HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 323-07City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
15
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JULY 23, 2007 CMR: 323:07
SUBJECT:REVIEW OF THE DRAFT UPDATE TO THE STANFORD MEDICAL
CENTER AREA PLAN AND RELATED PLANNING ISSUES FOR THE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICALCENTER AND SHOPPING
CENTER EXPANSION PROJECTS.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review and acceptthe draft update of the Stanford
University Medical Center (SUMC) Area Plan and providecomment and discussion of key
project issues and objectives for the SUMC and Stanford Shopping Center projects.
BACKGROUND
The review of the SUMC and Shopping Center projects has been divided into two phases. Phase
1 of the project commenced in December 2006 with Council’s authorization to initiate the review
process, a cost reimbursement agreement, and a development agreement. The intent of Phase 1
was 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, as well as to develop a draft SUMC Area Plan Update as a policy framework for Phase
2. The Phase 1 activities will help to focus discussion on key issues of concern during the Phase
2 entitlement process.
Key accomplishments during Phase 1 include:
Implementing a Reimbursement Agreement for costs related to staff and consultants
work on the Projects.
Creating six issue teams to address key project issues: Land Use and Open Space,
Housing, Transportation and Linkages, Sustainability, Fiscal Impacts, and Utilities and
City Services.
¯A Commission meeting on January 24, 2007 to discuss process, timelines, community
outreach and issues identification.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
¯A City-sponsored community meeting on February 27 to review baseline data and issues
identification.
¯Retaining EIP, an environmental consulting firm, to prepare the EIR for the projects.
¯Retaining Marlene Berkoff, FAIA to provide peer review of the SUMC proposal.
¯Commission Study Sessions on April 25 and May 9 to review the project status,
community input and issue identification.
¯A City Council meeting on May 15 to review key Area Plan objectives and a project
update.
¯A City-sponsored community roundtable meeting on June 21 to discuss key Area Plan
issues.
¯Commission meetings on June 27 and July 11 to review the draft SUMC Area Plan
Update.
¯Establishing a website (www.citvofpaloalto.or~planning-community/stanford-
index.html) to provide information to the public regarding both projects.
¯Preparing a draft Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update for review by the
City Council, the Commission and the public.
The purpose of this meeting is for Council to review the draft SUMC Area Plan Update and
provide comment and discussion of key project issues and objectives for both projects that will
guide the review and entitlement process during Phase 2.
DISCUSSION
Stanford University Medical Center Draft Area Plan Update
The City of Palo Alto and Stanford have produced a draft of the updated Area Plan, based on the
draft outline presented to the Commission on April 25, 2007 and the City Council on May 14,
2007 (Attachment G). The titles of individual sections and subsections have changed slightly, but
the overall content of the draft Area Plan is consistent with the previously reviewed outline.
It is important to understand that the SUMC Area Plan Update is not a regulatory document and
does not comprise a coordinated area plan or specific plan under the City’s Municipal Code. It
has been prepared pursuant to Program L-46 of the City’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan as a
guidance document for the City, Stanford and the public to provide an overview and context for
anticipated future development at the SUMC. The content of the Area Plan is expected to evolve
as SUMC’s expansion plans are developed and the City’s land use goals are refined. The
document will be revised to accommodate changes in SUMC’s expansion plans, to respond to
new information and needed mitigations revealed during the environmental review process to
address further community input and to reflect development agreements.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The draft Area Plan Update is divided into the following sections:
1.0 Introduction
This section identifies the purpose and intent of the Area Plan, a description of the City’s and
Stanford’s project planning objectives, and a history of hospital planning and development at
Stanford, as well as a discussion of the regulations that govern land use and development for the
Stanford University Medical Center.
2.0 Facilities Renewal and Replacement Needs
This section identifies the components of the proposal for renewal and replacement of facilities
within the SUMC, including a discussion of the needs at SUMC that are driving the project and
an overview of the project’s anticipated scope. This section presents Stanford’s rationale for its
proposals. The formal SUMC program has not yet been submitted for evaluation by the City’s
hospital peer review consultant. Staff expects that the peer review will result in revisions to this
section of the Area Plan.
3.0 Plan Elements
This section discusses the key issues and broad planning principles that have been adopted by the
City in the Comprehensive Plan to guide the planning and development within the SUMC. As in
previous development proposals at SUMC and as directed by the Comprehensive Plan, the City,
the Hospitals and the School of Medicine will need to achieve a balance between creating a
compact, pedestrian-oriented development and the progammatic objectives to provide a
functional and effective medical center. The City has identified key objectives in response to the
proposed renewal project. This chapter outlines key objectives that are to be considered during
the review process for each of the primary issues.
Sub-sections within Section 3 include Land Use; Housing; Urban Design and Community
Character; Linkages and Connections; Circulation, Vehicular Access and Parking; Transit,
Bicycle, and Pedestrian Circulation; Open Space; Utilities and Public Infrastructure; and
Sustainability and Green Building.
4.0 Zoning and Land Use Regulations
This chapter identifies the potential Comprehensive Plan and zoning changes that may be needed
to accommodate the SUMC’s current proposals. As the project is conceptual at this time, this
chapter is likely to be modified as the project is developed and reviewed. Sections within this
chapter include a description of existing Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning and the
proposed changes.
Section 5.0, intended to discuss implementation of the project, has not yet been developed. It is
expected that this section would be completed during Phase 2 of the project.
Staff recommends that the City Council provide specific comments regarding the draft of the
Area Plan and accept the draft Area Plan Update, to be further modified as the project progresses
through the EIR and entitlement process. The Council’s acceptance would include all of the
revisions requested by the Commission in Attachment A.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Plannin~ and Transportation Commission Review
The Commission reviewed the draft SUMC Area Plan Update on June 27, 2007 and July 11,
2007. A summary of the Commission’s requested revisions and changes is contained in
Attachment A. Staff expects to incorporate all of the changes noted in that list into the draft
document. Three maps (3-6 Linkages, 3-12 Pedestrian and Bicycle and 4-2 Zoning) have been
revised to more clearly show the relevant information on each map. These maps are located at
the end of the Area Plan document. There are two versions of each map, each showing a
different map size and orientation. Staff expects to enlarge all of the maps (other than those in
Chapter 2) to 11" x 17" size and incorporate the other changes outlined in Attachment A.
The Commission also made a number of comments and suggestions that are more appropriately
directed to the EIR or the Development Agreement as they focus on environmental impacts or
community benefits. A summary of these comments is contained in Attachment B. The
Commission minutes from the June 27 and July 11 meetings are included as Attachment C.
Area Plan, Zoning, Development Agreement and Environmental Impact Report Relationships
The Area Plan Update is intended to provide a policy framework for the EIR and entitlement
phase of the Stanford Medical Center and Shopping Center projects. Many of these issues of
concern will, however, be addressed most directly by the EIR and the Development Agreement
for each project. The discussion below outlines some of the key concepts of, and relationships
between, the Area Plan, zoning changes, the EIR and the Development Agreement.
Area Plan
The Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Area Plan has been prepared pursuant to
Program L-46 of the City’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan, which states:
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 will improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections.
The Area Plan has been cooperatively prepared by the City and Stanford with the City having
ultimate approval authority. The Area Plan is a guidance document for the City, Stanford and the
public to provide an overview and context for anticipated future development at the SUMC. As a
guidance document, the Area Plan may identify policies and regulatory requirements from the
City’s Comprehensive and Municipal Code that would apply to proposed development at the
SUMC, and/or describe proposed amendments to such applicable policies and regulations. The
Area Plan is not intended to establish land use or development policies or standards, and is not
intended to supersede the applicable policies, regulations, requirements and standards of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code. If any provisions of the Area Plan vary from or
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or Municipal Code, the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan or Municipal Code shall prevail. The Area Plan does not identify mitigation
measures for project impacts, evaluate alternatives to the proposed project, or specify community
benefits outside the immediate scope of the project.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Zoning Changes
The current zoning designations within the project area will not permit the level of development
proposed. It will be necessary for the City to consider alternative zoning designations. As part
of this re-zoning, the City may consider which uses and level of development should be
permitted as a matter of right and which uses and level of development should be reviewed
through a conditional use permit or other discretionary approvals. In addition, the City may
consider other related zoning changes to facilitate goals identified in the Area Plan such as
creation and maintenance of open space and provision of affordable housing to support the
increased development. Any zone change will be subject to environmental review.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires California
agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and describe feasible
measures that can be taken to avoid or mitigate those impacts. An Environmental Impact Report
(ERR) is a document required by CEQA when an agency determines that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment. An ErR evaluates a proposed project’s potential impacts
on the environment, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate those impacts.
Decision-makers use information in an ErR to help determine whether or not to approve a
project.
An ErR describes the purpose of and need for a proposed project, the location of the project and
how it will be constructed. It evaluates how the existing environment would be changed if the
project were approved and provides feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant
adverse changes to existing conditions.
Key issues to be addressed by the ErR for these projects will include, at a minimum: traffic,
visuals and aesthetics (including height), population and housing, community services, utilities,
cultural and historic resources, air quality, noise, and hydrology and water quality.
The EIR that will be prepared for the SUMC expansion will also evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center and the
potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of Development
Agreements for the SUMC expansion and the Stanford Shopping Center expansion. At SUMC’s
request and in order to streamline the permitting process for these related projects, the City will
be preparing a joint ErR.
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement is a negotiated contract between the city and an applicant for a
development project. A Development Agreement provides assurance to the applicant for a fixed
but extended period of time that an approved project may proceed subject to the policies, rules,
regulations and conditions of approval applicable to the project at the time of approval,
regardless of any changes to city policies, rules and regulations after such approval. In return, the
applicant agrees to provide public infrastructure, facilities or amenities, and/or pay fees that the
applicant would not otherwise be required to pay under applicable laws or policies. Because
development agreements are the result of negotiations between the city and the applicant, they
are not subject to the limitations on mitigation requirements or development exactions that
City of Palo Alto Page 5
normally apply to development projects.
The Development Agreement for this project (and for the SSC) may, therefore, include the
provision of a variety of community benefits (off-site improvements, funding, etc.) that the City
finds are appropriate for the specific approvals being requested.
A summary of the relationships between the documents described above is outlined in the table
included as Attachment D.
Hospital Peer Review
The City has retained Marlene Berkoff, FAIA, an architect and economist familiar with hospital
planning and design, to provide the City Staff and City decision-makers with a peer review of the
proposed medical facilities. Although a formal project has not been submitted for review, the
project proponents have submitted a conceptual project description of the modernization and
expansion program. Ms. Berkoff will make a brief presentation to the City Council at the
meeting. Ms. Berkoff’s presentation will include her methodology for the peer review and a
preliminary analysis of the conceptual plan and the drivers for space needs in modem hospital
functions and designs.
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 E) 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 2 of the project. The City’s traffic
model will need to be updated to reflect more current population and employment projections
from ABAG, new regional transportation projects included in the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Plan 2030 and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional
Transportation Plan for the horizon years of the Medical Center project and the Comprehensive
Plan update, including 2020, 2025 and 2030. The consultant scope of work in being defined, and
the model update is scheduled to be completed within the next two months.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Stanford Shopping Center Proiect Status
In April and May of this year, the Commission and City Council received a project update
regarding the expansion at the shopping center, including 240,000 square feet of new
commercial space and a hotel. No significant changes have been made to the project at this time.
A joint EIR for the SUMC and Shopping Center will be prepared. The draft Area Plan Update
contains descriptions of the linkages between the SUMC and the Shopping Center. Simon
Group, the shopping center manager, is expected to submit a formal project application in late
July.
Public Input
Throughout Phase 1, staff has provided opportunities for public input and participation. The City
has sponsored two community meetings on February 27 and June 21 to receive comments from
stakeholder groups and other interested members of the public. In addition to these community
meetings, the Commission has reviewed the draft Area Plan, the project status and identified
project issues at three meetings. Similarly, the Council has reviewed the project at two previous
meetings in addition to the July 23, 2007 meeting.
Many opportunities for public input will be available during Phase 2, including an EIR scoping
meeting (expected to be scheduled for September) and community issue meetings to discuss
specific project related issues regarding land use and housing, traffic and transportation, and
open space and sustainability. Regular PTC and Council updates will provide additional
opportunities for input, culminating with public hearings on the EIR and entitlement requests.
Urban Design Consultant
In addition to the hospital peer review consultant, the City will retain the services of a
professional urban design consultant to assist the City with the review of SUM~’s site planning
and architectural design and integration with the Shopping Center and Downtown. Preliminary
architectural plans are expected to be submitted later this year.
Frequently Asked Questions
Staff has prepared a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) list to assist the boards, the
Commission, the City Council, and members of the public in understanding the similarities,
differences and relationships between the Area Plan, the EIR and the development Agreement.
This FAQs list will be finalized in the next week and posted on the website.
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 2 of the project. Specific resource impacts cannot
yet be determined, as the project has not been formally submitted to the City for review.
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 1 and subsequent work on the EIR and Development Agreement in Phase 2.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan policies and programs relevant to the expansion and modernization of
the Medical Center have been identified in each section of the draft SUMC Area Plan Update.
The Area Plan will not describe the project’s conformance with the applicable policies and
programs. This would be accomplished within the EIR once the formal application has been
found to be complete.
NEXT STEPS
The preparation of the draft SUMC Area Plan Update represents the final task of Phase 1. The
start of Phase 2 commences with the submittal of formal applications by Stanford and Simon
properties. These formal applications are expected to be filed in late July. In August, the Notice
of Preparation (NOP) is expected to be filed. A scoping session with the City Council will be
scheduled for September. Additional community meetings that would focus on the issues
identified by the Issue Teams will be held throughout September and October. A revised project
schedule is contained in Attachment F.
Staff is preparing a master issues list for consideration at the start of Phase 2. A City Council
meeting will be scheduled for October to review the list of issues and to identify when and
through what process (EIR, Development Agreement, etc.) the issues will be addressed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Review of the draft SUMC Area Plan Update does not require environmental analysis. An
Environmental Impact Report will be prepared upon submittal of formal applications for the
projects anticipated in July 2007.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
STEVEN TURNER
Senior Planner
,’~WSTEVE EMSLIE
Dire_..gt, ofpf.Community ~,nd Environment
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A.Planning & Transportation Commission Recommended Area Plan Revisions and Edits
B.Planning and Transportation Commission Comments and Suggestion List for the EIR and
Development Agreements
C.Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes, June 27 and July 11, 2007
D.Table 1: Summary of Relationships between the Area Plan, EIR and Development
Agreement
City of Palo Alto Page 8
go Level of Service Analysis of Key Existing Intersections, prepared by DMJM Harris
Revised SUMC Project Timeline
Draft SUMC Area Plan Update, with Revised Maps 3-6, 3-12 and 4-2
COURTESY COPIES
William T. Phillips, Stanford University
Jean McCown, Stanford University
Charles Carter, Stanford University Planning Office
Art Spellmeyer, Simon Property Group
John Benvenuto, Simon Property Group
Mark Totorich, Stanford Medical Center
City of Palo Alto Page 9
ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission
Area Plan Revisions from June 13 and July 11, 2007 Meetings
MAPS
¯Larger than 8-1/2 x 11 (probably 1 lx17)
¯Move the scale/legend out of the map itself
¯Put the title below or above the map where possible
¯Expand the boundaries of some of the maps to contain ECR up to creek
¯Clarify to avoid blurring or covering up street names
¯Combine some (existin~proposed) maps in Chapter 3
¯Clearly identify all changes in "proposed" maps
¯Clearly identify "proposed" versus existing with differing line styles
¯Add landmarks to maps for easier identification/understanding
¯Add a parcel/lease map for background information
¯Correct discrepancy in Area Plan boundary between figures 1.1 and 1.2
¯Include "proposed buildings in Area Plan boundary" in legends (pink); and
remove pink from Shopping Center buildings
¯Clarify underground v. surface parking where parking is shown on maps
OTHER PTC CHANGES
¯Add section numbering throughout the document
¯Add an appendix to list a summary of all relevant Comp Plan policies
Chapter 1
¯Retitle "Area Plan Background and Purpose" or something similar
¯Page 1.3, add a paragraph titled "Project Benefits" identifying general healthcare
and economic benefits of the proposal, including the benefits to neighboring
communities and the subregion as a whole.
¯Page 1.4, add a paragraph titled "Relationship to Entitlements and EIR" to outline
what the Area Plan addresses v. the focus of the Development Agreement and the
EIR.
¯Page 1.4, add section titled "Issues" to identify the key issues described in the
report, prior to Objectives section.
¯Page 1.5, provide the full text for the City’s planning objectives listed there.
¯Page 1.5, include "adjacent communities" in the list of linkages in the 4th bullet.
¯Page 1.9, at the end of the discussion of the 2000 Land Use Area Analysis, add
some discussion of the drivers for the Cancer Center building and what if any
other development was foreseen at the time.
¯Page 1.12, include only Program L-46 in the table.
¯Add a map showing Stanford parcels/leases in the Area Plan boundary.
Chapter 2
¯ Retitle "Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Needs"
P&TC Revisions - July 11, 2007
Page 1
¯Add explicit language at the beginning of the chapter (sidebar) clarifying that the
bulk of the text was prepared by Stanford and represents the proponent’s
justification for its project proposals; note parenthetically that the suggestions will
be peer reviewed by the City’s hospital consultant and may subsequently be
revised so that the final document represents the City’s position on these factors.
¯Provide consistent language regarding "Stanford states" or "Stanford maintains"
throughout text.
¯Revise Chapter 2 title to "Proposed Improvements for Facilities Renewal and
Replacement."
¯Move current sidebar text on page 2.1 to first paragraph of chapter (except last
sentence).
¯Add a proactive benefits statement to the introductory paragraph on page 2.1, and
relocate "Drivers for Renewal and Replacement" following the second paragraph
(preceding the last paragraph).
¯Add discussion in one of the "Drivers" section or a new section to discuss the
need for flexibility of the hospital to add beds beyond the 600 proposed (or why
600 is enough).
¯Page 2.1, indicate in the last paragraph the total number of visitors requesting
admittance to SHC and LPCH, for context regarding turn-aways.
¯Page 2.2, add a discussion of Patient Demand to outline existing and expected
number of patients, including outpatients, for the hospitals
¯Page 2.4, LCPH section, add number of existing beds; revise Exhibits "2-5 and 2-
6" to "2-6 and 2-7."
¯Page 2.7, revise charts 2-2 and 2-3 to show existing SF for Hoover site, add # of
new beds, add column for "total new building SF."
¯Revise figures 2-4 through 2-10 to say "proposed" demolition or replacement, etc.
¯Add existing, proposed, and total number of beds to charts 2-2 and 2-3 and related
figures.
Chapter 3
¯ Page 3.8, add some mention under "Historic and Cultural Resources" of
community interest in retaining the integrity of Governor’s Lane.
¯Page 3.13, revise Figure 3-2 to call out changes proposed.
¯Page 3.14, qualify the last paragraph by adding that the sites are only available if
not necessary to satisfy GUP requirements.
¯Page 3.17, in legend, after "Transit Oriented Housing," indicate "Palo Alto
Intermodal Transit Center."
¯Page 3.22, revise figure 3-4 to create two maps: 1) Area Plan Site Concepts, and
2) Area Plan Building Heights.
¯Maps 3-5 and 3-6 (Linkages): identify areas to connect where arrows are shown,
e.g., Menlo Park, Downtown North, etc.
¯Maps 3-5, 3-6, 3-11, and 3-12: correct inconsistencies between ped/bike
connections in Linkages Map and in Ped~ike map.
¯Page 3.31, add programs L-2 (monitor Stanford development proposals and traffic
conditions within Sand Hill Road corridor) and T-34 (effects of street
modifications on emergency vehicle response time) to the list.
P&TC Revisions - July 11, 2007
Page 2
¯Pages 3.36 and 3.37, revise figures to show correct location of emergency room.
¯Pages 3.44 and 3.45: add path along creek.
¯Pages 3.61 and 3.62 (Sustainability): add brief discussions of Integration of Land
Uses (including housing), Height and Open Space; retitle "Recycling" to "Reuse
and Recycling" and include discussion of reuse of existing buildings, and
expanded discussion of salvage along with demolition options.
¯Page 3.62 (Sustainability), add a section for "Land Use and Transportation"
discussing the provision of affordable housing, TDM programs, and linkages to
support reduced vehicular use and other sustainability goals; add second Key
Objective to "Provide for affordable housing, transportation demand management,
and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit linkages to minimize single-occupant vehicle
use and parking needs in the area."
¯Add a section discussing Jurisdictional Issues, emphasizing interrelationship of
the project to other communities (Menlo Park, Mountain View, E. Palo Alto,
Portola Valley, Woodside, SC County, etc.), including benefits and impacts; also
transit and traffic, mentioning reliance on transit providers and roadways often
outside City control.
Chapter 4
¯ Add explicit language at the beginning of the chapter (sidebar) clarifying that the
bulk of the text was prepared by Stanford and represents the proponent’s
justification for its entitlement proposals; note parenthetically that the suggestions
will be peer reviewed by staff and the City’s hospital consultant and may
subsequently be revised so that the final document represents the City’s position
on these factors.
¯Page 4.4, add a section titled "Jurisdictional Boundary Chan~es to mention the
annexation of the small area related to the School of Medicine buildings, and the
jurisdictional implications of medical office in the triangle area in the County.
¯Page 4.7, Zoning-Proposed, clearly show what zoning is changed, specifying
existing zoning and proposed.
P&TC Revisions - July 11, 2007
Page 3
ATTACHMENT B
Planning and Transportation Commission
Items not included in the Area Plan amendments
This list includes issues identified by the Planning and Transportation Commission at
their meeting of July 11, 2007 that are considered outside the scope of the Area Plan or at
a level of detail inappropriate for an Area Plan. These issues will be addressed as part of
the Environmental Impact Report or in conjunction with the Development Agreement.
Chapter I and Chapter 2:
1. The City should be identifying project alternatives early.
2.The City should consider adding a carbon neutral policy to the goals that includes
the analysis of the production of concrete and recycling materials on site.
3.The Project should be designed as a village concept with a mix of uses.
4.Stanford should prepare information on the number of in patient v. out patients
and how it relates to the number of required staff.
5.The goals should state the benefits to neighboring communities and sub-region as
a whole.
6.Stanford should provide data on how the facility has grown over the years and
along with the increased capacity.
7.Prepare a cost benefits analysis of facilitating bike use as a means to avoid auto
uses. Consider a comprehensive bike pathway design throughout the campus that
includes maintenance for off-road trails in the area.
8. Review the tax implications of all proposed annexations.
Review the housing sites that are governed by the GUP to determine if they were
counted to mitigate the proposed building increases on the Stanford campus or if
they can count towards helping to reduce the jobs/housing balance in Palo Alto.
10.Determine what is the current parking utilization v. parking requirement for the
SUMC.
11.Determine the baseline for number of beds, number of employees, number of
parking spaces and parking utilization rate. Extrapolate this data for the proposed
project but include an increased use of alternative means of transportation.
7/18/07 Page 1
12.Provide a historic evaluation of original Stone building since it will be more than
50 years old before the construction begins.
13.When determining energy costs, use the anticipated costs at the time of
construction.
Chapter 3:
1.The design of the project should not include a parking garage between two points
where people often go. This is not a safe design.
There should be an accurate count of the square footage loss of space for local
physicians. Provide data on what percentage of the physicians work at the
hospital. With increased hospital size and capacity there will be a need for
increased number of local physicians to service their patients. If they aren’t
located nearby there will be additional car trips.
3.Provide a regional transit map. Need to understand which transit routes serve this
project.
There are three emerging themes:
1) Local improvements v. regional benefits
2) Challenging established ideas (height v. open space; congestion v.
environmental concerns)
3) Energy and sustainability
5. Hire a high level urban planner to review the design of the project.
6.Add in a provision for affordable employee housing.
7.Add an analysis of the impacts of demolition.
8.Understand why Stanford is proposing reduced setbacks even with an increase in
building heights.
9.Better understand the relationship between the in lieu fees or development of
housing and the timing associated with the medical facility construction.
10. Clarify which surface parking lots are to be removed.
Chapter 4
1. Include information on the capacity of the facility.
7/18/07 Page 2
o
o
There should be an expanded discussion of why this project is necessary and why
are the proposed amendments necessary.
There should be analysis of the intrinsic benefits, public benefits and mitigation
measures. Use as a point of reference the PAMF project.
The existing height of the Hoover Pavilion should be included for context.
Context with the historic building should be considered.
o
o
Conditional use permits provide control and can look at the impacts from a
project.
If land is available, how much additional land would be needed in order to
conform to the existing density rules? The difference is the benefit that should be
preserved.
7/18/07 Page 3
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
Planning and Transportation Commission
June 27, 2007
Verbatim Minutes
DRAFT EXCERPT
Attachment C
Stanford Medical Center Project: Review and recommendation to the City Council of the update
to the Stanford Medical Center Area Plan for the expansion and modernization of the Stanford
University Medical Center.
Mr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner: Yes, thank you very much. Good evening Commissioners.
We are here tonight to present to Commission Staff’s latest work regarding the Stanford
University Medical Center Area Plan Update.
Just a little bit of history, back on April 25 we presented the Commission with a Draft Area Plan
Outline. This outline was intended to provide the framework for the draft document that is in
front of you this evening. It introduced the topics that we are going to be discussed in the plan.
It outlined the scope of the issues to be discussed including but not limited to land use, housing,
transportation, and linkages, and the like. It identified Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and
programs that would be applicable to the projects. It gave Commission’s first look at key plan
objectives that were specific City goals that addressed potential impacts on the project including
housing, transportation, open space, linkages, and sustainability. The Commission provided
comments to Staff and to Stanford regarding that project. We continued the meeting to the
May 9, 2007 meeting for additional comments and as part of those general comments there was a
request for additional community meetings to be held. City and Staff held a community meeting
just last week to get additional input from the community.
Tonight we are here to look at the Draft Area Plan Update. This is the first draft of the text that
would make up the Area Plan document. It follows the outline previously presented to the
Commission. It includes our latest versions of the maps and charts to help visually describe
various components of the plan. So that is presented to you for your review and comment.
I wanted to outline what Staff wanted to get from tonight’s meeting. I should start with what our
goal is, we are not here tonight to wordsmith the document. We could probably be here for
many hours going over every single sentence. This document is really just our first draft. It is
the first draft of a document that is going to be ’draft’ throughout the discretionary review
process for this project until the plan is ultimately accepted by the City Council at least a year
from now. The plan is expected to be modified, changed, updated, and presented to the
Commission over time so that you can see how the plan is changing in response to the project
and the impacts that have been identified. So it really wouldn’t help us now to really wordsmith.
We want to focus on some main items. Really we want you to focus on the key objectives as
presented in the plan. Those include the identification of the issues as listed in the plan. We
want to hear comments from you on the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that
are listed, and also your thoughts on the proposals for zoning, and Comprehensive Plan
amendments that would be required as part of the project.
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
There are probably a number of different ways you can go about reviewing the project tonight.
We do have a suggestion that perhaps you focus maybe section by section and provide us
comment on each section. By doing so you will essentially help to answer kind of the main
questions that Staff has presented to you. If you look in your Staff Report on I believe it is page
4, Staff has recommended that the Commission basically answer some of the following questions
for us. If you review the Draft Area Plan kind of section by section you will essentially answer
the questions that we are asking of you tonight.
The first bullet there on page 4, we are requesting that the Commission discuss the adequacy of
the draft document in identifying and describing key issues and relative importance of the issues
identified in the draft document. That is essentially section three of the document.
The second bullet there, the adequacy of the document in placing and describing Stanford’s
proposals in the broader context of the City’s overall land use and development policies. That is
essentially section two.
The third bullet is the relevance and relative importance of the identified Comprehensive Plan
goals, policies, and programs. Those goals and policies are listed throughout the document.
The fourth bullet there, Stanford’s proposals for the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance is described in section four. Then of course any other issues or topics that
should be identified in the plan, their importance, and how they should be implemented in the
project. So by going section by section you will essentially help us to answer those questions.
Since the 25th we have been embarking on other activities during this Phase I process. As I
mentioned previously we had a community meeting last week and that was attended by some of
the Commissioners. I have summarized the key points obtained from that meeting in a handout,
so that is in your packet. I think it is in the back. Please take a look at that, if you find that I
have summarized too much and perhaps left out an issue please let us know and we will be sure
to add that. Of course you can send us an email or message if you have any comments later.
We felt that that meeting was very successful but we also felt that in the future community
meeting we would like to take a suggestion from the Commission and start to focus more on
individual issues for future community meetings. These might be smaller group discussions
based around a specific topic such as sustainability or housing or transportation and linkages.
We hope to be doing that throughout the rest of Phase I and the beginning of Phase II later on in
this year. We would definitely like to hear from the Commission about those meetings and what
we should be focusing on.
We have also been moving forward with our work kind of our pre-work on the Environmental
Impacts Report. We have met with the project proponents to discuss the data needs issues that
we will need in order to move forward with the review of the project. We have also begun our
peer review activities of the project. Actually we don’t have any application in yet so we don’t
have an idea of the specific project however our peer review consultant is preparing a
presentation for City Council on July 23 that will be really an educational session about the state
Page 2
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
of modem hospital planning throughout the United States and what are the drivers for redesign
of hospitals. So the Council is going to get her first presentation on July 23 and we expect to
come back to the Commission for a similar session sometime in August. That concludes my
portion of the presentation and I will hand it over to Curtis Williams for a few comments as well.
Thank you.
Mr. Curtis Williams, Assistant Director: Thanks Steven. First of all I wanted to introduce to
you, you know Cara Silver from our City Attorney’s Office, and we also have with us tonight
Dan Doporto who is a contract attorney working for us on the Stanford Medical Center project.
We have a different person on the shopping center project. Your firm is?
Mr. Dan Doporto, Outside Counsel: Jarvis, Bay and Doporto out of Oakland.
Mr. Williams: So Dan is extremely well versed in Development Agreements and CEQA and the
kinds of issues that we are going to be dealing with here so it is a real asset to have him on our
City team.
We have provided you tonight a handout that is a response to a number of questions that
Commissioner Keller had so hopefully you all have that in front of you. We would be glad to
follow up or the applicant would on some of those questions. Also we have provided to you a
copy of the 1985 Three-Party Agreement, the three parties being Stanford, the City, and the
county, and the 2000 Staff protocol document that goes with that just as background for you. It
is not instrumental to tonight’s discussion, we did want you to know that it was there and the sort
of significance of it is that it does provide a lot of language about the City, the county, and
Stanford all working together on various projects regardless of what jurisdiction they are in kind
of, well it is focused somewhat toward the county and the GLrP, it really applies to all of our
projects and there is language in there about assuring that there is notification of each agency and
that we notify Stanford if we are doing something that affects their properties, etc., etc. So it is
just a sort of cooperative agreement that has been in place now for some time and you should be
aware of it. It is consistent with the Policy L-46 that we have been working with on the Area
Plan that also speaks to Stanford and the City creating this document.
Secondly, I wanted to note that what you have before you has four chapters, again they
essentially filled in the text from the outline that you had before. The first chapter is an
introductory chapter and kind of explains some of the context for why we are doing this and
some of the overall principles. The third chapter as Steven mentioned is kind of the meat of the
issue and policies that are associated with the medical center area and identifies kind of issue-by-
issue some of the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies and that. It is very sort of tailored
towards what the City’s policy direction on those issues is and could be with the key objectives
that are proposed.
Chapters 2 and 4 of the Area Plan frankly we sort of consider to be Stanford chapters at this
point. They have, we think, done a good job of explaining in chapter 2 what their drivers are for
needing to make this replacement/expansion proposal but we have not had a chance to review
those. The peer reviewer that we have hired has not had a chance to get to a point of feeling
comfortable with those. So we are not representing that those are a consensus of the City and
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 Stanford as to what is necessary and needs to be done here although it very well may be that they
2 are correct about all of those items or most of them. So that is part of our process. We will be
3 looking at those more closely but we have tried to provide some introductory language there that
4 indicates that this section is what Stanford is proposing at this point, that it potentially will be
5 changing throughout the process, and again as Steven mentioned that we will not have an Area
Plan to adopt until the environmental review is done and the entitlement process goes to an
approval stage as well.
Chapter 4 is essentially a proposal for rezoning and Comprehensive Plan changes that may be
needed to accommodate this. There may be other ways to accomplish what they are looking to
do or whatever the ultimate project is that would be approved. So we anticipate that there will be
changes to that section as we move through the process and define more specifically what it is
that would be included in terms of implementation. So Steven mentioned getting comments on
the Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning changes, if you have some early thoughts about
that we would certainly welcome hearing that but I am not sure there is an awful lot we can
expect from you until we get a lot more information in on as far as what the specifics of those
amendments might be.
Again, we will be updating this document as the EIR and the Development Agreement proceed.
Hopefully at the end of that process we will have language in here that represents totally the
City’s position hopefully with Stanford’s concurrence as to what the Area Plan will be.
Then I did want to just again emphasize Steven’s comment about our hope is tonight to focus
primarily on the policy framework that has been established here with the Comprehensive Plan
policies, the issues, the key objectives, and also I think maybe before you get into chapter by
chapter we had talked last night with the Chair and Vice-Chair about maybe some overall
comments on the general presentation of the plan. I know there are some concerns about some
of the maps and those kinds of issues. So if you have those that would be good to hear early on.
We certainly can take those back and try to make things more readable, more usable for you if
you have specifics you want us to address in that regard.
We do have July 11 set aside for time for additional discussion of this item. We have one other
item on that agenda so it is not a completely open night but hopefully that item won’t take too
long. So if there is information - I don’t think we will have a lot of time to respond to a lot of
questions then but we may be able to do some map modifications and some other changes and
bring them back for you to look at a little more specifically at that meeting if you have specifics
you know you want to change in the plan. We probably will make those changes and take that to
the Council so it just depends on what comes out of this meeting as to how much we can do by
July 11. I am not suggesting that you need to feel compelled to continue this to July 11 but if
that is the way you would like to go with it I understand that and again we will try to make a
limited number of changes if we can by that date. So with that, do you have any additional
comments? Then we will go back to the Commission. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any really broad procedural or clarifying
questions for Staff? Let’s please not get into details at this time. Commissioner Sandas.
Page 4
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 Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. Two things. The first thing is that I just wanted to comment
2 about the community roundtable that was held last week. I thought Steven you did a wonderful
3 job leading the meeting and running it. I was really doubtful that we would get through that
4 agenda and you really wrapped it up in the right amount of time. You did a wonderful job. To
5 piggyback that I want to say that I think that the draft in the overall, we are talking something
overarching, is very well organized. I am sure there are things that can be done differently but
the way you have started off here I think is wonderful and very understandable. However, my
needle is stuck in the maps. First of all these maps are hard to read but second ....
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: Is that too detailed?
Chair Holman: If I might, yes, if it is a clarifying question for Staff at this time. We will get into
a discussion I am sure.
Commissioner Sandas: Okay, here is the clarifying question. Can we do the maps differently?
Mr. Turner: Yes.
Mr. Williams: It depends how differently.
Commissioner Sandas: We will get into that later.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Keller and Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Keller: My question relates to when we are going to do the Stanford Shopping
Center. I understood we were going to do that on July 11 and on the Tentative Agenda Listing
lists Continuation of Stanford Medical Center. Is the Stanford Shopping Center part of that
additional item?
Mr. Williams: No, no it is not. We do not have another meeting scheduled on the shopping
center specifically. We are waiting. There is really nothing new since the last meeting you had
on that to report to you. We are waiting for their submittal of their application, which we expect
late July, before we get specifics in or get more information that we can provide to you in terms
of employment or traffic or some of those things to start digesting on the shopping center.
Commissioner Keller: So we might see that sometime in August I presume?
Mr. Williams: I think that’s probably the appropriate timing.
Commissioner Keller: When is the scoping for the EIR for the combined medical center and
shopping center going to be done?
Mr. Williams: It is likely to be early September. We are going to wait until school is back in
before we do that session.
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Let me ask this in the form of a question but what I would like to do is
confirm my understanding of the use and purpose of the Area Plan. The Area Plan perhaps it is
often misunderstood at least by me but it is really a plan of the policies that are going to be used
to evaluate the work that occurs within this particular area. It’s boundaries are limited by the
Comprehensive Plan that defines it to be just for the medical center area which is why it does not
include the Stanford Mall, is that correct?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Commissioner Garber: The EIR however is larger than the Area Plan because it includes the
mall because of the combined impacts that it will have on the broader community, correct?
Mr. Williams: The EIR will consider both projects and the impacts could extend a wide area
outside of those project boundaries.
Commissioner Garber: The tool that then binds the City and Stanford in its various entities not
only to the solutions which will eventually be developed within the Area Plan but also bind the
two entities to address the impacts that are beyond the limits of the Area Plan is the Development
Agreement itself?
Mr. Williams: Right. The Development Agreement will allow for discussion of all the issues
that are associated with the Area Plan and mitigation measures necessary from the EIR but also
may consider other community impacts that are not environmental impacts or benefits that the
City and Stanford agree are mutually acceptable to adopt the Agreement for the redevelopment.
There are actually two Development Agreements whether it is the shopping center or the medical
center.
Commissioner Garber: They combine two agreements. One final piece, if I may. Later in the
process the Area Plan will really take on a different nature and it will become less of a policy
document and more of a solution document and lines on it will actually represent buildings as
opposed to just areas or general locations of things.
Mr. Williams: Right. It won’t be as specific as the entitlements themselves, plan details
themselves, but it should at the end of this process show what land uses are going where, what
the zoning and Comprehensive Plan mechanisms are to get there. If there are substantial
improvements in the vicinity that for instance pedestrian access-ways that are even outside the
boundary, through the shopping center, across E1 Camino, or something like that, if they are
associated with the Area Plan will be able to show those as part of the Area Plan.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had one more question?
Page 6
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: Yes, one question that came up in the roundtable was the extent to which
Stanford University itself would be a party to either of the Development Agreements. Obviously
Stanford has control over the Department of Medicine portion, the Medical School. Stanford is
the landowner for both Stanford Hospital and Stanford Shopping Center. That question came up
and I think it would be helpful to elucidate that here.
Mr. Williams: It probably would be best explained by Jean McCown or someone from Stanford
as to what that relationship is. You are right it is complex. In some cases the University is in
control of things and in some cases it is one of the medical entities. In the shopping center case
the applicant is not Stanford but Stanford does own the property. So if you want more
explanation of that I think it is probably better to ask the applicant to clarify it because I will say
it wrong.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, you had one more?
Commissioner Garber: Yes. The document that was left at our place, the 1985 Land Use Policy
Agreement, obviously we have not had the time to read it but I am curious if there are specific
portions of it that should be brought to our attention that may have import to tonight’s discussion
or other parts of it that we should be paying attention to.
Mr. Williams: I don’t know that there are. Probably the things that are most important to pay
attention to are number one, that it sort of pledges all parties to cooperate and work together on
some of these things, but it also does outline that the academic uses of Stanford are essentially in
the unincorporated areas of Stanford lands and that the non-academic uses are essentially in the
City, and if new non-academic uses are proposed then they could be annexed to the City. So
there may be some implication there as far as whether the City could look to creating housing or
medical offices or something like that on a portion of the land that is currently used for academic
purposes for instance. There might be some conflict that relates to that but that is a very specific
issue we would have to consider during the deliberations.
Chair Holman: Thank you. I have just one which has to do with notifications. We have gone
over this previously so I am just wanting to see where we are in terms of expanding our list. I
notice on the courtesy copies that it is only to Stanford and Simon Properties. We have talked
about making sure that the Downtown businesses, Town & Country Village, Menlo Park, and a
number of other entities like Downtown North Neighborhood, University South Neighborhood,
PAN, Palo Alto Neighborhoods that all of those entities are informed of the goings on here. So I
am just wondering if you could comment on and expand where we are with that communication.
Mr. Williams: Sure and Steven can correct this if it is wrong. Most of those entities have been
noticed for the community roundtable last week and for this meeting. Not all of them, Town &
Country was not and I know the BID was notified, the Chamber was notified, and Menlo Park
was notified. In fact there was someone from Menlo Park in the audience at the meeting last
week. We have had recent discussions about creating sort of a master list to include all of those
groups and notify them. They wouldn’t show up on the courtesy copies on these that would be
too long a list to be adding. As far as the notice goes we do want to do that. In fact I think once
maybe when we do that which will be very soon we will be glad to share that list with you all
Page 7
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
and then if you think there is someone we are missing still get them on there. What we intend to
do with that is that is kind of our base list that every meeting about Stanford all of that group
would get noticed and then there are some requirements that we do have to notice within 600 feet
and if it is just the medical center we are talking within that area and if it is the shopping center
within that area. So those will be added on. Then also anybody who has attended any of our
meetings that we have a record of that we will have on that list as well. So we do want to create
this master list and use that from here on out.
