HomeMy WebLinkAbout0504.000. :
. . . •
o
September 13. 1990
HONORABLE CITY COUNCil
p.!. Alt., C.1ifor_i.
SS! !oUCH ROAD: COHPREHfNSIVE PlM AHENDHfNT AND ZONE CHANGE
Member. of the Council:
REPORl IN BRIEF
Stanford Unfvers;ty is proposing that t~e Ccmpre~~nslve Plan designation for
thts site be changed fro~ Researc~/Offfce Park to Major IRstitutfon/Spetial
'.cl1itles, and that the site be r.<oned fro~ Office Research (OR) t. Public
ficlliti •• (PFl. Since the ar •• zoned Pf and occupied by medici1 facilities
fs current1, at maximum development, Stanford desires to incorporate this site
f~t' the PF zoned area to increase development capacity. Altho~gh detailed
development ,lans have not yet bee~ submltted, Stanford ~as indicated they
wauid use t~e fncreased ca~acitJ to construct I Primary Care Outpatient Clinic
O~ the parcel immediately adjacent to 851 Velch Road~ _hic_ is presently used
IS a ~dlcal Center parking lot. The Planning CommiSSion ~as reviewed the
proposal Ind recommends that the tit) Council deny the requested actions.
St.ff recommends that the (it} Council app~o~e the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and rezon1ng~ based on th! findings contained \1 this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On Jul~ 2S, 1990, the P1anning COffimissfo~. on a S to 2 vote. recommenced
denh1 of Stanford's request for a Cor.lpre'Piensive Plan amendment and' zone
c~an9E for 851 Velc~ Road. The ~ajaritJ of Cammisston ~embers did not support
the staff recommend.tfon fn the attached July 20, !990 St.ff Report. for
reasons detailed 11 the minutes of the ~etfog, and summarized below:
.. Stanford requested' l rezoni'og far ill) the fI':;-board 'W'elcJ:l Road panel s
during the Cltywide land Vse Study. The Study did not ,upport the
rezoning, but stated t~at -further cansfderaticn of the appropriate
zoning deSignation can be ~ade ~en Stanford submits a specific
proposal-.. The rezoning request submitted by Stanford df~ ~ot meet t~;s
criterfl for i specific prop~sal;
• The recommendations tlf the Citywide Land Use Study were partly bas.ed
on traffic and parking problems 1m He Sand Hi 11 corridor area" and
CI!R:S(l4:0
-' ----....... ~,.-, --". c L
\
,I
•
•
. ':j.,
'~:
,
H~;1~7':·
\'.
1-'
I -~<~">
--: '
-
o o
t~ere have been no sfgn1ffcant impro~emenfs in this iTel to justlfy
c~ln9fn9 the previous decision not to rezone t~i5 area to Pf;
.. The relonhlg req:uest represents a lIiecemeal approach to planning this
area. Stanford s~ould request t~e City te evaluate rezoning gf all the
fa-board sftes at one time;
• The current zoning could accommodate Stanford's need fof' an outpatieT1t
ell.le on the 851 W.lc~ Road sit •.
Commfssfoners Beecham and Marsh oppos~d the ~oticn t~ recommend der.ill af the
project on the basfs that:
.. The rezoning request could be considered I spedfic. proposal fin t~at a
specific site and type of ~se was being Identified. and t~ts was exactly
What the Citywide Study had .sked Stanford t. do;
.. Stanfo.rd should be encouraged to locate rlew Iledfcal center development
II the Velc~ Road area rather than ope"ing up the possibil it, of it
occurrirlg fl areas ~hfc~ may ~e inapproprfate for sue. development.
Th~ .fnut~s of the Plannfng Commissio~ ~eetiDg and the Planning Commission
staff report. dated Jul, 20, 1990~ are Ittac~ed and provide additfonal
i.formatfoD and background.
DISCUSSION
Staff belfeves t~ere is I policy issue whfc~ needs to be addressed regardiog
pote~tial expansion of the Medical tenter. $ive~ th~t the portions of the
~dical Center ~thll the (it} hawe reached effective f~ll development u~de~
the Pf zone~ but that some expanslo~ of the Center is logical. and f. fact has
been part of Stanf~d~s long~range ,Tans faT many years. t~e (;t, should
consider bow and where this expansion s~ouTd tale ,lacer Staff feels there
are basfcll1J four opportunities available to Stanford tc ~eet their Expansion
needs:
J~ Request I Planned Community {PC] zone for 111 or a portion of the
eXlstr~g Medicil Center arel;
l. Req~est that the floor area ratio allowed 11 the PF zone be
Increased;
3. Add more land area tc t~e e~fstfng Medicil Center PF lone through
rezoning of mther sites 11 Palo Alto; Dr
4. Focus ill expansloD on land fa the unincorporated areas.
eSlwelch.cnr/ljt
rJ\R: SllC: 0
L
2
•
.. --.
•
/
.... ~:.2'-='~ ___ ..;.,;;..; __ ."._.~_,_, ... ". -!"_~';':.;.~" ."::,;;""l; __ ...... """~:"'c~ __ """"!; ~'5";'",._--~~~-::"'lIi~_-_>-.o!t>;oo:r--.. ~_,;~,'_~ _,) •. 1:
,
. ,
-
o o
Staff is not supporti.e of scenarios I and 2. Staff be1feves t~e findings for
I PC zone would be difff,~lt to ~ake iB t~'s situatfon~ and t~at increasing
the amount cf floo~ area allowed fl Pf zones co~ld hav! unfmtended
consequences for other PF zoned parcels l~ the City.
Stanford~5 long-Tinge plans outline thefr fctentfan to expand t~e ~edi,al
(enter according to scenarfos 3 and 4~ using unincorporated Count, land and
fnc1udiog im-board Velc~ Road parcels inta the existing Pf lone area~
Stanford is currently pursuing plans to uttl~ze two parcels near Quarry and
Arboretum Roads 11 the unincarpofited area for ~ed;cal cent!r affiliated uses;
and t~is fall. the (itr will be reviewio9 an E!~ for ose ef those parcels. If
the mediCil centtr is to be further expanded or. Pilo ~lto lands~ staff
believes Uat. due to ease of access and proximity to u.hUng Medical {enter
facilities, incorporation of the -i~-board Velch Road area· (i.e., the parcels
between ~elt. Road and the Medical CenteT) is the log!ca1 opportunity for
expansfon If the Pf zon~d areas. While ~edfcal offices and ~limics are an
allowed use il the current Offfce Research (OR) zoning of the Welch Road
parcels, the logIcal locatfons for additional Medical Center floor Irea will
DOt necessarily be on the specific Welch Road parcels. By rezoning to PF~
there win be the flexibility for locating floor area withill the larger PF
area. However, it is important to note that the floor area of the PF zone
(1:1 FAR) is twice t~.t of the OR zone (~"S:) FAR). Staff be1!eves that the
increased potential f100r area is an acceptable tradeoff to the policy
a1tereatives cited above.
Stanford did request •• t the time .f the Citywide land U.e Study. that these
parcels be included i~ the PF zone. However. the Stu~ concluded that a
rezoning tm accommodate sueR lo~g-Tange expansion goals was premature, and
t~at the appropriate zoniog ~ould be considered ~hen Stanford submitted 1
speciffc proposal. Stanford has now s~bmltted ~at staff feels is 1 specific
proposal for one of the fo·board .e1ch Road parcels. A policy Quest!on ~!th
~as now surfaced. IS a re$~'t of t~is proposal, is whether the expansion Q(
the ,.1. Alt. portioD of the ~edic.l Center shoa1d be tre.ted en a parcel by
parcel basis, or by idd~essing all possible rezonings and e~pan5ion at one
time.
The Planning Commlssfon partfall¥ based their recommendation for denlal on the
belief that rezoning and development plans for all of t~e parcels to be
included ia the PF zone should be addressed it one lime. Stiff disagrees ~t~
this approac'. We b!lieve, il thfs particular cise, it is better to address
the expansion on I pirce1 by parcel basiS. Given t~e lengt~ of the leases Dn
the Dther Welch Road parcels {fm ~ost cases~ Dver 60 years remai.ing on the
original lease}, it is oat reaso"able to e~pect Stanford to produce a
s~~tfic. and realistic, plan whfc~ includes future development on all
parcels. Additionall¥. if all the la-board parcels were rezoned it t~is time~
~lnl ~f the e)lstfng professional office uses CD these s;tes wooT~ become
rlonconfonllfng IIses~ and 'Would either be subject to terDlination or ),ave to
carry I -grandfather designation· fDr an extensiwe period of time.
851weld "~mr/ljt
otR:S04,O 3
I.
I
r ,
•
~-~'.
.~~.
~, .
,.
•
, \.
"\
\
\
\ .
\
.> \'
............
~ '" .,
J 1
l
1 , •
-
-.-.
o
8ECOM!1£NDATION
St.ff recommfod. the Citl Council:
J.
t.
3.
Adopt the attached Negati,e Dec1,r.Ilon;
Adopt the Ittac~ed Drdinante~ amendiDQ the zoning ~ap for t~fs site from
OR t Off1ce Research. to Pf t Public facilities; and
Adopt the attached resolution amendfng the Comprehens;ve Plan~
redesignati~g t~e propert, fro~ Researth/Offfce Part to ~ajQr
Institution/Special Facilities,
FINDINGS
Recommendation for apprQval is based on the follow;DQ findings:
1. The rezoning and redeslgnation of the propert, at 851 Ve1en Road Is i.
accor~ ~ith the purposes ~f tne Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive 'lan~
f. t~at tne site and surrounding ~ses are medlc~l serving fa ~ature and
the new zone and designation ~ll allow 5fmflar U5es~
Z~ The rezoDing and redeslgnatfon will not result i. anI slg~;ficant
adverse envirQnmental impacts~ is documented il the ittac~ed Negative
Dec1aratfDn~
3. Any ftlh.re pnject 'Will be consisteJlt with tft,)' zoning ind desi·gn
regulltions. betause all redevelopment -nl} be subject to Use Penzit
approval by the Zoning Ad.illstrotor and design approval by the
Arc.itectural Revfew Soard.
If Council desires to de~y the (omprenensfve Plan amendment and the zone
change J as recommended by t~e Planning Commission. a ~ot;on for denial should
be based o. flndiogs .ade by t~e Plano log Commission at t~elr .eetiog of Jul,
2S~ 1990, and outlined earlier 11 t~is report.
•
. .
~~
" ?
i ,-.
~".
;:;:;;;
lORI J. TOPt"l~ I
~/JtaA;f! ,ieA' atHr
KENrlEH E. SCHREIBH '/
'lanner
85lwelc_,corjljt
CHR:504;O
:
Director of 'lanning and
Communit, Environment
4
" ,
I
Attachments:
o o
Staff report t. Pl.n,log Coumlsslon of 7/20/90, with
attachment., Including Ordinance and Resoiution
Planning Commission excerpt minutes 7/2S/90
cc: 'JanofDg CommfssioD
C~arl.tte Strem, Stanford Pl.nn!ng Office
D.vld O'Brle., Stanford Medical School
~rybeth e •• rd. 137 Newport Circle, Redwood Citt. speaker at Commission
beari~g
851welch.c~/ljt
CJoIR: S04: 0
•
'>
5
\,
'.
---.
-
/
•
o o
TO: PALO ALTO PLAHHING CO~15SION
fILE NO.: 90·ze-II, 90·C~·S, 90·EIA-31
PREPARED BY: lorl Topl.y
CATE: Jull 20, 1990
'ROJECT INFo~TION
loeltlon:
Applicant:
Propertl ~ers~
Regue.ted Action:
'ROJECT SUT9lARY
BSI Velch ROld
Charlott. Strem, Stanford Plonning Office
855 Serrl Street, 2nd floor
Stanford, CA 94305
leland Stanford Junior Unlv.r.lt!
Approval .f Zonfng Map am.ndment from Office
R •••• rc. (OR) t. fublic Facilltle. (PF) and
C~pre~e~siye "an desfgnatfoD amendme~t from
R.searc~/Offlc. fark to "ajor Instit.tion/Speclal
facilltle ••
Stanford Onlverslt1 Is proposing to rezone t~e parcel .t 851 Velc~ Ro.d from
Office Rese.rch (OR) t. Public facilities (PF) and change the Comprehensive
'Ian designation fro. Re.earch/office fark t. Major II.tit.tlon/Special
faCilities.
The rezoning let fan wo~ld do~ble the amount Qf floor Irea allowed. from floor
Ire. ratio (FAR) .5:1 (Illow.d unde. OR zoning) to fAR I.~:I (Illowed und.r PF
zonfng). Stanford Is requesting the rezoning II order t. Illow the
development c'paclt! of t~ls site t. be v.e~ either DO thl. site Dr elsewhere
f. the fllo Alto portloo .f t~e ~dlcal Ce.ter (whlc~ fs alr •• dy zone~ PF).
Since 27,500 square feet of development fs Ilread, 11 lowed on the site onder
the OR zoni09 (5S,OOO-s~uar.-foot lot .Ize x .5:1 fAR), the rezoning woo1d
allow.n .dditlona1 27,500 square feet of dew.lopment withlo the ~edi<.'
Center regfon.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Stiff recommends that the Planning Commls.ion r.commend approv.1 t. the Cit,
Council of tbe envfronmeRtal fm~acl Isses$ment recommending Negatfve
DeelaritfoD and recommend approval of t~e 5ubjett applfclt;on for zone c~an9t
frca OR to PF, and Comprehenslv. 'I •• designation Im.ndment, based DO findings
contll.ed II this report.
SITE INFO~TlON
'orcel Size:
Exfstlng Zoning:
VelchSSI
Ie
1.27 leres (.pproxlmatel, 55,3~0 squire r.et)
142-23·006
Office Rese.rch (OR)
7/20/90
·1-
•
#.
-"
.. ~\ ,
, .
-.
,
,'.
-
ComRreh en 5 i ve Plaft
l)i.stonilitfoD:
DensIty,
ExIsting Lind Use:
SurroundIng Land Os.:
o
Kand.torl~ctlon OatoCs}:
£»vfranmenta' Impact
Assessment:
ANAl.YSIS
PROJECt DESCRIPTION
Research/Offlc. F,rt
ExistIng FAR .28:1
Medic.l Adml.l.tratioo
o
Medical Center Faeilitles and MedIcal and
ProfessIon,! Offices
Tbe applicatIon w.s deemed completo June 25,
Ig90. t~erefore, the 'l,nnlng CommIssIon must
conduct I bearIng by September 24. Ig90. Council
must consIder the 'lanning CommissIon
recommendatIon withl. 30 day. of '1 Inning
CommIssion Ictlon.
An 101tl.1 Study recommendIng Idoptlon of I
NegatIve Deellratlon Is Ittach.d.
At thIs tIme Stlnford is .eekiog onll I r.zonlng Ind Comprehen.lv. 'Ian
amendment. No development ,Ian. have bee~ submitted. Rowever. Stanford has
Indlclted an ImmedIate need to •• e the development tapaclt, of thIs 1.21 Icre
.Ite to ton.truct a Prl.arl Care Outp.tlent (llolc of appro.I •• t." 25,000
~quare feet. Since the ~ed;ell Center propertJ Is currently It maximum fAR.
the r.loolng of this ,It. would enable St.nford to loc.te the new Outpatl.nt
elllic buildIng 00 the adjacent 3.0 acre parkIng lot sIt., already zoned Pf.
AddItionally. the proposed zone ~h."~. would provld. sufflcl.nt FAR to Illow
the 1 •• 3SD·squlre·foot medital admiol.tr,tlon building, currently located on
the sIt., to be retained for In untoown Imount of time followiog ~on.tructlon
.f the new OutpatIent elillc 00 the adjacent .It.. Retention of thl. building
would .nable Stanford to shIft some •• I.tlng tll.lc •• rvlce. to facillt.te
n •• ~ed •• I.mlt recon.tructlon i. Inother Medical Cent.r building.
BACKGROUN[)
Stanford lind Use 'Ions
Stanford's long·rang. ,lans proylde for otllization of the °l.·board" VeIth
Ro.d properti •• (t~Dse propertl •• located dlrectl, adjacent t. the Medical
center) for Medlt.! C.nter u.e. T_15 I.tentlcn Is documented II the 1980
Stanford Land U.e Plan. the 1988 Medlt.l Cente. Region 'lIn Ind the Santi
Clara Countl G.ner,l Ose Fenolt. The 1980 Lind u •• 'la, deslgn.ted the entire
Irea f.·board or Velch Road, Intludlng SSl Velch Road. for ·Instructlon ,nd
R •••• rc\ -Medlu. to ~igb Cen.lt,.· The 1988 Medlc.l Center Plan IdentIfies
the sit. as beIng f. the 'current .,abl. reglon° or the Medlc.l C.nter. It I •
• 0 d.signat.d becau •• the property Is currentl, av.ll.bl. fcr redevelopment
slnc. It Is owned and o<cupled by the Unlyerslty ,t t\ls time. Th. other
I.·bolrd lIelc\ Road ~ropertle. are Identified a. being needed for future
Medical Center Us. (befor. 2010) becau.e the, Ire not currentl, ly,ll.bl. and
V.lcllaSl
It 7/20/90
·Z·
• \
\
. '
I
I
l
I
I.. . r I·
r •. -",
, ,
o o
Ire lea.ed for romll.lng period. ringing betwee. Zl and 67 yelr.. T"e PI.n
reoommend. that the Unlverslt, .. acquire thes. re.,I.lng properties. as the
opportU"lt, Irls.s or I. needed. and mike the lind IVlllabl. for Medicil
Center use ·on In equI' basis to III other Iinds .sed for ICld.mlc purpo •••• •
Slnc. the Kedlc,' Center regIon. Including the Velc~ Road parcIl •• Is not
divided by legl' .ubdl.lslon line •• but r,ther bl l.a •• lInes. the contlguou.
are. I •• al. Alt. whlc~ Is zoned .F 'S considered IS one parc.'. wlt~ • fAR .f
1.0:1 .llowed. AnI Veloh Road parcel rezoned to Pi would become part of this
contiguous parcel. thereby .llo.nng the development Ire' to be used anywhere
wit.,. the Medic.1 Cent.r region zoned Pf. Ind not neces.arill en the specific
.Ite whlc. 's rezoned.
Cltyw1de lind u •• Ind Transport.tloo Study
Th. 1968 Citywide land Us. and Transportation Study addressed the pos.!bllity
of the .outhwest (I.·bolrd) side of Velc. R.ad being I"corporated loto the
Kedlcal Center (s.e attoched study excerpt.). Recognizing t~e long-range
,lan, of Stanford. expln,lon of t~e MedicII Center was t~e on!J Ilternatlve
considered ,. the Citywide Study. The Study also noted t~at due to t~e
limited amount of .ddltlonal development permitted on the MediCI! Center s!te.
expansion would 11kelJ t.ke place on the adjacent Velc~ Ro.d plrcels. Based
OD these assumptiGns, three 11t~rnatfyes were studied for the Velch Road
parcels '" t~e Citywide land Use and Transport.tion Study. The first
alternative a'sumed , fAR of .35:1. The second alternative assumed that these
parcels would be allowed the same FAR .s the rest of the Medical Center
regIon. 1.0:1. The third alternative .s,umed an FAR of .5:1. Under the first
and third alternative., the OR zoning would remala I. plaoe. Under the second
Ilternative. I rezoning t. Pi would be needed.
