HomeMy WebLinkAbout0260.0911
1
~,
• •
, c, . :' ,~'
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Pal. Alto, Californi.
STANFQRD UNIYERSITY QUARRY POAP SENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Moabers .f the C.uncll,
Report ;n Brief
ThiS is In infonaatlon report on the Santa Clara County Planning Cormlission
May l, 1991 recommendations on Stanford UnfversityJ s requested Quarry Road
General P11n AmendMent~ No City Council action 1S required or recommended.
DiscyssIgn
The City Council last considered the Quarry Road General Plan Amendment issue
on April 29, 1991. The Co"ncil's rec .... nd.tl.ns t. Santa Clara County are
contained in the attached April 30 letter to the County Planning Commission.
On ~a1 2, the County Plan~1ng Commission made the following recommendations to
the County Boa~:
1. Certify the final Environmental lmpact Report without changesi
2. Adopt the environmental .;tigitf~n monitoring progra~ after
deleting the .itigati.n for St.r.ford to identify potential
additional housing sftes in the vicinity of the Medical Center and
Sand Hill Corridor w,th the goal of identifying $ite(5) for an
additional 155 ~ousing units;
3. Change t. the County Gen ... l Plin land use map including'
a~ 3.2-acre Campus Drive site -·University Lands-Academic
Reserve and Open Space,-
b. 1l.9-acri! Triangle-site ·UniVersity lands-Campus, -and
c_ 7.4-acre Rectangle Site ·University lands-Campusi-and
4. Adopt [IR and Seneral Plan Amendment findings stlrting on page el
of the .ttached County staff report and including .11 of page 8b
and Bet including the end of t~e last sentence continued from page
C~R,Z60:91
'.---.
o o
&c to 3d. Th. Findings on page ed. including the first full
sentence and ite.s 6. 7 lnd 8, were not adopted.
Recoa.endat1Qns JJ 2 and 3 were adopted by I vote of 5-0 {Commissioners Tanner
,nd Shotwell .bsent). Recoo.endation 4 was adopted by , vote of 4-1. The
Com.;ssfon's reco..endat1ons will go to t~e County Board of S~perY;SOr5 when
the General Pl.n Alendlent I, placed on their agenda. St.ff will infono the
Council of the Be.rd DOetlng date when the County st,ff determines the date.
Unless directed otherwise. staff will pursue the City Council recommendations with the County Beard.
Respeetf,lly suboltted.
. ~/ . ~/ / j,/ /
/U 9. ;I..{..?/.. 7 ~, .-deA~· (FT.'
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER ,)'
Director of Planning and
Community [nviron.ent
Attachments: April 30 letter
April 19 County Staff Report
cc: Palo Alto PJlnning Commission
~\ \ ~~"'Mt'1J. J ~ FlEMIHG'-"-?
Assistant City Manager
St.nford Unlversltj (Andy Ooty. Phil ~illiams. Charlotte Strem)
Santa Clara County (leode Franklin, Hugh Graham, lute Stamos,
~url.l Fulford)
Related CMRs:
CIt!:260;91
p;\CMR\Qu.rry
CHR:593 0
(MA: 121 91
CHR:Z38 91
5/9/91
Page 2
, .
/
City of )'010 1l1to .
O'-"Cf: 0' n .. t ..... 1'00;
("IS) .J21i1~23 8.
,.. O. BO)( 10250
_LO .... ~ .. :ro, C'" .... 303
Santa Clara County Planning C~iS51on
c/o Hr. Luke Stamos, Secretary
County Government Center, East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
~rs of the Commission:
.r'.
April 30, 1991
Subject: Stanford Quarry Road Ge"eral Plan ~mendment and
Final £nvironmental lmDact Report (EIR) (File 32311
Tnis letter contains Palo Alto ~omments on tne Final EIR and the Stanford
Quarry Road General Plan Amendment. The letter was authorized by the PaTo
Alto City Council on April 29, 1991, and contains. significant modifications to
tne Council's Januar~ l2 reccmmendations.
final £JR
Tne Fi~a' EIRls responses to our co~nts concerning necessary traffic
mitigations are considered inadequatp.. Our maj~r conC!rD is the wid~nings of
Quarry ind Arboretum Roads. which were identified as necessary mitigations of
futvre development on the Triangle site (please refer to c~ents Band 9 on
final [IR pages 8-9, and comment H on Final [IR pages 29-3C)_ As stated in
comment H. these ~itigatton5 were recommended by the Palo Alto City Council as
conditions of future development on the Triangle s1te. There appears to be a
major difference of opiDfon as to the ~anner in whic~ ~iti9ation meaSUres are
handled for a General Plan Amendment ~ersus a specific project. We wish to
clarify that we reco9nize that no actual physical mitigatlons will be required
of the General Plan Amendments. Ho ... ·ever. we believe it is approprlate and
necessary to identify those mitigations which are known to be needed for
fyture development of the affected parcel~. The need to improve Quarry and
Arboretum Roads has been known for years. It \s appropriate that they be
identified as .iligation measures at this time rither tnan defer the decision
until the fncremental development ~f the Triangle site~
-,-------~----~-..
o
Santa Clara County Planning Commission
Apr;] :lO, 1991
Page 2
General Pian Amendment
/
o
T~e C~t1 hiS reviewed the April 19, 1991 report from the C~unty's Advance
Plannlnq Office to the Santa Clara CDunt1 Planning Commission and Stanford's
response to our request for a ~ousing mitigation. Based on the Economic Well
Seing Policies in the Santa CTara County Genera' Plan (pleas~ see page 32 of
tne Fina, Environmental Impact Report) and policies in the Pala Alto
Comprehensive Plan li .e., the Rectangle site has a mu1t;iple famil.)' reSidential
land \1St d~s;gnatio·pJ, we recommend that the Rectangle 5; te be deSignated for
DlUltipTe fibnily residential \lse. The Palo Alto Comprehens''''e Plan ~as a land
use category that appears suitable fer use in the County G~nera1 Plan:
·lfajor InstitlltiQnlMultfp1e Family Reside"tfo!'1~ multiple-family areas
where the occupancy of t~e units is Significantly limited to indiwiduals
or families or both affiliated w;tn th~ fnstit~tion.·
T~is la~d use category is consistent with the Housing alternative addressed on
pages 137-14'l of the Draft EIR.
Regarding the Campus Drive site, the City concurs with the University and:
COUrity staff regrading the appropri ateness of t~.e University lznds-(.ampus land
~se designation.
Regarding the Triangl~ site, the Cit, con(urs with the UniversitJ and County
st~ff regarding the appropriateness cf the University lands-Campcs land use
designation. Ho~eveT, the City reiterates our January 22 recommendations
that:
A condition be placed in the text of the (ounty teneral Plan Amendment
which requires that approval beyond the first nonresidentie1 project,
not to exceed 175,000 square feet, on the Triang1e site be tied to
aDproval and cDnstruction of I housing project on Sta~ford lands beyond
those currently under consideration.
The development permitted under the General Plan Amendm~nt and future
use p!rmits be incorporate~ into the Transpo~tation Demand Management
Program required af Stanford for approval of the Stanf~rd General Use
Permit.
Approval of development on the Trian;1e site be conditioned on t~e
wid!ning of Arboretum Road betw~en Quarry Road and Palm Drive as
identlfjed at the top of page 76 of the Draft EIR, with .dditiona'
.. asure. described i. Comment No.9 (a) and (b) on page 0-4 of the Fin.'
EIR, and construction of the furtner widening of Quarry Road between
Arboretum and Welch Roads. These conditions sho~ld be applied ~hen
driveways associated Yith development of the Triangle site directly
impact the identified roadway segments.
:~
Santa Cl.ra County,Plannln;
Aj>rl1 30, 1991
Pogo 3
Conmfsstcn
f1nally, t"e Cit" no longer requests that I maximum, floor .. rei ritit.l of 0.5: I
bo applied to t~o Triangle site. Tbis c~ange In our recommendation
acknowledges that future use persits will regulate floor area on tne Triangle slto.
Sincerely,
cc: '.10 Alto City Council
Palo Alto Planning Commission
Stanford University (Andy Doty, Phil Williams, Charlotte Str .. )
Santa Clara County (leade frinkTi~. l~ke Stamos, Hugh Grahaa, Robert l. Sturdivant)
David Powers and Associates (AliCia Guerra}
-.-
County of Santa Clara
oc~ru ~ Plarming and [)eYt'k>pmt'HI
• \O"'U)I:&· PltUminf;t 0fflC"('
C.lum .. ' (j.(I .. ""\"'.UI; ..... CI .. IC.I.'I, F .. 1.'001 '" ~Ilo:
;,.\\.':"'t","lu~""rt""\ ..
Reviewed by:
Date: April 19. 1991
~~,'. ,.v, . ,"
Prepared by;
Approved by:
To:
From:
Santa Clara County Plannl ng Commission
Advance Planning Office
,r"
Muriel Fulford '
Hugh Graham .
Leode Frankln ',' .,....
Subject: FILE' 3231-Q7-83-87GP -ST""FORD UNIVERSITY
QUAAAY ROAD GENERAL Pl."" AMENDMENT
A. Recommended Action:
~: Certify 1hat the final EnvironmerrtaJ tmpact Report (EIR) has been
oII&f'e J comple1ed in compliance with the Cali/omia Environmental Ouanty Act (CEQA)
rT q' and the Planning Commission reviewed and conSidered the information
Iiontained in the FonaJ EtR pOor to making their deciSion,
J'1 &" f t .. .J fl, Adopt the attached mon~oring program to mon~or implementation 01 the
,;,r\ &'" \.lc-t;J,.. m~ig\'tion measures olthe significant impacts as proposed in the EIA.
• ( ,. • 'I.¥, {,"'" .
... .. "",,,.,,,,, . Make ~ of L~e two Ionowing aHernative recommendations (A or B) 10
the Beard of Supervisors:
Anernative Approve a General Plan Am€ndment lor the subject area as
"A" follows:
Campus Drive S[te (3.2 acres}: Change the designation
from "University Lands· Study Area" to "University Lands -
Academic Reserve and Open Space.
