Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-07-10 City Council (19)
City of Palo Alto C ty V anager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT JULY 10, 2000 CMR:313:00 875 BLAKE WILBUR DRIVE: CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 218,000-SQUARE-FOOT CENTER FOR CANCER TREATMENT. AND PREVENTION AND AMBULATORY CARE PAVILION (CCTP/ACP) AND AN APPROXIMATELY 1,035-SPACE, FOUR- LEVEL UNDER-GROUND PARKING STRUCTURE IN THE PASTEUR DRIVE MEDIAN BETWEEN WELCH ROAD AND BLAKE WILBUR DRIVE, A PROJECT REQUESTED BY STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS FOR STANFORD UNIVERSITY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A CHANGE IN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 801 AND 1101 WELCH ROAD FROM RESEARCH/OFFICE TO MAJOR INSTITUTION/SPECIAL FACILITIES; A ZONE CHANGE TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 801 AND 1101 WELCH ROAD FROM OFFICE RESEARCH (OR) TO PUBLIC FACILITY (PF); A PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING AT 851 WELCH ROAD; A ZONE CHANGE TO REMOVE THE LANDSCAPE COMBINING DISTRICT FROM THE PUBLIC FACILITIES (PF) ZONE AT THE PASTEUR DRIVE MEDIAN STRIP BETWEEN WELCH ROAD AND BLAKE WILBUR DRIVE; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OPERATION OF THE CCTP/ACP AT 875 BLAKE WILBUR DRIVE AND 851 WELCH ROAD AND OF PARKING STRUCTURE IV IN THE PASTURE DRIVE MEDIAN [97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-ZA-14, 97-UP-66, 97-ARB-214] RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: Certify the Environmental Impact Report for construction of a Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention and Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTP/ACP) at 875 CMR:3!3:00 Page 1 of 15 o o Blake Wilbur Drive and a parking structure in the Pasteur Drive median between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive ; Adopt a statement of overriding considerations regarding adverse environmental impacts of the project; Adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for 1101 and 801 Welch Road from Research/Office Park to Major Institution!Special Facilities; Introduce an ordinance amending the Zoning Map designation for: (a) 1101 and 801 Welch Road from Office Research to Public facilities, and (b) The Pasteur Drive median strip between Welch Road and Blake-Wilbur Drive from Public Facilities with Landscape Combining District to Public Facilities with a conservation easement; Approve the Use Permit for the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion to allow the construction and operation of an outpatient clinical facility; and Initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment and accompanying zone change for those parcels "outward" of Welch Road (730-1000 Welch Road) to allow multiple- family residential uses at an RM-30 or RM-40 density and/or mixed uses; and direct staff to provide the City Council with a preliminary analysis of such potential actions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a request by Stanford Hospital and Clinics (formally known as UCSF Stanford Health Care) as the applicant, for Stanford University as the land owner, for the development of the Cancer for Cancer Treatment and Prevention and Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTP/ACP) facility, which would include: (1) the demolition of a 12,550 square foot medical office building at 851 Welch Road and its related surface parking area, (2) the removal of a surface parking area located just north of Parking Structure III (PS III), (3) the construction of the 218,000 square foot CCTP/ACP with four floors of out-patient facilities (one floor would be underground) located at the new address of 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, and (4) the construction of a four-level, underground 1,035 space parking structure within the Pasteur Drive median, between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive, with attendant surface landscaping. Stanford’s stated purpose for the proposed project is to construct a facility that would consolidate cancer and ambulatory care services into a single location. This facility would accommodate new trends in outpatient health care delivery, up-to-date equipment, modern operating rooms, and open space and other amenities for patients and visitors. Stanford believes that the collaborative approach that would be fostered by the CCTP/ACP would enable physicians from different specialties to work together, which could result in different treatment strategies. Stanford’s objectives for the CCTP/ACP are: ~,CMR:313:00 Page 2 of 15 3t St o ° 10. Patient-centered building and landscape design that would increase patient and visitor comfort and convenience and promote healing. Consolidation of cancer diagnostic, treatment, and surgical services into a recognizable, accessible, and state-of-the-art modem facility. Creation of child-friendly spaces in the design of pediatric sections. Compact infill development that helps in the utilization of existing medical center infrastructure and ancillary services, avoids dispersion of clinical facilities, and eliminates redundancy and duplication of services. Buildings that allow natural light to filter into all levels. Creation of flexible, generic and adequate workspace that can accommodate changing medical technologies and uses. Integration of previously separated and isolated clinical care and research facilities. New clinical development located adjacent to related facilities for convenience and efficiency of services. Strengthening of the existing medical center site connections, vistas, and the overall circulation patterns. Improvement of the medical center operational efficiency. Stanford’s stated objectives for the parking structure are: 11. 12. Provision of convenient, consolidated parking in permanent, easily accessible, safe and aesthetically appropriate locations near clinical facilities. Maintenance and enhancement of the landscaping character of the Pasteur Drive entry open space. The CCTP/ACP use would occupy about 130,900 square feet (60 percent) of the new facility and the ACP would occupy the remaining 87,100 square feet. The ACP would house the services and facilities that are now located at the Ambulatory Surgery Ce.nter within the Stanford University Hospital. The ACP would have 16 operating rooms, which is four more than currently exist at the hospital. Patient visits are projected to increase from 368 daily visits to 524 daily visits. The number of employees is projected to increase from 412 to 501. The existing cancer treatment facilities at the Medical center occupy 82,000 square feet. The new CCTP/ACP facility would house 218,000 square feet for these same functions. The need for the increased space is to: (1) accommodate new treatment techniques; (2) allow for increased corridor space and the pedestrian bridge to the Children’s Hospital; (3) satisfy State requirements for size of waiting rooms, bathrooms and operating rooms; (4) comply with Title 24 regulations; and (5) accommodate modem equipment and the need for additional operating rooms. CMR:313:00 Page 3 of 15 3 The surrounding land is owned by Stanford University and includes a mix of educational/campus facilities (mostly the School of Medicine) to the west, SUMC facilities to the south, medical related office uses to the north and east, and retail commercial uses to the east at the Stanford Mall. Access to the site and to the SUMC is provided from sand Hill Road and E1 Camino Real as the main arterials, with more localized traffic entering from Pasture Drive, Welch Road, Quarry Road, Campus Drive West and other minor campus roadways. Existing Uses The proposed CCTP/ACP site is currently occupied by a 12,550-square-foot medical office building and 60-space surface parking lot at 851 Welch Road and a 152-space permit parking lot located immediately north of PS III. The office building and the surface parking lots are proposed to be removed for the construction of the CCTP/ACP, with the office tenants to be relocated. Stanford School of Medicine staff make up about half of the building’s tenants and would be relocated to the School of Medicine facilities, some of which are within unincorporated Santa Clara County. University Procurement staff and the remaining tenants would be relocated to central campus facilities. The proposed underground parking structure site is currently covered mostly with grass and trees. This site is not formally landscaped and is in a semi-natural state. A portion of the original Governor’s Avenue (the pathway that once led from Leland Stanford’s home to his stables) crosses the parking structure site. Parking Structure The four-level underground parking structure would include 1,035 parking spaces, which would accommodate the 872 parking space demand generated by the proposed CCTP/ACP with a surplus of 163 parking spaces. Landscaping would be provided above ground with raised wooden beds of meadow grass that alternate with pavement of decomposed granite. Seating would be provided as part of the wooden planters. The portion of Governor’s Avenue that crosses the parking structure site would be preserved as a landscaped area and planted with two rows of sycamore trees, which is consistent with the rest of Governor’s Way. The landscape would be designed in such a way as to guide parking structure users to nearby pathways. A plaza is proposed for the eastern end of the Pasteur Drive median, adjacent to Blake Wilbur Drive and close to the main elevator/stair access to the parking structure. Circulation The circulation concept for the proposed project is to integrate automobiles, transit vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. To this end, the north side of Blake Wilbur Drive would be converted to a mixed-use, passenger-oriented zone with drop-off areas, transit stops, bicycle circulation and pedestrian crosswalks. Automobile access to the CCTP/ACP would be from Pasteur Drive, Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive, where 1~CMR:313:00 Page 4 of 15 vehicles can either park at the proposed parking structure, the existing parking structure, or proceed, to a drop off zone. Pedestrian zones would be created around the entire perimeter of the CCTP/ACP for ease of access to the parking and transit areas. The proposed project would provide 112 new bicycle parking spaces in a modular enclosure between Blake Wilbur Plaza and the surface parking at 851 Welch Road. The project would also modify the existing bicycle routes around the Stanford University Medical Center for easier connections to facilities. SamTrans (Route 282), Valley Transportation Authority (Route 86) and Stanford University’s Marguerite shuttles currently service the Medical Center. As part of the proposed project, the Marguerite shuttle would make stops in front of the Blake Wilbur Clinic and the proposed CCTP/ACP. DISCUSSION Environmental Review Most significant impacts of the project would be reduced to a level of insignificance with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. Key findings in the EIR regarding Comprehensive Plan policy implications are as follows: Circulation plans for the proposed project show that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals of integrating development with the transit and street system. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit needs are have been addressed. The proposed parking garage would be four floors underground and would leave the surface as open area that is proposed to be landscaped, thus maximizing the use of the space. The provision of the parking garage would more than satisfy the demands for parking resulting from the proposed CCTP/ACP project. However, the parking structure would increase the number of cars in the Stanford University Medical Center area, especially through the Pasteur Drive entry. There is a history of Stanford applying to the City of Palo Alto to change Comprehensive Plan designations and/or to rezone portions of the Medical Center in association with proposed new construction or additions to existing facilities without a master plan. For example, such planning applications were involved with the Hospital Modernization Project phases, the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital and the Blake-Wilbur Clinic. Typically, the City has approved such planning applications. However, the EIR has identified some significant impacts that are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. These significant effects are as follows: Aesthetics - temporary visual impacts during construction Construction of the CCTP/ACP and the related underground parking structure could result in visual disturbance from removal of existing landscaping, ground disturbance from excavation and grading, and unsightly views due to equipment and material storage. These effects would be particularly noticeable for PS IV, since the site is along the main CMR:313:00 Page 5 of 15 entryway into Medical Center and highly visible from Sand Hill Road, Pasteur Drive and public walkways and plazas around Medical Center. These impacts, though temporary, would constitute short-term, significant, and unavoidable effects of the project. Although temporary significant adverse visual impacts from construction activities cannot be entirely avoided, the mitigation measures listed in the EIR would reduce the severity of the impact. The impact, however, .would be significant and unavoidable. Transportation - project and cumulative traffic delays at eleven study intersections As stated previously, the circulation objective in front of the proposed project is to integrate automobiles, transit, pedestrians and bicycles in a mixed-mode area at the end of Blake-Wilbur Drive. In concept, this plan is acceptable. But it must be carefully designed to provide the proper circulation indications and safety provisions for the various modes. Once more detailed plans are provided during the architectural review, City staff would be able to provide more detailed comments to the applicant. Applying the thresholds of significance adopted by the City of Palo Alto, the City of Menlo Park and the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency, the project would result in increased delays in the Year 2010 at the following intersections (see Table 3.5-23 on page 3.5-89 in the DEIR): (a) E1 Camino Real/Valparaiso in Menlo Park, (b) E1 Camino Real~avenswood in Menlo Park, (c) E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, (d) Arboretum Road/Palm Drive on the Stanford campus, (e) Welch Road/Campus Drive West in the Stanford campus, (f) Sand Hill Road/Oak in Menlo Park, (g) Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz in Menlo Park, (h) Santa Cruz/Alpine/Junipero Serra in Menlo Park, (i) Junipero Serra/Campus Drive West in Santa Clara County, (j) Junipero Serra/Stanford in Santa Clara County, and (k) Sand Hill Road/Sharon Park in Menlo Park. The implementation.of the mitigation measures listed in the EIR would reduce the project intersection impacts to less-than-significant levels. However, four of the nine intersections are within the City of Menlo Park’s jurisdiction and the City of Palo Alto has no authority to require that these recommended improvements be made. If Menlo Park is not able or willing to implement these modifications, these mitigation measures are not feasible and the impacts to these four intersections would remain significant and unavoidable. Five of the intersection capacity increases identified in the EIR as mitigation measures for this project were also identified as mitigation measures for the Sand Hill EIR. These intersections are: (a) Welch Road/Campus Drive West, (b) Sand Hill Road/Oak, (c) Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz, (d) Santa Cruz/Alpine/Junipero Serra in Menlo Park, (f) Junipero Serra/Campus Drive West. Although these projects are included in the Menlo Park General Plan, the Menlo Park City Council advised the City of Palo Alto in its EIR comment letter that it does not intend to pursue or permit these intersection modifications. When a mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency, it cannot be implemented by Palo Alto itself. However, instead of disapproving the project or adopting a statement of overriding considerations for the unmitigated impacts, CMR:313:00 Page 6 of 15 the City may make a finding under CEQA Guideline 15091(a)(2), which is a "can and should" finding. This finding Would state that such changes and alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding and such changes have been adopted by sueh other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Stanford has requested that Palo Alto, having previously found, with the Sand Hill project, that these improvements can and should be made, make that same finding for this project. Staff supports Stanford’s request. Air Quality - cumulative regional air emissions of nitrous oxide The analysis in the EIR indicates that the project would cause potentially significant regional impacts of nitrous oxide emissions from motor vehicle trips and stationary source operations. Transportation mitigation measures listed in the EIR would help reduce vehicle trips and minimize cumulative impacts to regional air quality. However, because the effectiveness of the mitigation measures cannot, be guaranteed to reduce project regional emissions to below significance thresholds on all days, the cumulative impacts to regional air quality would remain significant and unavoidable. Noise - project and cumulativg construction noise Construction and demolition noise would create an intermittent impact on the environment that would be short-term because it would occur only through the duration of the construction and demolition phases, disturbing the nearest sensitive receptors. The construction activities would occur close to the existing hospital and medical facilities and during the normal working hours of each. The mitigation measures listed in the EIR would reduce the potential for adverse construction noise impacts, but the threshold of the City’s noise ordinance could still potentially be exceeded. Therefore, the impacts would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level and the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Also, because the construction noise from this project could coincide with construction noise from other approved projects, the resulting noise levels would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. An EIR’s purpose is to identify and disclose potentially significant environmental impacts that would be created by the development of the project. If significant impacts are identified, the EIR is required to identify, feasible measures to mitigate the significant impacts to levels of insignificance. If it is found that there remain unavoidable environmental impacts of the project, the City may find that these impacts are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the project, even after giving greater weight to the City’s duty to avoid the environmental impacts and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. Such a determination would be made based upon the facts and public benefits identified in the Final EIR and record of proceedings on the project. In approving the project, the City Council would need to balance the benefits of the CCTP/ACP against these environmental impacts. In this regard, some of the benefits of the project are as follows: CMR:313:00 Page 7 of 15 1 The CCTP/ACP provides a key health center facility for not only the region, but for the country; The existing cancer treatment areas at SUMC are overcrowded and outdated and the project would provide decent, safe and modem health care; The unavoidable aesthetic and noise impacts would be temporary; Circulation and transportation may be improved through implementation of the listed mitigation measures at most intersections; and Implementation of the transportation mitigation measures would help to reduce air quality impacts. Project Relationship To Sand Hill Road Projects The Sand Hill Road Projects EIR included consideration of additional development at the Medical Center. Specifically, the EIR assumed an additional 400,000 square feet of Medical Center development. It was also assumed that approximately half of that increased development would occur in the near term, or by the Year 2000. Consequently, the proposed CCTP/ACP project is not in addition to the cumulative Medical Center development identified and assessed in the Sand Hill Road Projects EIR. The CCTP/ACP EIR (including the proposed underground parking structure) utilizes the Sand Hill Road Projects EIR as a reference document and builds on the traffic modeling used. Appendix C of the CCTP/ACP EIR compares the Sand Hill Road Projects and the CCTP/ACP traffic analysis. Because the approved Sand Hill Road Projects differed from the proposed projects assessed in that EIR, the traffic model for the CCTP/ACP EIR required various adjustments. Also, near term square footage assumed in the Sand Hill Road Projects EIR had to be subtracted from the model so as not to double count the proposed CCTP/ACP project. Additional modifications to the model and traffic analysis assumptions for the CCTP/ACP EIR were made as a result of updated traffic counts and ABAG projections for Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties and for City of Menlo Park policy regarding Sand Hill Road improvements in Menlo Park. Project Relationship To Santa Clara County’s Community Plan And General Use Permit The Community Plan/GUP pertains to Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. The CCTP/ACP project is located in the incorporated portion of the Stanford University Medical Center, within the City of Palo Alto. The main relationship between the City’s processing of the CCTP/ACP project and the County processing of the Community PlaniGUP concerns the treatment of future development, of Stanford lands both within the City of Palo Alto and unincorporated County of Santa Clara. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On May 24, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTP/ACP). Extensive public testimony was given at this hearing. The Planning Commission was ~b CMR:313:00 Page 8 of 15 supportive of the project. The Commissioners voted to recommend approval to the City Council on the following recommendations: ° Certify the Environmental Impact Report for construction of a Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention and Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTP/ACP) at 875 Blake Wilbur Drive and a parking structure in the Pasteur Drive median between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive, ; Adopt a statement of overriding considerations justifying adverse impacts of traffic, air quality and noise; Adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for 1101 and 801 Welch Road from Research!Office Park to Major Institution!Special Facilities; Introduce an ordinance amending the Zoning Map designation for: (a) 1101 and 801 Welch Road from Office Research to Public facilities, and (b) The Pasteur Drive median strip between Welch Road and Blake-Wilbur Drive from Public Facilities with Landscape Combining District to Public Facilities with a conservation easement; Approve the Use Permit for the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion to allow the construction and operation of an outpatient clinical facility. Initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment and accompanying zone change for those parcels "outward" of Welch Road (730-1000 Welch Road) to allow multiple- family residential uses at an RM-30 or RM-40 density and/or mixed uses; and direct staff to provide the City Council with a preliminary analysis of such potential actions. The Planning Commission recommended modifications to staff recommendations 5 and 6, which are described below. Use Permit (see Attachment 5): The Commission recommended an amendment to condition #5 of the draft Use Permit to encourage more active uses at grade (above the proposed parking structure) in the Pasteur Drive median. The Commission wanted to encourage such things as play structures for children, picnic areas and kiosks, within an attractive park setting. The Commission also recommended that condition #8 be more specific to say that the intent is to accommodate all the runoff from the surface parking structure. Staff has added language in italics to these conditions. The Commission recommended that condition #9 be worded so that the required open space covenant for the Pasteur Drive median would ensure that the FAR for the median could not again be counted and transferred to another portion of the site. Staff concurs with the Commission’s recommendation, but wants to clarify that the square-footage from the Pasteur Drive median has already been "transferred" from the median area to other portions of the Medical Center PF zones. The square-footage has been used to develop CMR:313:00 Page 9 of 15 buildings now existing on the site. Removing the Landscape Combining District will not, however, result in any additional square-footage being acquired or the ability to use any square-footage originating from that area again. Therefore, staff did not amend the language in condition #9 regarding FAR calculations. The Commission also recommended that the open space covenant have enough flexibility to allow for future services within the parking structure, such as a dry cleaners or other retail services that would be beneficial to the employees and visitors to the Medical Center. Such uses would need a Use Permit in the PF zone and they would count towards FAR. Staff has added such language in italics to this condition. For condition #12, the Commission recommended adding language as follows (which has been provided in the proposed Use Permit in italics): 1.A goal to provide transportation access for service workers who do not work the normal 8-5 shifts and who live in close proximity to Palo Alto and to Stanford. 2.An annual reporting requirement on the success/status of the TDM measures. Such reporting requirements would remain in place for ten years. The report would also provide information about weaknesses in the transportation system. 3.A goal to reduce all trips throughout the day, not just peak hour trips. The Commission also stressed the importance of providing sufficient on-site childcare to meet the needs of the CCTP/ACP employees. Such language has been included in condition # 22. Parcels "Outward" of Welch Road." The Planning Commission recommended the land use change for the outward parcels along Welch Road for an RM-30 or RM-40 multiple- family residential density, which may create an additional 400 residential units for the area. That language has been added to the proposed recommendation in italics (as shown above). POLICY IMPLICATIONS The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan integrates land use, urban design, transportation, and economic policy in the Land Use and Community Design Element. Urban design considerations appear throughout the element. The element recognizes that land use decisions must be closely integrated with transportation and economic decisions. There are general citywide policies in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element that apply to Stanford, along with Stanford-specific policies. The planning context section of the element states "Some of the most significant opportunities .for growth and change in the Palo Alto area are on the Stanford University lands." The proposed project is within the Stanford University Medical Center and would not disrupt the physical arrangement and character of SUMC. However, the implementation of the proposed project requires a change in the Comprehensive Plan land use d6signation for the site. Without these amendments, there is insufficient development capacity under current zoning to accommodate a 218,000 square-foot medical facility. Discussion of the CMR:313:00 Page 10 of 15 Stanford Medical Center in the element states, "Expansion of these facilities needs to be evaluated in the context of citywide planning goals and policies, especially related to traffic." The 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan provides a strong basis for implementing alternative methods of transportation throughout the City. The vision includes statements regarding the need to provide accessible, attractive, economically viable and environmentally sound transportation options that meet the needs of residents, employers, employees and visitors for safe, convenient and efficient travel by a variety of methods. It further states that emphasis will be placed on alternatives to the automobile, including walking, bicycling, public transit, and car and vanpooling. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the reduction of automobile trips by 10 percent by 2010. Specifically: Policy T-1 in the Comprehensive Plan states: "Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use". This policy acknowledges that higher density and mixed use patterns generally translate into higher transit use and pedestrian activity. Program T-5 calls for "Work(ing) with private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and major institutions, to develop and coordinate trip reduction strategies". Businesses can organize trip reduction programs in which employees are given a variety of incentives to reduce driving during the peak times. Policy T-26 states: "Participate in the design and implementation of comprehensive solutions to traffic problems near Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center." Program T-35 follows-up on the policy statement with: "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. Policy T-27 calls for: "’Avoid(ing) major increases in street capacity unless necessary to remedy severe traffic congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists." All of these policy and program statements support the development of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for existing and new development, which emphasize a reduction in the use of private automobiles for individuals and the use of alternative modes of transportation. Physical improvements which increase vehicle capacity along roadways and at intersections are discouraged and are identified as having negative environmental impacts including reduced air quality. These policies and programs lay the basis for Stanford and other businesses and organizations to implement aggressive TDM programs to address potential traffic impacts. Housing CMR:313:00 Page 11 of 15 The proposed project would not construct housing and, therefore, would n~t directly increase Palo Alto’s resident population. The proposed project would, however, lead to an increase in the number of staff at the Medical Center, which could affect the housing demand in Palo Alto and in the larger housing market. The City is committed to increasing the development of affordable and market-rate housing, but Palo Alto has a limited supply of vacant residential land. Most of the City’s development potential consists of infill on small vacant lots, redevelopment of existing properties, and new mixed-use projects. The Comprehensive Plan calls for innovative approaches for providing more housing within the City. Policy H-2 calls for: ~Consider(ing) a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations." Program H-1 follows by stating: "Allow for increased housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas and particularly near transit centers. The first step in accomplishing this goal would be to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Office Research to Multiple-family Residential, which would then be followed by the appropriate zoning designation. Although there are existing office buildings that would have to be given an appropriate period for amortization, this ultimately could produce up to 400 residential units. Changing the land use category and zoning designation of the parcels "outward" of Welch Road to allow housing immediately adjacent to the Medical Center and close to the new Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center -would increase the opportunity for providing additional housing units at higher densities within the City. This type of land use and zoning change would also support Transportation Policy T-l, which acknowledges that higher density development and mixed-use patterns encourage transit use and pedestrian activity. To help mitigate such housing demand, the Palo Alto Municipal Code’s housing mitigation ordinance requires all commercial and industrial development or redevelopment projects which meet certain applicability requirements to comply with the payment of a housing mitigation fee. This in-lieu fee has been set at $4.03 per square foot (adjusted every April, according to the Consumer Price Index). In the draft Conditional Use Permit, this mitigation fee is required for the proposed project. At a 198,000 square-foot net increase in building area (due to the demolition of the 14,350 square-foot building at 851 Welch Road and the 5,650 square-foot mitigation fee allowance), Stanford would contribute an estimated $797,940 to the City’s Housing In- Lieu Fund. This fee is intended to be put towards the construction costs of affordable. housing units that would satisfy the housing demand generated by 10 percent of the households with low and moderate incomes who would be expected to hold jobs in the project. The fee is collected when building permits are issued, so the exact amount would be calculated at that time. ~NQ~CMR:313:00 Page 12 of 15 Cumulative Development The Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 EIR cumulative impact analysis assumes that the Medical Center would have up to 400,000 square-feet of additional development (compared to the 218,000 square-feet of the proposed project) within the City boundaries in the Medical Center area by the year 2010. Although this additional development was not a City-endorsed increase that would have been provided in its policy framework, the proposed project is within the envelope of cumulative development that was used in the EIR and the proposed project would be constructed within the proposed time frame. The Sand Hill Road EIR cumulative impact analysis also assumes that the Medical Center would have up to 400,000 square-feet of additional development. Zoning Ordinance As stated above, the proposed project requires the changing of the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for certain sites inward of Welch Road. Corresponding zoning designations would also need to be changed. Additionally, the proposed underground parking use is not a permitted or conditional use in the Landscape Combining District. As a consequence, the proposed project requires removal of this overlay district from the Pasteur Drive median, which would eliminate the landscape-only use of this area. The proposed underground parking structure would include surface landscaping of the Pasteur Drive median strip. The proposed landscape plans for the underground parking structure could help to retain the open space envisioned for the Pasteur Drive median strip and may be considered consistent with the City’s objectives of a Landscape Combining District for the Pasteur Drive median strip. The landscaping plans would be subject to approval by the City’s Architectural Review Board. Removal of the Landscape Combing District from the Pasteur Drive median strip would remove long-term protection of this area as open space. To date, Stanford has not proposed or agreed to restrict future development of the median strip. As a result, removal of the Landscape Combining District would result in a potentially significant environmental impact. Mitigation measures have been placed in the EIR to the effect that if the City desires to preserve the intent of the Landscape Combining District, then Stanford shall enter into an agreement with the City of Palo Alto to restrict future development of the Pasteur Drive median strip and to preserve it as open space. To preserve the visual character, Stanford shall design the space in accordance with the following requirements: Minimize grading to protect existing tree species. Minimize hardscape, such as concrete planters and seat walls, Provide a transition between formal and informal spaces by designing a "meadow" that would need minimal maintenance and create easy access to the Stanford University Hospital entrance. This "meadow" would use a diverse selection of native plants. The design would have more diversity in plant species than the CMR:313:00 Page 13 of 15 proposed design, creating a more ecologically valuable habitat for native insects and wildlife. Create easy pedestrian access to and from the SUH entrance by minimizing planter and seat walls. Because most of the underground parking is excluded from the gross floor area (area that is devoted to drive aisles and parking spaces are exempt from FAR calculations, but mechanical equipment rooms and storage rooms are calculated into FAR for the site), it would not significantly affect the FAR of the project site. The proposed development would then be within the allowable FAR and total square footage permitted by the requested zoning modification and all other development standards would be in compliance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project. The public review period for this EIR was held for 45 days, ending on May 5, 2000. The City Council received the Draft EIR on or about March 24, 2000. Staff received comments from other agencies and interested individuals on the Draft EIR and has prepared a Final EIR in response to those comments. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments (excluding the Draft EIR, which was provided to the City Council in March 2000) Attachment 2:Proposed resolution for the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment Attachment 3:Proposed resolution for the Statement of Overriding Considerations Attachment 4:Proposed ordinance for the Zoning Map amendment Attachment 5:Proposed Use Permit Attachment 6:Planning Commission minutes and staff report (without attachments) - May 24, 2000 Attachment 7: Application materials N[~CMR:313:00 Page 14 of 15 PREPARED BY: Nancy M. Hutar, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: G. EDWARD GAWF Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:. EMILY Assistant City Manager cc: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 CMR:313:00 Page 15 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention!Ambulato~ Care Pavilion 875 Blake Wilbur Drive File Nos. [97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-ZA- 14, 97-UP-66, 97-ARB-214] (Excluding the Draft EIR, which was provided to the City Council in March 2000) Attachment 1 has been plaeed at the end of this City Manager’s Report, because it is a separately-bound document, ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion 875 Blake Wilbur Drive File Nos. [97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-ZA-14, 97-UP-66, 97-ARB-214] See the following pages. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR 801 AND Ii01 WELCH ROAD FROM RESEARCH/OFFICE PARK TO MAJOR INSTITUTION/SPECIAL FACILITIES (STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER CCTP/ACP AND PARKING STRUCTURE IV) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing on May 24, 2000, has recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter, and has reviewed and considered the content of the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports, and ~all testimony, written and oral, presented on the project and its environmental review; and WHEREAS, the City Council certified the adequacy of the Final EIR, and fully considered and made findings with respect to the adverse environmental impacts that may result fromthe proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan; WHEREAS, the City Council has fully reviewed and carefully considered the Final and Draft EIR, the coraraents and responses to comments concerning the Draft EIR and ~all other environmental documents that comprise the EIR, including all information presented at the duly noticed public hearings upon said matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has fully considered and recognized all significant adverse environmental impacts which may result from implementation of the development; and The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION I. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region require amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2 below in accordance with Land Use Policies L-I, L-8, L-10 and L-45 as more particularly described in the EIR. 000707 syn 0090632 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in Exhibit A from "Research/Office Park" to "Major Institution/Special Facilities." Exhibit A is attached to this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference. SECTION 3. The City Council adopts this resolution in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act findings adopted by Resolution No. SECTION 4. This resolution shall be effective upon the thirty-first date after its adoption. This delayed effective date is intended and shal! be construed to provide a sufficient period of time between adoption of the resolution and its effective date to allow a complete and exclusive opportunity for the ex~rcise of the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the constitution of the State of California. A referendum petition filed after the effective date shall be rejected as untimely. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment PF CC Exhibit "A" PF PF PF RM-30(D)PC -1992 PF The City of Palo A1 to PLANNING DIVISION [ File No.: 97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97- ¯ ZA-14, 97-UP-66, 97-ARB-124 Action: Review of Stanford Medical Center’s proposal for a new 218,000 sf Cancer Center and auxiliary 1,035 space parking structure Date: :~/27/2000 300’ 600’ 23 ATTACHMENT 3 PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention!Ambulatory Care Pavilion 875 Blake Wilbur Drive File Nos. [97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-ZA-14, 97-UP-66, 97-ARB-214] See the following pages. 25 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVING A MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE CENTER FOR CANCER TREATMENT AND PREVENTION/AMBULATORY CARE PAVILION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION i.Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto Council") finds, determines and declares as follows: ( "City A. Stanford University ("Stanford") has made application to %he City for development of a Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion at the Stanford University Medical Center, (hereinafter "CCTP/ACP" or "the Project"), filing applications are 97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-ZA-14, 97-UP-66, and 97-ARB-214. The Project consists of 218,000 (205,450 net) squa<e-feet of medical care, research, educational and outpatient care facility located at 875 Blake-WilBur Drive in the City of Palo Alto and a 1,035 space underground parking garage to be located in the landscaped median of Pasteur Drive between Welch Road and the Stanford University Hospital. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Section 2100 et. seq. (hereinafter ’~CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Administrative Code Section 15000. et. seq., an Environmental Impact Report was prepared to evaluate anticipated environmental impacts resulting from changes in land use and land use policy as a result of the implementation of the proposed development. C. In accordance with CEQA, the draft EIR was offered for public review and comment, and written communications were received by the City during the public review period. The City fully and adequately responded to these comments in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, and the comments and responses-have been included in the Final EIR. D.The Planning Commission held public hearings on the Draft EIR and the Project on Hay 24, 2000. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the draft EIR and comments received during the public comment period, and found that the draft EIR provided an adequate project description, identified 000707 syn 0090633 ~’~ and analyzed each potential significant environmental impact and proposed feasible mitigation measures for it, described and evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project and its proposed location, including those specific alternatives required by CEQA, and recommended preparation of a Final EIR based upon the draft EIR reviewed by them[wsfl]. E. The City Council has fully reviewed and carefully considered the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments concerning the Draft EIR and all other environmental documents that comprise the Final EIR, including all information presented at the duly noticed public hearings on the Project and its environmental impacts. F. The City Council has fully considered and recognized the significant adverse environmental impacts which may result from implementation of the Project. G. Most adverse environmental impacts of the Project will be avoided or mitigated {o a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. However, there will be temporary impacts on aesthetics, temporary construction noise, a possibility of significantly increased traffic delays at certain intersections because the decision to implement mitigation measures must be made by other agencies, and a cumulatively significant increase in regional air emissions. H. The EIR has described a reasonable range of alternatives to the development that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of deve!opment objectives or might be more costly. SECTION 2.Certification of the EIR. The City Council hereby finds, declares, and certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the CEQA. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the project, and all other matters .deemed material and relevant before considering the project for approval. The City Council hereby finds the following: A. That the Draft and Final EIR were prepared by the City and its consultants and reflects the independent review and judgment of the City as lead agency. B. That the EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. There is no significant new information that would support a conclusion that the EIR should be re-circulated pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. 2 000707 syn 0090633 C. The EIR has been completed in compliance with all applicabZe provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 3.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines 15097, the City has prepared a comprehensive mitigation monitoring and reporting program, titled "Stanford CCTP/ACP and PS IV Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan" ("MMRP"). SECTION 4.Statement of Facts and Findings.CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed if the EIR identified one or more significant effects of the project, unless the public agency makes written findings for each of these significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The following findings are set forth pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. A.Land Use Potentially Significant Effect #i -The Project would be generally consistent with applicable public plans and policies. However, the project .could not be implemented without changing the current land use designations on the project site. Finding -The Project approval includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zoning amendment that will permit construction and operation of the Project by increasing permitted density of development and allowing construction of an underground garage in a landscaped median area. These changes are consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan, which contemplates expansion of Stanford Medical Center as an employment district, (Policy L-45) and will not conflict with land use policies adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental harm. Therefore, the effect is less than significant. Facts in support of finding -The zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment do not introduce incompatible uses or activities into the area. The CCTP/ATP relocates and expands existing medical services in the immediate vicinity and is located in a core area of the Stanford University Medical Center. The parking garage is primarily a provider of parking space for the CCTP/ATP itself, and its underground location will permit the retention and enhancement of open space as described below. Substantial mitigation of the Project itself result in less than 000707 syn 0090633 significant impact from the land use policy changes that are part of the Project. Potential Significant Effect #2 -The proposed project is not consistent with the objectives of the Landscape Combining District of the Pasteur Drive median strip and includes rezoning to eliminate the Landscape Combining District overlay zone. Finding -Changes have been required in or incorporated into the Project which reduce the potential significant effect on land use to a less than significant effect. Facts in support of finding -Use of a parking structure instead of surface parking lots reduces the area needed to provide parking. However, parking structures interfere with vistas and eliminate open space. In this project, placement of the parking structure underground minimizes disruption of vistas and permits landscaping, of the majority of the median area. Location of the structure in the median of Pasteur Drive minimizes the length of new access drives. To preserve the intent of the Landscape Combining District, as a condition of approval Stanford is required to covenant to maintain the median as open space. To preserve the visual character, the design is subject to architectural review to maximize open space and scenic values while permitting more active uses of the space by employees, patients, visitors, and nearby residents when appropriate. Inclusion, as recommended by the Planning Commission, of more active outdoor use of the median space is consistent with the intent of the Landscaping Combining District~ B.Aesthetics Significant Effect #3 - The project would have potentially significant light and glare effects. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation measures and through Architectural Review Board analysis. Facts in support of finding- As conditions of approval the Project has been required: (a) To reduce use of reflective materials and use non-reflective or less-reflective materials when appropriate. (b) To design lighting to avoid spillover light and glare effects on adjacent buildings, using the minimum wattage or candle-feet necessary to assure adequate safety and circulation. 