Hospital at Stanford' dated Kay 29. 1981 requires that NCH@S
monitor and improve interseetions; ~e -Three-Party Agreement-of the same
date assigns NCH@S' responslbilicies to Stanford. Follovs the structure or
previous agree~ents, but: (I) speeifies second iDpr~vement at ewo
intersections (Quarry/Arboretum, Pasteur/Ueleb); (2) adds one intersectioe
(Quarry/yelcb); (3) provides a Dechanis~ for ~b&nging analytical methods by
.utual c,onsent; and (4} sets d.t. for beginning monitorlng of QuarryfWelch a~
May 1989. Lxpires Kay 31. 1995.
Prepared by J+ Fremon
12~-~)62
,-.-
Rev!sed Fehru.ry IS, 1990
AnACHtmIT ] -INT!&SECTIPN ItCPiOVEMMS
GROlJP' J.. .. INT£R5tCTlONS aruACmr TO CA!ffilS
N4-t new
coa=ute.
t:rips: Urea
annual
TOM rll'pO! t.)
131-220'
221·325
Adjacent
!nter.u:ctlons
potQnt1aUy
1Ilpaeu~
..QLP.L!I!<>ll
Quarry I Arbo·re.tua
Thill! above plus:
... Jun1pero Se:rr.a/page. Kill
El Camino/Shoppi", Genur
326·650 All of the above plus:
II Caa1ftOJGalvezJEmbarcadaro
Church' HjE1 Caal.nc
J"u.nipero Sena/Sunford.
> 6S0
... Sand Rl11/pa.u:e:ur
Improvements
required if
level of serv1ee
u:su4;; "P"
Widen Qu,arr.1 to fovx thro-i.oOgll
lane.s.
Add $~eond V! left eurn lane.
Add U. riJ,ht turn lane {modify
channelization),
Add second. EB 1e.£t-curD. lane on £1
Caaino (widen approach and
4eparcura l~ss); r •• trip. sa
approacb on EmbaT~~~eLo ~o provide
additional optiGnal left turn
1_.
Ad4 seeon4 SB l~tt-turn lane
(w1den approach)
Add •• eond sa left-turn la~a
(widen approacb and depar~.
le,.).
W1~n S.nd R111 to four thro~gh
1anu,
... .Ma, be aecoap11shed. by the Ci"Cy of P.alo Al~o 1&S1ns • tr<!c ~ct; fee .
...... Kay be ac.ca.plil!'hed &.II put of .. lupr S.nd Rill ao.d: 1-.prove::tetlt project.
hNolving St:arlford aM the e.lties o-f J'alo Alto ... 4 Ken!o P.ark.
AU. , - 1
Net MV
co .. ut.
tdps (fro.
"""",,1
1J!t1 rcpeT t>
S 3~S
326-650
•
> 6Sa
" "
"
.'
,/ ."
.Ci1.QJlP-.-L..:.._Urrp,SS;CTlm;s' $J.r{vIN9 REG1QNAL T5U.FFlC
Re£1onU
1nte.:-.ecttone
potentiAlly
apacted
~H--Ma
1'000
El CAmlno/R&v~nswco~
Al.ma)Cbux.h111
Sand Hill/Oak Creek V.
~lL ~f tb~ Ibove ~l~~
El Caainotp.alo Alto-Altu
II CUinojS.tnta CnlZ
SanG Hill/Oak Creek E. )
Sand Bill/Oak AVBUue )
Sand Hill/Santa Cruz
Iwprovement
re.quired. if
level of 5.rviee
u,cuM ~
Add th1~d YB throug~ lani (~~~en
approach, pr~hiblt p.ak period
par1tlns)·
lrovt~ N! lefe-turn lane (Vi de::n
approach).
Yiden S&P4 Hill to four throu,b
lane •.
Ad4 s*cond E!. 1 ef t· t:u:rn lane
{aodlfy eb.nnel£z~tlon}.
Add ~1:;d. VB through lane
(prohtbit peak period parking).
V1c1An s.aM Hill to four cnrough
lath!!s.
Add S! rlgbt-turu Ian.; add se~ond
1ett-'turn 1&ne1S WB and S! {"iden
a'PPro.che.)~
• May b6 ac~ompllsbe4 .. part of ... lar,ex San~ ~111 Road 1Dprov.m.n~ project
involrlng St.anford and the c.itiu or Pale; Ah::o and Menlo '.ark.
~~ (1) The El C~1no/Ser~. int~rsection t. lilted in ebe £Ia but e~~
incl'Q4.ed. here beuu.se the City of Palo Alu intends ~o -.k4I the imp'l'O'Yeme~t AS
put of tu Capiul Imp-rov.:ttut: hogram.
(2) The It Caaino/Scanl~rd int:erseetion 18 Ii. ted 1n ene EIa but D~~ ineluded
here beeauae the C1~ of Palo Alto ba~ dee.r..1~~ that the imprQV~nt shg~l~
~t be pursued.
(3) The El Caa1nDj?_!mVUniv.rs1ty 1nter8ectfou 1. 1i.ted in the ElK but nDt
lnelude.d b.erf: because th .. Cicy of '.10 Alr;o intend.; to 1aphll4Dt re-stripin,
de31anad to bave -eM .UI.e efhet ... s psrt of it".I Capital J..proveaant Prt)&raG.
(4) th. E1 C&a1no/page ~11 srade .ep •• at1on .~ •• ee~ by th. ~l. i, no~
1nel.u4ed b.eauee the Cicy af P.lo Alto hu d4uraln.4 t"h.t ft will not punue
&r&d. ~p.ratiOD at ch!. lae_c!on.
ACt. 3 a 2:
•
·
CITY GGUHCll MINUTES
AUGUST I, 1989
JULY 11, 1989
MARCH 20, 1989
MRCH 6, 1989
FEBRlJAR'/ 21, 1989
'LAMMING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 14, 1989
JUNE I, 19B9
FEBRUARY 8, 1989
O£CEMBER 14, 1989
II IT ACIIIEHT C
EXCEIU>T MINUTES
.'"
23. QRDINANCE J894 entitled ·ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITi'
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
CHAPTER 16.45 ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION" IMPACT FEE FOR
NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL OEVELOPI<ENT IN THE S1'ANFCRD RESEAACf!
PARJ(/EL CAMINO REAL CS ZONE' (1st Readinq 7/17/89, PASSED 6-0,
Cobb. lClein -not participating,,· Patitucci absent, (1041-07)
(CHR:405:9)
KOTIOR PASSED 9-0 for Items 3, 5 -8, and 10 -16.
MOTION RASSED 7-0 for Item 9, Bechtel, Cobb -nat participating.-
X~TIO. PASSED 8-0-1 for Items 17 -19, patitucci -abstaining.
MOTION PASSBD 6-0-1 for Items 20, 22 and 23, patitucci -abstain
ing,· Cobb, Klein -not participating4-
MOTION PASSED 6-2-1 tor Item 21, Levy, woolley -no, II Patitucci
-abstaininq.-
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
24. Resolution Amending the Land Use Map ~nd Transportation
Element of tne Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (continued from
'/17/89) (1041-07) (CKR:40S:9)
Mayor J(lein and Council Member Cobb did net participate due to
conflicts of interest.
MOTIOlf: Council Member sutor-ius moved, seconded by RenzeL to
adopt the Resolution.
R-ESOLUT.ON 6819 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL Of THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP AND THE TRANSPOR
TATION ELEMENT OF THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
PROPERTIES I.T 2780 EL CAMINO REAL, 2700 EL CAMINO REAL AND 375
ARBORETUM, AND FOR PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF QUAP.RY AND
ARBORETUM ROADS J(NOWN AS THE TPAPEZOIO PARCEL AND FOR PROPERTY
ADJACENT TO QUAIUIY AND ARBORETUM ROADS BORDERING THE MOBIL
STATION KNOWN AS THE MOBIL/RECTANGLE PARCEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE CITYWIDE LANO USE AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY'
council Member Sutorius looked forward to planned community
development opportunities on the Hayfield Site fc~ housing
subsidized by co~ercial uses along the El camino frontaqe.
MeTIOH P~SS~D 7-0-2, Cobb, Klein -not participatinq.-
62-79
8/07/89
•
l:::AC.I!:RP! C1TY COUriCIL MLritJT1.S OF 7-17-8~
lYBL1C HEARINGS
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning commission recommendation re
citywide Land 'Use and Transportation Study, comprehensive.
Plan, Zone Map, and Zoning Ordinance alIIendments (1041-Q7 J
(C1!R:354 :9}
Mayor Klein and Couneil Member Cobb announced they would not par
ticipate on items havin9" to do with Stanford University due to
conflicts ot interest.
council Member Renzel queried the two different designations for
375 Arboretum as opposed to havinq designated the site the same
~ulti-tamilYI and grandfathered in the station a
Director of Plannlnq and community Environment ~en Schreiber said
the ~Hobil· site did not include the serviee station. The service
&tation was within the current city boundaries and the rest of the
site was unincorporated Santa Clara county property. While the
site co~ld have been zoned the saae multi-t~mily and the station
grand fathered in, be was not aware af anY' plall in the. Citywide
study where phaslnq out thl! service station was discussed as an
option.
UTY COUNCIL MINUTES
.J.+J+ 11. I'f 8 ~ 62-50
7/17/89
"'.-. --.
open late at nlqh~, and those could be as much of a prohlem to the
neiqhbor. as 6n auto use which was not open late. It was true that
cs uses vere .i_1Iar to CN uses, and he did not dee that the eN use
was funda.entally aere benign.
Mayor Xlein said on balance the present and future residents
deserved the. extra protection of the eN Zone. He could not support
a bad planning decision tor a tew Bales tax dollars as there Were
better ways to bandle financial problems. He opposed the amend
ment.
AMENDKENT PA~LED 4-4, Cobb, Levy, sutorius, Woolley -aye,·
Patitucci absent •
.KOTIOlf TO CORTI-NOE: Cour.cil Member Woolley moved, seconded by
Levy, to continue the Item related to Attachment IV excludinq the
Stanford items, to July 24, 1989~
MOTION 'l'O CONTIlrn£ PAlLED 4-4, Cobb, Levy, sutorius .. Woolley "aye .. -
Patitucci absent.
MOTION PASS~D 5-3, Levy, Sutorius, Woolley -no,-patitucci absent .
.MO'l'ION: council Meli'.ber Fletcher moved" seconded by Renzel, to
introduce the Ordinance as set forth in Attaehmelit IV ot staff
report (CMR:354:9) .. re Stanford items (i.e., Section I, page 4 (j),
(k). and (1)
Ordinance 1st Beading entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE: CIT'l OF PALO ALTO !IUIIIClPAL COOE (THE ZONING HAP) TO
C!lAHGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES 1QI0i!N AS 2700
EL ~JUNO REAL AND 2780 EL CAMINO REAL, PROPERTY IQlOWN AS 2650
EL CAMINO REAL (IIAYBELL SCHOOL SITE). AND PROPERTY KNOWN AS
375 ARBORETUIi TO CHANGE TIlE CLASSIFICATIONS OF SAID PROPERTIES
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TdE CrT\~IDE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
STUDY-
KorIOH PASSED 6-0, Cobb, .Klein -not pa.rticipating,· Patitucci
absent.
KOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel .. to
adopt the Resolution amendin9 the Comprehensive Plan, Attachment
III of the staff report (CKR')S~'9).
RESOUlTION OF THE: COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING
THE LAND USE MAP AND THE TRANSPORtATION ELEMENT OF THE PALO
ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITYWIDE LAND
USE AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY
un COUNCIL MINUTE:;
;h 17,,/ri1
62-57
7/17/89
council He=ber Sutorlu. w&nted fUrther discussion reqarding the cs
zone when council Member P.titu~cl waa present. He was eompelled
to oppose the r.solution pendlnq further discussion.
council Kember Renzal said while she supported the cverall
resolution, sbe opposed the land usa designation change for the
property in the vicinity of the Quarry/~rboretum inter •• etion on
the stanford. caapua to "Major Insti tut1ol"l/Unlversity Lands/C&llip'.ls.·
MOTIOli TO COHTIJlt1Z: Council Me:cber Levy moved, seconded by
woolley" to continue the ResC'lution amending the Comprehensive Pla.n
to the city council meeting of August 7, 1969.
KOTIOK PASSED 5-1, Fletcher "no,· Cobh, Xlein "not participating,·
Patitucci absent.
MOTION: council Kember Fletcher moved, seconded by sutorlus, to
introduee the ordinance establishinq a Transportation Impact Fee J
Attac~~ent V of st.tf report CKR:354'9.
Qr2ina~ca 1&; Reading entitled ·ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CIT¥ OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING CHAPTER 16.45.ESTAELISHING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
FEE FOR NEW NON-RES IDEN'l'IAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE STANFORD
RESEARCH PARX/EL CAMINO REAL CS ZONE"
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Cobb., Xle.in -not part!cipatinq,· Patitucci
absent ..
OBDINL'lCES
9.. Ordinance chanqing the Name of the Visual Arts Jury to the
Public Art cosmission (702) (CKR:363:')
.MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded. by Klein, to introduce
the Ord.inance..
Ord!nance 1st Eeadtng entitled "ORD!~ANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THr: r:TTV OF PAt/) AL1'I) AME}li,)Ill~ TITr.:E 2 tADMU::S7?.l.TI7E COD!)
'~f 'l t!t. .... AU.J AL'U; M'tJlnCI}'AL CODE, CHlt.PTERS 2.1& AJ.ID 2.26 'IO
CHANGE THE NAME OF THE VISUAL ARTS JURY TO THE PUBLIC ART
C'OMHISSION-
"I'lld •• u~t1n" a<1j ournecl to a Closed Se.ssion personnel ~t 9:15 p.m. re
62-56
7/17/89
· .
•
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
oral Co~unication&
Approval of Minutes
Regular Meeting
March 20, 1989
1. Financial Consultant -250 University Avenu~
parking Assessment District -Refer to Finance
and Public Works committee
2. Amendment No. 1 to contract No. C0000989 with
central Maintenance Co~pany tor CUstodial
services
3. Ordinance Regarding Oral cOmDrunications
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
4. Citywide Lane Use and Transportation Study
and Environmental Impact Report, Including
Planning com.ission Recommendations
Recess: 9:40 p.m. to 9:52 p. __
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Planninq Commission Recom
mendation re Granting Use Permits for
Detached Second OWellings {-Cottages-) and
Limiting construction on substandard Lots in
the R-l District
6. PUBLIC REARING: Planning commission Recom
mendation re ~ppeal of Lela Coe Meyer for
Property Located ,at 1130 Bryant street
61-195
61.-195
61-195
61-195
61-195
61-196
61-196
61-209
61-212
61-214
61-193
3/20/89
Regular Meeting
March 20, 1989
The City council of the City of Palo Alto .et on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:35 p •••
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, J:lein, F!etcher, Levy, Patitucci
(arrived at 1:56 p •• ~), Renzel, sutorius, woolley
ORAL COKHUNIQ,TIONS
1. Edmund Pover, 2254 Dartmouth street, spoke re9ardin9 Palo Alto
Yacht Harbor.
2. Jack Brown, 12Hi Webster Street, spoke re concern 'With
concrete barriers at BryantjUnivcrsity, etc.
APPROVi\.L OF Mun"TES
MOT.ION: Council Membe~ Woolley moved, seconded by sutorius,
approval of the Minutes of February 21, 1989, as sljbmitted~
MOTZOM PASSBD 8-0, Patitucci absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: council MeJl:lber Woolley moved .. seconded by Levy, to approve
Consent Calendar Ite=s 1 -3.
1. Financial Consultant -2~O University Avenue Parking Assess
Kent District -Refer to Finance and Public Works committee
(410-0J) (CKR:178:9)
Action
2~ Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C0000989 with Central Main
tenance Company for CUstodial services (810-01) (CMR:116~9)
J. ORDINANCE 3859 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AllENDING SECTION 2.04. 060 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUN!CIPAL CODE REGARDING ORAL COMl!UllICATIONS' (1st Reading
3/06/89, PASSED 1-2. Cobb, Sutor ius -no-) (701-01) (NPG)
HO'l'IO. PASSED 1-0,. with Cobb,. Sutor ius Yotinq -no,· on Item J,
Patitucci absent.
61-195
3/20/89
. -,-
Council Member Fletcher believed such i!!I requirement should be
detenllined: at the time of the application and through the Architec
tural Review process. The present L zone waS sufficient protection
until tlum.
council Member Patitu-cci clarified a 60-foot 'Wide by 60-deep L zone
would be the entire frontage of the lot yet someone yould need to
put a driveway through there. He queried what that meant.
Hr. Schreiber said the driveway would need a use pera1t, noticed
public hearing appealable to the Planning commission and the
council~
Council Member Patitucci clarified in all likelihood the driveway
would be well landscaped and probably away from the sinqle-family
and toward the multi-family.
Mr. Schreiber sai~ it could be substantially conditioned at the
tilDe •
Council Member patitucci agreed with Council Member Fletcher~
Vice Mayor Bechtel supported the aotion.
Council Member sutorius agreed with Co~n~il Meftber Fletcher.
BOTrON FAILED 2-7, Bechtel, Renzel -aye.-
~ION: Council Member Rentel moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve
the Planninq commission recommendation to extend the RM-15 line
across and thereby creatinq a more reqular looking parcel for ~~-
3D. .
council Member Renzel referreQ to the Elks property and staff's
caaments reqardinq the difficulties of designing with mUltiple
zones. In the subject .1nstanc:e, the irregul!lr boundary line
betveen the zones would make the RM-15 awkward to develop. Absent
a planned community, the more sizable RM-15 made more sense.
MOTION PAIL~D 3-6, Bechtel, cobb, Renzel -aye.-
KOTZOH: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve
all Planning Commission recommendations (staff Report CKR:lS4:9)
on the Citywide Land Use and Transportation study as amended.
MOTIOJi' PASSED 9-0, with Klein -not participating-on stanford
related items.
61-210
3/20/89
.' ..
./
M!.EH_~HANGES, AOOITIOtlS t AND PELETIONS
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Levy. to brin9 ltcii',
8 forward for purposes of continuance.
HO~ION PASSED 5-0, Patitucci absent.
8. council Members Cobb, Levy and Woolley re Te~porary Housing
for the Homeless (lOJO-Ol) {CKR~168:9)
Jto'l'IOlf TO conUIOE: council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Levy ~
continue the item to March 27, 1989, city council meeting.
MOTIOH PASSED 8-0, Patitucci absent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. citywide Land Use and Transportation Study and Environmental
Impact Report, Including Planninq Commission Recommendations
(continued froll 3/06/89) (1041-07) (CMR: 183 :9)
KOTIOK~ Council Member Cobb ~oved: seconded by Renzel, to approve
the ~lanning Commission recommendation to direct staff to:
1. Make changes at 4249 El Camino Real -Elks Club as tollows:
Change comprehensive Pla:"! desig:naticns from Service COllmercialj
Multiple-Family Residential to M'.lltiple-Fa.ily Residential:
Change the zoning of the cs portion from CS to RH-~O:
~-l zQDing be applied for the strip along Wilkie Way at a depth of
100 feet with no access from wilkie Way to multiple-family land;
ancl
with all actions on the Elks Club site incorporate a grandfather
clause for-the existing Elks Club use {fraternal orqani:z.ation/
community center), allo~ir.g such use to make ~dditions or rebuild
up to a ~aximum 5ite total of 94,779 square feet, but only on the
previously zoned CS portion of the site (equivalent to expansion
permitted for CS portion under a ~4:1 FAR)~
Council Member Cobb ~aid it the ~ouncil was concerned about the
jobs/housing imbalance or affordable housing, the six units of
difference was insiqnificant~ The difference the intrusion of a
.ulti-family strip in what was otherwise an R-l neiqhborhood was
significant to the residents~
61-196
3/20/89
•
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
Regular Keetin<J
!larch 6, 1989
Oral communications
Minutes of February 6, 1989
1.
2.
3.
••
Agreement ~ith santa Clara Valley water
District for Replacement of the Cowper
and Waverley street Bridges at Matadero
creek
PUSLlC HEARING, Citywide Land Uoe and
Transportation study and Environmental
Impact Report. Including Planning Commis
sion Recommendation&
Ordinance Prohibiting Possession or Sale
of Assault Weapons and Declaring an Emerqency
ordinance Regarding Oral Communications
Adjournment at 12~33 a.m.
61-151
61-151
61-151
61-152
61-170
61-176
61-177
61-150
3/6/&9
r YJrrll!l.SHED BUSINESS
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Cit~ide Land Use and Transportation Study
.and Enviro:1.mental Impact Report .. Includihg Planning COmDission
Recom .. i'llendations (1041-07J (CMR:17J:9}
Mayor Klein ahnounced that he would not participate in the matter
insofar BS Stanford University ite.l:Us were concerned due to a
conflict of interest a
Mayor Xlein declared the Public Hearing reopened~
Phil Willia~sr Director ¢f Planning, stanford University, referred
to Stanford's recommendations that the Quarry Road site ~e
designated to alloy a psychiatric center. Several years ago the
campus vas divide~ into reqions in order to facilitate thorough
planning to bridge the gap between the General Land Use Plan and
specific buildinq projects. The original Medical Center Region
Plan ~as completed in 1985, and the update vas completed in late
1988. Both PlanE indicated a Psychiatric Center on the Quarry
trapezoi~ parcel. The need for such a facility vas established by
a task force of key physicians and administrators in 1982. When
the possibility of funding and building the facility vas confirmed,
the Medical Center Long-Range Facilities Planning Group conducted
an extensive analysis of five sites based on 15 criteria, related
to planning and progra~, land use, zoning, functional relationships
and access, costs includinq the opportunity costs compared to othe:;
uses tor t.he sit.es., and other factors includi;,q tiainq, size,
organizational boundaries and qovernmenta1 constraints, Site £,
the trape'Zoid site, ranked hi'9hest .. speci~lly in planning and
prograD crite~ia. Site A, the old Childrens' Hospital site, bad
the same problems of distanc~ and accessibility to the stanford
Hospital for doctors and patients 'Which motivated the move of
Childrens' Hospital in the first place. site B, the west campus.
or the 8S-acre site, was reserved for future teachinq and research
facilities which Sta~ford preferred not to use until it exh~usted
infill sites of which the Quarry Road site vas one. Tbe Plan also
c~lled for the preservation of a vide area of low intensity uses
such as hiological experimental fields as a buffer frem San~ Hill
Road. Site C, the Hoover pavilion site, was the current location
of most of th~ psychiatric beds vhich must be moved as a condition
of the use permit fo~ the Hospital Modernization Plan (HHP}. The
old building was beco~ing less suitable for modern patient care.
