HomeMy WebLinkAbout0109.091• •
January 10, 1991
HON0RP~lE CiTI COUNCIL
Palo Alto, Ca'jfDr~ia
Palo Alto Medical Foundation Oraft Speciffc Plan:
Planning Commission Policv Recommendatjpns
Mt-.bers of tne Council:
REPORT I" BRIU
,
",,' .
This report reitetltes t~e Planning Commission's policy recommendations on the
Pala Alto Medical Foundation's proposed Specific Plan that ~ere made by the
Planning CORRiss1on on Det:eaber 6 Ind December 12, 1990 follDwing a publ~c
~e.rlnq on December 5, 1990. They ~re originally distributed to City Council
members with a comprlhensiv. packet of documents and materials on the Palo
Alto Kedlc.1 foundation propos.l on December 10, 1990.
The purposes af t~i$ report are to transmit those Planning Commission policy
recomMendation~ for public review, and, in conjunction with the attached
November 30, 1990 report to the Planning CDmmissian on possible Medical
Foundation mposed Specific Plan Policy RecDImlendations. offer staff tomer.ts
on the policy issues and provide staff recommendations to the City (ouneil for
acting on the CCHllllission's policy recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSIOH POlICY RECOHMENOAT!O~S
A swo.ary of t~e principal features and ~enefits ~f the Planning Commission
policy recomeendatlons that ~er. adopted at the December 6 "nd 12, 1990
Pla~niR9 Commission Deetings a~ i schematic site plan illustrating tne
location a~ phasing of these p~licy recommendations are attachEd to tnii
report.
The follow1ng paragraphs state the Planning Commfssfon policy recoDAendations
on speclflc subject areas of the Nedica1 Foundation proposal and contii~ staff
comments Qn each Planning C~ission policy recommendation. The subject areas
correspond to the organiz.tion of tne attached November 30 report.
CMl!:109:91
·C·_' "
INITIAL PROJECT fNOORSEMENT
Recommended Planning CQmmI$~jQn Action; The Planning Commission retommend~,
as i p~lfcy. that a propose1 M~ical Foundat1~n project. described under
following .ubject headinQs of Project Size and Project Location. be given
concept approval at this policy p~ase of public revIew. provided that
mitigatIons aD~ conditions identtf1ed ;~ th~ Re~ised DEIR or recommended by
the F'lannlng COrllllission that respond to the project's impacts as wen as to
the legitimate concerns of the adjacent r.eighborhood are addressed.
~taff Comment; Staff supports the Planning Commission's policy rec~ndat;an
giving 1nitlil project endorsement of a modified pro~Gsal that is more
specifically defined ~nder Project Size and Project l~cation head~nqs.
Additional COmMents on the spec1fics of the Planning Commission policy
recommendations are prov1ded under lach subject neading.
~SSURANCES or PROJECT PROVISIONS
Recpmmended planning tomrnfssion Actfon; The Planning Commissto~ recommends,
as a policy, that the Medical Foundation and th~ City !nter f~to a deyelo~~nt
agreement that assyres all proviSions, condit'ons and benefits of the project, a. defined in bot~ the Specific Plan and the PC Planned Community zone change.
are met by the ~dfc.l Foundation.
Staff Comment: Staff support. the Pl.n.lng Coomf.sion policy recommendation.
which is unchanged fro~ tne earlier stiff reco.mendation to the Planning
COIDfssion, because a development IgT9e.ent between the Medical Foundatfon and
the City oppea.s to be the most effective mechanfs. In .ssuring that all
p~!entfal provisions and conditions applied to a~ approved project are met by
the Medical FoundotloD.
PROJECT Sf ZE
RecQBmended Planning Commfssfon Action: The Planning Commission recommends,
is a policy, a spec~f1c plan project t~jt wou1d result in i maximu~ net
increase of 35,000 square feet of floor area.
Staff Comment: Staff support. t~e fund ... nt,l intent of the Planning
Co=missfon potie} recommendation OD project size because it would consolidate
the entire project from three phases into two phases. concentrate 20St major
redevelopment onto the We.t Block (see dIscussIon under Projett LocatIon).
shorten the aoount of time that the neIghborhood would be subjected to
construction-related 1mpacts~ and~ as a res~lt, substantially reduce
construction-related impacts. r~ Iddtt1on, i s~ller project would reduce
triffic fmpacts.
~eyert staff supports I size l1m1t t~at pen.1ts more flexibil1t~ to the
Medical foundation proposal and specifically th! size limit conta!ned i"
Planrting C.ollWl!issioner Bern Beecnam"s orfginal lIIotion on project size. Sue'" iii:
CMR: 109:91
a :\CMR\PAMfstdF
1/)0/91
Page 2
•
•
,
pol1cy would 1 iliH th~ proJect to an incruse not larger t"'an 4S.~OOO sQuare
feet, provided there is no parking deficit. Staff be11eves that most ~f the
princlp.l benefits of t~e Flannlng Commission's recommended pollc~ on project
size Cin be achieved b~ t~ls ~Ific.tlon .nd yet greater fl •• lbil;ty offered
to the Kedi!!1 Foundation for tts facility modernfzation and expansion "eeds.
PRCJfCT CAP
Recommended FlanQiDg Commission Action; Th~ Plannf~9 Co~;ssion recommends.
as I polity, pro~ibit;~n of any fut~re ~i(il foundation eKpansiop.~ beyond
sites aPPr<l\fed in .. Specific Plan, from all res~de"thllY-zo"eC! areas and from
COoS and CO-H loned sites south ~f Forest Aven~e. I" addition, the Planninq
Commission recommends, as a policy, establi~~ment of an emploYm!nt cap, the
details of .hich .il1 be .orked out In tn. fin.l Specifit Plan.
Staff CQIT'ITIE'nt.: As el aborated in the Novemb!r 30 staff report, staff supports
the Plannlng COmffiission recommer~atfon on ljmits on possible sites for f~ture
expansion beyond sites that may be approved in a Specific Plan but does not
support establishment of an employment cap. While staff recognizes that the
community. and partfcularly nearby resfdertts cd the tledical Foundation, desire
assurances that Medical foundation fUnctions and acttYitie~ do ~ot expar.d
beyond levels t~at may be approved iD a Specific Pl~n, it also cautfons, as it
has 10 public meetings (e.g., pages 37 to 38 of the December 6, 1990 Plinning
Commission ~1nutas), that employaent caps are dlffit~;t to aonitor and enforce
and put the City into an a~inistratf~e and enfQrce~nt environment that staff
does not regard as appropriate.
PRDV£CT LOCATION AND HErG~l
BecRfflffiended planning Commissjon Actipn; 1Me Planni~g C0H5fssfon recommends.
as • polley, that the Medical found'tlon's proposed project include the
follOWing elements:
). West Block develDpme~t, as proposed in the Draft Specifjt Plan,
inclading two subterra~9an levels of parking;
2. RetentJoD of existing Medical Foundation facilities and surface parking
on the Nort~ Block [Note: This element could chang~ to tr.clYde some
housing on the ~ort~ Block If there Is sufficient West Block parking to
~ccommodate relocation of some Medicil Foundation square footage fro.
North Block to West Blockj;
3. Relocation of Urgent C.re facilities Into the West Block and
redevelopment of Urgent Care site into sl"9le-f.~ll, housing;
4. R'IIIOdeling of l>Iai, Blod< buildings (lee and Roth) consistent with Phose
II is proposed I. the Oraft Specific Plan;
5. Retention of existing surface parking on
'J Nal. Block
b) Channing and Waverley parking lot;
CNI!:109;91
a; \OIR\PAltFstdF
1/10/91
Page 3
•
I
---
o
6. Rot.ntion of Sports Nedici,e Ind Educ.tion buildings; us. of President's
Office to be determined; and
7. The ... im~ height would be 35 feet except for the Research BOildi"g
which would ~.v •••• ximWl height of 45 foet.
St.ff Comment: Staff supports the .1 ... nts of this Planning Commission policy
rec~ndattQn because they would (1) focus Major construttion act'vity of t~!
proposed project onto the West B10<k: (2i .11ow the ".d~c.l Foundation to
proc.ed with redevelopment .nd exp.nslon g.oerally .s it orlgln,lly propos.d
I. the Draft Specific Pl.n for Ph •••• I ,od II, whlc~ res.,ts in • logi<.l
s.quencing.f demolition ond cor,structlon, III penllit pot.ntlal opportunities
for provision of housing on the "ortn Bloc\; and (4) retain .uch of the
Intogrlty of the Draft Specific Pl,o by eliminating the parking deficit,
removing t~. Urgent Care focility and reverting that site to low-density
housing, .nd providing cle.rly-deflned edges of MedIcal Foundation facilities,
paTt1cularly along Ramona Street and Channing Ave~ue.
However, iR order to permtt Hedfcll foundatfo~ expansion up to '5.000 square
f.et provided there is no parking deficit, st.ff bolleve, th.t someWhat .~re
flexibility i. the site plan will be necessary. Stiff specifically supports,
as polley, an extension of tne $ubterrln~l" t:~kfng structure under Bryant
Street (near ChannIng) connecting the West RIeck wit. the M.lo Block. !t .lso
supports provision of a l1afted two-level subterranean parktng structure on
tlte Main Block that essenthlly ""old parallel Bryant Street, extending fr".,
Channing Street "P to • point roug~ly midway bot~n Hoaer and Channing
Avenues.
PItAS ING AND CONSTRUCTION PERIOO
RecOIm@n4td Planning (ogmi$$iQQ Aclign" The Planntng Com.fssfon recommends as
I policy that the proposed proJect's phasing Include,
]. Phase J: Development of the ent1re West Block for "-dieal foundatiQ~
facilities. including two 1.vels of subterranean parking; and
2. Phase II: Remodeling of the Main Block Nedical Fou~dation buildings.
~!1ff Co'ment: Staff believes that some of t~e major benefits of this
Planning Co.mission policy reca..endatfon results 1ft consolidating the project
from three to two construction phases. As I res~lt~ staff supports thfs
policy recommendatio".
As noted in the Co~1ssion~s rec~ndat1on on project lOtat1on and height,
t~~ pot~nti.l exists for so.< redevelopoent of the Harth Block. Several
factors could lead to constructi'n activity on the North Block, including a
desire to upgrade some of the square footage, especially the unattract~ve
sir.gle·story buildings on Homer near Bryant, f~terest fn using part of the
North Block for a housing mitigation, and the Ibillty to place some of the
North Block square footage on the Mai. Block and/or the West Block.
CMR:}09:91
o:\CMR\PAllfstdF
,
1/10/91
Page 4
•
\
,
~tiff concurs with the P1an~ir.g Commission regarding the YI'Ue of a two-phase
project and recommends that any construction actfvity on the North 810c[ be
part of Phase II.
Re9arding t~e timing cf co~structfon activity, con~1dera~le ~taff and ~lanr.ing
Commission time ~as devotQd to exploring way~ to reduce the f~ftfal 20-year
c~nstTuctlon period to a shorter time, Much of the constructfon-related
concern focuse~ 0" the underground garages and related new building
con_~truction on the ,,4in Block and North 810c«. The Planning (Ofil11ission
policy recommendations sfgn;f~tantly reduce tonstructfon-related impicts. and
staff concurs with the Plannfng Commfss1on that a spectfic constr~ction ti~;ng
poliel is not.. neoaded. The Speciffc Plan will address ttle-construction timing
1sstle~
HOUSHIS
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
Recommended Planning Commission Action; The Planning Commission recommends,
as & policy. reaffirmatio" of tne mitigatfGn recommended in the Revised OEIR
for the loss of e~isting rental housing unless the Medical foundation pro
offers a suitable alternative mitigation.
Stiff C9P!Dnt: The DEIR mitigation for the loss of existing multiple-family
zoned rent.l housing is • payment of $848,120. Staff supports the PI,nning
r.~is.sfQn Pol iCl recomendatfof! because it not only acknowledges the effects
of the project on the jobs/housing i~allnce and on the loss ~f eXisting
rental housing on ~ultiple-famil1 zoned Sites, but it also provides the
Medical Foundation with tne opportunfty to pro-offer _ suitable alternat1ve
mitfqation. As noted before, the potential for housfng on part of the Nortn
Block is retained i~ the CommissicD's policy recommendations and staff has
encouraged the fAME's r!prese~tatlv&$ to explore hOUSing construction options.
HOUSING
RELOCATION Of WEST BLOCK HOUSING
Recommended PJannfng CommiSSion Action: The Planni~g Commission recommends,
IS a polic}, t~at new single-fantly housing be developed on the Urg~nt Care
site that reflects the style and scale of exi5ti~; houses ~n that block and in
tne immediate neignbornood.
Staff Comment: Staff supports the Planni~g Commiss1o~ policy recom.endation
versus the .lternatfve fa the November 30 staff report of _oying exist;n; ~est
Block housing to the Urgent Care s1t~_ Tne ComMission recommendation
acknQwl~~es the significant probleMS of MOving existing ho~sin9 including the
storfng of ~acated structures over extended perfods of time, and the loss of
parking associated wfth this storage. Howe'oIer, Ule C08tIission Iction i1so
reflects the need that new ho~sing on the Urgent Care site be compatible with
•• istlng housfng on the block .nd with housing in the adjacent nelghbornood.
CMR;I09;91
i:\CMR\PAllfstdF
1/10/91
P,ge 5
'> ,-
PARKING ANO TRrE RETENTION
Rec~nded Plannlnq kOmmts51on Actio0; The Planning Commission recommends,
is I policy, that parking for the recoonended project be provided I •••• nner
that Includes prese"ation of the ficus tree adjacent to the former church,
other 'Indaark trees t and is ~any of the other trtes on the project s1tp i~
feaslbl •.
Staff Comment: Staff supPGrts the Planning Comm1ss'on policy recummendat10n
because it reflects the need to preserve as Ilany landmark and ot~er trees on
the project site IS possible In the design of tho proposed project'. two
levels of subterranean parking. Howe~er. stiff also strongly rfifffras Its
support for, project size policy that stipulates that sufficient parking .ust
b. provided to ~et current City standards.
