HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 239-071
City of Palo Alto
T~~I~)NORABLE CITYcoffee,City Manager’s Report
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEP ~ART-MENT :P~LANNING-,
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MAY 14, 2007 CMR: 239:07
SUBJECT:STUDY SESSION FOR THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL
CENTER EXPANSION AND MODERNIZATION - PROJECT UPDATE
AND REVIEW OF KEY PLAN OBJECTIVES FOR THE STANFORD
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER LAND USE AREA PLAN.
RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of the Study Session is to update the City Council regarding Stanford’s conceptual
project plans and the draft outline for the Medical Center Area Plan, and to allow for Council
review and comment regarding suggested key Area Plan objectives for the Medical Center Area
Plan.
BACKGROUND
On November 20, 2006, the City Council held a study session with representatives from the
Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) to discuss concepts for the expansion and
modernization of the existing Hospital and School of Medicine Facilities. On December 13,
2006, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) held a Study Session to
review the process and timeline for this project. This feedback was then presented to the City
Council at a meeting on December 18, 2006, at which time the City Council: 1) authorized staff
to commence the process for review of the project; 2) authorized, the city manager to sign an
agreement for Stanford to reimburse the City for costs incurred with processing the application;
and 3) authorized the city manager and other senior staff to initiate discussions and negotiations
of a Development Agreement.
Review for this project has been divided into two phases: Phase I (Information Sharing and
Preliminary Area Plan) from December 2006 through July 2007 and Phase II (EIR and
Entitlements), from July 2007 through approximately July 2008. The intent of Phase I is to
collect and synthesize information to share with the applicants, the public, the Commission, and
the City Council and to identify the key benefits and challenges of each project (the Hospital and
the Stanford Shopping Center expansion) as well as to develop a preliminary Area Plan as a
framework for Phase II. The Phase I activities will help to focus discussion on key issues of
concern during the Phase II entitlement process.
The Planning and Transportation Commission held study sessions on January 24, 2007 and April
25, 2007. Information provided to the Commission at the April 25, 2007 meeting included an
outline of the Stanford University Medical Center Amended Land Use Area Plan and the
proposed key Area Plan objectives.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
The purpose of this meeting is to provide comments on the proposed key Area Plan objectives
identified in this staff report.
DISCUSSION
Stanford University Medical Center Land Use Area Plan
The preparation of an area plan for the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) responds to
Program L-46 of the 1998 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan:
Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical Center.
An area plan for the Medical Center should address building locations, floor area
ratios, height limits, and parking requirements. It should discuss the preservation
of historic and open space resources and the protection of views and view
corridors. The plan should describe improvements to the streetseape and
circulation pattern that will improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto
connections.
The first document prepared in response to Program L-46 was the SUMC Land Use Area
Analysis 2000, completed and submitted by Stanford in conjunction with an application for Palo
Alto’s review for the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion and
underground parking structure. The analysis helped guide the development within the SUMC
area boundaries.
The current SUMC redevelopment and renovation project is located within the boundaries
defined in the SUMC Land Use Area Analysis 2000 document. As part of the Phase I activities,
a revised area plan, based in part from the 2000 area analysis, will be developed to address the
proposed project and include reference to and key linkages to and between the Stanford
Shopping Center, the Palo Alto Transit Center, and downtown. The Area Plan is a City document
and will be reviewed by the Commission and City Council. with a recommendation for
acceptance at the end of Phase II, currently expected in July, 2008.
The City of Palo Alto and Stanford have prepared a draft Area Plan expanded outline
(Attachment A) for City Council review. The Area Plan will comprise a policy framework for
the processing of entitlements. This expanded outline is intended to assist the City Council and
the community to understand the intent and primary issues to be addressed in the Area Plan.
Proposed Key New Area Plan Obiectives
City staff expects to develop key Area Plan objectives for each Plan section, based upon
Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs and feedback received from the community,
Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. These proposed key objectives will
describe specific City goals to address potential impacts of the project. Staff requests that the
City Council review and comment regarding the identified objectives related to:
1.Transportation
2.Housing
3.Open Space
4.Linkages
City of Palo Alto Page 2
5.Sustainability
The Area Plan covers the SUMC area as described in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. These
boundaries are not proposed to change. However, maps and discussion of issues and goals will
identify the Stanford Shopping Center and areas outside of the Area Plan boundaries as "areas of
influence." The Area Plan will be a planning tool in which the project and its objectives are
compared with the Comprehensive Plan to identify areas of consistency, conflict, and issues that
require additional study and analysis. All of these objectives are supported by existing
Comprehensive Plan policies. The Area Plan will not analyze the impacts of the project (this
would be accomplished through the environmental review process), but will outline the
objectives and principles that should be considered throughout the review process, including the
preparation of the Development Agreement. To address the objectives, specific solutions may
extend to areas outside of the Area Plan boundaries. While the Area Plan will address land use in
general terms, specific zoning changes will not be determined in the Area Plan initially, but will
be addressed at a later stage of the entitlement process.
The information presented in the staffreport is meant to be a starting point for discussion about
these key issues and a framework for how to address these issues within the Area Plan. Stanford
has provided feedback that they feel it is premature to discuss particular goals at this point in the
process. However, Staff strongly believes that identification of these desired goals is important to
establish a policy framework as the project proceeds and as we negotiate the Development
Agreement.
1. TRANSPORTATION
Proposed Key Plan Objective: The project shall identify traffic solutions that minimize the use
of single-occupant vehicles. Potential locations of housing in or near the Plan area and an
expanded Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program will be identified in order to
reduce automobile trips. Land use and design should minimize trips within and outside of the
SUMC area by locating employee-serving uses, retail uses, eating and drinking services, and
usable open space in or near the Plan area. Measures should be evaluated to feasibly approach
a desired goal of producing no net new automobile trips.
Although specific traffic projections have not yet been prepared, it is expected that the projects
would generate a substantial number of additional automobile trips to and from the SUMC area.
The EIR will assess the specific impacts of the development on all traffic and transportation
systems and will identify potential solutions. Staff recommends that the project include, at a
minimum, specific initiatives that would minimize automobile traffic within Palo Alto and
adjacent neighborhoods in other local jurisdictions. The traffic impact data will be essential in
evaluating the potential to approach a desired goal of no net new trips.
Applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs:
¯Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles;
¯Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and
Bicycling;
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Goal T-5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential
Neighborhoods;
Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City
welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of the surrounding neighborhoods;
Policy L-42: Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages
transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily
errands;
Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit
use;
Policy T-26: Participate in the design and implementation of comprehensive solutions to
traffic problems near Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center.
Existing Transportation Data and Analysis
The City’s annual citywide intersection monitoring program is conducted in October to
determine the A.M. and P.M. level of service at each of the city’s key intersections. In October
2006, the monitoring program was expanded to include 28 intersections studied in the 1996
Stanford Sand Hill Corridor Projects EIR in order to develop baseline data for traffic conditions
in the vicinity of the proposed Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center expansion
projects. This analysis also evaluated how the current level of service at the selected
intersections has changed over the past decade and how the current conditions compare to
projections in the Stanford Corridor Projects EIR for the years 2000 and 2010.
The attached memorandum from DMJM Harris (Attachment C) summarizes the results of this
analysis. Exact comparisons cannot be made because the Stanford Sand Hill Corridor EIR
assumed a greater amount of development than was actually approved by the City Council, and
the roadway network was not built as studied in the EIR; nevertheless, the overall comparison
indicates that the 2006 levels of service are better than the year 2000 Project or the year 2010
Project levels of service in the EIR. Only two intersections, Campus Drive West and
Foothill/Page Mill!Junipero Serra are operating at one full level of service worse than projected
for year 2000 with Project. Most of the intersections are at or below the level of service
projected for year 2000 with Project.
Future detailed analysis of the existing and projected traffic conditions in the vicinity of the two
proposed projects will be undertaken in the EIR during Phase II of the project.
2. HOUSING
Proposed Key Plan Objective: The Area Plan shall identify strategies for accomplishing
housing with a focus on below-market residential units which would be available to help
accommodate employment generated by the project.
Although specific employment growth numbers have not yet been submitted by the project
proponents, it is expected that the additional development will generate additional employees in
the full range of employment sectors of the hospital and related support services. The EIR will
assess the specific impacts of the development on jobs and employee population and the related
need for housing. The EIR will estimate the level of employment increase and related need for
City of Palo Alto Page 4
housing types that are affordable and located in the vicinity of the hospital area. Staff
recommends that the project include identification of specific housing sites in the SUMC area
and the potential number of units that could be built on those sites. The SUMC Area includes a
partially developed 6.72 acres in Palo Alto that are zoned for high-density residential uses (RM-
40). The SUMC Area also includes two housing sites that are located in unincorporated Santa
Clara County which are controlled by Stanford’s General Use Permit. Attachment B provides
additional information on Stanford’s existing and potential housing sites.
Applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs:
Policy H-2: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in
appropriate locations;
¯Policy H-3: Support the designation of vacant or under utilized land for housing;
¯Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply
while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality;
Program H-2: Allow for increased housing density immediately surrounding commercial
areas and particularly near transit centers;
Program H-9: Use coordinated area plans and other tools to develop regulations that
support the development of housing above and among commercial uses;
Program H-50: Continue to require developers of employment-generating commercial
and industrial developments to contribute to the supply of low- and moderate income
housing.
Existing Housing Conditions and Analysis
The 2000 Census indicated that there were 26,048 housing units in Palo Alto. Palo Alto has an
extremely limited supply of vacant residential land. Most of the City’s development potential
consists of infill on small vacant lots, redevelopment of existing properties, and conversion of
underutilized non-residential lands to higher density residential or mixed use projects. In
appropriate locations, mixed use is encouraged to provide housing opportunities. The R-1 Zoning
update completed in 2005 also provided regulations to accommodate second dwelling units, in
order to provide for variety to the city’s housing stock and additional affordable housing
opportunities. The Comprehensive Plan encourages innovative ideas for creating new housing,
including mixed use zoning, the use of smaller lots, live/work projects, and other emerging
housing prototypes.
State Housing Element law requires that localities provide for their "fair share" of the region’s
housing need. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that Palo Alto’s
projected need for the period fi:om January 1, 1999 - June 30, 2006 was 1,397 units. In addition
to projecting overall housing needs, ABAG also projects housing needs by income category. The
intent of this action is to equitably distribute households by income category so that no one City
or County is "impacted" with a particular income group. The table below shows how the City of
Palo Alto’s 1999-2006 Housing Element allocated the ABAG new construction need by income
category.
City of laalo Alto Page 5
Income Level Need Approved or Built Unmet Need
Very Low
Low
Moderate
SUBTOTAL
Above Moderate
TOTAL
1999-2006
265 220 45
116 116 0
343 134 209
724 470 254
673 673 0
1,397 1,143 254
In reviewing the totals shown in the table above, it appears that Palo Alto has constructed, or
approved for construction, about 82% of its fair share of the region’s housing need for the
current cycle. ABAG is expected to release the final Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the
2007-2014 period to individual jurisdictions by May 2007.
Schools and Other Community Facilities
The generation of new employees and new housing needs by the project will also result in
increased needs for community facilities to support residents, including schools, libraries, and
parks (also see Open Space discussion). The impact of the development (and of the Stanford
Shopping Center expansion) on these facilities will be identified in the EIR and will be
dependent on the projected increase in population, as well as the geographic distribution of new
residential development.
3. OPEN SPACE
Proposed Key Plan Objective: The project shall include provision of new usable open space
areas inand/or in the proximity of the SUMC area. These open space areas shall be developed
in a way that promotes linkages between uses within the SUMC area, nearby uses at the Stanford
Shopping Center, nearby open space, areas of existing and future housing sites and other nearby
university lands. Open space areas shall be accessible and within easy walking distance to the
greatest number of users.
Open space areas can provide important benefits within and proximate to the dense commercial
and hospital development. These areas act as common gathering places for employees and
visitors. They provide areas for employee breaks and lunches away from the office environment.
If designed properly, open space areas can become important extensions of the hospital facilities
rather than unused and isolated open areas.
Effective and usable open space design can include smaller spaces in addition to medium and
large park-like squares. Private open spaces can exist between and around buildings and along
pathways connecting various uses.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs:
Policy L-21: Provide all Centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a
sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such
as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art;
o Policy C-25: Consider new park sites when preparing coordinated area plans;
¯Policy C-26: In conjunction with new development proposals, pursue creation of park,
plaza, or other public gathering spaces that meet neighborhood needs;
Policy C-27: Seek opportunities to develop new parks and recreation facilities to meet the
growing needs of residents and employees of Palo Alto.
Policy N-4: Preserve the foothills area as predominantly open space.
Existing Open Space Conditions at Stanford
The hospitals lease land from Stanford University that corresponds generally to the footprints of
their structures; therefore the functional open space controlled by these entities is limited mostly
to courtyard areas within the boundaries of the structures themselves.
Within the Area Plan boundaries, functional open space land that is not controlled by the
hospitals includes the Pasteur median and the North Garden which provide green, landscaped
areas. Other functional open space near the Area Plan and within the City of Palo Alto are E1
Camino Park and the streamside areas along San Francisquito Creek. In addition, the Arboretum
is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County and is designated by the County as Campus
Open Space.
Land use information concerning the Stanford "foothills" is presented in the Stanford
Community Plan (2000) prepared by Santa Clara County. These lands are designated Open
Space and Field Research (approximately 1,841 acres), and Special Conservation Areas
(approximately 405 acres). They are separated from the academic campus by an Academic
Growth Boundary (AGB), which concentrates academic facilities on the central campus. The
AGB will remain in its location for at least 25 years from approVal of the Community Plan in
December 2000 and until 5 million gross square feet of academic facilities have been added
within the AGB. The Open Space and Field Research designation allows field study activities,
utility infrastructure that is consistent with natural appearance of the foothill settings, and
grazing. The Special Conservation Area designation allows conservation activities and habitat
management, field environmental studies, and appropriate agricultural uses. New permanent
structures are not allowed in either designation, with the exception of small, specialized facilities
or installations that are necessary to support existing utilities or require a remote academic
setting.
The hospitals do not own, lease or control any lands within the foothills areas of Palo Alto or
Santa Clara County and no foothills lands are situated within the boundaries of the SUMC Area
Plan. Additional information outlining the land use designations governing Stanford University’s
foothills lands in Santa Clara County is included in Attachment B.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
4. LINKAGES
Proposed Key Plan Objective: The project shall include designed and built features that
promote linkages for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users from and within the SUMC to the
Stanford Shopping Center, the Stanford University Campus, the Palo Alto Transit Center,
downtown, and nearby residential neighborhoods. The City, in conjunction with the Stanford
Medical Center and the Stanford Shopping Center, shall evaluate the feasibility and design of a
grade separated crossing(s) of El Camino Real and the railroad tracks for pedestrians and
bicycles.
Proposed Key Plan Objective: The project shall include specific design features for the
efficient movement of vehicles, the Marguerite Shuttle, and other transit in and around the
SUMC. The efficient movement of emergency vehicles to the appropriate facilities shall be an
important focus of the circulation design.
The efficient movement of employees, residents, visitors within the SUMC and adjacent on-and-
off campus areas will be a significant component of the efforts to reduce automobile traffic as a
result of the development. The design of these links in the form of open space, landscaped areas,
and pathways represent an opportunity to design these links as "green corridors". The roadways,
driveways and parking areas are important components of the vehicular circulation system and
should be designed in a manner that promotes the efficient movement of vehicles. Specific
attention should be placed on the movement of emergency vehicles to and from the SUMC.
Stanford University and both hospitals provide a full transportation demand management
program to achieve trip reductions. A Commute Club program for individuals agreeing not to
drive alone to work, the Marguerite Shuttle and Express buses, distribution of Eco Passes, and
bicycle programs are provided as part of Stanford’s efforts (Attachment B).
Important linkages include:
The pedestrian and bicycle links between the SUMC and the Palo Alto Transit
Center and Downtown Palo Alto - E1 Camino Real, as a State highway, represents a
barrier between Stanford and the transit center. The projects present an opportunity to
consider enhancements to the existing pedestrian crosswalk configuration and/or new
infrastructure improvements, including, but not limited to, a pedestrian overpass or
undercrossing of E1 Camino Real and/or the Caltrain tracks, and improved pedestrian
pathways and way-finding in the vicinity of the transit center and downtown areas.
The pedestrian and bicycle links between the SUMC and Stanford Shopping Center
- The shopping center contains many uses and services for employees and visitors of the
SUMC. The efficient movement of pedestrians between the SUMC and the shopping
center can reduce vehicle trips within the area.
The links between the SUMC and the Stanford University and City of Palo Alto
Roadway Network - Staff and Stanford have identified important transportation and
pedestrian nodes within the Area Plan. These nodes represent significant roadway and/or
pedestrian intersections. There is typically a greater level of interactions between
vehicles and pedestrians in these locations and thus represent important links between
City of Palo Alto Page 8
various land uses in and around the SUMC. The roadway and pedestrian circulation
improvements should focus on these nodes.
Applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs:
Policy L-27: Pursue redevelopment of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit station
area to establish a link between University Avenue/Downtown and the Stanford
Shopping Center;
Policy L-26: Establish the following unrankcd community design priorities for the
University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station Area:
)~ Improving pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections to create an urban
link between University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center.
)~Creating a major civic space at the CalTrain Station that links University
Avenue/Downtown and Palm Drive;
Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the
entrances to the City at Highway 101, E1 Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the
CalTrain stations; entries to commercial districts; and Embarcadero Road at E1 Camino
Real.
5. SUSTAINABILITY
Proposed Key Plan Objective: Provide for exemplary sustainability and green building design
to achieve the equivalent of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver
certification for the project.
The City of Palo Alto and Stanford University have both developed specific goals and objectives
for sustainable development and green building practices in the operation and design of their
own facilities. Stanford has developed internal Guidelines for Sustainable Buildings that focus
on the delivery of high performance buildings that minimize energy and water use and maximize
user comfort. Currently, the hospitals are not subject to these Stanford internal guidelines and
are in the process of developing their own approach to sustainable design (see Attachment B for
more information). It is expected that the project would be consistent with Stanford’s adopted
policies and programs for sustainability and green building. The Area Plan would describe the
existing and proposed consideration to meet these objectives.
Staff recommends that the project achieve the equivalent of LEED Silver certification at a
minimum. Stanford and the hospitals have indicated that the best use of their resources is to use
the money otherwise needed to achieve a LEED certification on additional systems and
alternative materials that would better meet their adopted sustainable goals and policies. The
City recognizes that there are unique issues associated with medical facilities that limit some
green building approaches but also provide opportunities for others. Given the size of the
prqject, the projects should explore co-generation and solar energy options for energy savings.
Applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs:
Policy N-20: Maximize the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing
residences, businesses and industries;
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Policy N-34: Reduce the amount of solid waste disposed in the City’s landfill by reducing
the amount of waste generated and promoting the cost-effective reuse of materials that
would otherwise be placed in a landfill;
Policy N-47: Optimize energy conservation and efficiency in new and existing
residences, businesses, and industries in Palo Alto;
Policy N-48: Encourage the appropriate use of alternative energy technologies.
Planning and Transportation Review and Comment
The Commission held a study session on April 25, 2007 to discuss the Area Plan outline, key
plan objectives and the conceptual project information and site plans. Staff requested that the
Commission provide comments regarding the Area Plan outline and key Area Plan objectives.
Commission comments from the meeting are summarized as follows:
The Area Plan boundaries should be expanded to include the shopping center, transit
center, and downtown;
There should be more opportunities for public discussion (three issue-oriented public
workshops were suggested);
Additional project information is needed prior to detailed discussion of the issues, and
The objectives are generally appropriate to begin a discussion of the issues.
The Commission continued the item to the May 9, 2007 Commission meeting to allow
commissioners to provide additional comments on the outline and objectives. Draft minutes from
the April 25, 2007 meeting are contained in Attachment D. Draft minutes from the May 9, 2007
meeting will be available at the Council meeting.
Phase I Activities
Staff has been progressing on the Phase I activities in preparation for the project application,
environmental review process, and Development Agreement negotiations for Phase II, which is
expected to begin in August, 2007.
Community Outreach
In addition to the Commission Meeting in January 2007, a City of Palo Alto sponsored
Community Workshop was held on February 27, with approximately 40 members of the
community in attendance. Representatives from Stanford Hospital and Stanford Shopping Center
gave presentations with public question and answers. The questions from the community
associated with the Hospital project were focused primarily on:
Traffic generated by the project and how it will impact local streets;
Links between the Hospital, Shopping Center, transit station and downtown;
Need for additional housing and identification of housing sites;
Proposed uses and additional square footage for Hoover Pavilion;
Parking needs and proposed location for replacement and new parking;
Height of the proposed building and how it relates to other structures within the City, and
Process for the EIR and how the hospital and shopping center projects will be reviewed.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Staff expects to schedule a second community workshop in early June to further identify issues
and priority policies prior to the Commission and City Council meetings in late June and July.
Staff also expects to schedule issue-oriented meetings following review of the preliminary draft
Area Plan by Council in July. Stanford will be scheduling a series of community meetings on
hospital and health care related topics throughout the summer and fall of this year. The initial
Stanford meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 24, 2007, from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. at Avenidas
(450 Bryant Street), and will focus on the future ofhealthcare (access, affordability, and
coverage).
Issue Teams
Representatives from the City, Stanford and the Shopping Center have formed six (6) issue
teams that meet monthly to disseminate data and discuss critical issues in greater detail. Key
issues identified by the teams will be presented to the P&TC and Council for input and direction.
The issues teams include:
Land Use and Open Space
Transportation, Transportation Demand Management and Linkages
Sustainability
Fiscal Impact
Housing
Utilities
The City Manager leads and oversees the City’s negotiating team, which includes legal staff as
well as the staff of each of these teams. Each issue team is led by a principal City of Palo Alto
staff member and is comprised of individuals from the City of Palo Alto, SUMC and Stanford
Shopping Center specialized in that particular area of interest. The Land Use and Open Space
team, as well as the Transportation and Sustainability teams, have been focusing their efforts on
the development of the Area Plan. It is expected that all issue teams will continue working
during the balance of Phase I and through Phase II of the project, including sponsoring issues-
related public meetings early in Phase II.
Consultant Selection
The City interviewed environmental consultants and has selected the firm of EIP Associates, an
environmental and planning firm located in San Francisco, to prepare the environmental impact
report (EIR). EIP is familiar with the City and has prepared multiple EIRs for the City of Palo
Alto, including the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Improvements and the Stanford Center for
Cancer Treatment and Prevention Ambulatory Care Pavilion/Parking Structure IV. EIP is
currently in the information gathering phase and will start work on the EIR after a formal
application has been submitted in August, 2007.
The City interviewed consultants in the medical industry to provide the City Staff and City
decision makers with a peer review of the proposed medical facilities, and has selected Marlene
Berkoff, FAIA to fill that role. The scope of work that this consultant will provide includes
review of:
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Key hospital planning standards that the City determines are relevant to the
environmental analysis of the proposed project, including the City’s evaluation of the
feasibility of project alternatives;
The size of key hospital components of particular programs that Stanford intends to
provide in order to determine whether the components are sized within a reasonable
planning range;
The square footage that is necessary to right size the facility space to determine
whether the new space allocated to right-sizing is within a reasonable planning range
for similar programs;
The proposed vertical design for hospital nursing towers consistent with industry
planning standards;
The consistency and necessity of single patient rooms with current industry planning
and patient service standards;
Anticipated increase in number of employees given the programs that Stanford
intends to provide.
Ms. Berkoff’s resume is provided in Attachment E.
Proiect Description and Conceptual Plans
Stanford has prepared a Conceptual Project Submittal (Attachment F), including an updated
Project Description, site plan, and photographs of the existing hospital and potential area of
redevelopment. Stanford has been working with a space planning architect as well as with
University Planning staff on refining the programming requirements for this project. The project
has been modified slightly as a result of these efforts. A description of the project changes is
contained within the project submittal document.
There are five (5) main components to the project:
1.Hoover medical office building reuse and expansion;
2.Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital expansion;
3.Adult Hospital replacement and reconstruction;
4.Medical School building reconstruction; and
5.Redevelopment of existing hospital site.
The Project Site Concept plan illustrates the areas within the SUMC that would be redeveloped.
This plan shows the possible locations of building footprints, parking areas, and a general
description of the building components. The plan also indicates possible building heights
(ranging from 15 to 130 feet). The tallest buildings in the plan would be the three nursing towers
at 130 feet.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Resource impacts to the City will be a key element of the evaluation of the project’s impacts and
benefits, which will be studied during Phase II of the project. Specific resource impacts cannot
yet be determined, as the project has not been formally submitted to the City for review.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
All costs of review for the Medical Center project will be reimbursed by the applicant. A
Reimbursement Agreement has been prepared by the City Attorney’s Office and approved by
Stanford outlining the reimbursable costs that would be incurred during the preliminary project
work in Phase I and subsequent work on the EIR and Development Agreement in Phase II.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Comprehensive Plan policies and programs relevant to the expansion and modernization of
the Medical Center have been identified in the draft outline for the Area Plan (Attachment A)
NEXT STEPS
A community meeting is proposed in early June to. further identify issues and priority policies
prior to the Commission and Council’s subsequent review of the draft Area Plan. Staff will
continue to work with Stanford on the preparation of the Area Plan and will return to the
Commission in June and to the City Council in July with a Draft Area Plan for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Review of the draft Area Plan and key plan objectives does not require environmental analysis.
An Environmental Impact Report will be prepared upon submittal of a formal application for the
development project and amendment to the Area Plan, anticipated in August 2007.
PREPARED BY:~
STEVEN TURNER
Senior P1
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
STEVE
Director ~ommuni~ty and Environment
FRANI~ BENEST
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A.Draft Area Plan Expanded Outline
B.Letter from Stanford University regarding sustainability and transportation programs,
open space, and housing, dated April 17, 2007
C.Level of Service Analysis of Key Existing Intersections, prepared by DMJM Harris
D.April 25, 2007 Draft Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes
E.Resume for Marlene Berkoff, FAIA (Hospital Peer Review Consultant)
F.Conceptual Project Submittal, prepared by Stanford University Medical Center, including
an updated Project Description, site plan, and photographs (Council only)
City of Palo Alto Page 13
COURTESY COPIES
William T. Phillips, Stanford Management Company
Jean McCown, Stanford University Public Relations Office
Charles Carter, Stanford University Planning Office
Art Spellmeyer, Simon Property Group
John Benvenuto, Simon Property Group
City of Palo Alto Page 14
ATTACHMENT A
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
DRAFT AREA PLAN UPDATE
EXPANDED OUTLINE
APRIL 25, 2007
EXPANDED OUTLINE
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update - Draft
DRAFT 25 Apr07
1.1
INTRODUCTION
NOTE: The Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Area Plan Update, together with
meeting minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council meetings
conducted to review the document, will assist in forming Stanford’s detailed proposals for a
set of projects within the SUMC. The current timeline anticipates that Council will take formal
action on Stanford’s proposed projects in July, 2008. This draft Area Plan Update will not be
finalized until those detailed proposals, including a proposed Development Agreement, have
been presented to the City for consideration, together with the necessary environmental
analysis. Thus, this Area Plan Update is considered a draft document that may be revised as
the environmental and economic impacts of the proposed projects are more fully analyzed in
connection with the overall entitlement process.
Purpose
The Area Plan will not be a policy-creating instrument. It will be a planning tool in which the
project and its objectives are compared with the Comprehensive Plan to identify areas of
consistency, conflict, and issues that require additional study and analysis.
This Plan update is the most recent in a series of planning documents for the SUMC that began
in the mid 1950s with the original plan for the SUMC buildings. The medical center design
evolved during master planning in the 1970s and early 1980s, and continued through to the
SUMC Land Use Area Analysis 2000 that was completed and submitted by Stanford in
conjunction with an application for Palo Alto’s approval for the Center for Cancer Treatment
and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion and underground parking structure.
Stanford University has developed various plans in response to evolving land use issues and
changes in the nature of teaching, medical practice, and medical research. The present update
to the Land Use Area Plan recognizes that Stanford will be submitting an application to the
City for approval of a project to address future infrastructure needs, and also identifies
Stanford’s campus planning and community design principles for the SUMC.
The update also identifies and discusses the applicable City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
(Comp Plan) policies that guide development throughout the City and at the SUMC and
identifies areas where new policies may be considered to reflect the PrOPosed project. It is
important that existing, adopted City policies be identified at the outset of the planning
process.
The purpose of the SUMC Area Plan Update is:
First, the plan responds to the City Of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program L-46:
Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical Center.
An area plan for the Medical Center should address building locations, floor area ratios,
height limits, and parking requirements. It should discuss the preservation of historic and
open space resources and the protection of views and view corridors. The plan should
describe improvements to the streetscape and circulation pattern that wifl improve
pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections.
Second, the plan serves as a mechanism for the City of Palo Alto to gather community
input on the planning for this important City public facility and employment center.
This plan can achieve a number of different land use and planning goals and objectives. Many
of these are shared by Stanford and Palo Alto and include the following:
o Provide a long-term View of land use for the area
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 35
¯Establish a context of broader campus and community land use and infrastructure
¯Identify adopted Comp Plan policies tomaintain and preserve vitality of centers and
employment districts and enhance overall city structure
o Identify circulation connections and linkages between the Medical Center Area and nearby
land uses, including the Transit Center and the Stanford Shopping Center
¯Clarify the future site-specific planning and implementation process
Stanford’s planning objectives for the area support the basic academic mission of the
University and health care mission of the Hospitals. Toward that end Stanford established the
following planning objectives:
¯Optimize delivery of health care and services to patients
¯Articulate and promote programmatic objectives
¯Integrate clinical and academic activities
¯Reinforce Stanford planning and land use principles
OUTLINE:
¯Summary of purpose and objectives
o Shared
-Provide long-term view of land use for area
-Establish context of broader campus and community land use and structure
Identify applicable Comp Plan policies to maintain city structure and preserve
vitality centers and employment districts
Identify circulation and land use connections and linkages
Clarify planning and implementation process
o Stanford
Optimize delivery of health care and services
Articulate programmatic objectives
Integrate clinical and academic activities
Reinforce planning and land use principles
¯Relationship of document to City’s adopted planning and implementation process
¯Community input
EXHIBITS:
¯ Plan Area - Existing Conditions
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 35
PLAN AREA - Exislino Conditions
1 730 Welch Road
2 750 Welch Road
3 770 Welch Road
4 780 Welch Road
5 800 Welch Road
6 900 Welch Road
7 1000 Welch Road
8 1100 Welch Road Housing
9 777 Welch Road
10 801 Welch Road
11 Advanced Medicine Center
12 Blake-Wilbur Clinic
13 Parking Structure I11
14 1101 Welch Road
15 Parking Structure IV
16 West Pavilion, East Pavilion, Boswell,
Grant, Edwards, Lane, Alway
17 Hospital Modernization Project
18 Falk Cardiovascular Research Center
19 Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
20 703 Welch Road
21 701 Welch Road
22 Psychiatry Center
23 Hoover Pavilion
DRAFT- 11 Apr07
1.2
1.3
History and Background
This section describes the historical context for the SUMC and looks at City of Palo Alto
practices and processes in the recent past that address the SUMC planning and development.
This discussion will identify major periods and events associated with the development of the
SUMC including relocation of the School of Medicine from San Francisco to the Stanford/Palo
Alto campus and the development of the Palo Alto Community Hospital on Stanford land.
This section will summarize recent practices of how the City of Palo Alto addressed the SUMC
in the Sand Hill Road Projects approval in 1997, in the 1998 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
(Comp Plan), and in the processes and mechanisms used in permitting the most recent
Medical Center projects (e.g. the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention, now the
Advanced Medicine Center).
OUTLINE:
¯ Evolution of Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC)
o 1909 - 1953 SUMC in SF
o Palo Alto Hospital at Hoover Pavilion
o Development of Palo Alto Campus
¯1998 Comprehensive Plan
o 2000 Area Analysis
o Recent treatment of SUMC in City approvals
Governance and Regulation
This section discusses the regulations that govern land use and development for the SUMC.
Applicable Comp Plan goals, policies, and programs will be summarized. Zoning regulations
will be discussed in more detail in a later section. For those parts of the SUMC governed by
Santa Clara County, Stanford Community Plan policies and General Use permit conditions will
be discussed.
First entered into in 1973, the three-party land use agreement between Palo Alto, Stanford,
and Santa Clara County will also be discussed.
OUTLINE:
¯ Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
o Applicable Policies and Programs
°Palo Alto Zoning
¯Three-party agreement
¯County Genera Plan
¯Community Plan and Use Permit
APPLICABLE COMP PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND PROGRAMS
GOVERNANCE AND REGULATION
Land Use
Policy L-2:Maintain active cooperative working relationship with Santa Clara County and Stanford
University regarding land use issues.