Site D, the site behind the Mobil Station, was not as accessible
to the main hospital as the Quarry Road, trapezoid site. stanford
'Was interested in p:t'ovicling housing to support its educational
programs. Presently. housing for 8,700 &tudents and 9~S faculty
homes were provided. Stanford 'Was building 26 duplex units,
planning at least 800 units for Stanford West in the old Childrens ' Hospital area, hoping to add 200 to 400 units at the Hayfield
~---. -
6l-152
3/6/89
School site, and at least 400 more student beds on caMpus.
stanford invested $:),5 million in housinq assistance programs.
since the first di$cussions of possible housinq Along Quarry Road
in the early 1980's, the old Chl1drens' Hospital site became
~vailable for housing--26 acres instead of 11, ar4 Stanford
discovered a way to fund the Psychiatric Center. It seemed logical
to take advantage of the opportunity to create a continuum of
housing along: tbe Creek with access from Sand Hill Road 3nd the
opportunity to create a continUUM of medical uses vith acce~s from
Quarry Road, which yas already a principal emergency route. The
County designation being sought for the area was university
Lands/Ca~pus. It vould allow academic uses ~r~ housinqa He urged
the City provide the same d~signation.
council Member Sutor ius said Site B~ the wes~ campu5$ was located
in a 5special condition-area. The Gen~ral Use Permit proposal
indicated no development was foreseen in -special areas ft A, Band
D. He asked about the kind of uses being studied for -:;pecial
condition-area B$ which would affect the west campus.
Mr. Willi.z;,,,,s said: the current ul5e permit wer-,t roughly to the year
2000$ and stanford contemplated no building construction
whatsoever. The area along the road vas being held back for an
area of 100 or 200 feet or more available as a low intensity area
in the current Regional Plans for biological research fields. Such
loY density use would not require a building permit or a special
use permit.
Council Kember Sutorius asked ab¢ut the current definition of the
university Lands/Campus deSignation.
Mr. Williams said the County only had One general desiqnation for
campus-type uses, Le .• University Lands/Campus, and it a.llowed the
full 9amut of academic uses and housing for faculty, staff or
students. The definition was not prescriptive onto the density of
the hOllsing_
Council MeMber Sutorius asked whether Stanford, the county and the
City were in concert in terms of the kind of housing allowed under
the University Lands/Campus designation at the Site B, vest campus
location.
Mr. Williams believed there was concert on the type of housing
allowed, but it was not discussed in datail.
Council Member Levy asked whether Stanford considered changing its
plans for areas heretofore considered for academic use to be
housing as a trade-off for the trapezoid site.
•
61-153
3/6/89
..
/
Mra WilliBJls said no. stanfClrd was studyinq additional areas in
t~rms of suitability for h~usin9.
Council J1:eItber Renzel asked how the current housinq supply pro'Yided
by Stanford compared to its total number of faculty, staff and
students.
Mr. Williams said Stanford provided housing tor haIr or a little
more than balf of its faculty; about 87 percent of the
undergraduate st~d~nts: 31 percent of the qraduate students; and
out of about 4,500 staff members on the main campus and a similar
~~mber in th~ hospital, it provided housing for abOut 10 percent.
ccuncil Member Patitucci asked about the present zoning cateqory
for Site E, the Quarry Road, trapezoid site.
Mr. Williams said site E was currently designated by the county as
a St.udy Area. Because it was in the same designation as the
Arboretu • ., the zoning: was A-1, agriculture with a 20-acre site
slope miniBulll. The designation was designed for the foothills
ar~as of the County~
Council Kember Renzel aske.d hoW' long Stanford bad intended to
incorporate the Welch Road Kedical Regional Plan into the Medical
Center.
Mr. Williams said it was shown as such in Stanford's 1980 Land Use
Plan.
David Korn., Vice President of stanford University a~d Dean of the
School of Medicine, supported retaininq the land designation at the
southwest corner of Quarry and Arboretum ~oads for academic use in
order to build the proposed Psychiatric Center~ The proposal was
for an SO-bed psychiatric hospital and a companion building: to
house the Oepart'llent of psychiatry and its out-patient clinics.
The psychiatric hospital ~ould add several new programs intenQed
to serve the residents of the area, including in-patient services
for children, alcohol and substance abuse programs tor adolescents,
intensive care and highly specialized units for adolescents, in
patient services for serlior citiE.ens., and in-patient
neuropsychiatric evaluation. The Psychiatric Canter would enable
the academic Department of Psychiatry to strengthen its clinical
facilities and provide for more patient cat:e for individuals who
could not currently be accommodated. Stanford presently had 20
general psychiatric beds and 14 substance abuse beds in the Hoover
Pavilion, Which were inadequate. Stanford vas also obligated to
vaca~e the Hoover Pavilion facility as parts of its use permit for
the HMP. The current facility was the smallest psychiatric in
patient unit in any major medical school in t.'le COl.iJ,..,try., and it
could not accommodate a ~bole variety of severely ill patients with
01-154
1/6/89
•
psychiatric disorders because of its physical limitations.
Proxi.ity vas an important issue because psychiatric patients were
often victims of a ranqe of other medical problems which required
a ti9ht linkage bet~een medical or pediatric specialists~
psychiatrists and occasionally neurologists.
Council Member Renzel queried why the concern about psychiatric
b~~s was never raised nor had Stanford attempted to address the
concern. The pedil!.trics 'Ward in the original old Stanford Hospital
'Was originally designed for psychiatry and 'Was converted to
pediatrics. No~ that the new Childrens· Hospital was being built,
she queried 'Why the Psychiatric Center was not considered for that
facility as originally int~nded~
Mr. Xorn said the original designation for the psychiatry beds in
the then ne~ Stanford Palo Alto Hospital was converted to an in
patient pediatric service~ When the hospital was purchased in
1968 6 Dr. Tom Gonda~ Professor of PsychIatry and first director of
the stanford Hospital, identified laund_ry space in the Hoover
Pavilion where the first small psychiatric bed unit vas set up~
The problem of ho~ best to d~velop a state-of-the-art psychiatric
service in the Medical center was a 'topic of discussion for at
least 15 years. The task force established by Dr. crowley in 1982
developed the proposal before the Council. The issue of why
Stanford did not try to put the naeds into one or another of the
hospital expansions or the Packard Hospital lal'as complicated.. Tha
state of general psychiatric opinion ~as that psychiatric patients
required different facilities from general medical surgical
facilities. There either needed to be a special wing cQnfigured
for qeneral acute care medicine and scrgery or pediatrics or there
needed to be a separate site configured appropriately for such
patients.
council Member Ranzel queried what ~ould happen to the ten Medi
Cal beds in the ne~ proposal.
Dr .. Lorrin Koran said there were no Medi-cal beds at Stanford
Hospital or any other hospital. Beds were not allocated by payer,
they were ~llocated to patients. Some of the c~re for patients i~
the gene!'al psychiatry units were paid for by ~edi-Cal: some ~ere
paid by private in5urance~ some ~ere paid by Medi-Care; some were
paid out ot the patients' oYn pocket~ The fedi&ral government 'Would
not pay for patients cared fo-r-in a private" free-standinq hospital
between the ages of 18 and 65. It would pay for those patients to
be cared for aged 10 to 17. There was no Stanford or charter
decision about 'Whether to admit Hedi-Cal patients--it vas a federal
qovernment decision.
Iris Litt, Professor of Pediatrics at Stanford university School
of Medicine and Oirector,of the Division of Adolescent Medicine at
61-155
3/6/89
•
:--",
r the Medical Cent~r and Childrens ' Hospital, supported locating the
proposed psychiatric facility as close to the main Medical Center
lind the ne .. Childrens' lJospital as possible. She 'Was concerned for
bot.h patient care and the acade.n.ie activities ot the Medical
Center. It was important that any patient ad~itted to a
psychiatric facility to lx! in close proximity to the Medical
center-.
Or. Ivan Cenzel, psychiatrist, 900 Welch Road, had been associated
~ith the Stanford Medical School since 1~59, lias a Clinical
Associate Professor in the Medical Center and on the active medical
staff since 1964. When the hospital opened, there 'Were no
provisions for in-patient psychiatric care.. In 1960, a 13-bed unit
~as opened in the ~ain Medical center, and about 1910, a 20-bed
unit 'Was transferred to a. renovoioted laundry area of Hoover Pavilion
where it remained~ There were occasions 'When the be<3s 'Were filled,
and pat.ients had to be refex-re.d to ot.her facilities. The. ne'W'
hospital would have more beds and vould be able to respond to the
needs for child, adolescent and geriatric care. psychiatry was
i~portant in the humane care of people with emotional difficulties
and in education and research. The alliance of" patient care,
education and research Was best served by the closest possible
proximity of a psychiatric facility with the Medical center. The
Arboretum/Quarry site provided that advantage. The nee1 for
emergency medical care was bound to occur more frequently ~ince the
new hospital wO:Jld deal with the qeriatric population. He
encou::aged Council's acceptance of the Arboretum/QUarry site for
the new psychiatric hos~ital.
Bunny Good, Founder, International Group organization for the
Disabled, P. O. Box 824, Menlo park, CA 94026-082{, believed the
patients ",ho 'Were children should be separated from adult patierlts.
Carol Paine, Clinical Nursing Coordinator, In-Fatient Psychiatric
Unit, 2040 Laguna, '203. said ~hile the unit was strong and solid
clinically. it 'Was very limited in the care it c'Ould provide.
Hoover Pavilion vas formerly occupied by fledical as well as
psychiatric services. Medical teams in training in the hospital
were on duty 24 hours in order to cover medical emergencies for the
psychiatric patients. When the HMP opened, the facilities vacated
by units NQving into the HMP allowed the ~edical units to move o~t
of Haover Pavilion~ Those still in Hoover Pavilion were the in
patient psychiatric unit and the 5ubstanc-e abuse unit. It was
inperative to have accesS to medical assistance in emergencies.
She supported the Quarry/Arboretum trapezoid site tor the
Psychiatric Clinic~
Stephen Player, 1&74 Guinda, was a member ¢f the Childrens ' Health
Council Beard of Directors and supported Stan~ord's proposal for
a psyclli5tric hospItal at the Quarry Road site. While he
61-156
3/6/89
" .. '
,
•
appreciated the dilemD~ in terms of ~hat would be the beat use of
the Quarry/Arboretum trapezoid, he believed the best use of the
site would be for the psychiatric hospital because of its proximity
to the Medical canter. Personal experience qraphically illustrated
to him the close interrelationship between the aedical and mental
aspects of treatment.
Jacqu~s wolgelenter, 474 W. Charleston Road, was concerned about
the possibility of building an access strip on the current vacant
lot at 476 W. charleston Road~ Be believed su~h an access strip
would increase the level of conqestion and noise end would pose a
hazard to many students biking! their way t.o GUf"~ High School.
Locating the access ro~d on El Camino Real .ade more a.nse~ He
urged the property at 476 W. Charleston Road be rezoned R-l.
steve Jennings, 369 Whitclem Driver was concerned about rezoning
the El~s Club property. He urged that the property along Wilkie
Way be ~oned R-l. Growth in south Palo Alto needed to be limited.
Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, supported Stanford's propo6al.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearinq closed.
HOTIO.: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by patitucci# to
approve the st~ff recommendation to certify that the Fin~l
Environ.ental Impact Report (EIRJr consistinq of the Final Adden~um
and the Draft EIR, has been cOlllpleted in co.pl ia:'\Ce with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
KOTIOK PASSID 9-0.
stanford Items
~rry/Arboretum Parcel {Trapezo~
Director of Planning and community Environment Ken Schreiber said
there were two parcels involved with the rezoning. The
Comprehensive Plan issue involved both the -trapezoid-parcel and
the rectangular parcel behind the MObil Gas Station and next to the
Hoover Pavilion~ Both parcels were designated RKajor Institutionl
University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space-on the Palo Alto
Co~rehen5ive Plan and on the Santa Clara County General Plan they
were designated ·study areas.-The r~commendation was to change
bath properties to the "Kajor InstitutionjUniversity Lands/Campus/
Multi-Fa.ily Residential-land use designatIon.
MenlO.: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Patitucci, to
change the Comprehensive Plan designation tor Quarry/Arboretum
Parcel (i.e~, the Trapezoid) from Kajor InstitutionjUniversity
Lands/Acade.ie Reserve and Open space to Major Institution/
61-157
3/6/89
university Lands/Campus and
redesignate from Study Area
Lands/CamplJs.
recommend
to Major
Santa Clara County
Institution/University
council Kember Cobb said his motion only included the -trapezoid"
site. with Palo Alto's housIng-demand, it .... as easy to want to 'Want
to put housing in at every opportunity, but he believed Palo Alto
would always be trying to catch up with the demand. Each site
needed to be reviewed for its most appropriate use. stantordls
need tor the psychiatric hospital was demonstrated; the logical
place (or it .... as as close to existill9 medical facilities as
possible; arid there 'Were no :better sites for such a facility. He
believed the strip of land which rain through the old Childrenls
Hospi tal provided an excellent opportunity tor a considerable
conti~Jous housinq development.
council Member Renzel opposed the .motion. She sgreed Palo Al to
~ould probably never he able to catch up with the housing need but
was concerned that Palo Alto lost the multi-family zoning Which
existed on both sides of Welch Road in the 1976 Comprehensive Plan.
and the old Children's Hospital site ~ould not address Stanford's
current housing demand. From a land use perspective, if Stanford
.. as concerned about incorporatinq psychiatry near the Medical
Center. she was surprised the issue was not incorporated in the HMP
nor was it addressed by Stanford in any meaningful way for many
years. It seemed to her to be basically a profit-making venture
~hich happened to conveniently serve some of the psychiatric needs
identified by Stanford Hospital. If another employment-generating,
hospital-type of use was contemplated, the City should revisit the
cor.dition which prohibited the old Hoever Pavilion from being used
for its present purpose. The new type of operation would attract
more patients from outside the cO!!ll!lunity, and while it might
address tb.e needs of some members of the community, she was
uncomfortabl~ losing a housing opportunity, and sbe was uncomfort
able extending the Medical Center region to Welch Road. She
supported the Planning Commission recommendation.
council Member Sutorius was encouraged that housing was a possible
use on the extension of the trapezoid site to the Mobil site and
potentially for the Hoover Pavilion site. He 'Was encouraged by the
agricultural and pastoral types of uses which in small part exis't,ed
today and might be extended along Sand Hill Road. He supported the
~tion. He would await the EIR and said his vote did not act on
the size of the facility, the parkinq, circulation, the floor area
ratio, nor was it to be taken as an indication of future actions.
Council Kember Woolley supported the motion. It seemed the result
would be optimum sites tor housing and the psychiatric hospital.
She asked how the Dlotion 'Would cha.nge the Planning Commission
reC'o_endation.
61-158
1/6/89
• •
Mr. Schreiber understood the intent of the ~otion was to have a
land us!:!' desiqnation to allow the psychio!ltrlc center on the
t["apezoid site, e .9., to change the Quarry/Arboretum trapez.oid froll!.
Major Institution/ University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Soace
to Major Institution/ University Lands/Campus. The motion deleted
the multi-family residential designation for the trapezoid parcel.
Council Member Patitucci believed there vas too much fOC-lls on the
specific ltcdical use of the particular piece of land~ The City
should be encouraging consolidation of the medical uses into a
r~irly tight area and begin to ~ork with the University on planning
what ~ould become ~out properties-and what they should be in the
long term~ He believed the motion made qood land use pl-anning
sense. He appreciated the expression for more housing which
needed to be capitalized in other places~
Council Member Fletcher supported the staff and Planning commission
recommendation~ She was not against the psychiatric hospital but
there were other open areas close to the Medical Center tOlriard
Pasteur D4ive~ One purpose of the study vas to find more housing
sites in cooperation ~ith the Golden Triangle Task Force, and the
trapezoid site was appropriate since it was close to the Shopping
Center. She did not consider the proposed development for the
Children's Hospital site to be the type of development envisioned
by the Golden Triangle Task Force, e.g., to provide housing for
employees and to cut down on commute housinq~ She opposed the
motion~
council M~mber Levy supported the motion. He associated with the
comroents of council Member Cobb~ He believed the use of the
Children's H~spital site was an appropriate trade-off for housing,
and a significant amount could be placed on it and the Stanford
West site.
MOTION PASSED
participa:tin9~·
Mobil Site
6-2, Flet.;:;:her, Rer.:zel Klein -not
Mr~ Schreiber clarified that if Council took no action to change
the Planning commission recommendation, it would endorse
Campus/Multi-Family residential land use designation for the area
surrounding the Mobil gas station~ The service station itself
would qo from CC to CN~
I,;!tlldren's Hospital
council Member Woolley ~as concerned the redeslgnation from-PF to
RM-15 for the portion of the site designated as the Children's
•
61-159
3/6/S9
\ .
,
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
Oral communications
Approval of Minutes
Regular Meeting
Feb~ary 21, 1989
1. ·Contract ~ith West Valley construction company
for capacitor Substructure Installation, Hansen
Way substation: change Orders to $2,500
2. contract with Power Engineering Contractors for
Remote Terminal Electric System Foundation and
Conduit Installa~ion, Hansen Way Substation;
Chanqe Orders to $2,500
3~ Resolution Adopting Conflict of Interest
Code for Designated Positions
4. PUBLIC HEARING: citywide Land Use and Trans
portation Study and Environmental Imapct Report,
Including Planning ~ommission Recommendations
5. Ordinance Amending Budget fer Fiscal Year 1985-
89 to Provide an Aoditional Appropriation for
Ir.tonaation Systems Development
6. Council Members Levy, Patitucci and Woolley re
oral communications at Council Keetinqs
Adjournment to Study Session to Discuss Storm
Drainage Enterprise FUnd at 10:44 p.m.
Final Adjournment at 11:20 p.m.
61-1-26
61-126
61-126
61-127
61-121
61-121
61-131
61-1)2
61-136
61-1.:n
61-125
2/21/89
t,
John Tov, 5110 W. cypress, ~isalia. represented Quad Consultants,
who vas retained by the Traynor/Mill tamilies in conjunction ~ith
the Citywide Study. He urged conside,ration of points raised in
their earlier letters (on tile in the City Clerk's Office), and
believed thE: presen't configuration of zoning designation on the
Traynor/Hill properties was appropriate.
Frank Matsu:m.ot,o, 'K. D., llB7 university Drive, Henlo Park, referred
to the Charter Psychiatric Facility at stanford and the import~nce
of it being located on the trapezoid lot. He looked forwar~ to
good medical practices and a benefit to patients l the city, and
the staff.
!.orrin :Koran, M. 0., Professor of Psychiatry at stanford Medical
center, 710 Alvarado Road, Stanfora, represented the ir.terests of
locating the Charter Stanford Hospital in the trap~zoid location
at the c(.I'rner of Quarry Road and Arboretum. The proposed locaticn
best facilitated patient care in terms of proximity to the
hospital. About 25 percent of people in psychiatric hospitals had
a serious medical disease which required treatment by a non
psychiatric physician~ Patients would be frequently transported
to the Medical Center. The Charter Hospital needed to be a part
of the hospital mainstream. He also referred to the letter from
Dean David Korn t dated Fe.bruary 15, 1989 (on file in the City
Clerk l s Office).
Chop Ke~nant COO Ha~ilton, said the future of the Citywide
downzoning yas in the redevelopment of existing sites. Cownzoning
needed to be carefully consid.ered as it related to economic
consequences of businesses and the economic and sccial consequences
to the City treasury~ When Palo Alto had its auto row downtown,
it had at greater sales tax contribution to the City than the
Stanford Shopping Center. Land use decisions discouraged the
relation of auto dealerships in the city and they moved to Menlo
Park. He urgEd caution~
Coun~il Member SutoriU5 referred to a one-lot-deep CS zone along
El Camir.o Real and the recommendation of the Planning Commission
to add a category of general neighborhood business to a eN zone~
He queried CS at a .5 FAR versus CN yith the revised definition~
Mr. Keenan believed the CN zone was restrictive in use. El Camino
Real ~as a state highway traveled by 47,000 to 50,000 cars per day
through the major intersections. It was not ~ neighborhood serving
commercial, but rather a strip commercial.. He believed the FAR
would control the concern about traffic.. He reco~ended leaving
latitude on yhat businesses located in the area.
_ 61-129
2/21/89
:
rOt. 0 i
:"' COJlDl~nt on the letter froll! Paul Wilson (on tile in the City Clerk's
Office) ~ the only other piece of correspondence .... hich directly
related to the EIR~
I Steve pickrell said Mr. Wilson's letter, d~ted February 21, 1989,
suggested the analysis of traffic i~pacts on the various land use
scenarios should have relied to a greater extEnt on measurement of
delay. The -de.lay· JIIethod referred to did not 'Itlorlt well .... hen
traffic de.and volumes were expected to exceed the capacity of an
int.ersection. The variables needed to drive the "delay· model
could not be accurately predicted in ~ 15-year perlod~ staff, with
the consultant fS assistance, instead chose to aevelop a method more
suited for long-range planning. The ~ethod's ability to provide
usable Jl.easures of the spread. or conqestion outside its traditional
peak hour in the future was specifically e~~anced.