After consultation with the project architect, reten'tlon of the followIng
trees appears feasible:
Street trees on both Sides of Bryant fr~ ~aner Street sout~ to a
lin. includlDg both of the large magnolias on the west side of the
block;
The Jandmarl oak tree near the (orner of Bryant and Cha~~1ng;
All street tr.es .long C,annlng;
All .treet trees .long Homer;
The oak next to the existIng Research Building; and
The ficus ne,t to the foraer church boildlng
P!UlJ(ING ENTRIES
Recommended planning tQmm1ssion Act jon; To be determined when Final Specific
Pl,n Is developed.
Staff Comment: Staff believes that, in the preparation of. final specific
~lan, it is importa~t to have a parkfng entry po1fcy clarifyi~iwhere parkfng
entries should be located. As a result, staff supports a policy that there be
• parkiog entry to the West Block garage from Bryant Street and, If a parking
structure is extended to a lfsfted section of the Main Block, that there also
be a parking entT} to this section of the garage off the ~i~ entry from
Brl/ant St ...... t.
HISTORIC MITIGATION
The Planning tommiss1on recommends, as I policy. that~
I. The ficus tree adjacent to the former A.M.E. Zion Church structure be
retained;
2. A plaque be placed on the foraer A.M.E. Churc~ site noting Its ~Istory
and cultyril contrtbution to Palo Alt~j
00:109:91
a: \CIIR\PAIIF s tdF
1/10/91
Page 6
.. ~'
'/' -,
3. Tne "lId1"l foundatfon undel"WrHe iI doc'Jmentation of this churc.h's
history at thfs site; and
4. That thIs documentatIon b. dlsplayod in the P.lo Alto Medi,.l foun~.tlon
facilities.
Staff Comment; Staff supports the flanntng Commlssion policy recnmmendation,
beGause the plaque and dor.umentation of the former church's history would
recognlze the A.M.E. lion Church's b15tor~c and cultu~al contribution to Pa10
AltQ at this site.
OPEN SPAC€
Rtcommende4 PlannIng Cummission Action: The Planning Commission recommends~
as a polic1t that open spice opportunfties be expanded near t~e soutneast
corner of Channing and BrYint when the ~dfc&l Foundation surface corner
parking lot Is .acated.
Staff Cppmftnt; Staff supports the Planning Commission policy recommendation
because It would result i~ an expansion of open spac~ opportunities on i site
near or adjacent to Scott Park and fmprove the i~pearance _of the sout~ side of
ChannIng Street.
BRYANT STREET OPE~ClOSEO
Rgcommended Plannina Commi§s)on Act'?n; Tne Planning Commission recommends,
is I policy. that Bryant Street be kept open a~d thit the block between Homer
and Channin9 be enhanced by the design Cof spechl landscaping, pedestrian arid
pavement features.
Staff Cgmment; Staff supports the Plannl"9 Commission recommendation because
it rec~s the desfgn of special features that would enhance the appearance
of this one-block .egment of Bryant Street whil. keeping it open for public
access. .~ I~rtant .lenent of keepl"9 Bryant Street open is retention of
street trees and, IS noted before. it will be feaSible to retaiA all of the
street trees fro. HoMer SQut~ to I line beyond the two Jarge ~gnolia trees.
SUlllARY AND CONClUSIOII
Staff strongly supports the Planning Commission poljc~ recommendations on the
P.le Alto Medical FoundatioQ's p~QPosed Specffic Plan, with the ad~ition of
ftDdific.tlons t~at staff suggested u"der the Project Sile, Project Cap,
Project location a~d Project Entry s!ctlons of this report. These recommended
pclfcfes wDol~ permit the Paio Alto Medical Foundatfon to have a reasonable
aMOu~t of additional space to conso11date. upgrade and txpand its fac111tfes
ia order to meet the current and expected health care servfce needs of lts
t:lfents. If i.-plemented, these policieS wDuld resuit In (1) ellminatlol'l of
the parking defiCit, (2) demolition ~f the extremely unattractive Urgent Care
facilit, .out~ of Cnannlng and red.velopment of that site into low-density
hOUSing that would be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, and (3)
CMR:I09:91
a:\CMR\PAMFstdF
1/10/91
Page 1
o
overa'l improvement in t~e aesthetics of roew and remodeled ~ed;,~l Foundation
facil1ties.
I~ addltion l tnese policie1~ If fmplemented Yil I Specific Pla~. would
substant1.11y redYce the significant constructfan i~acts vers~s the Medical
Foundit1on~s original prop~sal, because they would limit the ireas where
extensive excavation would be requ;red (essentially to trre West Block and I
small section of t~e •• st side of the MaiO Block); and t~ey would reduce t~e
time frame required to complete t~e enllre project by eliminating t~e original
Phase lfI construction or. the east s1de of the ~ajD Bloc~ faCing Waverley
Street.
I~ conclusion, peltefes as retamaended by the Planning Commfss'on and the
suggest~d modffications recommend9d by staff app~ar to effectively address
bot~ t~e principal needs of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and the .ery
l~itimate concerns of t~e immediate neighbors over the project.
HEXT STEPS
After the jOint 'ity 'ouneil and Planning Commission study sesston on
January 14, 1991 and t~e Cit! Counctl public he.rlng on January 28. 1991,
possible actions .nd procedural steps ire described tn the following
paragri.phs.
City Coyncil Response on ?lanning CommlssiQn Policy Recommendat1ons
Upon completion of the City Coune;l public h •• rlng on the Planntng
Coamfssion~s recommendations on Specific Plan po11cies~ the City Council would
be expec t ed to:
1. Consider these po11cy rec~ndltion5i and
2. If the Council decides to proceed with t~fs project. direct the Planning
COmAlis s i on to:
a. Recommend appropriate Comprehensive Plan Amendments that would
respond to the policy recommendations identified by the Countil; and
b~ Prepare a Spectffc Plan consistent with the Council-identified
po1icy recommendaticr.s.
Final Planning CQmmission ActiQCS
I~ res~nse to these City Council directives a~ upon completion Qf the final
ErR, the Plannir.g Co.misston wODld consider:
1. A recommendation regarding the (IR certification and findings;
2~ Recommendations regarding appropriate Comprehensive PTan amendments; and
CMR: 109:91
0: \CMR\PAHfsfdF
1/1~/91
Page 8
· .
3. Recommendations rega.ding , Final Speciflc PT.n fo, City Council
adoption.
flnll-City Council Ar~
In thfs final set of actions on t~~ Palo Alto Medfcal fo~ndation's Specific
Plan and Final EIR, the Cily Council would consider;
1. Certifying the .deQuacy of the Flna' EIR;
2. Adopting appropriate findings on the project;
3. Approving Comprehensl,. Plan amendments; and
4. Adopting the fln.T Specific Plan.
Planned CQmmun1ty lpne Change Proctss
The Planned Community zone change process would be loiti.ted by the Medical
Foundation following final .ction by the City Council on the Specific Plan.
RECOltll'HOATlOHS
Staff recOImends that, upDn cOIPletion of the Jan~ar~ 28. 1991 public hearing,
the City Council:
T. Endors. the following policy recommendations on the Palo Alto Medical
found,tio,'s proposed Specific Plan (modifications to the Pl,noing
CQmNission recom8endations are indicated by italics and strikeouts}:
Initial Pro1ect £nd~rsement
Recommended Actfon; Endors~, as a policy. that i proposed Medical
foundation project, descr1bed under following subjett headings of
Project Size and Project lOCitlon, be gl.en concept .ppro,"l at this
pol~(y phase of public review. provided t~at .1tigatfons and conditions
identified in the Revistd O£[R or recomsended by t~e Planning CommiSSion
(indiO' modlffed by st.ff) tn.t respond to the project's lmpacts .s •• 11
IS to the legitimate co"cer~s of the adjacent neighborhood are
addressed.
Assurances of PrQtect PrRyis!ons
Recommended Action: Endorse, as i poltcy, that the Medical Foundation
and the City enter into , ~.velopeent agreement that assures .11
provtsions, conditfons and benefits of tbe project, as defjned i~ both
the Specific Plan Ind tne ~ f1irrnea Co~nity zone change, ar~ met by
the Kedic.l Foundation.
CIiR:l09:91
.'\CIIR\PAl!FstdF
1/10/91
Page 9
o
project Size
Re<ommended Action; [ndors., as • pollcl, a s,eclfle pI,. project that
would result in • ma)imu~ net increase of JSr9Q& 45,000 sQ~are feet of
floor area, provided there I. no parking deficit.
PCOitct Cal}
Recommended Action: (ndorse, 15 a pol fey, prohibition of any future
Medical Foundation !xpans\on, beyond sites appro~td in a Speciflc Plin,
from all resldentlallY-loned ,"as and fr .. COoS and CO-~ zoned .it.s
s.outh of forest Avenue. In ,'clitia". 'he Pl"I'1""ii!o~ te_4ss"taft ,eeeWllleflids
a$ i "aliE> eshblishMe .. t If iii" (",lEI,...!", ea.,. the efetalls 8( 'lhif~
will he. wepbd 8ki\ 1ft the f4f1ill S"eeifte Plan.
preject location and Height
RecOMmended Action: Endorse~ as a poliey, that the Medica' Foundation's
proposed project Includ. the fol1~lng .1 ... nt.:
I. We,t Block developoent, •• proposed I. the Or.ft Specific Plan,
including two subterranean levels of partfng;
2. Retention of exIsting Medical Foundation facilities ,nd surface
parking on the North Block (~te: T~ls olaDent could change to
Include sooe housi"g on tn. North Block if there is s.fficfent We.t
Block parking t~ accomlOd~te reloc.tlo. of sooe PAMF square footage
f~ Nort~ Block to We.t Block]; Possitl. eon.truction on the North
Block t. occ.r f~ Pha •• 11;
3. Relocation of Urgent Care fiCllltios lat. the West Block and
redevelopment of Urgent Care sIte ioto single-family housing;
4_ Remodeling of Mal. Block ~Ildings (lee and Roth) consistent with
Phase 11 &$ propcs~~ 13 the Or~ft Spec~fi~ Pla";
5. Construction during Phase 11 of I ~o-level subterranean garage on
the west .Ide of the ,.In Block par.".,fng 8ry.nt Street and
extending froll Chonning to • point rcughlT .i<!waT between Ho.r Ind
Channing Avenue. ~It •• two-l.v,1 connee!ion under Bry.n! Street to
the West Block garage;
6. Retention of eXisting surface parking on
a) Main Block
h) Channing and Waverley parking lot;
1. Retention of Sports Medicine and Education ~lldin9s; .se of
President's Office to b. determined; and
8. The aaximu. helg~t would b. 35 feet exc.pt for the Research Building
CMR:109:91
a:\CMR\PAMFstdF
-,-"
1/10/91
Page 10
which woold have a ma,lmum height of 45 feet.
Phi'ing and Construction Period
Recommend~d Actlon: (ncorse, as I policy that the proposed project~s
ph.slog include:
I. Phase I: dev.lapsent of the entire West Block for Kodlo.l
f~~attQn fac~lft1es fncludinq two levels of subterranean parking;
and
2. Phase JI: re~~dellng of the Main Block Kodic.l Foundation
bt.!ildfngs, construction of two-leve1 subterranean parking em the
~afD Block .long • portion gf Bryant with • connectf~n to the West
Block 9.r~9' .... d possible construction on the /forth Block.
Housing
''Pacts and H1tigatjqns
Recommended Action: Endorse, as I poljcy, re;ffirmatfon ~f the
.Itlgation rOCORlended I. the Revised OEIR for the loss of existing
rental housing unless the lIedical Fauodatlon pro-offers. ,.itable
alternative .Itlg.tlon.
Housjna
Relecation of West Block Housing
Recon.anded Action: E~orse, as a policy, t~at new single-familY
housing be developed on the Urgent Care site that reflects the ,tyl. and
SCAle of existing bou,.s on that block and In t~. lomedl.te
neighborhood.
parking and Tree Retention
Recommended Action: ["dorse, as a policy, that parking for the
recoa.ended project be provided in I manner t~at fncludes preservat;on
of tne ficus tree, other hnclmark trees, ind as man)' of the otf'lel'" trees
on the project site os f •• sible.
Parking Erttr1es
Recommended Action: fndorse, ••• policy, th.t the ~e.t Block gar.ge
parking entry b. 'r •• Bryant Street .nd if • parking structure ,..
e.tended t •• li~ited soction on the ~.fn Block, th.t the entry be from
• prGject dr;yeway conne~tfn9 to Bryant Street.
Historic Mit1gat;ao
Recom.ended Action: Endorse, as a p~licy, tnat:
I. The ficus tree adjacent to the former A.~.f. Zion Church structure
CMR:I09:91
a: \CMR\PAMF, tdF
1/10/91
Page II
I
I.
~ 0
be reh'nedj
2. A plaque be .lac~ on the former A.M.E. Church site noting its
~1stDry and cultural contribution to Pilo Alto;
3~ The Medic~l fou~datfon underwr1tt a documentation of this church's
~Ist"ry at this site; .nd
4. Tllat this documentation be displiyed In the Palo Alto ""dlca1
foundation facilities.
OpeD SHilce
ReCOMmended Action: fndorse, IS • polley, that open spaCE op~ortunities
be expanded near the southeast corner of Channing and Bryant _hen t~e
Medical Foundatfon surfJce corn~r parking lot is yacat~d.
errant Stregt Qpen/Closed
Recommended Actfon: Endorse, IS a polfcy, that Bryant Street ~e kept
open and that the block between Homer and Channing be en hooted by the
design of speria1 landscaping, pedestrian and pavement fe.tures.
II. Direct the Planning CommiSSion to r.comoend appropriate Comprehensive
P1a .... ndments that would respond to the policy recoarnendatlons
endorsed by the City Council; and
III. Direct the P1annln9 Comals.lon t. propa ... Specific Plan consistent
wito the polley recomoend.tlons endorsed by tMe City Council.
Respectfu111 ,"boltt.d.
