HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 235-08City of Palo ARo
CRy Manager’s epor
ONORABL,_, C!TY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:PLANNING AND
CO’. ~MUNIT~ ENVIRONMENT
SUBJECT:
~,l,-,_h 5, 2008 CMR: 235:08
~ m ,ON~,. D.-~TE STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER (SUMC)
AND STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER (SCC) EXPANSION PROJECTS.
i~COMMENDATION
The purpose of the study session is to provide an update to the City Council (Council) regarding
the Stanford University Medical Center (SE0%AC) Replacement and Rene\xal Project and the
Simon Properties - Stanford Shopping Center (SSC) Expansion Project, and to review proposed
Environmental Impact Report alternatives, including the Village Concept alternative.
BACKGROUND
Review for this project has been divided into two phases: Phase I (Information Sharing and
Preliminary Area Plan) from December 2006 tl-n-ough July 2007 and Phase ~I (EIR and
Entitlements), from July 2007 through the end of 2008, culminating with certification of the EIR
and the Ci*.v’s decisions on the applications. A single EIR is being prepared for both the SUMC
:rod SSC prQjects.
De\’elopment applications were submitted in August 2007. There are five (5) main components
to the SUMC project:
!.Hoover medical office building reuse and expansion;
2.Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH) expansion;
3.Stanford Hospita! and Clinics (SHC) replacement and reconstruction;
4.Medical School building reconstruction; and
5.Redevelopment of existing hospital site.
On April 14, 2008, the SUMC project applicants submitted a revision to the August 2007
application. The project revisions include:
The proposed Medical Office Building square footage at the Hoover Pavilion Site has
been reduced from 200,000 gross square feet (gsf) to 60,000 gross square feet. The
proposed square footage on the Main SUMC Site has been increased by; 140,000
square feet (100,000 gsf increase in SHC Clinics and 40,000 gsf increase in LPCH
C*IR: 235:08 Pagel of 7
Hospital). Overall, the total proposed project square footage remains the same.
Changes in the proposed site plan; including the tower configurations of SHC.
A project fact sheet prepared by staff for the SUMC (Attachment A) will be updated with the
new application information and posted to the Stanford Projects pages on the Cit)?s website:
,.\w\\’.citvo fpalea!to.or~.
Simon Properties is proposing to expand the Stanford Shopping Center by adding 240,000 square
feet of new retail stores and restaurants, a new 120-room hotel and parking for a net addition of
1~ ~ vehicles spaces. A project fact sheet prepared by staff for the SSC project is contained in
Attachment B.
Project entitlements will include adoption of an .~ea Plan, Zone Change and Comprehensive
Plan amendment, architectural review, adoption of desi~ guidelines and Development
Agreements f’or both proj ects.
DISCUSSION
Stanford University .Medical Center Land Use Area Plan
The preparation of an area plan for the SL54C responds to Program L-46 of the 1998 Palo Alto
COml)rehensive P! an:
fVo~k u’itt~ Sm~{ford ~o prepare a~ area play,for tl~e Stanford 3,@dical Center.
The first document in response to Program L-46 was the SUMC Land Use Area Analysis 2000,
prepared in June 2000 was completed and submitted by Stanford in conjunction with an
application for the City’s reviexx of the Center for Cancer Treatment and PreventionL~nbulatory
Care Pavilion and under~ound parking structure. The analysis helped guide the development
within the SUMC area boundaries.
The current SUMC project is located within the boundaries defined in the SU%/IC Land Use Area
.~alysis 2000 document. As part of the Phase I activities, a revised Area Plan was developed to
address the proposed project and includes reference and key linkages to and between the
Stanford Shopping Center, the Palo Alto Transit Center, and downto\\n. The Area Plm~ is a City
document that will be finalized at the end of Phase II. The Area Plan establishes objectives for
’&e planning area and provides project guidance and context for the proposed applications.
The Area Plan is intended to achieve a number of different land use and plarming goals and
objectives. Many of these are shared by Stanford and the City of Pa!o Alto and include the
folloxx ing:
CMR: 235:08 Page2 oft
o Provide a long-tenn view of land use for the area
o Establish a context of broader campus and community land use and infrastructure
¯Identi~, adopted Comprehensive Plan policies to maintain and preserve the vitality of centers
and employment districts and enhance overall city, structure
¯Identi~, connections and linkages between the Medical Center ,~nea and nearby land uses,
including ~he Transit Center and the Stanford Shopping Center
o Clarit~ ~he future site-specific planning and implementation process
Pursuant to Comprelnensive Plan L-46: the Area Plan primarily focused on the Medical Center
project. Hoxxever, the Area Plan recognized the importance of connections between the two
projects, as xxell as connections with other key areas of the City.
Environmental Impact Report and Fiscal Impact Stud)’
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires California
~.gencies to analyze enx ironmental impacts before acting on a project. ~ Envirorunental Ianpact
Report (EIR) is required by CEQA when an agency determines that a project may have a
signitScant effect on the environment. An EIR evaluates a proposed project’s potential impacts
on the enviromllent, and recommends mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce or eliminate
those impacts.
The City has selected the envirom~ental consulting firm of PBS&J (formerly EIP Associates) to
prepare the ErR for these two projects. In order to provide expertise in specific areas, PBS&J has
included the following sub-consultants to help prepare detailed studies for the ErR:
Korve Engineering, a division of DMJM Harris (Korve): traffic and transportation
Architectural Resources Group (AiZG): cultural and historic resources
Keyser Marston Associates (If_MAy: housing needs
William Kanemoto & Associates (\\qCA): visual simulations.
This group of consultants is currently preparing the Draft EIR. Internal interdepartmental review
of draft information is on-going. A group of key City, staff personnel, consultants and applicants
!~ave formed an ErR Team that meets on a bi-weekly basis to discuss issues related to the
progress of the ErR. Tile Draft ErR is tentatively scheduled to be available in November 2008.
The City will also be conducting a peer review of the fiscal impact analysis and urban decay,
study that are being prepared by CBRE Consulting under contract by Stanford University and
Simon Property; Group. These studies will estimate the net fiscal impact of the projects on the
City’s General Fund as well as an estimate of the extent to which the planned expansion of
Stanford Shopping Center may or may not contribute to urban decay or deterioration of other
commercial centers in Palo Alto such as University Avenue and California Avenue. The City has
retained an independent consulting firm to review these analyses and provide recommendations
on the adequacy; of the studies. The fiscal impact analysis and urban decay, study are expected to
be released to tile public with the DEIR document in November 2008.
In addition, the City has retained Marlene Berkhoff to perform a medical space planning peer
review and Bruce Fukuji to perform an urban design peer review.
CMR: 235:08 PageYof7
Proiect Alternatives
A set of alternatives will be identified and evaluated in the ELK to provide decision-makers with
an understanding of the key environmental tradeoffs between development options. The
discussion of alternatives should focus on those which: (1) reduce or avoid significant impacts of
the projects, (2) meet most of the basic project objectives, and (3) can be feasibly implemented.
The EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives, but need not discuss every alternative
to the project. Pursuant to these requirements, preliminary alternatives have been developed
with input from the SE~,’[C and SSC teams. It should be noted that this preliminary list has been
made prior to completion of the environmental analyses for the projects, and thus the significant
impacts that \x~ot~ld be avoided by each identified alternative is assumed m~d not verified.
CEQA req~i~-es a No Project alternative. In addition, it is anticipated that "reduced intensity"
alternatives for each project will be identified in order to address traffic impacts. Staff also
anticipates preparation of a Village Concept alternative to address some of the anticipated
impacts, such as traffic, in a more holistic approach. These alternatives are summarized below.
Staff may also identify other alternatives that could be included in the tHR once the impacts of
tl~e projects are better defined.
No Proiect Alternative
CtIQA requires a No Project alternative to be identified in an ELK. 7his alternative
al!ows decision makers to compare impacts if projects were approved versus those
impacts if the projects were not approved, and is not contingent on the projects’
objectives or their significant impacts.
SUh’IC - Some of the structures at SHC do not comply with structural and non-
structural criteria that must be met by the 2013 and 2030 deadlines imposed by SB
1953 for retrofit or replacement of hospita! facilities. Non-structural renovations also
would be required at LPCH in order to comply with the statutory deadlines. Subject
to determining their feasibility, the No Project alternative may include (a) seismic
retrofit work of noncompliant portions only, with no new structures; and (b)
replacement of SB 1953 noncompliant buildings with space of the same square
footage.
SSC - The Shopping Center has been built to the maximum intensity allowed under
~t~e City’s Comprehensive Plan. As such, the No Project alternative for the Shopping
Center Project would be a no build alternative, under which no additional
construction or ground disturbance would occur.
Reduced Intensity Alternative
."Reduced Intensity" alternatives are intended to reduce identified impacts by limiting the
scope of the proposed projects.
SUMC - Slnould it be deterrnined that si~-~ificant impacts related to traffic generation,
housing demand, utilities consumption, and/or public services demand would occur
fiom the SUMC Project, then a "Reduced Intensity" alternative(s) could be
considered to reduce or avoid these intensity and population-driven impacts. These
CMR: 235:08 Page4 of 7
alternatives are likely to include: (a) right-sizing the SHC and LPCH facilities without
adding new beds; and/or (b) right-sizing SHC and LPCH facilities plus adding square
t’ootage and new beds in an amount less than the proposed project.
SSC - During the review process, should it be determined that significant impacts
related to traffic generation, housing demand, utilities consumption, and,Zor public
service demand would occur from ttne Shopping Center Project, then a "Reduced
Intensity" atten~ative could be considered to reduce or avoid these intensity and
population-driven impacts. This alten-mtive for the Shopping Center project would
lil<elv include reduced retail floor area, along with a commensurate reduction in
parking. A \ ariation of this alternatix e could include a larger hotel with the reduced
retail component.
Villa~_e Concept Alternative
The Village Concept alternative is intended to incorporate many of the key plmming
objectives described in the Area Plan. The Village Concept alternative is intended to
allow for integration of medical, retail, and residential uses, open spaces, and a
transportation network in a way that produces a cohesive urban environment and
minimizes vehicle trips within the area. The Village Concept Alternative is expected to
primarily address and reduce potential impacts associated with housing demand, air
quality, and climate:change, as v, ell as potential direct impacts on open space, traffic and
parking. Staff recognizes that some of the elements of this alternative may be outside the
City’s or the applicants’ control to implement, but the alternative could form a basis for
longer term planning for the immediate area. The Village Concept alternative will focus
on the connectivity and linkages between the tx~o Projects and the surrounding
con~munitv. Ttne alternative is not lneant to substantively change the proposed uses
xvithin each of the applications, but would identi~ key opportunity areas for change and
assure that the projects do not preclude future opportunities to accommodate further
intensitScation or to provide tbr additional uses.
The area to be encompassed by the Village Concept alternative is undefined but should
include, at a minin-mm, both project sites, the intermodal transit station, E1 Camino Park,
existing housing along Sand Hill Road, nearby housing sites designated in the Stanford
General Use Permit, and related areas of the campus, E1 Camino Real businesses, and
downtown.
The Village Concept alternative is likely to consider the follo\x ing components:
Walkable, human-scale environment with local character and sense of identity;
Attractive urban spaces that are visible and publicly accessible from streets and open
spaces;
Strong bike/pedestriart/transit li~,:ages to cormect both projects together and li~,:ing them
to the transit center, downtown, adjacent existing and potential housing, and San
Francisquito Creek and E1 Camino Park open spaces;
C:X[R: 235:08 Page5 of 7
Open spaces to include the creek, K1 Camino Park, and other existing adjacent open
spaces, the proposed plaza area in the Shopping Center, and at least one public plaza area
within tlne SU.~,IC boundaries;
Reduced parl,:ing through shared parking and parking reductions from proximity to
transit;
Compact, higher density mixed-use and transit-oriented design and development;
Identification of potential housing on the existing RM-40 zoned property at Pasteur/Sand
Hill/\Velch, the GUP sites, and at the transit center (Red Cross site);
Additional smal! retail/service uses within either project area and/or at areas in close
proximity; and
local shuttle system looping through the °’village" with conr~ecdon to the transit center.
The City’s urban design peer reviewer, Bruce Fukuji, has outlined the needs, definition,
performance measures and application of the Village Concept to the proposed projects
(Attachment C). He has been meeting with representatives fiom each project to identify
opportunity areas where these projects can have an influence on future development. No desi~
solutions have been formulated at this point but will be developed as the EIR is finalized.
CO:’¢!MISSiON REVIEW
On April 23, 2008, the Planning and Transportation Commission heard a discussion on the
progress the City and the project appl.icants have made in analyzing the Vi!lage Concept, as well
as an update on the status of the project and development of the EIR. The Commission provided
comments on the Village Concept and other aspects of the project. The minutes from the meeting
are contained in Attaclm~ent D.
NEXT STEPS
\\ork will continue on the EIR and development a~-eement negotiations, with periodic updates
to the Commission and Council. Study sessions and preliminary reviews with the Architectural
Review Board will be scheduled in May and June of 2008.
ENVIRONB’IENTAL REVIEW
~ EIR is under preparation for both projects. No discretionary action is requested at this time.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTBIENT HEAD:
STEVEN TURNER
Senior ’,..
Interim Director of Community and Environment
CMR: 235:08 Page6 of 7
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
STEVE EMSLIE/KKLLY MORARIU
Deputy City, Managers
ATTACHMENTS
:~.’SU’_’X’IC Project Fact Sheet
B.SSC Project Fact Sheet
C.Village Concept Outline by Bruce Fukuji, Urban DesiNa Peer Reviewer
D.Plannin~ and Transportation Commission Minutes, April .~.~,’~" 2008
COURTESY COPIES
Caa Sih’er, Senior Assistant City. Attorney
Dan Doporto, Special Counse!
K. Gale Cormor, Special Counsel
William T. Phillips, Sr. Assoc. Vice PresidenL Stanford University Land, Buildings & Real
Estate
Mark Tortorich. Director of Design and Building, Stan%rd Hospitals & Clinics/Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospita!
2rean McCown, Director of Community Relations, Office of Govenm~ent and Community
Relations, Stanford University
C!qarles Carter, Director, Land Use and Environmental Planning. Stanford University
Catherine Palter, Associate Director, Land Use and Enviromnenta! Planning, Stanford University
Barbara Schussman, Bingham McCutchen
Art Spetlmeyer, Exec. Vice president, Development, Simon Group
.Jo!nn Benvenuto, General Manager, Simon Group
Anna Shimko, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson, Kawakami
Bruce Ful(uji, Kukuji Planning & Desi~
Trixie Martelino, PBS&J
CMR: 235:08 Page7of7
Stanford University
Medical Center
Development Proposal
An application has,been submitted to the City of Palo
Alto for the renev, al, replacement and expansion of
the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC),
which includes:
SHC: Stanford Hospital and Clinics
LPCH: Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital,
School of Medicine.
Hoover Pavilion
SHC, LPCH, and SoM have identified a number of
program objectives, including: to meet State-
mandated seismic standards (Senate Bill 1953) and to
expand their facilities to meet future demand for
patient care. _ ......
These facility improvements would be implemented
in multiple phases over a 20-year period.
ATTACHMENT A
Entitlements Requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Change land use designation for 701 and703 Welch
Road to "Major Institution!Special Facilities"
Modi~, Comprehensive Plan Program L-3 to allow
taller buildings
Rezoning (New hospital zone)
Rezone land in the "Public Facilities" Zone (PF) to a
new hospital zone (eg. "Hospital District")
Annexation
Pre-zone and annex small site at southwest comer of
project area
Architectural Review
Preliminary" review and approval by Architectural
Review Board to be sought.
Development Agreement
To be entered into with Ci~’ of Palo Alto if terms are
mutually agreeable
Employment Summary *
Existing employees (2007)9,943
Projected Increase (SHC)1,160
Projected Increase (LPCH)937
Projected Decrease (SoM)(106)
Projected Net Increase 1,991
Total at Buildout 11,934
*These numbers have been supplied by applicant and are subject to
verification by City. The figure for 2007 includes staffgrowth associated
with current renovations. The numbers for SHC and SOM include Hoover
Proposed Square Footage (Within Project Boundaries)
Current sf Net Total sf Patient Beds Building
Increase sf Heights
SHC 1,434,444 823,849 2,258,293 From 456 to 600 Up to 130’*
LPCH 354,500 441,500 796,000 From 257 to 361 Up to 85’
SoM **479,874 0 479,874 Up to 66’
Hoover 98.061 46,169 144,230 Up to 65’
Total 2,366,879 1,311,518 3,678,397
* The helipad on top of SHC buildings will contribute in addition to this height.
** 14,200 sfat 800 Welch Road is not part of the Project but is anticipated in the future.
Source: Tables 3-1, 3-3, Figure 4-7 of the SUMC application package.
Construction Phases
2009-2015,2016-2021
2009-2015,2014-2017
2010-2012,2014-2016,2018-2020
2010-2012
Trip Generation Study*
Submitted by applicant’s
consultant Fehr & Peers
(Trucks, ambulances and
helicopters:
Round Trips = arrival + departure)
Annual Truck Round Trips
Total 2006 32,850
Total at Buildout 37,039
Annual Ambulance Round Trips
Total 2006 8,331
Total at Buildout 11,731
Peak Hour Traffic AM PM
Existing: Hospital 1,442 1,425
Existing: Medical offices 290 241
Existing: Total Count 1,732 1.666
Projected Addition +1,02!+915
* These estimates will be subject to
further analysis by Fehr & Peers
and independently reviewed by the
Cit3."s EIR consultant.
Annual Helicopter Round Trips
Total 2006 1,060
Total at Buildout 1,357
Parking Summary for SUMC
New Parking Demand 2,309
Replacement Parking Spaces 999
Total Required Spaces at Buildout 3,307
Total Proposed Spaces at Buildout 3,700
For more information please go to www.ciu, ofpaloalto.org, or contact Steven Turner at steven.tumer@cityofpaloalto.org
|
ATTACHMENT B
Fact Sheet:
Stanford
Shopping Center
Development
Proposal
An application to expand the Stanford
Shopping Center (SSC)has been
submitted to the CiS, of Palo Alto by
Simon Property Group (Simon), the lessee
and operator of the Stanford Shopping
Center.
According to the applicant, this project has
been proposed in an effort to respond to
market demands and to remain
competitive, with the recent surge of
expanding shopping centers in the Bay
Area.
The applicant indicates that this expansion
is aimed at promoting a pedestrian-
ti6endly environment by creatifig new
public space, in the form of a new retail
street a~d a central plaza. There will be
new retail, restaurant and office proposed.
Simon is also proposing a 120 room hotel
Entitlements Requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design
Policy L-26, to include text on proposed expansion
plans.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design
Program L-24, to revise SSC’s development cap.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation, to include
hotel use with existing land uses.
Zoning Text Amendments
Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.16.060(e), to revise existing cap on further
development of SSC.
Preliminary Architectural Review
Preliminary.., review and approval by Architectural
Review Board to be sought.
Development Agreement
To be entered into with City, of Palo Alto ifterrns are
mutually ageeable.
Employment Summary*
Existing employees 3,400
Projected (retail)1,000
Projected (hotel)55 to 85
Total 4,455
to 4.485
These have been supplied by applicant
and are subject to verification by City.
Parking Summary
Existing Parking 5,801
Demolished Parking (2,215)
New Parking 3,449
Total Parking 7,035
Net Added Parkin~1,234
Proposed Square Footage
Existin~ Retail 1,412,368 sf
Proposed Retail 240,000 sf
New Building Heights
25’-35’ (3 buildings)
40’-45’ (8 buildings)
Total Retail 1,652,368 sf
Proposed Hotel 120.000 sf 54’ proposed
Proposed Parking 1,004,430 sf 54’ to 56’ proposed
Structures (2 structures)
For more information please go to www.cityofpaloalto.org, or contact Steven Turner at steven.turner@cityofpaloatto.org
The plans shown below are proposed by Simon Property. Group in the application. The location and design of
improvements are subject to modification through enviromnental and design review. This scheme locates the hotel at
the comer of Quarry Road and Arboretum Road.
