HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-10 City Council (12)City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JULY 10, 2000 CMR:318:00
SUBJECT:LAND USE AREA ANALYSIS FOR THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY
MEDICAL CENTER:REVIEW AND COMMENT ON
BACKGROUND CONTEXTUAL DOCUMENT FOR REVIEW OF
CENTER FOR CANCER TREATMENT AND PREVENTION AND
AMBULATORY CARE PAVILION/PARKING STRUCTURE IV
PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to receive and make comments on the Area Analysis for
the Stanford University Medical Center.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In compliance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program L-46, which
states "Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical Center,"
Stanford University has prepared an Area Analysis for the approximately 85 acres in the
City of Palo Alto of the Stanford University Medical Center. The area includes Stanford
Hospital and Clinics, the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, a portion of the
Stanford School of Medicine and the Hoover Pavilion, as well as the approximately 23
acres in Santa Clara County that encompass associated Medical Center uses along Quarry
Road.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 29, 2000, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) held a
study session to discuss the Area Analysis for the Stanford University Medical Center.
At that meeting, the Commission took testimony and provided staff and Stanford with
comments on certain Area Analysis issues, as follows:
CMR:318:00 Page 1 of 6
Floor Area Ratio Increases
In the Area Analysis, Stanford states its desire for an increase from 0.5:1 FAR to 1:1’ FAR
for five parcels inward of Welch Road (i.e., directly adjacent to the current Hospital’s
area) that are not currently designated with a 1:1 ratio. There are a total of nine parcels
located inward of Welch Road (not including the two parcels within the Pasteur Drive
median). These nine sites total 2,319,567 square feet of land area (53.25 acres). Taking
into account the existing buildings square footages and existing FARs for each parcel, the
area is already built to capacity under existing zoning.
If the entire area inward of Welch Road were rezoned to an FAR of 1:1, an additional
413,933 square feet of building area could potentially be added, not including the
proposed Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion
(CCTA/ACP (see Attachment 1, Table 1, for a complete summary of these inward
parcels). I
The seven-office/professional use parcels outward of Welch Road are all currently
designated with 0.5:1 FARs. Stanford does not proposed any changes to the FAR for this
area, so under a buildout scenario 72,461 additional square feet of building could be
added to those parcels (Attachment 1, Table 2), i.e., current FAR at 0.5:1 minus existing
structures.
There are almost 37 acres along Quarry. Road that are part of the Stanford University
Medical Center. Of these parcels, only the Hoover Pavilion is located within the City of
Palo Alto and it has a maximum FAR of 0.25:1. Two of the four County parcels are
proposed by Stanford to be utilized for 350 units of Medical Center-related housing (the
comer of E1 Camino Real and Quarry Road and the comer of Arboretum Drive and
Quarry Road). The remaining two parcels are proposed by Stanford to eventually be
developed at the same intensity as the inward Welch Road parcels (a 1:1 FAR). This
means that a potential 449,017 additional building square feet could be added to this area
(not including the two parcels proposed for housing) of the Stanford University Medical
Center (Attachment 1, Table 3).
Regarding floor area and zoning, the Planning Commission discussed the following four
issues:
Increased clinical and medical office FARs should be concentrated inward of
Welch Road. Perhaps all Welch Road land could be re-zoned to Public Facilities
(PF), with sunset clauses for existing uses. The City could also look at
development of Medical Center-related housing on the outboard side of Welch
Road (a residential village).
Mixed-use areas could be placed along Quarry Road, near E1 Camino Real and the
Stanford Shopping Center.
CMR:318:00 Page 2 of 6
Housing (in the County areas) should not be isolated from the remainder of the
Medical Center, but rather should be linked with landscaping, pedestrian ways, etc.
Potentially, Hoover Pavilion’s uses could be moved to within the central Medical
Center and the Hoover Pavilion area could be adaptively reused for housing.
Building Height Increases
Stanford identified its future wish to increase the building height limit of 50 feet to 75
feet, excluding mechanical penthouses. Stanford stated that this allowance would
recognize the increasing floor-to-floor heights needed in hospitals and clinics to
accommodate contemporary engineering support systems. The Commission expressed
openness to consider this increase, indicating that taller buildings should make sense for
transit-oriented uses and that such a height increase should be evaluated more completely
in the future. The Commission also expressed, concern about impacts on views of the
hills from downtown Palo Alto across the Medical Center.
Circulation and Traffic
At the Planning Commission meeting, Stanford presented its intent to provide improved
circulation at the Medical Center. These improvements included the following:
To increase and make permanent the supply of front door parking to serve patients,
physicians and care givers, irregular visitors and evening shift workers.
To provide general-purpose staff parking in perimeter locations not needed for
clinical facilities.
To expand the campus shuttle for improved service to perimeter parking and
public transit hubs.
To implement bicycle facility improvements, such as substantial increases to
weather proof and secure Class I bike parking near primary entries.
To continue to improve off-street connections to Palo Alto and Menlo Park
housing and transit hubs and the central campus.
The Commission commented that the Area Analysis does not address specific impacts on
traffic and the means to deal with them. The Commission stated that new development at
the Medical Center provides an opportunity for land use changes to positively affect the
mass transit and other transit modes. Stanford has indicated a willingness to continue to
integrate its Medical Center planning with the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station
(PAITS) study and to reinforce the Quarry Road corridor as the connection to the
intermodal center downtown Palo Alto.
Pasteur Drive Median
The Area Analysis proposed the Pasteur Drive median for an underground parking
structure to accommodate permit and visitor parking. Landscaping would be installed
above ground to maintain the ceremonial entrance to the Edward D. Stone Building
(hospital). In March, the Commission commented that such an underground parking
CMR:318:00 Page 3 of 6 3
structure presents a great opportunity for Stanford and the patrons of the Medical Center,
with Pasteur Drive becoming an entryway to the Medical Center. The Commission
further specified that the specific design of the median should emphasize compatibility
with the natural environment. But the Commission also cautioned that more emphasis
should be placed on alternate entrances to lead vehicle traffic to the Medical Center from
other ways through the campus (Quarry Road, Stockfarm Road and Campus Drive West).
The following are staff and Stanford’s responses to the Planning and Transportation
Commission’s comments on the Area Analysis. These comments have been translated
into inserts for the Area Analysis, as shown in Attachment 4.
Floor Area Ratio Increase
Stanford has stated that it wishes to keep the Area Analysis-designated FAR increases as
currently indicated. However, Stanford will seriously consider the alternative of
additional housing outward of Welch Road if a higher FAR than 1:1 can be designated
inward of Welch Road to allow replacement of Medical Center functions in the core area.
Stanford believes that allowing Hoover Pavilion to continue to serve outpatient clinic and
education functions constitutes a valid mixed-use approach with housing proposed on the
two adjacent sites. Staff recommends that this discussion occur as part of the analysis
conducted for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and, accompanying rezoning.
Building Height Increases
Program L-3 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City should "maintain and
periodically review height and density limits to discourage single uses that are
inappropriate in size and scale to the surrounding uses." The Comprehensive Plan
clarifies this program by acknowledging that the citywide fifty-foot height limit has been
respected in all new development since it was adopted in’ the 1970’s. Only a few
exceptions have been granted for architectural enhancements or seismic safety retrofits to
non-complying buildings. It was clear, from the Commission’s comments that the
Medical Center is a very different area of the City and that hospitals and medical uses do
need to be highly concentrated for many reasons. The Stanford University Medical
Center may justify an exception to the rule in Palo Alto, if Stanford can demonstrate that
any increased height over 50 feet does not mean increased floor area and that there are no
other adverse impacts to surrounding land uses, buildings or vistas. Future applications
from Stanford will facilitate further discussion of this issue.
Traffic and Circulation
The Area Analysis provides policies for efficiency and clarity, the two concepts that will
guide Stanford’s planning for access and circulation at the Medical Center. Stanford
states that the Medical Center aims to provide an overall network of circulation, via roads,
paths, bikeways, other pedestrian ways, service areas and parking lots. In addition to the
existing Stanford University Marguerite shuttle, the County of San Mateo Health Services
shuttle, and the Veterans Administration shuttle, Stanford proposes: (1) expansion of the
~CMR:318:00 Page 4 of 6
campus shuttle for improved service to perimeter parking and public transit hubs, (2)
bicycle facility improvements such as substantial increases to weather proof and secure
Class I bike parking near primary entrances, and (3) improvements to off-street bike
connections to Palo Alto and Menlo Park housing and transit hubs and the central
campus. Since the Planning and Transportation Commission meetings, Stanford has
announced discontinuance of the Menlo Park shuttle route.
Staff recommends that Stanford strengthen the relationship between the Medical Center
uses and its circulation proposals and connections. There should be a very strong link
(physically and visually) between the Medical Center and the intermodal facility at the
University Avenue train station. Also, future mitigation measures for new development
proposals at the Medical Center need to address and incorporate modes other than private
vehicles/parking. Many of the mitigation measures from past EIRs have emphasized
widening of roads and intersections as mitigation measures for increased traffic, as
opposed to encouraging usage of alternative modes of transportation.
Pasteur Drive Median
The Commission responded positively to the proposed underground parking structures
with aboveground landscaping. This project is part of the formal application of the
Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion that is also before
the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, section 15060 Preliminary
Review, the Area Analysis is not defined as a "project," because the Area Analysis will
not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by the City of Palo Alto. The Area
Analysis is an informational report that the City will comment on as to compliance with
City goals andpolicies.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Land Intensity Summary
Planning Commission staff report (without attachments) - May 24, 2000
Planning Commission minutes and staff report (without attachments) -
March 29, 2000
Area Analysis with City policy inserts
CMR:318:00 Page 5 of 6
PREPARED BY: Nancy M. Hutar, Contract Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD GAWF
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~, ~ a_~@
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
David Neuman, Planning Office, Stanford University, 655 Serra Street, Stanford,
California 94305-6115
Sarah Jones, County of Santa Clara Planning Office, 70 West Hedding, East Wing
7th floor, San Jose, California 95110
City Manager’s office, City of Menlo Park, 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park,
California 94025
Ken Schreiber, City Consultant, 432 Webster Street, Palo Alto, California 94301
¢O CMR:318:00 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND INTENSITY SUMMARY
Stanford University Medical Center
TABLE 1
Parcels Inward of Welch Road
Facility
300 Pasteur Drive
Edward D. Stone bldg and
modernization project
300 Pasteur Drive
median (Sand Hill, Welch )
median (Welch, Blake-Wilbur)
900 Blake Wilbur Drive
Blake Wilbur Clinic
701 Welch Road
H & W company
703 Welch Road
Professional Center
725 Welch Road
Lucile Salter Packard
Children’s Hospital
777 Welch Road
offices
801 Welch Road
California Ear Institute
851 Welch Road
Stanford Medical Center
facility
Site Area
(s,f.)
1,335,113
45,738
98,010
131,115
124,581
71,874
258,746
70,567
43,560
55,321
Existing
Building s.f.
1,563,534’
0
0
73,100’
57,100
24,680*
258,746*
12,960
14,472
12,550
Maximum Build-
out Under
Current FARs
1,335,113
I:1
45,738
98,010
131,115
1:1
62,291
0.5:1
35,937
0.5:1
258,746
1:1
35,284
0.5:1
21,780
0.5:1
55,321
t:1
Additional
-228,421
45,738
98,010
58,015
29,155
12,437
-15,954
22,324
7,308
42,771
Maximum Build-
out Under All
1:1 FAR
1,335,113
45,738
98,010’
131,115
124,581
71,874
258,746
70,567
43,560
55,321
Additional
-228,421
45,738
98,010
58,015
91,445
48,374
-15,954
57,607
29.088
42,771
1101 Welch Road
Medical Plaza
TOTALS
228,690
2,463,315
41,430
2,058,572
114,345
0.5:1
2,193,680
72,915
144,298
228,690
2,463,315
187.260
413,933
Notes: * Information obtained from Stanford. All other square footages obtained from the County Tax Assessor.
Square-footage numbers to be finalized between Stanford and the City. Both parties have slight discrepancies in site area and existing building square-tbotage.
7
TABLE 2
Parcels Outward of Welch Road
Site Area Existing Building Maximum Build-out UnderFacility(s.f.)s.f.Current 0.5:1 FAR Additional s.f.
730 Welch RoadStanford Health Care 123,274 31,170 61,637 30,467
750 Welch Road
offices 88,426 28,034 44,213 16,179
770 Welch RoadThe Lathrop Building 97,574 42,035 48,787 6,752
780 Welch Road
offices 61,419 24,566 30,710 6,144
800 Welch Road
blood bank 65,340 25,008 32,670 7,662
900 Welch Road
offices 119,790 56,381 59,8.95 3,514
1000 Welch Roadoffices 60,584 28,549 30,292 t,743
1100-1180 Welch Road 186,437 150 units Multi-family zones have an FAR of 1:1, but it is
apartments undetermined how many extra units could be built.
TOTALS 802,844 235,743 308,204 72,461
Notes:All numbers obtained from the County Tax Assessor.
Square-footage numbers to be finalized between Stanford and the City. Both parties have slight discrepancies in site area
and existing building square-footage.
TABLE 3
Parcels Along Quarry Road
Facility Site Area (s.f.)Existing Maximum Build-out Under
Building s.f.a 1:1 FAR Additional s.f.
Southwest corner of El Camino Stanford has identified this site for hospital residentReal and Quarry Road 270,072*0
vacant land housing.***
211 or 285 Quarry Road
Hoover Pavilion ’ 458,250 108,350’114,563’***6,213
Stanford has identified this site for hospital resident348,480*0 housing.***
75,560*
Southeast corner of Arboretum
Drive and Quarry Road
daily and event
parking
401 Quarry Road
Psychiatry building
Quarry Road trapezoid
permit parking
TOTALS
518,364’*
Notes:
1,595,166 183,910
518,364
632,927
442,804
449,017
*Based on the acreage in the County General Use Permit application. All other square footage obtained from the County Tax Assessor. ** Based
on the Quarry Road Amendment EIR. *** The County General Use Permit estimates up to 350 units for both sites (total). **** The Palo Alto
Zoning Code limits FAR on Hoover Pavilion site to 0.25:1. Square-footage numbers to be finalized between Stanford and the City. Both parties
have slight discrepancies in site area and existing building square-footage.
9
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
(without attachments)
May 24, 2000
Stanford University Medical Center
See the following pages.
1
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Nancy M. Hutar DEPARTMENT:Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: May 24, 2000
SUBJECT:Proposed Stanford Area Analysis: InCompliance with the
City of Palo Alt0 Comprehensive Plan, program L-46 which states "Work
with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical Center",
Stanford University has proposed an Area Analysis for the approximately
85 acres in the City of Palo Alto of the Stanford University Medical Center
(which includes Stanford Hospital and Clinics, the Lueile Salter Packard
Children’s Hospital, a portion of the Stanford School of Medicine and the
Hoover Pavilion). The proposed Area Analysis also includes the
approximately 23 acres in Santa Clara, County that encompass associated
Medical Center uses along Quarry Koad.
RECOMMENDATION
No formal action is required.. However, staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
(1) receive and make comments on the Area Analysis, and (2) forward its comments and
the Area Analysis to the City Council for their comment.
BACKGROUND
On March 29, 2000, the Planning Commission held a study session to discuss an Area
Analysis for Stanford University Medical Center. At that meeting, the Commission took
testimony and provided staff and Stanford with comments on issues highlighted by staff
13
for discussion. Specifically, the main issues presented by the Area Analysi~ were as
follows.
Floor Area Ratio Increases
In the Area. Analysis, Stanford identified an increase from 0.5:1 FAR to 1:1 FAR for
those five parcels inward of Welch Road (i.e., directly adjacent to the current hospital’s
area) that are not cu.~ently designated with a 1:1 ratio. There are a total of nine parcels.
located inward of Welch Road (not including the two pardels within the Pasteur Drive
median). These nine sites total 2,31.9,567 square feet of land area (53.25 acres). Taking
into account the existing building square footages and 8xisting FARs for each parcel, the
area is already built to capacity.