Triangle Site (J 1 9 acres): Change the designation from
"Univers',ty Lands -Study Area" and 'University Lands·
Academic Reser"e and Open Space" to "University lands -
Campus".
o o
eaectanQl§: Site (].( acres): Char,ge the designation from
"University Lands -Study Area" and "University Lands -
Academic Reserve and Open Space" to "University Lands -
Campus"
OR:
(Evaluation oIl1le housing situation in lIle Medica! Center
area would be part of (/>e Monitoring Program, with a study
submffted 10 the County. no later tl>an (/>e next Stanford
annual report. to sho w where 155 additional housing units
may be located in the vicinity Of the medical cemer.)
emative Approve a General Plan Amendment for the subject area as
B" fonows:
CamQlIs Drjye sjtg '3 2 acres): Change the designation
Irom "University Lands -Study Area" to 'University Lands :
Academic Reserve and Open Space"
Trianale Sjte /11 9 acresl: Change the designation from
'University Lands -Study Area" and University Lands -
Academic Reserve and Open Space" to 'University Lands -
Campus"
Rectangle Site f7 4 acres): Retain the existing deslgnation
of 'Unive rsity Lands Study Area' for the enti re 7.4 acre
parcel.
(A study Of (/>e housing situation to be previrieri, in
accorriance wit.~ (/>8 moni:oring program, as descnoeri for
"A" above. Allerreview oIlhe housing study County woulri
ronsitkJr a new General PI,m Amendment appffcation for
/he redangle site.)
4. Recommend 10 the Board of Supervisors that they make the findings
r,sted under section "S" below for approval of the project.
B. Findings:
Eiodjoos fgr fiB-
Although p.~ysical changes 10 the environment will only occur when
construction takes place, the act of changing the General Plan deSignation to
anow developmerl! will require mi~gation measures 10 ensure that potenliany
adverse impacts can, and will, be lessened.
The EIR identified impacts in the areas of noise, air quanty, geology and sons
and visual & aesthetic quality which ean be mitigated to a less than significant
2
.. ~
•
--~~----------.------------------~~ .. ~
/
level, with implementation ensured through the monitoring program .. The
following findings are suggested regarding the environmental impacts 01 the
project:
1. Mitigation measures have been included in the monitoring
pnogram adopted for the projecl which will avoid Of subslantialfy lessen
the signilicant environmentaf effects as identified iI1 the final EIR.
2. Further environmental assessment w11l be canned out lor specific
projects within the General ?fan Amendment area as they are proposed,
and mitigalion measures will be adopted for s~e·specific impacts.
3. The popIJtaflon-assodated impacts of construction of the
psychiatric center on the Triangle Site have been m~igated through the
monitoring program lOr \he General Use Permit.
4_ The EIR assessed two "wonsl-case scenarios" thai could develop
if the req<Jested General PIa11 designation is granted, and therefore haS
assessed, and mitigated 10 the exteni possible, the maximum
environmental impad that could =r.
5. A monaoring program is proposed (as required by AB 3180) 10
lessen the significant impacts thai could occur from the change in the
General Plan designation.
The EIR identified the Ionowing i(T1pacts, based on a wonsl-case analysis, which
cannot be mitigated 10 a non-Significant level, ar.d project approval.therefore
nequines thai the Board makes a determination of oveniding consideration. The
~nificant impacts are as follows:
Traffic: Significant impacts will =r at identified intersections.
The effect of development of the psychiatry center and associated
oondings can be mitigated through the TOM program, since this project
was induded in determining TDM goals. However, the effects of
maximum development of both the triangle and rectangle site will be too
great 10 be mitigated through TDM's present tevel of effort
Housing: Buil:lout under either Of the two development scenarios
could resuh in a maximum gross demand lor over 1,000 housing units.
The figures used in the ETR to determine the "wonsl-case" assume that
each ind"lVidual in the psycihiatry center (studen~ faculty, employee)
requires a housing unit. WMe this is necessary 10 delermine !I1e
maximum possible impact, Ihe impact is unlikely to be this severe. The
EIR proposes to mitigate the impact by providing housing in nearby areas
of the campus and ccnfinuing the effGrts "f the University's housing
programs. The increased demand for housing, however, remains a
significant impact that cannot be mitigaled to a non-significant level.
Shoul<:l the amendment be approved, the Board of Supervisors musl adopt a
Statemenl of Overriding Consideration in relation 10 Ihe signifICant and
3
•
_._--------
, ,
f
"
/
o o
unmhigatable impacts. These ~no1ngs will be the reasons .the Board decides to
approve the project, despite adverse environmental impacts, and coutd include
the following:
6. The bene~tthat will be provided to the public by continued
development of the Med"cal Center and psyChiatric facnily.
7. The ongoing efforts of Stanford Univershy to pnovide housing for
faculty, students and staff, as reported in the recent General Use Permit
(GUPJ Annual Report
8. The success of Stanford's Transportation Demand Management
program (TOM), as reported In the GUP annual report.
EJodlnas for General PEaD Amendment
In both Attematives A and B the staff recommendation is that theCampus Drive
She be designated as 'University lands -AcademiC Reserve and Open Space,
and that tile Triangle She be designated as 'University lands -Campus"
1. The Campus Olive site is intrtnsicany a pert 01 the Arboretum, and
the new designa~on will ensure that thi5 section of the she will remain L,
open space, and add to the character 01 the Alboretum whi<:h provides a
rural contrast to the high density development on the central campus.
2. The University has a stated need for a she for their pnoposed
psychiatry center. The triar.gle site is adjacent to the existing medical
center, and has been identified by the University as the most appropriate
location for this Mure development.
3. The psychiatry center was recognized as a future project during
the Univershy's assessment of future needs during the prepa,ation of the
General Use Permit (GUP) (see "Background" for further explanation of
the GUP). A~hough no specific project or sile was planned, the
University estimated the probable increase in population which would be
generated by such a use, and this figure was 1ncIuded in the e~mates
lor the GUP, and consequentiy mitigated under the GUP monitoring
program. Thus, population-associated impacts of development 01 the
psychiatry center on the triangle site have already been mitigated
through the GUP.
4. Speci~c developments proposed for the remainder of the Triangle
Slle wil1 be evaluated at the time of Use P8rm~ application. The worst
case possibililiers have been evaluated through the current EIR.
i Aftemative A recommends designating the rectangle site ·Univers·,ty lands -
. Campus"
5. Ahemative A for the Rectangle Site confonms 10 Stanford's request
for this $lIe. The designation "University lands· Campus" anows both
4
•
academic and residential u as, and will allow the University flexibility in
Mure Ianni the sile. The 1 SS housing unils analyzed in the EIR
could be constnucled on the rectangle sile under this alternative.
~ama!iva B recommends dasignaling Ihe rectangle sile as "University Lands
ludy Area"
S. Alternative B for the Rectatl9le Site is suggested as a way to
emphasize the importance of providing more housing on camp!Js.
Stanford is currenUy preparing a study 10 determine the actual Mure
needs of the med"1CaI center in terms of facUhies, space, and location of
Mure bu~dings. In the course of this Sludy, staff suggests thai Stanford
also look at possible locations for ISS units of housing, as has been
analyzed in the EIR as a potenlial use for the rectangle site.
7. The EIR determined Ihal a need for over t,OOO housing un"s could
result 1n a worst-case shuation from bu~ out of ehher scenarios 1 or 2 .
SIIould the Stanford mecflCal center study find that the rectangle s"e
need IlOl be com mitted for Mure medical uses, this area could be
designated for camp!Js hous;ng. If the rectangle sije is deemed to be the
approp!iat& location for medical center expansion, the Stanfon:! study
could identify alternate s"es 1n the medical canler area and on the craek
side 01 Sand Hill Road for the location of addrtional housing !Jnits.
8. Locallon of Mure residential units in the vicinity of the medical
center (as descnbed above) win help in alIevialing the tratfoc impacts,
since the units would be eas~y accessible by loot or bicycle from the
employmerrt gerlllraffng centers.
C. Background:
The existing General Plan designations on the sije are "University Lands -
Study Area" and 'University Lands -Academic Reserve and Open Space". The
"Study Area" designation was estabr,shed by a 1982 amendment 10 the County
General ?Ian and requi,es land use proposals to be considered by the County,
Palo Alto and Stanfon:!. based on the needs of tMe University and community.
·Academic Reserve and Open Space" allows uses compatible wijh the existing
character of the land and ijs resources.
In t989 the County approved a General Use Permit for most Of the main
<.amp!JS area The GUP included condiflonal approval of the uses that could be
developed in the central camp!Js area, lakjng lnlo consideration Stanford'S
near-tenm and long-term plans lor the area Architectural and Site Approval for
specific development in the main campus area is required before building
permits can be issued. A monitoring program was adapted to ensure that
measures to mnigate the potential adverse environmental impacts would be
imple m ented.
The Quarry Road she was not included 1n the GlIP since development Of the
area would nof be consistent with the General Plan deSignation. However, the
s
0"
~,:;--.---,-------.----.-.-... __ .
•
"
,-'-,,"-.... ,------...:.
o o
University'!'; future plans included construction 01 a psychialric facility
somewhere Dn or ne"r the medeal center. Although the location of slKOh a
facility and the development plans were not finafized, the approximate number
of people who would be employed was estimated and then included in the
cumulative population estimates lor the Genera! Use Permit
Th. EIR lor the Genera! Use Permit has analyzed and mitigated the impacts of an the anticipated development including lhe population generated impacts .
associat~ with traffic and housing. FUlure projects within the central campus
area must obIain.ArchHectural and SHe Approvallnorn the County, but do not
need project-specffic Use PermHs. Unless the proposal is sub5tentiany different
from that analyzed in the Program ErR, further environmenlal review need only
locus on the specifics 01 proposed s!nucture;;.