({ /~.
dli!q ( ) (.w,.. v"j· t..>'CL ........
: Ar1 stant P1 nn' Off!ch1
\A' .
J-{ •. .///' ,pi i I W/..c:i
Mdd!.UF/ ~. ddt /
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
COMmunity EnvfrD~nt
~ORGE 1I~1IM<.
~! (J' lEII G ,-\
i ... sistan! City Ml~er
\
CMR:109:91
.:\CMR\PAMFstdF
Report of 11/30/90 to Phnnlng COIIIni,,;on on Policy
R@cODlHndations
Plannfng Commission Peliey Recommendat~on Su~ary and
Benefits Ust.
General Site Plan of the Pl.nnlng Commis.ion Policy
Recooaendations on the Proposed
Ned!ca1 Found.tlon Specific Plan
1/10/91
Page 12
cc; Archltectur.l Revfew Board
Htstoric Reso~rces Soard
Pal. Alto Med!cI! Foundation
PlIo Alto Housing Corporation
Palo Alto Child Care Tlsk force
Fil. Alto Bicycle Advisory COMOlttee
Urbln Design Conolttee
University Park Nelsoborbood AssOCiation
neighbors of tne foundation
City of Kenlo Park, Director of Planning
Stoe<ker and Northway, Assoclat.s
Brody and Assocl.tes
WesterR Wheelers Bicycle Clyb, ]nc~
Persons that su~ftted publ~c correspondence
CMIi:I09:91
.:\CM!\pMFstdF
1/10/91
Page II
Noveaber 30. 1990
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, California
'~ . \
; • A. • ,~
PALQ AlTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN; POLIcy RECOMMENDATIONS
Members Qf the Commission:
This report discwsses and makes recomMe"datfons on policies for the Paio Alto
Medical Foundation's Sp~cif1c Pla~. These policies are 1nt~nded to pr~vide a
frCUleWOrk. for hiter actions on thE Mediu.l Foundation's Specific Phn and
relate to fundamental iss~es, i.e., wheth~r to proceed, appropriate projett
size a location, phasing strategies, ~ousing strategies, treatment of Bryant
Street, key mitigations that irllterreltite liI'it~ fundmental policy issues.. and
related issues, e.g., expansion limits and child care.
T~ese policies do not ;~clude most .itigations ldentffied in the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) or detaIled Specific Plan site and design
issues. All mitigations will be addressed l~ the Final Environmental lmpact
Report (EIR) and principal site and design issues of the project will be
considered during preparation and review nf the F'nal Spectf1c Plan. Any
recoaoended policy that modifies a aitlgatlon recomaended i" the Revised PEIR
would be evaluated by staff for potential significant impacts. Additional
analyses would be contained f~ the ~i~il EIR.
The c~ntent of this report 1r,cludes 1) I summary of City review to date on the
Kedlca1 FOUndation's O!IR. t~e Draft Sp.cific Plan and the Revised DtIR; 2) a
restate.e~t of suggested review a~d action procedures for the project's [lR.
and Specific Plan that were or!glnally described in the October 12, )990
~port to t~e Planning Commission D~ the Med1cal Foundation'S OEIR and later
aodified in a November 7, 1990 memo to the Planning Commission; 3J a br~ef
disc~ssfon of Comprehensive Plan consistency; 4} I discussion of possible
policy reco;nendations and related issues on the proposed Specific Plan; and 5, suggested rec~ndations on these policies.
Staff also wishes to not! that responses to a nwaber of questions raised by
the Planning Commission on Noyember 7, 1990 are contafned ~ithin the following
discussion of p~licy recommendations. Responses to several miscellaneous data
question. are attached to t~ls report. In add;tion. staff will respond to
several questions relating to traffiC at the Oece.ber 5, 1990 meeling.
PAMFRept
GZ 11/30/90
Page )
I o
BACl(GROUNO
Pre~ious public and Planning Commission review of the original O£IR and t~e
Draft Specific Plan on the ~edjcal Foundation" proposed development and
expansf~n project, that occurred in late 1989 ,nd early 1990. was described in
the October 12, 1990 report to the Planning {olllnlssion on the Revised OEIR.
For t~e Revised DEIR on the Medica1 Foundation Specific Plan. i Notice of
Preparation was sent ~o the State Clearfnghouse and publiC agencies on June I,
199Q. T~e publiC rewi&w period on th@ Revised OEIR began O~ September 17~
1990 and ended on N'O\I~mbe-" 1. 1990. The Planning C.oll'll'!;ssfon held a public
~earing on the Revised DEIR on October 24, 1990. On November 7, 1990, the
Planning CommisSion, after commenting on the Revised DEIR. dir~cted staff t~
intorporate public and Planning Commission com=ents ~n the ReYlsed DEIR and
proceed in preparing a Flnil [IR.
A Planning Commission public hearfng on possible polley recommendations
relating to tne Draft Specific Plan is scheduled for December S, 1990.
NEXT STEPS, EXPECTED REYlElI AlII ACTIOIIS
A NoveMber 1, 1990 ~ to the Planning Commission suggested i modification to
the procedural steps suggested in the October 12 staff report for actions
following Plannfng Commission review of the Revised DEIR. The following
paragraphs destribe tMose procedural steps and possible actions.
Planning Commission CQns!deratfon of Specific Plan Policy Recommen~
foll?Wing • December S, 1990 public hearing on possible Specific Pl,n
polic1es, t~e Planning CommissloD is expected to:
Su~it recommendations on Specific Plan policies to t~e Clt~ CounCll for
consideration.
City CQuncil Response on Planning Coemjssion PQlicy Recommendations
Upon receipt of the Plann1ng Commfss;on's rec~ndatfons on Specific Plan
pollcfes, tne City Council would be expected t~:
1. Consider t~ese policy rec~~ndations; and
Z. If the Council deCides to proceed with this project, direct the
Planntng Commission to:
PAHfRept
GZ
i. Recommend appropriate Comprehensive Plan amendments that would
respond to the policy recommendat;ons ide"tjfied by the
COlineil; ilnd
b~ Prepare I Specific Plan consistent wit~ the Council identified
poli'~ recommendations.
11/30/90
P,ge 2
Nate: The City Council is scheduled to nold a study sessIon Dn
January 14, 1991 to discuss the FTanning (omm;ss!on's
recomme~ations 0.1 Specific Plan policies. On JafluI'!'Y 28 t 199t,
t~e City Council will hold a p~bllc ~earfng on po1icies regarding
the Palo ATto Hedieal Foundation's Draft Specific Plan.
final Planning COmmission Actjons
In respon;e to these City Council directf~es and upcn completion of tne ffnal
EtR, the Plannin~ Commission wo~1d consider;
1. A recommendation regard1ng the EIR certification and findings;
2. Recommendations rEgarding appropriate Compr~ne~si~e Plan
amendntents; and
3. Rec~ndations regardi"Q a Fina1 Specific Plan for City (oune;l
adoption.
fin~l City Council Actions
In this Final set of actions on t~e Palo Alto Medical Foundation's Specific
Plan and final fIR, t~e City Council would c~nsider:
I. Certifying the adequacy of the fin.l EIR;
2. Adopting appropriate findings on the project;
3. Approvi~Q Comprehensive Plan arnen~nts; and
4. Adopting the final Specific Plan.
Planned COIFJnity Zone C~ange Prpeess
The Plann~ C~un;ty zone change process WQ~ld be i~itiat!d by the Medical
foundaHon following CHy Council fln.l .ction on the Specl fie Plan.
COMJIREll£NSIY£ Pt.AII COIISIST£NCY
Appropriate Compre~ensive Plan amendments to assure consist€ncy between the
Compre~ensjve Plan and a Specific Plan on the Medical foundat1on project must
be considered and adopted before. Final Specific Plan Is approved.
Con5id~ration of (omprehensi~e Plan aMendments at t~fs time would be premature
because the scope of the Spetlfic Plan has not been def:ned. As a res~lt,
!'-hff believes the approprhte tilR for Planning CDIMission consideration of
Ca.prehensive Plan a.endmEnts would be prior to t~e Planning Commission
recOIIRIendation 0" I Final Specific Plan which would occur during the final
steps of Planni~9 (~fssion actfons on t~e Medical Foundatfon's fIR and
Specific Plan.
PAllFRept
GZ
11/30/90
Page J
"
o
SPECIFIC PlAN, POLiCY RECOMMENDATIONS
A summar~ of all policy recOMme~datfons appears at the end of this report.
D1StUssion of possible policy recommendations relating tc the Medical
fouildat1on's proposed Specific PTan are contained in the fol"lowing paragraphs.
Policy subjects are presented more or less in hierarthical order and range
ftOil the fundamental i SSlle, i. e. I snould the .Jifedical Foundation be a.llowed to
proceed with: a project assuming all ot~er conditfonal factors can uTt!ljIately
be agreed upon, tD critical issues of the p~Dject. e.g., size, location,
const~uctlon. phasing, tree retention and parking, and treatment of Bryant
Street and then to ancillary but ~qual11 important issues regarding the
project, e.g .• historic preservation and open spice. Same of these pol ic,Y
subjects interrelate with enwironmental issues described in the ~~vised OfIR
and bfghlighted in .th. attached October 12, 1990 report to the Plar.ning
C~fssfon, including construction and housing 1mpacts and appropriate
mitigations.
The policies that the Planning Commission will consider for recommendation to
the City Council are i~tended to be very specific in the principal subject
areas of the project, e.g., project size {including increased square footage).
project lvcation, project phasing, and treatment of Bryant ~treet so tnat an
effective fra~~ork fo~ subsequent actions on tne Medical foundation proposal
can lIe established However, specific mitigations as well as projEct details~
e.g., building configuration, building setbacks t landscaping .~d plrkl~9
des19n, would be expected to be addressed and developed i~ the second phase of
Planning CommiSSion and City Council actfons. Such actions wili occur when
the Planning Commission acts on t12'cessilry Comprehensive P1an a.mendments and
the Ffnal Spe~ific Plan.
In1tial Project fndorsement
The fundamental policy Question on the Palo Alta Medital foundation
proposal fs ~ether the pryject , as proposed Dr ia some alternative
for~t should be allowed to proceed. Testimony fro~ tke Medical
Foundation consyltants, advisory boards. City staff and members of the
p~blic has addressed virtually e~@ry area and issue relating to the
pr~jvct. The fundamental issue remains unchanged; Should the Palo Alto
Medlcal foundation. a long-established health care facility serving Paio
Alta a~d adjacent communities. be permitted to moder~ize and expand its
facilities through a development and expanslor. project that would extend
into nelghbori~ sites, some of which are desfgnateJ for or are jn
residentfal use?
I~ responding to this fundamental po11cy issue on the project, ft is
1nportant to acknowledge that the princfpal Medical Foundatfon
objectives for the project s~ifted during the course of the earlier
public review perlod in 1989 and early 1990 from es~entially the
objective to modernize existing facilities !n4 address expected future
space n!eds for healtn (are and resear~~ functions to the more
PAHfRept
GZ
11/30/90
Page 4
, .
fund~me~tll objectfve to address existing space deficiencies, including
f.unctional inadequades of the existing physical plant.
The Question that was frequently PQ~ed during th~ earljer ptib1fc rtvfew
'WiS: ·liIhat happens when the l4edi<:al Fou"dation runs. Ollt of space if the
present proposal is approved and con strutted?" This Q~estion has to be
addressed by the Planning Commission in its policy recommendat;ons to
th~ City Council and is discussed in a subsequent section of thfs
report.
H~yer, in respondlng to tnE fundamental question on the proje(t. it
~as to be acknowledg~d that potential impacts of the projett on the
adjacent neighborhood wou1d be substantlal and must b~ addressed as
effectivel, as possible It the outset. Honetheless, potential benefits,
whic~ have been ~11 documented, would include 1) provision cf i more
cohesive campus that visually and aesthetically represeDts a slgnificant
improve.ent over the existing fac1litfesj 2) .ltimate el;minat;o~ of the
parking deffc1t; and 3) withdrawal of most Kedical foundation fat1l;ties
from the neighborhood south of Chanoing.
The benefits of providlng adequate healtn care services to many
residents and workers in tbis community and adjacent communities has
received muc~ 1ess public attentfon d~rin9 tne course of t~e earlier
public reYiew~ The P~anning Commission~s primary responsibility in
rewiewing any project propcsal is t~ consider fundamental land use
Issues and address those issues by Ipplyir.g ~~und planning princi?les
guided by the City's Comprehensive Plan a~d State planning and
environmental laws. Nonetheless, th~ issue of adequate provisiGn of
health care services, whicb is t~e principal function of the Medical
Foundation. should be g.ven substantfal weight in evaluating the merits
and fopicts of the proposed project.
Ift su~ry~ staff believes that the greater ben~fits the project would
provide to the c~Jn;ty and to the neighborhood outweigh the immediate
impacts OD the adjacent neighborhood. even thought as previously
acknowledged, these i~pacts would be substantial.
I~ this regard, staff believes that endorsement of the proposed projact
also ac~nowledges not only that the ComprehenSive Plan has to be amended
but that it ~an be irrEnded in order to assure conSistency between the
project described in the Specific Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
However. staff reaffirms tts earHer suggestion that the appropriatt
time for Planning Commissfon consideratiDn of Comprehensive Plan
aaendments should be when the Planning Comm'ssfon considers a final
Spec1ffc Plan so that suc~ amendments actuall, reflect the content of
the Specific PI.n.
a..c-ncIed ,Ianning C_hsion Action: The Planning C .... ,ssion
roc.-..nds IS I policy thlt tho proposed Ked;cal Foundation project be
gi ... concept approyal at this policy phase of public reYiew, proYlded
that altlgatlons and cond!tlons Identified In tho Revised DEIR or
PAMfRept
GZ
11/3<)/90
Page S
o
rec .... nded by the Flannlng CoIaI •• lon, that respond to the project'.
I.,acts as well as to logltlDlte concerns of the adjacent neIghborhood,
are addressed.