If the entire area inward of Welch Road were re-designated so that all parcels had an FAR
of 1:1, then an additional 269,995 building square feet could potentially be added. The
difference between these two buildout numbers is 269,635 square feet. (See Exhibit A,
Table 1, for a complete summary of these parcels). If the Center for Cancer Treatment
and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion is approved for its proposed additional square
footage of 205,450 (218,000 square feet for the Center minus the 12,550 square foot
building at 851 Welch road that is proposed to bedemolished), then 64,185 additionai
square feet of building could potentially be added in the future to this area inward of
Welch Road with all parcels designated with a 1:1 FAR.
For the seven office/professional u~e parcels outward of Welch Road, all are designated
with 0.5"1 FAILs. Stanford does not propose any changes to the FAR for thisarea, so
under a buildout scenario 72,46I additional square feet of building could be added to
those parcels outward of Welch Rbad (Exhibit A, Table 2), i.e., current FAR at 0.5:1
minus existing structures.
Ther.e are almost 37 acres along Quarry Road that are part of the Stanford University
Medical Center. Of these five parcels, only the Hoover Pavilion is located within the City
of Palo Alto and it hasa maximum FAR of 0.25:1. Two of the four County parcelsare
proposed.by Stanford to be utilized for 350 units of hospital resident housing (the comer
of E1 Camino Real and Quarry Road and the comer of Arboretum Drive and Quarry .
Road). The remaining two parcels are proposed by Stanford to eventually be developed
at the same intensity as the inward Welch Road parcels (a 1:1 ratio). This means that a
potential 449,017 additional building square feet could be added to this area (not
:including the two parcels proposed for housing) of the Stanford University Medical
Center (Exhibit A, Table 3).
-2-
Regarding floor area andzoning, the Planning Commission disdussed the following four
issues on March 29, 2000:
o
Increased FA_Rs should be concentrated inward of Welch Road. Perhaps all. Welch
Road lands could be re-zoned to Public Facilities (PF) with sunset elauses for
Existing uses. We could also look at development ot" Medical Center-related
Housing outward of Welch road (a residential village).
Mixed-use areas could be placed along Quarry R~ad, near E1 Carnino Real and the
Stanford Shopping Center.
Housing (in the County areas) should not be isolated from the rest of the Medical
Center -link with landscaping, pedestrian ways, etc.
Perhaps Hoover Pavilion’s uses could be moved within the centrial Medical C~nter
and adaptive housing placed at Hoover Pavilion,
Building FIeight Increases
Stanford identified its future wish to increase the building height limit of 50 feet to 75 :.
feetl excluding mechanical penthouses. Stanford stated that this allowance would -
recognize the increasing floor-to-floor heights needed in hospitals and clinics to
accommodate contemporary ’engineering support systems. Regarding building heights,
the Planning Commission expressed openness to consider this increase, indicated that
.taller buildings should make s~nse for transit-oriented uses and that such height increase
should be evaluated more completely in ttie future.
Circulation and Traffic
At the Planning Commission meeting, Stanford presented its intent to provide improved
circulation at the Medical Center. These improvements included the following:
To increase and make permanent the supply of front door parking to serve patients,
Co .mmunity physicians and care givers, irregular visitors ata.d evening Shift worker..
To provide general purpose staff parking in perimeter locations.not needed for
clinical facilities.
To expand the campus shuttle for improved service to perimeterparking and
Public transit hubs.
-3-
To implement bicycle facility improvements, such .as substantial increases to
Weather proof and secure class I bike parking near primary entries.
To continue to improve, off-street bike connections to Palo Alto and Menlo Park
Housing and transit hubs and the central campus.
On March 29, the Planning Commission commented that the Aria Analysis does not
address specific impacts on traffic and the means to deal with it. (with respect to mass
transit). The Commission stated that new development at the Medical Center provides an
opportunity for land use Changes to affect positively the mass transit and other transit
modes. Stanford has indicated a willingness to continue to integrate its Medical Center
planning with the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station (PAITS) study and to reinforce the
Quarry Road corridor as the connection to the intermoda.1 center and downtown Palo Alto.
Pasteur Drive Median
The Area Analysis slated the Pasteur Drive median fo.r an underground parking structure
to accommodate permit and visitor parking. Landscaping would be installed above
ground to maintain the ceremonial entrance to the Edward D. Stone Building (hospital).
In March, the Commission commented that such an underground parking structure
presents a great opportunity for Stanford and the patrons of the Medical Center with
Pasteur Drive becoming a great entryway to the Medical Center. The Commission further
specified that the specific design of the median should emphasize compatibility with the
natural environment. But.the Commission also cautioned that more emphasis should be
placed-on alternate enhances to lead vehicle traffic to the Medical Center from other ways
through the campus (Quarry Road, Stockfarm Road and. Campus Drive West).
DISCUSSION
The Following are staff and Stanford’s responses to the Planning Commission’s
comments on the Area Analysis.
Floor Area. Ratio Increase
Stanford has stated that they wish to. keep the Area AnalySis designated FAK increases as
currently indicated. However, Stanford will seriously consider the alternative of
additional housing .outward of Welch Road if a higher.FAR, than 1:1 can be designated
inward of Welch Road to allow replacement of Medical Center functions to the core area.
Stanford believes that allowing Hoover Pavilion to continue to serve outpatient clinics
and education functions constitutes a valid mixed-use approach with housing proposed on
the two adjacent sites.
~:~olan ~plaOtv~pcs~Area Analysts~H~- 7 ~
-4-
Staffrecommends that this issue be part ofanyfutur.e development discussion for the
Medical Center, prior to city acceptance of any more planning applications for this area.
At that time, the Area Analysis should be refined to provide Stanford policy and.
economic feasibility discussions for centralized medical facilities, additional housing
surrounding the Medical Center, and Hoover Pavilion re-use. Part of this further analysis
needs to identify clear linkages between the different areas of the Medical Center and
how these linkages are related to other parts of the campus.
Building Height Increases
Program L-3 of the Comprehensive Plan States that the City should "maintain and
periodically review height and density limits to discourage single uses that are
inappropriate in size and scale to the surroundings uses." The Comprehensive Plan
clarifies this program by acknowledging that the citywide fifty-foot height limit has been
respected in all new development since it was adopted in the 1970s. Only a few
exceptions have been granted for.architectural enhancements or seismic safety retrofits to
non-complying buildings. It was clear from the Planning Commission’s comments that
the Medical Center is a very different area of the City and that hospitals and medical uses
do need to be highly.concentrated near each other for many reasons. The Stanford
University Medical Center may necessitate the exception to the rule in Palo Alto, if
Stanford can demonstrate that any increased height over 50 feet does not mean increased
floor area and that there are no other adverse impacts to surrounding land uses or
buildings. Future applications from Stanford will facilitate further discussion of this
issue.
Traffic and Circulation
The Area Analysis provides policies for efficiency and clarity, the two concepts that will
guide Stanford’s planning for access and circulation at the Medical Center. Stanford
states that the Medical Center aims to provide an overall network of circulation; via roads,
paths, bikeways, other pedestrian ways, service areas and parking lots. In addition to the
exis.ting Stanford University Marguerite shuttle,the County of San Mateo Health
Services shuttle, and the Veterans Administration shuttle, Stanford proposes: (1)
expansion of the campus shuttle for improved service to perimeter parking and publi~
transit hubs, (2) bicycle facility.improvements such as substantial increases to weather
proof and secure Class I bike parking near primary entrances, and (3) improvements to
off-street bike connections to Palo Alto and Menlo Park housing and transit hubs and the
central campus.
Staff recommends that stamford strengthen the relationship between the Medical Center
uses and its circulation proposa.ls and connections. There should be a very strong link
~’:~plan~pla(ltv~ocs~Area AnalystsSHb-’16
-5-
(physically and visually) between the Medical Center and the intermodal facility at the
University Avenue train station. Also, future mitigation measures for new development
proposals at the Medical Center need to address and incorporate modes other than private
vehicles/parking. Many of the .mitigation measures from past EIRs have emphasized
widening of roads and intersections as mitigation measures for increased traffic, as
opposed ~o strengthenin, g usage of alternative modes of transportation.
Pasteur Drive Median
The Commission provided a positive response to the proposed underground parking
structures with aboveground landscaping. This project is part of the formal application of
the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion that is also
before the Commission tonight. Staff recommends that any. further discussion be.handled
du.ring that public hearing. ¯
Miscellaneous
The Comprehensive Plan directs the City to work with Stanford to prepare an "area plan"
for .the Medical Center. Staff believes that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan has been
met in that the City now has an understanding of the direction Stanford is taking for the
future of the Medical Center. The Commission encouraged Stanford to share this Area
Analysis information with the City of Menl0 Park. Stanford has agreed to. do so.
NEXT STEPS
The Planning Commission’s comments will be forwarded to the City Council for its
consideration in July 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, section 15060 preliminary
Review, the Area Analysis is not defined as a "project", because the Area Analysis will
not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by the City of Palo Alto. The Area
Analysis is an informational report that the City will comment on as to compliance with
City goals and policies.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this project was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Notice has
also been mailed via notice cards to all property owners and iesidents within a 300-foot
radius of the analysis boundaries,
-6-
’ ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
¯ Exhibit D:
Parcels Inward of Welch Road
Parcels Outward of Welch road
Parcels along Quarry Road
Stanford Area Analysis
COURTESY COPIES
David J. Neuman, University Architect]Planning Office, Stanford University, 655 Serra
Street, Stanford, California 94305
Sarah Jones, Countyof Santa Clara Plannlng Office, 70 West Hedding, East Wing
floor, San Jose, California 95110
Jan Dolan, City Manager, City of Menlo Park, 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park
California 94025
Ken Schreiber, City Consultant, 432 Webster Street, Palo Alto, California 94301
Prepared by:Nancy M. Hutar
Reviewed by:Lisa Grote
Division [-Iead Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
-7-
~9
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AND STAFF REPORT
March 29, 2000
Stanford University Medical Center
See the following pages.
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
2
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 ......
March 29, 2000
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 PM
City Council Conference Room
Civic Center, ist Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners:
Kathy Schmidt, Chair
Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair
Jon Schink
Patrick Burt
Owen Byrd
Phyllis CasseI - in conflict with Item 1
Bonnie Packer - in conflict with Item 1
Staff,"
Lisa Grote, Acting Chief Planning Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Asst, City Attorney
Ray Hashimoto, Zoning Administrator
Amy French, Planner
Nancy Hutar, Contract Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Ed Gawf Planning Director
Chairman Schmidt: I’d like to call to order the Planning and’Transportation Commission
meeting for March 29, 2000. Would the Secretary please call the rol!.
I’d tike to note for the record that Commissioner Cassel will be not be here at the Study Session
because she has a conflict of interest in the Stanford project in that her husband works for SLAC.
Also newly appointed Commissioner Packer will not participate in this Study Session because
she has a conflict of interest. Her husband is a retiree from Stanford and her son is currently
receiving a tuition benefit at Stanford. They will j oin us later this evening.
The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Chairman Schmidt: .I have no cards for that so we will move on to Agenda Changes, Additions
and Deletions. We have none of those at the moment.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to the meeting time.
Chairman Schrnidt: We will move on to our first item. Yes?
Commissioner Byrd: I thought we might have one agenda change.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, should we do it later or now?
Ms. Furth: I think it is appropriate to do it at this point in the meeting since the item has been
Ms. Grote: Item 4, 101 Page Mill Road, has been resolved. That appeal was withdrawn this
aftemobn. So that would not be heard tonight.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Then we will move on to our Study Session. This is for the
Proposed Stanford Area Analysis.
proposed Stanford Area Analysis: Review and comment on the proposed Stanford
Area Analysis. In eompliance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, program
L-46 which states, "Work with Stanford to prepare an area analysis for the Stanford
Medical Center," Stanford University has proposed an Area Analysis for the
¯ approximately 85 acres in the City of Palo Alto’ that encompass the Stanford Universi~
Medical Center (which includes the Stanford Health Care facilities: Stanford Hospital
and clinics - and the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital), the Stanford School of
Medicine and the Hoover Pavilion. The proposed planning analysis also includes the
approximately 23 acres in Santa Clara County that encompass associated medical uses
along Quarry Road. The proposed planning analysis is not a development proposai for
specific buildings, parking and uses. The proposed document is an analysis of existing
land uses and intended future programming and infrastructure needs. These future need~
are discussed in the context of campus planning, community design principles and the
overall goals of the Medical Center. The proposed analysis includes three, main sections:
(1) an introduction With a purpose and history of the project; (2) the plan elements that
include principles, land use, circulation and urban design; and (3) development standards.
Environmental Assessment: Per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,
Section 15060 Preliminary Review, the proposed planning analysis is not defined as a
"project" because the analysis will not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by
the City of Palo Alto. The proposed analysis is an informational document that the City
will comment on as to compliance with City goals and policies. This item is tentatively
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
I0
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4!
42
43
44
scheduled to also be discussed by the City Council at their regular meeting of Monday,
June 5, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Ed Oawf, Planning Director: I think this holds the record for the longest punic notice that
I’ve ever heard. This is a Study Session the purpose is to look at the area around the Stanford
Medical Center and propose the policy of the Comprehensive Plan. We have. a series of veterans
here and the real question as we look at future proposed developments is what’s the context in
which these buildings are presently located and what the context in which any new building
should be located. As you drive or walk around that area and look at the buildings you can see
that. Once I did that I understood exactly what the Comprehensive Plan was trying to get at in
the direction. So tonight it is intended to be that type of discussion. I’ve asked Dave Neuman,
the University Architect, to be present. What we’re going to do is have a presentation by City
Staff, Nancy Hutar, who has been the project manager on this. Then David will go over the
Stanford perspective. I found it very interesting because there are a lot of things, a lot of history,
a lot of reasons why things are the way they are. You may know some, you may know all of this
background but I think it is very important, it was for me at least, to get that background. Even if
you’ve heard it in the past, I think it is importarit to refresh our thinking on that and our
understanding of it.
This is not a discussion of a specific project. There is a specific project that will come to you
that’s in the pipeline right now. You got the Draft EIR about a week ago. It is going to ARB in
late April and scheduled to come to the Planning Commission on May 3, 2000 and then
tentatively set for Council deliberations sometime in June. So you’ll have an opportunity to do
that.
What we want to do is sit down with the Planning Commission and really talk about the context
areas before you saw the project. So we can have a ptanning discussion, if you will, rather than a
project review discussion. This is really the purpose of tonight’s study session. We located it
here to make it as conducive, if you will, to discussions and less of a feeling that we are making a
presentation to you and then you vote on something.
One more point and I think it’s an important point. It was for me at least as I looked at the
Stanford issues. It is very easy to look at Stanford issues piece by piece, not just project by
project but area by area. That is one day I’m talking to someone about the Stanford Research
Park. Another day I’m talking to someone about the Stanford Shopping Center. You think they
are separate discussions but if you step back it is all Stanford lands. I think one of the important
things for us as Staff to not forget, and to always remember is that, as we look at projects to step
back and look at the bigger picture - what is Stanford. This is very imporfant. We discussed it
last fall when we were preparing our comments to forward to the County on the General Use
Permit. This is the map that shows the basic Stanford campus area and holdings. As you know,
Stanford is 8,000 or so acres in size. Most of that.is what I at least would call open space - lands
on the other side of JSB and foothills. So a good portion of it is also organized area. We have
divide that from a planning standpoint by functional areas. You have the Stanford Research Park
in this area. Let me give you a quick orientation, Page Mill Road, E1 Camino, Sand Hill, JSB
Ci.tv of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
turning into the foothills. The blue area is BA. Again the specifics of it are not as important as
the overall concept.
They have the Research Park here that is going through an interesting redevelopment. It is a
park for the most part that was developed in the 1950’s and 1960’s, at least the first wave. They
were very sprawling single-story research kind of buildings. Very low intensity. What we’re
seeing happen over the last several years is that the land has become more valuable, the intensity
has increased, and consequently the buildings are being tom down and replaced with more
intensity buildings in this location. We see that continually.
The second functional area is what I would call the main academic campus. This includes the
campus housing. This is the urban portion of land that is going through the County process, the
General Use Permit process with the County. The proposal there, at least the proposal that’s
being evaluated for their EIR. The EIR is about.4.0M additional square feet on that campus.
That’s a rough calculation. It is 2.0 M square feet of non-residential use that’s being proposed
and 1.5-2.0 M or so square feet of residential space. I’m doing this from memory but the
magnitude I think is correct. There are about 2,600’additional units in there. So that’s the
second area, the academic campus.