Existing Retail
New Retail
New Hotel
New Parking
ATTACHMENT F:BMR Program Policy and Procedures
2005:01
Date: May 18, 2005
Page 1 of 1
Procedures for Determination & Payment of BMR In-lieu Fees on the Sale
of Market Rate Ownership Units
Calculation of BMR In-Lieu Fees
If the BMR Agreement requires the Developer to pay the City a BMR in-lieu fee on the sale of
market rate housing units, the fee amount for each market rate unit is equal to the applicable in-
lieu fee rate, as specified in the BMR Agreement, times the hi~her of the market value (as a
for-sale ov,~ership unit) or the actual sales price of each market rate unit in the Proiect. The
Escrow Agent shall calculate the actual in-lieu fee just prior to the sale closing. The Escrow
Agent shall include in the sales price all improvements, add-ons, options, fixtures, appliances,
landscaping, equipment, furniture and other items that the buyer purchases from the Developer,
or the Developer’s contractors, prior to close of escrow- and transfer of title to the unit to the
buyer. Developer shall inform the Escrow Agent of the prices for such items, even if the items
will not be paid for through the escrow transaction, so that the Escrow Agent can correctly
calculate the BMR in-lieu fee due to the City. The City reserves the right to require an
appraisal of any unit to confirm its fair market value. The Developer shall reimburse the City
for the cost of any such appraisals.
Process for Units Not Sold on Open Market Basis
Should any units be sold at less than fair market value or sold, transferred or exchanged to a
person or entity related to the Developer, the original land owner or an investor in the Project
or should Developer retain any units for personal use or rental, then Developer shall pay the
City an in-lieu fee for each such unit based on the fair market value of each unit as if each unit
were being sold separately on the open market as an ownership housing unit. An appraiser
selected by the City shall determine the fair market value of each unit. The Developer shall
reimburse the City for the cost of any such appraisals. The BMR Agreement may include a
deadline by which all in-lieu fees are due and payable to the City even if all units have not yet
been sold.
Timing & Process for In-Lieu Fee Payments
For each unit subject to the fee. the full in-lieu fee payment is due and payable to the City at
the close of escrow for the first sale (or other transfer of title) by the Developer of that unit.
The fee shall be deducted by the Escrow Agent from the Developer’s (seller’s) sales proceeds
at escrow closing and immediately transmitted to the City per instructions to be provided by
the City at that time. The Escrow Agent shall provide the City with the following
documentation together with the check for the fee payment for each unit to veri~ the
calculation of the fee:
1.A certified HUD-1 form for each unit’s sale
2.A list of any improvements and their prices, if not shov~a on the HUD- I forrn
3.A calculation of the amount of the in-lieu fee
Security for In-Lieu Fee Payments
The City may require a bond from the Developer or that a note and deed of trust be recorded
against the Project in favor of the City as security for the payment of BMR in-lieu fees.
H:\Y)OCkBMR Policy & Procedures~005-01 In Lieu Fee Procs on For Sale Units.doc
Attachment C
Fukuji
Planning &
Design
City and Town Planning
Urban Design
Archi~.ecture
VILLAGE CONCEPT
Proposed Stanford Projects
City of Palo Alto
April 11, 2008
VILLAGE CONCEPT
A.Need/Basis For Village Alternative
1. In-i-~sponse to proposals
a.EIR alternative
b.Not miss opportunities with scale of investment
c.Think outside project boundaries
d.Leverage benefits - economic, enGronmental & social
e.Think long term to not preclude furore opportunities
B.Definition of a Village
1. Attributes of successful \illages, town & city centers
Competitive, thz-ix4ng, creative & innovative economy
b.Livable
c.EnGronmentally responsible
d.Opportunities for all people
e.Distinct identi~
f.Shared vision and good governance
2. Key design elements
a.Compact & human scale
b.Higher densiw
c.Locational efficiency
d.Mixed-use
Fukuji Planning & Design
604 San Carlos Avenue Albany, CA 94706
(510) 612-3834
bruce@fukuii.com
Do
e.Attractive public urban spaces and open spaces
f.Interconnected networks
~Pedestrian & transit-oriented
h.Auto independent & reduced par’king
i.Local character and identiD~
j.Diversity of housing
k.Respect for enx~ronment
1.Enhanced long-term land values
Performance Metrics of a Village
!.Travel behavior
a.Reduced t~-ip generation rates
b.Increase in Non-SO\; mode split
c.Shifting u-ips off-peak
d.Reduced Parking
e.Reduced VMT
9. Other economic, social & environmental benefits & measures
Village Concept as Applied to Project
t. Intent
a.Support city,, comprehensive plan
i.Well designed, compact cip,’
ii.Attractive pedesu-ian scale centers
iii.Variety of retail and commercial ser~-ices
iv.Focal points and communib~ gathm-ing places
v.High quality employment districts with distinct
character contributing to City as whole
vi.Well desi~ed buildings
xfii.Coherent development patterns enhancing city streets
and public spaces
Support historic and current academic campus planning initiatives
& campus identity
i.Place a part
ii.Sense of higher pro-pose
iii.Leadership and innovation
ix,.Growth
Enable projects and advance project objectives
Address the transitional area that links campus and community
together on multiple levels - health care, research, employment,
Village Concept - Stanford Projects
Fukuji Planning & Design
Page 2
4111108
shopping, transportation services, economic!fiscal benefits, and
community amenities...
e. Evolve the existing, single use. auto-oriented suburban
environment to be more walkable, mixed-use and livable, which
emphasizes an attractive public realm
Strate~es
a. Locational efficiency
i.Syner~"
¯Between regional centers medical center,
shopping centeri and among a~iacent areas
~university, downtown and neighboring residential
areas)
¯T)-pes
1. Direct market support - sales & use
2. Indirect support - amenities, identity &
marketing
3. Placemaking new addresses &
destinations, whole greater than sum of parts
ii.Transit-oriented development
°Density
°Mixed-use
°Shared & reduced parking
High Qualib% Atu’active Public Realm
i. Pedesu~an-oriented design
°Sequence of destinations
°Connections
°Mixed pedesu-ian/auto environments
¯Access fl’om parking
ii.Am-active visible public places
° E1 Camino Real
¯QuarW Su’eet and El Camino Real intersection to
the Center’s Main Pedestrian Way
¯Neiman Marcus to Arboretum
¯Arboretum to Nordstrom’s and Crate and Barrel
¯Andronicos/Nordstrom’s to the Medical Cenmr
¯Medical Center to Stanford Barn
iii.Idendt,v, access & parking
¯Arrival sequences by car, transit and walking
Village Concept - Stanford Projects
Fukuji Planning & Design
Page 3
4/11/08
Street frontages
¯ QuarU Road
!.Parking structures
2.Shopping center to Hoover building and
undeveloped sites on QuarW Road
°E1 CaminoReal
1. Boulevard & Gateway
¯Arboretum
¯Sand Hill
1. Housing across Sand Hill Road to the center
\Tillage Concept - Stanford Projects
Fukuji Planning & Design
Page 4
4/11/08
ATTACHMENT D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
April 23, 2008
DIL~FT EXCERPT
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center Proiects: Study Session
to reviexv progress on the projects, including revisions to the Stanford University Medical Center
application and plans, a review of Area Plan objectives for the projects, an update on the
Enviromnental 5npact Report (EIR) schedule and a discussion of potential EIR alternatives,
including the Village Concept alternative.
Mr. Steven Turner. Senior Plamaer: Good evening Conmaissioners. I am the Project Manager
for this project. We were last in from of the Conmfission back in November of last year, about
five months ago, and at that meeting we provided an overall project update. We reviewed
community input related to some of the key plamaing issues we were discussing. We took a look
at some of our approaches to mitigations and convnunity benefits and we gave an overall status
of the enviromnental and entitlement reviews. So that was back in November.
At tonight’s meeting we wanted to go over four items. First I just wanted to provide an update
with regard to the projects-and the project elements. Then I will go into just a brief update about
our work on the Enviromnental Impact Report. I will talk briefly about general project
alternatives that are typically part of Enviro~mental Impact Reports. Then we will go to really
the heart of the discussion tonight which is the Village Concept Study and you will be hearing
fiom the City’s Urban Desi~a Peer Reviewer as well as from the applicant in regards to our
thoughts and work with regard to a Village Concept Study.
So in tel-ms of kind of an introduction and update as you know we are in phase two of this
application process. Phase two began with the sublnittal of formal applications by the applicants
back in August of 2007. Staff has summarized the project elements on a series of fact sheets that
are attached to your Staff Report. We have discussed the elements of each application at
previous City Council and Plam~ing Commission meetings so we won’t go into those tonight.
The fact sheets list a summary of the different entitlements that each applicant is requesting, it
provides an overview of some of the project facts such as floor area, an initial count of potential
trips and emplo3anent, it also includes a brief reduced size site plan on the back of those.
Since the applications have been submitted in August there have been a couple of changes. The
most recent change came for the Stanford University Medical Center application. There are two
main elements to their revised application that was just received about a week or so ago. One is
that there is no net new change in floor area so they haven’t asked for any additional floor area in
this recent revision but they have moved about 140,000 square feet from the Hoover Pavilion site
over to the main hospital site. So the main hospital site will be essentially 140,000 square feet
larger than what the previous application had described. The Medical Center site plan a building
massing for the main hospital has been adjusted slightly as well. Staff will be going forward and
updating the fact sheets for the Medical Center.
Page 1
l
2
3
4
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
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
On the Shopping Center side the change there is not really a change but more of a stated
preference for the location of the hotel. The Shopping Center’s preferred location for the hotel is
at the corner of Arboretum and Quarry. The other possible location that we were looking at is at
the corner of Quarry and E1 Camino. The applicant has expressed their preference for the
~M’boretum and Quarry site and so we will update the fact sheets for the Shopping Center as well
to reflect that.
I want to also give you a status on our work of the EIR. As you to~ow, CEQA requires us to do
an enviromnental analysis and that began with the formal submittal of the projects. Also soon
after the submittal of the projects the Staff prepared a Notice of Preparation and that was
published in late August of 2007. We held scoping sessions with the Plamaing Conm~ission and
the City Council in September. The purpose of those meetings was to receive comments
regarding the scope of the enviromnental issues and alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR.
Those comments are being considered tlv’oughout our enviroma~ental review process.
Our work on the Draft EIR is ongoing. We have hired a number of consultants including PBS&J
who is our main consultant preparing the EIR. We have also hired consultants with regard to
stud?ring traffic, historic resources, housing, and visual simulations. As you cm~ imagine these
projects require a lot of coordination and cooperation amongst a wide range of people. We have
representatives from most City departments participating on the review of the Enviro~:~nental
Impact Report. It is an exciting process in that we are getting lots of different people together to
comment on the various sections.
We ae continuing our review on this. It is taking a little bit longer than what we expected in
ternas of releasing a Draft IEIR. Our current projections now have a draft EIR being released in
November of this year.
Concurrent with the enviromnental review there is also a Fiscal Jmpact Analysis being prepared
for the projects. The Fiscal Impact Analysis is expected to be released at the same time as the
EIR. So in November you will be getting the Draft Enviromnental Impact Report and the Fiscal
lanpact Analysis.
I want to talk briefly about the EIR project alternatives and a little bit about the more standard
alternatives first that are required in an enviromnental document. CEQA requires that an EIR
contain an evaluation of alternatives to provide decision-makers with an understanding of the
key envirom~aental tradeoffs between deve!opment options. There are tt~ree key elements as part
of alternatives. They have to reduce or avoid sigr~ificant impacts that the projects may bring.
They have to meet most of the project’s objectives, and they are alternatives that can be feasibly
implemented. For the Stm~ford projects as we have begun our thoughts and discussions about the
tb~pes of alternative that we will be placing within the EIR we will be having this more standard
alternatives including a No Project Alternative, a Reduced Intensity Alternative, mad then what
we feel is called the Village Concept. I will talk a little bit more about the Village Concept in a
minute. I did want to go over briefly about our thoughts about what might be a No Project
Alternative and a reduced intensity alternative for each project.
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
0.9
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
For the Medical Center we have two No Project Alternatives that we are looking at. Before we
get into that, as you have heard from the applicants as they have introduced the project to you a
main driver for the applicants is SB1953, the provision that requires hospitals to come into
compliance with state and seismic regulations. Hospitals have to retrofit or replace facilities not
meeting these criteria by 2013 and make further modifications to meet structural and
nonstmcmral requirements by 2030. So they have to do these things, however, they don’t
necessarily have to have this project to do so. So the EIR is going to be looking at if there was
no project and what would that mean to the Medical Center. So under a No Project Alternative
we have identified two that may be possible. There is a Retrofit Only Alternative and a Replace
Noncompliant Buildings with the Same Square Footage Alternative.
Under the Retrofit Only work would really only be performed to retrofit the buildings to meet the
state seismic requirements by 2013. Under a Replace Noncompliant Buildings with the Same
Square Footage those buildings would be replaced with new conforming structures of
approximately the same square footage and the development would be consistent with the FAR
under existing zoning. There are a lot oftradeoffs with this. There would be minimal impacts as
a result of these projects but it may not meet all of the applicant’s objectives with regard to them.
For the Shopping Center essentially a No Project Alternative would be a no build alternative.
The Shopping Center is either at or very close to their development cap as described in the
Comprehensive Plan and in’zoning. So essentially a No Project Alternative means that the
Shopping Center would stay pretty much the way it is right now.
The other category of alternative is a Reduced Intensity Alternative. This is an alternative that
describes a possible project that would be less than what the applicants have proposed to the
City. For the Medical Center we have identified two possible Reduced Intensity Alternatives.
One is right-sizing the facilities without adding any beds and the second one would be to right-
size the facilities and then add beds in an amount less than the proposed project. So for right-
sizing without beds essentially that project would be replacing the noncompliant structures and
adding minimum square footage to the facilities to allow for right-sizing. Right-sizing as you
have heard fiom our hospital peer reviewer is to come up to cun’ent hospital standards. The
hospital peer reviewer indicated that the way hospitals are going these days is that it is a vertical
orientation and for private rooms. So hospital rooms get larger in order to accommodate a single
patient room and to be more compliant with today’s standards. So that is essentially what right-
sizing is. The second Reduced Intensity Alternative would be right-sizing with fewer number of
beds. It is a variation of the one above, they would be replacing noncompliant structures, they
would add additional space for that tight-sizing, and they, would add some but not all of the
proposed increase in square footage to partially meet existing and future demand.
For the Shopping Center side essentially it is pretty simple. The Reduced Intensity Alternative
would just be a smaller shopping center with a smaller hotel mad a reduction in parking.
That leads us then to the Village Concept Alternative. This is again where I hope we can spend
most of our time discussing tonight. As we have heard from the Conm~ission and the Council
and the public in meetings that we have had so far we have heard a strong message fiom those
~’oups that the projects really should not be solely inwardly focused but really should connect
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
with each other and to the larger community. So that got Staff thinking about how we can
incorporate that into the existing projects. We thought of one possible strategy to have what we
are calling a Village Concept Alternative.
There are a number of objectives we wanted to see happen in this Village Concept Alternative.
The first one is that we wanted to make sure that we incorporated the key plamaing objectives
listed in the Area Plan. As you may remember, and the Staff Report summarizes those key
objectives, those objectives focused on traffic solutions, strategies for housing, provisions of
open space, pedestrian linkages, efficient vehicle movements, geen building and sustainability,
emergency surge capacity, and space for comnaunity practitioners. Those were the key pla~ming
objectives that relate directly to the hospital but since those linkages and issues really go beyond
the hospital we felt that these key planning objectives could also incorporate the Shopping
Center as well.
As part of this Village Concept we also wanted to make sure that we allowed a variety of uses
that provided a cohesive urban enviromaaent that the Village Concept would address potential
direct and indirect project impacts, and that would relate to housing demand, air quality, climate
change, provisions of open space, parking and traffic. We wanted to make sure that it focused on
comaectivity and li~ages. We feel that is an extremely important part of the Village Concept.
We saw the Village Concept as a basis for long-term pla~ming in the area. We didn’t think that
these projects would necessarily create a village automatically but it would be something that we
could look out beyond the projects and make sure that we are planning well in the future. We
wanted to make sure that we identified key areas for change in the project areas where we should
focus our efforts. We wanted to make sure that the concept does not preclude further
opportunities. So we wanted to make sure that this concept was going to allow the Village
Concept to either expand or come to fruition.
So that is kind of our thoughts about the Village Concept. We are going to get into a little bit
more detail now with some presentations by Bruce Fukmji, who is our Urban Desi~a Peer
Reviewer. He is going to go over kind of the definition of a village, what a village needs, the
application of a village, and performance measures that could be used to evaluate a village. Then
we are going to hear from Charles Carter, the Director of the Stanford University Planning
Office. He is going to go over some maps that you have at your places that look at the existing
Medical Center and Shopping Center sites, and an area beyond that and look at the existing land
uses in the area, and try to evaluate whether or not the pieces of the Village Concept puzzle may
or may not already be in place. Then finally we are going to give it back to Bruce to take a look
at some of the focus areas that we may want to look at first as part of this Village Concept and
also look at some opportunities that we might be able to build into the projects. So with that I
am going to hand it over to Bruce.
Chair Holman: Steven, do you have some kind of concept of how long the presentations will be?
Also I do not have a card fiom Charles Carter so that would be helpful to have.
Mr. Turner: I think these presentations will be ten to 15 minutes.
Page 4
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Each?
Mr. Turner: Total I thii~.
Chair Hohnan: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Bruce Fukuii. Fukuii Plmmin~ and Desim~: Good evening it is a pleasure to be here and it is
a real blessing to be able to advise the City and to consult with the City on these projects of
Stanford University, and particularly to address this question about what is it that really creates a
village and then what are the opportunities for what lessons we can learn fi’om villages and how
we can apply them.
So there are really two questions that I am going to be addressing and one question that Charles
is going to be addressing. The first one is really what makes N’eat livable villages and what
lessons can we learn from them? Charles will be talking about inventory of existing conditions
on a site and in the area. Then I will come back and talk about what are the opportunities that we
have to apply these lessons that we are learning to shape a village alternative and to create some
of the benefits that you have with a village.
I thilg: that this is a preamble here that part of my role here is to work collaboratively with the
City and with the applicants around how to look at something like this. So this is really kind of
an update in terms of where we are in our process more than preseming a village alternative
concept. There are two parts to this. One part is what is possible with the existing projects as
they have been proposed and what modifications might be appropriate. There is also thii~ing
long-term that when you look at how an a’ea like this can infill over time. How could you do
that in such a way to ensure the village type enviromnent can be created? So this sort of mix
between what would be a village alternative and what can you do with the project and we are still
looking at these two different questions.
So I am going to start off with what is it that we love about villages. I thirLk that what makes
~eat livable cities and places that have real character and identity and that we all kind of
universally love, I will talk about that first, is these traditional ones. They are M~own really to be
like a clustered pattern of human settlement. They all have kind of unique identity and sense of
place and it is expressed in the way that the architecture and the arrangements of the streets and
open spaces are created. There are some very special things about how that has actually been
done historically that is what makes them so wonderful and I an~ going talk a little bit about that.
Over the last 15 years I am sure you are probably all aware of this but there is really a national
trend that is taking place around creating villages. A lot of this stems from a reaction to kind of
business as usual development and urban sprawl. Its major proponents are New Urbanism and
smart N’owth plmming that we have all heard a lot about. Now New Urbanism is evolving into
sustainable urbanism in terms of what to do to really address global warming and other climate
change issues. \\qaat has emerged over the last ten to 15 years really are urban villages, town
centers, main streets, and these transit villages. They all have a few things in common. They
really look at how to concentrate activity instead of the dispersion of activity which has been the
predominant pattern with sort of single land use, urban patterns of suburban development. The
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
other main thing I think to look at about this is that major real estate investment trusts, major
financial ~’oups, developers, and companies and organizations such as General Growth, which is
a major retail real estate investment trust have adopted this as a major direction for how they
want to look at developing. General Growth for example has over 200 properties that they have
identified that they are now going to be looking at changing shopping centers into being more of
a walkable, urban, main street village enviromnent. So there is a major commitment that has
happened nationally around wanting to do this because of not just the benefits of creating a
wonderful, walkable place but because there are changing demo~aphic needs in temas of what
people want in terms of their housing choices. There are chan~ng trends around where people
want to live and where they want to work. There are the needs that are going on and being
driven around transportation issues or people want to be able to have a lifestyle choice and not
just have to drive everywhere. So there are several things that are actually coming together to
have this be a good model for urban development. You are seeing this happen here in the Bay
Area there are many examples of that already.