Policy L-46: Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical Center
Program L-l:Maintain and update as appropriate the 1985 Land Use Policies Agreement that sets
forth land use policies of the City, Santa Clara County and Stanford University with
regard to Stanford’s unincorporated lands.
Community Services and Facilities
Program C-7:Require an assessment of school impacts prior to the approval of development projects
that require legislative acts, including general plan amendments and zoning changes.
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 35
2.0
2.1
2.2
FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT NEEDS
NOTE: The following narrative applies to Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
These sections identify the key components of Stanford’s proposal for renewal and
replacement of its SUMC facilities in Palo Alto. As described in Section 1.1, City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Program L-46 requires that the Area Plan address building locations, floor
area ratios, height limits and parking requirements. Until the City acts on Stanford’s
proposals, these sections of the Area Plan Update will not be finalized.
Drivers for Renewal and Replacement
Section 2.1 will identify Stanford’s rationale for proposing the renewal and replacement
project.
OUTLINE:
¯Regulatory issues
°Increased demand
°Improvements to delivery of health care services
¯Optimal hospital planning and contemporary facilities
¯Support of contemporary Translational Research
o Community health provider relationships
Proposal for Renewal and Replacement - 2020
Section 2.2 will describe Stanford’s conceptual proposal, including proposed changes in
building locations, floor area ratios, height limits and parking requirements.
OUTLINE:
¯Summary of Stanford’s proposed changes in square feet
¯Stanford Hospital and Clinics
o Replacement beds and expansion
o New construction, reuse, demolition
o "Right-sizing" current operations
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
o Expansion beds and services
o New construction, reuse, demolition
¯Stanford University School of Medicine
o Contemporary research facilities
o New construction, demolition
¯Hoover Parcel
o Medical office replacement
o Hoover Pavilion
¯Welch Road
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 35
3.1
PLAN ELEMENTS
NOTE:
1. Sections 3.2 through 3.10 will describe each element and its relationship to City of Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan policies
2. Where appropriate, diagrams of Stanford’s proposal for future conditions will be
accompanied by diagrams of existing conditions
Planning Principles
This section discusses the broad planning principles that have been adopted by the City of Palo
Alto in its Comprehensive Plan and will be used in planning and development of the Medical
Center.
Comp Plan goals, policies and programs call for a well-designed, compact, healthy, pedestrian-
scale community, with thriving employment districts and commercial areas and with attractive
gathering spaces and coherent patterns of development. The Comp Plan also contains a
commitment to supply housing to meet Palo AIto’s share of regional housing needs and to
protect and conserve Palo AIto’s open space areas. Policies include working with Stanford and
Santa Clara County cooperatively on land use matters while meeting the city goals for
appropriate development.
OUTLINE=
¯ Maintain quality and character of SUMC to support overall community character.
o Integrated land use, open space, support services, and transportation network
o Unified but unique design character
o Compact, pedestrian-oriented development
Plan for Sustainability
o Efficient use of land and resources
o Multi-modal connectivity
o Health and welfare of users, patients, staff, visitors, etc.
Create Clarity and Order
o Strong sense of orientation
o Strong internal and contextual connections
Create a Strong Stanford Identity
o Strong shared framework
o Clear individual and functional identities
Meet expected needs and phasing
o Long-term view
o Inherent flexibility
o Create or preserve future building sites
The following comp Plan Goals Policies and Principles are considered in establishing planning
principles and objectives for the Area Plan:
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 35
APPLICABLE COMP PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND PROGRAMS
PLANNING PRINCIPLES
Land Use
Goal L-l:A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive
Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces.
Goal L-5:High Quality Employment Districts, Each with its Own Distinctive Character and Each
Contributing to the Character of the City as a Whole.
Policy L-2:Maintain active cooperative working relationship with Santa Clara County and Stanford
University regarding land use issues.
Policy L-5:Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and
unacceptable due to their size and scale.
Policy L-IO:Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers, and Employment
Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the region’s transit and street
system.
Policy L-45:Develop Stanford Medical Center in a manner that recognizes the citywide goal of
compact, pedestrian-oriented development as well as the functional needs of the
Medical Center.
Business and Economic
Goal B-6:Thriving Employment Districts at Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, East
Bayshore/San Antonio Road Area and Bayshore Corridor that Complement the City,s
Business and Neighborhood Centers.
Policy B-9:
Policy B-32:
Encourage new businesses that meet the City’s business and economic goals to locate
in Palo Alto.
Assist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of health care
services. Work with the Center to plan for changing facility needs, but within the
context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies, aswell as the goals and policies
of other relevant jurisdictions.
SUMC-AFea Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 35
BLANK PAGE
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 8 of 35
3.2 Land Use
This section is the heart of the Area Plan. It discusses land use for the SUMC within the
context of regional, city, and Stanford campus land use. Many of the planning principles
discussed in the previous section can also be applied to Land Use.
Throughout its history of planning for the SUMC, Stanford has established the fundamental
land use goals of unity, synergy of functional relationships, security, and flexibility. It has
striven to accommodate and integrate clinical uses with teaching and research while providing
necessary support uses such as housing, childcare, and related non-Stanford health care and
commercial uses.
As in previous development proposals at SUMC, the hospitals will be required to achieve a
balance between City goals, policies, and programs and SUMC’s programmatic objectives.
Achieving this balance will be a complex exercise given the size of the project and the many
interconnected issues.
City will develop a series of key planning issues based upon Comprehensive Plan goals,
policies and programs in response to the hospitals’ proposed project. These key issues will
describe specific City objectives to address expected impacts of the project. The Area Plan will
not analyze the impacts of the project (this would be accomplished through the environmental
review process), but will outline the overall issues that are to be considered throughout the
review process, including the preparation of the Development Agreement.
Specific objectives of Comp Plan goals, policies, and programs emphasize sound planning as
described in section 3.1 and focus on maintaining appropriate scale and density. Other
objectives include the reuse of old buildings and the appropriate siting and design of parking.
OUTLINE:
¯Goals
o Unity and Synergy
o Compatibility
o Security
o Economy
o Flexibility
o Hospital
¯Academic
¯Housing and lodging
¯Open Space
°Ancillary Services and Support
¯Community Health Providers
¯Linkages and connections
o Stanford Shopping Center
o Downtown/PAMF
o . Campus
o Residential
EXHIBITS:
o Functional Uses and Buildings - Existing
¯ Functional Uses and Buildings - Proposed
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 9 of 35
APPLICABLE COMP PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND PROGRAMS
LAND USE
Land Use
Goal L-l:
Goal L-4:
A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive
Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces.
Inviting, Pedestrian-scale Centers That Offer a Variety of Retail and Commercial
Services and Provide Focal Points and Community Gathering Places for the City’s
Residentia Neighborhoods and Employment Districts.
Goal L-5:High Quality Employment Districts, Each with its Own Distinctive Character and Each
Contributing to the Character of the City as a Whole.
Goal L-6:Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City
Streets and Public Spaces.
Policy L-3:Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public
streets in the developed portions of the City.
Policy L-5:Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming
and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
Policy L-8:Maintain a limit of 3,257,900 sqUare feet of new non-residential development for the
combined nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City Council may make
modTications for specific properties that allow modest additional growth. Such
additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900 square foot maximum.
Policy L-IO:Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers, and Employment
Districts ]integrate these areas with the City’s and the region’s transit and street
system.
Policy L-19:Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix
of small-scale local businesses.
Policy L-45:Develop Stanford Medical Center in a manner that recognizes the citywide goal of
compact, pedestrian-oriented development as well as the functional needs of the
Medica Center.
Policy L-58:Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings
Policy L-71:Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to
the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real and Middlefield Road, the Caltrain stations,
entries to commercial districts, and Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real.
Program L-72: Develop a strategy to enhance gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public
spaces, and/or public buildings. Emphasize the creek bridges and riparian settings at
the entrances to the City over Adobe Creek and San Francisquito Creek
Program L-76: Evaluate parking requirements and actual parking needs for specific uses. Develop
design criteria based on a standard somewhere between average and peak conditions.
Transportation
Program T-l: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and re-use of vacant or underutilized parcels
employing minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit,
bicycling, and walking.
Program T-2:Promote mixed use development to provide housing and commercial services near
employment centers, thereby reducing the necessity of driving.
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 10 of 35
Program T-3:Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near intermodal transit
stations.
Program T- 48:Encourage parking strategies in the Stanford Medical Center area that maximize the
efficient use of parking and, in the long term, consider the possible use of remote
parking lots with shuttle bus serwce.
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 11 of 35
FUNCTIONAL USES and BUILDINGS-Existing
Clinical Care
Teaching and Research
Medical Office and Research
Ancilliary (Includes residential and child care)
Open Space
NOTE: Zones include parking DRAFT - 11Apr07
FUNCTIONAL USES and BUILDINGS-Proposed
Hospital / Clinical
~" ~,~,~ Teaching and Research (Can include clinical)
Medical Office and Research (Can include hospital support)
Ancilliary (Can include hospilal suppod, residential, and child care)
Open Space
NOTE: Zones include parking DRAFT - 11Apr07
3.3 Housing
This section will discuss various strategies for provision of housing expected to be necessitated
by the project. The section will analyze the suitability of housing sites within the Area Plan
area.
OUTLINE."
o Identification of housing sites in Palo Alto
o Identification of housing sites in unincorporated Santa Clara County
o Types and density of housing, including mixture of Below Market Rate housing
APPLICABLE COMP PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND PROGRAMS
HOUSING
Housing
Policy H-2:Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity
in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage devek~pment of affordable and
attainable housing.
Policy H-3:
Policy Hi4:
Program H-l:
Support the designation of vacant or underutilized land for housing.
Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while
promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality.
Allow for increased housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas and
particularly near transit centers.
Program H-50:
Program H-51 :
NOTES:
Continue to require developers of employment-generating commercial and industria
developments to contribute to the supply of low- and moderate-income housing
Periodically review the housing nexus formula as required under Chapter 16.47 of the
Municipal Code to better reflect the impact of new jobs on housing demand and cost.
The SUMC Area includes a 6.7 acre site that is zoned for high density residential uses (RM-40).
The RM-40 site presently is developed with 148 housing units. Approximately 100 additional
housing units could be accommodated on this site under the current zoning. Maintaining the
current zoning on this site would allow for future potential development of high density housing.
In addition, the SUMC Area includes two significant housing sites that are located in
unincorporated Santa Clara County. Stanford’s General Use Permit, approved by Santa Clara
County in 2000, allows development of 200 housing units for hospital residents and post-
doctorate students at the Quarry/Arboretum site, and 150 additional housing units for hospital
residents and post-doctorate students at the Quarry/El Camino site. These housing units would
be affordable and attainable, and would serve the population associated with the SUMC.
The City implements Program H-50 through provision of new housing or through a housing
impact fee. Hospitals are exempt from this fee; however, medical offices are not exempt.
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 14 of 35
3.4 Urban Design Quality/Community Character
It is in the interest of both the City of Palo Alto and Stanford that the SUMC continues to
develop in a manner that assures excellence in urban design and community character. This
section identifies the City of Palo Alto’s adopted community design goals and objectives, as
well as Stanford’s intent to develop an exemplary quality of design. Stanford’s involvement in
the development of the Comp Plan led directly to goals, policies and programs intended to
influence design of the SUMC to enhance overall City character as well as that of adjacent
centers. Well-designed buildings arranged to create a coherent city; locating and designing
buildings and landscapes to enhance and enliven streets and public spaces; and sensitively
integrating human scale are all Comp Plan directions that contribute to community health,
safety, and well-being.
Stanford architectural traditions as well as new ideas about community design will influence
implementation of the City’s adopted goals and objectives. Infill and redevelopment of the
urbanized campus has been a recent focus. As academic programs become more interrelated,
connection to the SUMC from other parts of the campus becomes more important. Buildings
and infrastructure will take advantage of the benign local climate by incorporating courtyards
and arcades.
Buildings will be sited to define key open spaces as exemplified in the planning of the Main
Quad and contemporary facilities elsewhere on the campus. Building heights wilt be
proportioned to provide design interest and minimize view impacts while accommodating
functional needs. Design and location of architectural elements, landscape features, and uses
to promote interaction is another campus planning tradition that has been carried over to the
SUMC. Incorporating cultural and natural landscape elements into the design fabric of the
campus is a long standing tradition that has permeated design of all of Stanford’s major
components including the campus, SUMC, and Research Park.
While the SUMC is a part of Stanford and the City, Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC) and
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH) are two distinct and independent institutions and
business entities, each with strong community presence. It is important that these entities
maintain their identity and distinctiveness within the greater context.
OUTLINE:
¯ Objectives
o Redevelop and infill
o Organize around outdoor space
o Provide for building bulk, mass and height to provide design interest and to enhance
visual quality
o Site buildings to define and reinforce outdoor space
o Guide buildings to promote human interaction and comfort
o Program and design to feature alternative travel modes
o Center design character to enhance character of city and adjacent centers
¯Existing Considerations
o- Lack of clarity and orientation
o Lack of cohesiveness
¯Proposed Considerations
o Overall unity and orientation
o Maintain individual identities
o Height
EXHIBITS:
¯ Area Plan Site Concept
SUMC-AFea Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 15 of 35
APPL]’CABLE COHP PLAN POLI"CI"ES~ GOALS, AND PROGRAMS
URBAN DESIGN (~UAL¥1"Y/COHMUNITY CHARACTER
Land Use
Goa L-6:Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City
Streets and Public Spaces.
Policy L-3:Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public
streets in the developed portions of the City.
Policy L-5:Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming
and unacceptable due to their size anc~ scale.
Policy L-20:Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers Reinforce
street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas.
Policy L-22:Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Centers through an
aggressive maintenance, repair and cleaning program; street improvements; and the
use of ~ variety of paving materials anti landscaping.
Policy L-42:
Policy L-45:
Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages transit,
pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands.
Develop Stanford Medical Center in a manner that recognizes the citywide goal of
compact, pedestrian-oriented development as well as the functional needs of the
Medical Center.
Policy L-49:Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of
community and persona safety. Provide an orderec] variety of entries, porches,
windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with
neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-
scale details and massing.
Policy L-71:Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to
the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real and Middlefield Road, the Caltrain stations,
entries to commercial districts, anc~ Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real.
Policy L-73:Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in connection with new
development projects. Consider incentives for including public art in large
development projects.
Policy L-75:Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind
buildings or underground wherever possible.
Policy L-76:
Policy L-77:
Require trees and other landscaping within parking lots.
Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots to minimize the amount of land that
must be devoted to parking, provided that economic and traffic safety goals can still
be achieved.
Policy L-79:
Program L-17:
Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking
garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for
opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or
mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive.
Through public/private cooperation, provide obvious, clean, and accessible restrooms
available for use during normal business hours.
Program L-49: Require an assessment of school impacts prior to the approval of development
projects that require legislative acts, including general plan amendments and zoning
changes.
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 16 of 35
Area Plan Site ConceptSTANFORD UNIVERSITY ARCHITECT/CAM PUS PLANNING AND DESIGN 0 450Stanford Medical Center o4.1o.oz ~ 13510
BLANK PAGE
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City Of Palo Alto Page 18 of 35
3.5 Linkages and Connections
This section discusses the relationship and linkages between the SUMC and adjacent, nearby
or otherwise related or supporting land uses.
The Linkages and Connections exhibit illustrates a series of nodes where circulation elements
provide physical connection and access and where land uses are integrated.
OUTLINE:
¯ Primary Nodes and Gateways
o El Camino/Sand Hill
o Sand Hill/Pasteur
o El Camino/Palm/University
¯Secondary Nodes
o El Camino/Quarry
o Quarry/Welch
o Quarry/Campus
o Campus/Serra
¯Minor Nodes
o Sand Hill/Vineyard
o Sand Hill/Durand
o Campus/Welch
o Campus/Roth
¯ Circulation
o Vehicular
o Transit
o Pedestrians / Bicyclists
¯Land Uses
o Medical Center (clinical, teaching and research)
o Academic/Campus
o Residential
o Commercial / retail (Stanford Shopping Center, downtown)
EXHIBITS:
¯ Linkages and Connections
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Dra~ 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 19 of 35
CIRCULATION LIN K.~GE
~ VEHICULAR
==~ PEDESTRIAN I BIKEITRANSIT
LAND USE LINK~.GE
Downtown
Paid Alto
Menlo
Park
Connections and LinkageSTANFORD UNIVERSITY ARCHITECT/CAMPUS PLANNING AND DESIGN
Stanford Medical Center
BLANK PAGE
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 21 of 35
3.6 Circulation, Vehicular Access, and Parking
NOTE: The following narrative applies to Sections 3.6 and 3.7.
Sections 3.6 and 3.7 analyze transportation opportunities and limitations in the plan area.
Given the recognized constraints on road capacity, a fundamental goal is to minimize auto trip
increases. Similarly, another primary goal is to increase access opportunities for bicyclists and
pedestrians. The City recognizes that Stanford also must accommodate the access and travel
needs of the users of the SUMC, which may differ significantly from those of the workforce.
Clarity and order in the circulation systems, clear connections to regional transportation
resources, and convenient and accessible parking are of prime importance for patients,
visitors, and medical staff. Providing these elements can relieve these users from stresses
associated with their travel and allow them to focus on the SUMC’s primary health care
functions.
The layout and past development of the SUMC and local transportation traditions have created
infrastructure to support walking and biking. The Area Plan will examine opportunities to
expand these systems through specific project improvements while providing efficient access
for vehicles, the primary travel mode for patients and visitors
Applicable Comp Plan directions include the consideration of economic, environmental, and
social costs of transportation decisions and the possibility of higher density or concentrated
land uses to support transportation efficiencies. Program and policies also support the
planning, design, and creation of streets and other facilities to support alternative
transportation modes as well as vehicles.
OUTLINE:
Objectives
o Minimize automobile trip increases
o Reduce dependence on single occupancy vehicles (SOV)
o Easy Access / Permeability for all levels of mobility
o Improved external connections
o Adequate Capacities of onsite roads
o Utilize / optimize existing network
o Optimize functional access
o Parking convenient to patients and visitors
Existing Considerations
o Emergency vehicle access / public health and safety
o Current traffic volumes and capacity
o Multiple destinations
o Conflict areas
o Proposed Considerations
o Future of transportation
o Effect of off-campus centers
o Performance-based parking requirements
o Improved signage and wayfinding
EXHIBITS:
¯Circulation Plan
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 22 of 35
APPLICABLE COMP PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND PROGRAMS
CIRCULATION, VEHICULAR ACCESS, AND PARKING
Land Use
Policy L-IO:
Policy L-75:
Policy L-77:
Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers, and Employment
Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the region’s transit and street
system.
Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings
or underground wherever possible.
Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots to minimize the amount of land that must
be devoted to parking, provided that economic and traffic safety goals can still be
achieved.
Transportation
Goal T-l:Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
Goal T-5:A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods.
Policy T-l:Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling and public transit use.
Policy T-2:Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation
decisions.
Policy T-14:Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations including
public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers and
multi-modal stations.
Policy T-26:Participate in the design and implementation of comprehensive solutions to traffic
problems near Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center.
Policy T-39:To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of citywide
transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over
vehicle level-of-service at intersections.
Policy T-48:Encourage parking strategies in the Stanford Medical Center area that maximize the
efficient use of parking and, in the long term, consider the possible use of remote
parking lots with shuttle bus service.
Program T-l:Encourage infill, redevelopment, and re-use of vacant or underutilized parcels
emploYing minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit,
bicycling, and walking.
Program T-2: Promote mixed use development to provide housing and commercial services near
employment centers, thereby reducing the necessity of driving.
Program T-35: Consider increased public transit, a shuttle, and other traffic and parking solutions to
ensure safe, convenient access to the Stanford Shopping Center/Medical Center area.
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 23 of 35
Notes:
The Comprehensive Plan encourages infil development in areas such as the SUMC that are
located along transit corridors and near a multi-modal transit station. These policies are
designed to assist the City in reducing vehicle trips associated with future development.
Stanford provides a robust trip reduction program o~ its campus and at the SUMC and achieves
substantial trip reductions as a result. Development in the SUMC should be designed to expand
upon those programs.
Consistent with Policy T-14, the draft update will show corridors where pedestrian and bicycle
access could be improved. Within those corridors, a variety of improvements could be
constructed in the future. However, the configuration and plans for specific improvements are at
a level of detail beyond that contemplated by the Area Plan.
3.7 Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Circulation
NOTE: See Section 3.6 for narrative.
OUTLINE:
¯ Objectives
o Improved off-site pedestrian and bike connections
o Improved access to transit and the Intermodal Center
o Walkable campus
o Pedestrian and bike-friend y streets
o Accommodation for all modes (transit and bike)
o Pedestrian/Bicycle/Transit corridors
¯Existing Considerations
o Adequacy of facilities
¯Proposed Considerations
o Expansion/enhancement of bicycle and pedestrian systems
o Program facilities to encourage bicycle use (lockers, parking, showers, etc.)
APPLICABLE COMP PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND PROGRAMS
TRANSIT, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
Transportation
Goal T-I:Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
Goal T-3:Facilities, SeFvices, and PFOgFams that EncouFage and PFOmote Walking and Bicycling.
Policy T-10:EncouFage amenities such as seating, lighting, and signage at bus stops to incFease
rider comfort and safety.
Policy T-14:Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including
public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers,
and multi-m0dal transit stations.
Policy T-15:Encourage the acquisition of easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new
private developments.
Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities,
including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, in private
developments, and at other community destinations.
Policy T-23:Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street
parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural
details.
SUMC-AFea Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 24 of 35
Program T~I :
Program T-3:
Program T-32:
Encourage infill, redevelopment, and re-use of vacant or underutilized parcels
employing minimum density rec~uirements that are appropriate to support transit,
bicycling, and walking.
Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near multi-modal transit
stations (See Section 3.2, Lanc~ Use)
Improve pedestrian crossings with bulb outs, small curb radii, street trees near corners
bollards, and landscaping to create protected areas.
Program T-35: Consider increased public transit, a shuttle, and other traffic and parking solutions to
ensure safe, convenient access to the Stanford Shopping Center/Medical Center area.
Program T-37:
Land Use
Policy L-42:
Policy L-43:
Program L-26:
Program L-44:
Program L-71 :
Program L-76:
Program L-77:
Provide safe, convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and shuttle connections between the
Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Center areas and future housing along the Sand
Hill Road corridor, the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station, Downtown Palo
Alto, and other primary destinations.
Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages transit,
pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands.
Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages transit,
pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands.
Improving pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections to create an urban link
between University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center.
Design the paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with
the character of the area where they are located.
Recognize Sand Hill Road, University Avenue, Embarcadero Road, Page Mill Road,
Oregon Expressway, Interstate 280, Arastradero Road (west of Foothill Expressway),
Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway, and Skyline Boulevard as scenic routes.
Evaluate parking requirements and actual parking needs for specific uses. Develop
design criteria based on a standard somewhere between average and peak conditions.
Revise parking requirements to encourage creative solutions such as valet parking,
landscaped parking reserves, satellite parking, and others that minimize the use of
open land for parking.
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 25 of 35
BLANK PAGE
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 27 of 35
3.8 Open Space
This section reviews the open space resources available to the SUMC users. The section will
identify strategies for connection to nearby resources such as the Arboretum and San
Francisquito Creek, as well as strategies for incorporating landscape elements like therapeutic
gardens or reflective retreats in direct support of clinical or research programs. The traditions
of incorporating landscape elements such as courtyards and ceremonial spaces into the
campus and urban fabric will be expanded to incorporate objectives for incorporating local
contemporary landscape resources.
Comp Plan policies for the protection of distant open space views will be incorporated into
building siting decisions. Policies and programs intended to protect and enhance the
community forest will guide the planning for site and street tree protection, replacement, and
planting.
OUTLINE:
Objectives
o Connect to and enhance nearby open space resources
o Incorporate therapeutic gardens
o Provide and protect sufficient active and passive open space resources
¯Existing Considerations
o Courtyard traditions
o Integrated landscape
o Cultural landscape resources
¯Proposed Considerations
o Ceremonial spaces
o Sustainable landscapes
o Increase accessibility to open space (within and adjacent)
APPLICABLE COMP PLAN POLICIES~ GOALS~ AND PROGRAMS
OPEN SPACE
Land Use
Policy L-3:Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public
streets in the developed portions of the City.
Policy L-76:Require trees and other landscaping within parking lots.
Natural Environment
Policy N-4:Preserve the foothills area as predominantly open space.
Policy N-16:Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new
development, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when
it is impractical to locate them onsite.
Community Services and Facilities
Policy C-26:
Policy C-27:
Policy C-29:
Policy C-30:
Program C-24:
Program C-25:
Maintain and enhance existing park facilities.
Seek opportunities to develop new parks and recreation facilities to meet the growing
need of residents and employees of Palo Alto.
Strategically locate public facilities and parks to serve all neighborhoods in the City.
Facilitate access to parks and community facilities by a variety of transportation needs.
Preserve El Camino Park as a recreational resource for the community.
Consider new park sites when preparing coordinated area plans.
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 28 of 35
Program C-26:In conjunction with new development proposals, pursue creation of park, plaza, or
other public gathering spaces that meet neighborhood needs.
SUMC-Area PLan Upoa[e - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 29 of 35
3.9 Utilities and Public Infrastructure
This section identifies the infrastructure needed to support the SUMC. The infrastructure must
be sized for adequate delivery of services and located to support land use, urban design, anc~
open space objectives.
.City Comp Plan policies call for compact utility structures located and screened appropriately,
and, when needed, the possible use of artists to mitigate detrimental visual effects.
OUTLINE:
¯ Objectives
o Plan for long-term demands
o Plan for long-term locations
o Emphasize conservation and sustainability
¯Existing Considerations
o City / Stanford sources
o Jurisdiction: City / Office of State Hospital Planning and Design (OSHPD)
¯Proposed Considerations
o Corridors to support planning framework
o Sustainable utility design and equipment
o Conservation approaches
APPLICABLE COMP PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND PROGRA~IS
UTILITIES AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Land Use
Policy L-79:Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages
and parking lots to meet high quality urban desigq standards Look for opportunities to
use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements
of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive.
Program L-80: Continue the citywide under grounding of utility wires. Minimize the impacts of under
grounding on street tree root systems and planting areas.
Program L-81: Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers,
switching devices, and back flow preventers. Place .these elements in locations that will
minimize their visual intrusion.
Natural Resources
Program N-24: Improve storm drainage performance by constructing new system improvements where
necessary and replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate lines with larger lines or
parallel lines.
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 30 of 35
3.10 Sustainability and Green Building
Although neither the 2000 Area Analysis nor the 1998 Comp Plan included sustainability
elements, it is a vital planning issue in this community and these times. The City continues to
develop an aggressive sustainability and green building program, involving development
review, utility requirements and incentives, and public outreach. Although no sustainability
plan element exists in the Comp Plan, there are numerous established planning principles and
policies that support sustainability. Also, many land use planning and community design,
transportation, natural environment, and community facilities goals and policies strongly
support planning for a compact, sustainable community and facilities.
For the last five years, Stanford has been intensively studying ways to make the campus more
sustainable. Efforts include the Sustainable Building Guidelines, life-cycle costing, space
utilization studies and guidelines, and energy and water conservation programs. There is also
a major academic initiative to incorporate sustainable thinking into the curriculum. Beyond
"Green" buildings, and the Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford has convened a
Sustainability Working Group to look at sustainable practices university wide and to consider
the economic and social equity implications in concert with environmental benefits (the three
E’s). OImsted and Coolidge’s plan for the original campus was highly climate responsive. Those
principles continue to guide Stanford planning. Stanford will consider all of these resources in
developing the Area Plan and identifying sustainability objectives.
Sustainability issues to be addressed in the Area Plan include, but are not limited to:, site
drainage and management of runoff, high performance (beyond green) buildings, land use
efficiency, transportation efficiency, energy efficiency, water conservation, and waste
reduction.
OUTLINE:
¯ Objectives
o Informed choices
o Balance "3 E’s" (Environment, Economic, and Social Equity)
o Optimize use of resources
¯Existing Considerations
o Founding Plan and Principles
o SU Guidelines for Sustainable Building
o Life Cycle Cost Analysis
o Space Utilization Studies and Guidelines
°Proposed Considerations
o Reuse of building and materials
o Levels of water and energy use
SUMC-Area Plan Update ~ Draft 25 Apr 07
City of Palo Alto Page 31 of 35
APPLICABLE COHP PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND PROGRAMS
SUSTAINABILITY AND GREEN BUILDING
Natural Environment
Policy N-20:Maximize the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing residences,
businesses and industries.
Policy N-21:Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial,
industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities.
Policy N-22:
Policy N-24:
Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or public improvement
projects to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks, and San Francisco Bay.
Improve storm drainage performance by constructing new system improvements where
necessary and replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate lines with larger lines or
parallel lines.
Policy N-35:Reduce solid waste generation through salvage and reuse of building materials,
including architecturally and historically significant materials.
Policy N-47:Optimize energy conservation and efficiency in new and existing residences, businesses,
and industries in Palo Alto.
Program N-45: Recommend revisions to proposed projects as needed to reduce air quality impacts,
including improvements that reduce single occupant vehicle use.
Transportation
Program T-5:Work with private interests such as the Chamber of Commerce and major institutions to
develop and coordinate trip reduction strategies.
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 32 of 35
4.0
4.1
4,2
4.3
ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS - EXISTING AND PROPOSED
NOTE: This section identifies the zoning changes that would be needed if the City of Palo Alto
ultimately decides to approve Stanford’s proposa for renewal and replacement of its SUMC
facilities. Stanford will request these zoning changes as part of its application. By including
the zoning information in this draft plan update, the City is not endorsing the changes. Rather
it is describing what changes would be needed were the project to be approved. Because
Stanford’s proposal is conceptual at this time, this section is likely to be modified as the
proposal continues to be developed and reviewed.
Existing Zoning
OUTLINE-"
¯Allowable uses in PF zone
¯Development standards in PF zone
¯MOR Zoning on portions of SUMC
Zoning Changes - Palo Alto
OUTLINE:
¯Future Considerations
o New Hospita Zone for current PF parcels
o PF Combining Zone for current PF parcels
o Rezone some of the MOR parcels
EXHIBITS:
¯Zoning - Existing
¯Zoning - Proposed
Stanford’s Proposed Changes to Development Standards
OUTLINE=
¯Site Coverage
¯FAR
¯Setbacks / yards
°Building Heights
¯Parking Requirements
°Open Space
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 33 of 35
//
ZONING-Existing
Public Facilities- PF
Medical Office Research - MOR
High Density Residential - RM 40
General Use/Academic Campus-A1 (SCC)
NO]E: Academic allows housing
DRAFT - 11 Apt07
5.0 IHPLEHENTATION
This section is describes the overall process for implementation of Area Plan principles and
objectives. Implementation will occur primarily through application and approval of specific
SUMC projects. However, the City may also pursue initiatives for improvements to public
infrastructure and the University could make improvements independent of Hospitals and
Medical School proposals that implement elements controlled by campus land use regulations.
A complete list of steps and process affecting implementation will be developed with primary
focus on a City process that has been described to include the following:
o Preliminary conceotual application
o Area Plan refinement
¯Project development and application
¯Project review (environmental assessment, mitigation)
¯Development Agreement negotiation
¯Project approval and conditioning
¯Construction Permitting (w/OSHPD)
o Project construction
6.0 APPENDICES
NOTE: To be developed at later date
7.0 ACKNOWLEDGHENTS
NOTE: To be developed at later date
SUMC-Area Plan Update - Draft 25 Apt 07
City of Palo Alto Page 35 of 35
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
ATTACHMENT B
April 17, 2007
Steven Turner
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Stanford University Medical Center Information Needs
Dear Steven,
We have discussed the additional information needs you identified on Friday and
have provided responses below. As you’ve stated, the need for these responses
is contextual and as such it should not blur the clear distinction that the
expansion entitlements being sought are for the Stanford University Medical
Center (SUMC) hospitals, which are entities separate from Stanford University
and with their own leasehold development parcels and otherwise limited
resources. The hospitals are not subject to many of the University’s internal
guidelines and requirements, and they do not own or control other land in the
Medical Center or county CUP area outside of their limited SUMC leaseholds.
Sustainability/Green Building Statement - A brief description of Stanford’s
sustainability and green building programs. Appficability of these programs to
the hospitals and medical school facilities. Examples of recent development
incorporath~g these programs and effods. Brief description of the Marguerite
shuttle and commute alternatives programs. This was a topic Frank thought
Stanford should promote as much as possible.