Assurances of Proiect Prc~i$12ni
Members of the public and Planning Commission ~aye repeatedly asked
abotlt mechanisms available to the Cit,)' in assuring that ill1 provfsions
and benefits canditfon!d in the project's potential approval, including
phasing and construction $ched~Tes. actually Ire met by the applicant.
CEQA requires that the City develop a mitigation monitorj~g plan to
ensure that all mittgat10ns of en~ironmental impacts ~f a project are
iMPlemented as required. In addition to, or as part of, the monitoring
plan, stiff be'ie~es that an effective Mechanfs~ to obtain such
developer guarantees would be through I development agreement that could
be negotiated between the CIty and the Nedie.1 Foundation at the time of
I PC Planned C~n1ty zone c~ange approyal~ The deyel~~rrt agreement
~ould guarantee provisio~ of ~atever conditions and elements of the
project that t~e City deemed appropriate by the project app1ic.nt in
return for a g~ar~ntee to the applic3nt that the project, is defined i~
the Specific Pla~ and PC Planned Community, WQuld remain valid and in
effect for a specified time period.
Recooaended PlannIng Coo.lsslo" ActIon; Tho Planning CoIalsslo"
roc_nds as 5 polley that the Medical Foundation and the CIty ont.~
Into a de •• lopoent agreeoent that assure. all pro.lslons, cor~!tlons and
benefIt. of the project, a. defIned In both the SpecIfIc 'Tan and the Pt
Planned t-lty zone chango, are .. t by the lleellcal FoundatIon.
Project Size
The next issue to be considered is project size, especially in terms of
net added square footage. and project locatiGn~
Regarding potential sfze of the expansion, several fact Drs should be
considered~ T~e ~icil Foundation claims it needs an additional 6S~OOO
square feet primarily tG address existing deficiencies and justify the
extraordinary ~igh cost Df providing on-site parking in I two-level
subterranean struct~re. Siven the present pieCeMeal development of
Medical fou~ation facilities and SOmE ynderstanding of subterranean
parking costs t t~e Medical roundatfon claias appear to be valid.
Therefore, staff believes a project resultf~ fn i net increase of
65,000 square feet in floor area shDaTd be among the Planning
Commiss1on~s policy recommendatlons to the City (Duncll on the Orift
Specific Plan. While retention Qf two or three of the leased buildings
aay dilute the Draft SpecIfIc Plan concept of ~ithdr •• ;ng from t~e
re,identl.l neighborhoods south of Chan.Tng, the benefit of reducing
increased employment by thefr retention appears to offset the
modification of the consolidated campu, concept.
PAMfRept
GZ
11/30/90
Page 6
• ".-.
R*COMIended 'lanning Comalsslon Action: The Planning Coonlsslon
rICa.a.nds as a pOLicy t~at a specific plan project lnc1ude a 651000~
squart-foot net Increase and include retentfon of the following leased
'l.ctl1t!es: Sports Med1cine, Education and Preside:nt's Office
bIll1dlngs.
Prol«t CaD
Ourirog the ear1 ier Dubl i c re\i lew of the original DE fR and durtng the
recent public review of Ue Rev1:s.ed OUR, 111€:T!boe-rs of the Phnni ng:
Commission and public expressed interest i~ applying some form of ·cap·
or limit on future ~d1cal Fou",dation expansion as. a possibole condition
of approval for the proposed e~pan~ion p~cje(t. The concept of a cap or
limit was suggested in nuwerous forms incruding a patient cap, an
eaployment cap and oil location cap in terms of where the ~d;cal
Foundatfon (ou1d or could not expind beyond the prOject in the Sp~cific
Flan~ ]n add H 1. CHt , Phnnllig COfI1l1issiotler Marsh, OP"J to'c\I!mber 17, 1~90,
suggested including the prop~sed Med~(al Foundation exp~nsion of 65,000
square feet within the Downtown CD lone growth cap that pe~its 350,000
sQuare feet of addltional development.
The Palo Alto r~d;cal FOUndation nas stated, ~n numerous occasions, that
it would not agree to a patient cap because of I) the ethics in turning
away patier.ts i~ need of medica1 assistance and of 2} the difficulty of
actually rnonltoring number (If patier.ts or patient trips. Further, the
MediCil Foundation has stated that the finite limits of its proposed
expansion wi1l in effect dictate the 11~its of patient load as well as
eaplo~nt levels. The Medical Foundation traims, especially on the
et~icil issue, appear to be !~fficientll valid and~ as a result, staff
does not believe the ~oncept of patient taps shOuld be pursued.
As noted earlier, employment caps on the Medical Foundation have also
been dfscussed. Staff has maintained that employment caps are d~fficult
to monitor and enforce, The problems are at least two fo1d. One
concer~ is the difficulty in obtaining accur~te inforIDatfon from
employers. particularly in situations w~ere pe-nalties wou1d result if
eBpTo~nt revels increased above mandated limlts. The other concern is
the a~inlstratiye cost, both to the applicant and to the City in
monitoring and potentially enforcing employment lirnits~ Staff does not
recom.end an employment cap.
Regarding f~ttire expansion limits for the Med~cil Foundation beyond the
site-s that may ultimately be approved in a Specific Plan, staff suggests
a policy option that would prohib~t future Medical foundation expansion
(rom all reSidentially-zoned areas in Palo Alto as well as from all
sites withfn the Downtown CD-S and CO-N zoned areas south of forest
Avenue. Such i p.aT1c), option could assure to all concerned nearby
residents that any future Med1(il Foundation expans1on. beyond the sites
ultfmately approved in i final Specific Plan, would only occur in
nonresidential areas in PalD Alto otner than those CO loned parcels
South of Forest Avonue.
PAltfRept
GZ
11/30/90
Page 7
•
o
Recoooended 'lannlng Com.lsslon Action: The Planning COOmlsslon
recc .. ends as a policy prohib1t~on of anI future ~dica' Foundatfon
exp.nslon, beyond ,it.s approyed in a Specific Plan, frOB .11
residentially-zoned areas and frOD COoS and CD-N zoned site. south of
Forest "venue~
Regarding the last suggested option to 1"cT~de the Medical Fou~dation
expinsion w;t~i" the Downtown CO growth cap, staff believes t~at 5uth i
strategy may not be necessary or appropriate. If a Medical foundatfon
Specific Pla" is ult1mately approved for 65,000 additional square feet
and if conditions are applied l1mitin9 the locations where subs~Quent
Medfcal foundation expansion CQuld occ~r, then staff believes t~at
further growth restrictions are not necessary. In additi~n, staff
belie~es it inappropriate to consider further growth reduction measures
for tne Downtown commercial area Yntll such strategiEs are e~aluated in
i broader context of Downtown development pol fey. G;v~n the c.~rrcnt
vitality of Downtown Palo Alto and tn~ relatively little growtn, i.e.,
28,000 square feet, tkat has aetuall1 occurred since a~option of the
Downtown regulat'Dns, it appears inappropriate to t~per with these
reg~lations in the isolated context of one project located outside t~e
CO dIstrict.
Proiect lQCation an~ Height
The Nedical Foundation owns or leases all sites under consideratio~
1ft t~e proposed project and in t~e three on-site alternati~es wit~ t~e
eXcEpt~on of the Dental Building on Bryant Str~et which the Medical
Foundation is negotiating to purchas!. 1t does not own either the
Max1Mart cf the T~ and Country Village sites. Even if one site, e.g.,
the jaw" and Country Village s1te, is environmentally s~perior. it may
not be available for purc~ase and redevelopment fnto ~ ~ealth care
facllit1 for the Medfcal foundat1o~. As a result. staff believes
location considerations should focus on the proposed spec.fic plan site.
T~e three on-site alternatives have sev~ral ber.effts, most partlcblarly
the pr~vision of housing on the portian vf the west block faCing ~rson
under Alter~atjves A and 8 and on the ~edica' Foundation-owntd portion
of the North Block under Alternati~e C. The provision of t~is ~ousing,
under Alternatives A~ Band C, at ~derate to medium housing densities.
would result in a net increase ift the housing supply in the proposed
Specific Plan area, ~erea$ under the Draft Spec~fic Plan pru~usil~ •
1055 of housing units would occyr. 1n addition, no sign;fica~t trlffic
impact would result from these ilter"ati~a concepts. However, the
greater neight and massing of the Medi"<:a.l Foundation buildings tJnder
t~ese alternatives, particularly under Alternatives A and B, could
easily restJa 1n greater 'dsual if)compat1b1Hty with the stale of
adjacent nefghbornoods. Con(entratlng relatively ~f9~ and massive
nonresidential buildings 1~ areas surrounded by residentiil
neighborhoods runs counter to long established design policies in the
City's Cooprehenslve Plan. Staff belieyes that If a Kedic.l FoundatIon
project Is developed, the Specific Plan concept wlt~ Kedical Foundation
PAMERept
GZ 11/30/90
Pige 8
/ "/
,,,"
'.. .......
butldings e.x:tend1rlg over i 2-1/4 ~lock tamp liS I but modified to th~
extent that maxl~m buildin; heights would r.ot pxceed 35 fe~t, would
create ~ project substantially ~re compatible with t~e adjacent
neighborhoods than the Qn~s1te alternatives eyal~ated in the Revlsed
OElR.
Rec .... n4ed ,lannlng C ... lsslon Action: The 'lannlng Coaols.lon
recoBlends I. a policy that the ~!c.l Foundation'. proposed project be
loclted on the 2-1/4 blocks de.crlbed In tho Draft Spaelf!c Pl.n and
that the Maxloua nelght of any new buildings not exceed 35 fe.t.
Phasing and Con5tryction Period
As noted il'] th~ Revised DHR. the effects of construction assocfatl:d
with the proposed Medical FounditiGn project will be Significant, both
for Medical foundation users and ~n the iemedlate netghbornood. The
Revised D£IR recommended a mftigatfon that would reduce the construction
period from 2Q years to 5 years.
However, the architectural consultant for '-he project. John Northway, in
evaluating feaSible construction periods, ~as stated (see attached
letter of Novesber 29, 1990, that it Is not possible to complete the
project wit~iD the five-year period recommended i~ the Revised JijR.
The reasons Mr. Northway cited incl~de; 1) the compact nature of the
Site does not provide sufficient surge space and 2) the Medical
foundation must stlY operable for its patients throughout the
construction period.
rJ'l his letter, Mr~ Northway suggested two constructiof'l schemes for
completing the proje(t i~ periods less thin 20 years identified fD the
Draft Specific Plan but greater than S years recommended as ~itigation
f~ the Rev1sed OEIR. Bot~ construction schemes would be for the project
described in the Oraft Specific Plan. Construction Scheme A, which
would extend for 12 ye.rs, would essent10l1, follow the sequencing
pattern identified in the Or.ft Specific Plan wit" West Block and North
Block e~~struction ccc~rring in Phase I, the remodeling of the lee
8'.l'ilding on the Main Block. occlJrrfng in Pnase 11 and t~e c<ln'5tructiofl of
the •• stero half of t~e Main Block in Ph.s. III.
Mr. Northway alsD stated that t~e time frame for t~is construct fan could
be r.duced by 3-1/2 years (I.e., from 12 ye.rs to 8-1/2 ye.rs) if the
Ob/Gyn af~ some ad~lBistrat;ve functions of the Medical foundation were
temporarily relocated off-Site, e.g., to the Medical foundation's ~atson
Court fac~l;t;es, during Pnase I and if the remodeling of the lee
Building 111 Phase II were modified in a manner that would rf.duce the
time required to r",,.d.l this building. If these modifications to
Construction Scheme A ~re possib1e. constru(t1on disruption to the
s~rrounding nefghbcrhoods, f.e., excavation and exterior construction,
would extend for on. year during Ph.ses IA and 18 i_hich would be
combined) .nd for approximately "ine months during Phase IC. Comparable
disruptions durfng the pnas! fI remodelf~ of the ~aln Block facilities
PAllfRept
61
.-'~,.
II/3D/gO
Page 9
.""
/
WGuld occur for approximatelj ni~e months (Phase II-B) during the
replacement of Radiology and the Roth Building annex. Phase 111
construction of the eastern half of the Main Block would be disruptive,
1~ terms of eXCivat:on a~d exterior tonstructfon. for at least one year.
fr CorlStructfon Scheme A could be mOojiffed by 3-1/2 years is suggested
by Mr. Northway, Pha ... I and II couid be completed wit~in a 6-!/l year
period, during ~hich disruptive types of construction would occur over a
total of 2-1/2 noncontinuous years. All three phases under t~is
modifIcatIon could be completed within 8-1/2 years during which
disruptive types of c{lnstr~cticn W<lu1d occur over 3-1/2 noncontinuous
years.
The Alternative Construction Scheme B tnat Mr. Northway suggests would
extend for a I-I/l yea-period which Is 4-1/2 year. less than Scheme A
or one year less than ScheMe A~ if the modification to Scneme AJ
described earlier, could be achieved. Under Sc~eme 8. most of the West
Block (except for Research) would be cleared Immediately for surge
surface parkfng and then construttfon on the easterR half of the Mal~
8lock and the Qoarter of the North Block would occur. Under
Constructfon Scheme B, djsruptfve periods of construction would total 3-
1/2 years which is the same .s Construction Sche .. A If Scheme A
MOdif1cati~ns could be implemented.
The beoefit of Construction Scheme B over Scheme A is that total
e5tf~ted elapsed tfme for the entire project could be 5~ortened frem
Gne [I) to f.ur and one half (4-1/2) y.ars depending on whether
suggested .odiflcations to shorten Sche.e A are feasible. T~e d~wn5ide
of Construction Sch ... B is that virt.,lly all of the 2-1/2 block
Medical foundatioD Ca.pus area as ~el1 as the surroY~ing neighborhoods
wc"ld be affected by site cl.arance, excavation and buIlding
construction as soon IS the project is initiated. Undtr Construction
Sch ... A, .ast .. jer constructIon activity would be lImited to the
entIre ~.,t Block and the qUlrter of tne North Block untIl Phase III
constructton was initiated.
