Meeting with Stanford - March 17, 2001

The meeting was organized in two parts: Campus Development and Research Park Development. For each topic, Stanford started with a short presentation of their plans followed by an open discussion. The rest of this page contains the notes taken at the meeting. As time allows, other comments submitted in writing will also be added.

Campus Development

The following questions/answers, suggestions and concerns were raised. Where no specific answer or response was given, none is listed.

What level of staff are eligible for the faculty/staff housing? Will they be rental units or sold?

Faculty and senior staff are eligible for these units. They will be sold.

Stanford needs to address the needs of staff. There is a 25% attrition rate.

Stanford West has 630 units which will be priced at 1/3 below the market rate. This is aimed at meeting the needs of mid-level staff.

What level of increased traffic is expected from the faculty/staff housing?

This is not yet known but will be studied and the information included in the application submitted to the county.

The temporary parking lot along Stanford Avenue has been used as a "work station" with storage of truck trailers, large chunks of concrete being dumped into debris boxes creating noise and dirt from 6:00 a.m. on, etc. We were promised that this was exclusively for construction employee parking. What do we have to do to get this stopped?

Call Andy Coe (725-3329) or Susan Rozakis (723-1813).

What Environmental Studies are being required for this development.

There was an overall EIR included in the GUP/Community Plan process and there will be additional more specific studies as required by the county.

Affordability of faculty/staff housing is a key issue

170 BMR (Below Market Rate) units are required under the GUP. A separate meeting to discuss staff housing issues may be needed.

What will the faculty/staff housing be like? The neighborhood is concerned about traffic and visual impacts.

Stanford expects to build 50 units, they're allowed up to 75. Some clustering will be necessary and there may be some townhomes as well as single family houses. It is unlikely that there will be any driveways onto Stanford Ave.

Will the traffic studies address cumulative impacts?

This seems like a reasonable request.

What's the limit of the Stanford population?

This GUP doesn't really specify a specific number. Stanford is required to do a sustainability or build-out plan which must be approved by the County before they can begin the second half of the allowed development under the new GUP.

We're seeing an increasing problem with Stanford folks parking in College Terrace.

Stanford acknowledges that banning Freshman cars may have worsened this problem. They are increasing the parking ratio for the new grad housing and there is up to $100,000 available under the new GUP for implementing permit parking in College Terrace.

Will the faculty/staff housing along Stanford be aimed at families or at couples?

Most of it will be smaller units but some will be suitable for families.

Consider enhancing the Marguerite Shuttle to serve the expanded Escondido Village population.

Stanford will consider it. The shuttle is an important component in their traffic management program.

Consider creating a "transit way" through Escondido Village, a narrow lane shared by the shuttle, bikes, and pedestrians.

Parking charges should be raised to reflect the real costs. Also consider supplying EcoPasses or some equivalent.

How does neighborhood cut-through traffic fit into the no net new commute trips picture?

The commute trips are measured at 11 intersections ringing the core campus. Cut-through traffic (such as on Oberlin and Princeton) isn't included. The neighborhood permit parking should help eliminate cut-through traffic that doesn't actually enter the campus.

The Escondido Road/Stanford Avenue intersection is extremely hazardous. The parents dropping children off at Bing Nursery School make Escondido hazardous for children walking and biking to the elementary school. Since these trips originate on campus, move the barrier to the other side of Bing and keep the trips on camps!

Cut-through traffic in the Sheridan area needs to be considered in any traffic study relating to this development.

What protection do we have if the EIR projections regarding development under this GUP are wrong? They were wrong last time.

There will be two forums for presenting these concerns:

• A stakeholder group addressing Stanford Avenue/JSB issues will be convened in the next month or two.
• A general citizens' advisory committee will also be convened and will meet several times a year.

There are also some specific mitigations in the form of intersection "improvements" (this means widening!) which Stanford must fund if goals aren't met but it isn't clear that we really want that to happen nor that they would restore our quality of life.

How much growth is projected? (re: Hennesy's comment about slowing)

Stanford doesn't have specific figures but does expect it to slow.

Any chance of closing the roads which connect Olmsted and Stanford Avenue?

Please explain the concept of faculty/staff housing being "for sale"? The University doesn't really sell land, does it?

The house (or townhome) is sold but the land is on a long term ground lease. When the occupant leaves, they re-sell the house but only to a Stanford-qualified buyer.

Event and construction traffic need to be included in any traffic studies. We cannot do them piecemeal and ignore these important components.

Electric bikes might be a good incentive to get the new residents out of their cars.

Midtown is considering purchasing their own traffic monitoring equipment. This might something for CT to consider (or even to go in on!)