Sustainability
Stanford’s internal Guidelines for Sustainable Buildh]gs have refined the
Labs21 (co-sponsored partnership by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and U.S. Department of Energy) and the LEED rating systems for
application to Stanford University. The Guidelines focus on the delivery of
high performance buildings that minimize energy and water use and
maximize user comfort. In addition, the University’s Guidelines for Life
Cycle Cost Analysis aligns long-term value with front-end capital costs.
Both sets of guidelines will be applied by Stanford University to School of
Medicine construction within the SUMC.
655 Serra Street ¯ Stanford, California 94305-6115 ¯ (650) 723-7773 Fax (650) 725-8598
The hospitals are not subject to Stanford’s internal guidelines, and instead
are developing their own approach to sustainable design based on the
Green Guide for Health Care and other available documentation as
translated to healthcare facilities by the US Green Building Council
(LEED). Robin Guenther, co-author of the Green Guide for Health Care,
is a member of the hospitals’ design teams and is bringing her expertise to
the projects as the hospitals are exploring appropriate methods to site
buildings, minimize energy use, minimize water use, use recycled and
reclaimed materials, and enhance the hospitals’ materials management
recycling program.
Mar.querite Shuttle and Commute Alternatives
Stanford University and both of the hospitals provide a robust trip
reduction program on the campus and at the SUMC, and achieve
substantial trip reductions as a result. The program provided by the
hospitals is described below, and has also been provided to Gayle Likens,
City staff leader for the Transportation Issue Team.
The 2005 SUMC TDM Monitoring Report shows that transit ridership to
SUMC has more than doubled since 2000, and SUMC is currently
surpassing its trip reduction goal of 120 trips (200 trips later adjusted to
120 trips) related to the Use Permit for the Center for Cancer Treatment
and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion. This success is a direct result
of the comprehensive set of commute mode alternative programs that the
University and hospitals provide, which include the following programs
used by both University and hospitals staff:
Commute Club (for individuals agreeing not to drive alone to work):
o Up to $216/year in Clean Air Cash or Carpool Credit
o Reserved parking spaces for all carpools/vanpools
o Complimentary daily parking passes for carpoolers
o Vanpool subsidies
o Online Stanford Ridematching Service
¯Commuter Buddy Program
,,Pretax payroll deduction for transit passes, Caltrain parking, and
commuter checks
o Rewards for recruiting new members
¯Guaranteed ride home
o 12 free hourly car rental vouchers
o Membership appreciation events
o Entries into regular prize drawings
~Members-only commuter gifts
,,Ability to purchase up to eight daily parking permits per month
and have them mailed to your home
Marguerite Shuttle:
o Free, comprehensive campus shuttle system, open to the public
Connects with local transit and Caltrain, as well as shopping and
dining
o Midnight Express night safety service
Automated Transportation Management System, with real-time
schedules viewable on the web
Eco Pass:
Free use of VTA buses and light rails, Dumbarton Express, and
Highway 17 Express
Line U Stanford Express:
Free use of East Bay express bus that connects BART and ACE
train to Stanford
Bicycle Programs:
o Bicycle registration
¯Complimentary Mid-Peninsula Bike Map, as well as city and
county bike maps
,Clothes and bike locker rental/shower information and maps
.Safety education program
¯Commute planning/cycling information
¯Campus Bike Shop
o Bike light giveaways
Existing "Open Space" within and near the SUMC area - Brief overview of
the existing functional and useable open space areas. This would include El
Camino Park, San Francisquito Creek open space and trails, existing usable
landscaped gathering areas and landscaped pedestrian pathways and links
within the Medical Center/School of Medicine areas, etc. Provide acreage or
miles of trials if available.
The hospitals lease land from Stanford University that corresponds
generally to the footprints of their structures; therefore the functional open
space controlled by these entities is limited mostly to courtyard areas
within the boundaries of the structures themselves.
Within the Area Plan boundaries, functional open space land that is not
controlled by the hospitals includes the Pasteur median and the North
Garden. Neither of these areas is designated "open space" by the City of
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; however, these areas provide green,
landscaped areas that have aesthetic value.
Other functional open space near the Area Plan and within the City of Palo
Alto are El Camino Park and the streamside areas along San Francisquito
Creek.
In addition, the Arboretum is located in unincorporated Santa Clara
County and is designated by the County as Campus Open Space. The
figure and table on the following page show the locations, size and use of
the existing open spaces located within and near the SUMC Area Plan.
Park
/
Oalo Alto
Existing Open Space Areas Within and Near the
Stanford University Medical Center Area
Within
Medical
Center
Area Plan
~11"
Medical
Center
Area Plan
M a p
Key
Location
Pasteur Median
North Garden
Landscaped Gathering
Areas
E1 Camino Park
San Francisquito Creel<
Slreamside Open Space
Arboret u m
Jurisdiction
Pal(;) Alto
Palo AIto
Palo Alto
Palo Allo
Palo Alto
Santa Clara
5.0
1.4
Various
small areas
10.2
19.5
Use
Priwtte,
accessible to
pubtic_~_____
Private,
accessible Io
public
Private,
for SUMC
Public,
recreational
Private, public
path
Privale,
accessible to
Eublic
Existing Foothills "Open Space" - a summary of the protected open space
areas on university lands, acreage, trails, etc. Include protection expirations
date, if applicable. This is to provide context regarding the amount of open
space the University currently protects.
The hospitals do not own, lease or control any lands within the foothills
areas of Palo Alto or Santa Clara County and no foothills lands are within
the boundaries of the SUMC Area Plan. For general context, the following
information describes the land use designations governing Stanford
University’s foothills lands in Santa Clara County,
Land use information concerning the Stanford "foothills" is presented in
the Stanford Community Plan (2000) prepared by Santa Clara County.
These lands are designated Open Space and Field Research
(approximately 1,841 acres), and Special Conservation Areas
(approximately 405 acres) as shown on the figure on the following page
from the Community Plan. They are separated from the academic
campus by an Academic Growth Boundary (AGB), which concentrates
academic facilities on the central campus. The AGB will remain in its
location for at least 25 years from approval of the Community Plan n
December 2000 and until 5 million gsf of academic facilities have been
added within the AGB. The Open Space and Field Research designation
allows field study activities, utility infrastructure that is consistent with
natural appearance of the foothill settings, and grazing. The Special
Conservation Area designation allows conservation activities and habitat
management, field environmental studies, and appropriate agricultural
uses. New permanent structures are not allowed in either designation,
with the exception of small, specialized facilities or installations that are
necessary to support existing utilities or require a remote academic
setting.
Land Use Designations
Site
Campus Residential- Low Density
Campus Residential- Moder6te Density
Academia Campus
Public School
I-~J Campus Open Space
L’-~ Open Space and Field Research
[] Special Conservation
- = Academic Growth Boundary
o Housing - A brief ovel~,iew of the housh]g requirements included in the GUP,
the amount of housh]g that could be built on identified sites, and how those
numbers might relate and satisfy City of Palo Alto requirements. We touched
on this briefly at today’s meeting. Would the potential housh]g sites in the
Area Plan (and future units on those sites) be used to satisfy the GUP or
would these units be above and beyond what the GUP requires?
The SUMC Area includes a 4.3-acre parcel in Palo Alto that is zoned for
high-density residential uses (RM-40). This RM-40 site presently is
developed with 148 housing units. Adjacent to this site is a 2.42-acre site
that is also zoned RM-40. Up to approximately 100 additional housing
units could be accommodated on this site under the current zoning.
The SUMC Area also includes two significant housing sites that are
located in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Stanford’s GUP, approved
by Santa Clara County in 2000, allows development of 200 houses units
for hospital residents and post-doctoral students at the Quarry/Arboretum
site, and 150 additional housing units for hospital residents and post-
doctoral students at the Quarry/El Camino site.
Overall, the GUP identifies 15 housing sites totaling 220 acres and
authorizes development of approximately 3,000 new housing units. The
housing units authorized by the GUP were requested by Stanford
University in its initial development application; The GUP links the timing
of housing and academic square footage by requiring that as Stanford
University constructs specified amounts of academic square footage, it
must construct specified amounts of housing. Under this linkage
requirement, by full build-out of the academic square footage, Stanford will
have constructed about 2,400 housing units. This is not a CEQA
mitigation measure, but rather a condition of approval addressing phasing
and timing of development. Stanford is allowed under the GUP to build
about 600 more housing units than are required under the linkage
condition.
Please call if you have any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
LAND, BUILDINGS AND REAL ESTATE
William T. Phillips
Senior Associate Vice President
Charles Carter
Director, Land Use and
Environmental Planning
Attachment C
DMJM HARRIS
Koive Engineerl[~g, a division of D[~IJM Harris
1570 The Alameda #222 San Jose CA 95126
T 408.298.2929 F 408.298.2970 www.dmjmharris.com
MEMORANDUM
To:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Gayle Likens
Dennis A. Struecker, PE
April 19, 2007
City of Palo Alto Traffic Monitoring
PROJECT NO. 60021394
INTRODUCTION
The City of Palo Alto has conducted Citywide intersection monitoring for intersections
throughout the City and also into the neighboring jurisdictions of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto.
The purpose of this intersection monitoring is as follows:
Establish traffic volumes for Fall 2006 during typical counts times outside of holiday
periods and inclement weather. Establishing the baseline during typical traffic volume
periods removes the potential schedule conflicts for project specific analyses for which
these volumes may be applied.
Determine AM and PM peak hour levels of service based on Fall 2006 volumes. In
addition to traffic volumes, levels of service are based on intersection geometrics and
signal timing. Intersection geometrics were field reviewed to determine specifically how
the intersections operate. For example, right turn lanes may not be striped with a right
turn arrow; however, suitable shoulder area is available to allow right turns to occur
independent of the through movements. Also, timing charts were reviewed and field
observations made to determine signal timing and phasing during peak hours.
The result is a consistent set of volumes and intersection operations for the current
conditions. This data base can then form the basis of future project analyses.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The current procedures for intersection operational analysis in Santa Clara County are HCM
2000 from the Highway Capacity Manual. HCM 2000 is applied via the TRAFFIX software
package per the requirements of the Congestion Management Agency. The following are term.
definitions from the traffic operations analysis. Level of service for signalized intersections is
defined in terms of control delay. The definitions of level of service A through F are noted in
Gayle Likens - City of Palo Alto Traffic Monitoring
April 16, 2007
Page 2
Table 1. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay,
and acceleration delay. Average control delay weights the delay per movement according to
the traffic volumes for that movement. The critical volume to capacity (v/c) ratio is an
approximate indicator of the overall sufficiency of an intersection. The critical v/c ratio depends
on the conflicting critical lane flow rates and the signal phasing. V/C ranges from 1.0 when the
flow rate equals capacity and 0.0 when the flow rate is zero. Values above 1.0 indicate an
excess of demand over capacity. Average critical delay weights the delay for the critical
(conflicting) movements based on the traffic volume for that movement.
Table 1
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions
Level
of
Service
A
B+
B
B-
C+
C
C-
Description
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable
progression and/or short cycle lengths.
Operations with low delay occurring with good
progression and/or short cycle lengths.
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual
cycle failures begin to appear.
D+Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, .and highDV/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycleD-failures are noticeable.
E+Operations with high delay values indicating poor
E progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
E-Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
F occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or
very long cycle lengths.
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board.
Average Control Delay
Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
< 10.0
10.1 to 12.0
12.1 to 18.0
18.1 to 20.0
20.1 to 23.0
23.1 to 32.0
32.1 to 35.0
35.1 to 39.0
39.1 to 51.0
51.1 to 55.0
55.1 to 60.0
60.1 to 75.0
75.1 to 80.0
> 80.0
All four components of signalized intersection operational analyses, level of service, average
control delay, v/c, and average critical delay are used in determining potential impacts. Level of
service serves as the initial determinate of a traffic impact. A change in level of service from D
to E or F in Palo Alto is a significant impact. Level of service is based on average control delay.
A significant impact can also occur for intersections already operating at level of service E or F if
the average control delay for critical movements increases by four seconds or more and the
critical v/c increases by 0.01 or more.
2006 MONITORING RESULTS
Table 2 shows the results of the 2006 monitoring. Traffic operations noted in Table 2 are based
on the TRAFFIX software which is adapted from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. A total of
43 intersections were included in the monitoring, however, Table 2 only includes the 28
intersections in and around Stanford University. For most intersections traffic counts and
Gayle Likens - City of Palo Alto Traffic Monitoring
April 16, 2007
Page 3
intersection operations are reported for both the AM and PM peak hours. However, traffic
volumes were only collected for the PM peak hour for several intersections in the San~l Hill
Road/VVelch Road/Quarry Road area. Table 2 reports level of service, average vehicular delay
through the intersection, critical volume to capacity ratio, and average critical delay. These
terms have been defined above. Most intersections operate at acceptable levels today. There
is one intersection that operates at unacceptable levels in the PM peak hour, Foothill
Expressway/Page Mill Road. This intersection operates at level of service F.
Table 2
Results of 2006 Monitoring
Intersection LOS
Sand Hill Rd/Santa Cruz Ave/Junipero Serra Blvd D+
AM Peak PM Peak
Avg Crit Avg Avg Ctit
Avg Crit Del Del Crit Del
Del (sec)V/C LOS LOS (sec)V/C
35.7 0.738 38.4 D+ 35.7 0.720 36.1
Sand Hill Rd/Pasteur Dr/Clark Wy N/A 0.0 0.000 0.0 C+22.5 0.534 22.8
Sand Hill Rd/Arboretum Rd N/A 0.0 0.000 0.0 C 24.8 0.601 27.8
Welch Dr/Pasteur Dr (west)N/A 0.0 0.000 0.0 A 7.7 0.240 8.2
Welch Dr/Pasteur Dr (east)N/A 0.0 0.000 0.0 B+10.4 0.402 10.8
Quarry RdNineyard Rd N/A 0.0 0.000 0.0 B 12.5 0.414 11,8
Quarry Rd/VVelch Rd N/A 0.0 0.000 0.0 C+21.4 0.539 23.1
Arboretum Rd/Quarry Rd C 31.5 0.528 31.3 C 29.5 0.675 33.9
Palm Dr/Arboretum Rd C+22.6 0.822 27.4 C+20.6 0.723 21.9
Middlefield Rd/University Ave C 26.4 0.442 27.2 C 28.2 0.533 30.0
Middlefield Rd/Embarcadero Rd C-34.8 0.513 36.4 D+38.5 0.638 40.4
Alma St]Churchill Ave B-19.1 0.657 16.6 C 27.2 0.769 30.6
El Camino Real/Alma St]Sand Hill Rd C-33.4 0.616 38.4 D+37.3 0.807 49.6
El Camino Real/Embarcadero Rd/Galvez St D 40.3 0.458 42.6 D 44.7 0.728 47.9
El Camino Real/Page Mill Rd D-53.0 0.935 59.8 D 47.4 0.882 53.1
El Camino Real/University Ave / Palm Drive C 28.7 0.724 32.2 D 46.6 0.880 52.2
El Camino Real/Churchill Ave C 24.9 0.724 31.5 C 27.3 0.684 37.9
El Camino Real/Quarry Rd N/A 0.0 0.000 0.0 C 23.0 0.478 13.0
Junipero Serra Blvd/Campus Dr West D+36.3 0.611 43.4 C-34.5 0.766 40.9
Foothill Expy/Page Mill Rd D 46.9 0.590 39.9 F 92.9 1.039 115.1
El Camino Real/Ravenswood Ave/Menlo Ave D+36.5 0.759 37.2 D 49.5 0.815 52.5
El Camino Real/Middle Ave C 26.2 0.688 31.6 C 24.5 0.673 37.6
El Camino Real/Cambridge Ave B 13.6 0.563 15.0 B 12.7 0.504 6.6
Alpine Rd/Santa Cruz Ave/Junipero Serra Blvd B-19.4 0.668 22.0 C+22.2 0.818 23.1
Sand Hill Rd/Sharon Park Dr C+22.4 0.583 18.6 C+23.0 0.702 27.3
Middlefield Rd/VVillow Rd C 29.4 0.769 31.2 D+36.2 0.870 42.0
...................................................................... .C. .............. ............. ..........Z.0. ...............! .............?...8. ............9;.O._O?_ ............
Welch Rd/Campus Dr West (N)B 6.5 0.000 6.5 C 3.9 0.000 3.9
Welch Rd/Campus Dr West (S)C 3.6 0.000 3.6 B 3.1 0.000 3.1
Notes:1. El Camino Real/University/Palm analyzed as a single intersection.
2. Quarry/E! Camino was not studied in the 1996 Stanford EIR and therefore was not included in the 2006 Monitoring.
However, counts at this intersection will be collected later this year.
DMJM HARRIS
Gayle Likens - City of Palo Alto Traffic Monitoring
April 16, 2007
Page 4
HISTORICAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Research has been undertaken to determine the degree that level of service has change over
the past 10+ years. The Sand Hill Road EIR was used to provide the historical data.
The Sand Hill Road EIR established existing conditions for 1995. These are noted on Table 3.
The level of service for the 1995 analysis was based on the adopted methodology CAPSSI,
standing for Capacity Analysis Program for a Single Signalized Intersection. In addition, the
intersections within Menlo Park were also analyzed with the current version of HCS, the
Highway Capacity Manual software. Any time the level of service provided by CAPSSI was
different than what HCS calculated is noted in Table 3. The HCS level of service is noted ().
The Sand Hill Road EIR also calculated project level of service for 2000 and 2010. These are
also reported in Table 3. Again, the analysis was conducted via CAPSSI and also with HCS for
the Menlo Park intersections.
Table 3 also includes the 2006 Monitoring information from Table 2. 2006 levels of service are
shown between the 2000 Project and 2010 Project levels of service. In most instances the 2006
levels of service are better than the 2000 Project or 2010 Project levels of service. There are
two locations where 2006 Monitoring levels of service are at least one full letter grade worse
than the 2000 Project Condition. These locations, Campus Drive West/Welch Road in the PM
peak hour and Juniper Serra/Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Road in the PM peak, are
highlighted in Table 3.
A direct comparison between the Sand Hill Road EIR and the current monitoring cannot be
made because of the differences between the assumptions in the EIR and what has actually
been constructed since the EIR was certified. The project studied in the EIR included:
A full 4-lane extension of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real, whereas the approved
project included a 4-lane Sand Hill Road west of Arboretum, but only a 2-lane extension
from Arboretum to El Camino. (The intersection operations analysis from the EIR
assumed the full 4-lane improvements.)
Expansion of the shopping center by 160,000 square feet, whereas only 80,000 square
feet of new development was approved. The amount of traffic from the shopping center
expansion assumed in the EIR was greater than actually occurs as a result of reduced
development.
The EIR projected only limited improvements by the year 2000 at the Sand Hill/Santa
Cruz/Junipero Serra and Junipero Serra/Alpine/Santa Cruz intersections because these
improvements, while included in the City of Menlo Park’s General Plan, are not funded
and therefore, were not included in the EIR analysis.
Gayle Likens - City of Palo Alto Traffic Monitoring
April 16, 2007
Page 5
Table 3
Level of Service Comparison
Intersection
Alma St./Churchill Ave.
Arboretum Rd./Galvez St.
Arboretum Rd./Palm Dr.
Campus Drive West/Welch Rd.
El Camino Real/Alma St./Sand Hill Rd.
El Camino Real/Cambridge Ave.
El Camino Real/Churchill Ave.
El Camino Real/Embarcadero
Rd./Galvez St.
El Camino Real/Middle Ave.
El Camino Real/Page Mill Rd.
El Camino Real/Palm Dr./University Ave.
El Camino Real/Ravenswood Ave.
El Camino Real/Roble Ave.
El Camino Real/Santa Cruz Ave.
El Camino Real/
Valoaraiso Ave./Glenwood Ave.
Junipero Serra Blvd./Alpine Rd./
Santa Cruz Ave.
Junipero Serra Blvd./
Campus Drive West
Junipero Serra Blvd./Foothill Expy./
Page Mill Rd.
Junipero Serra Blvd./Stanford Ave.
Middlefield Ave./University Ave.
Middlefield Ave./Willow Rd.
Quarry Rd./Arboretum Rd.
Sand Hill Rd./Arboretum Rd.
Sand Hill Rd./Oak Ave.
Sand Hill Rd./Oak Creek Dr./
Stockfarm Rd.
2000 With 2006 2010 With
1995 Project Monitoring Project
Peak Hour LOS LOS LOS LOS
...... _.A_M ...............................................................................g_-
PM D D C
.......... _A_M_ ..........................P ...............................F. ........................_C..
PM F F C
....... _A_M_. .............................g. ..........................._D_. ..........................._.C._+
PM D D C+
......... A.~ ................................................................................._B.LC_)_ .....................................
PM A A C(B)
....... AM_ ........................_B ........................_C_ ......................#.-_
PM B C D+
AM B
PM B B B
..............AM~-- ................................................................................................._.C
PM C C C
..............A..M_. .................... p_ ........................... _E. ............................. ~ ......................................
PM D D D
PM C C C
......... .A_.M_ ........................p_ ......................_E_ .....................P= .........................................
PM E F D
AM C D C........:-i~i~ .............................i5 ........................5 .............................i~-
AM D+
PM D D(E)D
AM
PM g B C(B)
...........~M. ..........................~ ..............................~B_ ...................................................................
PM C C
PM D D(F)
PM C C C+
PM C C C-C
......... ~M. ......................._D. ...............................p_ .........................D..
PM E D F
AM
PM B C
..........._A_._M_ .............................C. ..........................._C. ........................_C_ ...........................................
PM C C C
AM C
PM D E D+E(F)
............._A_._M. .......................C. ........................~_ .............................._C.. ...................._C_
PM D D C D
PM B D C D......... AM_ ..............................C. .........................!~_(.C_) ............................................................B_(.g;) .............
PM B B B
PM A C C
Gayle Likens - City of Palo Alto Traffic Monitoring
April 16, 2007
Page 6
Intersection
Sand Hill Rd./Pasteur Dr.
Sand Hill Rd./Sand Hill Circle/I-280
Sand Hill Rd./Santa Cruz Ave.
Sand Hill Rd./Sharon Park Dr.
El Camino Real/Quarry Rd.
Santa Cruz Ave./University Dr. -
South Leq
Welch Rd./Pasteur Dr. -
North Leq
Welch Rd./Pasteur Dr. -
South Leq
Welch Rd./Quarry Rd.
Middlefield Rd./Embarcadero Rd.
Notes:1)2)3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
2000 With 2006 2010 With
1995 Project Monitoring Project
Peak Hour LOS LOS LOS LOS
................. _A.M_ ...........................g.. ..........................C_ .............................................................._.C_ ................
PM C C C+C
AM
PM B(C)D C(D)
............. .A._.M. ..........................D_. .......................F.. .........................._g.t_ ..........................._E ..............
PM E F D+F
........... A_M_ ..............................................................................._C_+ ................................
PM B B(C)C+B(D)
AM
PM C C
AM
PM B C
AM
PM B B B+ B
AM
PM B B A B
......... ,.A_.M_ .............................._B ...........................__B. .............................................................._a._ ................
PM C C C+C
AM C-
PM C C D+
1996, 2000 with Project, and 2010 With Project are analyzed with CAPSSI.
Menlo Park intersection analyzed with CAPSSI and HCS. Differences in LOS for HCS noted in ().
Campus Drive West/Welch Road is analyzed as two intersections in 2006 Monitoring X (Y), X = North
Intersection, Y = South Intersection.
El Camino Real/Palm/University analyzed as a single intersection in 2006 Monitoring.
Highlighted cells represent locations where 2006 Monitoring level of service is at least one full letter
grade worse than the 2000 Project condition.
Two intersections in Palo Alto were omitted from the 2006 Citywide monitoring, Quarry/El Camino Real
and Sand Hill Rd./Oak Ave. Counts at these intersections will be collected in 2007. Other intersections
outside of Palo Alto that were included in the Sand Hill Road EIR but for which traffic counts were not
collected in 2006 include El Camino Real / Roble Ave., El Camino Real /Santa Cruz Ave., El Camino
Real / Valparaiso Ave./Glenwood Ave, Sand Hill Rd. / Oak Creek Dr., Sand Hill Rd. / Sand Hill Circle / 1-
280, Santa Cruz Ave. / University Drive, and Junipero Serra Blvd./Stanford Ave. Counts at these
intersections outside of Palo Alto may also be collected in 2007 if these intersections are included in the
Stanford EIR.
Some intersections were counted only in the PM peak hour in 2006. AM counts will be collected in 2007.
Attachment D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
April 25, 2007
DRAFT EXCERPT
Stanford Projects Review and Comment on:
go Study session to provide input regarding the update of the Stanford Medical
Center Area Plan and conceptual plans for the expansion and modernization of
the Medical Center.
bo Study Session to provide input regarding conceptual plans and status for the
expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center.
Mr. Williams: Okay. The item before you includes the review of the Stanford Medical Center
Draft Area Plan Outline and the potential key plan objectives discussed in the Staff Report. We
apologize for the mix-up regarding some of the Area Plan materials in your packet but I think
everybody is working from the same materials today. I just want to add that we emailed to you
today a map from the plan, the functional uses and buildings proposed. Paula.
Commissioner Sandas: It was actually the wrong map.
Mr. Williams: It was the existing one you needed?
Commissioner Sandas: It was the existing one, do you have a copy here or will we just see it on
the board?
Mr. Williams: I don’t know but we can certainly get you a copy. It is very similar to the
proposed.
The purpose of the meeting tonight is to obtain the Commission’s input on the outline of the plan
in general and most specifically on the key plan objectives that are outlined in the report for
housing, transportation, open space, linkages, and sustainability. Representing the City tonight
we have Director, Steve Emslie, Senior Planner and Project Manager, Steven Turner, Senior
Assistant City Attorney, Cara Silver, and consultant, Whitney McNair is out in the audience.
Also, Julie Caporgno and Gayle Likens are available for questions regarding housing and traffic
information respectively. We would also like to introduce some new members of our team who
are here tonight as observers. First of all Trixi Martelino and Raj Young of EIP Associates who
are our environmental consultants back on the left there next to Gayle. Marlene Burkoff is in the
front row here is our peer review consultant who will be looking at the hospital’s proposal
relative to size, height, employee generation, and those types of issues to advise us on what is
appropriate and investigate Stanford’s proposal in that regard.
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
We would like to suggest the following order for this evening. Steven is going to first provide an
overview of the.Area Plan outline and the issues to be discussed. Cara Silver will provide some
clarification of the differences between Planned Community zoning and Development
Agreements that was in response to a Commission question yesterday. I will then provide
responses to some other Commission questions that we received prior to the meeting. Then
Stanford is going to provide some response to the issues that have been raised and their
conceptual plan application. Then we can either go directly to the public from there or to some
Commission questions bet’ore the rest of the public at your discretion. Then we would like to
have you come back, what we are really hoping to gain is your input on each of those five areas
that we have outlined in the Staff Report. With that I will turn it over to Steven.
Mr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner and Project Manager: Thank you very much, Curtis. I just
wanted to go over a little bit about my presentation tonight up on the board and I think in your
notes, just a few bullet points about the items I will be discussing.
First we are just going to discuss in a little bit more detail the purpose of tonight’s meeting.
Then we will go into an overview of the expanded Area Plan outline, which is Attachment A in
your Staff Report. We will go over some of the Staff proposed key issues and objectives that are
outlined in the Staff Report. We will talk briefly about some additional information that is in
your Staff Report to help provide a baseline or some context about existing conditions out on the
site. Then we will follow up with a brief discussion on the issue teams that have been developed
in-house and with Stanford to assess and go over some of the issues, and then next steps, where
we go from here.
So in terms of tonight’s meeting it is relatively simple the things that we are asking the
Commission to review tonight. Now you have received a lot of information in your packet and I
don’t want to oversimplify it but really the Staff is looking for three main things from the
Commission tonight. Really we would like to have the Commission provide review and input
regarding the Medical Center expanded area outline, again that is in Attachment A of your Staff
Report, and then provide us with review and input regarding the key plan objectives as proposed
by Staff. Those key plan objectives are more fully described in the Staff Report body. Then we
would like to have the Commission provide comment on the expanded area outline and the key
plan objectives.
There is a lot of information that has been presentedto you tonight. There is a lot of background
information about traffic and housing and open space and there is information from Stanford
regarding the conceptual project. But we are not here really to analyze data or to go in depth
about the conceptual application. Tonight we are really focused on the outline of the Area Plan
and the key objectives that Staff has identified.
So in terms of some of the questions that we are asking the Commission to answer for us tonight
we will start first on the Area Plan outline. The Staff Report talks about four key areas that we
are looking for some Commission review and comment on. We want to find out from you
whether or not the scope of the issues as identified in the Area Plan are appropriate. Should
there be additional issues that should be brought forth or are the issues that we have presented
not appropriate and need to be replaced or removed? We would like to determine from you the
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
extent to which the offsite housing, open space, and linkages should be discussed as part of the
Area Plan. We would like to hear from you about the relevancy of the applicable
Comprehensive Plan policies, goals, and programs that have been identified. We also would like
to hear from you if there are any other issues that should be addressed as part of this Area Plan.
In terms of the key plan objectives there are really kind of three questions that we are asking of
you tonight. Are the key objectives as we have identified appropriate or are there additional
objectives? If not, what specific objectives should be included? Is it more appropriate to defer
these objectives until further information is available? We will be going through an extensive
environmental review process and a lot of that process will help to answer some of these key
plan objectives. Is it appropriate to discuss them as part of the Area Plan or should they be
discussed later during the environmental review process?
So start off we are going to talk a little bit about the Area Plan outline, again that is Attachment
A in your Staff Report. I want to give you some background about that document, what it is, and
really what it isn’t. What it is is a City document and it has been developed collaboratively with
Stanford. You may hear tonight that Stanford and the City may not agree all of the issues that
are contained in the Area Plan tonight. We think that is okay. This is really a draft document
and that goes to bullet number two. This outline is not the final document it is really a draft
document. In fact when we come back to you in June with draft wording it is going to be a draft
document then as well. Our intent for the Area Plan is for it to be a draft document going
through the process. We will be looking for confirmation or acceptance of this Area Plan as we
get into Phase II and bring the Area Plan and a Development Agreement to the Planning
Commission for your review and City Council’s review as well. So it is intended to be kind of a
living document to be modified as the project becomes more developed. So it is really a draft
document and tonight certainly it is a draft outline.
The Area Plan will be a planning tool to set the context and describe the development and frame
the project issues. What it won’t do is identify any of the significant impacts related to CEQA.
The document will not analyze any data or analyze any reports. All of that will be done during
the environmental review process in Phase II. Really, this is just a planning tool for us as we
move forward with the project.
The second part of our discussion tonight revolves around, well stick with the Area Plan outline
itself right now. If you look at your Area Plan outline in Attachment A you will see that there
are five main sections in there. There is an introduction to the Area Plan. Section two talks
about facilities, renewals, and replacement needs from Stanford. Section number three is really
the meat of the document. It is the components and elements of the plan including land use, and
transportation, and open space and the like. Then section five talks about implementation.
Really what we are focused on here is section number three. It contains a lot of those elements
that the Commission will provide discussion on.
In terms of the format, I am not going to go through the Area Plan section by section. You can
certainly read through that and develop your own questions. I wanted to tell you a little bit about
or give a summary of each section about what each section of the outline contains at this point.
So each section and subsection includes a summary of the topic and the intent of that section. It
Page 3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 includes an outline of topics to be discussed within that section. It includes a table of applicable
2 Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs. It contains a list of exhibits. You have some
3 of those exhibits as part of your Attachment A today, they include the functional uses, an Area
4 Plan site concept, connections and linkages diagrams, circulation diagrams, and zoning. We
5 have some of those up here tonight if we need to refer to them. They are also included within
your packet as well. I think we do have an existing and proposed functional uses section up here.
So again in kind of wrapping up our discussion on the Area Plan outline and the types of
questions that we are going to be asking of you we wanted to find out if the issues as discussed in
the Area Plan are appropriate. We want to discuss whether or not the extent to which offsite
housing, open space, and linkages should be discussed as part of the Area Plan. We want to
know the relevancy of applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, goals, and programs. And, we
want to discuss other issues that should be included as part of the Area Plan.
Now moving on to the key plan objectives and those are contained within the body of your Staff
Report. Based upon the review of this project at the City Council, at the last Planning
Commission meeting, comments received from members of the public, and comments received
during our community meeting back in February, Staff has really synthesized all of the
comments together and we have grouped them into what we think are five main key plan
objectives. Those objectives relate to housing, transportation, open space, linkages, and
sustainability.
So I just wanted to go over very briefly what those objectives are. The Staff Report goes into
much more detail about the specific wording of those objectives but for my presentation I just
want to provide a summary of each objective.