The Quarry Road site was designaled as a "Special Condilion AIea" in the
General Use Permn, which means that an projects on the s~e require specific
Use Permits and envlronmentaJ assessment
The General Plan AIn .. ndmenl for Quarry Road was originany requested by
Slanforo UniversHy in ISS7 to allow deve lopm enl of a psychiatric hospHal and
associated facilities which Ihe UniversHy proposed to build on Ihe property in
conjunction with Charter HospHai. An EIR was prepared for the necessary
Genera! Plan AInendmenl and Use Permit Before Ihe EIR was certified, Ihe
agreement between StanfDnd and Charter was dissolved, and no alte mate
plans lor a hospHal were developed.
Sianforo Med"1Cal Center intends to go forward with plans lor a psychiatric
hospHaI. and has identified the triangle sile as the most suitable location. The
adjacent rectangle sne was also identified as a su~able area lor expansion of
th-e medical cenler racHities.
A General Plan AInendment lor the area is a pre-requisite for this type 01
development, and the Univefs~y therefore decided 10 continue with ~s
aw,calion lor the GPA. The EIR has been completed using the previously
proposed Charter Hospilal as the prototype of a psychiatric cenler which the
University expects to develop on the sHe.
The P:otocollor project review on UniversHy lands requires consultation
between the County, Palo Alto and Stanlord for an proposals. The EIR has
been reviewed by the Palo Allo'P1anning Commission and Clr, CounCIl, and
Stanford University, and a discusslon meeting was held althe University by staff
from the three jurisdictions. A copy of the Palo Alto City Council's
recommendation to the County Planning Commission is attached, together with
a letter from' Sianford Univers~y regarding the recommendalions.
D, General Plan Policy Issues
The ronowing issues are raised by the current appr,calion. and Ir,e ensulng
discussions between the three jurisdictions involved in Sianford projects.
6
0-
.,
prpvisign of Housing 00 csioomI5
Stanford occupies a cnique position in the County, being essentially an
unincorporated city in that it provides jobs, housing, infrastructure and services
on campus. The County acknowledges its unique siluation, and the regulations
pertaining 10 uses and density which apply 10 other unincorporated areas have
not been applied 10 Staniord. In recognition of the impact at the University
p-;>pulafion on the SlJrrounding areas, the County has encouraged Stanford to
provide housing lor as much of its faculty, student and employee populalion as
possible. The University has wor1<ed with the County and is currently wooong
loward completing housing projects lor 400 undergraduale students (Kimba~
Hall and Manzanita II)
Stanford has a housing program which has identified and planned for various
housing types on the campus. This proposed housing was taken inlo account
lor mitigating the lmpacts of future developmenl as proposed under the General
Us. Permit. There has been no reqUired ratio of jobslstudentsi!acuity to -
housing units, but rather Slanford has pursued ils poncy of providing Con
campus housing lor lactJity, certain staff, and fOf sludents to t/le extent feasible
within the financial and land usa c:cnstraints of the University, and within the
constraints of polttical approval.
Tha curre nt GPA biings up the question 01 how much housi ng Sh"'J Id be
required as mitigation lor academic/medical projects outside the GUP area.
Given the uncertainty regarding the specifics of future pIojects, the t55 housing
units discuSSed in the EJRis seen as a reasonalble goal lor a study examining
potential addrtional hoosing sites.
Ttmftframe for Imposing Housing MitjgatiQns
One issue on which the three jurisdictions have not reached consensus is when
lhe housing mitigation should be appITed. n,e granting of a General Plan
Amendment gives the University Ihe abnny to go ahead with projects which will
then have Impacts 0" housing avarlability. However, unW a speCific project is
proposed, the exant of the impact ~t any) is.no: known.
The poncy question corv-..ems tl",e appropriate decision time to instigate housing
mijigations The monijoring program required by CEOA 10( the General Plan
Amendment addresses the need to mitigate the hOUSing impact, but is nonmany
not spacific with regard to tha type, amount, and IocaUon of housing unW a
project is proposed. By designating a site 10( campus housing, the County wili,
in effect, ba providing the means for hoosing mttigaUons for Mure projects, aoJ
ensuring that" location is identified and avanable when needed.
TraffIC MiligatiDn fTDMI
The means 10 mrtigale the tIaffic impacts aSSOCiated with Stanford's
development is the Traffic Demand Management Plan [TOM)adopted in
conjunction with the General Use Permil The goal of this program is "no net
7
/'
o o
new commute trlps". The program includes a campus shuttle-bus service,
carpool incentives, vanpool services, bicycl9 and pedestrian services,
promotional activities and SIaff support. The success 01 tile program is
mannered and reported to the County by Stanford in an annuat report. The
annual report 10< t989-1990 showed thai par1icipa~on in the program has
Increased.
The TOM as a traffic mitigation measure is proposed lor future development,
and tha monnoring and triggering mec~.anisms for street improvements staled in
the GUP wi! ensure thai the traffic impacts are mitigated to the extent possible.
Bpad Impmy@ w8o fs
Palo AIIo City eoullCll recommend certain road improvements to be required in
the monitoring program lor the General Plan Amendment The requested road
improvements have been reviewed by the County Transportation Agency (TA).
n is the Agency's porocy to only require road improvements at the time they are
wanranted (as determinl'd by traffic coonts and level 01 service), The EIR states
thai the requested improvements are not warranted by the proposed psychiatry
center_ However, T A state thai they are wimng to review t~e information on
which the City Council based ns recommendation, and if it agrees that the
improvements are indeed necessary, they can be considered when a project is
proposed tor the site.
II is not County's policy to corKfrtion General Plan Amendments. However the
monitoring program can require that substantiating information regarding the
need lor road improvements at Ihis ~me be provided by Palo AIIo lor County
consideration pnor to concfrtion'"-il 01 any future use permits. .
Attachments·
Project site map
MonitOring Program
EIR Summary 01 tmpacts and Mitigations
Transmittat from Palo Mo with Clty Council recommendations
Letter from Stanford regarding Cou nty and Palo AlIa recomme ndati ons.
Letter from Palo Ano regarding discussions 01 recommendations.
8
•
• /.--7"-;;;;~-..;;;::::-;-;;',:;.'v--:-~"",,;-;::;;::::-;--_.r_.---:-, ---;;-r:;) . . • • • • • • I
• ,
iii Tria~ Site
f:J hctang!oe-Site
, ""h
_ Project Site 41Ind General Plan Amendment Boundaries
Possible future Psydliatry Center Boundary
,
~
i
o
County of San la Clara
De'pmnnenr oll~'lrll1in~ m)(1 L"'.Ic..''-'I·k'll)Illc,'nl
.\.(I\'iU"Il"t' Pl.annill/>! ()/fIn'
CUUI"'~' ."I\'L'n)l'1I.'IU ( 1"111'", I .'" Will~
~ •• "...,.1: 10 ... I. hi 1'1.:. ""'~1
~Ul"~·j.Ll.JI<"'''''''·.JI'' '*'''''''_''''1' 1-• .1 I
o
,--------------------
PfO)oct Tn .. :
F1Ia No.,
Dat. Prepared:
ApprovIng Bo~y,
MONITORING PROGRAM
StanIorel UniYorsny Cuany Road Go""" Plan Amendmenl
323Hl7·83·B7GP
Ap<I117. 1991
_ 01 Supervisors
Prepared by~ Muriel Fulford
H •• rtng Cal.~
Penson Assigned to Mcmttor Project .. : Murier Full'ord, Associate Planner
"Two copies of reports r«ated 10 this project: musI be sentla the designaled monitor. The sec.ond
copy w;1 be plaCed in !lie master file.
The tonewlna monttorlng program Is destgned to Inaur. compnanci wHh mHlgatlon
measures proposed In the -LEIR or _Nagattv. OecI.raUan 10 reduce or avofd
potenl1any significant Impacts:
Tra [fie
Impact: Development scenarios 1 and 2 would bave sLgnifLcant traffic
impaclS.
Mitigation: Implementation of Sianfonfs TDM program
,~,
Monitoring: Report or effectiveness to be included in Stanford's annual repcn
to me CDun [y_
[mpact: Worst-case b\lildout under scenarios 1 or 2 could result in demand
for over 1,000 housing unilS_
Mitigalioll: Slanforo wm prepare a repon to identify potential additicnal
housing site(s) in lhe vi~iDilY of th~ medical ceoter and Sand Hill
CorridGl'. Tne goal wil1 be to find sile(s) ro(" 15S additional
housing units. Together with bO\lsing sites previously identified
in the General Use Penni~ they would be available a.s mitigation
for bousing impacts of future projects on the Stanford campus_
Moniloria,: Rc:pon to be inc.luded in th.e annual report 10 the Counly. or
submitted earlier. if ready_
'.
_____ ~-__ c ---""--~-.
'.'
8p'4 Jmprp!tmt"U'
Impact:
MiCi,alion:
Widening of Arboretum Road be~\lfeelll Q\l1lTy Road alld Palm
Drive is considered by PaJo Alto 10 be • necessary condition or
future d'evclopmenl of ahe sjlc.
Durin, tbe review pmceu for IZ:IJI fUIUTe developmenl on the
site, PlJo Alto will be afforded the opponunity lO provide the
COUDty Transpon&tioQ. A,t:Dq' wiLlI. tM an .Iysis that provides
the buis (or tbeir request. TA will eoolidcr the informatioa
provided prior lO ~Ddiljoninl fu:ure Usc Pc:nnirs.
MouiLoriDC= Applications for Use Permits On the .site will !te submitted to PaIo
Alto for their re.view and commCllt.
Noise· Air Quam., Genlp'! " SAils Visual &0 At1tbCSiS;5i
Impaca: Sire development col:ld :-esull in
(actors. as outlined in the attached
Summary.
impacls on these environmeDuJ
EJR impaC1 &: Mitigation
Micigujoa: AD devcJopmeDt must conform to the County poHcics. ordinances.
rcguladoAS and guidelines. Additional ~itigarion measures wlU
be imposed as necessary.