Vv~en you look at villages from yesterday and villages from today I think that there is this urban
plamaer in Australia, David .~aguich, and I think he summed it up quite well. Really what
villages are, they are this amazing invention to maximize exchange, which could be good or
services or friendship, they can also be experiences like love, support, whatever you might need,
but to maximize exchange and really minimize travel. That is really about how to concentrate
things in a way to kind of allow people to have as much comaectivity in their life so they can
generate real meaning in their life, and value in their life, and be in the flow or the circulation of
that. That happens when you are not segregated in separate places but where it is very easy and
it is facilitated to comaect around being able to do that. So that is the major idea behind that.
There are some really wonderful things about what facilitates exchange, what actually allows
people to make comaections with one another, what makes that easier for people to be able to do
that instead of more difficult, and what takes out the intentionality of always having to pick the
phone up and call someone to be able to make a relationship or an engagement or choice, and
how to have that be kind of a world of opportunity that is available to you without having to
think about it or make a decision about it, but then have it be part of your life. So pat of being
able to have those kinds of comaections is about attraction and how do you make things
attractive, attractive for people to want to be in and to meet and comaect. So those are sort of the
major themes. \~qaat comes out of that is you find there are certain places that help facilitate that.
\~qaen you have open-air, outdoor farmer’s markets, for example in Berkeley you have a three
times a week and I run into more people there during the week than I could possibly imagine if I
had to call them and make arrangements to do that. Then you have other places now like in
Southern California you are seeing that shopping centers are having kind of parks inte~’ated into
the desi~a of the center so that parents can get a cup of coffee, the other parent can go shopping,
and they can watch their kids in their enviromnent. People who are having dimaer can overlook
watching a beautiful enviromnent and they can see other people or activities going on. So we
have started to look at how to create a multiplicity of reasons to be in a place besides just
wanting to shop.
So what does that all mean? It means that when you are sitting down to plan or desig~ a village
there are certain intentions that you want to have in mind in terms of how you actually execute
doing that. The key things are really how do you build a kind of multiplicity of opportunities to
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
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
attract a diversity of people together at a place? The second thing is how to really make it
inviting or welcoming to make colmections and transactions? The other part, I think the hardest
part to do, because you see all these places that are creating villages and are tr~ng to be villages
and they don’t quite get this next piece right, it is how to shape and scale urban space to
concentrate and enable spontaneous interactions and exchanges. This scale issue is really a
tough one as a desi~ problem because we have such an odd oriented envirmm~ent. How do you
do that? So it is about creating opportunity by desi~a.
So that said, villages have a certain number characteristics that are very con:~non tt~roughout
them. This is sort of a basic list of them. They ae also in the memo that was written in the Staff
Report. Traditionally, you look at cities and livable cities and they have a kind of core area that
is centrally located and within that core area there are a certain number of public gathering
places. This core area is not really isolated, it is not a project, and it is really very well co~mected
into surrounding neighborhoods and districts. So it makes people who live around it very easy to
be able to walk, or bike, or take transit, or stroll to be able to get to it. The other thing that is
really important is how streets are desi~aed. Streets are really looked at as having a dual
purpose, one sort of mobility and the other part is really exchange or accessibility. There is
attention to how you desig-n streets and the details of all that is a very special part I thi~k about
what makes successful villages or what makes an unsuccessful village. We can talk about that at
length about what really works and doesn’t work even with exa~ples here that have been done in
the last ten years in the Bay-Area. Then overall they are compact, they are higher density, they
are mixed use, and they have a diversity of housing, and they are all walkable, bikable, and
transit oriented. The transit oriented piece is really essential because it allows and facilitates
people from outside the area to get to the area to be able to use it. So those me the key pieces of
that.
With all that said the question is okay, do a village and how does it perform? \\q~at can we
expect fi’om it? What do we know that it can do? V,q~at we are seeing is there is a phenomenal
amount of research that has now been done on the travel behavior benefits of doing villages.
You have reduced trip generation rates. There is a recent study that has now been completed that
looks at transit oriented development in temps of housing and comparing that to ITE trip
generation rates and it is like almost 50 percent less trip generation rate for residents that live in
the TOD for example. You have an increase in the non-SOV mode split. So you have higher
transit, walking, and biking, si~aifica~tly higher. Then you also have a shift of trips that are off-
peak through trip chaining and linking, and you have a reduced amount of parking. We can go
over what the details are or the specific numbers of all these things. The key thing is that when
you look at sustainability issues globally the issue really is how to reduce VMT and villages and
transit oriented development districts are able to reduce VMT 40 to 60 percent compared to sort
of business as usual practices. So it is a very significant strategy for how to reduce that. Then
there are other economic, social, and enviromnental benefits and measures. In this case I just
wanted to touch on the transportation benefits of them. So that sort of describes how a village
operates.
Mr. Charles Carter. Stanford University. Director of Land Use and Environmental Plmmin~,:
Thank you Bruce, St&~en. Bruce has gi}.~en a fairly detailed and good definition of what the
attributes and components of a village are. I thi~tk it was pretty interesting that the City recently
Page 7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
sponsored a workshop on New Urbanism where they were talking about many of the same
concepts and components of urban plalming. It was timely I think to our discussion this evening.
So Brace gave a very good overviexv and definition of village attributes and components. We
have simplified that a lot to do this inventory at a very high level looking at the land use and
other components of a village. So just to sort of reiterate, it is a walkable area and what does
walkable mean? Well, commonly you thilg: half a mile is a walkable distance. If you look at the
project area the project areas themselves are about a mile across so if you look out a little more
within a mile radius I think you get a more representative picture of the actual district of the city
we are talking about here. Then there are mixed uses, as Bruce pointed out, there are residential
uses, conm~ercial uses, emplobqnent centers, civic uses, cultural uses, recreational uses, and
landscape and access to transportation that all work together to make a village work. So we have
tried to map what we thi~ of these components occur in the project area.
So let’s start off with the land use mapping that we did. First we took a look at housing, and
again very high level, we looked at single fanaily housing, multi-family housing, and special
purpose housing. The yellow being the single family housing, the brown being the multi-family
housing, and the orange areas being special purpose housing, primarily senior housing in the
Hyatt project and some of the senior housing facilities in Downtown Palo Alto. We have also
identified future sites including the two Quany Road sites that are identified in the Stanford
General Use Permit as housing sites, and a site that was created with the Sandhill projects and
other approved housing sites within the one-mile radius of the project center.
The next land use we mapped was sort of the civic and cultural uses, the community serving
uses, the institutional uses including schools. The dots tend to be the elementary and high
schools and those sorts of things, special purpose schools like the Children’s Health Council, the
University of course is a major cultural and civic amenity, and the hospitals themselves and other
healthcare facilities such as PAMF, we included Palo Alto High School and the entertaimnent
and cultural facilities embodied in the Stanford athletic facilities as pictured here.
Then we took a look at the con:unercial. Obviously the Shopping Center is a conm~ercial. You
have the smaller maps that you can refer to but what we also tried to do is to pinpoint those kind
of everyday commercial serving facilities that are within the study area, things like shoe repair,
~’ocery stores, hardware stores, and as you can see within the one-mile radius there is a number
of those including the main retail area of Downtown and the Shopping Center, and the Menlo
Park commercial areas which are all actually quite close together.
The next component of land use we mapped was again looking at a t~igh level the landscapes or
the open spaces that generally serve the area. We distinguish between two types the natural and
improved landscapes, the two primary natural features being the San Francisquito Creek con-idor
and the Stanford Arboretum. Then there are the improved types of landscapes where more active
types of recreation occur such as E1 Camino Park and the playfields on the west side of the
campus. The oval, which is a ceremonial improved open space, actually gets quite a bit of use as
a park. It is a popular area for volleyball and Frisbee and those sorts of things.
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Then we started to look at what are the transportation elements that support these. The roads,
Bruce made the point about automobile dependent development so we didn’t get into looking at
the roads. The road system is fairly self-evident on the maps. We did start to map the transit that
is available, the yellow being the area covered by Marguerite routes. I am sorry about the quality
of the slide. There are some blue areas that show where the public transportation is but they tend
to focus along E1 Can~ino and move slightly up into Stanford and a few routes serving Palo Alto,
and of course the Intennodal Transit Center near the middle of all this.
Then the last component we looked at were pathways, primarily pedestrian and bike pathways,
because we are talking about walkable communities here or conmmnities where alternative types
of transportation are available and the barriers, the creek, E1 Camino Real, we have a gade
separated crossing at Palm and University, and the railroad tracks all tend to be ban-iers. Then
we tried to highlight the places where the com~ections and the linkages occur. The vehicular
li~ages are shown in the blue and not very visible on this slide the pedestrian and bike linkages
which are more numerous but certainly not complete. What we didn’t try to represent in this
drawing was the effectiveness of these linkages. Now, these linkages exist because there are
streets that go through but obviously not all of them work as well as they might. I think what
Bruce may be talking to as he discusses opportunities and plam~ing is how some of these
linkages might be improved and where !inkages that should exist to make these various land uses
that we have mapped more accessible and where additional linkages might be provided. Bruce
will talk about those opportunities now.
Mr. Fukuii: As I was saying earlier kind of initial way of looking at this is what kinds of
opportunities are there with the projects as they are proposed and then see what evolves out of
that. Often you think about a village and it is mixed use and higher density and we didn’t really
want to look at how to increase the density around these areas but we can certainly talk about
that. There are certain things in terms of sites that are not on the project applicant sites where
higher density might make sense. We wanted to really start off with looking at how do you
really create the right kinds of attractive sort of destinations. How do you get the right pedestrian
scale? How do you make sure you ensure there are publicly visible places? This is very
important, build on the com~ectivity points that Charles started talking about. Then really look at
street fiontages and what is involved with doing that.
So there are a couple of points about the existing projects. The first part is, you have seen this
map many, many times, these are the two most current proposals with the Shopping Center and
then the Medical Center and then the Hoover Pavilion. I thi~ one of the biggest challenges
around trying to create a village here since walkability is kind of a key to begin to change any
kind of behavior is just the scale of this enviromnent and what can you really expect given the
scale of this enviromnent. Here is the Caltrain station, the Intermodal Station, and this is a
quainter-mile walk from here to here. Really to walk fiom the Downtown if you are at Alma and
University and you walk down through here and come back up that is an eight or nine minute
walk and then there is another two or ttzree minutes to get to the fiont door of the Shopping
Center. So that walk fiom here to here is already about ten minutes or more. This shows that it
is within a five minute walk if you go straight ttv’ough here. So already there is quite a ban-ier
just in getting from the Downtown to access the Shopping Cemer.
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Here is a half mile. That is the ostensible ten minute walk. Once you start fi’om within the
Shopping Center aad you walk from Bloomingdale’s and the entrance all the way to Neiman
Marcus that is about five minutes if you are not just strolling a~d shopping and just kind of let
me get ttn-ough the Shopping Center. So you have some real challenges. Here already 15
minutes into your walk and you haven’t even gotten to the Medical Center yet. This is a mile out
here. So one of the first things in this village idea is this isn’t really going to be one vi!lage. I
think it is going to have to be separate destinations. I think that one of the ~eat benefits that you
have here already is because Stanford University has a Marguerite Shuttle service you have a
shuttle system that takes you from the transit center to other destinations. I think that looking at
how to combine walkability and shuttle service is probably the right kind of overall approach to
thi~:Lk about this structure here, that and bike access. In five minutes on a bike you can get fiom
Downtown all the way to the Medical Center without too much of a problem. So the scale here
is really kind of the number one kind of challenge.
The second kind of big opportunity looking at this is the Medical Center will build out and have
something like 12,000 employees so it is a major employment center in addition to being a major
community service. So with that number of employees and then you have the Shopping Center
and it has something like 3,000 to 4,000 or almost 5,000 employees you have quite a few people
working in this enviropanent. So how do you look at what to do to kind of do some shifting of
trips kind of off the peak hour a little bit to help reduce congestion? That is sort of the other
thing, how do you do some-’trip internalization? How do you get people to go from the Shopping
Center or from the Medical Center to the Shopping Center and back to help relieve the acuteness
of the peak time is sort of the other major opportunity. So that really starts to look at what are
the com~ections between and how do you improve the co~mections between the Medical Center
and the Shopping Center? We are going to look at that in more detail.
Given the scale and that when you are trying to create a village you want to create kind of people
places that attract people together. It seems like one of the strategies would be to look at how to
create a sort of sequence of attractive places. So what this map here shows you is - I will walk
tlv’ough all these different places, all these little circles. There are some that are more important
thm~ others. They all have like a five minute walking radius around them. I think this is going to
be kind of a key way to think about this. You need to have some kind of- here is Nordstrom’s,
Crate & Barrel, and Andronico’s. I will talk about the specifics but if you have something that is
in that zone for example that is within a five minute walk of the Children’s Hospital and seven or
eight minutes of the hospital. That might actually be something that is a feasible place where
you can stm-t creating some activity to li~ people into the whole center. I mea~ here is the
Caltrain station you can walk to in five minutes. Really, what to do here at E1 Camino and
Quarry, how to make that a place that is attractive so that people who are Downtown will want to
walk there and how to get there, and people on E1 Camino will be able to see that and have
something that is at the center of an entrance to the main Shopping Center. Also how do to
something around where Neiman Marcus is these are real opportunity places. Then how to really
make this connection between Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom’ s, that environment a more
walkable comaected enviromnent than it is right now. People walk there, you can walk there,
people do walk there, but there are some things that can be done more to make those like
attractive destinations to help attract people. So these are sort of like a chain of places that could
be linked together as sort of the heart of where people could be.
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
So then there are these questions of how do you actually get to those things and how do you
bridge the colmectivity gap that we have here with the barriers that you already have of the rail
line, the San Francisquito Creek, E1 Camino. So what has come out of this is starting to look at
how to make improvements for example like Quarry Road ends up becoming a very important
circulation street because it becomes kind of an entryway to the Shopping Center and then with
having housing sites here and here, where you will have people living here and how do they
comaect into the Shopping Center? How will they be able to connect to the Downtown and to the
Intermodal transportation center and then infill some of these areas with medical office? Then
you start looking at how do you create these kinds of comaections from Arboretmn for example
into the Shopping Center, from the housing into the Shopping Center, from here and also fi’om E1
Camino. There are sort of these different ways of colmecting the public streets and frontages
into the center and become a key question about the desi~a of this thing, and hoxv do you make
those things publicly visible places and how do you tuna those into attractive kinds of
enviromnents? That is kind of where we really are in terms of how we have started this
conversation.
I think that a couple of other things that are very important are looking at Welch Road right here
and how to really bridge this connection. Right now you have taro lanes of traffic and you have
a street crossing when usually you have a person who is there actually who facilitates crossing
the street. You then have to cross through the parking lot that is where the Stanford Barn is and
then you come across the street, and then it is pretty narrow with the two lanes and a small
island. Then you have the loading docks for Nordstrom’s and the loading dock for ,Qadronico’s
and the entra~ace, but it is kind of a con’idor as you go in ttvough here. So having this point right
here be a place where if you are in this zone that you could see that that’s actually the entrance to
a walkable enviroimaent that leads you into the Shopping Center and could be really very
powerful in ten:ns of helping encourage walkability. Then when you get to this point actually
having the fiont door of that center actually being the fiont door of a whole chain of experiences
for being able to have people places would be really quite wonderful. Then what to do with this
whole zone right in here. So we haven’t gotten to the point in the conversation about how to do
these things. We are just talking about where it would it make sense to start doing these things,
and is this the right set of places to do that? So this is kind of where we are in this process.
Mr. Turner: That concludes the StaffReport and certainly we would answer any questions.
Chair Holman: I think we have but four cards fiom members of the public and I see there are a
couple of others coming. What I would like to do is take the speakers first and then come back
to the Commission for questions and comments. So our first speaker, and if you could line
yourselves up to be ready that would be helpful, Dr. Bruce Baker to be fol!owed by Craig
Barney.
Dr. Bruce Baker. Palo Alto: Thank you. I serve on the conmaunity resource group for the
Stanford General Use Pennit and am here speaking simply for myself and not for that ~oup.
I just have a couple of colrmaents tonight. The term ’right-sizing’ sort of bothers me because
there is something about that word ’right’ that gives it positive intonations and to me it was non-
Page 11
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
expanded sizing. So if that term is well accepted in your occupation that is fine but it does sort
of grate on mea little bit with respect to the use of the word ’right.’
As a reflection I think medieval village plalmers would be very interested in this tonight if they
could transpotnt themselves in history to tonight’s situation because most of our traditional zoning
contradicts the idea of the village concept. I think all of us love to see the traditional villages in
European countries and other places. So it is kind of a revolution in a way to think what this
does to all of our zoning p~qnciples.
One other thing I wanted to comment on is it is sort of popping up again in the material that is
here and that is that there should be no new net trips to the Stanford Shopping Center or the
hospital. That never appeared in any of these original documents. I thirtk it is a bit unrealistic to
have that sort of suggestion or goal in the material that is perpetuating itself as we get tlvough
the various iterations of this. I think it is unfair. It is an unrealistic requirement and I think it is
unfair to Stanford or the Stanford Shopping Center managers and developers to keep harping on
that. We are still stuck with the traditional form of transportation that is unfortunately one
person per vehicle. Even if you have a bicycle if you are going to a shopping center it is pretty
tough with our type of bicycles, we would have to get the Vietnan~ese versions, to restrict
yourself to purchasing much of anything if you are on a bicycle.
That is all I had to say tonight but I think the more I see the types of iterations that occur the
more I realize how much work Stanford and others have put into this effort and I think has been
a very good cooperative effort. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Our next speaker is Craig Barney to be followed by Elaine Meyer.
Mr. Crai~ Barney. Palo Alto: Thank you. I have been a resident of Palo Alto for 18 years now.
When I selected Palo Alto as my residence Stanford Hospital was a major element in my
decision-making. I have spoken before to the committee and to the Plam~ing Commission
regarding nay concerns. Mainly that Stanford Hospital does ~’o~v and develop because we are a
~owing and developing conmmnity. I had the same reaction when I heard about right-sizing
that perhaps the hospital would not add new beds. I did not see how that was possibly right.
When we project out into the future and especially when we plan for disasters and emergencies I
just cannot see how not expanding the hospital could in any way be right.
I want to conm~ent the Commission actually on the work they have done so far on the E!2R. I
thiak it is wonderful that they have made progess. It is disappointing that it is taking longer
than originally plarmed to me personally because I do think we have to have a sense of urgency
about this. I do think we need to proceed with all due haste to get the project going.
I have mentioned this before but I think it is worth mentioning again. When considering the
impacts of this project, the hospital, it is very important to consider that it in and of itself is a
mitigation because it does mitigate a need we have in our con~anunity, which is to provide
medical care for our people here.
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
I think those are the final things I had to say. This Village Concept is solnething I was not read?,
to discuss and I have to admit it seems on the surface intriguing but it is impossible for me to
imagine how this could possibly work. Maybe I am just learning about it. Thartk you.
Chair Holman: That& you Mr. Barney. Our next speaker is Elaine Meyer to be followed by
Tommy Fet~a’enbach.
Ms. Elaine Meyer. Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Holman and members of the Convnission.
Our city infrastructure is sometimes described as maxed out and we are about to spend some
very large sums to build a new police building and libraies. Now, the Stanford Hospital and
Shopping Center are expanding and going to bring in thousands of new people. Some obvious
effects on us will be the need for housing and traffic, and of course you know about that but there
is more. ha order to figure out how the city will be impacted we need to know for example how
will the police and fire departments be affected. Does Stanford have police and fire departments
adequate to the increased responsibilities? How much additional responsibility will our
departments have? Is the ne~v police building needed to take ca’e of this increase in population
and responsibility?
Also, how many Stanford children attend our schools now and what how much of an increase
can be expected? How many Stanford people use our libraries and how much of an increase can
we expect? How many additional people will be using our parks?
I kmow that you have probably considered some of these but I just wanted to summarize them
myself. Then, how is Stanford’s usage affecting us now and how will the increased population
change it? Having this infomaation in the EIR will be very helpful for the public. There is one
additional matter that I don’t believe is being covered and that is what are Stanford’s plans for
additional expansion in addition to this one billion dollar project? It is 1,mown that they are
pla~ming Medical Center enlargement and increases in development in the not very distant
future. I thi~ it is essential that that information be covered in the EIR. Thai~ you.
