HomeMy WebLinkAbout0238.091,
o
2
April 25, 1991
HOHOPJU!tE CITY COUNCIL
?alo Alto, C.liforni.
Response tc Santi Clara Caunty Referral--Stanford Quarry Po ad
&tnera' Pla!l Amendment and Final Enyironmental Impact Report C[]Rl
Members of the Council:
RepAct in Brief
Tbis report forwards t. the City Council the Final EIR prepared for the
Stanford Quarry Road General Plan Amendment, provides an u~ate on the statws
of thE Santa Clara County review process, and itemizes continuing issues of
concern to Palo Alto~ T~1s matter is scheduled for review by the County
Plannfng Com.lssioD on Thursday, May 2. A draft letter containir.g recommended
responses to the final [JR and the County Plannfng staff recommendations is
attached.
Backgroynd
Stanford 1. requesting. General Plan Amendment to change the land .s.
deSignation of three parcels located at the iotersection of Qu,rry and
Arboretum Roads. The thrae sites Include the Rectangle site (7.4 acres), The
Triangle site (1!.9 acres) and the Campus Drive site (3.2 acres) (see attached
Figure l). Th!se parcels have ·University Lands -Study Area" and ·University
lands -Academic Reserve and Open Space-desfgnations. Stanford is requesting
approval of a ·University lands -Campus· designation for the Rectangle and
Triangle sites a~d a 'Unfv~r5ity lands -A~ademic Reserve and Open Space~
deSignation for the Campus Drive site. The changes are reQYested tD a11o~
Medical Center-related uses to be built on the Rectangle and Trlo.gle sites
and to preservp. the Campus Drive site IS open space.
The City Council "·,iewed and commented on the Draft ElR and General Plan
Aoendment at their January 21, 1991 meeting. At that time the Couneii
concurred with t~e staff and Planning Commission's comments or. the Draft EIR
and .ade specific reca.aendations for actio~ on the G~nera' Plan Amendment.
The Council supported the -Acad~ic Re$erv~ and Open Space-designatian for
tne Campus Drive $lt. and the 'Campus' de,lgnation for the Triangle sIte.
However. the City Council recommended conditions be placed on future
developoent on the Triangle site. These included I) pl.cing a D.S:1 floor
00:238:91
o
.... ____ +-IPsychi.t<y Center Parking; 121,967 sq.ft
Future BuHding: maximum 121 ... 967 sq. ft.
DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SQUARE fOOlAGES FIGURE 1
CMR:2311:91 4/25/91
Page 2
"_.--. -------'---"----~----.--,-
•
"
o
ar!i ratio limit on t~e 'rfangle site, 2) requiring I h~using project be
developed 1ft conjunctiDn with any development occurring on the Triang1e site
beyond an i~it1al J75.000 $Qu~re feet (this figure was chosen because it was
equivalent to that which was ilready accounted for in the Stanford Gene~al Use
Perl1t and there was i desire to not double count and double mitigate). and
3) requiring the improvement .nd widening of portions of Quarry and JU'boretum
Roads at the ti~ driveways for n~w development on the Triangle site iMPacted
those roadway segments. The tity Council did not conc~r wit~ t~e staff and
Planning Commission recomme"dation t~at the Rectangle site be designated for
R~ultiple f~il~ HDu5in~.· Instead, w;shin9 to i'lo~ Stanford greater
flexibility in ... ting t~eir housing mitigation, the Council recommended
l •• vtng it as 'Study Are.' unttl City Staff .nd Stanford could identify a
housing base1ine a~ Stanford touTd pr~pose other possible housing sites.
Santa Clara CQ~nty Slaff Report
AttachRent B is the April 19, 1991 report frOG the Count, Plonning st,ff to
the Caunty Planning Comrnissio~ reg!tding the Quarr) Road application.
Tne stat~~ of the major istues addressed by the City Council is as follows;
1. Desiqnatjon of Campus Drive site. The Co~nty, City and St.nford agre~
on the University Lands·Academic Reserve and Open Space land use
deSignation.
2. Designation of the Triang]e site, The County, City and StanfDrd agre~
on the University la~ds-Ca~us land use desf~nitjon.
3. Designation Of th' Rectangle sib. Stanford staff COf"ltinue to r~Quest
County approval of the University lands-Campus designation. T~e Clty
Council requested conttr.uatfon of the Study Area designation pending
identification of a locatio~ for 150 dwelling u~it$ beyond those already
planned~ The County Itaff has submitted alternative recommendations
!lther UDiversity lands-Campus Qr Study Area.
4~ 1Jltablishment of I O.~·l fleor arEa ratio lor thg Triangle sit~.
Stanford ~taff oppose t~e FAR concept based on the discretionary nature
of f~ture Count) use permits for development on th~ site. The County
sUff does ",ot "pport tne FAR concept because I) there is no FAR
prOCESS in the County zoning regulations; 2j f~ture wse permits regulzte
ali of the potenti,l floor area; 3) the public benefits associated with
Medical Center activities; a~d 4) the anticipation that a Stanford
Medicii Center long range pl,n being developed by tne University will
address t~e floor area issue. The Count1 staff has stressed the ~alue
they place on Stanford preparing a Medical Ce~ter Plan, their
antfcipation tn.t suc~ a plan shculd be available far re~1ew with;~ the
next year, and the value of resolving floor area issues within the
larger context of a Medical Center Plan that focuses on unincorporated
land and land wit.in the <ity limits. City st,ff bel1~ves that further
pursuit Df the FAR issue will nat be productive giv~n the Count1 staff's
argwoonts I, land 4.