In summary, the effects of extended construct1on periods O~ the
immediite neighborhood as weli IS on the users Df Medical Foundation
facilities are major concerns regarding the proposed Medical
foundation's project. As. o! result, efforts sf'lould address stlol'tening
the overall length of the project 1" order to minieize the effects of
construction. Staff believes that a r.o~ified construction Scheme A. ic
balance. would be the most effective constructfo" strit~ because
illlpacts, whtTe-Significant to the adjacent re-sidences. wculd illDit many
of the c~nstruction effects to the West Block and North Block during t~e
first two Construction Ynases, whereas u~er Scheme 8, ~11 surrounding
re,idential are.s would be affected by the project from the outset of
in1t;al construction.
Recaa.ended Pla.n!ng CoaI!s,l.n Action: The Planning C,..I,.io.
rocoaoend. as I polley that the prGposed projoct'. pha,lng .~
PAl!fRept
GZ
11/30/90
Page 10
constructfon schedule does not extend beyond 8-]/2 years and fol1o.s
constru<:tion Sen-A. aodl fie<! by relocating Ob/G)'l1 and some
.~!n!stratiy. functions during t~e inlt!al construction pha.e and by
shorten'ng the constructIon perIod for t~e r-.l.llng of t~. Lee
BuIlding.
HQusing
Impacts and Mitigation$
The re~ised O[I~ identifies three haosing impacts and rec~~nd5 twa
mitlgatfons. The impacts ire J) the effects on the jobs ~ousing
imbalance [Impact Y.I.}; ZJ the remov.l of 18 units of rental housing
(of w~lc~ 14 uoits are in the ~·30 multlple·family zone (Impact W.2.);
.~ 3) the removal of • potential 117 multiple-family housing units from
the ~·30 zoned Vest Block.
To mitigate the jobs/housing i~alancet the R~vis2d OEIR recommends
provision of 3.15 ~njt$ of low-or ~derite-1ncome housing {or payment
of an fn-lie~ feeJ ~hich currently would be 5191,000.
To .itfgate the combined lMpacts of loss of existing affordabl~ rental
housing and the loss ~f potentiil housing opportunities, tne Ref1$ed
OEIR rer~nds payment of an in~lie~ fee equivalent to the replacement
value (using the Housing Mitigation Ol"'dfna!1,e~5 formula for deter-,lrting
replace.ent vllue) of the existing !4 rental units removed froe land n~
zoned for RM-30 multiple-family residential on the West Block. T~is in
lieu fee would currently ~unt to $848,120. In effect, this ~itigation
focuses more on the 10s$ of existing affcrdabl! rentll hOU5i~g rather
than on the loss of potenth.l housing opportunities.
The Palo Alto Housing Corporation. fn rfviewing the Revised DfIR.
generally conc~rred with thE defined impacts. However~ the Housing
Corporition stated that pay.ent of an tn-lieu fee using th~ Housing
Mitfgation Ordi~ance fOMrJla to cOMPensate for the 10ss of rental
~ou$fng unlts would be inadequate under ~urrEnt market conditions. The
Housing Corporation stated t~at the loss of potential housing
opportu~ities for ~elow-market-rate (BMR) units c~uld range from a
potentl.l loss of 10.8 to 15.9 BHR units. T"s is consistent Wit, the
esti~ate in the Revised DfIR. Tne Housing Corporation further stated
that if actual BHR unIts could not be pro,'ded to mitigate this impact,
appropriate in-1ieu 8MR fees could be considered Which currently are
closer to S100,000 per unit than the Housing Mitigation Ordinance figure
of $50,580 per unit used in the nevi sed DEIR. Thus, the Hous1ng
Corporation, ln effect, stated the housing mitigations should be more
rigorous than those described in the revised DE1R.
However. is an alter~ative to a m1t1gation fee (i.e .• $848,120)
recommended in the OEIR Dr a hfg~er f1gure recommended by the Housing
Corporation, to address the lost rental housing and potential loss of
housing opportunities, the Housing COrpoTitfon suggested consideration
of. strategy whereby the Medical foundation could contrlbute an
PAllfRept
GZ 11/30/90
Page II
•
o
equivalent amount Gf i!r rights for housing (abQve subterrane!n park;ng)
in l~eu of the potential fees otherwise re~uired for loss of rental
housing and housf~9 apportunities. T~~~ air rights concept could be
applied to a~y of the three on-site alternativei, all of whic~ include
some provision of housing. While staff does not support pursuing the
on-site alternatives, if th~ Pla~nlng Commission does favor an on-site
a'ternative~ the mitigation sU9gested by the Houstng Corporation would
be wort.hy of furUll~r cons i derat i on.
The Medical Foundation has claimed that mltigaticr.s addressing the Toss
of existing rental housing and tne loss of potential housing lJnits are
nDt financially feas1bl~. further, the Medical Foundation hiS asserted
t"at the c.ity does not t;illI{l policy or reguhtarj referencf!s for sud
eitigJtions in its D~dinances or in the Comprehensive Plan~ As a
result, t~e Medical Foundation does not agree to paying the in-lieu
mitfgat1an fee of 5848,120 fer the loss of ~xisting rental housing and
potenthl hDlJsing opportuna~e5.
Whiie staff agrees that there are no speciffc ho~sing policies or
programs addressing the loss of existing rental housing by a
nonresidenHi.l development, Housi:1g Program 9 does address the loss of
multiple-fa.1Ty rental housing displaced by owner occupied housing.
Staff believes that the l~$s of rental housing by a nJnresfdentfal
project is even a greatet impact, than rental housing 10st to owner
occupied housing. Regarding housing opportlillities foregone~ staff
agrees that I lfitigaUon for the loss of houslng OPPol"'tunities may be
more difficylt to determine and~ as a result, no appropriate mitfgation
may be found for 5u(b an impact.
Mitt3atiQns can be provided either t~rough provision of housing or fn
lieu fees. Since staff (cncurs with the Medicil FDundatiGn proposal to
develop the west Block as described in the Draft Specific Pian, the best
remaining option ivailabl! to the Foundation is ~o pay an appropriate
fg-li~u fee, particularl1 for the loss of rental housing. Therefore,
shff believes the Planning COITIf..iss\on shou'd reaffirm the 5848,12'0 in
lre~ .itigation fee recommended in the Revised D£IR unless the Medical
fou"dation pro--offi!rs a suitable alternative !!litigation.
Recommended Planning Commission Action: The Planning CommissIon
recommends as a pol1cy reafftr~atfon of the .1tigation recommended 1n
the Revised DEIR for the loss of existing rental housing unle •• tn.
Red1~al Foundatfon pro-offers I suitable alternatfve mitfgatf~n.
HoLisi n9
Relocatio_!1..l1f_ West 910ct Hous.ing
T~e Revised DEIR i~ the land Use, Visual and Deslgn and HistoriC
sections r!commends as a mitigation relocation of the six residential
structures or. the West Block ont~ the Urgent Care site for
rehabilitation and saTe to new owners. Tne intent of t~is mitigation is
to preserve th~ eXisting nelghborhood character as effectiwely is
PAMfRept
GI
•
11/30/90
Page 11
r-.',
possible by relocating nousing structures w~i~h have compatible e~tericr
characteristics with the ex1sting h(wses on the Urgent Care blodc: 501.lt"
of Channing on both Bryant Street and Ramona Street.
T~1s proposal ;s worthy of support. However, ic application, it is
I~ortant to note that the West Block houses would have to be relocat.d
immediately if tne Medical Foundation project proceeds acc~rding to the
p~asing sequence described fn the Specific Plan and outl'n~ by John
Northway in Construct fan Scheme A. On the Dth~r hand, the Urgent Care
buildfng co~Td not be demolished and tne building r s funct~ofi5 relocat~d
until surge bu11d~ng space is cDmpleted on the West Block ~lch may ~ot
occur until four years afttr project constr~ction is initiated.
T~erefore, these houses would hive to be temporarily stored either on
tne Urgent Care parking lot or other Medical foundation swrface parking
lots during this period. Their storage ~uld exacerbate temporary
pariing deficits during constr~ctian and the stru(tures ma) be subject
to vandalism until the~ are rehabilitated on the Urgent Care s1te~ In
we1ghfng both the effects of storing t~ese residential structures for
extended perfods of time and the long term benefits of preser~ing thes2
structures to assure preservation of eXisting neighborhood character,
staff believes two alternattve policy options should be considered by
the Planning Commission. One option would support the relocation.
storage and eYent~al rehabi1itation of the West Block residential
!tructures on the Urgent Care Site. An alternative aptian ~ouTd support
development of new single-family hous~ng on the Urgent Care site that
would reflect the prevailing style and scale of existing houses on the
Urqent Care block and in the irnnedhte l"l-eighborhood. Under thi:s
alter~at;ve option, the residential structures on the West Block would
be demolished rither than being stored for extended periods OD surface
parking lots when the West Block Is cleared.
Rec08len4ed AlternatIve 'lannlng Coonls.lon Actl~n: The PlannIng
ca.isslon (1) reca.ends as a policy that the six resldenthl
structure. on the Vest 8lock be relocated to the Urgent Care site for
the sale and rehabilitation or (2) recoaoends as • polIcy that new
,Ingle-, .. Ily housIng be developed on the Urgent Care site that reflects
the style and scale of existing houses on t~.t block and In the
!~dj.te neIghborhood.
Parklng a~d Tree Retention
One objective of the Oraft Specific Plan is to eliminate the parking
deficit upon completion of the project. However, construction Gf
subterranean parking (auld result in a SUbstantial loss of trees on
eryant Street as well is witnir. the entlre camp~s area~ On the other
hand, ;f ma~y street and campus trees are retained, the amount of
subterranean parking could be reduced. Ther?fore , staff beli~ves a
parking and tree retention stTategy should be pursued that on one hand
IUximizes tree ret~l'ltion, pal"tfcuhrl.1 street trees on Bryant Street and
tne so-cal1.d landmark tree. identified in figure 50, on page 219 in the
Revlsed OEIR and on the ot~er hand ainiroizes the loss of off-street
PAKFRept
Gl
; ,
1I/30/~O
P.~e 13
.'
<:)
parking.
John Northway. in nlS letter of October 31, 1990 1 regarding the ~ewised
OflR. states that preserving str!et trees on Bryant Street a10ne ~ill
~uire meving excavation for the s~bterranean garage 10 feet further in
from the p~perty line and, ~s I result, the Mitigation could result i~
the loss of ~ to au parking spaces ar,d could increase COflstrlJction
costs by $600,000.
T~e revised CEIR (page 136) sho~s t~at current parking demand for
Medical Foundation spaces of 3.63 spaces per I~OOQ square feet of floor
area is actually lower than the Cit1 parking standards of C spaces per
1,000 sQuare feet for medlcal office floor area. If. r.tl0 of the
difference between the a(tual Medical roundat1on parking demand and the
tity's 4 per 1,000 standards, i.e., approximately 0.4 spaces per 1,000
square feet, were applied to the total campus square footage proposed
for the project, the number of off-street spaces could be reduced by
over ]00 spaces, assuming parking demand would not (~Inge in the future.
Tbls redu(tion of parking spaces could then translate into I pos~ible
ret!ntion of some street and other trees. HowEver, staff wisbes t~
eapha5ize that such I strategy on tree retention could result in a
parkfng shortfall if Medical FDundati~n ~ark;"9 demand rates increase ir.
the fut~re. It would also result fn substantfal project cost increases
to the ~dical foundation.
Nonet~eTess~ staff belleves that I strategy on tree retentl~n 15 a vital
component of this proposed project and as a result it recommends the
following pollcy option.
Rec .... n~ed 'lannlng CORals.lon Action, The PlannIng CORalsslon
r8COlBends IS a pc11ey that ,onsld •• atlon be glven to reducIng the
nuo6er of on-sit. parklng spaces of approxlaata1y 100 spaces to reflect
exlstlng NedI,.1 Foundation parkIng d..and ln raturn rOT retainIng ••
aany street trees a. pc.s!ble. The City orborlst should rec .... nd whl,h
t ..... "",,16 be retained w1t~ tile specifl, trees Identlfled In the
Speclflc Plan.
Parking Entries
The specific location of parking entries ;s a detail t~at should b~
resolved in drifting the final Specific Plan. However, in order to
clarify ambiguities regarding the need to have one parking entry and
exit or. each of the three blocks of the campus is order to maximize
utilization of the two level subterranean structure, l policy option
endorsing the need for entries and exits on each of the three blDc~s is
appropriate. Stlch access would ha\ie to be on Homer Avenue, Channing
Ayen~e or Bryant Street ;~ order to ma1ntain the .alidity of the traffic
.naTysis in the ReVised DEI~.
Reooaaended Planning CORftlsslon Action: The P10nnlng Conal.slon
recooaends to the CIty Coun,11 .s • polley the provlslon of at l ••• t one
PWRept
Gl
11/30/90
Page 14
parkins entry ond •• It to the
Blook, the Ral" Block and the
FoundatIon campus facIlitIes.
Histpric MitigaUon
5ubterranea~ parkfng structure on the West
North !lock of tha propos2d Medfcal
former A,M.E. Zion Church StructYr~
Staff reiffirms its support for the two aHernathe mitigatiOl'ls
id.ntifled io the Dr.ft [l~. One mitigaticn (YII[-i) suggest' A.M.E.
Zion ChuTcn members developing a pro9ram for reuse and relocation ~f t~e
bu1lding with the ~edical Foundation assuming the relocation costs. If
that mitigation is infeasible, the alte~natjve mitigation {Alternative
V] II-I) suggests sell ing a.~d relocating the b'Jilding: to the site of the
b~~r's c~oice. If no buyer were found, th~ boilding would be
d~lished and the Medical Foundation would be responsible for erecting
a memorial plaque.
These mitigations offer sufficient flexibility ;f there is interest on
the part of the A.M.E. Church cor.gr~ation or ~mbers of tnt communlty
to relocate and preserve tha structure for its historiC ~alue as tne
first black church i~ Palo Alto.