Chair Holman: Thag: you. Our next speaker is Tonnny Fehrenbach to be followed by Michael
Griffin.
Mr. Tommv Fel~renbach. Palo Alto: Greetings and thank you for providing me with an
opportunity to speak tonight. I live and work here in Palo Alto. Although I am involved with
several organizations and clubs in town I came here tonight to speak on my own behalf.
Since making my way to California in 2001 I have lived in several of the great cities on the
peninsula here. I decided to stay in Palo Alto for many reasons that are kind of more immediate
like proximity to work, strong community organizations, a vibrant Downtown, the diversity of
things to do and people to do them with, etc. I also looked ahead. I want to plant my roots here
in Palo Alto because of the incredible opportunities here for learning and personal ~owth. This
is a city that can raise tomorrow’s leaders to solve tomorrow’s problems. In order to continue to
be great today’s Palo Alto leaders, especially its Commissions and Council, must have the vision
to thimk ahead to the future of our conmmnity. The Stanford Hospital, the Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital as well as the School of Medicine represent that cutting edge in a way that is
Page 13
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
very real and very global on a world scale. I am proud to live in a community that is home to
such a place. Although I have thankfully never had to visit for nay own emergencies I have had
some friends that are alive today because of Stanford Hospital and clinics. I find geat comfort
~knowing that this world class facility and these world class people are close just in case.
I hope that you will put special emphasis on the future when you make your decisions and
recommendations on this project. I for one would like these hospitals, these incredible assets in
our colmnunity, to continue to be viable and to be allowed to expand to meet the demands of our
community and the needs of so many people in the world that benefit fi’om what goes on there.
Although things found in an Enviromnental Impact Report do affect us no one wants more
traffic, noise, etc. There are places that people need to live. I hope though that you will properly
weigh the benefits that the hospitals will bring us all on so many levels. I ask you to look ahead
to the days of the next generations so that in the days of my children and nay children’s children
and my children’s children’s children we will still have a world class hospital in our backyard.
Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you Fehrenbach. Michael Griffin is our next speaker to be followed by
Brian Sctm~idt.
Mr. Michael Griffin. Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I really enjoyed the presentation
this evening particularly in-regard to this new concept of a village approach. I followed that
discussion and I would encourage everybody to keep on keeping on that. It looks like a nice
direction worthwhile pursuing.
I know that the Staff Report that we are loo "king at tonight is still pretty much a big picture in its
nature but there were a couple of items that I would hope that Con:unissioners would be able to
discuss and perhaps quiz Staff in more detail. On page three there is a mention of wade
separations and I would be interested in having a better feel for where those grade separations
might be and what they might consist of, that was on page three. On page four there is a
discussion or a mention of co~mections. The Staff presentation here on the Village Concept did
discuss comaections and it was quite helpful but the current focus here is on internal com~ections
and I have to tell you that I ana wondering probably more about external access. In other words,
how are we going to acconm~odate the 12,000 employees for the Medical Center and the 4,000 to
5,000 employees for the Shopping Center? How are those folks going to get in and out of town?
On page ttn’ee there is also a mention of meetings that are taking place between Staff and
Stanford and I am wondering if there are any meeting notes that would be made available
providing details of those meetings. On page six there is a mention of future further use
intensifications and additional uses that set me back a bit. I didn’t anticipate that there were
plans over and above what we were looking at here innnediately. Evidently that is the intent and
it would be interesting to know how much more additional use intensification and additional
usages we are going to be talking about. Hopefully they would be studied properly in the EIR.
Also offsite parking options, there was no discussion of that and that would be interesting to
have you folks quiz Staff a little bit about if there are any new developments in that regard. I
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
4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
was quite happy to see the reference to the no net new trips as still being a concept that
apparently we have not lost sight of. That, s.
Chair Holman: Thal~ you for coming back to visit, Mr. Griffin. Brian Sctm~idt to be followed
by Tom Jordan.
Mr. Brian Sclm~idt. Palo Alto: Good evening, Brian Sctm~idt for Colm~ittee for Green Foothills.
I thought I would establish my credibility here. I will sta~x by talking about the Village
Alternative Concept. I might stray from that a little bit. It seems like a very interesting concept.
I am glad to see the City is exploring that. A lot of times when they look at the ElY, alternatives
it is just a cursory process of going through the motions and the City does not seem to be doing
that. I would also like to con~’atulate Stanford which also seems to be taking it seriously flom
Charles’ presentation. One thing that did come out during the presentations was when you are
talking about half-mile versus a mile distance it might be better instead of using distance as a the
crow flies use distance as a person walks. I think that might even be possible to do. It shouldn’t
be too difficult to get out there and measure it or do it through computers.
The Village Alternative Concept is going to be useful for dealing with the EI~R and the maay
significant enviromnental impacts that are likely to occur. One of the most significant is housing
impacts and the need to deal with the issues of housing. There was mention of that in the
discussion of the Village Concept. I am not sure exactly how that is going to be worked into the
concept. The Committee for Green Foothills is talking with the City of San Jose which is
actually trying to have still more jobs than it has employed residents and that city has been the
bedroom conmmnity for places like this. It is a recipe for sprawl. It is very difficult for me to
tell them not to do that when the City of Palo Alto is receiving applications that are having the
same effect, adding jobs without adding housing.
A couple of other things I would like to add, the issue of no net new trips, I would respectfully
disa~ee with my fi-iend Bruce on that issue. It was done with the 2000 GUP not as a firm barrier
but something that said you have to do this or certain other mitigations would come into place.
The problem with the Stanford General Use Permit with the County is those other conditions
they would have to do in terms of improving roads, not necessarily things that we would like to
see happen. So if there is some way to get around that issue I think it would be important.
To wrap up, there are tlvee other quick things. Attaclm~ent A, Emplo?~nent Summary, in the
middle has a starred footnote. If you read the starred footnote it is regarding the current
employment numbers. It says these numbers have been supplied by applicant and are subject to
verification by City. Figure for 2007 includes staff growth associated with cun’ent renovations.
This is a relevant issue to the baseline that would be used for E]2R analysis. The baseline should
use present level of jobs or 2000 level of jobs. It should not be adjusted upward to include
additional people that do not currently work there at the baseline. That would artificially reduce
the impact from the project.
I am very interested in understanding the medical office space that is part of this project. Is this
just another revenue generator for Stanford? Another type of industrial research park that is
being used for medical office space, is it entirely appropriate for that to be there?
Page 15
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
And finally, somebody had asked a question about build out and other projects at Stanford.
Stanford is required as part of the 2000 General Use Permit to create a sustainability study that
would discuss its full build out. Stanford is already in initial discussions with the County over
this issue. We would like that to be an open public process and that might help the City as well
understand what is going on with Stanford and what the build out for Stanford will be. TharA¢
you very much.
Chair Holman: Thaak you, Mr. Sctm~idt. Tom Jordan to be followed by our final speaker, Bob
Moss.
Mr. Tom Jordan. Palo Alto: Good evening. I have lived here about 45 years. I would like to
address the fiscal impact study. To me that is absolutely at the heart of it. In spite of many
speakers coming up and speaking as though people are thrmving their bodies in the way of the
hospital being built I have never spoken that way. I really have only heard one or two people
suggest that. The real impact is not the size. The real impact is the fiscal impact on the
conmmnity. I will name four but there are many. One would be obviously the jobs and impact
that will have on housing imposed on us by ABAG. Secondly, will be traffic and the
improvements that will cost money so that the traffic will flow properly. The third will be
impact on public sela’ices, police, fire, library, recreation. The fourth will be schools, which
from a fiscal impact study~you certainly can study. I realize that from a land use plmming point
you may not deny any permit based on school ~owth but you can be aware of the fiscal impact
because we also have here a Development A~’eement, which does not restrict you from
imposing something in the Development Agreement regarding school gowth. Specifically one
of the things you will want to l,mow is how many children attend Palo Alto schools from
households that pay zero tax and how many more will be increased by the 3,000-plus housing
units that Stanford will be building on campus for their students and how many more from other
sources.
The main point here, by far the main question is the fiscal impact. The EIR is important but the
fiscal impact study which they said would not be released until the Draft EIR, let me point out a
few things that are vitally important that this goup have as heavy a hand, as strong a hand as you
can. Number one, I read as much as I can on this and I have no idea who our fiscal impact teana
is. It would be nice to 1,mow. It would be nice to know a schedule of their meetings even if we
can’t attend them. It would be nice to Mmw who they are meeting with and what topics they are
considering. It would be nice to know, and another example would be the EIR is governed by
statute as to what they must study so there is no question there. The fiscal impact is not. They
will study what you and the City Council tell them to study mad they will study this carefully and
with whatever expert help that they need as you take part but there is no structure for the fiscal
impact. I am asking you to take a heavy part and be sure - because the heart of it will be when
we get down to that last period and the Draft EIR is out and the fiscal impact study. It is vitally
important that the citizens have full confidence that every impact was looked at and every impact
was quantified. Now who pays for it can be argued later. That is not the job of the fiscal impact
study but they must be looked at and they nmst be quantified as closely as they can every one of
them. That is the heart of the matter. It is not how big is this going to be it is who pays for it.
When that time comes we can have the debate and Stanford will try to push some of the cost on
Page 16
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
us, the City. Then we will have the debate do we accept it or not. If it is not studied and we
don’t have trust in the figures then there will be geat discomfort in the citizens and really you
can’t even have a legitimate debate on the topic. So I hope you take a strong part and make sure
that fiscal impact study is done as well and as thoroughly as possible. Thank you.
Chair Hohnan: Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Our final speaker is Bob Moss.
:/it. Robert Moss. Palo Alto: Tharfl,: you Chainnan Holman and Conm~issioners. First I want to
sat’ I a~ee with conmaents of Tom Jordan and Elaine Meyer about the impacts and the cost to
the community from this project.
This is a regional project. It is going to serve an area much, much, much larger than just Palo
Alto but Palo Alto is going to bear the ~eat majority of the cost and the burden of servicing it.
Let me address a few points in the EIR. The fnst is in Attaclmaent A there is a picture of the
layout. It is si~aificantly different than what is on the board. You heard they are taking 140,000
square feet mad moving it from Hoover Pavilion to the two hospitals. It is impossible to tell what
that movement was from looking at any of these drawings. So I would like to see the EIR or the
drawing or something specifically say we are reducing this spot on the Hoover Pavilion map and
we are increasing it on the hospital side so it is clear what we are talking about. Right now you
can’t tell whether this or tl)at is correct.
On the EIR itself when you talk about right-sizing they say we will consider having no expansion
in beds, and having what they are talking about, and maybe something in between. I suggest you
look at tkree different options for the in between. Right now for example the hospital is
suggesting going from 456 to 600. Maybe we should look at 525,545, and 600. The third one
would be to have say more beds added to the hospital and fewer beds added to the Children’s
Hospital. So the total number of beds you can fiddle with but have them reanange how they are
proportioned. I don’t thilg: we should be looking at just none, maximum, m~d some arbitrary
number in between.
The other thing that I am concerned about, as a lot of people are, is the traffic. This projection
shows an increase in peak-hour evening traffic of about 55 percent in round numbers and
morning traffic in round numbers of 60 percent. If we are talking about no net increase in traffic
that means on a practical basis reducing the amount of single occupant car trips by
approximately 70 percent. Also, the hospital portion doesn’t take into account the additional
traffic from the proposed expansion of both the new hotel we are talking about, 120 units, and
the additional 240,000 square feet of shopping center. That is going to have both employee
traffic mad shopper traffic. If the Shopping Center is expanded and you don’t draw more people
coming in to use it that doesn’t pay the bills so you have to assume you are going to have more
people going in to shop.
Another thing I would like to see taken a very careful look at is where is that traffic going to
flow? There have been a lot of developlnents in the past which have created sig-nificant traffic
impacts on neighborhoods like Downtown North and then created the impetus to try to get
basically a freeway put along an extension of Sandhill Road. I thinl,: most of you may not have
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
been around when it was discussed ahnost 40 years ago but the reason 101/Alma exists was to
put a big spike in the road so you couldn’t put a fi’eeway fi’om 101 to 280 along basically San
Francisquito Creek. You are going to see that issue come up again.
V~q~ere are the people going to live? How many of them are going to be able to live in Palo Alto?
What impacts is that going to have on other streets if they live, let’s say ttvee or four miles away
but still witNn the city, and what is the traffic flow going to be? What is the requirement going
to be to service them? A!l those issues should be talked about in the EIR.
One of the things people seem to be overlooking, we talk about we are going to go across E1
Camino, we are going to have some kind of an overpass, is money. If you are talking about a
vehicular overpass you are talking about between $75 and $100 million. If you are talking about
a pedestrian/bike overpass you are talking about between $10 and $15 million. So who is going
to pay for that? V~rhere is it going to come fi’om? Are we going to get it fiom the Governor?
~M-e we going to get it from the state? They are picking our pockets they are not going to give us
any money. So how are we going to mitigate all of these problems, who is going to pay for it,
and when? Will the mitigations be done before we build or after everything is built and we are
totally congested up to here? Those are important. The process and the schedule have to be
upfront so everyone understands where we are going and how we are going to pay for it.
Chair Hohnan: Good timing. Commissioners, it is 8:15 and Comlnissioner Sandas has had an
unavoidable circumstance that constricts her availability this evening. So with the
Commissioners’ forbearance I am going to let Con~-’nissioner Sandas go with her questions and
comments both if she would care to do so right now.
Commissioner Sandas: Thamk you very much Chair Hohnan. I have several sort of semi-
clari~’ing questions. Before that I will just make one comment. I want to say thank you Steven
Tumery and Whitney McNair for a well-produced report tonight. Much appreciated.
The first question I have has to do with the changes to the proposed site plan. It is indicated that
the tower configurations of Stanford Hospital would be changed but unless I missed it, I didn’t
see what those changes might be, or is that still not determined?
Mr. Turner: No, the applicants have submitted a kind of revised site plan that shows the general
changes in the building footprints and it also alludes to the changes in the massing although they
have not submitted elevations or sections that we have been able to provide to you that show the
different heights of the different aspects of the hospital at this point.
Commissioner Sandas: So just a heads up at this point.
Mr. Turner: That’s right.
Commissioner Sandas: Okay. I was intrigued by a convnent of one of our conmmnity members
and I am wondering if anyone can speak to additional increases at SUMC beyond what is being
proposed in this project?
Page 18
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Turner: We don’t have any information about additional project increases beyond the
project timeline. Again, we are looking out to _0~0 for the completion of the Medical Center
projects. So we don’t have ant’ information with regards what might happen after that point.
Commissioner Sandas: Tha~ks. One other question has to do with the Area Plan identi~dng
strategies for accomplishing housing with a focus on below market residential units. IfI can be
reminded of our definition of BM~R again I would like to know more in the future, I don’t need
that definition here in the moment. I would like to ~ow more in the future about the number of
employees who will qualify, for BMR and how that might play out. I thi~zk it is premature to
1,mow that answer now but I "l, mow it is in the idea phase and I would like to know more.
Mr. Curtis Williams. Assistant Director: I want to say we have commissioned and are pretty far
along in analysis of breaking down all the employees into different income ~oups and all of that.
So we will have all of that kind of information and have estimates specifically by income goup
and what we consider to be within affordability categories and how many that would be versus
how many would be mm’ket rate type of needs. So that is all well underway and will be
available.
Commissioner Sandas: Great, thank you. Two more questions. I am a little bit confused about
the no project alternative notion. I am hoping that is just a requirement of CEQA and they, say
you just have to list it and _tell us what that means.
Mr. Turner: It is.
Commissioner Sandas: However, it generated one question for me. The Area Plan now includes
both the Shopping Center and the Medical Center, thank you very much I am glad to see that.
Axe these projects handled independently or as one in terms of the no project alternative?
Mr. Williams: The Area Plan does not tectmically include that. The maps we drew included that
but the policies and the real focus of the detail in the A~ea Plan, which you saw some months
ago, was the Medical Center but then it did acl~owledge the sunounding area and there were
some policies that certainly ling: the two together particularly those as far as comaectivity and that
kind of thing. The EIR addresses both of them definitely. The alternatives could be broken out
into reduced alternative for one and not reducing the other project, it could be reductions in both
together, we have not quite decided how that works. However, it is all one EIR, there could be
quite a number of alternatives and they may be combinations of individual components.
Commissioner Sandas: Okay, I guess I misunderstood then what I had read about them being
one but it is just for the EIR pretty, much. Okay,.
So the final question I have is on page six, the middle of the bottom para~aph regarding the
Village Concept Alternative, it states that the Staff recognizes that some of the elements of this
alternative may be outside the City’s or the applicant’s control to implement. I was curious
about that. I would like to l-mow a little bit more about who is in control? What are the
mechanisms that need to be in place to be able to implement that concept?
Page 19
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Williams: That statement recognizes that this whole concept of a village is not a project.
One project doesn’t make a village kind of thing. It is an integated network, planning and
desi~ network, and I thing: Bruce has explained that very well. I look at Downtown Palo Alto
and near in areas as a village to me, it embodies a lot of those concepts and that is hundreds of
individual projects that make that up. So that is what is inte~’al. So in this case we "know there
are other things outside the boundaries of this project that are going to be inte~al to that in terms
Of connections, and some of them are open spaces like San Francisquito Creek. Some of them
are local serving retail connections like to Dox~q~town and even to Town & Country and places
like that. Some of them are housing. We have identified taro of the General Use Permit sites as
potential housing sites that are invnediately adjacent but they are not right within the project.
Now, there may be ttnough the Development Ageement some connection so they get brought
into the projects and the transit center and what happens within the transit center if there is
housing or a mix of uses around that. That is something that to a large extent is beyond the
boundaries and probably the scope of this project abut we want to recognize that those
opportunities are there too. We want to anticipate that we may have the needs to make those
com~ections to those areas and have it all integated. That is what is really going to help forn~ a
village connection.
Commissioner Sandas: So in a nutshell this is a really imaovative and interesting suggestion
more or less.
Mr. Williams: It is and I think as Bruce has characte~-ized what we want to do is identify which
elements mad opportunities are part of these projects or could be part of these projects. We can’t
probably identify all of what else might be there in the furore. In responding to Mr. Griffin’s
question about potential intensification there may be some, there are not any specific plans for
that at this point. We want to be sure we are not precluding opportunities if that is desirable in
the future to happen with what happens here. So we probably wouldn’t want to cover the whole
Shopping Center for instance with one-story buildings that couldn’t be taller than that or
something like that. So we want to be sure we are not precluding those potential opportunities. I
don’t know if Bruce has any more.
Commissioner Sandas: Tha~s. In that case, without having had the opportunity to hear
questions and other comments fiom my colleagues I did just want to offer up a couple of
comments. The one thing is that I am really interested in learning about the strategies and tactics
for the no net new car trips, in particular vis-a-vie the Stanford Shopping Center. I just thilg: that
is going to be really tricky and I am keeping the faith.
I also appreciate your keeping up with the work to get the Draft EIR to us in November. I
reco~aize the amount of time and energy that is put into this which is why the whole notion of
the no project alternative looked really scary. You have done so much work already if that were
an actual alternative it would be pretty disageeable.
Finally, I just want to say that I a~ee with Mr. Jordan on keeping up with the fiscal impact
issues and keeping that in the forefront of all of this for us here in the city. I think that is
important. With that I will conclude.
Page 20
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Thaak you, Conmaissioner Sandas. I don’t have any lights from anyone so
Conmaissioner Lippert would you care to start? We will go ttzrough the question phase first.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions for Staff. With regm’d to the transfer of the
square footage fi’om the Hoover Pavilion to the hospital Medical Center target site, would some
sort of covenant or restriction be placed on the Hoover Pavilion site that would not allow for
future development of that?
Mr. Turner: At this point there is no discussion about that of restricting future development on
the Hoover Pavilion site. Perhaps that would be an issue that is discussed through the
Development A~eement process but that is currently not part of Stanford’s application to the
City to limit further development at that site.
Commissioner Lippert: I guess my assumption is that because the Hoover Pavilion is historic
and we are trying to keep that pristine in terms of a recognizable historic site or that the square
footage of the site, if you took the lot area that would normally be developed that is being
transfen’ed or considered part of that parcel, am I making those assumptions or are those the
kinds of assumptions that you are making?