0lIl:238:91
p: \cMr\quarryl
,
4/25/91
Page 3
5. ReQlIlretlents for it lSQ-unit housing prRject. Stanford's position is.
that -There is no demonstrated need for housing establ ished to suppcrt a
~licl requiring more housing t~an is no~ incorporated i~ our General
Plan Us. Peno!! .nd its TDM .iti9.tion." (See attached 4/11/91 letter.)
Tne COUhty'S policy is not to condiHor') a General Phn amendmer,t.
Howeve~, tne environmental mitigation monitoring progra, can be used to
establish • ~ousln9 condition. The County staff h.s recommended t~at
Stanford be required to submit a plan for an .dditional 155 units in the
~edital center MU (i.e. t either on lands under County jurisdictior. or
In the City). The housing pl.n would have to be submitted in early 1991
~s part of StanfQrd's annual monitoring report under the Ge~eral Us~
Permit. City staff con(urs with the County staff recommend.tions .s the
most appropriate and productive way of addressing the housing ~it;gaticn
issue.
6. Bggyjring tte improvement and widening of portions of Ouarry and
Arboretum Roads. Neither Stanford nor the County staff support the
City's request that the Generol Plan Amendment for the Triangle site be
condition~ on requfring fmprovements and widentngs at the time
drivewals from new development impact t~e roads. The County staff
recommendation (page 8 of the County staff report) is based on the
County's policy to riot conditio!'! General Plan aroendments and tf'le CO!Jnt.y
Transportation Agency's policy to Gnly require road improvements ~en
warranted by traffic counts and a spetific development propesal.
Find liB
City staff has reviewed the Final EIR and found that. sajor difference of
opinion exist$ between the City and the County .s to the need for the Quarry
.nd Arboretua Road widenings at the ti~ the Triangle site is developed. City
staff is not satisfied with the fin.l fIR response to this Issue, and has
included cOAIent. on this issue i. the .ttached dr.ft letter to the Santa
Cl.r. County Pl.nning Commission.
General Plan Amendment
As noted abQ~e, the unresolved Genera' Plan iss~es are the designation of the
Rectangle site, the 0.5:1 ~AP. for the Triangle site, the appropriateness of a
housing mitigation, and the identification Qf road impro~ements for QU3rry and
Arboretum as mittgations for the General Plan ~ndaent of the Triangle site.
County PlaQning staff's .lte~atiye recom.endation B (page 2 of the attac~ed
County st.ff T2port) is consistent with tne Council's January 21 action
rec~ndfng continuation of the Study Area designation for the Rectangle site
pending resolutfoD Df the housing mitigation issue~
As noted previous11, City staff belioves that further pursuit of the 0.5:1 FAR
condition on t~e Triangle site will not be successful~ An April 9 discussion
of these fssues held by C1ty, Coynty and Stanford staff in,luded review o~
Stinford's Medicil Cent~r FTanntng~ County staff express~d a strong Interest
i. hiVing Stanford complete. longer-range Medical Center PIa" currently being
CMR:238:91
p: \Cllr\quarry2
4/25/91
Page 4
/
worked on. Tbis Plan woyld be reviewed by the City and County and could
establish understandings regarding future space needs and bU1Tding locations.
In that w.y, the fAR issue would b. addressed.
. --:-....: :.:",.
County Pllnning staff's recom.endatfon to ~ave Stanford evaluate t~e
opportunities for 155 additional housing units in the Medlc.l Ce"tor/Sand Hill
Road ar., and report back to the Count] by .or1y 1992 is fundamento11y
cons1stent with the City desire for identification ~f new housing
opportunities and ~y be protedural1y simpler t~an t~e City-recommended
linkage of ~ousfng and the levtl of development on tne Trianglt site.
The roadway mitigation issue fs i disagreement between the City and County
staff reQ~rding the appropriate timing of mitigations. As identified in
Attach .. nt C, City staff believes the issue should be pursued with the County
Planning Commission.
RecO!!3!lendat1on
It 1. recommended that the City Council;
-Support the County Planning staff's alternative recommendation B,
~tent1Dn of the Study Area designation for the RettangTe Site,
Support the County Planning staff's inclusion of a StanfQrd evaluation
Df the potential for 155 additional bousing units tn the Medical Center
area with t~e evaluation to be submitted to the County and City i~ early
1992 as part of Stanford's GenEral Use Perpit annual monitoring r!port;
-Discontinue efforts to have a 0.5:1 floor area ratio established for the
Triangle site; and
Continue .fforts to have the County establish Quarry ond Arboretum Road
.1tfgation measures as I part Df the General Pla~ a~ndment process.
A draft letter to the Santa Clara County Planning Comm;s~ion incorporating
these recanmendations 1S attached.