Recooaended 'lannlng Coaolss1on Action: The Planning Cooml"ion
recoo.ends IS & polley support for the two .lternative olt!gatlons
(YI[I-1 and Alternat;ve VIII·I} rega,ding reuse and relocatIon ~f the
fOnler A.R.E. Zion C~ureh structure.
~lL.lliil
IA addition to ~rovfdlng open spaces, both usabl€ and ~lsual, wit~in the
proposed campus, one measure i~ the Revised DEIR to improve the project
suggests enlarging Scott Park. Thls could be accomplished either by
cODverting the Hedical Foundation's surface ~arking lot at Channing and
Bryant iRto a corner park or shifting some of the Palo Alto Nursing
Center parking to the Medical Foundation surface lot, and car,'Ierting
that portj~n Df thf Palo ATto Nursing Center paT~ing into in extension
cf Scott Park. Staff b21i~ves either option should be among th~ policy
recomme~dations considered by t~e Planning Commission.
However, it ~y not be possible to obtain in agreement from the
cO~Yalescent hospital t~ shift some of its parking, curr~ntly iO the
rear Qf t~e facility, to t~e £orner parking lot cu~rently ys~d by the
~ical foundation in order to allow expansion of Scott Street Park onto
part of this rear parking area. As a result, the corner Medical
Foundation parking lot may be the only option for expanding open space
opportunitfes on the portlon of this block being vacated by the Medical
FDUnditlO~.
Recooaended Planning Comql,,;on Action: The Planning Couo!s'!on
recoMlends that open space opportunitfes be expanded near the so~~~east
PAMFRept
GZ
11/30/S0
Page 15
•
,/
o
corner cf C~annlng and Bryant when the Medical Foundation surrace corner
parklng lot 1. vacoted •
.&r.nn1.. Street Qpen/(losed
As. resu1t of the pub1;c comment and the i~pacts of suggested
.1t1gat1ons in tne-Revised DEIR, staff ccncurs that Elryant 'Street should
rema;~ ope~. However, staff believes that this hlock of Bryant Street
between Homer and Cnanning sho~ld be enhanced by designing special
f~itures. e.g". ~dditional landscaping, pedestrian amenities and changes
f~ pavlng. Such str~~t ~esign could be prepar~d ~hen the final details
of the Spe-cific: Plan are being considered by the Plann'"g ComlssiM.
R~nded Pl,nn;ng commlsslon Action: The Planning Ccomi,.lon
recoo.end. that Bryant Street be ~.pt open and th.t the block b.~e"
HoIer and Channlng be enhanced by the de.lgn of specIal lind,caplng,
pedestrian and p~nt featur •••
ChHd Care
Vhile provision of child care services is ancillary to some of tne tey
~ssues rel~ting to the Medical foundation's proposal? staff nonetheless
believes that the request of the Child (are Task force for the Medicai
Fo~ndation to work wit~ the Task force in addressing and possibly
provfdfng child care fa(iljt;es/se~ices is an appropriate request. As
a resu'lt. staff endorses a pol fc.y option requesting the r4ed;-,al
Foundation to work with the Task Force in determining appropriate
asslstance for the Child Care oeeds of Medical Foundatfon employees.
Re. .... nded 'lannlng Commlss1on Action, The ~l."nlng (oo.' •• ;on
recaaoonds to the City Count 1 1 , as • polley that the P.lo Alto Kedic.l
FOUftdatlan work with the Palo Alto Child Care Tlsk Force 1. detenolning
appropriate •• slstance ror tho child care noeds of ""dle.l found.t.cn
1IIIp1o,.,.,s.
RElATED ISSUES: SOUTH OF fOREST
Key issues betwee" the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Speciflc P1an proposal and
the So~th of Forest commercial area that ire of co~cern to the adjacent
neighbor~oods essentially relate to possible effects of the Medfcil
foundation's e~pansf~n and intensification nnto the ~st block and simjlar
possible effects if the South Qf For~st commerCial ~ses i~tensify between Alma
and Emerson south of Cnanning Avenue.
I~ bot~ situati6ns~ the major potential impacts are increased parling demand
and traffic increas.es. [n addition, man,)' reSidents in the adjacent
nei9hborhoods have argued for i ~re effective buffer between the present
South of forest commercial area and t~e adjacent residential neighborhood to
the south. particularly on Emerson Street between Cnanning and Addison
Aventles.
PAllFRept
GI
./ ."
11/30/90
Page 16
"-
."" .
-,.,-
Staff believes many concerns regarding parking and, to a lesser degree,
traffic 1~$ues will be addressed if a Medicil foundation expansion project is
apprGved~ The e~istfng parking deficit ~ltirnatel1 should be eliminated,
unless some aodlffcltions fer greater tree retention result in less parKing.
WhiTe traffic is expected to increase. with the exception of the left turn
lane 'ro~ Bryant onto Homer. traffic impacts on the adjacent residential
streets will net be considered Significant according to ~stab'ished City
standards. It should also be pOlnted out that the traff;( analysis for
intersections in the Grfginal and ReYlsed OEIRs on the Medical Foundation
inc1udes not only additional trips expected frQrn the proposed Hed~cal
Foundation expansion. but also includes triffic increases expected if? the
South of Forest cOGfM!rcial area acco'r"ding to both the Downtown and Citywide
land Use and Transportation Studies.
The Revised OEIR also contafns several traffic mitigations including a measure
that the Medical Foundation implement a. Transportatio~ Program aimed at
reduc1ng single-occupancj vehic~Tar commute trips. In addition, if a Medical
Foundation project is approved. tne neighbors will be aware of the project's
limits in terms of fncreased square footage, location of facilities, and
required conditions and mitigations.
Concerns of spillover effects of South of Forest parking and traffic issues
are likely to be addressed in the near futur! by the Planning Commission.
Such potential actions, that would respond to discussfo~ between City Coun~il
and Planning Commission member~ at tne joint meeting on September 13, 1990,
could include but not be limited to 1) greater restrictions placed on types of
pp.~ltted and conditional ~ses fn at least parts cf the South of Fores~
commercial area, tn~s limiting intEnsification potentia', 2) possible
eliminat10n of credits to eXi,stfng parking defkits when uses intens.ify. and
3) fyrther reductions ia off-site parking agree~nt$. which may resclt frQ~
the dfminishing s~pply of usable off-site p3~king ~~ the South of forest area.
Staff currently is referr1~g to Counell all off-site par~ing agreements of
more th~n five spaces.
The Planning Commission is also exp€cted to consider, ie the nea~ future. a
more effective transition between South of Farest commercial functions and t~e
~djacent residential neighborhoods, parlitularly along Emerson south of
Ctlann'ing. One strate-gy wuld expand housing op;,"!ortUrlities il'l t~is area. Such
a strategy would be entire1y ca~atible with botn 1) the Medical Foundation's
Specific Plan project and suggested mitigations and 2) the three on-site
alternatives, provided any potentia) zoning modifications applied to the SDut~
of Forest commercial area would not restrict tht use of Medical Foundation
owned or leased sites in t~is area, e.g., the Sports Medlcine facility at 913
Emerson Street.
In con,lu5ion, staff believes that the previously described mechanisms can
effectively address thes! cemmon ~edical fo~ndation ar.d Sout~ of Forest
fssues.
PAHFRept
S1
.rJ.:... ',' 1 .. ~'. \'.-
lIl30/90
Page 11
SlJllllARY AlII CONClUS I ON
The proposed Hedfcal ro~ndatfon project raises many c~itlcil issues for the
Plan~in9 Commission to consfder~ Resolutfcn of these Issues ~ltt~at!ly wi]l
affect the Medical foundation, the conmun;t~ and patients of the ~fcal
Foundation. The PTanning C~;ssion faces a very cha11enging task in this
el'duyor.
Some ~jor effetts ~nd li~it5 of th~ propospd proj~ct must be ac~nowTedged at
the outset fu evaluating potent~ll policies fer the proposed Medical
Foundation Speciffc Plan. The proposeG project site~ bef~9 1M a d~~e'Qped
area ind containing exhting r4edfcal FourufaUon fac11Hies, ~s: constriined by
lfm1ted sites where sQ-c~lled sUTge space can be constructed fOT t~e temporary
relocation of ongoing functions and th~ n!ed for Medfcal FOundation facilities
to continue operition during all phases of project construction. As a resijlt,
it appears that the ~onstruct1on period of the entire project cannot be
reduced fro. 20 to 5 years but rather to a period ranging froe 1-1/2 to 12
years depending en the construction s~heme. Further. many potential benefits
~f the 9roposal. e.g., elimination of t~e parking defitit, refacing of the lee
building or ~ithdrawal of some surface parking lots may not be realized until
sa.e years after project construct;on ~as been 1n;tiated~
NDnet"eless~ l~ staff stated in the initial project endorsement section of
t~i$ report, t~e Palo Alto Medical foundation is a l~ng-established facility
in Palo Alto providing hei~tf\ care services to man,)' reSidents and work.ers in
the Palo Alto ComMUnity. rhe Hedi(al foundation's exfsting facilities are
inadequate, inefficient and, for tne ~st part, visually unattractlve. The
proposed project not only would address these existing deficiencies but it
glti~tely would result in man~ benefits to the community a~d neighborhood
inc1udiDg! pro'Wision of hea1t~ care services in well-designed. campus-lik.e
fac1litles, addition.l off~street parking eliminating the existing parking
deficit and the withdrawal of unSightly and incompatible bu:1dings. e.g., the
Urgent Care building from the adjacent residential neig~bcrhoad sou~h of
ChannIng.
The fundamental issues relating to the project affect ~tn the healt~ care
service user on one side and the adjacent neighbors on the ether sfde.
Althoug~ the short-term costs of the project to both groups Ire relatf~ely
high, t~ potentl.l long·teno benefits outweigh the shorter term ccsts. As.
resalt~ staff believes the Planning Commission should recommend approval of
the fundamental policies conceptually options endorsing t~e project.
stJIIIAlIy OF POll CY nCOHItENlA nONS
A s~r1 of staff policy recommendations on the proposed Specific Plan is
contained iA the follOWing paragraphs.
SPECIFIC PLAN: POllCI RECOMMENDATION
Initial Projgct [ndorsement
Recooaended Planning Commission Action: The ,1annlng Coonlssion
PAMfRept
Gl
1I/30/S0
Page 18
. /'"
recooMBnds as. polley that tho propo.~ "edlcal fo"odatlon proJect be
given concept approval at t~l. polley phase of public review. provided
that .!tlgatlon, and conditions fdentffl~ In the Revls~ D£I~ or
rec .... nded by the 'lannlnt C ... I,.lon. th.t respond to the proJect',
I~ct. IS well IS to legitlMat. concerns of the adjacent neighborhood.
are addrHsed'.
~inCt$ of project Proyisions
Recoomended Planning Cooniss!on Actl~n: Tho Planning Commission
recoomends as a policy that the "edic.l foundation and the City enter
1nto a development agreement that assures all provisions. conditions and
benefits of the proJect, as defined In both the Specific Plan and the PC
Planned CoaDUnlty zone change. are met by the Medical found.tlon.
Project Size
_ .... nded 'lannlnt Caoalssfon ~ctIOf,: Th. Planning Caoalsslon
r~ds as • policy that a speolfic plan project Include a 65,000-
square-foet net Incr .... and Include retention of the '01 1 owing leaSed
faclliti .. : Sports Medicine, £ducatlon and President's Office
bolldlngs.
froiect Cap
leeoImended 'Iannlng C ___ I.,lon Action: The Pl.nnlng Comml.s!on
rec..-onds as a policy prohl~ltlon of any future Medical foUndation
expansion. beyond sites approyod In a SpecifIc Pl.n. fro. all
residentially-zoned are •• an4 1ro. CO-S and CD-N zon~ ,Ite, south of
Fore.s t ~yer'lue.
project locatjon and Hefght
Rec ••• I~ed Planning eo..lsslon Action: The Planning C ___ lsslon
rec .... nds as • polIcy that the ~lcal FoundatIon's proposed project be
located on the 2-1/4 blocks deserlbed In the Draft SpecIfic Plan and
that the -.xl ... height of any new buildings not exc.ed 35 feet.
Phasing and Construction Peripd
Recooaended Planning Commission Action, The Planning co..l,slon
recoBlen4s as a policy that the propos!d project's ph.slng and
construction schedule does not extend beyond 8-l/2 year, and follows
COI>structlon Sch_ A. modified by relocating Db/Gyn and s ....
• ~Inlstrativa function, during the Inltl.l construction ph •• e and by
.IIoTtanlng tho construction ~rlod for the rOllO<lel1ng of the Lee
BlIlldlng.
PAMfRept
GZ
','
11/30/90
Page 19
"." ..
/
Housing
Impacts and Nftfgat10ns
Re<~nded Planning CORIlsslo. Action, T~. Plannln9 (coalsston
roc .... nds .s & polley r •• fflnoatlcn of tho .ltlgot;OM recommended In
the Revlsod DEIR for the 10.5 of •• Istlng rent.l housing unless the
Kedlcal Foundation pro-offer. a suitable .1tornatlve Iltlg.tlon_
IWL!l.n9
Relocation of West Block Hqusfng
Rec~ed AlternatIve 'lannlng Commission Action: Th. PlannIng
CoIElsslon (I) rocOMRend. IS • policy that the six residential
structures on the West Block be relocated tQ t~e Urg~nt Care site for
the sale and rahahilitatlon or (2) recon.tnds as a 001 Icy that new
slnglo-f •• ily housing be developed on the Urgent Car. site that reflect.
tho style and scal. of Ixlstlng hous.s on that block and In the
1_.lIote neighboroood_
Parking and Tree Retention
RecOMmended 'iannlng Commission ActIon, The Planning Comolsslon
reeOlaends 1$ a poilcy that consideration be given to reducing t~e
nu.ber of on-site parking spaces of approximately 100 spaces to reflect
exl.tlng ~dlcal Found.tlon parking deoand In return for rotalnlng IS
.any street trees as possibl.. The City Irborlst should rec .... nd which
trees would be retained with the specifIc trees IdentIfied In the
SpecHlc 'lan.