Mr. Turner: Well, those are assumptions at this point and we have not concluded whether or not
they are historic properties. We are still going through that. Once we do have that information
then we will look at mitigations that might address those issues but at this point we are not at that
point to detem~ine whether or not we have significant impacts.
Commissioner Lippert: I have one last question. I am glad you brought up the Development
ANeement. ’,\qaat is the relationship of the material that we have reviewed today in relationship
to the Development Ageement? How is that going to work in the process?
Mr. Williams: I will make one brief conm~ent and then see if Cara has more to add. Most of
what we are looking at today deals with the EIR so the alternatives are specific to the EIR. The
Village Concept Alternative in particular being in the EIR can only be there if it is addressing
sig-nificant impacts. Any of our alternatives have to be addressing significant impacts or
potential significant impacts that are identified in the EKe. There are components, design
components, land use components, other things in the Village Concept that lriay not be ElY,
specifically related. If there are elements of that or the co~mectivity or something else that the
City feels strongly are necessary then the Development A~eement is a mechanism that allows us
to try to work that into the project. So it is more along the lines of it will incorporate some of the
things froln the EIR but it is also available to be a possible avenue to require certain amenities,
features of the projects such that do not relate specifically to mitigation measures. So to that
extent this discussion could relate to Development A~’eement as well but what we are focused
on now is the EIR and trying to address, we don’t know all the impacts of the EIR, but we
certainly know there are going to be si~aificant traffic impacts, which is I think the main area
where we have potential tl~uough some of this cotmectivity to respond to those impacts.
Colnmissioner Lippert: Tha~ you.
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
4!
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Because I went straight to the public there are a few questions I should ask of
Staff to get on the record and for everybody’s edification. The amount of information that is
available at this point is I believe less than what was anticipated at this point in time. Perhaps
Staff would care to state what the timeline is now for the delivery of the DEIR.
Mr. Turner: As we stated, we are projecting that we will complete our internal review aid
analysis and our work with our consultant and have a draft document that is released to the
public in November of this year.
Mr. Williams: I might add that we are also anticipating some interim work products that
hopefully we can bring to Commission to at least apprise you of data on traffic and housing
needs and that kind of thing to get responses on those between now and that point as well. That
was what we kind of had targeted this meeting as we have talked before about but we do not
have that information. It was not ready yet. As Steven mentioned the timeline has been
extended.
Chair Holman: So stated another way this will not be our only crack at the topics that are
addressed in the Staff Report. Once we get more information we will have another opportunity
to comment on this.
Mr. Williams: That is what we anticipate.
Chair Holman: Okay. The plan objectives that are referenced in the description are not included
so none of that has changed fiom prior deliverables to the Connnission and public I am
presuming.
Mr. Turner: That is correct.
Chair Holman: Okay. Any other business Conmlissioner Garber that you can think of that we
need to attend to?
Vice-Chair Garber: No.
Chair Hohnan: Co~rm~issioner Keller, you light was on next.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Is it correct that both the Hoover Pavilion site and the
Stanford Hospital site are now at maximum FAR for current zoning or pretty close to it?
Therefore both of them would need to be increased in order to accormnodate the ~’owth
including adding the 60,000 square feet at Hoover?
Mr. Turner: I think that we are approaching the site not looking at individual kind of parcels and
FAR on each individual site. I think we are looking at it as sort of a project-wide site and
determining how much floor area is being added but at the same time part of the application
entitlements is requesting perhaps a new form of zone district that would be specifically for
hospital and medical office related uses. So it would essentially have specific development
standards that would accommodate the project.
Page 22
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: I am not sure but that seems to be a change because on the hospital we
were originally talking about FAR of 1.0 and at the Hoover Pavilion we were talking about FAR
going from .25 to .50 or something along those lines. So aggregating the square footage for both
separated ~oups of parcels if you will, I am not sure of the extent to which they are individual
parcels, but from the Medical Center portion and the Hoover Pavilion portion aggregating those
is some thing new that wasn’t originally,, at least in what I read a while ago, so that is why I am
confused about that. It would be helpful to actually identify the FAR for the Hoover Pavilion
and the FAR for the hospital specifically because I thil~ those were cited in earlier reports.
With respect to the No Project Alternative I note that there are things with respect to the 2013
deadlines. I am wondering the extent to which one of the new No Project Alternatives might
include making it so that there were no critical patient care units, which I believe is that correct?
The 2013 deadline refers to no critical patient care units in noncompliant buildings. I thi~k that
is what is going on and if that is correct then I am wondering whether that should be one of the
2013 deadline project alternatives, removing all critical patient care units from noncompliant
buildings. Is that one of the alternatives being considered?
Mr. Turner: Well, we can certainly take that under consideration.
Commissioner Keller: Thai:Lk you. ha the Staff Report it said that one of the possibilities of a
smaller alternative was a smaller Shopping Center increase and still a full-size hotel but that
didn’t match what was on the sun:unary on the slides. So I want to make sure that that’s still one
of the possibilities.
Mr. Turner: Again, these exalnples are really examples of what a reduced project alternative
could be. We have not come to any conclusions on what a reduced project alternative would be
at this point. So that is certainly something we can continue to consider.
Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. It is just that the Staff Report specifically called those
two alternatives out as reduced project alternatives and they were not in the presentation.
I am wondering the extent to which internal traffic impacts such as circulation between the
Hoover Pavilion as the Medical Center facility and the Medical Center being separated by, it
looks like a pretty far distance I am not sure if that is half a mile or ttn’ee-quarters of a mile I
don’t M~ow what the scale is there, but it is certainly a far distance for walking. With the
reduced amount of medical office there I was told that one of the reasons that it was okay to have
the Hoover Pavilion be a medical facility is because they would be able to have all these lab tests
there so that you wouldn’t have to go to the main medical center. With the movement of
140,000 square feet of medical center office to the main campus of the Medical Center I am
wondering whether that is no longer a viable alternative and whether there would be a lot of
traffic going back and forth between those ta~,o sites. I am wondering the extent to which that
internal traffic impact is going to be considered.
Mr. Williams: We will pass that along to the EIR consultants. They are looking at the traffic
now in conjunction with our traffic consultant. This has just recently been presented so they will
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4!
42
43
44
45
be looking at the difference that that makes in terms of the traffic particularly on Quarry Road
probably.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, in particular Quarry Road is a route that is used for ambulances so
the impact on emergency service vehicles is important. With respect to that impact repurposing
Hoover Pavilion as a hotel may be an appropriate mitigation for that impact in order to sort of
concentrate the medical office uses and medical services uses al! within the main Medical Center
complex. Thank you.
Chair Hohnan: Colnmissioner Fineberg a couple of questions?
Commissioner Fineber~: I have a number of questions tonight. I will ask my top tt~ree or four
and then if time allows I will come back to it later.
My first question is on the Staff Report, Attaclvnent A. It talks about the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments that are entitlements requested. Why is it that we need to modify the
Comprehensive Plan Progam L-3 to allow for taller buildings? Let me read L-3 and then if you
could take a crack at that. Pro~’am L-3, maintain and periodically review height mad density
limits to discourage single uses that are inappropriate in size and scale to the surrounding uses.
The city,vide 50-foot height limit has been respected in all developments since it was adopted in
the 1970s only a few exceptions have been ~anted for architectural enhancements or seismic
safety retrofits to noncomplying buildings. So iftt~is is being done for seismic safety retrofits
and that is specifically called in the Comprehensive Plan why do we need to modify the
Comprehensive Plan Progam L-3 rather than gant an exemption?
Mr. Williams: I think if we took the position that that covered this the argument the other way
would basically be well, you can so a seismic retrofit of the building without the additional
height. So the additional height relates to more than just the seismic retrofitting. It is a design, it
is a hospital desi~ that is at this point desirable, but you are right it isn’t specific. The trigger
for the whole project is seismic retrofitting but that doesn’t mean that it has to be that high just
because you are seismically retrofitting. There are a lot of factors that go into that in terms of
today’s more modem hospital desi=ma and the increase in number of beds and those kinds of
things too. So when we did look at that issue, and it is a very good question, we debated it a lot
as far as internally, but we thought that it would be better to try to more specifically address
when some kind exception above the 50 feet was appropriate. It might also be for public safety
facilities or something like that. We want to keep it very narrow obviously but it didn’t seem
that the seismic safety thing and of itself was justified. Also the Children’s Hospital is going to
be over 50 feet, it is not 130 feet but it is still more than the 50 feet and it is not just an
architectural feature. So for that purpose as well it would be necessary to address it. At least
that is the request at this point in time by the applicant is to make that modification.
Commissioner Fineber~: So what is the advantage of amending the Comprehensive Plan? What
would that language be? When xvould the timeframe be for the review of that and the
implementation versus City Council granting an exemption to current requirements?
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Williams: That will be part and parcel of the language of that in the zoning language will be
part and parcel of the overall project entitlement that came to you with the Final ElY, for your
consideration. So it will all be meshed together.
Commissioner Fineber~: Then if it is in the project entitlement documentation would that
language then apply to another hospital in a hospital zoning district someplace else in the city?
Mr. Williams: It depends on how it is worded and written and that is something you will be
reviewing and determining whether that is appropriate or not.
Commissioner Fineber~: Thank you. I want to take a step back to a big picture. Comprehensive
Plan authorizes 3,250,000 square feet of new no~zresidential construction tt~rough its time
horizon. I M~ow these numbers have been requested or discussed before but can you update us
on where we are now in that cap and then how this I believe it is about 1.5 million of new
developed no~zresidential space fits under those caps?
Mr. Turner: We have done some preliminary numbers with regards to where we are with the
cap. With these projects which include the Medical Center project at approximately 1.3 million
square feet, the hotel at 120,000 square feet, and the expansion of the Shopping Center at
240,000 square feet we get into approximately 400,000 square feet of the city~,ide cap. So if
these projects were appro~:~d we would be within approximately 400,000 square feet of the cap.
Commissioner Fineber~,: So that is getting pretty close, thmtk you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Fineberg, we will come back around. Vice-Chair Garber.
Vice-Chair Garber: The fiscal impact statement who actually, prepares that and who reviews it?
Mr. Williams: The city will prepare that. There was a lot of information that Stanford had put
together as far as their estimate of both the Shopping Center and the Medical Center as far as the
potential impacts fi’om their projects. We have hired an economic consultant who is doing two
things. One is reviewing all of that information and consolidating all that into what will become
ultimately the fiscal report and also doing some additional hotel study analysis as to the potential
for not just this proposed hotel but perhaps a larger size hotel here. So that is being put together.
There was a question about the fiscal team and Lalo Perez, our Administrative Services Director,
is the head of that teana. It has other members of his staff on it, representatives fiom various City
departments, the Attorney’s Office, the Plamaing Department, Public Works, Utilities and a
~oup of them will meet occasionally with Stanford’s folks to exchange information and get
updates so we have the most cmTent information to work from in that analysis.
Vice-Chair Garber: Does the Commission have the opportunity to see and review that?
Mr. Williams: Yes, you will be getting that like we said with an Enviromnental hnpact Report.
It will be a Draft Fiscal Study as well.
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
Vice-Chair Garber: Second question, the physical impacts goup, is that a group and who
composes it?
Mr. Williams: There is not a ... it is the fiscal.
Vice-Chair Garber: Mr. Jordan has mentioned that there was a physical impact study group.
Mr. Williams: I think he meant fiscal, f-i-s-c-a-1. Yes, he is nodding. Sometimes it sounds like
that when I say it too.
Vice-Chair Garber: Okay. Finally, I would be interested ill seeing what the actual wording is
that contains the language regarding Stanford’s limits on net new trips and what the mitigations
are at whatever the trigger points are.
Mr. Williams: For the County permit?
Vice-Chair Garber: Yes.
Chair Hohnan: I will step in for a couple of questions here. The Village Concept, can Staff
explain w’hy the Village Concept is an alternative as opposed to a desi~l approach?
Mr. Williams: In many respects it is both. It is an alternative because we believe it responds to
some of the impacts that the project is likely to have particularly again as far as traffic and
probably housing generated by the new employanent that is proposed. So this is an opportunity
for us to address some of those with this alternative.
It also is a design element of our review because much of the desi~a issues we are looking at
certainly focus around wanting to attain better comaectivity and a good mix of uses and the
pedestrian and bicycle and transit amenities and open space amenities that we would expect from
a desi~a perspective. So it gets back again to the fact that there may be some components of this
that are outside the boundary, not the physical boundary, of the projects themselves but are
beyond what necessarily fits in the impact review, and that are good desi~o-n concepts in any
event. I think ARB certainly will be looMng for a number of those things, you will, the Council
will, and I think the applicants are working with us to try to as much as possible incorporate
them in their revisions as they move through iterations and desig-n and working with us. I think
Bruce has already seen some cooperative efforts to try to incorporate some of those things in the
desiNa. So our goal and ultimate hope would be that much of this concept is embodied in the
desi~a that ultimately comes to you.
Chair Hohnan: I do see the perspective that it could be either or both. Here is the quandary that
I face and maybe Staff can respond to this. At least what is stated in the Staff Report in
Attachment C, I read your Attactmaent C and listened to your presentation, and it all is well and
good, although I do have some questions about Attact~nent C. It seems as though this is one
alternative so where is the scalability of this, I am going to call it a design approach or desi~l
principle. The Convnission and Council have both said and I think you indicated that the ARB
would want this as a principle too so why not adopt this as a principle and say this is what we
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
want to see and not rely on one alternative, as I read it, one alternative that is a Village Concept
that is not scaled? As I read this we are getting one Village Concept, one size. The reason I say
this is because it only says one Village Concept. Also on page two, D-l-c, under Village
Concepts as Applied to Project, it is enable projects and advance project objectives. Well, a
scaled project won’t necessarily accomplish all of the project objectives. So that is where I am
having difficulty here between alternative and desi~ approach.
Mr. Fukuii: Could you explain what you are saying about scale and scaling? Could you explain
so I have a better understanding of what that is?
Chair Holman: Sizing. In other words, there are no project alternatives and there are reduced
size, scaled back, projects. \Vhen it comes to the Village Concept it looks like there is one
Village Concept being researched so that doesn’t say to me that there are right-sized, downsized
alternatives also being looked at as part of the Village Concept. That is why I am trying to
understand why this is an alternative or is this several alternatives and it is just not clear in the
Staff Report or I am just not understanding it that way.
Mr. Fukuji: It is a wonderful question. I think that we haven’t quite decided on what that is. I
thi~fl( the way we are looking at it is it is principles in terms of how to think about something. It
is a desi~ approach as you said but we haven’t come to some place where we have made a
decision as to what the scale of something like this would be. I think that is partially because we
are exploring these ideas with the applicant to see what is feasible, what is not feasible, what are
they open to or not, what makes sense, what are some of the tectmical issues that would have to
be overcome in order to be able to do those things, and we are letting that process kind of
generate how far it goes with the intent of looMng at how that would shape the project
application itself., as opposed to looking at what would be a kind of village larger-scale, bigger
picture village that would include multiple sites outside of the context of the project, and what
would all that be. We didn’t really take it on as a plmming exercise to kind of explore all that.
V~q~at we are looking at is a way to make sure that the project as it is being conceived would not
preclude being able to do those things. We have had some questions about there are these tavo
projects, the Shopping Center and the Medical Center application, and what is coming up are a
lot of questions about is this a different project to define what a village is because it includes
areas that are not in the specific applications. So we are having an ongoing conversation about
what that would be. I thil~k it would be useful to hear what your positions are around that. Part
of this is in response to questions that have been asked why not look at this as a village? So it
might be helpful for us to hem" what you would like to see be in a village concept or how you
would like to see that fiamed or thought about. Then we can talk about how to incorporate that
in what we are doing. That would be wonderful information and guidance for us.
Chair Holman: Thmfl,: you. Commissioner Lippert, questions.
Commissioner Lippert: Just continuing along the sane lines, early on I think one of the
alternatives that was mentioned here was to look at a~ alternative that would comply with the
underlying zoning that is cunently there. I understand there is an application to have a new zone
created. So why isn’t there an alternative there that looks at using the PF zone in terms of
redevelopment of the site?
Page 27
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4!
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Williams: Basically because the PF zone, as I think was sort of referenced over here in an
earlier question, wouldn’t basically allow very much in the way of additional development. So
essentially a no project alternative is the PF. Now under the existing PF zone what you could
build is the no project alternative.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so will that be identified in the EIR?
Mr. Williams: It say’s the no project alternative.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then the second question is with the rezone or the proposed
application for a rezone to a new hospital and medical office zone where does that stand in the
process? You talked about the EIR coming fo~a~;ard in November will this rezone be heard prior
to the Draft EIR or after the Draft EIR?
Mr. Williams: The ultimate action on the rezoning would be at the time of the final entitlements.
What we aaticipate is before we get the Draft EIR out having sessions with the Cormnission to
talk about the zoning and sort of zoning options and ways to fiame what goes on. We have some
constraint in that it is not an open book, we have a proposal on the table so we have something to
deal with, but we want to come to you with that just before the Draft EI~ conies out and have
some discussion about that before we release the Draft. So I thi~ we had talked at one point
about maybe establishing a subcommittee of the Commission that could work with us a little bit
on that and bring it fol-ward to the full Commission.
Commissioner Lippert: That raises a very interesting question which is if we are entertaining a
rezone, a new zone, could those development regulations and uses make use of a village
concept?
Mr. Fukuj.i: I think that there are a lot of tools that you can use in zoning or coding in order to be
able to shape the physical environment to be more village-like. We haven’t really looked at that
or explored what that might be. I think we have been looking at the project application as a site
plan itself and what is going on with that and how would that work. We have not gotten to the
point where how would you create a fi’amework for that. Both applicants have been proposing
desig-n guidelines for the Medical Center and also the Shopping Center and I think that is the area
where I think that any of these concepts could find their place in terms of how they would be
implemented would be in those documents more than in the zoning. The zoning would probably
refer to that and that is in concept how we are framing it at this point.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I will cede my time and you can come back to me.
Chair Holman: Convnissioner Keller, a couple of questions.
Commissioner Keller: Yes. One of the things that came up earlier in the discussion I think was
the issue of connectivity between the Medical Center and the Shopping Center. There was an
observation that there is a pedestrian crossing along Welch Road and how that is not conducive
to actually getting to the Shopping Center. Now I note that there is the Banl which provides
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
some sort of cormectivity between the Medical Center and the Shopping Center that isn’t part of
the Shopping Center boundary. I am not sure why it is not considered part of the Shopping
Center boundary but apparently it is not. There is a parking lot in between without much ability
for pedestrians. I am wondering if one of the desi~ things that is being considered is to possibly
relocate that Welch Road pedestrian crossing to try to create some sort of pedestrian or bicycle
com~ectivity tt~rough the parking lot or adjacent to the parking lot that is much more friendly that
com~ects you over to Andronico’s and Nordstrom’s and whatever.
Mr. Turner: We haven’t come up with specific proposals or a specific solution for that. If you
look at it, I thinl,: you have noticed it, it seems like a logical place for that to happen but we
haven’t approached or had those discussions with the applicant yet on what specifically those
co~mections could look like or where exactly they would be. There are a number of constraints
on the applicant’s side that they will discuss with us on how that is or is not possible but we have
not had those full discussions yet.
Commissioner Keller: I noticed some members of the public talked about no new net trips. One
thought it was an unrealistic, I think was the word that was used, and several thought that
somehow it was a reasonable thing to do and referenced the 2000 Stanford County General Use
Permit. I am wondering to what extent will you be considering the potential for in lieu
mitigation so that if you somehow reduce the total amount of traffic on Palo Alto roads for
example tlnough transit use or for example tlv’ough providing additional transit services in Palo
Alto or for example in com~ecting the Marguerite Shuttle to com~ect all the way to go tl~rough
Palo Alto or to extend the Pa!o Alto Shuttle to comaect with the Shopping Center or the Medical
Center. ~Me those the kinds of things you would be considering in terms of mitigations that
could achieve no new net trips?
Mr. Williams: Those may very well be some. We have not gotten to the point ofidenti~dng
those specific mitigations because the traffic study is not complete. You have mentioned those
previously and they, are definitely on our radar. I would just like to mention that I don’t think
that is really the focus of tonight’s meeting. I think we are trying to address the alternatives part
of this and the updated plal. We do have those definitely on our radar and have taken those
down from your previous comments about concepts of mitigation. We had those workshops and
follow up with the Commission and I recall that specifically being one that we did put down for
the consultant to consider.