Monhoria,; AI' future devc:lopment on Iile will be subjc(:1 to environmental
usessmeal and conditions of approval. Project-specific impacLS
will be uscssed and mitigaled during: the Use Pennit procc.ss.
-.. , .. ~"
j
{
..
~
~
_ ,"'" •• !. D' ••••••• '11 •• --.. II
s
" l'· .
SUMMARY OF ntl! QUARRY ROAD OINERAL I'LA"I AMI!I\IDMINI" " "
AND PSYCIOAfty CENI'8R : ", II !;I;
ENYlROI\IMBHl'AL IMPACI" REPORT " '" "',".
A. PROJICl" DRSCRlmON
Otl/l4rtJ1 I"ItI1I Ame",,,",III
, .,
"
. r;,'
. ":0' '.
"," " , ..
(' ..
Th. pmpoood project """.111, of • 0 .. "", Pial, Amood_ lor 22.5 ..... 01 .... SIIInfO<d U.I .... loy Com,.. In doe eou •• , of Son .. CI"""
Th. P1'jocI ........ nob from iii. I.~ .. of Qumr Rood IlIII ComJIIIIllrivo on dIo ............. 10 IiIo H_ I'lrillon. 600 r .. , nordI or
Artooroaom Road. Th. 10111 Oononl PI .. Amcndmom ........ 1 ... or _ .... : IiIo TrIon, .. SI .. (11,9 _~ Iho _,Ie sn. (7,4 ..... ,
... d iii. Comp .. Dri •• SI .. {3.2 ", ... , (leO PI .... ~. (>l1li 14).
Th. 0 ...... PI", Am_. _ 10 _I ..... Il1o land .... on IiIo n" ..... 10 hvO"'" U"' .... 1ir! r.wu -~ (19.3 """.J ....
Un'.",,'ty "'odI -""""'"'. R"",.,. DN1 0",0 SptJN (3.2 acno), Tho 0....... Pion _ ......... low .... doollal. acad",,1c IIIId
moo!ic.1 .... on IiIo ,I ... doolJnalt<l CiImpIU .... WOIII~ .... IlII111 CDnI'-r ........ doe U.u..r1ir!1.oMI -A.....,. II..,.. ",/<I 0".. Spou
dcal ... 1lon '01111Il10 .~I _ lIpoDO 01Il10 _m,
Thl. BIR "")'fOol IiIo ImpoclI ....,.1..... .,Ido IWO pouIble, """'..,... do .. lopmoo. -.,. oIIowod ..,. .... 0000.0I PIon "",",-L
HoweYet, Slanfotd te: not prelently propoaln8 lit" Ie¥el of deqlopmonL . . .' •
Do •• lopmen! S .... ulo '1 consitlo of iii. build"'" or Il1o Roclangie 51 ... t III PAR 01 1:1 ror IiIo ..... 1_ orlll.OOO _. rod 01
medical UIJeI. Thll dovelopmeQl ICt!nArio all» iAalud61 &Ito tOftlllUction of • fu .... Plychlatry CeOOIl' on 370.260 iIqure feet 01 Ihe 'I't1Jnllo
Si ... l/ld buildou. or .... 'friongl. Si .. " an PAR 01 1:11", Iho do .. I_. or modlcol .... on doe moaIoIn& 148,1<40 ...... r ... of Iloo .... ,
Development S<:aaario 12 oooll'tt of die development 01 I" dwelllni unlU on Iho Recransle SI&& ...... developmenl rA the Trt .... le Site IMd •
future Ptychlalty Center, U deIoribed In Development ScMario '1.
No develOpment I. propoaed OR th4 Campus OdV& She 'n ehbet DeYOlopment Soonll1ol 'I Mel 1"2. ne ClmpDII Drtve Site would be
dCllllnalt.d Unlvttllty LDlfdJ • Atd4emJc /ltI'rvc Gild 0J'f" Spau.
'tI/uI'f "IjCNIlIry C''''lIr
'Ibo pmposed Oeneral PIM Amendmcnf would allow rho JQ.ibJo CutW'CI development ol • Piychlltry Cenkrr we. A typ5cal PJychlalry Cen(N
use may be locaiM 00 lite TriM81e Site. occupying 8.5 IICn!a of Iho nortltem portion a. tho comer of Arboretum and Quan1 Roedl. The
P.ychjatry Cent« would cOP.ill of I pllychilttlc boIpllal uteS an academkl oCOce/cIinlo buUdJnl. DoveloprnMl. 01 tho PlychtllrY C~uer woulrl
nsquirC a VItl Pwnlt llU, ArohlltlClWBI and SIlO Approval.
o
o
"
";'"
,.
"
. "1
"
;,.:.~./
, ~.:".. .. •
j'
)I!\
I
./
~
l'
"
Silt
RECTANOLR Sm!
'IRIANOLR sm
CAMPUS DIUVB Sm!
SUMMARY OF DIVIU.OI'MIINT !iCBNARlOII
MedleoIU_@PARI:1
Psychlolry c..,.. ol
MedlcoI U ...
@PAR 1:1
OpenS ....
I,~" . 'f.:"f$~A
H ....... 155 ..... ,
PsycIlloaJ c.. ... ol
1"1."·' ;' ModIcolIAtodondo , .. "
U ... PAR 1:1
,0000S_ -.,'
.• I' I'
B. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MmGA110N MEASURES
c.
Th. majot "",)oct Impodl .............. In ... DRIl BIR S_ ..... , wi" ... ""1_ or """""_ .. Id ...... _ MillY .,... .... "Ii _Id ... 1" In .. Inlmldn. Iho projec' ImpocII .... IId bo _ ..... by mOOllnl County or SIal.~. 0Ih0t m .......
Iu. ........ """""""' .... I ....... projoc. doolan, Th6 ~ of ...... III ....... ____ In th\o IlnfI I!IlI. .. _IMbi. 10 Iho
projec. propooent ond .... 1<1 be Imp\om ......... part of Iho pmjoGl ..... 1 ..... ...
Projec ... Ia .... Impacll ... dlvl.".. I .... "toO ..... 00..: (I) SlanifIcon. Impooll IhIl caMO\ be mid ................ "anllleM ..... 1: (2)
818'11& ... 1m"", .. !ho .... be mIO ...... to I ............ Ill< ... lovoIa; IOd (3) Impodl not .... _ .1 .. m....L Tho ............... _
and. lhe mitigation meuum 1ft! le.acn4 In .-0 Summll)'. •
PROJE<.T A~TEI\NAl1VES . , ....
FI .. al_.d ... 10 ... pmpooed pmj'" ate ... 1 ...... In s_ m of .. ~ __ Thor... (A) No .... joc~ (B) _ ""-and
Open Space: (C) All H .... m,: (D) Analho, ~.Ion foI' ... l'Iychloay Ccntor; (B) A ...... " .. Doll..,. foI' Iho ""'~Iuy eon.... A1 .... 0 ..
A. dlo No P'rojt!ot AllDfTlldve. II the enVlronmClnlaUy pnIf .. ble alterIlIiIVI IhIr. would po~ the ,ltnlllcMt unavoidable inq:IfCtI on houMa
demond, AIo.noO .. A wo.1d .... dl I. Iho po'pe ... "I .. of Iho .. I ...... ond ru ....... '(l1OIIIId IdffJo ."",lIdono wIIlch .............. 1XIn11S1loo
at lilt. ltllel'leCdonl In 1991 and at 11 inlCnecLionl In tho V". 2000+. A1~ B, which JJIqK)IN 10 dosI~ &he W Krell AcaMmic
R~~rw. alld 0I.MII Sp«4 • ....,.,Id allow 'NY minimal dovclOlllMllI ",lUlling hi .I1111J1C1I IlrnUatlto the. No l'lo~ ~ A1\emMi.", C. me
deyelopment of all OOiIaina UIed: 01'1 lIIe 22,s acres. would h.ve (ower imPICta ..... the pmpoled project. but more .Iml*lI thin Allemallvel A
and 9. Thi' aJicmalivC' would have lubltantiaUy '011 IJa(flG clnluladOti impICll &han DaveJopment SoenarlQl '1 mel n (or the Oenetll Plan
AmendmMl and would avoid the impacts of houm& demand reaultlnl from the propoled proJeol. AlternaOw. C would alao have fower
vehicular air poUudon emiliions, few« vi.uaI ImpaclS and • Jowu demand for pading.
','<
'" ...
'"
l>
"
'_ '~I,
, "
•
. . ~.-
o
"" " -.:
oil
•
1
",
\
•
; .-
. .
---_.-.. -
'. ,
t
VI
•
i
I
I
I -
{
I
I
I
I
-.
.. .. ' i '. I
I ,
_ ~i/. ; ',_; .~"
, .. /,'
-'.: :.
"-.. ----------
-, , ,·f , !
~trJ~,
, !
too _
'~j )(
II ....
,-~---------_' -.<it _' ...... -e,M fI!!.l
"
, 1. 8lGNlnCANT 'M~ACTS TQAT CAli IE MITIGATED TO A IJISS TllAII
S1GMnCANT I.tVIIL
BIoMROI'/MI!I'ITAJ. ISSUE IMI'AC1'5
]a. De .. 1opInent _ '1 .... 12 _
ICIIlemle kmpararr 00110 1oveI. I.. elC:OII of
80 to 85 dB durtna CClIIIInI<don. '11.-
1 ... 1, _14 Impool Il1o dIIld ... r.,ull)'
loeaIM ICQIceAI to Ibo _.10 SI ...
3b. Developlnent SCOIIIrioe .1 and .1 _
OpolO modtoaI .... to OlIUrior ROIaD 10"1. bet..... 55 .... M dB, cIapondlnc ... Ibo buUlIlnl ......,t _ Quony .... _ ...
Rood ..