Respectf"lly submitted,
;r;;.,zu:,{ y{" ~tk~ . 7
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning a~d
CDalUni ty [nvi r'onment
crtwv-.:l/'lfloIflY
JUNE fLEMING <
Assistant City Manager
Attacflllents:
CJI!;238;91
,: \c..-\quarr,2
Attachment A -Draft l.tter to Santo Clara County
Planning CommiSSion
Attochment B -4/19/91 Count, Staff Report
Attachment C -4/11/91 tetter from Phil W;11iams
Attachment 0 -fino1 EIR/Quarry Road General Plan Amendment
(Council Members Dol,)
4/25/91
Poge 5
•
: ' ...
Rel.ted CMR,! CMR:121:'I, CMR:S'3:0
<c! P.lo Alto Plannfng C ... l"ion
o
Santi Cllra Cou~ty Board of Supervfsors
Santa Clara County Pl,""ln9 Coonl"I.n
St.nford University (Andy Doty, Phil Williams, Charlotte Strem)
Santi Cl.r. County (lead. Franklin, Luke Stamos, Hugh Graham,
Robert L. Sturdivant, Muriel Fulford)
David Powers and Associ.te, (Allci, Guerra)
CMR:238:91
,:\aor\quarry2 4/25/91
Page 6
•
. •
(OFFICE OF THE ~YOR lETTERHEAD)
Santa Ciara County Plannlng Commission
C/~ Mr. luke stamos~ Secretary
County Government Center , East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
Members of the Comm;ssi~n:
April 1991
Subject: Stanford Quarry Road General P1an Amendment and
final Envjronmental Impact RePQrt (EIRl (File 32311
This letter contains Pil0 Alto comments Qn the final tIR and the Stanford
Quarry Road Gener.l Plan Amendment. The letter .a. revie~ed and authorized by
the Palo Alto City Council on April 29, 1991.
Fjnal EIR
The final EIR~s responses to our comments ~oncerBing necessary traffic
.1t19at1on5 ar~ considered lnadeQuate. Our major concern is the widenings of
Quarry and Arboretum Roads. w~ic~ were identified as necessary mitigations of
future development on the Triangle site (pTease refer to comments 8 ind 9 on
FI.al EIR pages 8-9, and crnnoent H on Final EIR page. 29-30). As stated I.
ccm.ent Ht these aitfgatfons were r!con~ended by the Palo Alto Cit~ (ouncll as
conditions of future devel~pment on t~e Triangle s~te. There appears to be a
.ajar differe~ce of opinion as to the manner in which mitigation measures are
handled for i General Plan Amendment versus a specific project. We wish to
clarify that we recognize t~at no actual physical aitigatjans will be r&quired
of the General Plan Amendments. However t we believe it is appropriate and
necessary tD 1dentify t~ose mitigatiDns whic~ are Known to be needed for
fut~re develcpment of the affected parcels. The need to improve Quarry and
ArboretuB Roads has been known for years. It is appropriate that they be
identified as mitigation measures at this time rather than defer the decision
until t~e incremental develDpment of the Triangle site.
Generjl Plan Amendmtnl
The City has re~iewed t~e April 19, 1991 report fro. the County's Advance
P1anniDg Office to the Santa Clara County Pl.nning Commission. The City
supports County adoption of staff .lternative rec.ornendation 8, including
.. . ,
•
o o
5.nta el.r. County Planning Coomlsslon
Aprll ,1991
rage ~-
retention of the Study Are. land us. designation for t~e Rectangl. site and a
requlre.ent that St •• ford eyaluat. the potential for an additlon.l ISS housing
•• ils In the Medlc.l Cent,. are., with the housing eyoluatlon to be submitted
with the 1~92 annual repo,"! on Stanford's Gen ... l Use Permit.
cc: Pal. Alto City Council
P.l. Alto Planning C..al"ion
Sil"!cerel"
JA.CK SIITORlUS
Hayer
St,.fDrd UniYerslty (Andy Doty. Pbil Williams. CharI ott. Strem)
Santi Clara County (leade fr.n~lln, luke Stcmos, Hugh Gr.ham, Robert l.
Sturdlyant)
Clyld Power. and AsSDtllte. (AliCia Guerra)
~~~.--~.-.-----
/
CDuNyQD\.i'i.'~ -WInI
10 WDM~SIWotII
81ft oIC:W& ~"J I')
~ago..M31
Oltt:
To:
From:
Subject:
April 19, 1991
Prepared by:
"'pproved by:
Santa Clara Cou~1y Planning Commission
"'dYanc8 Plannl"ll Office
Muriel Ful10rd
HU9~ Graha'1l
LeOde Franknn
FlU' 323HI7-83-87GP· STANFORD UNIVERSITY
QUMl'lY ROAD QIllNERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
A. Recommended Action:
1, Certlly that the Bnal Environmental ImpacI Report (EI RJ has been
complet$d In compltance wilh the California Envircnmemal Quarrty Act (CECA)
and \he Planning CommlS6ion rQviewed and considered the informaflon
contained In the ~lI1al fiR prlor 10 making their declslon.
2. AdopI thll attached moollOl1flQ program 10 mon~or Implomsrnation Of the
mitiga110n meaauru of Ihe slpnl1l(:anl impacts as proposed In the E IR.