Commissioner Keller: Tha~k you. The last question I will ask now is the one some members of
the public complained about the schedule slipping as if somehow that is our fault. It certainly
isn’t the fault of people on the Commission. I am not sure whose fault it is but the interesting
thing is there was a proposal from Stanford to Palo Alto to do some project. I am wondering to
the extent that the timing of that with respect to the timing of SB 1953, is part of the reason that
we are feeling so compressed that there was a long time from when SB 1953 was passed to when
a proposal was actually given to Pa!o Alto to consider?
Mr. Williams: I don’t think we are feeling that compression. We are moving as quickly, as we
reasonably can but with all due caution and with wanting to prepare a very thorough and
complete enviromnental document that will withstand any legal scrutiny. I think that is the
Page 29
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
primary reason why there are time delays. These are two very complex, huge projects and as we
move tt~aough some of this analysis there are ultimately gaps in data that we maybe didn’t
anticipate and more complex analysis that needs to occur. That is very simply I think the reason
why there is more time being taken. I don’t thi~k Staff is feeling like the time is compressed
because of that. We are just moving ahead as quickly as we can but being sure we cover
everything.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Hohnan: Commissioner Fineberg.
Commissioner Fineber~: I would like to go back and talk about the Village Concept. I think it is
an absolutely fantastic concept. It is a way to improve the quality of life. It is a way to
implement good stewardship of our built and natural enviro~maent. I would love to see it be part
of this project. But, I am confused about how having it as an alternative in the Draft EIR
benefits anyone. Maybe I just don’t understand it yet but we have an applicant, they have
submitted a project, it keeps changing, and at some point they have to lockdown what it is going
to be. We can have a project that has absolutely no con’elation to the most magnificent project in
a Draft EIR analysis. So how do you get the tavo, how do you get the project, the real thing that
is being built to incorporate the wonderful things in the Village Concept? The one idea I heard
tonight that would accomplish that is by building those principles into the zoning designations.
So is there a timeframe administratively how would that be done so we don’t come up to the end
with a project that doesn’t reflect and then we make the zoning regs fit what the applicant is
proposing? I thi~ we can manage that if that is what should happen if we plan early. So what is
the timefi’ame on seeing how that might happen?
Mr. Williams: I thi~k there is some potential to interate some of this with the zoning but I think
the main area where this occurs is in the plans that are approved and they are being approved
simultaneous with the zoning with some flexibility in there in terms of design guidelines. Some
of these components have to do with streets and open spaces that are not necessarily going to be
addressed by zoning. So I think the plans are a better place to actually identify a lot of these
concepts. That said there are certainly some desig-n concepts that could go into the zoning. Our
intent again is to have that and have the Commission look at that before the Draft EIR is in front
of you so that we can embody that as part of the kind of zoning package that is under review and
coming to you. So I think we have an opportunity to do that to SOlne extent in both the zoning
and in the specifics of the plans that are coming to you, because there are development plans
associated with both of these thing and to the extent they can incorporate any of these linkages,
open spaces, other uses if necessary then we have really ~nd of nailed some of those things
down. Then maybe the zoning and desi~ guidelines get at some of the details about how some
of those desiD~ connections are made.
Ms. Cara Silver. Senior Assistant City Attorney: If I could just add as well, CEQA requires the
City to look at the actual project that is proposed and that has changed over time. We just
recently received an updated application and it will probably change a bit in the future. At a
minimum we do need to evaluate the project that is proposed. There are certainly some zoning
and design guideline changes that we can incorporate on a parallel path with the entitlements that
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
are being requested. We thiiak that putting some tyqpe of village alternaive in the EIR will allow
the City more flexibility as ideas come to the front that may not be properly placed in zoning or
in desig-n guidelines to then be able to incorporate those ideas into an actual EI2,. alternative that
will be studied so that if the Plam~ing Commission and Council do like that alternative there will
be a basis for moving forward with that and you won’t have to go through a new CEQA process.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber, do you have any more questions? I have some more
questions. One is participation by, I am curious because this meeting was noticed and we have
yet to see anybody from Menlo Park or see any comments from people from Menlo Park. So
what is the status of their involvement and their concern, consideration, input?
Mr. Turner: Over the time that we have been reviewing these projects even before the
application came in both Staff and the applicants have been reaching out to our neighbors with
regards to these projects. Most recently Staff held a luncheon for representatives from
neighboring jurisdictions to come to the City so that we could inform them about the project,
provide them updates, and answer questions that they may have. We have also made ourselves
available to go out to the different jurisdictions and present to their Planning Commissions and
Council. We have done tha with Menlo Park’s Council twice already. Just yesterday I received
an invitation from Portola Valley to come to speak to their Council with regard to the project.
We are making an effort to reach out to our neighbors and keep them informed about the
projects. They seem to like the idea of Staff and the applicants coming to them and providing a
presentation and overview of the projects.
Chair Holman: Is it possible that Comlnission and Council and ARB can be notified of when
those meetings are happening? It would be infomaative I think for us to be able if available to
attend those meetings and get what their input is. Like tonight I am still mystified that there is
nobody that has come to a meeting yet at the Commission at least from may of the conmaercial
districts and that is just mystify4ng to me. So I arn not saying you are not doing outreach, I am
certainly not saydng that, but I am just baffled by it in addition to no one coming from Menlo
Park especially. So is it possible that you can notify us as to when those meetings are if you are
making presentations to the Menlo Park City Council for instance those are public meetings but
we don’t always watch the agendas for other cities.
Mr. Turner: Absolutely. We will keep you informed about any sort of outreach beyond Palo
Alto that we are involved with.
Chair Hohnan: That would be very helpful. I think probably right now we will take a seven or
eight minute break. We have been going for a couple of hours. Then we will come back, finish
up any, questions and then go to our comments. Thank you.
Okay, if you all will take seas we can reconvene. Commissioner Lippert, you have additional
questions.
Commissioner Lippert: Yes. Mr. Fukuji, you talked a little bit about walking distances from
public transportation. Really walking distance is more a factor of I guess the intensification or
how urban an enviroimaent would be. Somebody who lived and work in New York City, might
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
walk several miles whereas somebody who lived in a suburban envirolmaent would in fact find
walking maybe a quarter of a mile quite tedious. Is there any direct relationship or are there any
documents or studies done where it showed the intensification of land use and its relationship in
regard to walking distances?
Mr. Fukuii: That is a geat question. There has been a lot of research done on that. Professor
Robert Savaro at UC Berkeley has done quite a bit of research on that topic. It comes down to
sort of the three D’s, density, diversity, and desig-n are the things that actually really shape an
environment that encourages walkability. So those are kind of the key things. The other part is
people like Bob Gibbs who is a national expert in sort of how main streets can learn from
shopping mails has talked a lot about walking distance and the sort of level of intensity of
activity that needs to happen. He says that for Americans it is sort of an eight second rule, if you
don’t have something interesting every eight seconds then they tuna around and walk the other
way. So it is a bit of a tough challenge because Americans don’t walk as much as Europeans in
other parts of the world. The key thing is when you look at transit oriented development you
want to concentrate employment that when you arrive at a work trip how far can you walk. You
really want employment to be within 600 to 800 feet kind of within a quarter-mile. For housing
on the other end of the trip people are willing to walk a lot further ~knowing that on the
destination end, once they get on the train or whatever the form of transit is, and they get off that
they can easily walk to that end. So on the housing end of it is more like a half-mile. V~q~en it
gets beyond a half-mile then people look at other modes to be able to get to a station depending
on the enviromaaent. So it depends on the land use, it depends on the trip purpose, and it depends
on the enviromnent. Having the connectivity is the essential thing. In many places you can’t
actually get to where you want to walk to so the first part is having direct, easy ways to get from
one place to another.
Commissioner Lippert: I guess looking at that that is where the Marguerite Shuttle or local buses
would begin to play a role. I have two questions here. The first one is the liig:ages and you
showed a very good illustration of the limkages and they were like little asterisks as you go
tl~ough the Stanford University Shopping Center leading to the Medical Center. Is there a way
to e~aance those linkages? \~q~at I am thinking of is just the other day I was walking through
Johnson Park and Baskin & Robbins happened to put an ice cream cart in there just for the day.
There was a soccer game going on and it was very exciting and drew a crowd. I am thinking of
ways of bridging or being able to get from the transit center to the hospital. Are there ways of
creating those little pieces of activity going tt:Lrough a parking lot or crossing E1 Camino Real or
just on the other side of E1 Camino Real where the transit center is and where E1 Canino Real is?
Mr. Fukt\ii: Part of the creative challenge is how to overcome these really long distances. So
you want to break the scale down and create kind of multiple sma!ler events or destinations that
can help lead you from one place to another. I think that for a lot of people it is a time issue.
They thi~ about how much time it is going to take them to get from one place to another. If you
were at the transit center and you want to go to the Medical Center and if you walk it is 15
minutes, but if you take the Marguerite Shuttle and time it right it is only a couple of minutes, if
you ride your bike it is like five minutes. These time issues are really essentially. I think the
thing that is difficult about this is you have to look at who the different people are and what their
propensities are for different travel modes and how they actually want to travel. If you have a
Page 32
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 young urban professional person who is kind of trying to get things done they are going to want
2 to do the fastest thing they might want to do. If you have other people who might be older, no
3 longer employed they might have a little more flexibility around their time and if it is a low cost
4 way to go they might want the exercise and walk. So you have to create opportunities for all the
5 different people who want to use it and give them different choices around how to get fi’om one
place to another. I thi~k the key here is how to create the right diversity of choices about how to
do it. It is all about making sure you are creating the right opportunity so you are not missing
things. I think with this you have to look at each step of the way.
For example, at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation they have that below Nade crossing of the
tracks. I thil~ there are a lot of things about that that are actually really great. It really reduces
the amount of time you take to walk from Downtown to get to the Medical Center. So things
like that when an Intermodal Center, if there are improvements that happen to that aad that being
able to have some other ways to get underneath the tracks to be able to get to the shopping
center. I think things like that would help. That would reduce that really difficult kind of long
walk that is one thing that I think would be really good. That is not really part of this project. It
is part of some other planning exercises that we have been talking about and how do you find a
place for that kind of thing.
For the parking lot and getting across the parking lot I thi~ you have to like bringing buildings
closer to the street so you.don’t have to feel like you are crossing along 300 feet of parking
would really, really help. I thilzk there are some initial steps that are done. PF Chang tries to do
that. I thi~k that more things along that line could help with being able to do that.
Convnissioner Lippert: One other question. Again, going back to the transportation issues about
a year ago I had the opportunity to go to Copel~aagen. ha Copenhagen they have a free bicycle
shuttle system. Is anything like that feasible say betaveen the transit center and the hospital? I
1-mow when I miss a bus I get really upset about having to wait for the next bus. If there were
some sort of individual transit mode and it was a nice day I have no compunction taking a rental
bicycle. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Fuktkii: I think it is a very lovely idea. Copenhagen is a geat example of a city that is really
urbanized and become more pedestrian and transit oriented as it has intensified. It has become
less car dependent in how it has done that. So it is a very good urban example to look at. I think
a prod’am like that could be wonderful. It has a lot of management and maintenance issues but it
is certainly something that could be explored.
Mr. Williams: Ia~dependent of the whole Village Concept that is certainly something to look at
as a mitigation measure possibly on the traffic side.
Commissioner Lippert: It could work both ways too. People who drive to the hospital for the
day working there that wanted to get to the Downtown quickly could then take one of those
bicycles.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, questions.
Page 33
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Keller: Yes. Let me just confima that water use and utility use will be evaluated
as impacts for each of the alternatives considered.
Mr. Turner: Yes it will.
Colnmissioner Keller: TharLk you. I am wondering whether the appropriate amount of medical
office space as needed for doctors who are community doctors and work at the Medical Center at
either the hospital and meet patients at the hospital or the Children’s Hospital, whether those are
being considered as part of this.
Mr. Williams: They are being considered as part of the project. I am not sure to what extend
they are being considered as part of the EIR. That was one of our policies in the Area Plan was
related to that and I think we need to probably revisit that issue given the latest change in the
plans, which is taking area that was specified near Hoover Pavilion for those medica!
practitioners and incorporating it into the hospital site. So there may be some change there so we
probably need to have that conversation with the applicants to determine how that affects those
practitioners.
Commissioner Keller: In particular the number of trips for medical practitioners traveling from
their medical offices to the Stanford Hospital or the Children’s Hospital in order to be able to
visit their patients. That number is affected by that.
There was a mention of the Stanford General Use Pem~it for the Comity in terms of build out and
sustainability study. Does it make sense to piggyback onto that and do a similar study for the
portion of the Stanford University complex, if you will the Medical Cemer and all that, does it
make sense to participate in that for the portion of it that is not part of the County unincorporated
land but it is part of the City incorporated land? Does it make sense to include that?
Mr. Williams: I know we have had some of these discussions. You are talking about a longer
term build out.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, the longer term build out that is being considered for ....
Mr. Williams" That is the 2030 timeframe and I am not sure what the GUP timeframe is.
Commissioner Keller: It may be worthwhile looking into that and I won’t belabor that right
no~,v.
The next thing is with respect to the height.
Chair Holman: Are these still questions? It sounds like you are going to comments.
Commissioner Keller: No, these are still questions. In terms of the height increase I am
wondering if you will divide that up into the height increase that is needed for the seismic
retrofit, the height increase that is needed for the so-called right-sizing of rooms, and the height
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
increase that is needed for expanding the number of patient beds. Does that seem like a
reasonable way of dividing up that height increase or is that inappropriate?
Mr. Turner: That might be a pretty difficult challenge to try to do. I thi~k we can try to attempt
to work with the applicants to see hoxv each component of either right-sizing or increasing the
hospital size might relate to overall height and how that might contribute to the height of the
project. I think we can take a look at that and provide that to you. That could be a possibility.
Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if that can be done as part of if you will, massing
numbers and so it gives you an idea of how much mass is due to each and then you can figure
out the height accordingly.
Mr. Fukuji: Just in my experience around these hospital projects and the seismic upgade the
increase in height really has a lot to do with the increase in the floor-to-floor heights. There is
just a lot more se~wice area that has to be done and interstitial space that is needed, and structural
space that is in that. That is really what is contributing more to increasing the floor-to-floor
height than maybe the seismic work of it. I think it is very difficult to analyze what the
contributions would be for each of those parts and what is increasing the building height overall.
The other part is that they are shifting the way they organize space that is more efficient to be
more vertically organized in terms of how hospitals are being constructed now. So there are
several different trends that are all coming together that are leading to the increased height
request. It might just be useful to hear fi’om the applicant in more detail all the different factors
that are contributing to the height increase.
Commissioner Keller: I think that we are talking about an increase in the nmnber of patient beds
from 400-plus to about 600, You can compute how much additional height is needed for that
increase.
Mr. Williams: Part of the analysis of alternatives is to look at the impacts. You don’t look at
them in necessarily the same level of detail as the proposed project. In looking at the right-size,
no project alternative that would be or in a reduced alternative we would assess what the height
of that would likely be or a range that that would be and then you could compare that to the
project as it is proposed.
Conmaissioner Keller: Thal~k you. With respect to a conm~ent made by a member of the public
with respect to the current baseline for Lucile Packard which is the one that is currently
undergoing expansion. I notice it says renovation but it is actually expansion. I thi~ renovation
is sort of odd tem~ when you are actually adding square footage and beds as well, from 216 to
267 I believe. I am wondering to the extent it makes sense to count the actual current baseline of
physical bodies you can count in terms of employees and trips or whether you are doing some
sor~ of projection saying if we had additional beds and we had additional employees and they this
additional trip then you are going to create some fudge factor for what the current baseline is. So
I would like to understand why we are not using actual figures for employees and trips and such
and what kind of fudge factor is being used.
Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
!7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Williams: We are not ready to address that. I an~ going to have to check with the consultant
about how we are dealing with that. I am not sure.
Conmaissioner Keller: My final question for now is there was a question by Conm~issioner
Fineberg with respect to the cap in the Comprehensive Plan for nom’esidential development. I
believe that it was mentioned that we would be within 400,000 square feet of the cityavide cap of
nomesidential development. I am wondering whether that figure takes into account the promises
that were made to Stanford for expansion in the industrial park as a result of the Mayfield fields,
the soccer fields that are over there. I am wondering whether you are taking into account that
promised expansion or whether you are not taking into account that. Do you understand what I
am saying?
Mr. Williams: Yes, and some of that has already been ganted and approved and that is taken
into account but I don’t think all of it is. I think there might be a couple hundred thousand
square feet that is not underway yet.
Conm~issioner Keller: So it would be helpful to actually ~know the extent to which we are
approaching that cap taking into account the commitments that Palo Alto made to Stanford with
respect to the expansion that Stanford can do at the industrial park and see how much of the cap
is leftover after that essential entitlement for that. I am wondering whether Palo Alto also
con~nitted to Stanford with respect to water allocation for the Mayfield pla~ing fields and the
extent that that deals with the restrictions that are coming down from the state in terms of water
allocation in the future.
Mr. Williams: I am not prepared to answer that and I think we are going a field of the focus of
tonight’s meeting. I would suggest that if you have questions or suggestions for additional things
that we haven’t covered in previous sessions, because we have had several sessions on scoping
and things to take into consideration in the project and the EIR, you certainly can send them to us
as you sent a few today and we will fola~ard those onto the EIR consultant to be sure they are
addressed if they need to be addressed or that there are responses to those. Tonight we are trying
to focus on the alternatives and get your input on specifically the alternative discussion not the
EI~R and what impacts should be addressed and what mitigations should be considered and that
kind of thing.
Convnissioner Keller: Thank you. The reason I am bringing that up is to the extent that there is
an increase in water use at the Medical Center or the Shopping Center to the extent that there was
a promised increased allocation from Palo Alto to Stanford, to the extent that some of the
increased allocation would be usable for tributing to any increases needed at the Stanford
Shopping Center and Medical Center might use up part of that allocation as opposed to having a
new allocation issued. That is the ~st of my issue. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Conm~issioner Fineberg, additional questions?
Commissioner Fineber~: Would it be possible for Staff to provide us with the listing of the
commercial properties that makeup the amount that was available to build and then with the
Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
addendum that Conmaissioner Keller has mentioned of the commitments that are entitlements so
it could be reviewed and made available to the public also?
Mr. Turner: We will have a reasonable accounting of that to provide to the Commission.
Conmfissioner Fineber~: Thank you. Way-finding by vehicles, finding your way to the hospital
in a car, will that be considered in all of the alternative scenarios and the proposed project?
Specifically if you are coming north on E1 Camino how do you get to the hospital?
Mr. Turner: This wouldn’t necessarily be looked at as an alternative they are a desi~a aspect of
the Shopping Center and the hospitals. We want to make sure that there is appropriate way-
finding for people to get to those facilities. So I don’t see that necessarily as an alternative but
just a good desi~a aspect that we need to employ in each of the projects.
Commissioner Fineber~: Forgive me, maybe I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that it would be an
alternative but if the route as it exists now is analyzed in a make no change alternative versus if
the hospital ~ows there is no left tuna at Sandhill so traffic overshoots it, goes into Menlo Park,
makes a U-turn at Cambridge. So that is going to have different impacts versus reworking the
intersection. I won’t begin to suggest now what that rework might look like and it wouldn’t be
an easy project but do we need to take a look at that and not miss an opportunity to make it
better?
Mr. Turner: We definitely, want to take a look at all opportunities that are out there and make
sure that we are looking at the right solutions for these issues.
Commissioner Fineber~: Good, so that analysis will be in the DEIR in maybe different ways in
different alternatives depending on what is called for?
Mr. Turner: Yes, that type of analysis will appear in the EIR.
Commissioner Fineber~: All right. Will the different alternatives include an analysis of the
school impacts specifically in the alternatives with the highest amount of increase? Will it
consider the need for a new school being built in the district?
Mr. Turner: The projects will be reviewed and analyzed on their impacts to the schools and it
will be determined whether or not additional area at the schools would be needed. The
alternatives to the projects will look at either a no project or reduced project alternative that
would reduce those impacts. For example if the need for an additional school would reduce
those impacts to less than a significant level.