Due t. unresolved traffiC Is.ues I. the Sand Hill Road corridor. the Study
recommendatfons were based on I policy of o~l, .llowing mfai~al expansfons of
cemmerc'.'. office or i~stftutfonal ~ses f. thfs area until the problems Ire
resolved. The final reoommend,tlon of the Study for the Velc. Road parcels
WlS U.t the CR zoning be rehined ";t~ I .,axlmu. FAR .Howed .f .5: 1.0, .nd
that the 'pproprllteness of the zoning be eval,ated when Stanford .ubmits I
specifIc expansion proposal. Specifically. the Study concluded that,
·Stanford ha, not justified the Deed to Incre.s. the development potential I.
t~e Welc\ Road area. A rezonfng to Iccommodate such long-range expansion
goals would be pre~ature .t tbis time. IS t~e existing de.lgnatlons do not
preclude hos9it.I·.ffililted vses. i"rt~er con.iderotlon of the approprllte
zoning deSignation can be ~ad. when Stanford submits. specific proposal.·
ISSUES Of CONCERN
Need for Relonlng
As ex,lalned pre.lousl" the portion of t~e Medical Center area whlc. fs zoned
PF ts considered one parcel for floor Irel and stte coverlge cllc~lltion
purposes. The Pi zonIng .11 ••• I fAR of 1.0:1. The "edlca1 Center reglon ~as
tssentla!ly reached thl. development Iioit. 1. order to .xpand theIr medical
facilities further. Stanford must ·gaio· additional development capaclt, by
rezonfng the Idjacent VeToh Road propertle. and Incorporating them loto the
Medical Center sit.. The reloolng of as) Velch Road. w~lci fs approximatelJ
55,000 square feel h she, .. auld create an acfdiHonal 21.500 square feet of
deve!opment capacity for •• e II the Medical Center region.
VelchBSI
Ie
L " '
•
\
\
,
." \
, "
"
. ':'
I
'.,.·....,.'.·· .. i.' < '.--.1.
" ~):. c
l.
I
I
I
~
,
o o
Stlnfor~ proposes to .s. t~ls additlon.l de"lopoent eapacltl to construct.
2S,OOO-sQuar.-foot Primary C.re OutpatIent Cllolc on t~. parting lot sit.,
dlrectl, .out~ of aSI Velc~ Road. Th. existing building on t~. 851 Velc~ Road
sit. woul~ b. temporarll, r.t.lned to e"able Stanford to s~lft cll,le ,ervlces
loe.ted 10 t~e 80swell building to the new cllllc building, .. ve •• Istlng
cll.'es 10 the Edw.rds bulldlog to the Boswell building, Ind do some needed
sllsmlc reconstruction I. the EdwlrdS buIlding. The rezonIng Ippllcltlon has
been submitted It t~I' time, wi tho"' specific development ,llns, so thot
Stlnford Cln ,lin the loeltlon of the new cllole building for the parting lot
.It. Ifter Ictlon 'S tolen on the relonlng re~uest. The Stlnford B.ar~ of
Director. has ,Iven theIr conceptuol opprovol for t~. construction of the new
cllole, and will be going out to bl~ for design servIces It the end of August.
One. Ictlon on the relonlog Is talen, Stanford will know~ether to proceed
wit~ design of t~e building on the parking I.t .Ite, or reconsider theIr
alhrnatlves. One Illernathe 'S t. demo1f,~ t~. IXlstlng building at 851
Velc~ Road and construct t~e Dew ~llolc on this sIte. Tbls could be done
under t~e Ixfst1Dg ~R lonfDg. However, th~s 11ternlt(v! fs not preferred by
'tiff due to the sm.11 size of the sIte, t~. number of trees 00 the ,Ite and
ot~er pos,lble constraints. Also, thlo olternotl •• wou1d not .11ow t~,
sbiftfng of ot~er elf.it services so t~al sefsmfc reconstruct ton can be done
la the Edwards buIldIng. FT~ t~e he'plto"s long-rang. planning perspective,
the parking lot site Is consIdered I prefer.ble locotlon for the clilic
building.
If the rezonIng request Is approved by the City CounCil, Stanford wou1d beglo
the process of developIng I specific buIlding propos.l. The plans would then
be submitted to the Cltl for I Use Permit, approval by the Architectur.1
RevIew Board ond additional environmental Issessment. Stanford hi' Indlc.ted
the pllns will lltely be submitted for Cit, .pprovol withll a y.ar.
Pirklng
Construction of I new Outpltlent Cllole on t~e Z75-sp.ce parkIng lot adjacent
to B51 Vele~ Road would res.lt II a los, of man, of the spaces on the site.
However, thl, 10" Is not expected t. be signIficant for severll reason.. r.
t~e ,~ort-tenn, the new cllo!e would be a relocation of exl,tlng employee,
from other buIlding, Ind would not Increas. t~. populotlon or parting demand
with!. the Medical Center region. Also, at t~. curre.t time, there I, a
greater pork log suppll than demand (Including temporory lots). r. the
10ng-tenl, parkIng for t~e cllolc eoeld be provided partl, on-sit. and partl,
withll the existIng surfac. and ,tr"cture lots of t~. Medlcll Center_
To ensure that "" adequlte ,uppl, of parking for t~e Medical Center Is
prav'ded It all tfmes. Stanford ~afmtafns and updates ~n In annual basls I
parklog program ~hich Is tIed t. the long-range facilities ,1annlng of t~e
Ce.ter (see supporting ;.fo~atioo submitted by Stanford, attlched).
Background Inerels., fl employment at the Medical Cent.r Ind f.ture
constructIon Df ambulatory care .erv!c., (of ~Ich t~!s new Outp.tlent C11.lc
Is I plrt) Ire consIdered II the ,arklng progra~. Porklng requirements will
be .vII.lted 10 oore detail ~e. a specifIc sfte pla. for the new Outpatient
Clille I, submitted by Stonford.
Velch8S1 Ie
\ ,
•
,
i ,
I
I
f
I
I
I
t
!
l
t
. ,
, .
\
\
\
\ .... \'
...., .
. ; ~ .
•
, .
'.
.-.. -
o o
COMPRE~[HSIVE PLAN COMPlIANCE
Tbe proposed red.slgnatloo ef the land us. frem Res.arc~/Offlce Plrk to ~ajor
I,sllt.tlon/Speclll flcilities Is consistent with the proposed rezoning and
the curreot and llkel, future us. of the Site.
RECOIVI£NDA TlOII
Stiff recommends that, based on the findings listed below, the Planning
Commission mate the following recommendatIon to the Cit, Council:
I. Adopt the attached Hegatlve Declar'tlon;
Z. Adopt the att.chod orai.anco, am.ndlng tho zoning map for t~ls site from
OR, Office Research, to PF, Public Facilities; Ind
l. Adopt the attached resolution Imendlng the Comprehensive Plan,
redeslgn.Ilng the propert, from Res.lrc~/Offlce Park to "ojor
Instltutlon/Spec;11 f.cllities.
fiNDINGS
I. Tbe rezonIng and redeslgnatle, of the propert] at 851 Welch Read Is r.
accord w1tk the 'purp~su (If UII~ Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensfve ,plan.
fl t~at t~e site and surroundfng use are ~edicll S!rViDg f. nature and
the new Zone Ind desfgnatfoD ~11 allow sfmilar uses.
2. The rezoning and red'esfgnatfoD vi 11 not reSillt fl any s1gnlffcant adverse
environmental impacts~ as documented 11 t~e attached Hegative
Oeclarolloo.
3. 1...'1 fwture project will be consistent "With Cit! Zoning and design
regul.tfons because a1l redevelopment will be subject to Use Permit
Ipproval by t~e Zoning Admi.lstrator and Architectural Review Boar~
approvaL
(OHDITIOHS
All condit4ons cf project approval~ including er.vironment.' mitigatfons. will
bo attached during the project reYie~ p~ase.
ATIACIIKOOS
Zoning ",p Amendment Ordinance
Cemprehooslve Flan Amendm.nt Resolution
[~vironment.' Asses~nt
LOCI tf On "ap
Stanford Supporting Statement .nd Maps
Excerpt fro~ Citywide LInd Use and Transportation Study
(OPI[S SENT TO
Charlotte Strom, Stanford Ilannlng Office
David O'Brien, Director of Planning S.rvlces, Stanford ~dical School
Welcbe51
Ie 7/20/90
·5·
,;~----=;
, .
•
,I .•
:~:-
,I
"
..:
~ , ,
ej
!
-j
,
...
/
, r <
o o
ORDINANCE )10. __
ORD:tJlANCE OF na: COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP PALO ALTO
AKEIIDING SECTIOII 18.08.040 OF TKE PALO ALTO XUNIC
IPA!. CODl! (na: ZONING MAP) '1'0 CHANGE na: ZONE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY ~TED AT 851 WELCH
ROAJ) FROM OR TO PF
The Council of the City of palo Alto doe,. ORDAIN as
followst
SECTION 1, section 11.08.040 of the Palo Alto Kunicipal
Code ... the -Zoning Map·, Is bereby Ulended by changing the z~e
classification of property located at 851 Welch Road frOlil 'OR
Office Research-to ·PF Public Facility., as sbovn on Exhibit -A-.
attached hereto and incorporated here1n by refer.nca.
SEctION 2. The Council hereby finds that thls project will
have no slqnificant effect on the environment.
SECTION l! This ordinance sball become effective upon the
commencement of" tbe thirty-first d.ay after the day of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSEl):
AYES:
)lOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSEN'1:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORK:
senior A.st. City Attorney
"",c'/lB/90bdc
, ,
APPROVED:
l!ayor
city xanaqer
Director of Plonning and
community Environment
Chief Building Official
•
\
, . -.
" l
J
> ,
j ,',
,
;
i
'"
-',"":""':: "'-.
-
r
_,_"' ___ , __ '~ ____ ,~~ _ '_-"'''''''''''.'''~...>C"=--.J"-_~, :-~ •• '"" ,:":
•
II' 0> II'!'"
(150 'IM-O •• leo
M-40
'RAP~IC ATTACHHENl
TCI STAfF REPORT
1
I
l
[
!
)
.~:
r-:"S .... JT ... ~-1-WELO-lCH-C-:-T~'-:~::"',N!., -'1 '
PF
I
f
I ,
l.
,
NDRT~
•
,
\ , :-1-
',' ,. '~"
..... \ 1
, ,
,
-.1r
,
l '. ,
I I
I' >;,C.
G"
" .' ;
,~----
-
, ,
GuoLUTION NO. 0
RESOLUTION OF !'lIE COUNCIL OF !'lIE CITY or PALO AL'l'O
AMENOING !'lIE LAND OSE HAP or !'lIE PALO ALTO COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND OSE DESIGNATION OF
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 151 WELCH ROAD FROK RESEAltCH/
OFFICE PARK TO KAJOR INSTITUTION/SPECIAL FACILITY
WHEREAS, the PlaMi~ COlUti •• lon, after duly n-:>tlced public
bearing held on July 25, 1990, bas recommended that the Council
amend the Palo Alto comprehensIve Plan; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after
duly hOticed public hearinq, the Council d.sires to amend said plan
.1 hereinafter set forth:
NOW, THEREFORE, the councU of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE .. s tollows:
SECTION' 1. The city Council finds that the public
intere.s:t, health, a.fety and welfare require amendments to the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in sections 2 and 3 hereof.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Palo Alto
compreben5ive Plan Land Ose Map to change the land ~&e designation
of property at 851 Welch Road: froll. -Research/Office Park-to -Major
Institution/special Facility·, as .hown on Exhibit -A-, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reterence.
SECTION 3, rhe City Council hereby finds that this project;
will have no siqnificant effect on the environment.
INTROOOCED:
PASSED,
AYES:
NOES,
ABSTENTIONS,
ABSENT,
ATTEST:
City CIerI<
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
8vc7/18/90bd0
APPROVED,
Kayor
City Kanager
Director of Plenninq and
Comeunity Environment
Chief Bulldinq Official
•
\.
'~--'-
:~( > --'.
-...,; ",
'"".,. J:;
,
I
~-.---'-~-'---'-~ .. -' ---.....:...--~---~-~-----, -
i' r
I
o
10
1150 ......, __ IUO
GRAPHIC Ii!TACHK!:NT
TO STWf REPORT
PROJECT
•
\
•
e .L. __ "~ . -. ,.
'~ .
SITE LOCATION
851 WELCH ROAD
j
I
I
1
'\
-
•
\
£NYIRONMENTAt ASSlSSM£Nl
ProJect DoserlptlcnITltl.: lle.tlc, to r.zcne • 55 320-, u.r.·foot
plreel It 851 Vele' RCld 'rem ;ce .".rch [OR) to u te lei Itle' P
Ind to amend the Com re~ensr~e Plln desS nation from eSflre 0 (e IT
to e. or ,.tltvtlo' S ec. I, It.
Loc.t lon/Address: ,,8"-51'-"V .... ,'-'c"'~'-"-Ro"'."'d'-_______________ _
5pon' orl ng Age nCJ' lApp lie lnt : ".5t..,."nl!.fo"'re>d'-"lIn!!.l...,v"'e!..rs,,'..,t,..1 __________ _
Addr ... Ind T.'epbone of Appllc.nt: t
Ap.p1fClh~. for: zoning eflange 1M" ComRrf!~enshe Phn amendmeflt
(e.g., zonfng C~I"ge~ s~bditisfon Qf propertr. arc'itectural review, ~se
permit)
Zoning It Project Locltlo': OffIce Res.arch Fee Reeei~t No.: 90-21.
NOne! Of DETERMINATION
B, •• d u~on r.vlew cf the project file •• the under"gned ~emb.r of the Pl,nnfng
Oe,.rtme.t h •• concluded:
(!J Neg.!;ve Cecllr,tlon: The project h.s no signiffc.nt en,fronment.l impact.
~o (~vfrorumentll Impact Report fs requfred. The reasons ror I Negatf~e
Oecl.r.tloo Ire: I. the ott.,hed 1.ltf,l study. A record of FroJect Ie·
tfOD is Ivailable for rev few at the Palo AltD ,lanning _Department. located
on the 5th floor of city H.ll. 256 R •• ,lton Avenue. P.l. Alto. CA.
'_I lh' pr.je,t .'1 h.v. I .Ignlfl<ont envlronment.l Impact. An [nvironment.l
Impact Report will be prepored.
'1lnnlng Department Offfcill: L J ;l(;i"c
"k eLI'-.. (/ • 7 P1Inning Director: ~ Sr~ Oate: 7fr/Vtz
T~. project ha. been .ppro.ed. Oote:
The proJect hiS been de.led.
·Revls.d 8-I·Jg
ElWOOD
KI
Dlte: _____ _
file No.: 90·[I~·09
90-£1 ... -31
J
k
!
I
..
, .
.',.!!O ' ,,--:;.
.~-~ , ?~:~.
.' ,~,
-'
• < ,
J{.j
, r>·
I
I
~
. "
:-..:, ".
o o
£II'IIROII!Ii:NTAL DOCUHtIilS • PALO ALTO
INITIAL STVOyl,t
I. Pr.ject Tt t Ie/Mdrul:_B"'S,,'_V..,."'l"'d"-"R"' •• ..,d'-__________ _
II.
III.
u.
ProJ.tt Destriptlon:
OR t. Pf I,d ..end C
Rozone exl,tln 55 310-s •• re,foot .~el from
re ens ~e ~n ~si nttfon rOM eS~lrc
Office 'ark t. m. or .stlt.tlon ecla It I t.
rlriou$ liZ' Ina age. SurrDundfng ,ses Ire ~djcl Ind pr~fes5fDnal
bUIldings Ina bospltal flcilltl".
[.vlrDnmentll Impatt C.,tkll,t (Expl.n.tlon of III 'ye,' IntwOr' .re I.
Sectlo. J)
1. Earth. VIII the prop ••• l r.,.'t I.:
a. Un,tabl. e.rth c.ndltlons or chang.s
i. g •• loglc ,"botruetures!
b~ Oflfuptfons. dlspllcemeQt'~ eompactro~
or ov.rcgy.rlng of the ,.,l?
c, Co,nge I. (opogrlph, Dr ,round ,urflet
relief features!
d. Th. d.structlo., coyerlng or modlflca
tlo. of lnl unique V.ologlc or phy.lcil
fntures? -
e~ AnI fnerelsf fl wind Dr ~tet .rDsfcn
of s.I1 •• enhor DO or off the ,Ih?
f. [.po.ure of p.ople or Fropert, to
geologie bazlrds suc~ IS 'Irthqulles~
landslides •• ud,lfde •• ground 'allor ••
or .Imll.r hal.rd.}
g. ekange. II sllt.tl.n. dopo,ltl.o, or
ero,lon Whlc~ ~.y ~.difJ the c~.nn.l
of • rlv., or the bed of • bay or flletl
_1_ ..!..
IAdapted from Appendlr J. Ca1lforlf. '.fdolln •• '.r Implement.tf.n of
CEQA •. Oetember 14, 1975.
2Updlted "",, 1982; Jun •• 1983
"" "'
•
\
,
...---
o
2. !!!. Vill the propo,.l res.lt t.:
•. Subst.ntlal air 1.lsslons or d.terlo,.·
tlo. of amble.t .Ir quality?
b. lb. ~reltlo. of objlctlo •• bl. ordors?
c. A1terltton of .'r aovement J .a!sture
temporatur •• or Iny change ,. cllmat ••
.Ith.r locilly or reglonol?
3. V.ter. Will th •• propo .. ' r.ult 10:
I. Chlnges ,. Ibsorptlo. rlt.s. drllnlge
patterns. or th! rite and ~unt of
surflce W1ter runoff?
b. Alterotlonsto the course or nov of
flood waters?
C. Discharge I.to surflce water •• or ,. any
IlteritfoD of surface W1ter qUllit"
Includl'g but not If.it.d to temperltur ••
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? •
d. A1teratlo. of the directfo. of r.t. of
flow of ground water,?
e. [xposure of people or prop.rt, t. water
rellted hazards such .5 floodi.; or
tfdal WiVe-it
f. C~ange I. the qUlntlty of ground wlters.
either through direct addition, or with·
drAwals. Dr through lot.rcepllons of an
Iqu'fer by c~t$ or exclvltfonJ?