With regards to housing one of the proposed objectives is to reduce or balance out the
jobs/housing ratio. We would like to identify specific sites and potential units that would help to
achieve that. In addition, we believe that the project and the plan Should address the need for
below market rate housing. We believe that there should be an increase in support and service
related jobs and housing that address’those types of jobs. Along with our discussion in the Staff
Report about housing we have included some background information about how Palo Alto has
been proceeding in terms of construction of its fair share housing for this particular cycle. So
there is some information in the Staff Report about that and we have Julie Caporgno here who
can answer any specific questions about baseline or existing housing data.
Transportation is also one of our key plan objectives. There we want to try to reduce the amount
of single occupant trips to achieve or approach a goal 0fno net new trips. So we would like to
try to find some specific initiatives in order to minimize these impacts. We certainly would want
to hear from the Commission about the relevancy of that and how that might be achieved. We
have also provided some existing transportation data. There was an analysis done in October of
2006 of Intersection Level of Services in and around the Stanford area.
The third main objective is open space. Here the proposed objective would be to create new
open spaces and protect existing open spaces. We believe that the project should include smaller
spaces an addition to medium and large park-like squares throughout the project. We believe
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
that private open spaces in between and around buildings are also important and we would want
to see the plan reflect that as well.
Linkages are very important to this project as well. We have linkages between the hospital and
the shopping center, Stanford University, and the rest of Palo Alto. So we want to see the project
create these linkages between all of these areas. We want to make sure that the project is
designed efficiently for the movement of vehicles and the movement of emergency vehicles in
and around the site as well. We believe these linkages are important and can help address
transportation needs and provide areas where people can gather and the like.
With regard to sustainability we would like to see the project achieve the equivalent of a LEED
Silver certification. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they would apply for LEED and receive
a Silver certification but we would like to see the projects achieve the equivalent of that. Along
those lines we know that there are unique issues associated with the medic facilities that limit
green building. We want to understand those but also incorporate a high level of sustainability
into the project. We want to try to explore some co-generation and solar energy options for the
project as well.
So those are really the summary of the tive key plan objectives. With regard to those objectives
the questions that we would like to have the Commission answer tonight are whether or not these
are appropriate and how should they be modified if any? If they are not appropriate what
specific obj ectives should be included as part of the Area Plan? Finally, is it more appropriate to
defer these objectives to later until more information on the project is available for us?
Just kind of wrapping up with the presentation on the issue teams this is a very complex project
and a way that Staff has chosen to move forward with the analysis of the project is the creating
of issue teams between City Staff members and members of Stanford University Medical Center
and Stanford Shopping Center. We have teams that relate ~o land use, transportation,.
sustainability, fiscal impacts, housing, and utilities. They are made up of Staff that are
appropriate and experienced in those areas along with representatives from Stanford Shopping
Center. Really, these issue teams were developed to share information between the Stanford
folks and the City Staff. We created them to discuss issues, and to also coordinate our efforts
during the review process. So we are continuing to hold these meetings on about a monthly
basis. They are very important with regard to the Area Plan in that they are helping us frame the
issues as we move forward with that review.
Finally a little bit on next step,s. After this meeting we will be going to the City Council on May
14 to present them with essentially the same information that you have. We will be presenting
them with the expanded Area Plan outline and a list of key objectives that Staff has developed
along with your comments that we receive tonight. In June we will come back to the
Commission to review the draft Area Plan. Right now you have an outline and between now and
our June meeting we hope to have much of the text developed for that outline. So we want to
provide you with what we think the draft text is and then have you tell us if we are moving in the
right direction in addressing all of the issues that we need to address. Then in July we will be
bringing your comments from that June meeting to the City Council for review of that draft Area
Plan. We hope to get indication from Council that we have adequately address the needs of the
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Area Plan and we can move onto Phase II of this project which involves much of the
environmental review. So that really summarizes my report and I will have the two sets of
questions up on the board throughout the evening so that you can refer to them as you have your
deliberations. Thank you.
Chair Holman: That is very helpful. City Attorney
Ms. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you. To further put this into context the
underlying entitlement that Stanford will ultimately be seeking in this process is of course a
Development Agreement. The question has been raised about the overlap and the difference
between a Development Agreement and a PC zone and there certainly are some similarities.
Typically a PC zone is used for smaller projects. A Development Agreement is used for larger
scale projects where the construction will be built out over a longer period of time and where the
developer desires more certainty that they can lock in over a period of time. A Development
Agreement locks in the zoning conditions whereas a PC theoretically could be changed before a
project is completely built out.
Also, in terms of community benefits typically the community benefits associated with a PC
zone are located onsite. They don’t necessarily need to be tied to particular impacts of the site
they can be above and beyond the impacts created by the site but they are generally located
onsite whereas with a Development Agreement we see those community impacts offsite. They
are also of course community benefits that can be incorporated into the onsite project as well.
Then finally, PC zones are subject to the overarching statutory authority that we have in our
codes. So things like height limits and daylight planes are sort of the cap on a PC zone. So to
the extent Stanford would want to exceed the existing requirements we have in our ordinance the
PC zone would not accommodate the project that they are seeking. That is the basic distinction
between the two areas.
Mr. Williams: Thank you. There were some other questions that were submitted by
Commissioners in the last couple of days and I will quickly run through those half dozen or so.
One was on page six of the Staff Report the ABAG table discusses essentially what we have
achieved but not where we have exceeded the requirements or our goals. We have distributed a
new table to you tonight that does show an additional column on "need exceeded." It indicates
where and it is particularly in the "above moderate" category where we have exceeded by 1,349
homes the ABAG numbers for the above moderate category.
Secondly, there is a question on transportation of can the proposed plan objective allow for in
lieu traffic mitigation? To what extent is transportation by patients or visitors considered in the
Medical Center plan, visitors and shoppers in Stanford Shopping Center? Data on how many
employees live within the City of Palo Alto, and how they get to work, comparable census
figures, that kind of information. Yes, the plan can consider in lieu traffic fees that is one of the
options that will be looked at and discussed. Secondly, most of the other information there is
some information available fight now from some monitoring for TDM purposes that the hospital
does in terms of the location of employees, where they live. It is sometimes not real specific and
then most of the information that is discussed here will be developed during the Environmental
Page 6
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
¯ 30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Impact Report review. So we will be asking many of those questions as far as origin/destination
type issues go and sort of equivalent to some of the census information.
1
2
3
4 Thirdly, is it correct that Stanford intends to close the connection between Welch Road and
5 Campus Drive as appears to be shown on the drawings? There was a response from Stanford
6 and you might want to ask them to clarify this for you if this is not clear. It says that they show
7 the elimination of Welch Road on the county campus lands as a potential roadway change
8 relative to potential campus expansion under the GUP, the General Use Permit. They are still
9 evaluating that change with transportation consultants. If it is has effects on the Medical Center
10 circulation it will be described among the circulation changes and will be evaluated in the EIR.
It is not part of this project application per se but it may be something that we then need to
consider as part of the evaluation of the environmental impacts.
Fourthly for Attachment C, which is the traffic information, there are zeros and ’not applicable’
for certain intersections in the AM period. Why is that? The response to that is Palo Alto and
Stanford coordinated taking traffic counts in the fall, in October, to reduce the overlap in work
and costs. Stanford only had PM counts done at several locations while Palo Alto had AM and
PM counts done. So there are some omissions there, which we intend to collect that data in
October of this year and will fill in any gaps and update things at that time.
Then there are figures for the children and adult patients who were turned away at the hospitals
and admitted patients and turn-away percentages for comparable hospitals. We haven’t received
any information from Stanford on that so that is a question if you are interested in pursuing that
to ask the applicants.
Last on this list is somewhat related to the one before, current employee count and the Medical
Center and at the Shopping Center, work shift breakdowns, comparable data for students for
volunteers for visitors, residents data, etc. That is all data that will be developed during the EIR
process. Stanford did provide information that indicates that the total currently, their estimate of
current employed count in the Palo Alto portions of the Medical Center which includes the
hospital, Lucile Packard’s Children’s Hospital, and the School of Medicine totals a little more
than 10,000 employees currently.
Then there were a couple of others here. One had to do with there had been I guess a concern
that Stanford was planning more development in terms of a cancer center or research center. The
cancer center is of course built now. The Stanford folks can again explain this but it sounds like
there are longer-range plans on the campus as part of the General Use Permit. There is nothing
else proposed as far as on the City lands, and there is nothing kind of imminent and pending as
far as the GUP property. They are still sort of deciding where to put what buildings and there is
some competition I understand on the Stanford Campus about who is going to get to use that
space that has been allocated for new buildings.
There was a request for a General Use Permit plan and we have provided that before you. It is
just the land use, which is basically the only one there is, land use designations. It actually was
attached also to a letter that was in your packet: So this is the same map but it is a little clearer
than the version that is in your packet.
Page 7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1
2 Then lastly, there was concern about the area covered by or addressed by the Area Plan and the
3 fact that the Shopping Center, I guess there are two concerns, one that the Shopping Center is not
4 shown in its proposed configuration in some of the maps which I think we can remedy rather
5 easily and secondly that we should be looking at some of the areas of influence a little farther
6 away than just the narrow band that is shown on some of these maps. So we will see if we can
7 make the maps cover a little larger area. Then we will be addressing certainly the linkages,
8 circulation for vehicles, pedestrians, bikes, etc~ through those other properties, adjacent
9 properties, especially the Shopping Center to Downtown. Then also we will be looking at some
of the open space network and those kinds of things as part of this plan. So they will come up,
we will be discussing the Shopping Center and other areas as part of the discussion but again
they are not part of the Area Plan boundaries themselves. So it won’t be to the same level of
detail as the Area Plan for the Medical Center itself.
I think that is it for Staff. We could either take some questions or go to Stanford.
Chair Holman: Are there clarifying questions or shall we hear from Stanford first?
Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: Just one clarifying question for the moment. I didn’t hear what you said
in your last remarks, Curtis. For clarity’s sake for me in studying this I would really like to look
at a combined map, realizing that the Stanford Shopping Center and the Medical Center and
hospital are two separate projects. I think there are some synergies between the two and it would
be very helpful for me and hopefully other Commissioners to be able to see the two proposed
projects together. We might be able to creatively think about other ways of using the land. Does
that make sense?
Mr. Williams: Yes and I think we will get with Stanford and try to see how we can develop that
again while not focusing the same level of detail on the Shopping Center to at least cover
geographically to show that so you can see sort of that relationship and with the plan that is
proposed for the Shopping Center rather than just the existing configuration.
Commissioner Sandas: I appreciate that just because in studying these maps some of the things
that I have noticed are when the two projects are held completely separately you just ~wonder, if
by not seeing them together on the map, you wonder if there is no opportunity at all to maybe
modify the land use. While I know we are not discussing those details tonight I would hope that
we could have that information for the future.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber and then Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Garber: You have started immediately with the Area Plan versus segregating the
two projects. Are you expecting us to be talking about both of the projects in the context of the
Area Plan or do you want us to separate our comments? Finally, are you looking for a motion or
simply comments?
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Turner: Certainly the two projects are separate and we should have made that clear
previously. We are focused right now on the Stanford Medical Center and the Area Plan focuses
on the Stanford Medical Center areas. There are some portions in terms of linkages that do
connect the Medical Center and the Shopping Center together but essentially the Area Plan is for
the Medical Center and that is what you should be focusing on. Once we complete our
discussions about the Medical Center we will then move into the Shopping Center discussion.
Mr. Williams: There won’t be motions. This is a study session so we will take individual
comments and coalesce those but there should not be any motions.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt to be followed by Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Burt: Well, acknowledging that we are focusing on the Medical Center for the
moment we will have certain things that are clearly Medical Center focus, things that are clearly
Shopping Center, and there is really some interplay. At the risk of jumping over that border at
the outset I have one clarifying question. It may simply be a typo but it is pretty fundamental
until it is clarified. In the Staff Report on the Medical Center on page two, under Discussion it
says, the preparation of an Area Plan responds to Program L-46 of the Comprehensive Plan. So I
take that to mean this is the Area Plan that we are now working on, correct? Not the prior 2000
land use area analysis by Stanford.
Mr. Williams: Well, I think that was intended to do this also but that is what this effort is for.
This is really more of a City effort to provide that. The other one was more of a Stanford, and it
was called an analysis as opposed to a plan.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, so I have a several part question. In the Staff Report on the
Shopping Center you have a similar paragraph although the sentence reads one word differently.
The preparation of an Area Plan for the SUMC responded to Program L-46. When I first read
that before reading the Medical Center one I was construing that Staff was referring to the 2000
analysis as being the Area Plan. Can you clarify what was intended there? Is it really meant to
be the same language as the Medical Center in each of them referring to the Area Plan that we
are now working on as opposed to the 2000 area analysis?
Mr. Williams: The language should be the same. We are preparing an Area Plan in response to
that Comprehensive Plan Policy. It is listed again in the Shopping Center thing just to provide
some context for it not that it deals with the Shopping Center or requires an Area Plan for the
Shopping Center but just that it is the same plan, it is the same process that we are in.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, so for my purposes I will change in the Shopping Center instead of
’responded’ to ’responds.’ I think we need to make sure we are differentiating the two. That
brought me back to that question that I think you were alluding to, Curtis, that Stanford had
construed the 2000 land use area analysis that was done at their initiative and my understanding
is under their control as some form of an Area Plan. We now have a process by which it is a
joint effort between Stanford and City Staff with Planning Commission overview. Is that the
process for the Area Plan with no other participation from other entities other than through the
Planning Commission hearings and City Council?
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Williams: Yes and with public input obviously. Yes, we would bring these issues to the
Commission, recommend to the Council in terms of the plan.
Commissioner Burt: So in this case unlike in other Area Plans that we have had as a City the
responsibility of the Planning Commission to be the body that then includes input from other
stakeholders and the public is elevated in this instance versus other Area Plans like the SOFA
Coordinated Area Plan that we have had and some other Area Plan efforts that we have done.
That is what I understood was the discussion before Council and I just want to make sure that my
understanding was correct and that the Commission and everyone understood that we are going
to have that additional responsibility. Consequently the Commission will be having an even
greater public engagement than would be the case if there were some multi-stakeholder task
force that was preparing an Area Plan.
Mr. Williams: Right, we are relying on the Commission to fulfill that role.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, clarifying question?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes, for the Senior City Attorney. Again, I think your definitions with
regard to Development Agreement and PC were very helpful. To understand what you were
saying with regard to a Development Agreement they would still have to stay within the
development regulations for that zone, correct?
Ms. Silver: That is correct although a Development Agreement can specify which zone it is
going to be subject to and can even create a new zone.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. With that in mind, if what we would normally call a variance would
be required because of unreasonable hardship would that be made part of the Development
Agreement or would that rest as a separate action?
Ms. Silver: It could be if the Development Agreement incorporated an existing zone that
required a variance or a Development Agreement could even create a new zone that in itself
incorporates a variance procedure.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then the last question associated with this is normally in a PC that is
considered legislative. Is a Development Agreement legislative or would this be quasi-judicial?
Ms. Silver: A Development Agreement is considered legislative. Certain entitlements under the
Development Agreement such as variances if the Development Agreement does include a
variance are then considered quasi-judicial as the developer goes through that process.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then I have a clarifying question I guess for Senior Plmmer, Turner.
With regard to looking at linkages an important linkage might be the hospital and its relationship
say to the transit center because it is such a large employer of people that we would want more
people to take public transit to get there. Would we look at those linkages as they go through
Stanford Shopping Center say or connections from the transit center to the hospital along Quarry
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Road but not look at anything else say within the bounds of the Shopping Center until we
reviewed the Shopping Center?
Mr. Turner: That is essentially correct, you described it very well. Linkages by the very fact
that they link different land uses together and certainly there would be a link between the
hospital and the Shopping Center and Downtown transit center by their location. So the way you
described it is correct and it is an appropriate way to look at linkages.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So since buses and trains accommodate bicycles for instance if we felt that
it was important that there be adequate bicycle connection between the transit center and the
hospital so people could bicycle from point to the other that would be appropriate?
Mr. Turner: That is appropriate and staying within the bounds of the Area Plan review, yes.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Great, thank you very much.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Considering that the hotel that is being proposed for the Shopping Center
has a specific relation with the Medical Center in terms of the uses of that that are broader than
this typical linkage that we are talking about, to what extent is that concept part of the Area Plan?
Mr. Turner: Well, it certainly could be a part of the Area Plan. The hotel location is located
very close to where the Medical Center facilities would be. One would think that there would be
cross uses of folks who would be visiting the Medical Center might be staying in the hotel and
that would be an important link, a physical link between that hotel and the Medical Center areas
be it a specific crosswalk or landscaping that links the two. That is something that is appropriate
to look at.
Commissioner Keller: One of the issues of looking at the Medical Center and the Shopping
Center as separate projects is the question of the.boundary between the two of them. The extent
to which the Commission might propose that the Hoover Pavilion wouldbe better as a Shopping
Center function than as a Medical Center function, and obviously would cross both projects and
effect the boundary, how would we consider that with respect to the Area Plan?
Mr. Turner: Well, the Area Plan as Staff is proposing has a very specific boundary and we are
choosing to use the boundary that was set in the 2000 analysis. We are bringing those
boundaries back into play in this essentially amended Area Plan and we are not proposing any
change from that previous plan. The Commission could make that suggestion about changes but
certainly Staff is recommending that we keep the boundaries that are in place from the 2000 plan
and bring them forward to the current plan.
Commissioner Keller: So from that concept since the Hoover Pavilion is part of the Area Plan
then it is the purview of the Area Plan to determine the appropriate land use of the Hoover
Pavilion and that appropriate land use of the Hoover Pavilion might be other than for the Medical
Center.
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Williams: I think that is open in that the Hoover Pavilion is within the Medical Center
boundaries. I think suggesting that it is sort of a cross-land use between the Shopping Center and
the Medical Center, the Area Plan is sticking to this boundary and we have two different
applicants here basically. So I think it would be kind of difficult to be switching land uses
between the two but certainly we want to talk about the linkages and the appropriate use of lands
within this Medical Center area. If for some reason you think one of those sites isn’t as
designated by the applicant then that is something we can look at.
Chair Holman: Okay, Commissioners, we can go to the applicant and then I do have a small
handful of cards from the public. If your intention is to speak to the Medical Center item you are
welcome to speak at this time. If you would like to speak to the Stanford Shopping Center you
can speak when we undertake item 2b. If your comments bridge both you are welcome to go
ahead and speak at this time. So first we will hear from the applicant, Ms. McCown. You will
have I believe ten minutes is what was recommended.
Ms. Jean McCown, Stanford University: Thank you very much. Good evening Chair Holman
and members of the Commission. Hopefully I won’t need ten minutes. Thank you very much
for the opportunity to offer some comments about the topics you will be discussing tonight
specifically the outline of the Stanford Medical Center Area Plan Update and that issues
identified in the Staff Report.
I am speaking as a representative of a team of people who are worldng on behalf of Stanford
Hospital and clinics and the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital to rebuild and modernize our
medical facilities so that they can provide healthcare services to the community over the next
many decades as they have for the past 50 years. Others available this evening to respond to
questions you may have include Mark Tortorich, Vice President of Planning, Design, and
Construction for both hospitals, and Charles Carter, Stanford’s Director of Land Use and
Environmental Planning who has had a major role in the work on the Area Plan with Staff.
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan clearly describes the geographic scope, content, and purpose
for the Area Plan for the Medical Center. I would just like to clarify that there is an Area Plan,
capital A, capital P, in California General Plan Law. That is not what this is. The City
Comprehensive Plan has defined this as it has specifically defined it in the language. I think City
Staff and Stanford Staff are in agreement on that. So it is not that type of formal, again capital
A, capital P, Area Plan that the General Planning Law looks at.
We agree that the existing plan analysis done in 2000 needs to be updated in order to provide
current information about the hospital’s plans for long-term growth and their goals for
continuing to provide high-quality healthcare services to the public. We are concerned however
that the Area Plan update is being expanded to add a host of unrelated Comprehensive Plan
policies and a laundry list of community desires that do not pertain directly to the provision of
healthcare. As a result we fear that the Area Plan update is going to become very unwieldy and
we may get bogged down in an approval process that will fundamentally lose sight of the critical
need for the hospitals to meet the state seismic requirements and provide the public benefits that
will come from renewing and replacing those two hospitals.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The Medical Center is acknowledged and defined in the text of the Comprehensive Plan, Policy
L-45, as, "A major medical treatment, academic, and research facility encompassing the Stanford
University School of Medicine, Stanford University Hospital and its clinics, and the Lucile Salter
Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford." Program L-46 calls for the City to work with Stanford
to prepare an Area Plan for the Medical Center, so defined, addressing building locations, floor
area ratios, heights, parking, historic and open space resources in the plan area, view corridors,
streetscape and circulation patterns. It is a fairly specific definition of what the Area Plan should
look at.
As has been commented on the Area Plan analysis was developed and submitted previously to
the City in 2000 in connection with the cancer center. When the City reviewed and accepted that
2000 Area Plan the Staff Report at the time stated, Staff believes that the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan has been met and that the City now has an understanding of the direction
Stanford is taking for the future of the Medical Center. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes
that, "because the healthcare industry is constantly changing the Medical Center is likely to need
additional development entitlements from the City to respond to future facility needs and space
demands." That wording is explanatory of the purpose of Policy B-32 in the Comprehensive
Plan which states, assist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of
healthcare services, work with the center to plan for changing facility needs, but within the
context of the City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies.
The hospitals are now at that point where we need to propose additional development
entitlements to meet the changing demands of the community’s healthcare needs as the
Comprehensive Plan anticipated would be the case. We need the community’s and the City’s
assistance to make this happen. The projects proposed by the two hospitals, which you have
presented to you in conceptual form at this stage, comprise the development that triggers the
need for an updated Area Plan.
Unfortunately rather than focusing on the items called out in the Comprehensive Plan as the
items to be considered in the Medical Center Area Plan Staff is beginning to Suggest the
inclusion of policies that are not focused on the hospitals and are really fundamentally not
applicable to them. Even more troubling is rather than assisting the hospitals in responding to
the changing needs the Staff Report is including these new key plan objectives that have again
nothing to do with providing critical healthcare services but instead begin to suggest a very
aggressive approach to extracting conditions from these projects far beyond any existing City
policies.
I wanted to depart from my prepared remarks for a moment to comment that when Steve Turner
was illustrating some of those objectives to you he put on the screen the housing example as the
policy objective being to identify sites for potential provision of housing. The Staff Report is
much more specific than that. The Staff Report key objective says that the Medical Center
project shall provide for housing sites and construction of residential units to accommodate
increased employment generated by the project.
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
We have very serious concerns about using the Area Plan or any other mechanism to load on
new policies and exactions that would become a significant burden on the viability of
accomplishing the fundamental project goals. We urge the City to focus on the issue of
overriding importance to the community, the need to rebuild these critical hospital facilities to
provide modem, comprehensive healthcare for our citizens. We lcnow that of Palo Alto residents
requiring hospitalization a very high percentage is hospitalized at either Stanford Hospital and
clinics or Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital. For example in 2005 82 percent of Palo Alto
pediatric patients and 72 percent of Palo Alto obstetric patients requiring hospitalization were
hospitalized at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital.
These hospitals are separate entities from the University. They are not subsidized by the
University except that they are on land provided for them by the University. We all know
healthcare costs are significant and they cannot readily be increased further to pay for exactions
that will come out of the City process. To the extent funds are available using them to pay for
exactions precludes the use of that money for capital investment in the core mission of the
hospitals. The cost of providing community services unrelated to healthcare such as housing,
open space, pedestrian overpasses should not be imposed on the hospitals whose funds come
from the fees paid by their patients and their insurers but instead should be borne more broadly
by the community as a whole. The community surely benefits by the presence of the hospitals.
If you were to ask people or officials in other cities that don’t have a hospital or have one that is
in financial difficulty that may cause it to close those cities are more than willing to devote
community resources to their hospitals and sometimes with respect in direct subsidies or by
waiving and substantially reducing development fees or similar costs.
Ultimately the City Council will have to balance the competing interests of the community and
determine what course to take. At this point it is premature to reach conclusions about how these
issues discussed in the Staff Report should be addressed before an EIR is prepared, before public
input, and before discussion of the competing priorities and the community benefits of the
hospitals. Ultimately we will advocate on behalf of the hospitals for a result and a solution here
that will best enable them to continue to provide the highest level of care to their patients and to
use their capital resources for those purposes. Thank you very much and I can field questions or
my colleagues can field questions either now orat a later point in the meeting whichever you
prefer.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner, are there burning questions for Ms. McCown at this
time? Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: A brief question for you. The two individuals that came with you who I
believe were the Project Director and the Planning Director for you, are they employees of the
hospital or of the University?
Ms. McCown: Mr. Tortorich, Vice President for Design, Facilities, and Construction is an
employee of the hospitals. Charles Carter, Planning Director is an employee of the University.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: My question is you were indicating that things such as transportation or
housing issues should not be part of this Area Plan or of this process. What I am wondering is
the extent to which the hospital or the Medical Center broadly creates impacts on the City and
along the lines of transportation or housing, whether those are rightfully considered a part of the
Area Plan in terms of the impacts of the project.
Ms. McCown: Let me first respond on the housing question. When you get a chance to dive
into the maps in the Area Plan there are housing sites inside of the scope of the Stanford Medical
Center Area Plan. There are three of them. So it is not that there are not housing sites. There is
a transportation discussion, there is a circulation and discussion about how pedestrians and
bicycles and other modes of movement travel through the Area Plan. I think we agree with
Staff’s comment earlier that specific data about number of car trips that is going to be something
that gets looked at in the EIR. That is not something particularly for data analysis or
commentary in the Area Plan but again when you get a chance to look at the outline, and then
obviously you don’t have the draft of the language yet, but when you look at the outline you will
see that housing and transportation related issues are addressed in the Area Plan.
What we are disagreeing with right now is the further jumping to some very specific proposed
action objectives to be included in the Area Plan, which we think is not appropriate for the Area
Plan. That is really more reflected in the Staff Report. So housing and transportation are
addressed in the Area Plan.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I have some specific questions in this. First of all thank you
for using a sustainable binder here as opposed to the typical plastic stuff that can’t easily be
recycled. It says on page two and on to page three that SUMC is the only Level 1 trauma center
serving the southern Bay Area, San Jose, etc. Are you saying that the Valley Medica! Center in
San Jose is not a Level 1 trauma center?
Ms. McCown:
Chair Holman:
Ms. McCown:
Let me get somebody who knows the answer. They are a Level 1.
If you would like to speak please come to the mike.
This is Sherri Sager from Lucile Packard’s Children’s Hospital.
Ms. Sherri Sager, Chief Government Relations Officer, Lucile Packard’s Children’s Hospital:
Thank you. Valley Medical Center does have a Level 1 trauma center. They serve up to a
certain area but north county trauma patients come to Stanford. They are designated. Then there
are also some designations based on the type of trauma it is in terms of which facility that they
USe.
Commissioner Keller: I was confused because this thing said it was the only Level 1 trauma
center serving the southern Bay Area, San Jose, which i presume is part of Valley Medical
Center’s purview, Monterey, and Santa Cruz. So that might have been a little bit of an overreach
in terms of what it said.
Page 15
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1
2 Ms. Sager: But it is the only Level 1 trauma center serving mid-San Mateo County south.
3 is no other. There is no trauma center located within San Mateo County.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
6
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
There
Commissioner Burt: Jean, could you review one more time, there was the last segment of your
comments that referred to what things you thought should be negotiated after the EIR. Can you
rehash that again?
Ms. McCown: I think the perspective we are trying to communicate tonight is that while the
issues identified as items for consideration housing, transportation, essentially the short list there,
sustainability, etc. we agree are all appropriate for consideration. Where we are disagreeing with
Staff at this point is that those should actually be put now into the form of very specific
objectives in the kind of wording that is in the Staff Report and put into the Area Plan at this
point. We think that what the ultimate conclusion is of how you address those issues is
something that should wait until after the environmental analysis is done and a lot of different
considerations can be taken into account in that regard.
Commissioner Burt: Do you have any concern from your timeline of if it were in that sequence
would it add to the timeline of the whole approval process?
Ms. McCown: No, I actually think that is consistent with the way we and City Staff hope the
timeline will proceed. The comment that was made earlier by Mr. Turner that the Area Plan is
not going to be acted on even now, even in the meetings, it is still going to be carried forward as
a draft but I think what is studied in the EIR will include getting the data around some of these
issues, certainly the transportation issues, Potential housing impact issues. So what ultimately is
defined out of that process as either mitigation or some other Development Agreement type
arrangement if we can get to that. In a sense the Area Plan can be conformed to how we
ultimately workout what those solutions are to these issues as we go along. Our concern is
pushing way up to the front before you have that information these kinds of very specific
conclusions about what the answer to these issues are. That is the problem we have with the way
the key objectives have been framed at this point.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: Thanks. Jean, I am not sure if this question is for you or for Steven or
for a combination. I have to say after slogging through the Staff Report and all the materials and
variety of information I am a little surprised that Stanford has issue with the key plan objectives
at this time tonight. Since I assume that the issues teams which are comprised of Stanford
representatives and City of Palo Alto representatives all working together on this and agreeing on
these objectives. So I am a little taken aback since it is our job to study these objectives tonight
and give comment I am kind of surprised that Stanford looks on them unfavorably at this
moment.
Page 16
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1
2 Mr. Turner: Well, Commissioner Sandas, these are Staff’s key plan objectives, They were not
3 ’developed in consultation or coordination with Stanford. These objectives were based upon the
4 comments that we had received from the Planning Commission, from the City Council, and from
5 members of the public regarding overall questions and concerns and things that we should be
6 thinking about early as we move forward with the project. In order to get an Area Plan and the
7 project to a point where we really discuss the issues we wanted to bring forward these key plan
8 objectives in a fairly strong manner to the Commission and to the City Council. It doesn’t
9 necessarily mean that this exact wording will be in any sort of final document. Certainly our
10 questions to you this evening include are these objectives appropriate? If they are not
appropriate what should be included? It is more appropriate to look at these objectives now or
later on when we have more information?
So we are presenting these to you in a fairly strong, straightforward manner but we certainly are
looking to the whole Commission to provide us with if we are going in the right direction at this
point.
Commissioner Sandas: Great, I got it. Remind me that I will have several questions to ask later
specifically regarding the issues teams. Thanks.
Mr. Williams: I did want to point out that as far as the issues teams went and Stanford that
Stanford knows that these were coming forward. We discussed these in the issue teams and we
knew going in that these are areas where we have disagreements and that is why we have
highlighted them for you and brought them forward. That is what we want to use the issues
teams for is to try to identify where we do have those differences and policy issues come to the
fore and we can bring those to the Commission and Council.
Ms. McCown: IfI could just add, I appreciate that comment because I do think we have had
very good discussions in the issue team meetings. I don’t think anything I said tonight was a
surprise to Staff about our view of it. I think our perspective is that these need to be left at a
more generalized issue identification level at this point rather than jumping over a variety of
steps to this is exactly how it has to be. Some of these are better worded than others, frankly, in
that respect, in the sense that they are fairly generalized kind of identification of an issue or a
goal. There are others that we think are moving much too fast for the circumstances here and are
not appropriate. I don’t think we have surprised the Staff by our perspective on that tonight.
Commissioner Sandas: Right, I am the only one I guess who was surprised. For clarification,
once again it seems you are saying that we just need to put these things through process and then
draw the conclusion rather than come up with a conclusion and try to cram the process that
foregone conclusion. That is your recommendation.
Ms. McCown: Right.
Commissioner Sandas: Okay, thanks.
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Let’s do focus on the broad-base and procedural
questions at this time. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Looking at the Area Plan, small a, small p, a very minor subtlety in that is
an adjustment to the City Limit and actually annexes a small portion of what was unincorporated
Santa Clara County is now becoming part of Palo Alto. My understanding is the agreement that
Stanford has with Palo Alto is that any lands that are nonacademic really fall within the
municipal purview, the Medical Center, the Shopping Center, and the Research Park. What I am
basically asking is that if there are important elements such as housing, which you already
identified as not appropriate but we might see as being appropriate, that would fall within the
City’s purview and perhaps looking at other lands where you have identified housing for staff at
the hospital as being an important component of our review as an Area Plan.
Chair Holman: And your question?
Vice-Chair Lippert: That was the question.