?arkfna Entries
Roc~ed 'lannlng CORIiss;on Action, The 'lannlng C ... lsslon
rec .... nds to the City CouncIl as a pelley the provIsion of at l.ast one
porklng entry and .xlt to tho subterranean portIng structure on the West
Block, the ltaln Block ,nd the IIorth Block of the proposed Nedlc'l
Foundation c .. pus facilitIes.
Historic ~itfqation
Aeooomended 'lann;ng CommIssion Action, The Pian.lng CommISSion
rec .... nd •• s • polley support for the two alternatIve altlgatlon.
(VIII-l and Alternative VIII-I} regarding reu, •• nj relocation of the
forlMtr A.M.E. 2ion Church struct'Jre.
Open Space
Recoo.ended PlannIng Coaol.slon Action, The 'lanning Ccoa's.lon
recoomends that open spac. opportunItIes be expanded near the southeast
corner of Chann~ng and Bryant when the Medical Foundation surface carner
parking lot Is .acated.
PAMfRept
&Z
11/30/90
Poge 20
•
-'
," '
Bryant Street Open/C'1 {'sed
R~oamended 'lannlng CommIssIon ActIon: The Pianning COBOIsslon
ree~nds t~.t Bryant Street be kept open and that the block betwoen
HOPe, and ChannIng be enhanced by the design of 5peel., Ilnd5c.plng,
pedestrIan and payment f •• tures.
Child Car~
Ree .... nded 'l.nnlng ConII •• ,on ActIon: The P1.nnlng Cca.I •• lon
recoaoend. to the CIty Council, a •• polIcy that the P.lo Alto Modlcal
Foundation work with tno P.lo Alto ChIld Car. rask Force In detenllning
appropriate Issfstar~. for the child care needs of ~1cal foundation
..... Io)'ee ••
Respectfully submitted,
dfr'-4l-~!I~~
GEORGE Zlpt(E~
Assistant Planning Official
Attachments: (1) Responses to Data Questions
~.fJi:t~/
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
(2) letter from John North •• , of 11/29/90
cc: Arc~itectural Review Board
Hlstorfc Resources Board
Palo Alto Medical Foundation
Pa10 A1to Housing Corporation
Pal. Alto ChIld Care Ta.' force
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Commlttee
Pa10 Alto Medical Fo~ndatiDn
Urbdn Design Committee
UniverSity Park N~ighborhood Assoc;atfon
Neighbors of tne foundaUon
City of Menlo Park, OirectQ~ of Planning
Stoecker and Northway ASSoc1ates
Brady and ASSOCIate.
WesterB Wheeler Bicyc1e Club, fnc.
Persons that s~bm1tted p~blic correspondence
PAl4fRept
Gl
11/30/90
Pag. 21
..
o
AnACHllOO
I. Question: What is the average height of buildings on the Horth Block?
AnSW"er: Horth Block bu11di~gs range (rom 12 feet to 70 feet i"
he!ght. The average height of non-Medical ~oundation
buildings in the North 8lock is approximately 25 feet.
Z. Question: Are the 700 existing i'ledical Foundation employe« actual
employ •• s or FoIl Time Equlv.lents?
Answer; The estimat~ 700 existing employees at the proposed
Specific Plan site ire daytime f~ll Tfme Equivalents. The
ca.ponents of thii daytime Medical Foundation employment
are:
A, Total daytime full·time staff • 500
8. Total daytiMe plrt-lime staff · 93
C. Total daytime do,tor. · ill
718
Total staff and doctors after i:OO p.m. · 46
11/30/90
STOEC!<ER ~Wb ~JOfiTHWW
Nov.mbsr 29, 1990
City of Palo Alto Plan~inq Commission
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto l CA 94301
Re: The need for the specific Plan and Buildinq Schedules
Dear commissioners:
I. The bed for tM Specific Plan
.. "..
The Specific Plan submItted by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
started out, and continues t~ have, three physical objectives:
l~ Replace and consolidate existing and/or scattered space.
2. Substan~ially renovate the remaining existing facilities.
3. Add 65,000 square feet of new space to address current and
future need.. -
The Specific Plan as submitted best serves the needs of the
Medical poundation for an orderly expansion and renovation that
will brinq the least disruption to the patients and the practice
of medicine. These needs are accomplished by the following:
1. The construction is phased to progress ill an orderly fashion
from the west block eastward to the main block~ This
progression will disrupt patient access to the medical
facilities the least and have the smallest impact on the
continuing medical practice.
2. 'The boundaries of the Medical Foundation are clearly
established .
3. The parking deficit i& made up in Phase I.
4. The Plan allows tor the development ot a variety of building
types with access to usable open space and nat~al light.
5. The Plan allows for the renewal, consolidation and
replacement of older out-dated facilities that can no longer
support modern health care or biomedical research.
•
I Planninq commission
November 29, 1990
page 2
6~ The Plan will ellow for a redesiqn of older facIlities to
an integrated architectural complex~
1~ By allowing the consolidatIon of outdated existing square
rootage, the Plan alloys the replacement space to be more
useful and responsive to the changes ot medical practice.
8. The Plan allows the Research Institute to be a fully
integrated part of the Medical Foundation.
9. The Plan provides for the proposed parking B~ces to be
place~ underground and away from neighborhood sight, but
closely integrated tor access by elevator to the medical
facilities above.
10. When completed, the Plan viII allow for a complex that will
better serve the needs of the patients ot the Medical
Foundation by better circulation and access to the medical
facilities.
In summary .. the proposed Specific Plan offers the best opportunity
for the Medical Foundation to design an orderly consolidation,
renovation and expansion that vill best serve the needs of the
cu.-rent and future communlty~ It will also allow a facility to be
created that can best adapt to the changing needs of the community
and the chan9in9 vorld of medical science over time.
The on-site Alternatives as described in the Draft E~I.R~ do not
fully a~ress the needs of the Medical Foundation and could result
in severe hardship to the patients of the Foundation and major
disruption of the medical practice.
II. IDJildino Schedules A and B
Before commenting en the theoretical building schedules for the
proposed phasinq of the specific Plan, it is important to note the
following:
1. The Specif1c Plan is a plan for executinq a future project~
It is not a designed project.
?~ Any suggested building schedule at this ti~e in the process
is hiqhly theoretical as there is no real project from which
it is derived.
3~ A fast schedule mini.izes the length of disruption to the
operation ot the Medical Foundation and is also the most cost
efficient.
Plann1ng Commission
November 29, 1990
Paqe 3
The schedule must also respond to the following re~~irements:
1~ Allow the practice ot medicine to cor.tinue~
2. Put specific departments into functionally effective
locations.
J. Allow for the availability of funds in the context of the
changing health care environment.
The actual buildinq schedule length will derive from the project,
not the plan.
The enclosed qraphs illustrate the construction schedules that
were outlined at the Plannin9 commission Meeting of
November 7, 1990, and repeated in the Hitiqation Comments dated
October 31, 1990.
The schedule that represents the phasing as described in the
Specific Plan is r~ferred to as Schedule A in the staff report.
The modified construction schedule also reviewed on November 7.
1990 is referred to as Schedule B in the staff repo~t.
The graphic displays of the building schedules represent thlee
pieces of inforaation:
1. Total length of construction for each part of each phase.
2. Length of time for exterior construction to take place for
each part of each phase.
3. Length of time for excavl!ti,~n to take place for each part of
each phase.
It is iaportant to restate the assumptions and impacts of chosin9
any scheme vhich would result in an accelerated building schedule.
The accelerated buildinq schedule as in the enclosed documents and
referred to as Construction SCheme B, is dependent on the
following assumptions;
1. Space be found to lease in the area so that Phase I, Part A
could be accomplished by leasing apace rather than building
new space.
2. Tbe Construction Phasing is substantially modified as
described on page five o~ BY mitiqatlon comments.
!
I , Planning coa.ission
Nov~r 29, 1990
Paqe .(
Q
If 1 and 2 are accomplished, the following impacts would occur:
A. Parkinq on the street would increase because of the
earlier-loss of the Lee parking lot. The west blocK
ca~~ot park as many cars as the Lee parking lot currently
holds.
9. Circulation tor the patients of the Medical Foundation
will be very poQr in the Revised Phase I. The bulk of
the patient parkinq would be ac~oss Bryant Street on the
west Block. The patients would be entering the Lee
Building from its current back side, ~hich has few doers
and is contuslng to find. The access to the Lee Building
from across Bryant Street would have to be protected from
the weather and be easily accessible for the handicapped.
This impact presents an unacceptable situation for the
Medical Foundation patients and, unless mitiqated in its
own riyht, would foreclose 3ny shortening of the
construction period~
C. Bryant street would unquestionably be closeQ for the
entire specific Plan construction period, to serve as a
construction yard and to provide additional construction
worker parking.
Of all of the effects ot the accelerated constru~tion schedule,
the effects on patient circulation are the most severe and if
they cannot be solved they would make the accelerated
construction schedule cnacceptable to the Medical Foundation.
Although the neighborhood .. ill experience some disruption blr the
construction, the major impact of construction will be on the
patients, the physicians and the medical staff who will have to
cope with major disruptions on a continuous basis.
Many of the patients who regularly come to the Medical Foundation
are ill and not very mobile. If a way cannot be found to
accommodate their needs during construction, it will not be
Possible to alter the proposed construction phaSing as outlined
in the Specific Plan and on page four of my mitigation comments.
By reducing the Scope of the interior renovations of the Lee
Building it may be possible to further reduce the construction
time tor this part of Phase 114
At this stage of the Specific Plan development it is not possible
to give a definitive time or scope reduction to this phase. It
can be considered when the scope of the entire Specific Plan has
been finalized.
•
Planning eo.ais6sion
Novesbey 29~ 1990
P"g.. '5
.0 '~~
AS a.lwaysl :I will be mos.t happy to anS'oier your qae.stions at the
upooainq Commission he~rin95 on the suhject~
Sincerely,
,·'iAvtfk4'<V-&/
J9hn C. Northvay '"
/ ~
-',-:
, .
II !~. '~r~----: :',1 Iii ' Legend
, I Iii! )1 I
! i 'I'i'. qfI' ~-1 !i I 0 ~~:!~g;'.:' ........
l Ii I' -' , :':: , " I IT]
I'i ifi. --., -, 1 II ru l'l1E. _l'llDINO
: ':l 'ifi _ ". ~~.-_,
Ii ,
II !
" j
i.!. JI
J ~==-~--:::=--~
r~~~o~
il! !
II'
Iii
=-=~=-~J~ ~l-,.-_~~~eA~'T~~ ____ -[£::-!l" I~f? -""_~~~, ~ :;c~::~~::~.
Ilr --=_~~_U: 'il·. if -r:-I-Y~~~~;:!~~~::~~ 1=r~=-=c~o-=-=--~I 0 ",,,'.0 .u'"'''''' "',,,
• . .' " , iii l_ \U \ t ~f 7+f.7~7~·71 n I ''':J
II' • :' . '! II' hil 'J"\'~!~.~.",9, ", I t':':;'''dN'''''"'
II
. I -, 1'1." .... 1 ..... I"CD'EICI,IoIQ
II' . il--= "L Y -= ~j!1 II
I i
. I, I~.' ... 'i J ,il _-JL!:-, @ff~ II II =~j~ " "::.'. ~ ~ J(~ r-h I~~~~ "J<' 1Ir--~
,I
(il.. .. ~~ i§ .... WI I=Z ~~~ii e~;;~r [lU~UWJ:UlllllillU]IJ
• ............ 'l • ..;'~~ ""-OJ -1 , F~-'~---~~ 1 FJ--
I I III II
Figure 16
Phase One
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR
~ .. .. ....
SCHEDULE A
BRADY AND ASSOCIATES
Pl.nner. & Landscape Architects
:)
, ".'
" ' ..
,"
' .
•
:,'1~ ,
. ~
I
II I
il i I l
b J ~ --~-~
I Ji ~:;~;:'NT ....
-II 83 Nl" tUllD.NO
~_~;J ==-=J ~ JlI,,",OD[Ub .... It.DlHQ =----_._-
r~~ ~j
I, . , \0: /""0W/J// I' il
II
II
I I' I \1'
~ 11j,-;,--:,''''' ,"I'~;~, -, ,r':C:=-"'=O==-",,]', V'/l,.e'un .. ,. -. ,.' 1 ' ~ .. ·"HO ••••
,[~, ,~z:;, "'~~ ,
'I"" ' ';f(' ~~~ /1 0 ,,,,,,., 'HAU
j 'I ' .,:'-~ II I 0
'I \' g' fp: ~\"'!t! i " il ,' ..... ~?: :, '="'" I,
I
L Wffh
~
l ~ I §
F-' EJ
I ,
Figure 17
Phase Two
I
n-L-lII I "': .::' "~;":' ~ II
D d l!lIlLj=~,'r, '
n
v i
~ !
~ _ ;.",. '."'F ' [luunll~~
'~
J
:II~ ........
SCHEDULE A
PAlO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR BRADY AND ASSOCIATES ______________________________ ~Pj.""er. & L.ndloape Architect'
o
/',
'-.. ,
",
, ,
•
•
;', ~ '/ .
.i
I
I
I
'L
I,'_ I,
i J I _____ = --~~-__ L=~-'--=~
i~tl -%Itl
" ~"'-~'I"~.--,"", !6---.. _ -... -
I'i II Legend
I 0 'ltdl YHII.(f;
, -O.t\'lI.QrMljlol1' AU: ... III . 83"· .u""..,
! t f//] "".elL IfIU TO
it ~...........::::~ . ..,. ..... _.Jij w tl wIfHO ...... 'H
1iP~~=,~{l 0 ."'IVIQUI'Hdt
SaUlt. \i9
SfO'KIII'f 'nd Ngfl~""y
Arl'hi'.cll 'n«trlNu,(td
JlgglEcJlQ~
-..... \,...;' "'-/-
Figure 1B
Phase Three
r -I r~;~~,~~~-""=~,,,,=c-"-"l
,
'I
fl
II
~
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR
~
,')
~
SCHEDULE A
BRADY AND ASSOCIATES
Planner, &. Land.cape "r4JhlteC)f.