The third area is the Sand Hill corridor the one that was approved a couple years ago and is being
constructed right now. You probably know the details of that and the intensity of what is being
constructed better than I do. That’s the third area that’s sort of by itself as a functional unit that
clearly is undergoing change and significant development is occurring there.
The fourth area is the red area here, the shopping center. The shopping center for the most pai-t
is built out but they still have about 80,000 square feet of additional square footage that they
could build. So that’s the fourth area.
The fifth area is a little h~d to give a nice title or descriptor. It is sort of what’s left over after
you’ve designated the other fot~r. The area is shown on this map by a dark line. We’ll get into a
lot more detail but it includes land in the City, and land in the County. That’s one of the reasons
why I think it is very important to always step back and look at the larger picture before we get.
into the specifics. One of the other sort of interesting twists, and I didn’t really comment on it,
but portions of this are in the County and portions in the City and literally the line runs through
the middle of a parking lot in some cases. So it is very hard to differentiate in some cases which
jurisdiction it is in.
This little area we are talking about tonight is sort of an interesting area because it does include
both City lands, about 62 acres and 23 acres of County jurisdiction. I think it is an area that,
again, as I drive and walk around the area and look at the area, I see very clearly what the
Comprehensive Plan was trying to get at when they directed us to look at this area befor~ we
review future projects.
As I conclude I will say that I think it is important to have this larger picture. We will continue
to develop this in more detail as we proceed, not only with this project but I think even more
City of Palo Alto Page 4
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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
importantly as we get the General Use Permit reviewed this summer in preparation of making a
recommendation to the City Council and to the Com~,ty, I think this kind stepping back and
looking at all of the Stanford lands, looking at all the building that is being proposed or approved
or is under consideration is very important both from a Iand use standpoint as well as a traffic
standpoint. Finally, I think just having a good understanding of what is occurring within out
community.
With that let me give Dave Neuman the floor and introduce, one other person. That is Sara Jones.
Sara is a planner with the County. She is here tonight. I think we appreciate very much Sara
being here. I think the City and the County working together on all these issues is essential.’
That includes not only the obvious, the General Use Permit and that process with the County,
which we have been active in and we appreciate that invitation of allowing Us to be involved. It
is also important that the County be involved with us as we work on our projects and as we see
the two jurisdictions and making sure that there is coordination between what we’re doing and
what the County is doing in regards to Stanford. With that let me ask Nancy to go over some of
our comments and a little bit of our analysis and then as I said David Neuman will give us an
overview from Stanford’s perspective.
Ms. Nancy Hutar, Contract Planner: As Ed was saying the area analysis includes the Medical
Center. It does not include the Medical School. Stanford considers that part of the campus uses
and I’ll let them talk to that part of it. -
In the area analysis the long range goals, policies and programs that Stanford has outlined center
on the continuation of the Stanford Me~tical Center as a world class and world respected
organization. We really feel that medicine and also to keep pace with the changing healthcare
system in this country. To achieve these long range goals Stanford’s six main objectives for the
Medical Center are for identity, unity, security, warmth in welcome, economy, and flexibility.
Stanford’s presentation will expand more on these ideas. Staff believes that the goals, objectives
and policies discussed in the area analysis are for the most part in compliance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. However, we have identified four issues with respect to, we call them,
implementation programs, that were identified in the area analysis as issues tonight for
contemplation and discussion. Also for discussion when forr~al deveIopment proposals come
before the City from Stanford for this area.
The first issue has to do with their proposal for increased floor area ratios for those parcels that
are inward of Welch Road. I’ll get up and point them out back here. Currently this area of the
Medical Center has a mix of zoning and with it a mix of floor area ratios. The research office
section has a floor area ratio of .5:1, the public facilities has a floor area ratio of 1:1, the Hoover
Pavilion area has a floor area ratio of .25:1 and that is set forth in our zoning code, That’s a
special floor area ratio for this punic facility designation on this site. For the County land there
are no specific floor area ratios. I believe that they just analyze them on a project by project
basis. The entire Medical Center area has been historically treatei:t as one parcel with respect to
the distribution of square footage for the floor area ratios. The proposed changes in the area
analysis is for these parcels here to change from a .5 floor area ratio to a 1:1 floor area ratio
which would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning change.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
3
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
~0
g2
43
45
A question was posed to Staffthis afternoon with respect to numbers about this in the Staff
report. The numbers in Table 1 compared to other numbers in the text regarding the build-out
number. The Table 1 square footages deal with just the existing square footages at the site right
now. When I originally did the calculations for the Staffreport, I included all of the area
analysis in this calculation. So I did some recalculations to make the numbers a little more
straightforward because there is no increase proposal for the outward portion of Welch Road and
because there is a difference between the City and the County. Just to give you some new
numbers if nothing was changed right now at all, the zoning or the build-out in this area, because
some of the parcels are underdeveloped. The existing build-out just in the City portion this side
of Welch Road is roughly an additional 168,000 square feet that could be built there. In the
County land these two parcels are proposed to have housing on them in the area analysis. So just
in this area I estimated a .5 floor area ratio and that could roughly accommodate.another 104,000
square feet of building area.
If these five par~els are changed to a 1.1 floor area ratio then the build-out for this area, just in
the City, would be approximately 438,000 square feet. The area analysis also proposes to
potentially have this triangular area also at a 1.1 floor area ratio and just in that area potentially
another 188,000 square feet could be built over there. With respect to these outward parcels of
Welch Road because there is nothing proposed there and they are underdeveloped right now
acdording to their floor area ratio, fight now perhaps potentially another 85,000 square feet could
go over here. ,I didn’t count this apartment area over here. They are separate.
A second issue that Staff identified was the increased building height allowances that are
proposed in the area analysis. Now the maximum building height for the Medical Center. is 50
feet. Stanford is proposing and eventual 75 foot maximum because the additional height is
desired or needed to accommodate mechanical spaces for updated hospital equipment. That
would require a zoning code amendment.
A third issue is circulation and parking. Any increase in floor area or any square footage that is
built on the site would place.obviously a greater demand on the existing circulation, transit and
parking systems. Also environmental documentation will be completed for each individual
project as they. are brought forward.
The last issue we identified was the Pasture Drive median. The area analysis talks about an
underground parking structure in this area, which may require a Comp Plan amendment and a
zoning amendment. The Pasture Drive median underground parking structure and some of the
inward parcels proposed at a 1.1 FAR are part of the formal center for cancer treatment project
that has been formally submitted by Stanford and is going to come before the Planning
Commission in May at a Special Meeting. That’s it.
Mr. Gawf: Thank you Nancy. Let me say that we’ve had a good working relationship with
Stanford Planning on that. We’ve had s.ome interesting discussion and I think a good planning
process. The document that we have is a good start on putting together this context that we
talked about. One of the things that I found especially helpful in understanding this was
City of Palo Alto Page 6
2~
1
2
3
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
understanding some of the background and thinking that Stanford Planning was do~g as they
were laying out the building locations and looking at the planning of the campus and the Medical
Center. So I think it would be helpful for David to walk us through some of their campus
planning concepts and where they see themselves going on this. David.
Mr. David Neuman, Stanford Planning: My mind is still swimming with all those numbers. I’m
going to try to put a context around all this discussion as best I can. I want to introduce several
people that are here tonight because I don’t pretend that I can answer all of your questions.
There are a number of people that are very intimate to the program issues involved with the
Medical Center which has been stated as involving both the Medical School and the hospitals
and clinics which includes both sites.
I’d like to introduce Michael Hindry who is the Chief Operating Officer in the School of
Medicine and is responsible for planning and programming, within the School of Medicine. Paul,
you’re going to have to help me with your title.
Mr. Paul Watkins, Hospital Administration: I’m responsible for the client’s physical demand for
services and those kinds of things.
Mr. Neuman: I hesitated because there was change and then there wasn’t change and now we
are back again. I wasn’t quite sure what your title was. Paul is day to day with parking and
transportation with the operations of the Medical Center. His colleague and the counterpart to
Michael, Bruce Axon, who was not able to come tonight.
Charles Carter, as many of you know, is Assistant Director in my office for Cdmmunity
Environmental Planning. He has been working with me on this since I got l~ere which has been
nine years since we started this effort. Catherine Paulter is our Environmental Planner
responsible for CEQA issues but also has been working directly with the hospital on the Cancer
Treatment Center. This is not specific to the Cancer Treatment Center tonight as you know. It is
my part to try to make it simpler than what it is..It is a very complex topic. I don’t deny that.
As Nancy and Ed indicated there is a mosaic. What I’m going to try to do is peel the mosaic
back and pull it apart and then put it back together again in hopes that will enable discussion.
41
42
43
44
45
The ftrst graphic I want to show is this one. I think it is a simple one. This is the same
orientation as the other drawings that you see. This fundamentally is twomaj0r programmatic
activities that occur at the site. Of course they are very interconnected. In terms of land use
planning they are fairly distinct. There are anomalies in this as in every master plan. The blue
area is the Medical School. If you had a chance to read the document you know that the Medical
School was in San Francisco for the first 50 years or so of its life. We shared a hospital here that.
had a residency program or whatever it was called then. That was and still is the Hoover
Pavilion which was the Palo Alto Hospital and that was.located approximately in the blue a~ea
near Downtown. Of course it predates the shopping center and everything else in that area. It
was thought of as the site that was between the campus and the community and was the place
that Stanford felt would be accessible to the community and accessible to the residents. Probably
a lot of them use the train to come down to Palo Alto at that time. When the new hospital was
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
planned and the Medical School or Stanford decided to move the Medical School to the campus.
That was all planned in one massive structure, what we still call the Edward R. Stone Complex.
Each of the individual buildings now have a name but this cluster of more than 1.0M square feet
which again I’m sure you’ve all seen, at least the outside of if not some of the inside, is actually
comprised of two parts. The hospitals and clinics area which is this red zone in here which has
both in-patient care and out-patient clinics. It continues to have that. Then the Medical School
which are the blue blocks down on the lower side. At that time for whatever reasons the
agreement when Palo Alto sold their interest in the new hospital to Stanford (a very bright
decision in terms of if you look at it in the long termof healthcare and the dilemmas that saved
you a lot of concern indirectly) the annexation was such that the City wanted to keep the hospital
in the City area. This is different from the normal arrangement that we have with Palo Alto
Which is only those tax generating activities, leasehold activities, with Stanford are annexed to
the City, like the shopping center and the research park. In this case the entire building complex
was annexed. So a portion of the Medical School which was and still is Medical School activity
of teaching and research is in the City..Since that point in time most of the expansion of the
Medical School activities in terms of research and teaching have been in County area. Most of it
being down here to the south and what Nancy referred to as "campus." It is part of the core
campus. The research that goes on there is very simitar these days in particular to that which
goes on in biology and chemistry and some other areas. There are some exceptions, the
cardiovascular research building that Dr. Schumway, famousfor the first heart transplant, was
able to fund and was built adjacent to the hospital. The reason being at that time the plan was to
actually connect that building into the surgery suite with an above-ground connector. That never
happened but that’s why that building ended up here in particular rather than down here with the
rest of the research centers. Over time that has been the anomaly in terms of that general
arrangement.
In regards to the hospital it has expanded and I’m going to go through this with some drawings.
It’s to the north and in the City area away from the research side. So. we really have this split
here shown in blue and red, with the hospitals and clinics moving towards the shopping center if
you will or back into Paio Alto and the research or more strictly acad’emic areas moving closer or
more approximate to the core campus functions.
Charles put the green line on here to indicate that in fact just as a design concept for you to think
about, the original plan was such that the Stone building complex was to emulate the same urban
design sort of arrangement as the campus. So that Pasteur Drive was developed with its entry,
fountain and so on, to be analogous to the Palm Drive entry and the oval. So the idea is you have
a formal entry coming into a courtyard, formal drop off area, very similar to what happens at the
oval and the main quad. -Only in this case we have a building that was of course 60 years newer
than that one. That also then continues to be our formal, entrance. It also recognized the fact that
patients are coming from the community, not coming from the campus, so that this is our major
patient and visito.r.entry point. So if you keep that in mind as I go through these diagrams I hope
it wiI1 be helpful.
This is called, "In The Beginning." What I’m going to do is take you through about six or seven
of these. It is just a progression of how the building areas developed and so on. Here is San
City of Palo Alto Page 8
2
5
6
7
8
9
I0
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
Francisquito Creek. There were a couple of Spanish land grant origin parcels that Leland
Stanford acquired. There is a discussion that’s constantly had about has this area been
subdivided. The answer is fundamentally no. So when we get into technical discussions around
the PF Zone and so on, this is a background to that. So after Stanford acquires the land the first
buildings were built, the estate which has since been demolished, was out in the site of the
tuberculosis hospital.later to become Children’s Hospital. This is the winery, sometimes called
the Red Barn, which still exists. The California Caf~ and so forth is right here. This was
agricultural land that was part of the Stanford comer as Opposed to this being the stud farm or the
stables area where the other red barn is located. Of course these were exercise tracks as was this
one for different horses, trotters and pacers the family had. Here is the development of the first
area where it was originally planned to have the formal estate relocated here. Well, Leland dies
and a mausoleum gets built and the Stanford’s stay in the old house.
Same orientation just before the San Francisco Earthquake. Leland Stanford had died by that
time. Jean Stanford died in 1905 just before the earthquake but she had finished all of these
projects. Here is the main quad of the Stanford Museum. And here is that winery again back in
here. You can see more land showing agricultural development. These were leaseholds at that
point in time. So since the University was founded the notion of leasing land for agriculture or
income purposes as a part of this.
This is 1935. Here’s the Hoover Pavilion. It was built at the height of the architectural ~-~
movement and of course it has been noted as such, as being an element of architectural history
around here. You have it listed in one of your important historic resources. The reason that I’ve
been told, I haven’t looked at the written documentation, that the area was at .25 FAR was the
understanding that we did not want to deveIop intefisely around this building because of two
things: the arboretum and because of protection of this building even at that point in time when it
was the move to the new hospital in the 1950’s. You can pick out other things that were
happening in here if you want to later with train stations and housing and collage terrace and so
forth.
Here we are around 1960 the shopping center is ~uilt there were a couple of ancillary structures
built next to the Pavilion. This is actually the corporation yard for the hospital for quite some
time. The Stone Building complex is built and the first of the Welch Road buildings are located
there. One of which is being proposed for removal as part of the project proposal for the Cancer
Treatment Center.
Here we have today, more or less, it’s 1995. The plan that you are looking at now we had
worked on since 1991. It isthe result of a Council action that as part of the approval for the
development of what we call the Blake Wilber Clinic and parking structure #3, which is this one.
In 1991 Council asked that before Stanford comes back, this is nine years ago, with another
building proposal that there needed to be some sort of an area plan or analysis that was
sympathetic to and complied with Pal0 Alto’s Comprehensive Plan which began to be updated
shortly thereafter. So we participated in that process of working with the CPAC group in
representing the Medical Center and the notion of what’ s been recorded now for five or six
years, the idea of having this area what we call, "inside of Welch Ro.ad," inside of course in a
City of Palo Alto Page 9
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
parochial term. It means inside meaning towards the campus. If you live in Palo Alto, what
does that mean? It’s just south and east of Welch Road. But that this was the area where we saw
the most intensive development because medical centers cluster their most intensive
development around their most intensive activities which are the in-patient care. The nature of
the Medical Center is an academic center for one of the leading medical schools is that.we have a
lot o~ critically ill patients that come to this hospital for specialized treatment. They come from
Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and many areas incIuding people from out of the states. They come to
this place because of the special care that can be given there but it is very intensive care. So
intensity promotes having state of the art equipment and the notion.of a lot of people providing
care for an individual patient. So the ratio of the staff to the individual patient would be higher
in an intensive care environment like this than it would be in some other more, what we used to
call, community hospitals. We have more cardiac care patients, we have more cancer patients,
we have.more critically ill patients of all sirras and many times they have two or three critical
illnesses at the same time. So the notion of intensity in the Center is by nature of the program.
The notion of having what we’ve suggested as realistic is having a higher floor height in these
buildings is becaus’e of that intensity and because of the equipment intensity that’s within these
buildings for the different sorts of things that are here now that weren’t even here when we
started this planning in 1991. So I’ll stop tight’now and ask if there are any questions about this.