Ms McCown: Let me comment on the line movement question. That is a result of the present,
again at a very conceptual level, thinking about the best location for the replacement buildings
for the School of Medicine. They have square footage in the City of Palo Alto, in the Medical
Center complex there. One component part of these proposals is a straight one-for-one building
of new and taking down of old so there is no expansion. They have in mind footprints for three
new buildings and the third of those is right near that line that you are talking about between the
.City and the county. So the concept is again if that gets beyond concept level and that really is
the right thing is that that could potentially result in needing to adjust that line a little bit to bring
that entire third building into the City Limits of Palo Alto. So that is what that is addressing.
As I mentioned when you get a chance to really look at the Area Plan maps, etc. there are
housing sites inside the boundary of the Medical Center Area Plan. One of them is in the City of
Palo Alto, and two of them are on county lands designated through our county process for
medical resident post-doc housing. They are sites on Quarry Road and those sites were in there
when the Area Plan was done in 2000 as well. So there has always been a recognition of
potential use of land in this geographic area that we are defining as the Medical Center area for
housing.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioners, I would like to go to the public ifI could. Commissioner Burt
you have a procedural broad-based question? .
Commissioner Burt: Mine is kind of needed for me to have a little better grip on this broad
concept that We are struggling with of what is appropriate. It seems that within the
Comprehensive Plan we are focusing or really looking for guidance from Program L-46 and B-
32. Those are the two key ones. So I wanted to ask Staff what their understanding was. We
have in L-46 a pretty good description of the Area Plan and then Policy B-32 under the Stanford
Medical Center is more general but it talks about working with the Center to plan for changing
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
facility needs. Then it goes into, "but within the context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and
policies as well as the goals and policies of other relevant jurisdictions." So is that last part of
that sentence what is the primary basis for the present broader scope and greater specificity or a
more specific approach to the Area Plan? Is that where the basis for Staff’s position on this is?
Mr. Steven Emslie, Planning Director: Maybe a broader question and then maybe more
specifically addressing yours. Our motivation for laying out broad objectives at this point prior
to having more specific data is so that we can express our planning objectives clearly and in a
systematic way that facilitates public input into that. It is our goal to expedite the process by
being clear as to our objectives up front as opposed to combining the data collection with what
our objectives are in many of the problem-solving exercises that we go through in planning,
being clear about what our land use objectives are is really the first and essentially step in
transforming the process into one that has more clarity and enables us to refer back to what our,
even at this point, tentative as Steven Turner mentioned these will remain draft all the way
through. So they will still be draft as we go through. So we won’t have absolute clarity as we go
through the process but we will have some idea to help us guide through which we all I think,
everyone in this room, can agree is going to be a very data intensive, very complicated process
that is going to be presented with a lot of very tough choices. So it is that goal that we present
the issues and goals and objectives for early disclosure and consultation as we begin this process.
In answer to your question if we believe that there are plenty of references in the Comprehensive
Plan, the Comprehensive Plan citation that you just provided, I think enables the City to be a
leader in setting its goals and objectives for this area for both the Shopping Center and the
Medical Center in this regard. Frankly, if it didn’t the basic premise of the City being able to
determine its own destiny through land use would I think would also compliment our objective
of providing clearer guidance as we embark on this process.
Chair Holman: Thank you. At this time I will go to members of the public. If you would like to
speak to the Medical Center item or wish to wait until later to speak to the Shopping Center
matter you are welcome to do either. Norman Beamer will be our first speaker to be followed by
Walt Hays.
Mr. Norman Beamer, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am President of the Crescent Park
Neighborhood Association. My remarks apply to both topics this evening and I share that I am
probably straying off the narrow focus that the Stanford representative urged. Nevertheless I
think it is appropriate to make the suggestion.
The proposed expansion of the Stanford Hospital and Shopping Center will have a significant
negative impact onthe city including increased density and traffic congestion. We are not
opposed to these expansion plans in principle but we think that Stanford should make significant
concessions to offset these negative environmental impacts.
One such concession we urge is that the City insist on a commitment from Stanford to support
and upstream retention basin as part of the longer-term solution to the 100-year flood problem of
San Francisquito Creek. The JPA and the Corps of Engineers are presently conducting the
general investigation to solve the 100-year flooding problem of the creek. A major component
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
of almost any feasible solution is to provide for temporary retention basins on upstream land.
During extreme floods water would temporarily be diverted into these basins and then gradually
drained over a 24-hour period in the aftermath of the flood. The primary site for such retention
basins is on Stanford developed land. However, Stanford has made it very clear that it is
opposed to such a measure. In a 2006 letter to the Corps of Engineers, and I have a copy here
which I would like to hand to the clerk, Stanford categorically stated that when the Leland
Stanford, Junior died in 1884 the Stanford’s donated the land as a memorial to their son. The
founding grant forbids the sale or donation of any of the lands the Stanford’s donated. The
Stanford lands support a rich array of native biological communities, and species are protected
under the Endangered Species Act. The lands contain archeological sites. Stanford maintains its
non-potable water supply on that land. So as a result Stanford recommends that the GI focus on
flood control measures that are downstream where the affected communities are not on its land.
It says off-stream detention basins would have significant effects on the environment and so on.
So basically according to Stanford it is okay to build a luxury hotel on their land but it would
desecrate Leland Junior’s memory, it would despoil the environment, it would plunder our
heritage, and other horrible results if a small piece of land would be flooded for a few hours
every 100 years.
Apparently Stanford will vigorously oppose any off-stream detention basin on its land for flood
control purposes and yet all studies show that such facilities are best located on Stanford land.
Therefore in connection with the upcoming discussions with Stanford we urge the City to obtain
a commitment from Stanford that they will be more cooperative in coming up with a feasible
solution to long-term flooding including provisions for a flood retention basin on its open space
lands. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Walt Hays to be followed by Arden
Anderson and you will have five minutes.
Mr. Walt Hays, Palo Alto: I live in the Green Meadow area in Palo Alto and i am speaking for
myself and not for any particular committee tonight.
I have been involved with impact and been involved in groups that have been critical of Stanford
in the past particularly in connection with Sand Hill and so forth. I would like to speak in
support of what I have heard tonight. I think that the hospitals do provide an extremely valuable
service to our community. I think it would be a shame to destroy or limit that service by
attaching too many onerous conditions. From reading the objectives that are stated agree that
they all do that the one that was mentioned like housing, that the project shall provide for
housing sites and construction of residential units, while that would be nice I think that if too
many conditions like that are imposed basically the,hospital will not be able to provide the kind
of service that we all expect it to do. I would hate to see that happen so I support Stanford’s
recommendation that the objectives be changed so that they state issues but do not have
prescriptions in advance of having the information from the EIR.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much Mr. Hays. Arden Anderson is our next speaker.
Page 20
1 Mr. Arden Anderson, Palo Alto: Thank you. I am here in support of the plan that is before you.
2 My wife and I and our family have lived in Palo Alto for 33 years and we look with pride at the
3 hospital. We have seen it develop over these years to one of the finest hospitals in the Country if
4 not the world. We have experienced two life-saving situations with our grandchildren in 1995.
5 Our grandson had an accident and hit his head and needed immediate surgery and his life was
6 saved as a result of being at Packard Hospital in close proximity. A year later our six-month-old
7 granddaughter was diagnosed with [bilaria atrishia] needing a liver transplant. She had a
8 transplant on May 25, 1995, very successful and she is now a budding teenager. Both grandkids
9 are very healthy and I am indebted to the hospital.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Since I retired I have been volunteering at the hospital. I work in the Intensive Care Unit and I
can see firsthand the crowded conditions and the need for more space. I also work with the
families. My role is a family care navigator. I help the families navigate through the intricacies
of the Intensive Care Unit. I become involved with them and can tell from discussions with them
that they are staying in our hotels or eating in our restaurants and they are really bringing a lot to
the community while they are getting care for their children. Some of them are here for a long
extended period. So I encourage you to move forward with this project. I am not a planning
gum and these super-plans and so forth but sitting here listening I hope that the hospital’s project
will not be held hostage until all of the added issues. As a citizen of Palo Alto I hope my
Planning Commission is working on all of those issues all over the city all of the time. I urge
you to move forward with this project for the hospital. Thank you.
Chair Hohnan: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Reg Rice is our next speaker to be followed by Mark
Sabin.
Mr. Reg Rice, Menlo Park: Good evening folks. My wife and I were married in 1954 and came
out here on our honeymoon. We started off at 2090 Williams in College Terrace. Since that
time we have moved four times. We live in West Menlo Park. I am on the Menlo Park
Transportation Commission but that has nothing to do with why I am here tonight.
I want to talk to you about a human-interest story. You really appreciate Stanford Hospital and
what it can mean to you and what it meant to us. Like most people in Menlo Park and Palo Alto
we lived here quietly, happily enjoying the sporting events, the cultural events, and this nice
shopping center. It was a nice place to live and in fact I think we rather took it for granted until
last June. Ten months ago my wife contracted E. coli 157. She is almost as old as I am and that
is pretty serious. That was up at Lake Tahoe. It took them five days before they could diagnose
that it was E. coli. She told me, "Reg, I don’t think I am going to make it." Her kidney function
was down to 40 percent and the doctor there said it won’t hurt my feelings Reg, if you want to
send her to Stanford. That sounded good to me. He said, you need to address this aggressively
and we can’t do it. Alice says well, my heart doctor is at Sequoia so I want to go there. So we
went by ambulance to Sequoia. After one night there talking to their kidney guy he said, she is
not going to make it here either. Your only hope is to go to San Francisco or to Stanford where
they have a team and they can get to work on that right away. So the next morning another
ambulance ride to Stanford and they proceeded with what they call plasma [aferesis]. I didn’t
know what it was but they take your blood out, put it through this machine, what they call an
[aferesis] and it is a centrifuge and they spin out the bad blood that is just mined from this E. coli
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
and they bring in new plasma. It is about a four,hour process and they use 11 pints of plasma
each time. This went on for five days staffed by these very competent technicians and the
doctors. Finally, after ten days at Stanford she is okay, her kidney function is up to 60 percent
and you can get by on that. She spent another month over at Lytton Gardens. She wouldn’t be
here if Stanford didn’t have the hospital and the techniques that they have. That got Alice okay,
that was ten months ago.
Two months ago I woke up with a heart attack. It was 100 percent blockage of the right
coronary artery. This is eight in the morning. The ambulance comes, the paramedics, they put in
the ambulance and they were going to take me to Stanford. I said wait a minute, my heart doctor
is over at Sequoia. They guy reassuringly said you are not going to make it to Sequoia so we are
taking you to Stanford. So after I went to Stanford within one hour they had a complete team to
work on me there. They had two doctors, a technician, and two nurses that took me up to
wherever they do this angiogram and they found the right artery completely blocked. They put
in a stent, it took an hour, and two and a half hours later I am back in bed feeling great. I am not
kidding. It was that important. Had Stanford not been there I wouldn’t have made it either. I
wouldn’t have made it to Sequoia Hospital. So what I am saying to you here today is that I have
a new appreciation for the Stanford Hospital and for Stanford itself because we wouldn’t be here
without them.
Now, in short I just want to say that the reason we made it is I don’t know if you guys appreciate
how good Stanford Hospital is and all the technicians and the doctors and so forth. This could
happen to any one of us. So I would like to ask your support in the hospital’s modernization and
their expansion because the next time it might be your life they save and not Alice or mine.
Tonight I am glad that Ms. Sandas had that interchange with the Staff here to clear up this. I
don’t want this to disintegrate all your thinking into an adversarial relationship. The old town
and gown problems we seem to have any time Stanford wants to develop property or do
something in or near the campus we end up in a very adversarial thing.
Chair Holman: I do need to ask you to wrap up if you would, sir.
Mr. Rice: All right. I just hope in your discussions it will go back to being collaborative as you
talked in the beginning instead of adversarial and that you will find a win/win solution for both
Stanford and the Staff and the City of Palo Alto. That’s it. Thank you for your time.
Chair Holman: We are glad you are here, Mr. Rice. The next speaker is Mark Sabin to be
followed by Tom Jordan.
Mr. Mark Sabin, Sunnyvale: Good evening. I don’t think I could top a personal anecdote like
the one that you just heard. You only have to be a short time at Stanford Hospital in the cafeteria
to watch the parade of folks going from OR back to their rooms to realize that maybe that is not
the optimum circumstance in case of a pandemic. You only have to walk through the Packard
Hospital and see all the storage uses that they are using the hallway for to know that they are
pretty maxed out in terms of what they can do with their particular facility right now. For those
reasons and a lot of others I think it is very important that we go through with what is being
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
proposed here. It is also important so that we can offer the service and the quality of care like
you just listened to that we enable Stanford to build a facility that can accommodate new
technologies and new innovations. I think that is very important.
Also anybody who has watched the serial of, the soap opera of the Oakland Bay Bridge, you just
have to watch that to know that the raw material costs for steel and concrete that this is going to
require a lot of, the costs are very volatile. For that reason I am very concerned about moving
forward and this whole specificity issue in terms of what they need to do above and beyond the
needs of the hospital.
Finally, I am also concerned, particularly in terms of the specificity for housing needs. Now,
obviously there is going to be a need for below market rate housing. But when you look at the
needs of the folks who are going to be working at this hospital that is only going to be a need for
about one-third of the folks that are going to work there. Two years ago when the median price
of housing hit a million dollars I did an analysis ofhealthcare industry job titles. Only about four
percent of those job titles had incomes adequate to quality for a loan big enough for just a million
dollar home. The median price has gone considerably above a million dollars in this town now
so it is even worse. So if you are putting all your eggs in a more specific basket you are going to
limit your ability to meet the needs of the people who are going to be working there overall. If
you are not meeting that need it also spills over into meeting objectives like reducing carbon
production in this town because if those folks are having to drive into town that creates a
problem. It also creates a serious problem for this town too if all those people who their needs
weren’t able to be met they are going to be putting increasing pressure on the rental market that
exists in this community. So I think it is very important for all those reasons that you allow this
process to have some degree or a lot degree of flexibility to meet all those needs and not target
specific needs that will hinder the overall needs as we go down the path.
Finally, it is very important that this project be kept online and on time. We have the
requirement to meet in terms of the state laws in terms of seismic upgrades. So I think that is
very important too. Thank you very much.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Tom Jordan to be followed by Sally Probst.
Mr. Tom Jordan, Palo Alto: I have lived here about 40 years. The three major elements of these
applications, I will speak to both in front of you but mainly the hospital, there will be the size of
it, there will be the design of it including traffic configurations, and then there will be the
impacts on the community. My concern is really mainly on the third element. I would phrase it
simply to cut through a lot of what has been said before that the impacts should be viewed as a
cost created by the project. The only issue really is who should pay the cost. I see no reason
why anybody other than the landowner/developer should pay the cost of the impacts.
Now those impacts will come through the EIR. It will be weighed and evaluated. It is going to
be very, very important on the scoping, and I am not sure exactly what the relationship the
Planning Commission normally is to scoping but I would hope you would take an active, early
position on what you would like to see. It would be much like a judge even though you are
going to be passing on it in the future. All the time judges ask attorneys to brief certain
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
questions. Perfectly appropriate for you to say what you are interested in and be sure you get the
data on that.
The three big areas that I see, there are many, are clearly going to be employment which is then
going into housing, one element. Next will be traffic which ties to that and the third will be the
impact on the Palo Alto infrastructure, parks, libraries, utilities, etc. All of those have to be
carefully evaluated and once you determine what the impacts are I don’t know why Ms.
McCown focused on the Area Plan, it seems to me the vehicle that you ought to use to meet
those will be the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement, the important thing to
always keep in mind is although Stanford is a landowner/developer does have a right to action on
an application to rezone to build, they have zero right to a Development Agreement. It is
entirely discretionary on the part of the City because it is a contract, which binds the City for the
entire life of the project. If things develop in the project where you underestimated costs or you
underestimated impacts you can’t change it, So you much evaluate fully and you must protect
yourself with the most careful language possible in the Development Agreement from all of
those impacts that are coming and there are going to be quite a few.
There are other things that as this goes through people such as myself will be bringing out. I
happen to know that other comparable sister institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have
adopted policy, all being private institutions, that once a direct provable impact is caused by their
actions in the communities where they are located they will simply pay for that impact. Whether
or not there is a permit involved or anything else they will pay for the impact that they cause. It
would be nice to have Stanford start following that policy.
It is not the greatest beginning that they have already resisted successfully that the impact fee for
hospitals not be amended so that the employment from hospitals doesn’t trigger into an impact
fee. That passed, two votes they got and four votes thought that it should be changed. Notice
that on the Development Agreement it is going to change. The Development Agreement will
require five positive votes. So Palo Alto is in an excellent position to make sure that it is fully
protected from all impacts that Stanford is going to cause and that is the way it should be..
The impacts are really just a cost of the project and Stanford has caused the costs and it is up to
Stanford to pay the costs. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much, Mr. Jordan. Sally Probst to be followed by Bob Moss.
Ms. Sally Probst, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am here as a resident/citizen of Palo Alto. One of
the criteria that my family and I considered when we were deciding whether to move to Palo
Alto or not was whether there was a viable hospital with good medical care. We found out about
Stanford Hospital and its level of care and we agreed that this was a good place to come. Now
that was a good experience. That was a good thing that we had discovered that at that time
because my family has used Stanford Hospital, Lucile Packard Hospital and the clinic and it has
been very helpful to us and to hundreds of other families in this town. I don’t lcnow why I am
getting emotional, that is silly.
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
I want you to consider that there are hundreds and hundreds of families in this town that are
concerned with the Stanford Hospital being there after 2013 when they need to have their
seismic upgrade finished. It is important to us. Let me just give you one example of what
happened. My grandson is an avid wrestler. He got a cut in his knee and developed an infection
in his knee and it spread to his whole leg. So they took him in to Lucile Packard and there was a
question about him losing his leg but they saved it. Now, he has decided he is going to go into
nursing. So he applied to all the schools that had good nursing programs, was accepted at all of
them, and decided to go to San Francisco State where he has received a Presidential Scholarship.
So he is on his way to return some of the good service that he received from Lucile Packard.
I urge you to not stand in the way of what needs to be done to retain these institutions. I urge
you to wait for the EIR for the specifics and to move the project along. Thank you very much.
Chair Holman: Thank you, Ms. Probst. The next speaker is Bob Moss to be followed by our
final speaker, Michael Griffin.
Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Holman and Commissioners. I will start out
by saying I agree that Stanford Hospital performs a useful function but I totally disagree that that
in itself justifies asking the people of Palo Alto and Palo Alto City to subsidize the adverse
impacts which are going to be caused by construction of over a million square feet of hospital
facilities over the next ten years.
As we all know there are going to be a number of adverse impacts from that much development.
Housing, traffic, open space, schools, and demands on City services. It is imperative that the
organization that creates the demand for those services pay to provide those services. You have
heard complaints that housing for example, Stanford Hospital and Stanford are not in a position
to build housing but when it is to Stanford’s interest to build housing they do it. They build over
3,000 housing units on their campus in order to accommodate students and staff. When Stanford
set out an agreement with the county to expand their area both housing and teaching facilities
and research facilities they agreed to make a number of concessions the Marguerite Shuttle for
example is one of them where they would pay for mitigating the adverse impacts, In fact, you
probably read recently where the county requires that Stanford give traffic counts during the
morning and evening rush hour and validate that they will not exceed a specific level or they
cannot build more on their campus. So Stanford recognizes that they have an obligation to
mitigate impacts and that applies to Stanford Hospital.
Now let’s talk about some of the ways they can mitigate it. Housing. It has been identified that
there are some sites on Stanford owned land which could be used for housing. If Stanford
donates that land at a value of $3.0 to $4.0 million dollars an acre that would come a long way
toward meeting the cost of providing housing for people who are going to be working at the
hospital.
Transportation. They have already shown they can create a significant reduction in traffic
requirements by the work they have done on campus. The same sort of initiative can be applied
to the hospital.
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Open space, the Staff Report talks about the areas like Arboretum and the foothills that are
existing open space but all of the Stanford land that could considered for open space is already
identified by Stanford as open space. So we have to find some new park and open space
facilities. What could Stanford offer? What could they provide that would give us the needed
open space? Would it be a rearrangement of open space they already have? Would it be finding
areas which they think might be used currently for research or for teaching, which they find they
don’t necessarily need and could be dedicated for open space? They have plenty of property that
is potentially available for open space. So that should be put on the agenda also.
Finally, the question of whether the Area Plan should include these things, absolutely it should.
You should include the problems of additional housing and housing impacts, affordable housing,
traffic and transportation, open space, and other city facilities including schools that will be
impacted by this size development. That should be part of the discussion. I am not saying we
have to decide even in the next two or three months how it is going to be satisfied but it has be
up front that this is going to have a number of impacts on the community and asking the entire
community to pay for the impacts caused by a single developer is totally inappropriate.
Chair Holman: Thank you, Mr. Moss. Our final speaker is Michael Griffin. Welcome back to
your old haunts.
Mr. Michael Griffin, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. This was a more emotional
evening than I had anticipated. There are a lot of pretty entrenched points of view going on here.
Indeed this is a pretty dense set of proposals that we are looking at and there are a lot of different
things to be concerned about perhaps. In my estimation the overall concern that strikes me most
severely is how we are going to resolve the dilemma of accommodating the new levels of traffic
that will be generated by these projects versus keeping the city streets from being totally
overwhelmed.
I am really glad that issue teams have been identified as a way to study the details of the various
topics such as transportation and linkages. I am wondering about public participation in all of
this. I followed the discussion earlier on and I am wondering if there is some possibility that the
public could be accommodated in these issue team meetings if nothing more than just to be able
listen in the various aspects discussed or have access perhaps to summary minutes in order to be
kept in the loop. It seems to the me that the public needs to be more involved.
I have an interest in these linkage nodes along E1 Camino and the interface between the
University and the community at large, the use of a possible grade separations and how traffic is
going to be kept out of the residential neighborhoods. I would like to have the opportunity and
have the opportunity for others of us in the public realm to comment on these different aspects so
that the scoping of the EIR really addresses the substantive concerns of the people in Palo Alto
and Menlo Park.
Perhaps a little contrary to some of Jean’s comments, I am not sure here, I am going to say that I
think we need to keep in mind that these projects do not exist in a vacuum. They exist in the
contextofthe built communities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park and they need to be studied in that
light. Thanks.
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Thank you very much. I think we will keep the public comment open so that we
can ask questions of whoever we need to as we go forward. Are Commissioners wanting a
break? We have been here for three hours already. So if you will bear with us we will take
about an eight-minute break.’ Thank you very much.
Okay, we would like to reconvene our meeting if we could, please. Thank you very much.
Commissioners, I think what would be good to do is if we could focus on process questions first.
Staff will correct me ifI go astray here I am sure. I think what we can do is address the process
issues and the process issues will basically apply to both the Medical Center and the Shopping
Center so we won’t need to be redundant on that or at least not very much when we go to the
next item. So if we can get our process issues addressed first then go through the questions with
Staff.
It is very important that we do this and do it thoroughly at the same time if we could try to target
say an hour to try to get through this. Then if it takes longer it does but let’s try to target that. So
I would ask Commissioners to focus their questions and stay on point.
So Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Yes, I first actually have a process comment. I think I am sharing
thunder here. I would have to express a little bit of surprise about the way in which this
particular document has been structured. The reason is because Phase I is information sharing
and preliminary Area Plan and then we are immediately brought into what the Area Plan is or an
outline for it or what it should be, etc.
Mr. Turner: Commissioner Garber, you are referring to the Phase I!Phase II tentative Medical
Center timeline?
Commissioner Garber: Is that in fact what this is?
Chair Holman: Yes.
Mr. Turner: I iust want to make sure because you had asked for that and I brought that down for
you.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you, by the way, for bringing that.
The reason I am pointing that difference out is because the result of this particular phase of work
is the preliminary Area Plan itself, correct? Okay. In that case I would have more expected that
the way that this would have been presented as a series of issues to be addressed that required
input from not only, not only the applicant, but the public, the committees that you have created,
etc. such that what results from that are those issues gelled into objectives which then can go be
solved and then presented as part of the deliverable of the Area Plan. So what I am really
addressing here is your item number three. When we get into content as opposed to process here
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
I will talk about each one of those things separately. The other thing I wanted to make clear and
I will do this as a statement and you can correct me. In other words, I will do it as you have done
it. I will make a statement as opposed to asking a question.
The project driver here obviously is the applicant and they have an interest and a concern about
driving their project through the City’s process. The Area Plan is the City’s task and the City is
driving that as opposed to the applicant. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Turner: Yes.
Commissioner Garber: Okay, I will leave it at that for the moment. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Firstly, I think that we are all concerned with this process operating as
expeditiously as possible and yet making sure that all the appropriate considerations are taken. I
thiN( we would all be quite upset if the earthquake happens in 2010 and the Stanford Hospital
were to be severely damaged and we were left without a hospital during this process. So I think
we are all interested in having that occur. To this regard it seems that our first milestone is a
month late because we are meeting at the end of April rather than at the end of March. I am
concerned to ensure that further steps along the process that we don’t move the important for the
urgent. It is seems that we go rescheduled because of some urgent project that came along and I
want to make sure that we keep sight of the fact that this is a moving process and by delaying our
meeting for a month it means that there is that much compressed ability to respond by both from
the comments from the Commission and the Council by the time we come to June/July time
when this Area Plan draft goes to the next step of the process. I am concerned about that month
compression.
The next issue is about public comment and public involvement in this. I think that one of the
reasons that I am concerned about the compression is that we obviously have had some public
comment here but that public comment has not been involved in a very substantive way in terms
of the task forces or with respect to the issue teams. As a result of that there is limited ability for
the public to provide their inputs to this process. I think that if there can be a manner in which
the progress can be made public in some way that doesn’t interfere with the process or whether
there can be some pubic outreach meetings reasonably publicized for each of the issue teams to
which the Planning Commission could also listen to so that we could hear the public input to this
process. I thiN( that that would be helpful. I think that certainly the people on the City Staff and
the people on Stanford are very smart people 6r intelligent and such but the issue is that having
public involvement in this process increases the available pool of potential ideas as well
increases public confidence in the process and .in the outcome. The manner in which we do that
public comment if we don’t do it in the next iteration between now and when the June/July
process happens, if we don’t get effective public comment in that there is an opportunity cost of
that. It is sort of an opportunity that the process will move forward in terms of the EIR, in terms
of what the design is without sufficient advice from the public. So I want to make sure that
happens.
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. If you have questions for Staff aroundprocess too that’s
good. You can make statements but also if you have questions for them about this this is the
time to do that.
Commissioner Sandas: Okay, great. IfI have some process questions around the issues teams
does that count as process?
Chair Holman: If it is process it is process.
Commissioner Sandas: Okay, I will try to make it that way. Actually I just wanted to make a
couple of comments. The first comment I don’t know if this is going to be a benefit or
something detrimental but I am concerned about the timing as well on a number of fronts. We
have until 2013 to is it to have this whole building built or start construction? I am not quite sure
what but it is a very short period of time.
Having said that I wanted to reiterate something that Commissioner Keller just mentioned about
getting public input. One of the things that feel very favorable towards is the whole idea of the
issues teams. I think it is a wonderful thing to have staff from Stanford and the City of Palo Alto
communicating and working together and developing components to the plan. However, being a
Planning Commissioner it makes me a little itchy when I am thinking there is stuff going on that
we don’t know about as it should but still we would like to know about it. I think I would
represent the public in saying that as well. So I too would like to give the public more
opportunity to participate in giving input and describing their concerns to the specific issues
teams. That is a process statement not a question.
Then finally in terms of process I don’t think we have enough information tonight, which goes
back to the bad part of the timing issue. I don’t think we have enough information tonight to
speak intelligently on the key objectives. I looked at, just to give three examples, under Housing
how would we know what kind of housing or the number of units that would be appropriate if we
don’t really know how many people the hospital will be accommodating in its workforce?
Under the Traffic Objectives it says specific projections have not been prepared. Well if the
specific projections have not been prepared we can’t go by what we think might happen. We
kind ofhave to have the data that is going to tell us more likely what will happen. Then I was
just reading on to the Open Space. I think that it is pretty difficult to designate open space in an
area that is being developed without having the plan and without having a picture of what the
buildings are going to look like and how open space can be accommodated in between buildings
and through linkages and other traffic things. So my suggestion for this evening would be to
g~ve the input that we can give right now which doesn’t .appear to be that much and come back to
this sooner rather than later with more information that will allow us to talk about the process
and not start with some of the conclusions first.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Well, following up on the question of what we can accomplish tonight, we
are at 9:25 and just starting to wade into substantive discussions on the hospital portion.
Commissioner Sandas has raised the issue of kind of a staging of we could comment on certain
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
things based on the information we have now and we will be able to give you more substantive
feedback as you are able to put more meat on the bones here.
So I wanted to ask the Chair and with the Staff’s input where do we think we can go tonight?
What is our plan what we would do next?
I was looking through the timelines that we had received and what we received on January 24.
Well there may have been another one. I have one for the Shopping Center from January 24 and
one from December 13 for the Shopping Center and the Medical Center. I think Dan has an even
more updated one. It is unaltered. So the one that I have from January 14 with the Staff Report
on the Shopping Center I couldn’t find if we did have it from before the one on the Medical
Center. I have December 13 on the Medical Center.
So I guess if they haven’t moved much since December then that answers one question. Are we
still pretty much on track there? I wanted to ask what we were going to do tonight, what we
think we can get done tonight and whether we need to tentatively schedule something in
between, really a follow up meeting to this one rather than what was going to be our next phase
meeting? So those are questions. Why don’t you take a stab at that and then I have two others.
Mr. Williams: Steven, why don’t you go ahead and talk about the schedule for a minute because
you did have a response to that and then we can address the bigger question.
Mr. Turner: Essentially Staff feels that we are on track with both of these projects. If you
remember back in March we actually had this project scheduled for I believe it was the last
meeting in March. The Alma Plaza project took that meeting over so therefore based upon the
Commission’s rest of the schedule for April it was chosen that this meeting on the 25tl~ was the
appropriate meeting to reschedule both of these projects to. So that is the reason why we are
before you in late April instead of late March. So that describes there.
Essentially if we kind of shift a month over as a result of that rescheduling conflict we are pretty
much still on schedule to bring a draft plan before the Commission in June and then to the
Council in July. So I feel that we are on track. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be any
more delays but at this point we are still on track for that June/July.
Commissioner Burt: But if we are not able to really finish our discussion on both these projects
tonight do we need to look at another meeting in the next few weeks to complete this?
Mr. Williams: I think if you would like to do that we have the sustainability study session and it
would have to be put off again and try to do May 9 to follow with this.
Chair Holman: IfI might, let’s see how far we can get tonight. One thing that might clarify the
issues as I had asked Staff previously and this might deflect some other questions or comments
by other Commissioners. I had asked about the interest groups that are currently taking place on
a monthly basis, that if those could be focus groups or charettes so that we have the kind of input
that other Commissioners are inquiring about. My understanding was that we could do that and
we could stay on schedule but please correct me if I misunderstood that. They seem to be
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
incongruous considering there is a plan that is due to us in June. What I think I am hearing
Commissioners say is they are concerned about a plan being dropped on June without this kind
of meaningful input from the public and other stakeholders. So I think that is a concern and
question I have been hearing kind of proliferate the comments of the Commissioners. If you
would like to respond to that?
Mr. Williams: Sure. We inthinking about this what we had talked about in terms of issue teams
was perhaps each issue team could come up with some kind of not a charette per se but some
kind of an informal kind of meeting where the public is invited and discuss issues that have been
identified within that group and throw out more ideas, and then bring that back to the
Commission. When I said that that was within the timeframe I didn’t mean the timeframe of the
Area Plan of this first cut at the Area Plan. Again, remember the Area Plan’s dynamic through
this process so it is the kind of thing that the way I think we would anticipate it is that we would
have a basic Area Plan and have started identifying some of those issues but then have much
more full discussions as we started to get some of the data in on the environmental report and
more public input and be able to bring that all before you.
Now in responding a little bit to Commissioner Sandas’ questions and comments, I think what
we are here tonight to talk about is on these particular objectives that we have developed are you
ready to put those in an Area Plan or do you feel like you need more information in terms of or
maybe the EIR information, and that is going to be awhile. That would be falling back and
basically identifying some of the basic issues that need to be addressed through that process
rather than having this kind of specific objective in there. I think that is kind of a fundamental
direction that we need or we come back in a couple of weeks and try to provide a bit more
information on that and see if you are ready at that time to make that kind of direction as to
whether you think we ought to try to embody some of these in here or at this point we ought to
just list them as issues and move on and come back to the specific mechanisms and that when we
get to the EIR and the project reviews and then amend the Area Plan as we continue on, which is
something we anticipated doing anyway.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, I had interrupted you. Do you want to follow up to that and
then I think Commissioner Sandas wanted to respond to that specifically.