3, Make JmII of the two 'onowlng ahemallv9 recommenc\a1ions (A or 8) to
the SOard of Supervisors:
Aftarnalive Approve a General Plan Amendment for the subject area as
IAI foDows:
Campy. Owe Sne !3 2 aws': CI1ange the deSignation
from 'Univarsity Lands -Study Arsa" 10 "Unlvarsity lands
-"Oadamlc Aeserve and Open Spa\:\).
Itjaogle sU9 (1' § "mAS): Change the deslgr.atJon trom
"University Lands -Stud~ Area" and 'University Lands"
Academic Reserve end Ope n Space" 10 'Unlva rsity Land!I •
Campus",
•
---. -----:::::-: .. -=:::::;=
OR:
,~-'-.1.
/'
o
Bagtapg" sn. a 4 ICrel): Change thl dHfgnatlon from
'Univ,rsIty Lands ' Study Area' and "U niverwny Lande '
AcaOemic Roae",. arid Open Sp8O*" to ·'Un1v."1y Land. '
Campus'
(EvlllualJon of III. t.{X!Siflg s/fullfion In the ~ ClIme,
S/S/l would be part of thlf Monlfolfllg Program, wfIh • .rudy
sUbmittBd 10 thll County. 110 /ater thel1 the IlfIxt StanfMJ
8IIIIUBf report. 10 snow whllre 155 adcIIti9mtIl>oIJslng Ullits
may be IOcatsd In the vicinity of III. m«ficaI ~1Ir.)
Allemctive Approve a General Plan Amendman! lorthl lubJect IITGB as
'S" fellows:
CAmJ)ll1 ortye slI' (32 8(;CI'): Change tl'1. <Seetgnation
lrom 'Univet$ity Lands -Study Area' to 'University Land. -
Acadlm!c Reserve and Open Space'
Triangle §jtt (11 P MrlS); Change the design_ion from
'Untv.t$ity Landa ' Study Area' and Univ ..... 'Iy Landa -
AcademiC He.8M and Open Space' to 'UnIv.rsity Lande -
Campus'
Berte0;I, Sh, a 4 "GfA')~ Re+.aln tne exletlng designation
oI'Univorsily Landa Study Area' for the enllr. 7.4 acre
parcel.
fA sl1«fy of lIIe hWsIng situlllion 10 be provit1iKJ. In
~ with thll mOllltOfl"ng ptOfifBm, as de$CtIbIId Ibr
'''' liboVI'. "'/III' nvI.w ofllle hWsIng.rudy County wrXJId
consider a new Gflnflra! Plan Nnflfldment fIPPI/r;s1Ion Ibr
the mctsng'-$ife.}
4. Recommend to the Board 01 Supervisors thaI they maM the ftndlngs
nsted under aedlOI1 'e' below for apprOVal ci the project
S. Findings:
flOSflnge fpc EIB'
... !though p/1y$iC81 changes 10 the environment will only DCCU r whon
construction takes place, 1he act of changing the General Plan dlslgnation 10
allow deve1CJllll18n1 will require mHigation m8asures 10 ensure 1/181 potentially
advei'M Impacts can, and will. be 1e$S<tneQ.
The EJA Identi1led impecl$ln 1he ar88$ of noise, air qusnty, ~oIogy and SOIls
and vl8Ual & aesthetic quality whlc/l can be mitigated 10 a _ than algnifiCant
2
level. wtth lmplfmen181i011 .nwred through the mon~oring pIOg ram. Th.
followtng flndlnga I!fe suggealed regaraing Ih. Itnllronmantal impada or Ihe
project:
1. Mitigation m.asures hB"8 been Included In the mon~or1ng
PI'OgfWll adopted fol" the proJIId which win avQld or subaWrtlally Ie",n
lh'llgnfflcan! environmental effects as ldelltined In the hal EIR.
2. Further environmental assessment win be carried CUI ror Speelflc
prc.o]eCl$ within Ihe General Plan Amendment area as thsy are proposed,
and mitigation measures will be adcp1ec! IOl' Sile-specific Impacts.
3. The populatlon-assoclsted Impacts of conB1ru<:11on 011118
psycflj!ltric center on Iha Triangle SIte have been m ~Igaled through the
monnonng PfOQI'8m fOr Ih. aen.ral liM Perm~.
4. The EIR assessed two "wOrst-case scenarios" the! could d8VQIop
If 1M requelled General Plan designation is II ranted, and th' refor. has
UM8I8d, and mitigated to thl."tent possfbla. the mSlClmum
envlrof1mentallmpact thai could occur.
S. A monnerlng prognIm is proposed (as rBq'JI,sd by AS 3'80) 10
I,_n!he iignifiCarll impacts thai could occur 'rtJm tha change In the
QenetWl Plan cltslgnatlon.
Thil EIR Identified the fo!low1ng impacts, based on a wcf5l-<:ase analyall, which
C8Mot btl mtlfgated 10 8 non-elgnlficant !evel, and proJed approYfd thervlllre
r8QUIree ltlat DIe Boai'd mal'.e •• determinaflOn 01 overridinll consldere!lon. The
IigniflCant Impacts are as folloW8:
Traffic: Sillni~can! impectS will OCCU<' atidentffied lntereectlone.