4. 'I.nl llf •• ViII the propos.l res.l! f.:
I. Chlnge I~ t~. divers It, of species. or
number of Iny specl.s of ,lints {Includ·
Ing trets, Jhrubs, grass, crops, ~ic~g
flor •• nd .quallc ,l.nt!}l
h~ Jeductro~ Df t~e numbers of Inl vnfque,
rare or endangered species of pl •• t.?
c. lotroductlo, of new species of ,l.nts
loto In Irea. or I •• barrier to the
nono.l reple.lshment of .xlstlng species?
ff. RedUCtfOD fa acr .. ~e of .nl Igrlc.Hunl _""
CTOp?
ElA09jElMIICK
Q
, '.
'~:i~;;-~J:~~' ~. ,
-
_1_
..L
110·£1 ... ·09
l
'--'
•
~:> .
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
. ~ --.
o o
5. ~1.11 life. ~jll the propo •• l re •• lt I.:
6.
1.
8.
9.
t. Chlnge h t~. dIVOT>1I1 .f specIes, or
of lnl specfes .f Inl.,ls {birds, '.nd
I,f •• l. 'ncl.ding r'pt!"" fIsh .n~
shellfish, bent'lc .rganl .... 'os let. or
.,Ic .. flunln
b. ReducUo. of t~e nUlllbtr. of ,., un!que.
rl~ or end~ngerod specie •• f anlm.l.!
c. r.troductlon .f new .peele. of .nlm.l.
iato an .rel, O? re,.lt s •• blrrflT to
the .'gr.tl~ or ... ..ent of Infll.l.?
d. Get_rlor.tlon II e.,.t'ng fl.h Dr >rtld
I If ... bit.!?
!lli!. 11111 th_ proposal ..... ll I.:
I. Incre •• e. I. e.'stlng no'.e level.?
b. £Xpo.u~ of people to severe .ofse
levels?
. ~III the propo •• l produce
. Will t~e propo,.l re •• lt I. I
ITte.ation of tho pro,ent or
,llnned lind Ule of In .rea?
Ene~~~atur.' ResDurc.s~ Will t~e propo .. l
ren t f.:
I. Vse of substlntf.l amount. of fuel .r
e.eC91?
b. Substlntl.l 'ncre.se '0 de.and upon
e.fstfng so~rces of energy. Or requfft
the developmeQt mf new Sourcel or
energy?
(. Incr,ase f. the rite of use cf any
ftlturll rtsources?
d. 5u~st.nt',l depletloD of Inl •• nren~·
able 8it~rll resQurce1
10. list of Upset. 00 •• the propo,., fnvolve I
rlst of In .,pl.slon Or lhe reI •••• of
h.~.rc!DU' substance. «(Dclud'D;. but DOt
lf~lted to, ol}, pestIcides. c~emlc.ls or
rl4iltfDD) f. the event of IPo Iccfdent cr
up .. t?
n ~Og/£1 AF",~
Q
...!...
..!..
---. .L --
.!..
.!..
.!..
..!..
..!..
.L
.!..
90·EJA-C9
3
,
\
•
,
s, • ~--
~
,
•
, '
" .
I
"
..
'. "
-'. "
/
o
II. PopulltlontHou,ln ••
I. VIII t~. propo •• l .ltor t~e loc.tfon.
4istributiDn. densttl. ~r grDwth rite
of the huma. popul~tlo. Dr In lroa?
b. VIII the propo •• l .ffect •• rstlng
hDuslog, or cr. It. I demand 'or Iddl
tlonal hou. fog?
o
12. Transport.Ifon!elrc.latloo. VIII the propo •• '
r ... h 10:
I. ',.erltlo. of substantl., addltlon,l
.ebl,.l'T movement?
b. Effe,ts d. exfstlng parking f,cllitlo., -A
or 4emln4 for new parkfng?
c. Alter.trons to prosent pltt.r •• of
ciTc~lltron or DOvement of p!ople andl
Dr good.?
d. Increl'o I. trafff' hlz.rds to ~olor
.ehlel,., bl,y,llst. or peatstrlan.?
13. Public Ser_Ieo.. VIII the proposal hive In
Iffect upon. or result fl I need for nev Dr
.ltered governmental s.rvlc.s I. anI of tke
following Ire.s:
a. ffre protection?
b. '.ll,e protectloo?
c. Schooh?
d. 'ark. or other recr.ltron.l '"cllltle.?
e. ",fnl'n,n,o of p"blfc flcilltr •• ,
fncludiog r •• ds?
f. Other government. 1 servfc.s?
I~. Utilltl.,. V;ll the propo,.l r ••• lt I. I need
for ne ... systems. Dr substa.thl alterations to the
'.110"';n9 vtflitl •• :
t. Power Dr ~lturll gas?
b. Communl,.trons <y.tems?
[(A09JElAFltCK
~B
.-.. ,'--,
_1_
_1 __ _
90·[( ... ·09
4
•
....$ .
,
<
,
'.
c. V.te.l
d. Sewi. D. s.ptlc tank?
e. Sto .. water dral.agel
f. Solid wlste and dispos.l?
IS. Awoo. Hea1tk. Will the propo.11 re'.'t II:
•• C.tltlo. D( any h •• IU hazlrd o.
potu,h' ~ •• 1t~ hazord ( .. e'adlng
.. oil' A.·.1th)?
b. Exposar. of peoP,' to potentl.1 ~.llt~
h2lNlSl
16. Aesth.tlc •• WIll the propo •• , resllt II the
ob.tr~tfoo of Iny scenic ylst. or vl.w
ope. t. the public, Dr will the propos.'
resl,t '" the cre.tl.o or an .e.thetlcl",
offeAsl., sIt. ope. to publIc view?
11. Retre,tloo. Vflt the prop ••• ' re.l,t II a.
IIIIj>.ct upon the qUIHty or qUI.titl of .. Ist--
fog recre.llonll opportunities?
18. C.,tur,l Resource ••
a. Will the propos. 1 re •• ll I. the .1Ie •• ·
lion of/or the destruction of a
pr.hl.torfc or l'storle archaeologIcal
site?
b. WIll lhe proposal res.'t I •• dverso
physlca' or a •• t~etlc efftcts I. I
prehistoric or 'lstor'c buIlding,
structurei. or DbJect?
c. Doe. the proposI\ lave the potential
t. Cluse. a pby.lcal change which would
,ff.et ."Q"e cillur.l yal.es?
t. W;ll tht proposil r.strlct exlsllng
religious or •• cred use. wit~11 lbe
potentf.l Imp.ct .r.a?
[J A09/£IAFIICK
Q
~ ~O
..!...
..!...
..!...
...!..
90'[/A-09
5
,
;.
.'
,..'" ' •. -,>. ,~-,--'"
" 'i
,
~ ., , .
Y.
, .
. -.
/
1'. Mlndator, F~'ngS af Slgnlflcan,e.
o
I. 000. l~t projetl h.v. lb. pateatll' t.
degrade the qUI1't~ of the enolron •• nl.
.ubstlntl.,,~ redut. the hlbl!lt of a
f, •• or .n1dllf. spe,I ••• cluse • fls~
or .nldllf. pa~ulltl.n t. dTC~ below
se'f·sustll.'ng le •• ls. threaten t •
• 11.'olt •• pl.nt or .olmll commuoltl,
reduce the number Df restrict the ran9"
III
af I rare or endangered pllnt Dr aniMll or
111.ln,te Imp~tlnt eXlmples of the mljor
periods of fill fDroh "storl or ,rehfsto'11
b. Does the project ~lve the pot.nlla' to
ac.ll.e short-teno. to the dlSldvlntage 0' lDng·t.rm, envlronment.l gools. (~
sh~t-t.no implct on the environment Is
Dn. wille. otcu .. II ••• \aUoe11 brief.
d.ff.,II •• period of time wIllle lDng-t ...
Implcts .nIl endure well 'oto the future.)
c. Coes the projecl ~'ve implcts wille' Ire
IndiYldulll, limited, but cumulltl,el,
conslder.ble? (~project mal Impact on
. two OT ~~t sepiTatt rt$c~rtes vhere the
impact on each reSDurce is rrlatfvtl,
sm.", but ~~ere the .ffect ~f the total
of tf.ose impact, on the environment is
"gnlftCl"t.)
d. oOes t~e project tav. envIronmental
effects whic~ will CI"" sub,t.ntill
adYerse effects on ~uman beings. e'ther
dl.ectl~ or IndIrect I,?
[xpllnltlo. Df 'yes' Inswers { •• nv!ronmentll checklist.
Se. attlched.
[IAOIJElAFII!:I(
KB
90-£1-'-09
5
-----.,.
.:,:.,;;:-
"-:;~-
"'. ' ,",
-.~ ,
II.
o o
An ACHKDIT TO DlVIROIIII[NT DOClmOO S
fOR
851 VELCH lOAD
Const~tlon of a nov bulldlDg and ,lrtln9 to the .IJI~um s'Zt
pe .. ,tted co.ld res.lt , •• ,.,.,1 ch,nge. I. the soil covtring. The
Iindscaping and "te ,lin would be subject to "t, regulation. and
Ipproval. "
I.(f,. brU.
Thl project site Is loclted ,. , ,"Iso'e Ir.a of ICderlte ri.t, Ind
would be subject to yerl strong ground shaking ,. the event of an
earthquokl. While no ne. construction is ,llnned It t_,s time, as I
re •• lt .r the rezo.'ng, a larger building could be constructed on the
site. AnI ne. construction would be .ubject to the proviSions .f the
current Unlfono Building Code regarding ~i.lmlzing seismic "risk ,nd
Freventing loss .f .'fe and prDpertl.
4.(a,. Flint llf ••
Construction of a larger building cn the site woo'd Iitel, require
the remeva' of some veget,tiDn, although the site would be
rolandsc,ped.
6.{a,. !£ill.
7.
Any bew oD·sfte conslructfan ~ul~ resHlt t. temporarl Increises fl
Imblent noise le.ols. Construction ,ctl.ltles weold be subject to
comp"ance wit' the Falo Alto NoI.e Ordinance.
rr.;r.c..;.5-..;.r~. On·,1te construction could renlt I. 1ncreued
gonerated from the slto. lhe design of Inl future
proposed proje,I, including the lig~ting Flan, would be subject to
Ihe approval of t~. Arc_ll.ctuTal Revie. Bo.rd.
11.(b}. Fopu'atioo/Hou5ing.
As , nosllt of t~e rezoning, a larger .fflco building could be
construcr.d en t~e lite. The ~umber af employe~s Dn~5ite would
increase by I smlll amount, whick could generate additfona' demand
for ~ou.lng. Tbe Cltl hi. adopted I Rousing Mitigation Ordinance,
howe.er, hos,"al, (and Incllliry u5es) are Ixeopt from the
prDvfsfons of the DT'inance.
eh09.tt/kll Poge 1 of Z
•
.--1-":
-,
. "
/
o o
It.(.,b). Tr.nsport.tlon/Clrc.1.tlon.
12.(d}.
>.-.
'. '
Al • rosalt of t~. r"onlog, t~. allowed FAR for the sit. would
locr.as. 'rom ,5 to 1.0. Under curront loning, • maximuM of 2S,OOO
square f.et of floor ar •• Is .llo.ed. Under the proposod Lonlng, a .. x,~ •• f so,oee squ,re f.et of floor .rea woul6 be .llowed. ~s ••
allo .. d under tho exl,tlng Ind proposed zoning ar. ,llllar.
Tnfflc venerated by an .dditlona' 25,000 square fe.t of
6ev.lop~eot ,r.' I. not ,xpected to r ••• lt ,. an1 s'gnlflcant
traffic Impact.. Tho 'Cltywidl L.nd Us. and Tran'portatio. Study
[II' eval •• ted the tr.fflc Impacts of sever.l dev.lopment s,"n.rio
.It .... tl •• ' fbr the S.nd Mill Road Corridor ar.a. The .Ig~ •• t
den.lty .lte .. atl •• a.sumed In In,'e.s. 10 .llow.d FAR to 1.0 for
an the 'to·board' lIelet Ro.d properU .. including this site. The
Ell concluded that the differen," f. the traffic Imp.cts among the
thr,e .ltern.tl.o. would be olnor.
'.rklng demand would be tnere •• ed If a n.~ building were
constructed Dn the site. If the new deyelopment were to
fncorporlt. the ldjacent lot, ~Ich c.rrentl, .erve •• s a parking
lot, some parking cap.clt, would .1.0 be lost. P.rking for a new
building would llk.I, be provided o.·.tt •. Some.f the odditio.al
developmont .re. allowe4 by t~. zoning change would probabl, be
.s.d .l.e~er. '" lhe medic.l center region. All new development
will be required t. show that adequate plrklng I. lvall.bl. at the
time specific propo •• l. are made. The repllcement of 0', lost
parking ".uld .lso .eed t. be addressed.
Tr.nspor;atlonttlrc.l.tlon.
AnI new dev!lopment Dn tki5 stte. or else~ere wft~fl t~e medical
center regfoo~ ma1 fncreas~ the need for bfcycle and pedestrian
,ath~ys. r.is ~eed~ and t~e design te ~i.fmfze trlfffc ~alard5.
"Ill be ev.lu,ted at t~. lime 0 specific development propo •• l I.
submitted for approval.
Page Z of Z
•
, ......
;,~';-
.0. ..
, ,
I
'I , I
l
I
O!!'
'1
" I I
,J
~"~
. '
•
, ,
r
I OJ?
LOCATION
5S1 WELCH ROAD. '
PF
•
llSO U40" 100
M-40
','L
, .
I
I
r
!
f .
I
I
I
~
~
•
\
\ ,
\ ,
\
, "
,
-0':'-;-.,>
.]-~ .
• \
i
, .
o o
SUNFORD
Slaromen' I.PPOf'tin, applicatio<l 10f' rezonlnl 851 Wok' Road
Irom OR " orr",o R .... rc. 10 PF " PubUc hcl1iliH
The JaOOln& of lSI WoklI RDad will_bIe men: eflident plilizlDon of !he ModicaI
Qru ... 1ands. StanlonI UnivasiJy Iw long anlicipated !he need 10 ~ !he
WoklI Rood pi opt> lies fer uIilizalM>n by !he MedfcaI~. This inlOJlllOll ..... '!aled kII yean .,0 in our 1980 Land Use PIAn by !he dcsipwioo oflbi. 10nd as/lUD'Vi:tio.
Grid R~l· M<tfjum 10 Hig' DiMIty. The MedlCaI Center Regica Plan funh ...
clef",es !he expocted use, /'or Ibis IlU. Th. Medical Qnter region is divided into !We>
functional >D!!CS: ,Tcaehln, and Resurcll. and Paticru Caze. The IS I WoklI Road
propc:rt)' is in !he Paticru ~ I:e&.
The rezoning 1l'()Il!d allow tile cSe.elopm"''' eapaci!} /'or Ihi s oi~ 10 be used on !his si,.
orclsewbere wilhin!he Palo AlIopatie>o of tile Medical Center. 851 Welch Road is
!he only in-boan! W.lch Road ~ ",hid! is owned and occu,l'ied by Ibe Univorsi!)'
and avaiIable fer incorpcnaoo "'10 !he Medical een .. , at this nme. Without !his
rezoning. Ih. Medical Conter VIOUId need to lICCommodate prog1>m Deeds c1sewbere in
!he Sana Clan O>uruy portion of tile Medical Cen,.,. "'lion .. -hid! ..-ou:d reduce
functional emclellCJ.
The eum." agreemeru be ....... !he Medic!l Qnter and Pale> Al!o is !bar !he contiguous
area in Palo AlIo zoned PF be consicre..d .. one pan:d and hav, • floor AAa Rallo of
1.0 and Ground Area O:",rag< of 0.30. Wi'" tile inclusion of 8S 1 Welch Road into
!he PF zoned arta. tile intcnlioo is to mainlain this floor Area Ratio and Ground Area
C'<>vera,e.
ConsiSfenc), or rezoninl request wila. existin& ,PZannin& document.
" Stanford Land Use PIAn 1980
The entire area in·boan! orW.lch Road was designated /'or T",ITIICtio. Dn4
Reuardl in .". 1980 Land Use Plan. (Sec Land Use Plan Qntral Campus 19f1O.
2010, paaa27-29).
• M<:dicaI Center Rclion Plan 1988
ExhibitS (pag. JO} or tile Medical Center Reiion PIAn sho ..... !he ITClS ,.,hid! Ibe
MedicaJ Center Identifies .. tile "Cu=nt Usable R.gica" and ~ ...... needed
before 2010 /'or Medical Center programs. 8S1 Welch Road is identified within Ihe
"Cu=ntUsable Region" betause tile Univorsi!), own. tile bIlllding and iI is
occupied by Univcrsi!), and Medical CenItI otrlCCS. All or Ill. in-board Welch
Road properties oum:ntly .sed /'or income PUIpOSCs are icleotificd IS areas needed
bcf<n 2010 /'or Medical Cent ... pt'OJ1IDlS.
Tbe "Qxnpreben<ivc Plan /'or tile Medical Center 1988-2010· map (page 16)
sho",. 85 I Welch Road os an ah ..... tiv. locatiO<] /'or tile Hospital A<1mini>Inrlvc
Offiu Buildin.. Th. ah ..... ti •• Iocalioo is in Ibe San .. Clan O>uruy patiO<] of tile
Medical Center .. cion 00 tile Quarry Road "Trapezoid" sile.
MAl' 2 ~ lS90
D~p"'RTMnn ['If Pl"HNLNG
!tlll H HIS llT!j
?tJ-Z-c.-,f
'lo-cJ'-r
</c--c/4 -J)
-1-
•
\
I-
I r
, ,
,
•
""'"" :.,;:;;
::w,·
~.-
-~-
-,
, .~
•
< '-
I r· I ••
I · , .....
> I
!
•
o o
• Santi Oara CloomJy GcIlcral Usel'<mlit I!Id EIR
. 0IIpt0r 3, paJC 3-11 dItoaJh 3-20 c1cscn1>e. the anDQpated buildin, projecu in !he
Medical 0iIl1er (boI/I ill !he County and in Palo Alto) lillie lime IIIe EIR fer !he UK
FmDitWU p:opare4. Tbc 0cncnI UK Permit incli>clcd projecls w populaDoo
expodld b)' IIIe )'eO!' 2000.1IIll did DOl cIcaI with JUIOftin, or 0Ihc:r ,laMin, ICtion1.
lalentiOGl 'or elll ... ID-boar. Weld! .... d propertl ..
Tbc Medkal Cen ... Rqioo Plan (pa~ iii) .tcWIillC11ds !bat Ibe Unf\lcniry ~ the
"~/lj;boord WeIcl Rood prq>CIIics (701. 703. BOI, and 1101) I!Id make IIIe
IanII • fer Medkal CeaIer usc 011 an cqoall>osis 10 all od>or IanIIs USDd fer
tetdemie ","poses.