Commissioner Burt: Well, I don’t see any way we are going to get through all this tonight so we
might as well face up to the reality and start getting a plan on it. Second, I have questioned the
timeline from January, well this one was the Stanford Shopping Center timeline but it was
similar to what we had previously, there were City-sponsored community meetings regarding
baseline data, issues identification, and those were marked for February and May. Then there
was Simon Group community outreach and workshops. I understood they were sponsoring
them. Now we have the issue teams that I don’t think unless I am misreading this aren’t on this
timeline that we have.
I’m sorry, Commissioner Sandas said that they are Staffworldng groups, but they are still part of
what we really are defining as part of the timeline, and they are what feed into this. Let’s just
look at the whole picture and everything that is going to happen. The work of those groups
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
provides the information that we were seeking. So are these other meetings occurring, the
community meetings? Are Simon Group or Stanford having outreach programs?
Then the issues teams, if you would just give us a little more sense it looks like there is a lot of
activity going on there and both Stanford and Staff are spending a good deal of time and making
a lot of progress and it is an efficient way to break this down. Just give us a little more
information if you would on what is happening in that.
Mr. Turner: I will speak to the community meetings. We had our first community meeting at
the end of February and a summary of that community meeting is contained in your Staff Report.
So it lists the types of issues that related to the Medical Center that were brought up at that
meeting. We have not scheduled any further community meetings for Phase I but that does not
mean that we cannot have one before Phase I is finished it is just that none have been scheduled
yet other than February.
Mr. Williams: We are looking to do that after we came to the Commission but we haven’t
scheduled it yet. We would hope to get another one in here before you have to make a
recommendation on the Area Plan to the Council.
Commissioner Burt: I just would like to point out that the timeline had anticipated a second one.
Mr. Williams: Right, it did. Then the issues teams like you said are not on here. What I was
saying was the issues teams have tried to identify some issues for you to respond to and then for
this community meeting but the meetings that I was talking about just came up in our discussions
yesterday in terms of potentially the issue teams holding sort of community meetings on specific
topics. One on housing, one on traffic, and that kind of thing are not on this and in our minds
they would occur after this sort of Phase I preliminary Area Plan is established.
Commissioner Burt: In the case of the hospital are they having their own community outreach
workshops that are equivalent to what Simon Group are showing on the shopping center?
Mr. Williams: They are but I don’t know that they have had them yet. They gave us a list
recently and I think they were starting in May but they can respond to that better than I can. I
think they had three of them scheduled but they were kind of focused on different topic areas as
well. Simon Group by the way hasn’t had any to date.
Commissioner Burt: Has there been a discussion between Staff and either Stanford or the Simon
Group as to whether those meetings should be done through a private initiative of them or should
there be a joint effort with the City? I don’t necessarily have an answer to that but I just want to
know whether that is something that is being discussed and whether you have thoughts on
whether it is most effective to do it that way or combining these things. If they are having their
meetings and you are having your meetings and then we have this public meeting is it cohesive
enough in the approach is my question.
Mr. Williams: We have discussed that and I think we felt that the City should have its own
meetings to be clear that these are City, public, community meetings. That Stanford would have
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
meetings that we would attend and be there to answer questions that came up about us but
generally those would be sponsored by them. I said focused, I think they are focusing one of
their meetings on kind of educational on healthcare needs today and what does that mean and
providing a lot of that information to the public to respond to. We wouldn’t go that way but we
would be in attendance at those meetings. We have also both talked about meeting with Menlo
Park as well. You should probably be aware of that. We have had Staff level meetings and we
talked with them about if they want to arrange a community meeting up in Menlo Park that we
would be glad to attend that and Stanford has offered to present at that meeting too but nothing
has been scheduled.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas, you had a follow up and then Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Sandas: Curtis, you had asked about the key new Area Plan objectives and
basically whether or not we are ready to incorporate them into the Area Plan. What I can say and
I am just speaking for myself, my own opinion is that I am ready to incorporate them into the
Area Plan in general, generally speaking. As things unfold so shall the specifics. I think that
there are a lot of details that we would want to discuss regarding each of the five objectives but
in general I think that the objectives that you all came up with are important and worthy of
discussion and incorporation.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess I have a slightly different take on this. I understand the urgency
behind us trying to get this facility up and running by I think it is 2013 but what I see here is that
it is very similar to other processes that we have done before. We have done Sand Hill West
before. Stanford is well versed in that. Palo Alto has been involved in the SOFA II area with the
moving of a whole clinic to E1 Camino Real. So this is not something in which we are sort of
reinventing the wheel or reinventing the process so to speak. The only thing that really is of
importance here is that they really are on a very tight timeline here. The idea of having the issue
teams I think is a lot like the DRC that you already have established. The only difference is that
Palo Alto really isn’t going to be doing the building permitting in terms of the building permit or
the fire marshalling of it. It is really done through OSHPOD as the agency doing that. A lot of
the other issues are very much the same and the only difference between the DRC and say this
process is that this is an ongoing group of issue teams versus DRC which really looks at a project
once through the discretionary review process. When it goes into the permitting process it makes
sure that those comments are followed up with. So I don’t think we are reinventing the wheel
here. I don’t think we are doing anything new the only thing is the constrained timeframe. I
think that this Commission has the ability to schedule special meetings in order to pull in the
slack, so to speak, to be able to solicit public testimony when we really need to hear from the
public on these issues. Stanford is free to educate the public whenever they feel it is important to
solicit the community to speak on these issues. So I don’t see anything wrong with the process
that being suggested here.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: I am not exactly sure my comments are going to be additive or separate
from the previous comments that have just been made. I apologize I am still having trouble
translating what we saw not too long ago to the current actions. So let me just walk through sort
of what I was imagining was happening versus what is and maybe is in fact happening but I am
not just understanding it in quite the same way.
Your issue committees or teams, I might refer to them as impact teams and I do think the teams
that you have identified are the fight ones. I do think that you bringing forward the issues, and I
will call them issues as opposed to objectives at the moment, is a very good thing because it is
critical for Staff to frame the discussion that has to occur. That is the way that I would use those
statements that are in the report. The impact teams, my words again here, I see there are two
primary tasks for those teams. One is to catalog all the potential impacts that may relate to that
particular issue. They are to brainstorm, talk to the people, whatever it is, and just list them and
then form them into impact statements, a.k.a, problem statements, but let’s just call them impact
statements. At which point somebody has to put those problems and compare those add-in data
which is going to constrain the objectives which will need to be drawn out of that information
which will then be used to develop the design of the Area Plan. I would think that the Staff
would be doing that presumably with the impact teams and then would take their preliminary
findings either through a study session or study sessions, plural, with this Commission to
establish that the conclusions that you have reached resonate with the Commission and/or are
modified, etc. At which point Staffwould go away and they would come up with a design that
meets the objectives that have been defined. Then that would come back to the Commission and
the Commission would say yes, no, modify, etc. So those are sort of three big steps and I am not
exactly sure where we are in all this. Maybe you don’t need to answer you can just simply take
my comments as a suggestion.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I went to the February outreach meeting organized by the
City Staff. It seemed to me that the comments were rather high level, not substantive, and didn’t
really get that much into the heart of the issues that I think are issues of public concern other than
the fact that we want the hospital built in an expeditious manner. That was basically the broad
issues that I heard, just let’s get it done in a timely manner. I think everybody agrees.
So it seems to me that a planning meeting as described here for May comparable to the one for
February will not in my opinion be that useful for the process in that form. Nonetheless I think
that rather than having one big planning meeting having a open meeting for each issue team
where the discussions per issue team are brought out. I think that those should be both for the
Shopping Center and the Medical Center because all the same people will be of interest for those
issues. To the extent that that is an opportunity for those issue teams to talk together and cross-
fertilize in that way with public input. It seems to me that a series of public meetings, one per
issue team should be the substantive equivalent of this item. City sponsored community
meetings regarding baseline data and issue identification. I think that would be more effective. I
think we would get some useful input and ideas. I think that it would move the process along in
a useful manner that I think would improve the overall result and the speed at which this process
happens.
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
One of the concerns that I have is that sometime in Phase II are the scoping of the EIR and the
potential impacts and mitigations. Once you get there coming up with new ideas is kind of hard
to do. So if somebody were to come up with an idea like for example if you had four hospital
towers instead of three hospital towers, that is a hypothetical example, that might allow the
overall height to be less than 130 feet. Ideas like that, it is really hard to understand them when
they come at the point in time of the scoping and impacts and mitigations in the EIR and a lot
easier to come up with at the time of issue team meetings. So that is one of the reasons that I
think that getting this public input in a detailed manner, early, is very helpful to the process.
Chair Holman: So I think Staff already knows what my feeling of this is since I raised the issue
yesterday. I agree with that that there do need to be these whatever we want to call them, these
focused issues team meetings or whatever you want to call it. I agree with Commissioner
Keller’s comment that they should be joint for both the Medical Center and the Shopping Center
because interested people for one will be interested for the other and there are cross-pollinations
that occur. So I think that would be most helpful.
I have another process thing to which is having to do with the Area Plan. I know that the Area
Plan as was identified in the Comprehensive Plan referred to the Stanford Medical Center.
However, what we are doing is looking at the Shopping Center and Medical Center at the same
time. CEQA has identified them as one project and that is why they being reviewed under the
same EIR. That said, it doesn’t mean that we can’t comment on them together and
independently. There will be some comments that will refer to the land that is at the Shopping
Center and to the land that is in the Medical Center site, yet if we are addressing them in a
cohesive fashion we are going to be better informed and have a better outcome. So I am actually
suggesting that the Area Plan cover both the Shopping Center and the Medical Center. I think it
is going to lead to a more efficient process, better input, better output, and more satisfactory
process for all involved. I know that isn’t what is laid out now but you have already heard
Commissioners talk about when looking at the maps, right now we have existing conditions zone
one and the proposal on the other and the vise-versa and that doesn’t help us do comprehensive
planning and commenting. So those are my two procedural comments.
As to the objectives I guess the whole outline should be around objectives. In some cases I think
there is a systematic deficiency in using the 2000 Area Plan and that is that some of the outline
that exists now, and I know it is a worldng document, some of the language reads like Stanford
prepared it as they did the 2000 plan. So I think a careful reading of this by Staff and by
Stanford would result in a document that looks like it is a project that is coming to the City and
that is a Stanford project but that the outline is not a Stanford document. I think that also will be
a clearer process to be followed. I see a little furrowing of brows back there and what I mean by
that is just that some of the objectives don’t indicate what the objectives of the City are they only
state in some cases what the objectives of Stanford are when clearly we both have objectives.
They are both high-level objectives and some detailed objectives. So I think it just needs to be a
cleaner document in that way as far as language is concerned.
I will stop there and go back another round. Commissioner Lippert.
Page 35
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
1 Vice-Chair Lippert: One other thought that I had is that because of the constraints of this process
2 with regard to the hospital specifically that if there are any let’s say if we need to perform triage
3 and what I mean by that is follow what it critical. Anything under review for the hospital would
4 trump would review of Stanford Shopping Center because the Shopping Center is not as critical
5 in terms of timeframe, meeting a specific deadline in terms of compromising perhaps health,
6 safety, and welfare of the community. So if for instance we became like this evening enmeshed
in a discussion that was protracted or lengthy and we had to defer the Shopping Center to another
meeting and continue it I would sooner do that than continue the hospital to another meeting and
draw out that timeline even further.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: I just want to add one other comment. I am glad to see that the issue
teams are addressing fiscal impact. I think that is one thing that is critical.
This is actually a question about sustainability. You have an issue team about sustainability.
What are you talking about specifically? Sustainable building practices or something additional
to that?
Mr. Turner: The sustainability issue team has met once and it was an introductory meeting to
understand the players that. were involved. I believe the topic was around what LEED means,
how it could be applied, how there are some constraints in pursuing the official LEED process
versus going through a comparable process that may result in the same or even better sustainable
design without having to go through the costs of actually getting certified. There was kind of
high-level discussions about that but I would imagine that a sharing of resources between what
Stanford has already developed in the hospital, what the City is looking to develop with our
goals, and policies, and programs, I suspect that will be more of a discussion in the future.
Commissioner Sandas: One of the reasons that I ask is that like I Said I am ready to include the
key new Area Plan objectives in general. Of course now I am drilling down into a nitpicky
thing. On sustainability I believe that the intention of the Area Plan and the people who are
involved is to create a plan that is sustainable in many ways, transportation wise, walkability
with the adequate linkages, some different land use synergies, etc., but I would like to see that
spelled out if that indeed is the case. I would like to see that articulated pretty clearly. I think it
is an important element.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Not to return to it but I would propose that in sympathy to some of the
other things that have been suggested here that the Commission have let’s say three study
sessions that are open to the public and they addressed each one of the issues that have been
identified here. A couple of them, the first one being housing and employment, the second one
being transportation and infrastructure, and the third one being open space and linkages. I would
be more than happy to meet when we need to at whatever time schedule or whenever that needs
to happen to make that happen, but that these be open to the public and that we organize debate
Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
around these topics such that we can get some of the outcomes that we would like to be
participating in.
Separate topic. Remind me please when the mall and the hospital projects are scheduled to be
completed? What are those dates again?
Mr. Turner: Through the discretionary process or through the construction?
Commissioner Garber: I am talking about people walking in and occupying the building.
Mr. Turner: Each applicant may better be able to respond to that question.
Commissioner Garber: Just give me a round number. 2013 is the hospital and the mall is
sometime before that, seven years out or something like that?
Mr. Williams: It is probably five years for some of the Shopping Center and probably 2015 or so
for much of the hospital. They are going in phases. It is not all at once so they are going to have
different stages.
Commissioner Garber: I was just trying to get an idea of the horizon here. What is the
expectation of the time horizon that the Area Plan should be dealing with?
Mr. Williams: We are anticipating this is a 2025 type thing, minimum 2020 to a maximum of
2030. This is a long-term plan.
Commissioner Garber: So beyond these projects?
Mr. Williams: Right. This is supposed to represent a pretty healthy length of time.
Commissioner Garber: If I may I will take one other topic and then I will relinquish my time for
a moment. The third thing to add on to Chair Holman’s comment about boundaries especially
since that is the case, the boundary of the Area Plan should not be just the hospital lands and
frankly I don’t think it should be the hospital lands plus the mall, but I think it also needs to go
and touch at least to CalTrans and the transportation center such that we can talk about the
impact that these projects have on the Downtown of Palo Alto and the University Avenue and
the CalTrans station, etc.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller I believe you were next.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Firstly I agree with the concept of some of my colleagues of
having the Area Plan cover at least the Shopping Center in addition to the Medical Center and
allows for a better integration of those things but doing so in a manner that does not slow down
the process.. I think that is an important criteria for how this is to be done. It need not be done at
a completely uniform level of description. Some things might be described in more detail, some
things might be described in less detail, because after all a lot less change is happening to the
Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Shopping Center than is proposed for the medical center area. Therefore the specificity of the
description of the Shopping Center doesn’t need to talk that much about that which exists.
Since you are talking about a timeline of the life of this Area Plan being through 2020 to 2030
and considering that we had a Shopping Center expansion not that many years ago I think we
should think about what might follow on, potential follow on, for a subsequent Shopping Center
expansion and identify if that happens where land for that might be located or are we considering
the shopping center completely built out never to expand again? So I think we should
understand that, what the intent is, and if this is going on for that period of time that expansion
needs to be taken into account.
One thing for my interest. When people talk about impacts and who pays for what one thing that
helps me to understand that is I see on page 10 of the nice document from Stanford about
facilities renewal and replacement program for the Stanford University Medical Center where it
indicates the summary of square foot request is for 2.6 million square feet of construction and 1.2
million square feet of demolition. I am supposing that that is going to cost major bucks. It
would be just helpful for me and perhaps for some other people to understand how many digits
there are in the overall cost expected to happen for all of this and what the first two digits would
be. Is this billion? Is this 100 million? I am just curious what it is and I think that allows us to
better understand based on the nature of the potential impacts that will occur and that which
might be incurred by Stanford in terms of dealing with those potential impacts what the nature of
the size of that process of dealing with the impacts is compared with the size in dollar cost, if you
will and land cost, of the overall project.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: First a couple of quick comments. On the sustainability we are using that
term to describe sustainable construction. I think each time we use that term we need to qualify
it because it is a very broad term and I agree with Commissioner Sandas on that. It gets overused
or misused or confused if we don’t use these qualifiers.
Second, Commissioner Keller had mentioned about the need to foresee whether there might be
some long-term additional expansion of the Shopping Center. If that should occur, I think the
Comprehensive Plan is pretty clear and the land is pretty clear it would occur on the surface
parldng areas. That is the guidance and that is my assumption that we are not going to grow new
land but we can make better use of parking lots.
Finally, the more substantive thing is what Commissioner Garber was talking about in these
three study sessions. I thought that was a good outline. I think that that sounds like a good
approach. We haven’t heard from Staff what they think about that. It is different from what was
in your previous timeline and both in terms of the roles of Staff directly doing community
outreach versus study sessions being a combination of substantive work by the Commission
along with being a form of community outreach. Would it reduce the community outreach,
allow you to fold some of that into these study sessions, and how might that work for you?
Page 38
1 Mr. Williams: I don’t think we have a problem with doing that and there is some efficiency in
2 using the Commission that way because then the Commission is a participant in that it doesn’t
3 end up duplicating things. It also might bring more people out that wouldn’t come out if there
4 wasn’t a Commission to talk to. In some of the ZOU proceedings that we had we focused on
5 issues and sometimes it was with the Commission and sometimes it wasn’t but that was
6 generally helpful to do that. I think the only concern is just the timeframe and trying to see how
7 we can fit that in and how that dovetails with Council review of this and the Area Plan and those
8 kinds of things. So we will have to regroup about that a little bit and see what works. I think
9 that is a good technique for getting a broader cross-section of ideas
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
I do want to clarify that I do think that those objectives that are in front you tonight are things
that at this level. When we are talking with these groups I think we are down here at a very
detailed level not the level of that but maybe we can start with that and say for these issues these
are some the key obj ectives and get some input on that too. I think we can work that into our
program we will just have to see where it fits.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, can I ask a clarifying question of what you mean by study
sessions? Typically when the Commission has study sessions they are meetings like this. I was
envisioning and what we talked about previously that I saw some nodding of heads is where we
have a more informal setting where there is more interaction with the public. I don’t want to put
words in your mouth but I would like some clarification of what your intention was that Staff is
now commenting on.
Commissioner Burt: I agree with your concept and we have had study sessions in the past
maybe less so recently where they were less formal and engaged the public more. I think Dan
has a comment on that.
Chair Holman: I had Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Lippert. Are you both
responding to this? Commissioner Lippert then.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I was just going to say I agree with both Commissioner Garber and
Commissioner Burt. I think what this does is helps abbreviate the process a little bit, helps us
choke-up on the bat so to speak, and it even though it wouldn’t be distilled down to some very
choice points it would allow us to get adequate breadth in terms of the public feeling with regard
to these issues. It wouldn’t need to be spelled out in one forum and then brought to us in another
forum. I have suggested this before, perhaps the opportunity would be that these might be held
on a Saturday morning where the public would find it a little bit easier to get to a meeting like
this and it can be tailored to be focused in on that specific issue. So I am in agreement with what
you both have suggested here.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, follow up.
Commissioner Garber: I want to be sensitive to all the issues of providing public access and be
able to record and being sure people have their comments heard, etc., but if there are ways to
change the time, change the venue, or change the format i am all for it.
Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Let me say that I am happy for whatever appropriate methods there are
for public input and I will certainly do what I can to accommodate those schedules.
I want to respond to something my esteemed colleague, Commissioner Burt, mentioned earlier
which is the idea that the Shopping Center expansion would be on Shopping Center surface
parking. As indicated by the Comprehensive Plan the Comprehensive Plan is through 2010, it is
being extended through 2020 and the Area Plan is for the period 2020 through 2030 and
therefore it is not clear that policies that are in the Comprehensive Plan apply to two decades
hence.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: I have a process question. So here we are tonight and I am assuming we
are going to continue this to another date after we have held three study sessions with the public.
Am I getting this? What are we planning here? I am confused.
Mr. Williams: I was just going to suggest that you let us take this back and try to setup those
three meetings and get back to you on when we think they would be. We want to be sure we got
the issues you had grouped together. We would not be continuing this meeting because our next
step would be to have these three issue meetings and we will schedule and notice those
appropriately.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: I just want to make sure that you had tonight wanted us to give you some
high-level responses to your five key objectives and we really haven’t done that. You are okay
with letting us give you those through the three different study sessions?
Mr. Williams: It sounds like you would not be comfortable giving it to us without that. So I
would want you to be comfortable giving us that direction and that is in our next step.
Ms. Silver: IfI could just chime in for one moment. I want to make sure that the Commission
understands that we are not going to have a CEQA document when you discuss these issues. So
it is still going to be that high-level policy decision we are not going to have specific data on
what the employment estimates, how many housing units are needed, etc.
Chair Holman: I think Commission understands that. Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: A couple of other topics. I want to not forget something that was
brought up in a previous meeting. Projects of this size represent significant opportunities for not
only the applicant but for the community as a whole and that what we are looking for are
transformative ideas that help us grow as a community. There is a challenge to accomplish that:
Creative ideas come out of unusual problems, which are usually the result of difficult things
trying to come together. In part of this process, obviously it is not a part of the documentation
Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
but it something I am going to be looking for as a certain measure of the success of the project
that certain difficult issues are brought to a head and there is significant debate over them. Just
off the top of my head a couple of things I am imagining in terms of topics here are one that
came up in City Council earlier this week which is issues of height relative to benefits of space.
There is obviously great interest about the heights of buildings in this community, there is also a
great interest in open space and where that tradeoff should occur and what is traded off and what
the benefits are is something that should be an active part of the conversation here. This project
again will have a large impact on our community and it is an opportunity for it to operate as a
model for not only how we address these issues but for some of the outcomes that we come up
with. So height as compared to open space. Some of the other ones are technical issues versus
aesthetic ones, housing versus retail, how those things come together. Housing versus office.
Transportation versus walkability. We know all these issues but there are certain thresholds we
have made assumptions of that all going to be challenged here. We are going to add a lot more
people and we still want to have no net trips. How are we going to do that? I am not exactly
sure how these things get addressed inside some of these conversations but I am going to be
looking for that as one measure of success of our ability to navigate and come up with ideas that
Stanford should be responding to in terms of how the project addresses the overall community.
will relinquish my time. There is one other topic but I will get to it in a moment.
Mr. Williams: Before you relinquish time could we be sure that we get those three study
sessions that you suggested? Housing and employment?
Commissioner Garber: Yes. Housing and employment, transportation and infrastructure, open
space and linkages.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I am in favor of public comment as I mentioned earlier and I am
sympathetic with the idea of a study session because it makes it more efficient for us to
participate and get the public comment directly. I think those are good things to happen and
allow us to provide better input and the community to provide better input. I want to make sure
that for those issues that Commissioners have identified based on reading of these documents
and hearing the presentations and hearing from the public that we have an opportunity tonight to
bring those issues out where we are already aware of them and putting them out in the public
record. I think we talked about having an hour for process discussion and we have had about an
hour of process discussion and I am hoping that we can now make a transition to some of the
content discussions that we talked about earlier.
Chair Holman: I think you may have misunderstood a little bit. We were trying to get through
the process and responding to these questions in an hour or thereabout and we have superceded
that just a bit. That is okay but I don’t think we are going to get into the detail beyond what
these questions pose and our process issues. I think that was Staff’s intention for this evening.
Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Williams: Perhaps if Commissioners have specific issues they want to send to us we can
relay those to the issue teams in terms of trying to establish sort of a baseline for here are issues
that the Commission and what else we have heard from others as a starting point for those study
sessions.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: The kinds of things I was referring to are things like topics that should be
covered by this Area Plan document and things that are basic scope issues of things that we
might consider should be part of that as opposed to detail content issues like move this building
ten feet.
Mr. Williams: Again, if you would prefer to discuss that as a Commission we should set that for
a different date otherwise we are certainly willing to entertain you sending those suggestions to
us as well. We can’t have a vote anyway among the Commissioners tonight.
Chair Holman: IfI might, I think what Commissioner Keller is referring to is the scope of issues
to be included in the Area Plan outline. I think that is what you are referring to and that was one
of the questions here.
Mr. Williams: Yes, it was.
Chair Holman: So you think not to do that tonight?
Mr. Williams: I am thinking time-wise if all of you are going to talk about that we are not going
to get to the other project. ~
Chair Holman: I am actually think I would like Commissioners to weigh in. I am actually
thinking that most of our comments for this are going to be carryover for the Stanford Shopping
Center. So I don’t know what your thoughts are but are we going to need very much time on the
Shopping Center? Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: I think this goes back to the question of do we need another session of the
Commission prior to the three study sessions to give you the comments on the scoping for this
and the Shopping Center and not necessarily a full meeting. I don’t think attempting to gut it out
tonight and getting this far and then going on to the Shopping Center - we don’t know how far
this is going to go on comments from other Commissioners. So the question then just becomes
whether we submit them in writing, whether we have a segment of an upcoming meeting, and/or
wait for the study sessions?
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I am wondering whether it is worth it to consider a special meeting prior to
our meeting of May 9?
Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Williams: You mean having a meeting between now and the 9th of May as opposed to
starting early on the 9th?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Starting early on the 9th.
Mr. Williams: You are already starting at six o’clock on May 9, that is your sustainability study
session and there are some ordinance amendments associated with that that we are bringing
forward.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Is it possible for us to start maybe ....
Mr. Williams: If you want to maybe bump that session that is different. We could do the
ordinance amendments and this and have the study session either on there are three weeks
between the 9th and the 30th SO you could set one of those for the study session on sustainability.
Vice-Chair Lippert: If we are concise could we condense everything and say devote maybe 15
minutes to half an hour to us getting out comments?
Chair Holman: I don’t think we can accomplish that.
Mr. Williams: Let me ask, why were we starting that at six o’clock?. Six o’clock is not a study
session. The study session is sustainability and that is what is going to take the most time. Is it
just to give it more time because we have the ordinance on there also?
Commissioner Burt: Question, on the modifications to Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 how
substantive do you anticipate that being?
Mr. Williams: I don’t think they are very substantive in fact they are just really implementing
language to allow us to require sustainability checklists from both’ commercial and residential
applicants and then incorporating the sustainability language that you have seen and adopted in
the context-based design section of the code as additional ARB review requirements for
sustainability. Then there is also one that just has to do with state law on the communications
thing, the AT&T, the video act but that is kind of dictated by state law that we need to make
those changes.
Chair Holman: Can I ask another question related to this certainly? This is scheduled to go to
Council on May 14.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Chair Holman: So is there a reason that we couldn’t continue this to next Wednesday, May 2
and that would give Staff a lot more time to compile our comments for the Council.
Commissioner Burt: I can’t make it.
Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Williams: If you think your discussion on this item will be a half hour to an hour at the most
I think we could fit it in on May 9 where we do this item from six to seven and then at seven
o’clock start the study session?
Chair Holman: Do Commissioners think they could accomplish what is remaining in an hour?
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think we could accomplish the issues. You have the special meeting set
for the sustainability beginning at six o’clock?
Mr. Williams: At six o’clock is when the meeting starts.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So why don’t we just continue it to the normal meeting and it doesn’t really
make a difference when it happens, if it is earlier or later on the agenda as long as we stick to the
one-hour.
Commissioner Burt: I was just going to say that if our option is that if we can’t get it completed
on May 9 then either we have to send the balance in in writing to you or we figure out about
slipping in another meeting between May 9 and 30, Why don’t we just give it a shot, see how far
we get, and then figure it out from there?
Chair Holman: Remember that this goes to Council May 14 so if we don’t finish on the 9th then
that puts Staff in a really awkward position to give feedback to the Council.
Commissioner Burt: Okay.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: I was just going to concur with Commissioner Lippert’s suggestion.
That meeting is starting at six o’clock on May 9 no matter where we put it on the agenda. I am
guessing that the modifications on Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 can be done in an hour or less. You
think?
Mr. Williams: I think so.
Commissioner Sandas: Okay, good. If that is the case and then we have another hour for this
topic or even an hour and a half we will still have time for the sustainability study session.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Commissioner Sandas: That is a five-hour meeting. I would hope that we could cover these
things.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Chair Holman: I was hoping we could finish this tonight. Commissioner Lippert, you have a
question?
Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Vice-Chair Lippert: Do you need a motion from us? Okay.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I am sort of a little frustrated because I was hoping to do a
little bit more of this tonight and continue a little bit of the discussion. We have essentially spent
the last 20 minutes discussing when we are going to discuss it instead of discussing it and I find
that frustrating because we could have gotten a good portion of the discussion done. I am not
sure how much discussion there will be of the Stanford Shopping Center considering that we
don’t have much new input into the process right now.
Chair Holman: Commissioners, it is not all that late, it is 10:30 can we go a little bit longer and
see what else we can accomplish here? I have a handful of more comments that would apply to
both. Curtis, did you have something to say?
Mr. Williams: I was just going to suggest two things. One is if you want to try to do this tonight
and basically tell the Stanford Shopping Center to consider these comments and that you don’t
feel like you need to hear their presentation and discuss that project tonight we can go that way if
you feel like you have kind of addressed both projects with your comments.
The other thing is Zariah did mention to me that the May 9th meeting is currently scheduled at
seven not six and so if we wanted to a carryover from six to seven on this item we could do it as
a special meeting.
Chair Holman: I don’t think the intention was to preclude Stanford Shopping Center from
speaking. I just thought that probably most of our comments would apply to both but I am
spealdng for myself here. Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: So let me just mention a few things that I would like to see as part of the
components. One of those things is the impact on schools. Another thing is the impact on City
services. There is an issue team on fiscal impacts that would imply to me that there should be a
component on fiscal impact that is based on the impact on City services and the revenues there.
In addition with respect to sustainability and green building zero waste should be considered not
just green buildings and sustainable land use. With respect to utilities and public infrastructure
water supply should be considered particularly since we are entering a drought period and it is
likely the drought period may last several years. There will be droughts in the future and those
will increase and therefore water supply is certainly something that should be considered within
utilities and public infrastructure. Finally, I think that although the impacts of the construction
process will be well studied through the EIR I am sure to the extent that members of the public
have some suggestions on things that can be done to improve that process - I don’t think it can
be done by 2013. I think the hospital is going to be done by 2013. My impression is that the
construction for all the other ancillary facilities and the upgrade of the Children’s Hospital that is
already at 2013 standards but not 2030 standards is going to go on for years. That is what I have
heard is that this is a process that may last ten years or who knows how long. Therefore when
Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
you go through a construction process that is that long then understanding that impact and how
we live through that impact is important. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: Thanks. Is it okay to follow up to Commissioner Keller?
Chair Holman: Sure.
Commissioner Sandas: Commissioner Keller brought up something in terms of the outline that
caused me to remember a question that I had that I would like some information on. With the
expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center we are hoping to earn lots more sales or revenue
from sales tax. ! am just wondering if the increased sales tax revenue from the Stanford
Shopping Center add to our city’s coffers or will it all and maybe more get used up to pay for
additional residents, the infrastructure costs caused by the additional residents onsite at Stanford.
It is a question. I don’t think it is something that can be answered at this moment that is going to
need some research but is it understandable?
Mr. Williams: It is understandable I am just questioning whether it belongs with this item or
with the Shopping Center item and how it relates to the Area Plan.
Commissioner Sandas: It almost seems like a shopping center item but I think I was thinking of
it in terms of while I lcnow these are two separate projects again I see them as being very
connected particularly if the hospital is growing and there are more staff there and the project
would include housing, extra people create extra cost for the infrastructure and City services. So
on the one hand we are thrilled with the notion that we are expanding Stanford Shopping Center
and will derive great fiscal benefit from that but is it adding to what we have now or will it just
be covering the cost of increasing the number housing units? Does that make sense?
Mr. Williams:
yes.
Chair Holman:
one.
That is something that we will be discussing and looking at through the process,
I think Commissioner Keller you had one and Commissioner Garber you had
Commissioner Keller: Yes, a quick comment about the teams. There is a comment about the
consideration of where the walkability and internal circulation, internal linkages of pedestrian-
friendly pedestrian circulation and I am not sure which issue team is handling that. I want to
make sure that is not lost. I was at the meeting for the school district 20-year plan last night and
some people commented there about how walkabiiity and bikes and stuff like that somehow had
gotten lost in that process. I want to make sure it is importantly considered here.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, you had one?