The effect of development of the psychiatry cente, and l15Socfated
buildings can be mltlgated through the TOM program, sir.ca Ihi$ prtJjeet
was Included In determ\rJing TOM goaTs. HQwever, the .!fects of
maximum develOpment 01 both the trlang!e arod reetangle &~e will be 100
grail! to be mHigated thlOiJOh TOM's present level of effort.
Houelng: Buiiclout under either cI the two development scenar".os
could rl8lJlIln a maximum gre" demand for 0'0I8r 1,000 hOUsing unllS.
TIle frgurn LI$ed In the EIR !O determine the "wOfst-ca,," l!B8Ume that
Been individual in the psychiatry cente, (stud.n~ rac~fty, employel)
reqyiresa hOUsing unit Whne Ws Is necessary 10 determine the
maximum posaft)l. Impeel. tho impaclTs unm'81y 10 be Ihl' Wlere. The
EIR proposes to rn<1igatelhllmpact by providing housing In nearby area,
oIlha C8mI)US .no ,cnUnuing the eHens 01 the Universlly'a housing
piOQI'8IT16. The increased demano for housing, however, remains a
8lgnlliOBnlimpaet that cannot be m~igatsd 10 a nor,-signlfleant !evel.
Should the arne ndme nt be approved. the Board 01 Supe rvisors must adopI a
Statement 01 overrtdlng Consideration In relatiOn to lhll slgnlfleant and
3
•
..,'. ,
·-·'-:~(~f~~~':;~ -
, .
o
unmltfgalablt impacts. These findings will be 1M /'IIa8008 Ih, Board deeIdN to
epproye Ihl project, desp4te adverse .nvironmental Impacla, and could Include
thtIlollowlng:
6. . ThtI benefit that will be provided to the public by conilnued
developm.nt of 1/18 MedIca! Cent. r ~nd psychiatric faci lily.
7. Tht ongoing efforts 01 Stanford Uni.lOrsay 10 provide houslng for
fllQully, ltUd.nta and staff, 88 reponed in lhe recent Gent..,1 Uee Permit
(GUp} Allnual Repc!!
$. The 8UQC888 of S1anford's Transportation Demand MIII1.gement
program (TOM), 88 reponed in the GUP anoual rGport.
FlrdDQ' fgr GIDAral Plan Amlndmonl
111 both AllemIlllvH A and 8 the staff recommendalion Is that the Campul OrtVt
Sit, be deelgnated as 'University Land •• Academic Rs.oNe and Opan Space.
and IIIat the TrfBMQI. SIt. be designated 50 'University Lands· Campus'
,. The Campu. Drive site is intrinslca Ily a parl 01 the Mloretum, and
111. naw designation will anS\ll'8 that \hi8 sectlon of !he 8il8 will ramaln in
open epaaI, and add 10 the character of 1/18 Arboretum whioh proY~B •
rural contrast to the high de n&11y deYelopmel11 on th8 oentral campua.
2. The Unlvsl5ity has a stat9d need lor II 5~. lor 1I191r propoaed
psychiatry cantsr. The triangle "Ite is adjacenl SO the txlsting mcdlcal
cant8l, and has been Identified oy the Unlysn;!ty as the moat approprtate
looaIIon lor 11115 MUll development.
3. The psychIatry canter was recognized as a lulure projQcl du~ng
the UnlY8I8ity'S asse"menl of future needs during the preparanon of the
General Use Parm~ (GUPJ {see 'BacIqJro\lnd'1or further exptanatl,," of
1M GUPj. AIIhOug h no ap~fic PfOlec! or site was planned. the
Univeral1y estimated the PfObable lncrease In populallon which would be
generated by such a use, and 11116 figure was i;'1¢ludeclln the estimates
brlh. GUP, and consequently mHigaled under lI1e GUP monRorlng
program. Thus, populalicn·assoclated impacts o! dey.lopment of the
psychiatry center on the triangle site Meva alreadY been mijigated
IIllOugh the GUP.
4. SPGQffic deyelopments proposed lor the remainder of Ih& TrlengTe
sftt wm be evaluated aI the ti me 01 U58 Permll app.cation. Thll worst,
case po5Sibil~18S have been 8VllluB1eolhroogh Ihe current EIR.
A~ern.1iV8 A ree;ommend& designating the rectangle .n. 'University Lands·
C«mpus'
S. Al!emative A for the R.aangle S~e conforms te S1anford's request
lor this Ifte. The designation "University Lands· Campys' allows both
~\
•
"-.-.~"--.... -. o
.cIIdemlO end I1IS/dential use., and wi~ allow the University !!<o"lblllty In
lUlu,.. plennlng for the aile" The ISS hoY.lng unite arla/yZlld in tII8 EIR
could be oonlt\l(;led on the reela'lgle sit. under this aIlemaJJve.
Altematlve B ~met1da de~na~ng tho reelangl. sn, as "University Lands
8Iucfy Am"
6. AII.mall ... B for Ihe Rectangls Sit. is I4Jggesled as a wwy 10
emp/la8lza the Importance of providing more housing on campuS.