Mayor Xlein d~clared the Public Hearing closed.
Mayor Klein announced the Citywide Land Use and Transportation
study .. ould return to Council tor discussion and possible decisions
on March 6, 19S9~
llio Act.loD 'l'akeD
RECESS; 9:25 -9:35 p.m.
G~DINANCES
5. Ordinance Amending the Budqet for fiscal Year 19S5-S9 to
Provide ~~ Additional Appropriation for Information Syste~s
oevelopment (270-01) (CMR:149:9)
Council Member Patitucci queried why the matter could not vait for
the budget process.
City Manager Bill Zaner said the problems were that people could
not ~et on the computer system and get proper response time. By
waiting for the budget process~ the problems would not be solved.
HOTION~ council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Fletcher~ to adopt
the staff recommendation approving a reduction in Capital
I.provement Froject 18508 of $43.0GO and amend capital Improvement
Project 18812 by $43,000 for computer equipment to support the
Financial Data Base.
ORDINANCE l8Sl entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1988-99
TO PROVIDE All ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR IIiFORlVt.TION S~STEMS
O~'VELOPHEIIT·
61-131
2/21/89
•
/
au.: ... ",. rAOP."" :I'-v.
COUNCIL MATTERS
6. council MeJlbers Levy. PatitlJccl and Woolley re Oral
Communications at Council Meetings (701)
council Me~~ Woolley said t~e article in the San Jose Mercury
~ referred to a -drastic" change in the Oral communications
process. The actual proposal 'Was to limit speakers to one
appearance per month during Oral communications at the beqinning
ot tho ~eetinq and to provide a second Oral Communications period
at the er~ of .eetinqs for those speakers not eliqible to speak at
the beginning of the JIleetinq. Many people attended the City
Council .eetings to speak to a particular item on the agenda, and
it ~as not equitable f~r the 6a~e me~ers of the public to always
be able to speak to Councjl at the beginning of the meetinq while
the other members of the public had to wait their turn. Tnl!
proposal would also limit speakers to Items within the subject
Eatter jurisdiction of the council, but she vas willing to hav2
staff determine whether it ~as necessary to make any changes in the
ordinance ..
MOTION: council Member Woolley aoved, seconded by Patitucci, to
direct the City Attorney to prepare ar. orcHnance that limits
speakers to one appearance per month d~rin9 oral communications at
the beginning of Council meeti~s, and provides a second Oral
Communications period 8t the end of meetings for spea~ers ~hc are
not pennitt,ed to speak earlier: and the City Clerk to revise the
fixed portion of aqenda notices to reflect these changes ..
Ben sailey, '1'11 £";/erett, re.ferred to ·Council jurisdiction,· ar.d
said a City Council meetinq was not just a place where a citizer.
could speak to the Council but also a forum where a citizen could
speak to other citizens .. ho cared to listen. He wa~ concerned
ab~ut the consequences of the term -Council jurisdiction.-
Ed Power. 2254 Darmouth Street, said the Oral Communications
section of the city Council meeting provided the only fr~e forum
for ideas not popular for the Council majority or the medi~. He
was also concerned that the proposal suggested comments made under
Oral Communications needed to ~e within -Council jurisdiction,
The purpose of Oral Communications ~as n-':3t just to address the
Council but also to address the electorate.. The. council currently
allotted 30 minutes {or oral communications yhich ~as rarely used.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, sympathized Romewhat regardinq abuses
of Oral Coe.munications; however, the First Amendment of the
ConstitlJtion said Congress" and by ex-tension to states and all
other qovernmental bodies, ·shall make not law abridqing the riqht
61-132
2/21/89
lIedn •• day. June 14. 1989
Reguhr Meeting
Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto
I. tImID, LAIIIl USE AN!! TRANSPORTATlO" STUDY rogLle HEARING: 2
Revlev of the Citywide lind Use and Trln.portotion Study
Comprehensive Plan, zonfng map and zonfng ordinance
amend.ents, t~at include aodifications to ~lmost all
commercial and industrfil lone districts. and changes of
certain ,ommercial parcels to residential or other
commercial designations. EnYiron~ntal Assessment~ Project
rev1~d as part of the Environmental Impact Report prepared
for the Citywide Study t~at •• s certified a compl.te. file
No'.: 87-EIA·50; 89·(Pl-Z; 89-lC-9. (o.tinu.d from the
PJanning Commission ~etfng of June 1. 1989.
J. Ad.." -1-
/'
" eo.."$$10 ner Cullen: The onTy change i~ Attachment III is under
Section !(I). Tht st~ff report h,s I correctlon for the entire paragraph
, ~fch has chlnged t~e list 5entence~ "~'
~: ,pmmiss1pntr Cullen; J wo~1d move Attachment Jll wit~ the
corrtc.tion of tht host sentence. whid! says, -Only that port1or\ of said
property design.ted DO Exhibit B is .ingle-f.sily residenti.1 shall have
iCceS5 from Wilkie Vay. The r~a'n1n9 portion of said property designated
DO £xhlbit S as multiple-family resfdenti.l shall not have access from
Wilkie Way.-I be'~eve that is the only correctior. on Attachment [lIt and
the environment.l finding •• s listed on Att.th~~nt VII.
~: By Commissioner Chandler.
(o~hsiJ)Jler Chandler: [would suggest t"at ~n deallng with t"i:s. and with
Attachment IV, in t~e June 12 staff repDrt, they gay! us revised
~ttathments in f~li. Wit" the permiSSion of the Maker of the motion, it
might be Simpler if we just said that we moYe Attachment If I is in the
revised staff report of J~ne 12.
Co~issioner tullen: That is a good idea.
MOTION PASSES: ChairMan Hirsch: Is there Inj further discussion On this
~tion? rt ~as been moved and seconded that we recommend approval of
Attachment III as revised and attached to the staff repo,"t of June 12 t
1989, including the eOVlrDODent.l findings of Attachment VI!. All those
in favor, sal Aye? All opposed? That passes unanimously on a 5·0 yote.
with COlllRissioners Kuber arid lIhee1er absent-.
(hai~an Hirsch: Next is Attachaent IV.
MOTION: Commissioner Chandler: I would l;~e to move the ordinance that
appear; a. Revised Atl,c~nt !V in the .tlff report of June 12, 1989 to
thange the zone classification of various properties in ac(OrdanCE with
the Citywide land Use and Transportation Study, intorporating 10 that
motion t~e environmental findings that appear in Attachment VII of the
May 30, 1989 staff report.
SECOND: By commissiooer Ma"h.
"'OTLQ~~SS:~s..: Ct131 rman liirsc~: h there any fyrther discuss;:on on ttlis
motion? It has been moved and seconded that we move ipprc\{al Qf the
ordinancE of Attachment lY, ;ncluding the environmentil findings of
Attachment VIf. All t~ose ia rayor, sa1 Aye? All opposed? That passes
unan;~QusTl on a 5·0 vct~, with Commissfoners Hu~r and Wheeler absent.
(hair~an Hirsch: Hext is Attachment Y.
MOTION: COAmissioner Ckandler~ I move Attachment ¥, establishing a
transportation impact fee for new ~on·resldential development in the
Stanford Research Park El Camino Real CS lone, Including t~e en~ironmental
finding. set forth in Attachment VII of the May 30, 1989 st.ff report.
SECONQ: By '''''''iss loner ellristensen.
CommissiQner Ctillen: am curious as to .helher we have ~ad any reaction
06/14/89
-12-
•
------.. --.-----~-.,....~ ....
'.
•
Mr. lfmmerman: The 0"11 respohs~ I ~ave heard w~s from t~e gentleman from
lockheed I ~k ,go. In fact, 1 ~as It I Revenue Forecast;ng Committee
consistlng of staff I~d represent.tlves of Y~r'~us ~ajor landowners in the
~ity_ including t~f leisinq agent for t~e Stanford Shopping Center and
some representatives of M~jnr ~ployers 1r. the industrial ~~r~. rh~re was
I represe~tatfve from H-', and he ~ade no c~nt whatsoever, and I did go
olie,.. this.
(hai~n Hirsch: I have one clarification quest~on regardi"9 Page 4 of
the attachment. Tbis deals w'th intersection identified IS t-l,
M;ddlerit~d and Oregon Expfess~ay. 1 want to b~ clear that our
re~ommendatfon was not to Widen the east side of Mlddlefield, I btlieve
this is r~ferenced somewhere ,~ Att~~hment 'I. ~t I think I saw it in two
djfferent ~ays. it was ultiMately decided t~it there could bt l wid~fiing
of the west sId. and not the ••• t side. to Make t~. s.tba,k from the
street closer to the house.
Mr. AQgarwal: Wideni~9 could be done on the west side but pot on the east
side.
Chairman Hirsch: T~att 1 believe. is the sense of the commission's
recOMnendat i on.
~OTIOH PASSES: Chairman Hir$ch: Is there any further dlscusslon on this
motion? Commissioner Chandler ~as movea approva1 of Attachment VI
including th~ environment~l find~n9s of Att4chment VII. and this ~as
s~tonded by Commissioner Chrfst~nsen. All those in flvor. say Aye? All
oppos~d? That passes unan1mo~sly on i 5·0 ~ote. with Ccmmiss~oner5 Huber
and ~e~Ter absent.
(hatAlan Hirsch: Attachment 'II was for i'nfonntiona1 purposes only. Ne;(t
i. Attachment 'II.
Commissjoner Christensen: 00 we ha~e to idQpt this one separatel,?
Ms. Case: No, you do not. but if you have any (hanges, you wauld need to
de so.
1 have a wordlng change on the first rage. 1M the third
. recommend ch!nging thE ~ord -additional-to -new.
~onr€sidentiil' whic~ I bel1ev~ is the language we have used t"rought~t
that impact fee.
~ssioner Cullen: Don't W~ have to make the findinq that significant
traffic and air qijality impacts tan~ot be mitigat6d, even with the traffic
impact fee or. Attachment Vll'? l~e CURlU1Ati've conditions 'IIIIill still
exist. The public benefit of penoitting additional development outweighs
th~ pDtential unav~idable adverse environMental impacts en traff1C and lir
qyal,ty~ Do we not have to ~ake that 1$ I separate f'~~in9?
Ms. C ••• ; Yes. but it is loeluded i. her.. The requirement is that it be
• written finding of overriding c~,sid.r.tion$. T. th~ •• tent that you
adopt this, that will suffice.
06/14/89
·23·
The planning comm· sicn ~t in a regular meetin9 on Wednesday. June 7.
1989 .t 1:35 p.~ i~ the Coyncil Chimbers~ with Chairman H~rsch presiding.
Present: COlTllliSSlOners Chan.dler, Christensen. Cullen, Hirscll,
Huber, Karsh and Wh~eler
Absent: None.
Staff Present: Susan Case. Assistant City Attorney
Sa~ah Cheney. Planner
Kennet~ W. Schreiber, Director ~f Planning and
Community E~~1ronment
George Zimmerman, Assistant Planning Offfcial
.~GEH[)A IHH I tlTY!jIOE LAHD USE AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY. PUBLIC
HEARING: Review of tne Citywide land Use and
TrinsportatfQn Study Comprehensive Plan, zoning map and
zoning ordinance amendments. that include modifications
to almost ill commercial and industrial zone districts,
and changes of certafn commercial parcels to residential
or other to~rcfal desfgnations. Environmental
Assessment: Project r~vie~d as part of the
Er.vironmental Impact Report prepared for the (ity.ide
Study that was certified as complete. File Nos.:
87·EIA·50; 89-CPl-l; 89-lC·9_
Chain.an Hirsc~~ The first and only agenda item toni9~t is the Citywide
land Use and Transportation Study public ~e.rlng to review the actions
that baye been taken, to date, both by the plan~ing commission and by the
(it, council. This portion of our scheduling is to fo~alile the
detisions that llave been previously recommended to the city council and
approwed by that body. Are there any additional staff comments?
Ms. (henev: Tes, staff would like to present two corrections in the
May 30 staff re~ort and attachments. One of those corrections ~as
forwarded to you i~ a June 2nd ~morandum, and another will be pre5ented
tonight. 80th of t~e5e corrections are needed to accurately reflect
council actions on these items.
The first correction Is needed in Attac~ment III to the May 30th report,
.hich is the resolution amending t~e Comprehens;ve Plan Land Use Map. The
corr~ction rs needed to Section 2.a. We needed to make I correction to
ref1eot t~e oounci1 actions, regarding 4149 II Camino Real, t~e Elks Club
property. The council motion ;ncluded a provision that w~en the
single-famil, residential zone was to be created. no fut~re aCCeSs would
be penaitted foam Wilkie Vay to the .. ltiple-fa~i11 de'ignated portion.
So r would like to read to you t~e phrase t~.t needs to be added to
Section 1.a. or Attachment Ill. 'The land use de.lgnation of the property
at 4149 E1 Camino Real is hereby changed from 'Service Commercl.1~u1tip1e
Residential' to 'Mu1tip1e-Fami1, Residenti.1/Sing1e-fami1, Residential,'
as shown on Exhibit B. attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.' An additional phrase neeas to be added to that paragraph.
'Only that portion of said property deSignated on Exhibit B as
Single-family Re.ldentia1 shall have access froo Wilkie Way; the remaining
06/07/89
-2-
./ -
pari9raph. T~e df~nsions of I 60·foot-width i~d 60-foat-depth ~ere those
ori9i"al1y Te(DBJtendt!d by tht! phnnhg ccnrniJsion to the cit)" council for
this l-strlp.
(halrm," Hirsch, Is the 60 feet In width the total .Idth of the parcel.,
it fronts on Charlfston?
~~ene'f: That is correct. Th~se two corrections. which i hall!' rEviewed
tonf9~t lis~ need to be reflected in Attachment I which ;s I summary
lisUng of all the recOftllW!nd'ed changes to zoning ift the Comprehensh"e
'lan. I will nDt go over those, but those two corrections also need to be
reflected In that attachment. Thank you_
Co .... ; 55 ioner (handler: Thi s. has been I ~er1 lnassi'Ve job t~at we ha .... e
undertaken t and it hAS been an ~wkward process in some .ays, in that it
has o(curre~ over i number of meet;n;~ tfivolving t~ differf~t bodies, as
~el) IS the stiff. Naturally, when you go through it, you see some
inconsistencies of treitment. Th15 question is i conceptuai one about the
two iteMS that we ~a~e just had corrections on. Per~aps th! answer was
apparent to ~s it the time _e did it, but if you could refresh my mEmory.
I would be grateful. In the ca.e of the T,.r of the nk. (1 ub property
which was the subject of the correction to Attachment 1]1. a c~ange was
Made in the Comprehensive Plan land Use Map, or proposed to be made.
prohibiting access. In the case of the Traynor-Hill property which you
j~st corrected in Attachment I~, l·strips were put in along Charleston lnd
Carolina Avenues, for essentially the same purpose (if I recall
correctly). to affect acc~ss fr~ thos! directions. Is there any reason
why we should be treati~g these two conSistently. either having
Comprehensjve Plan land Use ~ap i6 both places. L-strips in botk places,
or both in both place~. It seems like we are using difffrent t~chniqyes.
Js there a substantive difference in terms of what ;$ being done? Is
there ~ policy oa.sis for this distfnctfon?
Mr. Schreiber: l~t ~ draw a distinction, in my memory, in thE discussion
on the Traynor-Hill property regarding the L-strip on Charleston versus
the L-slrip on Carolina. ]n the case of Carolina. the intent is very
similar to the Wilkie Way situation. Ho"wtever, on C"arleston, H has been
acknawledged by many that two t~ings exist. One ~s that that could be a
logical iccess point. Second;s that the site, _hen it does redevelcp,
aa1 ~ave substantial otn~r access problems, 9i~en its very lilited access
to El Camino Real a.nd the diffictilty of traffic. pattern5, etc. So]
believe that far the Charleston l-strip. there were any number of
decisionoMakfrs who supported that within the context of allowing for a
public hearing process that could ccr.sider an access allowing hiving the
public bearing and the appeal to commission and COuncil opportunity, etc.~
if, in redevelopment. the acctss ther! did seem apprQpriate from I sifet1
or design standpoint.
Ms. Case; r would just add tha.t our office actually recommended the
l-,verl.y is being the preferable mean. of handling this ace ••• question,
especially in the contekt of loning. Otherwise. lccess does not really
~ort i. the conte~t of zoning. However, sfnc! the council went against
the planning c~lssion·s rec~ndatfon wit~ respect to the loning
designation at the Wilkie Way ar.a of the Elk. Club and went to
s;ngl.-f •• ll, .long that .trip. i' opposed to the ~re gr.dual
.ultiple-family de5ignat,on~ perhaps their insistence upon ~o iCCf5S is
06/07/89
-4-
... .':. _ r •. '-,
,. •
.ore jusllfiable. or at Teast, more under~tandable.
"r"~ Schreiber~ rn looking it tl1e I!ilp. it is an t~strip on Tennusee, not
(arolinl. Tnere fs another Issue that may be q~;te relevant. The
lr,ynor-HilJ property consists of • significant number of properties. in
part. crossed by 21seaents and an a'ley~ [t is a strange colletlion of
potenti.ll, separlte legal pircel •. I belie,e th.t some~.re in the
di;tussion t~tre ~as concern about possibly, inadvertentlj creating a
'and-locked parcel by having I f1,t ~ut prohi~it!on 'giinst .cc.s. to
Tenn~ssee, even though in i~Y redeyelo~nt of the property, that is
certainl, r.Gt I~ Icc!ptable access point~ From oil technica1 standpoiDt~ if
it did (rutll! iI parcel that did not hiVe af.y otfler access out I Here was a
legilTy technical concerD regarding the nuance of tnat action.
(omrtissiQner Ctlrhtensen: Is there I puctT line? It is not clear. I
see i parcel tnat goes all the way through to El Camino Real or [1 Camino
Way.
M:s.. __ Cneney: Yes, that is I. stpnate parcel.
Hr: _____ ~hre-iber: l'~ere fs I; parcell ine there, but in the put. there has
be~n dlsp~te is to the alley between the partels between El Camino Real
and the l~r yard. There has been some contentfon in the past regarding
o~ershpp, right of access, etc., over t~at ar~a. So there is enough
vagary and pntential !onfusion i~ tbis matter that somewhere along the
line ia the process. I know a point was ra1sad in a stiff discussion about
not wanting to stumble into a potential problem by having some type of
more fo~l prohibition tnan the l·strip.
Co~is;io"er Chandler: The more formal prohibition ~ould take the fQ~ of
the aclion t~at Is i~ the proposal before us, with respect to thE Wilkie
Way ire a and t~e Comprehensive ~l.n Land Use Map. 15 that the .ore formal
type of prohibition that we wa"t to avoid at t~is location? Is that what
you ~ave in mind ~hen you speak of I more formal type of prohibition?
~. Sc~reiber: J meant I; flat out ~omprehensiye Plan policy or a loning
ordi"ance provlsion, saying~ ·Thou shalt not have access,· rather than the
l-strip, which il~ays d~es al1~w the possibility for acc~ss througk the
public he.ring proce.s. The Elk. Club property was cl •• rTy different in
that all of the land between the .ultiple-family·zoned area and [1 Camino
Real cl~arly has access cut to £1 Camino Real. There are several
properties there. but they all have frontage on ~1 (amino R~al. By
cwtting off access ig the back, you ire not la~dlocking ;nything.
Chairman Hirsdt; I will now opeR the public hearing.
Phil Williams. Planning OirettoT at Stanford: f wo~ld like to read into
the record i lett!'r whick 'We did not gi!t to you on tilT'rE. ·Our records
s~ow tnat we have written sfJ lett!rs to tne city throughout the course of
your Citywide land Use and Transportation St~dy regarding StanfDrd's
SY9gestions for the stud, and responses to ft. We have applauded the
general intent and scope of th~ study. We have also expressed consistent
concerns about sase of the recommendations. As you now contemplate th~
relonings and Compre~ensive Plan changes to i~Teme"t the recammendations
of t~e plan_ we ~is~ to reiteratE ~ur need to maintain flexibility for the
future use of our lands, Ind concerD about some of the proposed
..
"-,
,
, v
. -
•
down,onings. Th.t flexibility might well benefit ~th the <Ity and the
uni~er5ity in t~e coming years. There ire thrt~ Stanford sitts on ~hich
you propo$ed changes whi(h rilse vartfcular concern+ The first is the
2650/2180 E1 Camino Real. alsD referred tQ as t~e former Mayfield Schoo'
site, former Class Reunion Restaurant and t~e current Mobil gas station.
As recorded in our previous correspondencE and in conversations with the
city. ~e have supported incrfisir.g the density on this 5~te. H~ever,
since there has been support for the concept of .txed residentill and
coemercial uses on t~is site. we fear t~at t~e ~ew zoning deSignation will
imply t~at a solely residential use is fntended. We believe 1t would be
wise to retain an option that (ould lead to Tess ~xpen$ive housing on the
site, thrQugh mix~d uses.
The second is the Hoover Pavilion. The final Citywide land Use and
1ransportation Study. page 96, recommended l~at th~ downzoning of the PF
ZGne be accompanied by a Camprehensi~~ Plan polScy state~nt to ·~aintiin
Hoover Pavilion in its present $ize ind IS a facility primarily for
hnspital, administritive ar.d outpltient servites. Use permits to
accommodate child care in separate facilities .ay be considered.-While
our <urrent plans for the Hoover Pavilion are to ~se it for administrative
and outpatient servlc~s. we ire concer~ed that the dGwnzoning of this site
from an fAR ].0 to 0.4 makes ~t inccnsf!tent with the other PF zon}ng in
the zedical center. and red~ces cur flexibility for using t~~s site for
~utually ~nefftfal medicil ~rograms t~.t ~e cann~t anticipate ncw~ ]
sight add that on the way down. it occurred to ~ t~at since a separate
use permit is required for any use on that site, this limitation ~uld
,150 limit !¢ur flexibility 1n rtsponding to any future proposals.