Chair Holman: I really appreciate that and one group that I don’t know that we have talked
about specifically, and presuming that they are involved and informed because of their
affiliations with Stanford but the individual doctors who hold space at Stanford facilities at this
point in time. Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: As a follow up on that to the extent that we are considering annexing or
city line boundaries I am not sure to the extent to which the county is being noticed and that also
is a worthwhile thing to include. Related to that and the 1985 Land Use Agreement I am
wondering whether, this is a question that will have to be addressed by somebody at some point,
is whether if medical office space is built for community doctors which is presumably not
academic use on the current land that is part of the county whether that would under that
agreement need to be annexed. Previously the Medical School was in the same physical building
as the hospital so the question is whether the Medical School should continue to be part of the
City or should be de-annexed is an interesting question that will have be addressed at some point.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: This is sort of a tangent to that and a follow up. When I look at this
document, the 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement and I go to Section 3, the specific policies
governing non-academic use of Stanford lands and we go to Part B, non-academic use includes
this list of things including housing that is not reserved for University and hospital personnel.
Does that mean that if in fact at some point we do deem and say yes, you have to provide
housing for personnel in the hospital do we then have the right to then come in and say those
lands that are part of the campus that would have those houses would be annexed?
Mr. Williams: I think we will have to evaluate that.
Chair Holman: Okay. I don’t have any apparent cards from anybody from Stanford. Does
someone from Stanford want to make a presentation? I am not seeing anyone jumping to the
forefront so I guess not. So we do have 10 cards from members of the public. Typically we
allow five minutes. You can do the simple math that would be 50 minutes of comment. Do not
want to curtail the public input we are always better informed in our decision-making because of
your participation. Given that there are 10 if we could limit you to four minutes and you would
find that agreeable it would be much appreciated. If you don’t need that much time you will
monitor yourselves I am sure. So the first speaker I have is Mike Anderson to be followed by
Tom Jordan and you will have four minutes.
Page 8
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 Mr. Mike Anderson, Menlo Park: Thank you. Even though I don’t have the privilege of living
2 in Palo Alto I still regard myself as a member of the community that would be the healthcare
3 community. It was some 54 years ago that I left the Midwest to get some education from a local
4 university whose name I will not mention, and I have lived here very happily ever since. Thank
5 you for your contributions to the improvement of the living conditions in which we exist. Your
decision relative to the proposed expansion and enhancement of our medical facilities are
certainly some of the most important that you may have the privilege of taking part in.
I have a concern, and that is a concern about our entire healthcare community but with a subset
of which I am member, namely the more senior element of our society. We will be the ones who
inevitably will be meeting and needing the best healthcare that we can find in our area. At
present our choice of Stanford Hospital is somewhat limited due to the shortages of hospital
beds, crowded conditions, and inadequate staff. This applies not only to the senior element of
our population but unfortunately and tragically it is true as far as the younger group where the
Lucile Packard Hospital has to turn away people and children who have need of their services.
You can be very helpful in expediting a solution to these health needs. I am emphasizing
throughout this brief two-minute presentation the word ~expediting.’ The older I get the more
important expeditious behavior is. I am not concerned about a complete and thorough study of
this hospital project environmentally, structurally, socially, or traffic-wise. What does concern
me is that your studies and requirements may well include some unrelated desires of Palo Alto
along with goals longstanding aspirations of individuals who ultimately play a part in setting up
the hurdles if there are any that Stanford Hospital must meet.
Stanford Hospital as I see it is not Stanford University. I wish in the past they had named it
something other than Stanford Hospital and call it Memorial Hospital because it has been my
experience over the past 50 years that the name Stanford sometimes evokes emotions in
individuals that carry them to sometimes illogical conclusions. The hospital raises its own funds.
It operates its own business. It takes on and must pay its own debts. Yes, the Stanford
University Medical School uses the facilities for training its medical students. In my opinion this
is not reason enough for anyone playing gotcha as far as the struggle has sometimes become
between the local community and the University. This is not a developer requesting special
exceptions in building regulations in order to alleviate special needs of the City. This is a unique
organization trying to address one of the larger concerns of our nation, namely healthcare.
In conclusion my question to you is will you help establish a closely focused reasonable program
and make for a doable set of building requirements for all involved? My prayer and desire
tonight is that I live long enough to outlast the Palo Alto process and be witness to the final
culmination of this project. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Tom Jordan to be followed by Dr. Bruce Baker.
Mr. Tom Jordan, Palo Alto: I want to address first of all Stanford’s letter back to the City. It is
Attachment B to the City Manager’s Report 23907 dated May 14. No need for you to turn to it I
will make general comments. One heading was ’Housing,’ and I wanted to clarify something to
make sure it is crystal clear. The County General Use Permit issued to Stanford in December of
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
2000 which did in fact require some housing, in fact 3,037 total units, 2,000 for single students,
350 apartments for hospital residents and post graduate fellows, and 687 units for faculty and
staff, all pertained to the expansion and to the need of Stanford on county land. None of that
should be viewed as mitigation or housing available because of this expansion.
This expansion was not mentioned to the county either the shopping center or the hospital. The
county was looking solely at 2,035,000 additional academic square feet and the roughly 3.0
million housing square feet for a total of 5.0 million that Stanford was asking for. So that
housing I am not sure the statement was meant to imply that there are 600 units that you could
count against the new population coming in here as housing. The fact of the matter is it cannot
be counted because it was already counted by the county by the expansion on the county land.
The second point I want to make is on transportation, I will make it quite quickly. That is it is
perfectly clear to me that on transportation the no net new trips is vital. It is what the county
required. It has already been mentioned by the City. If that is going to happen it seems to me
two things are clear. One is that all of the employees existing and future additions are going to
have to go under some almost mandated public transit commuting because patients to hospitals
will not, shoppers carrying bags will not, so the only group you can control are the employees
and you need to control all of them.
Secondly, it is perfectly clear to me that there should be with the City a standard as there is with
the county that if certain measures aren’t met for instance the no net new trips isn’t met that there
are very specific mitigation measures triggered that will be paid for by Stanford to make that
happen.
The third point is open space. Stanford disconnects itself at the hospital from the University and
that unavoidable. I think the better way to look at is this is project that is going to have impacts.
Those impacts are costs of the project. So if the costs of mitigation, say it is $50 million, if those
can’t be met by the applicant they have to solve the funding not the City. For instance if there is
$50.0 million of impact and Stanford says they are not going to pay any then the City will pay
$50 or if they are going to pay $10 then the City will pay $40. So they simply have to scale the
project to a size they can afford and the fact that they don’t have direct right to tap into
Stanford’s treasury is irrelevant from the City’s point of view because they are the one sizing the
project and the impacts from it.
The final thing I would say quickly is that there will be people speaking about healthcare but I
would point out that that is not an issue. No one has raised the point of not granting Stanford
what it asks for. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Dr. Bruce Baker to be followed by Arden Anderson.
Dr. Bruce N. Baker, Palo Alto: I am a member of the Community Resource Group for the
General Use Permit for Stanford University 2000 Plan. I am not representing that group I am
speaking as an individual.
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
I have a few low cost suggestions. Chairman Holman asked that if we had suggestions that
would improve traffic flow in general we should submit them. I have submitted these way back
in May 2002 to Council Members and others. It seems to me we could do a lot in a low cost
fashion with some designated right turn lanes. It doesn’t require a lot to draw those lanes and put
a red curb on about 50 yards or maybe 100 yards of curbing. In particular I am concerned about
Middlefield Road on either side of Embarcadero Road and on either side of Oregon Expressway
to create a curb lane by means of no parking signs and red curbs for up to 50 to 150 yards. This
permits a higher throughput of traffic on green lights. On E1 Camino Real create the same type
of curb lanes just north of Stanford Avenue for cars turning west onto Stanford Avenue. On
Churchill Avenue one of our prime beefs is create a curb lane just before E1 Camino Real for the
right turn autos by moving the center line a foot or so to the south. As it is now not only do the
right turning auto have to wait for a green light but also they reduce the throughput of autos
wanting to turn left onto E1 Camino Real because the automatic sensors note a gap in the traffic
and change the light to red. I note the many right turning autos hop the curb to be able to pass
the left turners and make the right turns. Also many of the left turners line up in such a way that
it is impossible for the right turners to get by in the undesignated lane. Creating a stripe would
solve the problem. Ideally the road should b widened somewhat for about 50 yards or so on the
Palo Alto school district side.
One higher cost suggestion for Middlefield Road is to create two lanes over the creek area just
north of Palo Alto Avenue. I am sure hundreds of motorists have the same idea everyday as they
wait in line. I would like to commend Stanford and the City Planners who created the improved
intersection at Page Mill and Junipero Serra Boulevard. That is a good example of improving
throughput on green lights. Do the traffic planners really believe that expensive traffic calming
measures will reduce the amount of traffic in Palo Alto? Most measures I see propose simply
trying to shove the problem onto some other streets and somehow exacerbate the problem. I
guess I have never understood the logic of reducing four lanes of traffic to two lanes to improve
traffic flow.
So my main gist is that I think we can create some designated right turn lanes at some major
intersections and improve traffic flow quite a bit. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Dr. Baker since you said you had submitted these comment in 2002 perhaps it
would be helpful if you submitted them again in writing now. That would be very helpful.
Thank you for coming. Arden Anderson to be followed by Mark Sabin.
Mr. Arden Anderson, Palo Alto: I will be quick and not have this yellow light come on. I lived
in Palo Alto 33 years. I have two of our four children now reside in Palo Alto and are raising
their families here. I am here in support of the project. I spoke in April.
When I heard the Staff Report and I heard some of the comments from the community of all of
the things like flood control and different issues that are being brought up I went home and told
my wife I was surprised the 49’ers weren’t here and had their proposal as a contingency for this
project.
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
I really urge that you not get mired in all of these other issues and move this plan forward. We
really need this expansion. Our family, as I said in April, have had two life-saving incidents with
Packard Hospital, a grandson who had fallen and had a trauma, had brain surgery at midnight. A
year later, which was 12 years ago, our granddaughter had a liver transplant. That was one of the
first liver transplants that the liver team at Packard had performed after moving down from a
hospital in San Francisco. I am not privileged to be a volunteer in the Intensive Care Unit and I
watch these families come from all over the world to get treatment and the hospital really needs
the expansion. I hate to say it but it is also good for business. These people are here for weeks,
months, they use our restaurants, they use our stores, and they bring money to the community.
That is not why we have the hospital of course but the hospital really needs this expansion. That
is all I will say before the yellow light comes on. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you Mr. Anderson. Mark Sabin to be followed by Sally Probst.
Mr. Mark Sabin, Sunnyvale: Good evening. I would just like to say I really like this room a lot
better without drapes closed. It is a real improvement. I came here to speak in favor of the
development and to talk about some issues that I have concern for. First of all, the rise in the
cost of raw materials because of international development has been substantial. So that is going
to be a problem for this development regardless of what comes out. So the more mandates put
on this thing it is going to have an impact in terms of the hospital’s flexibility. As it stands now
that hospital with its horizontal layout, I can speak for myself as a person with compromised
mobility, it truly is problematic just to visit that place. It is much more difficult for me to walk -
I would much rather have to go up five stories and walk 100 feet rather than walk through five
different departments to get to where I need to go and walk an additional 300.
It is also very curious to me in an age where you are talking about strange bugs that are
becoming more and more resistant to drugs that I am walking through the hospital and seeing
people being wheeled out of the operating room and pushed past the cafeteria entrance. That is
certainly not satisfactory for a hospital environment. That is one other reason why I think the
vertical nature of this plan is much better because of that. The ability to segregate the people
who are being treated from the people who are just visiting is why I think it is much more
important to have this vertical structure than a horizontal one.
If you go to Stanford Hospital or if you go to Packard Children’s hospital, I went through
Packard 101, the one thing that I walked away with more than anything else is they have storage
rooms that have been converted to patient space. These two hospitals really do need an upgrade
in terms of the space. That is another reason why I really like this plan because they are not just
focusing on the needs of the patient here they also recognize the importance of making
accommodations for the family as well. They recognize how important that is to the recovery
and the support of the recovery in this process.
The reason I am saying all these things is we put on more and more mandates on this process it
may have an impact on their ability to meet objectives like that. Myself, I am a strong advocate
of housing and I think it is very important that there be good faith conversations and talks with
the hospital and Stanford University because the hospital doesn’t own this land so they don’t
really have a lot of say in whether or not they will put housing up there. So I think it is important
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
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
for the City and Stanford University and the hospital to have some discussions if only because
that may mean that chance to meet not only the City’s but Stanford University’s goals in meeting
their green objectives too. In the face of five-dollar gasoline it is going to be important for
people to be able to afford to live closer to this place than farther away from it. Thank you very
much.
Chair Holman: Thank you Mr. Sabin. Sally Probst to be followed by Craig Barney. Ms. Probst
you are going to speak from where you are, correct?
Ms. Sally Probst, Palo Alto: Yes, and I am just so thankful to Mr. Turner for bringing me the
microphone. I have been a resident of Palo Alto for more than 18 years. While in this time we
have used Stanford Hospital quite a bit I am more interested in Lucile Packard Children’s
Hospital. Now one of the major responsibilities of the City is the safety, health, and welfare of
its people. Certainly with Stanford Hospital being our trauma hospital and having a seismic
upgrade deadline this is very important that that procedure that the reconstruction of Stanford
Hospital go forward quickly. But for Lucile Packard which is not demolishing any of its
material, that is adding on, it is also important that there be a time consideration here.
When at the roundtable the mother who had a child with multiple neurological surgeries
indicated that they had to postpone surgery because there was no Intensive Care Unit available
that reminded me of when I had been at Lucile Packard and had been in the pediatric heart
department and in one area where the hallway is a little bit enlarged on one side is a desk and I
notice that everybody coming up to the desk and conducting their business did it in very hushed
tones. Then I realized that across the hallway was a bed with an infant at one end who had just
been born a day or so earlier, had just had heart surgery, who was receiving 24-hour around the
clock care with a nurse who was there constantly monitoring and adjusting the equipment. There
was scarcely room for the nurse. There was certainly no room for the mother and father to come
and visit the child unless they stood out in the hallway.
So I would like to make a couple of comments too. Commissioner Sandas had suggested that it
is helpful for you to know how people feel about certain items. I think that as far as the height is
concerned this is not an area where we need to be concerned about height. I am more concerned
about covering up all the space and realize that if we go up we don’t have to cover as much land
and there will be more open space between the buildings. So I urge that.
I also think that it is rather arrogant to think that the architectural and professional planning of
hospital planners should be second-guessed by others. I urge you not to second-guess that
professional planning.
Also I think the matter of the small adjustment of land within Palo Alto and so on is a minor
matter but you may have to go to the county committee, and I forget what the name of it is that is
concerned with annexations and de-annexations, and just to be concerned about that.
Also some of you may know that I am a housing advocate and I am pleased that eventually there
will be affordable housing provided in connection with this expansion. I think you should also
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
consider that this affordable housing is mitigation for transportation. The people who live here
won’t have to drive in from Stockton.
To think that this can be done, the hospital expansion, the medical expansion, the Lucile Packard
expansion, and the shopping center expansion with no new net trips I think is idiotic. I hope that
you will concentrate your transportation on a network that works and especially a network that
works for the emergency equipment to reach the hospital quickly. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much and thank you, Steven. Craig Barney to be followed by
Michael Griffin.
Mr. Craig Barney, Palo Alto: Hello, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. I
have lived in this area since seventh grade and Palo Alto for 16 years. My mother was a candy
striper both at Stanford Hospital and at E1 Camino Hospital in Sunnyvale. I am a Stanford
employee. I work in the Environmental Health and Safety Department for Stanford University
but I am speaking as a resident tonight.
My youngest son was born at Packard. Other family members have received critical care at
Stanford Hospital. My oldest son visited the ER one night for an injury related to skateboarding
so I have a soft spot in my heart for the medical facilities at Stanford. One of my sons just
graduated from Gunn High School and one is currently at Palo Alto. You may ask why that is so
but I can tell you later.
I really related to the comment about the intersection and Churchill and E1 Camino because I go
through that after I drop my son off at football practice and it is a nightmare.
Thank you for this. I haven’t read it and put it to memory yet. I will certainly spend some time
reading it. I do note in reviewing it briefly that there are several one objectives and one in
particular that shared by both Stanford and the City and that is to come to a view for long-term
land use that is a broader view. I understand that that is very important and I also understand in
doing that there is always going to be competing values.
I fully support Stanford’s plan to modernize and expand the hospitals and clinics. I also trust that
the Planning Commission and the City Council is mindful of the benefits that this project will
bring. We certainly have heard plenty about that and I am sure you will hear more. Those
benefits come to each and every one of us. As we note the seismic improvements are mandated
by state law. One thing I see when I read this and I think about it is the fact that Stanford is
planning a 20-year horizon. I can’t plan for next week. The fact that they are doing that to me
indicates that they are anticipating the gowth that is sure to come in our area. So I really
applaud them for that.
So those are just a few simple comments. I urge you to please keep in mind both the benefits
and the fact that the hospital is a vital part of our community as you are going through the
planning process.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Michael Griffin to be followed by Bob Moss.
Page 14
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
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Michael Griffin, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. Tonight I would like to read
into the record some key objectives of my own to address the traffic impacts of the Stanford
projects. This is an attempt on my part to prioritize items some of which are in the Draft Area
Plan.
From a big picture perspective I think it is clear that these projects are going to be a regional
draw pulling patients and customers from throughout the Bay Area. So spending time and effort
only on local issues bicycle paths for example along is not going to solve the enormous problem
caused by single occupancy cars swarming to the new hospitals, shopping center, hotel, etc. I
suggest as a minimum we first investigate how to protect the Downtown residential
neighborhoods both north and south of University from cut-through, speeding, single occupancy
vehicles. We have had quite a bit of political turmoil over this issue in the past and no one wants
a reprise of this controversy. Cars coming west on Willow Road light the fuse on this traffic
bomb and if access to the University projects is encouraged to arrive from the Bayshore Freeway
I am suggesting we are heading for trouble.
Second. Do not simply consider the possible use of remote parking lots as stated in
Comprehensive Plan Programs T-48 and L-77 but rather bite the bullet and fully implement the
construction and use of satellite parking facilities be they on the south side of SLAC near 280 or
across the Dumbarton Bridge in a newer industrial park. We have been talking about this
solution for years it is now time to act.
Third. Enhance Stanford’s already good Traffic Demand Management program by a) requiring a
large majority of employees to use these new off-site parking facilities, patients and shoppers
would presumably be exempted; b) by providing free use of an expanded shuttle but system
linking this parking with Stanford jobs, and there is a free Dumbarton express already being
provided so there is a precedent for that; c) by broadening the scope of the eco-pass by more
heavily subsidizing the use of CalTrain by employees, patients, and perhaps even shoppers.
When I am in Tokyo we take the train shopping and with some selling and free tickets it could
happen here. It works in New York City as well. I am confident the issue team on transportation
will have more good ideas to add to this short list. Curtis I am sure looking forward to
eventually learning what you folks have been discussing. Inquiring minds want to know.
Finally, I think it is simply a matter of fairness to expect Stanford to stand up and pay for the cost
of mitigating the impacts brought on by their really large if not huge project. To be sure satellite
parking, shuttle buses, and free use of CalTrain does not come cheaply but it might well be the
price of doing business in this urbanized area. I think frankly, the University realizes that.
Lastly, or a postscript, this green shirt that I am wearing tonight is my GO shirt. I am saying Go
Stanford. I want this project to happen. I am saying go build it, go give thoughtful consideration
to the impacts the project will cause, and go figure out how to solve them.
Chair Holman: Thank you, Mr. Griffin. Bob Moss to be followed by our final speaker Lisa
Wise.
Page 15
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. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Holman and Commissioners. First I want to
agree that Stanford Hospital and Children’s Hospital perform very useful functions and they are
very useful to the community. That does not mean that we should ignore the normal
requirements of zoning, land use, planning, and the Comprehensive Plan. I have heard a lot of
applicants and Stanford Hospital is an applicant stand up here and talk about how wonderful they
were and therefore they should be given all sorts of special treatment and bonuses. That is not
the way the game should be played. Everybody should play on the same level field. There are
certain mitigations that are required for developments. This development is talking about
building over 1.3 million square feet of additional structures, office space, hospitals, and
accessory buildings. That is huge. They should be required to follow the normal application
guidelines for traffic mitigations, you have heard some of them earlier about expanding the bus
system, shuttle buses, parking, parks, fees for parks, fees for libraries, fees for housing, providing
housing, land use mitigations, all the things that would normally be required of any developer
with a project this massive should be required.
Stanford has talked about the cost. Tom Jordan said he thought it might cost as much as $50
million I think that is very, very high. I think it is probably more like $25 or $30 million but
even if it was $50 million this project is going to cost well over $1.0 billion. So $50 million is
not even five percent of the total cost of the project. If Stanford doesn’t pay it and the
mitigations still have to be imposed we will all pay it. The people of Palo Alto will be paying for
what a private developer should be paying for and that’s wrong.
There are a number of Comprehensive Plan elements listed in the report that apply directly to
this. For example, Goal L-5, High quality districts with a distinct character and contributing to
the character of the city’s . Putting a building 130 feet tall because they want to use
elevators instead of wheel people down the hall does not contribute to the environment and the
city. Development that respects views of the foothills and the East Bay hills. Again this
building does not respect that. Policy L-5, maintain the scale and character of the city. Avoid
uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable by their size. Policy L-9, a mixture of land uses in
the various centers. That means that the hospital should also encourage other uses for example
nearby housing. That is one of the things I would like to see encouraged also nearby parkland. I
also agree that Program T-48 for in lieu parking is something we should encourage with shuttle
buses taking people from the parking areas to the hospital.
Now I don’t want people to feel that gee, this is unreasonable asking an applicant who is building
this much to do these kinds of things for the community. We are supposed to be in this together
and that means cooperating. The way we can cooperate is to get Stanford Medical Center to sign
up to doing things that are reasonable and expediting the process. This is not going to happen
overnight even if you approved it tomorrow. Stanford isn’t going to finish building out for 15 or
20 years. So it is important we do this carefully, thoroughly, and correctly. I would encourage
the full use of the Palo Alto process. I believe in the Palo Alto process.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Our final speaker is Lisa Wise.
Ms. Lisa Wise, Palo Alto: Hi, I have been a proud Palo Alto resident for past 12 years and I am
also the proud mother of Michael and Joshua, my nine-year old fraternal twin boys who were
Page 16
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
born at Packard Children’s Hospital. Soon after the twins’ birth Michael was diagnosed at
Packard as having [Cruzan Syndrome and Hydrocephalus]. We then entered into the world of
chronic illness and the staff at Packard Hospital became our most valued teachers. Because of
Michael’s ongoing medical issues we are self-titled frequent fliers at Packard, which means that
we have lots of in-patient hospitalizations and surgeries and lots of outpatient clinic visits. In
short, it is our home away from home. Over the past eight years I have also been an active
member of the hospital’s family advisory council in an effort to give back to the hospital.
Like all parents of children with chronic illness this exciting expansion is my top priority. It will
offer a safe, state-of-the-art hospital in my backyard. The fact that Packard is internationally
acclaimed thrills me. The fact that Packard is five minutes away helps me sleep at night. The
fact that Packard can’t always admit our community’s kids due to bed shortages worries me
deeply.
Let me give you three quick examples of how this expansion will directly impact family’s lives.
Michael and I were in an ambulance ride at two o’clock in the morning as Michael is having
respiratory distress. Halfway to Packard the driver gets radioed to turn around because there is
no room at the hospital and Michael will have to go to another facility for care. Michael’s entire
team of dozens of doctors are all at Packard. His huge medical file is at Packard and half his life
is there. A second example, last July Michael is ready for neurosurgery and we planned the
summer around his surgery date. Our family has flown in to support us and we are ready to go
but then we get the phone call. Another child who has a serious brain tumor needs surgery right
away and will have to take our slot. Packard has to triage and we understand. We are bumped
for several weeks. The third example is it is finally the day of Michael’s neurosurgery and we
are in the preoperative area. We are terrified but we are all ready to go and then we get the call.
There are no beds in the Intensive Care Unit and unless one opens up surgery will have to be
bumped. We wait and wait anxiously and our surgery slot is in the balance.
These examples are typical. They happen to every family every day. As our family prepared for
major facial reconstructive surgery next summer I often wonder now how many times will that
surgery be rescheduled? Will we be bumped on that day of surgery? Will we get an ICU bed
easily? What hurdles and challenges await us in a hospital that is filled to capacity?
Lucile Packard, the hospital’s founder, promised that every parent would have a bed to sleep in
beside their child while they were at Packard. This was an innovative idea when it was first
built. I believe that now we have to make the promise that every child that needs a bed will
actually have one at Packard. Nothing else comes close to this top priority. What matters most
to us families is having the best, safest, world-class medical care in our community, one that
actually has room to admit our children when they need help. Thank you to Packard for making
a difference in children’s lives every single day and thank you to the Commission for taking the
time to listen to the families’ perspective on this exciting new project. Your thoughtful
consideration and your dedicated service to the community are most appreciated by all Palo
Altoans. In closing I want to echo the first speaker’s sentiment. For families expeditious is a
wonderful word. Thank you.
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: Thank you, and with that I will close the public hearing. Does Staff have any
comments or response they would like to make to anything they have heard? Commissioners
have any comments or questions about anything they heard during public comments?
I actually would like Staff to do one thing. We have heard comments about having an
expeditious process. Would Staff like to clarify for everyone what the purpose of an EIR is and
the necessity of doing the environmental study and how the shopping center and medical center
are rolled together and why, and how that relates to all of our health as well? I think it might be
helpful to put a context to some of this discussion.
Mr. Williams: Sure, be glad to do that. An Environmental Impact Report under state law is
required to address the wide breadth of issues that can result from a project. In a project of this
scope there are most all of the 15 or 16 categories of impacts are going to be affected one way or
another. There are a few, like agriculture, that won’t but most will have some kind of impacts
that need to be addressed. The EIR purpose here is to try to link and assess both the individual
and the combined impacts of these two major projects on the community so that there will be
assessments of traffic and noise and visual impact, etc. from the shopping center and from the
hospital. Then in a combined way cumulatively what do those impacts create? The process of
doing that, one of the intents of the California Environmental Quality Act is also to include
public input to the environmental review process. So it specifies that at the beginning of the
preparation of an environmental document that we have to have a notice of preparation, allow for
public input, encourage as a scoping meeting, which we will certainly have in this case, and then
as we go along and a Draft EIR is produced that again that is made available for public review
for a minimum of 45 days, that we have a hearing on that which will probably be before the
Planning Commission, at least one hearing on the adequacy of that document, and then again
when the Final EIR comes to the Commission with the project. So there are a wide breadth of
issues will be addressed. We will be addressing both projects cumulatively as well as any others
out there that we identify that are in the similar timeframe that might have joint impacts on an
area particularly from a traffic standpoint. We will provide multiple opportunities for the public
to have input to that process. As Steven said, we have hired an EIR consultant and they have
begun to collect data or they have requested data from the applicants of both projects that they
will need to put together the document. We will probably have that scoping meeting as I
mentioned likely in September to get initial input. We have already got a lot of input on issues
that we know that the environmental report will have to address but we will do that again
specific to the EIR. I would be glad to answer any questions.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Curtis, I think that was helpful. Just as a follow up can you clarify what
discretion exists for the City or for Stanford in either the scope or the timeliness of fulfilling the
California Environmental Quality Act requirements?
Mr. Williams: I am not sure exactly, can you clarify that a little bit?
Commissioner Burt: Well, the scope of the requirements is there discretion that lies with the
City or with Stanford on what scope we have to perform these functions under? And, what
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
aspects, if any, is there discretion by Stanford or the City in terms of the timing and the amount
of time that is necessary to do those functions? I guess the final question to clarify is there seems
to be a concept among some members of the community that there some significant latitude in
those regards that the City has and that Stanford has in those regards if you could clarify all that.
Mr. Williams: Okay. The environmental review as mentioned will cover a lot of subjects and
each one of those will be assessed in terms of what the existing conditions are and what the
potential impacts are of the project and then ultimately there will be a prescribed set of what is
called mitigation measures that will hope to address those impacts generally hopefully in all
cases not necessarily to what is call a less than significant level of impact. The City has some
discretion in terms of how those mitigation measures are applied and again if they are not
reducing impacts to a less than significant level then the City has some discretion to allow those
impacts to occur through a Statement of Overriding Considerations. They also can look at if
some of them they don’t think are feasible then the City has some discretion in terms of what
whether to impose those or not or again go back to a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The discretion of the City in terms of making other types of requirements on a project is limited
from a CEQA standpoint to those items that are identified in the document as having significant
impacts. So we can’t in the environmental review go beyond that in terms of additional
requirements.
The Development Agreement is a mechanism that allows a City to look at some other
community-wide impacts that might not be covered by the Environmental Impact Report or other
benefits that the City is looking to perhaps achieve through the process. The Development
Agreement has more discretion in it than the environmental review process. I would also like to
let our Attorney’s here chime in on what they think the discretion is.
Ms. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you. I just wanted to add that in terms
of state law there are legal requirements that before processing these types of application we are
required as a City to look at the specific environmental impacts of a project and of related
projects and cumulative impacts. There is little discretion in that regard. We do have to comply
with CEQA of course.
Also, CEQA requires that legally feasible mitigations measures be imposed if there impacts
identified. Again, the City has little discretion in imposing those mitigation measures if they
legally and feasibly can be imposed.
In terms of timeframe there are procedural requirements and scoping meetings and public review
that is required by state law that again the City has very little discretion. We need to comply
with those requirements. CEQA, the state law, anticipates that it takes approximately one year to
comply with that public process.
Chair Holman: If I might have one question and one comment. The Statement of Overriding
Considerations that referenced earlier marries very well with your comments. Just so the public
doesn’t have a misperception a Statement of Overriding Considerations from my understanding
Page 19
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
can only be made if and when all reasonable and feasible alternatives have been pursued and
evaluated. Is that correct?
Ms. Silver: Yes, both alternatives need to be examined, alternatives that are environmentally
superior, and also all mitigation measures need to be examined and exhausted before a Statement
of Overriding Consideration can be issued by the decision-makers.
Chair Holman: Thank you for that clarification. Then the other thing is just to put it into some
kind of context here, we can talk about the impacts but what we are looking at is a facility that
provides a great service to more than just this community so in the process of granting a proposal
of who knows whatever size or scale, we don’t know yet, we also at the same time don’t want to
be creating situations that are going to be creating bad health situations for the community or the
larger community such that if we are creating a lot of traffic we don’t want to be having an
increased asthma situation for instance just to put a face or a name on some of these
considerations and why we are looking at it and why they are important. Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: To follow up on this two questions. Firstly, could you talk about how
efficiently and expeditiously Palo Alto plans to review this very large project no matter what it
is, whether it is the amount of proposed or less or more it is still a very large project and compare
that to another recent project that went through an approval process of the Campus for Jewish
Life and how many years that went through the approval process? I think it might be helpful if
you can provide some comparison of that and indicate whether Stanford is going through faster
or slower than that other not quite as large a project.
Mr. Turner: The Campus for Jewish Life and the BUILD Bridge project together share some
similarities with the Stanford hospitals and shopping center projects in that we reviewed both
Campus for Jewish Life and BUILD Bridge concurrently under one Environmental Impact
Report and that is similar to how we are going to proceed with the shopping center and hospitals
project. In terms of planning certainly there were a number of, probably starting in 2002 and
2003 discussions regarding the redevelopment of the Sun site and the first steps of the process
actually split that Sun site into two separate parcels, one for Campus for Jewish Life and one for
BUILD Bridge. Once that was completed the discretionary review in terms of the
Environmental Impact Report, and Architecture and Design, Planned Community rezoning, and
Comprehensive Plan map changes was initiated. That whole process took approximately a year
and a half to two years to get through. It was approved finally in September of 2006. It was a
smaller project, it was definitely very, very big for Palo Alto, but it followed a pretty standard
series of steps before it got to the final decision-makers that is the City Council last year.
This project is much more complex in certain ways and we understand that and that is why we
have developed two separate phases for the review of this project. Phase I, which we are
currently at the very end of which is our informational gathering phase, which kind of culminates
in the production of this Draft Area Plan. This was our opportunity to hear from stakeholder
groups from the Commission, from the City Council, members of the public about those issues
that are important to them before we even start to think about the project as a whole. We don’t
have an application in yet. We don’t know specifically what the exact components of the project
will be although we have a pretty good idea when we look at their conceptual application. It
Page 20
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
gives us a good opportunity to hear from the public about what issues are important to them.
Typically that is not a process that we do for most applications but we understand that this is a
complex project with lots of variables and lots of issues. We felt that this was probably a very
good way to begin prior to embarking upon Phase II, which is the environmental work and the
discussions for the Development Agreement. There will be plenty of opportunities for public
input there as well. We feel that Phase II will reflect more of what a standard discretionary
review project would be moving forward. These two projects will involve a Development
Agreement and negotiations that are atypical from what a typical project is within Palo Alto but
we have mapped out a process that hopefully gets us to the finish line in approximately 12
months, probably more realistically 14 or 15 months by the middle to fall of next year. We have
mapped that out the best we can. We understand there is going to be some room for play within
that schedule but we are trying to keep on that schedule as best we can. We feel we have met the
schedule for Phase I and that is pretty encouraging as we move onto Phase II.
Commissioner Keller: So to summarize what you are saying that from when this project came to
the City Council in December of 2006 that it is expected that there will be a Development
Agreement with the City well before the end of 2008 and therefore the process is expected to
take less than two years. Is that right?
Mr. Turner: That is the current tentative schedule that we have, yes.
Commissioner Keller: In contrast the less complex combination of Bridge Housing and Campus
for Jewish Life by my measure you said it started in 2002, there was division of that, there was a
year and a half to two year EIR process, and approval was gotten in 2006. Is that right?
Mr. Turner: That’s right. I wasn’t involved in the very early stages there may have been some
downtime between the two projects. Certainly the time from submittal of application for both
BUILD Bridge and the formal environmental work I believe it was a little bit over a year for a
total length of time.
Commissioner Keller: So these projects take a long time and Stanford is certainly going through
on a fast track. I think people need to realize that we are not slowing this down, and we are not
putting anything in the process. We are doing this expeditiously and in a manner that
incorporates public input, as we are required to do.
Mr. Turner: I would agee with that, yes.
Chair Holman: Thank you. We won’t do this every time but I think it is good framework and
background to have this out there. Perhaps listening to the questions and comments it might
even be good to have some kind of a one or two page white paper that Staff can provide so
people will have a better understanding of this because we won’t be doing this every meeting.
Commissioners, as Staff indicated we have some procedural questions and it probably would be
best to go through those first before we tackle the Draft Area Plan comments. So who would
like to go first on procedural issues like Commissioner Sandas you mentioned maps earlier and
framework? Curtis.
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
Mr. Williams: I just want to clarify I don’t see that as a procedural issue I see it as an Area Plan
issue. It is just specific to the map. It is a general issue across the plan as opposed to a specific
chapter.
Chair Holman: Agreed, agreed. Commissioner Sandas do you want to talk about maps?
Commissioner Sandas: Can I? Actually I am not sure if this is too detailed or whatnot. I
struggle with these maps. I don’t know if it is the way that they are printed and they can’t come
out any better. They look kind of mushy to me with my second half-century eyes going on.
What would really help me and I am hoping it would also be helpful for the rest of the
Commission would be to be able to take a look at a clear well defined map that might be slightly
larger than 8.5 x 11 of what the area looks like now and have some transparencies that go over
the top of the map that shows the proposed linkages and every single thing. So if I wanted to I
could take all 10 or however many images there would be and stack them one right on top of the
other and know everything that is going on or not. It would just be so much more helpful for me
to have the opportunity to look at everything in an integrated way and more comprehensive way.
I think that would be all that I would like to say on that matter for the moment.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I had a very similar comment, which is that I think that it would be quite
beneficial if there were a number of things incorporated into the maps. The first is the size. If
they were printed at a minimum of 11 x 17 and turned 90 degrees I think that would help
everybody here.
There were a couple of things that I noticed going through and I work with site plans all the time.
For instance the scale legend falls into part of the plan. It would be great if we could separate
that out and get that out of there. The title for each of these maps telling what they are is up in a
corner in the interior margin. If that could be located maybe at the bottom of the plate as well so
that we can easily identify what we are looking at here in terms of comparing proposed and
existing.
When it goes into the level of detail, for instance I am looking at the linkages map, it had some
transit routes on it but it doesn’t identify what those transit routes are. If we could look at in
terms of whether we are looking at VTA, SamTrans, whether we are looking at the Marguerite
Shuttle, whether we are looking at the Palo Alto Shuttle, and also possibly some of those route
numbers so that we have an idea as to where those routes go off to when they get to the edge of
the map.
Then lastly some of these maps are truncated. You get to the edge of the map and for instance E1
Camino Real gets cut off abruptly so you don’t really understand the context of where this map
is going. The same thing happens on the other end as you get out towards Junipero Serra and
Alameda de Las Pulgas. If there was some way to understand where these maps are leading to in
terms of their geographic boundaries so to speak. So I think that would be helpful in terms of
understanding perhaps context.
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, maps?
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I would agee with the idea of the cropping. If you notice Figure 3-5
has a larger area that is represented in the map than say Figure 3-10 in which the area is blown
up but it is cropped. There does appear to be some distinction in 3-10 and 3-9 with respect to
what the public and Stanford routes are for transit. I would a~ee with Vice-Chair Lippert that
having a description of what the routes are and where they go would be helpful. Certainly the
placement of the identifier of the Figure so that it is to the left or right of the Figure are necessary
placement because it prevents the map from going the full width. Going the full width would
make it larger, easier to read, and also would allow it to have larger scope.
I think that in some sense there seems to be two kinds of scales going on. There is the larger
scope of 3-5 and 3-6, the smaller scope of say 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, and 3-10 for example. Some
consistency among that would be helpful. I would like the opportunity to get these maps in some
electronic form. If they are produced in something like a W illustrator where you can click on
that and look at layers and overlays and be able to compare and contrast. That would satisfy my
needs for the transparency and comparing I am not sure that would satisfy anybody else’s needs.
To the extent that it was done like that it would allow that comparison to be done more easily.
In my questions I made specific comments about maps. One of the interesting things that I will
just point out is that my question 11 referred to the bicycle route across Palo Drive that continues
on Homer Avenue. The response says that is conceptual planning connections. I notice that that
conceptual planning connection appears on the existing linkages in 3-5 as a pedestrian and
bicycle route. I do not believe that that is a current pedestrian and bicycle route. So I question
the accuracy of that element of the Figure. If I were a bicyclist I would not want to cross Palm
Drive at Palo Drive and I took the opportunity to look at the satellite figure of this on Google and
there didn’t seem to be anything that looked like a bike route in this path. The other day when I
was at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation I saw that there was no break in the fence. It was not
clear that there was a break in the fence at that particular location, the fence along E1 Camino
Real. So I still question whether or not that particular route which is labeled as being existing
does in fact exist.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, any comments about maps? Okay. I have a few about
maps. Commissioner Garber, I am sorry I didn’t see your hand. Comments about maps?
Commissioner Garber: I wasn’t going to talk about maps but because everyone else is I only
have a couple of comments. There are a lot of them there can be fewer. There is a lot of
information on the maps, the before and after, which is similar and they can probably be
combined, meaning that there can be a condensation of a lot of the information, a lot of the maps
to reduce them and make them more readable, which I think is the only overarching comment I
am really hearing here is that we are not getting the message. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Page 23
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: I support the comments that have been made. The other question is they
are on 8.5 x 11 generally and then they are occupying a portion of the 8.5 x 11, which really
makes them hard to read. It might be adequately legible if they just fully utilized the 8.5 x 11.
The alternative like we have had on a lot of the other plans is to just have a folded 11 x 14 and
then everybody can understand them. I think if they are done that way then some of the things
like Commissioner Garber had mentioned like integrating before and after on the same map and
some of those things, if they are small then they kind of need to be segregated and you can’t look
at them in an integrated way. If they are a little bigger then I think some of these other
suggestions become more plausible.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: What really is the importance here is the way that we can see the
information that is being presented will help I believe us be able to evaluate the whole plan and
ultimately expedite the process in terms of being able to reach some recommendations fairly
quickly. When the information is obscured and difficult to find it actually I think will slow down
the process. To that end what I can suggest is that maybe this document is supplemented by
something that is actually out there right now which is Google Earth has layers of information
that could be posted to the online document and easily seen. There are ways for users like
Stanford to be able to post that information, make it available, and I think with the City’s help we
could then achieve what Commissioner Sandas is asking for which is that you can then layer the
information that she is looking for and understand what the relationships are. So that is just a
thought there. I know that it is a tool that is available to us as well the community at large.