Stanford II c:urrentl)l pr9p6ring a study \0 determine the actual "''lure
nHdl Dllhe medical centsr in terms 01 facilnles, space, and lOcaIIon of
future b\Il1dJngS. In ttl. CO<Jtse 01 thIs study, Itart suggests thai Stanford
aJso look a! poaalble TocaIIons for ISS un". 01 housing. as has besn
analyzed In fl1e EIR as a potential u88 lor the rectangle sna.
7. The EIR determIned tna! a need for over 1,000 hOUSing unil!l could
resu~ In a worst-case 6~uation lrom btJ lid 0U1 of etther scell8li08 1 or 2 •
ShOuld tr,. Stanford mecflC!lll ClImer study find that the reetangla sita
nltO not be committed lor Mure medical use8, thls area could be
daaTgnllled lor campus housing" II tII8 IlICIangle 8lIe I, deemed to be the
appnop~ate location lor mecfiCIIl centsr expansion, the Stanford study
covld Idlntl!y anem8le snes In the medical center area and on the creek
side of Sand Hill Road for the location DI additional housing unite.
S. LocaIlon of lutul'$ mlden~al unil!l In the vlc!n!ly 01 the medical
center (~ di!scribed above) wi!i help In alleviating the trafflc impacll,
"1108 \he unns WCXJId be easily accessible by loot 0< blcycll from the
employment generating oonters.
C. Background:
The existing Genere! Plan d. sig~atlons on the 8~a are "Unlvlrslty Landa •
Study ma" and ·Unl ... rai!y Lands -Aoac!emTc Reserve and Open Space". The
"Study /vea" deslgnalion wa9 establish ad by a 1 982 amendment 10 the County
Glngral Plan and requires land vee propcsslslO be consld .... d by the County.
PalO AIIo and Stenfocd, based on the needs o! the Unlverslly and community.
"Academ1c Reserve and Open Space" anows uses compatible wilh the e~lS1fng
cl1aracter DlItIs lane' and Hs resources"
In 1989 the County 8pploved 8 Ganeral Use PermH for most 01 the main
C8/TlP'oI6 area. The aup Included cooortional approval 01 the uses that could be
developed In the central campus area, taking Into consideration Stanford's
near-lerm and long-term plans fo( the area. ArchItectural and sn. Approval lor
8f)8Cific development in the main campus area 1$ reqlJired bato ... bui1cllng
permit. can be issued. A monitoring program was adopled 10 en.u .. that
meesure. to m~ig8l. Ihe poten~al adverse environmental Impae!$ would be
Implemented_
The QuarT)' Road site was not Included in the GUP since development of the
Brea would not be consistent whh tn. General Plan di!signaflon" However, \he
s
· ..... -
\
" ,
~, .
•
-·--.~--·-·,,...,.,.,..~~~_.·.",,,,,vut!!!JIt fiR.'
o
UnIYe rafty'I MIll'll plana inQlucfid co nstr\l(:lion of a psyc:hlatric f&dllty
IOmeWheI'll on or nHr the med'1C8I oent.r. A1thOllgh \he foc:a!!on of such •
facilly lind the develOpment plane WOI'II nol finan~ed, the appI'Oxlmal. number
of !*'Pie who would be emplcyed was esllmated and then Included In Iha
cumulative population .Slimet .. !of tha General Use Permit
The ElF! for lhe (Jeneral UH Perm~ hal! analyzeo' and mitigated the Impact& of
all !he anlidpattd cleveiOPlr,ent including the populat!on genlnelld Irnpac18
alllOClaled with IratrlC and housing. Future proj&ct5 within the C8nll'lll c:ampus
I .... mull obtain AlChlteoturai Gno' sne Approval from the County, bLl! do nOl
need proJecI-speeiflc Use P8rm~l. Unlesllhe proposal is Bubstant:iaily <IIffel'llnt
lrom thai an.lyz9d In !he Program EIR, further environmental review naed only
focu8 on !he specifics of proposed BtNC:tures.
Th. Quany Rosel site was designated as a 'SpeQlal CondiVon Ares' In the
General LIM Perm", whicl1 mllans that all projec:ts on \he s~. require specific
Uee Permits and envIrOnmental assessment
Th.e General Plan Amendment tor Quarry ROad was Driginany requested by
Stanford University In 198710 snow development of a psychiatriC hospilal and
aasoc!atec:I fadll\ies which the Unlverslly propooed to build on I~e prope rty in
conjunc:don wfth Chart.r HosphaJ. An EIR was prepared !of tl1. necessary
Gen,ral Plan Amendment and Usa Permit Before the EIR was certified, the
IIIIl'88m'nI between Stanford ano' Charter was dissolved, and no altemlllt
plant for It hoeplta1 were d&v8 loped.
Stanford Med'1C8I Center fnteno's to go lorWard with plans lor a psychlatrfc
hoapftaI, and has Identified the t~angTe s~a as the mcst suitable Iocafron. The
adjacent rvctangle site was also identi fied as a SlJitabTe area lor expansion of
!he medical center fadlltle5.
A General Plan Amendment for Ihe area is a pre-requl6ite IOf Ih[S type of
dsvtlopmtnt, and the University \herefore d.Cidecl to I:Ont! nul whh ita
application for the Gf'A The EIR has been I:Omp!eted using the previously
PfOIIO$8d Charter Hospital as \118 prototype of a psychiatriC center which the
UnMiralty expecta 10 develop on the site.