SWlfard iD1CDds 10 IUOq1IiR iD-boan! WcIclI Road propcnie, Oft an oppc.nwtiry basis
(ie. ;C and Mea a ........ "nan! clcsirellO tcnnlnatc their leasc, SWlfOld will coruiclcr
rcaoquirin, the leaseho1d). Tbc IikdilIoocI .,,~!imin, of !he availability of Ibcse kucs
is unpr.dicW>lc.
Tbc terminaDon dates of IIle in·boan! Wek" Road leaseholds vary fIom 2310 6i yem
fIom DC ..... Fourofth. five lease. wiIIe"l'irc emf 60 yean fIomnow.
InltDtion. 'or lSI Wok. Road
The tni'!'"'Y mooIvotioo fer .. coain, Ihc propeny is 10 enable the clcvclopmenl capacity
of this site 10 be USDd eilhcr Oft this oi .. or olsc",r-in the Pa10 Alto ponioo of Ihc
Modi<:aI CenIa .
• PrimaIy em Outpatil:DI Oinlc 011 8S I and 1IfJ=1 "pic shaped" partin, 101.
M immcdiaIe .....s Is ., .... !be cIcvcIopmenI capacity of !be siIc ., constnICI a
PrimaIy em Outpatient Oink c( .pproJdmately 15,000 poo' sqU&R feet. Tbc
Rcoain, of aSI WcIcI! Road would cnable the Medical Center., opllmizc the
location of Ihc faciliry in an IIU whkll includes 8S I WcIcI! Road and the adjacent
"pie ohapcd" partin, 101.
ConslNClloa of IIUs DCW facili!y will enable the Medicol Cerler." Rassip some of
!be exis1ln, ~ .... clini<s in the B"n;eD buildin.& 10 the new fadliry; move
exis1ln, sub'specialry clinks in the Edwanls buildin, iDlO the Boswcll building; &lid
do ocismic reCccsInIeDon ill Ihc Edwanls bui1dinJ.
The enviroIImcruallmpaa of the eJ<istin& and projOClOd fIlllR popI11aDon of the
main Medicol Centcrbas been evaluate<! in the GcneraI UK Pennit EIR. This
includes bolll cUsIin. and proj<aed employee. and paDcnlS of the Prima:y Care
0I1pa1iem 0iDIc.
One altemal!~ Is 10 demolish the eKisting stnJC1UI'C and consINCI a PrimIry Care
OItpatil:nI Oinie of approJ<imately 15.000 goss square feet "" !he lSI WcIcII Road
site. This could be a=>mpfullc4 wi"'"", IIle ... coain,.
-2------:-----, -,----,--,----.. -., ---_ ..
..--," . :y
-
• \
\
,
I
'.'
.. ~ -.-.
, ','
>
<'>Jc
:,
'.
_.
-
...
~-f~.
1 .
o o
Partlnl
lbe MedkoI ~Dlcr Partin, Prop'" e&lculate. partin, $UppIy and demand for Ill""
and lon, \CI'ID borizono 10 insure an adequate oupply of parldna. 1be cumnt Partin,
Plan. sent 10 Palo Alto July 14, 19S~. e"Plain. bow !he parkin, demand is colcuIalCd
and bow anlkipalcd project schedul .. a!!0CI supply and demand. In aMidoa 10 specifi¢
projects. J.S" &MuaI bact""""" p-owtl> (acocr tar ""lpaeeD' visilat voIllIDC is
added. 1be anlicipalCd PrimMy Cltc n.lpa6enl awe is • relocaDoo of wsIin,
funcnons, so !he populadoa ISsocialCd wilh it is already paron, It !he Medical Center
and Ihe prcjcc;1ed pilpulaliOO is included ill !he Gencnl j)~ PamiI EIR.
1be 1989 Medical CenICr Partin, ~ anticipated a shona,e of parldn, in Matt.
of 1990. This Iw DO! occurred due 10 project schedule cbanse. and oddilioIW surface
pMkin, being made a"ailable. A proposed Parking StrU<1UJ'C m i. CUITCntlf D<lt
.. peelCd 10 be _<led 1ll1tU Ihe Clinical Sciences Buildings arc cor>stI\IC1ed 10 • few
)'UIS.
1be FaeiEees Plan ,.hich Ih< Medical ~crer Parlcing l'ropm is ba~ 00 is currently
being revised 10 accommoda" CUtTenl needs including eanI1quake repain 10 cristi,g
strU<lUJ'Cs. Oncelh< Faciliees Plan is revised, lIle Parking l'ropm ean be .. vised
accordingly.
MocfICaI Qntcr plano"", .... conIidenllhal any addilioual parlcing demand gcneared by
population from !he devclopmen. capaoily foe 851 Weld. Road can be accommodated
willlin Ih< sys<em of ,wf .. elots and plaMed improYcmcnlS.
Citywide Land Use Ind Transporlation Study
Our kaers 10 "'" Ciry c:onsisrendy indicated our inrendoa 10 rcaoqulrc Ih< in-board
Welc~ Road propcrlies for lCademic nsc. This was ... fleered in Ill. I/lM6 staff "'l""'
Nc zoning chang •• were """" 10 Welch Road IS • resull of "'" City..ode lAnd Use and
Transponadoa SlUdy.
.. \ c
\
~; ,.
-
•
,--.
/ ,,-~~, '';:'_$'"?_,,,,_:~:~-_~~~~~~~-C!tIl.h_~.
~?_ Zt;;-II 9 0 -E1"'-.3/
-c-I'-5" 0 r01g~s;U\~i~ii'1l1 ~'~ t6 w [6 ~ tJ lb.l;'
MAY 2 4 1990
otP_.TUENl OJ Pl ... MitfG
tin H Uti uTI
~.nnoth R. SChroiber
o
Jaly 14, un
Director of Planning and Co .... unity Developmont
City of Palo Alto
25G Haal1ton Avenue
palo Alto, California '43Dl
BE; MEDICAL CElflEB EARlING PROGRNS
Dear Xen,
As you knoW. the Medical center cont1nues to maintain its
parking prOiram which vas first developed in 1'81. rhe prOiram
is updated annually and is a workinq document used for internal
pur,poses in connect1on with both the Medical center's long
ranq~ facilIties planning and tha annual campus-vide capital
construction proqram known as Gene~al Plant Improvement~ We
are pleased to continue our practIce of reporting to you on its
status.
Parking f. planned tor the main Medical Cent~r area as a Whole,
a regional approach first endorsed by the City in connection
with r.vlev of the ase permit tor HKP in 1914. Regional
planning tor Xedical Center ~arking is preferable to a ~roject
by-project approach tor _ number of reasons: the Medical Center
1. located in both the City of palo Alto and the unincorporated
county, and tho atandards of the two jurisdictions difter:
permit parking lots at Stanford are available to all UniverSity
and Hospital employees, rather than assigned to specific
buildi~.; and the Xedical center req10n Is relatively separate
from the rest of the campus but is not further divbible into
lOiical parldng .ub-regio ....
In order to contInually update and refine the parking program,
Medical Center planners perform an annual census of all
faculty, stUdents, staff. outpatients, inpatient., and
volunteers. In addition, the number of visitor. is est1~ated~
based on the numbers of patients and bode.
ParkIng demand formulas, developed by PRe Voorhees and modified
by Stanfor~ planners. are applle~ to the census figures to
calculate the parkIDg needs of the ya~lous Medical Center
populations. Thesa formulas account for a 10' vacAney rate
(double the City requirement, in all parking Iota. ~he
resulting d •• and figure. are compared to the eXisting parking
inventory to deterwine eXistIng vacancy rates: actual counts of
parke~ car8 in representative lots are a150 perto~ed annually.
to verIfy the eontinue~ accuracy of the fo~ulas •
. ,
. ~).. '
.. ~~ ..
. ,
.;-,.
.~.
t:--,
~1f' ..
I
I
:. "
o o
!'he to ..... l .. and d .... nd UIJUU" ara U,.o the bash of phnni"9
for tuture parki~ ... od,., and expected ch.ng.. 1n p.rking
eupply and d .. and are treeUcI .onth by ."nUl. Ev.nts thot can
.ftoc:t J>OIrkl~ includ. perU"" apae .. lo,.t te"porarily and
pOnD.nenUy to conatruetlon p .. ojeeta, oc=pancy of "_
buildi""s, baekq .. ound inc .... ,..,. 1n •• ployaant, and eonatructi,,~
of lIew J>OI .. ki~ foeiliti.,..
At thla tl .. , opri"" of 1"', da.and toraula. precliet a need
tor 3577 apae.s. Av .... g. car counta, In F.bru.ry, indicate a
d ... nd tor 3, U2 .... rki"" apoe .. and a .upply of 3,6GO pa .... n.nt
0114 4~0 t •• porary apac... !'h. actual un vacancy rat. 10
therefore 10.1'.
Aa ahown 1ft tha att.chad ato;l"" Icenarlo, a .bo .. t.qe In
pa .. ki"" spaeas la .nticlpated In Ka .. ch of 1990 due to
construction of a .. ov labo .. atory l>uild!nq on a slta th.t I,.
currently a p.rking lotI a .urplus wIll be raqoined in ~ay of
1"1 viUl the openi"" of a lIev pa .. king atructure Which 1.
cu .. rently bei"" plannad. A temporary lot located on ca .. pu.
Drive batween Welch Road .nd Stock F .... Ro.d vIII be .v.ilable
to accDmmc4&te the rei1on'. parkl"9 ne.4. during that period.
(Pl •••• not. th.t the •• temporary space. ora ,ust outside of
the Kedie.l C.nter raqion all4 .... ~ countad in the Raqlon's
parki"" supply Inv.ntory shown in the stag!"" s"en.rio.)
Whon the planned parki"9 atructure la activ.t.d Cappro~. May
1"1), a b •• lthy p.rkinq surplu,. i. antieip.ted throuqh Janu.ry
of l,t,. Tbe alz. of the surplus viII vary froo .onth to
lIIonth, a. park1ng lob are lr •• cS u.p or construc:ted, and •• new
bulldinq project:a are undertaken and eoapleted.
Betveen nov and 1"3, the tollovlnq p.rkl~ t.cilitl.s or.
approvalS for construction:
-January 1"1, coapl.tlon of a 300 space parki~
.tructure to .cco-=04at. the n •• 4a of patienta,
visItors, volunte.rs and communIty phyolclans of
lucile P.ckard ChIld .. en's Bo.pital (LPCK)I and
-February un, completion ot a 300 .pace .... rking lot
adjacent to the n.v Poych canter.
For that ..... period •• verol other parklnq focl11tl •• and
ch.nq •• or. currently belnq plannacl:
-October 1"0, lneorpor.tion of the a •• t and of .lo~.
L
Wilbur Drive into odjo"ent p.rki~ lot. will add
about 50 spae •• ,
Kay 1'91, completion of • p.r~lnq otruetur. th.t
vould provide 7eo opaces on p.rt ot tb. sita of the
current Booplt.l pay lotI
•
,
"
,
" .... , ....... '. " ".' -.
< ' . -,. ,
•. =
! ,
, ,
.'
-
o o
Kay· un, upon CC1Oplet!on of tile parking atructure
on tile alte of tile Hoapital pay lot, .treet parking
on Paateur (about 12( apoc •• ) vould be eliainoted in
all but a 1ialted number of apoce. in tile fountain
ar •• :
-Aoqust 19'1. after completIon of LPCH, conversion 01
the AdminI.trltive Annex elte to • 120 apace parkIng
lot: and
May 1"', compl.tion of a parkinq structure providing
520 .pac •• on a portion of the site of the current
Hospital pay lot.
Seyond 1"', the following additIonal options have been
identified, and .oy be developed as nece •• ary:
-Repurcb .. se of Welcb Roa4 leases in lieu ot aome •
additional building constructIon, and acquisition of
the associated parking on those parcels: and
-structured parking in one of ~he three possible Sites
in and around the Region: (ljln the West Campus RegiDn
near Welch Road. (2Jsouth of Campus D~ive in the
Jor~an QYad area. and (3)ln the northeast part of the
Region adjacent to the Psychiatry Center parking lot.
These optiOns vill be p~r6ued in more detail as the needs and
proqrams for Medical Center facilities are develope4 in the
next few years. Aa you knoW. a varIety of forces combine to
.ake firm scheduling of medical and academic facilities nearly
impossible beyond a certain time horizon. We ~ill report to
you annually on the current thinking as it i. refined.
\
One fact vill persist, namely that the Medical Center cannot
afford to experience parking shortages. ho~ev.r brief. the
Parking Program attempts to lock five and ten and fifteen years
ahead to ensure that a sufficient supply wIll ba maintained at
all ~l.e.. at vacancy rates equal ~o or greater than those
requIred by the City of Palo Alto.
w& have attacbe~ the current parking inventory. vitb • map and
the staging' of the tuture supply and demand chal\ges as 'We nov
.ee them. Ple ••• feel tree to eall upon us for any a~itional
~formatlon you .ay require.
Sincerely.
s~san H. Schafter
Vice President
for Adninistratlon
•
-~, .. ~;~
\~~--~
""-~t CO:;
, ,
•
'~.'. '-$ -.
i
I ,
; ,
r
•
,---
-,
-- . . ~:'~"'~$~:p;..;--.. ~ ~.?~ .. ~"'r.~~~;"iJII!3~g"3i.lot _'"""-_
"" ~1,:p~7-~-'---m""-"""_ --!-
;
E -o
( I'EBlIUARY "It )
-----------------------------------
--
1.(5)
B 240
C 116
J) 275
F 75
G 9BO
R 257
I ·ltO
J 175
It lCB
L{2) 0
H
!I
o
P
o
It
S
T
----
Total l,OU
(3l
E 107
Total 3,1n
(4)
LO/IG !'ERK I SHORT !'Ell/( , , , CARS , OCC. /SPAo:£S CARS I OCC.
232
115
265
75
953
lB.
168
156
281
392
2,126
101
2,'ll
I ,
I ".71, ".It, u.n,
100.01, ".21, n.n,
81.41, u.n,
U.H ••••
101.0'1 , , --, ta.n, ,
I , ,
n.UI
2
2
1
U
35 I.
2
o
42
37
9
299
liB
90
lC
43
.73
24
.17
5
'02
, ,
1 50.01,
2 lOo.atl ,
4
46
24
15
1
11
24
32
7
20B
III
12
3C '9
174
674
5
671
57.ll,
lo.nl
I
68.61,
U.HI
50.0', •••• I
57.U,
l5.stl l'.n,
69.6'1
7l.HI
91.U'
100.Ot, .c.nl
I
I ---, 77.n, , ,
-----I l5.UI , , , ,
75.n,
TOTAL
SPACES CARS ,
2U 233
11' 117
275 265
12 71
l,Oes .n
257 lSI
225 192
193 171
310 282
0 409
42 24
l7 32 , 7
2951 208
181 13.
90 82
lC 3C
U :Jt
3,.8' 3,500
450
3,931 3,500
112 112
4,051 3,612
(1). Excl~e. Lot-t a. unavailable Spaces for daytime parking.
(2). Excl~e. Lot-L space. as Temporary Supply.
oce.
".n n.2\ 96.n
H.lt
95.n
73.2\
85.lt
II.n
91.0l .....
5l.U
86.51
17.U u.n
7l.n n.n
100.0t ,o.n
lOO.n
lI.n
".2\
(3). Include. Lot-L spac •• o. temporarely available supply Cor parking.
(4). Includes Lot-E Porking Supply.
(5). Hot availabl. since April It'8.
---
J
•
, -,.~
.. ~'
~)-,
t~-·
•
, I
, , ,
~, -' ;. ,';' "r' "
~...:,~~_. ~ '-~ . .:·i~'~' ...... _~_~' __ ~ __ i!"''&'~~.!W''''''~'~~;;'''~'''''_~~~"''~'·' ,,-',.. ~_";-.t''-'~$ .. '";: .. .,..._~ .. -::",*~~JiI! twe • .,.
o
L
o
t
I
I
\
I
,
~:-': -
~"
•
, •
(;) <>
..... ,.. ..,IWo 11"'_
..... 4'MCI-' ~ lfAG.lIe ICIlIMIl t
.... -. -.....-......... .. ....... ---......... --~---, --.----.......
""'-..
...... ........ _t~_ _ .. _ .. -_III -.., ...
--'" -.. _.", -
-'to
......
~itU' C ......... ~ I; ... 1', ...... '
.",
ht-.t, ,..,.....,.
hkU.,.,U ......... ~ '-'~ U ......
r-ph1" t .......... ~ tI .. ....,H ~.,
W~ ".I'tl .. r ......... u ......
-a1P''-tAF If Pert;fftt
9'lf4,t,t. AIftta ..........
• ~f • .,...... .... ,. _1 4 Ih. mIL
~htaWU ""'{. ,t'I:~,. 'UtoI:::n«"f ItU
Q\ ..
.... _-
~tw" L __ U e...... hwwf
h·H __ ' .. ~ Ii "".
« .. Gil '''' t.c: ... *"'" '" lW'l .,...ffil ~ ''''''
~.t. Ctwh:ll~ .... '"
c..,t~ .. I'M' .." '''''''' ""'" _t~.:t .......
~t.t.~tl,li ...........
6j:tr __ tlf. .......... " .. , ...,.. c.c.
'O'AL
t...,.!.tll I'tIlGK ""t" ... H......,. '_t) " ....
--
.....
,Qt, ...
,~,
-, .. -...... "' ............ ,. .... '.'" .... ....
..
" ~,
l'
'''' IV • m.
I
)
l
S
1
I
I ..
~. ..
•
\
....,.....,
(IlH(l''>
~a .......... ~ .... a~ .,.
;too
U'
m
1'1
."
m
'" ."
st.
st •
fi,
t ..
(~H
t*U
('" , .. , ~ , .,
'''I
'.
. '
, ..... ,
' ..... ....... ~ ......
"'rOO .......
Jut ...
..... ~92
..... t!
Oc-t·9;l ..... ·w
...,-0$
flt-"
"'''~'''l ·p"·'l
( -' .
o o
It ..... ,. 1iClI1~ a_Til
1,., "MlilC "..,. It"'I': IaUl.O I
................................. -............ ~ ... ~~ .. ..
"'S~~ ~t .. 1. POa ............ "'*11 .......... ,£4IfII l5C,r".r. I0Il$ COl:~t
",r".rc CAli hfl, .. I Coorp'.' .... U.--.. t,t 'Z (POI.iIIJ Oee'l:) _ ...
c-p\ .t. .. h'f'dl Itent"r '.t. C ... tt'\oC'1 ian
Jotill.
.1:.'11"..,. hyd\r.r.r-k ~v .. ' ...
h.c'tIYltl Ilr.,..t ,.. ... \:;int Jl
c-.t.tfI 'al't.r,. SVU¢t..".. rn.
'OrN.