Chair Holman: I will chime in on this as well. Commissioner Lippert got it right. The reason
that we are spending the time talking about maps although it might seem superficial is because it
is a way for us to see what is being proposed and what is there now so it is very critical to us
being able to review what is going on. So I agree with all the comments that have been made so
far and I have just a small handful of others.
I don’t want to get into the minutia of it but also I just want to say for the record that I am not
sure 11 x 17 is big enough for the maps to be meaningful. The reason is because we are looking
at a larger area and the maps that have been included do show the larger area but because things
are so small they are not very meaningful in looking at them in some cases.
So landmarks at a minimum need to be identified so you can get some kind of orientation. Some
of the street names are either not existing on the maps or they are obscured by transit routes for
instance so you can’t tell where you are. Changes that are being proposed on some of the maps I
find that you have to discover what the change is rather than change being clearly called out. I
would just say that many of these comments, not in this much detail, so maybe we weren’t clear
enough last time but many of these comments were made last time in requesting more
information on the maps. So hopefully we are being helpful here in giving the kinds of
information that will help us move forward with this and get to better, clearer result.
So having said that I think also might be some comments about the structure of Area Plan
update. Does anyone have comments on that? Commissioner Burt.
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: I don’t know if I would exactly call it structure but two fundamental
aspects of it. I know that Staff had stated that sections 2 and 4 at this time are principally
authored by Stanford but I think it is important that even if they have not been scrubbed by the
City and viewed through the consultants to make sure that we agree with the objectivity of the
statements made it would be good to make sure that the verbiage is neutral. If it is a reference
that means Stanford believes such and such then we ought to just say that as opposed to stating it
in what is a plan that is ostensibly a City plan and statements of fact which are opinions which
may in fact be true but have not been established or agreed upon as being such.
Also, I found segments of section 3 that did not look like they were neutral either so it is kind of
all mumbled together there and it gets confusing.
Then finally, I guess to take a step backward it is Policy L-46 1 think that talks about the Area
Plan requirement in the Comprehensive Plan. I would like to make sure that my understanding is
correct because the language is a little bit ambiguous. I said ’policy’ it is Program L-46. It states
work with Stanford to prepare an Area Plan for the medical center. Does ’work with Stanford’
mean that the City will prepare this document and a result of working with Stanford or that the
City and Stanford would be co-authoring this document? My interpretation would be the former
but I would like to hear a clarification on what Staff and the legal department believes.
Mr. Williams: Well we have kind of gone back and forth with that too. Stanford has done a lot
of the work on this document. They have at some points turned over, we have asked them for
the Word versions of it and we have gone and made changes on our own at other points we have
given them comments they have incorporated and at other points they have given us comments
to or changes that we have incorporated or not. So we feel like at this point it has pretty much
been jointly prepared but we have all the while along required them to provide us with the Word
versions of the documents because we want to have that final edit in terms of making changes. I
think we are probably going to be at a point here fairly soon where we kind of take it and run
with it. In terms of a lot of the background information and that it made sense to have them put a
lot of that in here. Then as far as especially the policy discussions and all that we have had a lot
of writing those sections and determining which Comprehensive Plan policies went in and the
key objectives are all ours that we added to the document.
Commissioner Burt: Let me try and clarify my question a little bit now based upon what I have
just heard from you. It sounds to me that Stanford’s contributions to this are valued, they are
substantive, that they will help expedite the process, but that the final ownership of the document
and editing of the document in the end is the authority of the City. Is that correct?
Mr. Williams: Yes. Is that right, Cara?
Ms. Silver: Yes. I think that the intent of Policy L-46 is that the City ultimately will have final
ownership over the document but there is a requirement to build in input from Stanford.
Mr. Doporto: I would like to address that as well. I think it is important to keep in mind that the
end result of this is not going to be a regulatory document. It is essentially a guidance document
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
4o
41
42
43
45
46
that my understanding is the goal of doing this document was to sort of reach a launching point
for the formal application and give the parties a context in which to develop the parameters of
the project. Once the formal application is submitted that is the going to be the document that
goes forward and establishes policies and regulations and controls the development. This
document is not a for lack of a better term a regulatory piece.
Commissioner Burr: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a similar take on it, which is that because this is not a regulatory
document there really is no need to edit or censer Stanford’s positions. What is necessary is to
distinguish the difference between Stanford’s position and the City of Palo Alto’s position. So
what I see in chapters 2 and 3 is perhaps what needs to happen is it be on Stanford second page
letterhead and identified as a Stanford document. Those pages that are Palo Alto’s pages could
be identified again with Palo Alto letterhead. Or another way to approach it is with typeface.
Palo Alto has their font, Stanford has their font, or one is done in italic the other is done in
regular typeface, but some way that we can distinguish the different points of view here. I think
it is important to hear from both sides. There isn’t going to be total agreement here but that is
not important. What is important here is to understand what the positions are and for both sides
to be able to respond to each other’s positions in a way that we can begin to formulate our
recommendations. So that is just my take on it.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: I would like to thank Commissioner Burt for bringing this topic up. I
have a slightly different take on some of the comments that were just made. First of all it is the
City’s document. It matters less to me who authors the words than that it speaks in the voice of
the City. To that end I would say rather than the document making clear whose objectives are
whose presumably Stanford is acting in the benefit of not only itself but of the community as is
the City. So presumably the goals should be the same and that they shouldn’t be distinguished
and that they should be one. Those are the objectives, which are guiding not only us but also
Stanford and their development. So there may be discussion that leads up to this particular
document where different objectives have to be distinguished and there is discussion about how
to reconcile them but this document should be the result of that reconciliation such that we both
have the same document that we are working from.
Let me just give you one example. On page 3.4 the following planning goals for the hospitals
and clinics development within the Stanford University Medical Center, etc. articulated here.
Are there any of those goals which do not directly support the City’s overarching goals as well?
If there were I would argue that they should be written in such a way that they do support the
City’s goals. I don’t want this document to be showing that there is a polarity it should be
showing that it is unified and that there is agreement on what those things are between both
parties.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: I wish that that agreement could be achieved so swiftly and effectively
but I think that while there are overlapping interests and desires by Stanford and Palo Alto and
the community I would be surprised if Stanford did not consider it in its own interest to minimize
the mitigations that it had to pay for. If Palo Alto had in its interest insuring that all impacts
identified were mitigated. Precisely because you have that difference in issue and concern I
expect that there may be things going on in here that come about from this. I think also Stanford
as any developer is concerned is trying to build a project that meets their needs since obviously
their needs do become needs of the community because of the health services that Stanford is
providing but nonetheless Stanford isn’t as concerned with whether this thing satisfies the
Comprehensive Plan if they can get it approved. While Palo Alto is very concerned about
whether it satisfies the Comprehensive Plan and puts that as part of the conditions for approval.
I would be quite amused to see a track changes version of this in Word since Word is a format
that does provide such capabilities. Then we could actually know which words came from where
and who created it and who edited it. That would be quite interesting.
I would like to bring up an issue in particular of Policy L-8, which is mentioned on 3.6.
Chair Holman: I think fight now if we could stay on the format of the document. If that has to
do with that then go fight ahead. If it doesn’t then let’s come back to that if you don’t mind.
Commissioner Keller: I would be happy to come back to it later.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: Yes, I just am harkening back to Steven’s words earlier tonight that said
that this is the first draft of a plan that will take about a year to complete. So what my
expectation is is that we will be seeing things in this document that until there is a meeting of the
minds, until there is agreement we are going to be seeing things from the City of Palo Alto’s
point of view and Stanford Hospital or Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital point of view such as
on page 2.1 the inadequate ability to serve constituents, LPCH states that its existing facilities do
not adequately serve the public. It is fine. It works for me. At some point in time that statement
will be able to be turned into existing Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital facilities do not
adequately serve the public. Right now it is an assertion of LPCH but when there becomes
agreement and a meeting of the minds on this I expect it to evolve and transform. So I am
echoing somewhat some of the thoughts that Commissioner Garber had but I don’t expect to see
the evolution of this, the final iteration, until it is done a year from now. Does that make sense?
Mr. Williams: Yes it does and what Steven said was exactly our take on it. There are areas in
here that we are not converging on right now. It doesn’t mean we won’t eventually but for now
we haven’t. What we have tried to do here was particularly for chapter 2 and 4 is to first preface
those and there is some red print in the margin before each of those trying to essentially say this
is draft language that will be evolved during the process, etc., etc. We also had Stanford reword
these sections to put ’state’ in in many, many places.
Page 27
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 Now it sounds like from what I have heard from a few of you that it is not uniform enough
2 maybe or something like that. So what I would prefer to do is maybe tweak that a little bit and
3 maybe strengthen that initial paragraph that I thought clearly says this section was prepared by
4 the project proponent and that we anticipate the rest of this we will be working to resolve and
5 confirm those and create a modified document as we move along or something like that. I don’t
think that it is necessary to go to the point of distinguishing it in terms of the typeface or putting
different letterhead on or something like that. I think we can do what you are trying to get done
just by some stronger statements initially and maybe being a little more uniform with some of
that language.
Then on chapter 3 what I think we need to do is go in there and look at those statements because
we don’t - that’s an area where I think we would like to have pretty uniform City positions on
that. If we don’t and any line that isn’t that should very specifically state that Stanford maintains
that or Stanford states that.
Commissioner Sandas: I might request that as we get closer to the final document, like I said in
my opinion and understanding is that we will probably get to just blanket language and not the
City of Palo Alto asserts this and Stanford asserts that, that it will be the meeting of the minds in
the document.
I was comparing the original draft document that we received in the brown binder with this first
draft. There were some substantial differences to it. I suspect that the next iteration that we see
won’t have really big substantial differences that we can clearly see by comparing page to page.
So I am wondering if the track and change option that we use with other things like ordinances is
something that we could use here until we come to the final document so that we are not
spending hours of study time trying to figure out what the differences are.
Mr. Williams: I certainly think at some point that is appropriate. If we are going to go through
and make these kinds of changes that I just mentioned that might get a little unwieldy to do it
right now. I think we need to get sort of a clean first version and then from there as we move
forward and we update it in three months or something like that then at that point I think showing
the changes would make sense.
Commissioner Sandas: Works for me.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert and then Commissioner Burt.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I don’t mean to imply that there are competing interests here with regard to
Stanford and Palo Alto. I think there are different and diverse points of view. It is so subtle as
the hospital in this case is regulated by an agency OSHPOD that has their requirements.
Stanford put on a program last week, which unfortunately I wasn’t able to attend which talked
about the state of healthcare and where it is going in term of technology, frankly the City has
been behind the eight ball when it comes to some of these things, how businesses are changing.
Our Zoning Ordinance Update is in some ways looking at use and zoning and how businesses
have changed so we are taking a fresh look at zoning in this case. In this case this is a Public
Facility, this is a hospital, and there have been many changes that have gone on in terms of how
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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
we now receive healthcare today. Frankly, our zoning might be a little bit behind the eight ball
in terms of that. So it is very important I think to get Stanford’s point of view in terms of how
they plan to deliver healthcare through this new medical facility. If it involves looking at new
ways, or understanding planning differently from their point of view I think it is important to
make that distinction very clearly in their words even though the City may not agree with it up
front but have it be distinguished enough that we can understand it as a body in terms of making
our recommendations. That’s all.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burr.
Commissioner Burt: I guess I would like to add a few more words on this subject. First we have
all been talking about doing this project as expeditiously as possible. Whether the tool to make
this document clear on who the author is on an interim basis, until it has been reconciled,
whether it is what Commissioner Sandas says or Vice-Chair Lippert, I don’t have such a strong
opinion on which tool is used. I don’t think we should be wasting a lot of time waiting for
Stanford to have their input characterized in a forthright manner as their opinion or input until it
has been reconciled. I had a good friend who used to write for the Children’s Hospital and
guarantee you she could in a very short period of time clean up this language and show
objectivity in the way it is being presented. So if we are all on the same page wanting to get this
done quickly and expeditiously I would like to ask Stanford to not try to interject their
perspective at this point in time as if it were the City’s perspective. Let’s just be straight, get it
done, move forward quickly, and we won’t waste a lot of time this way. I have seen the
characterizations of Palo Alto process. We get developers who drag their feet through different
things and then want to blame the Palo Alto process. I don’t want to see that done here. We are
all saying we want to get this done quickly let’s just be forthright in everything and it will move
the process forward more quickly.
Chair Holman: CommissionerKeller.
Commissioner Keller: Firstly I think that on the fundamental issues which is that the hospital
needs to be strengthened seismically and by that probably means replacement and that there are
as identified by a number of speakers and commonly understood the Stanford Hospital is short of
beds and the Children’s Hospital is short of beds. I that fundamentally there is wide agreement
on that. When you get down to the details that is where the things diverge.
I personally have less of a concern if chapter 2 of this document is written expressly from the
point of view of this is why Stanford wants to do this and explicitly says this is Stanford’s point
of view of why Stanford University wishes to, or needs to, or is required to do a facilities
renewal or replacement. I have much more of a concern with chapter 4 being written by
Stanford because chapter 4 is zoning and land use regulations existing and proposed. It seems to
me that that is fundamentally the City’s purview for which requests should come in from
Stanford. But just as chapter 3 identifies the plan elements and talks about broad planning
principles and things like that for which the City of Palo Alto has ownership similarly the City of
Palo Alto must have ownership of and control of and chapter 4 must be written from the point of
view of Palo Alto and not from the point of view of Stanford. So I am quite concerned with the
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
idea that chapter 4 is of Stanford authorship. There seems to be something wrong with the
process if that is the case.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, did you have a comment? Then we will try to move onto
the next topic.
Commissioner Garber: Yes, relative to this same topic. I want to come back to my feeling that
what this document should be doing here is creating objectives that both parties can move
forward on together. There may be, and I would be ignorant not to recognize them, differences
in opinion about how one does move forward and about what the solutions will be that actually
will answer those goals that are developed. If this document doesn’t do that I don’t think it is
operating or can be used in the way that it is supposed to. It may be that possibly there are a
group of items that are underneath each chapter of things that have yet to be resolved or
additional goals that need to be worked through as different milestones in the project are
addressed or that are contingent upon knowing different pieces of information for them to be
addressed at particular times during the process. I think a very close analysis of what those
things are will help sort some of those things out. I will leave it at that for the moment.
Chair Holman: I will just make a couple of quick comments here. There is no good or bad here.
There is not a good versus evil or an evil versus good or whatever. It is just a matter of being
able to get the best information out and know whose perspective it is. I dare say that there have
been probably different perspectives within the Stanford community of how best to accomplish
and solve the problems and the issues that they face. So it only makes sense that Stanford and
the City of Palo Alto are going to have different ways of coming at how to solve things as well
especially since a lot of data isn’t available right now it can’t be stated as fact. A lot of these
things can’t so it has to be that hospital states that. I think it is very important since it is going to
be a living document for awhile, I think it is really important for that differentiation to be made.
So I think we are going to be better informed if that differentiation is provided.
Given that, why don’t we go to trying to talk about the adequacy of the draft document,
identifying and describing key issues and relative importance of issues identified in the draft
document? I have a question first for City Attorney, either of you may respond to this. If there
are issues that come up but we overlook them and get them in here in this Area Plan or if they
are ones that come up later that are not in the Area Plan how is this document going to be used
when it comes to preparing the EIR? In other words, is this our one shot at it or can we still
supplement issues as we go along?
Ms. Silver: Yes, the intent of the parties is that this is just a draft plan and it will be an iterative
process and that it will be finalized at the end of the process. So as new issues arise the
document will incorporate those new issues and the Council and Planning Commission should
not be hesitant about adding new issues that come up in the public process, that come up in the
environmental analysis, or in other forums to this document. The document clearly is intended
to be draft at this stage and will incorporate ideas and concepts that are developed in the process.
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Thank you for that clarification. Given that let’s tackle chapter 1. It is 9:15
basically, do we want to set a target for this evening or have a break? This looks like a good
time to take a break so why don’t we take about an eight-minute break?
Okay, so we will reconvene the meeting. Commissioners, shall we talk about chapter 1?
Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I was going to first say that it would be helpful to have an unresolved
issues list that the Staff would maintain so that as issues are brought up they could simply be
recorded on an issues list. Then when they get resolved that would be noted and what the
resolution was. Otherwise it is kind of hard to keep track of all the things that are coming up.
The document might seem to be a suitable place for that but obviously issues are brought up and
it takes awhile to figure out how to address them in the document. It could be an appendix to the
document and it could be part of each meeting that we address this Staff Report. I don’t really
care how it is done. I think that would make it a lot easier to keep track of exactly the process
that we are going through.
Chair Holman: Does Staff want to comment on that?
Mr. Williams: That is fine. We are creating a sort of a master issues list anyway. I think we
would add to that kind of a questions list as well because some of it is information that is
requested as opposed to specifically an issue.
Commissioner Keller: The second process issue is I think it would be helpful at some time
during tonight’s process to the extent that Commissioners had specific questions or issues that
we wanted input from Stanford potentially by the July 11 meeting if it were available if those
could be put out on the table at tonight’s meeting so there would be the potential for a response.
Mr. Williams: I don’t have a problem putting them on the table but I can’t assure you and I
doubt that Stanford can at this point whether response would be ready. I am anticipating a
couple of the questions that Mr. Keller had in writing and I think it may take longer than that for
Stanford to get information together. In my mind it does not relate directly to the Area Plan
issue.
Chair Holman: Okay, questions or comments on chapter 1 identified on page 4 of the Staff
Report. Commissioner Sandas, having to do with the adequacy in identifying and describing key
issues, relative importance of issues identified in the draft document.
Commissioner Sandas: Oh boy, I hope I am meeting that criterion. I am looking at the
objectives on page 1.4 and the first objective in providing a long-term view of the land use for
the area leads to the second objective, which is establishing a context of broader campus and
community land use and infrastructure. There are a couple of things in this document overall
that keep nagging at me about including the shopping center in an overall study area plan.
Another one of the objective, the last objective, is reinforce Stanford planning and land use
principles. Again, it just tugs at me to say we have got to include the shopping center in with
that. Now I realize that the reason that we don’t is because Policy L-6 just states to work with
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Stanford to prepare an Area Plan for the Stanford Medical Center. So in discussing the adequacy
of the draft document I think that it would be more adequate to include or weave in the shopping
center plan with this. Now that I am thinking about I am not sure how easy that would be to do.
Maybe with the maps, maybe once again when we are looking at the maps we could look at that
because it is integrated as far as I am concerned.
Another thing that I wanted to address in terms of the draft document and key issues has to do
with the no net new trips. I don’t see anywhere in the entire document, I realize we are looking
at chapter 1, but on page 1.11 it says, In addition, the General Use Permit allows a maximum of
2,300 new parking spaces in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Well, I am having a hard time
reconciling new parking spaces with no net new trips. I don’t know how that can be addressed.
I don’t see it addressed here. So I would like to have that addressed in the draft document. I
think I will stop talking about chapter 1 at this point. Thanks.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: In looking at some of the plates on this, some of the plan, I have a comment
on page 1.3, Plan 1-2, which is the Plan Area Boundary. I guess what would be helpful here is to
understand, maybe this is not right but, shouldn’t there be parcel lines that are associated with
specific buildings are areas? In the Stanford Research Park even though it is all Stanford land
and it is leased there are boundaries associated with each complex of buildings, say for instance
SAP or Hewlett Packard or whoever the entity that is leasing those lands are and there are
development regulations associated with where those boundaries are located.
In this case here you have multiple users or multiple facilities associated with this area and I
think it would be very helpful to understand where those boundaries are in terms of each
individual parcel there. So for instance the Hoover Pavilion what are the boundaries for that?
Adjacent to that is the Palo Alto substation and then also adjacent to that is a parking lot. I think
that helps in terms of understanding the context and the relationships of some of the
infrastructure that is going to be going in there. In addition to that when you get further down in
the plan where you get into the medical center itself you have the Packard Children’s Hospital
and then you have the Stanford University Medical Center, well it is really all one building. Are
they multiple tenants on parcel or is there actually a dividing line between the two facilities? So
I think understanding that is part of the documentation that we need to look at here.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: There are two items I would like to bring up. One is kind of an overriding
objective that I couldn’t really find identified in the ones that are stated there although I am open
for Staff to point it out to me. That is something along the lines of identify the benefits and
impacts on Palo Alto and surrounding communities. That seems like that is a more all
encompassing way to look at being inclusive of all aspects of the ramifications of the plan.
Then the other item is under the fourth bullet of those that have been identified by the City of
Palo Alto it talks about looking to promote linkages for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and
within the shopping center and SUMC, the campus, Palo Alto Transit Center, Downtown and
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
46
nearby neighborhoods. It doesn’t talk about neighboring communities. In particular when we
reviewed the cancer center back six or seven years ago one of the things that was identified was
that for not only the prospective cancer center but for all of Stanford Hospital a very high
percentage of the service workers that were employed at the medical center overall and the
Children’s Hospital reside in East Palo Alto. They were very poorly served by transit. Since
then it has been somewhat improved by big SamTrans lines running down University to the train
station but to me this is one of the big gaps that we have, having an efficient transit system that
serves east-west not just north-south. That is not exactly the geography but running between
East Palo Alto and this entire complex of the hospital area as well as the train station and the
shopping center. So I would like to have that explicitly identified.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Again, just for clarification we are talking about chapter 1,
the Introduction. Just a couple of quick comments.
In the Purposes section it would be helpful to have a brief description to describe the Area Plan
in its relationship to what the purpose of the EIR and what the relationship and the scope of the
Development Agreement will be so that people can understand what the scope of the Area Plan
is. I don’t that is more than a sentence or two but by comparing it to those other two tools that
maybe helpful for how this is understood to be used.
My other comment is one I think more to my other Commissioners here and it relates to a
comment that has come up a couple of times in some of the previous presentations. That is
should there be in the historic discussion that is in the latter portion of this chapter an expanded
description of drivers and bases for expansion of the previous Area Plan and the EIR that was
done for the cancer center? I am asking some of the Commissioners who had brought this topic
up in previous meetings.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert did you want to respond or Curtis did you want to
respond?
Mr. Williams: Well, I am just trying to in terms of locating it, so like on 1.7, the second
paragraph there discusses the cancer center a little bit. Are you looking there for some additional
discussion of what the impetus was for that?
Commissioner Garber: The discussion as I am recalling it, was there were different outcomes
that the University responded to in coming up with the size and scope of the cancer center, which
I am thinking maybe the drivers were different, maybe the issues are different, and the objectives
are different between then and now. Some of the discussion was how are those things linked, are
they linked, if they are is there any causality between what was done previously and now? So I
am just looking if there is any desire by members of the Commission to expand some discussion
about that topic such that we can see the current effort in light of an historical one.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert did you have a follow up or comment to that?
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
Vice-Chair Lippert: When Commissioner Garber had mentioned that it sort of jogged my
memory a little bit in terms of some of this. For instance the Hoover Pavilion building is an
historic structure. Part of it is that they are going to be building around that and I didn’t see
anything in here in terms of addressing the historic nature of that building or what the process
will be for making those determinations with the Historic Resources Board. Where would that
fall in the context of this?
Mr. Williams: It is in the land use section. It talks about it and identifies as an issue the historic
resources and particularly Hoover Pavilion.
Vice-Chair Lippert: When would they weigh in on this?
Mr. Williams: That would be with the EIR. We have an historic consultant on board with the
EIR consultant to look at that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then the second element is the preservation of the Governor’s Lane.
Is that addressed in here at all?
Mr. Williams: I don’t think so.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, then that is something that we want to address.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Yes. Having not been involved in this process as long as some of my
esteemed colleagues the statement that a document called a Land Use Area Analysis is an Area
Plan is confusing to me although it says that the City Council accepted Stanford’s document of a
Land Use Area Analysis as an Area Plan. So I am still confused about that. I guess the 2000
plan was the Land Use Area Analysis.
With respect to the plan area the small triangle of land that is being proposed to be annexed leads
to two different concepts of what the plan area is. If you look on Figure 1-1 on page 1.2 the plan
area there does not include that triangle of land and when you look at 1-2 the Plan Area
Boundary, which also has in it a legend that says Plan Area it does include that triangle. So I
would like to see some delineation of those two so that the plan area in 1.1 is consistent with the
plan area in 1.2 1 presume by including that triangle of land.
Chair Holman: Could you be more specific about where that triangle is so everybody is
following with you?
Commissioner Keller: Yes. The triangle is located in the middle of the bottom box, the bottom
line. There is a bottom line that goes along Pasture Drive and then it makes a jog to the lower
end of the page. On 1-1 it is a perpendicular jog and in 1-2 it is a diagonal jog and that is
because of a new building that is being placed across that boundary and therefore the triangle is
proposed to be annexed in order so that building is entirely within one jurisdiction namely the
City of Palo Alto. I like consistency so that would be nice to me.
Page 34
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 One of the things I think would be worthwhile from an overarching perspective is understanding
3 of the benefits to the communities. Obviously there is a benefit to Stanford in terms of meeting
4 the requirements of the state and meeting the needs of its user community and whatever. There
5 obviously is a benefit to Palo Alto from having a hospital that is safe and has sufficient capacity
6 to satisfy the needs of Palo Alto. But clearly as is indicated throughout the document how this
7 institution serves such a wide area from southern San Mateo County to presumably all of Santa
8 Clara County and San Benito County and who knows where else, the idea that this benefits a
wide area and the nature of that benefit to that wide area is worthwhile identifying.
It is also worthwhile identifying the nature of the impact on the area. To what extent is the
impact localized to Palo Alto? To what extent is the impact also imposed on Menlo Park or
Portola Valley or Los Altos Hills? I would presume that the impact would be more localized
than the benefit. I think that that distinction between the potential impacts of this project versus
the potential benefits of this project that distinction I think is worthwhile identifying.
On page 1.10 it refers to the land use agreement and it talks about the potential for land use and
annexation in planning and development. I will use this as a placeholder for my comment about
whether the land use agreement means that the medical offices that are identified on some of the
diagrams in section 3 as being on county land as a result of that three-party agreement need to be
annexed to Palo Alto. So I would like some clarity on that.
One of the discussions that is being made is that there is a medical school building, which
straddles Palo Alto and Stanford and county lands as it exists. One alternative is obviously to
annex the triangle of land so that Stanford Medical School building is entirely with the Palo Alto
jurisdiction. The alternative is to de-annex it so it is entirely in the county jurisdiction. So that is
one thing to consider.
Finally I would like to understand the clarity of the issue in terms of the scope of the Area Plan
and to what extent is the impacts and linkages and things like that that are outside of the plan are
boundary to what extent are those germane to the understanding of what goes on inside the Area
Plan boundary? So throughout the whole document there are various kinds of references to
things that happen outside and a clarity with respect to the nature of those linkages, not formally
in terms of the linkages referred to in chapter 3 but in terms of the connections if you will, in
terms of the relevance of things going outside to what happens inside and what of those
connections is relevant to the scope of what is inside and therefore relevant to the Area Plan. I
think that some degree of clarity on that would be helpful.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: One comment that I missed earlier on chapter 1 relative to the adequacy
of the draft document in identifying and describing key issues is the issue of sustainability. I was
just remembering that it came up the other night at the community roundtable. One of the City
of Palo Alto objectives is to provide for exemplary, sustainable, and green building design to
achieve the equivalent of LEED Silver Certification for the project, which is fabulous. There is
no question that that is not a wonderful thing. I think I mentioned at the last meeting that it
Page 35
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
appears that the intent of this whole project is to be pretty green. I am wondering if that can be
described more in the draft document as an overarching theme with the linkages and traffic
reduction and no net new trips, etc., etc. It seems that we are planning for a more green
development and I would like to see that stated clearly.
Chair Holman: My comments are few on this. It is trying to draw a line between one chapter
and another actually because the purposes are laid out in chapter 1, those of Stanford those of the
City of Palo Alto, but the issue aren’t really clearly laid out. So I don’t know, for me that is,
because the introductory chapter is kind of the overriding, was Staff’s intention that the issues
would just be spelled out in the other chapters as opposed to in the introductory? It is a little -
where do you draw that line?
Mr. Williams: Right. It was intended to spell them out in chapter 3 in particular and go through
them sort of one by one there. I think the confusion may be that we have essentially put the
objectives that address those issues in the introduction so we should probably either identify
what the issues are here as well or not have these. We already have some purposes and
objectives here that are more general in nature preceding this list of the objectives and maybe the
list of the objectives should not be here but be back where you have the issues and the objectives
discussed and just leave pages 1.4 and 1.5 with those handful of more overarching objectives that
are listed there, the ones shared by the Stanford and the City of Palo Alto in particular that are
just more of an introductory overview of general objectives. Then get to those issue specific
objectives when we get back with the issues.
Chair Holman: I almost was headed the other direction and I apologize. I was really kind of
headed the other direction because this introduction, the first subhead is Purpose and Objectives.
So it would seem to me that this introduction would be the place to have the comprehensive list
of objectives and the comprehensive list of issues. Then take them up again in the specific
chapters. It seems like this is a place where you can get your arms around the larger issues.
Mr. Williams: It becomes a little more of a summary than an introduction then but that is fine.
That is not a big deal it is just a little repetitive but that’s fine.
Chair Holman: Okay. That was really my main comment. I see Commissioner Keller has
another question or comment.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, a quick thing with respect to the list the City of Palo Alto has
identified the following planning objectives on page 1.5. Since I know that a number of the City
Council Members identified this and we have been talking about it a lot I think it would be
worthwhile making no new net car trips to the extent that that is an objective being explicitly
listed here. I think it is an organizing principle throughout and it should be given prominence in
this location as much as the identify traffic solutions that minimize the use of single occupancy
vehicles.
Chair Holman: Any other comments by Commissioners on chapter 1? I had just one and it is
akin to my previous comment and don’t want to beat this. Just for clarity, on page 1.12 the
applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, goals, and programs, Staff has added governance and
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
regulations. Those are the only Comprehensive Plan policies that Staff was intending as a part of
this chapter, right? The ones that have to do with governance?
Mr. Williams: Which?
Chair Holman: It is on page 1.12.
Mr. Williams: It is kind of out of place. This is again gets to be more like a summary so it really
encompasses all of these Comprehensive Plan policies that follow in here. So I think we should
probably look at these and see if they belong back with some of those other ones and not have
them up in this first section. Maybe all we focus on is L-46 because that is really the one policy
that directs us to do this Area Plan.
Chair Holman: That would seem to make more sense. Do Commissioners have any questions or
comments about that? Seeing none we can move onto the second chapter, Facilities Renewal
and Replacement Needs. I just want to make sure here, so nobody has any additional comments
at this time about the adequacy of the draft document identifying and describing key issues and
relative importance of issues identified in the draft document? Seeing none we will go to
chapter 2.
I have a general comment about relative importance of issues. It doesn’t apply to chapter 1 but
going forward it just may. Relative importance of issues if they are in the Comprehensive Plan
and issues that come out of topics that are undertaken in the Comprehensive Plan, doing the
Comprehensive Plan how do we determine what the relative importance of those is? That means
we prioritize which ones are more important? Without having the EIR information we don’t
know maybe a majority of the Commissioners would think this is less important let’s say for
instance but not knowing what the impacts might be it might make it more important. So I guess
I would need a little bit of clarification on what Staff is intending by relative importance of
issues identified.
Mr. Williams: You mean our statements of relative?
Chair Holman: It is on page 4, your first bullet. Staff recommends the Commission and Council
- it is your first bullet.
Mr. Williams: I think we are talking more about relevancy than relative importance. If
something seems like it is in the list of Comprehensive Plan policies but it is there is really very
little real relationship to that issue we want to know that and maybe we don’t include it. We
have tried to identify ones that we think all have some relevance to the issues at hand. I think
otherwise you will be using this list again as Dan mentioned before as sort of the context for
when the projects come through and at any point in time some of those may be important for one
topic and then some others may be important for another topic you are discussing. If you see
some in there that you feel like maybe don’t have a particular level of significance we could
exclude those. We have tried to be maybe all inclusive or as inclusive as we could be with this
list. You will see particularly in transportation there are three transportation areas, linkages,
vehicular, and transit and pedestrian. There are a lot of redundant Comprehensive Plan policies
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
and that. We have tried to match them to those issues but again if you feel it is more appropriate
to narrow those down and focus on some that apply more to the one topic at hand than another
then we can do that.
Chair Holman: So if I could summarize what you are basically saying is the most relevant not
really the relative importance is a clearer way of putting it. Okay, Commissioners, chapter 2,
Facilities Renewal and Replacement Needs. Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner
Garber.
Commissioner Keller: There are a couple of things that could be done to make it clearer. In
particular one thing that would be helpful from my point of view is to have some things more in
tabular format. If you for example had a table with one row being the Stanford Hospital and
clinics and the other table being the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and the columns could
be the current licensing of authorized number of beds currently allowed, the existing number of
beds, the incremental number of beds that Stanford and the hospital and Children’s Hospital are
planning to add, and the new total number of beds that are being proposed. I think that a tabular
format like that would allow things to be much clearer.
Similarly on page 2.3 there is a narrative of single bed patient rooms with a bunch of numbers
going in there saying how many square feet were being added in order to have single patient
rooms. To me that would also be useful in calling out in some table that indicates what square
footage is being used for the existing rooms, what square footage is being added to create those
two single patient rooms and how much square footage is being added because of adding new
patient rooms. So in some sense something of that form for the Children’s Hospital and for the
Stanford Hospital would just make it a lot easier to understand rather than looking at it in terms
of a narrative that is hard to compare. I will reserve comments for later.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: A couple of comments. I am a little confused at to the direction that this
chapter wants to take. Rather than addressing that directly let me try it obliquely. Each one of
the paragraphs is really written in problem statement form. There is a problem that we need to
meet the California State Senate Bill of 1953, it is just written that way. Those are motivators as
opposed to drivers. Nowhere am I seeing something that what the drivers are to meet regulatory
compliance issues, to meet community demand, and to sustain and advance the institution’s
mission. That is what the drivers are. Each one of those drivers has a series of motivators that
has a cause that it is responding to a problem. That sort of a statement can exist at the beginning
as a way of structuring the understanding of those motivators or it can go at the end as a result of
analyzing those motivators as problems.
The other thing that I would like to see here is something that is a bit of a theme this evening and
that is that it would be nice to have a proactive benefits statement. This is a good thing because
it is going to do this for the community. I have a couple of others but I will come back to them.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Page 38
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
Commissioner Sandas: I am kind of combining things that I found in a couple of chapters.
There was one thing here in chapter 2 that motivated my memory. On page 2.4 Stanford
Hospital and Clinics, the second paragraph says, SHC has projected its need in order to viably
meet current and future demand requires an increase of 144 beds to a total of 600 beds. I am in
no position to second-guess that. I think there is a large group of us who are sort of aging in bulk
and the hospital is allowed 613 beds now will 600 beds be enough 20 years from now? Like I
said I am not in a position to second guess that number, however there is another I think it must
be in chapter 3 another statement that talks about planning with flexibility. We certainly aren’t
going to know the healthcare needs in the future. We don’t know how medical delivery,
healthcare delivery is going to change, etc., etc. One of the statement suggests that the planning
be done with some flexibility and I am hoping that is true also in determining the number of beds
that we will be planning and building these hospitals with enough flexibility that if they need 13
more beds or some such number that they will be able to do it. So that just is a key issue in my
mind.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Just one request for a small clarification on page 2.1 under the SB 1953 the
second to last sentence talks about for the Children’s Hospital that its facility meets the structural
performance criteria for the 2030 deadline but significant non-structural renovations to critical
care areas are required by 2013. It would just be helpful to understand a little more about what
that is referring to.
Chair Holman: I had a few comments. I think there might be more. What I did here and
understand that Staff says that this is primarily Stanford prepared material, their presentation
here. I think if it is going to be a part of this document that again has both logos on it that if it is
a presumption by Stanford or proposal by Stanford then it needs to be stated as such. There are
numerous places in this chapter where there might be a sentence that says Stanford asserts, or
SUMC has stated that, but then many other things don’t. So there is really a lack of clarity in
this section to me because if the whole section said this section was prepared by Stanford, fine
but then where there is a mixture of statements that are represented as, I shouldn’t say Stanford
that is shorthand, that the medical center has made a statement and others don’t then I think it
leads to confusion.
Say for instance as an example on page 2.2 under Statutory Code Requirements, the second
bullet, it says, Oversized mechanical ductwork for sophisticated air handling systems to prevent
the spread of infections and maintain sterile environment, etc. I know the City has a consultant
that is looking at these issues to do a peer review so those kinds of statements where they are
made without some kind of qualifier lead to conclusions on the parts of people. So I think it is
important to give that clarity. I know we have talked about that but it really is proliferate in this
second chapter.
Additionally, on page 2.7 a few questions. The existing square feet, is that going to be also
confirmed by the City? Are there permits that can be looked at to see how many square feet
currently exist? It is important because that is baseline so is that part of what will be confirmed?
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
Mr. Williams: It will be confirmed but not necessarily by our peer review consultant. Staff can
look at information based on that probably on our own and confirm that information. If we need
to have her involved we will but we can verify that.
Chair Holman: Okay. Same thing here if this is the Stanford summary, Stanford Hospital
summary, of net square foot request and it should indicate such the same with all of the maps
following. If it said proposed where Stanford Hospital and clinics proposed demolition so that
the identifiers are quite clear.
Also I was curious about something not that I need to know this but I was curious about
something. I went back and looked in the brown binder that we got previously and there are
some numbers that differ between the brown binder and this. For instance Quarry Road site has
100,000 square feet of additional square feet and under the offices I believe it is, 800 Welch
Road has an additional 32,700 square feet, and there is additional demolition there too. So I am
presuming that is intentional and accurate but I was interested that it changed. I think I will stop
there for the moment. Anyone? Commissioner Lippert. I apologize I looked the wrong way,
Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: First let me mention that on page 2.4 it states that LPCH is currently
licensed for 257 beds. Based on my question 25 to Staff it indicated that LPCH currently has
216 beds onsite. So that is something that should be added to this just like the information on the
Stanford Hospital and clinics indicate how many beds there were and how many were being
increased.
When you go then on page 2.7, Figure 2-3 indicates beds existing 257 to private and I assume
that is really 216 beds. I am wondering if the calculation is correct if it is based on 257 beds or
based on 216 beds. So some clarity on that would be helpful.
The next question has to do with context and numbers appearing without context. So if you look
on the bottom of page 2.1 it says that according to LPCH the hospital was forced to turn away
200 critically ill children. Well, out of how many? SHC states that it turned away 500 adult
patients in 2005, out of how many? Then when we have on the bottom of that paragraph which
continues on 2.2 or maybe it is the next paragraph, the top paragraph on page 2.2 says that in
2005 approximately 950 visitors were referred to other emergency departments due to lack of
capacity. Based on my question 24 that turns out to be 950 patients out of 39,103 which is
approximately two percent. It is about two percent of the number of patients were turned away.
So what I am wondering is how does this benchmark to other hospitals in terms of their capacity,
in terms of how many people they turn away. Certainly it is not good to turn away any but how
many does the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center turn away? How many does E1 Camino
Hospital turn away? Is this within the range of how many get turned away usually? Obviously
turning away is bad but in some sense understanding these numbers in context would be helpful
to me. Understanding California Senate Bill 1953 in context leads is the reason for that and
leads to my questions one through four, which I appreciate Stanford providing answers to those
things. If Stanford doesn’t wish to provide a timeline simply giving us the documents that were
filed with OSHPOD with respect to the building evaluation plans that are supposed to be filed
with OSHPOD by January 1, 2001 and the compliance plans which were supposed to be filed by
Page 40
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
no later than January 1, 2002, having copies of those documents which should be easy for
Stanford to make available since those were filed five or six years ago seems to be quite
reasonable. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Any other comments about the adequacy of the draft document identifying and
describing key issues, we are talking chapter 2 here, and the most relevant issues? Any more
comments on this chapter? Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: This comment isn’t specific to this chapter but I am bringing it up in this
chapter because it has to do with this absolutely great chart that is on 2.7, which is the summary
of net square feet request and then chart number 2-3, Summary of Space Drivers. In my concern
that the hospital’s peer review consultant who is preparing the analysis of modern hospital
standards in order to provide background information to the Commission, City Council, and
members of the public. That presentation’s scope is not just about the size of hospital rooms
getting bigger but it is about the quantity of them and the other drivers that have been identified
in this particular chapter. It may be that that is beyond the scope of her specific task but the real
issue here is what drivers contribute overall to the square footage being what is being requested.
So the comment here is that I don’t know if this presentation that is being planned will include
that and if it doesn’t should we ask for a study session about that or is there a way to address this
in a more comprehensive way? Or is this in fact comprehensive and I am just not reading it that
way?