Tha Protoc:ol tor proje<:l revTaw on University 1800$ requires consullaflon
between the CoiJnty, Palo Alto ano' Stanford for an proposels. The EI~ lies
~en neviewed by Iha Palo A.~D Planning Commission and City Covncl1, and
Stanford Unlve n;ity, ano' a discussion meeUng was held at !he University by staff
from tht Ihr" }u~sdlCllons, A copy of Ihe Palo Mo City Counclrs
recommenQatlon 10 the County Planning Commission is attached. logether with
a tett.r from Stanford University re~arding the recommendatlone. .
D. Oen.1'lI1 Plan Policy ISlues
Tha Iolowrng la_s are raised by Ihe curranl appllce.ti 0 n, ano' Ih e ensuing
dlsoullions batwgen the three ju~sdlc:tions involved in Sianford projects.
6
• I .' t
'.~
,
I ,
I
• Ii: r', ,
1("
n
StInIord oc:cuplts a unJque posltlon In the County. bein; ,,"entiany an
untncorpoolled dIy In that I provide. /0116, hOUling, tnfrutnJcMe and .. rvlce.
on campus. The Cou~ty acknowledges ~s unique 8l!uallon. and thlt regulatlons
penalnlng to U581 and clenlily which apply 10 other unincorpOlatld ar$1l$ ~ave
not been appned to Stanford. k1 recoonfflon of the Impact 01 the UnlYer8l1y
populaUon on the IUrrc unOlng arll!l&, thl County has .nco~raged Stanford 10
providll hou5ing for as much of ~s facu~y, s1udenl and employee pop\iletion as
polilble. Th, Univel1ll!y has worked wit.h the County and il currently wOrki,'1g
towarc! completing nous1ng projects fOr 400 undergraduate sM:!ents (KImball
HalT and Manzanfta II)
S1anford has a housing program wl1lCh has ldentifled and planned for varioue
houalng types on the campus. This proposed housing was taken Inlo eccount
for ml1lgatlng the Impacts of Mura development as proposed under 1M General
Use Pt rmlt. There has been no required ratio o! jobslstudentalfacul!y 10
housing Uflnl, but rather Stanford has P\ll$ued ns po~cy of providing on·
campua housing for laeul!y, certaln staff, and for students to the extent leaslbr.
within Ih. finanaal and land use constraints o! the Unlvel1lily, and within the
coneIrelnts of po~tfgeJ approval.
The currenl CPA brings up 111, quest10n of how mveh housing shO'JId be
required u mlllglllion lor eeademic:lmediC'l1 proj_ ouIside the GUP are •.
Given the unoer1alnly regard! ng !he speC r/¢8 01 Mure projects, the 155 housing
unill diecuilS8d k1 tho Ell'!. Is SB8n as a r"lSonab~ goal for" study examining
pot.nflal additional housing shse.
Ijm'freme !or Jmpg,ioo HouBrng MH!gatlpns
One Issue on whk:h the three jurisdlC!lQns have not reached con$8~SUS is when
the ~ng mitiga~on should be appued. The granllrog 01 a General Plan
Amendment gives the Unlvers~y the ability 10 go ahead with projtCUi which wnl
then have ImpaCUi Qn housing avanabillty. However, until 8 speclflc project is
propoeed, the e"'lnt 01 !hI Impact ~f any) Is not kno~.
The polley qy85!ion concerns the approprte!& decision 11m .. to 1ns1!gate hcuelng
mitigatlons Th. monnorir.g pro;ram required by CEQA fOr Ihe General Plan
Amendment addresses Ihe nOed to mitigate t.~e housing Impact. but i8 normally
no! apecffic with regard to the type. amount, and Iocalion 01 hO<lslng until a
pro)eclll proposed. By des1gnatlng B sRe for campus housing, the County will,
In eflecI, be providing l~e means for housing m~igations for Mur. projects, and
ensuring thai 8 ~lon Is idemified and evanebJe when needed.
The means 10 mitigate the traffic Impacts a=iated with Stanforde
development Is the Traffic Demand Management Plan (TDM)adopjed In
conjunction with the Ge neral Use Permll The goa! 01 this prog ram is "no net
7
•
",,#, "
~.
1
f
I ,
o
new commute trips". The program inclU(jes • campuS .huttIG-bu. service.
IIerpooIInc:.ntiVN •• _npool .e"'IoIo •• bjcye~ and p.d .. !rian lervlCQ.
prgiml!lonaJ actIviIIea end staff 'upper!. The succe,. of Ihe program I.
rnonIIored Mel ~ 10 the County by Stanford In an .noue! report. The
annual repon for 1889-1990 showed that panlclp&1ion In the program has
Incrtuld.
The TOM BB a traffic ml1lgalion mell&Ure if propo.1eI 10, Mure dltYelOpmln~
Mel th. rr.onftorlng and tr1ggiIrlng m echenisms for 51reet imp'llvemelrt8 Slated In
"'. GUF' wfUenaurelhat the 11'11f1k: !mpatl& Br. mijigBlIeI 10 the ext.rot po88lb!e.
f'ntd Imprgy'm8ma
Palo Alto CIty Co\JncI1 recommllnd certain road ,mprQvlmen18 10 ba required In
tht mon/IoI1ng program lor the Ga:1tlral Plan Amendmerrt. The rlquealed noad
Improvements hE1V8 been reviewed by tl1e County Transporte1lol1 Agency (TA).