If it’s okay, I’ll go through the land use plan sequence since 1984.because I think it relates most
directly to what we’re proposing in this area.now. This is our direction for the future. I’ll talk’
about projects that are in our thoughts at the moment, basically our cancer center proposal is
shorthand for an ambulatory surgery and cancer center. We do have needs in the Medical School
and in the Packard Hospital but we have only one other project that we are currently working on.
I’ll talk to you about it, it’s really a placement project that’s in the Medical School._ I’d note that
we checked with the fiospitals and clinics and just for comparisons sake we have one new.project
that we’ve brought forward, that you know of here and that we’re going to work with you on in
¯ the next several months, in the last ten years. Last year we had150 renovation projects. All of
’ those go through a building process. Of course they were [OSHPD] which is Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development because of the nature of the program there and the
facilities. It’s the notion of reusing these buildings is strong and if you go over there any given
day you would be able to see. a number of reconstruction and renovation projects that goes on
within these structures, as I said daily.
This is the original public facility parcel now. Ken Schreiber can tell me what original means.
Let’s just say the starting point of this Stone Building and Pasture Drive entry. The PF indicates
that punic facility area and the zoning associated with it at that time was and still is a 1.0 FAR.
The ’L’ indicates the landscape overlay at Pasture Drive median. I think that I’ve already told
you why the landscape overlay is important to us as well. It is an important space that is similar
in fact to the Palm Drive entry. We’ve made various improvements over time. Also the
informal natuz.e of it and the wildflowers that people like for one month out of the year were
related to the west campus and the fact that this area was undevelope.d at that point in time. In a
sense it was an extension of that area into this space. So as we move forward we have been
planning as part of the urban design criteria in this area analysis is that space be more formalized
in terms of its landscape patterns and its circulation.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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
4l
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Byrd: For you or Staff just briefly, what are the major constraints inherent in the
landscape overlay? Is there any above grade development?
Ms. Grote: There is very little allowed. You can have pedestrian walkways. You can have
actually breaks for automobile traffic to go through like a curb cut or something like that but
there is very little actual activity that is allowed in that landscape overlay.
Mr. Neuman: Or structures.
Ms. Grote: Or structures. You can have impertinent structures but you can’t have primary
structures.
Commissioner Byrd: Does it anticipate passive use?
Ms. Grote: Only for passive use. Only for pedestrian.walkways and things like that, not active
Use.
Commissioner Byrd: Not like a baseball field or soccer or something?
Ms. Grote: Right.
Mr. Neuman! At the time that we were getting ready to build the expansion of the hospital
which became known as the "hospital modernization project" or I-IMP we approached Palo Alto
in 1984 and we rezoned 725 and.900 Blake Wilber. Both of these sit6s were parking lots and
were used by the Medical Center for surface parking. The agreement was to rezone that and Palo
Alto approved that. Between 1985 and 1987 as a result of our increased floor area capacity we
built the expansion to the hospital which included patient rooms, new surgery suite, new
emergency room and new health ward.
It also allowed sufficient capacity that the Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital was then
approved in 1988 by the City. It was built between 1988 and 1989. No increase inthe parcel
size itself. But it did exhaust the existing FAR;
So in 1990 with increasing pressures to develop outpatient care facilities we developed a
proposal for a new outpatient clinic. At that time we requested, and as I said earlier Palo Alto
approved with the condition of doing this area analysis, the inclusion of 851 Welch Road into the
PF parcel increasing its FAR from .5 to 1.0. This allowed that new clinic to be built in 1991 and
1992. It allowed that to’be built without the demolition of this building which is used by the
Medical School for admissions. So with this new building which is approximately 70,000 square
feet, allowing this building to remain which is 14,000 square feet, that again exhausted the FAR
in the PF Zone.
So the current proposal that goes with the cancer treatment building is to follow the same
procedure. In this case, incorporate 1101 Welch Road without any removal of structures. This
City of Palo Alto Page 11
!
2
4
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
1,6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
3~
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
4~
was reacquired by Stanford in the last five years and to add 810 Welch Road into that area.
Again, not tear that building down which is the California [Hair] Institute. These are private
practice physician clinics and the other building is used by our faculty practice program.
If Palo Alto approves that we will keep these buildings but we would remove 85.1 Welch Road a
14,000 square foot building for two reasons. One is to get that FAR and also to provide a better
siting and additional on grade parking for patients next to the proposed Cancer Treatment Center
which is this footprint here.
The area analysis suggests that that same strategy continue. Before I got to that I wanted to
highlight one new thing. With the small amount of FAR that would remain including more or
less the removal of that building and the small amount of ground area coverage that remains we
will propose in the near future a major modification and a partial removal of a portion of the
Edwards Building which is a part of the Stone complex. In addition of that 12-14,000 square
feet in the reconstruction of a portion of that building. We aren’t far enough along to get into the
details but we’re recognizing the significance and importance of this space and so on and its
maintenance of overall architectural character that we do want to explore the possibility of
adding that 12,000 or so square feet into that area. That proposal, you can see from this diagram,
is something we’d be looking at in the next two to five years.
The area analysis suggests that in the future as Stanford would have a need and have reacquired.
the parcels that remain when and if that occurs there are two here and one here. Those three
parcels would then, as proposed in direction, would follow that and we’d complete this southeast
area or the inboard of Welch Road area as one single PF parcel at the 1.0 FAR. This produces
the 400,000 square feet total that we’ve been talking about for.five years minus the 220,000 or so
out at theCancer Treatment Center. So there is an additional of about 168-180,000 square feet
or so. that would be a part of that when and if that’s proposed. Again, we are not proposing that
now other than we’re sayirig we’re.giving it a direction in our planning.
Then eventually these outer areas of Welch Road that are currently OR in zoning would
eventually become PF but at the same FAR. In other words, they become part of the Medical
Center rather than uniquely oriented office buildings. This is the long run. Some of these people
have 99 year leases. What we’re really looking at is where we were asked to give you our best
thinking of the long term what would happen here. That’s what that area analysis projects:
Ms. Furth: When you say PF at the same FAR, do mean .5 FAR?
Mr. Neuman: Yes, .5. We also have PF at 1.5. So it’s at no change there in the short term or the
long term for that specific piece of th( PF zone for the Medical Center. I would also indicate
there is a major renovation plarmed for the Hoover Pavilion. We are already in contact with City
staff and we’ve engaged the architects and engineers that will be doing the programmatic work
we’ve had them engaging with an historic preservation architect to work With him. 86 anything
that would impact the exterior or any significant interior historic fabric would be taken into
account before that would be brought forward.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Burt: What would be your anticipated use of the renovated Pavilion?
Mr. Neuman: The same as it is now which is clinics and medical education.
So I think I’ve covered basically what I wanted to which was to give you a better history of the
site overall, of the designing changes that were approved over the last almost 20 years, and a
snapshot of our advanced thinking in terms of any future projects that might be coming and the
direction that we had in mind. I also touched of the issue about the height. We were at 75 feet
and get that number to one that was workable in terms of adding to the floor to floor height of the
building. I want to point out that some of our buildings in the area exceed the 75 height in the
County area. I think by and large that’s an acceptable resolution. I know that 50-foot height in
Palo Alto sort Of a sacred cow. But the idea that that has been there and there are good reasons
for it and we recognize that. We think there are good reasons to discuss it with you. It is not
anything, our new building does comply with the 50 foot height restriction. We’re just saying in
the long run, which we again are trying to give you, flexibility of begin able to use these spaces
without constructing new floor area Would be enhanced by having a higher floor to floor height.
Commissioner Byrd: As a reference point, except for Hoover tower, can you give us just a
couple of exampl.es of buildings that exceed 50 feet around campus or hopefully in this zone?
Mr. Netmaan: The Beckman Center is between 95 and 100 feet depending on how you want to".
count the exhausts that are coming off of it. I haven’t compared that directly the Polo Alto -."
criteria in terms of wanting to site that. The parables in terms of excessive height, that has what
is ca[led, "interstitial" space which is basically two floors within one. One whole floor that is
. used for mechanical equipment and access to the mechanical equipment, so that they can change
the laboratory’s configurations and so on without tearing out the case work. They can move the
duct work, they can move the electrical, they can move water lines all up in that space. So it
doesn’t have people. It’s just that when you have the 18 feet floor to floor you can sandwich in a
nine foot ceiling for the lab itself but then you have another 8.5 or so where work can go on
while the laboratory is still functioning and they can make those changes. That’s not uncommon.
It is a fairly common practice in major lab buildings. The reason, that would apply to hospital
buildings is that more and more they are using intensive equipment in surgery suites and so on
that have mechanical and electrical requirements that a laboratory would have. So that’s the
main reason that we’re looking at this. Again, the floor area ratio remains the same. It doesn’t
really make any difference, right? We’re not adding square feet. We’re talking about adding
flexibility in terms of being able to use that.
Commissioner Burr: When Ed was speaking earlier, he talked about the need for 25 feet for
various equipment and things, but that’s spread between floors.
Mr. Neuman: Yes, right.
Commissioner Bialson: You mentioned some of the buildings on the outer portion as having
leases that extend 99 years.
City of Polo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
~5
Mr. Neuman: They originally were, yes. Some may be less than that now. I don’t have those
numbers with me but originally Stanford wrote leases in this area that were 99 years. So some of
them from like the 1950’s would go out until 2040. I can’t tell you which ones offthe top of my
head. Some of those have been changed and they are more like 51-55 leases which is our
common practice now.
Chairman Schmidt: I just want to clarify that you show overlays in this area in the public facility
with FAR of 1.0 and you talk about it in an incremental way.
Mr. Neuman: Right.
Chairman Schmidt: Is that then how you envision requesting those changes today? We’re
talking about a planning direction and you’re saying that for this paiticular building, this ledge
that we’re talking about here, we’d like to add that and the PF 1.0 zone and have the building be
70 feet high?
Mr. Neuman: I was with you until that last second.
Chairman Schmidt: Incremental change sort of per building but here is the general direction.
We’re not asking for this whole thing in one fell swoop.
Mr. Neuman: Right. That’s correct. All that we’re approaching the City in the project proposal
is for these two.
Chairman Schmidt: Just for the Cancer Center.
Mr. Neuman: Right, and then the incremental piece that will be left over when we remove this
buildingwe probably, I will say, ,would like to add that to our medical education building. But .
we haven’t finished our plarming on that, It wouldn’t require any new land or anything like that.
Are you following me? These two parcels by themselves generate slightly more than the FAR
required for the new building.
Chairman Schrnidt: Earlier you were saying that you had maxed out floor area for the PF?
Mr. Neuman: Yes, that’s correct.
Chairman Schmidt: So that you have very little and can’t add anything in those zones.
Mr. Neuman: That’s correct. As of today that is correct. Whatever is orange is in the PF zone
and it is utilized to the maximum.
Chairman Schmidt: However, current zoning allows additional square footage elsewhere in the
overall area that we are discussing tonight. I’m still trying to get a handle on potential areas that
Nancy said there was. no explanation for tonight. In the document, the Staff report, it says,
currently all of the buildings includingthe Medical Center and land in the County was 2,257,000
City of Palo Alto Page 14
l
2
3
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
42
43
square feet. On pages 16 and 17 there is another discussion of square footages and it comes up
with the area inboard from Welch Road becomes 1:1 FAR and the total potential build-out could
be 3,276,000 square feet. So that is one million square feet.
Ms. Hutar: I included the whole entire areain that number. So that"s why I redid my
calculations.
Chairman Schmidt: When you are saying the whole entire area what do you mean?
Ms. Hutar: The County land, the apartment land, everything:within that area analysis boundary.
Chairman Schmidt: But that’s still a true statement then in terms of total poten(ial build-out.
Ms. Grote: I don’.t think it’s entirely accurate because I don’t think the apartment area would
develop as commercial square footage or different kinds of medical use or.facilities square
footage. So I think that the revised number that Nancy presented is more accurate. We still are
saying that there is about 160,000 square feet of additional FAR that could be developed under
today’s regulations.
Chairman Schrnidt: With no change?
Ms. Grote~. Withno change. But I think that’s more accuratethan what was unfortunately
included in the Staff report.
Mr. Gawf: For clarification, it is only the area on the screen that David is showing.
Ms. Furth: I think this is without a doubt the most complicated parcel in the City. We’re not
used to seeing a single parcel which has more than one zone on it let alone four or five or six.
Commissioner Burt: Three.
Ms. Fttrth: We calculate FARs by the lot, that is, by site. And our definition of a site is a legal
lot. This is all one legal lot. So the leasehold lines are irrelevant. All you’re left with is the zone
boundaries. So although there is a certain amount of total FAR for all the area it is not
completely functional FAR because the permitted uses in the PF portion of the land are different
than the permitted uses of the office research portion of the land. What I found so perplexing
when I first looked at this project was that they were rezoning land they weren’t plarming to
touch. What they were doing was asking you to increase the total area that can be developed in
that whole brown area, total FAR of the whole brown portion of the site, not any particular
section.
Commissioner Burr: So what is the total amount within that zone? What’s the current built-out
amount? What’s the current allowable? And what’s the proposed allowable?
City of Palo Alto Page 15
37
1 Ms. Hutar: Our calculation just inward of Welch Road, just this area of the City, if nothing
2 changed., I calculated about 168,000 square feet.
3
4 Commissioner Burr: That’s how much is currently bulk?
5
6 Ms. Hutar: In addition to?
7
8 Commissioner Burt: How much is there now?
9
10 Ms. Hutar: How much is there now? I’d have to break it down.
12 Mr. Neuman: The brown parcel.is 1,925,761.
13
14 Commissioner Bialson: That’s only the brown? It doesn’t include thetwo lots or sites }.hat
15 you’re asking be .included?
16
17 Mr. Neuman: That’s correct..
18
19 Commissioner Burt: With the proposal, the total allowable?
20
21 Mr. Neuman: It would add another 220,000 square feet..
22
23 Commissioner Burt: Beyond what is currently allowed?
24
25 Mr. Neuman: That’s correct. These two reds.
26
27 Commissioner Butt: That was 220?
28
29 Mr. Neuman: 219,500.
30
31 Commissioner Burr: Then to boil it down, with the proposed increase of the total increase in
32 floor area, beyond what exists today, is about a 20% increase.
33
34 Mr. Neuman: That’s correct. -
35
36 Commissioner Burr: 8% currently allowed and 12% proposed above the 8%. I’m ball-parking
37 this but 168,000 square feet would be allowed above the 1,925,000 square feet? Or about 8%
38 could be built and then another 12% or so is being proposed to be allowed.
39
4o Chairman Schrnidt: David was saying that there wasn’t any more square footage and Nancy said
41 there is 168,000 square feet to be added.
42
43 Commissioner Bialson: She’s adding the two lots in.
Chairman Schmidt: At .5?
City of Palo Alto Page 16
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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Bialson: At just what they are now.
Commissioner Byrd: This is all.
Chairman Schmidt: The brown, the PF.
Commissioner Burr: Tenants on the far side of Welch Road, you mentioned some of them have
99 year leases and some of them are either not medical related or maybe not essential to your
core functions that you’re trying to accomplish there. As we’re looking at your needs to expand
allowable square footage to accommodate you’re real critical core functions that have to be
concentrated, are there possibilities in terms of liberating some of that other land to be able to
adjust for .these increases that you’re seeking?
Mr. Neuman: I’m going to give you two responses. One is the type of ftmctions ihat we’re
talking about in the sense of clinical functions and particularly the building we are proposing to
develop is connected very directly through ways to the core hospital because they have intensive
care types of patients in here. There could be a problem in surgery, there could be a problem in
cancer treatment, and so on. So this building needs to be attached. One answer is the proximity
to the core hospital function is key. So parcels on the other side of the road are not as valuable
for that sort of programmatic activity. The other answer is, strictl3) a planning answer, I think a
number of these facilities do indeed house programs that are associated with our medical facility.
We are actually the tenant to a leaseholder on that land. But they house outpatient sorts of
activities and administrative functions for the medical school and the hospffal both. So in a sense
we can’t tear these buildings down with those activities without replacing those activities
somewhere else.
Mr Hi’dry: There are tenants out there who aren’t medical related. I don’t know what their
lease arrangements are.
¯Commissioner Butt: You were alluding to some of the medical.functions within Welch Road
earlier flaat sounded like they might not.need to be essentially immediately adjacent to the core
medical area.