The third i 5 t~e QtJarry/ArboretlJm rectangle site. Ttlis sHe hi the count]
is part of the medical center region which connects Hoover Pavilion to the
m'l" medic,l center. As such. we anticipate developing it at some point
for ~dic,l center uses. While we Ipprec'ite the recent steps t,ken by
the city council with regard to t~is area, we still recommend the
designation tnat the county h,s availible of Universil1 lands/Campus,
which would allow both academic and residential uses. In the Geintime, it
is our intention to move ahe,d with additional ~ous;ng e1sewhere on
Stanford la~ds as rap;diy IS we can.
Future Studies! There are seyeral paTcfls which Ire recommended for
future study -1050 Arastradero. t~e foothills ~wim and Tennts and
University Clubs in the Researc~ Park. We Took forward to _orking wlth
you on these f~ture studies. Thank you.
H. K. Brodersen, 1270 Bryant Street. '2, Pilo Alto: [am i member of the
Palo Alto flks Club. I have no objec.tions to what I t!~~'S' seen on your
agenda t~is eyen1ng. but I go back over t~e Pist couple of year~, ind I
refer to ey experience in t~e insurance bus'ness ~here you tal' to
somebody and their attitude is, ·Oon't confuse De with facts. My mind i~
~de up.-J have J degree in eCDnomics frD~ I very prestigious
university, the University of Pennsylvanfl, and very honestly. 1 ~aye
learned aore about pconomiCs !ince I got out of there. 50 I would like to
point out to you tke fol1Dw1n9~ which comes out of T~e FreeMan, and in
this partfc~lar instance, Just~(~ louis ara~deis wrote in 1918. -The
greater danger to liberty lurks 1~ insidioys encroachment by .en of zeal
and .eanin9, but without under5tanding~-Thank you.
06/01/89
-6-
· : , )
[O]~mm1r~ ®Wed"e'd'1' rebruary S. 1989
Regular Meeting
.~ f.
~ Com mission, Palo Alto ----Planning City of
Planning C~;5siQn Minutes of January 11, 1989
I. COTT~E Us[ P£RIHTS: SUlSTAIGlARD LOTS: Continued 3
public hearing ta consider lmfndments to Title 1B (zonin~
regulltions) of the Palo Alta Municipal Code to include
additiDnal conditions to the granting of use permits for
detached second dwellings (-cottages-} in the R-l. Rf and OS
zoning districts; and to limit construction on substandard
lots in the R-l loning district to I height of 17 feet.
£nvironcantal Impact Assessment: No si9n1f1cant impact.
Continued frOG the planning commission meeting of
J.nuary Z5, 1989.
2. CITYWIDE LA/Gl USE A/Gl TRANSPORTATION STUDY fOLLOWUP: 6
Fo17o~JP rev few of the Citywide Study recommendations
concerllng: MOdification of nGncomplyfn9 provfsi?ns to 1110w
r.ontompljing facilities to be rebuilt to previous sizei
.1imi,.tlon of the LM{I) Combining District in Are. S,
Tttaining the underlying LM zonet and consideration of I
P.l~ Alt~ Comprehensive Plan change for the ~tanford·owned
Quarry/Arboretum parcels fro. RHajor I~st;tutio"/Uniyers1t1
lands/Acadeaic Reserve/Open SpaceR to RMajor
Institution/Univers;t} lands/Camp~s Multiple·Fami1y
Residential. R
). !Qfor.ational Report: CO Monitoring Report (March 1 to 23
SeptOiber I. 1966)
4. Jnformational Report: Non-Residential Development Approv~l 24
Report (~.r<_ I, 198E to September I. 1988)
-I-FILE COpy
PLANNING DEPT.
'. '
"
• •
Chai,...," Hirsch: As I u"derstind it. the (ln11 difference betweeft the LJII
and lh! lM(l) 1$ an FAR differe~e. which presumabl, .auld be e1i.inated
if t~e recORDendations we have made are concurred with by the '1t1
council.
~h~; That is COrrtct. T~e l~ll) zone has as floor area ratio of
O.~ to J, and the IN zone has I floor area ritio of 0.4 to 1.
CO!!'I!issianer Culle!!: Why t!;)I$ ttle \lording be~n rev1 sed?
Sarah Cheney~ The reason fGt the revised wordi"9 came out af the
discussion at the pretommfssi~n ~etin9. We felt that the re~1sed wording
sf8plified understanding of th~ provislo~.
thairaan Hirsc~: It als~ eliminates illegll nonco~ly;n9 buildings fro~
being rebuilt. There may be SDme that we ire unaw;re ~f. We wanted to
add the concept of legally ncncomplyi"g buildings.
Commi$siongr (handler: J wo~der if you could tlaborat~ a little on the
rationale for tAis in the special study areas, given how 10"9 special
studies ~y go on and the uncertaint, of whet ;5 going to c~ Q~t ~f
th~. Why would we take t~at positior.1
Ks. Jansen: O~r reasoning is that in special stud1 areas (and we actwally
are in the process now of dealing wit~ some of those land use lSSU~S ~here
there r.ay be (onf1itt5 with what future land ~se declsjons ~i9ht entall)
if yeu hld a s~bstantiallJ noncomplying facility 1ft an area that is
deSignated for s~ial study ind allowed it to be rebuilt, you ~aJ ~a~e
conflicts with futurt land us.es. let lie ~i"e YCtU an example. In Urban
lane. if you had a building that substantiall, did not ~omply~ ~f this
provfsion were applied to it. it could be rebuilt, presumably, given that
,11 of the ~ond;tions could be met. in a s~bstantial'1 nonc~pl,ing
aanner. If the fundamental use issue, access issue, parcel tombiJ"iation
fSisues. all those things thet we see is pertinent tD areas of spechl
study like that, were to substantially change the direction we would see,
then we would be stutk with something that would ~ built and in place for
I long period of time. That is our concerD.
Mr. Schreiber: Not in the Urban line irea, but in other parts ~f Palo
Alto , pri~aril1 in some of the older .anufa~turiDq areas, we are seeing
what is the beginnln; of I very significant trend t~ards r~de~elDpment of
sites. generall} i~votving clearance of buildings in the range af 30-35
years old. Two of the areas we have identified for special stud;es .-the
fast Meadow Cl~le/rrontage Road area and South San Antonio Roae ••
contain a great nuaber of those bu;ldi~g5. One of our ffaTs ;s that we
.igbt inadvertentl" by desigr.ating then 1S speci" study a~d t~en
,llow;ng them to rebuilt. trigger rebuilding to try to get ahead cf a~y
change in the special study. and try tG cut off the options that may be
Iv.a,ilable through I special study without some of that type of rebuilding.
Chatnaan Hirsch: I will now reopen the public. ~earing ~n this itfm.
Pbil '11111ial'lIS. Dirfct(II" of Planning. StanUJrd Uni'olersity: I want to.
address the issue of the Quarry Road par~els. We have been discussing
those plrcels for i Tong time. so I will be brief. Se'olen Dr eight years
ago, we and the city were mutual11 disr,ussing the posslbi1it, of housing
DZ/OS/S9
-7 -
/ "..
on t~e Qua~r1 Road p~rcels. Since that time, there MdS been i signif;,ant
ch'n;e in cfrcu.stances. In fact, two changes. ~hich we feel w~rrant our
re~omaendalfo" that these parcel~ bE ~sed for medical center purposes
rather tha~ for hous1ng. We haYe been stating that oplnion consistentl,
for some lfllt.
The flfst was thf cpportun1ty to build the new (nildren's hospital
adjacent to t~t Stanford Hospita'. thus releis~ng the old children'S
hosp~tal Site. The secor.d was the opportunity to get substantial
asslstance in financing tne construction of the psychi~tric hospital and
the associated ~icil s~hool facilities that wo~ld 90 with l"at progrim.
iihen thue two ennts cx:cul"'r!d~ we felt wery strongly th'3:t the highes.t and
best use for the ol~ cki1dr!f\~5 hospihl site was for hC • .isin9~ so 'We cDuld
establish I tontinuus of housing from the Oak Creek Apartments through
Stl~ford West Ind through the old children's hospital site 111 .lor.g the
creek in I rather favorable setting for housing, a'1 sharing certaIn ~;nds
of facilities that hou~1ng WDuld share. At the sam! ti~~ we felt tbat
the highest and best use for the Quarry Road parcels was to create a
cont(nuY~ of medical center uses .1th the psyc~iatric center bein9 tne
first one t~at might occupy the Quarry POid parcel4 Tn~refore. in the
1985 ~ersion of our medical center and regional plaf\, and in the current
~edicil regional plan t~at you now ~iye that we released in late Nov~bef.
we have c~ns;stentll dfsignat!d thE Quarry Road parcels for medical center
use. sp~cificalll for psychiatric center Yses.
In a.ny tver.t. while we art very sorry that tfte EIR process has taken so
10n9 on the application to t~e county for redes!gnatton of those parcels
and for lpprOYll of the pSJchi~tric center, we do feel that a specific
des1gnatian for ho~sin9 ~uld be premature until y~u have t~at EIR in
front of you and have ill the circumstances. surrounding tne seled10n of
that site aqd the ~lternatiyes diSCUSSEd f~11y.
J would l~ke to ~ntroduce you to Davfd Mendelcw. who is Associate iice
President fo~ tne SChool Qf Medicine, _~o CiA ttll you ~ore about the
program that we are hoping to I'~f!~e.
David Mende-low. $tanf~rd University Medical $chool: Think you for this
opportunity. Dr~ Ol~id KDra of the ~hool Df Hedicfne is unable to be
here this evening, and asked .e to read I statement into tne record and
answer whatever questio~s tbat J can afterwards.
-The proposed Psycbiatrft Center It Stanford University is an effort to
'pr~ .. ide the cOfIIIlunitJ with the very highes.t qual it! mental hea'tA and
psych1atrtc care available. while also contributing to the field or
psychiatry throug~ adyan~ed tri1nir~ programs and major researc~ efforts.
Wfooen the SChool of fiiledicine lIo\"ed fram Siil FranClS«) in 1959 to the
Stanford caapus. the intention was t~ transform it from a clinical schoc1
of li.ited distfnctfon to a .ajor "at tonal center cf bi~edi(ll researc~
and trai~lng. innovative ~iCll education and cli~ical care. ~uck of
that ~iS been accomplished, b~t the Sch()ol nevertheless still is plisued
by fnad!qulte and f"sufficient facilities ror certain departments -
Psychiatry. ~ng the •.
The proposed P5yt~iatric Center facility will allow the Oeparteent of
02/08/89
-8·
1': ,.
'.
A
I
I
/
• •
Psyc~i~tr1 tc slren9the~ its ~ll"ical activities and its f.culty and to
provide (or muc~ needed psychlitric research, both of ~~\cn are critic 1
to , quality Sch~o' of Medicine. Neither is possible. given Currer.t I
facilities.
Thu). the academic needs fer such I Psychiatric Center are critical. Tne
types Df reselrc~ thlt will be conducted here can only lead to better
psychiatric treataent for all.
~t present, t~ere are 32 psychiatric beds It Hoover Plv'11G~. across from
the Stanford Shopping Center. Once Charter ~osp\til ;s completed, t~CS!
b~ds would be moved to thE ne~ hospital. The proposed facility will
consist of t_o bu'ldi~gs --an SO-bed psyc~iatric ~ospital and 1 companion
building to hO{Js~ the $(.1'1001 c-f Medidne's Oepartment of Psychiatry and
its outpatient health services. The hcspitil is being designed to proviae
for the diagnostic and shoTt·te~ i~patient treatment to chi1dren)
adolescents, adults end senior ctti2ens. Thus residents of t~e area will
~ave close prox1mity tD both med;cil psyc~iatric research and fmpro~ed
tIIedical serv1ces. In .. y estimation, there are nD c{lmpariilble psychiatric
fac1lities in the Peninsul1 that now provide tbe type Df mental health
~are that wll1 be available in this new ficility.
The jo;nt·partners~ip with th~rter torporation f~ "ot unique to t~fs
Un1~ersity. Other ilcademfc il1stitutions ha\le linl:.ed up wi.th. comparable
corporations. in order to build medical facilitJes that {Itherwise wou1d
not be ross;ble~ for example, Amerit~n ~edicill International, Inc. has a
health tare com~lex at the Uni~e~51t1 of CaliforDia-lr~ine ~edical Center,
and AMI also has 90ne irto i joi~! venture with ~Lean Hospita'. one of
Harvard Medi'~l School's leading psyc~tatT1c ;n5titutio~s~
Tbe Psycbiatry Center proposed for StJnfcrd ~as been carefully planned~
and is part af the Medical Center~s Regional Ptan which re~ently was
submitted to YQU~ That plan is int~nded to make bot~ Tocal program and
comprehensive u.nivers~ty·wide p1a.nning IItOre effective. The site fOT
Charter Hospital was chosen because of ~ts close proximity t{l other
patlent care facilities at the Medic.ill Center, ihus enabl tng the Hospital
and the medical staff to partah 11'1 the creation of interdisciplinary
programs, foster the integratlon of the psyckiatric prc9ra~ wit~ other
progra~s? and thus avoid medical ;solat:on of t~is facility.
In asses1ing th~ various sit~s for their compatibility .ith bath the
Fsychiatry (enter's progra~ and the Medical Center's Regional Plant the
patient care relationships vere seen as dominant. Tne optimal site?
t~frefQret was one which ~aximized the patient care f~nctional
relations~ips and mi~i~1zed the effects of dista~ce on the teaching and
research functions. For these clear planning reasons~ the Quarry Road
site for the P5yc~iatry Center ~rged as (ir 5uperiar to the other sites
considere~ .•
~ommissjQner Cullen! You refer to ·other sit!, cons;dered~· Could you
eTa~rate on that, because certa;nl, t~is site ts furt~er remo~ed from the
so~cilllled "other patient facilities-and some other sites ti'.ilt Stanford 1S
in c.~nt,.ol cf.
Or. M~ndelgw: We considered five slles. The ~obil Gas Station site, the
triiogle-wnich we are talking about~ t~e old Children'S Hospital ,CHAZ)
OZjOll;89
-9-
. \,
.' ,
;
•
'. /
slt~, pa$teur and Sand Hill across from Oat CreeK. and the Hoover
h,d' ion. [ae" of tf!~se sites iI!""e at iI considerable distance from the
~in hospit~ll parlicul~rl~ tne new c~ildren's hospital and the emergency
room at t~e main hospital.
'omMiss~oner Cullen: Dld yo~ cansider any sites on the so·c~"~d W~st
C~mpus t~ilt is currently under development?
Dr4 Mend~low; We dfd talk about t~atl and quite extensively. At this
point. the designatfon for t~e programs that would go onto that space is
not clear. Thus locating iI ma.jor ficHU,)' on that site on€! could nat :ny
is compatible with the nefghbors in th~t re9f~n. because the region is nut
YEt set.
Co,missioner Cullen: 00 you feel it is DOTe compat;bl~ with the shoppln9
center!
Dr. Mendelow: The turrent psy~hiatrlc fiCility which 1S located in the
Hoover Pi'Jilion has been~ ftlr i number c:f years. across from the shopping
center. Tkis facility is prohably more advantageous.
Commissioner tpllrn: Is this new facility to be an open facility, is the
present one fs~ across from the shopping center, Dr is tnere going to be a
closed wing ~f t~is facilit,?
Dr. ~nde'Qw; There will be lock~d facllitifs withi~ 1t, but the hospitaT
will not be Totked? per Sf.
Commlssioner Cullen; But there will be a closed wing in it. There is not
a closed. locked wing ir. the present psychiatric facility.
pro Hendelow: That is correct. There will be secure Ireas within t~e
hospit.l. that Is. a place where pltients can be secured for the1r own
safet,. That is one of the shortco.ings of our present f;cility.
Cqmmi5dioner Cullen: How ~any beds do you anticipate in this facility?
Dr. Mendelow: ThE design of the hnspltal is suc~ that that can be
flexible. It co~ld be as few as one l or as many as a number on a
particulir ward.
Commissi~ner Cullen: You must be (loser to SOmt li~d of plan than that.
Dr. Mendelow: The c~rrent planning suggests that ther~ could be 10·20
loded beds.
C~mmi$,ioner Collen: And how many ether beds?
Dr. ~ndelow: rt would be the balance of the hospjtal~ which would be
60-70 unlocked bed ••
Co.1II'lissJ.9ner Callen: Does this heil it)' hive to go through. the stite
hospital ,lannin9 process. and hiS it been applied fer ,et~
Dr. Mendelow: It wi11 be submitted to the Office of Statewide Hellth
'lanning and Development {OSHPDJ. if J .. not mistaken, for detailed
02/08/89
-10-
• •
re~jew.
COllllnissioner C-ul1en: T!'Itnk .)Iou.
tornmissiDnrr Chandler: 1 wonder if you (ould discuss 1 little r.ore about
the role of tharter. I a. interested in that, and have been reading quilt
J bit lbout the AMI McLe~n transaction and the controversy that it ciused
in the Harvard fac~'t1~ ~o I am curious about C~arter's role and theIr
relatlonship, etc.
Or Mende1Qw~ This project has bee~ under way for a number of years.
C:oo:ld YOtl be IMIre specific as to .-hIt )oou are interested in?
Conpissioner Oltndler: Is C.harter 90ing to be a parUler wi th the
untv~rsit, and the hospital in Ownini t~e hos~itll? ]s t~at the idea?
pr~ Mendel ow: Yes, that is the idea.
tQ!mls5taner Chandler: And they are I for-profit h~alth care corporation?
Dr. Mendelow: Yes, (harter is i for-profit healt~ ~are corpor~tion. It
i1 the largest Dp~rator of suc~ facilities iD the United Stat~s today.
Commissioner (har.dler~ So basically what will happen is that reve~ue will
flaw from this and some will go to C~arter, and some will go to the
unhers,t,?
~~: Stanford's view of the lrra"gement 15 that it is In (act
developlng In academic facilit1 in direct support of its Oepart~r.t of
Psychiatry. ~t2nford would not be entering intD this arran9~nt~ were
not that net~ very, yery ciear~ A number of years ag~ _hen this idea ~as
first circul.ted. we surveyed a number of companies i" the United States
who were in this pa<ticwlar field. We selected Charter b~cause of its
particular expertise. as .ell as its affiliation .ith Dther academic
.edical centers. Stanford yiews Charter as an operator of this princ~pal
~syc~iatric teaching hospital. The operator could be Stanford University
fklspital. The operator could be the Packard Olildrer.·s Hospihl or the
VA. C~arter ts an operator for Stanford of )t5 principa1 psychiatT;c
teaching hospital. It will be a partner with Stanford.
Connissioner Ch.andler: r c~rtiinl.Y have been impressed by what [ ha.e
heard about Charter. and I i~ sur~ it is an outstanding organization.
That was not the nature of my Questi~n. J am trying to understand the
structure of this facility. Is C~arter going to owr. th~ fa"',tI1 Or do
they just receive a fee for lIanag"ing it? Do they get a share of the
proceeds, .aking a proftt from it? Is that part af it for them?
Dr. ~ndelQw: Charter will form i subsidiary corporltion.
rorm a non-profit 5u~5idiary corporltion, and the two will
partnership to operate the hospital. The hospitll will be
Charter and leased to t~e partnership.
StanfDrd .i 11
fol'W a
constructed by
Commissfgner C~andler: So Charter will recei~e leasehold payments (rom
the partnership and it will receive a share of profits from the operation
of the hospit.1.
01/08/89
·11·
. .
• •
1/ Eb:.......Me"delow~ Chart.er-w;l1 reCQ"ter its costs of construction of the
hospitll. IS ~el1 as receive a portion of the profits, o~ce that is
reached. ~r if that is reached.
CQ!Pls51onnr Chandler; Thank you. ] just wanted to understand a little
QOrt of that relationship. J h~ve one ~re Guesti~~ about housing. We
hid talked about this for quite a long time. [11'11 just w:mdering if the
cou~tj were to go I~ead and if W2 were to rec~nd housfnQ for thts 5i~~.
what would ~a,pen with t~e psych:atrft hospital?
pro ~endglDW; It is not tle~r to me t~at Stanford would put hQusing on
the Quarry Road site. I think Stanford would pursue with v;g~r the
designation Df that site for t~li particular hospital, because it ts the
idell ioc.ticn for thi~ facility. in relatlon t~ the oth~r ~ed1cal care
progrus on the cilllPus.
CO~is5iDner Chandler: Of cour~~. That is ~y you are takin9 the time to
shari this evening with us. I bnderstand that I loning desi9nati~n never
f~rces i landowner to do something. I strongly believe that is s~m2thing
that should be taken into account if you are gcing t. do saart land ~se
planning. 1 am just try1~g to scope out whal happens. [understand that
housl"9 aight not be built on t~is site, byt ! i~ wondering where t~e
psychiatric hDspital would be built it If cannot be built here.
[lr._l'4endelow:
to g~ bad and
c.ircullstances.
1 am not sure af that answer at this time. We wouid ha~e
restudy the issue. It ~ould be a very unfortunate set of
Plr. "'illhms: [cC!u1d add one comlent to t"'at. It has beef'); s-uggeste4 to
us that the old c~;ldren's ~ospital site would be the ;lternative. Our
yiew of t~at Is t~at that WOuld really mess up what we feel is an ideal
housing site. and we wouid be very reluctarot to do that. As Dav~d says,
we do not reallJ ~ave a 90cd ilternati~e site.
Dr. Me~delow: W2 did look at the children'S site and reuse of that
facility fo~ a psythiatric hospital. We determined that the costs of
renovating t~at facility would be more expensive t~an new construction.
Camnis$io~eT (ulltn: One othe~ point is that the site ~f the ~hi'drer,'s
hospital is wit~in the city l1~its. This one is not. This Is on campus.