" " the Agency's polley 10 only require road Improvem8nl& at lhe 1\me they are
warranted{as determined by traffic COtJrns and level of 1.lYlce). The EIR 1\111.
that tile ~'ftIed IlTIpnlYemsnta ate nof warram.d by the pnopoNd peyc:hiatly
cenltr. However, TA stale IhBllhey Bra willing 10 .... Iew Ih9 it1fo'mation on
wl!1ch \1M CIty C/x;nal baaed 116 recommenclallcm. and if _ agrees that l1e
ilnplOY8ments are Indeed necessary. they can be considerlel when a project Is
proposed !or 618 lIlIe.
II i8 not County'a porlC)' 10 condition Genera! Plan Amendments. However !he
monitorfng prQQram can require lhut aub$tantlating Information regarding the
need for !Oed Improvements at this lime be provided by Palo Alto for County
ooMideratlon prior 10 COnditioning 01 any Mu'e u ... permhs.
map
~~~~!p~nog .. m E 0( Impacts and MItlgaU"ns
Tranemlttal Palo Alto with City Councll recommendations
Len,,1rom regarding CoO/My and PalG AIIo recommandatlons.
Latter from Pale Alto regarding disaJ$$ione 01 reoommendatlGns.
8
•
\
April 11.1991
Hugh H. Graham
Se!lioc Planner
Advance Planning Office
County of Santa CIMa
.~ ...
STANFORD lJNlVF.RSITY
PLA.."'lNlNC OFfICE
Department of Pfanning & Development
County Gov', Cen.er. East Wing
70 West Hedding Stree'
San lose.CA 95110
Dear Hugh.
155 Serra Stn:et
STANfORD, CALIFORNIA 943CS-6ii4
As promised. here is my reaction to Tuesday's meeting aoom the General Plan Amend'llent
for the Qu:lrty parcels and the is-'me:;; before us..
I. There is no lechoicai or nmcedural baSiS for requiring; addlli(m~housing as a mirLgaIioo
QL..this General Plan Amendmc nt.
Technically. the County hll.s no specific poficy Of program wbich requires employe."'S to
build housing for an their cmplcyces.
Procedurally, the General Plan designation change '.1IIiU not itself create a housing
impact. Popu1.ltion increaso:s resulting from subsequent projects may create impa<:ts.
These proposed projccl<;. will require separ31e Use Permits and their environmental
assessments will provide a more accurate projection of housing impacts and
mitigations. It is our understanding that CEQA re.quirerneots are satisfied by tying
mitigations 10 tile project~generated impacts. determined during this Use Permi[ process.
2. wre is no demonslrnted need for housing est4!b[ishcd 10 support.a policy of requiring
m~ housing than is now ine0rpOfated in our General U~ Permit and its TOM
mitigarion. The expectation for a housing mitigation ma), have come from Ihe hocsing
demand estimated in the ElR, which is very conservative b...>:e3Use each employee is
assumed Ie generate a demand for.a new housing unit This does not account foc
eJUstilig employees who will be transrerred from other locations on campus or are
alre3dy housed.
-.-
/
o
Therefore, our position is unch'omged. \Ve are applying for a General P1an designation of
"University Lands· Campus" for both the Triangle and Rectangle parcels 50 that we can
pian their use foe future rned}c:aJ cemer purposes.
We will continue to provick housing as we can to support OUf itCaaemic program.
Obviously. we wiH conform to the housi!1g policies in each jurisdiction in which we have
projects. But we ct&lInot make cotamitmenlS. in advance of demonstrated ne.ed. 10 build
housing for which we. have no ma. .. "ket, and especially on l;md we need for academic
purposes. We are in no position to provitie housing foc commu.nity-\o\we use, as]
explained OJ the meeting.
This GenetaI P1an Amendment does Dot seem k> us lO be an appropriate setting foc crearing
new County housing policy. However. we believe that you do have appropria.te tools
which can be utilized f.,.. this purpose.
1. The Genem p!~. which you are now updating.
2. The General Use Pcnnit Any population increase in excess of Ihat forc.cast in the
current GUP willlrigger its revision VI' replacement At that time the County ca.,
incorporate additional housing mitigations if they an:: deemed necessary.
3. Specif"1C Use Pe.rnULs.. These wiD be required for projeclS nO{ covered by the General
Use. Pennit,. and appropriale mitigations will be s.pecified in that process.
Perhaps &he General Plan Aff'.endment C.lI1 deS4.Tt'be the process by which future housing
impactS nOl: covered by our current General Use Pennil will be assessed and how lhe tools
menuooed above will be applied. We would like 10 be consrructive in helping you reach a
solution.
Best regards,
m&~~
Philip C. Williams
Diredo< of Planning
co: Sarah O,eney
AndyDo<y
Muriel Fu lIord
-......... David O'Brien
"" Ken Schreiber
Cbarlooe Sm:m
'"