30. Noll8 woulll be l"notJted CIt the Ille by
Inoch8nlcol oqooIpIIIOIII, ""'"'" 101 .. doll)'
and IUppon oodvld!" doa!na ..........
Mm0A11ON r.tlIA5UR1lS
3.\. 'eo.-...... Il00 -.111 be
_"" In l1li110· ...... do1oo cauoI .. III. _ dlIrupd ..... '"", __ PAGa 1M
QloI ....... Urllod.4 ... Ia ........ Jed)
3B. 'n. __ -W """'"
the 00Ittnc: ... · lilt _ p:II-.r OORItrQctbl 0'1........ wtlll, _.111.... 001 ..
ohloldl ........ uIIIIn, _ PAOB 1M
(I .. I.cIod .. , .. rr.jod) "
le. eanr...-.. 0000tJ Holte ~
...-..... 111 -" In ....,w,1. nolte
Jove ... tAOB ... Etfot PI Min, ladudld ..
.... 1'I'ojod), ' " " ",
3D. DouIIod ..... -')'OlIO' WoIII. be
""""_ by • .,.nllool enp_ .. Ihe din.
~c ,110 ... ...-projocll ... P'OJ>OIOCi
Ott the _, lire. Thew. .,MII would,,' be
-"" dodrc' 1IIbooqoon' ............. ... ievlow _ .. --orr.fer • U ........ IL
If ...... 1m ......... J!anJB;on~ Ibo rt>qIIItod
__ WWb' ...... _ .. , .... lIld .... r
'I'JlI'MI. PAGH 1M (Not ","-11,'.<1."'" •• ,be ,..,,...)
' .. ,:\ " ./!: .. ,',;" .. !.: ·,_·i'". '.-,\
, :m .. NoUo 6Qo" Akdwlb. '~I~~f'..ll·'I"·
~I .... vll)' ... Ibo 1110 ..... m ...
Ibo CIJunI)". Nolte 0nlI....,. .-roo.
Shloldlnr.' , ..-n..', in4' ,,--'i
.... Id ....... lbo' ..... lmpocg uo IIdjoooot ,
UIlIIt. PAOB 14 (JIM "".11, IQdlldled j ••
' ....... 1 ... )
-.", ;,1\
o
o
/;' ..
" ';'\~1 ,,"' >~ '."
\. " , ,
,
I
, ,'.
t
. ,
-----~-~ ---
& ; .
. '.
JO ..
'" 11 • J
•
,
,
;t:
l;-'_
.----.f .... ~~
•
~
/ ....... ~--... ----------.-.-~---"""';"--"""''''-~j:
• 0 0
" . n; ut nn!"'" .l a!,,'l!J.!I'" .... -0: ": ~>', "
If' . w'~~r fO;i!i E i!ti'll~Uim":
if' I' ':Jl~~IJ~;:ijll~ l!:{~i~jr .. !;~; rJ!~~l.'~ .;
t. le;~J~t~l~ld~~~"eill!:~ fJdH!:· ~dl . " "
t,
I
I
XI
. .
---------
, __ 1--
• i .
I
. !
'I
j .
I ,
.:'''-' --..
i:t~l
I~H!
E i;Hl i i Jlg~II~ li·~d a~"'~ 1\ --" 1§ ~i1.!i _
s'C'll"i s l -! flU ~~A'P --F "" lUll]! I l.il~·l_ca. '" -I !~s ",&,,0;'01 !!Ju !~!n !i';i~V jdJu1 fhi -"di-. ~~I.!ij~2 .,!oJl1I h~HI 115S!:H J~.l!-w-g ~:!itL ".§:.!iL oJ ~!1!.!I _ ~lh.§l ti.8.l!~t c!j"iil c,c o-! GO I!,j E~.5l ~E'Oic:.E Jt=~jB-§ .t ~~~~ •oIl l ~ F1i u~ U ac.~!i -8 ii:. i.!.@
/'
!
/
"
~'#.-'
--_ ... ,,' ... :.' •.
...::;..
~ " !l
BNVIl!ONMI!NTAL ISSW
N., ••
Air Quality
OeoIO" .nd So.1a
Dftl •• ,! and floodlit,
IMPAcr!I
9L _ ..mo · .... 'In dnoIDpmonl
under S_ .1 II1II I'.! """Id _ no"" _ by .... docIbol.
lOa. l.ong.""" 1m""", of no .. lopmon,
S«IIWIo '1 Inol .... I ,Ulh! _ J. CO
~....... by up 10 OJ _ ""1<11 would not_ -.. ......... _,
lOb. Lone...... J_ of novelopment
S_ 12 Jocludo '" _ In CO
......... d:,.!{ ... 10 0.1 ppn whlcll
wauld IkJ( fodD .... and ..... ....,datdJ.
III. CooImJoIion 01 lui ... __ bod In
S~OI •• and I#. ftOIdd "' .... in mlnlliW
..... on 011 .........
12a. novel",,,"'n' S<otlOriDl .. ond '2
would "",It In I~ NhDff duo 10 «he
IncRlUt J. imparvloua uflCet on lhe
kecu.nale and Tri ... 1e SII1II ••
12b. Ueea constructed undnr lJrcvelopmerll
Scenarios *. IOd '2 would 101\:111 In Ihe Soo
yest flood zone .,hlch could rtI8lIll In I
,...,., .......... (or IIoodinl ~
. MITIOATlOti MJlAS\lJW
'j" I, i., .. : ·I,;·I-~· •
': . . ,:" ~. ..-.... ,~. :':.::-
~.~·doocrlbod ..; S_m.y
Secdoo. I. A. Ii. l1li\ C. if,' . -""', . '-'\ :.' ~ . --.
Ill, ;. ({!'t'l1l!""" l.'t ',. ",,,' '. ~-',\;"(,:. :,;'-.', _~ . 1, , .•. :;.:.
lOA. 'l1l\I_ .. mJdpiloo del<ribod. In
S_ Secdoo I. A. B • ...t C. ..".;
, .
IIA. An ..-.... Il0l pion • _Id be
roquInod for ...... Iopmon( In,Dhlloa ...
CIOIIIInI01lon 01 Oft& IIICIe CIt mrQ that wouL1
be Imp!_ _. '"""""""" Md
..... _. PAOB' 101 . (Not J'nR.1I1
' .. 'ud ............ jod)
liB. "-___ Id be ... 1...., _Il10_ ......... -.1 .... ...,....
o
1M ..... Iy . .....,... ............. (00' ....
_lio __ ly •• W ..... -.ld ... 0
be dIoc ........ • InfO .......... ,... ...01(.... .
PAOB 101 (Not .... I'r I"dudod I. It •
.... oJ ... )
rlAo ~Ie I\anII dttinlle I.-:urue.
woo,,", IC!In6 1M ." 10 ~Ie 1liiy 'no~ NhOft. _ rAGS 106 (I.dndnl I.
lbe ......, ... )
12D. ModlcAl faelU ............. " ...... Id be
rcquhd to hayti rlQlIhcd float cleVllions one (001 ._ .... __ 01"'. 500.yeor
Oood. PAOB 106 <!101l'r .... g X lod.d ..... It, ProJoot)
"
'j', ....
, i
,
:l-)
, .
I ' .\
,-,. ,,' -.l!)'
",\~/{' \ 1 _/
• ,.
I
~.~
-~·,~iW·-·,
/
/
I
!"" !'
I ~
, <
I
,L
BNVIRONMENTAL ISSUB
Vtaelallo. lad WUdlir.
Cullun. RCiourrea:
JlllantOaQ Materl."
IIdPACIll
13 .. Fu_ .... _ In __ II
IJId j112 W<Nld teallt hi • ftIdlIcdOA of
.. g.IA.... Ind wlldill. ... ... 1It. 1111,
J<dUCllon ..... d ... ... • .1.,,1IIconr
blologkoJ Impoot .......... IIIbIIal ollho ....
I, not lint or uniquo and II IIIbstandllly
d~1ulbod.
14 .. No ....... -.,.10 .... h ......
....., .................. Il00 ...... Ind Triana"
Sl ... .
15 .. PoetIc ... 10WId ... !he nw. ... SI ..
are In conoenb'1IlIon. below Uto IOOepted ..... _ u..~ on ..... II ......... SI .....
IDJIpc!o:ted to be dtt ame,
~~L ___ ~.~~~.~ -"~
, MntOA'IIOIf MIVISIIIIBS
.,
1311.. ~ ,.. r... do.oIopoolililt .;;; ru ___ ......-...... .,
......... -.... .". -'1'OdoL'
PAOB 110 1tIoI ........ d ....... lb. 1'nIJ«I)
I', .. ~" .' .. ;:
.'
1411.. . '1110 SIInIcJoI camp... ~
.... 14 __ .. II, 1\dI... .... .......
..........01_ ... _
IOd¥itloo .. noquItod.,..-... d ...... _14
... ......,....uy IoluooI II ........... GIll ....
IWOUftlOI .. . dIICla:.aecL ""PAOB : 120 .
(lDl'tudtd .. IM.Projad). '\ "\;':' ".'
1411. No".,.,.,~...kin« dI_
o,tbo ....... _' ... ~ol .,......... ........,wIII -.' If h .......
.... oIno ............... dun., _lion (Soa... 7050" 01 .... H..... IIId SoI'1y
C-. Ind S_ S097.904 01 Iho rub.c
IIeIootooo Code 01 Iho _ oICa1llom1a~
The CGonI)' C-...... """nnlna
whe"-or DOl. ... ,.... MI Nlldvo
...... oioao, '1110 Nod.. ~ Hod"ge
eom",1aIon wiD be aodIIod II Iho ...w ..
.. No .. __ PAOB III (lodo'04
10 tb ...... J.d)
14C. 11Il10 .......... N.d .. .......nc.. tnd
... not,' .lpIlkont, lind, .... Ilmlnory __ 10 be _ ..till Iho nodi ....