The defiAition ~f w~at constitutes campus use --aTe yo~ planning to
incorporate t~is hospital witbfn the cjty limits?
Dr. ~.endelDw: Not to ." kno",'ledge. at thi s 'p<lint.
Commissioner Cullen: [have a 1ittle diffi~~'tl with the definition of an
acade.ic u~e with a for-profit h~spital. sfn(e your Ob" defi~ition of
academic uses includes onlJ non'proflt organizati~n allied wit~ the
university. an~ all profit uses are lncorporated wit~1n the citl li~its.
~~elow: J understand t~at, and we'anticipated that q~e5tion toming
up, ~nd expected that there would be further discussions on that issue.
do want to aake clear that the unlversit, ~i!Ws the irTangement with
Charter IS not a (Dr-profit operation.
C~;SsiQner Cullen: Not fDr the unfverslt,. but far C~arler.
02/08/89
-11-
,
.,
','
/
• •
Or Mendclow: That may be the cast.
tQ!miufoner Olrfsl@flsen: I want to be dear em the objection to t~e Sih
that is it the c~rner of Pasteur and Sand Hill Road. 1here is l lArge
field acrDSS from the 45 atre~.
Dr. Mfnde1pw: Fro. my perspecti~e is I ~dicil administrator~ the
distance from that site to the a.1r. center is
Commission'r Christensen: It is Tight it the entrance to the center.
Dr. ~nde'pw: B~t 1t is not a (on~enient walk nor co"~er.ieot for
transport of patients fro~ that sitt to an ~mergency room~ to radiology.
to the laborator;~s, to magnetic resonance facilities. Those are the
critical i3sues. It would not be a convenient, eisy walk for facult1 and
residents to move back ~nd forth betwee~ the hosp'tals, whereas the
trhngle site is quite stnightforward. 1t may not appear that way on the
~p. but the f~ct that you ~uld h~ye to get into I car to get to the
center ~uld make it verI incDnven1ent.
Commissioner Chr1st@nsen: What aboyt the people ~ho live it the ~optel
there on t~e corner tllOO Welch Road). 00 theJ get 1nto the car? 1 do
haye diffic~lty ~lsualiling this.
Qr. Mendelow: The people who live it the hoptel are the familYes of
patients. We are tll~;n9 about patients wko ~ay have to ~ transported
and facultJ who may work in different progra.s.
PV. Willii!lm~: I .auld 1 ik! to add to that. In the planning of the
medical center ~9ion. we have drawn, more or less arbitrary line up the
~dian of Pasteur. To tne north af that line. we are concentrating on
patient <are fac\lftle~. and to the sout~ Qf that line, we are
concentrating on school facilities. It \s aur attempt tQ lo~ate the
patient care facilities in what is now the hospital end ~f the center for
reasons of access and continuity and pro\,'iding the sendces that all
patients need. The areas that Ire undevelopfd tDward the south and west
sides are reserved for medical school and ot~!r academic progra~s.
Mr. SChreiber: 1 am pleased that Pbil used the word ·arbitrary· because I
am not sure I would have had the nerve to use that word myself. That cuts
to one tf the central issues involved in look;ng It lotalions for the
p!i.yc.hiatric hospita1. The uni'olers1t1. as the clJll'l7liss;on is a\lllare~ has
divided its lands into various regions. One of the issues that we ~ave
talked about in the past is tkat wbile ~an1 people outside of the
university view all cf the bniver$\t,'s fac11ities and operations as -the
university,-internally there is a great deal ~f organizational str~ctural
difference between segments of the different activities on the university
lands. Activities suc.h is instructional campus~ the mEdical school, t~e
hospit.l, the thildren's bospital. 1ncludi~ the old children's hospital
a~d the new children's hospital. Tne representatives of those activities
will point out tne distinctions. Whit we hive here is a :1tuation that
is, in part, befng driven by the medical ce~ter region plan, .hfth has no
standing in any public process. It is p~rel, an 'nternai Stanford
docunent. That is not to sal that it is unimporta~t. It is i~portant but
is not any type of public docu.ent derived through I publfc process.
OZ/GBj89
·13-
-"
~. -
Certai~11, the EIR th3t Santi C1ara Cou~tl will eventually issue (this
process ~as gDne on for severl1 ~ears) .ill have to conSl1er a range of
altern.tive hos~itll sites, 1ncluding sites outside the ~edical c€nter
region. Tnat concept, by itself. ~as no 5tlndi~g in the county plan~ing
proctss or in t~e <itJ process. I thfnk t~e sitt pointed out at Pasteur
lnd Sand Hill is on~ very legfcil stte to look at.
Chainaa~ Hi~: Since I have no ot~er cards from members of the pub'\c~
I will close thE public hearing and return tkis item to the plannIng
COMmissio~. I do ~a¥e I question on tbe present Co~pTenen5ive Plan
designation of Najor I~stitution/University Linds/Academic Reserve and
Open Spac~: ~ould i psychiatric hospital fall within that designation?
Mr~ Schreiber: That is a good question. let ~e try to answe~ ~t in a
relativel1 1~ng way. ~s I feel it ts important to try a~d summarize some
of the key parts of answering t~at question. first, t~e land tnat ~e are
talkiDg about is fn Santa Clara C~unty~ The Santa tlara County officials
--staff .. phnnin; c~lTJTlission, and county board, ultimately --lIIill f1a\le
to make the deternination as to what fits w\t~in deflnitions and how their
zoning ordinance a~d th~ir general plan is interpreted. The county plan
designates the triangular area as university lands study area. So there
is no land use deslgnat'on other than that there ~s s~ppo~Ed to be a
cooperative proeess between the city. the count1 and the uni~er5ity to
determine ~se of thjs land_ The county lonin9 1s Al-2~-S. Tnat zoning
allows a~ademit uses _it~ a use permit. 1t does not a'l~ ~ultfple-familJ
re~identlal. It allows single-rami1} r!sidentlal, and t~ere is a 2~-acre
.ini~ parcel s;ze~ ltl us assu~ that the parcels exist. lne like11
use under existing zonjng would b~ an academic use. It is not like1y to
ex~ect each af these parcels to ~ave one single-famil, house each. The
Pai0 Alto Comprehensive Plan defines the l~nds ~s Major
Inst1tution/Universit] lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space. The
definition of Academic Reserve and Open Space says. in part~ ~la~ds of an
.eademic lcstltution having all the char!eterist~cs of op~n space but some
academIc develop~ent ~ay be allowed, provided that the ~~en space
a~ntties are retained,-It ~ould be up to tht county to d~termine the
ratio of a(adtmlC development versus preservation of la~d. ettA under that
defirlHio!l, but that is not the cot.mtJ~s definitiorl for this property. It
1'5, the city's_ Regarding what is -acaden.1c. -sorr,p of the cornnission~rs
_ill recall ~ nig~t in 1985 at the cultural center when we _ent around and
around or. this issue. never really resolving the tssue. A co~ple of
things stand out in the 1985 hnd use agreement betwee~ the city. COU':ltJ
and university, First. -acidemic· Is defined in the county general plan
as i."Itludi:ng ;:nstruction and research, ind inclu,oing teaching hospital
faciliti~s~ administrative facilities. etc~ etc.~ and non-profit rEsearch
facilities ~ith close academlc tits tc the ~"iversity. An example is the
Cente. for Advanced Studies i" Behavioral Sciences_ Tne basic definition
of initruction and research does not conta1n~ i~ the wording of the land
use agreement. at least, J referenct ta those being non-profit instruction
and research facilities. The historic disti~ction bet~een unincorporated
land and developable land within the (ity of Palo Alto is that the c~mpu$
Qr the aCldemic or the r.on-profit was all l~ed tGgether for the
unincorporated area. The Issue that lIIe ~e~t around on --the planning
COm.iss10n. the Stanford Staff and cit, staff that a1gnt same years ago -
related to the linkage or lack of linkage of profit or non-profit and
~Gn-acade.fc or academic. We c~rtltn11 eitablfshed I couple af t_ings
tkat light. One 1S that there is no clear linkage bet~eR nGn·pr~fit a~d
02/08/89
-14-
+-
• •
~cidemit. Theft ire I let cf things that !r~ non-profit that ar~ not
iCidemic. such i5 SRI, [PRJ in the Stanford Research Park. etc. What ~as
not ,lear but seemed to be emerging was the potent;al for linking iii profit
Ictivity with an aC3de~ic use. That Issue was not resolved that D1;ht.
It never was reso1ved and ~lti~te11. it w~ll be up Lo Santa Clara County
tl) deterJIltle what tlSf:s fin \Jnder their definition Df ilcOIdemic. agafl'l.
iDstruction and researc"~ including te.ching hospital fac;llties~ etc.
One pelnt .ade d~ring tbat (onv!rsation ;~ 1925 _as t~at the line between
profit and non-profit, at least on a caspus, tertainl, was blurrin;.
There ~re many people who felt that 1\ was likely to blur even further i~
the future. That Is as a result , in part, of cutbac~s of funding SDur,es
for academic facil;t1es~ prohl~s with band ~arkets~ etc. So that is a
wer1 long Ins_er to ~our ~uestiont but [ .a~ted to give it a running
start.
Chajrman Hirsch:
.Itbio P.lo Alto.
fnf1uence?
But staff is suggesting th1s change to land whi'~ is not
[ a~sume that it is because it Is within the sphere of
!Jr. Schreiber: Yes. We are-suggesting it for I couple of reasons. It is
important ~o ~i9hli9ht the~ for t~e record~ Just Ii Pbil Williams and our
frie~ds at the un;versit, have rather emp~ati,all1 stated t~e importance
of the psyc~iltrlC hospital over the last couple of Years, this planning
staff has rathEr emphatfcal1y stated our view thft multiple-family hGUSln~
is the ~st logical and appropri~te land use for these parcels. The clty
council. at staff's r(c~endatfont idantified these sites among the list
of sites to be rev.iewed, in c.onjuncHon with i Golden Triangle process
commitaent to look fo~ additional hous~ng sites~ i~ey are outside the
City of Falo Alto but within our sphere of influence and are witMf1 the
area where we have planning authority under our Comprehensive Plan.
AgaiR, Santa Clara County ~a~ the ultimate authority, but we have the
authority to d!signate, i~ our plan. our policy for t~e land use on these
parcels. So we included them in th! list. the city counei' included them
ie t~e list. The reason that t~is item ~iS come back tonight was that
upon looking back at the earlier staff rec~ndations ie the Citywide
Study. 1 was uncomfortable leaving this iSSge with only a general polic~
recommendation. I feel quite emphaticlll, that housing is appropriate
bere and that there ar~ other appropriate sites for the psychiatric
h~sp;til~ In fact, the psychiatric ho~pital decision 1S being driven by
the ~dicil c.enter region pr~ess more than in~thin9 else~
I would prefer, ~nd would strongly recommend t~ lhe clty~ tnat ~en the
county board olt;mately has to face this issue (because it involves i plan
change), 1 would prefer to have the city's land use policy for the Site be
very clearly housi~g~ not Academic Reserve/Open Space. If the issue is
fra~ for the county as Acad~ic ~~~erve and Open Space versus Academic
tamp~s-type devel~pment~ tnat ts • very different way of phrasing it t~an
phraslng it ~bousing· versus m!dlca\ center ~nd Ic~demfc rel~ted uses. I
would prefer. fro~ I policy standpo~nt. lbat that be the cit,'s policy.
Certahl, we would be receptive if tr,e unhersHy "had" some aHernative or
combination of uses they wanted to tilk about. But from I pollt}
stfndpolnt, I think that is the strongest policy st~tement for the city
and 1 thtnt It fs the most consistent with our Icllons on housin9 for a
lot of other sites~
Co~fss\one[ Chandler; As i fol1owup to your coaments. what would be the
02/08/89
-15-
•
t -I
il10wable ~s~s und!r • designat~on such is University land5/Campus. is
opposed to Acadfm" Reserve/Oper. Space?
Mrt $c~reibtr: lh~ campus educational facijlit1es derinition is ~Ac~demi(
hrKfs wit~ iI ftlll complement of ilttfv1l1es and der.sitiu .. hich ghe them
an urban chariltttr.· A11o .. able US!S ire academic instruction and leademi'
reSeilr(~, student housing. facu1t, housing, etc. The question of ~at is
urban C~ilrilcter is is open to interpretation as t~e definition of what are
t~e prestr~iltion of open space c~aril'terj$tics under the AcademiC Reserve
and Open Space deSignation.
Comm~s~jq~gr C~and'er; So if the ~ity~s po11cy ~re ~omelhlng alDng those
lines, then iI lI'IuU"ip1e-famn1 hDusing designal;on froll the county would
certainly be consistent wit~ the cityls ~~licy, if that is ~nat we were to
designate it.
Mr. Schreiber: As c .. mpus1
Commissioner Chandler: ~es. University lands Ca.pus.
Mr_ $chre1ber: Campus educational facilities include student and faculty
housing.
C~i~siQner Chandler: And of course. if the count, were then to take
tbat as a cue from us to look at housing. t~ey would tnen have to change
the lone~ as we1l. to allow multiple-famil, housing, as opposed to what is
1ft the A-20-S?
~nrejber: T~at 15 correct.
tb_iJj.r:mart Hirsdt: D<les CO:m'lissitlner Cu11en, ou:" historhn. ~ave ilny
historical comments to make?
Cpmmissioner tqllen: My recollection is as accurate as Mr. Schreiber's.
Ve lIalle identified t+1;:s iI long tiC'le 1.9<1 as housin9~ At the time that the
courtty adopted t~e designation study area~ I recall that StanfGrd said?
well. t"ere ClOtS the h<Jusing ,on tha.t site~ Hlis b<lard did recomend to
t~e ,ouncil that it be hous1~, and t~e council put I study designa.t1on on
it. 1 a~ sure that Mr. Doty will corroborate that I said tQ bim, -I wi11
stand with ~ou before the county anytime you cc«~ up with housing for this
site. 1 will stite t~at this is a very good place for it ind that we
suppert the uniyersity's putting housing on that site.-That history bas
been accurately reportfd.
Commissigner Wbegler: I wish to follow up on Commissioner (handler's last
question. ~ould the designation UniYersit1 lands/Campus ~lso allow the
hospi~"1?
Mr~ Schreiher; If the ccunty interpreted the hDsplta.l as a~ academic
facilit1. yes. it would.
C~airman ~ir5ch~ I would lj~e to suggest that stnce this agenda iten
consists flf three individual paTts, let us fifth .. this one up flTst.
tommi~$iQner C~rj$lrn$en: I support the staff recommendation on this
~articwlar item. I would like it to be as clear as possible to t~e county
02/08/89
-16-
.,
. /'-'
• •
t~it what ~e have i~ mind is ~ousing. 1 think the Major Institutionl
Uniwersity LindsjCaApuS designation by itself does not ma~e that yery
clear. leaving it open l~ tneir interpretation. ~ich 15 not a good ide3.
To t~e extent that they care about whit we say. I wou1d like it to r~ad
the way staff has suggested: that it be tampus Hult1p1e·flmilJ
Residentl.1. ! was not satisfied with the 2xplanation t plrtit~larl1 for
the alternative site at Pasteur ind Sand Hill. I am n~t persuaded t~at it
1$ flrt~er to wait. If they haye created such 1 monstrous circ~lition
pattern t~lt you cannot drive between the locatiop.s. they shou1d p~obabl)
look it that.
The other thing I th~ught I heard was t~at t~ey did not know wh~t was
going to go around it9 so they wert r!'uttant to put it there. It see~s
to me that Stanford controls wnat goes around it, so if they did not ~ant
to put in another faciiity that conflicted with that use. it is th~ir
discretion te do so. Tke lar.d is hirly open in that ~hQle areiL So I
feel there is " good a1terr.ilti ... e for the psychhtrit t'losplh,l, and the
housing on the Quarry parcel is important.
C~iu.iop\er Chandler: [have a Question fo!" Mr. Williams, but ~oulcS like
to preface it wlt~ I few words. I have some concerns ~~ut ill w~ittl1ng
. away of parcels. for h{lusing on t,,~ campus. We halfe very goM' rusons. for
feel ing that the university 'has met iI sign; ficlnt part of its. cOlmlitme;ot
te providing additional 'housing. We 'ha~re seen that wiV. the new hOI.!~(ng
en Bowdoin. we hlve seen that witn the Ryan lab sitei ~e nave seen it wit~
the designation of the (~ildren's Hospital at Stanford site. We have put
this into the c,tywide land use reco~tndati~ns, and I don't get the sense
that the universit1 has had a great problem with the loning
re~ommendat\~ns that are coming for~ard on that plrticulir site is part of
the cit~ide proces~. If you would like to ~orrect me on that~ I ~ould
,appreciate iL
Mr. Schreiber; C!rtainly. t~e existing children;s hospital residential
reuse is consistent with what the univers;t, h~s set out as their intended
reuse of the site. I .appreciate the fact that t~ey ~ive loolced at tP\at
site carefull, is a possible psyc~iatrfc fac11ity locatjon. What
commfssioners have demonstrated tonight \s that there are other logicil
sites besides the old cnildren's hospital. We certafftly intend to pursue
~ous'ng on that site, and the univerSity is gf~;n9 every indication of
in.tendin.g to pursue housing there, IS "ell.
Corrmisslon~_r (handler: And that is the lone recOtW!'tend,ation th,at we lIIade
as part of the (ity.ide Study?
~. Schreiber: It fs the density recommendation of the RH-15 density. It
is our understanding that it will ~ost likely ~ome \~ is i Planned
Community zone because of the ~i~ of hcusing for the elderl11 care
facilities, et~. So It may not be under the conventiena1 RM·lS zone 9 but
~t will be that density.
~tssioner Cnandler: Then I will cC"!'tinue wit~o'"t ft!f!Hng·a nepd tD be
corrected that t~e use of the old c~i'dren'$ ho~pital site is likely to be
housing. On the other hand , I remember very well t~at en iI couple of thG
fnb0ard Wel~h Road parcels~ we had residential desig~ati~ns previousl,.
and during I famous e¥enlng about fiv~ ye,ars ago. we c~aoged t~at
deSignation to I differt!nt zone to supposed1y facilitate parking for the
02/08/89
-17-
' ..
.--".
hospJtal MOderQization program, .'thoygh there was an underc~rrent t~~t
the'rf~son WiS actually tD atco~date the new children's hospital. There
was 50~ feeling on th~ part of the commission tkat it would be good. is
part of that. to be 100king for a recommitment on other sites. As J see
those sitE'S disappe,aT1n9~ with propos.ed J;1ternatives use of the Quarry
Road parcel now, 1 do bave 50me concerD. I don't think we should be into
t~f business of decidfqg. with I la~downer that ~as the flexibility that
Stanford does. where the be$t place 11 to put the psychiatric center, If
tnt need is to aoye p.tients back and forth. we "fed to take advantage of
the opportunity to try and meet t~e city~s more broadly stated goals,
rather than getting involved in sitin; analysis. That leads me to .y
.question of Mr. Williams. Jf we take COITI!'Iissioner Christer,se!l's proposed
psyckiatric hospital site, directl, acrDSS from the 4~ acres. and w~ether
the u"iversity would be willing to pursue a process cf t~at being
additIonal housing_
Mr. Wi_l1i&ms: ] don't really want to engage in plannirl9 on the spot.
This is the first tj~e. to my k~owledge, that it has been proposed t~at
that area be used for either the psychiatric hospital or (or housing. I
do not want to ~ake a commitment on that. I could say t~at we ~ouTd .ore
likel, consider that i~ the future as i potential housing site thdn we
~~1d as a patient care s'te. I do find myself a little frustrated. In
the past ~ have been criticiled for not doing planning. The term
·piecemeal planning-has been COined a few times. In the past few years,
we ha~e been doing an assiduous planning process. regfon by reg1on.
nejg~borhDod by nelghborbood throUjhout the campus. and we fe~l that we
have been doi~g as ~DQ;cal a job of that as we can. So when we d~cided,
in the medical center area. to try tG carefully distinguish between
patient ~are activities and school and res~arch ~r.tjYities, beLause they
had differe~t suppurt requirements, we thought that was pretty good
pla~nlng. I feel that putting the psyc~iatric hospital or any ~at1Ent
care facility on the south side of Pasteur would be an error, 1n that
regud. aHhougf) not sometl:ling we <:ouldn't surmount. I will pcint out
that the staff has advised us that they are reluctant to approve any other
access off &f ~asteur Drive than already e~1sts, so I assu~ that the
access to any site in that West Campus area would be (rom the Welch Road
extensjo~~ and not directl, accessible from Pasteur. Tnat has scm~
implication on the planning of the hospital fa~ility.
I guess there are ether sites available on the c~~pus for housing, and ~e
~ill ~ontinue to study those. We feel tnat the plans we have for the next
half dozen Jears~ It least for housing, ire probably more than the market
can accORmOdate lft that period of time. T~at is about all] can say on
that at the present time. 1f I nay! ~~t addressed your question
idequatel~~ let Me know and J .i11 try Igain.
~mmi~s;oner Chandler: I would be interested io the comments of your
colleague. as well. I a~ certainly not trying to tell you ~ow to plan a
~edical facility~ although I ~Gte t~at the aerial v'ew of the medi~al
center region looks a let like C~ngressman Gerry's congressional district
in Massachusetts, creating a new WQrd in the language 150 years "ago. I
think we don't want to se~ housing sites taken awaYt one by one, and not
replaced. That f1 why I am !oQking for 50me kind Df responsivenEss on
that issue. I am interested in _hat your colleague has to say.
~r. Willi'm}: Incfdentall1t the way we loo~ed at it three or four years
02/08/89
-18-
/ •
•
• •
Igo was t~it we were adding the old childrer,'s hospital site is I
slJbstittJte fgr t~is one. ~hich is ilctualiy a lir.ger site. 'We ldded Ii
~crts of (onaer ~ouslng site to the hosp'til~
Or. "tndelow: J a. ifrlid [ did not satisfy Commissior.er Christensen. and
I "ould like to try once-ilgaill~ In the hind use plan that you have. in
addition to a siting analysis t there ts I transportitfon study that talks
about public iccess to the center. IS well as staff movements and general
logistic support. If you look at the up on ,the transparency. the QuarT..,.