"-aDo s:u.--, T'"'PO,..ar-r LQt Duc:t,,,.n.,
~"".,.tl!'l .. """'" ~.t (ar\tN.IC:tiOl'l
11)'""
Act 1vlt .. III ..... 'PK:tros(.opj' hale
ktT""llI hI> SUfI'" t16g
Sq;a ,.rtt"" Ituc-N!"« I r 1.
It)tJl\.
~th·.1"""" .tICIlMtl (I),(t ~1 LJ
'01 ..
..."t.,...,. ",..-'"_
ace ....... fl>SIiIl ""IU II
19f.t.
'eti~ ,tift • .:.! SciC',,",H 'I~. ""loot S
'Ct •• Sc"-t '~ .. s.n(VH C"""\ .. ...:-f,~
C~lue •• 1'"1: .... Su· .... n ...... lilt
, .
-,-
,.~jll' _ .
.. _-............
,.. ...
"" SO<
.. " no .'"
(1601J .,.
'''''
(\2j!, "."
""'C:1M -.. ...............
;.....-:
<>, ..
~
IS' .,.
... ,.,..
,.
'le
'}6
("
'"
1)
1)
", " .\
. '-.",.
'H6,
.,. . .,
'OS
...
las
lOS
''
'" ,. . ,. . ... ", ... ,. .
'" .. , , ..
" .
"
" .,
"
o
IT""" "'CM cnt1I
"" NKrlCi ........ IT"". aWl' I'
.... ...... ..... -_ ........ _ ........................................ ..
-" ....... ...... -" ...... .... " _." .-..... ...... ....... ..,.. ..
.", ... ....... ....... _ ..
Dct-94 _ .. -...
........ ...... -...... IS
""-OS
... ·IS
......
'ou ..
Itt'" Il~ C.,.,tlrl\fw."Y CWW'tn.lttton ,or ... .... ..--s.wl., CoIf" ..... Uo ~ CeIp.d '-"4 ,., ...
~t~. C, $t\'I'a't 'kt...ce ,i" ...... J
tot ...
act1 .. ,. ~ .1dIS.0f"t&
Ic1:f ... tII "iftic.l Ccl....c.M ".U.n,...-........ t , .....
C .. l..-t .. lUll Dffu. •• ,U.-J,.
Ac:t, .... " &III Offke Milfi,.
'-Ph,. alii '-"r'n 1wI'11fi ....
c..hu It~ CMtltt'll-ftlr...,.
toU,
'N-lOOt • .et.,..,., er-t ..
ktf .. tl lb'$IlII ..... III
Ceoopht ....... 'ptetrDUOIPr .. ",", II
&nr •• " CLfl'lf,.t 5d~" ."",.' .... hln II ,a'Al
.----.----~-------
> ,
..... , ...
.... , .. ....... .... ,
(lOCI,
(000)
,oo
'oo
, ..
'DO
".
,L,
'"
t<J
",
J
117
'90
,0) ..
l<!
'Al .It,
,I<
J ..
'29
\
,IS,
"" ,." ,IS, ,IS, ,IS, ,IS, ,IS,
(11'1
(la1)
(1,T)
nl7)
(,,7')
"17')
clUlI
•
•
•
. .
I
1 L..!.... --I--.r:::J -..-,.c~ -~".,,~<"'-.. "
•
:,'
. ')::;""'.
\ • • \
.. -,
I
I"
f'
~ .
! ' . ~
; I
, !
" , I"
'.
. /
• \
•
,-'
~'.-~ .. ; --':', ".' .
· ~." . .-~
-', "--" , '
, . -.. -"-..... ',-... '.-•
/
• ,I ..
;J< " , . ~,,,;.
: ..... -;-~'
I·
• ... ;::::::::::::::-· .. ::;;:::::---
.' I • •
~:; I
..
.. '. , , ,~.
I~
" .
, '
: r_.J""\
•
• , \ ,
, \
\ ' \ .,
, \
\.' > ,"
\
""':r ,-~~" ,
•
I
t : .
i ii:'
I ,h; <;
, ,
t .
I '" '. r. ! f ' < ,
f f, . , ,
I
.... J1
. ,
'-'.' --'.;'-:' -'."
I J
II ,III !U .uIJI
1/1 I ;i;~!i~
d~~~~ • IS • II •
.... -"'----
-
, ~-'L------'~-~
\
, ; ,
•
~ ,
•
~ '.
\
\ ,
..
\
\
\.'
\-.
~~. ,\ ~. .
01
,-"",-!
. , ", ~ I
~,-~ ~!
~J
1--;
\
i
1
'1
I
!
I
•
P.
beeTpe from t:tc"..,nde aDd Tranap0t'utio D study
~t---------I W 10. ARE.., 9-SANDHILL CORRIDOR
L
-
t)I/S5 _ ...
... Ill; •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
•
. -, ;,~,
:-<.~.
<~
. \
• II • • • II • • • • • I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....
Stanford Sh~ppfng
C ... 1.n (te)
Stanford Redl~al
C •• ter (",
V,'t. RD'~ Cfflcn (OR)
Hoo.er ".\llon
(PF)
Stanford Vest
(R/t-30)
CUldreo's
Hosllt.1 (Pfl
Quarry/Arl>oret ...
Part.ls
-'. ,"
,~-.
',~""
o o
t.Ue 2Q
Sumo,r, of llte.nfll.,.
Aru'
&L!
Addltlon.' 50,000
S'luart f •• t of
dopplD; c.nter
USIS ..
All 2
Addition.' 250,000
square fe,t of
s~opplng center
vs.,.
1:1 F~ for l.b. 1:1 fAA wltk \~e
Medltal Cent.r_ Modlc.l Center
exp.nded t. Include
conversion of
.xlstlng offiee pro
pertl.s ., far as
.outh/We.t Sldl of
Velch Road t. cll.le
'Pitt undeT Pi zone.
m.l
AdditIonal 500,000
s<I"ue fnt or
shol'plnli c.nter
vs.e$~
0_35:1 F~_ ~O.5:1 f~ fOT ftOTt~ '1.5:1 fAR bDt~
.ast sIde of V.lch_ sId ... f
Ho ,ddltlon,' Red.slgnate and
floor .r .... IU rnon. to .. dl .... an ex'sUng densltl ... 1 Ifpl.
flo.r ar .. used f.mlll residential
for MedIcal Cen!.r ,. ~.xl"~ of zas
outpatIent ser-resid.ntl., unlts)_
"ces .nd '~I.-
str.ti.e support
functions.
ModI ... d.nslty
",uUlph-f •• lly
resldenU.l
(600 wltsl.
R.des 1\I •• te Ind
rezone to low to
etdiu. .. ltl,l ••
f .. ll, resid.ntfal
d ••• lopocnt (520
units).
..duign.te for
Mdiu,,-densltJ
.u1lf,1,-' •• ll,
reslde.tl.l (330
hous ing unlts_
S.,.. IS Alt. I.
low den.ItJ hospital
use (FAll of 0.15:1).
•• des Ignate for
acod •• it re.eare. It
1.4:1 o. the 'Mobil'
p.rtel; ,syc~lat'lt
(tnter assumed' tD
consist of an IO-bed
hospital (60,000
V.lc1l.
s .... IS Alt.
2_
s .... as .lilt.
I.
Highu deo.ltl
11ft core
fotlllt,
(res fde.t 101
.nd .. die,'
funttlons)_
5 ... as Alt.
2.
'/1/88
-87-
•
, . .
' .. , .. ~,.
,-
ItdtsiS'ltt and
nton, to Md!""
dt.,I" .~lti."-
1&,,111 usldtft
thl (AM-3D).
/
o
Redesignlte .,,6
Te:o~, for aeadem!t
restlrt\ It 0_':1
fAR (OfffCe/Rt'.lr,'
Put, OR),
Redeslgn.l,
'lid Nl0"'
fl"OS ct to u
"lth • 0.4;)
fAR, office
llalhtlQns.
,
•
I , ,
o
T,.lt U
Pot,"tll' Addltloatl SquI'. foot.V' an' HQul\nl UnIts
Under 'r'Ject Alt.rn,~f •• ,
Area t
All J lli..l All 3
Slanford ShoFplng 50,000 no ,coo 500,000
Stantord ""dl,.l )],200 31,200 3],200
V.lc,.aoad Offices 14,150 500,700 202,800 ""on,. , .. n Ion e (101.430l+28$ d. (lCl.410)+Z8S d.
St,.fon! Ves 1 +601) <lu +600 d. .600' a.
Ckltd ... ft', RosF. (laS,OOO) ~$ZC d. 101,300 C 43.000)_300' du
QulM'J'/Arbo .... tlAV' +33Q du UO,160 )20,760 e .. SUticn
( 29.6$0)+144' <fa J,09S,S3C+!SS d. S04,330 +1185 du
·St,.tord ft~ p,.p~$'s 782 t.tal vnlt> f~r these s!t.s.
\I,_2!I.I~iB1f'I!g;I!';;:;:;:a:a;".9:!!!I'!;a."l,~!:!iIlr. ... ",,,,'-'i: '!I,;~X!l_P,?"',II99("".~!'I("4"'4"1f'lP:',4'"'l'?"'" .. = .. ''''., ......... ~J ...... ,,..., • ..,.., ,~~. ~
--,,----.-----.....-."'C; _..... . .-' <, ..
. ''-.....
t '
•
,
I I.
I
I
I
-
,
,
r .. -".-.
.'. , ,
~ ___ ~ _____ ~~i_=e<: ~,-,"""''i;--",:y •• ~+--:.:~;:-''_-~'''': 7':" .... ~-~_':-~.-:;:. ~;"!, ~ .. :~h'¢4,r_J!'-~.i4 '. ~.
'. ~ 0
A 151>,000 IquI,..·fl'Ot c~>'coull all ... for I now t~ .. ttr cOllljllu, ale!·sllt
Ilt.lllt. slore, .ulll·tenint buIlding Ind aiscol1ln.oul alnDr l,pln.iDnl.
An .xpI.,lo. 01 thll .1 •• would fncr.asl Ifl~rnoo. P~lt hour traffiC by 18
portont (Ibout 100 new p.lt hour trlpl). ~It. I 500,1>00 Iqulr. foot cap,
ucone! 1100'"1 coole! be Ideled to .,ny ot Ih ... IsII.g build;'g. '0 .ddiUen to
the &ow faclllll~1 ISloclltod w1th I 150,000 square·foet t.ps.sle.. 5uc~ I.
,.pl •• lo. would 'ncr'II' centtr pesl hour traffic by 31.5 ptrc.nt (Ibout 400
new trips).
tDNCLUSJOH
[xlstlng and proj.et.d trl"lc condlt'o.s II the Irea do not luppert Illo.;ng
a lubstantlal •• panslon .f the Ihopplng centtr. Miner ,xpans'ons Iheuld be
pe .. ltttd to .a'atall tho continuIng .'ability of the Co.t.r Ind aceommod.te
tenlnt 'oproyement.. Conslderltlon of Inl .Ijer "plnsion of the shopping
c.nttr should bo contingent upon r •• olutlon 01 the mljor trlffic I.sue. Ind
Imprevements I. thE Sind Nill cerrldor.
RECOttl.ENDATJON
)1 £llminlt. the 3.0,) FAR 10 thll Ct zene Ind ,ubstltute • new commerefll
over101 zone w1th I 9rowt~ celling of SO,OOC .dditfonal 'q"re reet at
the Shopping Center.
Stanf~1 "edleal Center
Th. Stln'ord Medicil Center Includes the mill hesplt.l, ~Ie~ " withi. P,l.
Alto, Ind .Irlous Stlnford Unlv.rslt1 Medic.l School Ind cll.ie building.,
~Ie' ar. outsld. ,.10 Alto. r. the p.st five yelrs, 111. Alto .pp,oyed
expI"lon .f the .. Ia hos,it.l (Hospltll "oder,izltlen ProSect), ~Ic~ fs
n •• rlng compl.tlon, Ind constructlo, of I We~ Childr.n's Hospltll, ~fc' hiS
~egun. When the Iddltlons Ire completed, the hospltll w111 ha.e I floor .re.
of 1,564,500 squ,re fut. Polentlll for onlJ In Idditional 31,200 squ .. e foet
re.lfos under .xlstlng zoning. Th. Medicil Ce.t.r Is zened PE, Public
Fleility and hiS I Cemp •• he.s! •• 'lin de.lgnatlon ef "'Jor Instltutlen/Specill
Flcillty.
Posslbl •• xpanslon or the Medic,l C.nter W1S the enlJ Ilternltl, ••• ,l.ated,
I.d was considered beeluse or Shnrord's long rlnge plan.. Beelus. of the
Halted .... unt of add!tfonll dev.lopment p ... itted en tho Medicil Center site,
explnllon woold hlv. to DCcur on IdJoI.ing propertle.. Under this
Ilt.rnltl •• , It could be Iccompllsh.d bl rezoning sl. of the propertlo. on the
soulhwest Iide of ~elc' ROld for Medlcil Center use. Rezening I.d
redeslgn.tlng th.so plre.'s from Offlce/Reselrch to Pu~llc Flcllitle. could
trl,le the pro ... t I~ount of de.elopment en the southwest Ilde of V.lc~ ROid
under the ):1 FAR of the Pf zont Ind sl1e" 440,51>0 .qulr. ro.t .r Idditienal
cf ... l0Jlllt0t to b. IS.OClatte! wlU the !Iodiell C .. t.r.
Slid. thlnge would forthor txplnof tho IClle and "I" of """t Is Ilrudy one
of the .. st flte •• ely'.sed sit •• I. '11. Alt.. [.llrvlni the ar,1 I. ""ith I
J ,) FAR Is Inewed would renlt II I dev.loplDlnt level wlJlc~ " ... ,..",.llllng.
• Trip. t. SI,nf.rd Shopping C •• r.r .r. ',sod •• 11 trip./lDO,ODO squ.rt
f •• 1 or .1 I rips/I ,DOD .q.l~ f •• !.
9/7/88
·t3·
-.
'"""~
,
',.' -
"
\
\ -
\
\
\' •
.-
j
d
i
I
1 ,I
i
1
j
~
I
!
i
I
I
-
.. :... "
,/
---~, ---
o o
Stlnford Clft convert t~e offices to ~edlcll-relate6 Ic.domlc ~s. undor the
Ixlstl'9 OR zoofn9, wft~ovt l.pandl'9 them. Appllcltfon of I reduced .35:1 or
.S:' fAR for the Velc~ Road plrcels would reduce the sfze of addltlo.al
d .. elopment bIIt Itlll allow fer "vent .. l co,v .. slon to .. dlul office u ....
CONCLUSIOli
A further expansl •• of the Kedical Center vnder I 1:1 fAR wo.ld ha ••
lubstantlal f~actl. (xlstlng Ind projected f.ture trlfflc condItions II the
area do not support allowi.g such a .. ajor upanslon now, Dr II the future. Th.
stat.s of the Sand RIll Corrldo, Impr •• ements contribute to the uncert.fnt, of
undltlons for upanslon •• Sllnford ~ .. not JustIfied the nee" to Incr .... the
de.elopment potential'. the Velch Road arel. A rezo.'n; to actommod.to such
long·range Ixp.n.'o. goals would be prem.ture at t~ls tim., partlc.l.rl, I.
the •• I.tlng de.lgnatl"", do not preclude ho.pltll·afffll.tod •• es. further
conslderatlo. of the Ipproprllte zoning deslgn.tlon c.n be ~.do When Stlnford
submIts a spoclflc propo •• l.
RECOI91£IiOATI ON
I) ~.le no c~.nges to the present zoning at the ~~fca' Ce.ter.
V.I~ Ro.~ Dfflcls
The ~elch Road offices Ire loclted on 13 p.rcels of l.n~ frontIng On Ve1co
ROld. bet~ee. Qu.rr, Road Ind fasteur Drlv.. The lind Is develo~ed wlt~
wel'.land.c.ped medicI I and prof.sslon.l .fflce bulld'ngs. There Is Ibo"t
'15.000 squ~~t feet =f dtvelopment, In~ the lverlge fAR fs 0.36:1. T~e ~elth
Roa" parcels IT. zoned OR, Office Res •• rch and .r. dellgnated IS
ReseITc~Offfc. '"rk f. tho Compro~.nsl •• 'l.n.
Th. n •• d to reduce d ••• 10pment potentfll Is the Is.u. of conc.r. I. this Ire •.
The c~lng.s .vIl.lted la tho Velch Ro.d ITtl lovol.e FAR reductions fro •• 75:1
to .Ither .3S:I. or .S:', Ind possible rezoning of the OR, Offlce/Rese.rc~
parc.l. on the southwest .'de of Velch Road t. fF, with. 1:1 fAR, as
dlscusled ,. the pr.v'ous soctlo. on the ~dlca' ConteT.
Undor .xlstlng zonl.g. In Iddftlonll 49(,eeO IqulTe f •• t of de.elopment cocld
OCCUT on tho ~.Ich ROld p.rc.ls. A .35:1 FAR would reduce d •• elopment
potent III f. this are. b} 85 perce.t, but o.er h.lf of the t.lstlng building,
would b. noncomplying Inlf onl} IIOde.1 additlo .. co,ld be ~.de to the rem,ilfng
parcels (14,150 square feet). A .S:' FAR "",1<1 allow o.er twice the
addltlon.l de •• lo~nt of I .35:1 fAR (102,8eO squaTe feet), but would cnl,
cr,"te one noncompl}lng building, an6 weuld still r.duc ••• I.llng de.elopmeot
potent'"l by 60 perc.nl.
COIICLUSIOII
Trlfffe I.fonoatlo. has shown thlt I subst.ntlll reductio. of de •• lopee,t
pot •• tlll Is .eede" al •• 9 the Sind HilI Corridor. A fAR reduction f. the OR
zone to I .3~:' JAR would be consilIent with '016 •• Triangle 90lJI, but would
•• t. o.er half tho lite, n •• comp'11"9. A fAR reduction t •• S,I would still
pTovlde a 60 perce.t reduction ,. de,.lo~.t pote.tl." but would not cr.ate
• hrge .~r of noocompl,ln9 bulldfog'.
..
t/7/8B
·sc·
\
•
,
1
I 1-
I
I
I
• J "-,
I
• I
I • •• • ,
I
I • • •
\
\
\
...,., \
\
r~.
~;"-""" ~-.. -: .
. . . ' .
" "
"ii,
<'E~
"~
--
~J
I
\.'~
-<:
·'The St,.ford Kedfc,l tf""1r f. I u.lque comm".lt, ,.d ~nll resource whic~
wIll ••• d contfnu.d ~Cllions te t.ep .p wft~ C~lng~1 .. dftll
t.chnology. Hooe.or, e~pI.$fo& foto the Welc\ Jo,d ,r., ~IS not ~e.