PAOlI, 111 (lnd ...... III lb ...... ) .. ,)
15A. A IinaI tolbi k".,.elpd oo ~·be
"""dllClOd prb-, 10 _don of
_~ 011 Il1o RoctooaIo s... .. '!h6
.... opodlk> "''"'_ .. ...-J.
j
( jj
(')
,..; .. ,,',
C'"
',~,
. "
.:,',:
",
,-,
'"
'j f''''-'</''
. ';, ,
•
,,'
/ ,
,'it,
I
I
.' ....•
~
~ .. <
BNVIRONMIWJ'Al. ISSUB
Utllldeil .ad Vrb •• Servltrs
IMPACTS
15b, &_ "' _ .. _ 1ft
(utwo _ (1IOiJJ1fa ... _ .. II
and .2 _ ..... do\IOodIoa .. dlo _
""",,_ fa .... IadUd ••• '
166. 1lo .. lopmonl S",_ .1 would
,cnemlll 2,725 Ionillyur or loUd W8I101
DcvelopmeJ\( Scenario n would geMmta
.I>oul 1.93.5 1On~ or lOUd wute.
MI'I10ATJON MBASIIRfIS
PAOB 12A (No! ~1 locIIIdaJ lot ..
Pnj&t)
1:111. 'Il1o --"'" w.c, ~ ............... oJ", "'-Y" IdoaIfry .... '; 'I PIooIy. Upoo ...ur..dooo at .... ___ , ... PIooIy, ...
PIooIy """'" -.... <II.-,of ....
-_ ... '_ ...... 10 _ 'Il1o s..iari _ IIId
SIforJ no, , .. __ ~
cleonap _ If Ibo· ",,"dlJ oi ....
R~ r..t, _ao ..........
(lododod ..... PYojod) .'
I$<:. _ ladlldoo will be .... Ipd ..
enIIn ......... ., Mndnnl of M)'
__ .......... _ by ", ... ICd.l""
III the 1noI, .. IOInda ..... ...w. Ihe ~levtnI
o
gill .... '" .1 11 ..... ~ 1qI bttlth codN IftCi SIaftloJ. l!ay_ w.c, ........ ,........... .
PAOli IlS tN., ..... ., bladed I, $he
Project)
ISO. Tho ........ of .... _ .... -8'nCl' R_ T __ povIdo tmm ......
--In ......... of • opII~ /be or -0 1'81--. PAQB 125 (Not PYtaatl, IDeluded '
fa lilt ..... JO<\) .,', , '" ." "
• J"_'" ,_ •• ,. ",'!, "" :' "'~" .-,"-15B. ""two ___ be .... uIIaJ
10 ...,., ". • U.. _I, ""Ie, .... 101
-Illy pnlJIOIOd. -.., of __
IUbatIncu. PAOB T 12S, ,... Po •• ...,
1."""aJ I. ,M ..... jed) . ,.
1M. Moo.... udlldoo ond ..... .. ... COI
are ."aJlIbl. Iftd wUl ... JIfOYIded ror future
--doIcribod undIw Scen.ioI .1 and 11..
(Iad""aJ la I •• 1'wo,IOd)
1
"
t' '
I
\
I
, .~._/
.........
'I
i
I,
, '
•
j; ,',
." Of' .~ , ..
,
" . " /
'0 " " 1~
--"
i! , ,
~ . '
I . I') 8:1 f'~f:! -~.
I b -
H ri~ Ii! dil~l . ~
I ~ ~ , . .. i Izl JI "l~ \ ; ; , ~ ··I~ a 1 A
., -,
:1
; I ., t.l iii Iff II ' -
II ~
'1 e .. ill! . ~ s I I oS !
I ~ :'Jj~t:ll; rjA!J i \I .', 2
,
. 1
I 'U 1 ,(~ J jill
' .
II ·i ! .!.!!!:; d! ~~
"
I.',
JI1'" iU ;; dh j~i , f i I; e jlill~ t~; ~
,." ;: .Q ..s.,Z ~ i I . Jiii~:' tli ' I i ' : ~
, ~! It !Ulh ~.-, ~II !!~1 ~ _ Is! . c:§ __ .!11 ~J;~l~ dU r
'" " t!
i • '" • .l
~ • ~ .!
$ ~
~ ... • '" •
f
XVI
Department of Planning and
'~n'tl Environment
{CIS) 329-2440
January 25, 1991
Ks. Muriel f.lford
Santa Clara County Office of Ad"nce Phnnioq
County Government Center. (.5t ~in9
San Jose, California 95110
Dear Ms_ Falforo:
o
250 Hamilt~n Avenue
Post Ofr~ce Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303-0862
Subject: Drift Environmental Impact Report for
Stanford Quarry Road General Plan Amendment
This letter is a transmittal of the Palo Alto City Councilis reccmmendation to
the Santa Clara County Planning Commission for attion on thE pending Stanford
Quarry Road General Plan Amendment and c~sment5 to be addressed in the Final
[IR. .
The Palo Alto City touncil held a· publit hearing on the Draft EIR prepared for
the proposed amendment to the County General Plan on January 22. 1990. No
membtrs of the public spoke ether than ~tanford representatives. 1he Pa'~
Alto tity CQuncil had no comments or Questions to add to the extensive
Pla~ning Commission and staff comments on the Draft fIR, b~t were appreciati¥e
of the opportunity to participate in the public review of the document.
The c.ity Council vot~d (1 to 1 .",ith two absent) to recommend tI1at tI1e Santa
Clara County Planning (olTlTli'S.sion rec.omrnerld to the County Board of Supenlsors
the following actions:
A_
B_
That the previously submitted ?~'o Alto Planning Commission and staff
Questions and comments on the Draft £IR be addressed in the Final ([R.
That the follow;n~ mlt;~aUon measures be required as conditions of
approval for lhe proposed General Plan ~~endment:
A condition be placed in the text of the County General P'~n
Amendment which requires that appro¥al beyond the first
nonresidential project, not to e~ceed 175,000 square feet. on the
Trian91e site be lied to ~ppro~al and constru<t;o~ of a housing
project on Stanford lands beyond those currently under
Quarry.ee/S( Page I ,
"
/
... -~
' ... "--.. ",
/
~
I
cD"sident;~;tnd
stIff to prepare i 1 st of known Stanford housi~~
to provid!-a basel' e for such projects.
City Pl anning
programs and plans
The develQpaent permitted under the Gene~al Pian Amend~ent and
future use permits be incorporated into the Transportation Demand
Hanag ... nt Program required of Stanford for approval of the Stanford
Generil U$e P!rmit; and
Approul cf developlAent tin the Triangle site be conditioned en the
widening of Arb~retum Road between Quarry Ro~d and Pal~ Oriye is
identified at the lop of page 76 of the Or.ft EIR, with additional
mea,ure. described io Comment ~o. 9 (.) and (b) in Attachment e of
Attachment Ii and construction of the further widening of Quarry
Road between Arboretum and Welch Aoads as described ~n page 4 of the
attached Jul, 20, ]990 Palo Alto Planning Co~ission staff report
(Attachment J). T~e$e conditions should be appl;e~ when drivewayS
issociated with deve10pment ~f the Trlangle site directly lmpact the
identified roadway segments.
C. Tbe fo11owing cnanges be made to the Santi CTari Co~nty General Plan
laM Use ~ap;
Change the Triangle site from ·Uni~ersitl lands -Study Area· and
·University lands -Academic Reserve and Open Space· to ~Unjver~it~
Lands -Campus witn a maximum floor area ~atio density of 0.5:1.
leave the Rectan9le site ·University lands -St~dy Area-a~d
·Uoiversity lands -ACidemic Reserve and Open Space-.
Change the Campus Orive site fraro -University lands -Study Area-to
·Univer!ity lands -Academic Reserve and Open Space.-
The Palo Alto (ity Council fa~ored leaving t~e Rectangle site as ·Study Area"
because it felt that the lind use; ssues regarding the type and amount of
future development which 15 approprIate for this site have not been resolved .
. Tne Council recommends not taking action to change the land use designation ef
tne Rectangle site until after Stanford completes an analysiS Palo Alto
requested of long ter.ll development projections for UIP, Stanford Medical Center
and can provide more information as to what type and size of de".lelopment would
be needed where, and how much development would be proposed for the Recta~gle
Site. The City Council recommends a maximum f100r irea ratio of 0.5:1 be
applied to the Triangle site to !stabli5h reasonable de~elopment parameters
for the site and better reflect the amount of development considered
appropriate for such an irreg~larly can figured stte.
Quarrl.CC/SC Page Z
"'" ,"'-c < :"-'"
o o
Thank "you ,for yOUr" consideroilticn.in this review process. and accolmlodolUng the
requfst for 'it~ Council review of the Orift EIR. Ple.se fetl free to ell1
Sanh Cheney at (415) .J29-2149 if ytlll have any questions.
KENHrn R. SC/fRErBER
Oirector of Pl,nnlng .nd
Coaw.nft)' £nVfrOMleiit
Attach .. nt:" I, Polo Alto Pl.nning Commission Stiff Report dated Jul, 2D.
1990,
cc: P,l. Alto CitJ Council
Pilo Alto Planning CO~is5fcn
Santi ClaTa County Soar4 of SuperYlsors
Santa Clara Caunty Plannl~g C~issfon
Stanford UnlversitJ (Andy OotJ. Phil Williams.
Charlotte Stre=)
Santa Clara County (Leade franklin, luke Stamos~.Nugh Gra~am. Robert l.
Sturdivant)
Oavfd Powers and Associates. ,Alicia Guerri)
Quarry,ee/SC Page 3
'.
19 April,J991
Ms. Edith £dda, Chair
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
PUNNlNC 0ff1C£
Sura Can CDunl)l PW=ing Commissioa
Couaty Gov<:rnmeat Ccmor
70 Wea HcddIn, s_
Son1ose, CA 93110
Dear ML Eddc and Mcmbc:n of lIle COnlmiuion.