000707 syn 0090633 Significant Effect #4 -Visual disturbance from~ construction of the project could have temporary adverse visual impacts. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation measures and through Architectural Review Board analysis. Facts in support of finding -As a condition of project approval, practices reducing visual impacts must be incorporated into the construction specifications for the Project on staging and storage of equipment and materials as well as dust control. These are described in greater detail in the C.Cultural Resources Significant Effect # 5 - The project involves ground disturbance and excavations that may encounter cultural resources. Therefore, the project has the potential to disturb cultural resources. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation measures. Facts in support of finding -Conditions of approval require archaeological monitoring and protectionof archaeological resources. These measures are describedin greater detail in the MMRP. Significant Effect #6 - Excavation activities at the project sites may encounter human remains and consequently result in potentially significant impacts. Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding -Conditions of approval require implementation of Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code.These measures are described in greater detail in the MMRP. D.Transportation Significant Effect #7 -demand for pedestrian facilities would increase with the project, but none are planned from PS IV to the west side of Blake Wilbur Drive. 000707 syn 0090633 5 Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding - As a condition of project approval, a pedestrian crosswalk across Pasteur Drive from PS IV at the Blake Wilbur intersection must be provided. Significant Effect #8 -Nine study area intersections would experience substantial degradation in their levels of service upon the completion of the Project and thus the Project would have significant traffic impacts.Two more intersections, Sand Hill/Sharon Park and E1 Camino Real/Valparaiso, would be significantly impacted bycumulative development, including this Project, by 2010.The EIR contemplated a monitoring program and phased improvements to address these impacts. a. "Sand Hill Project" Mitiqation Measures. Five of the impacted intersections were the subject of mitigation measures for the Sand Hill Road Project. Stanford has agreed, as part of that project a development, agreement, to fund the construction of these improvements when they are needed. These improvements are located in Menlo Park and San Mateo County. If constructed,.these improvements would fully mitigate the impacts of the Project. Finding - The impacts at the following intersections would be fully mitigated if the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP were implemented by Menlo Park and San Mateo Count: -Welsh Road/Campus Drive West -Sand Hill Road/ Oak -Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue -Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road/Junipero Serra Boulevard -Junipero Serra Boulevard/Campus Drive West. The City Council finds and determines that these mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies and can and should be adopted by them, based upon the traffic analysis. Facts Supporting the Finding - The traffic analysis set forth in Section 3.5 (p. of the EIR establishes that these mitigation measures would eliminate the significant adverse impacts of the Project on these intersections completely. The Menlo Park General Plan identifies most of the improvements proposed for intersections within its boundaries as needed. 000707 syn 0090633 b. "Non-Sand Hill" Mitiqation. The remaining five intersections that would be significantly impacted by the Project were not proposed for modification to mitigate the Sand Hill Project. Finding - The impacts at the following intersections would be fully mitigated by the construction of the intersection improvements identified for them (7.3 through 7.11) at pages 3.5-63 to 3.5-68 of the FIR and i0.I through I0.II at pages 3.5-87 through 3.5-91) OR by implementation of congestion management measures by the agencies with jurisdiction with predicted equivalent impact reduction: -El Camino Real/Ravenswood in Menlo Park -El Camino Real/Embarcadero/Galvez in Palo.Alto -Arboretum/Palm in Santa Clara County -Junipero Serra Boulevard/Stanford Avenue in Santa Clara County -El Camino Real/Valparaiso in Menlo Park -Sand Hill Road/Sharon Park in Menlo Park. The City Council further finds and determines that with the exception of the E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero/Galvez intersection, these intersection construction mitigation measures, or congestion management measures with comparable impact reduction, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies and can and should be adopted by them. Facts in Support of Finding - Intersection capacity improvements for each intersection are described in the FIR as set forth above. As a condition of project approval, Stanford shall be required to pay to the City of Palo Alto its appropriate share of the costs of those improvements. The City may use those funds, or provide them to the relevant jurisdiction, for the construction of the improvement intersections. Alternatively, the City or those agencies may use the funds for congestion management measures designed to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. The City’s Comprehensive Plan encourages transportation demand management rather than intersection capacity expansion. This approach may include a range of transit incentives and demand management techniques. The City may not, under current state law, require an employee trip reduction program of an employer. However, Stanford has an existing, extensive transportation demand management ("TDM") program which includes employee trip reduction programs. As a condition of project approval, Stanford has agreed to 000707 syn 0090633 implement and report on an intensifi~ed TDM program with a goal of reducing peak-hour trips from the Medical Center so that the anticipated increase from the project, that is, 200 trips, will not occur. The City believes that this is the most effective approach to actually reducing congestion and air pollution. However, the City is not relying on this program to mitigate the traffic and~air quality impacts of the Project for the purposes of CEQA review. Significant Effect #9 - Project-related construction traffic could contribute to increased intersection delays and interference with pedestrian, bicycles and transit. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding - Conditions of approval require provision of off-street parking for all construction- related vehicles, maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle access, restriction of construction hours, designation of truck routes, protection and restoration of public roadways, protection maintenance of public transit access and routes, and special event traffic plans, or preparation of a construction impact mitigation plan satisfactory to the City. These mitigation measures are described in more detail in the MMRP. E.Air Quality Significant Effect #Ii - Short-term construction and demolition-related activities could result in fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions that would cause a nuisance. Unless reduced by implementation of feasible control measures, impacts due to construction and demolition emissions would be potentially significant. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant impact by required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding - The project sponsor and contractor shall be required as a condition of project approval to implement control measures more particularly described in the MMRPo Significant Effect #12 - Air emissions caused by project operation and affecting regional air quality (including vehicle trips caused by the project and natural gas combustion for energy use) would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for emissions of ROG, NOx and PMI0. Impacts to 009707 syn 0090633 regional air quality would be potentially significant used for testing the proposed emergency generator. on days~ Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant impact by required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding - The project sponsor and facilities operators shall curtail testing of the diesel- fired emergency generator on "Spare the Air" days. The BAAQMD declares ~Spare the Air" days the preceding afternoon and n notified the media outlets and other interested parties. Prohibiting testing of the emergency generator on these days would minimize the project’s impact on regional air quality. Significant Effect #13 -because the Project’s contributions to regional air emissions would be potentially significant, the Project’s cumulative effect on air quality would also be potentially significant. Finding - This is an unavoidable significant adverse impact of the Project. Facts in Support of Finding -The mitigation measures adopted, and the intensified TDM program that Stanford has agreed to implement will help reduce vehicle trips and minimize cumulative impacts to regiona! air quality. Implementation of such mitigation measures would be consistent with Policy N-28 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. However, they do not assure that the impact will be insignificant. F.Noise Significant Effect #14 -Operation of project construction equipment and equipment used for project demolition would result in significantnoise impacts. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures. Facts in support of Findings - As a condition of Project approval, construction noise "Best Management Practices" are required as well as construction of a 12-foot high construction noise barrier. They are set forth in detail in the MMRP. Significant Effect #15 - Increases in construction noise caused by the project could coincide with construction noise from other approved projects. The resulting noise levels would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. 9 000707 syn 0090633 Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support .of Findings -the above-listed noise mitigation measures will be implemented. G.Biological Resources Significant Effect #15 - Project construction would involve removing trees and could pose potential risks to trees to be retained on site or transplanted. Finding.- The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings - As a condition of Project approval, the City has required detailed reports on existing trees and their condition. Protection of trees during construction and relocation of trees is also required. These measures are set forth in detail in the MMRP. Significant Effect #16 - Project-related tree removals could directly destroy nets, eggs, and immature birds. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings -to prevent direct taking raptors or disturbing the active nesting of native bird species, the removal of trees, shrubs, and vegetation and other potentially disruptive construction-related activities is prohibited between February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period, unless a survey establishes that thereare no nesting sites with 150 feet. The survey requirement and attendant restrictions are described in more detail in the MMRP. H.Geology and Soils Significant Effect #17 - Construction proposed project could result in soil erosion problems. of the Findings- The project will be mitigated %o a level of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings -as part of the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and erosion and sediment transport control plan shall be designed by an erosion control professional, landscape architect, or civil engineer specializing in erosion control. The SWPPP requirements are set forth in more detail in the MMRP. 000707 syn 0090633 10 Significant Effect #18 - Excavation at the project sites would result in potential risks of slope failure. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings. - As a condition of Project approval, the walls of the medical facility site, the parking garage, and the elevator shaft shall be shored to prevent movement in these areas. For excavation other than for the parking garage, a cantilever shoring system shall be installed. These measures are described in greater detail in the MMRP. Significant Effect #19 -Expansive soils at the project sites could provide inadequate support for the CCTP/ACP and PS IVB foundations. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings - As a condition of Project approval the recommendations of the foundation reports prepared for the building construction shall be incorporated in the plans and specifications for the design of the Project. They are described in more detail in the MMRP. I. Hydrology and Water Quality Significant Effect #20 -Grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in increased deposition of sediment and discharge of pollutants into the storm drainage system and San Francisquito Creek, adversely affecting water quality. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings - The same mitigation measure identified for potential geotechnical and soils hazards previously would also help to reduce potential water quality impacts. Additional measures to preserve water quality are required as a condition of Project approval and set forth in greater detail in the MMRP. The following additional measures would be necessary to specifically address water quality: Significant Effect #21 - Operation and maintenance of PS IV may affect water quality in downstream receiving waters by increasing the pollutant loading at the project site and by ii 000707 syn 0090633 seepage of groundwater through the lowest levels of the parking structure. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with certain mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings -As a condition of Project approval, specific landscaping "best management practices, and operation and maintenance "best management practices" described in more detail in the MMRP must be adopted and implemented. Significant Effect #22 - The proposed PS IV design would place the lowest floor below the design groundwater depth. This design may cause water seepage into the lowest level of the garage. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with certain mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings -As a condition of Project approval, waterproofing measures for perimeter walls and the bottom floor of the parking structure shall be honstructed in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code, Volume 2 (Structural Engineering Design Provisions J.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Significant Effect #23 - Project-related demolition or renovation could disturb hazardous materials, if any, in existing building components and thereby cause adverse health or safety effects. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings - The p~oject sponsor is required to retain a qualified environment specialists (e.g., a Registered Environmental Assessor or similarly qualified individual) to inspect existing building areas subject to demolition or minor modifications for the presence of as yet unidentified asbestos, PCBs, mercury, lead, or other hazardous materials. If found at levels that require special handling, the project sponsor shall manage these materials as required by law and according to federal and state regulations and guidelines, including those of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, and any other agency with jurisdiction over these materials. 000707 syn 0090~33 12 Significant Effect #24 - Excavation and construction-~4 of the proposed building foundation could expose construction personnel and members of the public to existing soil and groundwater contamination, if any. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with certain mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings -As a condition of Project approval, the project sponsor must a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for areas of the project site where earth-moving activities could occur. If determined to be necessary as result of the Phase I investigation, the project sponsor shall prepare a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Site work shall be performed in consultation with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and other agencies, as appropriate. If soils or groundwater conditions warrant the preparation of a Site Safety and Health Plan (a California Division of Occupational Safety and Health requirement for work at hazardous waste sites), the plan shall minimize the exposure of the public as well as on-site workers to contaminated soil. This mitigation measure is described in more detail in the MMRP. K.Utilities and Service Systems Significant Effect #25 - The proposed project may require off-site water utility line improvements, the construction of which would have a potential impact on the environment. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings -As a condition of Project approval the project sponsor must prepare and follow a construction plan for review by the City of Palo Alto.The plan requirements are’described in more detail in the MMRP. Significant Effect #26 - The proposed project would generate wastewater flows that could be accommodated in existing off-site wastewater lines. However, if the on-site 10-inch wastewater line requires upgrades, this construction may trigger significant short-term effects. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with certain mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings -the mitigation measures stated previously shall be implemented. 000707 syn 0090633 13 Significant Effect #27 - The proposed PS IV would require the relocation of utilities existing within the Pasteur Drive median and could cause temporary disturbances to the environment. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with certain mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings - The Project sponsor shall schedule and plan relocation of the chilled water utility line to cause minimum inconvenience to facilities at the Medical Center (e.g., laying the new line before removal of the old line to minimize the time that supply would be interrupted). Significant Effect #28 - The cumulative demand for water due to various proposed projects in Zone 3 may require new or expanded entitlements. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with certain mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings -the mitigation measured set forth shall be implemented. utilities L.Public Services Significant Effect #29 - Traffic generated by the proposed project could affect the response times of the Palo Alto Fire Department. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with previously required traffic mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings - The data provided in the traffic analysis establish that the mitigation measures will reduce the Project’s traffic impact to less than significant levels. Significant Effect. #30 - The response times of the Palo Alto Police Department could be delayed by project-related traffic. Finding - The project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Findings - The data provided in the traffic analysis establish that the mitigation measures will reduce the Project’s traffic impact to less than significant levels. 14 000707 syn 0090633 SECTION 5. Other Alternatives. A. Alternative Location; Renovation of Existing Space; Single Use Building. Renovation of existing space to accommodate the CCTP/ATP programs, and their expansion, is not feasible because of lack of such space. Over-crowding is one of the driving forces behind the Project. The CCTP/ACP is sited next to, and physically connected to, the Lucille Salter Packard Children’s Hospital and the Stanford University Hospital. It is across the street from the Blake Wilbur Clinic. Patients using those facilities will also use this facility. In-patients may need the services at the CCTP/ACP and out-patients may need emergency access to the facilities at the hospitals. The organizations also share staff. This is an in-fill project which meets the planning.goals of the City and the operational goals of the project sponsor. Other locations would not obtain the Project’s goals or the City’s planning objectives. Since the CCTP uses sixty percent of the space and the ATP the remainder, the possibility of constructing a smaller new building was also considered. Stanford concluded that the technological and safety requirements of the two programs make that infeasible. In addition, consolidating these two outpatient facilities makes overflow accommodation of patients feasible. Therefore, this alternative would not satisfy the Project goals. The Council finds that these alternatives were correctly excluded from the range of feasible alternatives analyzed. B. No Project Alternative. CEQA requires analysis of the "no project" alternative. In this case, none of the Project goals could be obtained and the Council rejects this alternative because the CCTP/ATP is a needed and important health resource for the region and the state. It provides essential patient care at a level of sophistication only obtainable at regional medical facilities associated with medical schools, as well as providing as setting for valuable medical research. C. CCTP Only Alternative. In this alternative, the CCTP would be located in a new, smaller building. It would not reduce significant impacts to insignificance. However, it is an environmentally superior alternative. Building a smaller building in this central medical center site would be an inefficient use of this land and the hospital’s resources. The City believes that clustering development in certain areas with good access to transportation systems, such as this, is an essential .part of reducing congestion and air pollution. IF the ATP is not included, outpatients would continue to use scattered, overcrowded facilities, adding to their hardships. Medical and research staff would be deprived of the facilities that Stanford 000707 syn 0090633 15 reasonably believes will improve their ability to care for the ill and devise methods to prevent or treat future illnesses. The CCTP and ATP are desirable resource for the local and larger community. Therefore, the City rejects this alternative as unfeasible. D. Alternative Parking Structure Location. In this alternative, the parking structure would be located along Quarry Road, across from Andronico’s market and next to the Psychiatry Building. This location would reduce some temporary construction impacts on hospital operation. It would also preserve the Pasteur Median as a more natural open space. However, the Pasteur Median is already isolated by existing roadways; it has been disturbed and does not represent an important biological habitat. Mitigation measures will preserve existing trees to the extent feasible and plant new ones. Because the parking structure will be underground, vistas will be preserved. All long-term potential impacts of the construction of PS-IV have been reduced to a level of insignificance through mitigation measures. PS-IV’s access to the Medical Center will be superior than at the Quarry location. The City believes that Stanford should provide additional housing in the area, and that the Quarry Road site, which is close to the transit center and shopping, should be reserved for consideration for such a use. Therefore, the City Council rejects this alternative as unfeasible. SECTION 6. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that unavoidable environmental impacts of the project are acceptable-when balanced against the benefits of the project, even after giving greater weight to the City’s duty to avoid the environmental impacts, and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. This determination is made based upon the facts and public benefits identified in the Final EIR and record of proceedings on the project. The City Council finds that the mitigation measures found in the EIR, when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant impacts identified in the EIR. However, the EIR has identified some significant impacts that are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. The significant effects are as follows: A. Aesthetics -temporary visual impacts during construction. Construction of the CCTP/ACP and the related underground parking structure (PS IV) could result in visual disturbance from removal of existing landscaping, ground disturbance from excavation and grading, and unsightly views due to equipment and material storage. These effects would be particularly noticeable for PS IV, since the site is along the main entryway into SUMC and highly visible from Sand Hill Road, 16 000707 syn 0090633 Pasteur Drive and public walkways and plazas around SUMC. These impacts, though temporary, would constitute short-term, significant, and unavoidable effects of the project. Although temporary significant adverse visual impacts from construction activities cannot be entirely avoided, the mitigation measures listed in Section 1 of this resolution would reduce the severity of the impact. The impact, however, would be significant and unavoidable. B. Transportation -project and cumulative traffic delays .at nine study intersections. Applying the thresholds of significance adopted by the City of Palo Alto, the City of Menlo Park and the Santa Clara County CMA, the project would result in significant delays in the Year 2003 at the following intersections: (i) E1 Camino Real/Ravenswood in Menlo Park, (2) E1 Camino .Real/Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, (3) Arboretum Road/Palm Drive in Stanford and Palo Alto, (4) Welch Road/Campus Drive West in Stanford, (5) Sand Hill Road/Oak in Menlo Park, (6) Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz in Menlo Park, (7) Santa Cruz/Alpine/Junipero Serra in Menlo Park, (8) Junipero Serra/Campus Drive West in Santa Clara County, (9) Junipero Serra/Stanford in Santa Clara County. The implementation of the mitigation measures listed in Section 1 of this resolution would reduce the project intersection impacts to less-than-significant levels. However, four of the nine intersections are within the City of Menlo Park’s jurisdiction and the City of Palo Alto has no authority to require that these recommended improvements be made. If Menlo Park or Santa Clara County do not implement these ~modifications, the impacts to these four intersections would remain significant. C. Air Quality - cumulative regional air emissions of NOx. The analysis in the EIR indicates that the project would cause potentially significant regional impacts of NOx emissions from motor vehicle trips and stationary source operations. Transportation mitigation measures listed in Section 1 of this resolution would help reduce vehicle trips and minimize cumulative impacts to regional air quality. However, because the effectiveness of the mitigation measures cannot be guaranteed to reduce project regional emissions to below the significance thresholds on all days, the cumulative impacts to regional air quality would remain significant and unavoidable. D. Noise - project and cumulative construction noise. Construction and demolition noise would create an intermittent impact on the noise environment that would be short-term because it would occur only through the duration of the construction and demolition phases, disturbing the nearest sensitive receptors. The construction activities would occur close to the existing hospital and medical facilities and during the normal working hours of each. The mitigation measure listed in Section 1 of 17 000707 syn 0090633 this resolution would reduce the potential for adverse construction noise impacts, but the threshold of the City’s noise ordinance could still potentially be exceeded. Therefore, the impacts would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level and the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Also, because the construction noise from this project could coincide with construction noise from other approved projects, the resulting noise levels would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. In approving the project, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the CCTP/ACP against these unavoidable environmental impacts. In this regard, the City finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in Section 1 of this resolution have been or will be implemented with the project, and any significant remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable due to the following specific social, economic or other considerations, all of which are based upon the facts set forth in the findings, Final EIR and the records of the proceedings for this project: A. The CCTP/ACP provides a key health facility for not only the region, but for the country, and the facility provided critical health services. B. The project site’s current Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations are inconsistent with the proposed land use for the CCTP/ACP facility. C. The existing cancer treatment areas at SUMC are overcrowded and outdated and the project will provide decent, safe and modern health care. temporary. The unavoidable aesthetic and noise impacts will be E. Circulation and transportation will be improved through implementation of the listed mitigation measures at most intersections, and the additional TDM measures provided by Stanford are likely to further reduce these impacts. /! !/ !/ // !! 000707 syn 0090633 18 F. Implementation of the transportation measures will help to reduce air quality impacts. mitigation G. That the public interest, health, safety and welfare of both Palo Alto and the health care community require the CCTP/ACP, as set forth. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 000707 syn 0090633 19 Exhibit "A" o 0 o ~~ o O=o~o~ 0 ,.o P.0 0 P" 0 ATTACHMENT 4 PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion 875 Blake Wilbur Drive File Nos. [97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-ZA-14, 97-UP-66, 97-ARB-214] See the following pages. ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 801 AND Ii01 WELCH ROAD FROM "OR OFFICE RESEARCH" TO "PF PUBLIC FACILITIES" AND REMOVING THE LANDSCAPING COMBINING (L) DISTRICT FROM A PORTION OF THE MEDIAN OF PASTEUR DRIVE BETWEEN WELCH ROAD AND THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL (STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER CCTP/ACP AND PARKING STRUCTURE IV) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does find and declare as follows: A. The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held May 24, 2000 recommended that section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) be amended~ to permit development of the Stanford University Medical Center Cancer Treatment and Prevention Center and Ambulatory Care Pavilion and Parking Structure IV (the "Project") as described below, having found that the proposed change would be in accord with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan of the City of Palo Alto; and B. The City Council has conducted a hearing on the proposed zone change, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmenta! Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Project and all information presented at the noticed public hearings on the Project and its environmental impacts, has certified the adequacy of the EIR, and has made findings upon the significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR. C. The proposed zone change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Palo Alto, as amended. The City has specifically considered the regional welfare and the impacts of the project on the regional welfare. D. The adoption of the proposed zone change will serve the public interest, health, safety and general welfare. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by: A. changing the zoning of 801 and ii01 Welch Road from OR Office Research to PF Planned Facility. B. changing the zoning of a portion of the Pasteur Drive median between Welch Road and the Stanford University Hospital by removing the Landscape Overlay (L) District. 000707 syn 0090635 1 The boundaries of each zone change are shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A" attached to this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference. SECTION 2. The City Council adopts this ordinance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act findings adopted by Resolution No. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and community Environment 000707 syn 0090635 Exhibit "^" File No,: 97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-~<-¯ ~:~&ZA-14, 97-UP-66, 97-ARB-124 " " ~, ~’ Action: Review of Stanford Medical ~ ~ ~# Center’s proposal for a new 218,000 sf ,,,,, ~: :~ Cancer Center and auxiliary 1,035 ~ ~ ~i~space parking structure ~’~1’[~’~@ 81 ATTACHMENT 5 PROPOSED USE PERMIT Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion 875 Blake Wilbur Drive File Nos. [97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-ZA- 14, 97-UP-66, 97-ARB-214] 875 BLAKE WILBUR DRIVE Use Permit 97-UP-66 is hereby issued to allow construction and operation of a 218,000- square-foot outpatient clinical facility known as the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTP/ACP) located at 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, in the Zoning District of Public Facilities (PF), in Palo Alto, California. The facility is subject to the findings and conditions listed below. FINDINGS The proposed use, as conditioned below, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, in that as shown in the Environmental Impact Report: (a)Any adverse aesthetic and noise impacts will be temporary; (b)Circulation and transportation impacts will be substantially reduced through funding of intersection improvements or alternative Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures; (c)Implementation of the transportation mitigation .measures will help to reduce air quality impacts; and (d) All other impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The proposed use, as conditioned .below, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, in that: (a) The CCTP/ACP will provide a key health facility for not only the region, but for the country, and the facility will provide critical health services; (b)The existing cancer treatment areas at Stanford Medical Center are overcrowded and outdated and the project will provide decent, safe and modem health care; and o (c)The applicant’s supplemented TDM program and research program will provide both trip reduction on-site and important information for future local and regional TDM measures. The proposed use, as conditioned, will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (zoning code) in that the City Council approved: (a)A Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Land Use map for 1101 and 801 Welch Road to change the designations from Research/Office Park to Major Institution/Special Facilities, (b)An amendment of the Zoning Map for 1101 and 801 Welch Road to change the designation from Office Research to Public facilities, and (c)An amendment to the Zoning Map to remove the Landscape Combining District from the Public Facilities zoned median strip of Pasteur Drive between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive and replaced with a conservation easement. With these changes, the project will be in compliance with the applicable plans of the City of Palo Alto. CONDITIONS General 1.The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures as outlined in Resolution Number ., as approved by the City Council on July 10, 2000. °The applicant shall comply with all conditions of. approval as subsequently imposed through architectural review as part of any approval for 97-ARB-214. o Because upon completion of the project, the Medical Center parking will continue to meet zoning requirements, the annual parking report previously required as a condition of approval for the Hospital Modernization Projects I and II, the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital and the Blake-Wilbur Clinic is hereby formally waived. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project, the applicant shall submit and receive ARB approval for the landscape plans for all parts of the Pasteur Drive median between Sand Hill Road and Blake-Wilbur Drive. To preserve the visual character, Stanford shall consider a design that will: (a) Minimize grading to protect existing tree species in that area that will not include the underground parking; (b) Minimize hardscape, such as concrete planters and seat walls; (c)Provide a transition between formal and informal spaces by designing a "meadow" that would need minimal maintenance and create easy access to Page 2 (d) the SUH entrance. This "meadow" would use a diverse selection of native plants. The design would have more diversity in plant species than the proposed design, creating a more ecologically valuable habitat for native insects and wildlife; and Create easy pedestrian access to and from the main hospital entrance by minimizing planter and seat walls. o Prior to the occupancy of the CCTP/ACP, the parking structure (PS IV) shall be fully usable and related above ground landscaping shall be installed completely with such completion approved by the City arborist. The applicant shall incorporate such active uses as a children’s play structure, picnic areas and kiosks within an attractive park-like in setting. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the Commercial Housing In-Lieu fee, as adopted by ordinance by the Palo Alto City Council. Pumping of subsoil groundwater shall not be permitted. It is noted in Section 3.0 of the EIR that a portion of the parking structure will lie below the water table. That portion lying below the water table must be built to withstand the associated hydrostatic forces without a subdrain system. This means that the portion of the structure below the water table must be built watertight or "built like a boat" to prevent drawdown of the water table. It is noted that the runoff from the parking structure site will result in more than a three-fold increase as compared to existing conditions. All of the runoff from the parking structure surface shall be accommodated to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. An open space covenant shall be placed upon the median area on Pasteur Drive to replace the Landscape Combining District that is being removed through approval of the CCTP/ACP project. The covenant shall be flexible enough to allow for future services within the parking structure, such as dry cleaners or other retail services that would be beneficial to the employees and visitors to the Medical Center. Such uses would require the approval of a Use Permit and such additional square-footage would count towards that Overall FAR of the Medical Center. 10.The project sponsor shall provide pedestrian facilities connecting PS IV and the new building as directed by the Transportation Division after it receives and reviews the detailed project plans showing proposed pedestrian connections. This improvement shall be included in the final design drawings and construction documents for PS IV and shall be constructed to the specifications of the City of Palo Alto. Page 3 %~ 11.A. Stanford shall pay its appropriate share of the cost of identified intersection improvements of the six impacted intersections not addressed in the Sand Hill development agreement. These six intersections are: a)E1 Camino Real/Ravenswood (in Menlo Park) b)E1 Camino Real/Galvez/Embarcadero (in Palo Alto) c)Arboretum/Palm (on the Stanford campus) d)JSB/Stanford Avenue (in the County) e)E1 Camino Real/Valparaiso (in Menlo Park) f)Sand Hill/Sharon Park (in Menlo Park) The City of Palo Alto shall use such funds either to make or fund the intersection improvements, or to implement alternative congestion management measures, which reduce congestion at those intersections. These measures may include transit or other means of reducing vehicle trips. B. For the five intersections addressed in the Sand Hill EIR, the period of time which Stanford has responsibility for improvements shall be extended by 3 years to 2010. 12.Stanford has an existing extensive transportation demand management program that includes employee trip reduction programs. Stanford shall augment this program with the goal of 200 peak-hour trip reduction from the Medical Center, which is the number of new peak hour trips expected to be generated by the Project, and other daily trip reduction as reasonably determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The impact of these trips on intersections is also addressed by Condition #11, above. This condition is an additional effort by Stanford to develop, implement and evaluate TDM measures in conjunction with the City of Palo Alto. Should this condition, in combination with condition #11, result in trip reduction in excess of the 200 peak-hour trip goal, Stanford shall be credited with the additional trip reduction during environmental review and consideration of future Stanford development projects within the City. Failure to meet the 200 peak-hour trip reduction goal shall not be grounds for revocation of this permit. Any modification of this permit will acknowledge that Stanford has voluntarily agreed to this supplemental employee trip reduction program and that state law currently prevents the City from imposing employee trip reduction programs without Stanford’s consent. If circumstances change, Stanford shall be permitted to petition for modification of this condition at any time and the City shall consider the matter within 90 days of Stanford’s petition. Among the trip reduction measures Stanford may consider are: (a) Parking - Stanford currently offers a wide variety of parking permit options from one-day permits to two-year permits. The Medical Center and any new parking facilities shall consider providing convenient free parking for all carpool and vanpool vehicles. Page 4 (b) (c) (d) (e) (t) (g) (h) Clean Air Cash Program - Stanford currently reimburses employees who do not purchase a parking permit with a Clean Air Cash Program at $144.00 per year. Carpool and vanpool services - Stanford currently operates both carpool and vanpool programs as well as a rideshare database. Stanford could coordinate their rideshare database with those in Menlo Park, Palo Alto and with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Opportunities exist because employees share similar work schedules, for the Medical Center and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (connected to the Marguerite Shuttle) to increase rideshare capacity and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Full-time marketing/outreach coordinator - Stanford is hiring a full-time marketing/outreach coordinator to better facilitate participation in TDM programs. This person could coordinate closely with the Commute Coordinator at the city of Palo Alto and other employee transportation coordinators in the region. Commute assistance center- Stanford currently centralizes the parking and transportation staff at the Bonair Siding location on the south end of the campus. Stanford is pursuing a site in the Medical Center area where a "one stop shopping" center should be established for Medical Center employees. Stanford could house a Commute Assistance Center within the CCTP/ACP. This site could offer assistance to commuters, sell parking permits, transit passes and offer all assistance available by the parking and transportation office. Car rental center at Stanford Bookstore - As part of a new program to offer transit alternatives to incoming freshman (who are no longer allowed to keep a car on campus during their first year of school), Stanford Bookstore has contracted with a rental car agency to offer on campus rentals. An aggressive marketing program could be offered to Medical Center staff regarding this new program. The program could offer delivery of rental cars to the Medical Center vicinity if needed for use of automobiles by staff. This program marketing with the guaranteed ride home program offers alternatives for mobility to employees and staff members who choose to not bring their own vehicle to the workplace, yet might need alternatives to public transit. Marguerite shuttle service - Stanford offers free shuttle service via the Marguerite shuttle throughout the campus area. Stanford plans to extend the B line to serve Sand Hill Road projects and connect in a full loop to the University Avenue transit center. Stanford could include two-way loop service through the Medical Center on the B extension providing at least 10 minutes headway to the front entrance of the facility. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities - Shower, changing and gear storage facilities could be built at each Medical Center building for easy access to on campus and close by amenities. (i)Service workers - Medical Center service workers who do not work the normal workday hours and who live in close proximity to Palo Alto and Stanford could be provided with improved transportation access. Annual reporting - Stanford shall provide annual reporting to the City on the success/status of the TDM measures for peak hour and daily trips. This reporting requirement shall remain in place for ten years and shall be submitted to the City each October.. The first report of October 2000 shall establish the baseline data. The report shall also provide information about weaknesses in the transportation system, where employees live, etc. The City and Stanford agree that Stanford shall receive credit towards future Medical Center development for exceeding the TDM goals. The following conditions pertain to construction impacts: 13.Off-street parking for construction-related vehicles - the project sponsor shall provide adequate off-street parking for all construction-related vehicles throughout the construction period. If adequate parking cannot be provided on the construction sites, a satellite parking area shall be designated, and a shuttle bus shall be operated to transfer construction workers to/from the job site. 14.Maintenance of pedestrian access -the project sponsor shall not substantially limit pedestrian access while constructing the project, without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works. Such approval shall require submittal and approval of specific construction management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to a less-than-significant level. Pedestrian access-limiting actions would include, but not be limited to, sidewalk closures, bridge closures, crosswalk closures or pedestrian re-routing at intersections, placement of construction-related material within pedestrian pathways or sidewalks, and other actions, which may affect the mobility or safety of pedestrians during the construction period. If sidewalks are maintained along the construction frontage, covered walkways shall be provided. 15.Maintenance of bicycle access - the project sponsor shall not limit bicycle access while constructing the project without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works. Such approval shall require submittal and approval of specific construction management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to less- than-significant level. Bicycle access-limiting actions would include, but not be limited to, bike lane closures or narrowing, closing or narrowing of streets that are designated bike routes, bridge closures, placement of construction-related materials within designated bike lanes or along bike routes, and other actions that may affect the mobility or safety of bicyclists, during the construction period. Page 6 16.Restriction on construction hours - the project sponsor shall prohibit or limit the number of construction material deliveries from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and form 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. The project sponsor shall prohibit or limit the number of construction employees from arriving or departing the site from the hours of 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to the satisfaction of the Chief Transportation Official. 17. 18. Construction truck routes - the project sponsor shall deliver and remove all construction-related equipment and materials on truck routes designated by the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Heavy construction vehicles shall be prohibited .from accessing the site from other routes. Protection of public roadways -the project sponsor shall be required to repair any structural damage to public roadways, returning any damaged sections to original structural condition. The project sponsor shall survey the condition of the project site before construction, and shall again survey after construction is complete. A before-and-after survey report shall be completed and submitted to the City Department of Public Works for review, indicating the location and extent of damage. 19. 20. 21. Protection maintenance of public transit access and routes - the project sponsor shall not limit access to public transit, or limit movement of public transit vehicles, without prior approval from the VTA or other appropriate jurisdiction. Such approval shall require submittal and approval of specific impacts to a less-than- significant level. Potential actions that would impact access to transit include, but are not limited to, relocating or removing bus stops, limiting access to bus stops or transfer facilities, or otherwise restricting or constraining public transit operations. Construction during special events - the project sponsor shall implement a mechanism to the satisfaction of the Chief Transportation Official to prevent roadway construction activities from reducing roadway capacity during major athletic events or other special events which attract a substantial number of visitors to the campus. This measure may require a special supplement permit to be obtained to host such events during significant construction phases. OR Construction impact mitigation plan - in lieu of the above mitigation measures (condition #s 13-20), the project sponsor shall submit a detailed construction impact mitigation plan to the City of Palo Alto for approval by the Chief of Transportation Official prior to commencing any construction activities with potential transportation impacts. This plan shall address in detail the activities to be carried out in each construction phase, the potential transportation impacts of each activity, and an acceptable method of reducing or eliminating significant Page 7 22. 