Jijstffl.d. alto.lfoo of the OR Zo •• II I lowlr .5:) FAR would .tfll Illow for
explnsfoD of hos,lt., ,ffllllt.d uses f. t.I. ,r,a.
aECOPt\£Nf).I, T1 ON
JJ Redote the FAR t. th. OR zone from .75:1 to .5. Should SI,nford
f.,tllte ,llns to •• plnd the Kedit.1 C.nter f.lo the CR Ire., re.lew the
approprl.le.ess of the OR ,o.'ng. Allow lime noncomplyIng pro.fslons I. 1. LH, LK (3} Ind GK zone ••
Hoover '"yllfOn
Hoo.er ,".,llon fS I. old 98,930 .qulre·foot hospltll on I t.g·I'r' sltt,
whlc~ prlse.tl, h.s Ifmlted fa·pltle.1 use. ~oo.er ,".lllon Is surrounded on
Uru sfdes by the SUnforlf C'lI'PUS Arborelu" whic\ Is unde"lop.'!. The Hoo.fT
P .. l1fo. sit. fs zoned Pf Ind has I Comp.eheAsi •• Plln de,lgnatron af lI.jor
Jostltullon/Spec!al Flclllt,.
As pI.t of the ... pe.,.lt Ippro.11 for the reeont Iddltlons to Sttnfor<!
Hedlc.1 Center, the n.t .s.bl. floor ar •• It Hoover Pa.lllon I. limIted t.
50,114 square feet for out-patient services and admhlstrallve .upport
f"~tl.os. A c~lld care c •• ter fD. 100 children, Ippro.ed t~rDugh I sep.rlte
use permit, ha, just opened on t~e sit •.
Tne two alt.r •• tly.s e.ll.lt.d for the Hoo.,r PI.Illon ,Ite were to either
limIt de.elopment Ind •• ,' t. thos. which now •• Ist (Alt.r •• tl.e 1) or t.
red.velop the site with I IIOdlum·de,slt~ multIFl.·flmil, r.,lde.tfll vse
{Alternlti •• 2/. The first scenario a,sumed th.t the exl,tlng structure would
b. retaln.d Ind Ifmited I. u,e for onl~ Hodlc.l Center out· Pit lent servIce,
Ind ad.i.lstr.tl •• support funclfons. The ,econd scen.rlo a,sumed t~.t the
sll. would be rede.eloped with 285 ~ultl,le·flmll, resld.ntlll vnlts.
The fIrst Ili.r.ltlve r.flects Stanf.rd', current ,lin, 10 continue t. vs. t~e
t~e HOD.er ,".llloD for Hodicil Ce.t.r .ses. rhe ,.I,tlng Pf zoning on the
sIte Ino.s a 1:1 fAR Ind would Illolf In Idditlonol 324,690 square fnt to be
buIlt. An Imendment of the existIng .se penoit would be r.quired to either
•• pand the building or ~odlfl the exIsting appro.ed .ses. To pre,l,de further
e'plnslon on thl, sit. through I 1I0dified .,e permil, the FAR could b. reduc.d
to I .25:1 fAR.
RedeSignatIng the Hoo.er .'te to IIOdivm·denslt, (RM·30} bouslng could pro.ide
.p to 285 units (28 .nlts per acre). Proximltl to the U.I •• rsll, and Medical
Ceoter provide Ide.' opportunIties for eith.r .edi,"I·r.lated use or bousio9 .
• esldentl would ~I.e good Icce.s to trlnsporl.tfon, shoppl'9 ser,!cls Ind
Sta.ford wort IOtltlons. Any fncrla,. rl the CIII'S bouslng suppl~ fs
consIdered beneffcra1. Ho.e.er, the focI n.t UI, lite Is now developed wiU
a Ivb,tanlil', spe,lallz.d IIOdi<.1 slructure, ~Ic~ ser.es an Imporllnt
functIon for the MediCI' tenter, I. an Importlnt conslderltlon II det.nolllo9
zonIng for t~ls sIte. J.d •• llopme.t II housing would requIre re.o,"1 .f the
Ixl.tfog building Ind wovld dfspllce the outpatient cllofe.
a.iLS as£2£&Os.aW€hj .. iA Cite
,_ ~ _____ .""_01.~.",_
'L
--
." <,.-,
91]188
·95·
•
\
I r
I
I
[
r
•
.. ;; ,
I
• ,
t
i
.-
~ ..
-
o o
MOIION PASSES: tbJirmjn Chandl.r: All tho,. f. favor, sa, Ay.? All
oppose. at pissei unanl~uslJ.
""'nm!!!!.lJ.<L""=-r......,=_~1 lIQ'Wt approvill. as amended.
SECOND: Sy Conm;ss;oner Rir,cb.
MOTION PASSES: Chalnoa. Cha~~: All those I. flyor,
DPPOSed? That passes unanimousl1.
ACENDA ITEM 3 851 WfltH ROAD: Appllc.tion to rezone the 'it. fro~
Office Res.arc. (OR) to PubliC flcilities (Pf} and to
c~ange t~e Compre~e~sfve 'lan designation fr~
Res.arch/Offlce Park to Xajor Instit,lion/Specill
1acl1it,. En~1ron~~ntal Assessment: No si~nifjcant
Impact. file Hos. 90·EIA·3I, 90·ZC-II, 90-CP·S. Zone
Oi,trict OR.
~. GIlllla.d: I would like to iotroduc. lori Tople, at this lime. She
is wDrling on seweral prljects ~btle we are s~ort staffed~ and she ~as
done an e.crl1ent job.
Chai~an C~andli!: J enjoyed the staff reports you ~ave prepared~ and we
welcOPJe yoa.
MS t Topley: Thant 1DU.
(onmisSloner lilirs.ch~ I tlad asked stiff to see"if the), (auld get a COP! Ij)f
the 1990 parkiog update for the medical center. ~ave 'au been able to do
t~.t?
~s Topley; The fBformatfon submitted by Stanford Unfversity indicated
t~at they were dOlcg some ~ork on t~e facilities plan, and the parting
plan would oot be updated until that work was c~leted. So t~ey ~o not
~.ye ·0 1990 Flan .. oil,bl •.
Commission_er ~ir.(.: EYen though they did the 1989 pia. ift Jul, of ISBB,
there is none available It t~is time?
"s Topley: No. Dot at t~is time. However~ ~nder the section called
-Parking-1. the iifor~ation that they 5ubmitted~ t~ey dl~ indicate I
little iboul the parking ,lan and where it is no~, ;1 comparisoD to wnere
the 1989 p1a •• lld it woul~ be.
Commjssioner C.llen: J am a little curious about the origination of this
request. Per~aps [ should save t~is questioD for Stanford. if t~ey are
gains to •• ~ •• prese.tltlon. I see Oat the ori91nal letter about the
parling was back I. Jul, of 1999. J 1m ~stiffed b, the applicltion
ftself, t~e orfgt. Df it. the purpose mf 1t~ etc. Whe~ Stanford does make
its preseSltatiDns: I hope the,)' will address that.
Chai .. a. Chandler: J ~a,. I question that goes to t~e .istory of the
zODlng of this arel. I. 1988, 11 t~e (;tywide land Use and Transportltion
Study. ~e deter.lined tD ,lice I zone on the ~d;Ci' ce~teT irea that did
•
07/25/90 l'L. ~NI~G OOMMISSIO~ MIXllTlli
·3· ",:,-
•
\,"
. .
" .. ",
.. . ":, ' , .. 'r' ....
._~~:;.c·:"-'-""'-,-,--, . . _~_. ____ ~ __ •. ~I;..........,.....,... ...... ,_~ ":_II:_~~""'''''-", .. ; -l~. ~.-_~':--""'-:<" ;c:"-~:~""","""~~~l::r,j!;o, ___ ..
o o
result f~ Its being maxts;zed out under the fAR .llowed. ~it~ the
~~derstandfD9 that t~ere was I desfre by t~e unfversit} to ~se the i~board
Welch Road sltes as Fart of the medicil center. II the staff report. it
quut.s t~e (itywide Study: ·St.nford ~.s not justified the need to
incre •• e developmeot potentl.l i. the Welc~ Ro.d .r ••.•..• xlstlng
designations do not preclude ~ospttll~affiliated uses,-So the use of
those sites and the d.v.lopment potentl.l on them would be avoil.bl •.
-further consideratfoD of the appropriate zoning designatioD can be ~ade
~eD Stanford submits i specific proposal~· The first line of the staff
reports reads: -At t~fs ttme. Stlnfcrd is seeking on11 a rezoning and
Compre~ensive Plan amendme~t. No development plans have been submitted.
There seems to be a direct conflfct between w~at was decided at the time
of the (ilywide Study for the review process. 1m tenns of rezoning those
sit ••• nd the .pplle.tlon that is f. front of .s tonight. I wondered w~y
staff s~pports the applicltfon. g;ve~ t~e very clear language 11 the
(1t~de St~dl aboyt the preconditfons for undertaling suc~ I rezoning~
Mr. Gilliland: I. the Cftywide Stud,. it ais. indie.ted that the ov.roll
d2velopme~t potentfal II that irea _as some 445,000 square feet, and that
prDjects ~ould be consfdered on In indfwidual basis~ ~e considered this
21~SOa square feettl be relatfvelJ Einor 11 the overill consfderatfon~
With regard to the specifics or the proj.ct. Stanford ~.s stated that th.y
did not want to ;fve us a project It this time. because t~ey are unsure
about whether Dr not the zoning ~ould be apprcved and w~et~er or not they
could get the additional square footage that would b •• llowed under it.
So l~ey have asked uS t3 proceed with it on t~e basiS of a rezonlng oDl,.
Conmissione.r Ct'lr;stenseD: Maybe I do not understand 'Wf'lat they are ask'ir>g
(or 7 but it see~s tD me that they ire not astieg for anyt~ing more than
~at would be allowed under the O.S fAR. l~d thit this is reall} a lone
<~a~ge so that the, can temporaril, ~se an fX1stlng building while they do
some repairs Or> inot~er bUlldfng~ rt seems to ~e not a ~~r) good reason
to make a zone c~ange~
Ms. Topley: As I u~derstand it~ ~at Stanfort ~ould like to do. if )OU
would refer to t~e i~te loeatioD ~ap~ to the ,fe-shaped parcel just below
851 Velc. Road that js alreadY zoned PF a~d 15 part ef the medical center
~ail parcel, that is w~.re they would lit. I. build th, 25,000 square-foot
outpatient elilit bU11ding~ Hcw€ver. the) (annat build on that site
because the PF area does not have an, ~re development are. av~'lable. So
if they relo~ed 8S] Welc~ Road. that site would the~ become I part of t~at
hrger PF area. That extra development area woald allow the building to
be IDeated on the ,ie-.haped parcel.
Commissioner (hristense~: But it also ~llows the buildfng to stay at as]
W.ld Road.
~s, Topl.y: It do ••• but they ~ave stated that It Is their i.t,otion to
remove that building.
CDmmlssiongr Chrfstensen: And do ~at with it~ Construct another
2S,OO~ square-foo! building?
~ •. Jopl •• : Possibl1 t~al could happe •.
Commissioner ChristeRsen: Perhaps the) need to answer t~at.
07/25/~0
-4-
:L
..... c·, -., \. :
"-, . . ~ 't
•
!
I r
I
\
\
\ ~ \}~;1ttJl
.1
: I
I
-
•
,
" .-
, .
.~
:",..: ___ .~",~" _";-~"--:'~'-"i''':;rY:::.~~~,z-''-.c~';:;'~-'! __ '"''"7'~-~ ?':"~~~S:?:'~~)r..~~~ .:i*;jrfr~.
o
Chi~nnan (~a~dleT: I do ~iye one card fro~ I nember Df the publiC.
tharlolte Strem. Stanford.'lanning Office: Thank you for the opportunits
to be bere. I vould .1$0 lite to fltroduce Oavld O'Brien of our medicil
center stiff. ~o will be able tD respond tc so~~ Df yo~r qu~stfDns~ Anay
Oots is bere~ IS well. who~ yo~ recognize. let me first of III thank the
staff for t~eir w~nderrwl wort il putt;ng t~ls together. We ~ope to make
t_is .s simple and str.lg~tfonoaN1 as possible, Staff bas made a good
.ttempt and job of polling t~is logether. J would like t. make a couple
mf pOlDts and answer i coupTe Df the Questions you ~a~e raised so far.
Let me indicate f. response tD Commissioner C.l1!Q's questfon that the
~tf~~tion i~d ori9i. If t~fs rezoning goes back ten years 1m our 1;90
'and .se pl.n. V. ;ndic.ted that .1tlm.telJ we would want all of the
inboard sites O~ Welc~ Road closest to the med;cil center for academic
Ise4 T~ls fs the onl¥ parcel ~ere vel 11 fact, own the b~lldin9t so thfs
is the one ~ere we co~l~ ~a~! that change at l~is poi~t. The relson we
~iye gone ahead~ith t~e rezoning at this time is t~at we ~anted to wait,
bot. for t~e general use pe~lt process to be complete and for your own
(ity.idt Land Use and Transportation Stu~y to be complete~ sa that we did
~ot confwse those efforts ~th t~js rezon1ng request. T~is is,
nonet~eless. relonfng t~at ve bave wanted fo~ some lime, an~ is "5. Topley
~~s accuratel, pofaled out, it is to faC11itate addftional development
t~at we anticfpate trill go oc that ffe-shaped lat. Our current floor area
rat'~ i. t~e meditll CEnter is at capacit]. so that fa order to provide
additional facilfties ~ich .e feel _e nee~. we would need to add
additional la~d area ta the Publit Facilitfes lone. IllS is one slT',al1
step 11 tbat directioD.
I ~ave a couple Df overlays to explain some of t~ls to JO~4 Ihls is a
functional loni~g ~ap {djs~layed over~eadJ out af the Medical Center
Regio~ Plan, whJc~ you s~ould ~ll hawe. ii\s is one of the most important
concepts for you tl understand about the ~edfcil center l that there is a
logic and a rationale bebfnd where we put d;ffere~t functions withi. the
medic.l center. 'o~ ~11 see Sand Hill Road at t~e top of this map, and
Pasteur Dri~e comic9 i., with in outpatient clisie area at the
iltersect;o~ of Pasteur and ~elch. with t~e pie· shaped lQt as tne second
lot there. 851 Welch Road is just beyond that i~ the admiDistrative
support area. You will alsa see the different arus identified for bas;:c
ser~icesl support servlcts. medicil sciences, Dutpatient. inpatie~t~
diagnostic and treataect. the Dew clildreR's ~os~itll. etc. r.is is the
idea bebind why we want t~ put thiogs ~ere we do. There is a functional
relations_iJ betwee~ the different types of services and an effiefe"cy we
want to ac~ieve to p~gvide good care and eise mf facilities for the public
thit we se rve.
Commissloner (,llen: I a~ I little conf~sed4 Tour present outpatient
care ce~ter is quite fir removed from t~is site, s~ is the purpose of t~e
requesl for rezoolng t. lransfer the de.s;t1 from the parking rot t. the
present o~tpatfe~t s'te?
Ms. S.tr!'lI: It f.s not I transfer Df de~sit1 between the par'king lot. The
.xisling outp.tient ,lioies wit~i. the medic.l ceoter .ltlm,t.l, will mo'e
out, we t~int. to t~e Pisteur Ind Velc_ ~reas.
~7/2S/90
-5-
, \
\
,
... ,-
"
$
i
1
J
i
.......
.'
/
o 0
Commisstoner C.llen: Sixt, y!a~s fram now, whee the leis~s are up?
~5. Strem: No. let me have Da~ld O'Brien a~$wer t~at ~O~! specifftill,.
~~ O'BrieR; T~e pro~lem we ITe tryfng to address ~~re is one gf the
capacit~ of the exfst;ng outpatle~t elflfes fa the Boswell Building. T~at
is t~. bulldfng '" t~. center or t~e stone complel. When t"t building
was recen!l, remodeled i. the ear11 JgeOs, we expected i steady state of
about 140 1 000 wisits per year fl t~e outpitie~t (lia;cs. Changes f.
~ealth (ire ~ave resulted fl our reac~in9 about 100~OOO wisits a year,
c"rrenU,. [I anticipation Df that type of grcwt~. 'We expected tflit 'We
would need to break out from the Boswell Buildiog and developme~t an
,ambulatory care facilitJ it some tither site lIdthil t~e l1edical center
re9io~. The concept would be that our ~i9h teen. subspecialty cliaics
~ould stay i~ Boswelt. t~at fs~ the ones that need to reT ate back to the
hospital l and that we would be able to reloc,ate out onto Welc~ Road t~ose
that were ~re of a primaT1 care Ispect~ t~e ones t~at could better
function at S~ di5t,a~e from the ~ospital.
Commissioner Huber: J40,OOO ~atlents was t~e anticipated load back i. t~e
.,rl, )980s. Is th,t correct?
~. Q'Brien: Yes.
ComrnIj;_~Joner Ruber: And you are looking at a couple of hundred thousand
now?
Mr. G'Brien: (urrentl" we are it ,a little over ~OO.OOO.
(Qm!)1J __ $ __ $joner Huber: What is your projection?
Mr. O'8rff~: The clilic ad~i~istritfon feels that the growt\ ov!r t~e
lIast five year.s of roughTJ fhe h ei·ght percent per year lilll contfrlue
for the ne)t few years. That is largeT, I transfer of tllnicll care frD~
the bospltal~ from the ~npat;e~t $etting to t~e outpatient. That 1S ~
p~enomenon that ~ealth ~aTe. ja general, is experiencing. They hive e~eri
reason to believe that ;t will continue for the foreseeab1e f~ture.
t~_mm5ssioner Hyber: That is a (he to eight percent increase per y!ar
over the next who-knows·~o~-lon9 period.
~. O'8ri~Q: That is correct.
(ommis_$joner Hirsd.: If u'ere is ,. tra.nsfer (rcrII ttle i~patfent to the
outpatient (a~e load. (an you (annlbalize some Qf the inpatient square
footage? Can you c~nvert t~at?
~. Q'erien: No. the s~ace i.s ~ot transferable thit way. The inpatfe~t
facilitfes are deSigned tl a very different stan~ard than Ire ~lfllc
facilities. As you know. wheR we built the h~SPltll ~odermiZltion
prtjetl. the i~tent at t~at time ~S to prQ~fde an appropriate ,amount of
s~ac! for the licensed <apacit, of the hospital~ T~e hos~1til certa;mlJ
i~ten6s. is a business. tG ~aimtai~ ~ ~ensus to suppo~' those beds. So
there is not jn opportunit, t& transfEr inpatient space to the clflfc 1.
order to accommodate t~it growt~.
D7/25/90
·6·
•
\
,
.'
,
. -.,.