Conamissioner Fineber~: So is there a possibility that the proposed project would trigger a new
school and if it looks like in the analysis it does the EIR would look at the impacts of that new
school site?
Mr. Turner: That is correct.
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Fineber~: Thm~k you. There is an idea in planning called a LULU, Locally
Undesirable Land Use, it is applied to things like airports and garbage dumps. Things that might
have magnificent regional benefits but very localized negative impacts. I want to say that I
believe that Stanford Hospital and Stanford University are magnificent resources in the
con’nnunity. They are incredibly desirable. They are wonderful institutions and I cast no
aspersions on that. However, they are regional in nature, the hospitals and the mall draw people
fi’om well outside the bounds of Palo Alto but there are impacts and unintended consequences
can be very local, the demand for Palo Alto to provide housing, the traffic on our streets. Is there
any way that the three different alternatives can consider ways to mitigate those impacts across
the region rather than just in Palo Alto? Maybe thinking outside the box in some of the stone
ways that the San Francisco Airport will mitigate local impacts and the cost are born regionally.
Do we have any opportunity for that within the scope of the project, within the DEIR?
Ms. Silver: I thi~ we can look at some of those issues and some of the alternatives. We have to
be specific about some of the impacts. Of course Palo Alto doesn’t have the legal jurisdiction to
require that impacts be mitigated outside of its own jurisdiction so there is some limitations on
that. We do have some flexibility with the Development A~eement to structure certain maybe
mitigations which cannot be legally imposed but can part of the Development Ageement. So
perhaps the alternatives could look at some of those options and then those options can be folded
into the Development A~eement ultimately.
Commissioner Fineber,~: Tha~ you.
Chair Holman: I have a few more questions left. On the Village Concept to go back to that
again, on Attacl’nnent C, page one it says need and basis for Village Alternative and the response
proposals. So that is I-A-l-c it says thi~ outside project boundaries. I guess I need a little bit of
a clarification for that. What causes me to have some need for clarification on that and some
maybe concern is something that was brought up by Conm-tissioner Lippert and I believe Brian
Schmidt brought it up as well. The radius circles that are drawn and as the crow flies miles as
opposed to how long it actually takes somebody to get somewhere. So I guess what I am
wanting to make sure of is that a part of that ’think outside the project boundaries’ is ta~7o things.
One is that we are not going to be relying on some other jurisdiction, which is also mentioned in
the report, to provide housing for instance. The other thing is, and I will use housing as an
example, at what juncture would that housing be implemented or created? Are those being
considered as part of these EIR alternatives and in what way are they being considered in the
alternatives?
Mr. Williams: Bruce can talk to the ethicacy of the direct connections wt~ich is certainly
something that he is trying to address, taking that nine or ten minute connection and turning it
into a five minute connection through various techniques. As far as housing and other things we
don’t want to be rel~ng on somebody else to provide them. If they are things that are already
there that is fine. If it is something like what is in the county, housing sites, I think there are
some obligation for us to try to make some tie there if we are going to have a housing site
development that is something that we are considering, it is going to help selwe the employq~ent
that is being generated, then we need to talk about how that timing occurs and that will probably
not be part of the Village Alternative it is probably part of the Development A~’eement I assume
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
to try to make those kinds of coimections if that is where we come down. So I thilak to the extent
these things get tied together and timing is an issue than we should address it but I don’t thi~
the timing issue is necessarily addressed, it is addressed to some extent in the ELY,. as well. So it
is probably both places.
Chair Hohnan: Yes, because you can have impacts that exist for a period of time. I just wanted
to get some clarity on that.
Mr. Williams: Yes, you don’t want to go 20 years with the impact occurring before the
mitigation measure takes effect.
Chair Holman: Another question about alternatives. We mentioned at the Commission, I don’t
remember how many of us did, but there is a campus in Redwood City as well. So as a part of
the scaled back alternative does that assume or does it reference some of what is being proposed
here going to Redwood City or is it strictly a scaled back project that is being aaalyzed as an
alternative because they are very different?
Mr. Williams: I am sure that would be referenced if there were a scaled back alternative and if
the potential was there for those employees to end up in Redwood City instead then that is
something that would be acknowledged. Again, going back to the level of detail that an
alternative is analyzed it wouldn’t be analyzed in the same level of detail as the project and try to
quantify all the trip impacts of that and that kind of thing. There would be some basic discussion
of that and what negative impacts might result from doing that as opposed to locating all of the
project here.
Chair Holman: This is going to sound like a silly one, maybe. Again, as part of the alternatives
and when you are looking at intercolmectivity, especially the inter- as opposed to intra-
com~ectivity, we are looking at a shopping center and a large shopping center at that meaning
geographically it is a large shopping center. So is there some element that is considering the fact
that people are going to walk less distances, bicycle less distance, if there is no place to stow
their bags? It sounds like a nit and a silly thing but I thimk in terms of practical application and
people being able to utilize and willing to utilize these alternatives is that being considered in the
alternative?
Mr. Fukuii: It is a good idea and I thi~zk it is something we can explore in terms of how to
accommodate doing that.
Chair Holman: I just bring it up because we can say people will walk this far or bike this far but
if they are schlepping bags they aren’t going to do it. So maybe it is more of an impact thing
than an alternative. Okay.
Then Steven, did I understand you to say earlier that there was some consideration of a larger
hotel that is being proposed? Can you give me clarification on that? Again, the reason I ask on
that is because if that is a part of the proposal is that making its way into the EIR and what size is
being proposed?
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Willian~s: The City has expressed interest before in a larger hotel. I think the reference you
heard before was my conm~ent about the economic analysis and that we have a consultant on
board who is looking at Stanford Shopping Center or Simon actually when they did the analysis
for this hotel looked at a 120 room hotel and is there a market for that, etc., etc., but they didn’t
look at whether there was something bigger. So we are doing that as a City to see if that seems
to be feasible. If it is I am not sure where it goes from there. It could be potentially in there as a
suggestion but it depends. Obviously it is also the applicant’s project. So any alternative again
has to reduce impacts that is the purpose of the alternatives. So in order to consider it as an
alternative as opposed to something that is discussed as part of the Development Ageement for
instance it would have to be demonstrated to reduce impacts. So I can think of ways that that
might happen in conjunction with other components of the development but at this point it is
pretty speculative but we do want to get a handle on whether we think from a desi~ standpoint a
larger hotel would work there and from a market standpoint whether that might work because the
City sees advantages to that.
Chair Holman: Actually as opposed to an alternative because it isn’t proposed by the applicant.
I just want to make sure that a larger hotel would be analyzed for its impacts and swept into that.
It is just the first I had heard of it.
Mr. Williams: Right. If it did become some part of a proposal in there then it would have to be
analyzed as the current hotel proposal is.
Chair Holman: My last question I do believe is the statement having to do with alternatives. It is
this thing that I struggle with every time we look at EIRs. It says that alternatives have to lessen
impacts is one point. Then another point is that they have to accomplish the significant goals of
the project. Those are just in such absolute conflict to my mind and that is one of the things I
struggle with about the Village Concept and one of the statements in it. So have at it.
Ms. Silver: There are actually three requirements of alternatives and in addition to the two you
listed they also have to be feasibly implemented. That is a struggle and that is why the
alternatives that are in an tEIR are generally narrowly framed. You can’t propose an alternative
that doesn’t meet all three of these factors. So we have struggled with that ourselves and we
have come up with a list of alternatives that we think meet all three of these factors.
Chair Hohnan: Just to be clear the primary factor is the seismic requirements or is the primary
factor the size of the project that is proposed, for clarity purposes?
Ms. Silver: Yes. We actually view the project broadly so the whole project is both the adoption
of the Area Plan and the entitlements and the Development A~eement and of course all of the
project requests of the applicant. So within that bundle there are many different project
objectives including all of the Area Plan objectives that are listed in the Staff Report.
Mr. Williams: I would just add I know it seems constraining to you but that is CEQA law that
identifies what we consider as alternatives. Just because they are considered as alternatives
doesn’t mean that outside of sort of the CEQA framework there aren’t reasons for you to approve
something different or deny a project. There are goals of the City and the City has fundamental
Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
goals, and this is a completely discretionary project involving Development Ageement rezoning
and other discretionary actions. If it seems to be fundamentally in contrast with some important
City stated Comprehensive Plan goals or whatever then it is certainly xvithin the discretion
regardless of whether you find that the Enviromnental Impact Report is adequate and has
covered all the bases to modify the project or deny a project. So it does not take that out of your
hands it is just the fiamework of CEQA does limit what we can look at in the way of alternatives.
Chair Holman: Conm~issioner Keller, you had one more question?
Commissioner Keller: Yes. With respect to space, land if you will, there is an intensification of
use. There is an increase in density proposed for the Medical Center and for Hoover Pavilion. I
realize that there is some shifting going on there but right now they are close to their cunent
limits. I am wondering to the extent to which the EIR is considering how much additional land
would be needed if we were keep it this density. In other words, perhaps you would expand the
land so that it would allow for the increased development. How much additional land would be
needed? What alternative uses are there for that la~d if such land were dedicated for public
purposes such as open space or schools or parks or the like? Is that kind of thing being
considered?
Mr. Williams: I don’t thiig: it is being considered as part of the EIR. I don’t think it is within the
scope of the enviromnental review to do that. It is certainly information that may be relevant to
your consideration of the projects as they come forward. I thi~:Lk we have indicated to you before
that we will try to provide an estimate of what that would be. In fact, I think ~ve may have
already done some calculations in that regard but certainly it might be useful information to you
but it is not part of the Enviromnental Impact Report.
Commissioner Keller: I understand that the trips for the Stanford Shopping Center that will
colne on the next go round when you come back to us.
Mr. Williams: That is our anticipation, yes.
Chair Hohnan: Okay. So we will move to our conmaents then and start with Commissioner
Lippert. However, before that we will close the public hearing. Conm~issioner Lippert,
co111111ents.
Comnaissioner Lippert: First is a minor housekeeping item. We had received this handout at
places and I believe that we a~eed at the begimling of the process that handouts would be
attributed to whoever the author was. So if it was an item from Stanford it would receive
identification for that organization. If it was generated from the City of Palo Alto it would be
identified as such.
Then also I would like to note on here there is in very small type it says ’draft - do not distribute’
but anything that is given to us is made part of the public record and can be examined by the
public even if it is a draft document. So with that I would like begin with my comments.
Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The first one is despite my physical condition I was not strong armed at all by Stanford
University. I do not have a conflict of interest. I did not receive medical treatment at Stanford
University. I went to Valley Medical Center and I am doing just fine.
In listening to the presentation today there was a phrase that really resonated with me which was
right-size. I don’t know if it is sort of the mechanics ofwordsmithing or whatever but the word
did seem very appropriate in terms of right-size. By that what I mean is that in terms of this
facility mad the description that Steven Turner gave us into what light-size means, it doesn’t
mean that the facility is increasing in size to increase necessarily the load or intensify the use
there.
I did go to an emergency room recently and I was treated in a trauma center. It was a very eye-
opening experience. Before this I could not understand what the relationship was between
plarming and hospital functioning and I got it immediately. From the moment that the
ambulance pulled in I was put on a bed not put on a gurney. To have this piece of equipment
wheeled around and me taken around from room to room it was like driving a car. They had
people pushing this thing and it was literally like being in a car and that required more space. In
addition to that I was quite amazed as to the equipment that they wheeled around me. I did not
have to leave this bed in order to have x-rays taken of myself. They brought the x-ray equipment
in to me, they put the plates behind me, they took the necessary x-rays, they did have to move me
off of this bed for a CT scan. Until I reached my room I did not have to be moved and in terms
of right-size it means that all the equipment that hospitals are using and the way it is being
moved around requires more space. It also requires more height and it requires that these spaces
be larger even though they are not intensifying the use of those spaces.
Just in sort of sun-uning that up, when I did get to my room it was a single occupancy room. It
was a little bit smaller than a double room. I don’t ~know if they had any double rooms there. It
appeared that all the rooms on my ward were single occupancy rooms. Again, they were able to
move equipment around me and get around me and it was very easy to function. I think that is
really the future of hospitals and where this is going. So the increase of floor area in terms of
right-sizing is very appropriate. I experienced it first-hand.
Early on in this process I had mentioned something which was I guess the idea of the English
industrial revolution, and how towns progessed and how industrial cities ~ew up, and that they
were centered around some sort of industry. With that came the whole idea of having the
manufacturing or the industry and then you had housing for the people that work there and
provided different levels of housing and people being able to get around, and the whole idea of a
village or a colmnunity. In reviewing the Village Alternative Concept today goes back to that
early discussion that I had mentioned in one of the very early hearings, I think it was the first or
second hearing. So I don’t look at this necessarily as an alternative I look at this as Staff and
Stmaford being able to react back to me in terms of some of my earlier comments. So I am
looking at this as a working document. I am looking at it as a real possibility and there are some
things in here that I think will be quite important in terms of beginning to move fora~ard in terms
of the necessary ageements, the rezoning, and the Draft EIR and reviewing those tkree
documents. So I thil~ this is a very important concept and it is a very important step forward
and I am talking it very seriously at this point.
Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
So those are really my comanents with regard to this. I think this process is moving along very
nicely and I am very pleased with what I see. I thiI~k it is beginning to bear some very nice fi-ait.
Chair Hohnan: Vice-Chair Garber, comments.
Vice-Chair Garber: May I borrow you pointer and have your slide on commercial diagam up on
the board? Great, thank you.
These dia~mns speak volumes and I really appreciate having them. I want to talk about two
pieces here. One this pm-ple area here which is essentially the Downtown University Avenue
area and the second one obviously is the mall over here. The fact that they are separated, not
together, is the ~eat problern/opportmaity that the City has to create some real s5~ergy betaveen
these two business loci. The perception as we all ~know is that the University Avenue ends at the
Caltrain Station and that beyond that is another district, another part of the city, and I think one
of the great opportunities that we have, and I am speaking not specifically of the project here but
of the Village Concept, is to extend the perception of the colranunity beyond the Caltrain Station
into the mall. That synergy represents one of the best and most dynamic opportunities for
~owth in the city in terms of its economic engine. It will be a focus of my interest in t~),ing to
find ways to emphasize that, cause that to happen, and make that perception become a manifest.
It also then begins to speak about how we can thimk about creating ~owth, creating guidelines
for ~owth within the mall as wel! as within the University Avenue and importantly the
interstitial space in between.
Would you please flip to the dia~am called Linkages? I am particularly interested in this heavy
blue anow that is going from University Avenue as it crosses Alma and E1 Camino and becomes
Pahn Drive. That arrow needs to be larger or the largest one on that page, again because it
represents that com~ection, but importantly it represents the old perception which is still true
today but it is an old perception about what the relationship of the city is to Stanford, the town
and gowned. That there is a civic entity and that there is an educational entity. That is part of
what we are fighting here. The connection that needs to be made and I thi~:Lk the big an’ow that is
missing here goes from University Avenue to the mall. Now we have taro little ~een arrows
there that are pedestrian but the reality is that connection needs to be the strongest one in my
mind and needs to be the one where all focus is, and begins to suggest how it is we should
support that linkage along the way.
To Conm~issioner Lippert’s comment people need a reason to walk someplace as well as to
yours. By way of example the City of Chicago has the Ma~aificent Mile which is slightly more
than a mile and people are bused in from all around the country when it is ten degees above zero
and they are happy to walk that mile, but then there are reasons to go and do that and we don’t
have that here. So with that let me go finally to this dia~am, Connectivity, Visibility, and Public
Streets. If I understand this one correctly the little fuzzy circles, such as this one where PF
Chang’s is, really are suggesting that there is a place as opposed to a transit zone or a pathway, a
place as opposed to a pathway. I think what this diagan needs, again thi~@:ing about the Village
Concept and not speaking specifically about the project, is a little fuzzy line that goes up
University Avenue and back down. Then I believe it also needs a fuzzy line here. I don’t think
Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
this is really a fuzzy line there. PF Chang’s would be very happy to be perceived that way but on
a civic scale I don’t think that is what that building is all about. However, the opportunity here is
to create lil~kages that are not just somehow jun~ping this big gap that is fiom here to here
perceptionally which is literally only a four and a half minute walk if that. It is to create some
place to be that is here, and I am not talking about the Intermodal zone, I am talking about
something that gets me from University Avenue and from the mall to someplace that is halfway
between. It is not a threshold it needs to be a place.
So there are a couple of concepts that I think are really important here in temps of what those
things are that are along that route. One is the E1 Camino Guidelines, which suggest that there
are buildings along this as we have in other places down E1 Camino that there are buildings
along E1 Camino at the mall. Now, Stanford will argue that where they really want those
buildings, where they really want that density, where they really want those people are inboard.
That is a strategy that supports what this is. If the rest of the mall is supporting not just what
happens here but what is happening tl~roughout here we need to create that wall just as you had
mentioned earlier in your presentation to be able to have not only strong centers, what a village
is, but also strong boundaries because you can’t have one without the other mad they are both
self-supporting. In this case those buildings at the street edge support the overall concept of
what the village residential concept is that you are getting. That is one.
Two. The way this area here, this is the Red Cross area, has been indicated and talked about in
recent years as for housing. I don’t think that is the right function there. That should be a public
function. It should have an opportunity to be and engage the conmaunity on a much more civic
scale and I would strongly suggest that we roll back out the study that Stanford and the City did
in 2000 that looked at entertaima~ent and a theater center in that location. That is a very good
function, fairly low impact, utilizes resources in a reciprocal way during the day and the night,
and can operate very successfully as that sort of linkage. In terms of marketplace there are
opportunities in the marketplace for theaters of a larger size more along the Berkeley Rap or the
ACT size of 600 seats or more. By the way, this would also not conflict with the recent plans
that Stanford made public to create a musical theater which is again imbedded inside their
campus as opposed to being on the periphery of it and creating m~d support the li~ages that we
are trying to make through there.
I have about a half dozen more comments but I have taken enough space with this one at the
moment. I will return it to others.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, comments.
Co~rnnissioner Keller: First let me underscore that a number of the comments made by Vice-
Chair Garber and in particular the idea of the symergy of a performing arts center and I think a
conference facility which I think would go together very well and also provide additional uses
and s?q~ergies with the hotel and with the shopping center particularly since a lot of the shopping
center doesn’t go on very much later into the evening and a performing arts center would allow
for continuation of that.
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
With respect to providing linkage between the Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center I
look forward to consideration of a potential high-speed rail station with hotel and shopping and
car rental and bike rental and zip cars and that providing the core linkage comaecting those two.
There is a good chance that the high-speed rail station wil! be on the ballot in November. The
main opposition is fi’om the airlines which are hurting pretty badly now. However, the current
polls do indicate that it is leading.
With respect to the issue of right-sizing I think that the need to seismically retrofit the hospital to
the extent that there are buildings that need to be retrofit that are critical patient care units by
2013 it essentially provides the timing or the hook for doing the hospital portion of the project.
It provides the timing but doesn’t provide the requirement for right-sizing. It reminds me of
what happened in the Berkeley Hills when they had the Oakland-Berkeley Hill fire. Basically a
bunch of houses were burned down so people decided they were going to rebuild their homes.
Rather than rebuilding their homes the exact same footp~-int and the exact same fixtures they
basically upscaled them. They built bigger homes with more fancy fixtures and all those things
because while you are building it, while you have the architect there, and while you have the
contractor there, and while you are going through all the trouble you might as well build the
biggest thing you can reasonably afford and build in that location. I think that is the kind of
thing that is going on and I don’t fault Stanford for doing that. It is perfectly reasonable to tie
things together but I thi~k we need to understand what is going on.