Mr. Hindry_: This for this example?
Commissioner Burr: Yes.
Mr. Neuman: That’s probably tree but we have no place to directly put those people. They do
want to be near the hospital. The physicians all in here have privileges and they refer their
patients to the hospital. So they are constantly going back and forth to many of their patients that
are in the hospital. They will do special procedures at some of our clinics and so on. Could
some of these functions be out here? That could happen, I guess.
City of Palo Alto Page 17 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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Watkins: It could sure. We’re trying that in a number of instances. As we move
administrative functions to the outboard side of Welch Road it is so we can have physician or
medical services closer in. So we are trying to move the things as much offsite, if you will, to
accommodate the needs.
Commissioner Butt: That’s really what I was leaning towards is whatother opportunities are
there for you to be able to achieve what you need to do in your core medical area with less
additional square footage needing to be built because you, over time, are able to acquire use of
some of these buildings that have nothing to do with your medical functions or could be
just as well or better at some other location outside of this area. So that’s what I’m pursuing.
!~I_r. Neuman: I think we are trying to do that where we can but one of the problems we’ve got
to the extent that those properties, the buildings, are owned by outside developers they can come
in and market rents. We’re then in a situation where we,re paying considerably more for that
space than we are for our own space. So there is an economic issue for us. Those dollars aren’t
coming back to the University they are going to the owner of the building.
Corrlmissioner Burt: What’s the governing zoning usage of those buildings?
Ms. Grote: It’s OR, Office Research, and it’s slightly, different than PF.
Commissioner Burt: Will there be oppommities for us to rezone Hat in the future in a way that
would mean that these guys aren’t competing with dot-com companies to obtain that space? ’
Ms. Grote: There could be proposals put forward to rezone the area. It would probably also take
Comp Plan amendments. That’s a possibility. Also.though depending usually the uses that are
there require a non-conforming.status if they are rezoned. So they could still remain but as a
non-conforming use. Then as they are vacated they need to be replaced with confomaing uses in
the new zone.
Commissioner Burt: Or they could be grandfathered.
Ms. Grote: There could be provisions made.
Mr. Neuman: The largest one here the RM-40 is of course the hospitality apartments that are
running for medical staff are associated with the hospital or medical school. This is the blood
bank which also has portions of our pathology department.
Chairman Schmidt: You talked about concentrating the medical functions in this PF zone center
here. Yet, Hoover Pavilion is kind of an outpost and you are planning to go ahead and renovate
that for certain functions. Did you consider renovating that for other functions and trying to
move those functions closer to this core? Fo~ example, housing in the Hoover Pavilion area.
Mr. Neuman: I think the issue is the one we are dealing with right now, we wouldn’t know
where to put them. We’d have to put them into very expensive lease space in private hands or
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
build another building and we don’t have the FAR to put them in that building. So i don’t think
we even have done a cost benefit in terms of looking at putting a new building up to replace the
Outpatient functions that are in there.
Mr. Hindrg.: No we haven’t. We’ve done the study and looked at the cost of upgrading the
Hoover Pavilion for outpatient clinics of which it would be primary care clinic and prenatal care
as well as some hospital administrative space. David had mentioned we do patient education, we
also do staff education there. So it really is more of a mixed use. The cost of renovation per
square foot is nowhere near the cost of new construction. In fact it probably doesn’t even.
approach the long term costs of leaseholds at what the owners are getting on Welch Road at
$5.00 per square foot. So we have done the cost analysis of the cost of our renovation project
and feel very comfortable with what we need to do. Also we’re doing all the seismic upgrades
and all the life-safety code issues with regard to a building that was built in the mid 1930’s. So
there is multi-facets of that.
Mr. Neuman: The basic answer is it would be functionally correct but economically a hardship.
Chairman Schmidt: The planning discussion talks about other sites that could be developed in
the future closer to this concentrated area. That’s why I’m asking about housing closer to the
Downtown and closer to the transit and people functions versus medical functions.
Mr. Gawf: It also reflects the focus of the area analysis which is to look at whist could be in the
future. The future couid be 20 years from now or 10 years from now or in the distant future. So’
that may be a goal.
Chairman Schrnidt: I read an article from the planning magazine that talks about the conversion
of historic St. Lukes Hospital in downtown Denver to housing blocks.
Mr. Neuman: We proposed 350 rental units for hospital residents and post-doctoral fellows.
The majority of our post-doctoral fellows are in medical school. So either of these location is in
easy walking distance from the medical school or the hospital. I also know that, and this
supports your argument and doesn’t counter it, that’s the idea of a resident being within a very
short time period from hospital when they are on-call. That’s increasingly difficult for anyone to
find a unit in Palo Alto as you well know, let alone be able to afford it. And the residents
stipends are limited.
Commissioner Bialson: As a follow up to that, I notice that you have some plan to make
Downtown Palo Alto accessible to whatever housing you put there. Is that something that you
wouId do only at the time housing was put there or at the same time you use it for outpatient? It
seems very appropriate to have it available for the transit center.
Mr. Neuman: As part of the Sand Hill Road projects there is going to be a change to this
intersection to allow a three-way signalized intersection, safe harbor medians, and pedestrian
actuated signals here that will allow them to walk across the street and through that pathw~ay that
goes passed the garden and the Red Cross, then goes to the train station. From there you can go
Ci(y of Palo Alto Page 19
of course through the tunnel and you’re over at Lytton or University at that point. So this is all
going right ahead and wiil be built within the next year. Of course you are aware the next phase
of what had been called the "Dream Team Study" now the PAITS, the Palo Alto Inter-modal
Transit Center is looking at that relationship. There is also this piece of the shopping center that
is going to be built out here. There will be a pedestrian corridor being built from this comer into
the shopping center with some sort of a commercial space there as well. I know that others in
this room thought housing should be here a long time ago. Give credit where credit is due.
Chairman Schmidt: Can you talk a little bit about the urban design feature or the pedestrian
circulation, and transportation things and what might come into being in the near future to
improve circulation and way-finding and so on in that area?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Mr. Neuman: This area analysis started off or maybe had become more of an urban design set of
14 guidelines more than anything else. We’ve been ratcheting back from urban design issues. One
15 of the parts of planning at the Medical Center that we’ve been working on since 1991, we
16 actually did a set of design guidelines that are site landscape and architecture..When We did the
17 Blake Wilber Clini.c, which is this building here and the apartment structure, at that time these
18 were not carried through the City they were something that we did internally. They’ve been
19 followed to set up a clear set of pedestrian paths and bicycle ways.and a hierarchy of vehicular
2o "ways. So what you see is the landscape design plan that we are implementing this part is
21 proposed with the parking structure project. This part is proposed with the Cancer Treatment
22 Center which is this building here. We have proceeded as part of completing the Blake Wilber
23 Clinic. The City announced.this and endorsed it, the reconstruction of the Governor’s Lane
24 which is an historic landscape connection between the Stanford House and Lake Loganita. We
25 built this part a couple of years ago and now we’re actually improving it as part of completing
26 our new clinical sciences research building, putting in this north garden which Palo Alto
27 approved last ye ,ar. This was a surface parking lot and we’ve moved that parking to the stock
2s farm area. This new garden is complimentary to that entry with grass and fountain area and
29 compliments the new building. We see with the parking structure extending that general
30 vocabulary out onto the lid of the parking structure, including extending the Governor’s Lane
31 across the dark of the structure. It requires certain structural gymnastics, I’ve been told, but
32 indeed there will be both large trees if approved. We are actually putting in this landscape as
33 part of the changes in Pasture Drive to connect with Stanford West and the new Sand Hill Road.
34 So I must say everything on this drawingis either in process, being constructed as we speak, and
35 these two cases are being proposed as part of theproject before you, or have already been built.
36 There have been significant improvements around the entry area. The new lobby was built on
37 the hospital which included a 20+ foot canopy extension to weather protect people at the entry
3 s and so on. So all those were built on the urban design guidelines that we developed in 1991.
39 We’ve been continuing to incrementally implement them. There are a bunch of other little ones
40 that aren’t on this drawing. But the whole idea is to connect Stanford West and the housing
41 that’s there. Connect the seniors project, along the crossing that come here and through
42 pedestrian ways eventually extending Governor’s Lane through this particular site and then that
43 connects to what is called the Viilage Green as part of the Stanford West development. So each
44 ofthe;e pieces eventually will connect together for both bicycle and pedestrian connections. If
45 they are Stanford related people they can leave their cars here and there will be. easy ways to
City of Palo Alto Page 20
I
2
3
4
6
?
8
9
I0
II
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
4~
connect either pedestrian, bicycle, or the Marguerite will go tixrough this area as well. There are
two routes of the Marguerite that go through the hospital area. One of them in fact connects with
the PAMF area as wei1. So there is that linkage across too. As you know some of the PAMF
physicians refer their special treatment and in-patient care.
Commissioner Butt: Last question. In the Welch Road area that you proposed to build out over
what time frame would that occur, approximately?
Mr. Neuman: Well 220,000 of this is in the current proposal and fundamentally that is used by
the new Ambulatory Care Cancer Treatment building with the exception of the tear down that
would allow us to expand a bit of the Edwards building. At this point we do not have any
proposals for this but I have so consistently for five years that Packer Hospital needs additional
outpatient clinic space. I’m very anxious tO satisfy that in some way. The hospital was building
an ER wing the focus was very much on the in-patient care and they have a very limited amount
of outpatient care. I would suspect that within the next five years, whether it’s two years or four
years I couldn’t tell you right now.
Commissioner Burr: So roughly within a five year period you’re anticipating to build out that
area within Welch Road?
Mr. Neuman: I don’t know that we’d use all 168,000 square feet. We might use half of it.
Commissioner Burt: Five to ten years?
Mr. Neuman: Five to ten years would be good.
Commissioner Burr: If we go backwards and look at that drawing on wh~t needs there have been
and what growth there has been in those areas. Where to you see yourselves after this five to ten
.year period? What do you see beyond that? Do suddenly the needs stop?
Mr. Neuman: Would you like to take a part of that Michael?
Male Speaker (beard): No the answer is not that the needs stop, I think needs change. That
implies in terms of redevelopment as much as new development I think is an issue.
We haven’t started addressing that issue yet. The time frame beyond the ten years we’re
struggling and trying to get our hands around and work with the issues in this period. So I’d be
hard pressed to say what the view is beyond ten years. David from a global perspective you
might know better.
Mr. Neuman: Within the General Use Permit application that we have with the County the
Medical School has forecast what their needs might be over the ten year period. That’s in the
proposal that we have with the County right now and that is being examined. That includes that
area that is around Quarry Road. That’s been an anomaly that previously had not been in the
General Use Permit area and had been treated separately. It had its own separate EIR when the
City.of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
psychiatry building was built. We have proposed, that witfi a lot of encouragement from the
County but we actually proposed it, to incorporate that into the Use Permit zone so we don’t
have this odd piece of land.. So everything that was mentioned in terms of zoning capacity and
those things labeled as CC are in the General Use Permit application, housing and prospectively
an addition to the psychiatric clinic. What I’m tN.’nking of your question in this zone I think it is
our belief that we have proposed to you something we could live with. So the notion of the 1.0
FAR within Welch Road, .5 FAR outside of Welch Road is what we see in the foreseeable future
as our planning horizon. That foreseeable future is as long as I can envision right now.
Chairman Schmidt: When some of this planning was being done the hospital was connect with
UC hospital. Did the disconnection make any changes? Does it reduce the requirements for
additional facilities in this area?
Mr. Neuman: No, in fact we were looking that the unification Was going to do that. In fact we
had moved certain functions offsite up to Candlestick and so forth. The office spaces up there
were central to San Francisco and to Palo Alto. The administrative offices were up in that office
complex at Candlestick or Oyster Point. That’s all gone away so we’ve actually moved people
back from there. There was downsizing. In fact, if you looked at the basic staffing at the
hospital over time it has been either in mos~: areas constant or in a lot of areas it has gone down.
What’s gone up is the patient volume both in-patient and outpatient. So the separation
agreement does not take pressure off it actually puts pressure back on again. In terms of for
instance reusing Hoover, one of the reasons that we’re making this major remodel is because
some of those people that had to come back with their computers have to move into that
building.
Chairman Schmidt: What is your relationship with.the Medical Foundation just down the street?
Are you separate? I don’t know if there are things they can do better than you can.
Mr. Neuman: I think they are in their process of approval. I’m going to look at Ken for just a-
second. We made several joint punic statements about the fact.that both their facility that you
¯ approved and is now built and our facility were being collaboratively programmed. So that they
aren’t duplicating radiology suites or cancer therapy suites I should say, that we were going to be
asking for and now are in our new building. So I think they have some anticipation that they
didn’t put things into their new facility that will be in our facility because of this intensification
of care that’s at Stanford as opposed to more primary care that’s at PAMF. I think if Dr.
Chandles were here he’d agree with that.
Mr. Gawf: I was trying to remember some of the tools that with the opening of the Medical
Foundation and what they were saying about the services.
Commissioner Byrd: It’s on the public record.
Chairman Schmidt: Do you need to get some comments from us? We do need to take some
comments from the public at some point. Would you recommend that we make our comments
and then hear from the punic?
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Gawf: Again, we will continue to work on it and bring you back a more final document with
the project review so you can see the integration and the changes.
Chairman Schmidt: Who would like to start domments?
Commissioner Byrd: Perhaps we could go through the four primary issues that Staff identified
rather than each of us going through all four at one time we could take them one at a time. The
increase in FAR that Stanford anticipates in this analysis area seems within the ball-park of
what’s a reasonable rate of growth to me. My concern is I know that the Comp Plan calls out
that this analysis be performed in isolation from the rest of Stanford’s lands. I know that the
County is looking at all of Stanford at once, So it is hard to make a judgment in isolation but
clearly the multiple uses that predominate the zone are., where technology is evolving and the
needs are evolving, and there needs to be some accommodation. I don’t know whether 8% more
or 12% more is exactly the right number. It roughly seems to be in the appropriate ball-park. I
like, from a planning constraint, the notion of that intensification being grouped on the one side
of Welch Road as Opposed to the other saving either to remain less intensively developed or for
future comprehensive intensification long after any of us are worrying about these things. So
those are my general comments on FAR.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Pat would you like to go next on FAR?
Commissioner Burr: I guess would hope that with looking beyond just this proposal and the
comments that I was making about how can we serve Stanford’s real core needs and at the same
time minimize the amount of increase in FAR that is necessary to do that. I keep looking at these
other uses outside of Welch and if when they were built we didn’t zone PF but in light of a
variety of offices in there today we might think of as really not appropriate if we were to about .
designing what sort of uses we would want today. I would like for us to begin looking at
mechanisms to transform those areas through the possibility ofrezoning them and to perhaps PF,
and to put some sun-setting if that’s feasible on some of the present uses. In any sunset we might
be talking ten years sunset not a few years. We need to lookat Stanford’s long term needs and to
do so in a way that doesn’t just add their needs on to whatever else is developed there that was
maybe less than entirely appropriate land use 30 or 40 years ago.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I think the analysis is supportiye of the request. I think it has been put
in a format that I really appreciate. I think it is an act of urban planning that touches on many of
the areas that we weren’t willing to look at. I guess my.high issues are not with the increase in
FAR but rather on something that is in the other hitting items, the circulation and parking. So
I’m fine with the analysis. It is complete and I have no problem with the increase in FAR.
Commissioner Schink: I agree with the comments of my colleagues. Out of the comments that
have been made 1~ would say that I like some of the issues that Pat has raised about maybe
looking at even a slightly larger area and seeing if we can make it more cohesive. I would go in
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
4I
42
43
44
45
a lit-tle different directio.n.than what Pat is suggesting. That is to say I would be more
sympathetic to even a little higher FAR inside the core and looking at trying to amortize the
businesses on the opposite side of Welch Road and forcing higher density housing along that
side. Say come up with a housing component that wraps around the outside of Welch Road and
give you even more efficient FARs inside. And looking for a way to see how we could take that
FAR that is out at the Hoover Pavilion and try to push that’back in towards the main hospital
area. And really focus on keeping that a cohesive residential corridor. I would really be
uncomfortable with the concept of mixed. I just don’t think you’re going to be able to create the
right environment out there with the mixture of uses. I think that you can make it a spectacular,
wonderful residential berg if you took it and tied it to the ideas that Kathy brought up. Not to
penalize you for that. Take that FAR and shove it back, get it into the core.