A walk/bike (paved/unpaved) path flanked by a double line of trees along Stanford Avenue and El Camino would be a nice amenity and would encourage non-auto transport.

Research Park Development

The following questions/answers, suggestions and concerns were raised. Where no specific answer or response was given, none is listed.

Neighborhood is not thrilled with more building

Why is Stanford intensively developing adjacent to a neighborhood instead of elsewhere in the Research Park?

The intensity is what is allowed by City zoning. It will be governed by ARB/Council review. [Councilmember Beecham commented that he was pleased that Stanford was choosing to place part of it's transferred development on a site that was already zoned for that much development.]

Why not housing? The LM zoning allows for it?

Stanford is effectively giving the City the use of the Mayfield site ($1 per year) so they need to receive compensation.

What is the maximum build-out of the Research Park?

800,000 square feet is allowed in the "new" Comprehensive Plan. Currently 613,000 is used.

We need a new EIR governing development in the Research Park. Usage has intensified and changed and the impacts are not as they were.

The Mayfield site is zoned for housing. Why isn't the transferred development housing?

The offer Stanford made to the City specifies that the transferred development may be any use permitted by the zoning of the target site - in this case, office.

Will the extra development built under the transferred development rights be removed when the lease to the City ends in 51 years?

This is an opportunity to create housing. Instead we're creating more jobs!

There has been a great deal of intensification of use along California Avenue as evidenced by the huge parking lots full of cars. Yet we pretend that it has no impact. The reality is that traffic is having a major impact on our quality of life.

What kinds of traffic mitigations are possible? Shuttle? Bike and pedestrian friendliness? Permit parking? Traffic calming? Truck ban? We need protection from cut-through traffic, red light running, unsafe driving near schools, pollution.

Hennesy talks about the need to improve community relations. Increased intensity of use and massive construction projects in our neighborhood seem insensitive. Building housing instead of office would help heal community relations. So would doing something truly radical such as creation of a mid-block circulation spine. [This discussion of the circulation spine is important enough to have its own page - please read about it!]

Problems with implementing it include the fact that there are 50 year lease-holds in place - Stanford doesn't control the land. City could use eminent domain but then they'd have to pay fair market rate for the land!

How many cars will be associated with the 82K of new development?

City requires 3.3 parking spaces per 1000 square feet, therefore, 270 space.

When the development currently underway at 1117 California was being planned, we asked them to orient the front away from California. They refused.

We need to control the traffic on California Avenue - perhaps speed bumps, median trees. How can we get funding?

There are traffic mitigation fees paid by developers in the Research Park. Unfortunately the money is currently restricted to intersection "improvements" (read "widening") at 8 intersections. Perhaps Council could revise this ordinance?

Could the spine at least start with the Alza site? If we don't start, we'll never get there.

In addition to rewriting the traffic mitigation fees for broader use, perhaps Stanford could take some voluntary steps to compensate the community for the impacts of the past growth.

There was an agreement when the Research Park was first developed that there should be no parking in the neighborhood. Is this in writing anywhere?

Noise is a massive problem: construction noise, white noise (air conditioners and chillers for biotech clean rooms etc.), traffic noise (delivery of cars to office occupants!!!), leaf blowers at all hours. The Palo Alto ordinance does not deal with increasing levels of ambient noise!

Light pollution is another major problem. Any new construction should be required to install automatic blinds, timers, motion sensors etc.

Does the construction and/or the commercial presence have anything to do with the frequency with which residential power fails in CT?

Would opposition to the Alza redevelopment jinx the Mayfield site deal?

The TDR provides a consideration to Stanford in return for Mayfield. They're not willing to give something for nothing.

Overflow parking and excessive traffic need resolution. There are two aspects to the solution:

• Residential permit parking program
• Transportation Allowance/cash out implemented by employers. Under this program the employer gives the employee a transportation allowance (ideally equivalent to the real cost of providing a parking place). The employee chooses whether to use it to pay for parking, or to take it in cash. This has been extremely successful in reducing car usage even in southern California!

Note that the two parts must go together or employees will simply park in adjoining neighborhoods much as Stanford staff do today.

Consolidate the parking in structures or underground.

Who will occupy the new building? What is the maximum expected occupancy?

There is no planned tenant. Usual occupancy is 3/1000 square feet - about 250 people.

Are any other buildings in that area unoccupied currently?

Only the construction site at 1117 California.

The traffic problem is not just cars but delivery and commercial vehicles.

Don't build the world's tallest two story building. Consider a liberal setback, step down to one story near the neighborhood, plant trees to screen it.

 This site comes to you courtesy of Roble Systems