Mr. Turner: This initial presentation by our peer review consultant may not go specifically into
the data that is in the Area Plan and that this data currently is just conceptual we do not have an
official application in. Once we do have an official application in that would be the data to
which our peer review consultant would respond. I think generally she can give a presentation
regarding as you say the drivers and what is driving the number of rooms, the increase in the
number of rooms, or the size of a room, or verticality versus horizontally. She will be able to
speak to that generally for other hospital projects but she may not be able to speak right now
about specific numbers that are simply conceptual at this time.
Commissioner Garber: I guess what I am trying to think is that what I would not expect is a
replication of the presentation that was made by the hospital’s consultants last week. But that it
would be informed by some of the interests of the City and the community not again just
focusing on the unit of the room, which is important and it is important for people that don’t
understand that to understand that, but more broadly why it is the community is being asked to
review a 1.2 million square foot project, of which rooms are just one portion of that. So if that
question needs to be answered in a forum that is not being addressed here I think it needs some
other place for that information to land and for it to be aired if you follow me.
Mr. Turner: I believe that our consultant will be able to get there and answer those questions but
again since she doesn’t have specific information she is probably less comfortable on
commenting on a conceptual project rather than the official project.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, did you have one more question?
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
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: Yes. In follow up to Commissioner Garber’s question I notice that based
on my calculation the number of beds in the Stanford Hospital will be increased by
approximately one-third. So there will be about 33 percent more beds in the new hospital than
there were in the old hospital. Based on my calculation given the response to question 25 there
will be approximately two-thirds or 67 percent more beds in the new Children’s Hospital than in
the old Children’s Hospital as it currently is constituted based on the data. So it seems to me that
while I am not doubting Stanford’s claim that they need that many beds having documentation as
to how that number came about and why they need that kind of expansion would be helpful.
Also looking at the nice charts on page 2.7 firstly the chart 2-2 it would be helpful if there were a
New Total. All I have is ’Existing,’ ’Additional,’ ’Demolition,’ and ’Net Add,’ but no New
Total. I like new totals it gives me an idea of what would be there instead. It seems to be very
easy to calculate so why not add it?
Secondly the calculation of what currently exists seems to be odd from my perspective. For
example if you look at the row on 2-2 that is labeled ’Hoover Site’ there is blank under Existing.
Now we know that there is a building there because Stanford is proposing to convert that
building from use by the medical center people to use by the community physicians. So that is
missing from there. I would expect that number would be existing, obviously nobody is
proposing it be demolished but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be included. I wonder what
else is not included in this. There are no rows within that column other than the subtotals so it is
hard for me to figure out how this is divided up and how it is going. What there simply is are
descriptions of the change and there should be a better description of what exists.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Just one small thing that I got reminded of on Table 2.2 on page 2.7, the
second column refers to ’Additional Square Feet,’ which sounds like net but they have another
column on the far right that is ’Net.’ I think a different title would help clarify for everybody
what that is referring to whether it is new construction or something that - I think that is what it
means, right? It is not additional it is what is the new stuff and then you subtract what you
teardown and then you get the net.
Chair Holman: I am pausing because I had another question and it has slipped out of my mind
so I guess we will skip it at this point. It is 10:20 and the Commission kind of set a time of 10:30
to conclude this evening. I think it is actually an opportune place to quite because chapter 3 has
to do with the planning elements and I think if we could come back next time with some of the
mapping requests that we have asked for this evening that might help us review the last two
chapters of this document in better context. Does Staff want to comment about what we might
be able to achieve by next meeting, July 11?
Mr. Williams: We will obviously have to confer with Stanford folks as to making some of the
map changes but what I would like to suggest, and being cognizant that next Wednesday is July
4 and I don’t know how many people are around for all four of the other days of the week as
well, that we come back to you with two or three new maps. We are not going to be able to redo
all the maps. Maybe give you examples of how we can maybe combine some of the information
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
into one larger map and make some of the other tweaks that you suggested to make things
standout more clearly, put the legends where they belong, use the space better, and that kind of
thing. Those would be probably most effective if they are from chapter 3 so that they would also
be helpful in your review but we won’t have all of the chapter 3 maps to do that with.
Then also make a recommendation to you on other changes that we would suggest be made here
in terms of the comments you have made today. We can give you just a list, I have been noting
here things, but we won’t actually make those changes by the 11th but we can give you a list of
what we think are the kinds of changes we would make including how we would treat chapter 2
in particular in terms of trying to modify that to reflect that that is Stanford’s product type thing,
and chapter 4. We would deal with that.
Then my suggestion would be to go through chapters 3 and 4 next time and we can decide out of
that which additional items we would make modifications to if you are okay with the mapping
approach that is some thing, and carry that all forward as our recommendation to the Council to
make those changes. The Council is scheduled on the 23rd tO discuss this. Then assuming that
they say these are good changes go ahead and do that then we would come back to you at some
point relatively quickly after that with all those changes made and one more review by you to
make sure we kind of got what you were telling us to do in the plan.
Chair Holman: Sounds good. Any comments or questions about that? Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I have a specific request with respect to Figure 3-8 where the
emergency room is placed currently where the building is being demolished. I believe that is
being relocated. So clarity about the relocation of the emergency room to me is something that is
important enough to identify that and related to that is how patients would get from the
emergency room to the Children’s Hospital. That is something I am expecting that Stanford will
figure that out at some point. Somebody will figure it out, not me.
The second thing is with respect to item L-8 on page 3.6 indicates that there is a cap on
development of 3.26 million square feet approximately of new nonresidential development. It
seems to me that at some point in the process, not necessarily by July 11 but at some point in the
process, it would be helpful to identify how many of those millions of square feet have been used
up since 1989 and how many of them have been promised like for example a quarter of a million
square feet to the Stanford industrial park and a certain amount I believe in Downtown, and how
many of them would be used up by this expansion, and how many would be left. I think that
context would be helpful at some point in the not too distant future. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Seeing no other questions or comments. Curtis, did you have something else to
say? Okay. So we will continue this item then to July 11. We don’t need a motion to do that I
don’t believe, do we? Okay. Commissioner Lippert.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Lippert: I move that this item be continued to a date certain, July 11, 2007
Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
SECOND
Commissioner Keller: Second.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Tuma not participating)
Chair Holman: Motion by Commissioner Lippert and second by Commissioner Keller. All
those in favor say aye. (ayes) That motion passes unanimously on a six to zero vote with
Commissioner Tuma not participating.
I want to thank everyone for their indulgence this evening for representative of the University
and the medical center for coming and members of the public as well.
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
Planning and Transportation Commission
July 11, 2007
Verbatim Minutes
DRAFT EXCERPT
Stanford Medical Center Pro,iect: Review and recommendation to the City Council of
the update to the Stanford Medical Center Area Plan for the expansion and modernization of the
Stanford University Medical Center.
Mr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner: Good evening Commissioners. I will just give a brief
update of the materials that were given to you in this week’s packet. You will notice in the
memorandum or the attachments to the memorandum Staff has returned with a summary of the
requested changes and additions from the last Planning and Transportation Commission meeting
to the maps and to the various chapters of the Area Plan Update.
Part of the changes included changes to the maps that were part of the Area Plan. What Staff has
done is updated three of the maps and presented those maps to you in your packets this evening.
They are Maps 3.6, which talks about linkages, Map 3.12 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections,
and Map 4.2 Zoning. So all of the changes that have occurred on those maps have been listed on
Attachment A under Maps.
Also at your places this evening Staff has presented 11 x 17 copies of those maps in portrait size.
So they are much larger than the original maps that the Commission received on June 27.
Really, they have the same information on both sets of maps but this is just a larger view. The
Commission can provide comment to Staff over which map they prefer, whether you prefer these
larger maps that have been put at your places or if you believe that the maps contained in your
memorandum this evening kind of in landscape mode are appropriate. We would like to have
that information as well.
We can answer any questions and we can go over the list of items in Attachment A regarding
your changes if you would like, otherwise that completes the Staff Report for tonight.
Chair Holman: Okay. I thought what we would do this evening with the concurrence of
Commission is we would address this in some kind of order, hopefully. So the first thing we
could do is comment on the list of Area Plan revisions that were recommended by Commission
last time. So if Commissioners have any comments, additions, or corrections on those we would
do those first. So if we could keep our discussion limited to that for the first topic.
Then the second topic would be we would comment on the adequacy of the maps. We might just
take a couple minute break here and look at the new maps that have been provided compared to
the ones that have in our packet when we get to that just so we know what we are commenting
on and be better informed on that. Then go to chapter 3 and chapter 4.
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
So if Commissioners are in agreement with that it might help structure our discussion.
Commissioner Garber, would you care to start on comments on the concurrent list. I don’t have
any cards from any members of the public so if there is nothing new that anybody has to offer to
this discussion. So we will take just a couple of minutes to look at these maps compared to the
ones we got in our packets.
Okay so the first thing that we will undertake then is comments, questions, clarifications,
suggestions on the list that Staff has put together based on our last meeting having to do with the
review of chapters 1 and 2 that we undertook last time and of the maps. So Commissioner
Garber would you care to start on that list?
Commissioner Garber: Some questions and some comments. In the Table of Contents these
sections 1, 2, 3, 4 the Introduction, is the purpose of the Introduction to introduce the Area Plan
and its purposes or is it the project itself? I guess I am addressing this to Steve.
Mr. Turner: The Introduction is for the Area Plan.
Commissioner Garber: Then the second section is really talking specifically about the drivers of
the project as opposed to the Area Plan?
Mr. Turner: That is correct.
Commissioner Garber: So just one suggestion that your title might simply say ’Area Plan
Introduction’ to make that clear and then the second one maybe introduce this as the ’Project
Drivers’ or something that refers to the project itself as opposed to the Area Plan.
In the suggestions that you have listed in the packet here, the other PTC Changes, chapter 1,
bullet number one, Project Benefits, that suggestion had originally been made to be included in
chapter 2. Maybe there is a thought that you had of including it in the first chapter given that it is
the project’s benefits as opposed to the Area Plan’s benefits? Again, a suggestion.
The other thing that I will again make a plea for is that because this is a large project and it
provides significant benefit to both Stanford and Palo Alto which is the community that
Stanford’s project will serve, I again think it is important that the goals of the project be shared
between the two entities for the mitigations of the project’s impacts to be seen as supporting the
project benefits hence both entities, which isn’t to say that the solutions and the actual
mitigations are shared necessarily. Both parties may have to do separate things, which are
germane to their auspice to do.
Mr. Curtis Williams, Assistant Director: Can I ask a question about that? We did look at that
and are you looking in chapter 1 then where those objectives are stated? On page 1.4 and 1.5.
Commissioner Garber: Yes, I am thinking of that specifically.
Mr. Williams: So I think in looking back at that what we saw was that first group, this is the way
we laid it out, that first group of five bullets under Objectives is something that both Stanford
Page 2
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
and the City clearly are interested in and it says they are shared by Stanford and the City. The
second goup as laid out is not necessarily, certainly we don’t have any problems with it in terms
of Stanford’s objectives but these are not really the City’s objectives in terms of integrating
clinical and academic activities for instance. Then the third group I don’t think we can speak for
Stanford and say that they are necessarily sharing those objectives but those are driven by our
Comprehensive Plan so that is why they are identified as our objectives. So I am not sure how
much we can really say that all of these are shared objectives and that is why we tried to pull out
those first five or so.
Commissioner Garber: I don’t disagree. I guess what I am getting at is the way in which it has
been structured perhaps. If we thought of this differently for a moment which is let’s say that
Stanford didn’t decide to improve their facilities but it became so evident to the City that the
improvement needed to be made and the City were writing a letter to Stanford to say you need to
improve your facilities and here is why. Those goals would be shared then between us and them
because it is benefiting our community as well as the goals of Stanford at that point.
Some of these things that I see here, specifically on 1.5, I am thinking specifically of ’reinforce
Stanford’s planning and land use principles. I could read that less as an objective than as a
constraint by how the project is going to be approached by Stanford or criteria as opposed to an
objective or a goal.
Many of the things that are in the City of Palo Alto’s planning objectives there are if you will not
Area Plan specific but they are project specific about how the City intends to presumably
evaluate the project itself and might be more appropriate in the following section, as they relate
to the project as opposed to the goals of the Area Plan. Does that make any sense?
Mr. Williams: Yes it does. I think we could certainly look at that second group and see how we
can integrate maybe with a statement rather than a list of objectives to kind of integrate that. The
third list I think we talked a little bit about this last time is that you said they are specific to the
project. I see them being specific to the Area Plan as well but they are specific to issues in the
Area Plan. So we had talked last time about either leaving these, these are repeated in fact they
are actually filled out and there are more words in those objectives in the Land Use section and
then in the individual issues that each one of those pops up in. We can either leave them there or
what we talked about last time was sort of having an introduction to this before you hit those
objectives that says this Area Plan has focused on the following issues and list all those issues,
and has then derived these following objectives for those and then list all of those. I think that is
what we have noted here as a change that we would make under the third bullet under chapter 1,
but we could go either way with that if you feel like it is more appropriate to have them later.
Commissioner Garber: So issues as opposed to objectives in that case.
Mr. Williams: These are objectives that relate directly to issues that are raised in chapter 3.
Each one of these pertains to an issue that is identified in chapter 3. So you have Transportation
or Linkages or Sustainability, etc. and each one follows that.
Page 3
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
Commissioner Garber: That may in fact address a number of my concerns. I am happy to see it
that way. In general it seems to me that what we should be doing in the first section is
recognizing what it is we are trying to achieve together and the emphasis should be on that
because unless we have those things we won’t have anything that will pull us through the
conflicts that will inevitably occur later.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Firstly it would be helpful to add section numbers to the
Table of Contents and also throughout the section headers within each chapter, particularly since
I think there are some cross-references that refer to sections by number and it would be easier if
that were consistently done throughout.
The second thing is regarding chapter 2, page 2.7, it is the next to the last bullet in your
Attachment A of the Staff Report for today. I was referring to showing the existing square
footage for Hoover site as exemplary not exclusive. Right now there is no detail under existing
square footage there are just summary numbers. Particularly since there are a whole bunch of
buildings there that are being changed and demolished it is helpful to know how much there is.
So I would suggest the entire first column of numbers, Existing Square Footage, have the details
across those rows just as they do in the second and third column. Obviously Net Additional you
don’t need in that column but in the new total column, which should probably be called the New
Total Building Square Footage and not the Total New Building Square Footage. I think ’new
total’ to me means something that is totally new. Does that make sense? Right.
Also, because we are doing an Area Plan one problem I have is that the summary of net square
feet request only covers those things, which are being changed not those things, which are not
being changed. Therefore, it seems to me that if this is an Area Plan it needs to include all of the
existing buildings within the entire boundaries of the Area Plan and what their existing square
footage even if they are not changing. Now that can be a separate row or group of rows in this,
which is context if you will or community doctors or whatever their use is. An Area Plan
doesn’t just refer what is being changed. To me it refers to the entire area and should be
comprehensive by including those.
The other point that was listed in that bullet is to add number of new beds in a column for Total
New Building Square Feet. Well yes, a column for Total New Building Square Feet. What I am
suggesting is that you actually create a separate table, whatever you want to call it. The table is
for beds specifically and it includes five columns. The first column refers to Stanford Hospital
or it refers to the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and the next four columns indicate the
number of beds that are currently permitted, the number of beds that are currently existing, the
number of additional beds proposed, and the new total of beds proposed. I think those four
numbers in a nice little table would make it very easy to understand what changes are being
made in that. It would elucidate the information that is in Table 2-3.
The other thing is I am wondering the extent to which the Area Plan should address these two
particular questions. The first question is there is a reference in the Staff Report in the last bullet
on page 4.4 about adding a section called Jurisdictional Boundary Changes. Those jurisdictional
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
boundary changes refer to the annexation of the small area because one of the new School of
Medicine buildings is straddling the current City boundary for the City of Palo Alto. However, I
think that based on my reading of the three-party agreement the Medical School might well be
properly consider to rightfully belong in the county land rather than the City land. That did not
make sense when it was a bunch of buildings glued together. But when it is a bunch of separate
buildings that have distinct boundaries the question as to whether the Medical School should
remain within the City of Palo Alto or whether it should indeed be annexed should be considered
as part of an Area Plan. Similarly an Area Plan should consider such topics that we have talked
about at least I have talked about about potential changes to land use in particular the thing I
brought up about whether the Hoover Pavilion should be considered for conversion of use to a
hotel. Those seem to me to be appropriate things that should be considered within the Area Plan.
Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want to follow up on a couple of comments that Commissioner Keller
made and a couple of questions that Commissioner Garber made. When I review these numbers
in terms of the Introduction and the tables I guess what eludes me is that it talks about the
number of beds but what is really missing I think is the number of patients that are served on an
annual basis and how that projection has grown. Then over the years how we see this meeting
the needs of our community in terms of the future.
We have talked about the doctors and the nurses and the support staff but I think the balance side
of this in terms of evaluating this facility is how many people are going to be served by this
facility? How the spaces are going to be used and what the loads are in terms of the spaces?
How many people are inpatient versus how many people are outpatient? We have people that
come in for medical treatment and then leave that day. Have this done on maybe an annual basis
in terms of looking at a history, I am not going to say 20 years, but if we can look at how the
facility has grown and they have added square footage in terms of meeting needs and how it has
increased its capacity and ability to serve the community. I think that is a very important sort of
balanced side of what we are looking at here.
I am not as concerned about the number of beds I am more concerned about the number of
people that are going to be able to be served by this new facility, both the Children’s Hospital
and the new medical center.
Chair Holman: Okay. I think the Staff actually did a very good job of capturing our comments
from last time. I think we have had just a few either clarifications or new ones this evening. I
have a couple of clarifications and I think maybe an addition.
On page one of Attachment A tonight it says to add a paragraph titled, ’Project Benefits.’ It is
not just to provide a project benefit of the hospital as it might be indicated here, but also what the
potential benefits could be that the City could derive from the project because the project is
happening. So there are most assuredly going to be impacts, there will be mitigations identified,
but I think it is also time because this is a Development Agreement I think there is an opportunity
also to ahead of time look at what some of the community benefits are that could be derived from
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
this. Since it is going to be a Development Agreement it is a negotiation. So that is one thing
that I would clarify about chapter 1 on page 1.3, on Attachment A, page 1, under Project
Benefits, I would like to add that clarification of that.
Also, something has occurred to me between last meeting and this and that has to do with
alternatives, which also would have to do with project goals and issues. It could fit under both.
EIRs look at alternatives and typically what they do is they look at one alternative is no project,
then the other alternative is usually smaller project, and then the conclusion is usually that it is
almost self-conflicting within the EIR because it says that, I have read this in a number of EIRs,
that the smaller project for instance doesn’t accomplish the goals of the project. So it is sort of
like this built-in conflict. So what I would like to see the City do is look at alternatives and
identify those ahead of time for instance looking at what kind of care other area facilities
provide, are there any proposed expansions there? Any proposed not necessarily expansions but
improvements at those, and also what other properties that Stanford owns and what their
expansions are in those areas, and how much more those other areas can accommodate? So I
think to fully vet the alternatives we need to look at those kinds of issues ahead of time and not
just wait for the EIR to do the very limited scope of alternatives that are identified at that point.
So that is one that has come up since.
One other one is I hope that Stanford would add and the City would add under goals that as a
medical facility I hope the hospital more than any other business that I can think of in Palo Alto,
any other enterprise in Palo Alto, would be interested in adopting a carbon neutral policy. So
that goes along with comments that have been made at the Commission previously having to do
with developing this plan as a village concept. So I am hoping that Stanford would be
forthcoming I am sure, and I trust and know that they have the community’s best interest at heart
in this, and again since it is a healthcare enterprise I would hope that they would adopt those
kinds of policies.
Let the record show that Commissioner Butt has joined us.
I think I will stop there, give Commissioner Burt a moment to get settled in and see if there are
any other final comments by the other Commissioners. Commissioner Keller, you have one
more?
Commissioner Keller: Yes, as a follow up to what Vice-Chair Lippert said and what Chair
Holman said, a couple of comments. First of all there is a distinction between an inadequate
number of beds and an inadequate number of staff. Let me explain what I mean. I am aware of
situations in which people where held in the emergency room at Stanford for a period of time
even though there was a bed available for them because nursing staff was not available on the
floor to provide the proper ratio of nurses to patients to allow that patient in the emergency room
to be moved to one of the regular beds. So I just want to make that distinction because I think
that when people are being turned away you have to understand why and that relates to the issue
of whether there are an adequate number of beds.
With respect to something that Vice-Chair Lippert said in terms of inpatient versus outpatient I
am aware for example the GCRC, which is a research component within, has taken a practice of
Page 6
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
taking people who are in for what presumably would be outpatient studies, making them register
as inpatients. I am not sure why that would be but I have heard reports of that and it would be
interesting about how that affects the numbers.
One of the things about chapter 1 in terms of other PTC changes it says on 1.3 in a paragraph
regarding project benefits indicating that the benefits in neighboring communities and a sub-
region as a whole I think that part of that process needs to identify that fact that the benefits of
having the Stanford Hospital and the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital undeniably occur to the
local community as well as to a broader community, however the impact disproportionately
affect the local community. These impacts tend to be distance related and the closer you are to
the project the more you are impacted, and that fall off happens at a faster rate than the benefits
fall off by distance.
In addition, in terms of the goals of the project it reminds me of what happened when there was
the Oakland Hills fire. In the Oakland Hills fire people had their houses burned down which is
obviously a really bad thing. So people said, okay, I am going to rebuild my house. When you
rebuild your house you can rebuild your house exactly as it was, you can make minor
improvements to it, you can decide to add a new bedroom or stuff like that. So understanding
exactly how much the goals of the project are an issue.
Then finally with respect to carbon neutral we have to realize that cement production is a big
generator of greenhouse gases and should be taken into account with respect to the construction
materials and the construction carbon is certainly part of what needs to be taken into account
with respect to carbon neutrality. Thank you.
Chair Holman: It is too much of a temptation not to follow up on that, I know Vice-Chair
Lippert has a follow up also, that for every ton of concrete that is produced there is a ton of
pollutants that is also produced. So this relates back to demolition versus new construction
certainly. With that, Vice-Chair Lippert you had another comment?
Vice-Chair Lippert: It was just a follow up with regard to the number of inpatient versus
outpatient that I am looking at here. When we evaluate or look at an office building we are
looking at assigning so many square feet and it is usually illustrated in terms of the amount of
parking that is needed on a building. That really tells you how many people are going to be
working in that facility. In this case I don’t think that the square footage directly relates
proportionately to and is homogenous throughout the entire facility. There are operating
theaters, there are patient rooms, there are treatment rooms, there are waiting rooms, there are a
whole variety of facilities throughout a hospital, and I don’t know if that can be averaged out.
One way that we can begin to get our hands around the capacity of this facility in terms of
inpatient and outpatient is to look at data over the years and then also have an understanding that
as this new facility begins to happen what the capacity in terms of inpatient and outpatient is
going to be in terms of the overall facility. So I think that will help us begin to understand not
just the employees that are working there but as well how well it is going to serve the community
in terms of the number of patients per square foot so to speak.
Page 7
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
Chair Holman: So it sounds like you might be suggesting another table or two to identify that
data.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well, I don’t know how that is going to happen. It could very well happen
in the Introduction. It could be part of the commentary that is added in the beginning in terms of
describing over the years how this facility has grown. I don’t know if it needs to be a table. I
could simply be some sort of projection in terms of how many patients a year they expect to see
this facility handling.
Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Burt, welcome. As you now know we are looking at the
completeness, accuracy of Attachment A as our first topic on our agenda for Stanford tonight.
Commissioner Burt: Well, hopefully I will be on target with my comments. I think I understand
what you are trying to limit them to at this moment. I think that Staff captured well the
comments that were made at the last meeting. Mine are more supplemental to the comments that
I made, is that appropriate?
Chair Holman: I am sorry?
Commissioner Burt: I said mine are more supplemental to the comments that I made previously
regarding Attachment A.
Chair Holman: That is fine. We have all overlooked a couple.
Commissioner Burt: Okay. First is a follow on to Commissioner Keller’s comment on the
environmental impacts of concrete. We now have policies within our city on recycling of
demolition materials. I recently became aware of a private Palo Alto-based company that is
doing very extensive recycling onsite of materials including concrete and thereby avoiding very
significant hauling and offsite of recycling and making it even a lower carbon footprint in doing
so. So I would like us to at lease explore those possibilities.
Second in the broader topic of how the entire project can minimize the automobile impact
Stanford University and the greater medical center surrounding area that we are dealing with,
like many campuses is a very inherently a bicycle-oriented community. It has both somewhat of
an intrinsic use of bicycles as students and others who reside near the places of work and the
campus are much heavier bicycle users than other entities. Consequently I would like to one,
make sure that we are looking at the cost-effectiveness of further facilitating bicycle use versus
other alternatives to avoid automobile traffic. A couple of things stand out to me, if we are not
looking at some of the most direct routes of bicycle traffic between Downtown Palo Alto for
instance and the medical center, the Homer underpass has no direct route planned on the maps,
and I know we will talk more about the maps later. But in bicycle traffic it is probably even
more important than automobile traffic that we facilitate ease and directness of use with
minimum of crossing of roadways and minimal waiting at lights, etc. So I think we can do better
than we have done so far on that.
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
I have also seen that Stanford has a myriad of bikeways on campus but I have always been
surprised that there does not seem to be a more thorough comprehensive design to the pathways.
Those pathways would both facilitate travel between Palo Alto and this center and other areas on
campus and the center. I have also seen that the off-road pathways are often poorly maintained
and really are bordering on unsafe for anything other than a mountain bike with a shock on it. So
if we are really going to try to facilitate bicycle use in lieu of automobile traffic I think we need
to look at all those different elements. Once again, let’s do a cost-benefit analysis and not
merely look at bicycle use because it is preferable but I think when we look at the costs of
maintaining off-road bike paths versus other costs associated with supporting automobile traffic
with the inherent propensity to use bicycles in this kind of environment we could see some very
good cost benefits.
I think that covers it for now, thanks.
Chair Holman: Okay, I think there may be just a couple more. A clarification again on page 1 of
Attachment 1 under the description of how any annexations or de-annexations would positively
or negatively affect such things, because there are some changes proposed, how that would affect
the ABAG housing numbers and any taxation as well. So add that.
I believe that’s it for me. So if no one else has anything else we can go onto the maps.
Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: In follow up to what Chair Holman said I do not believe we have
resolved the issue of if Stanford builds additional housing on Stanford land this intended to
house people who work at the Stanford Medical Center whether that housing counts towards our
jobs/housing imbalance or not. In particular there is housing that is part of the Stanford GUP
that is for medical residents and people like that I understand and to the extent that that is
because of people who are working in the hospital do we get credit for that housing or not. I
think that question needs to be resolved as part of the discussion that Chair Holman refers to.
Chair Holman: So that would be added under the issues list I would think. Curtis.
Mr. Williams: I would like to just respond on three or four of these. I think our intent here is to
take this list essentially and modify or add to the list that we have here and pass that onto the
Council as recommended changes to the Area Plan.
To start with the last one, I think we all agree that we need to do that. I don’t see that that needs
to change this Area Plan at this point in time. The Area Plan has language in it that says that our
key objective in housing is to assure that Stanford is part of the solution of providing for
affordable housing to respond to the housing needs generated by the project or housing in
general in response to that. There is some discussion around that in that when we get to that
issue. So the specifics of how it counts with ABAG and that kind of thing seems to me to be
outside of the issue of the Area Plan itself. It is very much germane to how we want to solve that
issue and what the acceptable solutions are to it. So our suggestion would be that we can look
and if there is a place in the text maybe recognize that the ABAG issue is out there and that we
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
need to deal with that. I don’t see anything really more substantive than that in terms of adding
to the Area Plan.
There are a couple of areas where I think it seems to me that it might be a little beyond where we
are with the Area Plan at least at this point like the suggestion of changing the land use for
Hoover Pavilion to a hotel. At this point in time what we are doing is representing the
applicant’s proposal here. I think we have talked about in land use issues that there are a number
of issues to look at in terms of those kinds of things, we also talked about the theater and where
does the theater go? So there are a number of land use issues in there and that is one. If that is
not listed as one of those then we can add something about that but at this point again what is
shown on maps and what is laid out here right now is Stanford’s proposal and we are recognizing
that in chapter 2.
The third one here is the comments about the alternatives for the EIR. I think that point is well
taken but again I don’t think it is Area Plan right now. What I would like to suggest and I think
it would be a very good exercise for all of us to go through is when we get to having a scoping
session on what goes into the EIR, what we want to see the EIR do, is that we take some time
specifically set aside either at that session or at a session apart from that to take input on what
alternatives we should be considering as part of the EIR. That way we can identify those before
we start to really get into the EIR itself. So I think we are glad to do that and I think that is a
good suggestion to do that as early in the process as possible but the Area Plan isn’t defining the
alternatives for the EIR at this point and it is going to be modified however the project gets
modified through the process. So I don’t think it is an Area Plan issue. I think it is an EIR issue
and we should visit it as part of the scoping before we get into the details on the EIR.
All the other comments that you talked about I think we can work those in one way or another.
Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Burt, you had something else?
Commissioner Burt: Yes, and I hope I am not repeating anything that I missed. One aspect is on
references to the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs. I think a good job has been done
to try to identify all that or as many as possible, and there are many that are pertinent here. As I
had gone through before I could not find some of them but part of the problem is that the good
thing is that they are referenced in the adjacent chapters and sections of chapters so that you can
find them that way. The hard part is to look comprehensively at it and perhaps what we should
do is have another appendix that consolidates all of those.
The ones that I couldn’t find referenced were T-2 and T-3, Program L-2, Program T-34, and
Policy T-26. Those are some that may be in there but I couldn’t find them.
Mr. Williams: What was the second to last one?
Commissioner Burt: Program T-34.
The next question or request is as we look at parking needs for this project we have our
formulaic needs based upon certain uses. Another reference point that may be of particular
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
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
interest is what is the current parking utilization versus what is mandated per square foot? This
becomes a more complicated part, as Commissioner Lippert was referring to earlier we have a
variety of aspects to a hospital use. It becomes a little bit complicated to really look at a more
fine-grain approach to how do you compute the necessary parking? Nevertheless, to whatever
extent we can I think it would be useful to baseline where we are for the current hospital, its
number of beds, its number of employees, and the parking that is not only provided but the
utilization rate and use that as an additional reference point to try and figure out how much
parking we might project as being needed. Maybe we become more specific to extrapolating our
current similar facility and extrapolating the current parking utilization and provision and project
what might be needed based upon the expansions that we are having here. Maybe we look at
each different approach and come up with as rational of a projection as we can on what would be
the necessary parking. Then within that we would have to then fold in the hopefully greater
utilization of alternative means of transportation. So I appreciate that is not a simple task but I
think a very important one. Parking, as we hear all the time, parking drives projects in terms of
the cost of the project, the design of the project, and all those different things. So it is an
extremely important element.
Finally, I am not sure that I saw anywhere that there was an evaluation under the historic context
of original Stone building which will have been over 50 years old I think before construction
would begin. I am not suggesting any particular outcome there but I will add an historic context
that at the time of its construction it was considered to be of great architectural merit. I
appreciate that is a problematic question given the proposal that is before us. I am not suggesting
a particular outcome there but I think objectively we have to look at that.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had one more thing?
Commissioner Keller: Yes. First on page 1.9, 1-4, Past Entitlement Actions, it would be helpful
if the list of rezonings indicated what they were rezoned from and to. It lists just the codes there.
Two general questions. One is to what extent will you provide Council this June 27 document
and a list of proposed changes to be done eventually versus providing Council with an updated
version of this draft that incorporates to the extent that it can be done relatively easily and
quickly those changes that we have identified? So whether they get the same thing or whether
they get an updated version and I would encourage for those things that are easy to do to actually
do the updates rather than just give them the a list of potential addenda.
Secondly, I would like a clarification in terms of whether the purpose of the Area Plan update is
to reflect the applicant’s proposal or to reflect a PTC and Staff study. I was a little confused
because it seemed to me from what you said, Curtis, that this is reflecting the applicant’s
proposal and I would just like some clarity on that.
Mr. Williams: What I intended was that that is where we are starting from. This is as we
indicated a dynamic document that will be modified as we go through the process and evaluate
not only the impacts of the development and potential modifications to address those but also the
peer review that we will be undertaking and what we determine to be the necessity for certain
things to happen. So all of that will result in changes to this document.
Page 11
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
1
2 Right now that is where we are starting from and that is why we are trying to key particularly
3 chapter 2 to red flag that this is Stanford’s proposal, this is what they see as the drivers for why
4 these changes are needed, and also note in that language that we will be evaluating that and that
5 may and likely will change over the course of our review. Then this document will change as
well. So ultimately yes, this document will reflect the City’s determinations on what we are
going to act on in the end for this project but for now all we have to work with is the applicant’s
proposal which hasn’t even been formally submitted yet but we have the concepts in here to
work from.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, you had one more?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes it is a relatively minor point but I think it would also be helpful to know
on Stanford land, actually in the Area Plan, which roads are dedicated roads, actually specific
dedicated roads, and which ones are just road easements.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, did you have something?
Commissioner Burt: Yes, sorry. I had one other item that as I was looking over my notes from
our last meeting I recalled. As we are looking at the carbon footprint of this project shall we say
one of the things that we may want to make sure that we are doing is evaluating not the present
costs and benefits of alternative energy sources, and primarily photovoltaic generation of
electricity, but the anticipated cost of that source of energy at the time that the construction
would occur. The current trends in photovoltaic electricity are trending downward very
significantly as traditional carbon-based forms are going up. So an analysis based on present day
costs would be very different from an analysis based upon the return on investment of a purchase
that was done five years out or more. I want to make sure that the considerations are done on
that way not only because they would be more accurate but would in all likelihood create a
circumstance that would change the intention because of a better cost benefit.
Chair Holman: One quick comment, which is to confirm that our expanded and clarified list will
be going to Council when this goes to them next I am sure.
Mr. Williams: I am sorry, I didn’t respond to that question also. Our sense is that it would be
very difficult to make most of these changes before the Council session. It is less than two
weeks away. It is the 23rd. So our thought was to bring them this expanded list as well as
examples of the maps, the enlarged maps, so they can see what that looks like as well as you
have. Then they would get the same document that you originally got too. Now, we will discuss
that and talk to everyone to see if we can do more than that before the Council meeting but I
would not want to commit to that. There is a lot of work a lot of things get changed in
formatting and adding tables and stuff like that. So it may be that as Commissioner Keller
suggested maybe there are a lot of these at least just sort of cleanup text language things that can
at least be done and then the list will be shorter, less those particular items that are already
incorporated.
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
46
Chair Holman: What would be helpful so the Commission can track these is if there is a way to
track those changes by strikeout or something like that so that we can see without having to read
every word.
Mr. Williams: That was one of the reasons why we thought it was maybe helpful to just do the
list because that way you see the whole list of what your changes are rather than trying to pick
them out in the document too.
Chair Holman: Okay. Did you have one more burning issue, Mr. Keller?
Commissioner Keller: Yes. It is okay to actually make some changes and to indicate that they
have been done in the list. That might be the easiest way.
Finally, the issue is that to the extent that you can record even if you don’t analyze potential
additional ideas that are differing or additional over and above what Stanford has recommended,
capturing those would be worthwhile because that would basically be part of making this more
of a PTC and Staff document than simply reactive to Stanford.
Chair Holman: I think we are through with this. I apologize that I have two questions for Staff
that don’t neatly fit into any of our topics. There are two things I would like Staff to respond to.
Last time we talked about doing a FAQ or a Q & A so that for every meeting we wouldn’t have
to go through the reasons why this is a great project but we can’t just rush it through. The other
was Staff was going to provide a contact list so that we could see what was being notified and
kind of have an ongoing and updated list. If you would just like to report at some point on the
status of those then we will move onto maps.
Mr. Williams: We can do that now. Whitney, do you want to?
Ms. Whitney McNair, Consultant: As far as the FAQ list goes we have consulted with the
environmental consultant who is preparing a list of FAQs that relate to environmental documents
that we will then consolidate into a City document. We are also putting together FAQs of what
is an Area Plan, what is a Development Agreement, what is an EIR and putting together a little
table that is snapshot of what the three of those are so that one could quickly look at that list of
FAQs and hopefully address your concerns.
Mr. Williams: We are expecting that in another week or so.
Ms. McNair: The beginning of next week it should be completed.
Chair Holman: That’s great. Thank you.
Mr. Williams: The mailing list is also close to that timeframe.
Ms. Silver: The mailing list, we have a mailing list that is compiled and we can get that in the
same timeframe.
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Holman: Thank you so much. With that we will move onto comments on maps and we
will start at the other end. Commissioner Burt, would you like to go first?
Commissioner Burt: The first question is more broad. We have a linkages map and then we
have a pedestrian and bicycle map. On the linkages map we also have pedestrian and bicycles.
First I was struggling to determine whether it was best to segregate those two and I tend to think
that it may be. The other thing is when I tried to compare the pedestrian and bicycle components
on I guess it is 3-12 the Pedestrian and Bicycle Map versus the pedestrian and bicycle
components on the linkages they didn’t seem to match up in a number of circumstances. So that
is one issue.
I also was struggling to discern which are prospective and which are existing. We have used
dotted lines to differentiate local transit from regional transit and pedestrian versus pedestrian
and bicycle. Often dotted lines are used for prospective or proposed things and something that
more clearly differentiates those I think would be helpful.
There are a number of different red circles, four different red circles for proposed changes, and
there is one that is the lowest red circle on the Linkages Map that doesn’t have a number
associated with it. I am guess it may have intended to have one and an explanation as to what
that one is showing.
Mr. Williams: I think there are several I see what you are saying. There are a couple of these
open red circles that don’t have numbers in them that are identified down here as pedestrian
intersections requiring further study. There are a few of those that happen to occur at the same
place as some of the changes that are identified by those numbers one through four. A couple of
them aren’t at that location so you can see up where number four is for instance, four is new
transit connection from Quarry Road to the transit station. It is identified and there is an arrow
there next to it. The red circle there without a number in it is a pedestrian intersection requiring
further study. So is not linked to four per se. The one down at the bottom is just intended to be a
pedestrian intersection requiring further study but it is not one of the proposed changes listed
here. That sounds like that is confusing so we ought to clarify it somehow.
Commissioner Burr: I think I get it. Then also up near where you have the proposed change
number four, which is at the inter-modal transit center, are the changes that are intended one that
would go all the way to University or are they only at the entrance to the center?
Mr. Williams: Are they ones that will go all the way to University Avenue as opposed to the
University?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. The reason I ask, I will just frame it a little more clearly, once we get
from the corner of Quarry and E1 Camino we all know that it is a confusing maze to get out to
the border of where the transit vehicles are, the buses circulation and the Red Cross Center.
Even past then it becomes a confusing maze where bicyclists don’t even know which is the
correct direction to go and can be going off and going against traffic and those things. So
whether it is part of Stanford’s obligation or the City’s obligation or whatever first I wanted to
Page 14
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
get clarification whether it is the intention to address those issues as part of this redesign of the
pedestrian and bicycle interchange there.
Mr. Williams: It is definitely the intention to address those changes and to create more bicycle-
friendly and pedestrian-friendly connections through that area all the way into Downtown. The
mechanism for getting there is very conceptual at this point. There is a green arrow from near
where that dot is for four that comes over to University Avenue. It is not necessarily the same
arrow as the blue one for number four. The blue is transit, the green is the pedestrian and bicycle
so they are both conceptual at this point in time but they are to intend that we are looking at
making those connections.
Commissioner Burr: Okay. My final question has to do with what I alluded to earlier and that is
the pedestrian and probably more accurately pedestrian and bicycle connection from Homer to
the medical center. We have a $5.0 million Homer Avenue underpass tunnel that connects to the
bike path that runs parallel to the tracks on the west side. This map then shows a crossing at E1
Camino. It doesn’t list it as a proposed change it shows it as if it is an existing change. So one, I
wanted to get clarification on that and then there is no pedestrian or bicycle path that is shown
through the Arboretum even though there are some roadways that go through the Arboretum that
function as bike and pedestrian routes informally today. That is the most direct route. If you just
look at a line between the PAMF and the Homer tunnel out to the hospital there is a direct route
there through areas that are used by pedestrians and bicyclists but they are not facilitated, they
are not in good shape, and they are not on our map. If you are going to try and get people to
walk and ride to these places you need to make it easy.
My final question is we have had some discussions briefly over the past year about he question
of whether long term the signal in front of PAMF is really the correct place for a signal on the
stretch of E1 Camino Real between University Avenue and Embarcadero. I would like to make
sure that as part of this major project we are taking a hard look at whether Encina should be the
location for the signal to make a safer crossing and a better more utilized crossing since we have
no safe left in and left out entrance to Town & Country and that is not specifically Stanford
based but it intertwines with us looking comprehensively at what we are going to do on all of
that transit. If it were to get changed then you would want to make sure you integrate it with this
pedestrian and bicycle interchange that I believe should be designated as prospective rather than
existing.