Commissioner Garber: Yes, these are just items again that pertain to the Area Plan as opposed to
the project and they really relate to sustainability and are triggered in some part by the recent
Page 46
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1 presentation that was made to the City Council on Monday. In light of the next 25 to 50 years
2 and the expected volatility that the Utility Department is seeing in terms of the climate as well as
3 importantly the financial risk that the City has to carry where I am remembering the numbers
4 correctly even if the risk is half the amount that they expect in 25 years it is double the financial
5 risk that the City currently has to carry. So items that I would think would be important to
6 consider as part of the Area Plan are being able to self-generate energy either through
7 photovoltaics or other issues as well as the storage and retention of water which will become a
significant issue over the next 50 years if I am understanding the Utilities’ Departments
projections correctly particular the spring and early summer months. If there are opportunities
for either retention of storm water for irrigation and/or other purposes and gray water for that
matter it would be worth putting it into the mix as well. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Okay, I think we are just about complete here. I did have one thing to add.
Many of the things I was going to add to the Area Plan and its scope has been already added. I
had one other to add which is interesting not addressed although it is specifically called out in the
Area Plan discussion in the Comprehensive Plan. That is the preservation of historic and open
space resources and historic preservation is not listed or mentioned anywhere that I could find it.
So that is one.
Just a quick agreement with sustainability and making sure that we know what we are talking
about when we use the word ’sustainability’ because it does refer to so many things. So if we are
using the term let’s be specific about the use of that term.
The other thing, you don’t need to respond to this, I was curious because the issue teams topics
differed from the plan objective topics. They seemed like they would almost run hand-in-hand
more so than they do so I was interested in that.
I think that appears to be it on this item at his hour at 10:30.
-Mr. Williams: So we don’t need an extra meeting in two weeks at six o’clock?
Chair Holman: Well, we haven’t heard from Stanford Shopping Center if they care to make a
presentation.
Mr. Williams: Right, but I am saying as far as the Area Plan, give your comments on other
topics to be sure they are included in the Area Plan outline.
Chair Holman: Do Commissioners feel complete on this as far as what Staff was looking for at
this time?
Commissioner Sandas: I was going to say if Staff got from us what they needed then I am going
to assume we are complete on this.
Chair Holman: Curtis is nodding his head.
Page 47
1 Mr. Williams: Yes, I don’t know what else we gain by talking about that. That is what I thought
2 you wanted to do was contribute what other ideas you had for the issues and topics to be covered
3 in the Area Plan outline.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber has one other and I should mention that Commissioner
Burt had to leave because he is Mr. Mom this week. So he had to leave. Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: I didn’t look through all of the comments that were made in previous
meetings relative to things that would have potential impacts or should be included in the Area
Plan but I do remember one that Commissioner Keller had mentioned which had to do with
linkages to Downtown, you may have to help me here, you had described it as the potentiality of
utilizing some of that space that is on Stanford’s lands but not on the campus for a performance
center. So that is just another element that didn’t make it into one of the linkages pieces.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I don’t think we are complete. Part of it is I have held back in the
anticipation that we were going to be having this other meeting and Commissioner Burt has left
with the impression that we were going to continue this as well. So if we are going to get to the
other Stanford item I am going to have to defer to the next meeting otherwise we might not be
able to get there and we are going go miss Commissioner Burt’s comments as well.
Chair Holman: Would Staff be agreeable to Commissioner Burt submitting his comments
subsequent to this? And then Commissioner Lippert has apparently not stated all of his points.
Mr. Williams: If they are willing to do it that way that is fine with us. If you feel compelled to
come back on the 9th we can start at six o’clock and do that.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Let’s start at 6:30 if half of you have gotten your comments out.
Chair Holman: Okay. Is everybody agreed that we are going to meet at six o’clock then on the
9th, let’s keep it at six o’clock, and follow up with any additional comments that there might be
on this. At this time we can hear from Stanford Shopping Center.
Mr. Williams: Sounds good.
Chair Holman: With our apologies that it comes at this late hour. Does Staff have a presentation
for the Shopping Center?
Mr. Turner: Just really quick. The intent of the Shopping Center coming before you tonight was
for them to review their conceptual application and discuss how their project has been modified
in the two months or so since you have last seen it. The Shopping Center had not been
anticipated as part of the Area Plan so Staff was moving forward with the understanding that the
Shopping Center is not part of the Area Plan however there are important linkages between the
Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Medical Center and the Shopping Center and Downtown that would affect the Shopping Center.
So the applicant had prepared plans showing how those linkages might work as well as an update
to their plan. Other than that it was simply just a project update of what they presented earlier.
Chair Holman: I don’t have any cards from anyone to present or to speak at this time. When
you are ready if you would just state your name that would be appreciated.
Mr. Geno Yun, ELS Architects: Good evening. I am the principle in charge of this project
expanding the Stanford Shopping Center for ELS Architects and the developer, Simon Property
Group.
What I think I will do is go through and recap a little bit of what the design drivers and
parameters were that informed what the expansion opportunities in the master plan is looking
like and then present what the current plan is developing into.
The original description of the overall site and its context is described on this aerial map. It
overlays transportation routes, pedestrian routes, bicycle routes, and public transit routes. The
transit center in this location is shown linked with the red linkage arrows which are describing
pedestrian movements connecting the Shopping Center with the Medical Center, Shopping
Center with the University, the residential, the gateway at Menlo Park as well as the Downtown
and the transit center.
What we recognize as being important for the expansion development is to not only focus
development not only on the existing parking lots but also to develop and enhance these
movements as I have described previously. One thing that we heard tonight was that linkage
between the University Medical Center and the Downtown transit center as being a critical one
to address. Based on what is shown here are really the transit routes and bike routes that exist
currently and is an opportunity to enhance that movement and that linkage. The pedestrian mall
and linkage is something that we are looking at as well to enhance as pedestrian movement.
The diagram shown previously showing the development opportunities focused primarily on the
hotel, parking structure, and two-level retail to reinforce this connection across Arboretum,
developing along E1 Camino in the existing parking lots creating a new pedestrian/vehicular
environment here, reinforcing this movement and some gateway elements with restaurant
building pads. A critical element for the success of this development would be to focus centrally
located parking structure and by adding three levels on top of the existing two that would greatly
increase the occupant capacity for the cars here which we wanted to focus all of our vehicular
needs on this Quarry Road side leaving Sand Hill Road as a more scenic route for the vehicular
movements.
The alternative location of the hotel in this location is a very interesting one in that it changes
sort of the dynamic of what the operator might be looking for in terms of their customer base.
Not only would it be able to serve the University and the Medical Center as well as the Shopping
Center but it would have more profile to the public street on E1 Camino and service probably a
greater customer base.
Page 49
1 The latest development plan shows a little more refinement and definition in the building shapes.
2 The table in the next slide will show more definition and the gross square footage for the
3 buildings is more refined. What you see here is development of a much tighter, more intimate
4 pedestrian/vehicular street with a square roughly 100 by 250 feet of a sort of town hall/civic
5 feeling plaza for a central gathering space for the shopping center. This is seen as being
6 something that is currently missing at the center as a place for community gathering and
7 restaurants and tables and chairs spilling out onto this plaza really infusing it with a tremendous
8 amount of activity and retail energy. It would be seen as being a real identity maker for the
9 center.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The hotel shown in this location is something that is getting a little more definition in terms of
ingress and egress and its operations as a two-sided, double-loaded corridor with a courtyard up
on the upper levels.
This massing diagram shows the relationship of the proposed building sizes and heights relative
to the existing Shopping Center with a table indicating relative heights or a range of heights. The
single story gateway buildings would be roughly 25 to 35 feet in height. The two story being 30
to 40 feet in height and the parking structure here and here are looking like they are going to be
roughly 54 to 56 feet in height which penetrates the 50 foot height limit. The hotel would be at
50 feet as well. To give you sort of relative height scale element Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s are
also at 50 feet.
These renderings you have seen before indicating the retail environment that you would see in
the new town square/public plaz.a on the E1 Camino side and then the crossing across Arboretum
with the hotel in the background and the linkage building in the foreground.
Anna Shimko is our land use attorney and she would like to make a few comments.
Ms. Anna Shimko, Cassid¥ Shimko Dawson & Kawakami: Good evening. I represent Simon
Property Group on this project. I had not intended to speak however we were somewhat
surprised this evening to hear a few of the Commissioners mention an interest in having the
Stanford Shopping Center brought into the Area Plan. We believe that that is quite inadvisable
and I may be giving only preliminary reasons and reactions but I did want to share some of my
thoughts with you.
First of all this is not one big project. They are two very separate and distinct projects with
different ownership and controlling entities and vastly different purposes. The reason that one
CEQA document is being prepared, one EIR, and the reason that the two projects are linked in
the hearings as we go throughout the process is both for efficiency sake, economy, and in order
to give you the opportunity to really look at them together. So you will have that opportunity as
we move through the process. Indeed if the Medical Center were not doing an Area Plan and the
Shopping Center has simply applied for its entitlements we would be moving forward already.
Instead we have been held back and our moving through the process instead as the Area Plan
does so that you do have that opportunity to look at them as a whole without us being included in
the Area Plan.
Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
I know that you are very concerned about the timing of the Medical Center construction and if
suddenly when the Medical Center and the City have been working on an Area Plan that the
Shopping Center has not been involved in the development of you are going to halt that process
in order to bring the Shopping Center into it. There definitely would be a time issue and I think
it would be a substantial one.
The Comprehensive Plan does not envision that there be an Area Plan for the Shopping Center or
that the Shopping Center be covered by the Area Plan. An Area Plan is very appropriate for the
Medical Center because it is expected to be developed over obviously a very large piece of land,
in multiple phases, over a very long period of time, decades in fact. That is not the case for the
Shopping Center. We have proposed one expansion and that is going to happen in a relatively
short timeframe. It is not possible actually in the retail world or now hotel world as well to
predict what type of growth or development might be happening 20 years from now and to come
up with an Area Plan for the Shopping Center for 20 years is simply not feasible in the retail
markets. The Comprehensive Plan limits the development of the Shopping Center to an
additional 80,000 square feet and the Shopping Center has already developed that additional
80,000 square feet. So it would seem to me quite inappropriate for an Area Plan to suddenly be
looking at extensive development of the Shopping Center before there has been CEQA review of
the expansion we are applying for and before that expansion has gone through the entitlements in
the General Plan phases. So really you would be looking at an Area Plan that doesn’t meet the
confines of the Comprehensive Plan because we have not yet gone through that process. So for a
number of reasons we do believe that it would be ill advised and inappropriate to expand the
Area Plan to include the Shopping Center. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, you have a question?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes, I have a question for the City Attorney. The Shopping Center is part
of the Development Agreement though, is that correct?
Ms. Silver: There are two separate Development Agreements contemplated. There is an existing
Development Agreement with the Shopping Center and we anticipate that Agreement will be
amended through this process. There currently is not a Development Agreement governing the
Medical Center expansion so there will be a new Development Agreement for the Medical
Center entered into with a different entity, Stanford.
Vice-Chair Lippert: When we did Stanford West previously there was a Development
Agreement for that. Was Stanford West Housing, Stanford Senior House, and Stanford
Shopping Center all separate Development Agreements or was it one Development Agreement.
Mr. Emslie: There is one Development Agreement that covers the Sand Hill project which
included the housing and the expansion of the mall and that would be the Development
Agreement that would be amended to accommodate the mall expansion.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Can you elaborate on the subtleties of having two Development Agreements
versus one Development Agreement that looks at a whole complete area and its adjacencies?
Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Silver: Different parties, that is the major distinction. Theoretically I suppose we could
enter into a tri-party Development Agreement.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well, the reason I am asking this question is that Stanford Shopping Center
which is on Stanford land but operated by another entity it still Stanford land and when the last
Development Agreement was written they maxed out what they were permitted in terms of the
floor area of the Shopping Center. Now they are asking for additional floor area but it should be
looked at in the context of not just the Shopping Center by itself but the adjacent properties as
well.
Mr. Emslie: That is what the EIR is for and that is why the EIR is looking at both projects in
context. Don’t get confused. The Development Agreement is analyzing your environmental
impacts and the context. The Development Agreement remember covers a period of
construction so you want to group the development that is connected by an owner or by a
construction schedule together. The development of the Medical Center and the Shopping
Center have two different timeframes completely and it would be inappropriate to consider both
of them under one. They are separate interests, separate entities, and we think it would add a
level of complexity that would delay the project significantly.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I am not looking to delay either project but what I am trying to understand
is that there is a nexus between the Shopping Center and the hospital, there is a nexus between
the hospital and the transit center, and there is a nexus between the transit center and the
Shopping Center. So I am trying to understand those elements from Medical Center that traverse
the Shopping Center site or surround it that would be appropriate.
Mr. Emslie: We think that is the function of the Environmental Impact Report not the
Development Agreement.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: With respect to the scope of an Area Plan pardon my ignorance but I am
relatively new to this process. What I understand is that sometime ago there was an Area Plan
for essentially SOFA, South of Forest Area, and there were many different property owners,
many different developers, a number of different developers and there were a bunch of different
timelines going on there and yet it was under one Area Plan. So the concept of an Area Plan
encompassing both the Stanford Shopping Center and the Medical Center and potentially
incorporating the evaluation of the linkages specifically to the transit center in fact those are all
one landowner leased to three different entities. So therefore it seems to me that the complexity
of the land use issues and the coordination thereto would be simpler than for SOFA.
Chair Holman: I want to make sure that we are not confusing things. We have several different
things going on here. We have an Area Plan and we have an Environmental Impact Report, and
we have Development Agreements. An Area Plan could encompass both entities, an impact
report is going to encompass both entities, and one of the purposes of the Development
Agreement is to respond to the EIR. Because there are different owners, as Steve said, there
would need to be different Development Agreements.
Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
What happened in SOFA was there were actually two Area Plans and there were Development
Agreements that pertained to specific projects that were under specific ownership as part of one
proposal. SOFA II did not have Development Agreements associated with it just the study of the
Area Plan, if that provides any clarity at all. Curtis.
Mr. Williams: I would also distinguish that SOFA was a Coordinated Area Plan that we have
specific ordinance for preparing how you do that and the things that go into that and what the
process is for review of that. This is not called out. We do have areas in the Comprehensive
Plan that call for Coordinated Area Plans this was not one of them. So this language is pretty
specific about work with Stanford to prepare an Area Plan for the Stanford Medical Center and it
talks about Stanford Medical Center and it doesn’t talk about the Shopping Center. Although we
think there is validity in bringing those connections in and making those connections in the plan
but it really is a significant expansion of this Comprehensive Plan policy that is specific to the
Medical Center.
Chair Holman: Perhaps what we could do tonight is ask our questions and then on the 9th
provide comments so that we could include Commissioner Burt in those since that was his
anticipation if that is agreeable to Staff and Commissioners. Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: Early on in our discussion tonight when we started talking about the
hospital and the Medical Center I had for a comprehensive map. I think what would benefit the
Commission, it would benefit myself, is if I had a map of the entire area that showed both
projects simultaneously. Once again for the third time tonight I just want to say I recognize these
are two separate projects. But if we could see both plans simultaneously, and if we could have
an overlay like even a piece of plastic like a transparency, that shows what exists now and the
overlay shows what is proposed.to happen. I don’t think that we need to go into the detail of
trying to create an Area Plan for everything all at once for both projects. What I think we need
to do is be able to look at both projects simultaneously on the table so that we can see clearly
what the land uses are and what some of the synergies that may be found in the two projects
could be. That is what I am hoping for and I hope that can be delivered.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber and we are doing questions and not comments at this
point.
Commissioner Garber: For the Staff or the applicant, you have proposed two locations for the
hotel. Are you looking for responses for that or are they equal in your mind? Is there one that
you are preferring over another? I am sorry I didn’t understand what action we are supposed to
take with that.
Mr. Williams: I don’t think at this point we are looking for a preference. I think the applicant is
just indicating sort of where they are with their plans right now and at some point we will need to
identify that in conjunction with some of the others and they will need to select one or the other
as the project for the Environmental Impact Report. Then there may be an alternative that
addresses the other location for that analysis.
Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: A couple of other questions. Something to return to at our next meeting
was discussion about the use of the E1 Camino Guidelines, I don’t that doesn’t go to the site but
discussion of its applicability at this site. I know that that was touched on at one of the earlier
meetings but I don’t know if there were any conclusions drawn or any recommendations one
way or the other on that topic.
There was also in light of some of the conversation we have had about wanting to think ahead
beyond the life of this project, having some significant experience in the retail world, the
likelihood of this retail mall reaching stasis after five years is not likely to be high. So part of the
conversation that was started in the previous meeting with the representative from the Simon
Group at that time was a conversation about utilization of underground space for parking as
opposed to utilizing more space that could be potentially used for either walking, more retail
space, etc. I was just curious where that topic went. That is probably a conversation with the
applicant as opposed to the Staff in this particular case.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you have a question?
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I am wondering the nature of how a particular issue I am going to
raise can be handled because it affects both the Medical Center land use issue and the Stanford
Shopping Center land use issue. I observed that the building 12, which is the new hotel, is
approximately the same size, amazingly enough, that the Hoover Pavilion is across the street.
What I am wondering is how we can consider the evaluation of converting the Hoover Pavilion
into a hotel property and in what context we can consider that as a potential thing to incorporate
into this project?
Mr. Williams: I think we will have to discuss that and look into what approaches are possible if
any.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have some questions for the applicant. I want to talk a little bit about the
plan if we can do that.
Chair Holman: Does Staffwant us to go into the plan this evening?
Mr. Williams: That is kind of what is before you. If you have questions about it I think so.
Chair Holman: I just didn’t think that was the level of detail you wanted to get into tonight.
Mr. Williams: Well, we would probably prefer not to at this point but that is what they were
here for. I would hope that the questions would not be too detailed about the plans at this point.
Things like why are you looking at those two locations for a hotel or something like that are
certainly appropriate levels.
Vice-Chair Lippert: They are along those lines but not as detailed as that. Geno? Looking at
your plan here, building 8 is situated in an area right now that I guess is really a loading dock
Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
area for Bloomingdale’s and obscures also what I guess was the Stanford Medical Center sort of
education area.
Mr. Yun: The library.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes, that is exactly right. Why not locate that.parallel with your triangular
building that has PF Chang’s orienting it and making it so that it is acting more as a pedestrian
street along that face?
Mr. Yun: Here?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct. On the other side of the parking lot and thereby deflecting
pedestrian traffic up more towards the center of the main Shopping Center and then using the
main access to the Shopping Center as almost like creating a side street like you might have
Main Street and Market Street meeting?
Mr. Yun: I will tell you the reason why this building is located where it is. What it does is it
terminates this new street. What I felt was very important was to have some sense of closure at
the end of that street. Without the building there your sightlines are a little bit problematic
looking north in that the street sort of dissipates into a parking lot. The same effect would
happen when you look south without this building here. One option of the hotel here does the
same thing. It creates that sense of enclosure at the end of this street. In this option it would be a
very interesting sense of enclosure in that it would be a much taller building, you would have a
hotel use directly onto that street.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then by the same token that main focal point coming down that
street virtually lines up with the Hoover Pavilion, correct?
Mr. Yun: Actually I believe Hoover is over here.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Is it, okay. Then the other question I have is with regard to the parking
structure you are looking at adding two more stories making it a five story parldng structure.
Mr. Yun: There needs to be a correction in the Staff Report. We are adding three levels to an
existing two.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. So it is five total. Why not locate another two story parking
structure elsewhere on the Shopping Center site rather than adding additional stories to this one?
Mr. Yun: Basically when we looked at all the potential sites to build on that is what the yellow
site analysis diagram shows there were problematic areas that prohibited development of either
retail buildings or parking structures. Nothing along this side allowed us to build along Sand
Hill Road it was too narrow of a depth to be very efficient. The only other location would be to
integrate structured parking along the E1 Camino side and we wanted to keep that as fairly low
profile and as visibly accessible as possible. We wanted to avoid sort of what Hillsdale currently
has as a problem in that that’s their front face to the public, We didn’t want a parking structure
Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
to be that front face. So the idea that we concentrated all of our new parking along the Quarry
Road only builds upon what is already there in terms of an efficient parking structure and allows
for other lots to be more lower scaled.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Might that not be accomplished by taking buildings 4 through 7 and
pushing those out towards E1 Camino and then put a structured parking in between those
buildings and say Bloomingdale’s and the other smaller shops west of Bloomingdale’s.
Mr. Yun: So moving these buildings out towards E1 Camino?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct, and thereby creating what could be a two story retail, look right on
E1 Camino Real, and then you would put the structured parking behind that shielded by these
buildings that would then bridge between Bloomingdale’s and the shops along E1 Camino Real.
Mr. Yun: Two issues with that. One would be it would be difficult to encourage the sort of
pedestrian access for the retailers along E1 Camino. I think it is doable if you had this structured
parking behind. You would rely on your customer base not necessarily to walk up to your store
but pretty much drive into the structure and then access from behind, which I suppose would be
possible. The bigger problem with that diagram is that it loses this lifestyle street, this sort of
energy that is created by having the new retail face the existing and then to really capitalize on
what we are creating here as this new square. We wouldn’t be able to do that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. My line of questioning really comes from right now your structured
parking, which is at two stores, is visible from Downtown North. In fact if you drive down
Hawthorne Avenue or Everett and you look straight at that structured parking especially at ten
o’clock at night when the lights are on on the top deck and I can imagine it being much taller.
Thank you.
Chair Holman: I think Commissioner Keller had a question perhaps for you,
Commissioner Keller: I am sympathetic with the idea that we might not want to do too much
meddling in the design for design sake. It reminds me of a story my father-in-law told me.
Somebody was on the UC Board of Regents in the 1940s and 1950s and liked balconies.
Therefore every building built during that period of time in the UC system had a balcony on it
even if that balcony only protruded six inches.
Nonetheless, I am wondering the extent to which - I find that people are more willing to park at
upper levels of garages if that upper level is protected from the sun and rain and such. So one
thing I would like you to just consider that might reduce some of the visibility impacts in terms
of light and such is to create a cover over the structured parking that is solar panels. Something
to think about that protects from the rain, generates electricity, and has other ancillary benefits.
As you do the design here to think about how you might provide appropriate treatments to the
exterior of the parking garage so that it has a more attractive feel from Quarry Road. Right now
you drive on Quarry Road from E1 Camino and you have this view of Bloomingdale’s and then
suddenly you have one parking structure and then another parking structure. I realize that the
Page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
view from E1 Camino is more important than the view from Quarry Road but if there is
something that we can do to improve that viewscape, if you will, I think that would be helpful
particularly depending on what exists on the other side of Quarry Road whether it is as proposed
the medical building that is the existing Hoover Pavilion plus a 200,000 square foot additional
medical building up against Quarry Road which looks out on this parking structure or whether
there is an might be considered a hotel there. Then the viewscape of that parking structure which
I am sure you could do something to would be helpful.
Chair Holman: That looks to be all the questions. This is going to be continued or re-noticed for
the 9th? So we know what to do with public comment.
Mr. Williams: It will be continued.
Chair Holman: So we can keep this open so if Commissioner Burt or others have questions for
the applicant and such. So this item then will be continued to six o’clock on May 9. For this
evening we will conclude this item.
Page 57
Attachment E
Marlene J. Berkoff, FAIA
Principal
Berkoff Facility Strategies
Career
Profile
Marlene Berkoff is an independent consultant specializing in strategic planning,
master planning, project management and strategic decision analysis for large
healthcare and university organizations dealing with major development initiatives in
challenging environments. Ms. Berkoff draws upon extensive professional
experience in architectural project and client management, as well as past education
and background in econormc analysis, to facilitate critical decision-making, and to
develop and guide effective implementation strategies for complex capital
investments and development projects within organizations that include numerous
constituencies and stakeholders. Her focus has primarily been tertiary care academic
medical centers, universities, community hospitals, County and private health care
systems. She frequently serves as the liaison between owners and their architects,
helping clients understand and make decisions about major design trade-offs.
Professional
Experience
Overview
Ms. Berkoff began her career in New York City as an economic analyst with
McKinsey & Company, an international strategic planning and management
consulting firm. She subsequently retrained as an architect and, over the next 25
years, successfully managed major projects from feasibility and concept
development, budget and schedule analysis, master planning, programming and
design, through construction implementation. She has led and coordinated multi-
disciplinary teams of technical specialists while serving as the lead in client
communications and management, and liaison with multiple stakeholders.
For the last 15 years, Ms. Berkoff has focused her efforts on strategic planning,
integrating analytical decision-making with complex implementation strategies that
incorporate physical and technical factors with business, operational, financial, and
political factors. She has employed techniques of scenario modeling, sensitivity
analysis, work flow analysis, and risk assessment to developments which demand
large capital investment. She has regularly led and facilitated work sessions and
retreats with senior client teams, conducted stakeholder discovery interviews,
managed internal team coordination, and worked with numerous executive
committees, boards and community representatives, to gain input, develop
sponsorship, communicate decision options and impacts, and build consensus and
support.
Ms. Berkoff has held senior executive positions in major international architectural
and planning firms, developed and led new branch offices for two such firms, and
been responsible for profit generation, business development, client management,
communications, and staff development and training.
Ms. Berkoff has been an active member and held leadership positions in numerous
professional organizations on a local and national level, and has lectured and
published continuously throughout her career. She is a Fellow in the American
Institute of Architects.
5/9/2007 Berkoff Facility Strategies Page 1
24 Sandpiper Court, San Rafael, CA 94903
T: 415-479-2233 C: 415-847-1659 E: mjberkoff@earthlink.net
Education B.A. Economics and Mathematics, Barnard College, Columbia University, NYC
Architectural
Registration
Professional
Affiliations
Masters studies in Economics, New York University
B. Arch., M. Arch., University of Michigan College of Architecture, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, with Highest Distinction; 1972
James B. Angell Scholar; AIA Student Medal; Marian Sarah Parker Award for
Outstanding Graduate in Architecture and Engineering
Licensed Architect California, Wisconsin, Minnesota
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Certified
American Institute of Architects (AIA) - College of Fellows
National AIA Academy of Architecture for Health - Past President; current
member; past chair of numerous committees
The University of Michigan Former Chair, Emeritus Member, Alumni Board of
Governors, Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning
AIA San Francisco - Past Board of Directors member; current member; committee
memberships: Fellowship, Health Care, Women in Architecture
The Forum for Healthcare Planning (national) - Past President, Board member,
Executive Committee member (organization now defunct)
The Healthcare Forum (western regional), Past Chair, Architects’ Section
The National Forum of Women Healthcare Leaders, former member
Relevant Career Highlights
Strategic Planning Services
o Provides strategic planning services to help complex organizations analyze needs,
opportunities and risks in order to make sound, flexible planning decisions and develop
effective implementation strategies for major development initiatives in uncertain
economic and industry environments.
o Has structured a strategic planning consultancy to provide these services objectively to
clients, working as an independent consultant or as part of multidisciplinary teams in
affiliation xvith relevant business partners.
o Applies business assessment methodologies to decision-making about major potential
developments, to integrate large fLxed capital investment commitments with clients’
service, business and operational goals, financial constraints, risk tolerance, community
and industry environments, and needs for future flexibility.
o Initiated development of an in-house strategic facility health care consulting practice
while a Senior Vice President with Ellerbe Becket.
5/9/2007 Berkoff Facility Strategies
24 Sandpiper Court, San Rafael, CA 94903
T: 415-479-2233 (2:415-847-1659 E: mjbcrkoff@earthlink.net
Page 2
Relevant Career Highlights, continued
Management of complex projects
Has managed numerous large capital development projects, coordinating multi-
disciplinary teams of technical and management professionals with many-layered client
organizations with complex decision-making structures and multiple stakeholders.
Demonstrates effective leadership and organizational skills in structuring projects to
analyze and reach sound decisions with integrated input from numerous constituencies
and stakeholders as well as client and community support.
o Helps clients understand and deal with realities of complex project implementation,
generating support and sponsorship to ensure successful delivery of major capital
projects in challenging environments.
o Has developed and managed implementation schedules and budgets as well as team
coordination throughout complex, long, and often multi-phased, project executions.
Opened and managed branch offices of two large architectural firms
o Opened a branch office in Palo Alto, California, in 1981, for NBBJ, a national
architecture and planning firm based in Seattle. Developed office while leading a major
facility development project for Stanford University Medical Center. As Director of
Health Care Architecture, grew staff to approximately 50 people in three years, with
commissions of several hundred millions of planning, design and construction.
o Opened a branch office in San Francisco, in 1993, for Ellerbe Becket, an international
architecture, engineering and planning firm based in Minneapolis. Built the office into a
successful practice xvith over 30 people and commissions for hundreds of millions of
dollars in design and construction.
o In both cases, coordinated closely xvith senior headquarters management teams and
branch offices on management policy, marketing, and firm-wide strategies and initiatives.
Responsible for developing new business, managing projects and clients, hiring and
training staff, overseeing office administration, establishing office policies and budgeting.
Responsible for office bottom-line forecasts, profit and loss.
Leadership and teaming abilities
o Has worked as a member of large project and management teams, at McI~nsey, in
architectural practice, and in consulting engagements. The complexity of the projects
has demanded both excellent teaming skills as well as leadership abilities.
o Rose to leadership positions in many national and local professional organizations,
demonstrating an ability to participate fully within organizations and teams, and to take a
productive and successful team and leadership role in a xvide variety of situations.
5/9/2007 Berkoff Facility Strategies
24 Sandpiper Court, San Rafael, CA 94903
T: 415-479-2233 C: 415-847-1659 E: mjbcrkoff@carthlink.net
Page 3
Employment History
Berkoff Facility Strategies
Principal
Strategic Facilities Consulting
HLW Strategies, San Francisco
Independent consultant, Senior Strategist
Architecture, engineering, and planning firm based in NYC, with
national / international strategic facility consulting practice
Ellerbe Becket
Senior Vice President and Director, San Francisco Office
Architecture, engineering, and planning firm, based in Minneapolis,
with nadonal / international practice in health care
KMD
Principal, Health Care Studio Director, San Francisco
Architecture/planning firm with national/international health care practice
Drever Berkoff
President
Health Care Consulting Firm, Mill Valley, CA
NBBJ
Director, Health Care Architecture, Palo Alto, CA Office
Architecture and planning firm, based in Seattle, with national /
international practice
Ellerbe Becket
Senior Project Manager, Minneapolis, MN
Home office of firm noted above
1997 - Present
1997 - 1999
1993 - 1997
1989 - 1993
1986 - 1989
1981 - 1986
1980 - 1981
Flad & Associates
Architect, Madison, Wisconsin
Large mid-West architecture, engineering and planning firm
with national practice
McKinsey and Company
Economic analyst, New York City
1973 - 1980
1963 - 1967
5/9/2007 Berkoff Facility Strategies
24 Sandpiper Court, San Rafael, CA 94903
T: 415-479-2233 C: 415-847-1659 E: mjberkoff@carthlink.net
Page 4
Selected Clients
[]TriHealth Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio
[]SUNY Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse, NY
[]Stanford University and Stanford University Medical School, Palo Alto, CA
"Santa Clara County Health and Hospital System, San Jose, CA
[]Tulane University Hospital & Clinic, New Orleans, LA
[]University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), Galveston, Texas
[]UCSF and UCSF/Mount Zion Medical Center, San Francisco, CA
[]University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
¯Kaiser Permanente, San Francisco, Oakland, Martinez, Vallejo, Ontario, CA
[]Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto, CA
[]Marshall Medical Center, Placerville, CA
[]Edgewood Center for Children and Families, San Francisco, CA
[]Laguna Honda Hospital, San Francisco, CA
[]Gleneagles Medical Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
¯Villa Santa Maria, Kumagaya, Japan
[]County of San Marco Health System, San Mateo, CA
"Bronx Municipal Hospital, Bronx, NY
[]County of Santa Cruz Health System, Santa Cruz, CA
[]Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY
[]Ingham Medical Center, Lansing, MI
[]University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
[]University of Wisconsin Center for Health Sciences, Madison, WI
5/9/2007 Berkoff Facility Strategies
24 Sandpiper Court, San Rafael, CA 94903
T: 415-479-2233 C: 415-847-1659 E: mjberkoff@earthlink.net
Page 5
Teaching and Education
Faculty member: Numerous lectures and presentations on health care architecture, master planning,
strategic planning, programming and project management.
International Academy for Design and Health
American Hospital Association
Association of Western Hospitals (now The Healthcare Forum
Upper Midwest Hospital Association
AIA San Francisco, Committee on Architecture for Health
National and Regional AIA Conferences (Academy of Architecture for Health, Regional
AIA Design Conferences, etc.)
Visiting Lecturer on strategic facility planning, health facility planning, master planning and project
management:
Harvard Graduate School of Design
Summer Educational Program, Cambridge, MA
University of Michigan
Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Ann Arbor, Michigan
University of California, Berkeley
Graduate School of Architecture, Berkeley, CA
[]University of Wisconsin, Extension
Madison, Wisconsin
Publications and Writing
Numerous articles and book chapters on the subject of planning and design for health care and
ambulatory care facilities, as well as articles on project management and strategic facilities planning.