Th.1'1Ifl'OSO of Ihls loa=: is ., clarify 0<11' position on lllUl'.c< of considc:Abl. UnporuncO 10
StlllfO<d tbat will be "" !he l'!annllt: Comrnj,sjan 1""",* on May 2nd. This is 0lIl'
.pplicaQcn for I Cen=l PIon AmenJmen, 10 ~gnale Ih:= l'arc:cl$, ,!OW of 22.5
acres. _ Q,wry Road Crom !lie SWlford Sboppinl C ......
\
" .:,. ,
P.!
SOIlI!ocd has Ioba: ~ two OCtile vcccJs.1h. "'riaI>,Ie' and ~" si=. 10 be ,
Dat soiCll>lo Cor fUlln M~ Cen ... lise. The)' lie betw= .... 09 ... OC the MccIi<:aI .
CcarIor; rile Main CeOlOt and Hoover Pa,illoIl, ""d hay. bo= incluclcd ill """ ~
Cem= I'laA for """'Y)'ean. W. h& .. I/!m~ pioposecI thai !he@gnadon be clwI(eCI
from 'lJnlomity Lands, Stvdy Am." 10 "lJaiycni'1 Lands, Campus'. a doslpalio!llh ..
~ aDo\O' medical., C>Cher academic <%~ uses.
The 0'1 of Palo AIm bas revi. wed our appIlc:lion ",d l&r= rhat the "Triangle" shoold be
sa design.ted, bu. witll «Ineli nons "'l.uUin& certain mod improvemen" and !hat any
m:dicol deYclo\>=nt b<yond 175.000 squ.ue roe< be miti&atcd wi'" • specific housing
project. The City also recommends t!w <he "RocWlgle":ernain. 'Srucly A=." uubJ
aOdilion.al housin& .Ii ... ~ idcntif'1Cd
We Ole """bled bcIh by the po~ndal dcl.ay in =Iving !he land use lss~ 0. rile
"RccwI",,' IQQ I>y ... haI '" consider 10 be ~." ""lu_" for specific miligalioas.
As m>Ied. \O'C ~e dw the "Rectarlgl=" is best suiled foc mcdi<:al .... becawe of iIs
Iooa!ion Mlbln!he MaIiool Center and because Utile land Is available for ils "'I'wi.oa.
Also, III. rtlocadOtl of Children', UO'Piml has liven us I 26 aac si ... adjacent 10 u:isting
bousing sjcc,. ,.bicb Is tarbell<r suited for hoUSing than rhe 7 ... ~ 'RectanSIe" "'oold be.
Redesignating chis para:t ..... e hay. requested DOW "":U aDow "' to proccal with planning
for !he entire M:&ca! Center: Th •• pplicatien and EIR ",hiob :ue before you ha'<e taken
n"""l' two )""'" to """'PI.re. oteonsiderable cos:. Delaying Ibe oction nih' ri.Ilt having '"
repoa' ill least pan of !hal process larer.
---------
o o
WlDlc Ibe Ell!. C<>OI8in:s estimatc:l impJICIS based on worsr-case sccn.no. of 1%W<imu",
developmeilf, we believelha: rlIere is 00 ","hnicoI 0( procodural basis for ""lciring "J'CCific
road improYCmects 01' additionaJ housing is...mj9i~ripm tqr !be Gtpwl Plan Amcrdm"'nr
)
"ThC Counl)' hiS no Spu:li1c pul/eJl CIt program whi<:b ~ employers '" build housing
for o!I rhclr employ .... And the Clen=l Ptan designotioA i13elf willll()( = impacts.
Any impac .. 1ha: 1tsulI from SUbsequent p",jecu will be ~ in ~'Itir requited use
pe:rmiJs and ~ 'ssesrrenlS.
This G=mII'IaII " m I i ... r does Il0l_ II) lIS 10 be .. appropriaIe ~,f'oraudztg
""'" County bocsIDC pcIi<:y. However, we believe Iha: JIC'I alnoady !lave rppropriuo ooo!s
far !hat purpose. The fizst is your Ge<>onl Plan. wblch JIC'I .... DOW opdatiDc. Th. SC<XHld
is the Univ=sity's Ge=2l Use Pennit. Any populaIioo u.:.u.e iII_ al!he lluesbold
in the _ pemlil willlriuer its rcvisiGn Cltreplace!Do:n1 The Cow,,>, can inI:a<p<nlC
NlNriONIbousing or l!3I!ic nlitigations III tharlime if IIIey are deeme4 nec:essmy. The tI!l:d
_~ is Iha: of!he SJlO-cifIc ~ ose penni ... wilen aoollll impacts .... ide:ltifiod, as not<d.
above.
'The Ciooeral u.e PCMlir already calls foe' the University ., boW= its pro,ic=d pcpuIaIioa
IIO'Vrh wilh ~ Traffic Ilerr!aIld ~ aIId oddiliOOj/ housing. We DOW have
1)26 !leW !JousioI amts uader ~ or in plaml!l:g. ~ the put dtiny year> we
have bWIt over 4,600 units, awclIlng rile ll"""'h at f'aeuIoy...s .-pop-oIatlaIs. 1,800
faculty, SZlI!f IllC! .srudcnr ~ IDd 7,sao siDgJe students .... OCW IIooSccI OQ the
<:ampIJS. We 'IrilI coalimIe 10 plQVidc as much housing as we COD 10 StIJlI'Oft 0\lI' academic
I"'O&'It"-II1lt vow caa.Oot make t<>mIXIilmCnts, In ad\I3IIOe al dcmonsrnIed lIC<d. II) blWd
boooi.oC (or ~ we. f.iave DO ~ .. ~ DO !aDd !"" ~foraeademie pwposes.
" And "" .... 1111'0 posIlIOC 10 provide ~ foe'¢ ·"womer·wide usc..
ll>SUClIIW)' ..... are..x;", JIC'I II) rtQOOl"'" nd the dcsipwfua otl>ocb the -rrilllgle'lDd
"ReetaIIgl~' sites. """".:os 'Univcrsioy Lands· ea",p .... witbou. lUly eondidom. DOW,
for road i"'Prove"",rtlS or housing mid gations. Sach eonditions can best be 'ppned in
mponsc lO specific projects"whlch aauaIIy =~ impa<:rs.
Thank you for your COl1Sido:r:mon of this imp<>rtant auUler.
1i~
PbiIip c. WIlliams
Di=mr ol Planning
•
".2
,
.. _---.... ----
i
"
~
i
! ,
,.
•
· .....
~ ...
cln Of PALO ALiO
IIEHORANOUl1
April 17, U91
To:
Fr .. :
quarry Road General Plan Amendment ;ile
Sara~ Cheney
Ken Schreiber
Subjec:t: April 9. ]991 Meeting wit~ $ta~ford and Coynty Staff
This DemO provide. a summary of the April 9, 1991 .eeting of Stanford, Palo
Alta and Santi Clarl Cou~ty Planning staffs he1d to resolve issues related to
the Stlnford1s Quarry Road' Gener.l Plan Amendment. Outl ined below ere the key
polfcy ,ssues, differences Gf opinion, conclusions reac~ed and follow-up
actions which were identified at the meeting.
These have b.en corr.l.te~ to the Palo Alto City Council's recommendations for
county .,tfon on tne General Plan Amendrne~t. Ther! is some cross referenCing
betwoen s.ctlons because of the nature of the discussfon, and the
i.terr.l.tion.~ip between the Issues.
I. PII. Roc ..... nd.tio": Condition be placed 1n County General Pl.n which
require. that .ftor the first 115,000 .qua.e feet of dev.lopment on the
Triangl. sit., additional development be tied to construction of a
housing project on Stanford land. (beyond those currently under
conSideration), with City staff to provide a bas.line for such projects.
Comments: Stanfcrd questions w~ether there wi11 really be I housing
impact. Stanford .ho believe. that this free·floating ho"s ing
mitigation will function as i disinceAt1vE--they may net want to proc~ed
with I housfng project befere the 115.000-sQuare-foot cap is reached
be(ause.t~ey might not be able to count it as tne required ~itigation~
Stanford &lso believes that seme Icknow1edgement should be made for
housing project. which are now being planned or in the pipeline (e.g.
Stanford We.t) because Stanford continues to be the only major CountJ
employe. providing housing for employ •• s.
Tho City acknowledges the disincentive probl •• but does not beTieve that
projects already identified as mitigation for the Stanford General Use
Pe .. lt should be counted as mitigation twice.
Count] staff is supportive of a housing use and sympat~etic with the
Cfty pOSition. yet believes that establishing a cap with a trfgger for
J!OU.shl9 wO\lld be diffic:uH to enfc.I"c:e in t"'e fut.ure atld lilly get
o~erlo~ked by staff. County staff favor a more simple, specific housing
. "ltlgaHoD··to require Stanford to provide the amount of hou.ing units
Suqpmtg.IOtqfoc Page I
~ .~_ L./
'::"
\. ,
C,," .;.;~.>
2.
o
Identified IS possible an the Rectangle site to be prQvid~d ~umewhere
wH~h t~e Sand Hjll/.~rboretum region (150 units discuss€d it meeting.
alt~ou9h E[~ ,t.ted ISS).
ResoTutlon: County h •• requested that Stanford prepare both • ~edicil
Center plln and housing plan. The "edic,l Center plan Is t. Identify
desired futUre •• pan.fon of t,e .ntlre ~I.al Center bot' .Ithln Pal.
Alto and the County. to demonstrate DOre cl.arly the need 'or "-dleal
Cent4r·rehted d .. olcpmant on the Triangle and Rectlll9l. SUM. The
housing pl,n Is to identify where In additional 150 units of housing
would be located with!. the Sand Hill/Arboret .. region. These units
could be provided IS an addition to tho 900 units currently proposed for
the Stanford West site or ~t anotner location vithfn the vicinity_ The
prell.lnary County recommer.datlon would be to defer re.01utlon of t,e
housing .ltlgatlon Issue and fln.1 determination for land us.
deslgn.tlon of the Rectangle .Ite until such Info ... tlon w.s ,v.ll.ble
for City and County review. Stanford was to get bock to the County with
I ti .. frame for ~t~ pl,ns. or the County wou1d require the infonoation
as part of tf'le Annua' Report for the Gener.al Use Pel""lllit next year. See
also tomment sections under numbers 4. and S. be'~w.