Chair Holman: So clarification for Staff. These are all very good comments and I just want to
make sure we are not getting too fine-grained in our comments. We are not reviewing a project
right now. They are all great comments but I just don’t want us to go further than we need to
tonight.
Mr. Williams: I take these comments with two purposes in mind. One is certainly to incorporate
them into our methodology for analysis including the EIR. Secondly to be sure that we are not
doing anything on the Area Plan here now that is precluding somehow getting there. I think we
are okay, I think these are all conceptual things, and I know Gayle and I have talked about some
of these ideas too. So we definitely have them in mind to address.
Page 15
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: So we are not getting too fine-grained in our comments at this point?
Mr. Williams: No, well what you are getting into relates to the maps. I was going to say you are
starting to get more into the chapter 3 linkages and that kind of discussion too, which is hard to
differentiate when you are discussing this because it is an issue associated with the linkages as
opposed to it is also on the map.
Chair Holman: Yes, I am just trying to move us along in the most efficient way. Commissioner
Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: First I want to say that the maps that we got in the packet earlier this week
are a vast improvement over what we got originally. These are even a bigger improvement and it
is easy to finally see some of this information and be able to analyze it. I don’t want to go into a
lot of detail and analyze it but I do want to say that these are fantastic and I think it is going to
help in terms of facilitating the process.
I agree with Commissioner Burt’s comment with regard to consistency of line and information
between maps. I think that is very important. When we look at something on one map the same
line designation, the same color, should be representative of the same information on another
map and needs to be carried through. That is just a very simple comment.
It is funny when I look at all these arrows in some way they are almost like [mallen-pops]. It is
the opposite of what you are looking at when you see an arrow going out, it is actually the arrow
is coming in and it is showing what the feed is to that area. The net result of that is I really want
to know where that feed is coming from. So when I look, and I am going to give you an example
here, I am looking at 3-3, Linkages and the pedestrian and bicycle green line that goes up into the
Downtown North area and crosses San Francisquito Creek what it is really showing is a
connection to Menlo Park. I wish that that was somehow - because it is an arrow and it is an
abbreviation of saying that is the connection we are trying to make, I think in some ways it
should be explained that this is a connection to a portion of Menlo Park, Willow Road for
instance and the same thing for some of the other arrows. The fact that you have the arrow that
goes to Homer Avenue it is very obvious that that is what the connection is. So if there is
someway to sort of label what these are I think that would be very helpful.
One thing that I am not very clear on here is that on the same map here it says transportation
nodes and it has one that is for the Palo Alto Transit Center but then there is another one that we
have on the lower part on Oak Road and it is a parking garage. So I don’t quite understand what
the context of a transit node is there whether it is bringing other regional buses into that area or
whether it is just a place where people are going to park and ride. So I think that is real
important to examine a little bit more.
One last comment and it is very, very minor but I think it might help facilitate this a little bit. All
of the Stanford buildings, actually all of the buildings are done as a figure ground and they are
grayed. If there is some way to take the buildings of the Area Plan and really make them pop.
Maybe the thing to do is rather than having them be grayed having them be in a much, much
deeper color or even a black where when you photocopy these on a black and white machine
Page 16
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
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
they really standout. That is a relatively minor comment but I think it really begins to
characterize these buildings in terms of how they fit into the figure ground of the buildings.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First thanks for the correction to the bike path to the Homer
tunnel. I notice that was done and that probably was a little bit of work. Second also thank you
for the larger maps they are easier to read. Using the direct length of pencil test which is where
you take a pencil and you apply it to a piece of map and compare it from one map to the other, it
appears that the portrait maps are about ten percent bigger scale than the landscape maps are by
rough eye. Don’t hold me to being exactly ten percent but somewhere on that order of
magnitude. It appears that the extent of Map 3.3-6 on the portrait one is pretty much the same as
the extent of Map 3.6 of the one that was in the Staff Report, the landscape one. In fact the only
difference I could tell between these other than the scale and the placement of the stuff is there is
some sort of weird boundary on the lower left hand corner that has slightly more yellow on one
than there is on the other.
It seems to me that the convenience of having it be in the booklet in a way that doesn’t require
that you keep on rotating it would indicate that the landscape one would be good enough for my
purposes particularly since you could then see what the map is based on how it is bound into the
Staff Report. So I think that the additional ten percent of size from putting it in portrait mode
isn’t worth it.
Secondly, it is helpful to have the consistency of map scope and scale. In particular if you look
at the two maps 3-6 and 3-12 one of the differences that Commissioner Burt mentioned in terms
of how these maps differ, part of the difference is that the scope of the 3-6 map is wider. It
includes more land area than the map 3-12. I can’t exactly figure out why 3-12 is cropped
compared to 3-6 but it seems to me that there is no reason why - I am talking about the ones in
the Staff Report - it seems to me that including having a consistent scale and a consistent scope
would seem to me to be useful for both of these.
It is reasonable to think maybe you have one or two scales or one or two scopes depending on
what you have to look at. If you have to zoom in for something it may be reasonable. If we need
to focus in on a much more detailed look at the Stanford Medical Center to figure out what is
going on having a small number of different scales and scopes might make sense. But gratuitous
changes to scale and scope should be avoided.
I agree with Commissioner Burt with respect to proposed and existing. Some way of indicating
the distinction of proposed and existing seems to be helpful in terms of linkages and things like
that I would agree with that.
It also is helpful to accurate with respect to external arrows. So for example if you look at 3-6
there is a green line indicating pedestrian and bicycle path. It crosses E1 Camino and goes along
Palo Alto Avenue as it approaches Alma Street then it veers off in a V-shape. I am skeptical as
to whether the bike path actually goes through 101 Alma. So I would recommend that these
linkages actually be accurate and that they go in reasonable directions. To the extent that there
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
are path that are part of the map and can be easily shown showing them makes sense. So if there
is a bike path along Alma or there is a bike path along Palo Alto Avenue you might as well show
it rather than having a generic random arrow into an arbitrary location.
Things like that for example including the bike path behind the railroad tracks, as Commissioner
Burt mentioned, it is on the map might as well show it. Anything that is within the extent of the
map should be shown. Also I notice that there is a small pink space within the shopping center.
Pink appears to be new buildings.
Mr. Williams: We got that one, yes. That is an error we are going to correct.
Commissioner Keller: Right. I also notice that there are blue arrows with dashed lines of local
transit that appear to go toward Stanford West. That looks really confusing. Where do they go?
Do they cross the creek where there is no bridge for buses? I am confused. Those two arrows
that cross at Arboretum and that cross at Durand seem to be really strange. I understand the bike
path going across there and I think there is a bike path across there but I doubt whether as would
be suggested by the map that some sort of Stanford Marguerite winds up going across that little
pedestrian and bike bridge. So that is a little confusing to me. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: I have nothing to contribute after that. At the beginning I had plenty but
at the moment I have none.
Chair Holman: So your fellow Commissioners have read your mind. I will weigh in here at this.
On Attachment A, page 1, under the maps a couple of clarifications to those clarifications.
Under the 3-6 bullet it says, combine some of the existing proposed maps in chapter 3. I
appreciate that that has happened. I think that the comments of Commissioner Burt regarding
pedestrian and bicycle being separated I think what was intended, and please correct me if I
didn’t understand correctly Pat, is that they can still run parallel on the same map but as long as
they are like two different colored lines or something running side by side so you know what is
pedestrian and what is bicycle so you are not looking at separate maps, right Commissioner Burt,
was that what you were intending?
Commissioner Burt: Well I am unsure whether we should just break them up and have
pedestrian and bicycles on one map and transit and automobiles on another. I am uncertain on
that but it seems like it might be cleaner to do it that way.
Mr. Williams: Right now we have three. We have blown up a couple of them there but in the
plan there is also one that I think is transit. Pedestrian and bicycle and transit as a separate map
and then we have the linkages.
So to explain a little bit about the different scales and such. What we did is very much what I
think Commissioner Keller suggested which is we tried to categorize the maps, group them into
three different types. One was the blowups for the project in chapter 2, which are blown up
pretty specific to just the medical center and just Lucile Packard, and just Hoover which fit on an
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
8.5 by 11 and were clear enough on that. Then we had at sort of the other end of the spectrum a
linkages map and there was another one in here that we knew covered well beyond just the Area
Plan boundary. Then the other ones are focused more on the full extent of the Area Plan
boundary but being sure that we got to like El Camino and the creek on the one side and kind of
putting the corners in there and being sure we were covering enough to get the information in.
So what you would see is you would see the one that set the linkages scale, 3-6, there would just
be two at that scale. Most all of the rest of them except for that chapter 2 would be at the same
scale and size and consistent with this 3-12. We will go back and look at whether there is a way
to make even the linkage one consistent but it may be that what happens is to do that it becomes
- if we go to staying with the landscape format that was with your report today then maybe the
linkages one stays at a similar scale but it is portrait format instead or something like that. We
can look at that.
The alternatives are we could look at the linkages and try to put everything on that. The linkages
is in there very specifically because we do want to show where are we trying to get to here in a
conceptual way at least. I think the point about put Menlo Park or put Downtown North or
whatever is good because that is what the intent of that map is. So the other ones help provide a
little better detail on the pedestrian-bicycle network, a little better detail on the transit network.
We certainly need to be consistent with those and if we are not we need to make those
corrections. If there is something on a pedestrian map that shows trail in one place and it is
different on the linkages map that shouldn’t be. So we can go either way. We think it is
probably useful to have all three maps in there. We can combine the proposed and existing as
we have talked about on at least the pedestrian-bicycle and transit map, the linkages map
probably as well but we will have to look at that it is a little more complicated to put it all on one
map. I think we get the gist of what you are saying. At this point I think we still probably think
it is cleaner to keep some of these things separate and then the linkages map kind of brings it all
together in one place.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want us to be careful here. I don’t information overload. Every street
has the potential of being a pedestrian street or a bicycle street. The idea is to identify the
information that I think is probably the most important or primary in terms of that information.
So I don’t want it to get weighted down or else we wind up coloring the entire map and it
becomes very murky.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, did you have something?
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I think that the scale and scope of 3-6 is fine. I think it makes sense
to have a comprehensive map of linkages and that be separate from the various maps like 3-12
for pedestrian and bicycle. I think that different maps that focus on individual modalities of
transportation makes sense. My eyes may be different than other peoples’ eyes to the extent that
it seems to me that 3-12 could be the same scale and scope as 3-6. The difference between the
scope and scale of 3-6 and 3-12 may not be enough for that cropping to be useful. The fact that
it means that you don’t have the lines going out as far in the surrounding area as it does with
linkages means that effectively you will have to look at linkages to look at those that extend also.
Page 19
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
So it seems to me that linkages should be a summary and not be needed for information that isn’t
also in the other maps.
One last simple thing is somebody should do a better job of spell checking. For example Everett
has an extra ’e’ in it.
Chair Holman: Curtis beat you to that. My last comments are again back to page 1 of
Attachment A, the next bullet from the previously mentioned one which these maps do and I
concur with virtually every comment that every other Commissioner has made, virtually every
one. That next bullet says clearly identify all changes in the proposed maps. The maps do that
except they don’t say what the change is. They identify where there is a change but they don’t
identify what the change is. So what I am asking for is this is such a great improvement and I
want to really absolutely acknowledge that and at the same time say that the better information
that comes to the Commission, that goes to the Council, that comes before the public, the more
expedient we can be in reviewing and commenting. So that is really, really critical and we are
not there yet. There has been great improvement but we are not there yet. I can certainly attest
that there is no pedestrian-bicycle route that goes through 101 Alma for instance.
Scale has been brought up. Nobody has mentioned to this point that the pink buildings that are
on the maps there is no key for what the pink buildings indicated. On the zoning map example
of what the change is, this is 4.2 Zoning Map, it says proposed changes but it isn’t clear just from
looking at the map, it isn’t clear. So is the proposed change due to hospital district or from
hospital district? People informed will know, people not informed or wondering will not know.
So clarity is really essential with this. As far as scale there is a convenience to having the
landscape maps. There is a convenience the maps that were provided previously in landscape
format in our Staff Report, this current Staff Report, those maps in landscape format can be a
good 30 percent larger than how they are presented and still have plenty of room for the key. So
whichever way you decide to go whether it is for convenience or a little better readability I find
the ones that are in the current Staff Report still lacking but there is plenty of room for a larger
scale.
The other thing is there is improvement on inclusion of more identifiers on the maps including
street names, some identifiers like Nordstrom’s, some landmarks like that. I think there is still
room for improvement on that including Campus Drive and that sort of thing that really could
give us better clarity, better reference to what is going on. Down the pike of course we will need
to see more fine-grained maps and both are important. The fine-grained maps and these larger
maps too concur with the comments about Downtown North, University South, those areas
should also be included in these maps and you can only get so big. This project is so huge that
there are going to potentially citywide impacts. So we need to be mindful of that.
There was a map in our first binder that we got from Stanford and that size map is very helpful.
It was a very large map and it is most helpful.
One more comment about maps is that I don’t know how in the world this can be accomplished
but what happens sometimes, too often actually, is that we will create these beautiful maps in
color and they are expensive then to produce. So we then take those and translate them to black
Page 20
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
and white for more broader distribution and you can’t tell one thing from another. So I am not
going to pretend to have the solution to that. Maybe there is no good solution. Maybe overlays
might be one possible solution to help with that. Because Commissioner Sandas could not be
here tonight I do want to speak for her in this regard but she brought up a couple of times that
showing proposed changes in an overlay format I think would be helpful. That concludes my
comments on the maps. Commissioner Lippert, you had a comment?
Vice-Chair Lippert: I just have one minor and it might be in terms of helping to reconcile this
issue of landscape versus portrait. If the legend was actually removed from the map itself and
whether this map appears in here landscape or portrait and the legend was just printed on the
previous page here. We have the two pieces of information together it is easy enough to discern
and then you can work with the scale of whatever it needs to be on this page here without
worrying about the legend fitting on that page. It is just a thought.
Chair Holman: Is it follow up, Pat? Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Butt: Yes. One other bike and pedestrian path that appears to be omitted is the
one that runs along the creek west of E1 Camino. It doesn’t run continuously. I am trying to
remember where it starts and stops but it is not on the map.
Then I just want to concur with Commissioner Keller’s request that the pedestrian and bicycle
map be wider so that it does include the scope of the area that is on the linkages map, which has
a number of key pedestrian and bike elements to it.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, last comment and then we will move onto chapter 3.
Commissioner Keller: Firstly with respect to wider distribution may I recommend that you put
the PDF file up in color so that people who wish to download it and print it on their color printers
or view it in color on the their screens may do so. There is no reason that it has to be distributed
as a black and white PDF.
With respect to bus routes it would be really nice if there were a map. I realize this is going to be
a lot of work and hard to read but it would be really nice if rather than just saying regional transit
and local transit if there were a map that identified the various bus routes and whose routes they
were and what they are and where and a legend of where they go. My example of why that is
necessary, whether it is VTA or Sam Trans or Dumbarton or Marguerite or whatever, the reason
that that is useful is because one of the comments that was made with respect to getting rid of the
88 bus is the comment that people on Middlefield Road don’t need the 88 bus to get to Gunn
High School because the 35 bus goes along Middlefield Road. Yes, the 35 bus goes along
Middlefield Road but t doesn’t go to Gunn High School so who cares? Similarly the issue of
knowing where the bus routes go from Stanford is helpful to understanding the context. The fact
that there is a regional bus route that goes somewhere is interesting but knowing where it goes is
even better. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Very good. So it is 8:40 and we are ready for chapter 3 but I think what we
ought to do is do a weigh-in with regard to 395 Page Mill Road, our second item. We were
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
going to do this at 9:30 and check-in but I think given where we are and it is 8:40 1 think we
should do this now. So Commissioners if you think we can finish up chapters 3 and 4 by let’s
say ten o’clock would that be okay with Staff? We don’t anticipate that item two would take all
that long. If we concluded this by ten o’clock and then undertook 395 would that be agreeable
with Staff or do you think we ought to continue it?
Mr. Williams: No, I think if you can get to it by ten o’clock we should do that.
Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioners, do we feel like we have the capacity to complete the
Stanford item by ten o’clock and don’t be optimistic be realistic? I need a weigh-in here. I see
one nod of a head as a yes, two heads yes. Okay, we are going to commit to ten o’clock or I will
say very close to ten o’clock completion so we can then get to 395 Page Mill Road. So thank
you to the members of the public and Staff for hanging in for that item.
So chapter 3, this is the first we have addressed this although we have touched on some of the
elements through the map. Who would like to start? Who wants to go first on chapter 3, the
Plan Elements? Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: I am just going to mention a couple of things and then we will cycle
through. On 3.3 just a brief comment, bullet number three talking about the relationship between
linkages and open spaces. I think it is important to note that linkages aren’t always defined by
open spaces but they are also defined by buildings, etc., or other structures of use. This was a
topic of conversation perhaps two or three Stanford meetings ago when we were talking about
how to actually walk from University Avenue to Stanford mall and/or the hospital and that you
need structures along the way to support people actually taking that walk.
A very general comment and then I will cycle through and come back to some specific ones. I
want to be very careful in here that we are not jumping too far down the path when we start to
talk about specifics of things rather than the concepts of how we want to organize our thoughts
and comments as we go through this process. I am thinking specifically about as an example
defining the heights of things. Granted Stanford may have an idea of where they would like
heights to be we haven’t gone through an analysis of what those actually might be. It may be at
the end of the process of the process that they should be ten feet higher or five foot lower or
something of that sort. The concept there is that in order to accomplish the project goals, in
order to meet the larger goals of the entire project the City needs to recognize that the current
heights need to be looked at and challenged in order to get those benefits for the community. I
relinquish my time here for a moment and come back through.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: A couple of things. One is one of the issues that was brought up I believe
originally by Vice-Chair Lippert was the question as to whether Roth Way and Pasture Drive
should be connected.
Chair Holman: Which map are you referring to?
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
Commissioner Keller: I am looking at map 3-8 on page 3.37. What is interesting is that there is
an underground garage that goes between the thing labeled ’3’ and the extent of Pasture Drive.
Do you see the little box that is yellow in between the two U’s? I believe that is the reflecting
pool. So to give people a little better orientation and bearing as to what is where. I think that is
correct, am I correct about that is what is there?
So what I am wondering is if you create a parking garage between two places that people want to
go from point A to point B whether people will use that parking garage as a way to get from
point A to point B, and that may be a potentially hazardous situation. I know certainly lots of
people find little loopholes in how to get places and particularly since going through Welch Road
is particularly unpleasant people will figure out all sorts of ways of getting to the hospital if they
can.
The next thing is I realize, as we mentioned earlier, that the E for emergency room is not in the
location identified on 3-8. I am assuming that it is over sort of near in one of the horizontal
rectangles about an inch to the left on 3-8. It is an inch on the map but it is a much further
distance in the real world. What I am wondering is one of the things that was discussed as a
benefit for the Stanford Hospital of having tall buildings is so that a patient who is at the
emergency room could go from the emergency room to a patient room or an operating room or
whatever without having to go all over the hospital in a horizontal manner. Well, what I am
wondering is how it is proposed that pediatric patient who arrives at the emergency room and is
then to be admitted to the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, how that patient gets teleported
over to the hospital since there does not appear to be a clear direct connection other than going
through a lot of patient corridors. So I am a little confused with respect to that issue. One of the
reasons that is an important issue is because the circulation to the emergency room is quite an
important issue. How do you get to the emergency room? People will go there by ambulance
but I am sure a lot of people just drive there. So circulation to the emergency room is certainly
important. And circulation from the emergency room as far as patients I am completely
confused about that with respect to pediatric patients. I will reserve more comments for later.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Every time I look at this and read it I want to begin to rewrite or comment
or change the information or want to comment on the information here. I don’t think that this is
the right time to do that. I think that in terms of the information here this is really the first draft
of a document that we are going to begin to analyze. So I am a little reluctant and I want to just
push back, take a breath, and just say that I think this is going in the right direction. I really
don’t have very much unless I begin to get in here and begin to wordsmith things, and begin to
manipulate the information, and I don’t think that that is what we are intending to do in this
hearing today.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burr: I had one question on Comprehensive Plan Policy B-9, which is,
"Encourage new businesses that meet the City’s business and economic goals." I wasn’t clear on
Page 23
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
how the hospital expansion was really conceived of as a business. Was that the way Staff was
interpreting this or are there other ways in which Policy B-9 is being furthered?
Mr. Williams: That is identified as an employment center so yes we do see it is a business in that
respect. Now, whether it is a new.
Commissioner Burt: This says new businesses that meet the City’s business and economic goals
as opposed to...
Mr. Williams: I think it is probably arguable as to whether that is - I don’t think we have heard
anything that implies any new business just expansions of existing relocations, etc.
Commissioner Burt: Whereas the shopping center expansion probably clearly helped meet the
City’s business and economic goals.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Burt: This project has many benefits I am not sure that those are among them.
Mr. Williams: We will look at that and see whether there was any other justification for putting
that in there and if not we will take it out.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Under the same heading of potentially getting ahead of ourselves, on
1.36, Housing Approaches there is discussion about the utilization of the area adjacent or behind
or where the McArthur Park and Red Cross facilities are as being potentially housing even
though it is not part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Williams: Where are you again?
Commissioner Garber: On 3.16, under Housing Approaches. My concern here is not to argue it
one way or the other but I am not sure in a certain sense it is appropriate. It is something that has
been a conversation but it is not a part of a policy, it is not part of the Comprehensive Plan, it is
something. Am I understanding that correctly?
Mr. Williams: Which sentence specifically are you referring to? I am sorry I got lost I am not
finding the page right away.
Commissioner Garber: If you look at the map it is item number four, transit oriented housing.
Identified by the City of Palo Alto not previously identified as a housing site in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Williams: We have specifically identified that that’s an area that we want to evaluate as
potentially serving as housing and indicate that in here so we are sure that we do focus on that.
That is a major project it is not identified in the Housing Element as a housing site but it is
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a potential mixed use center around the transit station,
etc., etc.
Commissioner Garber: Understood, although not specifically for housing.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Garber: The issue that I am trying to get at here is that that site in particular
among many others has the opportunity to function in a variety of different ways for the City.
Unless we are putting the topic of how that site contributes to the City specifically on the table I
either want to de-emphasize it or emphasize as something that requires further discussion. For
instance, should it be more housing multi-use or multi-function versus having more civic use. I
don’t know what the other issues are but what I don’t want the report or the Area Plan is to bias
it one-way or the other. Am I making sense at all?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I understand.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: To follow up on what was just mentioned with respect to figure 3-3 on
3.17 it identified Quarry-Arboretum and Quarry-E1 Camino which are on the county side of the
boundary as potential housing sites. Are those already identified as housing sites on the county
GUP? Are those already considered as mitigation for other development that is part of the
county GUP? Or are these sites being considered as mitigation for the additional development?
The reason I am asking that question is because you can’t count the same housing twice as
mitigation for two different things.
The second issue is with respect to existing surface parking. If you look at 3.36, which is 3-7
and page 3.37, which is 3-8, there appear to be some surface parking lots that have disappeared.
I have no problem with surface parking lots disappearing but for example there is one ...
Chair Holman: What page is that, Commissioner Keller?
Commissioner Keller: On 3.36 and 3.37, which is maps 3-7 and 3-8. On 3-7, which is page
3.36, there is a section across from Quarry Road sort of where Welch Road meets it and that
funny shape, I guess it is trapezoidal, becomes open space and is not therefore parking. While
the part that is above that on the sheet becomes a building and a parking structure. One of the
things that would be useful to identify is just as we have done square footage with respect to how
many square exist, how many square feet are added, how many square feet are subtracted, where
the new square footage is, and all that kind of stuff a similar calculation needs to happen for
parking. We need to show what lots exist, how many spots there are, what lots are being
removed, how many spots are being removed, what lots and parking structures are being added,
and how many parking spaces are being added, and what is the new total. I think that is helpful
to have that summary for the parking spaces that are expected for this development.
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
Now I realize that for example the parking structure around by Oak which is a regional transit
area that was identified by Vice-Chair Lippert, that is a shared parking facility for the campus
and for the medical center. I understand that no changes are being made to that facility as part of
this process. That is fine. In which case simply an estimate of the number of parking spaces that
are at that parking structure and surface lots that are used by the medical center, that allocation
would be helpful. Similarly for the parking structure at Campus Drive and Roth Way
identification of how many, it can be a guess it doesn’t have to be exact, but it should say since
the number is the same in both cases it is just helpful to have an idea of how many parking
spaces are being used in these various lots for the medical center use to provide a comprehensive
picture of parking before and after.
Finally, I think that there should be a specific and called out set of numbers indicating the loss of
space for local physicians. For example 1101 Welch Road specifically, I realize it is low
density, there are some doctors there, there are other buildings that have been or will be
converted from doctor’s offices, for example 703 Welch Road. I am not sure whether there are
any doctors in 701 Welch Road or not but that is being converted. So to the extent that there is
local physician space that is being removed it would be helpful to identify how much local
physician space is currently available as part of the area identified here, how much is being
removed, how much is being added, and how much remains.
I have concerns about this for two reasons. First of all, to the extent that there is a reduction of
space for local physicians that has the issue that where will those doctors go? I realize that a
number of those doctors who practice in the area adjacent to the medical center actually also
practice at the medical center and it is convenient for them to be near there so that they can do
their rounds in the morning at the medical center. With this large increase in hospital beds at
both the Stanford Hospital and the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital the likelihood that there
will be an increased need for local physician space nearby to service those hospital beds is not
addressed and needs to be. In particular if those doctors are not nearby to the medical center, the
Stanford Hospital and the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, then there will be a need for
additional car trips between the doctors’ offices wherever they are and the medical center in
order for them to service the patients at the medial center. That needs to be specifically called
out as an issue and those car trips in particular considered. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: There was an item that Commissioner Keller raised earlier about perhaps
needing a transit map. If we do that I would like to see that map go to a broad area not just
within Palo Alto. One of the things that we have discussed is this hospital is of a regional
benefit, ABAG seems to be looking at housing needs in each city as if these cities were in
isolation, and that Palo Alto being a high jobs to housing imbalance that we are an island. In fact
we are surrounded by a number of communities that are predominantly residential communities.
In a way we are a small metropolitan area and not only is that an important issue for arguing
what is our fair share of ABAG housing but it is an important issue for looking at how we are
going to feed people to this development. In particular the issue that I have raised is the need for
better transit service between the medical center and for that matter the shopping center and East
Palo Alto which employs many people including as we saw in the Cancer Center analysis a very
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
high percentage of the service workers who are in great need of good transit. We have a whole
number of non-interconnected transit services.
So one, I would like to see that on the map and second I would really like to see that as a major
part of the negotiations with Stanford that we look at how we can coordinate those services and
perhaps integrate them into a single transit provider of which Stanford may very well be the best
suited and other entities should be channeling their transit dollars into an expansion of the
Marguerite to serve those areas. It is hard to go into that analysis unless we first start by looking
at where are we now and what are the sorts of transit services that are being provided and by
whom.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want to sound a cautionary note here. I want to be careful that we are
not getting into in some ways a comprehensive plan for the hospital that we are actually doing an
Area Plan here. We all go to San Francisco but we don’t need an analysis of how every single
person in the Bay Area goes to San Francisco. In this case here we have a regional health facility
and the scale of which we are analyzing this I think is really an area plan not one of a
comprehensive plan. So while I think it is desirable and I think it is necessary to understand the
bus routes for instance that are going to be feeding this area it is not necessarily important to
know where these bus routes or transit routes are coming from in a regional context per se. I
think we can each pull out a bus map or be provided a bus map and very easily look at it.
It is the same thing for instance with Caltrain. Caltrain runs up and down the peninsula we don’t
need to see that it starts in San Francisco on Townsend Street and goes all the way down to San
Jose for instance. We don’t need to see how Light Rail in Mountain View feeds into Caltrain.
So just want to sound a cautionary note here that in the analysis if begin to pile up too much on
this plan what we are going to wind up with is the emphasis is going to be taken off of the
importance of this as a regional medical facility and it becomes more of a comprehensive plan
and I don’t want that to happen in this case.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber and then Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Garber: Let me address actually both of the previous comments by
Commissioners Burr and Lippert. I think they both touch on really important topics. I will take
a step back. The design of any project especially one as large as this is going to create conflicts
before solutions are eventually arrived at but to move through those conflicts not only do you
have to have the broad goals you also need the sort of transformative ideas of design that allows
us to pull through the various bumps along the way. I have spoken about the transformative
nature that this project should be, or I believe it should be and I am not speaking specifically to
the Area Plan here, but the sorts of themes that I have been hearing the last couple of meetings
and I think there are three. One is local improvements/regional benefits. Although they may not
be a part of the Area Plan to talk about the broader regional impacts in terms of looking at how
we manage those impacts it may be inevitable for us to have conversations with Menlo Park or
East Palo Alto or for Stanford to be engaging those entities in order to be able to mitigate to the
degree that we should be or can be to create a successful project.
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
That same issue has to deal with or ties in a bunch of things. There is housing, there is ABAG,
there is transportation, and I think the other large theme is challenging established ideas of which
height versus open space is a big one. It is a big topic for Palo Alto to tackle. The other one that
has been staring us in the face for a long time is no net new trips. I would hate for our insistence
on that concept to tie us from sort of the underlying issues, which is really congestion versus
environmental concerns to keep us from getting through those issues on a project level. Now
that is specific. Highlighting that concept as something in the Area Plan may not be appropriate,
but at the project level it may be very important for us. It may be that by creating a through road
we relieve a good bit of congestion even though it in fact my increase some of the trips. I have
no idea I am making it up. But I would hate for us to exclude the possibility to address a larger
issue there.
I think the third large theme is the very general topic of energy and sustainability. In ten to 15
years when the hospital is presumably up and running sustainability is going to be not something
exceptional but it is going to be a prerequisite to any design. I think the project really needs to
be seen as a leader in this particular area and should look for opportunities to move beyond
sustainability and to whatever the next step is. It is a huge project. It is going to have a big
impact on our community for a long time and should be seen as something that really looks
towards the horizon and draws us there. Carbon neutral or carbon trading again, I look for
leadership on the project to take us to some of those places. Then finally the reuse of existing
materials is beginning to be commonplace and should not be unusual.
So those are the three general themes that I would expect to see us trying to look for and embrace
as a way to get through some of the other middling issues that we need to deal with when we
deal with the EIR and the impacts along the way.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and then Vice-Chair Lippert.
Commissioner Keller: With respect to Vice-Chair Lippert’s comments on transit routes I think
that it is actually very important to understand which transit routes serve this project. What I
think you will find when you do that analysis is that the Stanford Hospital and Stanford
Shopping Center are served by Sam Trans from Menlo Park and from East Palo Alto and not by
VTA. The Santa Clara County’s own Valley Transportation Authority has abandoned Stanford.
I find that frankly embarrassing that our county has worse service than Sam Trans does to this
facility. I think that part of the mitigation is understanding that need to be identified. For
example when the Campus for Jewish Life analysis was done part of that mitigation was based
on the VTA 88 bus existing and therefore, understanding the context of these transit routes is
important. I realize everybody knows where Caltrain goes, and I realize that we don’t need to
understand the linkage as far away as Light Rail in Mountain View, but I believe we do need to
understand where the direct bus routes that serve the shopping center and the medical center that
is certainly important.
Secondly with respect to no new net car trips that was mentioned by Commissioner Garber I
think that to the extent that we add the potential for in lieu trip reductions elsewhere, in lieu trip
mitigations elsewhere, that that allows for appropriate expansions at this Stanford Medical
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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Center expansion to be accommodated through reductions elsewhere so that we don’t have an
overall increase in traffic. It seems to me that that is certainly accommodate-able and there are
certainly opportunities to reduce traffic that is generated elsewhere to satisfy that requirement.
Thank you.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I don’t mean in any way to suggest that that information not be contained
within the report or the plan. All that I am suggesting is that this information be abbreviated in a
way that it doesn’t become cumbersome and unwieldy that is the only thing that I am suggesting
here.
I don’t think it is necessarily Stanford’s responsibility to make VTA or Sam Trans provide those
routes but what we should be aware of is if there is a deficit or something missing we should be
able to address that as a body. That’s all.
Chair Holman: Curtis.
Mr. Williams: These are very pertinent issues but I think again we need to step back. We are
looking at an Area Plan that is establishing a policy framework for reviewing these discussions.
We have identified, in this particular area you are discussing, Comprehensive Plan policies that
are relevant to moving that issue forward. We have identified the issue of transit as being
important to address. We have identified no ne.w net trips as being a goal at least as something to
try to achieve as the project moves forward. We have an EIR that is going to have more maps of
transit routes than you probably want to see. You will probably be saying how do we get
through all this by the time you see that. We will recommend specific mitigation measures, etc.,
etc. So I think we are just getting to a layer that is deeper, more detailed than we need to be for
this Area Plan. All of those issues are very good, not just this transit issue but some of the other
ones that you are bringing up are very pertinent issues that I think we have captured in terms of
having sort of an overarching objective or policy and then identifying Comprehensive Plan
programs and policies relevant to that that we can move forward with to address the specifics
once we start getting the application in and the information that we need. So I would really
encourage you to maybe try to stay away from some of those details or we are not going to make
ten o’clock or close to it.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Curtis, without attempting to go into any detail on these areas in which this
plan interacts with surrounding areas I think a number of the Commissioners have brought up
several concerns and examples of how that interaction will ultimately be very germane to goals
within this plan, on the net trips for instance. So maybe what we need to do, I don’t think we
have identified it in this way, is look at inter-jurisdictional relationships and have that as a
category. Have that as a deliberate part of how both the plan is evaluated and the mitigations are
evaluated. This isn’t an island even though the concentration of the plan has boundaries the
external impacts on the environmental impacts of the plan go beyond the physical boundaries of
the plan area. I think we need to capture it somehow.
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
Mr. Williams: I agree. I meant to mention that we have heard this particular issue of
differentiating between sort of local impacts and regional benefits and impacts and making those
distinctions and solutions that may also be larger than just the City of Palo Alto. I think we
could either try to incorporate some of that discussion within some of these sections or what it
sounds like you may be going towards, and I think we probably could do this as well, is actually
create a separate section that discusses inter-jurisdictional relationships and impacts and benefits.
We could call it something like that and just sort of have that discussion and note that it is
important as we move through this process critical to recognize those, identify them, address
them, and work with those jurisdictions as appropriate to resolve them.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, I think that in doing so that we will create an opportunity to partner
with Stanford on those areas. Either Stanford alone or Palo Alto alone will have less ability to
have those kinds of impacts than Stanford and Palo Alto together. For instance the issues that
Commissioner Keller brought up on the VTA coverage we have seen that when things are very
important to Stanford before the Board of Supervisors they had a very strong impact to the Board
of Supervisors. I think we have to find those places here where in fact there is an alignment
between the City’s interests and Stanford’s interests in the inter-jurisdictional areas and to work
together to try to address those things that can be improved and help this plan along.
Mr. Williams: I think that is doable.
Chair Holman: Okay. Seeing no other Commissioners’ hands up I will take opportunity to make
a few comments.
First let me say that I think a lot of the comments that were made for chapter 2 are going to bleed
right into chapter 3, issues that we identified, concerns and comments on the maps. I think a lot
of those comments will bleed into chapter 3. I am presuming that Staff will take those and
incorporate those into chapter 3 as they relate to connectivity and parking and all those sorts of
things.
Mr. Williams: Yes, fight.
Chair Holman: Okay, so that will help shorten this discussion too. There were comments made
by Commissioners a couple of meetings ago when we looked at this. A lot of the comments that
were made led me to the thought that what we were really talking about was a village concept.
So as we are looking at planning principles and goals and such for this I am hoping that we will
add something having to do with creating a village here. That is one way to address trips, that is
one way to address housing, and other things. Also, I would hope that there would be some
consideration on the part of the City and the part of Stanford that because this really is such a
major development that is being proposed that the best architects in the world are not urban
planners and given the limited Staff availability I am hoping there will be some consideration for
employment of a really high level urban planner to help facilitate the development of this plan as
whole, not just the Area Plan but as it incorporates the shopping center and bleeds into the rest of
the community.
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
The issues on page 3.8. This Commission had identified quite a laundry list of issues and yet the
issues really are given one page, as I discover it, one page in chapter 3 and really only list the
five or six issues that were identified early on. I think with the addition of historic preservation
of cultural resources. I think that list is critical to get added in here. Additionally the issues
when we talked about adding it into chapter 1 it is not listed in the Table of Contents where you
can even find the issues.
Mr. Williams: I am not sure what - this list starts out saying these other issues are in other
chapters basically.
Chair Holman: Where are you reading from?
Mr. Williams: The first paragraph of page 3.8. Is that where you were? You said 3.8 was the
page you were on.
Chair Holman: Yes.
Mr. Williams: The key land use issues, etc., those like housing, urban design, and open space
are addressed in other chapters. We have talked a little bit about these other ones here and then
all the other chapters have other issues as far as transportation and sustainability and all those
kinds of issues. So are saying we just don’t list all of those in place?
Chair Holman: Yes, and it would seem as though, maybe it is just how my mind organizes
things but we don’t have a comprehensive list of what the issues are that have been identified.
That list doesn’t exist as I tried to find it. And the fact that the list is not comprehensive as
identified previously and it is not listed in the Table of Contents.
Mr. Williams: Those issues are not all land use issues and 3.8 is the land use section. So maybe
preceding that we should have something that is following the planning principles that are
specifically issues related to the issues and identifying all of the issues and then going into land
use, transportation, open space, etc.
Chair Holman: Okay, yes, and they weren’t all land use issues but many of them were, more
than are listed here if memory serves at all. So you will check that I am sure.
Mr. Williams: I thought we had but we’ll look again.
Chair Holman: Okay. Then something I mentioned earlier too having to do with the land uses
where we would address in particular the carbon neutral aspect which I hope Stanford will adopt
both as a developer and as a business model. On page 3.3 in the second bullet it talks about
below market residential units. It doesn’t seem to reference with a focus on employee housing. I
am hoping that will be a focus there.
I don’t remember exactly where this is mentioned but the goals, I think both of the City and
Stanford, were to maintain the quality and character of Stanford. I know there are
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Comprehensive Plan policies but in the text I didn’t find that it related to the maintain the quality
and character of the City of Palo Alto and/or surrounding area so I think that should be added.
The last bullet on that page 3.3 again talks about sustainability and green building design. Again
I mention this specifically because it is so seldom referenced when it comes to green building
and sustainability but when asked they will respond that indeed it should include the impacts of
demolition. So that should be included.
The issue of height. It is addressed in various places. There is a presumption and I would like
clarity to be provided in this, there is a presumption that if a building goes higher it will not go as
wide so we are preserving open space. When in fact as I read it there are changes being
requested for changes to setbacks. So what I am anticipating or wondering about is does that
mean they are actually looking for the reduced setbacks or what? So I think there ought to be a
clarity about whether an increased height proposal is indeed going to lead to more open space
around the project of the hospital. So clarity on that.
I think those are my only comments. I take it back. Two more I believe. On page 3.16 it talks
about in lieu fees for the medical office components for housing. I hope that as a part of this
plan and as the project goes forward there will be a relationship that is clearly defined about
whether it is in lieu fees or whether it is development of housing and what the timing of that
would be in relationship to the development of the medical center project. What I am wanting to
avoid is that we have an expanded medical center and indeed shopping center but the housing
isn’t going to be built for eight years, let’s say. So we are going to be living with the impacts in
the meantime. So there needs to be a relationship developed between those.
On page 3.17 the map that had some previous discussion. Number four, the transit oriented
housing, it doesn’t state that that’s focused on the transit center as I read it. So it could also be
interpreted like does that mean Downtown North? We talked about previously that we weren’t
going to take those neighborhoods and make them transit oriented development but this map
opens that door and leaves it open to discussion. So I think if that is your intention then state it
and if it is not your intention please preclude it.
I think this is akin to Commissioner Keller’s comments earlier about number two and number
three on the same map on page 3.17. Is that 200 additional units in addition to what was allowed
for in the GUP? Number three, is that 150 units additional to what was allowed by the GUP?
Clarity on that would be terrific. I think those were my only comments at this time.
Commissioner Keller, you had another one? Then it is 9:30 and we have chapter 4 to do.
Commissioner Keller: A quick follow up to one of the comments that Chair Holman made on in
particular the BMR housing for employees. I note that there is already within California and
within our region a shortage of nurses. In particular a lot of nurses just like a lot of
schoolteachers are going to retire in the next few years. Therefore recruitment of nurses is going
to be a particular problem particularly since there is going to be an increase in the need for
nurses. So therefore it seems to me that housing units that are affordable that are targeted for
employees like that would seem to be not only dealing with the housinffjobs imbalance and the
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
impacts of the jobs on transportation and all of that but in fact it would be a way of attracting and
retaining the kind of staff that you would need to support the increased size of the hospital.