I will close with three conmaents which I think are very important things to consider. One is I
went to a meeting last night put on by N~,DC for members of Environmental Entrepreneurs. At
this meeting was a discussion about the future of water and the fact that in west water is going to
be a crisis. It is already begimaing to be one and it is going to be more in the future. Mark Twain
26 said that whisky is for drinking and water is for fighting over. I think we are going to have a lot
27 more problems with water. So the thing is that with global wanning or climate change we are
28 going to have a decreased snow pack in the Sierras and that decreased snow pack is going to lead
29 to a decreased amount of water available. There is legislation currently in the California State
30 Legislature to basically start moving on the process of limiting the amount of water we have.
31 One of the things is that cities are going to be told to produce plans to reduce their water use by
32 20 percent per capita. It is going to be hard to decrease our water use by 20 percent per capita if
33 we are basically going to be considerably expanding the water use for our industrial base. So we
34 are going to have to figure out how to do that. So I think that is a very severe consideration as an
35 impact of climate change water limitations is a serious consideration. Considering that the life of
36 this project is not merely 2030 but I would suspect that this project will be - these buildings are
37 going to be there for 100 ?,ears or more assuming that civilization continues that far. These
38 buildings are going to be there. So we need to thi~ about the water availability during the life
39 of these buildings.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The second closing comment is with respect to the trips. I understand that Stanford has been
working diligently to minimize the number of trips a~d to stay within the limit of the number of
trips fiom the 2000 County General Use Permit. I think that of all of the employers in the area
Stanford has done a phenomenal job. It is amazing what they have done in terms of making it so
that students connnute by alternative transportation. Reducing the number of single occupancy
vehicles from in the 70 percent range to in the 50 percent range in a span of the last few years is
Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
phenomenal. I applaud Stanford for doing that. To the extent that we can do that in terms of the
employees at the Shopping Center and the employees at the Medical Center and provide the full
panoply of benefits that are provided to Stanford Ulziversity employees, to those who are
employees of the Medical Center and the Shopping Center seems to be a good way towards
mitigating the amount of trips that are going on, also by providing public transit, expanding
public transit, so that people who are in Palo Alto and other conm~unities don’t have to make
multiple changes of buses in order to get to the Shopping Center and the Medical Center and
perhaps the rest of campus. There are 2,000 people who live in Palo Alto and work on the
Stanford campus and that doesn’t count the number of people xvho live in Palo Alto and work in
the Shopping Center and in the Medical Center which are considered part of Palo Alto. I don’t
have any figures for that but someday we will get that. So the issue of providing colmectivity of
shuttle services so people don’t have to change, every change of shuttle bus, every change of bus
from one mode to another, from one bus to another, from a train to a bus, when their schedules
are not meshed reduces the propensity for people to take transit.
Finally, Palo Alto is on the hook for a huge ABAG requirement. What I understand is that a
si~aificant portion of that ABAG requirement is the expansion proposed here for the Medical
Center and the Shopping Center. While not all of the employees of the Medica! Center and
Shopping Center qualify for below market rate housing, and I believe that that question was
asked I thii~c by Con:unissioner Sandas with respect to how many people are eligible for that, it
does indicate the issue that the biggest portion of the housing need here is for below market rate
housing in order to mitigate the impacts that are being put on Stanford through the ABAG
requirements. What I understand in terms of the calculations that were done by the City Staff is
that somewhere on the order of $300 million to $500 million are needed for providing the below
market rate housing that wouldn’t be provided ttn’ough inclusionary zoning, in other words the
low and very low. I presume that a fair number of the increase in employrnent at the Shopping
Center and some of the increase in employment at the Medical Center would probably quality for
below market rate housing. Therefore Stanford providing that housing to me makes a lot of
sense rather than pushing that cost onto the taxpayers of Palo Alto.
One of the things that needs to be considered carefully is we talked about housing sites that are
located for example on Quarry Road, two of the housing sites located on Quarry Road on either
side of the Hoover Pavilion, those housing sites are already considered for the General Use
Permit. We can’t double count the housing. The housing that is required for the General Use
Permit should not be counted as the housing that is for mitigating the Medical Center expansion
and the Shopping Center expansion. Those need to be counted separately and they need to be
distinct.
One of the things that is interesting is in terms of Palo Alto providing housing on Alma Street
where we previously had an electrical substation that electrical substation was consolidated with
the electrical substation on Quarry Road, which it appears to me might be where the Stanford
General Use Permit wants to put housing. So I ana not clear how that is going to work at all in
terms of putting housing on top of an electrical substation that has simply been consolidated and
I am not sure where else it is going to go.
Page 46
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
So we need to make sure that consider carefully the issues of where housing will go and not
double counting the housing.
I think that Stanford Medical Center provides a wonderful resource for the co~mnunity although I
guess some people have not used it and other people have in the conmmnity. It certainly
provides a wide range of services to a wide range of people not only in Palo Alto but to the
surrounding community. It is definitely a regional facility. So in closing I tt~imk it is important
not only to think about the fiscal impact on Palo Alto but to think in terms of the benefits to Palo
Alto and the benefits to other cities and how the disproportionate amount of fiscal impact and
traffic impact and housing impact and utility impact is on residents of Palo Alto while the benefit
accrues to a larger community. Understanding the differential in that spread of the concentration
of impact versus the spread distribution of benefit I think needs to be considered as part of the
fiscal impact study. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Fineberg, comments to the alternatives.
Commissioner Fineber~: As I said before I think the Village Concept is geat. I am not sure I
understand why it is being handled as an alternative as opposed to being applied as desig-n
criteria in the other alternatives but I will leave that to Staff to figure out the best way to handle
that ......
I would echo Commissioner Garber’s comment that we look at the general area not just the
project. I would agree with him that looking at what we do in the space between Downtown and
the front of the mall and how we treat the front of mall is going to be mission critical for the
success of it becoming a village and not just isolated places.
More generally I don’t even know if it needs to be said, it is absolutely critical that the hospital
be seismically safe. It is absolutely critical that the hospital be modernized. Whatever words are
used it needs to be one of the best medical facilities in the world. That is something that drives a
lot of the economic ~’owth in the area and it is something that keeps a lot of us alive. So to me
discussion of that isn’t on the table.
The question is going to be then in the details of how we get there. We are being asked to
consider a lot of things that we don’t have information yet. We don’t 1,mow what the proposed
language will be in the zoning ordinances. We don’t even know how the hospital zone will be
defined. So there is a little bit of a chicken and egg because you have to have the project to
1,mow whether it will fit in the criteria and then the criteria have to be designed to fit the project.
So that is going to be something that is going to be a little bit of a dance I thi~ to get it right.
I think it is going to be absolutely critical that the Staff ensures that the Draft Enviromnental
Impact Report is perceived by the public as having real data, data that is meaningful. We will
lose confidence from our citizens, from our voters, if it looks like the emperor’s new suit. It
nmst be realistic and that will allow us to detemaine what the mitigations will be. So I am
confident that it is going to go in that direction.
Page 47
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3!
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 Then I k_now this beyond the scope of the alternatives for the EIR but I would like to also
2 encourage Stanford to continue working with our City Staff in helping to make this a win!win
3 process. To make it be so that we can get the best outcome for the hospital, for the mall, and for
4 the city because they are inseparable. If we end up with awful traffic problems, guess what?
5 The people commuting to Stanford are going to have awful conm-mtes. The people that work
there are going to have awful colmnutes. If we don’t have the right connections onto the gounds
we are going to have people who are ill trying to get to an emergency room that can’t get there.
If we don’t get these details right there are no do-overs. So I think working in a positive,
cooperative way to make it a win/win would be a good thing.
I am also very pleased to hear that we will be having another review of this before the DEIR so
that we can get some more information as it comes into being. Frankly, I thi~: I have more
questions leaving this than I did after reading the Staff Reports. That is a good thing. So I am
pleased to hear that it will be coming back to us. Thank you.
Chair Hohnan: I will take a few and then I know Commissioner Lippert and Conmaissioner
Garber have more comments too.
I have struggled with the Village Concept whether it is a~ alternative or a desig-n principle and
have come to see it as both for very practical reasons. That said, I am not satisfied that as it is
presented in the Staff Report that it is only one alternative. That the Village Concept needs to be
applied to a scaled down project, at least one scaled down project as well. Then I have a couple
of changes I would suggest to the Village Concept as defined in Attacl-nnent C. All nay
conmaents are really addressed primarily on page tT, vo.
Under D-1-3, there is a lack of specificity in identifying the variety of retail and comrnercial
services. There is also a lack of specificity not just on this page but elsewhere about mixed use.
The reason that is important when looking at the alternatives is it is the diversity of the cost of
services as well as the mix and appropriate mix of services. Stanford Shopping Center is a
wonderful facility but if we are going to have mix of housing, a diversity of housing stock there
and everything is price scaled the way Stanford Shopping Center is now it is not going to be a
village. So I think that is really an important consideration. So I would ask for some better
clarification, specificity in the definitions for mixed use and for variety of retail and conmaercial
to address those concerns.
Then also as I referenced earlier the EIR process does this but as a Village Concept as applied to
the project D-l-c says enable projects and advance project objectives. I am troubled by the
words ’enable project’ in this desi~a approach, this village approach. So analyze and advance
project objectives I think is fine because what you are doing is looking for a better way to see if
these objectives can be accomplished with fewer impacts thus an alternative. But to enable
projects I think in this Village Concept definition I think we are going to lose some credibility in
keeping that in there. So that is having to do with the Village Concept.
All the alternatives need to be well enough defined and the impacts clear enough so that we don’t
have just tl=’ow away alternatives. I have seen some DEIRs where the alternatives are three
sentences long and say it doesn’t accomplish the goals of the project and so it wasn’t a feasible
Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
alternative. That is not acceptable fiom my point of view. So those alternatives have to be well
enough vetted so as to be useful and informative.
Just a reiteration, we talked earlier about and I don’t know how far we can go with this on the
alternatives but the ttvee-dimensional simulations and models that those be incorporated into our
alternatives because that is the only way we are going to see what the physical and aesthetic
impacts are going to be.
Referenced earlier as part of the alternative that some of the development be on the Redwood
City campus for instance. I am not asking for a full exploration of that but if that is the intention
just so that is stated so that it is clear when people are reading the alternatives that it doesn’t say
that there is no place for it to go but here. So it is just a matter of clarity.
The conm~ents that actually Vice-Chair Garber picked up on as well, the fiscal impacts, I would
like to l~ow more when those are going to be available and if it is possible for those to be
available earlier because that is also a big part of this. This is a procedural thing but if we get the
fiscal impacts report, we get the DEIR at the same time that is a lot to digest. I would hope that
we would get that report sooner. The fiscal impacts that Mr. Jordan mentioned I think are
appropriate ones the jobs and housing requirements, traffic and improvements, public services
and schools.
Then the other thing I want to make sure is included in the alternatives is the implementation.
Housing is an easy exanple to use but traffic would be another easy one to use. Implementation
so that we don’t have a phasing of a project such that the development exists and the mitigations
or components happen without a timeline or sometime after so that we are experiencing the
impacts without having the housing built or without having the traffic mitigations in place.
So I will stop there. I think Conm~issioner Lippert was next.
Commissioner Lippert: First of all I would like to say that I appreciate the comments of my
fellow Commissioners particularly Vice-Chair Garber and his comments with regard to linkages.
I support those comments wholeheartedly.
I want to go back to the housing numbers or the housing analysis for just a moment. If we
required or it was necessary for Stanford to build housing associated with the expansion of the
Medical Center, the additional body count or number of people that work there, the differential.
I think it would be helpful to understand how many housing units would be built in the BMR
category but specifically they would be required to build so many BMR units associated with the
amount of housing units that they built and then in addition to that it would be helpful to ~know
how many employees would need BMR units in order to be able to live in proximity to and work
at the Medical Center, and then if there were overages above and beyond that. That would take
into account employees that are not in a differential that could make use of BMR units in
proximity to where they are working. So I think that there would be tt~ree distinct numbers I
guess. That was really my only con~nent.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber.
Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2,~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vice-Chair Garber: Several items. First the fiscal impact study, jobs, traffic, public services,
and schools were mentioned and I would like to add two other bullet points to that if they aren’t
already in the agenda which they may be, taxes and then obviously retail. Specifically impacts to
University Avenue.
Desi~a alternatives, several things were mentioned that I will support. One of which was
looking at the impacts of different compositions of beds, more, less, allocated differently. I
would expect that those conversations would occur. They may only need or require a back of an
envelope sort of analysis to establish whether they are viable alternatives or not but they are good
reminders for us.
Location of the hotel. I would not support a location that is further away from E1 Camino. I
would support a location that is closer to it for the very reasons that I outlined previously. The
closer that those functions and utilities are to E1 Catnino the geater they support University
Avenue and the s?qnergy betaveen those two pieces. I would support the hotel being bigger if the
City found that that could be supported economically.
Let me leave desi~ alternatives for a moment I will probably come back to that. In temps of the
Village Concept one of the other general principles is preservation of the ~ound plane for
pedestrian activity would lead me to remind us of some of the comments that have been voiced
in previous meetings that parking lots and structured pat’king, above gade structured parking, do
not support that. Under~ound parking to fi’ee the ~ound plane for pedestrian and other retail
activities and other business sorts of activities is a far better use for a limited area particularly
going forward.
I would suspect that in addition to the project measures of success which may have to do with the
amount of se~-,’ice that the hospital provides or the an~ount of retail sales that the mall generates I
would look to see a measure of the city’s success be the improved business s3aaergy between the
mall and University Avenue. Without that we have really missed the big opportunity here.
Finding a way to benchmark that on a going forward basis I think will help drive us toward that
as a driver for the project.
Development A~eement. Reco~aizing that the Village Concepts that have been discussed,
many of which are potentially outside the nature of the project or certainly the project
boundat-ies, the Development A~eement I expect can be molded to fit any nmnber of different
criteria in that the A~eement does not have to support an actual physical change but cat~ be a
driver of an agenda beta~een the City and Stat~ford to support these issues on a going forward
basis. At the very least could support and demand that the two organizations, the City and
Stanford at large, the University, mall, hospital, etc., work together to drive those concepts for
the support of both entities.
Let me pause there and let someone else speak and then I will come back to design alternatives.
Mr. Williams: Madam Chair, it is a quarter to eleven and I think you need to assess where you
are before our eleven o’clock hour.
Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: I thilzk we are nearly done. Comlnissioner Keller, you had a conm~ent?
Conm~issioner Keller: Yes. First I would like to mention I agree with a lot of the comments of
Commissioner Lippert with respect to housing. It is also worthwhile to consider that housing
provided by Stanford has long been useful for recruitment of faculty and staff. I think that
providing housing for the Medical Center will continue to be useful for recruitment of staff at the
Medical Center especially considering the shortage of nursing that exists.
With respect to the fiscal impacts I think that it would be helpful to understand the quantification
of the mitigations that are proposed to Stanford. The quantification of the cost to Stanford of
providing the mitigations in particular as a fraction or percentage of the total project budget. So
it would be helpful to know is the project budget $1.0 billion, $5.0 billion, $3.0 billion, whatever
the project budget is and then understand whether a mitigation is one percent of that, ttzree
percent of that, ten percent of that so that can be quantified in appropriate scale.
With respect to the Development A~eement I think it is helpful to understand that a
Development A~eement locks things down. I ttcink that there may be possibilities to lock down
some things and not others. For exan~ple it could be possible not to lock down the amount of
impact fees and that as impact fees change over time then the new impact fees can be computed
rather than the ones locked in at the time of the Development A~’eement. So I think there may
be some choices as to what actually is permanently locked down for the Development
A~eement and what things are left for future analysis such as Site and Desi~a Review.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Fineberg, you had another comment.
Commissioner Fineberg: Yes, thank you. I would like to make one last conm~ent about the key
desig-n elements on the handout about Village Concepts. This page. There are five items
bulleted. The first is Traditional Core with Centrally Located Public Gathering Places. Second
is Not Isolated Project but Com~ected, I am going to paraptzrase. Third is Streets that are Dual
Purpose with Movements and Exchange. Fourth is Compact, Higher Density, and Mixed Use
with Diversity of Housing. Fifth is Walkable, Bikable, and Transit Oriented. As the different
alternatives are being considered and as the Village Concept is implemented I would urge that all
of those key desi~a elements be inco~-porated. I have seen other projects in Palo Alto that are
implanting the Cottage Cluster desig-n or other things where they select the New Urbanism ideals
and we end up with a project that is only compact and higher density and higher. I would like to
see that not happen with this. The benefits, the good pieces of this, are huge. If we can get it
right the benefits outweigh the negatives that you get from having more compact, higher
buildings. If we don’t add those other bulleted items then all we end up with is something that is
tall and dense. So let’s work to make sure that we get all those pieces. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, you had a last connnent?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes, just real quickly. The City has standards with regard to what we
look at transit oriented development. I think at the California Avenue station we have a 2,000
foot radius circle. I think that that same standard should probably be applied when we are
Page 51
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1 gauging or looking at these distances. In addition to that I l~ow that there are people that take
2 the train to Downtown Palo Alto and they walk much further on the University Avenue side than
3 they might walk on the Stanford University side, the E1 Camino side. We really should be
4 looking at those as almost like mirrors of themselves when we are doing the analysis. There is
5 no reason why if somebody is willing to up University Avenue they should be willing to walk
equal distance and that should be promoted on the Stanford University side.
I just want to say one other comment here. I an very disappointed that you didn’t include any
images of Sie~ma or Venice in your presentation today.
Mr. Fukatii: This first picture on the top right is from Venice. I squeezed one in.
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber, you had some wrap up comments?
Vice-Chair Garber: I do not have any comments relative to No Project Alternative. Reduced
Intensity Alternatives, the sorts of things I have been speaking about this evening are alternatives
that are not necessarily less intensive but presumably can have less impact and/or another way of
stating that the impact that they do have may lend ~’eater benefits to the connnunity at large. So
I ant not sure if some of the things I have spoken about the E1 Camino Guidelines, the structuring
of the ~ound plane, things of that sort would apply directly to a Reduced Intensity Alternative or
simply some other alternative I don’t really ~know. I will leave that to you to define.
I will lend support to the Chair’s argument that there should be scaled versions of the Village
Concepts because I thirtk they are valuable at any size scale of project. Maybe scale is the wrong
word but whatever that is these are concepts that even if they happen in part can be done in such
a way that they support a longer term opportunity.
I want to be really careful that the difference of some of the things that I have been talking about
here as alternatives versus mitigations aren’t seen necessarily as mitigations in that they are
simply different ways of coming at it as opposed to chasing the impacts here with mitigations. I
an~ trying to get on the other side of the table here and recognize that there are ways that the
project at an incremental cost at worst can create a higher benefit to the community and
potentially to the applicant as well.
Two other quick things relative to the Village comments and this is again in preservation of the
~ound plane. The conversation about bridges spanning E1 Camino in particular I think I would
have a hard time supporting concepts that take people off of the ~ound plane, especially in
conmaunities such as this. Doing another Homer passage or something of that sort I think all
those things are ~eat but we should be so lucky to have as many people crossing E1 Camino as
cross 5th Avenue or Michigan Avenue, etc. That sort of interaction is exactly the sort of
interaction we want there.
Chair Holman: I think the last comment I will make is actually in response to your Reduced
Intensity Alternative is probably a better phraseology than scaled village concept alternatives.
Page 52
1
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
One comment about page six in the Staff Report, Reduced h~tensity Alternative for the Medical
Center, I am being a literalist here. It says that should it be determined that significant impacts
related to traffic generation, housing demand, utilities consumption, and!or public ser~dce
demand would occur as a result of the project then a Reduced Intensity Alternative or
Alternatives could be considered. That is not an all inclusive list. I am being a literalist, I did
say that. So I just want to make sure the scope is larger than that.
I guess maybe just a word to the applicant, which is that as I stated earlier the Village Concept I
think is appropriate for it to be considered as alternatives but also it is a way to rather than the
City responding to an applicant’s proposal it is a way for the City to drive what the proposal
should be. So I think this is taking a proactive approach to that. So let them respond to what we
thi~ is the better way to approach a solution for their proposal.
Jus to make sure that or hopefully that they will be continuing to work with the Shopping Center
too so we have that cohesive and Village Concept that can be worked out with the cooperative
efforts of everybody.
Commissioner Keller, did you have something else to say?
Commissioner Keller: Yes, quickly. With respect to the DEIR I thi~ there was a comment
made and I certainly support having three-dimensional models available of the various
alternatives so that we can compare them. To give a somewhat outlandish idea we have required
stov poles for some kinds of things we want to understand I am wondering if there is an
equivalent to story poles so that we can actually get an idea of what these hospital and the
Medical Center and the Children’s Hospital will look like at such heights and structures.
Something to think about to get a lot of people to understand what we are talking about. Thank
yOU.
Chair Holman: So with that we will close item two a~d our minutes will be available for
Council? I should have said and didn’t that I do concur with largely every cormnent that other
Commissioners made.
Page 53