:""':":::r-:·j ·
-
o o
Charnoa" Cha"dl.r: I.~. littl. coof.sed .bout the process that the
university chose fo~ thls. Tits ~1 just be in issue f~r l~e ,1anning
commissi~D. cit1 council and staff. 'iven the pretty clear statements
that were made at the tfme of t~e ]988 compreheRsfve revisions. w~~ do you
choose to come fl wit~ I straight zoning and Compre~eRsfye PTan change fer
t~fs site Ilone. without I ~pec~fic development ,lint as was stated by t~e
cit1 council .t that time .s • precondition for changing this? If you
still vlnt t~is, Wh1 didn't you just come to change .11 of the. to Pf
f9Sttid of ,iecemealfng it. If you do not feel 1t needs to ~ tied to i
FirlicMllr project. and your .1timat. goal it to have .11 cf them prDvi~e
that lind of development pote.tlal?
~s. Stre~: let ~e refterlte that we ~ade verI clear thro~ghout the
Citywide land Use and Transportation Study c~r i~tenti~ns for t~is
property. What basicall, ~appened is that we lost the argument. We were
Dot successfil ia convfDcing ~o~ of our netd for additional floor area at
that time. Our timing is just a little off i. terms of the timing of w~en
we would be ready to propose a building project to ~ou. Our sense is that
we would lite to go i~ead ind request the reloning and Comprehens;ve Plan
change at t.'5 time. because the partfctlar building prajett that ~e ~&ve
II ~ind will not be ready for several ~ore ~ODt~s_ The result Df this
decision will depend on Where it can go. We cannot locate it w~ere we, at
t.is pOiAt. would prefer to locate it, under the e)istfnq zoning. So it
is irnpQsstble for us to do the building prQJect ~thout t~e assurance that
this rezoniDg could occur.
Chainn!!n Chandltr! That leads to the second question I .s\ed. If the
rong·lena ,1an is to do lhat. and yo~ do not enoose to comE II wit~ these
c~ang~s in conjunction w;tb specific developments. ~h1 don't you just come
fmt~ t~e cit, and say. 100\ t_15 real1~ ties Qur ~ands. We do not ~ant to
~aye to come up ~th individual plans. Ye ~lnt you to c~ange .11 of these
sites to Pf. is ~e asked prevlQ~slJ.
~$. Strem: A ~er~ good question. and perhaps coe ~e should ~ave thought
about i little more before we submitted tkfs. ~y sense~ agai~. is l~at it
~as our se~se of what was fa i realistic time frame. I think this is the
on11,arcel where. 11 the Dear tera. there is a l;keli~~od f~r t~at
transition. Ve felt it premat~re te suggest a b~oader rezoning at this
point fl time.
Commissioner eeecham: The issue is comi~g up on whether Qr not Stanford
is submitting any specific proposal that ~aJ justifJ t~e zoning c~ange.
You obvio~s11 are not coming i_ w;t~ i fo~al proposal at this POiDt. j
~ould like tD elarifJ that if t~e zoning c~ange ~ere appraved, do you ~ave
in~ ,laA. ct~er t~an t~e one described nere. for doing t~e outpatient
elhic?
"$~ Stre~; Ro. That fs lhe on'1 pruject ~e anticipate it this time for
Uis area.
Commisslo~gr Beec~am: So il our consfderation. we s~ould Yi~w this as
being the specific propos a' that would be considered here and is the
Dut~atient elflie. Ve should undErstand that it fs our c~ofce w~ether to
approve tlis nov, perbaps giyln9 you ~r sense cf it, or wall until you
come ia ~t~ i specific. fDr~al application before approving it.
07/2S/90
oJ.
•
-
o 0
~$. Strem: Correct. It is my understandfng that if the rtlonfng is
appr.,od ot thIs polot, the boilding propos.l comes back throogh the
Arc.iteclural Re~few Boir~_
Commissfoner (hrfstensen: T~fs is I fol1owup OD Commissioner Huber·s
thinking. If you ire building this bollding now, ind yoo ore building it
i. t~al outpatient arel. BOwlD9 it cutr a 11ttl~. not building it in the
corner w~ere you show ~n your ,lans ~ere you ~ventual1J want your
Q~tpatie~t services to be located, and the leases on that other area Ire
very ]ons term J so t~lS is essentiall, .11 ~DU ~an implement on t~is
portion of the land --
Ms. Stre.: Bot better t. put it i. the rlg"t posilion for an ,Tllmate
outpatfel\t ITea than to "iVe to Bloye U later.
Commissioner (hriste~stn: [s that for the 2]-year or the 60-year
iIIgreement? It sums ttl. me that if you Ire [lOt going to get the site b.)ct
(or 60 ,ears. it doesn't mate anI seAse to p~t it here.
Ms. Stre~: [t deRe~5 on t~e opportunitfes ~e ~ave between now and t~en.
is ~el). That fs t~e lease term. If there Ire other opportunitTes to
recapture land prier to theR, we would take advantage of it.
Commissioner CIllen: "a1 I ask you whl you ~ave not considered putting It
fa t~! area thal you recentlJ iste~ for I rezoning. and you did get it
from t~e co~ncl1. for the psyc~iatric hos~ftal, and made a case for that
being t~e ~hoTt nedical complex. and that is ~ere it belonged. Why
~aven't you asked for that parcel to be rezoned, rather than t.15 one?
~5. Strem: The area that you refer to is j~ the area designated for a
ce~ter. It is a~ area that WDU'~ not ~ave is ready an access as there
.1g~t be frD~ the Velc~/Pasteur area. and ~iS determined by the ~dical
ce~ter to be it i mo·re approprhte locat'ioQ fof' I semi·im1eper;dent center
than for o~t9atient services.
Comrnissio~er C,llen; The case YDU made it the t\me fer the rezoning for
t~e psyc\!~tri( hospital was that there ~as 901n9 ta be in outpatient
elilic there. a~d that you needed it tl be fl t~at particylar irea becau~
of its protimitl to t~e besp;tal~ T~fs one is ~Dre remote. ] irn reall,
puzzled.
Ms. Strem: I do not see ~o~ you t~lnl it 1s ~ore remote. I belie~e ;t is
equidistant. My recollectioD of t~at conversatioD ~s t~at it vas
important (or psyc~;atric care tD have emergencJ access. and t~e emergency
room is on that side of the bospital facllity. That ~as the impo~tant
fact~r for lhat 'acilft,_
Chafrmar; Chandler: Whea yoa sa, there ire no ether projects near te~,
~at does that encompass f~r you?
~Sr Strem~ The oDl, reason I hesitated to answeT that ~a5 that I was
unsure how broad I geographfc area you ~ere ir;Q~irln9 abo~t. Ve ~ave tne
~dical (e~ter Region "an. whic_ you ha~e~ ~l,h antici~ates 10t5 Gf
different projects vit~il the medical center. the timing of~~i(\ wiries.
depending upon the ~artj,~lar ~rojecl.
Q7jlSj90
-8-
J
J ,
1
J
I
I
i
I
j
,j
1
"I ,
,J
j
; :
o o (hainDl~ Chandler; Is it possible to provide the cit]. at SDre pof~t.
wlt~ I ~arkfng bilinee that is totlll, upd.t.~ and refl.cts thfs? At one
time~ whe~ we were doing the ~OSpftll ~oderafl.tfon project. I wondered if
thef.plicotions of t~h for thlt Flon eoul~ be pres.nte~ to the city, .s
well.
Mr .. C'Brie~: The rUSOD the 'plrting program bas not tleen tlpdited t!lf.s
ytar is because the pirti~g progri~ de~eTop$ i scenario of building
projects and porking changes th.t reflects the current thinking of the
facIlities development agenda for t~e ~edlcil center. As yo~ know. the
universHJ .and the I'IediCl.l ceRter flave been gOing U,rougll some budgetary
readjustments that fundamentall, [ .. 11 into qu!stion the timing of some of
those projects. We have chosen to. rather than go public, internall, Dr
e)ternalr, with a foreclst t~it may date itself immediately, choose tl let
t~.t "enari. settle ~own a little bit bofare ~e di~ t~at. Nonetheless,
everl spriDg .e do do In fQye~torl Df the ~arling system witniD the
regio~, whfc~ fD~5 t~e base line for the proj~ction. That was done this
spring. and was conducted il ~aJ. I believe. At t~at t;me~ it indfcated a
sur,Jus of 500 parking spaces withi. the region.
Chairman-Chandler: How -.any people are employed iI the region at this
poiat? Not fTE b~t indfrfduals ~o have jobs there?
Mr. O'Brien: I believe the ombulotory body count is about 8,000.
Chairman Chandler: ~d what is the fIE count? The fYll-time eQuivaleRts?
~_ O'Brie~: The 8,000 represents a daytime po~ulation co~nt_ Total Fald
rTEs wit~;. the medical center ire ~ore li~e 11,000~ but t~ose are
ballpark numbers.
ChaJ~an Chandler: nat includes the Ifght s'hift. etc.1
Mr. O'Brie~: T~at is correct.
Chai~an C~andler: I tend tl remember the figure 4~200 (rom the time ~e~
we were dOlng the moder.;zltioD proJect.
I!r. 0'6rien: I beli .. e that would be the Mspital population.
Chai~an (han~r! ~d is that about the same, na~?
JIlT, O'Brie!}: I dOD't kIIo..-Ulat. It 90es up and down.
~~eU, Beard. 737 Newport (jrcleJ~_4_~ood Cit!: J work it 851 W~lc:"
Road. There is klnd of an environmeDtll report ralsed il the staff
report. I. working (I the building. J disagree wit~ some of w~lt is safd
here, IS fi~ is ,lant life befng changed. It says "Maybe.-There are a
lot of old 9rowt~ trees around t~ere that realTJ ha~e their own small
ecosystems wit~ ~irds and other small animals. roo do not see It If yoa
drive by at 35 Ines an ~our, but If you get out of your cor II the
mOrling Dr walk IrD~~ il the afterooon and after work. it is veri
notfe.abl. that there Ire I 101 cf .nfmals there. I don't t~lnl II would
be possible t. lake the changes suggestedlrithoul Irfectlng the plant
lifo. That would .ever.l, Irrect the animal lire. There are probabl, no
endangered specfes. but I do t~rnt that as far IS ~rgrltD~1 patterns Ire
07/25/90
-g.
.. '4, .. -' :iI" .... -"!£".", ...... ---~ ..... ~ ........ ~~_ . .,.., -.--~.,--~:-., -,'. ···"L .' ~ ",
,
-
•
\
\ ",'., ,'" \'.',,".,
.; '':-~'"
,. V"
,
,-
;, .
•
-·.'~C
o 0
conce~ed. there Irt I l~t Df small fintbes l~at come ;1 the sprrng there,
Ind t~el feed on t~e as~ trees ~en they come fl b1o~. AlsG the ,ine
trees thil have beeA there for I long tf~ shelter a lot of ~esting bfrds
.-doves, bluejlYs. common bfrds that ~ost people do not P~1 attention te,
but ~el it says, under Animal life, Will the proposal rtsult 1~ change im
t~. diverslt] of sped., .•. No,· I felt I had to rai ••• ~ hnd and saJ t~at
I disagree wit~ that judgment.
Chainftan (~a~ler; T~anl you. Since I ~ave no ~ther cards from ~emb€rs
of the public, I viII clese the publfc hearing and returo this item t. tne
planniog coa.fSS'OD.
Commissioner [IlleR: I ~i~e I question (or slaff. Wby is the staff
report nDt signed by I senior ,lanner~ I know that ~_ Schreiber is on
vacation, but he usull1, reviews the Stanford mat~rjals.
~s. C.,.: Tbe] do.'t Jign their staff reports It all.
Commissioner t,l'e~; ~ost of t~e Qn~s ] have gotter. ~aye been Signed.
~s. (ase: Tbe Dnes t~at go to council are signed. The stiff reports t~
you ire never signed.
(hai.rrtan Chandler; I am not s~re Uis is ne-c.essari l}' tflat irnlPortant, t)\Jt
the staff report for the ne-xt item is Signed.
~s~ (ase: That is i different departme~t.
Xr. Gilliland: If it helps any, I would S'J that this 'tiff report was
reviewed by myself. bJ Wane] lytle and b1 ken Schreiber_
Commissioner CI1'e~: Jt ~as revie~ed by ke~ Schreiber? (Yes) Because he
does usua11, review the Stanford items. J ~as .isslng bis input.
»artfc~lar}J under issues Qf concer. on Page 3. I thought t~e di5c~ssion
of need for rezoDing almost made the Stanford case~ not the staff case.
'hat bothers me. I ia not sure it snould even be entitled -Heed for
Rezoning.-It s~~~ld ~ave bee~ -AeQuest r~r Rezoning.-] ~st say I am a
little up,et about this r.port.
(Ormlissio __ r't~r JIIarsh: Commissioner CIII1Te~. I do not understand wtllt you
feel the staff's position would be. ~ther than w~at thEir recommendation
js~ Is there somethl~g on the table t~at is not acknowledged?
Commissioner C.lteA; Vhat is listed on fage 3 under -Need for Rezoolng
is the Stanford proposal~ We ~suall¥ baye an objectlwe analySiS, and nee~
is not the basis (or analysis. It s~Dul~ be -Request fo~ Rezonfng-and
asl~ is there I need. is there a rei50Q for t~at rezonlng c~rreRtl1? The
PO;lt l~at is made is the applicant's pOlat J not the staff analysfs~
(Pmmlssl0ner Wfr}C~: J would like to go back a little i~ta the-.istor} ~f
the Citywide land U~e and Transportation Study. As a result mf that
study. we c~anged the FAR on tb~s ~artic..laT site, as I retall. from O.7S
t. D.S. Now t~e effect of the request tonight would be to increase t~e
fAR either DD t_is parcel. Dr ~ave it transferred tl the adjacent ~ar(ell
t •• I.Q fAR. I wouli returl to this paragraph t~at (hainoa, (~.ndl.r
referred tl before that deilt with some quotes from t~e study. It also
~7/25/90
·10·
•
'4~f~';'
",>:"'-....
,
"
i
,
. "~.,. I :P'~:J
i .1
..
o 0
tilt~ Ibo~t unresolved traffic issues. J do not see t~at anithing that
his flappened since tfle Citywide Larld Use and' Transpo·rhti{lrll St~dy WilS
.~opte4 has resolved those traffic fssues. Tn' net r,s.lt would b., if
t~1s proposal fs permitted. fs that there would be additional development
pe~itted 00 the parcel of approxfmatt'J 40.000 square feet. that would
... n the 21,500 sQuare reet of ne~ FAR pl.s about 13,000 square feet of
unused development potential Fresent1, exfsting on the site. GiveQ the
unresl)1Ye:r trafffc problems. I do not see i justification for adding tPlat
type of d"'elopmeol pol.otiOl at this tfme. I would lite to hear "ht t~.
otheT commissioners ~aye to say about fwrtheriDg t~e findiegs of cur
(itywide La~ Use and Trinsportitfon Study. and unt11 Stanfo~d submits i
specific proposal~ per~aps i compre~cnsi~e proposal. t~at we stand by what
we did not too long ago, reti18ing the zoning on thfs site at the OR with
the O.~ FAR.
Conrnissioner Huber: I don't think we ire far enough l'd.1 frOl'll the
£itywidi Study either, to consider this part;c~lir type of re~uest. ~~
sense., wf'ler:. \Ie did the (itywide StL)dy, is t;,at we 'Wanted to Set Ii real
prQject, not Ii relonlng. whea it ~appened~ and I do not feel l~at has
occ~rred. If t~e cit} council wants to let it proceed, t~at is their
decision. but J do not see anything that ~as c~anged ~ere to cause ~e to
c~ange ~y concurrence iw what we said il the Citywide Study.
My second poi~t is that I do not like this ~iece~eil approac~. I ~ave a
feeling that _e are 90in9 to slowl, get buried ia traffic 1D that area and
newer solre t~e Sand aill Road problem. It is a to~gh nut to cract. but
it m~$t be solved im some fis~ionJ and t"at seems la me to be the drif1ng
(orce behind inyt~ing that ~iS to ~appen il t~at arei. Some resDlutf~n
~ust be ~ade of it. I, for one~ woald r.t~er see St.nford come il with
its efltire PF project far Weld Road, jf Uat is wf'lat it is going to be,
even though some Qf it may not s~ow up (or 65 years, so we can tate a 1001
at the eRtire process at cnce, Tither t~an lot by Jot. cr bu~ out I Jessee
ia three yeaTS and come bacl for I~other one. So J ~;ll not support the
stiff recommendatfon.
Commissioner Beec~am; J feel that we Ire creating I Citch-l2 position for
Stanfarcf flere. On the one Pland. we sa! we want someU!irtg Slieci fico -wfl'icll
means detailed and (lose it hand. On the ct~er ~a~d. we sa, we want
something global and III encompassing. I do not Sfe how ~e can expect to
get them both at the same time, ar either of them. properly, if we p'ace
bot~ constrliDts upon the~. ~y understi~ding of 'W~at went on i. the
(it~de land Use Ind lrans~ortitiQn Study 'Was to sa.1 that we were not
ready to approve I PF for the e-ntfre aru on Velc.lI Road. and lie llIanted
justifjc~tian for the .ctions when they occur. At t~at poilt. we woold
'ook .t and consider them. Ve ire .t one ~f those pOints no~ to 100\ and
consider_ What I t~fnt Stanford ;s saying ;s that the~ ~ive i specifit
Fla~. w~ do not hive the drawings i8 front af us. but I think we can
accept t~at the1 ire planning somethfng specific and the~ <an describe it
to 15. They [an ttll ~s where it ~culd be and the size of it. At t~is
poi.t, that is s~fficient far sayiog, i. general, whether ar not we would
al1o~ I loning change. We Ire ~ot approving a buildi~9 or a design or
anything specific ~f that ~ature. That is still s~fficient to consider
the zoning Is»e,t mf it.
Als~, what _e are lilting about is certai.l, ~iecemeal. II perspective.
-mat they are asking for 1a square footage is an increase of about
01)25)90
-11-
.,--------""
•
\
I .
I
.: ~---,
-
.-
o o
Z percent Df t~e eM1sting facilit,. IS I cilc~lited it from the ffgures l~
here. It is about' per,ent of the potent ill l~it (Guld be b~ilt if ~elc~
load were rezoned. ~fc. WiS ~ot Illcwed~ So we ire ta1ting about a small
portioD of what is out there. Ind,1. feel that h within the hltent i~ns of
the (;Iywide land Use .nd rrlnsportatlon Study. It Is approprl.te I. this
aspect, Ind I would supporl It.