Chair Holman: One last comment and it seems like we are through with this in a pretty timely
fashion. Clarity on the maps as we talked about before I think this might clarify some of
Commissioner Keller’s comments earlier about parking. The parking is identified as structured
parking underground or under-platform parking. That presumes that then the rest of the
indications of blue that have no identifier, that presumes that is surface parking but maybe that
should be identified or clarified that it is or is not surface parking for clarity. With that we will
go to chapter 4.
Commissioners are looking for a break. Why don’t we take a five-minute break, we will come
back do chapter 4, and then we will undertake item number two.
We will reconvene the meeting and undertake chapter 4. So Commissioners, comments, who
would like to start? Commissioner Lippert, would you like to start?
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think the chapter is fine. It basically outlines a lot of the development
regulations and answers a lot of questions with regard to what we are looking at in terms of the
existing criteria of the PF zone as well as how parking is calculated for a medical facility here.
What I don’t see again, and I reiterate this from previously, is what the capacity of the facility is.
I think that is really what is paramount here. To give you an example I attended a lecture earlier
today on the Golden Gate Bridge. One of the things that they talked about was the maintenance
of the bridge and upkeep, but also the operations of the Golden Gate Bridge. One of the things
that was remarkable about it is that the Fast Track system for instance has reduced the backup on
the Waldo Grade. It used be if you were coming across from Matin to San Francisco you had a
20-minute wait on the bridge trying to get across it. Fast Track, 75 percent of the people that
commute in the morning use Fast Track. It has eliminated that and if you get three or four cars at
a toll station waiting to go through the tollbooth the manager of the Golden Gate Bridge, who
was actually making the presentation, said he begins to get phone calls from people. That is
considered a long wait.
What I think is really great about this facility is that if there was some understanding of how new
medical efficiencies are going to be able to deal with and expand the capacity of this facility. In
some ways perhaps the parking, and it says here for instance one parking space for every one and
a half beds, if there was some understanding as to how changes in the practice in medicine is
going to actually change that number. Basically what I mean by that is it is no longer a common
medical practice for somebody after an operation to remain in bed for a number of weeks in a
hospital. They actually try to get that person up and moving and out of the facility within a day
or two. That is a new practice. So we are handing a much larger capacity or efficiency of the
facility and I don’t think that is really addressed here in the chapter and perhaps it should be
looked at.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
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 Burt: I think we have covered a number of the issues I had at previous meetings
or earlier tonight. One of the things was to make sure that the statements are framed in terms of
these are the applicant’s proposed zoning changes, etc. The other one was one I alluded to
earlier and Commissioner Lippert in a way alluded to which is the final bullet on 4.2 is parking
ratios may be changed to performance based parking requirements. How we might look at that is
a complex issue. One of the things is to baseline what are their current not only space ratios but
car ratios to various measurements. I don’t know that it is going to be within the scope of what
we can do, hopefully it is within the scope of what Stanford is evaluating to do some of what
Commissioner Lippert just alluded to which is evaluating not only the present changes but the
anticipated future changes in the way in which medical practices occur. Whether we are
outsourcing second opinions on CAT scans to India overnight or whatever. How do those things
translate into what is going to happen here in at least the aspects that are covered by our review
of the plan?
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Keller: One of the things I would like to understand and make easy for me to
understand is when things are changed what is the before and what is the after. So what I see on
page 4.1 is a lot of narratives of before, and I see on page 4.2 some narratives of after, but I have
to go and line things up to compare. So for example where it says the maximum FAR for
inboard Welch Road is 1.5:1 I have to then look at the Public Facilities to figure out that that
originally is 1:1. It would be nice if this were summarized in a table that called out exactly what
changes were being proposed to floor area ratio, to setbacks, those kinds of things, and identify
what all of them are, which things are being proposed for change and what those proposed
changes are. It would be a lot easier to understand that at a glance than it is to try to line things
up in a summary or a narrative.
Secondly, I would like to have an understanding of how much of the changes in terms of things
that are being proposed for change is being done because of project requirement issues. We have
heard a lot about why hospitals need to be high, okay? I have heard a lot of justification about
that. We may or may not agree with it but it has been justified, okay? We haven’t heard a lot of
justification of why the area needs to be dense as contrasted with there is just not enough land.
So the changes that are being made because Stanford foresees that there is a shortage of land as a
part of this and is doing this because of the building up versus out kind of issue as contrasted
with for example continuing on the other side of Pasture Drive and expanding the medical center
for lower density. That is the kind of tradeoff I think we need to understand.
In particular I have been told and I am not sure if this is accurate but I have been told that when
the Stanford Medical Center is finished in terms of all of this new development that it will be
about 4.5 million square feet, that what I have been told. It seems to me a nice compact amount
of space. I understand, and correct me if this is wrong, but I understand that the entire Stanford
Research Park is 9.0 million square feet. So what you have is half of the Stanford Research Park
crammed into this small space. Now we may say that that is a good thing or a bad thing but it is
helpful to have that kind of comparison and understand what is being done because of
densification, they are saving land, and what is being done for specific project reasons. Thank
you.
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
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Mr. Keller has taken some of the wind out of my sails again. I will add
emphasis only that it would be nice to have some greater discussion about the whys of things, for
instance why it is important to the applicant to rezone the hospital to a new zone. I can imagine
some of the reasons but it would be nice to have a sentence or two that talks about that, or for
instance to be able to talk about the jurisdictional boundary change and why that is a benefit to
them. It is buried in here in that it appears that the site boundary between the two goes through
one of their planned buildings which would mean that in order to actually do that they would end
up with two buildings, but you don’t get that out of there. So the whys for each one of these,
some attention to that would be helpful. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: It seems that this is the time where we are wading in on some of the big
overriding issues in addition to specifically section 4. There is one that I wanted to bring up for
consideration. When we talked about, various mitigation measures and impacts and the issue of
open space versus vertical growth and how all these things relate to one another. It is difficult
for us to get a handle on a point of reference. What is appropriate? What is an appropriate nexus
for various aspects of the project? We don’t have something that we can compare side-by-side
but the closest thing that I am aware of and that I have participated in is when we had Palo Alto
Medical Foundation do a wholesale rebuild and move from its SOFA site to E1 Camino. In that
circumstance that was in fact our last area plan although this one is being defined somewhat
differently. That might be a point of reference for us to get kind of a handle on what are some of
the various elements that you would look at in a comprehensive plan and different mitigation
measures, and what are the intrinsic benefits of the project and what are appropriate other public
benefits that need to go along with it. One of the things that was brought up earlier is we often
intensification of use recognize that especially near transit oriented areas it is appropriate for
them to grow vertically, to have less private open space, and greater public open space. That is
one of the new urbanist principles and it is one of the ones that frequently we get half the
equation. We say well, yes we need that intensification and then when it comes down to the
rubber meeting the road on the public open space the argument is often well, we don’t have the
space or the money or whatever for it. So we get half of an equation. I am not proposing
specific answers to that question but I think we need to take a big picture view at the aggregate
impacts and benefits and perhaps look at the PAMF/SOFA development as one point of
reference. Not stipulating anything for this project but as a way to compare and give us a point
of reference.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: In looking at this and the proposed zoning changes and the proposed
development standards I think what is relevant here is that Stanford owns basically all of this
land. Where the underlying lot lines occur with regard to this development are in some ways
irrelevant because if Stanford owns all this land they can actually move the lot lines wherever
they want them to be and move them so that the setback lines for instance have virtually no
Page 35
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
meaning whatsoever. That is one of the reasons why I asked the question whether these are road
easements that have been placed on Stanford lands where they occur or whether they are
dedicated easements per se. We don’t have that information contained in this Area Plan. So
what I am looking at here that I guess is the most important thing is the density, the height, the
mass, the bulk of the development and less emphasis perhaps on the setbacks because what is
going to happen is it is how things are located on the site I think that is probably more important
and the positives and negatives that it is creating within the overall plan rather than what the
setbacks are, so to speak.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I agree with Vice-Chair Lippert that the street setbacks certainly need to
be called out where they are being reduced and changed.
With respect to page 4.4, which refers to the 2000 GUP, I think that where it identifies Planning
Commission I assume you mean the County Planning Commission. It would be worthwhile
identifying that in precision so that there is no confusion.
When I was working on my dissertation I had a pedantic professor who taught me not to use non-
referential ’this.’ An example of this kind of thing is when you said, ’the construction of a
100,000 gross square foot medical facility at the Quarry site would require this,’ that is the kind
of the ’this’ that actually needs a noun, otherwise it is ambiguous. In particular what can be
identified as a thing that is an alternative to requiring approval by the County Planning
Commission of this site is this is an appropriate place where annexing, where the potential for
the City of Palo Alto annexing, the land and the effect of that on the County GUP and the effect
of on City density and all that, that is the place where all that discussion should be.
Similarly, elsewhere in this discussion of land use designation from Santa Clara County I don’t
see a particular issue about housing in terms of identified in this area. To the extent that the
Quarry-E1 Camino site and the Quarry-Arboretum site and other sites, I think those two sites
might be designated as housing in the County GUP, to the extent that that in fact is the case and
is allocated for a certain number of housing units that discussion needs to be in this section on
the bottom of 4.3 and the top of 4.4. To the extent that, as was mentioned earlier, there are
proposals to put additional housing there than is already identified then that needs to be
identified as a proposed change to increase the density of that housing. To the extent that other
things are being proposed there that needs to be identified for that.
In addition, in terms of 4.2 where it says the maximum height at the Hoover Pavilion site would
be 60 feet. How high is the Hoover Pavilion now? Identifying how high that building is and
how high the surrounding buildings would be would be interesting. Certainly the aspect of
putting tall buildings, or parking structures, or other buildings adjacent to a historic structure I
am not sure to the extent to which that is properly called out here or wherever it needs to be.
Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Burt’s comments regarding who
prepared what portions of chapter 4. I agree with Commissioner Keller’s comments and
Page 36
1 Commissioner Garber also referred to this having some way to refer concisely in comparison as
2 opposed to having to go back and forth to try to determine that. A comment about setbacks,
3 setbacks are important. Yes, this is all land that Stanford owns but setbacks affect the character
4 of development and it also can affect the available space for open space for trees, for any kind of
5 healthful landscape, and the quality of the experience of the development. So I think setbacks
6 are important plus there has been as was mentioned earlier this concept of up rather than out.
7 Again, I am not anticipating that based on the comments that I see here.
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
Some of the characterizations that are made here or comments that are made here specifically if
they are proposed by Stanford, again ’Stanford’ is shorthand for ’medical facility,’ then Staff I
think should comment on them, do they agree or disagree? The permitted uses as opposed to
conditional use permits, I am not going to comment deeply on this right now but there is a reason
to have conditional use permits. That is because there are impacts that are anticipated by some
of the various uses. So if it is just a permitted use you lose control. I do understand that there is
a downside to it also that requires more process but I would not like to see us go too liberally to
allowing permitted uses as opposed to conditional use permits. City Attorney, would you care to
comment on that just briefly?
Ms. Silver: You are absolutely right. A permitted use will involve less discretion later on in the
process whereas a conditional use permit will allow some additional review later on in the
process.
Chair Holman: So just a quick for instance, if one use might generate a whole lot more traffic
than another then you have the discretion to require more TDM or some such whereas if it is an
allowed use you do not.
Ms. Silver: If that requirement is built into the conditional use, yes.
Chair Holman: Okay. Thank you and comments that I have other than that I think have been
previously brought up. Commissioner Keller has a question.
Commissioner Keller: I have a quick question. I understand that there is a standard theme that
we have heard a lot which is that we want to go up as opposed to out. I would like to know if the
land was available and we didn’t have to go up and we wanted to go out, I am not saying we do
but if we did, in other words how much additional land would be needed to conform to the
existing density rules? So if we retain the existing density rules and hypothetically say we are
going to spread it out I would like to have identification of how much land that is. In some sense
that is a description of, from my perspective, how much open space would needed to be
preserved because you are saying you are not going out, you are going up instead, so the amount
that you would have gone out needs to be preserved. Thank you. The difference is the benefit
and needs to be preserved in some way.
Page 37
ATTACHMENT D
Table 1
Summary of Relationships between the Area Plan, EIR and the
Development Agreement
AREA PLAN
REZONING
EIR
DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT
Guidance document
for the SUMC area.
Required by City
Comprehensive
Plan.
Establishes zoning
policy including
balance of uses for
affected area.
Framework for
reviewing project
approvals.
Required by state
law. Analyzes
environmental
impacts and
proposes mitigation
measures for those
impacts. Examines
project alternatives.
Negotiated
agreement between
the applicant and the
City to address items
above and beyond
the conditions of
project approval and
mitigation measures.
Not a policy
document. Limited
geographical area.
Broad review of a
variety of issues. No
discussion of project
mitigation for
impacts. No
discussion of
community benefits.
Does not impose
conditions of
approval or
mitigation measures.
Topics are limited to
environmental
issues associated
with project and the
Development
Agreements. Very
detailed review of
these issues.
Terms are
negotiated and can
include funding
and/or
improvements or
other benefits
outside of the
boundaries of the
project. The
Development
Agreement cannot
supersede CEQA
EIR requirements.
Conceptual review
and input by Council
in July. Final
acceptance by
resolution at end of
the project.
Adoption by
ordinance.
Certification by the
City Council after
appropriate pubic
review, concurrent
with the approval of
the project.
Adopted by
Ordinance after
approval of the
project.
Attachment E
MEMORANDUM
To:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT NO.
Gayle Likens
Dennis A. Struecker, PE
April 19, 2007
City of Palo Alto Traffic Monitoring
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
84-
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 d
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 Sand Hill
Road/Welch 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+
Sand Hill Rd/Pasteur DdClark Wy N/A
Sand Hill Rd/Arboretum Rd NIA
Welch DdPasteur Dr (west)N/A
Welch DdPasteur Dr (east)N/A
Quarry RdNineyard Rd N/A
Quarry Rd/Welch Rd N/A
Arboretum Rd/Quarry Rd C
Palm Dr/Arboretum Rd C+
AM Peak PM Peak
Avg Crit Avg Avg Crit
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
0.0 0.000 0.0 C+22.5 0.534 22.8
0.0 0.000 0.0 C 24.8 0.601 27.8
0.0 0.000 0.0 A 7.7 0.240 8.2
0.0 0.000 0.0 B+10.4 0.402 10.8
0.0 0.000 0.0 B 12.5 0.414 11.8
0.0 0.000 0.0 C+21.4 0.539 23.1
31.5 0.528 31.3 C 29.5 0.675 33.9
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
Alma St/Churchill Ave B-19.1 0.657
El Camino Real!Alma St/Sand Hill Rd C-33,4 0,616
El Camino Real/Embarcadero Rd/Galvez St D 40.3 0.458
El Camino Real/Page Mill Rd D-53.0 0,935
El Camino ReatJUniversity Ave / Palm Drive C 28.7 0.724
El Camino Real/Churchill Ave C 24.9 0.724
El Camino Real/Quarry Rd N/A 0.0 0.000
Junipero Serra Blvd/Campus Dr West D+36.3 0,611
36,4 D+38.5 0.638 40.4
16.6 C 27.2 0.769 30.6
38.4 D+37.3 0.807 49.6
42.6 13 44.7 0.728 47.9
59.8 D 47.4 0.88~53.1
32.2 D 46.6 0.880 52.2
31.5 C 27.3 0.684 37.9
0.0 C 23.0 0.478 13.0
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/Mento Ave D+36.5 0.759 37.2 D
El Camino Real/Middle Ave C 26.2 0,688 31.6 C
Et Camino Real/Cambridge Ave B 13.6 0.563 15.0 B
Alpine Rd/Santa Cruz Ave/Junipero Serra Bird B-19.4 0.668 22.0 C+
Sand Hill Rd/Sharon Park Dr C+22.4 0.583 18.6 C+
Middlefield Rd/Willow Rd C 29.4 0.769 31.2 D+
Galvez St/Arboretum Rd)C 5.0 0.000 5.0 C
Welch Rd/Campus Dr West (N)B 6.5 0.000 6.5 C
Welch Rd/Campus Dr West (S)C 3.6 0.000 3.6 B
Notes:
49.5 0.815 52.5
24.5 0.673 37.6
12.7 0.504 6.6
22.2 0,818 23,1
23.0 0.702 27.3
36.2 0.870 42.0
7.8 0.000 7.8
3,9 0.000 3.9
3.1 0.000 3.1
1. El Camino Real/University/Palm analyzed as a single intersection.
2. Quarry/El 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.
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 CAPSSl,
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 CAPSSl 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 Rea!/Ravenswood Ave.
El Camino Real/Roble Ave.
El Camino Real/Santa Cruz Ave.
El Camino Real/
Valparaiso Ave./Glenwo0d Ave.
Junipero Serra Blvd./Alpine Rd./
Santa Cruz Ave.
Junipero Serra BlvdJ
Campus Ddve 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.
Peak Hour
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
2000 With
1995 Project
LOS LOS
D D
C F
F F
D D
D D
A A
B C
B C
B B
C C
D E
D D
C C
D E
E F
C D
D D
D D(E)
B B
B B
C C
D D(F)
D F
C C
C C
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
E D
B C
C C
C C
D E
C C
D D
B C
B Dc_B_(_C_]
B B
A C
2006 2010With
Monitoring Project
LOS LOS
B-
C
C
C
C+
C+
~(~)
C(B)
C-
D+
B
B
C
C
D
D
C
C
D-
D
C
D
D+
D
C(B)
B-
C+
D+
C-C
F
C
C
C
D+
C
C
C
E(F)
C
D
D
D
B
C
Gayle Likens - City of Palo Alto Traffic Monitoring
April 16, 2007
Page 6
Intersection
Sand Hill RdJPasteur 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:
Peak Hour
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
1996, 2000 with Project, and 2010 With Pro
1995
LOS
B
C
B(C)
D
E
B
B
B
B
C
C
2000 With
Project
LOS
C
C
D
F
F
B(C)
B
B
C
act are analyzed with CAPSSI.
2006
Monitoring
LOS
C+
D÷
D+
C+
C+
C
E~+
C+
C-
D+
2010 With
Project
LOS
C
C
C(D)
F
F
B(D)
B
B
B
C
1)
2) Menlo Park intersection analyzed with CAPSSI and HCS. Differences in LOS for HCS noted in ().
3) Campus Ddve West/Welch Road is analyzed as two intersections in 2006 Monitoring X (Y), X = North
Intersection, Y = South Intersection.
4) El Camino Real/Palm/University analyzed as a single intersection in 2006 Monitoring.
5) Highlighted cells represent locations where 2006 Monitoring level of service is at least one full letter
grade worse than the 2000 Project condition.
6) 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.
7) Some intersections were counted only in the PM peak hour in 2006. AM counts will be collected in 2007.
ATTACHMENT G
Stanford University
Medical Center
Area Plan Update
DRAFT
27June07
Table of Contents
1
2
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Objectives
History and Background
Governance and Regulation
FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT NEEDS
Drivers for Renewal and Replacement
Proposal for Renewal and Replacement
Summaries of Proposed Improvements
PLAN ELEMENTS
Planning Principles
Land Use
Housing
Urban Design Quality / Community Character
Unkages and Connections
Circulation, Vehicular Access, and Parking
Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Circulation
Open Space
Utilities and Public Infrastructure
.Sustalnability and Green Building
1.1
1.5
1.10
2.1
2.4
2.5
3,1
3,5
3.14
3,18
3.24
3.30
3.38
3.46
3.52
3.58
ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS - EXISTING AND PROPOSED
Existing Zoning - City of Palo Alto 4.1
Necessa~ Zoning Changes - City of Palo Alto 4.2
Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation and Proposed Changes
- City of Palo Alto 4.3
Land Use Designations - Santa Clara County 4.3
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07
List of Exhibits
27June07
2
INTRODUCTION
1-1 Plan Area - Context
1-2 Plan Area - Boundary
1-3 Plan Area- Existing Facilities and Uses
1-4 Past Entitlement Actions
FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT NEEDS
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
Place Names - Existing
Summary of Net Square Feet Request
Summary of Space Drivers
Stanford Hospital and Clinics - Demolition
Stanford Hospital and Clinics - Replacement
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital - Demolition
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital - Replacement
School of Medicine - Demolition
School of Medicine- Replacement
Hoover Pavilion and Quarry Road Sites - New
PLAN ELEMENTS
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
Functional Uses and Buildings - Existing
Functional Uses and Buildings - Proposed
Housing Sites - Potential
Area Plan Site Concept
Unkages - Existing
Linkages- Proposed
Vehicular Circulation and Parking - Existing
Vehicular Circulation and Parking - Proposed
Transit - Existing
Transit - Proposed
Pedestrian and Bicycle - Existing
Pedestrian and Bicycle - Proposed
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
1.2
1.3
1.8
1.9
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
3.12
3.13
3.17
3.22
3.28
3.29
3.36
3.37
3.42
3.43
3.44
3.45
List of Exhibits
3-13 Open Space - Existing 3.50
3-14 Open Space - Proposed 3,51
3-15 Major Utility Corridors - Existing 3,56
3-16 Major Utility Corridors - Proposed 3.57
ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS - EXISTING AND PROPOSED
4.1 Zoning - Existing 4.6
4.3 Zoning - Proposed 4.7
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June97 iii
Introduction
The Stanford University Medical
Center (SUMC) Area Plan Update,
will assist in forming Stanford’s
detailed proposals for a set of
projects within the SUMC. ~he
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
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 AND OBJECTIVES
This Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Area Plan has been prepared pursuant to
Program L-46 of the City’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan as a guidance document for the City,
Stanford and the public to provide an overview and context for anticipated future develop-
ment at the SUMC. It is not a regulatory document and does not comprise a coordinated
area plan or specific plan under the City’s Municipal Code. The co’ntent of the Area Plan is
expected to evolve as expansion plans in the SUMC are developed, and the Area Plan may
be modified to accommodate changes in those expansion plans, to respond to new informa-
tion revealed during the environmental review process, or at the City’s discretion. Refer to
Exhibits 1-1 and 1-2 for the planning context and the area plan boundary, respectively.
As a guidance document, the Area Plan may identify policies and regulatory requirements
from the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code that would apply to proposed de-
velopment at the SUMC, and/or describe proposed amendments to such applicable policies
and regulations. All references to existing or proposed policies, regulations, and development
standards are for descriptive purposes only. The Area Plan is not intended to establish land
use or development policies or standards, and is not intended to supersede the applicable
polities, regulations, requirements and standards of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Mu-
nicipal Code. If any provisions of the Area Plan vary from or conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan or Municipal Code, the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan or Municipal
Code shall prevail.
This Plan update is the most recent in a series of planning documents for the SUMC that
began in the mid 1950s. 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 has developed vadous 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 an application will be submitted to the City for approval
of a project for the two hospitals and the School of Medicine to address future infrastruc-
ture and patient needs. It also identifies Stanford’s campus planning and community design
principles for the SUMC.
Additionally, the update identifies and discusses the applicable City of Palo Alto Comprehen-
sive Plan (Comp Plan) policies and zoning regulations that guide development throughout the
City and at the SUMC and identifies areas where new policies and zoning regulations may be
considered to reflect the proposed project. The Area Plan’s identification of possible Comp
Plan and zoning ordinance changes are for descriptive and discussion purposes only, and
do not constitute amendments or exceptions to the City’s adopted Comp Plan and zoning
ordinance. The City also has identified certain planning objectives to be included in the Area
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 1.1
1-2 Plan Area -
Boundary
LEGEND
~Plan Area
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 1.3
Plan Update. These planning objectives are not exhaustive of the goals and objectives the
City will seek to achieve through the development of the Area Plan and the project, and do
not establish new City policy. Rather, they are intended to considered throughout the ongo-
ing project approval and entitlement process. As the planning process for the anticipated
projects continues, the City expects that these objectives will be reviewed and revised. In
addition, the environmental review process for the proposed project will address impacts of
the project including traffic, aesthetics, population and housing. The Area Plan Update is not
intended to duplicate or limit the environmental review process.
Purposes
The purposes of the SUMC Area Plan Update are:
o 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 de-
scribe improvements to the streetscape and circulation pattern that will improve pedestrian,
bicycle, transit, and auto connections.
This plan describes the existing framework for considering planning entitlements for projects
proposed within the SUMC area.
°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.
Objectives
This plan is intended to achieve a number of different land use and planning goals and
objectives. Many of these are sharedby Stanford and the City of Palo Alto and include the
following:
°Provide a long-term view of land use for the area
°Establish a context of broader campus and community land use and infrastructure
o Identify adopted Comp Plan policies to maintain and preserve the vitality of centers and
employment districts and enhance overall city structure
o Identify connections and linkages between the Medical Center Area and nearby land
uses, including the Transit Center and the Stanford Shopping Center
¯Cladfy the future site-specific planning and implementation process
Stanford’s planning objectives for the area support the basic academic mission of the Univer-
sity and health care mission of the hospitals. Toward that end Stanford has established the
following planning objectives:
DRAFT
1.4 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
o 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
The City of Palo Alto has identified the following planning objectives:
¯Identify traffic solutions that minimize the use of single-occupant vehicles.
¯Identify strategies for accomplishing housing with a focus on below-market residential
units.
¯Provide new usable open space areas in and/or in the proximity of the SUMC area, in a
way that promotes linkages between uses within and near the SUMC.
o Include project features that promote linkages for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit us-
ers from and within the SUMC to the Stanford Shopping Center, the Campus, the Palo
Alto Transit Center, downtown, and nearby neighborhoods..
¯Include specific design features for the efficient movement of vehicles, the Marguerite
Shuttle, emergency vehicles, and other transit in and around the SUMC.
¯Provide for exemplary sustainabile and green building design to achieve the equivalent
of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification for the
project.
¯Provide emergency surge capacity as part of overall disaster preparedness and manage-
ment of mass population events which impact regionally or locally.
¯Provide space proximate to the hospitals which can accommodate community health
providers whose patients utilize facilities and programs of the hospital.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
This section describes the historical context for the SUMC area and looks at City of Palo Alto
practices and processes in the recent past that address the SUMC planning and develop-
ment.
This discussion identifies 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 also summarizes how the City of Palo Alto has addressed the SUMC in prior
planning efforts, including 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 Preven-
tion, now the Advanced Medicine Center).
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 1.5
Facility Development History
In its earliest days, from 1908 to 1953, the SUMC, consisting of the School of Medicine and
its first clinical facilities, was housed in a 19th-century brick building on Clay Street in San
Francisco. In 1953, the university administration under Stanford’s President Sterling decided
to move these facilities to the Main Campus in Paio Alto. According to President Sterling,
central to this move was "the concept that the future progress of the medical sciences is
inextricably linked with progress in the basic physical and biological sciences and increas-
ingly with progress in the social sciences. It followed that the Medical School should be so
located and organized as to promote the closest possible relationship between teachers,
investigators, and students in all these fields. It followed also that opportunities for enriching
the general education of the medicai student would be greater if the Medical School became,
physically and philosophically, an integral part of the University" (Medical Care, the University,
and Society. Speeches Delivered at the Dedication of the Stanford Medical Center, Septem-
ber 17 and 18, 1959. Published by Stanford University).
With the move to Palo Alto, clinical facilities were provided initially in the old Paio Alto Hos-
pital, now called the Hoover Pavilion, on Quarry Road near [] Camino Real, while planning
began with the City of Paio Alto to construct a new medical center facility. In the late 1950’s
several clinics were constructed along Welch Road, in anticipation of the new medical center
facility. Construction at the Medical Center began in 1957 and facilities opened in phases
beginning in 1959.
The original Medical Center complex included the Edwards, Lane, Alway, Boswell, and Core
buildings, as well as the East and West Pavilions. Patient care programs were located in the
Edwards Building and in the north portion of the complex. The teaching and research pro-
grams were located in the southern area. Together, these buildings are sometimes called the
"E.D. Stone Complex" after the architect who designed them.
In the 1960s, the Grant building was added to the rear of the Medical Center, "filling in" the
"H" structure of the original group of buildings. Dudng this same timeframe, several more
buildings were constructed along Welch Road.
The 1970s saw a small expansion of Medical Center buildings to the north, known as the
Core Expansion, In addition, two more office/research buildings were constructed on Welch
Road.
The decade of the 1980s realized a significant increase in.SUMC size. Stanford Hospital
added the Hospital Modernization Project, including three patient "pods". In addition, hous-
ing was constructed at 1100 Welch Road (apartments managed by the Santa Clara County
Assistance League for patient families at reduced rates and apartments for medical residents
and other faculty and staff), a child care center was added at the rear of Hoover Pavilion, and
a parking structure was constructed to the east of the Medical Center along Campus Drive
West.
DRAFT
1.6 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
The 1990s continued with a new facility for Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, allow-
ing a move from its first location in the old convalescent hospital near Sand Hill Road and
Arboretum. Stanford Hospital also constructed the Blake-Wilbur Clinic for the faculty practice
program, and a second parking structure. The School of Medicine developed the Psychiatry
Academic/Clinic Facility at Quarry and Arboretum; the Medical School Lab Surge/Magnetic
Resonance Spectroscopy Building (now Lucas Center); and the Center for Clinical Sciences
Research.
Beyond the year 2000, Stanford Hospital constructed the Center for Cancer Treatment and
Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion at Blake-Wilbur Drive, with an underground parking
structure located in the Pasteur Drive median. In Santa Clara County, a parking structure at
the Stockfarm parking lot was constructed. Existing facilities and uses in the Plan area are
shown in Exhibit 1-3
Planning History and 2000 Land Use Area Analysis
From the initial design of Medical Center facilities in the mid-1950’s through the 1980’s, plan-
ning for the SUMC largely was performed internally by the University and the two hospitals.
For example, in 1988, the Medical Center Regional Planning Report was prepared by the
Medical Center Long Range Facilities Planning Group, which included representatives of
Stanford Hospital, School of Medicine, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and University
Planning, Transportation and Facilities Departments.
In the early 1990’s the City Council expressed its desire to si~e long-term plans for the
Medical Center Area prior to approval of individual projects. In 1991, in connection with its
approval of the Faculty Practice Program Clinic (now Blake-Wilbur Clinic), the Palo Alto City
Council s~ipulated that in order for it to consider any future new facilities within its jurisdiction,
Stanford would need to complete an overall "master plan" for the Hospital Area. To this end,
Stanford prepared a Regional Planning Update Status Report in July 1994 that was pro-
vided to the City of Palo Alto while it was in the process of preparing its Comprehensive Plan
update. This document provided urban design concepts for the region, as well as suggested
Comprehensive Plan policies for the Stanford Hospitals District.
From 1993-94, Stanford participated in the eady stages of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Update process so that the planning process for the Medical Center would continue to be
consistent with Pa!o Alto planning. During the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan process, Stan-
ford provided the City of Palo Alto with information on projected growth in hospital facilities.
In 1994, Stanford estimated that providing efficient patient care at the Medical Center into the
next century would require 400,000 gsf of new space, probably on two sites. This informa-
tion was included in the environmental analyses of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (1998),
the Palo Alto Medical Foundation project (1995), and the Sand Hill Road Projects (1997).
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 1.7
10 801 We~ch Road
12 Blak~Will~r Clinic
13 Pa~ing Structure Ill
14 1101 We~h ~
15 Paddng S~ructure N
16 West Pavifion, East Pavilion, Boswell,
17 Hospital I¢~demLzatJon Project
18 Falk Ca~iowasculaz Resea~h Center19Lucite ]>a~d C~ren~ Hospi~
20 703 Weh~ Road
21 701 We~ch Road
23 Hoover Pav~n
1-3 Plan Area -
Existing Facilities
and Uses
DRAFT
1.8 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Past Entitlement
Actions SUMC Action
Rezone 725 and 900 Blake Wilbur
Construct Hospital Modernization Project
Construct Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
Rezone 851 Welch Road
Construct Blake Wilbur (Family Practice) Clinic
Rezone 801 and 1101 Welch Road
Construct Cancer Center/Ambulatory Care Pavilion
Year
1984
1987
1991
1990
1992
2000
2003
In 1998, the City adopted the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan reflects
the City Council’s 1991 direction that Stanford provide its long-term plans for the Medical
Center Area in Policy 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 partdng 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 will improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections.
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-45 defines the Medical Center Area 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."
The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that "because the health care 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." Comprehensive Plan Policy
B-32 states:
Assist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of health
care services. Work wP,.h the Center to plan for changing facility needs, but within
the context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies...
In 2000, in connection with the City Council’s consideration of the application for the Center
for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion, Stanford prepared a Land
Use Area Analysis to comply with the stipulations created during the Blake-Wilbur Clinic
approval in 1991 and Comprehensive Plan Policy L-46. Submitted to the City Council in
June 2000, this document contains traditional planning elements such as land use; access,
circulation, and parking; and urban design/community character, as well as a discussion of
existing land use regulations, and changes to such regulations that might be proposed in the
future. The City Council accepted the Land Use Area Analysis as the area plan for the Medi-
cal Center.
Historic Entitlement Mechanisms
Prior entitlement actions are listed in Exhibit 1-4. Historically, City entitlement for hospital
expansions has occurred by rezoning Welch Road parcels from OR to PF, and adding them
to the single planning parcel. (Note that as part of a city-wide Zoning Ordinance Update in
2005, OR parcels were rezoned to Medical Office Research (MOR)). Currently, three MOR
parcels remain "in-board" (toward the hospital) of Welch Road and seven MOR parcels are
located "out-board" of Welch Road.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 1.9
In addition, as discussed more below in the Palo Alto zoning section, the hospital uses are a
conditional use on the Public Facilities parcel. Therefore, the City has issued conditional use
permits with requirements during each project approval.
GOVERNANCE AND REGULATION
This section discusses the regulations that govern land use and development for the SUMC.
Applicable Comp Plan goals, policies, and programs are summarized. Zoning regulations are
discussed in more detail in a later section. For those parts of the SUMC governed by Santa
Clara County, Stanford Community Plan policies standards are discussed.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
SUMC lands that are located in the City of Palo Alto are subject to the City’s land use regula-
tions, including the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designates the SUMC Area as "Major Institutions/Special
Facilities", "Research/Office Park", and "Multiple Family Residential." It is also identified as
one of four employment districts in the City.
The 1998 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes many policies that apply to the SUMC. Key
land use, transportation, and open space policies are identified in Chapter 3 of this Area Plan
Update.
Palo Alto Zoning
The Area Plan facilities are located on parcels zoned Public Facilities (PF), Medical Office
Research (MOR) and High-Density Multiple-Family Residences (RM-40). The zoning ordi-
nance allows hospitals and Outpatient medical facilities with associated medical research as
conditional uses on the PF parcel.
In order to allow redevelopment of the SUMC Area as anticipated in the upcoming applica-
tions, it will be necessary to enact new zoning specific to Medical Center use. Chapter 4
provides a discussion of existing and possible future zoning.
Land Use Policy Agreement
The 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement (also known as the three-party agreement) between
the Stanford University Board of Trustees, the City of Palo Alto, and the County of Santa
Clara, describes the polices regarding land use, annexation, planning and development
of Stanford University lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Stanford provides its
own municipal services to the academic facilities on these lands (including by contract with
neighboring municipalities). The agreement specifies that academic land uses do not require
annexation. Palo Alto and Stanford recognize in the agreement that each has a legitimate
interest in planning decisions made by the other and agree to timely notification of projects or
proposals that could affect the other. The Land Use Policy Agreement states that the County,
the City and Stanford agree that Stanford lands "... are held in perpetual trust for education-
al purposes..." (Policy la). The Land Use Policy Agreement also refers to an informational
DRAFT
1.10 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
document, known as the Protocol, which is maintained by the three parties to the agreement
and outlines all adopted land use designations, regulations, restrictions, and review and refer-
rai procedures governing Stanford lands in Santa Clara County. This protocol outlines the
mechanism by which Paio Alto reviews Stanford University proposals in Santa Clara County.
Santa Clara County
Three portions of the SUMC Area are within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County: the Quarry
"Rectangle" (northeast of Quarry/Arboretum), the Quarry "Trapezoid" (southeast of Quarry/Ar-
boretum), and the Quarry/El Camino site. The Quarry "Rectangle" and the Quarry El/Carnino
site are referred to in this Area Plan Update as the "Quarry housing sites."
Development of Stanford’s lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County is subject to the
County’s adopted Stanford University Community Plan, the County’s 2000 General Use Per-
mit for Stanford’s lands, and the County’s Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) process.
The Stanford campus is designated as "Major Educational and Institutional Uses" on the
County’s General Plan Land Use Map. In December 2000, Santa Clara County approved a
Community Plan (which is part of the County’s General Plan) and a General Use Permit for
construction of 2,035,000 gsf of additional academic and academic support facilities, and
approximately 3,000 additional housing units on Stanford’s lands.
The Stanford Community Plan divides the campus into seven land use categories. The Quar-
ry "Trapezoid" and the Quarry housing sites are designated Academic Campus. Allowable
academic campus uses include: instruction and research (including teaching hospital facili-
ties); administrative facilities; housing intended for students, postgraduate fellows, and other
designated personnel; high density housing for faculty and staff; athletics, physical education,
and recreation facilities; support services; infrastructure, storage, and maintenance facilities;
cultural facilities associated with the University; and non-profit research institutions with close
academic ties to the University;
The 2000 General Use Permit further sub-divides the campus into ten Development Districts.
The Quarry "Trapezoid" and Quarry housing sites are in the Quarry Development District. The
General Use Permit anticipates 50,000 gsf of academic development and 350 housing units
within this development district.
In addition, the General Use Permit allows a maximum of 2,300 new parking spaces in
unincorporated Santa Clara County. The majority of these spaces are intended to support
additional student housing units.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 1.11
Applicable Comp Plan Policies, Goals, and Programs -
Governance and Regulation
Land Use
Policy L-2
Maintain active cooperative working relationship with Santa Clara CounW and Stanford
University regarding land use issues.
Policy L-46
Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical Center
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.
DRAFT
1.12 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
2 Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Needs
The first two sections of this
chapter identify the key compo-
nents of the proposal for renewal
and replacement of facilities
within the SUMC in Palo Alto.
As described in Chapter 1, the
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan Program L-46 requires that
the SUMC Area Plan address
building locations, floor area
ratios, height limits and park-
ing 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
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, develop-
ing and providing advanced medical care for its community and region. Within Palo Alto, the
two million-plus square foot SUMC is comprised of two intemationally 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). Campus lands along Quarry.
Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County are adjacent to Palo Alto and served partially by
City infrastructure. This area is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and contains SUMC
facilities. The Area Plan Update will discuss SUMC needs that can be met through the use of
these lands.
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.
SUMC has stated that to assure the 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,
SB1953 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. According
to SHC, the Stanford Hospital, comprised of buildings built in 1959, 1973, and 1989, does
not comply with criteda in place for the 2013 deadline, and significant portions of its facili-
ties 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 non-structural criteria. After exploring renova-
tion, separation, and partial demolition options, SHC states that it is more efficient for SHC to
replace these facilities than to retrofit them. In addition, LPCH states that its facility meets the
structural performance criteria for the 2030 deadline, but significant non-structural renova-
tions to critical care areas are required by the 2013 deadline. In order to accomplish these
renovations, LPCH states that it needs replacement space for patients and families during
construction.
Inadequate Ability to Serve Constituents
LPCH states that its existing facilities do not adequately serve the public. According to
LPCH, the hospital was forced to turn away 200 critically ill children. SHC states that it turned
away 500 adult patients in 2005 and referred them to other medical care providers because
of a shortage of rooms and/or beds.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 2.1
According to the hospitals, 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. The emergency department shared by SHC and LPCH is undersized by approximately
25,000 square feet. The emergency department has inadequate patient waiting and triage
space, and trauma rooms out of compliance with contemporary facility standards. The hospi-
tals state that in 2005, approximately 950 visitors were referred to other emergency depart-
ments due to lack of capacity.
Statutory Code Requirements
California’s building code for hospitals requires facilities to withstand severe earthquakes and
maintain uninterrupted service to the community. To achieve compliance with these criteria,
hospital buildings incorporate massive structural systems, including:
o Deeper beams and larger columns than a typical building resulting in taller building
heights.
¯Oversized mechanical ductwork for sophisticated air handling systems to prevent the
spread of infections and maintain sterile environments and other specialty systems such
as medical gas, vacuum, and emergency power result in taller floor-to-floor heights.