Commissioner Bialson: I guess I have a little bit of a problem. I would rather not see that
concentration because of the circulation and other issues as far I do like the idea of the mixed
use. I do like outpatient directed and employee directed use closer to E1 Camino rather than
trying to figure outsome way that they could come in and out of the central corridor. So I just
like the idea of the housing in the outer area. I like, personally, having a zoning identity and
uses. I think it spreads out the academic, medical sense of the area into the residential.
Chairman Schmidt: I’m supportive of pat and Jon’s comments. I think it would be important
and creative to look at specifically the area and think about ways of getting rid of some of those
uses that are not supportive of the medical facilities around the Welch Road area. I’d like to take
it further in saying we can make even more concentrated in that area and think about additional
locations for housing. As I mentioned before, I think it could make it a much nicer ho.using area
¯ if Hoover were incorporated along that side instead of two pieces of housing that are cut off from
everything else. I think you should take a look at those things. I think it would be useful and
could lead to some really good overall planning.
Commissioner Bwd: We’ve sort of gone beyond the narrow issue of what’s appropriate FAR on
the inside of Welch Road. I think Jon’s idea was really clever, looking at housing uses over time
in here and pulling that office or non-residential use opportunity into this zone. It is no secret to
anyone I continue to think this is a way for housing zone and would urge them to look at the idea
proposed by Kathy too to adaptively reuse Hoover for housing and also explore the housing
potential in this area. Jon’s right, not a penalty, take this and transfer it into the core area.
Commissioner Bialson: I think the housing that’s around Hoover can be integrated into a
scheme in which they are not isolated. I see through the landscaping and circulation plans that
were shown to us tonight that can be very easily accomplished with the imagination, and empathy
put forth by Stanford right now.
Commissioner Burt: I think that Ed or David had spoken about the continued use 0fthe Hoover
building for the sorts of functions that it has today. I would concur with what other folks have
said. I would rather see that go to housing. I found that the prenatal and postnatal functions off
where they are in the Hoover building to be really misplaced, you can’t find your way around.
They are disconnected with Packard Hospital and the m~.temity areas and all the other training
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
th~.t goes on in the eastern side.of the core medici complex. It is not that many square feet
being utilized for that purpose. I would presume that Stanford has additional infusions for the
Hoover property and the existing programs. And whatever those needs are I’m sure support
moving them closer. We have this County land that hasn’t been talked about very much that’s-
within this greater medical area, I’d be very interested in understanding more about what
Stanford is envisioning for that land. I also agree that’s the way to ge.t the area to be residential.
Chairman Schmidt: I’d like to make a comment about the FAR. I appreciate Ed’s comments
earlier about the big picture and looking at a potential 4.0M or more square feet in the main
academic campus. We still, I think, don’t really have a handle on what would happen here in tiae
medical area. We said we would concentrate on the housing versus the medical square footage. "
We still need to keep those net numbers in mind.. They all still generate traffic and so on
Mr. Gawf: The housing actually is within this area becaiase again as David indicated, the
General Use Permit proposal includes all of the unincorporated lands.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. So some may be double counted.
Mr. Gawf: Yes, that’s what we need to be careful about.
Chairman Schmidt: SO it would be helpful to have you come back.and say we have a big
University. ~.
The next item is building height. We can start at this end.
Commissioner Schink: I can be convinced if the right drawings are shown that 75 feet is
acceptable. Itjustneeds to be proven. They appear to block our view of the foothills but I think
a reasonable alternative can be made for something greater than 50 and up to 75. I would have to
get some more perspecti~ce.
Commissioner ,Bialson: I agree with Jon.
Commissioner Burr: I’m not ready at this time to render an opinion one way or another. I guess
I concur with Jon that I’d be open to looking at it.
Commissioner Byrd: I think it makes sense if the transit oriented intensification plan uses are in
the right place. In terms of questioning it in our commercial zone and transit corridors it’s easy
to say sure, it benefits Stanford as well.
Chairman Schmidt: I can say I would be willing to look at it with the other kinds of thing going
on here.
The next item is circulation and parking. Annette, do you want to start?
City of Palo Alto Page 25
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
CommissionerBialson: I don’t feelthat the analysis has addressed the impact of the
incorporation ofthes~ parcels and the increase of the FAR thereby. It can impact on traffic, the
mount of and means that would be used to deal with that traffic. We are always dealing with
the j obs/housing imbalance. I think that we need to have some analysis done so we can
understand whether just what weare doing tothis area and the feeder streets that come into it. If
we are looking at this being accomplished in addition to Stanford West and all the housing that
we keep talking about, there is going to be a huge impact that ripples out like a stone, throughout
this wholearea. I’d like to see some analysis of that. What’s here is representative but I think
something that would look a little beyond this immediate area is what I’d be looking for.
Chairman Sehmidt: Jon..
Commissioner Schink: It is such a tough subject. I think our experience these days is that when
we think we should be circdating we’re always parked and when we’re parked we ought to be
circulating. It has really gotten backwards. I think that the progress is inevitable and it’s coming
and it just puts greater emphasis on the fact that we need to focus more on mass transit ot greater
transit alternatives. Well planned mass like this, if it’s integrated into a greater transportation
concept, is acceptable.
Commissioner Bialson: Would you hke to see that addressed in this plan?
Commissioner Schink: I think comes back to we’ve got to look at it in the greater picture. I
don’t think we’ve done enough in a bigger picture.
Commissioner B~d’, I think the plan does an admirable job of proposing a circulation system to
accommodate the existing uses and the proposed intensification. But I’m not sure that the
circulation system that’s proposed is in fact driven by use. It seems to instead, try to simply
accommodate existing patterns with some incremental changes in behavior around the edge.
Since we’re the Planning and Transportation Commission we’re supposed to provide Comments
on this too. It seems to me that adding this scale of additional new development provides a rare
opportunity to have the right use in the right place dramatically reinforced by, what we like to
calia traditional transportation pattern, one that’s not just the commute transit or bikes or
pedestriau circulation or other modes. SoI think it would be worth, in this analysis, going back
and looking at the use decisions through the eyes encouraging transformation in the circulation
choices.
Commissioner Burt: I concur with Owen on what he just said, in that as I looked at the
circulation issues it drove me back to broader questions. One that I didn’t have an opportunity to
ask which is, why are we doing an area analysis rather than an area plan as the Comp Plan
suggest. I ,at a certain point in time, would like to get a better understanding of that. These
issues that are being raised make me question again whether it should be a more specific plan.
Then I also, in that broader context, we’ve heard about Stanford’s six objectives and then in the
program L-46 of the Comp Plan we in essence summarize the City’s objectives for this area. I’d
like to see how those two are compared and what alignment we have between them.
Understandably they are not going to be identical objectives but I’d like to understand more
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
4l
42
43
44
45
about how they are reconciled and whether we’re meeting both sets of objectives t~ a good
degree.
Also, looking at this whole issue of jobs/housing and how it effects the transportation issues, we ,
get turned back to the County Plan. Within the County Plan this housing is part of what Stanford
is talking about as how they are addressing their student and job housing imbalance. What we
saw in the County Plan was that for the most part despite all of the huge amount of residential
Construction they are doing very little to address that imbalance. That was a major concern of
mine. Stanford already counted this housing as how they are addressing their academic
imbalance and what we have is all of this other development which much of it is job creating ’
without a corresponding way that we are addressing housing. You can’t double count that
residential on the Hoover side. It can’t be counted as how we are addressing the housing needs
for the medical area and have Stanford count it as how they are addressing the housing needs for
the academic area. So I think we need to look at that.
Finally, just in terms of the auto circulation, the entrance to all of this is more and more coming
from Sand Hill and Pasture but we have another entrance to this whole area which is from
C..aLn. pus Drive. It has always been a difficult way to access the hospital. And yet we’re saying
~at we’re not trying to discourage the cross E1 Camino traffic, we’re not allowing Alma access,
then how are We getting all that traffic that’s coming down Sand Hill that’s still going to be
crossing what’s presently a two-lane road through Menlo Park? It is all coming in that front
entrance. So I’d like to see a greater exploration of whether there is greater auto access from
Foothill and Campus Drive, see how that circulation fits in to the rear half of all of this
development.
Chairman Schmidt: I like both Pat’s comments and Owen’s comments. I think Stanford has
done a great job in the past of supporting getting people out of their cars with the Marguerite and
the TDM but I think we need to go beyond that. This is a really concentrated area and there are a
lot of people coming from outside to this area. I think that traffic is going to be a challenge. I
think there have been a lot of great suggestions here to really look at other things further than
what is here right now. Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I was just wondering if Owen could expand a little bit on his scheme. I
didn’t quite understand what you were suggesting.
Commissioner Byrd: It is probably too academic. It is just that the way I read the circulation
element it started with here are the uses we need because we need them for medical purposes.
Then let’s paste as progressive a circulation process or system to them as we can. Instead of
saying we need to design our uses and locate them in a way that maximizes opportunities for
alternative transportation pattern and then shifting that pattern. It’s not as important as curing
cancer it is at least a significantly important element of the planning and design process. It is
only at the scale of projects that are contemplated here that we get opportunities to take a big bite
of the apple in terms of shifting transportation patterns in this region. So rather than just tack it
on as an afterthought we need the best we can to limit car use to accommodate the uses that are
proposed. Let’s see what we can do to design a development pattern that maximizes
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
17
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
2.7
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
opportunities to reduce those car .trips. It is just a subtle shift in emphasis in the planning
process.
Chairman Schmidt: The last item is the Pasture Drive median area. Pat.
Commissioner Butt: ]~ remember my mother took me to the opening of.the hospital in 1960.
Pasture Drive looks pretty much unchanged. I think it presents a great opportunity and judging,
from what David had indicated it is something that Stanford would view as a real entryway. I
would like to see something that really emphasized the compatibility of the natural environment
at the same time as really enhancing the entrance to that.
Commissioner Byrd: I wish would could underground parking around here. It is very expensive
to do and if Stanford is wilIing to do it here,, that’s a great solution to the parking.
Commissioner Bialson: I think it’s a great idea to have and I agree with the comments of both of
my fellow Commissioners. I’d like to see a little!ess emphasis on that formal entry which
though lovely encourages everyone to come in that same way. I would like to see.[vinci yards,
stock yards and some of the other entrances emphasized somehow with the right signs or
plantings or other things, And also haveaccess into the garage that we’re thinking of putting in
the median allowed from those other sources as well. We’re funneling everybody in through
there. I applaud the construction of the underground parking structure.
Chairman Sehrnidt: I agree with the comments saying it’s a good idea to have underground
parking and keep some open space there. Any other comments?
Commissioner B~d: I have one last one. This is under our jurisdiction and some County land
but it is dam close to Menlo Park, I would like us to go on record encouraging Stanford to work
up the nerve to take this show to the Menlo Park Planning Commission and City Council. Even
though their views don’t always agree with ours it would be in the spirit of regionalism. Maybe
we can recommend to Council that it recommend to Stanford or Stanford take the lead on that
one. I think it would be a good and useful exercise. If nothing else just to share the information
with them.
Mr. Gawf: One thing that we can certainly do is Menlo Park has a new Planning Director. We
were trying to get together, David and myself, with East Palo Alto and Menlo Park Planning
Directors to come together to talk about issues, I think this would be a great topic, as you said.
Mr. Neuman: We’ve done it before,
Chairman Schmidt: Thank ygu for doing this. I think it is really helpful to look at the bigger
picture for the Medical Center in response to our Comprehensive Plan Programs. This is
happening and I think it helps everybody think about the bigger picture.
Mr. Neuman: I want to thank you all for having us do this as a Study Session. I think from my
perspective I feel that it helps us in a way to have a more of a give and take. At this point I know
City of Palo Alto Page 28
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
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
that there are more formal requirements to Study Sessions and my experience is to be allowed to
feel much more productive in terms of problem solving and hearing ideas that could be left
awfully defensive about but here in the context of this as opposed to simply it seems more like a
directive. I heard some good ideas tonight that have a different take on things that we’ve been
dealing with for a long time. I’m definitely sure we’ll be concentrating on those tomorrow.
Chairman Schrnidt: Also we’d like to take the opportunity to hear from members of the punic if
anyone would like to speak on this. I don’t see anyone who would like to and I don’t have any
cards. So thank you.
Mr. Gawf: Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: We wiI1 adjourn for 20 minutes. Thank you all.
[Break]
Chairman S chrnidt: Item No. 4 - 101 Page Mill Road foran appeal of a Zoning Administrator’s
hearing has been withdrawn. We will not be addressing that item tonight if anyone is here about
that. Also it is unlikely, due to the fact that we are starting a bit late and we originally started ’
this evening quite a bit earlier, that we will probably not get to Item 5 tonight. That is the Update
of the Comprehensive Plan Status Report. Should we make a motion on that right now or wait
until that time?
Ms.~Grote: You can go aheadand make a motion now to continue it to a date certain which I
would recommend to be April 12tu.
Chairman Schmidt: Would anyone like to move that?
Commissioner Bialson: I’d like to move that we continue Item Number 5 to the April 12t~
meeting.
Chairman Schrnidt: Is there a second?
Commissioner Cassel: Second.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, we are moving Item Number 5, Update of the Comprehensive Plan
Status Report to Wednesday, April 12 . All those m favor please say aye. (ayes) All those
opposed say no. That passes unanimously with six of us present.
I would like to note for the ~ecord that two Commissioners who were not here earlier,
Commissioner Cassel and the our new Commissioner, Bonnie Packard, have joined us.
Welcome Bonnie. Also Commissioner Burt has left us. So we have a slightly different
composition..
Now we will move on to the next item on our agenda. Item 2.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Planning Division 1
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Nancy M. Hi’tar DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE:March 29, 2000
¯SUBJECT: Proposed Stanford Area Analysis: In compliance with the City of
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, program L-46 which states "Work with Stanford to prepare an
area plan for the Stanford Medical Center", Stanford University has proposed an Area Analysis
for the approximately 85 acres in the City of Palo Alto of the Stanford University Medical Center
(which includes Stanford Hospital and Clinics, the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital,. the ~
Stanford School of Medicine and the Hoover Pavilion). The proposed Area Analysis also
includes .the approximately_23 acres.in Santa Clara County that encompass associated Medical
Center uses along Quarry Road.
RECOMMENDATION
As this is a study session, no formal action is required. However, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission: (1) receive and make comments on¯the Area Analysis, and (2) forward
the Area Analysis to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
19.98-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
In July 1998, the City Council adopted the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Which is
the primary tool for guiding the future development in the City. The Comprehensive Plan
provides a guide for making development choices by describing long-term goals as well as
policies to guide day-to-day decisions. The policies apply to both public and private property
within the City’s sphere of influence, which includes all land in the City limits, Stanford
University and some unincorporated land in Santa Clara County. The Comprehensive Plan
acknowledged that some of the most significant opportunities for growth and change are on
Stanford University lands. The Stanford educational campus lies outside of City boundaries, but
most of Stanford’s income generating lands are within the City limits.
s:kplan~pladiv\pcsr~Stanford Area Plan Page 1 53
The Comprehensive Plan also designates four employment districts in the City, which are the
East Bayshore area (Embarcadero Road area that is east of the 101 Freeway), the San Antonio
Road/Bayshore Corridor, the Stanford Research Park and the Stanford Medical Center. The
identification of these employment districts resulted from the Palo Alto community’s desire to
shift these areas away from complete reliance on the automobile (due to their expansive
development pattern of large single and multi-story buildings and large parking lots) and
promote pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections to the rest of the City. Land use changes
should also provide a more diverse mix of services and activities. The specific policy and
program for the Stanford Medical Center in this section of the Comprehensive Plan states the
following:
Policy L-45: Develop Stanford Medical Center in a manner that recognizes the
citywide goal of compact, pedestrian-oriented development as well as the
functional needs of the Medical Center.
Program L-46: Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford
Medical Center.
The City adopted program L-46 to implement policy L-45, because the community believes that
any expafision of the Medical Center facilities needs to be evaluated in the context of citywide
planning goals and policies, especially related to traffic. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan
states that an area plan for the Stanford Medical Center should address building locations, floor
area ratios, height limits and parking requirements. The area plan should discuss the preservation
of historic and open space resources and the protection of views and view corridors. The area
plan should also describe improvements to the streetscape and circulation pattern that will
improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicle connections.