23. transportation impacts. Details such as the routing and scheduling of materials deliveries, construction employee arrival and departure schedules, employee- parking locations, and emergency vehicle access shall be described and approved. Stanford shall provide sufficient on-site childcare to meet the needs of the CCTP/ACP employees, to be evaluated and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. This conditional use permit shall not become effective until such time as the rezoning from Office Research (OR) to Public Facilities (PF) is in effect. NOTES This Use Permit is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. In any case in which the conditions to the granting of the Use Permit have not been met or complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee" of intention to revoke such permit at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon. Following such hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Zoning Administrator may revoke the Use permit. A use permit which has not been used within one (1) year after the date of granting becomes void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend the time for an additional year if an application to this effect is filed with her before the expiration of the first year. The applicant has 90 days from the date of City Council action to challenge the applicability of mitigation measures or payment of mitigation fees. LISA GROTE Chief of Planning/Zoning Administrator July 10, 2000 Page 8 ATTACHMENT 6 MAY 24, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AND STAFF REPORT (without attachments) Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion 875 Blake Wilbur Drive File Nos. [97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-ZA-14, 97-UP-66, 97-ARB-214] See the following pages. 4 MEETINGS A.RE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16: 6 7 8 10 11 ROLLALL: 7:IO PM 12 .-13 --.-C-.o mmissio n ers : 14 Kathy Schmidt, Chair 15 Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair - absent 16 Jon Schink 17 Patrick Butt 18 Owbn Byrd 19 Phyllis Cassel - absent 20 Bonnie ’Packer - absent 2l 22 May 24, 2000 SPECIAL MEETING - 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1‘t Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Caiifornia 94301 Staff - .......................... Ed Gawf, .Planning Director Lisa Grote, Chief PIanngng Official Wynne Furth, Senior Asst. City Attorney Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary Nancy Hutar,’ConkuItant Planner 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Chairman Schmidt: I would like to call to order the Planning and Transportation CornmAssion meeting of May 24, 2000. It’s a Sp.ecial Meeting. Would the Secretary please call the ro11. The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the pubIic 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 Ptanning and T}ansportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chairman Schmidt: I have lots of cards but they are all for our main item this evening. So we do not have Oral Communications. The next item is Agenda is Changes, Additions And Deletions and there are none. City of PaloAIto Page 1 ! 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 ’11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 3I 32 33 34 36 3"/ 38 39 40 41 43 A GENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONSAND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional item.~ added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chairman Schmidt: That brings us to Unfinished Business and there is none. UNFITVISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings: None Other Items: None Chairman Schrnidt: That brings us to our New Business which is a Public Heating for 875 Blake Wilbur Drive/300 Pasture Drive. That is a request by Stanford Hospital and clini.’cs formerly known as UCSF Stanfbrd Health Care. The applic~t for stun.ford University as the Iandowner for the development of the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion facility at the Stanford University Medical Center which would allow for (1) the demolition of a I2,550 square foot medical office buiiding at 851 Welch Road and its related surface parking area; (2) the removal of a surface parking area located just north ofPS III; (3) the construction of the 218,000 square foot CCTP/ACP vdth four floors of outpatient facilities, one floor Would be underground, located at the new address of 875 Blake Wilbur Drive; and (4) the construction of a four-level underground t,-035 space parking structure in-th--6-Pasture 13rive median between Weldh Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. NEW B" USINESS. Public Hearings: 875 Blake Wilbur Drive/300 Pasteur’ Drive [97-CPA-3~ 97-ZC-14~ 97-UP-66, 97- ARB-214]: Requests (1) by the Planning and Community Environment Department to review and consider the adequacy of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and (2) by the Board of Trustees for Leland Stanford Junior Univ.ersity c/o The Stanford Plarming Office for review and recommendation to the City Council by the Planning Commission (PC) for construction of a 218,000 square foot Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention and Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTP/ACP) at 875 Blake Wilbur Drive and an approximately 1,035 space, four-level underground Parking Structure IV (PS IV) in the Pasteur Drive median between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. The project includes applications for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change, the land use designation of 801 and l l01Welch Road from Research/Office to Major InstitutiordSpecial Facilities, rezoning property at 801 and 1101 Welch Road (also identified as assessor numbers 142-23-004 and 007) from Office Research (OR) to Public Facility (PF), demolishing the build’ing at 851 Welch Road, and removing the landscape combining district from the Public Facilities (PF) at the Pasteur Drive median strip between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. The applications also include a conditicmal use permit to allow operation of the CCTP/ACP at 875 Blake Wilbur Drive arid 851 Welch Road and of the PS IV at the Pasteur Drive median. Environmental Review: In accordance with CEQA requirements, a Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2"/ 28 29 ’30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 (DEIR) has been prepared for this project which is available for public review frown March 2I, 2000 to May 5, 2000. PC and punic comments on the adequacy of the DEIR are requested at the May 3, 2000 hearing. (3) The Planning and Community Environment Deparmlent and Stanford Planning Office request that the Harming Commission also review and comment on a proposed Land Use Area Analysis for the approximately 108 acre Medica! Center area prepared by Stanford Harming Office as a background contextual document for the review of the CCTP/ACP/PS IV project. This item is tentatively scheduled to be discussed by the City Council at their regula.r meeting of July 10, 2000 at 7:00 PM. Chairmmn Schmidt: I’d like to note that the three Commissioners who are not here this evening all are conflicted on this or have the appearance of conflict because of their husband’s association with the Stanford property. Specifically, Phyllis Cassel’s husband works at SLAC, Bonnie Packer’s husband has worked at Stanford and her son receives financial benefits as a Stanford student, and Annette Bialson’s husband is a physician who has an office on Welch Road. May we have the Staff presentation. Nil’. Ed Qiawt% Planning Director: Thank you Madam Ctlatr. I’ve asked Lisa Grote, our Chief Planning Official, to make the presentation on this item. This is one that we have worked on for over two years. We’ve done an EIR, Environmental Impact Report, as part of this and we’ve also done a thorough analysis of the proj ect itself: Our Chief Planning Official will make the presentation. Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Plann.ing Official: Thank you very much. I would like to start by saying that there are six basic, recommendations being asked of the Commission tonight. Those six recommendations basically fall within three general topic areas. The first of those areas is the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The second of those is the project itself. The third of those is any future actions that could possibly be initiated as part of area-wide impacts. The first recommendation is on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. That has been written and that is in front of you tonight. The second is a recommendation on potentia! statements of overriding consideration to justify significant adverse impacts. The third recommendation is on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for two sites identified as 8’01 and 1101 Welch Road. That would be changing the Comprehensive Plan from Office Park Research to Major Institution Special Facilities. It would also include, which would be the fourth recommendation, a Zoning .Ordinance amendment to change the Zoning from OR which is Office Research.to Public Facilities. Lastly, regarding the projectwould be a recommendation regarding the Use Permit that is required for the facility in a PF zone. The last recommendation would be for any future actions for the Council to initiate Zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments outboard of Welch Road to accommodate housing which would mean changing the land use designation to multiple family residential with a potential RM-30 or RM-40 high density residential zone. Cir.’ of Polo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 I would like to talk f~rst about the specifics of the project then go into the Draft Environmental document that’s been prepared and then talk about the future actions that may be recommended for initiation. Basically the proj oct entails dem01ition of a 12,500 square foot building that’s located at 801 Welch Road which is in this area here. It would also demolish the 60 space siarface parking lot that is next to that building and it would demolish a 152-space surface parking lot that is ’currently located in this area north of parking stru.cture 3. In that location, north of parking structure 3, would be a 218,000 square foot Cancer Treatment/Prevention and Ambulatory Care Facility. Along with that in this area over herewould be a four-level underground parking "garage which would be located under the median of Pasture Drive. There would be some permanent mechanical equipment and exhaust systems that would be above grade for that underground facility. That would require removing the landscape combining district that is currently on that site and replacing it with an open space covenant or some vehicle of that sort to maintain the open nature of the area but to allow minor intrusions into the surface for that. The current Cancer Treatment Facility occupies about 82,000 square feet in the existing hospital.. That 82,000 square feet would be vacated and would be occupied then by other Medical Center uses. The 218,000 square foot facility would essentially be used to consolidate and expand what is currently the Cancer Treatment and Ambulatory Care Facility. It would expand the number of operating rooms fi=d-ria-q.2-IWI-6"g6-there wout~t-b-~Tour--uT.gd-da Nb-ff-.nal operating rooms. There would be waiting areas, office space, operating room space itself that meet current code requirements, Title 24. There would be additional corridor width. There would be additional room for updated equipment and different kinds of services that are more updated. And thei’e would be additional room for a corridor or a bridge that would link the new facility to the existing university hospital. That is what the additional 136,000 square feet would be used for over and above the 82,000 that they are in now. So it is really to consolidate and expand the existing facility. The parking for the facility would be located in PS IV which would be under the median. It would have roughly 1,035 parking spaces. That does e~ceed the parking demand that the new square footage requires. It exceeds it by about t63 spaces. In addition to providing that parking for the new square footage it would then free up parking structure 3 for patient and visitor parking ordy. So employees would be parking in PS IV for the most part. ’ In order for the new facility to be built at the current p#oposal several land use actions do need to be taken. One is that 801 Welch Road and 1101 Welci! Road, these two parcels here and here, need to ha~e their Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation amended so that .t.hey would become Major Institution Special Facilities and they.would need to be rezoned to allow for a PF Zoning. That would allow the uses proposed with a Use Permit. Any use in the PF Zone that isn’t owned and/or operated by a Public Facility or agency needs of conditional use permit so they would be required to get a conditional use permit. It would also change the floor area ratio to 1 :l ratlaer than the .5:1 that currently is on that site with OR Zoning, Thatwould in mm allow for the 218,000 square feet that they are requesting. So the 1:t FAR is required to accommodate that additional square footage. City of Palo Alto Page 4 2 3 6 7 9 I0 12 ~6 20 2! 22 23 24 2~ In addition, as I mentioned, the removal of the Landscaping Combining District would be needed to allow for the underground parking structure and especially for the minor encroachments or intrusions or protrusions up above grade. So it would be part of the action to remove that Landscape Combining District and replace it with an open space covenant. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 When we looked at the project we evaluated it against the California Environmental Quality Act and determined that an Environmental Impact Report is required. We went through the City selection process and selected EIP to write that environmental document. The draft of that document is in front of you now and has been availabie for public review since March 24th. The official written comment period closed on May 5th and we included those written comments that we received up to ttiat date in your packet for your review. There will be additionai testimony and probably written comment submitted tonight but what we had received, by May 5m was included in your packet. Essentially the Draft EIR identified four areas that would result in significant unavoidable impacts. Two of those are short-term during construction only. Those include visual impacts d.uring construction and noise impacts during construction. Then two impacts are long-term. One is transportation and the other is air quality. For transportation there are 11 intersections that are identified in the Draft EIR as having significant, adverse impacts as part of a cumulative condition which was measured in the year 2010. Those 11 intersections are noted.with a yellow dot and red circle around them on the map. ....... Fig-~-o-fth~-~’igt~gg~-~ib-fls were ~tdr-gg~e--d ig-th-e" S~if~-dHill-EiR.ii~alli;i~~-~6]~~~i{~v~ During that process the City Council did make what are tailed the "can and should" findings for those intersections that are in Menlo Park. This means that they are not in the jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto, they are within the jurisdictionof Menlo Park and that the improvements called for can and should be made by Menlo Park. Stanford agreed to pay tb_e[r appropriate share of those mitigation measures during that Sand Hill review process. We have not addressed those further in this Environmental Impact Report with the exception of potentially extending the date by three years within which Stanford would still be obligated to pay for those improvements should Menlo Park decide to implement them, Of the six remaining intersections that we do address in this Environmental Impact Report they are located along E1 Camin6 here, here and here, at Palm and Arboretum, and then at Sand Hill Road and Sharon Park, and here at Stanfordand Junipero Sierra. A similar "can and should" finding can be made for those intersections that are not within the City of Palo Alto. For all of the intersections a condition of project approval could be that Stanford would agree again to pay for their appropriate share of those intersection improvements. It would either be intersection improvements or other traffic reduction methods which could be transportation demand management systems or other methods that would actually reduce the trips that go through those intersections rather than widening or improving those intersections to accommodate more cars. In addition to that mitigation measure Stanford has agreed to expand their .already in place and successful TDM, Transportation Demand Management Program, to this new facility. There were many items that could be part of that management program that were included in your Staff report. Specifically Condition 12 of the Draft Conditional Use Permit. Stanford has agreed to have a goal of reducing trips by 200 peak hour trips per day. There would not be a penalty for Cir. of Palo Alto Page 5 not meeting that goal but there would be monitoring and evaluation of that program, If it were not found to be effective Stanford would have the ability then to implement other methods that would be effective. So there would be some flexibility within what they could do within that program. 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 Finally, the last point that I Want to make is regarding a larger issue with hotising. In the Draft Environ_mental document it was noted that Stanford will be paying a housing mitigation fee which will offset the impact of the additional housing need because of the additional employees. So that has been mitigated for this project. However, iooking at the larger area as we did in a study session about a month and a half ago for the area analysis on the entire Medical Center area, Staff referenced your concerns about the additional need for housing overall. We are making a recommendation, which is Recommendation 6, that the area outboard of Welch Road, which is essentially this area here that would extend fzom 730 Welch Road to 1000 Welch Road, that the Council initiate a Comprehensive Plan amer~dment and rezone that would change that area from office use to multi-family residential use and that there be either an RM-30 or RM-40 accompanying zone which would accommodate up to about 400 additional housing units. So that would be our final recommendation. Before I sit down I would like to introduce our Environmental Consultant Team. We have Rod Jung with EIP, Brian Boxe~? with EIP, and we also have Dennis Strucker with Korve Engineering ..... who did the traffic analysis:--Also; not-pm-t-ofthe-consulting-team-but-here-for-questiorrs-if-yotr should have them is Ken 8chreiber Who is our consultant for Stanford/Sand Hill projects. We also have some Staff members here, Joe Kott, Chief Transportation Official, Carl Stoffel, Senior Transportation Plarmer and Nancy Hutar who has been our project manager. That concludes the Staff report. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Are there questions for StaffT. Owen. 33. 34 35 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 Commissioner Byrd: Lisa, could you put back up the site plan that shows the parcels that are going, to be rezoned? Ms. Grote: Yes. Those would be 801 and 1101. Commissioner Byrd: Remind,us what uses will emerge on those two parcels, in the wake of the project completion, The way I read it is the Cancer Center is located offofthose two parcels, A different way to ask it is why .do those parcels need to be rezoned as a part of this project application? Ms. Grote: The parcels need to be rezoned not because their uses are changing but because the square footage would then be allocated in this ge.neral, area. All of this is considered essentially one parcel..So if you have a 1:1 FAR on this entire parcel that square footage is then able to be used anywhere on that parcel. So the uses would.n’t necessarily change but the allowable floor area would increase. Cir. of Palo Alto Page 6 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Commissioner Byrd: So if we did not recommend rezoning of those parcels k would necessarily limit the size of the Cancer Treatment Center. Ms. Grote: That’s correct. Commissioner Byrd: Because it couldn’t use the floor irea that would be transferred off of those newly rezoned parcels? Ms. Grote: That’s correct. Commissioner Byrd: And they couldn’t build the project they want .to build. Ms. Grote: That is correct. It would be a greatly redticed project. I’d need to get the exact square footage that theywould be able to build without that but it is not ne .arly what they have .requested. Commissioner Byrd: Okay. Chairman Schmidt: Pat. 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33, 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 C~-ffffrfig-gir~-fffBti~gYLlgii, co-d-~t you review ilie parking el~ .~ to ~e plan again~ As I understood it the Pasture Drive underground garage was going to be 1,000 spaces and it had.a certain surplus. Is that based upon the four per thousand ratio? Ms. Grote: It is based upon the square footage. The square ~ootages of the various uses that would be within the building. That’s fight. So it equals about 163 spaces over what would be required. Commissioner Burr: And there is an existing structure that would.be allocated for visitors? Ms. Grote: Right, PS III, parking structure 3, currently parks many, many different users. That would then be allocated for visitors and patients only. So the majority of the new parking structure, PS IV, would be used by employees. Commissioner Burt:. How many spaces are there in PS III? Ms. Grote: That I would need to look up. I don’t recall. Commissioner Burt: What I’m looking to understand is the totaI amount of surplus spaces being generated for this project beyond what’s needed by the project. Ms. Grote: That would be the 163 spaces. The project is not dependent on.PS III. The project would be providing alI of its parking with PS IV with in fact 160 or so additional spaces more than they need. City of Palo Alto Page 7 l 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 3O 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 Commissioner Butt: PS IV would provide those 160 extra or the two structures combined? Ms. Grote: No, PS IV would provide those. Commissioner Burt: So what I’m trying to get at is why do we need the 160 additional spaces along with however many are in PS III. Ms. Grote: I didn’t intend to say that we needed PS III. It’s just that a part of the project benefit would be a different parking management plan which would allow PS III to be used’by visitors and patients which is then closer to this facility. Commissioner Burr: I certainly see the advantages of having the visitors and patients closer to the facility and the employees in the underground lot by Pasture. But I’m still not following why there are so many spaces being proposed for this project in PS IV and PS III combined. Ms. Grote: Well, PS III wouldn’t only be for this facility. Patients and visitors to the rest of the .Medical Center could also park in PS III. So it wouldn’t just be patients and visitors to this facility.. ’Commissioner Byrd: Maybe a different way to ask the question is why is this project delivering 168 s’pa~es that arenot~eeded to parkit? What’s the good .of that? ............................. Ms. Grote: I think that there is an overall benefit for other uses that are part of the Medical Center. Commissioner Byrd: Benefit for existing Uses or is this parking that Stanford anticipates using to park projects that have not yet been proposed? Ms. Grote: I think it is for existing use.s. Ed is pointing out that there is a design element to this and that it wduld be difficult to not put in 163 spaces. The circulation element inside the parking structure necessitates ~ certain number of spaces.. Commissioner Burt: I go back to needing to understand approximately how many spaces are in PS III.because to my mind the over-parking is the surplus of PS IV combined with however many spaces ’are in PS III. However many hundreds of spaces those are together is the over- parking. Perhaps the circuIation issue may be different if we look at the total parking requirement. Ms. Grote: I think Dennis Strucker would like to answer that. Mr. Dermis..Struecker, ConsuI;ant, Korve Engineering: Maybe I can shed some light on this. I’m looking at the tables on page 3.5-51 in the Draft document. There are ~-wo tables there. The first table shows the changes that are going to occur in the immediate area as a result of this project and some other projects. Essentially what’s happening is you are losing some parking. If you look at the third coIuran that says, "SUMC Supply," midway down the table it shows that City of Palo Alto Page 8 I 2 3 5 7 8 9 lO 11 12 .13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 4O 4l 42 43 44 45 when they start building the project they are going to lose 152 existing spaces. So that’s about what the overrun is. If you look at the bold line on the upper right you see that there is a difference of supply over the zoning requirement of 1,000. Actually that’s going down as these projects, in the area including this projec.t, the supply and demand change so that we are going down to 297. If you look at Table 3.5-14, that is an analysis of what’s happening in the irfixnediate area. It starts offwith the 1,035 pa~king spaces in PS IV then it subtracts away the demand for this project of 872, then it is the loss from this site. So tkere are two changes in parking. There is the loss of parking when you are building a building on it and then there is the increase in the parking demand. To go through that Table 3.5-14 and get to the bottom there is actualty a ~lisplacement of 188 parking spaces in this immediate area. Essentially those people would be displa, ced to the stock farm lot, Hopefully that was helpful. Commissioner Burr: I think that answerg the question. I’1I continue to look it over. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Jon. Commissioner Schink: I was going to ask my colleagues if we could try to proceed on to hear the applicant and the public. We have a lot of people here and I don’t want to get too bogged down in th~ details just’y~t. ..... Chairman Schmidt: Let’s move on to the Public Hearing and hear from the applicant. You have 15 minutes and if we have questions we will ask them. Mr. Larry Horton, Director of Government Community Relations, Stanford Plannin~ Office: Thank you very much we are very pleased to be here tonight. My Stanford colleagues and I will be glad to answer your questions, We have short two-part presentation and then we will go to questions. First we believe that this is one of the most important facilities that we have proposed in the past. two decades. It is one with many direct b~nefits to the citizens of Palo Alto and other neighbors. Dr. Sarah Donaldson, Professor of Radiation 0ncology at the Stanford University Medical School and an Associate Director of the Cancer Treatment Center, will briefly describe the Cancer Center and why it is needed. Dr. Donaldson has been a witness and a participant in ~e extraordinary changes in cancer care over the past three decades. 8he has been on the front lines of research all that time. Following Dr. Donaldson’s remarks, David Neuman, University Architect and Director of Planning, will comment on related transportation and housing issues. Finaliy, in order to use the Commission’s time efficiently, we wili not present a speaker on the Ambulatory Care and surgery portions of this facility. But we do have Dr. Peter Gregory, Chief Medical Officer of the Stanford Hospital, as well as the President and CEO of the Hospital and the Vice-President of Planning here in the audience. They will be pleased to answer your questions’. Dr. Donaldson. City of Palo .4Ito Page 9 l 2 3 4 Dr. Sarah Donaldson, Professor of Radi£tion Oncology at the Stanford University Medical " School and an Associate Director of the Cancer Treatment Center: Thank you. Hello. I’m here to explain why this building is so important to our community. I’m a practiging oncologist. I take care of cancer patients, adults and children. I’ve been at Starfford for the past 31 years during which time I have witnessed first-hand the Stanford Cancer Program grow and expand. So let me tell you from my perspective why.we are discussing this building and its tritical importance to al.1 of us. 5 6 7 9 Cancer affects all of us. Here are the facts: one out of three Palo Alto residents will develop 10 cancer sometime in their lifetime. Approximately 250 Palo Alto residents are newly diagnosed 11 with cancer each year. When patients are diagnosed with cancer they want the very best 12 treatment that is possible. Often times this is at a cancer Center and they wimt to be treated close 13 to home if that’s at all possible. The Palo Alto residents are fortunate to have a cancer center in 14 their COmmunity. Stanford’s Cancer Program began in 1960. It was here that the medicaI linear 15 accelerator was developedl. It was here that Hodgkin’s Disease was cured. And radial therapy 16 for prostrate cancer treatment was initiated, [Monteclonal] antibodies for the treatrrient of cancer !7 were discovered here. The PSA as a screening test for prostrate cancer was advanced here. A 18 national study for breast cancer prevention was undertaken here. We have the world’s leaders in 19 pediatric cancer at Stanford. We have one of the very, very best bone marrow transplantation 20 programs in the country. Stanford’s Cancer Center is now significantly hampered by an outdated -2-i....fi~[ffy--ffi-dfi~-4-O years-61-dS-Cffn-d-eT~-t-~’-t~-da-~-y i~-fr-a-gr-~med-and-scattered-around-the 29.Medical Center. Patients are required to traverse long d!stances from one clinic to another, from’ 23 .one building to another. For ex .ample, a patient may have a surgical clinic appointment in one 24 building on the second floor and then need to go to medical oncology infusion center for their 25 chemotherapy, which is in another building. Finally, that same day they may need to go to the 26 radial therapy department for their radiation treatment in the basement. Fortunately cancer 27 therapy today has advanced over the past 30 or 40 years. 28 29 30 31 32 33 , 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 This new cancer center is crucial for the following reasons. First is cancer care today is now a disciplinary, that is, teams of healthcare workers, surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical and pediatric oncologists, diagnostic radiologists, and pathologists all converge together and evaluate new and complex cases so we can provide .the most comprehensive care. The new facility that we are talking about will bring doctors to the patient. It will not require patients to go from clinic to clinic, from building to building. Thisnew building that we are talking about will bring new efficiencies and reduce duplication. Adminiskative services will be centralized, such as registration and appointment scheduling. This not only will improve convenience it will reduce costs. My second point is that advanced and novel therapies require more space. It takes more space to treat an individual patient. In the old days radiation therapy macNnes of the 1950’s and 1960’s were small, simple and unsophisticated. Today, our linear accelerator treatment is capable of delivering intensity modulated radiai therapy which requires an immense amount of infrastructure and an enormous amount of physics support. In essence, new technology is bigger and it’s better. City of Pato Alto Page 10 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The third point is that cancer therapy today is predominantly ambulatory. Most of our chemo therapies today that in the past were delivered in the inpatient setting requiring hospitalization today can be given in the outpatient setting. Bone marrow transplantation that at one time required months of hospitalization is now done in the outpatient setting. Patients want to be at home. They want to be with their families. They want the flexibility to work and to be able to come to the center for their chemotherapy infusions or their transfusions at nighttime or on the weekends, This requires a modem infusion center that’s open 24-hours a day, This will be available in our new building. My fourth point is that Stanford is a major center for.cancer research. Clinically there are 400 clinical triaIs geared toward cancer treatment and cancer prevention. These clinical trials require more space. They requh:e special isolation rooms and shielded rooms and research, pharmacies and data support. All ciinical oncologists look to the day when our translational research from the laboratory to the bedside will put us out of business. This is our vision, this is our goaI but we have a long road to go. ’ Finally, cancer is a devastating disease. Patients spend a lot of time with us in the basement in cramped quarters. We are all aware of the inadequacy of the current facility and the members of our community deserve better.. Our new center will provide sunligl~t and greenery and a healing envLronment which is so very important to the cancer patient. Do remember that one out of three iSffig--~IIEte~Igp cancergn-d we gee---d-tl~s new center to opt~fm-~i)treat our cancer patients and to move toward cancer prevention. If we are to continue to advance the fietd of ontology we need a state-of-the-art facility to do so. Stanford cannot remain on the forefront without this .building. Thank you. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mr. David Neuman, Associate Vice Provost for Plarming and University Architect with Stanford: Thank you Dr. Donaldson. I’d like to briefly elaborate on some of the points that the Chief Planning Official just made regarding traffic, circulation, transportation demand management and housing near the Stanford Medical Center. Specifically, we support the concept of a can and should finding related to overriding considerations for the traffic and air quality impacts that can be addressed, as the EIR indicates, through the Sand Hill Road improvements in the City of Menlo Park and in San Marco County. Stanford University has offered to fund this project under the terms of the 1997 Palo Alto and Stanford Development Agreement approved by both the Palo Alto City Council and by the voters of the City of Palo Alto in a sei~arate referendum. We further support the concept of paying our fair share at the six additional potentially impacted intersections. But more importantly I believe we support. Palo Alto’s intent to consider alternative congestion management measures to lessen this maximal forecast of !mpacts. We also voluntarily agree to report annually for a period of ten years following the projects approval on the.effectiveness of our existing and plarmed TDM programs at the Stanford Medical Center. We do this as a means . to collaborate with Palo Alto and its Staff in determining the effectiveness of a variety of programs within our local environment. Cir. of Palo Alto Page I1 On the issue of additional housing sites near our Medical Center, as you know I believe from our previous study session and from the area ~alysis, we have a proposal in Santa Clara County currently to build up to 350 units for hospital residents and Medical Center post-doctoral fellows. Also, as part of the Sand Hill Road project approval the area next to Pasture Drive at 1100 Welch Road was added to an existing RM-40 parcel and we are currently and have been in full support of developing additional housing to that capacity allowable as the Sand Hill Road improvements are compIeted in this coming year. We also truly appreciate the constructiv~ suggestions which all of you gave to us during the . _____l.0___a:ecent.smd_y_s.ession_th_a_t__w_e_g.ad with_you on the Stanford University.. Medical.Center Area 11 Analysis. This led to the idea of possible rezoning of what is often called the outward or 12 outboard parcels of Welch Road from the office and research zoning to high-density housing in 13 concert with the concept of raising the density level within the core Medical Center. Both of 14 these principles are, of course, very contemporary with. transportation oriented development and 15 in concurrence with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. We encourage these conversions on the’ 16 basis of both economic and programmatic perspectives and look forward to working with you on the Commission as well as Palo Alto Staff in the future in this regard.17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O ’31 32 33 .... -Finally, I.believe that our Working together over-the past years has produced not only the setting for a fabuIous facility that you’ve been able to read and hear about that is not only vital to the future oftNs region’s healthcare and the future of cancer research for the world, but also we’ve achieved, I believe, a new leveI of understanding of our true mutual interests on current regional issues such as TDM and housing. I appreciate the time that you’ve spent to listen to us and I look forward to our working together in the future. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Are there questions for the applicant? Owen. Commissioner Byrd: Mr. Neuman, I heard Stanford say here tonight that it welcomes the TDM approach as a component of the mitigations imposed on this project. I thought I saw in one of your letters in the record a request Mat the City not impose a TDM requirement on the project. Am I misreading it or can you resolve these for me? Mr. Neuman: I don’t believe you are misreading it. I think what we are talking about are two 34 . things. One of them is the issue of a requirement when that involves then further monitoring and 35 the issues that are very complex in terms of TDM, which I’m sure you understand. What we are 36 proposing and had accepted in concept with Staff was something where we worked together to 37 look at different TDM methods and their effectiveness. Certainly Stanford has more experience, 38 I believe, than any other major employer in this region if not in the Bay Area over the pas{ 15 or 39 20 years at TDM.. What we feel is that we have a lot of this experience that can be used and is 40 being used frankly, to manage our TDM programs in a cost effective fashion. What my letter 41 indicated was that a requirement that gets into a prescriptive approach to TDM rather than TDM 42 that is adaptable and flexible according to needs and is monitored in terms of its effectiveness. 43 Certainly we’ve experienced changes that are related to economic conditions for example. 44 Certainly TDM is affected by housing conditions. All of those things are very complex as you 45 well know. So what we believe is the best approach is to work together with Palo Alto to have Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page I2 this goal in place in this particular project of these 200 trips, but to work towards this as something that goes beyond this in terms of our being effective. Both in what would be related to Stanford and also what Palo Alto might want to instigate on its own in terms of its shuttIe services and so forth. So I don’t see those two in conflict. I think I’~:~ trying to explain that one is related to cooperation and the other is reIated to a requirement basis. 6 7 8 9 10 I1 I2 13 14 15 16 17 Commissioner Byrd: I want to direct a follow up question to the City Attorney because Mr. Neuman’s ietter, ifI read it right, also asserted that we’could not lawfully impose such a condition of approval on the project anyway. Is that tree? Ms. Wyrme Furth, Assistant Senior Cit~ Attorney: Yes and no. A few years ago as part of the expansion of air quatity programs, transportation demand measures became a very big issue, first in Southern California and then in Northern California. As part of the revision to the air quality regulations a few years ago a provision was added that said that no air quality district or other agency could require a transportation demand management program of an employer. At the time legislative history indicated that this was not intended to apply to cities with regard t__o_Ign_d...use qu_es.t!_o..ns__but.no..specif!_c_l_an.gt}._age_?_n_.~.a.t_pp.int was put in the bill. There is an 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 opirdon from the Attorney General saying that cities requirement of a TDM program as one of a number of alternative ways of addressing a project’s impact. Since some’of the other alternative ways of addressing a project’s impact are to reduce its size, and in many case~ this would be an attragtive alternative, but certaJ.nly it is not as simple as the other kinds of measures we can require. It involves more elegant looking at alternatives to see what else mightbe available. Chairman Schmidt: Any more questions for the applicant. I have some questions for the applicant ab~out circulation. In looking at the overall circulation when we are looking at the greater Medical Center in particular, I’m struck by the complexityand the suburban look of the circulation yet in many instances you talk about the urban type of project that is being proposed here. That we’re making things more compact, it is more dense, we are in-filling. We’ve been doing this on Sand Hill Road, we’re doing it in Medical Center, and we will continue to do it there. Would 3’ou comment about that, the conflict between the suburban look of the iayout which I’m sure was the righ’t way to go at the time it was laid out and the urban quality of things I1OW. 35 36 Mr. Neuman: I think as in the study session when I spent some time going over the history of 37 the development of the Medical Center the Welch Road development and the early shopping 38 center and early hospital development were done in the 1950’s. Rightly or wrongly at that point 39 in time I think the attitude of urban streets and suburban attitude towards FAR and GAC for that 40 matter were prevalent. A lot of that has carried over in part becausea lot of the area on Welch 41 Road are leaselaold parcels that were developed., some as much as 50 or more years ago, and 4~_although some of them are moderately redeveloped they had not been redeveloped nor has the. 43 circulation system been changed to allow for the redevelopment in a more urban or higher- 44 density fashion. We did not suggest in the discussions with Staff and in the area analysis that 45 you’ve seen, that Welcl~ Road for example be changed significantly ir~ its character. I would Cir. of Palo Alto Page 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 think that as part of the discussions that we might have in the future about the nature of changi£g the zoning there would prompt the discussion about how the circulation pattern would be changed to better support mass transit as well as pedestrian and bicycle circulation, That a suburban [curve-lineax] road iike you see in this illustration is disincIined to do for a number of reasons both in terms of line of sight and also in terms of safety. Does that answer your question? Chairman Schrnidt: It sounds like you would be willing to look at more clear circulation later. Mr. Neuman: Yes. Chairman Schmidt: I guess ~.long with that the clarity of circulation, at the present time seems like it would need improving. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Mr. Neuman: The 1950’s characterized by cul-de-sacs and curving roads, even into the 1960’s, and certainly with the changes in thinking it is often called rico-traditionalism, but baslcaliy going back to a more straightforward circulation system that is more walkable and intelligible. We didn’t feel, in this process, until you had suggested this ’idea of looking at this in a longer term perspective as a TRD type of development that wasn’t on the table. So I certainly would think that we would be willing and able to talk to you about those things in the future. There is b-bV~b-figly-~-i-s s~b-6-u-tSOho owns thgl~--age-h-61-d~-gt°tliig-p-6i.~.t-ig_-tim-~7-B ~rgming-th-~t-a-gi~ie.-fo-f further discussion on circulation I tNnk there are some opportunities that exist even currently. Chairman Schmidt: And at the study session earlier I was hoping l~hat it would go beyond TDM, is that anything that you’ve looked at with this facility in terms of providing addi.tional transit alternatives? Are there other ways to address the people transit needs within the Medical Center area? 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Neurnan: I think we’ve been looking at this for several years. The complexity of the M~dicat Center by the nature of the users, we’re talking about patients both inpatient and their visitors and caregivers, as well as the clinic visitors that include you and I perhaps and our families. They have different travel patterns and so forth. So despite the fact that we have service directly to the front door of the hospital by our municipal bus services as well as Marguerite and we axe arguably with.in walking distance of the train station that maj or clientel’e, which makes up the majority of the users in that center, have a very diverse transportation need based on their wellness as well as on their ability to come for clinic visits and so forth. In term of our staff, of. course it is a 24-hour facility, that has possibilities in one regard - the sense that there are dedicated shift patterns. On the other hag. d, there axe also safety issues that are a concern to us in terms of people that work in the evening hours or the early morning hours. So it is a complex issue. When you say "beyond the existing systems" we look at expanding the existing systems, we look at improving circulation particularly around Quarry Road as it becomes a full fledged int.,ersection and much more of a pedestrian friendly access point to the Palo Alto I.nter-ModaI Center at the train station and that that really becomes an easy walking or cycling distance. So I think within the next year or year and a half as Quarry Road is finished, the sidewalks are put in, the lighting is put in, a traffic signal, the pedestrian connection to the Cir. of Polo Alto Page 14 train station and so forth, I think there will be a significant change in terms Of utilization of existing transit options. So beyond that I’m not sure exactly what your question woul.d want us to address. 4 5 6 7 8 t0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2.2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 Chairm.~_r~ Schmidt: I was hoping that there would be additionaI transit methods that Would be more furaristic that wo~ld work for a complex campus like this. Mr. Neuman: If you’re talking about something that’s of a more higher technology, is that what you are. alluding to? Some sort of automated.trar~it system or something? Chairman Schmidt: Something more futuristic. I actually talked with Joe Kerr, our Chief Transportation Official this afternoon and was asking him if there were other methods that are being used now that would take people short distances. I could perhaps call on Joe now or later to say a few words about other types of systems that might be useful at Stanford in the future. Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Our conversation was certainly somewhat speculative and long term. I do recall ha~ing used Duke University’s people mover system that serves the medical center at Duke and Durham. With some such system obviously cost and feasibility would be an i~sue. But in terms of long term planning it might be an interesting thing to look at for Stanford University particularly in conjunction with interface With the Cai Train g-~2"fo--ff-~-d both the shopping center and medical center. Chairman Schmidt: The people mover as you described to me was like a monorail. Mr. Kott: It is an automated system that actually is quite easy to use. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Pat. Commissioner Burr: David, a question. I was trying to locate it but somewhere in the reports I believe I read that Stanford’s response to the proposal to rezone the outer Welch Road area to medium density housing was something that Stanford was receptive to considering and I b~lieve I read that it was provided it included a greater than 1:1 FAR was allowed within Welch Road. is that correct as far as what. Stanford’s position is? Mr. Neuman: That is exactly what I said a minute ago or at least tried to. Specifically, I hadn’t read that Commissioner, but when we had the study session I believe there was discussion alhout the fact that a lot of the parcels that are outbokrd of Welch Road are actually used for Medical Center activities. Since that time we have looked at the occupancy in those as best we can obtain that information. Somewhere between 70% and 75% of the uses that are in those buildings, again as best I know it, are related to the medical school or the hospital. So those activities are core to the.hospital. I betieve in our study session I mentioned that in discussion with all of you that we would need t~ replace that. I believe the dialogue led to the notion that prospectively we would have a higher than 1.0 floor area ratio within the core of the Medical Center, that is inboard of Welch Road, in order to replace those faciIities and that would be our position right 45 now. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 !4 15 16 17’ 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 3t 32 33, 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Burr: Do you know approximately how many square feet are in those areas? Mr. Neuman: I can give you that in a few minutes, yes. Chairman Schrnidt:’ David, I have a couple more questions as well. Mr. Neuman: Nancy will know the answer to that question. Ms. Nancy Hutar, Proiect Manager: The existing buildings square footage outward of Welch Road is approximately 235,000 right now. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chairman Schrnidt: David, I have a couple more questions for you. Mr. Neurnan: I think that’s the building square footage, not the FAR. Ms. Hutar: Right. -Cl~iffffan-Seb2rfiidt: The-fi.rgk"6fftb)- 6fIti~)ib~-~Td-)-~!