Extensive experience writing business reports, contractual documents, project analyses, marketing
proposals, and public relations materials, and developing client communications in multiple media.
References
Available upon request
5 / 9 / 2007 Berko ff Facility Strategics Page 6
24 Sandpiper Court, San Rafacl, CA 94903
T: 415-479-2233 C: 415-847-1659 E: mjbcrkoff@earthlink.net
ATTACHMENT F
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
CONCEPTUAL PROJECT
SUBMITTAL
April 11, 2007
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Steven Turner,
Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning &
Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
April 18, 2007
Re: Conceptual Project Submittal
Dear Steven,
The purpose of this letter is to describe the contents of this Conceptual Application
packet and respond to your letter of Feb. 7, 2007, outlining the submittal requirements.
There are four components to the submittal:
1.This cover / explanatory letter.
2.A detailed programmatic project description including building sizes, parking,
population and other project information.
3.Supplemental site photos showing areas most likely to be affected by the project.
4.A Project Site Concept showing the project elements for which we expect to seek
entitlement.
Your letter also suggested including massing studies or other preliminary architectural
information. We have indicated height ranges for all of the buildings included on the
Project Site Concept.
Please keep in mind that this is a preliminary conceptual submittal and that the Project
Site Concept is subject to change as the Area Plan is reviewed and design of the project
elements progresses. We are not yet committed to the particular approach nor any details
represented in the concept plans. The Project Site Concept is an attempt to show how the
elements listed in the description and necessary to meet project objectives might be
located on the site.
We believe these materials are sufficient to achieve the objectives for phase 1 of the
project approval process and provide the Parking and Transportation Commission and
City Council with enough background for them to identify planning issues and other
655 SERRA STREET ¯STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305-6115 ¯(650) 723-7773 FAX (650) 725-8598
matters to be addressed in the Area Plan or analyzed in the CEQA process for the project
itself.
All of the materials listed above are included in the submittal binder. The Project Site
Concept (following the project description) is a folded 24 x 36 plan inserted in a pocket
along with CD-ROM disks containing electronic versions of all materials in this submittal
in the formats requested.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Charles Carter
Director of Land Use and
Environmental Planning
cc: Bob Reidy, Bill Phillips, Mark Tortorich
Draft 4/11/07
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Background and Overall Requirements
Located in Palo Alto, CA and on the Stanford University campus, the Stanford University
Medical Center (SUMC) is one of the country’s leading academic medical centers, developing
and providing advanced medical care for its community and region. Within Palo Alto, the 2
Million-plus square foot SUMC is comprised of two internationally renowned hospitals -
Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC) and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH) - and a
portion of Stanford University’s School of Medicine (SoM). SUMC provides an important venue
for the delivery of advanced medical technologies and practices and is a Level 1 Trauma Center
serving the counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo (southern portion), Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San
Benito.
To assure their ability to effectively serve the community, the Stanford Hospital and Clinics,
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and the School of Medicine all require renewal and
replacement of current facilities for the following reasons:
California Senate Bill 1953. SB 1953 requires hospitals to retrofit or replace facilities
not meeting strict life safety criteria. Hospitals can either retrofit or replace non-
compliant facilities to meet a January 1, 2013 deadline. Even more stringent requirements
must be met by 2030. If hospitals do not comply with these mandates, the State can
revoke the hospitals’ licenses to operate. The Stanford Hospital, comprised of buildings
built in 1959, 1973, and 1989, does not comply with criteria in place for the 2013
deadline, and significant portions of its facilities must be replaced. The 1959 hospital
building, comprising 188 beds, must be replaced in its entirety. All 66 intensive care
beds, the emergency department, and the 21 operating rooms at Stanford Hospital do not
meet 2013 n0n-structural criteria, and it is more efficient for SHC to replace these
facilities than to retrofit them. LPCH’s facility meets the structural performance criteria
for the 2030 deadline, but significant non-structural renovations to critical care areas are
required by the 2013 deadline. In order to accomplish these renovations, LPCH needs
replacement Space for patients and families during construction.
Inadequate Ability to Serve Constituents. Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital has an
acute shortage of beds; the hosPital was forced to turn away 200 critically ill children and
refer them to other health care facilities in 2005 due to lack of beds. Stanford Hospital
also had to turn away 500 adult patients and refer them to other medical care providers
because of a shortage of rooms. Furthermore, due to an aging population, along with
modest overall projected population growth in the surrounding community, this figure
will increase unless additional patient rooms are provided. SHC and LPCH also suffer
from an outmoded ratio of semi-private patient rooms to single-bed patient rooms.
Approximately 60% of the patient beds at Stanford Hospital and Packard Hospital are
semi-private, yet the American Academy of Healthcare Architects recommends 100%
single-bed rooms to ensure patient safety, privacy and family centered care. In addition,
the emergency department shared by SHC and LPCH is undersized by approximately
25,000 square feet. With approximately 45,000 visits per year, the emergency department
has inadequate patient waiting and triage space, and trauma rooms out of compliance
with contemporary facility standards. In 2005, approximately 950 visitors were referred
to other emergency departments due to lack of capacity.
Page 1 of !7
Draft 4/11/07
Statutory Code Requirements. California’s building code for hospitals is the most
restrictive in the nation. It requires hospital facilities to withstand the most severe
earthquakes and maintain uninterrupted service to the community. To achieve
compliance with these criteria, hospital buildings incorporate massive structural systems.
These structural systems require significantly deeper beams and larger columns than
other buildings, thereby increasing building heights by 2 to 3 feet per story. To comply
with state requirements, hospitals must also incorporate sophisticated air handling
systems to prevent the spread of infections and maintain sterile environments. These
systems deliver a tremendous amount of fresh air to patient rooms, operating rooms, and
other treatment spaces. More importantly, these systems filter air exhausted from these
spaces. To deliver fresh air efficiently throughout the hospital, further additional building
height is required for the oversized mechanical ductwork and other specialty systems
such as medical gas, vacuum, and emergency power.
Optimal Hospital Planning. In order to design a modern, efficient hospital and with the
highest regard for patient service and safety, patient rooms are stacked on top of
operating rooms, the emergency department, and other treatment areas. The existing
Stanford Hospital does not employ this vertical relationship. Organized horizontally, the
hospital does not provide a private and secure route from the operating rooms or the
emergency department to the patient rooms. New buildings for the Stanford and Packard
Hospitals will be designed with appropriate vertical relationships and are proposed to be
eight stories or less, with a maximum height of 130 feet (excluding rooftop mechanical).
Inadequate Ability to Support Contemporary Translational Research. Changes in
the conduct of biomedical research, coupled with significant changes in the building, life-
safety, and seismic codes governing research facilities, have rendered all of the School of
Medicine’s original facilities in Palo Alto obsolete. In order to be able to continue to
support the creation of new knowledge and its translation to clinical applications that will
improve and save the lives of adults and children being treated at SHC and LPCH, the
School of.Medicine must undertake the systematic replacement of its aging facilities.
Increasing Outpatient Healthcare Demand. In addition and relative to the growing
inp~ dent care delivered within the hospital, the proportion of outpatient procedures is
increasing much more rapidly. This growth in demand for outpatient services is caused
by the advancements in medical delivery technologies, increased ability to see chronic
condition patients (asthma, cardiac, etc.) in an outpatient setting, and the impact of life-
saving procedures such as heart transplants and multiple procedures that often require
monitoring for and treatment of complications over time. SHC and LPCH are managing
much of this demand by moving a number of outpatient services that can be provided off-
site to Redwood City and San Jose. In fact, SHC is currently improving over 200,000
square feet in Redwood City for outpatient programs that would otherwise be located on
the Palo Alto campus. However, there is a current unsatisfied demand that is projected to
increase, that is critical to the core academic and translational discovery process, and that
must remain co-located with inpatient services.
Level 1 Trauma Center & Disaster Preparedness Both SHC and LPCH continue to
work with Santa Clara County and the other surrounding Bay Area counties in an overall
Disaster Preparedness program. This program addresses natural and man-made disasters
and how the region will respond. For SHC and LPCH this includes how each hospital
will quickly add or convert beds and procedure rooms to manage critically injured
patients for mass population events such as earthquakes, pandemics (influenza), or man-
made biological/chemical exposure (bioterrorism, etc.). SUMC is the only Level 1
Page 2 of 17
Draft 4/1 ! 107
Trauma Center serving the southern Bay Area, San Jose, Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San
Benito populations of approximately 3.3 million people. Both SHC and LPCH
modernization plans must include fundamental design provisions relevant to SUMC’s
role as a Regional Trauma Center for daily and extreme-disaster healthcare delivery.
Community Health Provider Relationships Conceived in the 1950s as a joint teaching
hospital and Palo Alto community hospital, SUMC still maintains a strong relationship
with community health providers who send their patients to the hospitals. Currently,
many of these health providers lease space adjacent to the SUMC in structures owned and
operated by SHC, LPCH, or private building owners. Due to the need for SUMC
replacement and renewal, SHC, LPCH, and SoM must demolish structures at three of
these sites leased in part to community health providers. The hospitals are working with
these tenants to identify alternative space. Such space and other additional medical office
space needs to be provided in proximity to the hospitals. In particular, the Hoover
Pavilion site can provide space for these health providers.
The following SUMC proposal for renewal and replacement addresses the foregoing
requirements and is broken down into its component parts for clarity. The planning horizon for
the estimated assumptions of growth and service is 2030. Phased implementation is through
2020.
Page 3 of 17
Draft 4/11/07
Existin~ Conditions
Page 4 of 17
Draft 4/11/07
Stanford Hospital and Clinics
Since 1959, SHC has been providing state-of-the-art healthcare for Palo Alto and the surrounding
communities. Originally constructed as a joint teaching hospital and City of Palo Alto
community hospital, SHC is currently licensed by the state of California to operate 613 beds, but
is currently operating at a 456-bed level. Its projected need, in order to viably meet current and
future demand, requires an increase of 144 beds to a total of 600 beds. In order to meet this bed
count and provide for the other requirements set forth above, SHC proposes the following:
New construction:
1,100,000 gross square feet to house the replacement of 456 beds, new surgical operating
suites, new diagnostic and treatment suites (MRI, CT, etc.), new emergency department,
and associated nursing and support space.
329,000 gross square feet to house clinics, medical offices, and administrative offices.
Added parking for 875 cars.
Parking Structure for 1000 cars, in part to replace existing Parking Structure #3 (700
cars).
Reuse of existing facilities:
o Renovation of D, E, & F nursing units which currently house 243 hospital beds to house
about 144 SHC hospital beds and support space.
Reuse of the remaining 1989 HMP building to house diagnostic and treatment space and
other supporting functions such as materials management, clinical laboratory, and
physician and administrative offices.
Demolition of existing facilities:
¯ Demolition of 441,200 sf of existing 1959 hospital facilities (East Building, West
Building, Core Building, and Boswell Clinics Building).
~Demolition of 223,900 sf of the existing 1973 Building.
¯Demolition of existing 700-car Parking Structure #3.
¯Demolition of existing 1101 Welch Road structures totaling 40,100 square feet. See
separate discussion regarding relocation of about 30,100 sf of non-Stanford community
health providers.
Summary of Square Feet (not including parking):1
New:1,100,000 sf new hospital (critical care functions under OSHPD criteria)
329,000 sf new clinics and offices (OSHPD-3 criteria)
1,429,000 sf
Demolition:441,200 sf original hospital
223,900 sf 1973 Building
40,100 sf buildings at 1101 Welch Road
705,200 sf
Net add:723,800 sf, 1175 parking spaces
1 Also, not including the Hoover Pavilion site development. See page 9 for further discussion.
Page 5 of 17
Draft 4/11107
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
Occupied in 1991, the existing LPCH facility requires expansion to serve additional children and
families, and to accommodate modem healthcare standards. LPCH is currently licensed for 257
beds on its Stanford campus and plans to increase .its license by 104 beds to 361. The proposed
addition will allow conversion of existing beds from semi-private to single-bed rooms in the
existing facility and reuse the space for other diagnostic and clinical purposes. LPCH will
continue to occupy two floors in the F Pod nursing unit for its Obstetrics program and will
convert rooms in both F Pod and other vacated space to create single-bed rooms for its patients.
LPCH will also continue to share services with SHC for emergency department services and
materials management.
New construction:
375,000 gross square feet of new addition to house 104 new beds, new surgical operating
suites, new diagnostic and treatment suites (MRI, CT, etc.) and associated nursing and
support space designed to OSHPD requirements.
106,300 gross square feet of new clinics and supporting services space.
Includes adding 1000-car parking structure for replacement of 425 spaces, resulting in a
net add of 575 spaces.
Reuse of existing facilities:
¯Reuse of two floors in F Pod to continue housing the Obstetrics program.
o Reuse of main facility to continue housing patient bed, diagnostic and treatment, clinical
and support services.
Demolition of existing facilities:
Demolition of existing 703 Welch Road structure of 23,500 square feet. See separate
discussion regarding relocation of about 15,600 sf of non-Stanford community health
providers.
Demolition of existing 701 Welch Road structures of 56,300 sf. See discussion regarding
relocation of about 7,300 sf of non-Stanford community health providers.
Summary of Square Feet (not including parking):
New:375,000 sf new hospital (critical care functions under OSHPD criteria)
106,300 sf new clinics and offices (OSHPD-3 criteria)
481,300 sf
Demolition:
23,500 sf building at 703 Welch Road
56,300 sf of buildings at 701 Welch Road
79,800 sf
Net add:401,500 sf, 575 parking spaces
Page 6 of 17
Draft 4/11107
Stanford University School of Medicine
As an integral member of the SUMC campus, SoM requires the replacement of its laboratory and
office space within the City of Palo Alto to provide state-of-the-art facilities to meet current
industry standards. Among the more significant changes in the biomedical research facilities
standards adopted since these buildings were originally designed in the late 1950s are the
following:
Occupancy Separations and Exiting. Current codes require stronger and more reliable
fire separations between laboratory and office areas, as well as along primary existing
corridors. Meeting these standards within the 1959 buildings would necessitate the full
demolition and reconstruction of all interior spaces.
HVAC and Other Mechanical Systems. Current codes require that a laboratory’s
heating, ventilation and air conditioning system move a significantly greater volume of
air than was required in 1959. The requirements ofother mechanical, electrical and
plumbing (MEP) systems have also increased over time, including provisions for
emergency power. Modem research building design calls for a 15- tol6-foot floor-to-
floor dimension in order to accommodate these systems. Fitting modern systems within
the 12’6" floor-to-floor height of the 1959 buildings can only be done at a very high cost
premium, further exacerbated by loss of usable space.
ADA, Circulation and Laboratory Support Requirements. Since 1959, a number of
changes and trends have resulted in an increase in the standard dimensions of a research
laboratory. For example, the incorporation of handicapped accessibility into the interior
design of research laboratories has resulted in wider aisles and increased interior
circulation areas. Integrated laboratory suites have become the standard design in Order
to allow for safer and easier access between the laboratory and an increasing, diverse
array of laboratory support functions, such as tissue culture rooms, equipment rooms,
computational.facilities and others that did not exist in 1959. Consequently, modem
research building designs typically utilize a 50- to 55-foot laboratory "bay". Within the
1959 buildings, the available dimension is only 35 to 45 feet.
Collectively, these standards and others imposea design and construction obligation on the fixed
dimensions of these older buildings that can only be met at extraordinary cost and with great
inefficiencies in the use of the space.
The four buildings occupied by SoM within the City’s boundaries are Edwards, Lane, Alway and
Grant. These buildings no longer serve the medical center’s clinical and translational research
needs and must be replaced. Currently, the buildings house the primary faculty offices, research
laboratories and administrative support for 13 of the School’s 28 academic departments,
including the departments of Medicine, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Obstetrics & Gynecology,
Orthopedic Surgery, and Pediatrics. These departments are fundamental to the academic mission.
SoM would replace the existing building in a series of three new modem "Foundations in
Medicine" (FIM) buildings, to be constructed in a phased process.
New construction:
¯160,000 sfFoundations in Medicine #1 (FIM1)
-110,000 sf Foundations in Medicine #2 (FIM2)
¯145,000 sf Foundations in Medicine #3 (FIM3)
415,000 sf
Page 7 of 17
Draft 4/11/07
Demolition of existing facilities:
¯415,000 sf in 4 existing buildings (Edwards 65,800 sf), Lane (84,700 sf), Alway (112,500
sf), and Grant (152,000 sf)
Summary of Square Feet:
New:
Demolition:
Net add:
415,000 sfin 3 FIM buildings
415,000 sf in existing 1959 buildings
-0- sf
Page 8 of 17
Draft 4/11/07
800 Welch Road
The SoM currently owns and occupies all of 800 Welch Road. Within the parcel’s existing
zoning limits (and separate from the larger SUMC development and application), SoM will be
pursuing the redevelopment of this site with a 32,670 sf Center for Translational Research that
will provide some of the critical infrastructure programs needed to effectively link the research
and clinical missions of the SUMC. This will add a net of 14,200 sf to the site’s current level of
development.
Private Medical Practices to Hoover Pavilion Site
Much of the 108,400 square feet of improvements on the SHC-occupied Hoover Pavilion site
located at 211 Quarry Road presently serves SUMC clinical and clinical research purposes. As
SHC develops its outpatient campus in Redwood City, the use of Hoover Pavilion can migrate
towards private medical practices and house non-Stanford medical offices displaced by the
development of the SUMC campus, specifically the displacement of 1101 Welch Road tenants.
For the future growth and development of SUMC and Welch Road uses, SUMC is proposing the
addition of a new building or buildings adjacent to the Hoover Pavilion to support medical office
practices. Further investigation is needed to identify specifically such office requirements for
services and offices to support the SUMC and community health providers. However, we
anticipate this total future need to be approximately 200,000 sf.
Page 9 of 17
Draft 4/11/07
StIC
Hospital
Clinics
1101 Welch Road
Original 1959 Hospital
1973 Building
Hoover Pavilion and Site
801 Welch Road
1,100, 000
329,000
200,000
(40,100)
(441,200)
(223,900)
Total SHC 1,555,600 1,629,000 (705,200)923,800
LPCIt
Hospital
Clinics
701 Welch Road
703 Welch Road
730 Welch Road
375,000
106,300
(56,300)
(23,500)
y.o_t.a.l.~.e..c.n._ ........................
_3_z2 ,.1..0.0- ......
_4_ _8L,.3.0_0, ........_~j2,_8_ .0_0_)_ ...........
_4.0_!,_59_0" ........
SoM
FIM 1-3 415,000
Grant, Alway, Lane, Edwards (415,000)
800 Welch Road 32,700 (18, 500)14,200
..T_o_t_a2_s.o.~_ ..........................
.4.S.S.,2.0_0- .......4..47.,7.0.0....= ....
(_4__3_3_,_S_0__0_) ............!_4.,.Z.0.0- ........
Total I 2,370,400 2,558,000 (1,218,500)1,339,500
Drivers
SF % of Total SF % of Total
SHC
Beds, existing 456 to private 145,000
Support, 456 Beds 150,000
Emergency/Trauma 25,000
Hoover Pavilion and Site
Total SHC 923,800 320,000 35%603,800 65%¯
LPCH
Beds, existing 257 to private 87,500
Support, 257 Beds 38,500
Total LPCH 401,500 126,000 31%275,500 69%
SoM 14,200 14,200 100%
Total 1,339,500 446,000 33 %893,500 67 %
Page 10 of 17
Draft 4/11/07
Building Heights
Modern hospital planning seeks to minimize the distance traveled from procedure room to patient
room. This is best accomplished by arranging differing uses vertically. Heavier procedural
equipment is located on the lowest floors (surgical operating suites, emergency diagnostics,
imaging suites such as MRI/CT, etc.) with immediate vertical access to the intensive care units
serving the most critically ill patients. Upper floors are used for rooms for the general medical
and surgical patients after evaluation and treatment in a critical or intensive care unit are
completed.
Due to building code ventilation and structural requirements, new hospital buildings are
constructed with a significantly greater floor-to-floor height than conventional office or
residential buildings. Floors with heavy procedural requirements are typically designed with 18-
to 20-foot floor-to-floor heights. Patient care floors for the intensive care and medical/surgical
units are designed to be 16 feet floor-to-floor. These heights exceed the typical floor-to-floor
height of conventional office buildings by 4 to 8 feet. The height requirement for the new 456-
bed SHC hospital will be 8 stories (2 floors of surgery, diagnostic and support and 6 floors of
patient units), or up to 130 feet excluding the mechanical penthouse.
New research facilities are also building-code driven for seismic and ventilation requirements,
and also require a greater floor-to-floor height similar to hospital structures. For these reasons,
several new research laboratory buildings built within the last 15 years in Santa Clara County,
adjacent to the medical center exceed the Palo Alto 50-foot height limit (not including mechanical
penthouse), including the James H. Clark Center (54 feet), the Lorry Lokey Chemical Biology
Building (76 feet), the Gates Computer Science Building (87 feet), and the D. Packard Electrical
Engineering Building (57 feet).
Single-Bed Patient Rooms
The existing hospital buildings employ a combination of single-bed and semi-private patient
rooms in accordance with hospital planning standards in 1959, 1973, and 1989. Meeting current
hospital planning guidelines (reference AIA Healthcare Guidelines 2006 Edition) require all
single-bed patient rooms. This is the result of exhaustive research that proves single-bed patient
rooms improve patient care, reduce stress on nursing staff, and allow families to assist patients in
recovering from illness or treatment. Of the additional 730,000 sf required for SHC,
approximately 295,000 square feet is needed for SHC to convert and support the current
inventory of single-bed and semi-private rooms to all single-bed rooms. For LPCH, about
126,000 sf of the 401,000 sf expansion is for conversion to, and support of, single-bed rooms.
Design Significance of the Medical Center Properties
The revitalization of the Medical Center requires the replacement of older facilities, some of
which may be considered to have historical value. The Medical Center has made important
contributions to the development of medical technologies and patient care over its more than 50-
year history on the campus. While the successful continuation of this mission requires the
revitalization of the facilities that support the work, the historical value of the early buildings will
be carefully analyzed during the design process. The art deco Hoover Pavilion, built in 1930 as
the original home of the Palo Alto Hospital, will be renovated and preserved.
Page 11 of 17
Draft 4/11/07
Sustainable Design
The promotion of healthy environments within the hospitals is a critical component to SUMC’s
design and plans. Access to nature, daylight, and pollutant-free environments are critical to faster
healing, productive care-giving, and the general welfare of patients and staff alike.
It is SUMC’s intention to provide responsible and sustainable design for its operational systems
(energy, materials management, etc.), water systems, and use of physical materials within the
established governmental regulations for hospitals in California. This includes appropriate
environmental siting of buildings, use of recycled and sustainable materials from local resources,
reuse of existing facilities as appropriate, indigenous and appropriate landscaping and use of
resources to maintain landscape, and inclusion of energy-producing and energy-efficient building
systems. Further exploration of these systems will occur during the building design processes.
Currently, many hospitals are testing sustainable materials, materials management (trash
reduction, recycling, etc.), and energy reduction systems. Due to the complex infectioia control
and patient safety regulations, there is no single source of sustainable design criteria for hospitals,
although several entities such as the Green Building Council (LEEDTM) and the Green Guide for
Health CareTM are refining standards for healthcare facilities.
Circulation
Primary access to SUMC is via the regional arterials of Sand Hill Road and E1 Camino Real
which connect to Interstates 280 and 101. Quarry Road will continue to act as the central access
and distribution spine, providing direct linkage to Palo Alto’s University Avenue Intermodal
Transit Center. Pasteur Drive will continue to function as a key gateway to SUMC, providing
access to patient/visitor parking in an above/below-grade structure which replaces Parking
Structure 3. Welch Road will continue to serve vehicle circulation within the SUMC, connecting
Quarry Road to Pasteur Drive and to Campus Drive. A short connector, Durand Way, will
provide direct access from Sand Hill Road (at a current signal) to the new emergency department.
During the early planning, all access and circulation issues will be studied extensively. Site-
specific trip generation and parking demand surveys are currently underway, which will allow the
actual peak parking demand and the probable external traffic effects to be estimated. Traffic
constraints will be assessed, both on the SUMC andin the surrounding community. Current
(2005/2006) traffic counts conducted by the City of Palo Alto, supplemented by additional counts
conducted by Stanford, will be used to assess the existing and existing-plus-project service levels.
As discussed in ’Transportation’, below, SUMC is committed to continuing and expanding its
travel demand management programs to address external traffic impacts through trip reduction,
rather than roadway capacity expansion, to the greatest extent possible.
Zoning Change Request
SUMC requests rezoning to create a new hospital zone which includes the in-board Welch Road
properties (excluding 777 Welch Road) and the Hoover Pavilion site. The zone should allow an
FAR density of 1.5 for the in-board Welch Road portion and .75 FAR for the Hoover Pavilion
site. See page 15 for areas described.
The modification to allow a .75 FAR at the Hoover Pavilion site allows SUMC to adapt the
Hoover Pavilion for medical offices for non-Stanford community health providers and for other
ancillary support uses displaced or required by the SUMC expansion. Such ancillary uses may
include medical offices for Stanford-affiliated physicians, hospital Health Education Programs,
childcare, administrative and operational support. This zoning change will allow approximately
up to an additional 200,000 sf on the site. Parking will be provided to meet needs, or as required
by regulation; however, consideration will be given to performance-based parking requirements if
Page 12 of 17
Draft 4111107
new and existing uses can be shown to have reduced demand due to the proximity of the Palo
Alto Intermodal Transit Station (PA1TS).
Jurisdictional Boundary Change Request
The current placement of the jurisdictional boundary between the City of Palo Alto and Santa
Clara County along the southern edge of the SUMC region bisects the optimum proposed site for
the SoM’s FIM #1 building. Based on the heights and massing of the surrounding buildings, and
the footprint dimensions required for an optimal laboratory floorplate, accommodating the space
required for this facility will require a minor adjustment to the City-County line.
Page 13 of 17
Draft 4/11/07
Zonin Chan e Re uired & Palo Alto Boundar Line Ad’ustment .
New PF Zoning Request
o Increase FAR from 1.0 to 1.5 in Main Medical Center
o Increase FAR from .25 to .75 at Hoover Pavilion
o Increase Zoning Height Limit from 50’ to 130’ in Main Medical Center and to 60’ at Hoover
Pavilion
Page 14 of 17
Draft 4/11107
Master Plan Phasing
SHC- Phase 1 [Mid-2009 - 20151
a. Prepare medical office space for 1101 Welch tenants at Hoover Pavilion and relocate
tenants.
b.Demolish 1101 Welch and construct new 1000-car parking structure
c.Demolish existing Parking Structure #3 (700 cars)
d.Construct 456-bed replacement hospital with associated surgery, diagnostics,
imaging, and support. Create connections to existing 1989 HMP building.
SHC - Phase 2 [2016 - 2020+1
a.Demolish 1973 building and original 1959 hospital (Core, East, West and Boswell).
b.Construct new ClinicsBVledical Office Building and associated parking (875 spaces).
Relocate functions from 1973 building and other buildings into new Clinics/Medical
Office Building.
LPCH- Phase 1 [Mid-2009 - 2013]
a.Relocate 701 and 703 Welch tenants to new medical office building.
b.Demolish 701 and 703 Welch
c.Construct new 104-bed addition including surgery, diagnostics, imaging, and support.
Construct associated parking (1000 spaces, net add of 575 spaces). Relocate existing
functions as required into new facility.
LPCH- Phase 2 [2014-2017]
a. Renovate vacated space as necessary for new, right-sized, or expanded functions.
SoM- Phase 1 (FIM I) [2010 -20121
a. Construct 160,000 sf replacement research building (FIM 1) on site west of Edwards
along Pasteur Drive.
b.Demolish Edwards Building.
SoM- Phase 2 (FIM 2) [2014 - 20161
a. Construct 110,000 sf replacement research building (FIM 2) on the Site of the
demolished Edwards Building.
b.Demolish the Lane and Alway Buildings.
SoM- Phase 3 (FIM 3) [2018 - 20201
a. Construct 145,000 sf replacement research building (FIM 3) on the site of the
demolished Alway and Lane Buildings.
b.Demolish the Grant Building.
Hoover Pavilion Medical Office Building
a.Assess non-Stanford medical office needs to 2030.
b.Based on results, construct new medical office building, SUMC support needs, and
associated parking.
c.Non-Stanford community health providers relocate as their existing leases expire or
possibly sooner if feasible. Building can be backfilled with SUMC or other medical
tenants as necessary.
Page 15 of 17
Draft 4/11107
Community Health Providers
The demolition of 701,703 and 1101 Welch Road will necessitate relocation of the non-Stanford
health providers in these buildings. In addition, concern about expiring ground leases along the
other side of Welch Road might create additional demand for new space for community health
provider tenants.
Current lease space inventory along Welch Road for non-SUMC health providers includes:
701 Welch 7,300 sf
703 Welch:15,575 sf
1101 Welch:30,100 sf
Other Welch health providers:78,030 sf
131,000 sf
As previously referenced, portions of the existing Hoover Pavilion as well as the addition of a
new 200,000 sf building on the Hoover site will be made available to non-Stanford Welch Road
health providers at the Hoover Pavilion site. In addition, SUMC has master leased medical office
space in Menlo Park, of which approximately 30,000 sf would be available to non-Stanford health
providers.
Transportation
The primary function of the Medical Center parking and transportation program is to provide
clear, safe and convenient access to SUMC facilities for patients and their families. Secondarily,
the health care providers and others who work at the Medical Center must have similarly good
access in order to effectively deliver the services that patients seek.
SHC and LPCH currently participate in efforts to reduce traffic during peak hours through the
scheduled shift changes for healthcare personnel. The current shift changes occur at 7 am, 3 pm
and 1 lpm.
Palo Alto is a progressive community and a leader in developing innovative approaches to
meeting transportation needs. Stanford is a proven leader in transportation demand management.
The Hospitals’ 2006 Commute Mode Survey indicates that 23 percent of hospital employees have
primary commute modes other than a single-occupant vehicle. The 2005 SUMC TDM
Monitoring Report shows that transit ridership tO SUMC has more than doubled since 2000, and
SUMC is currently surpassing its trip reduction goal related to the Use Permit for the Center for
Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion. These commute characteristics are
a direct result of the comprehensive set of commute mode alternative programs that the
University provides, which include the following programs used by Campus and Medical Center
staff:
Commute Club (for individuals agreeing not to drive alone to work):
¯Up to $216/year in Clean Air Cash or Carpool Credit
¯Reserved parking spaces for all carpools/vanpools
,Complimentary daily parking passes for carpoolers
[]Vanpool subsidies
[]Online Stanford Ridematching Service
¯Commuter Buddy Program
¯Pretax payroll deduction for transit passes, Caltrain parking, and commuter checks
[]Rewards for recruiting new members
,Guaranteed ride home
.12 free hourly car rental vouchers
Page 16 of 17
Draft 4/11/07
Membership appreciation events
Entries into regular prize drawings
Members-only commuter gifts
Ability tO purchase up to eight daily parking permits per month and have them mailed to
your home
Marguerite Shuttle:
"Free, comprehensive campus shuttle system, open to the public
"Connects with local transit and Caltrain, as well as shopping and dining
¯Midnight Express night safety service
N Automated Transportation Management System, with real-time schedules viewable on
the web
Eco Pass/GO Pass:
Free use of VTA buses and light rails, Dumbarton Express, Highway 17 Express, and
Caltrain by Stanford employees
Line U Stanford Express
Free use of East Bay express bus that connects BART and ACE train to Stanford
Bicycle Programs:
¯Bicycle registration
¯Complimentary Mid-Peninsula Bike Map, as well as city and county bike maps
¯Clothes and bike locker rental/shower information and maps
[]Safety education program
N Commute planning/cycling information
¯Campus Bike Shop
[]Bike light giveaways
The City and University recently expanded and rationalized the street network in the Sand Hill
Road Corridor to improve access to this important district. The next phase of transportation
planning at SUMC will take advantage of the improved connectivity of the roadway system, and
the strong base of TDM programs and proven successful performance. Specific elements to be
included in the transportation program are:
¯Pedestrian and bike improvements to Quarry Road and its intersections to enhance
connection within and between the medical center, the shopping center, the transit center
and downtown.
Expanded Marguerite routes and service to provide optimal transit opportunities.
Relocated and/or additional Marguerite stops to optimize convenience
Other pedestrian and bike improvements outside of the roadway corridors to foster
further connection between the Medical Center, the shopping center, main campus, park
and open space.
Improved wayfinding for all modes, to minimize unnecessary circulation.
Parking distribution and management to minimize localized congestion at peak times.
Page 17 of 17