Optimal Hospital Planning
The existing Stanford Hospital, organized horizontally, does not provide a private and secure
route from the operat’=ng rooms or the emergency department to the patient rooms. Ac-
cording to SHC and LPCH, new buildings for the Stanford and Packard Hospitals should be
designed with appropriate vertical relationships utilized in modem hospital systems. There-
fore, the new bed towers will be proposed to be eight stories or less, with a maximum height
of 130 feet (excluding rooftop mechanical penthouses). In addition, SHC and LPCH intend to
provide single-bed rooms, rather than the current mix of single and double-bed rooms.
The planning considerations the hospitals used to form the basis for these proposals include
the following:
I~linimize Distances of Travel
Modern hospital planning seeks to minimize the distance traveled from procedure room
to patient room. This can be 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 inten-
sive 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.
DRAFT
2.2 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Aerial View
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, 1989, and 1991.
Published research demonstrates that single-bed patient rooms improve patient care, reduce
stress on nursing staff, and allow families to assist patients in recovering from illness or
treatment SHC states that, of the additional 730,000 sf proposed 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 al~ single-bed rooms. LPCH states that about 126,000
sf of the 401,000 sf proposed expansion is for conversion to, and support of, single-bed
rooms,
Inadequate Ability to Support Contemporary Translational Research
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 states that it must undertake the systematic
replacement of its aging facilities.
Increasing Outpatient Healthcare Demand
Both hospitals note that there is a growing need and demand for outpatient care. A major
portion of this care either must be delivered, or is best delivered, within immediate proximity
to inpatient facilities and equipment. Advanced and rigorous cancer treatments and thera-
pies, as well as transplant procedures, are good examples of this.
Level 1 Trauma Center~ Disaster Preparedness, and Surge Capacity
The hospitals are a Level 1 Trauma Center serving the counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo
(southern portion), Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito populations of approximately 3.3
million people. SHC and LPCH have determined that their modernization plans must include
fundamental design provisions relevant to their 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 A~to community hospital, SHC
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 facilities replacement and renewal, SHC, LPCH, and SoM have determined
that they 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. SHC,
LPCH and SoM have determined that 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.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07
PROPOSAL FOR RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
SHC, LPCH and SoM will submit applications for the following SUMC proposal for renewal
and replacement to address the foregoing requirements.
Stanford Hospital and Clinics
SHC is currently licensed by the state of California to operate 613 beds, but is currently
operating at a 456-bed level. SHC has projected its need, in order to viably meet current and
future demand, requires an increase of 144 beds to a total of 600 beds.
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
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 SHC 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. Refer to
Exhibits 2-5 and 2-6.
Stanford University School of Medicine
SoM states that it 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.
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 of
other mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems have also increased over time,
including provisions for emergency power.
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. The incorporation of handicapped accessibility into the
interior design of research laboratories has resulted in wider aisles and increased interior
circulation areas.
The four buildings occupied by SoM within the City’s boundaries are Edwards, Lane, Alway
and Grant. The SoM has determined that these buildings no longer serve the Medical Cen-
ter’s clinical and translational research needs and must be replaced. Currently, the buildings
DRAFT
2.4 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
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 PediatricsThese depart-
ments are fundamental to the SoM’s academic mission. SoM would replace the existing
building in a series of three new modern "Foundations in Medicine" (FIM) buildings, to be
constructed in a phased process.
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 SUMC development and application), SoM w~ll be pursu-
ing the redevelopment of this site with a 32,670 sf Center for Translational Research that will
provide some of the cdtical infrastructure programs needed to effectively link research and
clinical missions within the SUMC. This will add a net of 14,200 sf to the site’s current level of
development.
Hoover Pavilion and Quarry Road Sites
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.
SHC has determined that as it 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 (e.g., the displacement
of 1101 Welch Road tenants).
For the future growth and development of SUMC and Welch Road uses, facilities within the
SUMC will include the addition of a new building adjacent to the Hoover Pavilion to support
medical office practices and a new SHC medical office and clinic building at a site in Santa
Clara County on Quamj Road south of the Psychiatry Facility. Further investigation is needed
to identify specifically such office requirements for services and offices to support the SUMC
and community health providers. However, SHC anticipates this total future need to be ap-
proximately 200,000 sf.
SUMMARIES OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The following Exhibits 2-1 through 2-10 provide place names of the existing facilities and
summarize the details of proposed improvements (demolition and replacement) for the
Stanford Hospital, Lucile Parkard Children’s Hospital, the School of Medicine, and the Hoover
Pavilion and Quarry Road Sites.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 2.5
2-1 Place Names -
Existing
LEGEND
DRAFT
2.6 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
2-2 Summary of Net
Square Feet Request SHC
Hospital 1,100,000
Clinics 329,000
1101 Welch Road
West, East, Core, Boswell
Core Expansion (1973)
.. _ g .u. _a~ .R_o.a.~_ .S!t.e .............................................j_O 0,_0.0.0. ......
Total SHC L ....!~5..5.5-~6...°g. .........J~2_.9~.0..0.0 ..
LPCR
Hospital 375,000
Clinics 106,300
701 Welch Road
703 Welch Road
i ~ Demat~on SF ~Net Add R~IB~SE-
=(40,100)
(441,200)
(223,900)
.... £~.~.) .........._8~3.,8.o.o__._
(56,3OO)
.......................................... fZ_3.,~O_OJ ...................i’.oja_l~_C.H..............................~2_.9,J..09_ ......
SoM
FIM 1-3
Grant, Alway, Lane, Edwards
800 Welch Road
~_o_ta.J_S._o~ .......................
Hoover Site
415,000
(415, 000)
32, 700 L__.._~8_.,5.0_~14,200
..... _,/4! ,_7..00_ .........L4.~_ _,.5_o_~j ..........j.4,__2..00. .....
100,000 10o,o0o
2,370,400 I 2,558,000 ! (1,218,500) I 1,339,500Total
Summary of
Space Drivers
BHC
Beds, existing 456 to private
Support, 456 Beds
Emergency/l"rauma
Quarry Road Site
Total SHC
LPCH
Beds, existing 257 to private
Support, 257 Beds
Total LPCH
Total SoM
Total Hoover Site
823,800
SF % of Total
40/,500
14,200
100,0~0
1,339,500
145,000
150,000
25,000
320,000 39%
87,500
38,500
126,000 31%
o 0%
o o%
SF % of Total
503,800 6/%
275,500 69%
14,200 100%
100,000 100%
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 2.7
Stanford Hospital
and Clinics -
Demolition
A
B
441,200 sf of 1959 hospital
facilities (East Building, West
Building, Core Building, and
Boswell Clinics Building)
223,900 sf of the existing
1973 Building.
700-car Parking Structure #3
1101 Welch Road structures
totaling 40,1 O0 square feet
of non-Stanford community
health providers.
See discussion of Hoover
Pavilion and Quarry Road
Sites regarding relocation
of about 30, 100 sf of non.
Stanford community health
providers.
LEGEND
Plan Area
DRAFT
2.8 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
2-5 Stanford Hospital
and Clinics -
Replacement
New
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
2 329,000 gross square feet to
house clinics, medical offices.
and administrative offices
3 Added parking for 875 cars
4 Parking Structure for1,000
cars, in part to replace
existing Parking Structure #3
(700 cars)
Reuse
5 Renovation of D, E, & F
nursing units which currently
house 243 hospital beds
to house about 144 SHC
hospital beds and support
space
6 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
Net Added
¯723,000 gross square feet
¯1,175 parking spaces
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 2.9
LEGEND
Plan Area
2-6 Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital -
Demolition
A 703 Welch Road structure of
23,500 square feet
See discussion of Hoover
Pavilion and Quarry Road
Sites regarding relocation
of about 15,600 sf of non-
Stanford community health
providers.
B Demolition of existing 701
Welch Road structures of
56,300 sf.
See discussion of Hoover
Pavilion and Quarry Road
Sites regarding relocation
of about 7,300 sf of non-
Stanford community health
providers
DRAFT
2.10 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
2-7 Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital
Replacement
New
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
2 106,300 gross square feet
of new clinics and supporting
services space
3 Includes adding 1,000-
car parking structure for
replacement of 425 spaces,
resulting in a net add of 575
spaces
Reuse
4 Reuse of two floors in F
nursing units to continue
housing the Obstetrics
program
5 Reuse of main facility to
continue housing patient bed,
diagnostic and treatment,
clinical and support services
Net Added
¯401,500 gross square feet
¯575 parking spaces
LEGEND
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 2.1 1
2-8 School of Medicine
Demolition
415,000 sf in 4 existing buildings
A Edwards (65,800 sO
B Lane (84,700 sO
C Alway (]12,500 sO
D Grant (152.000 sO
Plan Area
DRAFT
2.12 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
2-9 School of Medicine
Replacement
New
160,000 sf Foundations in
Medicine #1 (FIM1)
2 110,000 sfFoundations in
Medicine #2 (FIM2)
3 145,000 sf Foundations in
Medicine #3 (FIM3)
Net Added
¯0 gross square feet
¯0 parking spaces
LEGEND
Plan Area
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 2.13
LE6END
:-’! PlanArea
2-10 Hoover Pavilion and
Quarry Road Sites -
New
New
100,000 gross square feet of
medical office practices
2 Parking structure-
parking space count TBD
3 100,000 gross square feet of
clinic space
4 Parking structure-
parking space count TBD
Net Added
¯200,000 gross square feet
¯Parking space countTBD
DRAFT
2.14 27June07 Stanford UniversRy Medical Center Area Plan Update
Plan Elements
PLANNING PRINCIPLES
This section discusses the broad planning principles that have been adopted by the City of
Palo Alto in its Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and will guide the planning and develop-
ment within the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC).
The SUMC is part of an urban corridor that is a gateway to both Stanford University and Palo
Alto. The district is bounded by San Francisquito Creek to the west and the more ceremonial
Stanford University Palm Drive and Arboretum to the east. To the north is the Stanford Shop-
ping Center, the multi-modal transit center, and downtown Palo Alto. To the south and west
are additional elements of the Medical School and the rest of the Stanford Campus, residen-
tial development, Menlo Park office development, access to Highway 280, and the foothills.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Comp Plan goals, policies and programs call for a well-designed, compact, healthy, pedes-
trian-scale community, with thriving employment districts and commercial areas and with
attractive gathering spaces and coherent patterns of development. Policies include working
with Stanford and Santa Clara County cooperatively on land use matters while meeting the
city goals for appropriate development (Policy L-2).
The Comp Plan identifies several Employment Districts in Palo Alto and recognizes them as
an essential part of the local economic base. Goal B-6 is established to keep the City’s em-
ployment districts economically healthy in order to provide jobs, create a customer base for
many local businesses, and generate City revenues. The Comp Plan identifies the SUMC as
one of these important employment centers and one of the largest concentrations of health
care services in the Bay Area. The Comp Plan recognizes that because the health care in-
dustry is constantly changing, the SUMC will likely need additional development entitlements
to respond to future facility needs. Policy B-32 is established to support these anticipated
necessary future facilities in conjunction with the City’s efforts to achieve its broader planning
goals and policies.
As in previous development proposals at SUMC, and as directed by Comp Plan Policy L-45,
the City, the Hospitals and the Schoo! of Medicine will need to achieve a balance between
creating a compact, pedestrian-oriented development and programmatic objectives to
provide a functional and effective Medical Center. Achieving this balance will be a complex
exercise given the size of the project and the many interconnected issues.
These and other Comp Plan policies, goals, and programs informing the Planning Principles
are listed below. Specific goals and objectives derived from the Comp Plan policies and
responsive to current Palo Alto planning issues and SUMC program goals, follow.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.1
Applicable Comp Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs - Planning Principles
Land Use
Goal L- I
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
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- 10
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
Encourage new businesses that meet the City’s business and economic goals to locate in Palo
Alto.
Policy B-32
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, as well as the goals and policies of other
relevant jurisdictions.
DRAFT
~3.2 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Entry Signage to SUM(; along
Pasteur Drive
Goals and Objectives
The City has identified several proposed key planning objectives in response to the hospitals’
proposed renewal project. The Area Plan Update does not analyze the impacts of the pro-
posed project (this is accomplished through the environmental review process), but outlines
many of the overall issues that are to be considered during the review process. Some of the
City’s key planning objectives for the area follow, with more detailed descriptions in sul~se-
quent sections of this chapter :
The City of Palo Alto has identified the following planning objectives:
¯The project shall identify traffic solutions that minimize the use of single-occupant ve-
hicles. Potential locations of housing in or near the Plan area and an expanded Transpor-
tation Demand Management (TOM) program will be identified in order to reduce auto-
mobile trips. Land use and design should minimize tdps within and outside of the SUMC
area by locating employee-serving uses, retail uses, eating and ddnking 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.
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.
¯The project shall include provision of new usable open space areas in and/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.
¯The project shall include designed and built features that promote linkages for pedes-
trians, 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.
¯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 move-
ment of emergency vehicles to the appropriate facilities shall be an important focus of
the circulation design.
¯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.
DRAFT
Stanford Unk, ersity Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.3
¯Provide emergency surge capacity as part of overall disaster preparedness and manage-
ment of mass population events which impact regionally or locally.
¯Provide space proximate to the hospitals which can accommodate community health
providers whose patients utilize facilities and programs of the hospital.
The following planning goals for the hospitals and clinics development within the SUMC
region were developed and included in the 2000 SUMC Land Use Area Analysis in response
to community desires and SUMC programmatic objectives:
o Maintain quality and character of SUMC to support overall community character.
-Integrated land use, open space, support services, and transportation network
-Unified but unique design character
-Compact, pedestrian-oriented development
¯ Plan for sustalnability
-Efficient use of land and resources
-Multi-modal connectivity
-Health and welfare of users, patients, staff, visitors, etc.
¯ Create clarity and order
Strong sense of orientation
Strong internal and contextual connections
o Create a strong Stanford University identity
Strong shared framework
Clear individual and functional identities
¯Meet expected needs and phasing
Long-term view
Inherent flexibility
Create or preserve future building sites
These programmatic objectives are supportive of basic functional requirements for the ef-
fective operation of a SUMC Area program that include efficiency in the use of facilities and
resources; proximity of related functions; and the ability to move people, goods, and services
easily. Ultimately, such planning produces a high-quality, healthy and balanced environment.
DRAFT
3.4 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
LAND USE
This section discusses land use for the SUMC within the context of regional, city, and Stan-
ford campus land use. Many of the planning principles discussed in the previous section can
be applied to Land Use issues.
Throughout its history of planning for the SUMC, Stanford University has established the
fundamental land use goals of unity, synergy of functional relationships, security, and flex-
ibility. It has stdven to accommodate and integrate clinical uses with teaching and research
while providing necessary support uses such as housing, childcare, and related non-Stanford
University health care and commercial uses.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Land use 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 park-
ing. Comp Plan Goal L-1 expresses the City’s desire for a well-designed, compact city, and
recognizes that infill and redevelopment of the City’s urban land will provide protection of the
baylands and foothills. Specifically for the SUMC, Policy L-45 encourages future develop-
ment to support compact, pedestrian-oriented development that also meets the functional
needs of the facilities within the SUMC.
As part of the Comp Plan, the City’s 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study
analyzed a specified amount of development and Policy L-8 maintains that amount of
development as a citywide limit on new non-residential development. As part of the project
approval process, the City will determine whether the SUMC proposed facilities are within
that established citywide limit.
These and other Comp Plan policies, goals, and programs informing Land Use are listed
below.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.5
Applicable Comp Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs - Land Use
Land Use
Goal L- I
A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive
Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces.
Goal L-4
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 Residential
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- 7
Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and
objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods.
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 modifications for specific
properties that allow modest additional growth. Such additional growth will count towards
the 3,257,900 square foot maximum.
Policy L- I O
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.
DRAFT
3.6 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
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
Policy L-58
Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings
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 parl4ing needs for specific uses. Develop design
criteria based on a standard somewhere bet~een average and peak conditions.
Transportation
Program T- I
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-3
Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near intermodal transit
stations.
Program 7:- 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.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.~’
Key Planning Issues and Uses
Key Land Use issues to be addressed in this Plan and in subsequent project reviews include
Housing, Urban Design, Open Space, Community Practitioners, and Historic Resources. Dis-
cussions of the first three of those issues are included in separate sections devoted to each.
Community Practitioners
The SUMC area comprises 97 acres in the City of Palo Alto and 28 acres in Santa Clara
County. It contains both inpatient and outpatient facilities, teaching and clinical research
programs, and a variety of specialty offices, clinics, and support facilities along Welch Road.
A number of these are on long-term ground leases from Stanford and are privately owned.
Some of the community practitioners using these areas will be displaced as a result of the
expansion and modernization project. The Project is expected to provide replacement facili-
ties for community health care providers, at a minimum in the Hoover Pavilion building. The
following key plan objective relates to assuring continued opportunities for community practi-
tioners to remain in Palo Alto, particularly near the SUMC facilities:
Provide space proximate to the hospitals to accommodate community
health providers whose patients utilize facilities and programs of the hospitals.
Surge Capacity for Emergency
As described in Section 2.1 of this Area Plan Update, the Hospitals’ Proposed Renewal and
Replacement Project provides improved facilities for its Level 1 Trauma Center, which will
support disaster preoaredness and capacity during natural and man-made disasters. The
Environmental Impact Report and peer review efforts will further evaluate the capacity of the
medical facilities to accommodate health care during catastrophic emergencies (earthquake,
fire, pandemic, etc.). The following key plan objective is intended to assure adequate emer-
gency health services:
¯Provide emergency surge capacity as part of overall disaster preparedness
and management of mass population events with regional or local impacts.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Comp Plan Policy L-46 requires that the Area Plan include a discussion of historic resources~
The Hoover Pavilion has been identified as a possible historic resource within the SUMC
area. No systematic inventory and analysis of structures within the SUMC area has been
performed to determine the extent, significance and integrity of potential historic resources.
The environmental analysis for the proposed expansion of the SUMC will include an analysis
of impacts to historic and cultural resources.
DRAFT
3.8 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Aerial View
Northeast view of a portion of the
campus with Downtown Palo Alto
beyond.
Functional Uses and Buildings
Functional uses and buildings, both existing and proposed, are depicted in Exhibits 3-1 and
3-2. The functional uses shown on the maps can be described as follows:
Clinical Care
Sites and facilities developed specifically for the provision of medical services to patients by
the two hospitals. This use include inpatient facilities, nursing units (hospital rooms), diag-
nostic and treatment facilities (including operating rooms and the Emergency Department),
clinics, and other uses that directly support clinical activities.
Teaching and Research
Sites and facilities that house School of Medicine facilities that support teaching research and
other student-based activities. These uses may include offices for faculty and other School
of Medicine personnel as well as clinical programs directly related to teaching and research
(e.g., the Psychiatry clinic).
Medical Office and Research
This designation typically applies to commercially developed properties that are leased long-
term by the University to others who provide office space for uses related to the primary
medical activity. SUMC’s space needs are such that the Hospitals and School also lease/rent
space in these properties for clinics and other uses at market prices. Stanford University and
the City worked cooperatively to create new MOR zoning to allow this variety of use.
Ancillary
This is a catch-all designation for all of the uses that do not fit into the clinical, teaching and
research or medical office categories. It applies to those uses that are located in the SUMC
to provide local support of the primary uses. Ancillary uses primarily include housing and
child care.
.Open Space
The major open space elements depicted on the maps do not represent all of the open
space and landscape resources available to SUMC users. Gardens, courtyards, plaza, path-
ways, and streets are woven into the fabric of the SUMC and designed to provide landscape
relief to buildings. Treatment of these areas is discussed in more detail in Section 3.4, Urban
Design. In addition, regional open space resources outside the SUMC area, such as the
Arboretum and the San Francisquito Creek Corridor, are nearby and accessible.
Parking
Parking is not called out as separate land use. See Circulation, Vehicular Access, and Park-
ing for a discussion of parking facilities.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.9
Goals and Objectives
Following is a summary of the Hospitals and School of Medicine’s land use objectives for the
Medical Center:
Identity
Establish and reinforce a distinct physical character that proclaims its preeminence in the
field of medicine and biomedical research, while maintaining its inherent relationship to the
physical characteristics of the Stanford University campus. The user should readily identify
the institutions within the SUMC with the highest level of health care standards and associ-
ated research at Stanford University, as well as being able to identify individual facilities or
functions within the SUMC.
Unity
The overall composition of buildings, parking, and open space should convey a unity of pur-
pose through clarity of site organization, harmony of architecture, and continuity of landscape
elements.
Security
SUMC, which functions on a 24-hour basis, should convey an aura of safety to al! users.
Likewise, it should be physically organized in such a way that it can be easily policed.
Warmth and Welcome
The SUMC should convey an open and friendly atmosphere in its grounds and facilities. This
sense of openness and friendly environment also serves to comfort those coming to the Cen-
ter with emotional concerns over their health or that of loved ones.
Economy
Economy should be demonstrated by both the efficiency with which the resources of the site
are utilized and the expediency with which one can move from one area of the SUMC to an-
other, whether interior to a building or exterior from one facility to the next. Further, it implies
economy of design and ease of maintenance, which will allow resources to be used efficiently
on a long-term basis.
Flexibility
A contemporary teaching and research-oriented medical center should maintain flexibility
in order to meet the changing facility demands of its facul~ and staff Planning and design
should, therefore, to the best of ability and budget, anticipate the needs for wholesale adap-
tation as the science and art of health care evolves.
DRAFT
3.10 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.11
//
LEGEND
Clinical Care
~ Teaching and Research
Medical Office and Research
Ancilliary (~ndud~ residential and child care)
Open Space
NOTE Zones include parking
Functional Uses and
Buildings -
Existing
DRAFT
~.12 27June07 Stanford Universk’y Medical Oenter Area Plan Update
Functional Uses and
l~uildings -
Proposed
Changes proposed
LEGEND
~ Hospital / Clinical
~ Teaching and Research (Can inciud~ clinical)
Medical Office and Research (C~ include hospital support)
Ancilliary (C~n include hospi~ suppo~, residential, ~nd child care)
~ Open Space
NOTE: Zones include parking
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.1 3
HOUSING
This section discusses various strategies for provision of housing associated with employ-
ment expected to be generated by the proposed renewal project. The section also analyzes
the suitability of housing sites within and adjacent to the Area Plan area.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Comp Plan Goal H-1 is to supply affordable and market rate housing that meets Palo Alto’s
share of regional housing needs in order for the City to continue to be a distinctive, diverse
and desirable place to live. The Comp Plan explains this goal will be implemented at specific
locations identified in the Housing Sites Inventory and identified in the zoning and Comp Plan
maps. As a method of furthering this goal, Program H-50 is established to continue to require
developers of employment-generating commercial and industrial developments to contribute
to the supply of affordable housing, either through new housing units or payment of an in-lieu
fee.
These and other Comp Plan policies, goals, and programs informing Housing are listed on
the following page.
Key Planning Issues and Uses
Housing Demand and Sites
The Environmental Impact Report for the proposed hospital renewal projects will include an
analysis of regiona! housing demand, by housing affordability level, expected to be induced
by long-term employment associated with the proposed hospitals and Medical School
project, as well as by the proposed shopping center expansion. The EIR also will evaluate
commute trends for people who work in Palo Alto, including hospital employees. The hous-
ing demand from the projects will be compared to the Association of Bay Area Government’s
projected housing needs and the housing elements of relevant cities and counties in the
region to determine whether the region can accommodate anticipated housing demand from
the projects. This Area Plan Update will be revised to reflect that analysis after it has been
completed, and is not intended to duplicate or limit the environmental review process.
The SUMC Area includes a 6.7 acre site that was included in the Sand Hill Road Projects EIR
and is zoned by the City of Palo Alto for high density residential uses (RM-40). The RM-40
site is developed presently with 148 housing units. Approximately 100 additional housing
units could be accommodated on this site under the current zoning.
In addition, the SUMC Area includes two significant housing sites that are located in unin-
corporated 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.
DRAFT
,3.14 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Applicabl~ ¢omp Plan Goals, Policies, 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 development of affordable and attainable
housing.
Policy H-3
Support the designation of vacant or underutilized 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-1
Allow for increased housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas and
particularly near transit centers.
Program H-2
Encourage development densities at the higher end of allowed density ranges in multiple
family zones by using methods such as preferential or priority processing and application
fee reductions for projects that propose development at the higher end of a site’s allowed
density range and that provide affordable housing in excess of mandatory BMR program
requirements. Consider increasing minimum density requirements in multiple family zones as
well as in all Comprehensive Plan land use designations that permit housing.
Policy H-9
Maintain the number of multi-family housing units, including BMR rental and ownership
units, in Palo Alto at no less than the number of multifamily rental and BMR units available
as of December 2001 and continue to support efforts to increase the supply of these units.
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.
Program H-51
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.
Note:
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.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.15
Throughout the City there are 16 housing sites that would accommodate up to 818 units
(CPA Housing Element, adopted December 2002). Many of the sites are encumbered with
other uses or subject to other limits on near-term development.
Housing Approaches
The medical office components of the hospitals renewal project, as commercial develop-
ments, are required to pay an in-lieu fee to the City to supply affordable housing units. The
amount of this fee will be calculated once the project designs have been presented in more
detail or the fee may be waived if sufficient accommodation is made for affordable housing
elsewhere. The Stanford Hospital and LPCH are not subject to the fee, and housing strate-
gies will be developed to address needs generated by the project. The Area Plan Update
anticipates that the City, Stanford and the hospitals will evaluate the potential to develop
additional housing on the RM-40 parcel in the City and/or on the Quarry housing sites in the
County.
Another site, outside of the Area Plan boundaries, suggested as a possible housing site, is
the current VTA terminal and adjacent Stanford lands leased to Palo Alto in the Palo Alto
Intermodal Transit Station (PA1TS) area. This area is currently designated as "Major Institution/
Special Facilities" and "Public Parks" in the Comp Plan. It is currently zoned as Public Facili-
ties for most of the area, with a Planned Community zone over the MacArthur Park and Red
Cross facilities. In addition, portions of this land have been dedicated as parkland. It is not
currently zoned or designated for housing.
A possibility of housing on this site was first proposed in 1993. In 2002, the City Council
rejected one conceptual redevelopment proposal that would have included housing on this
site. The site was suggested because a 1993 study for redevelopment of the PAlTS (aka
"Dream Team") included an alternate plan for creating redevelopment, opportunities, including
housing. After consideration, Council directed staff to continue exploration of other options
for uses that did not rely on creating development area for residential or other uses near the
transit center. To date, no plans or proposals involving housing on the site have been ap-
proved by the City Council. Many obstacles have been identified for this site, but its realistic
housing potential may be explored further.
Refer to Exhibit 3-3 for potential housing sites.
Goals and Objectives
The following proposed key plan objective for housing is intended to implement the Compre-
hensive Plan policies and programs:
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.
DRAFT
3.16 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Housing Sites -
Potential
Pasteur-Welch
Approximately i00 units
Quarry-Aboretum
200 units on 8.0 acres
Quarry-El Camino
150 units on 6.2 acres
Transit Oriented Housing
Identified by the
City of Palo Alto
Not previously identified as a
housing site in the Comp Plan
LEGEND
Plan Area
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 ~3."17
URBAN DESIGN QUALITY/COMMUNITY CHARACTER
The SUMC urban design quality and community character section will help guide future-
growth and development to contribute to the overall quality and effectiveness of each institu-
tion functioning independently and as a single medical center, and to integrate the SUMC
within the larger context of campus, community, and environment, it is in the interest of both
the City of Palo Alto and Stanford that the SUMC continues to develop in a manner that as-
sures excellence in urban design and community character. This section identifies the City of
Palo Alto’s adopted community design goals, policies, and programs, as well as Stanford’s
intent to develop in a manner consistent with an exemplary quality of design. Refer to Exhibit
3-4 for the Area Plan Site Concept.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
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 the overall City charac-
ter as well as that of adjacent centers. Well-designed buildings arranged to create a coherent
city, with buildings and landscapes located and designed to enhance and enliven streets and
public spaces, are all Comp Plan directions that contribute to community health, safety, and
well-being.
Comp Plan Goal L-5 recognizes that each of the City’s Employment Districts has its own
distinctive character and contributes to the character of the City as a whole. The Comp Plan
provides policies and programs to support goals of high-quality employment districts and
well-designed buildings. Although Palo Alto contains a variety of styles and periods, City resi-
dents value well-designed structures that fit with their surroundings. Policy L-49 looks to new
buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces. In addition, surface parking lots are to be
minimized (Policy L-77) and contain ample trees and landscaping (Policy L-76). Where pos-
sible, parking lots are to be located behind buildings or underground (Policy L-75) in order to
provide opportunities for open spa(~e and outdoor amenities.
These and other Comp Plan policies, goals, and programs informing the Urban Design Qual-
ity/Community Character are listed below.
Key Planning Issues and Uses
Infill and redevelopment of the urbanized campus have been a recent focus of Stanford’s
redevelopment. As academic programs become more interrelated, connection to the SUMC
from other parts of the campus becomes more important. Buildings and infrastructure are
anticipated to continue to take advantage of the benign local climate by incorporating court-
yards and arcades.
As in the original architecture of the Stanford Main Quad, new buildings are anticipated to
be designed and located to frame and make places, including a variety of plazas, courts,
and commons areas. Building heights should be proportioned to provide design interest and
minimize view impacts while accommodating functional needs. Buildings and open space
DRAFT
3.18 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Applicable Comp Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs -
Urban Design Quality/Community Character
Land Use
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-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 a variety of
paving materials and landscaping.
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 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.
Policy L-49
Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community
and personal safety. Provide an ordered 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, and 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.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27dune07 3.19
Policy L- 75
Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or
underground wherever possible.
Policy L-76
Require trees and other landscaping within parking lots.
Policy L-77
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
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.
Program L- 1 7
Through public/private cooperation, provide obvious, clean, and accessible restrooms
available for use during normal business hours.
Program L-49
In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new development
to maintain and support the existing character.
features should reinforce pedestrian circulation, encourage collaboration, contribute to the
healing process, and provide orientation or wayfinding ’cues’ in the landscape. Major land-
scape treatments, pedestrian connectors, and service corridors should extend to the shared
facilities within the Medical Center and to other parts of the campus and community for in-
teraction, efficiency, and access. Institutional distinctions, vehicular movements, and signage
should guide visitors to the most direct point of access for their intended destination.
The proposed infill of parking sites, coupled with the need to expand facilities, will necessitate
the transition to more structured parking. Streetscapes, bike paths, pedestrian corridors,
and open spaces are anticipated to create a campus-scale and pedestrian-friendly urban
environment. Key sight lines of the foothills also should be considered in the development of
the Medical Center.
Pedestrian, shuttle, and bicycle routes should be designed to facilitate connections to adja-
cent and nearby uses including the campus, nearby residential neighborhoods, the Stanford
shopping center, downtown Palo Alto, and the Palo Alto Transit Center.
While the SUMC is located on the Stanford campus, and within the City, Stanford Hospital
and Clinics (SHC) and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH) are two distinct and inde-
pendent business institutions, each with a strong community presence. It is important that
these entities maintain their identities and distinctiveness within the greater context.
DRAFT
3.20 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Goals and Objectives
Specific hospitals and School of Medicine objectives to achieve the desired urban design
quality/community character are:
Buildings
¯New buildings designed for the SUMC should establish and reinforce a distinct physical
character that reflects its prominence in the field of medicine and translational research
¯Building placement height and massing should be used to convey identity and hierarchy
and to promote orientation and wayfinding.
*Building designs should encourage connections between facilities
¯Buildings should be sited to form and define outdoor spaces and courts
¯Human-scale spaces where comfort, healing quality, and delight prevail, including small
cour/s, intimate corners, shade, seating, and cafes should be incorporated into and
between new and existing facilities.
¯Develop guidelines for building forms and materials to a recognizable vocabulary and
identity for the SUMC and its institutions.
Circulation and Streets
¯Project features should include transit facilities designed to reduce staff parking de-
mands.
¯Alternate means of transportation should be encouraged and facilities such as bike lock-
ers and electdc cart parking areas should be considered in designing new facilities.
¯Parking should be transitioned from dispersed-surface parking lots and’consolidated in
structures accessed from primary vehicular entries to minimize circulation requirements.
¯Shuttle, transit, and bicycle connections should continue to evolve, incorporating city
and campus-wide programs for public transit
¯Key pedestrian routes should be reinforced with landscape treatment.
¯Welch Road should be redesigned to enhance the main entry to LPCH, accommodate
pedestrian and bicycle use, and to maintain vehicular access and movement that does
not conflict with safe pedestrian use.
¯The design of Quarry road should encourage pedestrian and bike use, optimize vehicular
capacity and promote a development pattern to enhance those functions.
Landscape
Distinct landscape, architecture, and signing should be designated at key entry and
decision points to assist visitor orientation and way-finding and to add to the visual char-
acter of the region.
Specialty elements for identity and character such as sculpture, play spaces, water,
and porticos should be incorporated into the landscape to provide an additional level of
pedestrian orientation.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.21
3-4 Area Plan Site Concept
Pedestrian/bicycle path access
to transit station (PAITS)
2 Pedestrian/bicycle access to
Shopping Center
3 SUMC"MaII" integrating the
School of Medicine, Stanford
replacement hospital, and the
L. Packard Children’s Hospital
4 Governor’s Avenue pedestrian/
bicycle connecton
Maximum Height Designations
I-I-0 15 feet
I-I-I 40 feet
I-I-:~50 feet
I-I-3 60 feet
I-I-4 85 feet
II-S 130 feet
DRAFT
3.~27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.23
LINKAGES AND CONNECTIONS
Although the SUMC is a distinct area with defined boundaries, it exists within a larger land
use context. This section considers nearby land use and development activity by discussing
how the SUMC links and connects to other uses. Refer to Exhibits 3-5 and 3-6 for a depic-
tion of existing and proposed linkages
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The Comp Plan includes policies intended to encourage linkages and connections via walk-
ing and other non-vehicular modes of travel. The Medical Center’s proximity to related and
supporting uses, such as retail and open space, create opportunities to increase and and
enhance those connections. Comp Plan policies, goals, and programs informing the Link-
ages and Connections are listed below.
Key Planning Issues and Uses
Shopping Center Area
The City has identified expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center as a key component
of the City’s plan to maintain its economic vitality. Therefore, the operator of the Shopping
Center has submitted an application to expand the Shopping Center and construct a hotel
on the Shopping Center site. A single environmental impact report will be used for both
the SUMC replacement and renewal project and the Shopping Center expansion projects,
however, the Area Plan is limited to the SUMC area. Because the Shopping Center shares
streets and other infrastructure with SUMC and provides important retail support for SUMC
employees, patients, and visitors, this section discusses strategiesthat take advantage of the
shared elements to more effectively plan linkages between the projects.
Other Nearby City Areas
Other areas in the city have geographical or functional relationships to the SUMC and Shop-
ping Center areas. The Commercial activities in downtown clearly have a strong relationship
to the retail use in the Shopping Center. The downtown provides retail shopping opportuni-
ties and services to employees and other SUMC users, and benefits from the employee and
user populations at the SUMC. Residential areas north and south of downtown, in nearby
Menlo Park and especially the housing along Sand Hill Road are very close to the SUMC and
undoubtedly provide housing for some SUMC employees.
Development along El Camin0 Real such as Town and Country Village, the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation and the hotels just east of University also serve the SUMC and benefit from the
proximity of SUMC.
Open Space
The previously mentioned open space resources of the Arboretum and San Francisquito
Creek are significant features that provide landscape amenity to SUMC employees, patients
and visitors.
DRAFT
3.24 27June07 Stanford Univers’r~y Medical Center Area Plan Update
Pedestrian Connections
Pedestrian ways provide vital
connections within and to an
extensive system beyond the
SUMC campus.
Applicable Comp Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs -
Linkages
Transportation
Policy T- 1
Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling and public transit use.
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- 15
Encourage the acquisition of easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new private
developments.
Policy 7:-23
Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street
parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details
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
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.
Land Use
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 L-43
Provide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and connections to the citywide bikeway systems within
Employment Districts. Pursue opportunities to build sidewalks and paths in renovation and
expansion projects.
Program L-44
Design the paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with the
character of the area where they are located.
Campus Linkage
It is very important that linkages to the campus be not only maintained but also strength-
ened. The School of Medicine has affinities with the main academic campus that will only
strengthen as interdisciplinary academic programs grow. Further, many hospital employees
take advantage of cultural amenities and other services available on campus.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 ;3.25
Transportation
Transportation facilities and routes that enable travel are clearly important to the vitality of
the SUMC. The important transportation linkages include the regional roadways that serve
the SUMC: 1-280 to the south; and El Camino Real, Alma/Central Expressway, and Highway
101 to the north. Local arterial roadways providing connection to the region roadways (and
generally running east-west) include Sand Hill Road, Alpine Road, Quarry Road, University
Avenue, Embarcadero Road and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway.
All available regional and local transit systems connect to the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit
Station (PAITS). The systems include the Caitrain Peninsula Rail Service, SamTrans, VTA,
Dumbarton Express (east bay service) and the Palo Alto and Marguerite shuttles. Streets
linking the Center to the PAlTS include Quarry Road, Palm Drive, El Camino Real, and Sand
Hill Road.
An extensive pathway network exists beyond the street system. The paths provide opportu-
nities for pedestrians and cyclists to connect to the related land uses and transportation sys-
tems discussed above. A more thorough description of streets, paths, and transit facilities is
provided in Section 3.6 (Circulation, Vehicular Access, and Parking) and Section 3.7 (Transit,
Bicycle, and Pedestrian Circulation).
Internal Linkages
Most internal linkage within the SUMC and between it and the Shopping Center will occur
on the streets paths and systems referenced above and described further in Section 3.6
(Circulation, Vehicular Access, and Parking) and Section 3.7 (Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian
Circulation). There are, however, three connections of special significance that bear mention-
ing here.
The main pedestrian spine of the SUMC aligns with the central mall of the Shopping Center.
There will be opportunity in the planned project to connect these facilities to provide a con-
tinuous off-street pathway through the core of the two centers.
Quarry Road was widened as part of the Sand Hill Road Projects, creating a new "full-
service" intersection at [] Camino. This intersection creates a new entry point to the SUMC
on Quarry, one of the few roads in the local network with capacity for more movement. The
Sand Hill Road Projects also upgraded and extended sidewalks and bike lanes to increase
capacity for those modes. The City of Palo Alto is also exploring an enhanced pedestrian and
transit connection to the PAITS at the north side of the intersection.
The development parcels on Quarry Road border the designated Campus Open Space of
the Arboretum. The University has located a utility corridor along this edge. An opportunity
exists to create a pedestrian and bicycle circulation facility along this same alignment. This
facility would provide connection to the PAlTS and Downtown as well as allowing users to
experience the path network, open space and cultural resources of the Arboretum.
DRAFT
3.2.6 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Nodes
Access to the streets routes and paths described above occurs at key points or nodes gen-
erally where facilities intersect. Pdmary nodes also act as entry points to the City, University
or district. These are located at El Camino Real/Sand Hill, Sand Hill/Pasteur and [] Camino/
Palm/University. Secondary Nodes include El Camino/Quarry, Quarry/Welch, Quarry/Cam-
pus, Campus/Serra. Minor Nodes are generally learned through local knowledge, but they
are important in that they provide even greater opportunity to disperse traffic (all modes)
throughout the network and give travelers options. The minor nodes are: Sand Hill/Vineyard,
Sand Hill/Durand, Campus/Welch and Campus/Roth.
Goals and Objectives
The following City-proposed key plan objectives implement Comp Plan policies and pro-
grams pertaining to linkages:
The project shaft 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 Ci~
in conjunction with the Stanford Medical Center and the Stanford Shop-
ping 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.
The project shall include specific design features for the efficient move-
ment 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
ddve alone to work, the Marguerite Shuttle and Express buses, distribution of Eco Passes,
and bicycle programs are provided as part of Stanford’s efforts.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.27
LEGEND
Plan Area
Transportation Nodes
Regional Transit
Local Trans;t
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Pedestrian
3-5 Linkages -
Existing
DRAFT
3.28 27June07 Stanford Univers~y Medical Center Area Plan Update
3-6 Linkages -
Proposed
1 New pedestrian and
bicycle connection
2 New Arboretum pedestrian
and bicycle connection
3 New transit and pedestrian
connection from Sand Hill to
Welch
4 New transit connection from
Quarry to PAITS {Palo Alto
lntermodal Transit Station}
LEGEND
Plan Area
Transportation Nodes
Regional Transit
~Local Transit
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Pedestrian
Pedestrian Intersections Requiring Further Study
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07
CIRCULATION, VEHICULAR ACCESS, AND PARKING
This and the following section 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 pdmary goal is to increase access opportunities for
bicyclists and pedestrians. Cladty and order in the circulation systems, clear connections
to regional transportation resources, and convenient and accessible parking are of prime
importance.