./
~ " ,' ... ,
'~
,'.
•
SCHEDULE A
~ PALO ALTO KBDtCAL FOUNDATION' speoifio Plan -8oh.~ul. By pba ••
yen 190 "1 '92 "3 "4 f9lS '.' '" '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '0,
L.G~
~ Con_trl.lction sch.du~.
Exterior construotion
l'"cavat1on
eONsTI\UCTION,
PHASE I-A
Replaoe Ob-Gyn, Med Sec,
ijMO Admin, Pre a OCc
Add surge space
provi~e ,80 parkinq BpaC~S
PHASB 1-8
New Research Institute
Replace Churoh storage
provide lOQ parking 8pac~s
PHA8Z I-C
Replace Urgent Care, £duo
Add surge space
Provide 250 parking spaces
Relocate Bryant st utilitiea
PHASI! ll-A
Remodel Lee. pat"t of knth
provide 40 pal'King lipaoea
PHASB II-8
Replace Radiology, baldnce or Roth
Total Construction Schedule 12 years
"~"" 2 Years " ~ 'Y::"'h"~
'~
F
2 Years
+/'I,
~ 1-1/2 Yoars
1/ra
". -'-----< ... 1 ) 'fears
."./ ~ 1"1/2 Years
.,/DI.
o
o
PHABll III
Replace sports Medicine
Add ne~ medical space
Provide 540 parking spaces
~ "::1,, Y"4r'
'l
, .
• 1
SCHEDULE A
r-,u ..... \.o ~~~~;~-C-:~-;~~~'I'lOlh 81'.citlC n .... -"chc4"l. By I'll ...
month • a 1~ 1_ za ~c Zi 31 Sf 40 ,~ ,. 52 ,_ _0 " &8 11
r.IOIDlO
~con.trUQtion SChedul.
E~t8r1or construction
Exca"ation
COBB'I'JtUC'I'ION. f»~#rS$SSS<):l 2 'l .......
PlIABB I-A
Replace Ob~G~n, Med Sec,
HMO Admin, Pres Ore
A.dd tlurq. apace
Provide 280 parxing spaces
~
~
r'-i,-.. ,-.• '
" ,
I' ,:_':)
c, -'
.,
SCHEDULE A
r-------~J,LO -J,LTO KEDICJ,L FOUNDATION. specifia PIn -Solledlll. 8y Ph ... ~
II'\lJnth • • n 16 20 :It 21 32 36 40 ... .. !tl 56 60 64 61 12
LIGIIJIl)
~con.truotlon Schedule
Exterior Con.truction
!xcavation
CONSTRllcnOIi.
PHASI I·B
I~,>'..:-:::::-""''-. ',. .-......... ' .. <..:"."0... ... -'. '\. ",,\:\:'11
~ . ---
New Research Institute
Replace Churoh storage
Provide lOO p~r~inq spftce~
2 Yearftl
o
, I,
o
t
SCHEDULE A
1---I PALO ALTO KEQtCAL rO~~TIOH' Speoifio Plaa ~ Soh.dvle BY Pha.. ~
aIOnth ~ , l~ 16 ~O ]1 2B 1) 36 40 44 41 52 !f 60 ,. ,. l'
LB01!IItl
~construotiQn Sohedule
, Exterior Construotion
Exaavation
COH8TI\UC'1'IOH, ~pSSS3 1-1/2 Years
PIIASII I-C
Replace Urgent Care, Eduo
Add .urge "paoe
,',;" ~
Provide 250 parklnq apac.s .>,~-, \ ):~-.";~1', ."
Relocat. Bryant St, utiliti ••
i,)"
"
"
SCHEDULE A
[ PIILO ALTO IlEOICJ,L FOU1lDATIO~;~P.OU~O Plaa -."be.sul. 8y Pbue '--l
tIIonth' • • 12 16 10 It 21 31 li '0 'i. " !;I " '0 ,. 61 7J
LBGJIIID
~" Con.truotion Schedule
~ Exter.ior Con_truction
EX(,.lllVi\tion
CONSTRUCTION' L_._' .. _ "_.' ::"':::-"~~.: ... __ < '-_----'-~_"'(_, __ ~] J Year.
P .... BJJ II-A
R6mQd~1 Lee, pa~t or Roth
Provide 40 parking SpaCes
e
" ,
'; " ,
o
It
"
SCHEDULE A
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION. speoifio Ploa -8ohodul. By ~b •••
month • • ., u w >. 2. ~. ~ ~ •• •• ., " ~ « •• "
LBOZIID
~.' Construotion Sohedulo
, Exter.ior Con.tructlon
Excavation
CONSTIlUCTION, Ii,;;:;;)\),~. ;, I 1-10 YallU
r_7:6 __ .. '._,,-.
1'M8B II-a
Replaoe RadiolQ9Y. balhnce or Roth
{if;;>
{)
:'1.
"
"'\
SCHEDULE A
PALO ALTO M£DrC~L FOUNDATXOM. Sp.oific PleA -'C~~Yl. 'Y Ph •••
MQntt\ • a 12 16 lO ,. 2. )l 36 40 t. •• ,a ,. to .4 66 1)
l'.lI(IlQIl)
~Conat~tiQn Schedule
a.tar1or Conatructton
ExcavAtion
co::::~~~: p=a5i SJ
Replaco SpO~tB Medicine
Ada n4~ med!cel space
Provide 540 perkinq spacea
2 'i"n
c
"",
'j' '
o
i ~:ITTrrr~~ II ! I Legend
i II!I .~~, ...•. 4l I! ! 0 ~====~ ~J 1lL'! ~.~~ f1~, ~:1~_ 21~!1 i~_~~11 ~ .... v,'.,~
-.--~ -
'0 rrru·-C:~·
:/IT1]IID
"""":0 d It, --=-L,,;'qcJ-..:::; ~~I -"==-r"~-~1 ~~~~ --II
II
~ !l II/ it
Phase One Revised
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR
n~~==-'':=---'''li\ 0
~. .. -
SuoUff4'
SI(l8Ctt, .nd ""of,.tII ... _,
"",th'I.", lnc.rpvulrd
SCHEDULE B
BRADY AND ASSOCIATES
Pla""er. & Landaoap. Arohlleot.
(:1V
~~'.
. ",
o
.:.;
", .
. '!.;"
• ,
II
I
j L ~--~ =
~T~~~~'
!
I ~ 0, 0 0,
II ~k-~ ~Eill ~
SZ;~ lr L3£ -~I
!I
II
~
I ;
Phase Two Revised
:: 'I Legend 1I';~!:T~'~j ii I, Cl I~,~]I ~dl I .~."j ~ .... -
1':1 ~r '_ __._=~~I L~c=~_~_ ~k~zc~~'-._~
~~~-~--:;:-':~F.&'=~\;d h;=~~'~'~~'~.'·=-cc~!Nl <""'.>PEe
Ih_ --, ~-IL" I I' ',' tt I' • ~', ,", Y' .'~~ II
f,' ~. .-.(',. I I 50.,,, 0
-.. " ' :"J [I. ' II I,.",,, , •• N.",_" . ' I ,,,,,,,,,.0.,,,, ... ,,.
2ill I
~~~~r~~~" ..... --=-~
~~~~\.~
~
SCHEDULE B
o
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR SHADY AND ASSOCIATES
PIRnne,. & Land.cap" A,ottlteolll
;' ,
\.
•
SCHEDULE B
------._--------_ .... ,
p~o A~TO MEDICAL POUNQA'lON' 8p.oif~o .lan • 8Qh.~ql. By .b... J
Y."~ "0 '91 192 '93 " .. '.5 '9' 197 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '0)
LIIGJDII)
~conBtr~ctlon Sohedule
, l:xteX'lor Conetruotion
EX¢llvat.iQn
CONSTRUCTION
Rn.l.u<LF.l1.u.lL.I
Replaoe Sports Medioina
Ne~ Medical Space
Parking -under9round
NeW' Research :(nstitut.e
Parking -underqround
Surface Parking Lot
Reyised PhAp6 II
OB/Cyn -replacement
Med. 5ecretariQ$-replacement
HMO -replac.ment
President's ortice-re~lbcemen~
ParJdnq -underground
Surqe Space, Medical
storage -replacement
Urqent Care -replacement
Educat.ion -replacement
Relooate aryant St. utiAities
Rt'H'I\odel Lee building
Remove Rotn II -
Rftmodel Roth I
Radioloqy -replace~ent
R.,place Roth II
Total Construction Schedule 7 1/2 years
,O~
F
~ 'iea:t"s
'~;» \;, ,,, "~,... . ' .. j 'Y <,$". ,\ 5-1/2 Ye .. r~ . ,>: ,n,
I"~') 'Q;J
o , ,to
"i •
,,,
SCHEDULE 8
~ P~LO ~L70 ~~nlC~L pnU~D~~10.' .p.oi(lq ~l.~ -aqh44ul. ay Pha~. ~
JM.)')t.b f; I 12 if, 20 ,.. 311 )2 -16 40. " f8 52 ':'6 f.(J U ,. 1:
LIlGSV1)
~" ,conatruction Schedule
" ~xt.rior con.~~~on
Excavation
eolitll'fl\l!cnOJ< t>M.~:-.:~ ...... 3' :.: -5-, -2' Years-
.8.tY.ised Phase ;r
Replace SPO-l.~t& Hedlc-in0
~ew M&6ical Space
Parking • underqround
New Reaaarch Inst.i~~t&
p~r~in9 -und~r9round
SurfaCd Parkin9 Lo~
e
'.
"
o
.,
SCHEDULE B
~ PALO ~LTO K'DIC~L rO~D~TIONI specific 'l.b -Sohedule By Ph ••• -~
month • • 12 16 10 2. 28 J2 )6 40 •• 48 ~l 56 6~ 64 ,. 12
Llla.1ID
P construotlon scheOul.
--~" Exterior Construction
Exoavation
CONSTRUCTION t-,,~
p ~_'_.2~ .. ::"'_>.:..% 1 --~:;:q 5-1/2 YeArs
Reyised p~~
OB/Gyn -replacement
MoO, sacretaries.replacement
HMO -replAcement
Prasident'B ottioe-repl~oement
~drkinq ~ unde~ground
surge Space, Medical
storage -replacement
Urgent Care -replaoement
Education -replaoement
Rulocate Bry.ent St utilitlBs
Remodel Le@ Building
ReIno'Ve Roth 1 I .
Remodel Roth I
Radiology -replacement
Raplace Ratti II
,
@
>.
.' ,.
(7' .,.';';
, ..
PLANNING COKHISS!ON POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
SU!!I!ARY
Use Schedule A from No~ember 30 Stiff R~port with the following changes:
ftLill
[ -A
1-8
I-C
II-A
If -8
III
SURIIlarjl:
PCSum/gz
5 ummaq -----Change --------
Begln West B7od:. Construction No Change
Replace Church StoragE No Change
North STock Construction Delete this pha.se
Continue West Elock Constructi~n No Change
Remodel lee and S-:lme of Roth No Change
Remodel balance of ~oth No Change
Construct 2-1evel garage and 33,000 sq ft Delete this "hue
new office space on sout" e.st of ma1~
block
No Phase J construction ~n the Horth Block and no construction en
the pre~ent Main Block parking 10t.
Final parking deficit is zent and substantial surface parking 1S
ma1Dhined.
Active con .. tructfN't time ;s substantia:l1y reduced.
PAf'I.F receives surge space to renovate all its current s_pacf:! ___ ~>:: __ i:_~_rt
North B1od .. {Sports Kedicine. Preside::it's. Offic.e ana Education are
not relocated.}
PAMf"s new space is limited by available parking spaces and a
.a~imum n!t incr~ase of 35 1 000 square feet of floor area.
1/9/91
Page I
..
'roposed Specific Plan
Benefits Suoaary
Reduce parking deficit to zero
["Prove est het t cs
Remove Urgent Care from
"eighborhood
Improve He~ltn Facilities
Oetri"nts SUoaary
Construction Impact
Traffi c Impact
Density/Proportion
Ho~sing 10s$ is ~iti9ated
PtSUlll/gz
BEliEf ITS SUI1MAR.X
fJannina CO!MI;SSiOl1 Polic), nRecoar.endations
Reduce parkin~ deficit to zero
Impro~e esthetics at least to sa~~ degree
Remave Urgent (are from Neighborhood
Improv! Health Facilities to T~5seT degree
Reduce Construction Impact
R~uce Traffic Impact
Reduce density/proportion
Housing 105s is mitigated
Page l
1/9/31
l-
I-
t; ....
'" i;;
~
'" w
~
L w
~
"
I
.... .... t; w !.!!6W Ol w
f-D..,.,.,.1': '" V> ....
W •• t·ft.ok '" i ....
~
'"
.I!I!6!.LJ.
"-",ove
U,,, ... I Ca".
,.. 0 .. ····3 .. , •• 'a'" I.,
\.. ... 1.'" •• ,'nl1
Ip.,t. ".411101"
~
I
HOr'" .... 11.
t:.IIAIIJONo CII."g.
f!a"II~1 ~ albia Oon_'ry.tlon
.' .1. II .. houaillt'
I
HOMER AVENUE t. "-lei" IE,II .... ".!!
--c--
..•. '
.' I-".1.1. . --':-W
fI!j!!_ II w
'" ...... II1II., .... n .... 11-_ ~ .. ,... -..taln .... .-..... th •• ;111"1
Bulb .. ". ~ Wav.rley ..
;;;! Ot.annllu;a .u, ••••
. w p.rkln) > ~ -"'l
CHANNING AVENUE
Opan 'pa" I·
I'
" " •• Id.",'" OUlve_
(Del.rmh'. 1,.818'
_--"K::oE.:..Y _
0 ... 0 ... 0
.. IDIOAL "OUHDf;/j'~
OWNIO Oft LEAat-..... -f1l
( )
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION
PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL SITE PLAN
" "
"
"
•