PA Recommendation, A11 developm.nt permItted under the G,ner,l Pl.n
Amendment ind subsequent use permits b, incorporated into the TOM
progr~ established for the Gener,l Use Permit.
C .... nts: All partie. ,re In agreement.
3. PA Rec .... nd.tion: Approva' of development on the Triangle stt. be
conditioned on the ... Ide.lng of Arboretum Road between Quarry Road and
Pai. Drlv. and further widening of Qu.rry Road Between Arboretwo and
Weich ROlds when drlvowiYs Issociated with ne. development directly
I~act the Identified road.,y segments.
COfMIents.: C1ty staff feth very strongly that these fmpro .... ements ue
site·speclflc mitigations of development of the Triangle site and has
",.de thh Information clear to the County and Stanford bot~ at Ue time
of discwssfon and Council approval of the interl. QiJarry R.oad
1GproY~nt .~1ch WiS recently c~let~ and dYr1ng review Df the Craft
EJR. The re'pons •• to the City comments an thts 1s,ut in the Quarr~
Road Fln,l fIR state that the I~provements were not warranted '5 •
result of cunul,tlvo traffic impacts. City staff Is not satisfied with
the Final EIR response or County position that the issue will be dealt
with l,ter at time of environmental review of specific project proposals
ind that these Miligations do not need to be IdentifIed new.
Stanford nated that Quarry Road will be widened between Arboretum Road
and Welch Road when the Quarry/W.lch Intersection exceeds Level of
Service ·0" as required by the ex1stin9 Tri9gered M~tigation System.
Tblls may CX:CtJr when the fie'li Children's Hospital is occupied, or when the
'sychtatry Center 15 bu.1lL The bas1c system tfle,y whh to contintJe is
to .itfgate when the impact occurs.
Sugpstg .• tg/sc
"
, ,
I
I
1
"
\
Regarding Arbo(etu~ ~oad. Stanford noted th~t the EIR did net concl~de
that wide"fng 4rbor"etu:n Road _as rl!'Quired by. tne Psydtiatry Center
pr~ject. Th~ ~p~'ific tr\ffic impacts frc~ the ?Toject can b@
detenmine~ w~en the project is prDp~sed and the access ;s more clearly
defln~. At this pCint they are not intlcipitiog •• "ice acc.ss to the
Psyc~latry 'enter off of Arboret~ Road. Stanford objects to the
S.iso.tlon they oxpand their privato road, to .erve public traffic.
The County staff stated that their Jransportation Authority had revi •• ed
the City~s (omments on the Draft ErR and Final ErR respons.s, and mace
no additional comments, indicating that they .ere satisfied with the
responses.
Aa'dlut1onJ Th~ro t: no rocoTut1on O~ thfs ',cue at thf, t'm8. w.
fndlcat.d that the City will rtiterate its position on thfs iss~e Tn I
l.tter to tn. Count1 Planning Commission for their review prior to
certifying the final E!R. .
4. PA ~ecamend.tion: Change the Triangle sfte froo 'UnIY!rs!ty lands -
Study Area-and ·University lands a Academic Reserve and Open Space-to
'Unl.erslty lands Campus' with. maxlmWl floor are. rltlo density of
0.5:1.
Comments: There Is no conflict concerning the proposed de~fgnatlon of
the T.I .. gl. site, onll dlfferencos rel,ted to how much de •• lo~nt
.hould be .,lowed and how much housing mitigation .houT~ be proylded.
(The housing Issue related to this recommondatlon Is discussed fn item
1). titl staff believes th.t it Is unlikely thlt the sit. could b.
deyoloped to much .~oye a 0.5:1 FAR but recognizes the limitation would
not .llow transfer of the remol.'ng deyelopment potontial to another
site •. City shff rehye<! that the Palo Alto Phnning Co ... lsslon and
Counc\l Members had requested that Stl~ford provide 1aforaat;on ~bo~t
proposed expansions for the entire Medical Center Including a better
justifitation as to why development to • 1:1 FAR was n.~.d on both the
Triangle and Rectangle Sites, and proposals for future expansions into
the 'in-beard' WeIth Road partels. This information was requested to
est.bllsh a context and framework for ev.luatlng the current Stanford
propo$ils. A1s~ raised by one P~.~n1ng Commissioner was the concept of
,n i~terjurisdictfonal Haster Plan for the Medfc,l Center whic~ would
.st~blish • aaxiauN deve'o~~t and employment cap and p~o~ide St~nford
with gr •• t.r flexibility in a110<0ting permitted deyelopment according
to function and ".~. without h.,ing t. b4 restricted by jurisdictional
boundaries. .
Stanford state. that they wish the flexibility that development up to •
1:1 FAR would .,low, a level similar to that allowed at the ~edicai
center In the City'. Public Facility (PFj 20ne_ Stanford believes that
this amount of development .il1 eventually be needed in order to
mafntala a ·state of the art-competft;~e medical fac11ity. Sta~fcrd
was concerned about delayin~ actfon on the General Pla~ Amendment &5
the1 are now proceeding witn plans for i 60,OOO-sQuare·foot Medical
School office building on the Tri.ngle .it.. They are .lso not
S'JQpI'ltg .mtg/sc Page 3
•
• ,-i-
f
.
~
o
,
.\
•
" .
recept ive ~o I dell, because they ",Ud to kno-. III'hat can be ~one sa they
can 'pracefd with ,phnn1nq for the region. Stanford stafr also stated
that g7Y'en other high priority (once-rons of the Un1ve~sity, they cannot
commit to .hen an intern.lly acceptable Medical Center pl.n could be
completed.
The County II reluctlnt to ·conditfon-i General Pll~ Amen4~nt ind WI'
concerned about limiting the size of Medlc.l Center exp.nslon. whlc~ •• y
be crltle.1 to the futuro viability of tho center. However, the County
did believe that Insufficient Infonlltlon and Justlflc.tlon for the
proposed amount of de.elopoent had been prOVided to dotenoine whether
developoent of both the Triangle and Rectangl. sites to • ]:1 FAR .as
warranted or necessary. The County was recepthe to tne coru:ept of i
Master Pl.n for the Medical Cent.r, and believed Medle.l Cent.r
•• pansion pl •• s are relevant to the G.ner.l Plan Aoendm.nt.
Resolution: Becaus.]) there is no difference of opinion as to what the
l.nd us. deSignation of the Triangle site should be, 2) infonoatlon
about tDtal Medical Center expa~siQ" Ind hQU51~ mttig~tion optfons ire
relevant to deciding what Is appropriate for the Rect.ngle site, and 3)
StanfGrd •• eds to ~roceed with their project for the Triangl. site. the
CountY·ltaff Is receptive to recommendIng the County Pllnning Commission
tlte action on the Finol EIR and Trlangl, Sit, on May 2, 1991, with
establishment of the housIng .Itlsotlon and .ct!O~ on the Rectangle sit.
to be deferred unt 11 thJo rpn".~t..r hou~ln~ plin Ind liN!") tenter phn
eln bo COll\llet8<l. _See also dIscussion to It, .. nO. I above.
-5. PA RecDlllllendatfon: l •• ve the Rectangle site 'U"fversity lands -Study
Area' .nd 'UnIversity lands· Academic R~s.rve and Open Spac.·.
Comments: Palo Alto City Council recommended I •• ,'ng the Site study
ilru to iive Stanford sOlIe flexibll tty io providing the ne-cessar)'
housing mitigation at alt.rnatelocatlons, but was unwilling to allow
for m.dlcal development on the 51te until this mltig.tlon had bee.
defined. City, County and Stanford staffs concurred that l •• ving It as
study area was not good planning. The City emphaslz.d that the primary
Issue is a land use policy IS5 •• of whether the R.ctangle site should be
used for Me-dfcal Center rel.ated uses or hOllsing. The (1t,)"",$ position ts
t~it because of the Shortage cf houstng and ~vlfTabje land, every vacant
sit. Is a pot.ntlal housIng site. Fro. the City persp.ctlve using the
Rectangl. sites for housing Is now the backup optlo. if other sultabl.
hou,lng slto(s) can b. defined. CHI staff r~qll.51M an nnnnrt.lI.ity t.n
return to the Council before the County Planning Coomisslon ""uld take
lny final act10n to remove the s~udy ilru. des-ignation froll the Rectangle
sft~.
Stanford's fYndamental pOSition, in accordance with priorities IS a
Unfveriity. is that every vacant site is a potential acade~lc site~
Stanford reiterated their need for ~dtcal11·related uses on tnp.
Rectangle sit. and questioned wh.ther housIng impacts would really be
g.nerated. Stanford stated t~at it "a. toe e.rly to define what the
Impacts of development beyond 175,000 square feet of development en
Sugpmtg •• t9ls~ Page 4
• ~ j
"
-,
-'.'
~~-------~ -~----
. .'
6.
'10 \".::J
.~
Triangle site mIght be. St.nford believed it would be more appropriate
to evaluate housing frr.pacts when actllal projet:h came 11'1, and t~at after
the develllPf7leflt It.vels allolficd in the Gener.l Use Permit were reached.
Stanford would have to apply for .. new use pennft whfcf1 could address
the need for housing mitigation cum.lithely at that tim ••
The County favored providing additional housing within the area, but
also allowing Shnford s_ flexlbllitl In where It would be located.
Ras.lutlon: Sa ... s under Itoms, I, and 4 listed .boYe.
PA Recoomendatlon, Chango the Compus Drive sit. fro. 'University
lands • Study Area' to 'University Lind •. ACld .. ;c Reserve and Op.n
Space-•
C~nts: All partfes ire fn agreement.
CC: Santa Clara County
Stanford Un;v.rsity
Page 5
~-----