Road arei, the trilp~Zoid is J strlig~t shot to the hospital ~rgency room
and to the ch11dren'5 hospital. If you then 90 to the area across from
Oak Creek~ you ~1" nOle that ~ou have tG 90 dcwn the Pasteur e~lts, you
hav~ to tak~ Welch and go around the corner, come back right where y~u
were fro~ t~e straight shot, turn the corner to gQ into the emergency room
or t~ tUrD the c~rner and go in anotheT entrance for dijgnostic 1tudy or
lab studies. On the map, it may appear to be the same, but in reality.
the wa, one would get there with i patient or with a patient's family ;1
as t have descTibed it, From the Quarry ~oad site, it fs a strlight line
to the illtih P01fltS. This is important !'lot onl, to the patfeflts, but h
terribl, lmp~rtant to the faculty. What ve learned from Pedi.tr1cs being
located at the old CHAS lite was a sense of isolation. ~at is critical
to the proper development of the p~ychlitrit program is sig~ificant
inte9ratio~ and tollabor~tion with ~'c'ne. with Neurology. ~ith
Radiology for imaging the brain, for Pathology~ for all kinds of themlcal
studies. The Quarry Road sitt! facilitates that kind of integration.
~ioner Wheeler: 1 did not ~ear yGU .entiDn i~ your analysls of
sites having 10o~ed at any of t~e inboard ~elch Road prnperties. ~ile
you have said in the regional plan that it is the intent tn reclaim those
for ~edical centtr ~se. and they fit Phil's qualifltat;~n Df being on th~
cQrrect side of t~e line between p~tient services and researt~ facilities~
~hy were the inboard sites not analyzed?
Dr, Mendelow: Were the inboard sites IVlllable. that is, the leases
conveniently expiring at the time we ne~ V.e site-. that would be a very
feasible alternative. But t~ 90 back now a~~ repurchase those leases.
~ith the cost of land, it would be prGhibitively expensive for us. That
is I str~;ght answer.
(ommlssioner Wherler~ Althoug~ there is some indication in the reg10nll
plan t~at you might do j~st that for ~ome purpose, but you ~I¥e determined
definitel, ~ot for this r~rpose. however.
Dr. ~ndelow: That is a verj deliberate stgnal~ as i recommendation to
the university. to deveTop strategies just (or Uli~t. Bllt withii1 our
context. it takes a while, requires I financi~g plan and i full ~~tailed
analys;5 to get to it. That is somet~ing that ~ill have to be do~e~ but
certa;nly "ot in time for the construclio~ of this facility.
~..i.!_9!!~hr~5tens.en: I wish tc respond to C.onnissionel' Chandler's
c~nt. Certlln1y if the university was willing tG make a c~~it~nt to
the ather parc~l aCrQS5 fro~ the 46 acres for ~ousing (and I guess we have
I different wjew even of the kind of housing, because! feel there is a
large ~arket at the university for moderatel, priced, Iffordable hous1n9
for their lower level staff]. I would be willfng to accept that. I just
do not see t~at. The)' ha'ie not come for.ard with that, and tonight they
02/09/89
·19·
•
.. . .
/ ..
Ire not in I; position tG make that kind of commitment. 1 illl cor,cerned. illS
Commissioner (handler is. that since I ~as t~e ~er50n w~o supported the
housir.-g designations along Welch Road, 'lie continue to lose housing
opportunities that are not repla~ed alo~g there.
tommissioner Chandler: J am interested in having I little mc~e discussion
here and receive responses from Mr. W1'liams or his colleagues, if you do
not .ind my asking them to address us Igain. I I~ finding the dia10gue
tisef~l and constructtve.
Mr. Willh:ms: H is correct that we carlnat stan1 here tor,igM anC! mal:.e a
(.onnHment to a spec; fic other site thit we tlad not now p1i\nned fer
housing_ Taat would be a little quick. let me reiterate 9 nowe~er. that
compar!d to the situation that existed in 1981 and 1982 when we were
diSCGssing housing for th~ trapezoid site. compared to that situation. we
have added sis"'ficantly to the rotential ~ousing site by making 26 acres
aV~11able at the old children~s hospital site instead of the 1J acres in
the trapezoid. It depends on' when you start ccunttng.
Cpmm;s5ioner Christensen: 1 am also reluctant to consider the 26 acres of
the ~'d children~s ~~spital site as I replacenent, consideTir.g the kind ~f
facility t~at they are talting about it primari1y being. whic~ I do not
see as necess.arilJ' .eeting a reall), critical need for housing f(lr lower
level, aedium level staff. They ~re talking about its being sGmething of
ill senior citizen. almost SKilled ~urs1ng type of facility.
(omnissloner ~eeler: 1 do not feel that we are through the study stage
on t~'s one yet. It certainly ~as nQt been a cooper~tive process. Part
of the reason that we placed the Academic Reserve/Open Space desfgnaticn
o~ this parcel was to leave ourselves with the flexib~lit, and which
opened us towards Stanford to de I study on t~ts trapezoid. We only heard
about the reg;onal pla~ In our packets this wepk. So certainly ~e ha~e
not had ~ char.ce to respond and work out a jcint plan. j just don't think
that at thfs PQiot, either side is re~dy to say yes. we have the solution;
this i$ the idea' site for a psyc~iatri( hosp~tali there are not other
'Sites around the medical center that would be as goad.
If it is necessary ta send i clearer ~ssage to the count,. then J would
.o~e the staff rec~ndation that the Comprehensive Plan land use m~p be
(~anged to Major Institut1on/UniverSity l~nds/Campus/Hultiple Family
Residential. 1 think the change requested by ~tanford to allow i
psyc.Matrfc hen it)' is prematlJre, and therefore. 1 am r_ot in. favor of
putting a designation on there tnat would allo~ such a facility to be
constrU'ted at that site.
MOVfO BY; CommiSSioner Wheeler
${C~O! By Commissioner C.llen.
Co"issicner Chandler; I am 90ing to OPPOS! th! notion. If it fiils. ]
would prDpose I counter ~tion to deSignate the trapezoid as Vn.iversity
LlndsjCampus. I feel a little uncomfortable wit~ the view Df prematurity
in terms Df thfs, first witn respect to our awareness of the .edicll
center report. If you '~ok on Page 48 Df the ~inutes that we approved at
the outset of t~'s aeetlng. yo~ will see that It the beginning of January.
we were told about the existence of tkis ducument, lnd we were told that
02/08/89
-20·
,
-. ,\ . ,
• •
the (it, had I c~py and Isk~d if we wanted to hive. workshop on the
subject. 1 think we declined th~ opportunity. so 15 10ng ago ~s gne
month. t~is <ertai~lJ .~s broug~t to tne attention of the comm;ssion that
this txisted.
Second, ~nd $Ore i;porlantly on the issue ~f prematurity. J feel t~at in
the reil world whe~e people do things .1tk thtir 1and and develop
facilities, the dynimic that causes that to happe~ is not ~hat agencies
Ire doing in the planning process but rither whit the opportunities ar~
that are out there to bring together the ~rofessiDnal resources. the
financial resources and the energy tc make something happen. It sounds
1 ike at the university. and cerhinly on the part of Or~ (ore and Or.
Mende1ow. there has been a tremendous ~unt of resources and energy gOing
into ~t;n9 thIs facility I potentia' rtality. The fact that t~eir
judgment is (and [ don't thi"~ we have any reaSGn to qu!stion the
prDfessional j~dgment of Dr. Mendelow in terms of the siting decis1on)
t~at t~ls is an appropriate S\t~ for it. Jr. meeting t~e city's goals, we
Dught to take into account t~at there ire other sites at the university
that ire tapable of pr~~iding housin9 that would not interfere with tne
professional decisio~ of where to site the psychiatr~c facllit,. We
should take the old thildren's hospital reuse into accou~t, but 1 also
f~el we should init~ate a process to look at this parcel that would be
directly adjacent to the 46 a(res. Frankly, 1 would muth rather s~e the
psychiatric facility directly a~jacent to the ~~rge~tl room and tie it
into t~at network and ~ave housing at Pasteur Road with a direct l;n~ to
the 46 ~cres. r.ther than having the h~usfn9 isolated ~n the 11 acres and
the psychiatric hospital right across the street from the 4S acres. So I
would rather see us pursue l proces$ lit! tnat and adopt a zoning
desigflilti.t'll for the slte that gives the cou"t,. a lot of flexibl1ity as the
planning pr«ess IMves forward. I lfCuld add t,"at 1 think the city
attorney should look veT~ (l~seTy at this question and perhaps ad~ise the
county on acade~ic versus ncn-academ't and profit versus non-proFit. and
the question of anne)(at1on. 1'1,. view of for-prCifit has general1y been
where the un;yersity was ma~tn9 a proflt ta support its ~ther actfvities
by letting someone on the land that sells s~thfng Gff Df it~ I am not
sure that this use is one that generates i profit for the universitY9 eYen
th~u9h it generates i profit For somebody eise. Sc there is certainly an
open Questi~n, and it is snmet"ing we should pursue.
Chairman Hirsch: I would like to (omment regarding this November, 1988
medital center report. At the ti~ that lt ~iS brought to our attention
t~at it was available. 1 believe it ~a~ shortly Ift!r tne publ1C hearing
on the Cltywide Study had been closed. and we dlsc~ssed this. We felt
that it would be I bad precedent to accept l~is r~port at that time~ since
ob~,ously it is a lengthy ~nd detailed report. lhe substance of it was
a~allab'e during the entfre course of our many public hearings on the
Citywide Stud~_ I would say t~at as luck would bave It. this item was
inadvertent11 omitted from the dfc1sion guide, so we had to reopen the
public hearing and get it before us. It seems to have circumvented our
desire. but lU~ did not want to open the public hearing to ha,-e this
presented with other people being in a disadvantageous position because
they ~td not have another crack at t~e CDmmisSion. Tnat is ~hat I ~anted
to stlte ibout that aspect of it.
I view this tonight as being two proposals for t~is particular site. One
is the citl's desire to have some housing there~ and the Sta~ford
01/08/89
-ll-
"-
/
I
Iversltl 6esfre to have a psychiatric ~~spita' there. I feel that of ~os.e tlllO propos .. ls, I favor the housing. Obvio';Jsly, the Hool/cr ,t'ivHion
PS1chi~trfc unit has been there for many years, and during ~y tim~ in Palo
~1to J hav~ not heard of any s~gnifitant problems. but that is an existing
facility. I question whether the new site is the ~ost appropriate site
(or" new (acll1tJ of that type. adjacent as it is. t~ a significant
~unt of CO~r(ti' deye'op~nt lnd commercl,l traffic. So [ share
C~issioner Christensen's conce~ that other slt~s ought to be e~aluated.
in addition to the fhe already studled and cOlT'ITI(nted upon lTI thi 5 report
that Commissioner thandler refers to. Accordingly, [ will support the
IIOtiGn~
Commjssloner (ul1gn: As the seconder of t~e motiOfi t 19 too, would like to
give my reasons for supporting It. There is a history to thi~ parcel and
ta the Stanford/(\ty inlera~tio". It sits at I s19nificint 10caticn it
the apex of the shopping center. It seems to me sin9ul~Tl1 inipproprlate
for i psychiatric bOSPltil, especially one of the size that is
contemplated. The old psychiatric ward at Hco~er is a ver~ small facility
havi"g probably 20 0" 30 beds thpre. "That is. s.ignific.aflt'y less tha.n what
is contemplated. The proximity to the ~ajor part of the hospital perhaps
should ~ave been taken into conSideration w~en they were plannlng that.
They (ould have 'put in a psychialric wing or perhaps one of the pods that
is not sufficiently used could be co~verted into a psychiatriC wing. I
dGn~L kno~ about all that but I susp~ct it has s~mething to do with the
c~art~r hospital arrangement. That is not our CDncern. The land use is
our concern, and I do not think this is an apprGpriate USe for lhls
particul~r site. letting it go academic without hiving it be open space
reser~e is another wh01e question. but the fact is tha~ it is n~t i good
sHe for that kind (If a facility. 1 support Comi'niss;oner Wheeler who, 1
believe, mentioned the inboard parce15 on Welc~ Road. 1 know at least one
;f the~ is just a single story prefab unit that cou1d be taken apart very
easily and J think is ~o~trolled by Stanford~ I am sure there ire some
other ivenues of approac~ there, and would be much clDser to the eedlcal
facilities than this is. This out o~ the tdge. toward the cit} I1mlts.
and it is on the edge of the St&nford ~ampus, and it seems to me mucb more
appropriate to be within the campus, so I a~ going to vote in favor of the
lIIotion~
Commissioner Huber; I ~ave enjoyed 1istening to the history of housing at
Stanford, Since I have not been around all those years to hear it~ I wiew
t~is IIOtion is merel, cleanup. , 'lie held I public. hearing someUme ago, and
.e ~ont1nue to maintain that this should be in irea destgnated fer
housing. I agree that we should send the .essage to the county in the
clearest form that we can that thiS cit, feels that housing belongs
there. Stanford obviously wlll go in with ~ totally different position
and the county will ha~e to ~akt up its own atnd. We ap~are~lIJ, a11
a10"9, iD li5te~ing to the history and .150 ~at J heard during the
clt~ide pla~, have sU9gested that t~is is I perfect location for
housing. I agree, and will support tfte motion.
Ch,frgan HirSCh: The staff rec~ndation has been ~ved by Commissioner
Wheeler Ind seco~ded by Cammiss;oner Cullen. and I assume that it is IS
drafted at Lnf battom ~f Pig, Two of the staff report. and excludes the
9as station yarce1 9 as therein stated. All thost in favor. sal Aye. A11
opposed?
.".
OZ/08/89
-21-
5 .. -
\
• •
~~: T~at ~asses en ~ 5·1 vol!. with Commissioner Chandl~r
voting No and (omA~SS\Oner Marsh .bs~nt.
Ch"inun Hirsch: le-t us. go back to the f'; r.s.t shff rec:~nd.li:(jn or. the
tM(l) zop.e. Any to.aents.?
~: Commissioner Wheeler: J SOY! the stiff reccmmencatioo. As we
nentioned to the cit] council fri our-pnsenhtton Monday n.ight. tt.!rt fs I.
~tr1 SMa1) irea fn the city that is present1y toned lM(l). It can be
handled very nicely by changing the des;9nalion to I. strict lM. thertby
ilTowtng us to temcve twa letters and I numeral fron our alphabet soup.
~: By C-DlTlTliss faner H'lJ'ber.
t~air=an Hirsch: The staff recommendation On the LM zene ha5 been ~oved
and seconded. Is there any further discussion on t~is tootlon? All those
~R favor, say Aye. All opposed?
MOTION PASSES: That passes unanimously. by I vote of 6-0 witb
C0h01ssioncr Marsh absent.
Chairman Hirsch: let us ~ove on to the noncDmplyin; buildin9s~
MOTION: Commissjoner Chand1er: Since I had ratsed a Question about this
re-connend.at1on, [ reel it appropriate for me to" state that I find th~
staff explanation to be very comp~lllng. ind to move the staff
reco.nnenda\ion.
~: 8~ (oMRissioner Christensen.
~an HiTSC~: The staff recommendatiQn on non-complying building ~as
been moved and seconded. Is there any f~rther discussion ~n this motf~n?
All those in favor, say Aye. All opposed?
MOTIO'( PASSfS: That passes unanillOusly on I 6·0 vote witt! COtII!'Iissioner
Mars," absent.
~ENDA ITEM 3: Informational Report: CO Monitoring, Marc" I, USS ta
September I, 1988.
Chainman Hirsc~: I am sorry George Zi~rman is not here tonig~t to walk
us through this as he as done before. It seess very stTaig~tforward. We
~re glad to still see a very low vacancy rate.
"5. ~n5en: Whe~ Hr. Zimmerman sent me this report in draft form, J sent
it back witn a ~ote at the top saying, cle.rly we were reflecti~g
c~unitJ sentiment in our work here, since we have actuall, had a
decrease in square foot~Qe in this area within the list few months. We
must ~ doing our job.
ChAirman H;Tsch~ I get the impression that the downtown area is still
Yer) y;brant and exciting.
Dl/08/S9
-ll -
•
;
: j -... --"--"
.., . ,. ------..,
[DJ~mrnu~~ Wednesday, De~ember 14. 1966
Reg"" r lie, t1 n9
f. Palo Alto .:. . -. Planning Commission, City of
I. APPROV~L OF ~IHUTES November 9, 1966 Planning Commission 2
tHnutes.
2. R.vi •• of the Citywide land Us. and Transportation Study 3
pel icy recommendations t~at include modifications to almost
all c~rc;.l and 1ndustrhl zone ,j; stricts, and changes of
certlin commercial parcels to residentfli or ether
commercial designations. Continued from t~e September 28,
October 19, October 26, November 9 and November 30, 1989
Planning Cop.wission meetings.
FILE COpy
PLANNING Di=O-j .... 1 ,
J. Ad ... , -1-
f
....
de,ign to the RM-40. cannot recl" the v~te.
~r. Schreiber: ] believe it ~as 7-2.
Ms, Jansen: So t~ere is no requirement for site and design in t~e RM-40.
~~oner Chris~; I .... ould 5tHl lih to recommend that we impose
sile and d~sign ~n this particular slte of RM-40 beca~s~ tkis is " ~ery
busy corner ar.d a larg! property. So J would like to see it added to this
particular property. 1 da not think it has the problems that Commissioner
Chandler ~as concerned about on t~e RM-40 propeities on the other side
where they were small pr~perti~s. This is I single owner and a large
parcel It a very busy intersection, _itn potentiall, same ~fry interesting
traffic and: des1gn problems.
Chairman Hind: [Ilade I statement here earlier "'hfch Commissioner
Cu1len challenged tt, as to whether you could have the 15 ~~~ce"t denslty
bonus. I assume there are the density bonuses for the BMR units that
people ha~e put in, so we are looking at potentially 46 units per aCfe
versus the Hohbach of 52. 1 just don't see tkat that is advisable
anymore.
~. Schreiber: [(annat speak"to the split in tne units. but what will
note is that the Mayfield project was at a 1.4 floor area ratiO. I
b~lieve. That was a prime focus in the Hohbac~ Mayfield apartments. At i
1.( FAR. the new multiple-family re~ulations set i ~aximum of 1.0, so you
.. ould have a sub3tantial reduct i<ln in siZE' over ~hat jI<lU "auld ha'Ve on the
other side of [1 Camino Real.
(~airman Hirsch: B~t the units could nevertheless be the same, albeit
sma1ier.
~_ Schreiber: Thf:: ~n't count !nay not be that ~'Jch different. but the
buH tlf the project 'WQIJ1d be slJbstant iall), les.s.
MOTION: (o,"Mli.ss;oner Chri.stensen: 1 move the staff recolTlTlendation for
RM-40. including site and design review.
SECOND: By (ommission~r Wheeler.
(olTlTllssion-er Marsh: How would He cit,)' likely deal 'With the toxic
problems, with the rfdevelopment of the Mayfield site? Would that be
dealt witk in the architetturil revie~ beard process, or somewher! else?
Mr. Schreiber; it would be d~alt with in the environmental rewie~
process, as well as in the ARB process. Toxic problems, in general, t~nd
Lo f~11 into one or ~re categories, i"cludi~g soil and ground water. If
tke toxic prob1em Is i~ the soilr the soil can be excavated and cleaned
up, and we are working on sites trying to bring that about ~en
deve10paent or redevelopment occurs. If it is cOr'ltamirU.ted ground water.
,s lnng as tne dewelopment project does not break into the ground water,
the~ ~hatewer tfforts are currentl, under way on this s;te to ,lean up the
ground water through i pu~ping lnd filterir.g process, thas! efforts .ould
continue on the s;te. The ground water. un!ess you break into it ~nd
bring it up to the surface, poses far fe~er problems from a site ,leanup
standpoint than the 50il. I~ any ewent, the soil \5 something we would
IUII/SS
-16 -
" ) ,
'. '.
'.
•
w!nt to ha~e cleaned up to the satisfaction of whatever agency ~s ir.
charge of that issue.
(D!Mi~s1Qngr Marsh: It seems to me that so~e of the architectural
li~itltions t~at .ight be placed on this ~oje't. given the t011city of
the locit1Qn~ speak even f~rther for dOl~g some k,nd of sile arod design.
jf in fact, it c~s thro~9h IS a '~1eted application~ 1 think chantes
are very excellent that 1t will come through as a PC .nd we will see \t.
i" any tlse~ But ass~ming that it comes through is a" RM-40, 1 think it
is advisab1e to have the site a~d design. d~e t~ t~\S concern.
Chairman H1tSch: Is there any further discussion on th~s ~tion1 The
staff recorrmendation hilS been mo ... ed by Comroi $Sioner ttlri stensen and
seconded by Commissioner Wheeler~ This ~o~ld include an RM-40
des;9~ation. plus I site and design review. All these in fa¥ort say Aye. An opposed?
HOTIONPASSES: Th,t p<sse. by • vote of 5-1 •• ith Chairm,n Hirsch yoting
fiO and Commissioner Cha~dler absent.
CkaiT11lall~: That brir.gs us to Area Nine. the Sand Hill torridor. Is
there any additional information we should have at this time. inasm~'n as
there is the Sand Hill corrtdor task force that] believE 15 ~et;n9?