~igg s-gl~c~6igtt~-g~7-ib-e-d as a series gf linear planters with wild grasses in them with path.ways in between. Did you consider putting more people uses on top of this and make it more park-like? Ms.. Neuman: That is an interesting discussion point. I wasn’t at the ARB but my understanding is there has been some discussion about how natural they should be as opposed to how park-like it should be. I thixa& the design we have fight now is more or less something in between..It has these native grasses. I have an illustration if you’d like me to put it up. This is the parking structure and these green panels are the native grasses and the beige color is meant to be the pathways of decomposea granite or some such. The row of trees that you see right here is the historic Governor’s Lane. We’re reinforcing the parking structure so that it can be planted with full size California Sycamores. So the idea was that certainly people could walk out on these pathways but there has been discussion as to whether we should provide seating out there or whether that makes it too urban. In other words, should it be just native grasses. I don’t think we have a strong opinidn on that. I think that we would be, as long as it’s well planned and well designed and it is going to be useful to people, open to the idea that there could be a place for people to sit out in ~at median. You may know from visiting the Medical Center that of ’ course the are’a around the fountain is highly used by visitors to the hospital and migrant ducks, but also this area has sculpture and is an oak area. A lot of people go out there and have their lunch and so forth. Just recently we were completing the new cIinical sciences research center and as part of that we took out this parking and moved it out to Stock Farm Road. And built a new what we call the north gar~ten here which is a hedgerow lawn and oak park-like setting that does have benches and so on and we hope eventually some additional sculpture. That is fully accessible to the patients and their caregivers and visitors. So how much we need to bring City of PaloAlto Page I6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 , 10 1t 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 seating down into here I think is a matter of how all these areas are used and so on. But we are" certainly’open and have been planning these together and. are open to further discussion with you alI and the ARB about this. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Pat. Commissioner Burr: David, can you expand a little bit on what the intended uses are of the current cancer center facilities that would be vacated? Mr. Neurnan: I’m going to lookto my colleague. I can give you a general overview of that. The heart center which is another important facility for those with cardiac problems, as I understand it, and the research that’s associated with that is rather crowded in a similar fashion to the current cancer therapy areas in an area that is adjacent. I think a major part of the baek-fiI1, as it’s calied, ’ will be devoted to allowing them to get into more appropriately sized quarters. We’ve ~lso been discusskug the notion of providing additional or actually some sort of an exercise facility so you can stay healthy as part of this that w0uld available to the staff at the Medical Center. Lou do you want to expa2nd on this at all? Was I correct? This is Lou Saxon, Vice President, Stanford Hospital. Mr, Lou Saxon, Vice’President, Stanford Hospital: As you might imagine, the facilities that are ’irfilm~ti~iely -Iiaj ~a67it’~5 tti~"C~i~d’~-r center ffiid ~biilkfbi’~ Su?~r~ ;~b ~ifi~ ~5~0~iirBS " that have been very constrained for years. The one that David mentioned, the heart center, is immediately adjacent to the ambulatory surgery and we do need to expand that facility, ~ardiac care facilities, research facilities, and diagnostic facilities related to the heart center. On the lower level which is where much of the radiation therapy takes place now is the original infrastructure for the Stanford Medical Center built in 1959. There is a room that we affectionately refer to as the Brown Bag Room where the staff eat lunch. It is perfectly adequately sized for the 1959 staff.. It does need to be expanded. Exercise facilities, lockers; showers, things for transportation, bike transportation center and things like that, in that lower support floor wiI1 be added as we vacate those facilities. But there are also other clinical uses, nuclear medicine and things like that that have been pressed up against the cancer center that will ¯ be ailowed to have a lit-tle bit more adequate space to provide their services: Chairman Schmidt: Are there ’any other questions for the applicant. Let’s go on to the i:est of the punic hearing. We have around 17 cards at the present time .with more coming. Jon. Commissioner Schink: Can I make a suggestion? I know that everyone in the audience has a lot of good things to say to us. In an effort towards fairness, so that we can give them all an opportunity to speak to us tonight, I suggest that we reduce our time for each speaker from five minutes to three minutes so we’re certain t~at everyone.has a chance to speak. If that’s agreeable with my colleagues. Chairman Schmidt: Is that agreeable to everyone? Owen. Commissioner Bgrd: It is. May I make a brief follow up comment? Ci~ of Palo Alto Page ] 7 1 3 4 7 8 ,9 10 12 13 14 !7 18 19 20 Chairman Schmidt: Certainly. Commissioner Byrd: I thZnk it was extremely useful that Stanford divided its presentation between the value of the center and what Dr. Donaldson spoke to and the land use and transportation and planning issues. I think it will be most helpful to the Commission, correct me if I’m wrong, if the speakers to the greatest extent possible try,to speak to the plazming and. transportation issues their the application presents. We’re going to take into account, I would .guess, the importance and the value o~this use - the cancer center. My father has cancer, I’m guessing we’ve all been touched by cancer. We l~ow how desperately a facility is needed but we are not the cancer commission, we are the Planning and Transportation Commission.. So in an effort to make best use of those limited tlzree minutes I would encourage speakers to direct their remarks toward the issues that we have to consider in making a recommendation to CounciI, if my colleagues agree with those sentiments. ¯Chairman Schmidt: Yes, I agree that we are indeed here as the Planning and Transportation Commission and those are the issues that we would most care to hear about. Anyone else who wants to speak, please turn in a card. Our first speaker is Roger Holland. Avenue, ~’a!o Alto: i~m a 42 year resNen-gf-6"f:Pa-lo--A-I olS--~-d 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 I think thlis is one of the most important projects I’ve been aware of in the time that I’ve been here. In the idea of keeping things short and I know a number of people who want to make a presentation may not hax;e the time to stay, I’d like to ask that all the peopIe who support this project at this time stand. Would you please? Thank you. That’s all I’can say. I think that says it all. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. We still have a long list of cards here..The next speaker is Willie Heller to be followed by Robert Shapiro. [off-mike comments] Chairman Schmidt: Thank.you. John Stem to be followed by Sara Maas. Mr. John St.em, 2303 Cowper, Palo Alto: Good evening. I’ve been. a member of the Stanford Hospital Board as well. as the Chairman of the its Planning Committee. In the !960’s when the present cancer facilities were designed much of the present teclmology for doctors and staff was not even on the drawing boards. One example is the continuous electronic monitoring of the patient’s vital signs after compietion of cancer surgery. In fact, the first mock up of the equipment was brought to the hospital about 1963 by Hewlett Packard. The present cancer intensive care surgery unit is jammed packed with patients with theiz individual nurses, IV’s, and the necessary monitoring equipment, tn 2000 these essential facilities are both out-dated and inadequate. I’d like to add that my wife was a patient of the Stanford Clinic and she had major cancer surgery and she is walking around beautifully. The Cio, of Palo Alto Page I8 110 2 skills of the surgeons ~re unquestionably world-class and I cannot say that for the facilities. In fact, I suggest that any of you gentlemen just walk into the recovery section of surgery about 3:00 in the afternoon and see what it looks like. 4 5 7 8 9 1’0 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 Also the first unit of the Stanford Hospital was designed by Edward Stone who was famou~ for his lack of flexibility. Incidentally, it was the first and last hospital designed by Mr. Stone. This is a small example of the many essentially needs of the new cancer center. I urge the support of the center. Thank you. Chairman Sc!-m-xidt: Thank you. Sara Maas to be followed by Leona McGanh. Ms. Sara Maas, 25 Nel_s.on Avenue, Mill Valley: With all due respect to Mr. Byrd’s commem think I deserve my three minutes so bear with me please. Last September I was tea days home from our hopeymoon and I was diagnosed with Leukemia, I was given an option to have a bone marrow transplant and after interviewing different facilities we chose Stanford. I .had excellent care but we’ve all heard it, this is a premier place to be treated. I spent approximately two months in the inpatient unit where I had a big window and I had my own bathroom. I had anything I needed. I didn’t even know that other patients existed. It was a pretty big room so my family and friends could come and support me. I needed that. That helped me tremendously in those two months. From there we were celebrating that I was.., going to be leaving that unit going to thegay hospital. Little did I know I was going into a place that was much more dreary, depressing, and it was wind0wless. The only view I had was of the hallway watching the nurses go back and forth and people going back and forth to the bathrooms. That was six to eight hours 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 a day in this place and that is depressing. Talk about environmental issues. That’s an envirormaent that’s not helpful. I think mat the patients come from all over the country if not all over the world to be here to be treated and they need a better place to go. Also if there is somebody here that you should really listen to it’ s Dr. Carl [Bruma] who saved my life. I am so grateful to be here that if I could do it again I would really rather do it in a bette~ place wt’th windows and my ow-a bathroom and ¯ someone sitting next to me that’s in my family rather than a woman who was having a really 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 nauseating day and throwing.up or that I am and I have to be embarrassed about being sick in front of someone else, Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Leona McGar~, I don’t see that person. Sherrie Greenberg to be followed by Herb Borock. Ms. Sherrie OreenberK, 698 Wi!.dwood Lm3.e, Palo Alto: Excuse me but after spending some time thinking about this and writing it I reaIly feel that I want to stick to whit I wanted to say in the first place. I’m a 40 year resident of Palo Alto and a professional bridge teacfier. 26 years ago ~ contracted t~reast cancer and I’ve been fighting with numerous mastectomies ever since. Stanford has provided me with a great oncologist and radiation oncology department along with the latest available research and treatments. Although you have outstanding family doctors in the Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I0 11 12 13 14 15 I6 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 community where do you go when you, your family or friends have troubles that really in the extreme? Do you run offto New York or to Texas? No, you go to Stanford. I originally moved to Palo Alto because of the glamour and reputation of Stanford. I’ve stayed because of the recognized expertise of Stanford’s medical staff in spite of Stanford’s dismal offices, waiting rooms and treatment areas, It never occurred to me as I voted for new schools, libraries, recreation facilities and city hails, that one day my City Council would consider, depriving me and other cancer victims of the opportunity to have something so vital and needed. To have you hold the cancer clinic as hostage for any reason including transportation is a disgrace. I hope I can persuade’you that we should insist on the best treatment, the best research, the best faciiities, right here.. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: The next speaker is Herb Borockto be followed by Karl Blume. Mr. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Good evening. Staff is requesting that you make a recommendation on the adequacy of the EIR. That’s not provided for in Palo Alto’s process arid guidelines from the CEQA. You can’t do it because you won’t have the evidence. You won’t gave the answers to the comments that are made tonight on the Draft. So how can yo[1 make a recommendation on the. adequacy of the EIR?’ I incorporate in my remarks this evening the complete text of both of my letters and Appendix A that I made during the scoping process, I request that the final EIR respond to.all the comments in both of those letters. In 1990, when the last parcel was rezoned from OR to PF, the City Council made a referral to the Planning Commission to consider establis ".hing a maximum floor area limit on remaining development on these inboard OR parcels. You still have that before you and I recommend to you tonight that as part of any approval you make that you recommend a limit on total future floor area for these parcels linked to the transportation network. Since the intent was to match what was then a limit on the shopping center based on the transportation network. The data you have on traffic is based on two inadequate assumptions. The first is that there is a fixed number of employees and patients. In 1992, Dr. Gregory indicated in the ten years he’d been at Stanford that the number of outpatients had doubled.. Also the Sand Hill EIR data .of which this EIR is based used incorrect data from Annual Report Number 9 of the General Use Permit and also had a much lower number of employees for tiffs facility than is now suggested.. In the early analysis, Exhibit A, it appears to leave out the landscape combining district parcels. I believe that they don’t have an entitlement for floor area and if they don’t then removing the landscape combining district from a parcel would essentially increase the floor area entitlement. Apparently the calculations that have been made in the past have assumed that they do have an entitlement for floor ar~a. So it is a question of whether or not the parcel is out of compliance or not. City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 3 4 5. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 31 32 "33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 FinN!y, kn terms of housing, I support Staff’ s recommendation and would go further and includ~. the Stanford Barn, PC 1992. Prior to 1975 this was multiple family zoning that permitted offices and Stanford never built multi-family housing. So based upon that history you shouldn’t give them an option of housing or offices. It should be just a straight multiple family zone. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Karl Blume to be followed Rich Hoppe. Mr. Karl Blume, Stanford University Medical Center: Good evening. I’m Professor of Medicine and Director of the [Bomar] Transplant Program at Stanford. I’m practicing medicine for 37 years now and I’ve been in California since 1975. First for 12 years at the City of Hope National Medical Center, a private cancer center which has the luxury of space it can use. The last 13 years I’ve been at Stanford which unfortunately has the opposite, namely very little space for the patient care. I’m not 0nly working as a physician I’m also a clinical investigator in that capacity. I’m often asked by the National Cancer Institute to serve as consultant to see other cancer centers t6 review their research. When I’m at the other cancer centers I certainly look around and see the work conditions under which the patients are treated. I can assure you that from coast to coast you will not find an academic center where there is less space available for pat!ent care than here at Stanford. That’s not because the hospital administration has not given us space. Simply, there is no more space and no better space. I’m currently serving; this month, as the attending in our day hospital facility which was mentioned by Miss Maas. She described in very accurate detail the experience our patients have.’ I don’t have to tell you that cancer therapy is never pleasant. When patients become sick, I will spare, you the details, they deserve privacy. When they are surrounded by two, thxee or more patients, then there is no privacy and this is a loss of dignity for the patient. We have the intent to cure and we hope that with the new facility we can do this in adequate circumstances. On behalf of our patients I urge you to support the proposal. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Rich Hoppe t6 be followed by Rick Srigley. Mr. Rich Hoppe, Stanford University Medical Center: Good evening. I direct the radiation therapy service at Stanford and speak in favor of the new center. I’ve been a member of the .faculty at Stanford for nearly 24 years and a trainee for four years before that. During that time I’ve witnessed an extraordinary growth in the cancer programs at Stanford. Growth in terms of the number of patients being treated and growth in terms of the treatment options available to our patients. For example, in 1972 when I first arrived, most of (he treatment programs for cancer were single modality programs. That is, patients were treated with radiation or surgery or chemo therapy alone. Now the approach for cancer management is a multi-disciplinary one and it is almost always that patients will visit multiple clinics not just a single one. We have learned that combined modality therapy can associate and increase chance of cure with preservation of normal organ function. So a patient in I972 who may have visited a single clinic now visits multiple clinics often on the same day. So even without an increase in the number of patients there is an increase in the number of patient visits. City of Polo Alto Page 21 i 2 3 5 6 7 9 I0 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30, 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ~0 41 42 ~3 45 But the number of patients has increased as well. This is do to important advances in cancer management. For example, in 1972 very few women received treatment of chemo therapy or hormonal therapy for early stages of breast cancer. Now it has been shown that these agents can improve survival and almost all of these women are treated. In 1972 there was no treatment for patients with relapse Leukemia. Now we have high-dose, therapy and bone marrow transplantation which you’ve heard about. So just serving the citizens of Palo Alto there is an increase in the number of patient visits. Palo Alto is home to many of our patients. Having access to care at Stanford has made it easy for Palo Alto citizens to enjoy the very best cancer care possible. We’ve pioneered cancer treatment programs and made them available to Palo Alto citizens long before they were available elsewhere.. As example, the first medical linear accelerator for cancer treatment was developed and installed at Stanford nearly a decade before that technology was avaiIable in adjacent communities, [Mononucleal] antibody therapy was pioneered .at Stanford ’and advances in stem cell transplantation have been developed here. Unfortunately the Stanford clinical facility was designed in the late 1950’s to serve the needs of Palo Alto citizens effectively at that time but is deficient today. The clinics are scattered about. the institution. If a patient with head and neck cancer is seen in that clinic by tile surg.eons on one floor and the chemo therapistin another part of the building or a child with relapse .....L-g-ul{~E’ii’~i-ffa-V~lgfrSi1Tih-g~-g~li~~i~-gb-ffi~gi-d’Lii-d-15~Sh-g marrow transpl~t-ggi~-gh-~Td~ is quite great. That is a transportation issue. Our quarters are cramped, ov.erused and inadequate. Palo Alto citizens deserve more, they deserve the best, and they can have the best if you approve this center. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: The next speaker, is Rick Srigley to be followed by Sherri Sager. Mr. Rick Srig!ey; 1100 Welch Road, Palo Alto: Thank you. I’ve been living here for the last four months. Dr. [Bruma] is also in the process of saving my wife’s life. She has had cancer sir/co 1989, diagnosed in Barn’s Hospital. Barn’s had much better facilities from a physical point of view than does stanford. Although I wouId be the first to tell you that the care she is getting at Stanford is top class and the people, that we see day to day as we go to the day hospital. come from all over the world, literally, to be treated here..While my remarks don’t have to do with transportation, you folks have to make value judgments, certainly the facts of transportation and land use are important but the heartfek thoughts of people are also critical to your decision. I would emphasize that you pay attention to the fact that there are people before you toiling you how things are in that hospital. It has nothing to do with the dedication of the staff it has to do with the physical capabilities and the ability of the University and the Medical Center to put in place the physical structure that it needs. You have a direct decision to make tonight on that fact. Thank you. Chairman Schrnidt: Thank you. Sherri Sager to be followed by Don DeYoung. Ms. Sherri Sager, Director of Government Relations, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital: I’m here tonight speaking on behalf of the Children’s Hospital. We urge the Planning Commission Cim. of Palo Alto Page 22 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 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 to recommend the proposed Center For Cancer Treatment and PreventigrdAmbulatory Care Pavilion. We support the project for all of the reasons that you’ve heard from patients. It blends in with our family center care that we are so proud of at Packard. Since you wanted to know a little bit a’: .~ut transportation and the parking I think this plan takes into account that employees will have 6aeir current parking displaced and finding other ways and creating some shuttle systems so that it becomes conducive for employees to look at ca-pool and aitemative ways to get to work. The idea of having rental cars on campus to allow employees to not have to bring their cars. I think this plan rea.lly takes into account the needs of our patients, the needs of our physicians and our staff, and the needs of the community and puts it together to allow us all to do what we do best as hospitals. That’s to provide state-of-the-art quality healthcare in the most appropriate setting while being accountable in terms of issues like transportation and parking and being community and corporate citizens. We urge you to support this project. We will continue to work with you to ensure th.at we have a parking plan and a transportation plan that works for all of us. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Mr. Dan DeYoung, 518 Governor’s Avenue, Stanford: I’d like to relinquish my time, my position has been very. well stated. L-~~’-~--~-S~-Vcgt7. ,Thank you. Then the next speaker is Beth Shuman to be follo~ved by Joy Ogawa. Ms. Beth Shuman, 116. Primrose Wa¥,....Palo Alto: I’m President of the Board of Directors oft he Community Breast Health Project which is a Palo Alio based non-profit that serves individuals that are challenged by breast can&er. We’re actually a stone’s throw away from this room right here on Bryant Street. The Board of Directors would like to on record as being fully in support of Stanford’s proposed Cancer Center. We’re very.concerned as a patient advocacy group that the facilities at Stanford be physically improved to ease the path of those who are diagnosed with cancer. We strongly support the efforts to ensure that more of the services required by the cancer patients be housed together in updated accommodations to ease the logistics for the patients and to hopefully facilitate improved teamwqrk and coordination among the various medical specialties involved. Our organization sees clients every day that are newly diagnosed with cancer and many who’ve been battling the disease for a long, long time. We often hear how very difficult it is for them both physically and emotionally to negoti.ate and coordinate their treatments and their appointments at the current Stanford facilities. We believe that the new building plans represent a genuine commitment to providing more patient centered care. I realize these were not purely traffic or other comments but we are hoping that this Commission will support a timely approval and a reasonable approval of the Cancer Center for these reasons. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Could I ask that you not applaud after each speaker. I think we know that everyone is here in support. Joy Ogawa to be followed by Edie Keating. Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 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 Ms./oy O~awa,..2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: I’m namely here tonight to voice my personal comments about this proposed project but I believe that I also speak for the College Terrace Residence Associ’ation Traffic Calming Task Force when I say that the proposed so-called mitigation at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and Junipero Serra is totally unacceptable. The proposed so-called mitigation is to add an additional 1eft turn lane on Stanfoi:d Avenue at this intersectiom As the EIK points out, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. We wiI1 vigorously oppose any at-tempts to add an additional left turn lane at this intersection or any so-called improvements that would serve to increase traffic flow onto Stanford Avenue. Such changes would be contrary to our group’s goal of calming traffic on Stanford Avenue and in the College Terrace neighborhood. I’d like to point out there are two elementary schools that are located on Stanford Avenue, I would have hoped’ that the doncept of mitigating traffic impacts by means of adding traffic lanes or widening intersections would be an outmoded concept. Unfortunately it seems that in Palo Alto this is not i.he case, at least not yet. While the proposed augmentations to Stanford’s TDM, transportation demand management program, are a step in the right direction the fact is that even after the TDM mitigations are factored in the proposed project is estimated to generate 3,480 new car trips per day. This flies in the face of the City’s supposed goal of no new net commute trips. Building additional housing units might somewhat mitigate the jobs/housing imbalance but it does little to alleviate traffic impacts. In an article in the May 10th issue of the Palo Alto g,’eekly, Joe Kott, Palo Alto’s Chief Transportation Official, points out that the bulk of the traffic in Palo Alto isn’t caused by people who come here to work every morning and leave at ~ght, but by Palo Alto residents and others who make many short trips .through the City throtighout the day. The average Palo Alto household makes ten trips in the car each day. In the Staff report on page six I noticed the following statement, "Also future mitigati.on measures forthe new development proposals for the Medical Center need to address and incorporate modes other than private vehicles/parking?’ I would say let that future be now. Why can’t, such mi.tigation measures be part of this project? If Stanford could propose a project that does not generate any new car trips then I’d be much more inclined to support it. As far as the parking demand at Stanford, this project is estimated to be increasing that demand by 872 spaces. I beIieve that starting this Fall Stanford has prohibited Freshman from keeping cars on campus, Those cars may very well end up in College Terrace, Edie Keating will be speaking next and will be proposing that annual moNtoring of traffic and alternative transportation leveis be done by an independent party and based on actual traffic counts. I would support that very much. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Edie Keating to be followed by Peter F. Scott. Cir. of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 6 "7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2"/ 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 44 45 Ms. Edie Keating, 35.1...1 W.aver!.ey.Street, Palo Alto: First I’d just like to make clear that I have no questions about the value of the project when the request for people whb supported it to stand up came, I stood up. I do however have some questions about the impacts of the project. As Joy said I strongly support, and I was very happy to see, that Stanford has agreed to an annual evaluation program for these TDM measures so that their effectiveness can be assessed. That’s a great agreement and a great start. There are many things where for the community to really see what’s happening it would be great to have annual data on it. In the letter I’ve written to you that’s in your packet, I suggested that include parking space .inventories, parking permit sales, building square footage data, employee, patient and student headcounts, and actual traffic counts for selected intersections. I’d like to add housing units. And the scope of that could be just the Medical Center area or it could be all of.the University inside of PaIo Alto, or it could be all of the University because the University has employees who aren’t on campus. It could include perhaps all of Palo Alto lands because there is the research park which is housing employers other than Stanford. So all of that data because it is a compIex situation. If you could require that we start having that data to look at armually it would be great and would shed a lot of light on what’s really happening. After this project is built there will be an ease in crowding but how much will that crowding creep up over time, over the years to come? We need the data to keep coming to let us know what’s happening. WiIh-this project generating 501 new jobs and the demand is stated as 311 units of housing I certainly support the added’ requirement of new housing. I’m not sure what the transition will be like from the current office center uses into uses for housing.- Whatever you can do to support that, to require the housing, is it possible not just to zone it but to require that the housing be built by a certain time as part of the approval of this project? That would seem appropriate to me given its generation of new jobs. Finally, as to the transportation iss~ies, when I think about the parking being built I’m glad that if parking is going to be built it will be underground and well landscaped. But when I see that and I see the possible mitigations of intersection widenings and so on, I think of alI the money that it would require. It’s a lot of money. It’s money supporting people driving in their cars to work. An alternative that I would think that Stanford would be interested in researching would be how could that money, be used to pay more to the employees who don’t drive to get far more of them out of their cars. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Peter F. Scott to be followed by Stanley Peters. Peter F. Scott: I’m a 73 year old patient in the hematology clinic and the day hospital at Stanford. I’ve been a patient of the hematology clinic for three and one-half years. My diagnosis is CMF. During my time in the hematology clinic and the day hospital I’ve had the privilege of participating in truly experimental programs at Anne B. Anderson in Houston~ the Hutchinson Center in Seattle, and presently at the UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. I was su-uck by the contrast in the hematology facilities between Stanford and the other three prominent cancer centers. They were all more spacious, modem and certainly more inviting to the patients. At Stanford, the day hospital includes nine, 12 by 15 treatment rooms whicla were Cir. of Palo Alto Page 25 1 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 never designed as a ~ancer treatment facilit-#. There are no windows in any of the rooms. In fact, there are no windows in the day hospital or the hematology clinic. Worst of all due to the overcrowding it is necessary to put two patients in each small 12 by 15 room. It is impossible to separate the men and the women. The room is too small and there are no curtains. When the doctor examines a female patient it certainiy is very embarrassing and there is no dignity for the patien, t that’s being examined. The treatment rooms open up to a narrow hallway which opens up to the waiting room. The doors in the treatment room are left open because there are no windows. The net effect of this is that new patients in the waiting rodin are exposed to the doctors, the nurs.es, and the patients in the hailway. It is a big mess and I’m told there is nothing that can be doae about it. There is no room at the inn. The situation is deplorable and cannot continue. ’By contrast the Anne B. Anderson facility is a ten-story building. Chairman Sghmidt: Mr. Scott could you finish up your remarks? Mr. Scott: Okay. With the hematology department on several floors. I don~t know the square footage but it is much larger than Stanford. In Seattle they are putting up a new building but their present building is more adequate than Stanford. I’ve just started UCLA so I can’t speak about that. I am a supporter of the application by Stanford to construct the cancer center~ I think it would be criminal to delay the construction any longer. Thank you. Ch-ff~--~"Sc~-dlT-Th~ yo---dgT-S, tanley Peters to be---fgllow-W~-by~-d-Roise. Mr. Stanley Peters, 128 Hillside Avenue, Menlo Park: The cancer care facility that Stanford proposes to build will benefit a large fraction ofPalo Alto’s residents. Probably one-third directly and potentially almost everyone as the family and friends of those patients. So I ask you to recommend that the City Council approve this well-planned facility. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 In view of the benefit that the community can expect it is important that Palo Alto give speedy approval to the plan and not hold it hostage for concessions from Stanford on any other subject. The University is the most responsible and community-minded large employer and healthcare provider in the mid-peninsula, perhaps the entire Bay Area. Although it cannot make traffic disappear, Stanford voluntarily does more to mitigate ill effects from traffic than any of its’ neighbors. Palo Alto shouId take lessons in the subject from the University not demand more of it than from other building applicants. It is completely inappropriate to demand that Stanford submit conditions Palo Alto does not impose on all non-profit enterprises. That truism could not be more obvious in connection with any project than it is with this one. Let us not let the NIMBYs delay this project. Please move ahead promptly. Chairman Schrnidt: Thank you. David Roise to be followed by Harlan Pinto. Mr..David Roise, 1016 Creek Drive, Menlo Park: I’m a homeowner in the Allied Arts area in Menlo Park and I appreciate the chance to speak. I’m not hear tonight to speak against this project per se but I am very concerned about the ongoing developments at Stanford and the impact that these deveiopments are having on the neighboring conunnnities as well as on Palo Alto. A few years ago we heard that the Stanford West development was one of the most Cio, of Palo Alto Page 26 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 important projects that Stanford had going. The ’addition at the shopping center was the most ¯ important project they had going. We’re hearing talk now that they fieed new sports facilities that are going to cause additional traffic. There is talk ofbiailding into the foothills. Everywhere we look there are new projects going up at Stanford. I guess I’d just ask you to look at project and look at all the other projects and try to mitigate the effect of these on the neighbors. My wife is a physician at Stanford, I’m currently a law student at Stanford Law School and have allegiances to Stanford and think it is a great place. ButI think the problem is that Stanford is just overdeveloping their area and the effects of that are very bad. Now, I think it is ironic that we are talking ~ibout a cartcer center tonight because of course cancer is uncontrolled growth and I think what we are seeing here is that Stanford is growing in an uncontrolled fashion and the effects that they are having on us are getting to be intolerable. I also have two small children and I look at them and see ihat they don’t really have much. future in this area because of the over-development and the effects of that dev~lopment on the housing prices, traffic, qu.aIity of life. So I ask that you make sttre that Stanford looks after those sorts of things when they do their projects. Thank you. , Chairman Schrnidt: Thank you. Harlan Pinto to be followed by Elizabeth Hiyama. Mr. Harlan Pinto, 1845 UniversiW Avenue, Palo Ako: I’m Assistant Professor of Medicine at Stanford and Medical Oncology. I work in the ontology daycare center and other locations in the medical center treating patients with cancer and conducting clinical research. I’m a resident of Palo Alto and live on one of the most congested streets in the City. I’ve served on atraffic committee and the Board of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association. I came tonight because I wanted the Planning and Transportation Commission to hear from a physician who 26 provides services in t.he current facility and a resident on the front line of traffic issues. I believe 27 there is no geater interest t6 the public than this project. I believe that because cancer is a 28 scourge, we all know it. We really have worked on a national level to fight cancer and we really 29 are making progress. I recently returned from the American Society of Clinical Oncology 30 meeting and breakt~oughs are being made. The current plan as proposed by the University. 31 planners brings together space needs required of modem life and modern medical care. People 39_with cancer now bring family and friends to help them cope. In a time of crisis physician and 33 nurses need well designed and beautiful sp’aces to efficiently attend to the needs of our patients, 34 their families, as well as our research enterprise. Our present facilities have been inadequate for 35 years. I came here from an inner-city clinic in Clevelb.nd that had better facilities, The new 36 cancer center will facilitate combined modality cIinic visits. This service brings three or more 37 specialties to a single patient encounter. This service will reduce dramatically patient trips and it 38 is very difficult to do that in our present facility. The new center will provide state-of-the.art 39 facilities which can reduce the trips of individual patients also improving the efficiency of our 40 practice. Now I wish I had a pointer, I could point on that map that my offices at 703 Welcla 41 Road, I travel to a building that is not even on the map sometimes to see patients, and dash back 42 and forth between different locations to see patients some of whom are ill, and responding to 43 pages and attending to their needs. If this center is built we will be able to more efficiently use 44 our time in the center, decreasing patient waits and improving the patients experiences. I hope 45 the Planning Commission will consider the proposal favorably. Thank you. Cir., of Palo Alto Page 2 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1i 12 13 14 15 16 Chairman Schmidt: Thank you Elizabeth Hiyama to be followed by Alan Grundmann. Ms. Elizabeth Hiyama, 183 Del Medio 105, Mountain View: I needed to go to the Stanford Hospitaltwice. Once because my father had colon cancer and the second time because I had breast cancer. Wh’eri Dr. Donaldson said that one in three Palo Altoans wilI get cancer in their iifetimes I was astonished and quite frightened. I think a service that you can do for Palo Altoans is to approve this center. To be able to come to a world-cIass center where you will get the best care is the most important thing. I know that you have to balance the demands of parking and transportation. But it seems that the care that Ireceived from Dr. [Brumas] and his department has saved my life. As you weight parking and transportation and the .healthcare that Palo .Altoans may or will use I think you need to support this center. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Alan Grundmann to be followed by Tom Schroeder. Tom ’ Schroeder is the last card that I have. If there is anyone else who wants to speak please fill out a card. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29, 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mr. Alan Gmndmarm, 2491 Greer Road, Palo Alto: I’ve lived here since 1960 and I am not a cancer patient. I see this propofial as an expanding part of what makes this area an exciting place to be. It is a world-cla.ss place to be. I.decided to talk after the comment about don’t tell us how good it is, just talk about the---i-r-r~r~trucmre. It seems to me th-fft-how good it is should-b~e infrastructure along. You must m.ake the infrastructure work to support this proposal. Rea.lly that’s the thought I had. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The last speaker is Tom Schroeder. Mr. Tom Schroeder, 1947 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: I really don’t have too much to say except to echo much of what we’ve heard tonight. We’ve liven in Palo Alto for ten years, five years on Sand Hill Road. So I’m very familiar with the traffic issues that you may see over there. I have no affiliation with Stanford although we live and work in Palo Alto so We drive, we bike, we walk a lot in the City and are very familiar with it. I believe that the transportation issues have been well addressed by the proposal that’s been put forward and that that proposal should be approved. I think as a resident I am-willing to accept whatever transportation impact there is tO see a world- class medical center and cancer center in particular established here in Palo Alto, Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. I have no more speakers. Would the applicant like to summarize before we close the punic hearing? You have three minutes if you like. Mr. Horton: We’re pleased to be. here and hope you’ll approve the project. Chairman Sckmidt: Thanks. Okay, I will close the public hearing. I think we will take a short break at this point. We will be back in about five minutes. Pat. 45 City ofPalo Alto Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 42 43 45 Commissioner Burr: I’d just like to make a quick comment for the public who may miss the rc~t of the hearing. I think that there may be a mi.sunderstanding that the choices before the Commission ton~--ht are ’~pproval or not approval of the project. Far more likely choices have to do with how an . rove ~ project wiI1 best address the land use and transportation concerns that are legitimately i :.: of the community. I hope that the public appreciates that some of the misconceptions that the choices are simply approval or not approval are not the likely choices before the Commission. But we thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you we will return in about five minutes. Chairman Schmidt:. I wo~tld like to call our meeting back to order. The Diredtor of Plarming has a few words he would like to say. Mr. Oawf: Thank you. A few comments in response to some of the public comments that were made. Most of the public comments were indications of personal belief and I won’t address those. There were two or three though that did involve more factual type of questions or EIR questions. For the record I would like to address those. The three that I have are first the adequacy of the Draft EIR and the review by the Planning Commission. What we are asking you to do is review the information that you do have, the Draft EIR, and recognize that you don’t have the fina! EIR. You do have the correspondence that we received in response to the public revlew oFfla~.--We---do have our environmental consultants who are here tomglat tlaat can answer any questions that you might have on that document. So we would ask that you review and comment on that for the City Council. It is clear that City Council is the one that actually certifies the final EIR. Secondly, there was a question on the assumption that we used a fixed number of employees and how that may impact the transportation .issues. I’m going to ask our transportation consultant to comment on that. As he’s coming up let me address the third issue, that is the comment from neighbors in the College Terrace neighborhood about the mitigation on Stanford and JSB’ and the desirability of that additional left turn lane off of Stanford onto JSB. I think that we agree. We have questions about that. That’s one of the reasons that we’ve crafted the recommendation that we have. You notice that the traditional way of responding to traffic impacts is to do intersection or capacity improvements. What we’ve tried to do with this proposal is take a different approach. That is let’s step back, we’ve identified the pot.ential intersection improvements but rather than requiring Stanford to either monitor their impacts on t_hose intersections or to, as most often is the case, to actually do the improvements now. What we’re saying is let’s identify the cost, have Stanford give that money to the City of Palo Alto so that we can use it for any efforts in that area to reduce cong~.stion which may in some cases be intersection impro~cements but probably not. We’re really looking at non-roadway kind of improvements. But we are looking at innovative ways that we can identify that will reduce or help reduce the congestion in that area. So it is a differeat approach. In essence I think we are agreeing with the speaker there. At least from that perspective. Cir), of Palo Alto Page 29 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 I did have one other andthen I’ll turn it over to Dennis. There was an issue on the housing and" doing it now or having it done sooner rather than later. Again, the process is that we will initiate a Comprehensive Plan change that must be reviewed by the Plarming Commission and then approved by the City Council to change this from office research to multiple family housing. Concurrent with that would be a rezoning request to actually bring that about, to implement that. We would also propose some type of amortization schedule so that there was a period of time in which we would ekpect that to occur. So it is more than just wishing, it has some reality to it. I think those were the tech_nical questions that were raised. I am going to ask Dennis ifh~ will address that one transportation issue. . Mr. Strucker: Addressing the comment that the employee numbers were low and that was because it was based on the Sand Hill Road analysis. The analysis did use the Sand Hill Road as a.base but those iaumbers were adjusted. What we did is go into the Sand Hill Road travel demand model, took out any ~affic from that model that was associated with this project, that was assumed in Sand Hill Road. That resulted in the removal of about 160 peak hour trips. That represented our no-project condition. Then we went in and manually added this traffic back on. We looked at the traffic for this project as how many trips it would generate based on its size of 218,000 square feet..So it was not based on employees i~ was based on size. That resulted in adding in about~ 200 peak hour trips for this project, So the increase over what Sand Hill Road consi d~--d-fm’-thi-s-proj ~t-~5%-from-ixi0-m-100. Another very important point is that this project was considered as a tota!Iy new expansion for all new employees and all new patients. All the existing traffic to the existing facilities was kept in the analysis. So there is no accommodation or reduction for just. accommodating the existing facilities with a li~tle more room. It has a conservative flavor from that approach as well. Mr. Gawf: Thank you Dennis. One other comment. There was a question or comment about the .area analysis submitting the landscaping combining district and how that might affect the FAR. If you notice that one of our recommendations is that an open space covenant be placed upon that area which, as I understand it, negates any potential FAR from being transferred off that. It basically keeps, from an intensity or density standpoint, the situation the same. Chairman Sckmidt: It looks like Pat has a question. Commissioner Burt: Dennis, you just characterized the trip increase as a conservative one in the EIR because it did not assume any loss in trips from vacating the old cancer facilities. But we heard earlier this evening ~at those were intended to be back filled with expanded uses whether it is exact number of.employees in general or not they’d be back-filled. So is it really a conservative estimate or a pretty effective estimate? Mr. Struecker: It’s conservative I believe. It is my understanding that the existing facilities are very overcrowded and this expansion is not to totally accommodate new patients and to bring on new employees. It is partially to do that but also to alleviate some overcrowding. The part of it that’s alleviating the overcrowding is the part that is in essence is double counted. I didn’t mean Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 30 l 2 3 6 7 I0 11 12 13 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 25 2~ 27 2~ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 ~0 to imply that.the whole 200 trips that we assumed were all ones that wouldn’t occur. Some of them definitely will occur. Chairman Schmidt: Ate there other questions for Staff?. Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I have a couple of questions that emerge from the comment letters that are contained in the packet on the Dr~ft EIR. Staff knows that the fact that we don’t see the response to comments is one of my favorite subjects, So I’m wondering if Staffor consultants are yet in a position to answer some of the questions that are posed by the letter writers. Before I start asking them is that appropriate to do? Ms. Grote: We do have some draft responses to these letter writers. Rod Jung would be responding to those comments or to your questions. Corr£missioner Byrd: I certainly don’t mean to chew up a’bunch of time asking that he read ~to the record the long response to comment. Just give us a quick sense of what some of the. responses might be. On the letter that was submitted by the VTA there were recommended mitigations and imposes conditions of approval on bus stop location mad configuration. Ate the VTA proposals going .to be included? I admit that I haven’t scoured the conditions of approval to see whether the VTA’s proposed conditions have been included. If they have I’ll be quiet. Mr. Struecker: I looked atthat comment today. What they were addressing specifically was well trod. I do not believe that we are going to have any changes to the configuration of Weleh Road as a part of this project. My initial response to it would be iftherd are any changes to that or any other roadway that would have a bus stop that that would be built to VTA standards if possible. Essentially there are two standards, there’s the depth of the concrete and also a width. The depth of the concrete is pret;?i easy to do. It can really be done.in almost every instance it is just a matter of putting enough concrete out there. The width sometimes can be constrained because of right-of-way issues and things like that. I believe it’s been my experience with City Staffthat they support VTA design guidelines and accommodate them whenever they can. Commissioner Byrd: So are we going to require VTA’s proposed bus duck-out, pavement pad, and sidewalk configurations on this project? Mr. Gawf: At this point I’m not ready to say yes we are. We need to.study it a little bit more. What I’ve asked is that you give us the flexibility to really look at that and make sure that that’s what we want. I’m more concerned with what do we really want from a final product standpoint. I want to make sure we’ve analyzed that before I say that yes we will require it. Commissioner Byrd: There are a couple of letters from the County. One is dated April 26th and it contains a number of bullet points. In the Staff report this letter .is this many pages behind VTA for those who are looking. It is addressed to Ann Moore dated April 26} and signed by Ann Draper. The fourth bullet says that the housing that Stanford is going to construct under the General Use Permit will serve additional population associated with employment growth under C~. of Palo Alto Page ! 3 4 7 9 io the Use Permit and should therefore not be considered a response to the housing demand associated with this project. Do Staff or consultants agree with the commenters suggestion? Mr. Rod Jung,. EIP Associates: Let me go ahead ifI might, and correct me if I’m wrong, we also received a comment letter from Stanford that echoed that same point. They basically made the point that any of the housing associated with the General Use Permit is not intended to be used by Stanford University Hospital employees. The direction of the response right now is to make a text correction to explain and make clear that distinction. Mr. Gawf: That is correct. That is being counted as part of the General Use Permit proposaI and should not be double counted. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18’ 19 20 Commissioner Burt: I think a clarification on that might be in order. Yogi said it should not be counted as us’e by any hospital, employees. Isn’t the housing around the Hoover Building intended as housing for residents and doctors? Mr. Jun~: Yes, I think that is the 350 units that I believe Stanford was referring’to and is included as part of the City entitlements. So that’s within the City property. Mr. Gawf: Yes, I think the issue is whether that’s counted as part of the medical facility or the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 work at that facility but again, I think it’s important to make sure that we’re not counting them in two different ledgers. Commissioner Burr: That is exactly as I understood it, tha.t it does serve medical center employees but it is not related to the cancer center impacts. Ms. Furth: I was just going to.say that the housing discussion, and Rod can correct me if I go wrong on this, housing is discussed on a somewhat different basis in this EIR than other effects of the project. The discussion of the j obs/housing imbalance is a general economic., social factor discussion that’s included as part of the EIR because we think it’s important information for people.to, have. ¯ But it is not included in the EIR as one of the required analyses of environmental effects. There is this sort of elaborate thing which saysyou look at the environmental effects of housing shortages which for example factors into transportation issues because people drive a long way. But we are not looking at that jobs/housing balance or imbalance as the case may be as an environmental effect in itself. So this information is here because it is impo.rtant and it is important to correct it but it is not part of the official CEQA analysis. Commissioner Byrd: The letter from the City of Menlo Park dated April 27th is a barn burner not surprisingly given the hi~tory of the parties. It contains 48 comments and I won:t keep us here until 2:00 a.m. discussing them all. I’m sure there will be a long response in the final EIR, There are one or two questions in here tl{ough that I think warrant our attention. One is their comment number ten under employment and housing, comments on the calculation of the housing mitigation fee in the Draft EIR at $3.87 a square foot of net new development means this project is going to throw offa fee of $766,000 which is less than the cost of a median priced unit Cir. of Palo Alto Page 32 in town. The project is proposed to generate 500 new jobs. They do raise an interesting ¯ question. I don’t mean this in its narro@ CEQA context but more globally, does Staff think.that $766,000 fee is adequate mitigation for 501 jobs? 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15’ 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 Mr. Gawf: A couple of thoughts. One is that the fee is now $4.03 per square foot.’ I don’t think it makes much difference with the cost of housing in Pa!o Alto. No, it’s not. It’s obviously, whether it’s one unit, two units or three units, it is not very many units. That’s one of the reasons that led us as Staff to our recommendation to the Planning Commission about the rezoning to .. residential, trying to be more aggressive than just a housing impact fee. The other thing I would say is that as I look at impact fees of surrounding communities this is more than some but it also less than some. I look at Sunnyvale and if what I saw was correct was a lit’tie over $7.00 a square foot. San Francisco is a little over. $7.00 a square foot. So I think it is als0 one that probably deserves to be studied as part of i~ larger issue of looking at impact fees in this City. One of the charges that we have is to look at our transportation impact fee which as you know onIy applies’to the immediate Stanford Research Park area. We are also looking at the park impact fee with the SOFA plan. I think part of our charge is to step back and look at the totality of impact fees in this City in regard to development. Commissioner Butt: If I might quickly add a suggestion. As we look at the value of impact fees rather than equating it to square feet where in EIko, Nevada the value of a square foot may be app-f-~-~i-db-l~-lb--ff~ than H~’K"~h-{-1-.b-~l~ at a percentage of the value of .~e square foot on .......... whichever impact fee we have. Mr. Jung: IfI could just jump in too. I want to reiterate a point that was made by the City Attorney and the whole treatment of housing impacts is regarded differently in the Environmental Impact Report in part because the Environmental Impact Report is reaIly focuses on physical environmental changes. Commissioner Byrd: I know. I said up front I wasn’t addressing it in it’s now CEQA context. Above it, point number seven on page three of the Menlo Park letter asks a very tecl-mieal question. I just want to make sure that Staff has calculated the FAR available ur~der the existing legal parcelization to give us satisfaction that the FAR is in fact not being exceeded by this proposal. Mr, Gawf: Yes, we have. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Bwd: I’I1 wait for the Final EIR to read the responses to the rest of these questions. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Jon, do you have questions? Commissioner Schink: I have a question for Ed. You suggested, when you were considering the rezoning of the collar that there would possibly be an a-nortization schedule that would go along with that. Have you given any thought to the timeframes? City of Palo Alto Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2t 22. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Mr. Gaw-f: Obviously I’ve given thought to it but not enough that I can give you a more definitive answer tonight. I think it is part of what we need to step back and look at, work with the City Attorney’s Office because it is one of making sure that the value in that has a low enough period to be amortized. When we do bring the Comprehensive Plan change and the proposed rezoning to you we would have recommendations on that. Commissioner Schink: Let me throw something.forward and suggest, is 20 years out of the question? Mr. Oawf: Lit me say that it is my understanding that we have used 15 years in other circumstances along E1 Camino. Again, this pre-dates me and many of you are more famiiiar with this issue than I but I know that there were certain auto related uses that were provided amortization period. Some other non-auto related uses also, Fry’s Electronics in fact, tMt period I beIieve was 15 years but could be extended upon cause if you wiI1. In fact we did just extend an auto repair one a few months ago for an additional three, four or five years. Commissioner Schink: Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Pat. 3O 31 32 33 , 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissidner Burt: I have a couple of transportation questions that may be best answered either by David Neuman or Joe. First does Joe have a sense of any comparative cost benefit of the alternatives to the congestion management of various other alternative transportation or transportation demand management approaches? WNch costs the least for the greatest benefit? Mr. Kotlt: I think the experience around the country has suggested that parking pricing policies and subsidies for alternative modes use tend to be very effective. In other words, financial incentives and disincentives. But they need to be correlated with enough capacity, enough alternative modes capacity, so that often if you .have the incentives but don’t have the transit network and frequencies the incentives don’t do as much good. So we’d like to have those developed in tandem. I should say we are very interes.ted in developing, not only with Stanford but our other regional neighbors, a lot more transit capacity in terms of shuttle bus services and connections to regional transit. We think that’s a very promising area. But getting people to use those modes does require some incentives. Commissioner Burt: I’ve heard from a number of friends in East Palo Alto that one of the rea! problems that’s faced by the extensive work force at the Medical Center that includes a lot of people who are the service employees for that center and a high percentage of the work force is a virtual complete lack of public trat~sportation especially at the off-peak hours where many employees are still serving the patients of the Medical Center. Do we have any idea of the numbers of emplo.yees who reside along the University Avenue corridor into East Palo Alto who might benefit from whether it be. a Marguerite extension or a Palo Alto Shuttle extension and how much that alternative transportati.on element might benefit direc.tly the Medical Center employees mad those of this project? City of Palo Alto Page 34 1 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, 3~ 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 Mr. Kott: Commissioner Burr, we do now have a Paio Alto Commute Coordinator who’s job it is to develop a travel demand management program for the City and collaborate with neighbors including Stanford in doing so. That Commute Coordinator is now working with employers and developing a database inciuding employee commute patterns. I can say we are very much in favor oft.he goal of deveioping a 24/7 transit system for our region, if yo.u will. Commissioner Butt: Da;cid, do you folks have any sense of the demographics of the employee base and how it might come into play with this? Just any gener.al sense wo.uld be helpful. Mr,Neuman: I don’t have the numbers here. Chairman’ Sefimidt: If we can get some answers it would good to come up to the microphone so we could have them for the record, Mr. Neuman:. I think the answer is yes, there is some data but it is not’ sufficient to be able to give.you an answer I think you’d like to hear in terms of how many people at what points in time would be in East Palo Alto or Menlo Park or Redwood City. Basically they give us an address, a zip code address, for IRS purposes. (2ommissloner Burt: Since we are trying to make recommendations to~ght and not impede the progress of this center, we’ll take the insufficient data as you have it. Whatever leveI of description you have would be beneficial. Mr. Neuman: I think what we found in the past, if we are taking specifically about shuttle bus systems, is that even circulation through the faculty staff housing area on campus does not promote sufficient ridership to be cost effective. And that because of the demands on people’s lives that there is still, Joe would say, there is incentive and disincentive that has to do with the automobile that probably most of us drove here tonight. So what we found is that it is a very complex topic and that by providing a shuttle to other than a place like the transit center that ’ generaiiy just in the neighborhood the ridership is very minimal.on a regular basis. So although Joe’s idea of a 24/7 shuttle system might be from a transit planning perspective the ideal, the’ econ.omics of it are substantially against it given the density of our development in Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto for that. matter. Commissioner Burt: IfI might suggest when you do further evaluation of that, an additional consideration beyond those that effect Palo AItoans and physicians, when they make their decisions on whether they. are going to drive or take public transportation to work, there may be additional economic considerations that effect the service employees that don’t affect us. Whether we may be two or three car families and they are maybe a one car family. So I’d encourage ydu to look at those differences in lookirig at the potential attractiveness of the public transportation for East Palo Alto which has less well served and in greater need of that transportation than some of the other communities. City af Palo Alto Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4I 42 43 44 45 Mr. Neuman: If I could, a comment on that. I think both Lucile Packard Children’s Hospita~ ’ and the Stanford Hospital have at various times taken clinic facilities to East Palo Alto in part because of that concern, in terms of patient concern. Lou, do we still have a shuttle system that goes to East Palo Alto right now? Mr. Saxon: We’ve studied very carefully particularly the service employees. The service employees slt work for me for the most part. We’ve tried to find ways particularly with our staff from East Palo Alto. However, they are malNy an early in the morning to mid-afternoon staff. It is not a 24-hour, for the most part, housekeeping, maintenance, service. It is not even seven days a week. We have very small numbers of staff, on the average of about six housekeepers 24- hours a day, two maintenance workers. 8o the numbers and trying to generate a shuttle have been difficult for us. We do have shuttle service that we arrange through our security department to go out and pick people up when we know they are having transport problems but for the mbst part they come during the day and.they do use the existing bus service and use the transit. We will continue to monitor that though. If we could figure out a way to ge~ them all there at the right time we would provide a larger bus. Commissioner Schink: I’ve got a follow up question. Could you tel! us how many service employees you have total at the hospital? Mr. Saxon: In General Services which includes SI1 the housekeepers, th~ maintenance workers, security, food service, about 560 empIoyees. Commissioner Burr: That’s for what entity? Mr. Saxon: That’s for the entire .Stanford University Medical Center. That’s both hospitals and the medical school. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chairman Bchmidt: Owen, a question? Commissioner Byrd: No. Chairman Schmidt: Pat. Commissioner Butt: I noticed, Ed, .on one of the maps there is the plot that is currently zoned RM-40 on the comer of Pasture and Sand Hill and Welch that is listed as existing land use housingJchildcare. Is there an existing childcare facility at that Iocation? Mr. Gawf: I’m not sure of the childcare part of it. Mr. Neuman: There are two facilities at 1100 Welch. One is the hospital and that serves patient famiIies and patients are there for transplant and extended stay but don’t need to be in the hospital. That is run by the Hewlett Foundation. Then there are a series of, I think it’s 120, City of Palo ,41to Page 35 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 apartments that exist. They are effici’ency, one, two and three bedroom apartments that were built and serve the medical center exclusively. I think Mr. Saxon stayed there for a year or so when he first came to Stanford. Commissioner Burt: What childcare facilities exist in the medical center area? Mr. Neuman: All of Stanford has several childcare facilities. Medical Center empIoyees are eligible for that along with Stanford general campus employees. The one that is mainly associated with it from a sireperspective is the childcare center in the Arboretmn. that next to the Hoover Pavilion. But that shouldn’t be viewed as exclusively for the Medical Center no more than the facilities on the campus are exclusively for the campus. It is like, if you will, our parking system and TDM. It is all one composite. Commissioner Burti Does that still have a wait list? Mr. Neuman: Yes it does. Commissioner Burt: Do you have any sense of the shortfall of childcare facilities for medical center employees? Mr. Neumart: Specific to medical center employees I would have to defer on that one. We’re-in the process of plannkng in the. General Use Permit we’ve asked for entitlement and indicated siting for an additional two to three childcare facilities. We were including in that the notion of whatever.needs that we had forecast over the last year and one-half for childcare in general, as I said for that whole pool. Bu{ I don’t know specifically the distinction between what might be called medical center waiting list versus the entire group. I can’t give you an exact number of’ what that waiting list is either. We know it is enough that we are, as I said, plarming for two to three more facilities. Commissioner Bgr~l: Does Staff or Stanford have a number or a ratio that we could apply to the 501 jobs here in tgrms of anticipating the childcare demand that those jobs will generate? I know we do that sometimes on the housing but can 4ve do it on the commercial side so we can we are going to need 30 ~hildcare slots as a result of the’se new job, or something like that. Mr. Gawf: No we don’t. I know we do this with elementary school children or middle school, etc., .but I haven’t seen one. I’m sure there is one for childcare and I just don’t have it. Commissioner Byrd: The reason I ask the question is that clearly one of the greatest impacts of the project is going to be on total trips. We have to do a statement of overriding considerations on it. As We discussed on S~nd Hill childcare inevitably generates extra trips unless it is located near the home or near the job site. So I’m wondering if imposing some sort of childcare condition on this project as we did over Stanford’s objections on Sand Hill, whether there would tze a nexus for it in this case given that it is generating 501 jobs and we want to reduce the trips ’ associated with those jobs. Ken will remember this history in numbing detail as will Stanford. City of Palo Alto Page 37 I 2 ’3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mr. Gawf: Again, I’m sure we can come up with some kind of formula for calculating the ’ " number of the childcare need for a certain number of employees. What I don’t know is I haven’t and I don’t think we have as a Staff stepped back and looked at what the overall need is because it is part of a larger sort of need.system. But if that is something of interes.t to the PIarming Commission one of the things that we can look at before this goes to Council is that we can do some research on that issue. Mr. Neuman: I’1I volunteer one thi.ng and of course you know I’m going to tel1 you my opinion of the 501 jobs, First of all, the EIR indicates 89 jobs associated with the project. That number comes from us so we have some general understanding ofwlao those people, or the positions might be in .this new facility. The other 400 plus. are existing employees that are in the current space that are all going to move.. So for th~ traffic model purposes they assumed full backfill without any assumption as to what this 411 is going to be. So we don’t, first of all, believe it’s going to be 411. So we have no forecasts. Every.time I have looked at how to forecast childcare in this fashion you have to have an idea of the demographics of the. positions to get an understanding of the likeIihood of age, having children, what size families, all that. So the statistical analysis of this may be very difficult for thd large majority of the 501 number that you are talking about. Whereas the 89 might be something that is more realistic, ’ Commissioner Byrd: But unless you are going to backfill t_tie space freed up by the" new project 21 -W[~/1 re~0r&-s~{~ ~-e.-r%~s-.~6iii~-~-~-b.g.pg.6~-gi~in-~ifl-th~g~..~f~.~e~-g’h~are~n.~win~ space-that 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 "33 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 is now taken up by people who will now be .sitting in space in the new project. So why is the 501 number suspect? Mr. Neuman: ’ It,s suspect I think from our perspective for reasons that Mr. Saxon indicated earlier. Most of the space we envision the expansion of currently crowded programs. So do I think the number is going to be zero? No. Do I think the number is going to be even dlose to 400? No. So there is some number that may be much more realistic given the information that We have indicated to you. But locker rooms, employee exercise facility, expanding the heart center,.yes, there will be some additional people but it’s not going to be 411 in our projections. It is not even going to be close to that. That’s why I say that, Owen. " Chairman Schmidt: Jon. Commissioner Schink: Can you give us ~ commitment or some idea now as to the square footage that will be used for the exercise facility? Mr. Neuman: No, When could you be prepared to do that I think will be the next question? Commissioner Schink: I’m not asking for an exact number. Mr. Neuman: Generally speaking, not to the square foot. Commissioner Schink: 10-20,000 square feet? Cir. of Palo Alto 2 3 4, 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -21" 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mr. Neuman: Somewhere between 10 and 20,000. Chairman Schmidt: Other questions? Pat. Commissioner Burr: Ed, the County land along Quarry, is that land that would necessarily become annexed by the City as a resuIt of its development for medica! clinic use? Mr. Gawf: Not necessarily, but I think that is a question that we should raise and answer. I think we discussed this a little bit with the area analysis at the study session. Looking at some of the land that’s in this area that we have identified around the medical Center, there is a q.uesti0n of whether if not all of it should actually be in the City rather than the County. so I think it isa question that needs to be answered. We haven’t answered that and it may be part of our ¯ discussion on the General Use Permit as welI. Commissioner Btu’t: I thought that there was a longstanding agreement that conversion of these lands to medical center use, non-academic use, prompted their annexation but I’m uncertain on that. Does anyone else have any knowledge of that? 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Neuman: I’m not going to speak as Wynne might be able to as an .attorney, my understanding has to do with clinical facilities and since housing that we are proposing for those Sites imd the"cimTe~t-u~-es"o~ tIag Qi.t-ariay KisaT:ts~{~-gr~7~-mg~ii-~gl ffc~675 i-~-a~ ~e a~ ~o~{~igrgd - academic and not clinical, I think the history of this had to do with the ownership of the original Palo Alto Hospital which was Hoover Pavilion. When the new hospital was going to be constructed Palo Alto eventually sold their.interest in the hospital to the University. At that time, my understanding of what occurred was that the City wanted to keep the City’s hospital within the City but it had no particular interest and hasn’t expressed any to date in having the medical school which is an’ academic function with research labs and so forth being in the City. Therefore the building on Quarry Road with psychiatry is an office buildingand academic building and has gome day clinic activities but they are basically counseling like would be in a medical office building. Mr. Gawf: That’s my understanding as well of what I’ve heard on the history. I think the more appropriate question is what should happen in that area? In what jurisdiction should the develop occur? Should it be in the City? Then you look at it and see the shopping center, other City land in that area and that the uses that we are talking about, and there is some question in some areas at least are not truly the academic campus kind of uses. I think it is an appropriate question of whether that land should be annexed to the City as part of its development. Commissioner Burr: I would encourage research on that. I was looking for Herb Borock in the crowd because he’s the one person who probably knows the answer there. I seem to remember seeing documents to that effect several years ago. Certainly on the land that borders Quarry and Arboretum. Ms. Furth: You a~e certainly correct that you saw those documents because they were used as part of the Comprehensive Plan discussion of this. We’ll go find our copies. City of Palo Alto Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Burt: Thanks. Chairman Schmidt: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I have one more question for David. The plan has cleverIy proposed rezoning certain parcels and transferring their FAR and looking at the whole area as a package to arrive at an abiiity to build a 218,000 square foot building. It is probably safe to say given the programmatic needs of the doctors that if there had been a way to giggl.e alI that to come up with more you probably would have proposed more. You would have said okay, we can 300,000 square feet under the FAR so that’s probably what we need. Correct me if I’m wrong on that but where I’m leading is the question that if the community concludes that this is none use and we need to have it but its impacts are too great and so it. needs to be a little smaller, how will that affect the. programmatic interests that so many of the speaker.s here expressed support for tonight. If there are other people on your team that want to speak to this that’s free too, but where’s the threshold? Clearly you didn’t .start from scratch and say here is all the space we need to do all the things we want to do and it just happens to magically come out at the FAR that’s allowed. Mr. Neuman: I can answer that and I will be correcting and I hope it will be perceived as constructive. The area analysis Which has been in process for seven years as we talked about. before actually allows for or we suggest that with the inboard Welch Road rezoning creates over 400,000 square feet. Stanford has consistently said that. It has been published in local newspapers. I’ve shown this in previous sessions. The 400,000 square feet was used frequently in the Sand Hill Road discussions. Menlo Park has referred to it frequently. The 400,000 square feet is’consistent with the area analysis. The 218,000 square feet of this facility is not that total, of course, .and is programlmatically driven by the needs of the cancer treatment center and by the ambulatory surgery facilities which.we didn’t spend time discussing tonight. The backfill on that particular facility which hasn’t been discussed is to make our current surgery facilities for both Packard Hospital and Stanford Hospital .be able to come up to current requirements for surgery and for code responsibility. So I would not agree with the statement that we magically or cteverly came up with that number. I would say in fact that it was programmatically driven. Therefore, to diminish the size of this facility would be to diminish the program capabilities of both this facility and what we intended to do with the compatible spaces remaining in those two buildings. Commissioner Byrd: So as far as you’re concerned the rezoning will generate, if I heard you right, 400,000 square feet of capacity of which 218,000 will be used up on this and you’ve got another 182,000 to go? Mr. Neuman: No, I didn’t say that. The area analysis, if you. foil0w it to conclusion, leads to the 400,000 square feet. Our application based on both the ownership of leaseholds on the inboard side of Welch Road and our wiiiingness to tear down buildings that are on those owned parcels leads to that 218,000 plus, I think it leads actually to around 232,000 or so, 218,000 of which is being proposed with this facility. Leaving a residual at this point of 14,000. We’re not applying for that other what we might call 180,000, the difference between 218,000 and 400,000, we’re City of Palo Alto Page 40 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 30 3I 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 not applying for that now. We don’t own those leaseholds wlaich would allow us to make a proposal to change those from OR to PF and the resultant incre~e in FAR that wouId result from that which would lead to the 400,000. So we are only pr. o,osing in the project basically the amount of square footage and the GAC that’s needed re. s project. Commissioner Byrd: But if you can assemble those leaseholds it is your assertion you’ve got 180,000 of capacity left in the pipe. Mr. Neamart: And if we had a program which we discussed at our study session mad which we’ve discussed for more than seven years including through the Comp Plan process tha~ Packard ttosp[tal may have some needs in the near term associated with outpatient facilities and surgical facilities that may.be needed.in the near term. If and when we were to assemble those parcels based on that scenario that I showed you, that this has been the way that we have been workingwith Palo Alto over the last 15 or’20 years, and we had those leaseholds, yes we would potentially propose that. But at this point we do not own those leaseholds nor are we proposing another project. We’re proposing a project.that basically meets the zone change that we’ve requested. Mr. Gawf: And with’that scenario that’s described they would still have to come back and go through the Comprehensive Plan change process, a rezon2mg and a use permit, exactly what they are doing tonight on this. Mr. Neuman:, Excuse me but I might add another EIR. Chairman Schmidt: t have a follow up question to that. We’ve talked about rezoning the outer side of Welch Road to be housing and I believe you commented that you Would lookfavorably on that if you could have greater FAR on the inward side. Mr. Neuman: That’s correct. Chairman Schmidt: So that what we’d be talking about.is, again, additional square footage above the 400,000. So we’d be talking about more square footage. Mr. Neuman: That’s correct. Also, to be vrry clear with regard to the Quarry Road parcels, I believe Staff analysis indicated that they also have certain project proposals, the housing proposal and’some expansion of the psychiatry facility that is in our General Use Permit. That was considered as background in this EIR. So I’m trying to indicate evewthing we know is there and has been considered. Commissioner Burr: David, I realize it is not on the table at this time but do you have any rough sense of how much expansion, the Children’s Hospital might be needing out of that 180,000 that would be feasible? ’ Ci.tv of Palo Alto Page 4i 1 2 3 4 5 7 ’8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 3I 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Mr. Neuman: I think we’ve consistently said over these, agaki., long period of time - seven years, that more or less something on the order of 150,000 or so had been thought of as potential for those two project that I outlined. Is that fair? Yes. Commissioner Burt: What I’m trying to do is the quick math of how much. Mr. Neuman: It’s a planning number though. We don’t have a program. Commissioner Burt: That’s okay. In a very rough sense I’m looking at what medical uses are on the outboard side of Welch that might in the future be able to be accommodated within that presently unutilized portion of the 400,000 square feet inside of Welch. That’s what I was frying to get a sense of. Mr. Neuman: Subtracting what we believe is @propriate to reserve for Packard in the near term, not very much, obviously. Commissioner Butt: I see. That was the point of my question. Mr. Neumaru We have, as you can see right’up there, the Stanford blood bank and the pathology department is located in one of those parcels. So it is already a medical center use if you wil! and the hospitel or hometel as it says up there in the comer and the apartments that I mentioned earlier axe also, if you will, a medicaI Center use. Commissioner Burr: When you describe that approximately 70% - 75% of the lease space is medici center use, you didn’t mean purely medi.cal offices you meant? Mr. Neuman: Medical school as well as hospita.1 space. Commission’er Burr: So things that were explicitly part of the medical center and not just doctors who happen to be located there. Mr. Neuman: No. Commissioner Butt: Okay. Mr. Neuman: I’m not talking about that. Stanford leases, Stanfordentities leasing from tl-rrd parties in those buildings. Stanford entities meaning one of the two hospitals or the medical school. Commissioner Butt: Great. Thank you. 42 43 44 45 Mr. Oawf: Let me clarify one thing. The hometel use of that residential medical use on the comer on the outside of Welch Road is already zoned RM-40. So in our calculations we are looking at additional houses in that area, that was not viewed as being changed. City of Palo Alto Page 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 4~ 42 43 44 45 Chairman ’S chmidt: David, I have a couple small circulation related questions. In the EIR on. page 2-21 there is kind of schematic pIan that shows the parking structure and the circulation into the proposed project area. I know that that proposed entry area would include space for cars, possibly Marguerite, bicycles, pedestrians, that there are multiple ways of arriving at the facility. I know this is just a schematic because it doesn’t exactly show the current plan. I was just concerned about how this works. Would a ;,,chicle possibly drive in, drop someone off, come back and turn into parking structure 3? Mr. Neuman: Yes. Chairman Schmidti And there is just a single lane coming back from that drop-off area toward Pasture Drive? Mr. Neuman: It turns into a doubleland at Pasture Drive with a right turn. Chairman Schmidt: Yes. The reason I’m asking about that in particular is I was at the site today and driving and walking around the area and driving that particular area without the facility obviously and cars were lined up to get i~to the structure .from the Pasture Drive and then trying to turn left as well into the parking structure, and therefore blocking traffic. Mr. Neuman: If you’ll look at the bottom of that diagram you’ll see there is a new entry being pro,posed into parking structure 3 that comes directly from Pasture Drive. That is precisely to eliminate that problem that you are describing. So the peopIe that knew they were going to parking structure 3, for instance a.chemo therapy patient that would be wanting to go to the lower level and park and go in the private entrance that we’i1 provide into the basement or lower level of the new structure, they would be able to drive in that entry and never go down Blake Wilbur if they didn’t need to be dropped off. Chairman Schmidt: Okay. And then someone taming left offofBlake Wilbur into par.king structure 3 still would hold up tfafiic a little bit. Mr. Neuman: They’d have to cross over butwe don’t think there will be stacking out into Pasture Drive because most people will take this other way into the garage. It will be signed appropriately. Chairman Schmidt: I meant coming back. If you’ve dropped someone off. ¯ Mr. Neuman: You would make a left into the garage. That’s correct. Chairman Schmidt: That’s something to think about. The one car that was turning left was kind of blocking. Mr. Neuman: The other thing, Kathy, is the 8 51 expanded surface parkir_a, g lot is all going to be dedicated to patients. So I can’t speak to how we’tl segregate second time users from first time users but I would think that some of the more transitory parking would be on that surface lot for City of Palo Alto Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 2o 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 3I 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 people that were coming the first time and then they would get oriented as to how to come the next time. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Another circulated related question. Is there an information center, a place that someone can go if they are coming to the medical compIex for the f’~rst time? I’m .as s..ur_n..i_n, g.~a..t_~e.r.e..ar..e. place that someone can obviously come to and fred out where to go rather than just following signage? Mr. Neuman: We have had periodically and still have in place two kiosks. One in front of the Blake Wilbur Clinic and one in front of the main hospital. When we constructed the new kiosks so people can stop and get information. They are not constantly personed but they have been at various times for information. We’re also, in constructing the new lobby On the hospital which ’ was just done in the last couple of years, the main information center is right at that main lobby entry. There is an opportunity to drop people, off at that point and to. get information and so On. Is that right Lou? Mr. Saxon: We do have valet parking programs in the front of the hospital at thenew main entra_nee, in 5:ont of BIake Wilbur, and there wii1 be one in front of this building. 86 there are live people who, yes they valet park cars but they also do a great deal of information giving and direction giving and.would be on a first time patient arrival indicating that there is a surface lot that is closer than havirfg to do in ~e deck. We ~ that’s a big part 0fwelcoming mad .. orienting patients to the hospital. Also, inside the hospital during the day there is an inform~tion station again manned by volunteers. But the valet parkers are out on the sidewalk so as you drive you don’t have to get out of your car and they’lI give you directions. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Are there additional questions? Who would like to start? Owen do you want to? Commissioner Byrd: I have a suggestion about our process for this discussion. I would, suggest we talk about the project f~rst. On pages 2 and 3 of the Staff report that outline the six recommendations, I think we should talk about, recommendations 3, 4 and 5 first which is the general plan amendment, the zoning and the use permit. Then .when we are through on the subject of the project then we can circle back on 1 and 2 and see if the EIR is adequate to evaluate the project as conditioned that emerges from our discussion. Then we finish on the subject of whether the outboard parcels should potentially be converted to housing. Does that work? We could take a ftrst stab at introductory comments. Commissioner Schink: I was going to ask how long you wanted to go tonight? Should we say ahead of time that we are going to get it done no matter what or that we are going to quit at 11:30 or 12:007 Commissioner Byrd: It’s the Chair’s prerogative. Chairman Schmidt: What do the Commissioners feel about it? CiO. of Palo Alto Page 44 ! 2 3 5 6 7 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 3¢ 35 36 37 38 40 43 45 Commissioner Byrd: We may be. able to do this in less time than you think. Chairman Schmidt: Give it a stab. Commissioner Byrd: Does anyone want to make .introductory comments before we discuss the specific project? Chairman Schrnidt: I think that would be a reasonable thing to do. Commissioner Byrd: I will start. The first issue is proc~fis and this has nothing to do with the merits of this projegt. I don’t even necessarily believe it is bad faith on anybody’s part but the timing on this really stinks. With the Use Permit up before the County and with Sand HiI1 just have gone through the City and with all the different moving parts with Stanford having a year or two ago come through with its studerit housing proposal, we needed student housing, we needed Sand Hill, we need a cancer center, a use permit clearly is needed but it feels like it is not coordinated. This is a big project. To be viewing it in isolation from the issues that the County is addressing through the Use Permit is unfortunate. There are jurisdictional issues there, short of annexation I’m not sure what the solution is but it would have been better for Palo Alto to review this project once the County had acted on the Use Permit. I know there was discussion early on about waiting on this until the U~e Permit had been concluded but we don’t know how long the County will take so we probably shouldn’t do that. I don’t favor that. But that is just my vent on the timing. It sure makes it difficult to bring a comprehensive view to evaluating this project. However, having said that clearly the need is there for the Use. I’d like to figure out a way tonight to make it work. I think we’ll have to look in some detail at the Use Permit because that is where the conditions play out. But ha general I’m supportive of the project and I’d like tO figure out a way to recommend its approval. Chairman Schmidt: Jon. Commissioner Schink: I think that we all came in here knowing without question that this is a ¯ very valuable service to our community and that we’re incredibly fortunate that Stanford .wants to build this facility here. The challenge that we alI face is mitigating the impacts and making ¯ the impacts of this facility tolerable to the rest of the community. We are all going after ways to solve the problems that this development wiI1 bring upon us. But we all know that we one way or another are incredibly fommate that it is here. None df us want to have to travel to MD Anderson or send our relatives to MD Anderson. We want this here. I guess that one of the big challenges that I face in looking at this is how comfortable I feel in suggesting additionaI traffic mi.tigations and how much we want to tinker with that. Stanford clearly has done an exceptional job in the past of their traffic demand management but we continue to have really significant projects and our traffic situation seems to be getting to be a bigger challenge every day. For those of us sitting here trying to define policy sort of, I think, find ourselves wanting to get down into the trenches and help solve the problem. That’s the dilemma I’m in right now, wondering whether we can come up with some very specific suggestions in addition to the other ideas that are brought forward. So I’m interested in hearing what my colleagues have to say about that. Cir. of Palo Alto Page 45 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -2-1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 .42 43 44 45 Chairman Schmidt: Pat. Commissioner Burr: r concur with my colleagues on the merits of the facility as a whole and that 1 look forward to us finding constructive ways to address our concern that are associated not only with this project but how it relates to the Sand Hill and the General Use Permit projects. We are about to see a cumulative impact of traffic on the community from opening up Sand Hill and Quarry Road and what that is going to mean on major thoroughfares not only from the Sand HiIl development and the shopping cente.r._e_xp~sion_and this development and the other daval_oprnent.~ in the. Ge.nerM 1 IRe Permit hnt nl~o the re!ocztlnn of_ the Pnln A ltn on to E1 Carnino. The EIR certainly has speculated that it is going to have significant traffic impacts. I think that we need to acknowledge Stanford’s efforts in the past and their accomplishments in the past on TDM programs. Yet continue to push very hard for creative and very forceful TDM programs to Wy to farther mitigate the p.roblems. As I looked at this project I also Was glad to finally see emerge a forthright.discdssion of the various elements. It is not just a ",~ery needed consolidation of facilities, it is an expansion bf’ ’facilities that are also need. But the expansion is clearly there. The Stanford area analysis didn’t initially seem to really acknowledge that that was a significant portion of it. I think it is legitimate. I support it, but I think we need to have a forthright discussion of what it is that we are ad-dr-ggging. The other aspect that really wasn’t out on the table very clearly was what’s happening with the backfill. That it is not just a question of expanding and consoIidating the cancer center. It is expandir~g functions that are somehow related to the backfill including what may be a necessary or a valuable increase in exerci.~e areas and services for employees there. I think we need to struggle with how we recommend the uses of those backfill spaces. That really hasn’t been much of the discussion to date. As we look at wanting to accommodate a very important need and prospective additional needs in the future for the Children’s Hospital we’ve got to relate that to the overalI plarming. I’m very excited about the Staff recommendation to rezone the outboard area of Welch to residential. I’d like to Iook at how we can somehow accelerate that process through a cooperative effort with Stanford and a real discussion of what portion of the Welch area facilities might be transformed to housing sooner than the 15-year amortization that we are talking about. Somehow I’d like to see the backfill question integrated with the rezoning and reutilization of the outboard area of Welch Road and any remainder of the allowable construction within Welch Road. To look at that as a way that we further accelerate the amortization. In addition I’m going to be very interested in pursuing the mitigation measures, whether additional services such as the shuttle can be provided to East Palo Alto on an accelerated basis. Chairman Schmidt: I certainly concur with what my colleagues have said about the need for this facility and the terrific quality of Stanford Hospital and cancer care. Certainly the citizens of Palo Alto and the region would be very happy and fortunate to have this facility. It seems to be Cir. of Palo Alto Page 46 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 1(5 17 18 well located.in, relationship to other faeilifies so that indeed overlap can occur and ease of coniaection with the other facilities and other doctors to better serve patients. However: as I have noted in my comments I am com;emed that we are making this a very urban area and I want to make sure that we have eventually urban circulation and urban amenities. I will keep asking Stanford to Iook at the circulation as projects come forward and try to make some corrections in that suburban, layout. And to try to look at that area and maybe the whole campus for some more advanced type of people-moving as our Transportation Director noted -that is used at Duke.University. I would think-it-’would-certairfly be--to Stanford:s~benefit-to evaluate trying to get people moved around better. I know that as we build more parking spaces and widen more intersections, if those are the only solutions, if we build them they will come. And we will have more and more vehicles here and the citizens of Palo Alto wilt not appreciate that. So again, I would like to see more urban amenities like a park, like clear signage for circulation, perhaps a more obvious information center, maybe what is there now works well. Perhaps even a mini transit hub as thLngs go along that really advertises that transit is a pat of this. Something that is clearly .there and not merely a desk somewhere in the medical center to help people 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 coordinate all of their movements to and fro. I’m also pleased, as my colleagues have mentioned, to see the idea of zoning for hofisiag i.n this area. I think it is a very appropriate thing to do. Commissioner Byrd: To move us along, I’m comfortable with the Draft resolutions regarding the Comp Plan amendment and the zoning amendment. I think that their ~Mings are adequate and I think that there is a rational basis to recommend to Coungil that it take those legislative actions. So before we get.to the Use Permit, does anyone have anything to add on the subject of the changes to the two maps? Chairman Schrnidt: That would be items 3 and 4 in the Staff recommendations? Commissioner Byrd: Correct. Chairman Schmidt: I have £ question for Staff. Do we ~aeed to have separate votes on each of these items as we go through? Ms. Furth: I’m saying you don’t. Staffmay have other desires. Mr. Gawf: I like that answer. Ms. Furth: You should make a motion at some point on those matters. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Commissioner B~d: So unless there is comment on that. City of Polo Alto Page 47 2 4 7 8 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2"/ 28 29 30 34 42 ~3 Chairman Schrnidt: Does anyone have comments on items 3 or 4? Commissioner Byrd: Thank I’d like to move us on to item 5 which is the Use Permit itself. It is contained in Attachment C of the Staff report. While I’m comfortable, I think, with its findings the actual conditions themselves raise some questions and maybe we want to work our way through them. It is actuallynot a very long list and then see if we want to propose any additional conditions. The fn:st one that occurs to me is page 18 "of the Staff report, Attachment C, condition number five treats the issue of the landscaping on the above ground portion of the site for the parking structure. This would be the place where if we wanted to follow Kathy’s lead on perhaps recommending a more active use design for that location instead of pa.ssive use landscaping, this would be the place to do it. Do we want to do that? Commissioner Schink: I do. Commissioner Burt: I do as well. Chairman Schmidt: I definitely do. Let’s see I’m quite sure that Staff.can make them sound reasonable but that the ground-landscaping wl~ich.woul~t-be more setting, more usable for public park uses. Ms. Grote:. You are talking about passive uses though rather than active uses. You’re not talking about softball fields or volleyball c’ourts. Commissioner B~d: No but active use can include a play structure for kids. Yes, it is probably not the right place for sports fields but we’re talking about a real urban park type environment that actively attracts people to it to use it. I would say that you could just add two words to the condition and say, shall be fully usable and related active use above ground landscap’ing shall be installed completely. Now, w~’ll leave it to St~fffto fine-tune this for Council but you see where we are going with this. Commissioner Schink: I’d go s~ far as to suggest that it needs to be a plade set up to encourage people to stay close to the facility to have lunch if it’s necessary to provide some kind of a kiosk or something for a food service vendor. The idea is that we want to try to promote this park as a place that workers will.think, boy it is really nic% just to stay here and go over to the park ~d have lunch, instead of getting in their cars. Commissioner Byrd: Like the permanent tables at Johnson Park, that kind of thing? Commissioner Schink: Yes, but really to provide a solid facility to promote a lunch business. Commissioner Byrd: Anything else on this one? Okay. I was a little concerned that condition of approval eight that talks about surface runoff from the parking structure site is kind of vague, Cir. of Palo Alto Page 48 2 3 4 5 6 7 II 13 14 ~7 19 2O 21 24 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 4! 42 43 in that the tmdeveloped portion of the site shall be used to accommodate some of{he runoff fror~ the parking structure surface. Given the existing chalienges we face in the San Francisquito Creek watershed I’d like to see a way to encourage ai1 of the runoff from the site to be recaptured. Clearly the sort of landscape we’re proposing for our active use park is going to be on top of a podium because of the structure beneath it. So it is clearly going to run off somewhere. I don’t think we have to pretend to be landscape architects tonight but I think we can do better than "some." Ms. Grote: With the SWWPS plan with the storm water management plan that Public Works requires it would accommodate or account for all of the runoff. So this word "some"I think only related to the tmdeveloped portion of the site. Mean~g that the undeveloped portion of the site didn’t have to accommodate all of the runoff, just some of it. The rest of it would be accommodated elsewhere or through other means. So I think we need to clean up the wording on that but the intent is Co handle all of the runoff. Commissione~ Byrd: On number nine can we clarify that whatever open space covenant is imposed on the Pasture median that it will be drafted to ensure that the FAR for the site will not be calculated to be transferred to another portion of the site? Ms. Gawf: Yes. Commissioner Byrd: Okay. I’m just ticking down mine, if other people Want’ to jump in. Chairman Schrnidt: Go right ahead. Ms. Furth: We will also assume that it should be written to accommodate the kindof attractive park setting that you just talked about. Commissioner Byrd: Yes. Ms. Furth: We have an existing covenant with Stanford on the other side of Sand Hill that is written to accommodate desired uses as well. Commissioner Byrd: Yes. Now, when we turn the page and get t.o this page-long condition 12 " which is about TDM that’s where I get a little confused around our authority and Stanford’s interest. Wynne if you could shed light on this. I presume you’ve looked at this and you think we have the authority to impose this Draft condition? I hope you do, we want to impose it. Ms. Furth: We think we can impose it becaus’e we think that this is something that Stanford also views and being an appropriate thing to do in this setting. I’m sure we could get to a point where they no longer felt that and then we’d have td look much more carefully at our legal authority to do it. City of Palo Alto Page 49 I 2 3 4 5 6 7" 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 i7 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 Byrd: Well this is the place if we want to impose any additional transportation mitigations it is either here or in the mitigation monitoring program in the EIR which we don’t have before us, So speak now. Commissioner Schink: I was goingto say that I think Pat brought up an important point. It seems apparent to me that we aren’t adequately addressing the transportation needs of some of the service workers having to get back arid forth to East Palo Alto. I assume that these people are going at odd hours but I think the plan needs to go a step further in looking at how we move those people back and forth. I did a rough calculation, we are talking about about 150 people a{ each shift change. That’s a fair number of people that could be accommodated with some sort of transp.ortation options. Commissioner Byrd: How would jrou add to the condition? Mr, Gawf: If I may make a suggestior~. In the second sentence we talk about the goal is to reduce peak-hour trips. You may add an additional goal which is to also provide access or service to service workers. At 10:30 at night I’m not quite sure I can come up with the right wording. But I thirak it is part of the goal that you are. stating that ila addition to just normal peak- hour trips you are also trying to provide accessibility to certain type of workers, Ms. Furth: I think you are also suggesting it’s important if possible to provide access to areas where tlaere miglat be more potential workers living closer to the facility if they had better transportation. So if we add another Condition (I) that particular attention be pain to pro~idirtg transportation options for service workers. Commissioner Byrd: Liv;mg in close proximity tO Palo Alto and Stanford. Mr. Gawf: I think we can word something if that is indeed the intent of the Plar~g Commission. Commissioner Schink: You’re doing a good job of summarizing,my feelings. Commissioner Burt: That sounds like good rough wording to me, ¯ Commissioner Byrd: Anything else on this TDM? Chairman Schmidt: I’d just like to mention Item.E talks about this commute assistance center and it says it could be offered in this site. I’m. wondering if the Commission and]or the Staff thinks that it should say "should" or "will be" to make it a stronger requirement that we really say we want to suppo.rt transit and do something more bold about it by providing information there. lvI_r. Oawf: If I may respond, we intentionally phrased the way we did because all of these, A through H, are really items that we want Stanford to consider as part of putting together a very aggressive transportation demand management program. The reason we didn’t put "shall" is City of Palo Alto Page 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 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 because we think we need to work with them and we need to identify, the program that will really work. Not sort of predetermine what we think will work but actually try to figure out what will work. We also need The flexibility to change things if they don’t work. So we’ve tried to put it as items to consider . th the real operating item being work with our Commute Coordinator to come up with an effective transportation demand management program. Commissioner Byrd: So in between "shall" and "should" by s.aying "should" this condition puts Stanford on notice that the City expects the program to achieve these results, the results that are listed at the beginning of the condition and here are some ways to achieve it. If they can’t come up with anything more clever then these are the ways that. it should be pursued. Is that roughly accurate and is that legally en_forceabIe? Ms. Furth: Well, if you look at the condition, what it requires them to do is to augment their program with a goal of 200 peak-hour trip reductions. If they faii, we’re not proposing that they automatically lose their Use Permit. If they fail, given the fact that they are, as you say, a constantly growing and changing institution it is obviously going to have serious conseqiaences. But this is not a condition that says you can’t continue to treat people here if you fail to do it. It is a map essentially saying you need to reduce trips, we believe you when you say you know how to do it better than we do. We believe you when you say you need flexibility and we believe you when you say you can’t live with a guillotine.kind of provision. As we krtow, that kind of catastrophic remedy is’never invoked. So instead it is a series of ideas and a standard by wkieh to measure it. We may have under-emphasized the extent to which Stanford is willing to, and the City wishes to have, good data about things, that we don’t have now. So one of the sort ¯ of mandatory outcomes of this process is information. Even if it’s information about failure. We probably need to write that more clearly. Commissioner Byrd: Will you add that? Mr. Gawf: Yes. We’ve had very good and I think very productive discussions with Stanford and there are a couple of elements that did not get into this conditior~. Wyrme mentioned one and ~hat was the idea that there would be an armual report that monitors the progress of the medical center and the area of transportation demand management. Stanford does what it does almost better than anyone else and that is research. In that they focus their research effort to help us come out with the best methodology possible to do that evaluation..So we use this in some ways almost as a pilot project for TDM within our community. Commissioner Schink: The other information I think would be helpful if you could get it back to the PIanning Commission or into your process would be some kind of analysis that tells us where the weaknesses are in the transportation system. It is a little frustrating as we sit here tonight and say we don’t know where the people work. They know but we’re not integratirtg it into our decision-making here. You should, be able to integrate it into your decision-making for these programs and say we’ve got 50 employees in East Palo Alto and it takes them an hour and 20 minutes if they use punic transportation to get home. Of course they are not going to do it. We don’t know if it takes. 15 minutes or an hour and 20 minutes. City of Palo Alto Page 51 1 2 3 4 5 7. 9 10 lI 12 13 t4 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 Mr. Gawf: We need to make sure we know where tl~ey do live so we can design the program. ~ didn’t make the add-on comment when it was being discussed earlier I~ecause we’d moved on to another point. I think that discussion illustrates exactly the kind of information we need to have an effective alternative program. Ms. Furth: One of the things that we noticed when we were struggling to define if somebody say I don’t want you to tell me how to do it, then the next thing you say is, free, we’l! set some performance standards and you meet. It turns out that we don’t have very good ideas about how best to measure performance either. So that kind of deveIopment of that kind of instrument is obviously another important desired outcome of this research and reporting effort. Mr. Oawf: So the long and short of our response is that if it is the desire of the Planning Commission, and it is the recommendation of the Staff, then we can do some refinement of Condition 12 prior to it going to Council to reflect some of our discussion tonight. Mr. Kott: It might be help~l to add this in context that we do work with Stanford and Menlo Park and East Palo Alto in a regional working group on transit improvements and travel demand management programs in particular. That’s an ongoing effort. We’ve also been engaged, as Commissio .hers know, with Stanford in development and improvemenk of our transit center in Downtown Palo Alto. So those are very big initiatives .and we have fairly intensive working. relationships with Stanford toward the end of improving alternatives and reducing vehicular trips in our communities. We have a fair degree of.confidence in their capabilities and good faith. Commissioner Butt: I.haveone other comment and I’d like to hear Staff’s response to it. The focus here is on peak-hour trips and I certainly appreciate the correlation to the traffic impact is one of peak-hour. Stanford has done a lot of excellent work in reducing overall trips, predominantly peak-hour but other as well. There are merits tq reducing other trips whether it be merely from a standpoint of competition for very expensive parking garage spaces from an economic standpoint. A non-peak-hour commuter may.arrive at 2:00 and compete with the peak-hour commuter for that space. Also air and water poIlution and other benefits to reducing non-peak-hour trips. Can we integrate some goal for non-peak-hours albeit with an appreciation that it is less driven by the EIR and perhaps less critical but stiIl build that into our goals? Mr. Oawf: I think we can but I think you also hit one of the key points and that is transportation analysis or environmental analysis always seems to focus on the peak-hour trip. So there is a benefit of reducing that peak-hour trip. You don’t have to do an intersection improvement or whatever. There is not a corresponding benefit in reducing just trips. It is sort of unfortunate because we tend to gravitate to whatever we get benefit or reward from. I think we can do what you described because I think that is an issue as well in our community, trips during the day or the 24-hour trip thing. But I also think that as we look at that we need to see if there is some benefit that can be derived that is more tangible than just sort of a "it’s better," kina of benefit. Again, I’m not sure what it is, but I like the idea of some kind of reward for doing good things. Ms. Furth: From a legal point of view you’re dealing with the most powerful situation a city is ever in. You have a legislative change and a use permit. The legislative change gives the city ’ Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ’9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 enormous theoretical freedom to say yes or no and the use permit gives you a broadly based. " power to impose the conditions that are necessary to promote the general welfare. We have an ¯ air quality adverse impact from this project and simply addressing peak-hour trips doesn’t address a!l the aspects of air quality. So from a legal point of view a reasonable condition, which means one that is not unreasonable, is certainly appropriate. It gets more complicated to define exactly what you want and we have obvious shared and immediate benefits to offer Stanford from effective peak-trip demand that may not be as obvious for the other. Commissioner Burt:. I would be willing to defer to Staff to come up with someianguage to recommend to Council that would reflect this additional goal. Mr. Gawf: I think what you are saying is that the only goal of the TDM program is not to just reduce peak-hour trips but aiso to reduce auto trips in general. Co’mrnissioner Burt: Yes. Commissioner Byrd: I’m trying hard to keep notes for a motion and I know we want to add something about collecting data and performing research. We want to add something about reducing total trips not j.ust peak trips. There was something else for subsection I that I’ve now missed. Ms. Furth: You wanted to pay particular attention to providing transportation alternatives for service workers. Commissioner Byrd: Got it. Is there anything else that we should add to this condition? Chairman Schmidt: I think that Ed mentioned an annual report that is part of the collection of the research, Commissioner B~rd: I got that. Anything else on this condition? I’m comfortable with the conditions pertaining to construction impacts. Which brings us to the end of this document. So maybe what we should do right now is make a motion onthe project itself, on recommendations 3, 4 and 5 before we go on to the EIR. Just so we don’t lose our train of thought. Chairman Schmidt: I think that’ s a good idea. I know you would like to make the motion because you kept the notes. Commissioner Byrd: I would move that the Commission recommend that the Council amend the Comprehensive Plan as proposed and adopt the proposed resolution. Second, that the CounciI adopt the proposed resolution and amend the zoning designation for the site as proposed. Third, that the Council approve the Use Permit as proposed with the following changes. In Condition of Approval 5: we add the notion of an active park use for that iocation. Condition of Approval Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 9: that the open, space covenant be drafted to prechide any FAR from that median being transferred elsewhere in the area. Condition 12 be expanded to include reduci~tg al! trips not just 200 peak-hour trips; that data be assembled and reported.on annually and that research be performed on that data to inform the TDM effort so they will be most successful; and that additional effort be made to provide transportation alternatives for service workers who live in the vicinity of Stanford and Palo Alto. Mr. Gawf: If I could add one other cIarification as far as the reporting. We had talked about having a ten year window o.r period for that. So it is not a forever kind of obligation but it is for a significant mount of time. Commissioner Byrd: Yes, on an annual basis for ten years, Commissioner Schink: I’ll second that. Ms. Furth: you would also like us to correct Condition 8, or did you just assume We did that as a Staff item. Commissioner Byrd: I just assumed you were going to clarify i( but I can incorporate that in my motion, that you clarify Condition 8. Chairman Schraidt: It has been moved and seconded. Is there further discussion? Jon. Commissioner Schink: This is a minor point but I want to bring it up. I thought about it earlier. I~m hoping that we could allow them enough flexibility when they design thek parking structure that it could contain some minimal number of services possibly. For example, in the future if they fred security problems and they want to introduce a small dry cleaning drop off place or something that we just allow now provisions that they can have a core inside that, we’re talking about a pretty substantial parking structure, that may in the future facilitate some kind of a business that then promotes the safety and efficiencies for the employees. So I’d hope we’d provide that flexibility in the approval of this parking structure. Commissioner Butt: I think’that’s great. I had a concept along those lines as other recommendations outside the scope of this. I hadn’t envisioned that the parking structure itself Could be the place to locate various local serving retail or whatever service. I think that’s a great idea. Commissioner Schink: I didn’t want to make h a requirement. It’s just let’s make sure that they’ye got the flexibility. Mr. Gawf: I think that would be as part of the open space covenant, Commissioner Bs, rd: I think the nexus is with TDM because you are reducing trips. If people who are parking in there don’t have to go somewhere at lunch to drop offtheir shirts. City of Palo Alto Page 54 1 .2 4 6 7 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 26 27 28 29 3O 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Gawf: I’m think that we want to make sure that the covenant doesn’t prohibit that kind of " LIse.. Ms. Furth: That’s correct. Ms. Grote: Anything in a PF zone that isn’t owned and operated by a public agency needsto have a use permit attached. Also we’d need to make sure that it does not exceed the I:1 FAR overall. Those usable spaces even in a below grade parking situation count as FAR if they are usable. Commiss{oner Byrd: Well, Stanford said they have some FAR to go. I think we got the gist of. it. It i.s’acceptable to me as the maker of the motion to add that. Chairman Schmidt: I think it i’s a good idea too. It’s again an urban type service. Any other comments? Then let’s vote on the motion. On items 3, 4 and 5 as made by Owen and seconded by Jon with a few little additions here.’ All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) ALI those opposed say no. That passes unanimously with the four of us present with. Commissioners Packer, CasseI, and Bialson’ not, present. Then let us go bae1~ to the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact l~eport, Commissioner Byrd: I’m not the right person to make the motion because I’m still on my soap box on the subject. Please don’t let it offend the EIR preparers.when I don’t vote for this. We’re trying to get the City to change its process to bring a Final ElK to’ us. Ms. Furth: As you will recall, under the 1984 most current City guidelines, the Planning Commission is askedto hold a hearing on the EIR at a point where it is most practical for the public to comment. And th~’t unfortunately is inevitably before the preparation of the Final EIR. So we appreciate the unhappiness of the Commission or some of the Commissioners with regard to this procedure but we ask that you help. Chairman Schmidt: Jon. Commissioner Sckink: I would move approval ofitdms 1 and 2 of the Staff report. Item 1 being that the Planning Commission finds that the Environmental Impact Report is adequate and Item 2, that we feel there is overriding consideration and justify the adverse impacts of traffic, air quality and noise. Chairman Schmidt: Is there a second7 There is a suggestion to split the two items ! and 2. Would the maker of the motion be willing to do that. Commissioner Sehink: Yes, I’II divide the two. So let me make a motion on Item.2 first. I move the Planning Commission feels there is overriding consideration justifying the adverse impacts oftrafflc, air quality and noise in the Environmental Impact Report. City of Palo Alto Page 55 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 30 3I 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Byrd: I’i[ second. Chairman Schmidt: Is there any discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) All, those opposed say no. That also passes unanimously with the four of us present. Commissioner Schink: I would move the Planning Commission finds the Environmental Impact Report adequate. Commissioner Burr: I’ll second. Chairman Schmidt: That is the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Any discussion? Commissioner Byrd: I will make a symbolic vote no on this subject for the reasons I’ve previously discussed. Chairman Schmidt: All those in favor of the motion.by Jon, seconded by Pat, to say that the Draft Environmental’Impact Report is adequateplease say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say no. (no) That passes three to one, with Commission. er Byrd being against the motion. That brings us to Item 6, following action on the projec.t Counril initiation of a Comprehensive ¯ P1Tu~ amend.rffent and accompanying zone ch~foTth-6~ p~rc--~--s o-~t~d-ofW~leh-K-oxd; 730-1000 Welch Road, to allow residential uses. We’ve said this might go up to tLM-30 or KM- 40, up to 400 units and that there would be an.amortization schedule attached. Is there discussion on this item. Jon, Commissioner Schink: I tl~ink we should discuss it briefly in that I think we need to make clear what our own expehtations are here. That comes into play if the~ are going to abandon those buildings and come back to us and say well, now we want to go with greater density inside the collar, what’s this Planning Commission saying? Because unless we’re willing to put forward right now that they use up the 150,000 square feet on the Children’s Hospital expansion they’ve got 30,000 square feet left an~t they want to start pulling squ~e footage from outside the collar to inside the collar and ~ve’ke only going to let them do 30,000 square feet. Well, those buildings will sit there for the entire length of time left in the amortizatiori schedule. But if we want to accept some flexibility and then start looking forward, if they can justify it in a reasonable project, we need to suggest that we’re open to that or we’ll never see anytt~g. Commissioner Byrd:. Depends on the length of the amortization period. I would rather not al.low the transfer of the FAR from outboard side to the inboard side. I know that that means that they’ll let it remain in its current configuration for the maximum time permitted under amortization schedule which is why we should put an aggressive amortization schedule on it. Let’s recommend to Council that Council initiate a general plan amendment and zoning change to insure that someday that will be high-density housing and let’s do it on an aggressive schedule, as legally aggressive as we can be. I believe the 15-years was right. That’ s what was proposed on Fry’s and it didn’t work out there but at least that’s what was proposed. Perhaps we can be even more aggressi.ve here and say maybe in 10-years. I don’t know what’s reasonable to Ci.ty of Palo .41to Page 56 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 lO 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3! 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 the landowner given that they’ve probably got some long term office leases in there. So it is open to more discussion but we cab be aggressive. Mr. Oawf: I think the question of how you want to treat any transfer of FA_K can also be part of that larger discussion of Comp Plan and zoning amortization because it is all sort of part of a package. They come together. I would at least ask if you have thoughts or direction please give them to Staff but also give us the ability to have a little flexibility to deal with the issues as well. Commissioner Byrd: It is certainly exciting to see an idea that emerged at a Planning Commission study session gain this much traction this quickly. Commissioner Sehink: It is. I would hope the Commission could be at least open to the idea of maybe allowing them to move some of the square footage inside. And when this comes to again maybe we could look at some sort of a justification of the net benefit in units that we wouid get. Obviously we don’t want to let them move 1.0 million square feet inside and we have a net loss of housing units in relationship to the new employees. But there has to be something that can provide a bit of win]win situation here. I think we should just recognize that we are open to it. Commissioner Burr: I don’t feei that.we have the information before us to make thosd kir~ds of ~-fiEisions at this time. So I wouldn’t preclude it bu~-I don’t want to do anyth.~-ffLhat implies an endorsement of that at this time. I think I’d Iike to be aggressive in what.we ask Staffto recommend. Then if there is a point in time where Stanford wishes to make a proposal to us and we look at the pros and cons of that and negotiate that then I don’t preclude that consideration. I think this goes back to the relationship of the Sand Hill project and the general use permit and a number of unresolved issues related to that. I think when this comes up we have issues regarding punic facilities and how all of this development is going to be related to the need for additional publid faciIities. One of the things that I think has gotten lost in the recent discussions of the general use permit that was active at the time of the Sand Hill project was that just on the basis of the Sand Hill project there was extensive discussion of the need for an additional elementary school site. There were 300 or so school age children, not all of them elementary age, that were somehow going to be accommodated in response to the Sand Hill program. Now, with the general use permit ai1 of the discussions shifted to a middle school site which Stanford was not able to find an adequate facility for and now the discussions have gone toward some in lieu funding that Stanford is contributing to toward a portion of the middle school site and there is no discussion of the elementary school site.~ It vanished from the radar. I have a great concern about that. I think we should revisit the original Sand Hill discussions and make sure that the broader issues of public facilities and the increased demand on school age children accommodation that is coming about not only by the Sand Hill but now by the housing around the Hoover area that is going to further expand the need for that enters into this discussion. That’ s of great concern to me and I ’hope that we can bring that issue back on to the table as soon as possible in relation to the general use permit. Chairman Schmidt: I agree with the beginning of Pat’s comments in particular about we don’t have all the information before us. I know when the Comprehensive Plan amendment is initiated City of Palo Alto Page 57 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 27 28 29 3o 3I 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 we’ll get the information that we need to look at the flexibility for having some FAR transfer " perhaps, maybe none, but we need to look at the facts and make the judgment at that time. I think it is an excellent idea to rezone this for housing and hopefully we will get some there in the not too distant future. Commissioner Byrd: Can I make a motion? ’ Chairman Schmidt: You certainly may. Commissioner Byrd: I’i1 move that we recommend to Council that following action on the project that the City initiate a Comp Plan amendment and accompanying zone chauges: for the outboard parcels on Welch Road to allow high-density residential uses. Chairman Schmidt: Is there a second? Commissioner Schink:. Second. Chairman Schmidt: It has been moved by Owen and seconded by Jon that Council initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment for housing. Is there any further discussion of this? All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say no. That passes unanimously with the .... fo~ of us present2 ...................................................................................................................... Commissioner Byrd: Kathy, before everybody starts to stir, I blew it. I justwent back in my notes and there is one more condition that I had hoped’to have a brief discussion regarding the. use permit. Chairman S ckmidt: And I was just going to ask’if there were other things that we wanted to bringup. I think Pat. might have had a couple of other, things that he mentioned. Commissioner Byrd: I had intended in our use permit discussion to prqpose an additional o condition of approval which would require Stanford to provide a proportionate appropriat~ ¯ amount of onsite chfidcare for employees in the facility to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. ! don’t want to sit here tonight and figure out exactly what the number should be but if you remember how it played out on Sand KiI1, we brought it up, Stanford said no, we said yes anyway, and by the time it got to Council Stanford said yes. I think I’d like to see the same tl?i. ’ng happen here. Chairman Schmidt: So that would be an additional condition for the use permit somewhere in the list of conditions, perhaps with TDMs since it reduces trips. Mr. Oawf: We’ll figure out the appropriate location if that’s the direction of the Planning Commission. Chairman Schmidt: Okay, is there additional discussion? Pat. City of Palo Alto Page 58 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Commissioner Burr:. I just so happens that covers my remaining issue. Chairman Schmidt: Jon. Commissioner Schink: Dave mentioned that there would be an onsite exercise facility and whether we want to tie that down in these conditions or not is certainly another amenity that keeps people, around the site. Or if you want to leave it up to them... Commissioner Burr: I’m ambivalent about whether that is the mostimportant use of that backfill site. I can see benefits to it but I’d like to look at it in the context of the alternative uses of that backfill area and whether childcare, for instance, is a more important use. It depends on what Stanford can do to accommodate these other needs. Chairman Schmidt: I agree with Pat’s sentiments. I think there are all kinds of sports facil’ities and outdoor facilities that people can use working at Stanford without going very far or with just walking out the front door and jogging. So I’m not too concerned about conditioning for an ¯ exercise facility there. Comm{ssioner Byrd: So I’ll move that we add a condition of approval that Would require the 20 applicant to provide sufficient onsite childcare to meet the needs of the onsite employees as ’ 21 .... aet~gd- t;y-ih~ -I3~e-i;i: -6re 6~~; ti~;7~i;p-~ii{i ...................... . ................................................... 22 23 24 25 26 27 Commissioner Butt: Second. Commissioner Scbink: Say that again. 28 29 30 3.1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41. 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Byrd: I would like to require Stanf6rd to provide onsite an adequate amount of childcare to meet the anticipated childcare needs of the onsite employees in the new facility with that actual number of chiIdcare slots to be determined by .the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Schink: So we’re going after supplying childcare for the delta? Commissioner Byrd: No, we’re going after supplying all the childdare onsite for the people who need it because they are otherwise going to be adding trips by driving their kids somewhere else. Commissioner Schink: But just for the new facility? Commissioner Byrd: Just for the new facility because there is a nexug there. There is a new facility we ought to, in this town when we are doing.major projects, be providing childcare onsite. Just for the new facility. Commissioner Schink: Okay, and for the net new employees for the new facility or for all the employees for the new facility? City of Palo Alto Page 59 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 commissioner Byrd: I’d be aggressive on it and do all. Not everyone who is goingto work in this facility is going to have kids of preschool age but for those who do if we can provide it onsite just like we should all around the region with major employers, it is going to have a significant impact on trips. Commissioner Schink: Alright, I think I understand, Thanks. Chairman Schrnidt: Any further discussion? It has been moved by Owen and seconded by Pat that we add a condition req_uiri_ng__c_hildcare o_n_site__fQr_the_emp.l.o_y_e.es_who_ne.e.d_it_at_this_facility. .............. I0 11 12 I3 14 15 16 I7 18 19 20 All those in favor say aye.. (ayes) All those opposed say no. That passes unanimously with the four of us present. Commissioner Schink: Could I get a clarification? When you ar.e saying onsite, you don’t specificaIiy mean in this building necessarily, they might be able to put that as backiill in the other building? Commissioner Byrd: That would be at the discretion of the Direct~ just so long as the intent to provide the slots in order to reduce trips is met. You can’t provide it over next to Escondido and say it serves this site. .....2 t---Commlsstoner S c-~’i~ :--A-l~l’~ht, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3t 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Chairman Schrnidt: Axe there other things that we ne’ed to do? Do we need to discuss further the little booklet on Iand use analysis that was listed on our agenda? Ms, Grote: No you don’t. You’ve done that within the context of your disct{ssions. Chairman Schmidt: So we are done’ with our work for this evening. Ms. Grote: You do need to cancel your May 31st meeting, Chairman Schmidt: Then we are done with thisl Does anyone have any other closing comments on this project? Okay, it is late and I want to thank everybody for all the hard work and information and thank Stariford for their, continuing hard work on TDM. We know that .working with Staffyou will come up with things that work. So we look forward to advances in how we can get around. Commissioner Byrd: Kathy, this is scheduled to go to CounciI in July and Bonnie is our rep and she wasn’t here tonight. So We might want to appoint a representative. Chairman Schmidt:. I think that’s an excellent idea. This goes to City Council on July 10, 2000. Is there anyone who would like to volunteer for being Council Rep? I believe I will be out of town, Jon or Owen? 44 45 CommiSsioner Schink: I just have a hard time planning that far in advance. City of Palo Alto Page 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Chairman Schmidt: Can we figure out Who the representative Will be as we get closer to that? Mr. Gawf: Yes, you can. Let me say it is a little easier because this item was originally scheduled for the July 3ra Council meeting, Monday night, and it would have been very hard to find someo, ne to attend then. Chairman Schmidt: Okay, so we will just make sure that one of us will be able to attend on July 10~.-2":laank.-you -very-much.-Our foilowing-items;-Reports-From-Committees;-Pcepo-rtsYr~yt~ ................ Officials, Commission Member Questions, Comments, And]Or Announcements, Approval of Minutes is none. 10 11 12 13 14 REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES. 15 REPORTS FROM OFFICIAL& 16 17 COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS: 18 19 APPROVAL OF MINUTES. None. 20 21 ch-gifiaSanSc-I~i~tU-S-o we need-t-6~dd the item of cancellation of the May 31, 2000 meeting - 22 next ’week. 23 24 Do I have a motion? 25 26 Commissioner Burt: Yes. 27 28 Commissioner Schink: Second. 29 30 Chairman Schrnidt: Okay, Pat moves and Jon seconds that we cancelthe meeting of May 31, 3 t 2000. All those in favor please say aye. (ay.es) All those opposed say no. That passes 32 unanimously with all of us present. Now the meeting is adjourr_n, ed. Thank you very much. 33 34 MEETING ADJOURNED: 11:30 pm C[ty of Palo Alto Page 61 Planning Commission Staff Report 1 Agenda Date: To: From: May 24, 2000 Planning Commission Nancy Hutar, Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment Subject:875 Blake-Wilbur Drive [97-EIA-37, 97.-CPA-3, 97-ZA-14, 97-UP-66, 97-ARB- 214]: Request by Stanford Hospital and Clinics (formally known as UCSF Stanford Health Care), as the applicant, for Stanford University, as the land owner, for the developme.nt of the Center f~r Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTP/ACP) facility at the Stanford University Medical Center,.which would allow for: (1) the demolition of a 12,550 squarefoot medical office building at 851 Welch Road and its related surface parking area, (2) the removal of a surface parking area located just north ofPS III,. (3) the construction of the 218,000 square foot CCTP/ACP with four floors of out-patient facilities (one floor would be underground) located at the new address of 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, and (4) the construction of a four-level underground 1,035 space parking structure in the Pasteur Drive median, between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. REPORT IN BRIEF The CCTP/ACP is a uniqueproject in that it would provide a key health care facility not only for the region, but also for the country. It would assist in the consolidation of health care services at the medical center and would provide up-dated health care facilities. The .existing cancer treatment facilities would move from the existing 82,000 square-foot space to a new 218,000 square-foot facility. The additional square footage in the new facility would satisfy state requirements for size of waiting rooms, bathrooms and operating rooms, allow for increased corridor space and a pedestrian bridge to the Children’s Hospital, and accommodate modern equipment and the need for additional operating rooms. A Draft EnvironmentaI Impact Report (DEIR) has been completed for the proposed project. Most of the potentially adverse impacts from the project can be mitigated to a less than significant level. S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 1 However, there are two areas, transportation and air quality, where impacts will be significant in the long term. Stanford has agreed to pay its fair-share of the costs for improv.ing all intersections so thatthe adverse impacts can be addressed. The City of Palo Alto shall use such funds either to make intersection improvements or to implement alternative congestion. management measures which may include transit or other means of reducing vehicular trips. In addition, Stanford has agreed to conditions that would augment and expand its exist.ing .Transportation Demand Management program so .that the program is avai!able to all employees at the Medical Center. The goal of the expanded program would be to reduce the number of ¯ daily p.eak hour trips to and from the Medical Center by 200, which is the number of trips expected to be generated by the new CCTP/)kCP facility. Stanford has aIso agreed to an annual evaluation program for these TDM measures so that their effectiveness can be assessed. The City of Palo Alto believes that this type Of approach to TDM and traffic management will be more effective in reducing long-term air quality impacts than would physical intersection improvements that allow more and more vehicles to fill local and regional streets. Another element that is being brought forth in conjunction with the CCTP/ACP project, although it is not specifically a result of the project itself, is the staff recommendation that the City Cbuncil initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and accompanying rezoning for the’ parcels "outward" of Welch Road to allow residential uses on those parcels. This amendment and rezoning could result in the long term for the potential of 400 additional housing units close to the medical center and transit services. This would meet many of the City of Palo Alto Compr.ehensive Plan policy and program statements that encourage mixed-use development around commercial and transit centers. This recommendation is an aggressive approach to prov. iding the potential for additional housing ’m a City that has limited opportunities for such housing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the following items: o Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report; Adoption of a statement of overriding considerations justifying adverse impacts of traffic, air quality and noise; Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for 1101 and 801 Welch Road from Research]Office Park to Major Institution/Special Facilities; Amendment of the Zoning designation for: (a) 1101 and 801 Welch Road from Office Research to PuNic facilities, and (b) Removal of the Landscape Combining District from the Public Facilities zoned median strip between the two legs of Pasteur Drive between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive and replacement of the Landscape Combining District with an open space covenant. S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlaksWilburSR Page 2 Approval of a Use Permit for the Center for cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion to allow the construction and operation of an outpatient clinical facility. Following action on the project, Council initiation of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and accompanying zone changes for those parcels "outward" 0f Welch Road (730-1000 Welch Road) to allow residential uses’. BACKGROUND Location The project site is about three miles west of U.S. 101 and about three miles east of I_nterstate 280, just south of Sand Hill Road. The site is located in the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) complex, near the northern edge of the Stanford University campus and Within the City of Palo Alto boundaries. The Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, Stanford University Hospital, Parking Structure HI @S HI) and the Blake Wilbur Clinic surround 875 Blake Wilbur Drive~ the location of the proposed Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTP/ACP). The project also proposes an underground parking structure (PS l-V) to be located in the Pasteur Drive median, between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. Existing Uses The proposed CCTP/ACP site is currentI~, occupied by a 12,550 square-foot medical office building and 60-space surface parking lot at 851 Welch Road and a 152-space permit parking lot located immediately north ofPS III. The office building and the gurface parking lots are propbsed to be removed for the construction of the CCTP/ACP, with the office tenants to be relocated. Stanford School of Medicine staff makes up about half of the building’s tenants and they would be relocated to the School of Medicine facilities, which are within unincorporated Santa Clara County. University Procurement staff and theremaining tenants would be relocated to central campus facilities. ,The proposed PS IV site is currently covered mostly with grass and trees, This site is not formally landscaped and it is in a natural state. A portion of the original Governor’s AvenUe (the pathway that once led from Leland Stanford’s home to his stables) crosses the PS IV site. The surrounding land is owned by Stanford University and includes a mix of educational/campus facilities (mostly the School of Medicine) to the west, SUMC facilities to ihe south, medical related office uses to the north and east, and retail commercial uses to the east at the Stanford Mall. Access to the site and to the SUMC is provided mainly from Sand Hill Road and E1 Camino Real as the mainarterials, with more localized traffic entering from Pasture Drive, Welch Road, Qua~-ry Road, Camp.us Drive West and other minor campus roadways. Applicant The applicant for the p~-oposed project is Stanford Hospital and Clinics, which was formally known as UCSF Stanford Health Care. The landowner is Stanford University. S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 3 f PROJ-ECT Description Approval oft.he proposed project would allow for: (1) the demolition of a 12,550 square foot medical office building at 851 Welch Road and its related surface parking area, (2).the removal _’ 9f__a__s_.uLf_.a_c_e_p_a_r__k_i_’_ng=~_~ located just north o_f_f P__S j_K_.,_(3_) t_h_e_ con____s.tru___c~t_ipn___o_.f._tl~_e__2._l_8~00___s_qu_ _at_e__ located at the new address of 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, and (4) the construction of a four-level uriderground parking structure in the Pasteur Drive median, between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. The CCTP/ACP would consolidate cancer care services into a comprehensive, multi-disciplined program for cancer treatment and preventibn. This use would occupy about 130,900 square-feet (60 percent) of the new facility and the ACP would occupy the remaining 87,100 square-feet. The ACP would hbuse the services and facilities that are now located at the Ambulatory Surgery Center within the Stanford University Hqspital. The ACP would have 16 operating rooms, which is four more than exist at the hospital. Patient visits ar, e projected to increase from 368 daily visits to 524 daily visits. The number of employees is projected to increase from 412 to 501. (See Attachment F for application materials and a further project description). The existing cancer treatment facilities at the Medical center occupy 82,000 square feet. The new CCTP/ACP facility will house 218,000 square feet for these same functions. The need for the increased space is to: (1) accommodate new treatment techniques, (2) allow for increased corridor space and the pedestrian bridge to the Children’s Hospital, (3) satisfy state requirements for size of waiting rooms, bathrooms and operating rooms, (4) comply with Title 24 regulations, (5) accommodate modem equipment and the need for additional operating rooms. Architecture CCTP/ACP The proposed CCTP/ACP would be similar in scale and character to the adjacent Stanford University Hospital and the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital. Building materials would be similar to those of nearby buildings (Attachment G for project plans). In keeping with the general Stanford University palette, the primary building materials would be a solid, cementious material that would be used for most of the buildingys surface area. The colors would be neutral and light in texture. The building would have a central atrium to allow natural light to filter through the building, fountains and gardens, rooms and waiting areas sized and designed so that families and friends could accompany patients to appointments and a pediatrics area with special entrances, waiting areas and artwork. S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 4 The building’s main entrances would be along the western side of Blake Wilbur Drive, along the south fa£ade, and along the east end of the building which would open onto the existing pedestrian.walkway connecting the Children’s Hospital, Stanford University Hospital and P SIII. The below-grade ground floor would connect to the Children’s Hospital through a short tunnel- and to PS III through an open-air court and eIevator. The east end of the building’s second floor would connect to the’ Stanford University Hospital by an enclosed bridge.. PS IV The four-level underground parking structure would include 1,035 parking s_paces, which would surplus of 163 pai:king spaces. PS IV is intended to serve SUMC staff members, community doctors and volunteers who now park at PS III. PS HI would then. become available exclusively for patients and visitors. Landscaping would be provided above ground With raised wooden beds of meadow grass that alternate with pavement of decomposed granite. Seating would be provided as part of the wooden planters. The portion of Governor’s Avenue that crosses the PS .IV site would be preserved as a landscaped area and planted .with two rows of sycamore trees, which is consistent with the rest of Governor’s Way. The landscape would be designed in such a way as to guide PS IV users tb nearby pathways. A plaza is proposed for the eastern end.of the Pasteur Drive median, adjacent to Blake Wilbur Drive and close to the main elevator/stair access to PS IV. Although PS IV is below ground level, some of its mechanical and electrical equipment, air vents, stairs and elevator access cores would project above-ground. To shield these utilities from view, Stanford would encase these with railings, enclosures and laudscaping. The elevator and stair access would have a glass facade and would be covered by a glass canopy. Circulation The circulation concept for the proposed project is to integrate automobiles, transit vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles..T.o this end, the north side of Blake Wilbur Drive would.be converted to a mixed-use, passenger-oriented zone with drop-off areas, transit stops, bicycle circulation and pedestrian crosswalks. AutOmobile access to the CCTP/ACP would be from Pasteur Drive, Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive, where vehicles can either park at PS IV., PSIII or proceed to a drop off zone. Pedestrian zones would be created around the entire perimeter Of the CCTP/ACP for ease of access to the parking and transit areas. The proposed project would provide 112 new bicycIe parking spaces in a modular enclosure between Biake Wilbur Plaza and the surface parking at 851 Welch Road. The project would also modify the existing bicycle routes around the Stanford University Medical Center for easier connections to facilities. samTrans (Route 282), Valley Transportation Authority (Route 86) and Stanford University’s Marguerite shuttles currently service the Medical Center. As part of the proposed project, the Marguerite shuttle would make stops in front of the Blake Wilbur Clinic and the proposed CCTP/ACP. S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 5 Objectives Stanford’s stated purpose for the proposed project is to construct a facility that would consolidate cancer and ambulatory care services into a single location. This facility would accommodate new trends in outpatient health care delivery, up-to-date equipment, modem operating rooms, and open space and other amenities for patients and visitors. Stanford believes that the collaborative approach that would be fostered by the CCTP/ACP would enable physicians from different specialties to woi:k together, which could r.esult in different treatment strategies. Stanford’s objectives for the CCTP/ACP are: 10. Patient-centered building.and landscape design that would increase patient and visitor comfort, and convenience and promote healing. Consolidation of cancer diagnostic, treatment, and surgical services into a recognizable, ’aecessib!e, and state-of-the-art modem facility. Creation of eNid-friendly spaces in the design of pediatric sections. Compact infill development that helps in the utilization of existing medical center infrastructure and ancillary services, avoids dispersion of clinical facilities, and eliminates redundancy and duplication of sePcices. Buildings that allow natural light to filter into all levels. Creation of flexible, generic and adequate workspace that can accommodate changing medical technologies and uses. In~(egration of previously separated and isolated clinical care andresearch facilities. New clinical development to be located adjacent to related facilities for convenience and efficiency of services. Strengthening of the existing medical center site connections, vistas, and thg o.verall circulation patterns. Improvement of the medical center operational efficiency. Stanford’s stated objective~ for the PS IV stmcture are: 11. 