The layout and past development of the SUMC and the local circulation systems have cre-
ated infrastructure to support walking and biking. The Area Plan Update examines opportuni-
ties to expand these systems through specific project improvements wtiile providing efficient
access for vehicles, the primary travel mode for patients and visitors, Refer to Exhibits 3-7
and 3-8 for a depiction of existing and proposed vehicular circulation and parking.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Applicable Comp Plan policies 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 plan-
ning, design, and creation of streets and other facilities to support alternative transportation
modes as well as vehicles.
Comp Plan Goal T-1 establishes the City’s goal of less reliance on single-occupant vehicles,
yet recognizes it as one of the greatest challenges during the life of the Comp Plan. As a way
to support the goal, Policy T-1 supports land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling
and public transit use. Higher density land use patterns, especially near transit centers, can
meet this policy direction. Comp Plan Policy T-26 addresses comprehensive solutions to
traffic problems near the SUMC and Shopping Center. These solutions began with the Sand
Hill Road Projects, and will continue through the concepts in this Area Plan Update. Finally,
Comp Plan Policy T-39 addresses the importance of traffic safety for automobiles, pedestri-
ans and bicyclists within the City. This policy is also of great importance in the SUMC.
These and other Comp Plan policies, goals, and programs informing Circulation, Vehicular
Access, and Parking are listed below.
Key Planning Issues and Uses
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. The City 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 tdps.
DRAFT
3.30 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Applicable Comp Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs -
Circulation, Vehicular Access, and Parking
Land Use
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 surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy L- I O
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-75
Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or
underground wherever possible.
Policy 1_-77
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- 1
Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
Goal
A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods.
Policy T- I
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-59
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.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.31
Program T- I
Encourage infi!l, 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.
Road System
The SUMC utilizes an overall network of circulation, via roads, paths, other pedestrian ways,
service areas, and parking lots. This circulation system is a hierarchical network of public
roads linking it to regional roadways and surrounding communities: feeder / entry roads;
a loop road system encircling the main SUMC, connecting it to the main campus and the
perimeter SUMC parcels; and internal distributor roads connecting the loop to final vehicular
destinations. The planning and design of renewal facilities and infrastructure will acknowledge
and enhance this system.
Primary objectives include safety, cladty, and convenience of routes from entry to parking
and, via pedestrian paths, to destinations. Roads should have sufficient capacity for antici-
pated traffic. Routes for emergency vehicles should be well-signed, direct, and free from
obstruction and congestion. The system should provide equally clear access to all principle
destinations for every mode of travel. Connections to regional roadways will be limited to ex-
isting public artedals and interchanges. Expansion of these facilities is not planned; however,
the EIR will analyze existing facilities to confirm capacities or identify improvements necessary
to mitigate increased traffic.
The entry and loop roads connect to four major public roads that provide public access to
the SUMC. These roads are [] Camino Real, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Sand Hilt Road, and
Quarry Road. These roads connect to highways and expressways that are regional trans-
portation facilities (US 101, I 280, CA 84, etc.). Some local artedals such as Alpine Road in
San Mateo County and Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto also provide connection between the
Center and regional facilities. The most important external access routes are those serving
the Emergency Department, which is currently reached via Quarry Road from Campus Drive,
Welch Road, Arboretum Road, and El Camino Real.
Entryways should be designed and articulated to welcome visitors, clearly announce their
status as main entdes and convey a sense of quality and care representative of the institu-
tions. Each of the major destinations, the Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital
DRAFT
3.32 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
and Clinics, and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, along with three additional entries, will
have a distinct identity and arrival statement. Three feeder / entry ways serve as major arrival
statements to the SUMC and identify main building entries or other pdmary destinations.
These entries are Pasteur Drive, Quarry Road, and Campus Drive,. Through their geometry
and urban design elements, these roads clearly announce their status as main entries and
provide new visitors with clear messages of arrival destinations. Quarry Road can be clarified
and more strongly articulated as a principle entry. A secondary entry to provide access to
Welch Road and entry to some outpatient facilities will be proposed by extending Durand
Way from Sand Hill Road.
Loop roads consist of Campus Drive West, Welch Road, Vineyard Lane, and Quarry Road.
These roads support the basic University circulation at the perimeter, connecting to penetra-
tions that allow convenient access to all possible campus destinations. These roads are
generally engineered to serve as collectors and are designed to identify them as such.
The internal distribution roads are the final roadway links in the system. They consist of pen-
etrations that provide necessary vehicular access to each facility. These routes include minor
streets, driveways and parking lot aisles. To clarify and reinforce these as access routes, their
design and engineering should emphasize transition from vehicular to pedestrian movement
and cleady communicate available destinations. Service areas for the delivery of mated-
als and building access by vendor and service personnel will generally be centralized and
located to facilitate convenient vehicular access from internal distributor roads reached via
loop and entry roads. The pdmary service access for central materials receiving will remain
via the service drive off of Quarry Road. The SUMC has a major network of service corridors
located at the basement level to distribute goods from central service points. Some perimeter
facilities not connected to the service corridors will need dedicated service entdes. Where
service and pedestrian access coincide, service areas should be screened or enhanced and
integrated through design and landscape.
The facilities shown in the Circulation diagram, augmented by minor improvements to exist-
ing infrastructure, will remain as the basic framework for movement in the SUMC.
Parking
Parking in the SUMC serves a variety of functions.
Close-in parking, convenient to the front door entries of clinical facilities, is used primarily for
patients, their visitors, and families. Community Physicians, vendors, and other business visi-
tors to the Center also use this parking.
The next tier of parking is the most convenient commuter parking for "A" permit-holders in
the University parking system. Hospital and University faculty, staff, and students who desire
or need parking close to their work or research place may purchase premium-priced permits
:~or this parking. The supply of "A" parking is managed to assure adequate vacancies, and
some is reserved for the safety and security of evening shift workers.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.33
Finally, general commuter or "C" parking is available, first-come-first-served, on the perimeter
of the SUMC. It is generally a longer walk from most employment and academic areas and is
often served by the campus shuttle system.
The existing Palo Alto Use Permits for SUMC facilities allow for Stanford’s regional parking
approach that relies on parking in City and Santa Clara County locations, rather that relying
upon parking assigned on a building-by-building basis. Performance-based parking require-
ments, shared facilities and transit oriented development are strategies that may be consid-
ered for reducing the overall need for parking and the amount of land dedicated to that use.
Staff and long-term parking will continue to be evaluated for remote locations with proximity
to freeway access as a part of a larger campus/community-wide program for transportation
management and parking.
As uses intensify and density increases in the core of the SUMC, three principles guide the
planning of parking facilities:
¯Maintain supplies of front door parking to serve patients, community physicians and care
givers, visitors, and evening shift workers.
¯Locate parking in structures or below grade to maintain space for clinical and academic
facilities.
Provide general purpose staff/commuter parking in perimeter locations not needed for clinical
or academic facilities
DRAFT
3.~4 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Goals and Objectives
The following proposed key plan objective implements Comp Plan policies and programs
related to transportation issues:
The project shall identify traffic solutions that minimize the use of single-oc-
cupant 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 Iocab’ng 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.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07
//
.Plan Area
Public Access - Major (A~ls and ~l~ctors)
Public Access - Minor ~ocal)
~ Parking - (Starr~rd M~ Center and paitent-’,,~tor
Parking - St]’uctured
Parking - Underground or Underplatform
Emergency
:$-7 Vehicular Circulation
and Parking-
Existing
DRAFT
3.36 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
3-8 Vehicular Circulation
and Parking-
Proposed
Additional connection from
Sand Hill to Welch
2 New parking
3 Improved access to east side
of SUMC
LEGEND
Public Access - Major (Artedals and Colleclors)
PublicAccess - Minor ~oca])
Parking - (SI~[ord Medi~ Center ~qd paiten!-vi~Jlor only shown)
Parking - Strucb~red
Parking - Underground or Underplatform
Emergency
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.37
TRANSIT, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
Alternative modes of travel are important tools for the movement of people and materials
to and from and within the Medical Center and in minimizing the impacts of that travel. The
travel need of patients and visitors may not be compatible with pedestrian, bicycle, and tran-
sit modes but it is important that the planning for SUMC optimizes opportunities for use of
these modes especially for the employees and other regular commuters to the Center. Refer
to Exhibits 3-9 through 3-12 for a depiction of existing and proposed systems.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Comp Plan Goal T-3 encourages and promotes biking and walking. Several policies and pro-
grams have been developed to implement this goal. Policy T-14 addresses the importance
of good access between uses so that the public is encouraged to choose walking or biking
instead of driving to destinations. Program T-37 specifically supports safe and convenient
pedestrian, bicycle, and shuttle connections between the SUMC and nearby uses. Policy
L-43 addresses the pathway and bikeway connections between Employment Districts and
the city-wide bikeway system. In addition, Policy T~19 and Policy T-23 support the develop-
ment of good bicycle parking facilities and pedestrian-friendly design features to enhance the
biking and walking experience.
Increased transit use is addressed in several Comp Plan policies and programs. Policy L-42
encourages Employment Districts, which includes SUMC, to develop in a manner to reduce
vehicle trips through use of transit, and bike and pedestrian facilities. Higher-density develop-
ment along transit corridors is recognized as a way to reduce trips, and is encouraged by
Program T-3.
These and oth6r Comp Plan policies, goals, and programs informing Transit, Bicycle, and
Pedestrian Circulation are listed below.
Key Planning Issues
Pedestrian and Bike
Primary pedestrian and/or bike corridors have been identified within the SUMC. These
traverse the region and provide connections both within the SUMC and to other campus
destinations.
The Sand Hill Road Projects included substantial improvements to pedestrian and bike facili-
ties on Sand Hill Road, Arboretum Road, and Vineyard Lane that also serve SUMC. Opportu-
nities exist to expand on those improvements with the SUMC and Shopping Center projects.
The central pedestrian mall of the SUMC runs north-south along the west face of the main
SUMC and currer~tly terminates at Welch Road. The route splits near the entry of LPCH. A
shared pedestrian/bike path is located at the west edge of the LPCH parking structure and
connects to the Welch Road sidewalk. A formal pedestrian walk parallels the main entry drive
through the parking structure but is not welcoming to pedestrians in the vehicle-oriented
setting. The LPCH expansion presents an opportunity to re-do these facilities to make clearer
DRAFT
3.38 27June07 Stanford UK~v~;~ Medical Center Area Plan Update
Transit
Both public and Stanford transit
services extensively serve the
SUMC campus and surrounding
uses including Downtown Palo
Alto.
Applicable Comp Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs -
Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Circulation
Transportation
Goal T- I
Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
Goal T-3
Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling.
Policy T- 1
Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use.
Policy T- I O
Encourage amenities such as seating, lighting, and signaBe at bus stops to increase 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-
modal 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.
Program T- I
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-3
Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near multi-modal transit
stations (See Section 3.2, Land Use)
Program -1:-32
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.
DRAFT
Stanford Univers~y Medical Center Area plan Update 27June07 3.39
Program "I-37
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.
Land Use
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 L-43
Provide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and connections to the citywide bikeway systems within
Employment Districts. Pursue opportunities to build sidewalks and paths in renovation and
expansion projects.
Program L-44
Design the paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with the
character of the area where they are located.
Program 1_-76
Evaluate parking requirements and actual parking needs for specific uses. Develop design
criteria based on a standard somewhere between average and peak conditions.
Program L-77
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.
and more inviting connections for bikes and pedestrians. The central pedestrian mall of the
SUMC lines up with the central mall of the Shopping Center but the two are separated by
the Stanford Barn which is not a part of either project. See the discussion in the Section 3.5
(Unkages) about connecting the two facilities.
East Medical Center Mall also running north/south, is located along the SUMC east edge
parallel to a service road. This corddor extends from Via Ortega to the Emergency Depart-
ment entrance at Quarry Road. A strengthened physical connection at the south end of this
axis will foster a growing affinity between the Medical Center and Science and Engineering
departments. The connection to Quarry Road provides a continuous pedestrian route be-
tween central campus and PAITS/downtown.
Bike routes are typically provided for as follows: marked and dedicated lanes on major or
public roads, shared vehicular lanes on minor campus roads, separated off-road paths either
adjacent to roads or within separate alignments. These routes should conform to applicable
design standards. In-road lanes will be provided on Pasteur and Campus Drives, and Welch
and Quarry Roads. Routes where vehicular lanes are shared include Blake-Wilbur Drive and
Roth Way.
These primary pedestrian and bike pathways complete and reinforce the north/south and
east/west corridors already partially in place. Bike parking will be pro~j~L~n sufficient quanti-
~}.40 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Bicycles
Bicycles serve a significant
transportation function.
ties and be located in landscaped areas convenient to both bike access routes and building
entries. Covered and secured bike parking will be provided at all new major facilities and
incorporated in the parking structure designs.
Designing the proposed paths with appropriate lighting and landscaping will enhance pedes-
trian safety, wayfinding and better identify the routes, thus encouraging their use.
Transit
The location of SUMC at the northern boundary of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County pro-.
vides nearby connection to all of the major transit systems serving the mid-peninsula. The
Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station (PAITS) is just north of SUMC near the intersection of
Quarry Road and El Camino Real. V’t-A, SarnTrans, Caltrain serve the PAITS, as well as spe-
cialized services such as the Dumbarton Express (an East Bay commuter service), the Palo
Alto City Shuttle and Stanford’s own Marguerite Shuttle.
The Stanford University Marguerite shuttle serves the Medical Center with six all-day routes
and three special routes. Unes A, B, and C operate Monday-Friday from 6 AM to 8 PM.
They serve the main campus, Stanford Shopping Center, the Downtown Palo Alto Caltraln
Station, and the California Avenue Caltraln Station (with timed connections with Caltraln to
accommodate commuters). Three SUMC specific routes run within the Center and connect
to the Stanford Research Park and VA Hospital. The Midnight, Shopping, and Downtown Ex-
press Unes connect the SUMC with Downtown Palo Alto and other shopping area at limited
times on weekdays and weekends.
Goals and Objectives
The future development of the SUMC will be proposed as compact infill with attention given
to proximity of uses, physical connections, and the ease of movement for patients and
hospital services. Comfortable walking distances and memorable reference points within
the SUMC, along with coordinated symbols identifying travel routes, buildings and functions
facilitate this movement. As parking is moved to the periphery, it becomes more important
that connections and wayfinding be made clear.
The current pedestrian circulation system at the SUMC can be confusing, especially for the
first-time visitor. Walkways, courtyards and doorways are not always continuous, cleady
marked or identifiable. Visitor destinations from parking areas are often obscure or invis-
ible. Future development should conform to a hierarchy of routes, with clearly delineated
pedestrian connections to the University and adjacent community. The routes proposed will
incorporate the existing major destinations in the Medical Center, including the food service,
information centers, major front doors, and significant outdoor spaces.
Bicycles are a primary means of circulation at Stanford. Bicycle traffic originates largely from
the main campus and residences to the east, but a substantial portion also comes in from
surrounding communities to the west, south, and north. The intent is to provide convenient
bicycle access to the SUMC using the existing improvements and provide suitable parking
for long- and short-distance commuters.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.41
.,3-9 Transit -
Existing
LEGEND
~Plan Area
i,, ~ Public
~ S~ord
¯O PAITS (Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station)
DRAFT
3,42 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
0 Transit -
Proposed
Additional access from
Sand Hill to Welch
LEGEND
~Pl~m Area
~ Public
~ Stanford
PARIS Alto Intermodal Transit(Palo Sta~on)
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.4~
LEGEND
~Plan Area
-"3,~ Pedestrian
~ PedesNan and Bi~cle (IN Roa~
==..==-...~ Pedestrian and Bicycle (On Road)
3-11 Pedestrian and
Bicycle -
Existing
DRAFT
3.44 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
3-12 Pedestrian and
Bicycle -
Proposed
New connection from Sand
Hill to Welch
12 New connection to El Camino
and PAITS
5 New connection from the
SUMC to the Shopping Center
4 Additional connection to the
east side of SUMC in concert
with improved road access
LE6EttD
Plan Area
~ P~de~an
Pedestrian and Bicycle (Off Road)
P~esNan and BicyNe (On Roa~
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.45
OPEN SPACE
This section reviews the open space resources available to the SUMC users and identifies
strategies for connection from the SUMC to nearby resources such as the Arboretum and
San Francisquito Creek, as well as strategies for incorporating landscape elements into the
SUMC area itself, 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 fabdc will be expanded to include objec-
tives for incorporating local contemporary landscape resources. Refer to Exhibits 3-13 and
3-14 for existing and proposed open space.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
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 com-
munity forest will guide the planning for site and street tree protection, replacement, and
planting.
Palo AJto and Stanford value the backdrop of forested hills to the southwest. Comp Plan
Policy L-3 guides development to respect views of these hills from public City streets to
provide a sense of enclosure and a reminder of the City’s proximity to open space and the
natural environment. Additional policies and programs intended to protect and enhance the
community forest (i.e. Policy L-76 and Policy N-16) will further guide the planning for site and
street tree protection, replacement, and planting.
These and other Comp Plan policies, goals, and programs informing Open Space are listed
below.
Key Planning Issues and Uses
Open space is an integral element of all City neighborhoods and districts including employ-
ment centers such as the SUMC. Its importance as a land use is discussed in Section 3.2 of
this Area Plan Update. Exhibits 3.13 and 3.14 outline existing and proposed open space in
or near the SUMC area.
Internal Open Space
Open space areas can provide important benefits within and proximate to the dense com-
mercial and hospital development. These areas act as common gathering places for employ-
ees 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 hospitai facilities rather than unused and isolated open areas.
Effective and usable open space design can include sma!ler spaces in addition to medium
and large park-like squares. Private open spaces can exist between and around buildings
and along pathways connecting vadous uses.
The hospitals lease land from Stanford University that corresponds generally to the footprints
DRAFT
3.46 27JuneO7 Stsnford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Courtyards
Internal courtyards and
pedestrian ways contribute to
the open space character of the
SUMC campus.
Applicable Comp Plan Goals, Policies, 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
Program C-26
n conjunction with new development proposals, pursue creation of park, plaza, or other
public gathering places that meet neighborhood needs.
Policy C-26
Maintain and enhance existing park facilities.
Policy C-27
Seek opportunities to develop new parks and recreation facilities to meet the growing need
of residents and employees of Palo Alto.
Policy C-29
Strategically locate public facilities and parks to serve all neighborhoods in the City.
Policy C-30
Facilitate access to parks and community facilities by a variety of transportation needs.
Program C-24
Preserve El Camino Park as a recreational resource for the community.
Program 025
Consider new park sites when preparing coordinated area plans.
Program C-26
In conjunction with new development proposals, pursue creation of park, plaza, or other
public {~athering spaces that meet neighborhood needs.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.47
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, land-
scaped areas. The current Medical Center Renewal and Replacement Project proposals
would not result in any net loss of open space to the Medical Center. The North Garden
south of Pasteur Drive is identified as part of the site for the School of Medicine replacement
research facilities. That open space and the existing courtyard and gardens in the original
Hospital / School structure will be replaced elsewhere on the site during the redevelopment.
The final design of the proposed projects is expected to continue the Stanford tradition of
integrating open space and landscape elements into the design of its facilities and thereby
further the City’s open space goals and policies.
Regional Open Space
The regional open space resources near the SUMC and identified in the Land Use section
(Section 3.1) include the Arboretum and San Francisquito Creek. Both are near the SUMC
and currently connected by existing streets and pathways. The connections to the natural
landscape of the creek corridor were enhanced with the of pathways and designation of pre-
serves as a result of the Sand Hill Road Projects. The anticipated proposed SUMC projects
will include an extension of Durand Way to Welch Road, thereby connecting the creek open
space corridor to the core of the SUMC.
The Area Plan Update also depicts a possible future pedestrian bike path along the edge of
the Arboretum where it borders the Quarry Road parcels. This path would link the campus
and SUMC street/path systems near the intersection of Quarry Road and Campus Drive,
providing users of the Stanford campus and SUMC with enhanced access to the Arboretum
and the landscape resources it contains. This route would extend south through the campus
and link other important campus open spaces. The northern terminus of the path is the El
Camino Real / Palm intersection where path users could connect to the Palo Alto Intermodal
Transit Station, related commercial and clinical uses along El Camino, and Downtown Palo
Alto.
The open space features discussed above are generally not developed playfields for orga-
nized, active recreation. There are a number of such facilities in the area. These include the
El Camino Park in Palo Alto, the Intramural Playfields on campus and the Village Green at
the Stanford West apartments. These nearby facilities are also included on the Open Space
Diagram.
DRAFT
3.48 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Goals and Objectives
The following proposed key plan objective implements Comp Plan policies and programs
related to open space issues:
The project shaft include provision of new usable open space areas in and/
or in proximity of the SUMC area. These open space areas shall be devel-
oped in a way that promotes linkages between uses within the SUMC area,
nearby uses at the Stanford Shopping Center, nearby open space, areas
of exisb’ng and future housing sites and other nearby university lands. Open
space areas shaft be accessible and within easy waltdng distance to the
greatest number of users.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.49
$Open Space -
Existing
Pasteur Median
North Garden
El Camino Park
San Frandsquito Creek
Arboretum
Village Green
Stanford Athletics
San Hill Fields
Landscaped Gathering Areas
- lnterllal courtyards and
streetscapes
LEGEND
Plan Area
DRAFT
3.50 27June07 Stanford Ur~v~rsity Medical Center Area Plan Update
:$-14 Open Space -
Proposed
Pasteur Median
Quarry Road - Arboretum
Connection
El Camino Park
San Francisquito Creek
Arboretum
Village Green
Stanford Athletics
San Hill Fields
Landscaped Gathering Areas
- internal courtyards and
streetscapes
LEGEND
Plan ~ea
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.51
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, and open space objectives. Refer to Exhibits 3-15 and 3-16 for a depiction of the
existng and proposed major utility corridors.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
City Camp Plan policies call for compact utility structures located and screened appropriately
(Program L-81) and, when needed, the possible use of artists to mitigate detrimental visual
effects (Policy L-79).
These and other Camp Plan policies, goals, and programs informing the Utilities and Public
Infrastructure are listed below.
Applicable Comp Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs -
Utilities and Public Infrastructure
Land Use
Poliqt L- 79
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 infi-astructure_ 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 repladng undersized or otherwise inadequate lines with larger lines or parallel
lines.
DRAFT
,3.52 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Key Planning Issues and Uses
The infrastructure within the SUMC will be designed to accommodate long-term demands
that provide the necessary support for the new development. It is intended that these
designs for utilities and public infrastructure provide a pleasant environment for campus and
surrounding environment users, and a design sensitivity approach to elements that comprise
and support the infrastructure systems.
Utilities
The SUMC receives its thermal utilities (chilled water and steam) from Stanford University’s
central plant. This plant is currently being planned to expand its capacity to serve develop-
ment authorized Under Stanford University’s General Use Permit. These plans may incorpo-
rate the additional SUMC capacity as required.
Utility infrastructure provided by the City of Palo Alto includes electrical, natural gas, water,
storm, and sewer systems. These systems will need to be examined for possible enhance-
ment to the existing systems dependent on building loads. Impacts to existing infrastructure
will be identified through the project-specific design and environmental review processes,
and subsequent replacement or enhancement, if required, should incorporate current project
development standards in keeping with the intent to create a pleasant environment for users
of the SUMC and surrounding City of Palo Alto businesses.
The SUMC infrastructure will need to be extended and appropriately sized to serve the new
development. It is the intent of the Hospitals and the School of Medicine to design efficient
systems that take advantage of progressing sustainable technologies in power, lighting,
water use, and other conservation measures that assist in creating a sustainable architecture
and medical campus. Please refer to Section 3.10 (Sustainability and Green Design) for more
discussion.
In the portion of the SUMC Area Plan area located ~n unincorporated Santa Clara County
lands, Stanford University provides all utilities.
Governing Agency Jurisdiction for Utilities
All of the infrastructure systems required for supporting the inpatient and cdtical support
functions of the SUMC are reviewed and approved by the Office of Statewide Health Plan-
ning & Development (OSHPD). For those aspects of the renewal project that house non-
critical clinical, medical office, and research functions, the City of Palo Alto has the governing
authority. Clinical services that are not considered critical, but provide for clinical care such as
SUMC Clinics, will be designed to an OSHPD-3 designation which falls under the goveming
agency jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto.
Public Infrastructure
Public infrastructure includes the development of corridors and a framework to support the
campus and extended environs of circulation, parking (surface and structured), signage, pav-
ing, and other supporting elements.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.53
Goals and Objectives
The extended systems will be designed as under-ground elements in a loop configuration
that avoid building pads. The utilities systems would be coordinated to run underground to
the intended site. Under-ground utilities will also minimize impacts to public infrastructure
design such as street trees. Above-grade elements of the utilities infrastructure (e.g. trans-
formers, emergency generators, switching devices, etc.) will utilize efficient and compact
units that are designed to minimize visual impact through the siting of these objects and
landscaping.
High quality design standards will be utilized in developing public infrastructure. Materials
and graphics used will be consistent with the intent of clearly indicating use, circulation, and
boundaries. The SUMC will continue to use its brand elements for Stanford Hospital and
Clinics, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and the School of Medicine. The network of join-
ing these developments with the City of Palo Alto environs will be consistent and in keeping
with the existing context.
The SUMC will advance art in the public setting. This may apply to tree grates, man-hole
covers, public infrastructure, building expression, and in soft and hard landscape elements.
DRAFT
3.54 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.55
3"15 Major Utility
Corridors -
Existing
DRAFT
3.56 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
3-16 Major Utility
Corridors -
Proposed
Requires study for potential
relocation of corridor
LEGEND
Plan Area
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 ~.~7
SUSTAINABILITY AND GREEN BUILDING
Sustainability 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 sup-
port planning for a compact, sustainable community and facilities.
A community is "sustainable" when it meets present-day needs without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their needs. To this end, a sustainable community is
defined by its respect for the environment (conservation of natural resources), the economy
(contributions to present and future prosperity), and social equity or advancement
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
~n 2002 the Palo Alto City Council adopted a City Sustainability Policy that reads as follows:
It~is the intent if the City of Palo Alto to be a sustainable community - one which meets
its current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. In adopting this policy, the City of Palo Alto accepts its responsibility, through its pro-
grams and services, to:
Economy
Maintain a healthy, thriving and well-balanced economy comprised of a blend of large and
small business, which encourages the development of independent businesses and is resil-
ient to the economic changes common to California’s economy
Social Equity
Continuously improve the quality of.life for al~ Palo Alto community members.
Environment
Reduce resource use and pollution in a cost-effective manner while striving to protect and
enhance the quality of the air, water, land and other natural resources; promote and support
the conservation of native vegetation, fish, wildlife habitat and other ecosystems; and mini-
mize human impact on local and regional ecosystems.
In worldng toward these goals, the city will, when appropriate, align and partner with com-
munity groups, businesses and non-profits
Viewed through the lens of sustainability, the City recognizes that the quality of life of all
community members is enhanced by the provision of first-rate healthca~e, basic and applied
research, and education. Chapter 2.0, Facilities Renewal and Replacement Needs provides
the rationale and ddvers for future expansion within the SUMC.
DRAFT
3.58 27JuneO7 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Applicable Comp Plan Goals, Policies, 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
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.
Policy 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.
Poficy 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-35
Reduce solid waste generation through salvage and reuse of building materials, including
architecturally and historically significant materials.
Poficy N-4 7
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.
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.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 3.59
As noted above, the City’s livability and sustainability is also tied to its air and water quality
and connections to nature. These issues and more (mobility, infrastructure, and housing) are
addressed in eadier sections of Chapter 3 of the Area Plan Update.
These and other Comp Plan policies, goals, and programs informing Sustainability and Green
Building are listed below.
Key Planning Issues and Uses
What follows is a discussion of how Stanford’s and Palo Alto’s sustainable building programs
and practices have historically guided campus development and may be applied to future
development at the Medical Center.
Early Stanford
Early site designs and buildings on the Stanford campus had many inherently sustainable
qualities. The first buildings were built of local stone and had large overhangs, allowing them
to stay cool long into the day and warm at night. The arcades and large overhangs provided
shade and, in conjunction with the typically narrow building footprints, helped to create
good cross-ventilation. Recessed and transom windows provided ample natural lighting and
ventilation while helping to reduce solar heat gain. The energy efficiency of this early building
and site design created the types of environmental and economic benefits encouraged in a
sustainable community today.
Stanford Today
Stanford’s campus design reaffirms the sustainable design principles established by the origi-
nal plan for the university. Buildings are carefully sited to incorporate sustainable principles of
daylight and shading, to maintain a balance of intensive-use areas and natural environments,
to continue the use of a predominant palette of native or low-water-using plant materials, and
to plan for infill and redevelopment to maintain a compact urban core campus.
Green Building
Responsible development begins with optimal use of buildings. Stanford’s space utilization
studies and Space Planning Guidelines bdng dgor to the capital planning process. In addi-
tion, Stanford is in the process of implementing a university-wide "space charge" designed to
stimulate more efficient use of space by stressing that space is not "free."
Stanford’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-accredited Campus
Design and Department of Project Management staff will oversee the School of Medicine
building construction using the Project Delivery Process manual, along with the university’s
Guidelines for Sustainable Buildings and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis.
Uke many universities, Stanford is facing the challenge of growth in the energy intensive
science fields. Stanford’s Guidelines for Sustainable Buildings have refined Labs 21 and the
LEED rating system for application to a university setting. The Guidelines focuses contrac-
tors, consultants and end users on the delivery of high performance buildings that minimize
energy and water use and maximize user comfort and productMty.
DRAFT
3.60 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Specific Guideline goals are consistent with new City of Palo Alto Architecture and Review
Board findings under consideration for adoption by the City. These findings are:
¯Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation;
¯Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island ef-
fects;
¯Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;
¯Maximize on-site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving;
¯Use sustainable building materials;
¯Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use;
¯Create healthy indoor environments; and
¯Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments.
The University’s Guidelines for Life Cycle Cost Analysis aligns long-term value with front-end
capital costs.
Energy and Water Conservation
Since the construction of the Cardinal Cogen power plant in the late 1980’s, the university
has created most of its energy on site through the co-generation of electricity and steam
from natural gas fuel. This highly efficient process is complemented by aggressive conserva-
tion incentives and retrofits.
Recycling
Stanford’s Source Reduction and Recycling Program serves the entire university community,
including the Stanford hospitals. Stanford recycles paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, plastic
bags, aluminum and steel cans, scrap metal, and electronic scrap. The construction and
demolition program recycles wood, concrete, dirt, asphalt, metal, and drywall. The organics
program includes yard waste, manure, and food waste composting; grinding logs into wood
chips; chipping brush into mulch; and grass-cycling.
Stanford Hospitals
The promotion of healthy environments within the hospitals is a cdtical component to
SUMC’s design and plans. Access to nature, daylight, and pollutant-free environments are
critical to faster healing, productive care-gMng, and the general welfare of patients and staff
alike.
Currently, many hospitals are testing sustainable materials, materials management (trash re-
duction, recycling, etc.), and energy reduction systems. Due to complex infection control and
patient safety regulations, there is no single source of sustainable design criteria for hospitals.
The hospitals are developing their approach to sustainable design based on the Green Guide
for Health Care and the available documentation as translated to healthcare facilities provided
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 explore appropriate building(s) siting, use of recycled and sustain-
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27JuneO7 3.61
able materials from local resources, enhancing the materials management recycling program,
reuse of existing facilities as appropriate, indigenous landscaping, inclusion of energy-pro-
ducing and energy-efficient building systems, and strategies to minimize water use. Further
exploration of these systems will occur dudng the building design processes.
Goals and Objectives
The following City-proposed key plan objective addresses issues pertaining to sustainability:
¯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 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 sustainability 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 project, the projects should explore co-generations and solar energy options for energy
savings.
DRAFT
3.62 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Zoning and Land Use Regulations-
Existing and Proposed
This section identifies the zoning
changes that would be needed
if the City of Palo Alto ultimately
decides to approve Stanford’s
and the hospitals’ proposal for
renewal and replacement of their
facilities within the SUMC. By
including the zoning information
in this draft Area Plan Update,
the City is not endorsing the
changes. Rather it is describing
what zoning changes would be
needed were the project to be
approved. Because the hospitals’
and School of Medicine’s proposal
is conceptual at this time, this
section is likely to be modified
as the proposal is developed and
reviewed. In addition, other zone
changes may be considered.
EXISTING ZONING -- CITY OF PALO ALTO
Public Facilities (PF)
The majority of the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) in Palo Alto is presently zoned
Public Facilities (PP-’). The PF public facilities district is "designed to accommodate govern-
mental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities."
The PF parcels in the SUMC are treated as a single planning parcel to which the zoning regu-
lations apply. Current PF development standards include:
¯Private educational facilities, hospitals, and outpatient medical facilities with associated
medical research are conditionally permitted uses. A new or amended conditional use
permit is necessary for expansion of a building site or area.
The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 1 to 1 (i.e., 1 sf of development per 1 sf of land
area). On the Hoover Pavilion site, the FAR is .25 to 1.
¯The maximum site coverage is 30% of the site area; however, for parking facilities the
maximum site coverage is equal to the site coverage allowed by the most restrictive
adjacent zoning district.
¯The maximum height is 50 feet. Sites abutting or having any portion located within 150
feet of any residential district are subject to special requirements.
o Parking requirements are established in Zoning Code section 18.83. For a hospital,
the requirement is 1 space for every 1.5 beds; for medical offices, the requirement is 1
space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. It is possible to defer up to 20% of
the required parking based upon a showing that alternative transportation programs will
reduce demand.
¯At least a 20 foot street setback (yard) is required. Minimum setbacks are equal to the
setbacks in the most restrictive abutting district. Sites abutting a residential district
must have a solid wall or fence, and a 10 foot interior yard planted or maintained as a
landscape screen. Sites opposite from a residential district and separated by a street,
drainage facility or other open area, require a minimum yard of 10 feet, planted and
maintained as a landscape screen.
Generally, use permits require that parking be maintained at quantities necessary to meet
zoning requirements. However, in recognition that there is no formal distinction between hos-
pital and campus parking and that the Medical Center spans two jurisdictions, use permits
in the SUMC have allowed for a regional parking approach that relies on parking in both City
and County locations, not assigned on a building-by-building basis.
The future land use currently being proposed for the SUMC would require some modification
in the existing Palo Alto zoning, which is discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.4 below.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 4.1
Medical Office Research (MOR)
Outside the PF parcels, there are also several leasehold parcels along Welch Road owned
by Stanford University which fall within the boundaries zoned Medical Office Research (MOR)
(FAR = 0.5).
High Density Multiple Family (RM-40)
The area located northeast of the Sand Hill Road/Pasteur Drive intersection is zoned RM-40
(high density multiple-family residential), which has a maximum density of 40 dwelling units
per acre.
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES -- CITY OF PALO ALTO
Proposed Zoning Ordinance and Designation Changes
The hospitals and School of Medicine propose two zoning changes to accommodate the
renewal and replacement project.
First, it is proposed that 701 and 703 Welch Road be brought within the same zoning desig-
nation as the other inboard Welch Road properties (i.e., rezoned from MOR to the new zone
discussed below).
Second, it is proposed that an amendment to the zoning code create a new general zon-
ing district, and apply the new zoning district to the sites within the SUMC, replacing the PF
zoning district on those sites. The proposed zoning district would have its own name, such
as "Hospital District" or "Public Facilities/Hospital District." It is further proposed that this new
zoning district include development standards that would apply to the SUMC uses. Finally,
it is proposed that the new zoning district eliminate the current requirement for a conditional
use permit for the proposed uses.
Proposed Changes to Development Standards for SUMC
The hospital and School of Medicine propose that new zoning for the development sites
include the following revised development standards to accommodate the SUMC renewal
and replacement project,:
The maximum FAR for the in-board Welch Road "Hospital" zoned sites would be 1.5 to
1. The maximum FAR for the Hoover Pavilion would be .5 to 1.
The maximum height at the in-board Welch Road sites would be 130 feet. The maxi-
mum height at the Hoover Pavilion site would be 60 feet.
Other changes to the existing PF district development standards proposed by the hospital
and School of Medicine may include:
¯ Site coverage requirements may be changed.
° Yard (setback) requirements may be changed.
° Parking ratios may be changed to performance-based parking requirements.
DRAFT
4.2 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
The hospitals and School of Medicine also propose the following use change:
Private educational facilities, private universities, hospitals, and outpatient medical facilities
with associated medical research could be made permitted uses rather than conditionally
permitted uses. As long as these uses are consistent with the zoning requirements, projects
developed on these sites would only be subject to design review by the ARB but would not
require a conditional use permit.
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 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 may require a minor adjustment to the City-County line.
Future Legislative Action
Any change to the zoning code, other than boundaries of districts, must be initiated by the
City. As part of that’zone change process, a more detailed analysis of the appropriate mix of
permitted uses, conditional uses and site development regulations will be conducted. In ad-
dition, the City may also consider other zone changes in the immediate area.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND PROPOSED
CHANGES -- CITY OF PALO ALTO
The Comprehensive Plan designates most of the SUMC "Major Institution/Special Facili-
ties." This land use designation specifically applies to hospitals. Some of the medical offices
on Welch Road are designated "Research/Office Park." LPCH proposes that 701 and 703
Welch Road be brought within the "Major Institution/Special Facilities" land use designation.
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -- SANTA CLARA COUNTY
The Quarry Road parcels located in unincorporated Santa Clara County are under the juris-
diction of Santa Clara County.
The Stanford campus is designated as "Major Educational and Institutional Uses" on the
County’s General Plan Land Use Map. In December 2000, Santa Clara County approved a
Community Plan (which is part of the County’s General Plan) and a General Use Permit (GUP)
for construction of 2,035,000 gsf of additional academic and academic support facilities, and
approximately 3,000 additional housing units on Stanford’s lands.
The Stanford Community Plan divides the campus into seven land use categories. The
Quarry sites within the SUMC area are designated Academic Campus. Allowable academic
campus uses include: instruction and research (including teaching hospital facilities); hous-
ing intended for students, postgraduate fellows, and other designated personnel; and high
density housing for faculty and staff.
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 4.3
The 2000 GUP further sub-divides the campus into ten Development Districts. The Quarry
sites are in the Quarry Development District. The GUP anticipates 50,000 gsf of academic
development and 350 housing units within this development district. The GUP allows
reallocation of academic and housing development between Development Districts after
preparation of an environmental assessment and approval of the Planning Commission.
The construction of a 100,000 gsf medical facility at the Quarry site would require this or an
alternative approval process.
While Palo Alto has no zoning authority over these lands, this property nevertheless may be
utilized to serve SUMC needs.
DRAFT
4.4 27JuneO7 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 4.5
LEGEND
City of P’a]o APm
~ Public Facilities -PF
~Medical Office Resea~h MOR
High Density Residential - RM 40
County of Santa Clam
Academic Campus
NOTF.:A~a~n~c C~unpus a~ows ho~ng
Zoning -
Existing
DRAFT
4.6 27June07 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Zoning -
Proposed
Zoning ordinance and
designation changes
Jurisdictional boundary
change request
Approval under SCP/GUP
required
Refer to text for discussion
LEBENI)
City of Palo AIt~
~ Hespital District
~ Hospital - Hoover
~Medical Office Research - MOR
High Density Residential - RM 40
Academic C, amp~s
DRAFT
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update 27June07 4.7
MENLO
PARK
//
i/
i
City of PaJo Alto
~:~:_Hospital District
~Hospital - Hoover
Medical Office Research- MOR
High Density Residential - RM 4Q
County of Santa Clara
Academic Campus
NOTE: Academic Campus aliowa housing
Proposed Changes
Zoning ordinance and designation changes
Jurisdictional boundary change request
Approval under SCP/GUP required
Refer to text for discussion
New Shopping Center Buildings
Z i/,0
ili
G
Z
MENLO
PARK
STANFOF
i
//
i[
500 1.2C0 f~.~t
Pedestrian
Pedestrian and Bicycle (Off Road)
Pedestrian and Bicycle (On Road)
Proposed Changes
@ New connection from Sand Hill to Welch
New connection to El Camino and PAITS
New connection from the SUIV1C to Lhe Shoppin~ Center
Additional connection to the east side of SUMC
in concert with improved road access
Plan Area
New Shopping Center Buildings
i /!
ii
~@@®®
MENLO
PARK
STEUR
DOWNTOWN
PALO ALTO
0 850 1700 ft
Stanford University Land Use and Environmental Planning Office
Transportation Nodes
Regional Transit
Local Transit
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Pedestrian
Pedestrian Intersections Requiring Further S~dy
Proposed Changes
0
0
0
New pedestrian and bicycle connection
New Arboretum pedestrian and
bicycle connection
New transit and pedestrian connection
from Sand Hill to Weich
O New transit connection from Quarry
to PAfTS (Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station
Plan Area
New Shopping Center Buildings
!
J
0 0 0
L&] L_~_.! .