Area Analysis
While the Comprehensive Plan refers to an "area plan"~ this is not intended to be a development
proposal. Therefore, Stanford and staff have titled the document an "Area Analysis". The Area
Analysis is a long range plarming effort between Stanford University and the City of Palo Alto.
It implements a program of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (as discussed on page 1) and for
Stanford University the Area Analysis is one of their latest planning efforts for the Medical
Center. The Area Analysis is an analysis of existing land uses and intended future programming
and infrastructure needs. These future needs are discussed in the context of campus planning,
community design principles and the overall goals of the Medical Center.
The document presented in Exhibit B of this staff report is a revised effort by Stanford University
for the Area Analysis. The first draft Area Analysis was submitted to the City of Palo Alto in
May 1995. Subsequent revised drafts were provided to the City in April 1999 and October 1999
following comments from City staff. Although staff believes the current draft Area Analysis
requires refinement in regard to direction, additional information, organizational, textual and
general grammatical content, our intent is to provide the Planning Commission and City Council
with the overall policies of the Area Analysis and an evaluation at this point of how those
policies fit with City goals, policies and programs for the Stanford University lands.
s:~plan~pladiv\pcsrkStanford Area Plan Page 2
Related Plan and Application
Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit
The portion of the Area Analysis that encompasses County land falls within theconfines of the
pending Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit. These two documents
are long-range (10 year) entitlements that are required and processed by Santa Clara County to
gov. em those county lands within all of Stanford University lands. The current Community’Plan
and General Use Permit was approved by the County in 1989. The City does not have
discretionary authority over these documents, but recommendations are forwarded to the Santa
Clara County Board of Supervisors. In October 1999, the Planning Commission and City
Council held a joint public hearing to review the updated Community Plan and General Use
Permit. Following that public hearing, the Planning Commission and City Council met at their
respective regular meetings to discuss the Community Plan and General Use Permit. The City
Council then forwarded its recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors. Those
comments are attached to this report (Attachment C).
At this time, an Environmental Impact Report is being prepared by Santa Clara County to
accompany their draft Community Plan and General Use Permit to the County Board of
Supervisors. The EIR is expected to be available for public review in June and all distribution of
materials and mailings will be handled by the County, which is the lead agency. The City of
Palo Alto will review the Draft EIR when it is available and the Council will forward their
comments to the County at that time.
Proposed Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion
Stanford University has submitted a formal development application to the City. for construction
of a new Medical Center. facility - the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory
Care Pavilion and a related underground parking structure. This proposed new facility is within
the boundaries of the Area Analysis. The proposed building would be located where an existing
surface parking lot now stands, across the street from the Blake Wilbur Clinic and just north of
Parking Struct-tire III. The proposed building would total 218,000 square feet for the
consolidation of outpatient surgery, ambulatory treatment, and the ontology program. Parking
for the facility would be located where a building now stands at 851 Welch Road (building to be
demolished as part of the development) and in an underground structure in the 127,110 square-
foot Pasteur Drive median: The four-level parking structure will accommodate approximately
1,035 cars. To date, the project has been presented twice for preliminary Architectural Review
Board comments and an administrative draft EIR has been prepared by a City-contracted
consultant. The daft EIR is expected to be available for public review in March or April 2000
and the proposed project is expected to be presented to the P1 .arming Commission and City
Council in April and May, respectively.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Site
The Area Analysis covers approximately 85 acres in the City of Palo Alto of the Stanford
University Medical Center (which includes Stanford Hospital and Clinics, the Lucile Salter
s:\plankpladiv\pcsrkStanford Area Plan Page 3
Packard Children’s Hospital, the Stanford School of Medicine and the Hoover Pavilion). The
Area Analysis also includes the approximately 23 acres in Santa Clara County that encompass
associated medical uses along Quarry Road. The boundaries of the Area Analysis are shown in
Exhibit A of this staff report. Specifically, the Area Analysis encompasses the following
existing facilities and lands.
Existing Facilities/Lands Existing Use Site s.f.Building Building Building s.f. to
s.f.stories Site s.f. ratio
&AS)
Within the City of Palo Alto
Stanford University Medical Center related facilities:
Edward D. Stone building
complex
300 Pasteur Drive
Hospital Modernization
project
300 Pasteur Drive
FALK/CURB
Quarry Road
Pasteur Drive median
Lucile Salter Packard
Children’s Hospital
725 Welch Road
Blake-Wilbur Clinic
900 Blake-Wilbur Drive
Medical Plaza
1101 Welch Road
Stanford Medical Center
851 Welch
hospital
(inpatient and
outpatient), research,
teaching
Hospital (inpatient)
Research, teaching
vacant land and parking
hospital
(inpatient and
outpatien0
clinical care
(outpatient)
clinical care
(outpatient)
administr.
1,336,831
143,748
258,746
131,115
228,690
55,321
856,178
655,130
52,226
n]a
274,700
73,100
40,100
14,350
3 stories
3-4 stories
3 stories
n/a
3 stodes
3 stodes
1 story
1 story
1.17:1
1.06:1
0.50:1
0.18:1
0.26:1
California Ear Institute clinical care, research 43,560 12,671 2 stories 0.29:1801 Welch
Hoover Pavilion Administrative, clinical
care 461,734’108, 350 4 stores 0.23:1211 or 285 Quarry Road (outpatient)
Other facilities:
Professional Center
703 Welch Road clinical care (dental)71,874 23,500 2 stories 0.33:1
s:\plan\pladiv\pcsr~Stanford Area Plan Page 4
Existing Facilities/Lands
H&W
701 Welch Road
Offices
777 Welch Road
Existing Use
Office
cl~icalcare
Site s.f.
124,581
70,567
Building
s.f.
57,600
14,100
Building
stories
3 stories
I story .
B~ilding s.f. to
site s.f. ratio
(FAR)
0.46:1
0.20:1
Within Santa Clara County
Stanford University Medical Center related facilities:
Psychiatry Building
401 Quarry Road
Quarry Road Trapezoid
Other facilities:
Research. teaching,
clinical care
(outpatient)
parking
192,500’
167,500’
75,560*
n]a
3 stories 0.39:1
n/a n/a
Quarry Road and
El Camino Real
Quarry Road Rectangle
(near Arboretum)
TOTALS/AVERAGES
Notes:s.f. = square feet
FAR. = floor area ratio
vacant land
dally parking and event
parking
247,500*
185,000’
3,719,267
(85 acre.s)
DJa
n]a
2,257,565
* = numbers estimated from aerial photographs
All parking space numbers counted in the field by City staff.
Building square-footage may or may not include any underground space, such as basements.
County of Santa Clara Tax Assessor’s records, March 2000.
City of Palo Alto staff field surveys and aerial photographs, February 2000.
University Architect/Planning Office staff, March 2000.
13]a
n/a
n/a
n]a
2.7 stories 0.61:1
average overall
Akea Analysis
The Area Analysis includes three main sections: (1) an introduction with a purpose and history of
the project, (2) the plan elements that include Stanford’s principles, land use, circulation and
urban design, and (3) Stanford’s proposed development standards. The following lists have been
compiled from the Area Analysis and organized in a manner similar to that which the City uses,
for ease of comparison. The lists are grouped as goals, objectives and programs of
implementation.
Principals (goals)
Stanford’s guiding principles for the Area Analysis are as follows:
57
s:\plan\pladiv\pcsr~Stanford Area Plan Page 5
Land Use
The completion of an integrated health care network and the development of association~
with more off-site practices to provide the community with complete and localized health
facilities along with regional and world class specialists.
The continuance of the Stanford Hospitals and Clinics as a viable economic institution
and employment base.
The development of~e existing and new Medical Center facilities in a manner that is
attractive and sensitive to environmental quality.
o The mitigation of any potential impacts identified by Medical Center growth, especially
traffic.
o
Access,
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
The continued development of the Medical Center as a key link between the Stanford
campus and the surrounding communities.
The development of an integrated program of access, way finding, transportation, and
connection to Palo Alto and Menlo Park, consistent with public transit programs and
pedestrian connections under consideration in campus and community planning efforts.
The continued and enhanced ability to provide more effective health care, with new
approved .therapeutic interventions developed in the School of Medicine research"
laboratories becoming more readily available in the hospitals and clinics.
Circulation and Parking
Close proximity of related services.
Comfortable walking distances between key functions.
Extension of existing corridors and networks for moving people and goods via walks,
bikeways, people movers, etc.
Direct connections to mass transit, parking, related functions, the larger campus and the
community.
Distinct identities, such as entrances, natural and cultural characteristics.
Clear destinations of the major medical center and campus places and memorable
reference points.
Coordinated signage and symbols identifying zones, functions and hierarchy of
information.
s:\plan\pladiv\pcsr\Stanford Area Plan Page 6
Urban
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Design Quality and Community Character
Redevelopment and/or development sites are proposed as infill to the existing Medical
Center area.
Buildings should provide covered connections between facilities and also be sited to form
and define outdoor spaces and courts, in a manner similar to the original Stanford
University quad development.
Human scale spaces where comfort, healing quality and delight prevail, including small
courts, intimate comers, shade, seating, and cafes shall be incorporated into and between
new and existing facilities.
Parking, as required, should be relocated from spread-surface parking lots to consolidated
four to six-level above-grade, or three to four-level below grade parking structures
distributed on the primary vehicular entries to minimize circulation requirements.
Transportation demand management programs, including remote parking, should be
emphasized to reduce staff parking demands.
Portions of the Arboretum, the historic Governor’s Avenue and connections to the San
Francisquito Creek are proposed.as enhanced, expanded open space features.
Key pedestrian routes have beenidentified internal to the Medical Center and connecting
to the larger campus, downtown Palo Alto and Menlo Park residential areas. These
should be reinforced with landscape treatment.
Shuttle, transit and bicycle connections should continue to evolve, incorporating City and
campus-wise developing programs for public transit.
Distinct landscaping; architecture and signage have been designated at key entry and
decision points to add to the visual character of the region and to assist vision orientation
and way-finding.
Specialty elements for identity and character, such as sculpture, play spaces, water and
porticos shall be incorporated into the landscape to provide a second-level pedestrian
orientation.
Objectives
Stanford’s objectives to implement the principals in the Area Analysis are as follows:
Land Use
Identity: Stanford University Medical Center must establish and reinforce a distinct
physical character that proclaims its preeminence in the field of medicine and biomedical
s:kplan\~ladiv~pcsr\Stanford Area Plan Page 7
o
o
o
o
research, while maintaining its inherent relationship to the physical characteristics, of the
Stanford campus. The user should readily identify the Medical Center as an institution of
the highest level of health care standards and associated research at Stanford University,
as well as being able to identify individual facilities or sub-units within the Medical
Center.
Unity: The overall composition of buildings, parking and open space must convey a unity
of purpose through clarity of iite organization, harmony or architecture and continuity of
landscape elements.
Security: As a medical center, which functions on a 24-hour basis, the Medical Center
must convey an aura of safety to all users. Likewise, it must be physically organized in
such a way that it can be easily policed.
Warmth and welcome: The Medical Center must convey an open and friendly atmosphere
in its grounds and facilities. This sense of openness and friendly environment also serves
to comfort those coming to the Medical Center with emotional concerns over their health
or that of loved ones.
Economy: Economy should be demonstrated both in the efficiency with which the
resources of the site are utilized, and in the expediency with which one can move from.
one area of the Medical Center.to another, whether interior to a building or exterior from
one facility to the next. Further, it implies an economy of design and an ease of
maintenance, which will allow resources to be usedefficiently on a long-term basis.
o Flexibility: A contemporary teaching and research-oriented medical center must maintain
flexibility in order to meet the changing facility demands of its faculty, staff and patients.
Planning .and design must: therefor’e, to the best of its ability and budget, anticipate the
needs for wholesale adaptation as the science and art of health care evolves.
Programs of Implementation.
The Area Analysis sets forth changes in land use and other zoning regulations that are desired by
Stanford to implement the objectives and principles of the Area Analysis. These implementation
measures are as follows:
Land Use
The Pasteur Drive median, which is in the City and is currently zoned Public Facilities
with Landscape Combining District (PF-L), will be altered to allow an underground
parking structure ~arking Structure IV), with landscape enhanced at grade. This is
currently part of the formal application that Stanford submitted for the Center for Cancer
Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion.
sflplan\pladiv\pcsr\Stanford Area Plan Page 8
The realigned Pasteur Drive created an area adjacent to the 1100-1180 Welch Road
housing which is in the City and is zoned RM-40. Stanford plans to use this area for
expansion of existing rental apartments used by hospital employees.
The parcels south and east (inward) of Welch Road would be redeveloped by Stanford for
academic and/or clinical uses at the intensity of the existing hospitals and clinics, which
utilize a floor area ratio of 1:1. Some of these parcels are currently zoned to allow a
maximum floor area ratio of 0.5:l. In the long term, the parcels north and west (outward)
of Welch Road would be redeveloped for academic and/or clinical uses at less of an
intensity (0.5:1 FAR) than the existing hospitals and clinics, to serve as a transitional
buffer to the more public Sand Hill Road. All such parcels are within the City
boundaries.
The temporary surface parking on the Quarry Road Rectangle, in the County of Santa
Clara, is anticipated by Stanford to be used as a housing site for hospital residents
employed by Stanford. It may also contain a "Transplant Inn", which would house
hospital transplant patients.
Q The Quarry Road Trapezoid, located in the County, is proposed by Stanford to support a
higher intensity of development of academic and/or clinical uses, similar to that of the
existing hospitals and clinics (a 1:1 FAR).
The County site at the intersections of Quarry Road and El Camino Real has been
identified by Stanford as a potential additional area for hospital resident housing.
Access, Circulation and Parking
o Increase and make permanent the supply of front door parking to serve patients,
community physicians and care givers, irregular visitors and evening shift workers.
Provide general purpose staffparking in perimeter locations not needed for clinical or
academic facilities.
Expansion of the campus shuttle for improved service to perimeter parking and public
transit hubs.
10.Bicycle facility improvements such as substantial increases to weather proof and secure
class I bike parking near primary entries.
11.Off-street bike connections to Palo Alto and Menlo Park housing and transit hubs and the
central campus.
Urban Design Quality and Community Character
s:\plankpladiv\pcsrkStanford Area Plan Page 9
12.Extend the limitation on building height from 50 feet maximum to 50 - 75 feet maximum,
excluding mechanical penthouses. This allowance would recognize the increasing floor-
to-floor height needs in hospitals and clinics required by code and/or contemporary
engineering suppo~ systems.
13.Provide disabled parking spaces to meet demand and locational need, as opposed to the
existing requirement of 1 disabled space per every 50 parking spaces up to 200 spaces.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The follgwing table summarizes the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District designations for
the project site. These designations are more fully discussed after the table.
Use
Within the City of Palo Alto
Stanford University Medical Center related facilities:
Zoning
District
Edward D. Stone building complex
300 Pasteur Drive
hospital
(inpatient and outpatient),
research, teaching
Major Institution/Special Facilities Public Facilities
Hospital Modernization project Hospital (inpatient)Major Institution/Special Facilities Public Facilities
300 Pasteur Drive (PF)
FALK/CURB Research, teaching Major Institution/Special Facilities Public Facilities
Quarry Road -(PF)
Pasteur Drive median vacant land and parking
hospital
(inpatient and outpatient)
Major Institution/Special Facilities
clinical care
(outpatient)
Lucile Salter Packard Children’s
Hospital
725 Welch Road
Public Facilities
with
Landscape
Combining
District (PF-L)
Medical Plaza
1101 Welch Road
Public Facilities
(PF)Major Institution/Special Facilities
Blake-Wilbur Clinic clinical care Public Facilities
900 Blake-Wilbur Drive (outpatient)Major Institution/Special Facilities (PF)
Research/Office Park Office Research
(OR)
Center administration851 Welch Road
titute clinical care, research801 Welch Road
Public FacilitiesMajor Institution/Special Facilities (PF)
Research/Office Park Office Research
(OR)
s:\plan\pladiv~pcsr\Stanford Area Plan Page 10
Zoning
DistrictUseDesignation
Pavilion Administrative, clinical Major Institution/Special Facilities Public Facilities
211 or 285 Quarry Road care (outpatient)(PF)
Other facilities:
Professional Center
703 Welch Road
H&W
701 Welch Road
Offices.