12. ~rovision of convenient, consolidated parking in permanent, easily accessible, safe and aesthetically appropriate locations near clinical facilities. Maintenance and enhancement of.the landscaping character of the Pasteur Drive entry open space. Schedule The CCTP/ACP building would be constructed over an 18 month period, in six overlapping phases: grading/excavation/site utilities, foundation system, superstructure, exterior skin, interior improvemen~ and sitework/landscaping. PS IV would require 20 months to compete with six overlapping phases: off-site utility relocation,, surYey and drill soldier beams, mass excavation and lagging, foundation and slab-on-grade, erect/form/pour superstructure, and street repairs and landscaping. A proposed draft condition of approval for the CUP has been included to require the parking structure and related above ground landscaping to be fully usable prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the CCTP/ACP facility. S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 6 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan The City of Palo Alto integrates land use, urban design, transportation, and economic policy in the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive PIan. Urban design considerations appear throughout the element. The element recognizes that land use decisions must be closely integrated with transportation and economic decisions. There are general citywide policies in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element that apply to Stanford along with Stanford-specific policies. The planning context section of the element states "Some of the most significant opportunities for growth and change in the Palo Alto area are on the Stanford University lands." Discussion of the Stanford Medical Center in the element states, "Expansion of these facilities needs to be evaluated in the context of citywide planning goals and policies, especially related to traffic." The Comprehensive Plan provides a strong basis for implementing alternative methods of transportation throughout the City. The vision statement in the. Transportation Element includes statements regarding the need to provide accessible, attractive, economically viable and environmentally sound transportation options that meet the needs of.residents, employers, employees and visitor.~ for safe, convenient and efficient travel by a variety of methods. It further states that emphasis will be placedon alternatives to the automobile, including walking, bicycling, public transit, and car and vanpooling. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the reduction of automobile trips by 10 percent by 201’0. Specifically: o Policy T-1 in the Comprehensive Plan states: "Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, andpublic transit use". This policy acknowledges that higher density and mixed use patterns generally translate into higher transit use and pedestrian activity. Program T-5 calls for "Work(ing) with private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and major institutions, to develop and coordinate trip reduction strategies". Businesses can organize trip reduction programs in which employees are given a variety of incentives to reduce driving during the peak times. Policy T-26 states: "Participate in the design and implementation of comprehensive solutions to traffic problems near.Stanford Shopping center and Stanford Medical Center." Program T-35 follows-up on the policy statement with:" 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. Policy T-27 calls for: "Avoid(ing) major increases in street capacity unless necessary to . remedy severe traffic congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists." All of these po. licy and program statements encourage the development of Transportaion Demand Management (TDM) programs for existing and new development whicii emphasize a reduction in the use of private automobiles for individuals and the use of alternative modes of transportation. Physical improvements which increase vehicle capacity along roadways and at intersections are discouraged and are identified as haying negative environmental impacts S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburS R Page 7 including reduced air quality. These policies and programs lay the basis for StamCord arid other businesses and organizations to implement aggressive TDM programs to address potential traffic impacts. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for innovative approaches for providing more housing within the City. Policy H-2 calls for: "Consider(ing) a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations." Program H-1 follows by stating: "Allow for increased housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas and particularly near transit centers. The first step in accomplishing this goal would be to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Research/Offme Park to Multiple-family Residential for those parcels located "outboard" of Welch Road, which would then be followed by the appropriate zoning designation. Altho(~gh there are existing office buildings that would have to be given an appropriate period for amortization, this ultimately could pro~luce up to 400 residential units. Changing the land use category and zoning designation of the parcels "outward" of Welch Road to allow housing immediately adjacent to the medical center and close tothe’new Palo Alto Intennodal Transit Center would increase the opportunity for providing additional housing units .at higher densities within the City. This type of land use and zoning change would also support Transportation Policy T-1, which acknowledges that higher density development and mixed-use patterns encourage transit use and pedestrian activity. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Environmental Review Most significant impacts of the project would be reduced to a level of insignificance with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. Key findings in the EIR regarding Comprehensive Plan policy implications are as follows: Ci.rcuiation plans for the proposed project show that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals of integrating development with the transit and street system. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit needs are generally adequately addressed. The proposed parking garage would be four floors underground and would 1cave the surface.as open area that is proposed to be landscaped; thus maximizing the use of-the space. The provision of the parking garage wbuld partially satisfy the demands for parking due to the proposed CCTP/ACP project and other developments at SUMC. However.: PS IV would increase the number of cars in the SUMC area, especially through the Pasteur Drive entry~ increasing safety risks. This aspect is mitigated in the EIR." The proposed projec~ iswithin the Stanford University Medical Center and would not disrupt the physical arrangement-and character of SUMC. However, the implementation of the proposed project requires a change in the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site. Without these amendments, there is insufficient development capacity under current zoning to accommodate a 218,000 square-foot medical facility. There is a history of Stanford applying to the City of Palo Alto to change Comprehensive Ptan designations and Jot to rezone portions of the SUMC in association with proposed new construction or additions to existing facilities without a master plan. For example, such planning S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 8 applications were involved with the Hospital Modernization Project phases, the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital and the Blake-Wilbur Clinic. Typically, the city has app.roved sucl~ planning applications. The EIR has identified some significant impacts that are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. These significant effects are as follows: Aesthetics - temporary visual impacts during construction Construction of the CCTP/ACP and the r~lated underground parking structure (PS IV) could resuh in visual disturbance from removal of existing landscaping, ground disturbance from excavation and grading, and unsightly views due .to equipment and material storage. These effects would be particularly noticeable for PS IV, since the site i’s along the main entryway into SUMC and highly visible from Sand Hill Road, Pasteur Drive and public walk-ways and plazas around SUMC. These impacts, though temporgry, would constitute short-term, significant, and unavoidable effects of the project. Although temporary significant adverse visual impacts from construction activities cannot be entirelyavoided, the mitigation measukes’listed in the EIR would reduce the severity of the impact. The impact, however, would be significant and unavoidable. Transportation - proiect and cumulative traffic delays at nine study intersections As stated previously, the circulation objective in front of the proposed project is to integrate automobiles, ~:ransit, pedestrians and bicycles in a mixed-mode area at the end of Blake-Wilbur Drive. In concept, this plan is acceptable. But it must be carefully designed to provide the proper circulation indications and safety provisions for the various modes. Once more detailed plans are provided during the architectural review, City staff would be able to pr.ovide more detailed comments to the applicant. Applying the thresholds o’f significance adopted by the City of Palo Alto, the City of Menlo Park and the Santa Clara County CMA, the project would result in increased delays in the Year 2003 at the following intersections (see page 3.5-55 in the Draft EIR for the locations): (a) E1 amino Real/Ravenswood in Menlo Park, (b) El Camino Real!Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, (c) Arboretum Road/Palm Drive in Stanford and Palo Alto, (d) Welch Road/Campus Drive West in Stanford, (e) Sand Hill Road/Oak in Menlo Park, (f) Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz in Menlo Park, (g) Santa Cru~Alpine/Juniperro Serra in.Menlo Park, (h) Juniperro Serra/Campus Drive West in Santa Clara County, (i) Juniperm SerrdStanford in Santa Clara County. The implementation of the mitigation measures listed in the EIR would reduce the proj oct intersection impacts to less- than-significant levels. However, three of the nine intersections are within the City of MenIo Park’s jurisdiction and the City of Palo Alto has no authority to require that these recommended improvements be made. If Menlo Park is not able or willing to implement these modifications, these mitigation measures are not feasible and.the impacts to these three intersections would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, mitigation measures have been added to the draft Conditional Use permit requiring strong TDM programs to mitigate the potential increase in vehicle traffic. S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 9 Air Qualit’¢ - cumulative regional air emissions of NO_x The analysis in the EIR indicates that the project would cause potentially significant regional impacts of NO× emissions from motor vehicle trips and stationary source operations. Transportation mitigation measures listed in the EIR would help reduce vehicle trips and minimize cumulative impacts to regional air quality. However, because the effecti;ceness of the mitigation measures cannot be guaranteed to reduce project regional emissions to below the significance thresholds on all days, the cumulative impacts to regional air quality would’remai~ slgnificant and unavoidable. Noise - proiect and cumulative construction noise Construction and demolition noise would create an intermittent impact on the noise environment that would be short-term because it w0uld’o~cur only through the duration of the construction and demolition phases, disturbing the nearest Sensitive receptors. The construction activities would occur close to the existing hospit.al and medical facilities and during the normal working hours of each. The mitigation measures listed in the EIR would reduce the potential for advei:se construction noise impacts, but the threshold of the City’s noise ordinance could still potentially be exceeded. Therefore, the impacts Would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level and the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Also, because the construction noise from. this project could coincide with construction noise from other approved projects, the refiulting noise levels would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. Potential Statement of Overriding Considerations An EIR’s purpose is to identify and disclose potentially significant environmental impacts that would be created by the development of the project. If significant impacts are identified, the EIR is required to identify feasible measures to mitigate the significant impacts to levels of insignificance. If it is found that there remains unavoidable environmental impacts of the project, the City may find that these impacts are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the project, even after giving greater weight to the City’s duty to avoid the environmental impacts and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. Such a determination would be made based upon the facts and public benefits identified in the Final EIR and record of proceedings on the project. In approving the project, the City Council would need to balance the benefits of the CCTP/ACP against these environmental impacts or impose more.effective mitigation measures. In this regard, some of the benefits of the project are as follows: 3. 4. 5. ¯ The CCTP/ACP provides a key health care fagility for not only the region, but for the country; The existing cancer treatment areas at S,UMC are overcrowded and’ outdated and the project would provide decent, safe and modem health care; The unavoidable aesthetic and noise impacts would be temporary; Circulation and transportation may be improved through implementation of the listed mit!gation measures at most intersections; and Implementation of the transportation mitigation measures would help to reduce air quaIity impacts. These benefits may be used as a basis f~r a statement of overriding considerations, which can be used when considering whether or not to approve the Final EIR and ultimately the project. S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 10 The proposed project would notconstruct housing and, theiefore, would not directly increase Palo Alto’s resident population. The proposed project wouId, however, lead to an increase in the number of staff at the Medical Center, which could affect the housing demand in Palo Alto and in the larger.housing markeic. To help mitigate such housing demand, the Palo Alto Municipal Code’s housing mitigation ordinance requires all commercial and industrial developments or redevelopments, which meet certain applicability requirements, to comply wi.th the payment of a housing mitigation fee. This in-lieu fee has been set at $4.03 per square foot (adjusted every A. pril, according to the Consumer Price Index). ’In the. draft Conditi.onal Use Permit, this mitigation fee is required for the proposed project. At a 198,000 square-foot net increase in building area (due to the demolition of the 14,350 square-foot building at 851 Welch Road and.the 5,650 square-foot mitigation fee allowance), Stanford would contribute an estimated $797,940 to the City’s housing fund. This fee is intended to make developers pay for the construction costs of affordable housing units that would satisfy the housing demand generated by 10 percent of the households with low and moderate incomes who would be expected to hold jobs in the project. The fee is collected when building permits are issued, so the exffct amount would be calculated at that time. The City is committed to increasing the development of affordable mad market-rate housing, but Palo Alto has a limited supply of vacant residential land. Most. of the City’S development potential consists of in_fill on small vacant Iots,redevelopment of existing properties, and new mixed-use proj cots. Staff therefore recommends that a Comprehensiv.e Plan amendment be initiated after action is.taken on the CCTP/ACP project to change the land use designation of the parcels outward of Welch Road. As stated earlier in the "Policy Implications’~ section of this report, a residential land use design.ation and attendant rezoning would create the potential for up to 400 additional housing units in the medical center vicinity. TNs would be an exciting opportunity to imple, ment.many of the Comprehensive Plan policies that encourage mixed-use development close to comm6rcial and transit centers. Cumulative Development The Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 EIR cumulative impact analysis assumed that the Medical Center would have up to 400,000 square-feet of additional development (compared to the 218,000 square-feet of the proposed project) within the City boundaries in the Medical Center area by the year 2010. Although this additional deve!opment was not a City-endorsed increase that would have been provided in its policy framework, the proposed project is within the envelope of cumulative development that was used in the EIR and the proposed project would be constructed within the proposed time frame. Project Relationship toSand Hill Road Projects The Sand Hill Road Project EIR also included consideration of additional development at the Medical Center. Specifically, the EIR assumed an additional 400,000 square-feet of Medical Center development. It was also assumed that approximately half of that increased development S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 11 would occur in the near term, or by the Year 2000. Consequently, the proposed CCTP/AcP project is not in addition to the cumulative Medical Center development identified and assessed in the Sand Hill Road Project EIR. The CCTP/ACP EIR (including the proposed underground parking structure) utilizes the Sand Hill Road Projects EIR as a reference document and builds on the traffic modeling used. Appendix C of the CCTP/ACP EIR compares the Sand Hill Road Projects and the CCTP/ACP traffic analysis. Because the approved Sand Hill Road Projects differed from the proposed projects assessed in that EIR, the traffic model for the CCTP/ACP EIR required various adjustments. Also, near term square footage assumed in the Sand Hill Road Projects EIR had to be subtracted .from the model so as not to double count the proposed CCTP/ACP project. Additional modifications to the model and traffic analysis .assumptions for the CCTP/ACP EIR were made as a result of updated traffic counts and ABAO projections for Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. and for revised policy by the City of Menlo Park, regarding San~l Hill Road improvements in Menlo Park. Project RelatiOnship to Santa Clara County’s Community Plan and Geheral Use Pebmit There is not a direct relationshii~ between the CCTP/ACP project and the Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit currently being proposed by the County of Santa Clara. The Community PlaniGUP pertains to Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. "Pne CCTP/ACP project is located in the incorpdrated portion of the Stanford University Medical Center, within the City of Palo Alto. The main relationship between the City’s processing of the CCTP/ACP project and the County processing of the Community PlaniGUP concerns the treatment of furore development of Stanford lands both within ttie City of Palo Alto and the unincorporated County of Santa Clara areas. Entitlements Comprehensive Plan Amendment (97-CPA-3) The proposed project requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Land Use map to change the land use designation of 801 and 1101 Welch Road from Research/Office Park to Major Institution/Special Facilities. The amendment is required both to permit the specific use and to allow a higher floor area ratio. (See Attachment A for draft resolution for the Comp~)ehensive Plan map amendment). Zoning Map Ameiadment (97-ZA-!4) The proposed project requires a rezoning of 801 and 1101 Welch Road from Office Research to Public Facilities, because, as stated above, the use would be more consistent with the Public Facilities zone designations and the PF zone carries with it an FAR of 1:1, compared with the existing FAR of 0.5:1. The land area "inside" of Welch Road is essentially built to its maximum FAR and any increase in square footage for this area woutd .~equire a higher FAR. The proposed CCTP/ACP could not be built at this location if the City did not approve the rezoning. The proposed project also requires removal of the Landscape Combining District o.verlay from the existing PF zone along the Pasteur Drive median, between Wetch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 12 to allow for the construction of the four-level underground PS IV. (See Attachment B for a draft ordinance for the zoning map amendment). Use Permit (97-UP-66) Operation of the CCTP/ACP requires the approval of a Use Permit to allow the operation of the outpatient clinical facility and the medical care, research and education complex. (See ¯ Attachment C for the draft Use Permit). Architectural Review Board (97-ARB-214) All new construction in the City is required to receive Architectural Review Board approval. In this instance, the ARB would review the building, parking, and landscaping and related site improvements at 875 Blake-Wilbur Drive (the site of the CCTP/ACP), 851 Welch Road (the site of new surface parking, and PS IV in the Pasteur Drive median. Zoning Ordinance As stated above, the proposed project requires the changing of the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for certain sites inward of Welch Road. Corresponding zom’ng designations would also need to be changed. Additionally, the proposed underground parking use is not a permitted or conditional use in the Landscape Combining District. As a consequ.ence, the proposed pr6ject requires removal of this overlay district from the Pasteur Driye median, which would eliminate the landscape-only use of this area. The proposed underground parking structure would include surface landscaping of the Pasteur Drive median strip. The proposed landscape plans for PS IV could help to retain the open space envisioned for the Pasteur Drive median strip and may be considered consistent with the City’s objectives of a Landscape Combining District for the Pasteur Drive median strip. The landscaping plans would be subject to approval by the City’s Architectural Review Board. Removal of the Landscape Combing District from the Pasteur Drive med!an strip would remove long-term protection of this area as open space. To date, Stanford has not proposed or agreed to restrict future development of the median strip. As a result, removal of the Landscape Combining District would result in a potentially significant environmental impact. Mitigation measures have been placed in the EIR to the effect that if the City desires to preserve the intent of the Landscape Combining District, then Stanford shall enter into an agreement with the City of Palo Alto to restrict future development of the PaSteur Drive median strip and to preserve it as open space. To preserve the visual character, Stanford shall design the space.in accordance with the following requirements: Minimize grading to protect existing tree species. Minimize hardscape, such as concrete planters and seat walls, Provide a transition between formal and informal .spaces by ~lesigning a "meadow" ~at would need minimal maintenan’ce and create easy access to the SUH entrance. This "meadow" would use a diverse selection of native plants. The design would have more diversity in plant species than the proposed design, creating a more ecolo’gically valuable habitat for native insects and wildlife. S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 13 o Create easy pedestrian access to and from the SUHentrance by minimizing planter and seat walls. Because most of the underground parking (PS IV) is excluded from the gross floor area (area that is devoted to drive aisles and parking spaces are exempt from FAR calculations, but mechanical equipment rooms .and storage rooms are calculated into FAR for the site), it would not significantly affect the FAR ofth~ project site.’ The proposed development would then be within the allowable FAR and total square footage permitted by the requested zoning modification.and alI other development stxndards would be in compliance. PUBLIC NOTICE ’Notice of this Planning Commission hearing was provided by publication of the proposed project and of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The city has prepared an Eiavironmental Impact Report (97-EIA-37) for the proposed project (Attachment D)..The public review period for this EIR was held for 45 days, ending on May 5, 2000. The Planning Commission received the Draft EIR on or about March 24, 2000. Staff received comments from other agencies and interested individuals on .the Draft EIR (Attachment E) and will prepare a Final EIR in response to those comments to be presented at the City Council punic hearing. (The comments received on the Draft EIR are included in Attachment F of this staff report). TIMELINE The entitlements proposed by Stanford University are legislative and, therefore; are not subject to state permit streamlining requirements. . . NEXT STEPS City of Pa’Io Alto The Planning Commission will forward their recommendations, to the City Council, who will then provide the final decision for the Final EIR, the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Zoning Map amendment, and the Use Permit on July 10, 2000. Stanford University would then proceed through the formal punic hearings of the Architectural Review Board.for design approval. Stanford has aiready presented preliminary ARB applications and received general direction from the ARB. State of CMifornia The California Office of Statewide Health and Planr~i.’ng and Development will review the application and issue a permit for those portions of the CCTP/ACP that propose to connect to the existing Children’ s Hospital. The Office of State Architect will also review the plans for compliance with structural codes and the State Fire Marshall will review the plans for compliance with fire safety codes. S:Plan:Pladiv:PCS R:875BlakeWilburSR Page 14 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Draft resolution for the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan map amendment Draft ordinance for the zoning map amendment Draft proposed Use. Permit Draft Environmental Impact Repgrt (sent previously to Planning Commission only) Public comments received on the Draft EIR Application materials Project plans (Planning Commission only) COURTESY COPIES Applicant:David Neuman, Planning Office, Stanford University, 655 Serra Street, Starfford, California 94305-6115 Sarah Jones, County of Santa Clara Planning Office, 70 West Hedding, East Wing 7tu 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 Hutar DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:875BlakeWilburSR Page 15 ATTACHMENT 7 APPLICATION MATERIALS Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention!Ambulatory Care Pavilion 875 Blake Wilbur Drive File Nos. [97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-ZA-14, 97-UP-66, 97-ARB-214] See the following pages. Architectural Review Board Desi’~n Enhancement Exception Environmental Impact Assessment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Protecte.d Tree Removal Home Improvement Exception Conditional Use Permit Variance Site and Design. Zone Change Subdivis~n Parcel Map ) Proper’by Loc,~’Cion :dress of Subject Property : 300 me Oistrict : "t>~ AND C:)l:~Assessor’s Parcel Number : 14-~-2.~- O1~" ~ C)~ ~-~ 00.’~-- Histodc Category(if applicable) : N / A NOTE:The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings_, HearL0gs or action taken. ~T.~,I~.C.L,~Phone: ~4 - s=te:zip: q& NOTE:The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted mailing .list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. " -Phone: S~te: ~ Zip: q~ O~ ereby certify that I am the owner of record of the property described in Box #2 above and that I approve of the requested action herein. If application(s) is subject to 100% recovery of planning costs, I understand that charges for staff time spent processing this application(s) be based on the Policy and Procedures document provided to me...J~,~na that ~y initLa~osit is an estimate of thesecharges ~d not a re: and I agree to abide by the billing policy stated. (. ...... ~ . ~~,. ,.~,~/~, ~"~ (~ .~ . ~ ~ OP~ ~ ~% Signature of Owner:t Date: ~. ( 2, ]qq STANFORD UNIVERSITY PLANNING OFFICE December 19, 1997 ¯ (Amended July 1999) Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto 5th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Grote: I am writing in Support of Stanford’s applications requesting the use permit and zone changes necessary to allow development of the Center for Cancer Treatment and Preventiort/Ambulatory Care Pavilion and supporting parking facilities at the Stanford University Medical Center. The application project description (Tab 7) identifies the need for the facility and describes how it will function. The application for a conditional use permit is to allow construction and operation of an outpatient clinical facility and a new parking structure within an existing medical care, research and education complex. The zone change from OR to PF will provide additional development capacity within a contiguous Public Facilities (PF) zoning parcel. The current Hospital PF parcel is at the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and close to the maximum ground area coverage (GAC). Rezoning and merging the 801 and t101 Welch parcels will add 219,550 square feet of land to the Hospital PF parcel. Removal of the landscape combining zone from a portion of the Pasteur median will allow construction of.an underground parking ’structure. The Conditional Use Permit necessary for this project could include restrictions that meet the current objectives of the existing Landscape Combining Zone. The proposed use will be beneficial to public health, general welfare and convenience of the community by allowing: New clinical development to be located adjacent to related facilities for convenience and efficiency of service. *Direct links between previously separated and isolated clinical facilities. Compact infill development that avoids dispersion of clinical facilities on University lands outside of Palo Alto. Consolidation of cancer treatment and non-invasive surgical services into a recognizable, accessible and state-of-the-art modem medical facility. 655 SERRA STREET o STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305.6II5.(650) 723-7773 FAX {650) 725-~$98 Development of a state-of-the -art treatment facility linked physically and programmatically to corresponding research programs in Medical School Center for Clinical Sciences Research. Convenient parking at the main entry to the Stanford University Medical Center. The land use development patterns reinf6rced by the use will further enhance public benefit by: Reinforcing a clear and direct network of’circulation and infrastructure for the Medical Center and Sand I--Iill Corridor. Furthering site and urban design principles that preserve the character the Stanford Campus and its major landscape influences. The proposed use will be consistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan Policies relating to the Land Use and Urban Design, Transportation, Natural Environment and Business and Economics elements. The relationship of the proposed use and development to Comprehensive Plan is discussed in greater detail in the Planning Context description of the application (Tab 7). The zone change will enable further development of clinical facilities in a manner that is consistent with the current institutional use. Although the Plan does not specifically address the redesignation of commercial to institutional use, it is necessary to effect such change to allow redevelopment of the Medical Center to implement plan policies and programs. Rezoning the subject properties will allow continued Institutional clinical use consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Thank you for your consideration, ,avidl. Neuman "~~’ ~~’ ~ University Architect & Associate Vice Provost for Planning ~ CHII-.0REN~S HOSPITAl ~I-50(D) RM-30(D) CC I1?O. IIiO \\o° PF PF PROJECT DESCRIPTION CENTER FOR CANCER TREATMENT AND PREVENTION/ AMBULATORY CARE PAVILION (Amended July I999 - changes indicated in bold) GENERAL-PROJECT DESCRIPTION Development Capaci .ty : Currently, UCSF Stanford Health Care facilities (Stanford University Hospital, Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, and Blake Wilbur Clinic) are located on a parcel that is zoned PF - Public Facilities. Under existing zoning for the parcel, no additional development can occur. This project consists of the rezoning of two parcels along Welch Road from Office Research (with a Floor Area Ratio of 0.5) to Public Facilities (with a Floor Area Ratio of. 1.0). A similar rezoning application was approved in 1989 for 851 Welch Road for the development of the Blake Wilbur Clinic. The existing uses of these parcels will remain the same. Specifically, the parcels are: Address Parcel number Size (sf)Development Capacity (sf) 801 Welch 142-23-007 43,560 12,671 30,889 1101 Welch 142-23-004 228,761 40,100 188,661 In addition, the 14,350 square foot building at 851 Welch Road (located on the main PF parcel), will be demolished. As a result of the rezoning of the two identified parcels, and the demolition of an existing building, the development capacity of the PF parcel will increase to 233,900 square feet. In addition to the rezoning that is requested to provide development capacity, Stanford is applying to remove the landscape overlay from that portion of the PF parcel where Parking Structure IV is proposed. The parking structure will be located underground, with upgraded landscaping replaced on the surface. New Building This project also includes development of a new Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion on parcel 142-23-017 (zoned Public Facilities), as well as site and infrastructure improvements to fully integrate the building into the existing Hospital and Clinics complex. The building will consolidate the existing Cancer Center and Ambulatory Services of the existing Stanford Health Services campus into a 4-story building of approximately 218,000 gross square feet. The infrastructure improvements wilt provide access, connection, parking, and open space amenities for patients, viskors, and employees. The site is currently a surface parking lot located north of Parking Structure 1Tr (PS III), between the Blake Wilbur Clinic and the existing Stanford University Hospita! and Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital (LSPCH). New" Pa.rking Structure This project includes development of an underground parking structure in the area bounded by Pasteur Drive westbound, Welch Road, Pasteur Drive eastbound and Blake Wilbur Drive. This facility, known as Parking Structure IV (PS IV), will be approximately 1,035 parking spaces on four underground levels of parking, excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 45’ 4". Vehicular access will be provided via a new central access road or driveway connecting to Pasteur Drive midway between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. Eastbound (inbound) traffic will enter the drive from the south barrel of Pasteur .with outbound traffic using the north barrel. Pedestrians will access the facility via" four stairs and three elevators with walkway and crossing connections to existing or planned pedestrian facilities 6n Pasteur Drive, Blake Wilbur Drive and Governor’s Avenue to the east, north and south. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Cancer Care Pro~am - The delivery of cancer care services in the current facilities is outdated, scattered, and often has difficult access for patients and families. The current facilities inhibit, as opposed to contribute to, collaborative multi-disciplinary cancer treatment. One of the ingredients necessary for developing a truly comprehensive multi- modality treatment program are facilities that can physically pull all the major program components and clinicians together in one place to both improve the cancer patient’s experience and allow Stanford to be more effective and efficient in providing leading edge cancer care treatment and services. The typical cancer patient today does not see just one type of physician for his or her care. Patients referred to Stanford for diagnosis, consultation and/or treatment frequently benefit most from a multi-disciplinary approach including many disciplines such as medical oncology, hematology, surgica! oncology, radiation oncology, etc. The proposed facility will facilitate this multi-disciplinary approach. A clinical program that will eliminate the physical barriers to achieving this type of cancer care program are required to enable Stanford’s academic physicians, working in collaboration with community physicians, to provide "ctitting edge" care and high quality services to patients. The Stanford Clinical Cancer Program has as its mission to provide comprehensive cancer care through multi-disciplinary collaboration and integrated services; to advance cancer therapies through clinical research; to develop effective screening and prevention programs; to train future leaders in the treatment of cancer; and to foster regional cooperative relationships with physicians and the community. Ambul.gtory Surgery... Center - The trend towards minimally invasive outpatient procedures has significantly reduced patient recovery times. However, these procedures also take more time than conventional surgeries, resulting in fewer cases per operating room (OR). In addition, Stanford University Hospital’s total surgicaI volumes have increased throughout the 1990s. As a result, inpatient and outpatient programs today are operating very close to capacity, with OR schedules frequently running late into the evening. With a much larger percentage of procedures now being performed on an outpatient basis, the Ambulatory Surgery Center in particular is currently constrained by its existing facilities. Currently, the Ambulatory Surgery Center at Stanford University Hospital consists of i2 ORs, to serve adult Stanford University Hospital patients and pediatric Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital patients. The Ambulatory Surgery Center at Stanford University Hospital today occupies the former inpatient surgical unit in a 37-year-old facility, The size of many of the existing. ORs limits their use for newer procedures which require more equipment and larger surgical teams. As more and more surgeries are moving from inpatient to outpatient, they are becoming more technologically advanced as weII. But the array of new technologies require space, power, and cooling that are not readily accommodated in the existing. older buildings. For example, if the current ORs were completely renovated to reflect properly-sized ORs and their related support space, the number of ORs would, be reduced from the current 12 to only 6 after renovation. Another desire of the proposed program is to improve the capacity for processing the patients in the pre- and post-operative phase of care. Siiace the unit was originally the inpatient suite, it was functionally planned to handle fewer total surgical cases and shorter recovery stays in the unit than is the case today with outpatient surgeries. The expanded ambulatory surgery capacity which the new facility will provide will create easier access for patients; larger, more flexible ORs that can respond to changing technologies to be used in the future; more convenient scheduling for surgeons; and a more "patient friendly" experience during the pre- and post-operative phases of care. PLANNING CONTEXT A Stanford University Hospitals and Clinics Land Use Analysis: Urban Design Report (or UDR) was prepared by Peter Walker William Johnson (PWWJ) and Partners in 1995 (see Tab 8 of this application). This internal (to Stanford) specific area plan describes near- and long-term expansion and redevelopment of Stanford hospital and clinical facilities. The plan takes into account the design and planning of other Stanford development in the Sand Hill Road corridor, Central Campus development patterns. major landscape features, and the update of the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan. The site for the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion building was initially identified and discussed as an Area Focus Plan. Site planning and design guidelines developed from the Area Focus Plan for this site and facility were directly incorporated into the architectural program for the project in its present form. An in-progress report on the Urban Design Report was prepared and submitted to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), and a public presentation was given in July of 1994 by William Johnson, principal partner at PWWJ and chief author of the document. CPAC, City staff and city officials were invited and the presentation was taped for future viewing. The report identified more than forty draft Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs reinforced by Medical Center planning. The final report acknowledges the Medical Center as a major component of an employment district; proposes development of Quarry Road and other connections for stronger linkage to transft, the central business district and the Campus center; and proposes strategies for incorporating the "cultural" and "natural" landscapes of the Stanford Arboretum and San Francisquito Creek (the edges of the Sand I-Iill corridor) into the urban fabric. The report anticipates the plugging in of the project and establishes specific design and planning parameters to insure effective integration and linkage. The Urban Design study has been submitted as documentation of the planning context for this building in Tab 8. Along with the application, we have also submitted 6 copies of our 1992 Medical Center Design Guidelines, which establish the regional planning and design context for those issues not addressed by the UDR. Plannin~PrincipIes and Concepts, The UDR anticipated a project of 180,000 - 200,000 gross square feet (gsf) for this location. Refinements to the program and interpretations of the zon{ng code for calculating square footage have increased that number to approximately 218,000 gsf; however, the original programmatic, design and massing intent for this facility have not changed. The specific siting and design applications discussed above are consistent with and reinforce the principles first identified in the UDR. They are summarized as bulleted lists below each of the principles ¯ FUNCTIONAL and ORGANIZATIONAL ZONING " EFFICIENCY Locating the proposed building near other clinical facilities. Proximity to the primary supply of patient parking. Connection to related clinical services. Optimizing use of close-in land. ¯Extending movement corridors and networks through site development. ¯Street development to enhance transit and bike utilization. W’A YFIND IN G CLARITY ¯Clarifying Blake Wilbur as an out-patient clinic precinct. ,Distinctive identities for clinic drop-offs/entries and public parking access. ¯Reinforcing the hierarchy of entry places: Pasteur to Blake Wilbur. ¯ QUALITY OF PLACE ¯Emphasis on human scale, comfort and healing qualities. Special elements of distinctive character: heritage trees, water, sculpture and public art. ¯Retain, enhance and integrate distinctive open space elements. Although these principles are important in the planning of any major urban district, they are especially critical for medical center visitors who may be distracted, worried or otherwise disoriented. In addition to the clarity that gets people efficiently to their destinations, these principles help to create an environment of human caring and comfort: an ideal setting for a facility designed for the business of healing. Consistenc_v with Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan The proposed project conforms to and supports a wide variety of policies and programs in the Land Use and Urban Design, Transportation, Natural Environment and Business and Economics Comprehensive Plan Elements. Its location conforms to the area designated for Major Institution / University use and is shown on the Community Resources map. [n general, the policies and programs emphasized and supported by this project and Hospital Area planning include: Protection and enhancement of employment centers. Collaborative and comprehensive area planning. Compact and efficient development to achieve pedestrian friendly environments and enhance functional operations. Pursuit of parking strategies for maximum efficiency including modification of requirements. Implementation of comprehensive traffic solutions for the Sand Hill Corridor. DESCRIPTION .OF IMPROVEMENTS Proposed Building Program - The ground floor will house the Radiation Oncology Department with both patient treatment and departmental support spaces. This department will contain seven linear accelerator vaults and various rooms with special shielding requirements. The ground floor also wil! contain the main mechanical and electrical rooms and will be connected to the Main Hospital through a short tunnel to the LSPCH. This connection will primarily serve as a service function for both staff and materials’ management flow but will also bring a small number of patients from the adjoining hospital facilities. This floor Will be also connected to the adjacent parking structure by an open air court and elevator. The patient area will have access to a garden courtyard, and staff areas will be daylit through clerestory, windows. The first floor will house the Cancer Center Clinics, clinic support functions and the Cancer Center main entry’lobby and the Ambulatory Center elevator lobby. The clinic support functions include check-in and registration, a small radiology department, social services, outpatient laboratory and tumor registry and records area. There will be six clinics with an average of eight exam rooms each, planned in a modular fashion for flexibility. The clinics will back up to a support zone containing several workrooms or" various size and two procedure rooms. An internal staff stair will connect the first floor to the ground floor and second floor, joining all the Cancer Center Departments. The second floor will house the Cancer Center Administration and physician offices, an Oncology treatment unit (OTU), Ambulatory treatment unit (ATU), and the Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) staff support spaces. The administration area contains private offices, fellows and Critical Research Nurse stations cIustered in semi-private rooms and open assistant workstations. This area also contains a conference center of three rooms with moveable partitions for larger functions, and several workrooms. The ATU and OTU have been desired in a modular fashion for flexibility and patient volume fluctuations. Each module contains space for open transfusion chair bays and semi- 5 ~rivate gumey positions. These modules are adjacent to a common support staff zone .).ontaining nurse stations and pharmacy functions. The ATU contains a 23-hour holding unit, consisting of 12 private gumey positions and associated nurse and support spaces. The ASC staff area will contain the staff and physician locker and dressing rooms, a conference room, and several office and support spaces associated with