Mr. Schreiber: In summary. that protess 15 at i point where botk the
Menlo Park and Palo Alto City (ouncils and the Stanford Administriti~e
Countil ha~e re~,ew~ the work to date. The next me!ting of tke joint
policy committee is ~n relatively late January. After that meeting. 1t is
exp~cttd that there ~ill be some type of act10n, with a set ~f
recommendations to go back to the city councils for some formal agenda
action. lhose attions would focus on ~heth£r Dr not to pursue mo~in9 l~to
the se<:ond phase or the procedural framework, wh~ch is the develC!'pment of
a ~~le scope of work for the [1R. and then the pr~ject implementation
phase. At this pOlnt in time, there have b~en a lot of discussions, but
it is certainly ~ot clear where this project ~11\ end up.
Cqmmis..sJoner Marsh: I 'Would hope that the cOlTlllission would nat make
zuning dEciSions tonight based on the expected extension of the Sand Hlll
Road cDrridor. 1 think that is a problem for a couple of reasons. One.
if l~e corridor is eventually extended 1 1 don1t think it shou1d be
e~tended with the e~peclat~on that d~.elopment options would be increased
by the u.tenslon of that corridor. What the corridor wou1ci do. if
extended. ~ou'd be to simply tak.e care of existing traffic. 1 would not
like to build into that process an expectation th~t the corridor can
actually assume ~re traffic than we would otherwise place in thert.
hope ttlat we would make decisions 1n the er".tire Sand H,l1 area based Con
good land us~, rlther than on the expectation of that corridor.
Mr. SchreiPer~ Staff ~ould concur with that comment.
Commissioner tullen: I agree ~ith everyth1ng tkat Commissioner Marsh
said. but .eanlime there is another bunch of action going on out here.
need to be brousht up-to-date on wh~ther there is an application before
the cour.ty for the psychiatrlc hospital and at the Quarry-Arboretum
parcel. If 50. what is triggered in terms of mitil}iltions.? Are 'We dealing
wit~ the theoretical while theJ, ire de.ling with the re.l?
I
12/14/88
-I g-
o.
•
. .-'~ .
~r. 5c:breibe"f: Regarding the psy(~iltric hospita1, which would b~ the
QuarTi/Arboretum parcels on Page 7bt2}. Stanford r~presentatives • yeif or
~ ilgo stressed to city s.taff Ute high ilrlOrity, the v!r,Y important
decision they ~ad made to pursue the ~evelopment of the psychiatric
bospital and some related medi,al center office u~es on at least o~e of
the QuarrY/A~boretum parcels. Since th!t tim~~ and EIR con~ultant was
bired land t~is ;s in the Santa C1ara County unincorporated .rta). there
were some prel;mi~ary meetings held. and there was an administrltive drift
of t~. fIR that ~robab1, tame out 6-9 months ago. Ther. seems to be
little, if any, acti<ln. One Star,ford staff member recently descTi~ this
is ·~o~ing at giacial speed.-So 1 really do "ct ~ncw. When this topic
CDmes up with Stanford staff. they reiterate hew important it is. but the
process is unbelievably long. and seems to b~ stuck ~it~ln the university
somewhere.
~ommlssioner tulle~: Is it ~erhap5 a pOlicy qUfstio~? 1nis is going to
~ a for-profit hospital that ~ill be put on t~is land. from ever~t"ing
have read "bout; t. There is, I suspec.t. a ptil iCjI Question within. the
universit, of wh~ther the land sh~uld be used by I profit corporation,
even though it eventually gels brned over to U1e .-
Mr_ s<:hreiper~ There ... ·as facl;£lt),·senate concern 'When the issue first tame
'Up about the for-profit 'Status of the hospital. ['ha .... e no idea ... hether
tnat was resolved, Dr how. 1 ~~ve no idea whether the speed cf the [IR
6ev~lopment process is a technical prob1em, iI staffing problem, or ,
pol icy problem. Tbis piClject has simply disappeared below the waves of
the sea of Santa C1ara ~ountJ planni~g.
~issioner ~ul1en: Then it $cunds like our action wou1d be more
important than I would ct~erwise have thQught.
Mr. Schreiber: ] feel it is important for the city Oil these parcels, and
I try not to miss an opportunity in my conta(ts ~it~ Stanford to note
tl'lis. I had a caril;ersatioT! on the teTephone 'Wit'" .an associate vice
pr€sident of the university last weEk on Sand ~ill·re1ated jssues~ and I
look the oppottun it)' to bring up tMis. item. 1 think it is very importa.nt
for tne city ta evaluate ~at it believes is the 2ppr~priite policy for
development of th1s lanj, _hether in the (lty or in Santa (1ara County.
UlLimately, \f this psyc.hiatric hospital and relited facliiUes are
pursue1 and through the cou~ty, t~;s will be, I ~o~ld say. a most
In.terestins decision for the county board c.f sUj)enisors a:; they ... restle
vith the Golden 1riangle tradenffs versus this type of u~e. The Colden
Triangle is pushing very. ver} hard for more ho~sing sites.
(ommissione~ Culle~: To be the h,st~~ian agafn, ~ometime ago when this
trapeloid came up, we put it into the study irei. Actually, we
re~ommended housing and the city coune,l put it into a study area. 1 went
down, a'o~g witk Mr. Schreiber, to tha county le~el and I recall talking
to the Stanford people. They said. you ha'Je now destroyed any opportunity
for housing_ ] replied t~at anyti~ 1ou·~ant to put \n housing, I will
sla~d right beside you at the county level and say. yes. we ~eed hous{ng,
and that is a good spot for it. ] am disappointed t~ see that t~at is not
the direction iii whic'rl they wnt. In fact. the), are pursljing 'IIIhat seems
to be , prof't·ma~ins hospital. Ad.itted1J. it i. probably going to be
for training their p~ychiatric students, but I stil~ think that the best
1l/14/88
·20·
.~: ..
•
"
,,<
-~,.~-------,--~,----
use of tkat lind is housing for III the rtasons raised b1 staff -
pro~i.it1 to trinsp~rtlti~nl I reduction Df trfps, and I would like to
have Stlnford recognize that there Ife places besidES on-camp~s housing
for students and •• lect.d st.ff .n~ flcult,. Tbis i. a good place for it,
so I am goIng to go Ilong wIth the .t,ff recommend.tion. 1 just wonted to
get updated on It.
thairma~ Hirscb: Wh'c~ Irea are you referring to?
tommissioner Cqlltn; The Quarry-Arboretum plTcel. Not so ~uch the
Children~s Hospital, although that. too, is housing at the R~-15 l!vel.
That could go along with their plan. All ~e have to do is zone it
corre~tly_ We do not have to approve whether it 15 senlor housing. or
full care. or whatever.
~qmmissionor Christens!n: 1 agree that t~is is I good place for housing,
and i1so it \s a good ti~ for it while t~e cDunty is undertaking th!fr
general plan r~view. Ve might ~ave some impatt on a process that is
att~allJ going fonward at the county level.
Chairman Hirsch~ Ve have jumped ahead from the ~obil gas stati~n
location.
MOTION: Commjs$ioner t~llen: [m~¥e the stiff recommendation on A:ea
Nine, as on Page 1.
£b~irman Hirsch: Before you do that~ I have some questlons about Sand
Hill Road and the C.'ldre.'. Hospital.
t.QUlissioner (!;Illen: TI'Ii:n I will withdraw the ~tiGn Until ~e discuss
your coneen.
~nairman Hirsch:
site. (There was
l"is site.
let me Isk if there is consensus ~n the Mobil Station
consensus) Tnerefore, Wg do not need a formal motion on
I have i questio~ about the Children's Hospital. Why was that proposed
for RM-lS? There ~eems to be I propensity in other areas of p~~~ Alt~ to
5u9ge~t RM-30, Dr is we just foynd out. RH-40. Why is this site
different?
Ms. Jar.$?C: We were using the RM· designatinns that most applied to the
proposed density for the Stanford West project area as a whole. lhe RM-1S
and the combInation of RM·15 and RM·30 still would .11ow • substantially
greater number of units than what Stanford is now lOOKing at to develop
the Stanford West p~~perty as a whQle. That is also ~rDpcsed for i
special ti~d of development. liKe an intermediate Care hous'ng facility.
for-examp1e.
C~airma" Hirsch: What would Oak (reek aap o~t at? How many units per
ac.re?
Mr. Schreiber: J believe Oat Creek 10 In the r,ng. of 25 ± two per acre.
Let me SlY \~ regard to the Children's Hospital site, not on11 is it
consistent with the disc~ssions ~ hive seen in policy disc~ssions with
Stanford stoff regarding use of tkis .ito and What they .re ~ursu;ng
12/14/88
·21·
I
internally, the'(a~cepts they ire trying to deve1op. But also. 9l~en the
C~ildren's Hospital site configurat1on with the relatively large amount of
the site close to the creek, relative'~ narrow parts of the s;te~ the
amount of trees, eensH) of vegehtion. etc. a higher density loning ",,·ould
only encourage re-vie .. problem'S thit are just not netl!ssary to entertain ilt
this point ira time. Also-RM-30 wou1d send iii elessage to M.enl0 Park
residents across the creek th.t woul~ aga1~ be viewed is a tnreat from
Palo Alto/Stanford regarding what could happen on that site_ It j~st does
not appear to be necessary, given every con'Jersation we halll!' had wHh
Stanford staff.
Ckairm3p. H)rsc~: We don't want t~ send a bad r.~ssage to peop1e i~ Menlo
Park, b~t for th~ people in South Palo Alto, ~e have no problem with
r'E'commendir.:g RHi-30.
~r. Schreiber: I hay! ~o problem ~it" send;~~ i bad ~essage to folks in
MefilD Park if it ~eins that we are purs~in9 Palo Alto policies and
regulations in conformance witn those that are in the interest of Pala
A1to. I am simply saying that in this situation, there is some Tather
specific development planning being pursued that would not require any
zoning higher than RM-15. S<:l there is no reason to unnecessarily s_end
higher density messages in this are-;!; if it is not needed. If Stanford's
proposal was a h,~~er density tha~ RM-iS. especially housing for the
elderl1. that type of tk1ng~ tn~n staff most liKely would have recommended
RM-30 consistent with the rest of U1e Star,ford \i'est parcel. But there
d~es not appear any reason to do that.
t_orrmissioner Cullen: Having 1 ived at Oak. Creek for thee l!1onths. it is so
c1 C'se to the creek that you could not de ... ·el~p to tha.t cOllfigurat ion now.
i believe the setback is now 100 f~et. The erosion is terrible ilong
Uere. I am sure that it is not in the best interests of eithe'r Palo Alto
~r ~~10 Park t<:l develop anything so close to a creek bed. So they hive
to have that ~etback. I was gQ;n~ to ask whether 250 units on that
acreage rw'orks out to RM·lS_ That is "hat they are planning there. On top
of that~ you would have to have the IOO·foot setback from the creek.
Commissioner Mar~~: From what I understand of what is being talked about
in terms of de',elopme-nt fQr that :sHE, it cou1d &lso inc.1ud! some
Expansh"e or very minDr medical faci1ities~ as. well. So I am not sure you
are going t~ get an exa(t correlation of units and acres. The project
will be a distinct one. So I am not sure that the correlation w\11 be
relevant to the final project.
~omm;5sioner C~JJjn: It may not be comp1etely lined up, but it certainly
shou1d be relevant. If it is not, we ire"go;~g to ~e in trouble. I do
think the answer to your concern about RM-J5 is that it is I sensitive
site, an environm~ntal impact irei.
[Answer furnished -l6 acres)
So that is consiste~t wlth the RM·lS loning. 26 acres fJr 250 units.
M.r ._Schreiber: That is eVEn lower than RH-1S.
MOTION: COAmjssiQne~ eVilen: I move Area Nin! ~itk the Comprehensive
Plan and zone changes as ~ecommended in the study on Page Seven, (b)
12jlV88
-2 2-
I .' .'
r
': . :-.. .-.
, !~,~
., •
II and 2).
~: By CommIssioner Vheeler.
Mr. Schreiber: I WOUld like t~ make I comment before the motion ;5 ict~d
upon. It •• lIb) (II refers to RM-15. We h.ve rezoned the rest of
Stanford We.t to AM-lO(D), the Childr •• ', Hospital site_ I would suggest
.dding in to the recom.endltlon th.t it .1.0 recei,e site and desIgn
approul ~
Chatrman Hirsch: Why do we use the designation -density of 20-30 units
per acre-under Two as opposed to RH-lOID) .s • policy?
~hreiber; The Quarry/Arooreturl is a Com~rehenshe Plon desi<jnation,
and )t would be the county's decislon IS tQ what the zoning would b~.
tommtslfoner Cqllen: 1 accept that recommendation.
COlTlTlis}ione'r Whee1er: I accept as seconder.
Chafrman~: Is there any further discussion on t~1s motj~n?
C~issioner Cullen has moved the staff reco~ndati~n and Commissioner
~~ler has seconded it, with the amendment t~lt on the Children's
Hospit.l sit., the pro,islons Dr ~~-15ID) would be applicable. All those
in fivQr, say Aye. All opposed?
MQJJDN PASSES: Tnat passes by a ~nanimous wate, with Commissloner
Chandler absent.
Chairman Hirsc~: We are now at VI). Further Zonin; Regulation Changes,
Section At the Industrial lones4 First is the lM lone in the Stanford
Res.":!arch Park.
Commiss;oner Marsh: I would like to ask the staff what they foresee is
the sequence of events if we wert to adopt the staff recommendation of
Option 1. 'Would you intend to reduce the zoning, and then negotiate, or
as Stanford suggests, to maintain the lOPing and negot1ate wit~ the opt~on
of redoJcing?
~SChrEiber: If commitments Ire 901ng to be forthcoming from either the
landowner or the tenants, certainly our hop~ would be that those
comaitments would corne forth when t~is item is consider!d by the city
council Uds COOling fe~ruary Dr March. We would be relucta.nt to recQlTfTlend
I 0.4 on the hope that s~melime in the next ~henever, spetific commitments
were being ~ade. Co~;t~nts do not necessarily ~ean that all the details
have to be in place.
L~_Hsioner Mirsh~ Then what would yOIl cons lder a major comm; tm2nt, is
1ft KUNber One? Obviously all these things could not be recommended by
March, so what we ire looking It is that M~ber One. if it were to come t~
the council by HirC~4
~4 $chrelbir: Number One co~sists of t~o parts. The first part really
is NUlllber Three, the TOM prDgne. There had been some "ery .early
discyssions of the concept of a transportation .anagement association for
I
12/14/88
-23-
•
.+
July ZO, 1990
HONORABLE PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, ~lifornla
ouARRY ROAD/AR89 RETVM ROAP lNTERS EC7ION IMPROVEMENts
Members of the CommissIon:
The purpose of this report i. to provide information reqardinq a
pr~sed project to .ake certain Improvamenta at the intersection
of Quarry Road and Arboretum Road!. A Negative Declaration has been
prepared for the project. Statt recommends th4t the Planning
commission find the project 1s consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and that it will not have a significant, adverse environmental
i~pact, and recoamend approval of the p~oj.et to the City Council.
Il!>CKGROUND
As part of the conditions of approval for the St:anford Medical
School Of fice Building and the Packard Children IS Hospita.l (He""
Children 1 s Hospital) projects, Stanford is required to monitor
traffic volumes at six intersections and to sake specified
improve=ents at any of these intersections, at such time that their
Level of Service is shown to ex~ed "0". One of the aix, the
Quarry Road/Arboretum Road intersection, ha~ exceeded LOS o~
Accordingly, Stanford has submitted plans for an improvement
project, ~hich include widening the eastbound Quarry Road approach
and restriping the northbound Arboretum Road approach, as provided
for in the conditions of approval for the above referenced medical
facilities.
stanford will pay tor and construct the improve~ents. Thereafter~
the City of Palo Alto will assume responsibility tor maintenance~
traffic control and enfo:cement# and other related functions.
Section 19 .. 04.050 of the palo Alto Municipal Code states, -All
.atters affecting the physical develop~~nt of the city shall be
submitted tD the Planning CDlIIlIIiuion for a report to the City
Council as to conformity to the master plan~ -NODally, for
similar types of improvements, this Is handled thr~u9'h the Planning
Comaission's annual review and recommendation on the City'. Capital
I.prov.ement Proqra.. The subject improvement project was ahown in
the City's CIP for FY 86-91, FY 87-92, and FY 88-93 as 4 project
in one of the out years$ an~ not as a current year project. The
subject project has not been included 1n the two most recent CIF's
for FY 89-94 and FY 90-9S. Therefore $ the project is now before
the Planning C~ission for review and recommendation to the City
Council.
•
EXISTING CONPITIQNS
CUrrently. the segment of QUarry Roaa west of Arboretum Road is 40
feet wide trom curb to curb. and is striped tor four lanes of
tr .. ftic: two throuqh lanes in the .... estbound direction lind an
exclusive right-turn lane and shared throuqh/left-turn lan~ in the
eastbound direction. In ad~ition, a 5-foot .... ide planting strip
and a side.alk exiat on both aides. The northbound Arboretum
approach is presently striped for two lanes of traffic: one
exclusive left-turn lane and one shared left/through/right lane in
the r.orthbound direction. Exhibit 1 (Attachment AJ illustrates
these features in relation to other &eqments of the .interseetior.:.
The results of the aon1torinq prograJ!l. conclu.;:ted by Stanford"
indicate that the total peak hour traffic volume passing throuqh
this intersection and the corresponding Level of service bave beer.
liS follO\lls:,
1995 2,5B5 vehicles Level Of Service c; D (.83)
1986 2,376 vehicles .Leval Of S.rvic~ • C (.70)
1987 2 .. 714 vehicles Level Of Service E (.s])
1988 2.563 vehicles Level Of Service D (.BS)
1989 2.564 vehicle. Level Of Service 0 (.BS)
1990 2,529 vehicles Level Of service = E (.91)
~BOPO~ED IMPROVJJ1l:H~
The changes included in the proposed project are illustrated in
~hibit 2 (Attachment BJ. and include the following:
l~ The seqment of Quarry Road west of Arboretum Road is to be
widened from 40 feet to 54 feet for a distance of 420 feet
(plus a 90 foot taper). to provide one additional approach
lane in the eastbound directi~n.
2 ~ The widened. e.astbound.. Quarry Road approach 1s to be
striped as one exclusive left-turn lane, one through lane,
and one exclusive ~ight-turn lane.
3. Thirteen eXistinq Oak
Transplanti1l9 thelie trees
their existin9 condition
survival .
treas are to be removed.
is not reco;o.mended because of
and th~ l~w p~obability of
... Thirteen replacement t.r.es are to be planted at .an alternate
location, within the general surroundinq area. The species
and specific loeatlon are to be determined by mutual
agree~ent bet~een Stanford and City staff.
The new planting strip is not 8 suitable location for new
trees due to the pr~.ence of an e~lstln9t large. concrete,
utility duct bani< carryinq high voltagB electrical and
Quarry Road/Arboretun Road
Intersection Improve_ants
7/20/90
Page 2
co.aw'\icatlon lin •• within 30 inches of the lSurtace~ as 'Well
a. tbe prc.bably temporary nature of the current project
which would necessitate their eventual removal.
5~ Drouqht tol.rant shrubs are to be placed In the new planting
strip.
6. \"he northbound Arboretum Roac:5 approach 1. to be res.tripe.d
a. one exclusive left-turn lana, one shared left/through
lane. and one right/throuqh lane. Thia lane atriping is a
•• all '8Odification to that described In the mItigation
aqreeaent. which identified the center lane as an exclusive
through lane rather than the shared left/through lane now
proposed. No widening of Arboretum Road is included as a
part of this project.
rh~ lane striping change i. due to the fact that during the
morning peak period the volume of left-ttirnlnq traffic 1s
qreater than the volume of th~9h traffic, and during the
noon peak the lef~ and through traffic volumes are
approximately the same. The proposed stripin9 on Arboretum
Road yields a bett.r Level of Service during morninq and
noon. pea)t periods, and approximately the same Level of
Service during the &vening paak peri04, a& 5hown below.
"" Geo!!: -"
~ .! ! L ~ EXIST 0.90 0.80 0.87 -. iT .-
MITIGATION -.J .il l ~ 0.85 0.89 0.71
AGREEKEIIT -r---. II~
-.J ~Il ~ PROPOSED 0.17 0.70 0.70
-.... \1 r r-
,. Modifications to the .xis~in9 traffic .i~nals~ relocation
of the traffic signal controller, handicapped provisions,
and other related items are included as part CIt the
proposed i.provements.
Quarry Road/Arboretum Road
Inter&ec~1on Xaprcvemen~&
7/20/90
pa'Je 1
•
Subject to approval by the Council on Auqust 13th, construction of
these i_provements is acheduled to begin in I_te Septtmber and to
be completed by the end of OCtober.
FUTURE pOTENT1AL %HPRQYEMENTS
Apart from this current proposed project, S~anford has also
prepared sche~gtic plans for a potential, larger-&cale project that
WOUld further widen Quarry Road [rom Arboretum Road to Welch Road
and on to Slake Wilbur Road~ This larq~r-$cal. project was bein~
developed in conjunction with and consideration of: (1) the
anticipated development of# and access requirements for, a proposed
psychiatric hospital facility on the currently vacant site south
of Quarry Road and west of ArboretUm: Road: l2} the anticipated
future requirement, per the existing ~iti9ation ~9reementr to make
certain improvements to the Quarry Road/Welch ~oad intersection at
such t.il:lle that the Level of Service reaches "E u ; and (3) the:
present requirement to make t.he currently proposed improvements at
the Quarry Road/Arboretum Road intersection. Stanford bas chosen
to proce~d with the current, smaller-scale project, rathe~ than t.he
larqer-scale project, with the general understanding that they will
likely be required to implement the larger-scale project, at 60me
future dat.e.
The largel'-scale project provides for additional roadway widening
(up to 72 feet} along Quarry Road to acco~odate two through lanes
ih each direction# turn lan~s. on-street bike l~nes, and a five
loot medi3n in the roadway. This l~rger-sc~le project would also
include a planting strip and side~alx on both sides as well as ne~
trees in the new planting strip. Exhibit 3 (Attachment C)
illustrates the qeneral features of the larger-seal!!: project.