Office Researchclinical care (dental) Research/Office Park (OR)
Office ResearchOfficeResearch/Office Park (OR)
Office Research
777 Welch Road clinical care Research/Office Park (OR.)
Within Santa Clara Coun~w
Stanford University Medical Center related facilities:
Psychiatry Building Research, teaching, clinical County
401 Quarry Road care Major Institution/Special Facilities designation of
(outpatient)A1-20S
County
Quarry Road Trapezoid Parking Major Institution/Special Facilities designation of
A1-20S
Other facilities:
Quarry Road and El Camino Real vacant land Major Institution/University Laads/County
Academic Reserve and Open Space designation of
A1-20S
Quarry Road Rectangle Daily parking and event Major Institution/University Lands/County
(near Arboretum)parking Campus Multiple Family designation of
AI-20S
Note: AI-20S = the Santa Clara County General Use Permit
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the City of Plan Alto Municipal Code, January 2000.
1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Compliance and Zoning Ordinance Compfiance
Goals, Policies and Programs
The Area Analysis complies with th~ Comprehensive Plan goals and policies in many respects
(non-compliance with land uses and regulations is discussed below). The Comprehensive Plan
goals and policies directly related to this section of the Stanford lands are as follows:
Policy L-2: Maintain an active cooperative working relationship with Santa Clara County
and Stanford University regarding land use issues.
63
s:\plan\pladiv\~csr~Stanford Area Plan Page 11
Program L-2: City staff will monitor Stanford development proposals and traffic conditions
within the Sand Hill Road corridor and annually report to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Policy L-45: Develop the Stanford Medical Center in a manner that recognizes the citywide
goal of compact, pedestrian oriented development as well as the functional needs of the Medical
Center.
Program L-46: Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical
Center.
Policy T-26: Participate in the design and implementation of comprehensive solutions to traffic
problems near Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center.
Program T-35: Consider increased public transit, a shuttle, and other traffic and parking
solutions to ensure safe, convenient access to the Stanford Shopping Center/Medical Center
Area.
Program T-36: Extend Sand Hill Road to E1 Camino Real and construct related
improvements consistent with neighborhood and community interests. Do not extend Sand Hill
Road to Alma Street.
Program T-37: Provide safe, convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and shuttle; connections
between the Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Center areas and future housing along the
Sand Hill Road corridor, the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station, Downtown Palo
Alto, and other primary destinations.
Policy B-32: Assist’Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of health
care services. Work with the center to plan for changing facility needs, but within the context of
City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies, as well as the goals and policies of other relevant
jurisdictions.
As shown in Table 2, the existing land uses and facilities are in compliance with the
C.omprehensive Plan land uses designations. And as shown above, many of the draft Area
Analysis goals and policies are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs. However, some of the objectives and programs listed for implementation would
require Comprehensive Plan amendments, as well as zoning code changes. These Area Analysis
changes are listed below with staff notes regarding the issues related to changing the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning.
The Pasteur Drive median, which is in the City and is currently zoned Public Facilities
with Landscape Combining District (PF-L), will be altered to allow an underground
parking structure (Parking Structure IV), with landscape enhanced at grade.
s:\plankpladiv\pcsr\Stanford Area Plan Page 12
This change may require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zone change.
Stanford proposes the removal of the Landscape "~ "Combining District. However, the
"1)raft EIR "for the proposed Center concludes that the proposed 1,035-space.
underground parking facility is in compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan and
zoning designations: Currently about 9I vehicles are able to park along the periphery of
the Pasteur Drive median. It is unclear form the Draft EIR if the availability to park in
these areas will remain after an underground structure is built. The Draft EIR will be
reviewed with the formal development application through publid hearings before the
Architectural Review Board, the Planning Commission and the City Council
The realigned Pasteur Drive created an area adjacent to the 1100-1180 Welch Road
housing which is in the City and is zoned RM-40. Stanford plans to use this area for
expansion of existing rental apartments used by hospital employees.
This change would not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a zone change,
because the existing multiple-family area has been expanded due to the re-alignment of
Pasteur Drive and will be consistent with City plans. There are 150 units on this site
ndw, and perhaps an additional 100 units could be added for a total of 250 residential
units at this site.
The parcels south and east (inward) of Welch Road would be redeveloped by Stanford for
academic and/or clinical uses at the intensity of the existing hospitals and clinics, which
utilize a floor area ratio of 1:1. Some of these parcels are currently zoned to allow a
maximum floor area ratio of 0.5:1. In the long term, the parcels north and west (outward)
of Welch Road would be redeveloped for academic and/or clinical uses at less of an
intensity (0.5:1 FAR) than the. exist.hag hospitals and clinics, to serve as a transitional
buffer to the more public Sand Hill Road. All parcels are within the City boundaries.
¯ This change would require: (a) a Comprehensive Plan amendment for those sites
designated as Research/Office Park to Major Institution!Special Facilities and (b) a zone
change for those, sites designated as Office Research to Public Facilities. These sites
include 701, 703, 777, 801 and1101 Welch Road, which are the inwardparcelsfrom
Welch Road that are currently zoned Research/Office Park. These parcels total 539,272 "
square feet and currently accommodate 147,971 building square feet. With a 1:1 FAR,
an additional 391,301 square feet of building areal could be developed lf the proposed
Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory CarePavilion is approved at
218,000 square feet, then 187, 651 square feet of additional building square footage could
be added to the Medical Center (taking into account the proposed demolition of the
14, 350 square-foot building at 851 Welch Road as part of the overall Cancer Center
proposal).
o The temporary surface parking on the Quarry Road Rectangle, in the County of Santa
Clara, is anticipated by Stanford to be used as a housing site for hospital residents
employed by UCSF Stanford Health Care, consistent withthe Palo Alto Comprehensive
s:\plan\pladiv~pcsr\Stanford Area Plan
65
Page 13
Plan. It may also contain a "Transplant Inn", which would house hospital transplant
patients.
This change would not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a zone change by
the City, because the site is located within the County. The Draft Community Plan and
General Use Permit, which is issued by the County and was presented to the City Council
in October 1999, calls for 200 residential units at this location to accommodate post-
graduate and hospital residents. At the October 1999 Council meeting, a resolution was
made to generally support housing in this area. The existing 396parking spaces would
then be eliminated
o The Quarry Road Trapezoid, located in the County, is proposed by Stanford to support a
higher intensity of development of academic and/or clinical uses, similar to that of the ’
existing hospitals and clinics (a 1:1 FAR).
This change would not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a zone change by
the City, because the site is located in the County. Currently, the site is 167,000 square
fdet and is utilized for 452 permit parking spaces. If development occurs at this site at an
FAR of 1:1, potentially 167, 000 square feet of development could be added to this area of
the Medical Center with a loss of parking spaces. As in #4, above; the site is zoned by the
County of Santa Clara as A1o20S, and any required change to the zoning would be
handled through Stanford’s General Use Permit with the County. At the time of such use
permit application, the City would be provided an opportunity to comment through the
three-party agreement between the City, the County and Stanford
o The County site at the intersections of Quarry Road and E1 Camino Real has been
identified by Stanford as an additional site for hospital resident housing.
This change would not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a zone change by
the City, because the site is located within the County. The Draft Community Plan and
General Use Permit,. which is issued by the County and was presented to the City Council
in October 1999, calls for 150 residential units at this location to accommodate post-
graduate and hospital residents. At the October 1999 Council meeting, a resolution was
made to agree that housing proposed in this area should not be constructed unless a
significant open space buffer could be maintained along El Camino Real. The site is
zoned by the County of Santa Clara as A1-20S, and any required change to the zoning
would be handled through Stanford’s General Use Permit with the County. At the time of
such use permit application, the City would be provided an opportunity to comment
through the three-party agreement between the City, the County and Stanford.
Access, Circulation andParking
Increase and make permanent the supply of front door parking to serve patients,
community physicians and care givers, irregular visitors and evening shift workers.
s:\plan\pladiv\pcsr~Stanford Area Plan Page 14
o
This change would not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment, but it may require a
or.a zone change if the removal of the Landscape Combining District is pursued.
Provide general purpose staff parking in perimeter locations not needed for cfinical or
academic facilities.
10.
11.
This change would not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a zone change.
Expansion of the campus shuttle for improved sewice to perimeter parking and public
transit hubs.
This change would not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a zone change.
Bicycle facility improvements such as substantial increases to weather proof and secure
class I bike parking near primary entries.
This change would not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a zone change.
Off-street bike connections to Palo Alto and Menlo Park housing and transit hubs and the
central campus.
This change would not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a zone change.
Urban Design Quality and Community Character
12.Extend the limitation On building height from 50 feet maximum to 75 feet maximum,
excluding mechanical penthouses. This allowance would recognize the increasing floor-
to-floor heights needs in hospitals and clinics required by code and/or contemporary
engineering support systems.
This change would require a Zoning Code amendment to allow for an increased height
limit for medical facilities.
13.Provide disabled parking spaces to meet demand and locational need, as opposed to the
existing requirement of 1 disabled space per eve~ 50 parking spaces up to 200 spaces.
This change would require an amendment to the Medical Center’s existing use permit.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The significant issues include some of the implementation programs that are listed in the draft
Area Analysis as necessary to proceed forward with development in the medical center area of
Stanford. Other significant issues include circulation and parking at the Medical Center.
The Pasteur Drive Median
sAplan\pladiv\pcsr\Stanford Area Plan
67
Page 15
The Area Analysis slates the Pasteur Drive median, which is currently rural landscape, to be
altered to allow an underground parking structure (Parking Structure IV), with landscape
enhanced at grade. The alteration of this area may require a Comprehensive Plan amendment
and a zone change. Program L-71 of the Comprehensive Plan States that the Cib’ shall
"Recognize Sand Hill Road... as a scenic route." Sand Hill Road provides a link between E1
Camino Real, a State Historic Route, and Interstate 280, a California Scenic Highway.
Therefore, the intersection of Sand Hill Road and Pasteur Drive, as the gateway to the Stanford
medical center and the lead drive to the Edward D. Stone building, is a critical visual element.
Policy T-48 of the Comprehensive Plan directs the City to "Encourage parking strategies in the
Stanford Medical Center area that maximize the efficient use ofparldng and, in the long term,
consider the possible use of remote parking lots with shuttle bus service." If parking was placed
underground in this area, the existing median would need to be completely removed for
construction. And when "landscaping" the top level of the parking structure, it wili not look as it
does now (although o formal landscaping exists). There will be limitations on the depth of
ground and ground covered plants and there wi.’ll be more hardscape incorporated into any design
of the top level. However, the "Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford University
Medical Center, Center for Cancer Treatment.and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion and
Parking Structure IV" concludes that the underground parking will not result in significant visual
impacts and is consistent with the intent of the Landscape Combining District. Further
discussion of this issue will take place at public hearings before the Architectural Review Board,
the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Parcels In ward of Welch Road and Floor Area Ratios
In the Area Analysis, Stanford identifies an increase from a 0.5:1 FAR to 1:1 FAR for certain
parcels inward of Welch Road. If these parcels remain as they are designated now in the
Comprehensive Plan, then the FARs would remain at 0.5:1. The existing d~velopmentinward of
Welch Road is at an overall FAR of 0.75:1, including the Pasteur Drive median and the hospital
facilities, but not including any roadways. If the proposed Center for Cancer Treatment and
Prevention!Ambulatory Care Pavilion is approved, that new develolSment would yield another
203,650 square feet of building area (218,000 square feet minus the 14,350 square foot building
at 851 Welch Road that would be demolished). This would alter the FAR to 0.82:1, including
the Pasteur Drive median.
H~wever, historically, the Medical Center area has been considered one "parcel" with respect to
floor area ratios and parking calculations (discussed later). This means that the maximum square
footage allowed over the entire Medical Center site can be distributed anywhere. Table 1, on
page 4 of this staff report, summarizes the existing floor are ratio within the Area Analysis
boundaries - an existing overall FAR of 0.61:1 with 3,719,267 square feet of site area and
2,257,565 square feet of building area.
If the FARs remain as they are now, with some areas having a 1:1 ratio and other areas having a
0.5:1 ratio, the entire Medical Center (within the Area Analysis boundaries) could accommodate
a current buildout of 2,707,082 square feet of building (assuming 0.5:1 FAR on the County
land). The overall FAR for the Medical Center would be 0.73:1. This means that an additional
s:\plan~pladiv\pcsr~Stanford Area Plan Page 16
449,517 square feet could be built. If the proposed Center for Cancer Treatment and
Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion is approved, then an additional 245,867 square feet could
be built after that development.
If the FARs are increased for certain parcels to allow a 1:1 FAR from a 0.5:1 FAR (those parcels
inward of Welch Road and for the County land of the Quarry Road trapezoid), then apotential
buildout of 3,276,717 square feet could be built. This is an increase of 569,635 square feet. If
the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion is approved, then
approximately 365,985 additional square feet could be built after the Cancer Center is built. The
result would be an overall FAR of 0.88:1.
Building Heights
The Area Analysis also identifies the need to extend the limitation on building height from a 50-
foot maximum to a 75-foot maximum, excluding mechanical penthouses. Stanford states that
this allowance would recognize the increasing floor-to-floor heights needed in hospitals and
clinics required by code and/or contemporary engineering support systems. This type of change
would require a Zoning Code amendment. Staff believes this to be a significant issue for the
community and at the time the request is pursued, building code experts should give testimony as
to the exact necessity of the extra height requirements for hospitals and clinics.
Circulation
With increased services at the Medical Center andwith future increased development, traffic
circulation and transportation systems will be impacted. The proposed Center for Cancer
Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion includes the request to change the zoning
on certain parcels inward of Welch Road from Research!Office Park to Public Facilities to
accommodate the increased square footage of the Center. These parcels include 801 Welch Road
and 1101 Welch Road. These zone designation changes carry.with them an automatic increase in
floor area ratio from 0.5:1 to 1:1. Additionally, as stated throughout this staff report, the long
range goal fo~ Stanford is to increase the floor area ratio on all parcels inward of Welch Road
from their existing 0.5:1 to 1:1 and to put a 1:1 FAR on the County Quarry Road trapezoid,
bringing with these changes’a potential buildout of approximately 365,985 additional square feet,
after the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion is built.
However, each change in development at the Medical Center should be evaluated on its own
merits within the context of the Medical Center and the surrounding area as a whole. For
example, although the proposed Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care
Pavilion will increase development by over 203,000 square feet, the project also proposes
mitigation measures to alleviate vehicle, transit, bicycle and pedestrian impacts. The Draft EIR
evaluated Year 2010 capacities for 39 intersections surrounding the Medical Center, which lead
to mitigation measures such as: restriping of certain intersection to add addition turn lanes,
construction of additional mm lanes that may require adjacent land dedication, the re-routing of
the Marguerite Shuttle to better serve the new facility, University enrollment in special pass
programs with VTA to encourage ridership, development of remote parking strategies, to name a
few.
s:\plan~pladiv~pcsr\Stanford Area Plan Page 17
NEXT STEPS
The Planning Commission’s comments will be forwarded to the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, section 15060 Prelkninary Review, the
Area Analysis is not def’med as a "project", because the Area Analysis will not involve the
exercise of discretionary powers by the City of Palo Alto. The Area Analysis is an informational
report that the City will comment on as to compliance with City goals and policies.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this project was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Notice has also been
mailed via notice cards to all property owners and residents within a 300 foot radius of the
project site and.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A:Stanford University Area Analysis
Exhibit B:Palo Alto comments on the Santa Clara County General Use Permit and
Community Plan
Exhibit C: Three-party agreement
COURTESY COPIES
David J. Neuman, University Architect/Planning Office, Stanford University, 655 sen’a Street,
Stanford, California 94305
Prepared by:Nancy M. Hutar
Reviewed by:~ Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Department/Division Approval: ~(~ ~’~1~
Lisa Grote,’ Chief Planning Official
s:\plan\pladivYpcsr~Stanford Area Plan Page 18
ATTACHMENT 4
AREA ANALYSIS WITH CITY POLICY INSERTS
Stanford University Medical Center
See the following pages.