the third floor surgery department. The east end of the second floor centraI zone is connected to the main hospital by an enclosed bridge. The third floor will house the Ambulatory Surgery Center and Instrument Processing. The surgery component has both pediatric and adult patients, each with separate waiting and admitting spaces. The seating in the waiting areas will be arranged to create intimate groupings. Both the adult and pediatric areas have separ, ate preoperative and recovery areas, The intent is to share as much of the support spaces as possible. The surgery center will contain 16 operating room, two procedure rooms, and equipment storag~."The operating rooms are arranged in gro.ups of eight, which share a common support space for equipment and supply storage. The preoperative and second stage recovery bays are. ’ designed for flexibility and daily patient volume fluctuations. These bays are semi- private with three walls and a cubicle curtain for privacy at the corridor end. The 17nstrument Processing area will so,ice this building only. Preliminary. Design Information - The design of the building and site reinforce the planning objectives of responsiveness to patients, safety, economy, orientation and connectivity. Patient-focused care concepts, stressing the ease of movement from adjacent parking facilities and drop off areas, were critical in locating the building entries. The creation of outdoor spaces brings light into underground areas and reinforces existing campus master plan objectives for the West Axis pedestrian spine and Blake Wilbur Drive. Bridge and tunnel connections to adjacent buildings are direct and least disruptive for the flow of patients, staff, visitors and materials. Special consideration was also given to the site planning, massing, and materials of the building to make a clear and pleasing relationship to the new Center for Clinical Sciences Research (CCSR) project to the.south. The building will be comprised on four floors of approximately 45,000 to 60,000 gross square feet each, with the lowest level (ground floor) being below grade. The first floor will have a 18-foot floor-to-floor height, with the remaining floors having a 16-foot floor- ~o-floor height. The building will be connected to the existing Stanford Hospital via a bridge at the second level. There is also a below o_rade, ground level connection to LSPCH at the northeast comer of the building. T~is tunnel is connected to the main service core of the new building by an open air, covered walkway which borders the ground level courtyard. There are seven elevators in the building. The building is split by a multi-story public zone. The north side of the public zone contains patient treatment spaces while the south side contains administrative, staff, and r.reatment support spaces. This arrangement is consistent throughout all floors. The sky- lit public zone connects all the floors and serves as an orientation center for patients and staff from the treatment spaces. ~t is intended that this space act as a large friendly room with seating alcoves as well as a source of natural light. The design of the building is based on two primary objectives. The first objective is to create one building with two distinct entries for its two primary, user groups. The second objective is to create a flexible and efficient building for future change and maintenance. The design reinforces the programs’ connection to the existing hospital facilities. The central public zone not only serves as an organizing element within the building, but also its extension becomes a second-level bridge connection to the Main Hospital. The site 6 and landscape design builds upon the master planning concepts established for the Stanford University Medical Center and documented in the Urban Design Report. The building falls under the regulations of the City of Palo Alto and the State Fire Marshal. As an internal lot, the building is within the 10-foot setback limit for side yards and is 50 feet from grade to the roof level. The building has a flat roof with rOOftop elements within the 15-foot height limit as set forth by the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. The building will be predominately classified as a Group B occupancy with the third floor and a portion of the second as Group I, Division 1.2. As an outpatient facility, the building will not be reviewed by Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), except for the bridge connection to the Main Hospital. Building Form and Massing - The building massing makes the most of a very compact site while complying with the site setbacks and boundaries. The building is composed of two rectilinear forms positioned at a 90-degree angle to each other and separated by the multi-story circulation zone. This configuration reinforces the components of the program while responding to various site conditions. The northern portion of the building is a compact three-story rectangular mass with an articulated third floor differentiated by a change in materials and setbacks. This composition reflects the building’s two distinct tenants: the lower floors house the cancer center portion of the program while the third floor houses the ambulatory surgery program. It also reflects the stepped massing of the LSPCH building to the east. The LSPCH building is further echoed by the northern building’s articulated comers with setbacks and material changes occurring between the second and third floors. The southern portion of the building is a three-story rectangular mass which runs east/west and spans Blake Wilbur Drive. The building span over Blake Wilbur Drive provides an urban scale portal for the new entry plaza and creates a covered drop-off zone. The massing of the southern portion of the building echoes that of the CCSR building to the south. Together, the CCSR building and the new building create a dialogue between research, education and patient care which is vital to the future of the Stanford University Medical Center. Facades and Fenestration - The facades are articulated with a combination of fenestration and curtain wall in a field of solid material. The juxtaposition of these elements reflect the functional planning of the interior program and the building’s structura! system. The two-story bay windows of the east and west facades, along with the articulated third floor of metal panel and glazing, break down the scale of the building mass and reflect a composition in keeping with the Medical Center. A two-story arcade on the south facade reflects similar proportions of the colonnade fronting the E.D. Stone building. This arcade also provides a shading device for the windows along the southern facade. Curtain wall is used in locations to signify entries and special interior spaces while creating a ~trong connection with the outdoor landscaped areas beyond. Building Penthouses and Rooftop Equipment - Special consideration is given to rooftop equipment and penthouses to reinforce the overall building form. The building has a flat roof ,,vith a skylight running the length of the circulation zone. A small metal-clad clerestory element on the south facade projects above the roof level bringing indirect light to the surgery department’s preoperative area. These two elements, along with the elevator core penthouse, provide punctuation to the compact mass Of the building. The mechanical equipment is composed behind a metal panel screen wall to accentuate the buildiag mass and to be considerate of views from neighboring buildings. Exterior Building Materials and Colors - The primary building material is a solid, cementitious material comprising rou.ghly 80% of the building’s surface area. In addition, secondary materials are punched windows and curtain wall composed of aluminum extrusions and insulated glazing as well as aluminum panels. These elements are composed to bring a sense of scaIe to the overall massing and reinforce special programmatic elements. The primary building material will be a neutral earth tone color. with a light texture in keeping with the general Stanford palette and that of adjacent ¯ buildings. The color of the aluminum window frames and metal panels are of light bronze and gunmetal to complement the color of the precast panels. Glazing is a combination of clear vision glass and a frosted translucent spanclrel glass. Building Entries. - Both the Cancer Center and Ambulatory Care Pavilion entries are located on the west facade along the Blake Wilbur Driv~ plaza. Secondary entries occur at the ground level of the south facade and on the first floor level at the east end of the central circulation zone. The ground level entry provides direct access to the adjacent parking structure. A tertiary entry for staff and physicians occurs at the northeast comer adjacent to the LSPCH. Internal entries occur at the second level bridge connection from the Main Hospital and at the ground level tunnel connection from the LSPCH. All primary entries are designed with vestibules and are covered by either building mass or canopies for environmental protection. Operation of Building - Current design parameters for the new building call for the utilization of basement level service corridors and the existing corridor which follows Blake Wilbur Drive. It is estimated that the hours of operation for the clinical facilities will be 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. A portion of the facility (Oncotogy treatment unit and Ambulatory treatment unit) will be open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to provide overnight and emergency care. Proposed Parking Structure This proposed parking structure is intended to serve Medical Center staff members, community doctors and volunteers by providing long-term parking for those With parking permits and/or identification cards that can be used in parking garage card ¯ readers. The spaces in this structure will increase the Medical Center parking supply in order to accommodate the additional demand related to the construction of the CCTPiACP. It will also supply replacements for spaces in nearby surface parking lots that have been lost due to Medical Center construction projects (including the approximately 150 spaces in the existing surface lot that is the site for the proposed CCTP/ACP). Preliminary Design Information - The proposed site is within the main Medical Center Entry landscape and is protected by a landscape combining zoning designation. It is essential that the design of PS IV protect the landscape character of the entry and retain the sense of openness. Placing the parking underground and providing sensitive landscaping on the surface is an efficient and innovative approach to help meet parking needs in the Medical Center area. In addition. historic Governor’s Avenue crosses the site and is incorporated into the proposed landscape design through the restoration of the historic tree lines and re- establishment of the travelway as a functioning pedestrian and bike connection. PS IV will provide approximately 1,035 parking-spaces on four underground levels. Level One will have an 11’ 4" floor-to-floor height, and the other levels will have a 10’ 8" floor-to-floor height. The overall dimensions of the structure will be 490 feet by 187 feet. The facility is expected to .be entirely contained within the block bounded by Pasteur Drive eastbound and westbound, Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. The design fits closely within the existing median area and will provide adequate room for existing roadway and utilities easements. DESCRIPTION OF,, SITE LANDSCAPE TREATMENT. The site design is an example of the tighter, more urbart character recommended by the S~nford University Hospitals and Clinics Land Use AnMysis: Urban Design Report and the SUMC Design Guidelines. Blake Wilbur Drive provides access to Blake Wilbur Clinic, the new building and the existing parking structure. The view from Pasteur Drive will be characterized by medians and parkways of large scale, specimen Coast Live Oak trees and bands of colored interlocking concrete pavers. It is seen as an urban plaza, accommodating automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian uses. A planted slope defines the edge of the 10-foot-wide walk between LSPCH and the new building’s sunken courtyard. A band of Black Bambo6 is planted against the courtyard ~vall, forming an airy screen. Red-foliaged Japanese maples and stone paving punctuate the tall bamboo planting and provide a transition in scale to that of the courtyard user. A series of steps and wider seats are built against the south wall of the Main Hospital. A water element and shade tree combine to create a central meeting place. A retaining wall cuts into the end of the existing berm and encloses the new West Axis Plaza, between the new building and the Main Hospital. The plaza paving is to be interlocking concrete pavers laid inside a border of poured-in-place concrete. The West Axis paving will connect to and overlap this plaza area. A double row of flowering trees, border the plaza and provide places for sitting. A second entry to the new building is accentuated with distinctive block paving and an overhead canopy. A direct walk is designed at the south end of the new building leading to Blake Wilbur Clinic. Wisteria vines are planted in planters between building columns. Next to the walk, a grove of mu!ti-tmnk Jacarandas echo the wisteria’s color from the lower level of the parking structure. SITE CIRCULATION The primary automobile access route to the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/ .Ambulatory Care Pavilion will be via the main entry to the Main Hospital (Pasteur Drive). Traffic approaching on Pasteur Drive will enter the immediate building environs via a left-turn onto Blake Wilbur Drive. Once on Blake Wilbur Drive, several options wil! be available: Parking Structure - Vehicles may enter directly into the existing parking structure on the northeast corner of Pasteur/Blake Wilbur. The structure provides short and medium-term pay parking. Once parked in the structure, visitors will walk between 50 and 800 feet north to the various building entrances at the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/ 9 Ambulatory. Care Pavilion. As alternatives to walking through the structure to the building’s south entrance, pedestrians have the options of exiting the west side of the structure and walking north along the Blake ¯ Wilbur Drive sidewalk to the building’s main entrance, or exiting the east side of the structure and walking north along the existing pedestrian mall to the new building. Front-Do.or Drop-0ff - Passenger drop-off zones will be located along the entire length of the building’s west side and will extend south about 200 feet on Blake Wilbur Drive along the parking structure footage. Following drop-off, drivers will be able to self-park by either traveling north to the entrance of the expanded surface parking lot across Blake Wilbur from the building, or by looping around the end of the drop-off plaza and returning south to the parking s.tructure. Surface Parking - As part of the project, the existing parking lot directly across Blake Wilbur Drive from the new building will be expanded. The lot is expected to serve short-term parking for the new Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention!Ambulatory Care Pavilion and the existing . Blake Wilbur Clinic, as well as some community physician parking. This new lot (at 851 Welch Road) will retain driveway access to Welch Road, providing a possible secondary arrivalTdeparture route for lot users. Most users of the proposed PS IV are expected to arrive and depart via Pasteur Drive from either Welch Road or Sand Hill Road. Access to the facility will be provided in a one-way loop between the eastbound and westbound segments of Pasteur Drive. An access road running perpendicular to Pasteur will be constructed midway between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. Vehicles will enter by turning left from eastbound Pasteur to the access road, then turning right to enter the garage via a ramp. Exiting vehicles will turn right from the ramp onto the access road, and then turn left onto westbound Pasteur. This design allows for most PS IV traffic to avoid the busy Pasteur/Blake Wilbur intersection. Parallel parking along Pasteur Drive will be maintained to the fullest possible extent. Some parking spaces along both legs of Pasteur Drive between Welch Road and the new garage access road will be removed to allow for safe turning movements as vehicles enter and exit the parking facility; this is expected to reduce on-street parking supply by less than 20 spaces. Relocation of remaining street parking from the median to the outside edges of Pasteur Drive will also be considered in the design. The attached Figures I through 5 illustrate the proposed configuration of traffic circulation, parking, passenger drop-off, pedestrian circulation and transit access serving the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion and PS IV. The primary functional features of the project circulation concept are depicted in Figure ’ 1. They include: Pedestrian Zones around the full perimeter of the new building and radiating out to adjoining pedestrian routes and destinations including the Main Hospital and LSPCH. New pedestrian features will also be provided to allow the patrons of PS IV to access area facilities safely. Mixed-Use Zone for passenger drop-off, transit and bicycle circulation, and pedestrian crossing opportunities, to be established on Blake Wilbur 10 Drive along the building frontage and the frontage of the existing Blake Wilbur Clinic. Parking Zones in the existing parking structure (PS III) immediately south of the proposed project and an expanded surface parking lot on the west side of Blake Wilbur Drive, opposite the building and in the nexv PS IV to the southwest of PS III. ¯Traffic Zone in Pasteur Drive, and the segment of Blake Wilbur Drive immediately north of Pasteur Drive through the parking structure entrance. oO Within the context of these functional zones, the proposed circulation concept provides far an integrated set of automobile, transit, pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The central design feature to the transportation proposal is the conversion of the north end of Blake Wilbur Drive to a mixed-use, passenger-oriented zone. About 200 feet north of the existing entrance to the parking structure (and 200 feet south of the proposed Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion), Blake Wilbur Drive will become a passenger-oriented environment. This zone will emphasize passenger.drop-off, transit circulation, and pedestrian crossing opportunities, and will be designed to promote low traffic speeds and volumes. The existing STOP-sign protected crosswalk on Blake Wilbur Drive (about-200 feet north of the structure entrance) will remain and will mark the beginning of the mixed-use passengerlpedestrian zone. Within the mixed-use zone, a wide central median will provide a pedestrian refuge and will allow traffic to re-circulate from northbound to southbound Blake Wilbur Drive. To keep traffic volumes low, there will be no street connection from the north end of Blake Wilbur Drive to Welch Road. Bicycles will travel in the slow-moving traffic stream on this segment of Blake Wilbur, not separate bike lanes. A pedestrian/bicycle connection will be provided from the north end of.Blake Wilbur Drive to Welch Road just north of the expanded parking lot, replacing the confined path at the perimeter of the existing parking lot and the LSPCH.parking deck. Marguerite transit shuttle buses would be able to reach Welch Road via the lot, should this route be appropriate in the future. Traffic circulation within the mixed-use zone on Blake Wilbur Drive will follow a one- way loop pattern. The east side of the wide median will serve northbound traffic as well as passenger drop-offs at the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion. Southbound traffic will travel on the west side of the wide median along the Blake Wilbur Clinic passenger drop-off area. To further reduce traffic on Blake Wilbur Drive and to facilitate parking structure operations, a new vehicular exit will be constructed at the southeast corner of PS III. The existing main entry/exit will be converted to an entrance only. It will have two gate- controlled lanes. The ticket machines and gates will be repositioned to allow smoother traffic flow into the structure. Circulation within the structure will be adjusted to produce less congestion immediately inside the entrance. Departing traffic will exit directly onto Pasteur Drive to leave the area. Passenger Drop-off/Pick-up Zones Figure 2 identifies the locations of primary passenger drop-off and short-term parking serving the new building. ParalleI parking will be permitted along the outer edge of the Blake Wilbur Drive "oval." It will be restricted to passenger drop-off and pick-up functions, and could include bus stops for Stanford’s Marguerite Shuttle. This "white zone" will extend along the east edge of Blake Wilbur Drive from the southwest corner oi" ll the proposed building to the turn-around at th,::, north end of the oval. It will also travel along the west side from the turn-around and c~riveway into the 851 Welch parking to~ through the existing passenger zone in front of the Blake Wilbur Clinic. Pedestrian Circulation As shown in Figure 1, sidewalks, paths, and drop-off zones will traverse the fui1¯’ perimeter of the new building and will radiate out to: ;.. o Main Hospital and LSPCH entrances and the new Center for Clinical Sciences Research. building via the existing pedestrian mall Welch Road medical offices via a new p&destrian mall along the northern edge of the 851 Welch Road parcel Blake Wilbur Clinic, across Blake Wilbur Drive. The northern segment of Blake Wilbur Drive, in front of the proposed project and the existiiag clinic building, will be a pedestrian-oriented passenger drop-off zone. The wide central median will provide a pedestrian refuge and will allow pedestrians to cross only one direction of slow-moving traffic at a time. To keep traffic volumes low, there will be no street connection from the north end of Blake Wilbur Drive to Welch Road. Pedestt-ians will be able to reach the proposed building from Welch Road via a pedestrian path along the north edge of, but outside, the 851 Welch parking lot. Sidewalks will also traverse the west side of Blake Wilbur Drive along its entire length, and the east side from the parking structure entrance northward. Pedestrian access to PS IV will be as convenient as possible for patrons. Primary access will be via a bank of two elevators and a stairwell on the eastern edge of the parking structure. Pedestrian facilities will be provided on Blake Wilbur Drive to allow safe access to the parking garage elevators from buildings to the north and south. It is also anticipated that pedestrian facilities will be extended to the east of the parking structure, along both segments of Pasteur Drive, to allow patrons easy , access to the main entrance of the Hospital. Secondar.y exits from the parking structure are provided in the form of three stairwells (one designed in combination with an elevator) spaced within the interior of the project site. The landscape design will direct patrons using these access points to safe sidewalks and crossings that minimize conflicts with vehicular traffic as they walk to their destinations. Pedestrian travel in the project area will be oriented to the following corridors, depicted in Figure 3: I)relatively unlimited crossing of Blake Wilbur Drive in front of the proposed building a pedestrian walk along the south side of the Center for Cancer Treatment and PreventionJAmbulatory Care Pavilion connecting the pedestrian mall east of the building to the Blake Wilbur passenger zone the existing STOP-sign protected crosswalk from the south edge of the Blake Wilbur Clinic site to. the parking structure elevator and stairs. 4)pedestrian walks between the elevators of PS IV and destinations to the north, east and south. 12 Bicycle Circulation (Figure 4) Bicycle travel along Blake Wilbur Drive will be via the existing bike lanes from Pasteur Drive to the mixed use zone. Within the mixed-use zone, bicyclists that enter will share the travel lanes with slow-moving traffic. At the north end of Blake Wilbur Drive, cyclists will be able to ride directly to Welch Road via a new path along the north edge of the 851 Welch parking lot. Due to the amount of parking and drop-off vehicle maneuvering likely to occur in the area, bicycle travel through the area will be accommodated but not especially encouraged. Convenient and well-delineated bicycle lanes will remain along Welch Road for those who prefer this route over Blake Wilbur Drive. : Along both directions of Pasteur Drive, the far right lane is designated as a bicycle lane. Because of the one-way loop configuration of the access design for PS IV, in which parking facility users will travel in the left lane on each side of Pasteur, bicyclists in the designated bicycle lanes are not expected to be affected by traffic entering and exiting PS IV. Local Transit (Figure 5) Stanford’s Marguerite Shuttle buses would be able to traverse Blake Wilbur Drive in the general traffic lanes, making stops in the passenger drop-off zones in front of the proposed building and Blake Wilbur Clinic. Options for exiting the area include turning- around at the north end of Blake Wilbur Drive, or exiting via the 851 Welch parking lot directly to Welch Road. The proposed location of PS IV should not affect the current or future routing of .Marguerite Shuttle buses. Vehicle Parking Based on the vehicle parking requirement in the zoning ordinance, the proposed Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion would require 872 spaces. The proposed PSIV provides approximately 1,035 spaces, some which are replacements for parking spaces in the immediate area lost to development activities. The parking at the Stanford University Medical Center is maintained on a regional, comprehensive basis, in accordance with an agreement with the City of Palo Alto. A description of the current parking program, as well .as proposed and anticipated future parking changes, is provided in Tab 9 of this application. Service Areas, Delivery of materials, vendor and service access will primarily come from the existing hospital and its loading area via a tunnel and bridge connection. Emergency and fire department vehicles are accommodated via Blake Wilbur Drive and the West Axis pedestrian spine. 13 Key: ~ Pedestrian Zone ~ Mixed-Use Zone ~ Parking Zone ~ Traffic Zone Blake I~’ilbur Circulation 11OlWelch Proposed Garage (PSIM) Figure t FUNCTIONAL CIRCULATION CONCEPT Fehr & Peers Associates Blake Wilbur Circulation Sul~ 1999 Key: ~ Drop-off Zone ~ Potential Short Term Parking 1101 ~Welch ~ Pasteur Drive ~ ~ Proposed Garage (PSIV) i ( .~ (Long Term Parking) ~ Pasteur Drive Figure 2 CLINIC DROP OFF AND SHORT TERM PARKING Fehr & Peers Associates Blake Wilbur Circulation July 1999 Key: ~ Pedestrian Path 4" O~" Pedestrian Corridor(see text) Figure 3 851 Lot 1101Welch Parking Structure(PSlII) Pasteur Drive Proposed GarageiPs,vl Pasteur Drive Fehr & Peers Associates Key: = ,, = Bike/Ped Path ...... Bike Lane ~ Bikes in mixed flow Blake Wilbur Circulation Structure 1101 (PSIII) Welch ; "Proposed Garage :1:]t:tl : ......... 1 ..........-’- Pasteur ~,ri, v,e, Figure 4 BICYCLE ,3,.,,,~CIRCULATION Fehr & Peers Associates Key: .~....-)~ Potential Marguerite Route - - ,, Existing Marguerite Route Blake Wilbur Circulation Jul~v 199~99 11OlWelch Parking Structure (PSIII) I-"~ ~Proposed Garage : I~ l:I,,(::.1~ ~,,’’-’"’’--’-- Pasteur Drive Figure 5 MARGUERITE CIRCULATION Fehr & Peers Associates !I 1 Oblique aerial of site 2 Looking South/East from Welch @ Pasteur 2"~6 3 Looking South/West from Blake Wilbur @ Pasteur 4 Looking North/West from Pasteur @ Blake Wilbur Looking North/East from MSLS roof 6 Looking North/West from MSLS roof ..YeS o ¯ NO E] ¯FRONT SIDE " SIDE ~RSA.R EXISTING SQUARE FEET ALLOVF-D SQ. FT.TO BE DEMOLISHED SQ. FT.TO ~E ADDED TOTALAT CO,M?LETION L!A,X. SO. FT. PER ZONh"IG bt,~YJ.MU.M SO. FT. PER U~C L!X~,MUM FAR PF_.R ZONING t’tUM=3ER OF SHOYF.RS ALLOWED BUILDING DAYLIGHT BLDG. HEIGH-r :~EQU~AEO =ROPOSED ALLOWEO I PROPOSED i. SO’ I ALLOWED ._ PROPOSEO BICYCLES CLASS; CLASS II CL&SS 1"3 RESEFW~-O TOTA~ LOADING ZONE FEHCE HEIGHTS :FO,qT S~o~- SIDE ALLO’,’tEO PAOPOSEO % of yo:o. ::o P.O. B~X 1~2~ PAL0 ALT{3. C~ ~4303 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Address Telephone Appl ic~tion for: Site and Design.___ Use Permit ~< Parcel Map~ Zone Change X .......... ARB Review ~ EIA, E~R X Site is o~ed ~~ by ~pplic~nt. ~isting use of prope~x,. ~~~ PA~NG ~T~ Total nu~er ~f building occupan%s for the existing use Number of existing parking spacesT~_~ Percent of compact Nm~ber of existing bicycle parking spaces~_~Class 6. Number of existing structures ~_~_~_ Current use ........ Will any structures be demolished for this project? Yes ~._.~ 7. Size o~ existing structures~ . Condition B.If the current use is residential: Nucber of owner-occupied units Number of renter-occupied units a:eiaworkodoc ~.PROPOSED PRO~ECT 9.Description of pro3ect ~.CF~L~ \~rl-l~-OO~r ~D ~Z-~~ ]O.B~er of structures proposed ~ ~ St~e (in square fee~)~(6~oG 11.~er of ~oors~~are footage of each ~12.Potent of sitWto be covered by pavement J~ 13.Total n~er of building occupants for the proposed project 14.If the proposed use is residential: ~ ~ Total number of units "Number of units/acre Expected sales price or monthly rent per dwelling unit List kinds and sizes of co,unity buildings_. Area of private open space_Area of common open space Provision of low/moderate income units: I) Number.of units provided for: sale~ rent, 2) Sale and/or rental price 15.Total nu~er of vehicles expected daily for proposed project_~l~7--.~F- N~er of proposed parking spaces~ Percent of co, act spaces qo i~ ~ ~ N~er. of proposed bicycle parking spaces ~ ~ PA~ Class. 16. Are any. toxic wastes to be discha~ed? Yes ........, ~ No. X (If yes, please complete a Sewer Discharge Questionnaire, which is furnished by the Building Department) 17. Has this facility in the past or will the operation of the p~posed facility involve the storage or use of hazardous materials? Yes.~!~.. No (If yes, please complete a Hazardous Materials I)Isclosure Chec~li~t, which is furnished by the Fire D,epartment) a:ei awork.doc Page 2 lB. 20. Expected amount of water usage (except for residential developments of fewer than 4 units not located .io the foothills): ,~p ~~Domestic I~.OOO ~ qal/~ay Peak use ~~al/min Co~erci~l ,. N/~ ~al/day Peak use ~] A gal/min Daily sewer discharge (over 30 fixtures, only) ~pected enemy use: .thews Electric~~ Peak electric demand Use~ and equipment sizes A. Space heating: BTUH ~/A,Solar M/A, Other,, B. Air conditioning:. Number of units tthIT~ ~u~Nq" Total tonnage,l~ \Cxz>.,,,-T~ P~ Wa~er Heating: ~~ Gas, , N!A,’BTUH i-~lk ....Solar NIA ElectiLic N)A, KW~ Heat Pu~l~ NIA_ Tons Other r~l~k~ ~P-oi-~ O.~IP.~L. PLA~’f O ~r-ubO Type: Central system___~L~ Individual systems De Recirculating Loop? Yes No~(~,~ Other: \\Dd,.P~2~a~ ~T~CTo~] ~ ~ Indoor lighting,~ ~~-~ uutooor- "- "lighting~ KW ~0 Cooking ~__~_L~ KW l’J/,~ Refrigeration NIA To~s or ft~ rql.__...~ Motors Computer a:eiawork.doc Page 21.Air pollution emissions (Check applicable BAAPCD regulations}. Co~ercial/Industrial only: Sourceand type Noise generation: Source Sound-proofing Proposed 24." Amount of proposed grading (cubi.c yards) 25. ~Disposition of excavated material 26. Pewits required from other agencies: Santa Clara Valley Water Di stri ~~ Bay Conservation and Development Co~ission Bay Area Air Pollution Control Distri’ct Ill.ENVIRONMERTAL DESCRI.I~TION 27.Percent and direction of ground slope at site~IO’~I~U~L~ 2B. Is this site within a special flood hazard area? Yes No Existing site vegetation (please list, and indicate any to be removed) ( ~_.~- "TA~ ~, F-~ A~I~oP_A~T ~op_T ~N ~ 30.~isting animal and bird lifo on site a:eiawork.doc Page 4 Prepared by, NOTE.: More information may ,be required before the application ,for which this assessment has been prepared can be processed. Please call the Department of Planning and Co~x~unity Environment at (415} 3Z9-2442 if you hav~ any questions. PLEASE RITORN COHPLL~ WORKSHEET TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AN]) COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT, CIVIC C~, 550 I-L~ILTOM AVE}~{,, ~ FLOOR. a:eiawork.doc Page ~30(D) ~M-30(D} 1150 114"0 III0 PF ARBORETUM CC \ lieo DATA FOR PF FARCEL Flqqr ar,~a ratio Existing FAR = 1.0 Land size Development (st) 1,925,761 1,925,761 Rezone 801 Welch Rezone 1101 Welch Demolish 851 Welch CCTP/ACP Total FAR = 0.99 43,560 12,671 228,761 40,100 <14,350> 218,000 2,198,082 2,182,182 Ground Area Coverage Existing GAC = 0.294 Land size Footprint (st-) (st3 1,925,761 566,043 Rezone 801 Welch Rezone 1101 Welch Demolish 851 Welch CCTP/ACP Total GAC = 0.295 43,560 6,336 228,761 40,100 <14,350> 49,944 2,198,082 648,073 CENTER FORCANCER TREATMENT AND PREVENTION/ AMBULATORY CARE PAVILION PARKING PROGRAM (Amended July I999) The Stanford Health Services, now UCSF Stanford Health Care, maintains a comprehensive parking program for the main Medical Center. as a whole. This approach was first developed in 1981 and was endorsed by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the Use Permit for the Hospital Modernization Project in 1984. This is preferable to project-by-project approach for a number of reasons: the Medical Center is located in both Palo Alto and unincorporated Santa Clara County, "and the parking standards of the two jurisdictions differ; permit parking lots at Stanford are available to all employees of the University and UCSF Stanford Health Care, rather than being assigned to specific buildings; and the Medical Center region is relatively separate from the rest of the Central Campus, but is not further easily divisible into logical parking sub-regions. Table I provides a calculation of the number of parking spaces required by the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. Medical Center land zoned by the City of Palo Alto utilizes two zoning requirements, depending on the use. The rates are: 0.67 spaces per licensed bed, for the inpatient hospital buildings; and 4.0 spaces per 1000 square feet of outpatient or clinic buildings. Medical School buildings, which are located on land in unincorporated Santa Clara County, have a use that is most similar to the City of Palo Alto’s Limi.’ted Industrial/Research Park (LM) District. The parking requirement in the LM zone is 3.3 spaces per 1000 square feet of building. Table 1 shows that the total parking requirement for the Medical Center region is 5,331 spaces. Table 2 provides the current supply of parking spades in the Medical Center Region (see also Figure 1), The total of 5,932 spaces is 601 spaces (or more than 10%) above the parking requirement, as established by zoning. The attached parking program forecast (Table 3) shows the demand and supply balance as new building project and parking facilities are developed. Since the last parking count, the Center for Clinical Sciences Research building in Santa Clara County has begun construction, removing surface parking spaces. At the same time, parking spaces were constructed along Welch Road and an extension of Oak Road. Stock Farm parking lot was also expanded in 1997. The period between Summer 1999 and Summer 2001 is expected to involve considerable activity on projects affecting the Region’s parking system. The anticipated projects which result in additional demand of parking include: Completion of the Center for Clinical Sciences Research building Proposed construction of a landscape space on a surface parking lot between the CCSR building and Pasteur Drive Proposed construction of the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/ Ambulatory Care Pavilion Planned parking projects to increase the Region’s suppIy incIude: Development of a further expansion of the Stock Farm lot (completed fall 1998) Demolition of the building at 851 Welch, in order to construct a surface parking lot for patient use Construction of a parking structure underneath the Pasteur median, between Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Road The Stock Farm lot expansion was approved by Santa Clara County under the existing ¯ University General Use Permit and the Architectural an~t Site Approval (ASA) process. Improvements to the 851 Welch Road parking lot and the Pasteur median parking structure are included in the application for the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion project. One fact will persist, namely that the Medical Center cannot afford to experience parking shortages, however brief. The Parking Program attempts to look as far ahead as possible to ensure that a sufficient supply of parking will be maintained at all times. With increased emphasis on outpatient services, UCSF Stanford Health Care must maintain a commitment to providing the highest level of customer/patient services, including a safe, convenient, and adequate supply of parking. TABLE 1 Medical Center Parking Requirement May 1997 PALO ALTO Inpatient Buildings Central Core East Pavilion West Pavilion Core Expansign Beds in Abeyance LSPCH@S Subtotal Outpatient and Medical School Bldgs ..... Edwards Lane Alway ....... Grant Boswell Clinic Falk/CVRB 851 Welch Road Blake-Wilbur Clinic" Subtotal PA zo.eiI UNINCORP. SC COUNTY i.. Medical School BuiMings Fairchild Fairchild AuditOrium RAF-I RAF-II B eckm,’m Center Maye~ ,’m.cer Bio ’ MSOB P~edwood B,u,!!d, ing .... Lab Surge/M.SLS Psychiati7 ,Cgn!er Subtotal Medical Center Region - Grand Tonal BEDS 96 156 25 297 89 212~ 875 GSF .183,158 70,164 74,637 21.~243 431,280 N/A 65,798 .1!2,480 84,717 151,9821 113,242! 52,226~ 14,350 73,100 667,895 86,256 12,811 35,166 44,485 177,057 11,848 54,389 11z56 75,560 6281229 zONtNG REQUIRED .67 spibed ’4 ’sp)lO00 sq ft 3.3 sp/I000 sq ft PARKING SPACES 586 ,6721 3,258 2,073 L33i TABLE 2 Medical Center Parking Supply May 1997, LOT 1.Stock Farm 2.MSOB 3.Beckman 4. RAF 5.Fairchild 6.MSLS 7.PS-I ’ LOCATION Santa Clara ~0. Santa Clara Co. Santa Clara,Co. Santa Clara Co, Santa Clara Co. Santa Clara Co. Santa Clara Co. SPACES *693 221 597 3441 3"~3 6 "*985 8.Dean’s Lawn 9.Shift 11. Psych .... Sant,; claia ’ Sant’a’ Clara C6.’ Shnta Cla’ra Co. Santa Clara Co. Santa Clara Co. 83 101 457 207 4,008 County Total 12. Pasteur 13. Fountain 15. giake Wilbur 16. 851 Welch ’17. clinic 18.ER 19. LSPCH 20. HMP ....... CPA Total G~ND TOTAL Palo Alto Pal0 Alto Pal~’ ’Alt6 Palo Alto Palo Alto Pal0 Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alto Palo Alt0 81 19 786 ¯ 144 38 235 ’34 3oo 152 135 1,924 "5,932 Numbers based on May 1997 Medical Center Parking Survey of spaces. * 90% of P.S. I and 95% of Stock Farm spaces allocated to the Medical Center (total spaces are 730 at Stock Farm and 1094 at PS I). :Date 5/97 6/97 9/97 9197 9/97 9/98 3100 6/00 8/01 8/01 8101 8/02 2/03 2/03 TABLE 3. Stanford University Medical Center Parking Program Forecast (Amended July 1999) Project Baseline Palo Alto Zoning 5331 spaces change total SUMC Supply 5932 spaces change total Difference (supply-zoni..ng) 601 spaces CCSR building (begin construction) Welch Road parking spaces Struck Farm lot exp. (95% for SUMC) Oak Road extension - Phase I Stock Farm lot exp. (95% fo~ SUMC) CCSR landscape (begin construction) CCSR complete * iDemolish 851 Welch ** CCTP/ACP (begin) Remove spaces along Pasteur median PSIV - Pasteur median (complete) New lot at 851 Welch (complete) CCTP/ACP complete 0 5,331 0 5,331 0 5,331 0 5,331 0 5,331 0 6,090 759 6,090 (57)6,033 0 6,033 0 6,033 0 6,033 0 6,033 872 6,905 (363)5,569 62 5,631 460 6,091 72 . ’6,163 475 6,638 (220)6,418 0 6,638 (60)6,358 (152)6,206 (20)6,186 1,035 7,221 59 7,280 0 7,280 238 300 760 832 1,307 328 548 325 173 153 1,188 1,247 375 With the completion of CCSR, which is a Medical School building in Santa Clara County, the zoned parking requirement will increase by 759 (230,000 gsf x 3.3 spaces per 1000 sf in an LM zone use) The demolition of 851 Welch will reduce the parking requirement in the Medical Center Region by 57 (14,350 gsf x 4.0 spaces per I000 sf of outpatient use in the PF zone). 60 spaces would be removed from 851 Welch/Blake Wilbur lots. Note: After the rezone of 1101 and 80! Welch Road, the existing parking systems on these parcels would remain in place due to their current occupancy and they would not enter the regional SUMC parking system. 985 BECKMAN 597 CVRB 135 MSOB 221 [ PASTEUR 81 90O BLAKE WTI~I 14, ,851 WELCH QUARRY RD. LPCH@S DECK , ~! 300 "-- STANFORD UNIVERSrFY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING DISTRIB LFFION , /FIGURE 1. TREE SURVEY Submitted To: STANFORD UNIVERSITY PLANNING OFFICE Attention: Ms. Catherine Palter 655 Serra Street Stanford, California 94305-6115 Project Location: PROPOSED UNDERGROUND PARKING STRUCTURE 300 PASTEUR DRIVE STANFORD, CALIFORNIA Submitted By: S. P. McCLENAHAN CO., INC. James M. McClenahan, President June 7, 1999 ©Copyright S. P. McClenan~-n Co., Inc., 1999 S.P. McCLENAHAN CO., INC. ARBORICULTURISTS S. INCE ~911 CONTR ACTORS LIC. = 65 ~ 34 ~ = I ARASTRADERG ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028 TELEPHONE (650} 326-878 | FAX (650) 854- 1 267 GARY F. ARMSTRONG GENE K, PEGLOW MIGUEL A BERUMEN June 7, 1999 Stanford University Planning Office Attention: Ms. Catherine Palter 655 Serra Street Stanford, California 94305-6115 RE:Proposed Underground Parking StrUcture. 300 Pasteur Drive Stanford, California Dear Ms. Palter: As requested, I inspected all trees at the above referenced site.to determine species, size and present condition. For purposes of identification, trees have been tagged with numbered aluminum markers which correspond to those in this. survey and site sketch enclosed. The site is a street island on Pasteur Drive that intersects with Welch Road. Site trees include Tasmanian Blue Gums (4), Coast Live Oaks (2), and newly installed Sycamores (14), Coast Live Oaks (5), and Valley Oaks (2). Proposed improvements will require removal of all trees. The newly installed Oaks can be easily transplanted. Prognosis for continued health would be considered most favorable. Newly installed Sycamores have been infected with leaf anthracnose and exhibit significant decline, and several trees have died. Ground squirrel activity has weakened the root systems of these trees and contributed to the lack of vitality. The Eucalyptus and larger Oaks exhibit significant defects which increase failure potential. Stanford University Planning Office Attention" Ms. Catherine Palter Page 2 June i, 1999 determining Tree Condition several factors have been considered which include: (1)Rate of growth over several:seasons; (2)Structural decays or weaknesses; (3)Presence of disease or insects; and (4)Life expectancy. The following guide for interpretation of Tree Condition as related to Life Expectancy is submitted for your information. 0- 5 Years =Poor 5 - 10 Years =Poorto Fair 10 - 15 Years =Fair 15-20 Years =Fair toGood 20 + Years =Good Tree #1: Species: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrffolia) 10.3", .10.4" low branching diameters @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 18’ Spread: 25’ Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage is of uniform size, coloration and crown censity indicates normal vitality. The southerly primary scaffo.ld limb has been headea back to vigorous sprouts. Competition with adjacent Eucalyptus has impeded structurai development. Existing roadway encroaches to within 5’ of trunk. Tree #2: Species: Tasmanian Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus) 18.6" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 35’ Spread; 32’ Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates nc,’Tnat vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Existing roadway encroaches to within 3’ of trunk. Stanford University Planning Office Attention: Ms. Catherine Palter Page 3 June 7,1999 T~.ree #3: Species: Tasmanian Blue Gum 18.6" diameter @ 4-1/2’ abov.e grade Height: 35’ Spread: 35’ " Condition: PoodHazardous .. ObServation: Foliage is typical of the species although minor branch dieback was noted. Dramatic 45 degree trunk lean increases failure potential. Low trunk mechanical wound exhibits partial callus closure. Tree #4: Species: Tasmanian Blue Gum 51.3" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 60’ Spread: 40’ Condition: PoodHazardous Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal vitality. Trunk deterioration of old ’topping’ wounds, minor low trunk decay and wound from previous southerly scaffold failure has weakened structural integrity. Tree #5: Species: Tasmanian Blue Gum 55.2" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 65’ Spread: 50’ Condition: Fair Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal vitality. Previous ’topping’ at 15’ and 30’ height has encouraged regrowth that is weakly attached to the parentstems and increases failure potential. Tree #6: Species: California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) 2.3" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 15’ Spread: -0- Tree is dead. Tree #7: Species: California Sycamore 4,0" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 16’ Spread: 8’ Condition: Poor Observation: Extensive foliar crown dieback resulting from continuing leaf anthracnose infections. Stanford University Planning Office Attention: Ms. Catherine Palter Page 4 June 7, 1999 .~Tree #8: Species: California Sycamore 4.6" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 18’ Spread: 9’ " Gondition: Fair .. Ols~ervation: Dieback has resulted from leaf anthracnose infection. Tree #9: Species: California Sycamore 4.0" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 18’. Spread: 12’ Condition: Fair Observation: Dieback has resulted from leaf anthracnose infection. Tree #10: Species: California Sycamore 2.6" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 10’ Spread: 4’ Tree is dead. Tree #11 : Species: California Sycamore 2.’/’" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 15’ Spread: 6’ Tree is dead. Tree #12: Species: California Sycamore 2.5" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 12’ Spread: 5’ Tree is dead. Tree #13" Species: California Sycamore 3;0" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above, grade Height: 14’ Spread: 6’ Tree is dead. Stanford University Planning Office Attention: Ms. Catherine Palter Page 5 June 7, 1999 ~’ree #14: Species: California Sycamore 3.3" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 14’ Spread: 8’ " Condition: Fair , ObServation: Low branch dieback attributed to leaf anthracnose infection. Tree #15: Species: California Sycamore 4.0" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 18’ Spread: 8’ Condition: Fair Observation: Low branch dieback attributed to leaf anthracnose infection. Tree #16: Species: California Sycamore 3.7" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 18’ Spread: 8’ Condition: Fair Observation: Low branch dieback attribuied to leaf anthracnose infection. Tree #17: Species: California Sycamore 3.5" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 18’ Spread: 6’ Condition: Fair Observation: Low branch dieback attributed to leaf anthracnose infection. Ground squirrels have undermined root crown. Tree #18: Species: California Sycamore 2.6" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 18’ Spread: 6’ Condition: Poor Observation: Dieback attributed to continued leaf anthracnose infection. Stanford University Planning Office Attention: Ms. Catherine Palter Page 6 June 7,1999 Tree #19: Species: California Sycamore 2~2" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 12’ Spread: 4’ Tree is dead. Tre~ #20: Species: Coast Live Oak. 29.9" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 35’ Spread: 30’ Condition: Poor to Fair Observation: Foliage exhibits normal vigor,, although water sprouts provide most of the foliar canopy. Trunk leaders have been headed back to smat[ laterals (cut 12"). Westerly leaders exhibit decay of 01d large wounds and weaken structural integrity. Trunk bifurcation at 7’ height is not considered a significant structural defect. Tree #21: Species: Coast Live Oak 3.1" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 10’ Spread: 7’ Condition: Very Good Observation: Tree should be relocated to suitable site. Tree #22: Species: Coast Live Oak 3.8" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 10’ Spread: 7" Condition: Very Good Observation: Tree should be relocated to suitable site. Tree #23: Species: Coast Live Oak 2.9" diameter @ 4-t/2’ above grade Height: 10’ Spread: 7’ Condition: Very Good Observation: Tree should be relocated to suitable site. Stanford University Planning Office Attention: Ms. Catherine Palter Page 7 June 7.1999 ]::ree #24: Species: ’ 5.8" diameter @ 4-112’ above grade Height: 15’ Spread: 8’ Condition: Very Good ObServation: Tree should be relocated to suitable site. Valley Oak (Quercus Iobata) Tree #25: Species: Coast Live Oak 3.7" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 12’ Spread: 12’ Condition: Very Good Observation: Tree should be relocated to suitable site. Tree #26: Species: Valley Oak 2.7" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 15’ Spread: 8’ Condition: Very Good Observation: Tree should be relocated to suitable site. Tree #2?’: Species: Coast Live Oak 1.8" diameter @ 4-1/2’ above grade Height: 8’ Spread: 3’ Condition: Poor Observation: Leaning trunk and lack of buttress root development has created a poor specimen not suitable for transplanting. Stanford University Planning Office Attention: Ms. Catherine Palter Page 8 June 7,1999 #1 . #20 #27 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #21 #22 #23 SUMMARY OF TREE REMOVALS (21 Total Trees) low branching 10.3", 10.4" 29.9" 1.8" LIVE OAKS (3 trees) Poor to Fair Poor to Fair Poor 18.6" 16.8" 51.3" 55.2" EUCALYPTUS (4 trees) Fair to Good Poor to Hazardous Poor to Hazardous Fair 2.3" 4.0" 4.6" 4.0" 2.6" 2.7" 2.5" 3.0" 3.3" 4.0" 3.7" 3.5" 2.6" 2.2" SYCAMORES (14 Trees) Dead Poor Fair Fair Dead Dead Dead Dead Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Dead TRANSPLANTABLE OAK SPECIMENS (6 Trees) 3.3" Live Oak Very Good #24 5.8" Valley Oak 3.8" Live Oak Very Good #25 3.7" Live Oak 2.9" Live Oak Very Good #26 2.7" Valley Oak Very. Good Very Good Very Good Stanford University Planning Office Attention: Ms. Catherine Palter Page 9 June 7,1999 We thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance in your tree preservation coFIcems. Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, kindly contact our office at any time. JMMc:pm Very truly yours, S.P.CO., INC. /~: Jam~s I. NcClenahan President, Consulting Arborist ’ ,