Exhibit 4 (Att~chment OJ provides a sketch showing & comparative
peIspectlve of existing conditions, the smaller-scale (current)
proj£>ct ar,d the larger-scale (potential future) project. The
revie\l~ an,j oEI!?pr-oval of the larger-scale project would occur at some
futur~ d.:l.i:e~ j f and 'When another %!litigation is triqqered and/or
the F"s}'chiatric hospital facility site is developed.
The subjE:.':'t of this pctential, future, larger-scale project is
raised ;at this time for informational purposes only. No approval
is being considered at this time.
In developing the current smaller-scale project, efforts have been
aade to a~ticipate the requirements of the larger-scale project so
as to try and minimize the amount of potential~ future disruption.
COMPFEHEN5 lVE.: PIAN COHPLl MeE
The proposed project is consistent with rransportation program 17
-.ake operational int~r6ection improvements to ease traffic flow
Oh ~ajor streets·, and program 18 -make effective use of traffic
carrying ability of Palo Altots network of major streets·.
Ouarry Foad/ATUoreturn Road
Inters~ct50n Improvements
>
/ .
7/20/90
Pag:e 4
•
· .:-,".
The proposed improvements were revieved by the Palo Alto Bicycle
Advisory COlIImittee (PABAC) and .eet with their approval. PABAC
would, hovever. like Stanford to improve the section of Arboretum
betveen P~lD Orive and Quarry ~oad. That issue is not rel~ted to
the aitiqation agreement and~ thus~ is not a part of this project.
~IRONMENtAL asSESSMENT
An initial study recolmlendinq a Negative Declaration has been
~pleted and i& included as Attachment E.
staff recommends that the Planning Co~,ission find the project is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it vill not have
a significant adverse environmental impact, and recommend approval
of the project.
Respectfully submitted,
~yfJ~p
M~VIN L. OVERWAY
Chief Transportation Official
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachments: A .. Exhibit 1. ExistIng Conditions
Exhibit 2, Proposed Project
Exhibit J, Future Potential Project
Exhibit 4~ Comparison perspective
B.
C.
D.
E. Environ~ental Assessment -Negative Declaration
CC: Stanford University (Julia Fremon~ Michael McKnight,
Andre~ Doty~ Rosemary McAndrews)
City of Menlo Park
Sand Hill Corridor Distribution List
Quarry Road/Arboretum Road
Intersection Improvements
7/20/90
Paqe 5
" \
AP.60RETI.I! ROAD
~,
. ,
~, , , , ,
", .\ , , . ,
" '
A'ITACHMENT A. •
Exhibit I -
[XISTING CONDITIONS
,--~
, , .
.-
\ Exhibit 2 -
f PlOlOSED PBOJEtT
._---. , , ,
, , ----~,~! , --, _LJ t -' , " ----
-----
,~
" ' '
j lit ((I
I ~.~ Oiil 01([1 1: . .........
~-.' I ,', , .. ,
." .. ,
I I I
I
I ..
.'-~: I~ 1"+--"
5'~ I> --'I<--5'
• II , ,
• , , '-• . -.-.. ~ il • i j!i --Ol'., ,-It, .i.---!. --, L_, __ I : •
I
~ "f-.. U
<> t "" 0
'" >-'" I '" "" 51 ,
I I I
~ f r_
'1\
\ \,.
~.
I.
1...
il I
Wi1 1IV1
1
lon~C~Sr C
,El(h!.l!:l~ ); -<
tlOOIAt flIMr mJID
-~'~c---.". -~. --:-. ,-.-:--:--,--::-~----:----= . ' . :S.>-_-::.
.,:.. -"" , . . . . ,
"".:'
$-' ,1. ... ~l'J,t,i/i n~lf
,I' .s'WALJ(
•
00 .. co
G z !
I-
(f) I
Q x -~
« w " .,
0 "
<:{ ill D-
C!: ~
(f) -c <:{ ~
>-
I :; <J
Q .£
E:. c c;:
cr. -
0:
0) w '" -(f)
:;
"''' <:{ '::!"-=.. <: :::>
I c
0..
~.
0
0.
0 ~
0
,~
..
A TTACKMENT E
Environmental noeuaent. -City of Palo Alto
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSHE~-r
Project ~scrlptlonVTltle: Qualrv Ipad/Arboretum B9i~ Intcxscft!pn
rpplgY'mr Dt $
Location/Address:
sponsoring Agency/Applicant.
A~dress and Telephone of Applicant:
8~~ StTra Str~er! 2nd Floor. Stanford. CA
tUc:hael Kuntz I Fae !liths Project Msnagel":ent I
9'305-6114; (415) 125-3400.
Application for: ==~s~'~r~'~'~'iI~s~p~r~o~v~ ... ~n~'~~~~~~~ __ ===-~~~~~~~~~~~ {e~9" zoning change, 5ub4l.vision of propertYlI architectural review, use
permit)
Zoning at Project Locat1on: MIA Fea Receipt NO.:~-_-__ __
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Based upon review of the project files, the undersiqned member of the Plan
nir.g Department has concluded:
Negative Declaration: The project has no .ignitlcant environmental im
pact~ No Enviror~.ntal I=paet R~port i. requlrad. The reasons for a
Neqative Declaration are:
S~~ attached Initial Study
I I The project Bay ha.ve a 11gn.1t1cant environmantal impact. An El'lviron
-mental Impact Report will be prepared.
Planning Department Official. --~~~'~~-~~~11~~~'-~-~~~~~~~---------------------
Planning Director • ..2.h.t.fkg S. [.~,
The p~oject has been approved.
The project has been denied.
Revised 8-1-79
Date. 2ilci'ic ___ _
O.ate:
Date:
; ,.
90-EH\-))
1
[~YIR()N.~[N;Al DOCUMENTS· PALO ALTO
INITIAL STUOyl,Z
J. Project Title/Address: QuaHY koad/Arbontu'II loa.d Intrn.ect!cn ImPT{,Vi'l:H'nts
II, Project Oescript1on;Y!den1ng of eastDound Ov.rry RQad vest af
A~~retu~ Road to acco:modat. aD excl~s1v~ Y1ght-tarn lane. a
thr~ush l~ne. and a left-tuTu lane. and r~str!pin8 of n~rthbo~nd
Ar_~_~_T! __ tll~ itt">sdmto t'.f_oYHe-for thue lanes of traffic. 1rll:luding
ulJted c-hanses to traffic siarial .",d 5tric1n' .n1 signing.
III. En~irDnmental Setting:_ 8usy urban inters!cti9D located £10$. tg
th~ Stanfn~d Shopplnc CeQt,x.
lY. fnvironmental Impact Checklist (Explanation of .11 ·yes· inswers are in
Section Y)
l. f.rth. Will the proposal r •• ult In:
<. Unstable eartk conditions or changes
i~ geologic substructures?
b. Oisruplion5. d~splacements, compaction
or overcovering of the so111 .L
Co C~.nge 10 topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction. c~verfng or r.odtfica-
tioo of .ny unique geologic or physical
features?
f. Ant increase i~ wind or water erOSion
of soils, eH~er on. Dr off tfie site?
f. bposure or people Dr property to
geolo~ic ~31crds suc~ IS eart~qu.kes,
landslides, mudsl1des, ground fI11~re,
or similar hazards? _I_
9· (~anges in siltation. deposition. Dr
erosion ~hich may modify the c~annel
of a river or the bed of a bay or inlet?
lAdapted from Appendix J, (ilifor"ia Guidelines for Implementation of
CEQA, December l4. 1976.
2Upd.ted M.y, 1982. June, 19B3
EIAfMtK
st
90·£lA·JJ
1
1. ~. Will t~e ~roposal result In:
I~ Substlntial atr emissions or aeteriorl·
tlon of ambient Ilr quality?
b. Tne cre.tlon of objectIonable o~or.1
c. Alterat~on of air ~ovtaent. moisture
temperature. or any change fn cl1mlte~
.It~.r locll1y ar reglon.ll
3. lI.ter. Will the propo .. l result I"
I. Changes in absorption rates. drai~~ge
patterns, or t~e rite Ind amount of
surface water runoff?
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters, or in "flY
alteration of surface water quality.
including but not limited t. temper,ture.
dissolved oxygen Dr turbidity?
d. AlteratloD of the direction of rate af
flow of ground waters?
t. Exposure of people or property to vater
relate~ hazards suc~ 15 floodi~g Dr
tidal wayes?
f. Change In the quantity of ground water ••
either through direct additions Dr with·
dr~als, or thrD~gh inter,eptigQs of an
aquifer by (~ts or exCayatiDns~
4. Plint llf •. Will the proposal result in:
i. Change i~ the diversity of species. or -ll
number of any species of plants (Includ·
fng trees, shrubs, 9~ass, 'rops~ ~icro~
flora and iq~atic plants)?
b. Reductfon of the numbers of Iny uni~~e.
rare or endangered species of plants?
c~ lntroduction of new species of plants
i~tD In areal or in a barrier to the
nonnal replenishDtnt of ex!stlng species?
d. Reduction in acreage of In,Y IgrlcuHIJTI' .__ ...:..!.
crep?
EIAfKCK 9o·EIA·JJ
~ 2
0,.,'
.:,'-.;.-:. ".1"",.'
5. Ani.ll l~fe. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change t~ the d1vers1t1 of speties. or
of any sp~c'es of lnl~als (bjrds~ ll~d
Ini~ll$ !ncluding rrpttles. fisb and
s~el1fish. benthfc organfsms, fnsects or
microfaur.a)?
b. Reduction of the n~trs of any unfque~
rart Dr enda~gertd sptefes cf In1mals?
c. Illtroduct iOr! of r!i!iII species of anfmals
into iiln are~. Dr resul t hi ill barrier to
UH!: mignt ion or move!:lent of animals?
o. Deterioration in e~ist!n9 fish or ~11d·
1 ife flabitat?
6. ~Di~.~. \,ill the proposal re.suH in:
I: rl1creases"in lexisting p\oise levels?
b. ExposurE of people to 5evere nOise
h·v~ls?
7. lUiht and Glare. Will the proposal rroduc.
rlE'W Hght glare?
B. Land US£'. Will the proposal reswlt fn I
5ybstantial Ilteratiofi of the present or
planriEd' land use of an art a?
9. f.!l!.!}i.uNa~uTii .. L.R!Sources. Will the-praposl'
re:sult h:
a. U$E of substantial amounts of fuel aT
energy?
b. Substantial increase in dema~d upon
e~istin9 5c~rteS of energy I or require
the d~velopmfnt of new sources Dr
energy?
c. Increase in the rate of WSI!' of arty
"at ural resources?
d. Substir,tial depletion Df any nonrenew
able natural resource?
)0. gi2:!...!>L.Upsel. Does the propoSoill inyo1ve I;
risk of an ex;lo5iDn ar the release of
halardo~s substances (including. but not
limited tG, oll~ p€stfcides, c~emlcals or
radiatIon] in the f~ent of an Ictident or
upset?
E IArM(~
SC
x
li
I
90-EIA-JJ
3
11. populat1on/Housfna.
I. Will the proposal alter the locitlo~1
djstr1b~tton. density. or growth rite
of t~e h~m&n popu1atton of I~ Ire a?
b. Will the propo •• l effect 0.lstln9
housing, or create I demand for addi·
tiona' housing?
12. lransportatlon/Clreul.tion. Will the ~ropo,.'
result itl:
a. Generation of subst.ntl., ,ddillon.l
~eh;cular movement?
b. {ff.,ts on exl,tlng parllng faeilitle.,
or demand for ne~ parking?
c. Alteratlen. to present patterns of
circulation cr movemer.t of people and/
or goods?
d. Incrnse in tr-affic hazards to motor
vebicles. bicyclists or pedestrians?
13. Public Service.. Will t~e propos.l have an
effect UPOD. or result tn I need for new Dr
Iltered governmental services in any Df the
fcltowfng lreas:
I. fire protection?
b. Poliee protection?
c. Schools?
x
d. Parks or other recreational facllitfes? ~
f'. Haintenancf' of public facilities. ..!...
including roads?
(. Other gDvernmental senrfces.? .A.-
14. Util.ties. Vill the proposal re.ult I. a n •• d
lor new systems. Dr substantial Ilterations to the
(allowing ~tilit;es:
£IAfMCK
SC
i. PDwe~ Dr n.t~ril gas?
b. Communitltfons systems!
90·EIA·3)
4
c. 'IIater?
d. Sewer or septic tank?
e~ :Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and dlspoul?
15. Numan H.alth. Will the propos.l result in:
a. (reati~n of an~ health ~alard or
pDte~tia' health hazard (excluding
mental hea1t~)?
b. [xpostJre of peep'" to potEnth,l hulth
bazards?
16. Aesth,tics. Will the propos,l rlsult in the
()bstruct~on of any sceniC vista or ~iew
open to th~ public. Dr will the pro~osal
result in the creation of an aestheticall,
offensive ~ite open to public view?
]1. Retreation. Will the proposal result fa an
impact cpo. the quality or quantit! of exlst
in~ re'reational QPportunitits?
18. Cultural Resources~
EIAfltCK
51:
a. Will the proposal result in tne Ilter,·
tion of lor the de5truc:tior\ of a
prehistoric or ~istoric archaeological
sHe?
b. Will the proposal res~i\ in adverse
physical or aesthetic eff:2th to I
prehistoric ~r histor!c building~
slru(ture;. or object?
£. DOES the p~oposil hive t~e potent1il
to Cduse~ i physical c~ange which would
affect uniQue culturil values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
r~ligious or sacred U$~S wlthin the
potenticl impact area?
90-E!A-ll
5
19~ Handitory Findings of Sign1flcance.
... Oaes tf\e FTojecl have ttle pott!J'l.th1 to
degr.d~ the quality of the environment •
• ub,tantla1Iy reduce the habitat of •
fish or wildlife species. ,au'e • fl.h
or wildlife popul.tlon to drop belo~
selfasust~infn9 levels. threaten tD
.ltmi"ate a plint Dr Inir~l commun~t1t
reduce the number of re$trict the r~nge
of a rire or end~ngered plant or animal or
.llmlnate Important example. of the major
periods of C.llfornla hlstorl Dr prehistory?
b. Do.s the project have the potential to
achieve short· term. to tne dlsad~intage
of long-term. en~ironmental goals. (A
short-term impact on the enYlronment fs
one which DC(Urs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long·term
Impacts will endure well Into the future.)
c. Ooes the prDject ha~e impacts whic~ Ire
individually limited. but cumulatively
considerable? LA project ~.Y impact Dn
two or more sepaT~te resources ~~ere the
impact on eac~ res~urte is relatively
small. but .here the effect of the tot.l
of tf\Dse impacts on the enwironment is
signifiCint.}
d. Does the project have e~vironmental
effecls ~ich will c.use s"bst.nt~.l
adverse effects on human befogs, elther
directly or indirectly?
__ ...L
Y. (xphnatfon of ·yes" ans.wers in environmental checklist.
See attached.
ElAfMCK
SC
-.
90·[IA·))
6
"-
Init.ial Study Attach:nent
Quarry Road/Arboretum Road
Inter5ection Improvements
1 lb. f. Earth. The propose4 'Widening of QUarry Road, to
accDllllodate an exclusive right-turn lane, II thrC>U9h la.ne a.nd a
left-turn lane, viII result in relocation of existing sidewalk area
end planting striPt and the addition of 6500 square teet of ~ved
area. These improvements to the existinq intersection will not
have a significant impact on area .oils.
The project site is located in a s.ismic area of .oderat~ risk and
is subject to strong qround shaking in the event of an earthquake.
The project will not result in increased exposure to seismic risks,
as no nsw structures are proposed.
3 Cal Water. An increase in the amount of impervious surface
at th~ intersection (6Sr.O s~4are feet) will have II slight impact
on area drainage. Howaver_ ade~~ate storm drainaqe is included in
the project.
4 fa) Plant Life. The videninq of Qoarry Road will require removal
of 13 oak trees on Quarry Road.
1 -s· O!li'!<. Tree
J -6" Oak Trees
1 -7" Oak Tree
5 -S" Oak Trees
2 -9" Oak Trees.
1 -10" Oak Trees
The City·s Arborist has concluded
in good condition ar.d -would
transplanting.
that most of these trees are not
not tie expe.cted to surv i v e
While the loss o.f these tr&8-S is not a significant impact, an
appropriate mitigation measure 'Would be to plant !'lev trees to
replace the trees that will be lost~ The planting strip of the
Phase I p~oject, however, is not a suitable location for new trees
due to: ell the presence of an existing larqe concrete util ity
duct bank carrying high voltage electrical and communication lines
vithin 30 inches ot the surface~ and (2) the probable temporary
nature of the Phase I project which would necessitate their
event~al removal. Drought tolerant shrubs ~re to be placed in the
Phase I planting strip.
New replacement trees could be planted within the anticipated
location of the planting strip for the Phase II project. New trees
eo4Jld be planted in this location for a distance equal to the
length of the Phase I project or a10n9 the entire length of the
Phase II project frOb Arboretum Road to Welch Road.
12 tel Transportation/CJ.rculation. As mitigations and conditions
of approval of the Stanford Medical School Otfice Building projEct,
dated May 21, 1985, and the Ne~ Childrents Hospital project, dated
.-
-/
M~y ~9, 1967~ StantO%Q agreed to monitor a number of i~tersections
including the Quarry Roa~/Arboretum Road intersection and ~ake
certain improvements if any of the intersectio~s exceed Level or
Service (LOS) ·0". The intersection of Quarry Poad and Arbcre~u~
Road has exceede~ LOS ·Oft, thus triggering the neeQ for
improvements. At this intersection, the a9~eement requires
Stantot'd to \Widen Quarry Road in the ea.stbound direction to
accommodate an exclusive right-turn lane, a through lane, and a
left-turn lane and restripe ~e~tbound Arboretum Road to ~rovide an
exclusiv-e left lane, through lane .. and through/right-turn lane~
with related sisnal modifications.
In accord:\ncf> with. the tenns and conditions of the 6greeme!"lt
betw ... ·c:l the" Cltl' and Stanford. Stanfo!:d has 5ubl:litted improve:ner;.t
plan:!:;. These plans are consistent with the agree:r.ent exceft
~rborcturn Road ."ill be striped with an exclusive left-turn la~e~
d throut]h and left lane and a through and right lane~ 'I'hjs lar:e
striping cnang.c is due to the filet that during the 1:!orning peak
period the left turning traffic is greater than the thro\.:gh
traffic. and in the noon peak. the left lind through vQlumes are
approximately the same. The proposed striping on Arboretum, rather
than the one included in the agreement, yields a better level of
servic~ du!ing noon and AM pe~k periods and approximately the sane
Jevel of s~rvice during the PM peak period as shown beloW'.
L"lnE: c,:enmetri_c:s -n -AM [,OS-"
EXIST --f_ ·Hl ~ 0.90 0.80 0.87 -. J't' ~
-c---
_J ~ 'I 1 •
~ ~ 0.8S O.S9 0.71
----II ~ r-
--.-
~ ..{ I L ~ 1 --O."? 0.70 0.70 -. li~ r-
--
J'ROPC,SED
Th~ Quarr:r'/Arboreturn intersection is operating within a level cf
service range D E during the peak periods. The propc!;£':!
improvc·;n-cnls \>i 11 i:rrp!'ove the intersection to cperate lit lOS C.
Note: ']"tlis. t.able is prepared based en 1987 available, counts for
cl"ni1ar j !>on purpos(>s to show tt'.dt the proposed l~ne geonetri C~
.)! I f,('ttc-r t.han those included in the A9re~g"!faen'L
2
. ' .~-
Currently, tbe left-turn signal for Quarry Road aovements operates
in a prot~cted/per.issive ~ode, i.e. an advance qreen left arrow
is only displayed tor th2 westbound traffic allowing a protected
.ovement. Provision bf a lett-turn pocket in the eastbound
direction will allow changes to the traffic signal operation
whereby westbound as well 60S e.astboUFjd drivers will have a left
turn arrow, thus improvinq the safety of the intersection (north
and southbound movements are already split and left tUrns can he
made in a protected mode).
The proposed addition of intersection approach lanes vill modify
existing circulation patterns. These cbanqes would. however.
improve t.he level of service and relieve congestion. Bicyclist
safety is also enhanceQ by provision of a 12 foot ~ide lane next
to the exclusive right-turn lane on Q~arry Road. The improvement
plans 'Were reviewed by the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
(PABAC) and meet their approval. PARAe would, however, like
stanford to improve the section of Arboretum between Palm Drive ana
Quarry Road.
The above improvements are considered to be minimal improvements
(Phase 1) and. as menti~ned above, are triqgered as a result of the
Quar:ry/Arbor-etuYD intersection exceeQing 1.DS D~
Another intersection in close vicinity of the subject intersection
is Quarry/Welch intersection which Stanford has been ~onitoring.
When Qu~rry/Welch intersection exceeds LOS D, Stanford would be
obligated to provide an exclusive left-turn lane from Welch t()
~arry and ~iden Quarry Road from Welch Road to Arboretum Road.
stanford has prepared schematic plans for this ultimate improvement
(Phase IIJ to assure t.hat conflicts between Phase I and II could
be minimiZ:ed. Accordingly, 'the new trees are located in the
l'hase II planting: strip and not in the Phase I pl:=nting strip. The
Phase II plans include on street bike lanes ana two through lanes
in each direction, t'arn lanes at the intersections, a five toot
wide median in the street and a side~alk and a planting strip or.
both sides.
1) eel pu~..1ic S~rv"U;~~ Installation and maintenance of the
proposed sti"eet improvements, 'Will increase both immediate and
long-term financial expenditures by the city. These increased
costs 'Will form only a minor portion of current costs of approved
Capital Improvem.ent Pros rams and City maintenance responsibilities.
Tney viII not have a siqnificant !~pact on the city budget.
J
OE/Ashok I
b: e i a qu a!' 2
6/17 /90
•