Commfssioner (~rr$teR$en: I will concur with t~e remarks Df Commissioner
RubeT. As I iodicated earlier. t'1$ seemed t~ ~e lile a complicated
.. thud or hanging ont. a building tempor,ril, so they could mate some
elrthquale changes, sfnce they can. IS they admit. build what the) want to
build on the site the, Ife as\i~g to be rezoned under t~e existing
loning. The justificltfoD for t~e c~ange seems to be t~at t~ey bave
outlfned on i ~ap where they ev!ntualll want their outpatient services ta
bp~ extept t~at is anywhere from 23-60 years from now. So it s!!ms to ~e
that aD interi. building on this site is just as acceptable as an iDterfm
bUl1diDg on a site rjg~t next door that the, do ~ot control the remainder
~f. Also~ the Dol, other reason t~at has been given. at least ie the
staff presentation. Is the Issue that they need some space temporaril,
whlle t~e1 do some elrt~quake adjustments ia another bu1lding and they
want t~ ~ove some people imto t~is buildfng. I do ~ot t~ink t~at is a
verI good reaSOD for I rezoning.
I llsa ~a~ I sfmllar reaction to Commissioner ~irs<h regarding the issue
~f the (\tywide Study. Nothfng ~as cnanged i. t~lt area slDce ~e ado~ted
t~at zoning. and it was done with the knowledge Dr Stanford's needs, but
also with the knowledge of the parilDg an~ Iransportatlon problems that
eXlst over therE. Nothing reall, has c~a~ged a whole lot sfnce ~e ~id it
to maie ~e c'hange 111 lIind and' sal t~at we were wrong ill adopting tkat
zoni~g~ particular)] sfnCf the zoning can accommodate the needs of
Stanford.
Commissioner ~arsh: J feel we ~ave defimitel, sent Stanfor~ some .ired
messages OD t.is applfcation. When the Citywide Study came uP. as ~s.
Strell poillted out~ Stanford (arne f<lrward' and said. ~{)ur long-term goal is
tG_ include Uris irei 11 the hospital Public facilities lone. Ve 'Would
lite you tc consider t~it as you _ale yo~r long-term assessments.-At
that poiot ye .aid (and ye ~a,e all q"ote~ from this paragraph). "~e are
not going to do t~at r}g~t now, but if you tome f<lrward with a speciffc
proposal. we will conSider it.-Ve left the door opeR for I proposal tc
come forward. saying that we were the ones who ~ere not ready t~ loot at
l~is 11 i glob41, long-lerm view. Stanford' has come forward ~t\ w~at I
consider a proposal bere today_ It is true t~at we do not bave site and
design ill front of illS. nor Jlic.tures Df 'Wllat it is going to Jook 1 fke .. but
we certaf.l, have i good idea Df ~at it ~a, result fl. rf I ~ere tnem~ ]
would not come forward with my pictures and my arc~ltectural drawings at
this pOlat fither~ beciuse clear11, _e are proving ~ere toniqllt that ~e
still ~av! some fssues left ~tk this ~edicll center area that ~e ~ave aot
1et resol~ed ourselves. (ertli.l" t~ey would be foolisb to spend the
time and effort to come up with irc~itectural drawings ~e~ we. Dur~elyes.
ire still is ambi,alent as we ire about t~jS sfte. However, we do ~ave a
goad idea as to what t~e proposal is. Tne staff poilts out fro~ the Cit]
Df 'alo Alto·s point ~f view that t~ere are some good reasons ta encourage
de,elopment t. lake ,1,ce on t~e parking lot. They sa, that the as) site
is not l~ ideal site fer redevelopme~t because ~r the locat'on Df the
trees and the wildlife t~at i member of the public spoke on tonight.
07125190
.I!.
\
• \
\
\
... --\
•
,
.~ .
..J
~, ..
-
·-
o o
Stiff would like to rncourige that dewelopment t~ occ~r elseWhere. ]
t.fnk t~it frlntly. it is more lppropriate for ~s to enccuTige it to OCCur
on that Velc~ Road site t~ •• to open up the possibilit, or it o<curring.
for enlr.ple. on the (liJilrry/Arboretum parcel .. wflere we hav! the ,possibllit.1
of ~~ing I yerl lirge ~ifte of land flto some very different tinds of
hod .se.
let me sa, that I tbinl thfs is I good location for outpatient servicEs to
be offered. That whole Velc~ Road area is a place 50 rel.ti,el, e.sy for
pe~ple from the outside to get tOi it is flir1, easy t~ park there; 1a the
long past I ~ave accompanied patients to the Dutpatient (lf~ics It the
Stanford Hospital $;te. and it is a terrible chore to try and go there.
If those services can be located to the outl,lng areas. th! clients of
those services will be ~ll serveJ.
finall,. let me speak to the QuestloD of t~e Sand Hill Read sol~tien.
When we looked It t~e shopping ~eRter rezoning ia the (itywide Study. what
~e sli~ ~as~ we need tD look at t~;s independentl,. not depending upon a
solotion t. t~e Sand Hill Road mess. I feel that we did that. lie oeed to
lool it Stanford independentl,. i$ .ell. recognizing t~at the) have needs~
and t~ey have clients that they are going to have to re1ate te, and
recognizing t~at the medical circumstances over t~e last ten years, as
referred to by Mr. ~'Brfenl have <~anged dramatical1,. and changed t~e
t5n4s of needs t~at the~ ~ave ~th their own clients. So I ~ill vote to
support this application. I think it is as speciffc is ~e can ast and is
a re~sonabTe request.
Commissioner (.lleR: I am afraid I must disagree. I do not see anyt~ing
very spec.ific fler"e at all. We !lave Uree iHerflatives (If liIIhat they car. do
if ~e rezone tiis. Adm1tting t~at Stanford does ~ave needs and ad~ittrng
t~at the changfng situation 11 the medical ffeld continues and by t~e time
we filis" with appro~fng Uis, it lIi'ght cllange agaln~ J tl\ink it is
important tD have before ~s some 5d!! Df t~eir reil plans. If they rEally
and trwl} ,lan to put an outpatient building on t~ls site. tt~er than
t.lling about it as one possibilit, (and I certai.ll got the idea they
wanted to transfer the dens;t, from the rest of the medical center). I
could be wrong on that, but the Whole tking Is very ambiguous. So I am
not prepared' at t~is time ta go for anI redesignation Dr relonlng~ Ve are
ilWare and have always beeA! aware of Stilnford"s lor,g-term Jllan to re(apture
t~at inboard Welc~ Road area~ but it is ~ery important t~ keep a
continuitl on the ,llnnfng commission Df w~at ~as gone on in the past. I
wo~Td urge those Qf you ~o Ire ne~er on the commission to stud, some of
tho&e minutes and some of l~ose plans so that .e ITe consistent is ~e
proceed on this proposal. So I am ~~t il favor Qf it.
MOllON: Commissioner C.lleA: I .ove that we reject lh~ proposed rezoning
and redesignation (or th~ as) Welt\ Road zoning ~ap amendment, ~t~ the
ffnding t~at I can ~ertiiIT, make t~at it is ~ot specific enough and does
not dovet.,l iDta t~e land ~se and t~e Clt~de St~dy. Some ~ery clear
policl stitements _ere ~ade about t~is arel.
SECOND; B1 CommissIoner ~irsc~.
(QrMlissioner Chri.!teAsen; I ~ould 1 ite to po;mt out ttlat under tfle
proposed rezoning, witho~t a spec.ific proposal. they Cin basic.l1, put the
55.000 square feet inywhere they want to fa the medicIl center, so t~ere
07/25/90
·13·
•
r-,!··Ii;~}
. -... "
I '"
!
o 0
is nDt~fDg t~at ties them tl tODi9~t's action, Dr if the citJ council
ap9ro~es it. to an o~t9atrent eli.;c ~ext door.
(OIWIIj.!.s;one-r JIIIars~: I wo~ld 1 i h to poht out that Ue staff repo.rt does
refer to the facl that the Board ~f Oirectors has ,'read, given conceptual
apprDval for the construction of t~e cl1lic. Bids iTe set to go out for
deslgn serwices fl August, so that is I fairl, spetlfic message of imtent~
I feel.
Commlssioner ~ir§Cb: J have i question for the cit1 attorney. Assuming
that the zoning was c~anged and the fAR became J.~. and Stanford came in
wit. a specific proposal t~at di~ not require I wariance 11 an~ way. he~
.~ij1' ~itfgitions from the en~anced development l~d trafffc lssociated
_itk thot be plated on the site1 Or would there not be an opportunlt! for
that?
~5. ("e: Toey probabl1 .nIl be getting an ARB permit, i. any event,s,
an} conditions would be tied II t~it ARB approval process.
Commissiqner Hirsc': But we wQuld n~t see it agaf~ or have the
opportunitl to look At .. ,51Y. lrafffc lIitigations.
"so (a~e: That is correct.
Commissioner Hirsc~~ That is ~y CDncer~ .. t~at once agaim. we felt a rear
and i ~alf ago. wh~n we concluded our efforts that t~i5 area ~ad severe
and unresolved trafflc. problems, and thh '111111 on1, l1ake those 'IiIo·rse. We
III understand Stanford's long-lera needs and desires .. ~t it ~as to
dovetail with some tangible improvements 1! thls area t~at will improve
the traffic and park;ng proble~s.
~s. (ase: I would like te add t~at eveR if you were cons;d~ring this
.clion tODfg~t fl relatfoD to i spe'iffc project, probabl, y~u still would
not "awe any Clpportunlt1 .. ~cause you cannot c.or,dition that lind (If
ilction~
Commiss~Q"er H;rsc~: That is ~nderstDod~ I. response to (omrnlssfoner
Beec~a~. I would sa, that is l~ng is I ~iwe bee~ on the commission, the
proposals for redevelopm~~t or additional development in a give~ iTea
al!!'3Js s.E'elil tl deal 'WiUl \lery small, Ilfnor percentages of ne .. de'If'elopment
relatf~e t8 e~isting. but If that is t~e critical area a$ we (ome up
agai~st roadway capacitJ that is close to ~a.imu~ t~at has probTems~ and
~~ere it just ~as not been improved since the list time ~e l~cled it
t~is. f concur with t~e statement that I just have ~ot seeA any c~ange i~
t~is area that would cause ~e to believe t~at our decilicns , JfaT and a
baTf ago were i. errD~ and sh~~Td be c~an9ed tonight~
CommtHioner _~ecflam: HIls is almost gettitl9 beyond t~e poirlt of be\r'/g
user., (or di$cussion~ but ia res~onse tD Commis5ioner (.lte~·s comments.
on l~e alternatives. there are three alternatives disc~ssed 11 here. but
the~ onll discwssed two, t~ t~e effect of saying t~it Stanford has
'onsi~ered options~ an~ onT, one is ac,eptable~ for reasons as explained
11 the report before ~S. SO the, co~inQ before ~s ~ith onl, t~e ene
option~ the one Ilter~ative. Thel are not presenting three alternatives
that they .ight do. r. terms of continuitJ ~t~ t~e Cityw1~e land U~e and
Transportation Stody, w~at ~as indicated in t~e study. according to ~it
-"L
1
-
..
\
,
i
•
\
\
\.
\ .
'\, -.
\ .-
... J ... ...J~.
·1 i
. ~, "
, ,,-:
.,
o o
is ;. froDt of ~tre. It least, is thit whit we wanted was spe(lffcs.
Agai •• J fe.l we hove gotten th't. ro SOl .t this poi.t that we do not
~aye specifics ind we want the global Yiew fl, fl fact. losing the
contfDuitl. for Commfss;oner NiTSC~, ind Is".ccllfmed b) the council,
wis~rng to tfe a ,lanDing lone change to certi;. reQ~freme~ts. as
ex~lained, we cannat exactly do that~ It is mfee to ~ave speciffcs im
front If us, f~ te~5 of the e~act buiTdfng 7 etc., but even if that were
the caSt, we ,annot constrail I lODing cnang! to t~ose spec'fic ,lans. So
agail, what is being considered ~!re is the appropriate way of ~andliog
t~is, and [ think we sho~ld approve tt.
Commissioner C~ristenseA: I belfeve t~at Stanford's wishes can be
accommodated under t~e existing lonrng~ As far as ittac~lng conditfons.
.e cannot do that, but we can attac. ~iti9atfons as part of an Eli
,proceS5~
Cnaf~an C~andler: from the commission .tnoritJ tonight, give~ t~ere are
it teist four votes for rejecting thts from members ~o have spoke~ so
fir. there ~as been some talt about lixed messages, Catch-22s, and the
appropriateness ~f the site for the elflfc that is adjatent tG the one
being Froposed for rezoniog. I fi~d ~yself lOre confused by some mf those
arguments than enlightened by t~em. I would 11ke to eXprfSS some rie~s
abo~t the glDbal issues i~volyed bert, as ~ell is the specific ones. We
made ver.1 c:lear. at tf)e time Elf the Citywide Study, that tfle traffic.
parl~~g and transportation issues fl tAls area required a limitatiGn on
the amouDt ~f general development potential~ That is ~1 the cltJ council
specificallJ adopted the limitations that they did. T~at .as a very clear
decision ~y t~e <ommissioD ind co~~cl1 to put limitations OD. I ~ouTd
agree wit' Commissioners C~rjsteRsen and Hirsc~ that there ~ave ~ot been
an, substantive <~anges t~ the underlying issues that affected t~:t.
There aaJ be other COn(fr~s that need te be wei9~ed, ia ter~s If the need
for ~dicil services and the needs Df t~e unfversit, to ~et botb iater~al
and .xter.al demands. If that ;. the c •••• ~. shoul~ be willing to
tRtertlil consideratfon af those nteds, a~d lo~l compreheRsfve1¥ it
y~ether we sf~pl, made a wrong decision two years ago (since there fs no
c~anged circumstance) 11 the ~efght t~at we ,lactd on the transportation
and traffic issues thtre. and adopt I different loning for all of those
inboard sites to facilitate the universtt,'s planning. It ~ould be a ver1
logical thing to consfder. and we might very well decide that it is an
appropriate t_ing to do~
On t~e ot~er hand, I have a lot If trouble riewing this application im
ter.s of the partfcwlar elili' proposal before ~s. Commissioner Marsb
referred to what a great site is proposed for the climic. I would point
out ta ~er t~at t~at is not t~e site that is proposed f~r rezoDing. for
.11 it ~atters, the ~lili( ~ight be proposed for ,lacement way Dver on the
It~er side Df the ~dicll ctnter. and the1 stl11 ~oQld ne!d tm rtzone this
site. What we are talting about here is rezoning aSl Welc_ Road. Wherever
it 'S t~at the <lili, is placed. for t~at rtlSon. t~is does amount tl a
,iecemeal ~ha~ge. It;s simplJ that more space Is needed wit~ia the
~dicil ceater irea to accommodate its Deeds. J~fs could als~ be
iccomplis~ed .;thout changing the zoning ~f I site. by e~ang;ng the floor
area rltio fo~ t~e ~ole area by C.al. T~at .ight add eno~gh space t~
accommodate the elilie, as another ap~roac~. So I do ~ot iike c~oos;n~ a
»artfcllir site a~d c~anging its loning to accommodate a de~e1opment on a
completel, unrelated parcel or ',nd that happe •• to be .dja<ent.
D7/25/90
.) 5·
•
..
\'J:.
~~
I· ,
I
I
. ,
i.
o
8, t~e same tole-A. we need to remember t~at the Flans for the building
that Is on the site that is being rezoned are unclear~ retained for
te.porar1 purposes to allow personnel to be s~lfted around during some
ItOlfing Clf space. After l"at l1ov1n51 fllS occurred'. ttu~rlI sometlt1i"1g el SI! 'Wi 11
hoppe. to the development potential repre.ented by t~.t building on that
sit... That~ .. not be •• addressed at ,11 here. h the absente of t~at
bul1di~g propos&4 for tempo~irl use~ there would be plent1 ~f d!velopment
potential t. accommodate the propos~d clili(. 'Wherever it wou,~ be put.
fina11y, I t~ini It would be fncon.;stent wit' what the city council has
told us verI rl!'centl, to approve thiJ. althougPl the counc11 .ight elloos!
dlfferentl]. I wa. foterested t~.t the staff described the 17,500 .~var.
feel IS .inor. after l~e CQun<11 decided ~er1 clear11 two weeis 190 that a
,ropos.1 b1 • developer for 2.500 extra sq~are feet fa the downtown area
.a. so significant t~.t cash on the barrel head t. t~e tune of Sl90,OOO •• s
required (some .ig~t cill it , tax) before the city _auld ,.11 the
indi.ldu,1 the l,500 .~u.re feet of addltfonal space t~at he wanted. The
council ~al decIde dlffere.tl, here, but I think it would be .ory
inconslsteRt ~th thit~ Sa for t~ose reasons, [ am gafng to jof! the
~ajorit¥~ I 1m not hostile to the idea. 11 principle. Qf addili~nal
expansion where necessary for t~e medical cli.fc~ I a~ ~ot hastil! to
tal;og a comprebenslve look at w~et~er the inboard Welch Road sites should
'impl, be rezoned, with the floor area ratro c~anged, but I feel that t~js
i. re.lly the wrong way t. go abcut it.
MOTlON PASSJ:S: {h.ilinHHt (handler: Is Ulere any f~u·ther discwssion on
this motion? We ~ave I motfon by CommissionEr {w11eA and seconded by
Commissioner ~irS(' to reject the proposed rezo~ing~ Ali t~ose il favor.
sa, ~e? All OP9~s!d? T~at passes on a 5·2 vote~ .ith (ammisiioners
Beec~am a~d ~ars~ voting DO.
1Ir. 'll1lhn~: nil r. schedule<! for the Au;u.t I3t~ cHy council
Deetio;. (Corrected t. September 17t~)
PUBllC HtARING . Rr~I[W AND APPROVAL Of OU~RRY~
ARBORETU~ ROAD IMl'ROVEMfNTS: Application by Stonford
~njyersit, for ;mproverr~nts. including the widening af
eastbound Quarry ~oid t~ accommodate an excl~si~e
ight·tura lane, i through 'a~e, i left·tura Jane. and
r ri,lng northbo~nd Arboretu~ to provide for thrte
'ane f trlffle. and related c~ilnges to t~e traffic
sfgnal, triJllDg and 5ign1'ng. Envtronmenta.l
AssessmeRt: 0 sfgnificant impact. fjle ~o. 90-E1A-33.
lone Oistrfct Communitl Comrnercfal~
Mr. Aggarwal: Stanford j. the
[untz fron Stanfa~ is sftting 11 the audl ce.;1 case t~ere iTe some
questions for 'fa. Stanford is 9~ing tD bui his project. and the~ hand
it over to the cit, for ~aimtenance. Tne cit1 ~ required Sta~ford tD do
this is I .iligatfon ~asure tl two Df t~e projects
earl fer. The prlject ~s reviewed by the Architectura
Jul] 19.
Sn1rler Wils.on: I do not know of a better argument for the posit
the ARB took OD t~rs t~an its ,rey;ous. application. We ~ave a grave
cancer. for t~e a,proach tQ increasing the capacit, cf this road il two
07/15/90
·16·
'.
•
\
, .
,
t· ;
c
•
,
t ,
~
t
t
•
I
!
l