|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, April 23, 2009, 9:55 AM
City pushes 'urban village' for Stanford hospitals
Planning Commission urges city, Stanford to consider bike paths, pedestrian walkways as part of massive expansion project
|
|
by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff
Stanford University's recent decision to scrap plans to enlarge Stanford Shopping Center and to focus on expanding its hospital facilities hasn't stopped Palo Alto officials from pushing for an "urban village" connecting the two developments.
One member of the Planning and Transportation Commission said Wednesday night that the withdrawal of the shopping-center application could make it easier for the city and Stanford to agree on a suitable urban design.
But city staff cautioned at Wednesday night's study session that it's too early to tell how Stanford's withdrawal of the shopping-center application would ultimately affect the design of the medical center, which Stanford plans to expand by 1.3 million square feet.
The commission split on whether the shopping-center's withdrawal would make it easier or more difficult to implement the "village concept." The term refers to the city's ambitious proposal to create a pedestrian- and transit-friendly neighborhood along Quarry Road, lined with bike paths and walkways.
But commissioners agreed that the medical center's expansion -- which includes major additions to Lucile Packard Children's Hospital and Stanford Hospital and Clinics as well as renovations to Hoover Pavilion and to the medical school -- should include amenities and design elements that would make walking, biking and busing to and from the hospital more attractive.
Commission Chair Daniel Garber said Palo Alto and Stanford should strive to integrate the proposed medical buildings with the surrounding area. Stanford's proposed design, which features courtyards, fountains and elevated gardens, seeks to provide patients and visitors with islands of peace and serenity.
But Garber argued the designs should also carefully consider walkways, transit options and other elements geared toward creating an "urban experience" for pedestrians and commuters.
"Those buildings don't seem to be responding to the ground plane, to the urban experience we want to be successful," Garber said. "There's no connection of buildings to pedestrian movement.
"This project has been talked about as having the largest impact on Palo Alto ever," he added. "There's responsibility to do not just good buildings, not to do just good design, but to do great buildings and great design. We are still midway through the process."
The village concept would also require Stanford to build hundreds of homes along Quarry Road to accommodate new workers. Original plans called for 594 residential units, though that number is likely to go down because of the withdrawal of the shopping-center application.
The plan, as proposed by city consultant Bruce Fukuji, would also require Stanford to divert some of its planned housing units from its academic campus to the medical center, a prospect for which Stanford officials have shown little enthusiasm. The bulk of the housing units would be on land under Santa Clara County jurisdiction.
Michael Peterson, Stanford Hospital's vice president for special projects, stressed the hospital's recent financial woes and the difficulties Stanford would face in providing the housing called for in the village concept.
"These sites along Quarry Road are in county land and the hospitals neither control nor own these sites," Peterson said. "They are set up for academic reasons."
He said Stanford plans to provide housing for medical students employed by Stanford Hospital and the Children's Hospital.
The City Council is still negotiating with Stanford over what "community benefits" Stanford needs to provide to get the city's approval because the expansion/rebuilding plan vastly exceeds existing zoning limits. The benefits, which would likely include new housing, will be laid out in a development agreement between the city and Stanford.
But while housing remains the main sticking point between the city and Stanford, the planning commission focused Wednesday's discussion on transportation and design elements of the proposed medical facilities.
Commissioner Lee Lippert, an avid bicyclist, emphasized the need for creating attractive bike paths. He said the shopping center's recent withdrawal could actually help with the design of the medical center.
"With Stanford Shopping Center taken off the table, my feeling is there's been significant progress in terms of making the necessary steps to get the vision that both Stanford Medical Center and the City of Palo Alto want for this new development," Lippert said.
"We're beginning to have compromises, negotiations, a way to make this work from an urban-design point of view because we already eliminated a significant amount of density and population from the project."
But Commissioner Arthur Keller argued that the withdrawal of the shopping center application -- which has been going through the planning process for almost two years -- could slow down the process for the medical center expansion.
"For a project of this magnitude, we've been going through a fairly expeditious process. Withdrawing the Stanford Shopping Center at the 11th, or 10th, hour doesn't really speed things up."
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Info, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2009 at 10:40 am Please get out of the way for the hospital project. Learn from meddling with the shopping center and hotel project.
|
|
Posted by Stanford Hospital Supporter, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2009 at 11:05 am After reading this I really would not blame Stanford if they chose to build their new hospital on land near their new medical facility in Redwood City.
P & T Commission get off Stanford's back, and let them design the kind of facility they want, or you'll lose it.
|
|
Posted by Etaoin Shrdlu, a resident of another community, on Apr 23, 2009 at 11:35 am Ahh! There's a consultant! So more Palo Alto Process: delay, blackmail, righteous posturing. In short, the usual nonsense. Stand by for the City Council to shoot itself in the foot...they can be taken to the closest emergency room...in Redwood City.
|
|
Posted by Christine Stafford, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2009 at 11:55 am Why doesn't Palo Alto leave Stanford alone and concentrate on it's own problems. they reject all projects which would bring revenue into the city then claim lack of funds for infrastructure work. Why not spend time fixing Palo Alto Streets and bike paths, which are the worst in the county.
|
|
Posted by John, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2009 at 11:56 am Certainly Palo Alto has the right to ask the University for help on increased traffic solutions etc. However, they seem to be getting into site and building design which is not their affair. Perhaps Palo Alto should put up the money and build their own hospital so they can have precisely what they want.
|
|
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2009 at 12:16 pm The City Council sees everything through their "green" glasses, to the detriment of the city as a whole. This is especially true of the two most vocal Stanford bashers Drekmeier and Kishimoto.
They constantly whine about too much traffic. Kishimoto has stated that even the creation of one new job adds traffic (one has to wonder if she is happy with the economic downturn--less people working equals less traffic according to her equation).
I have yet to see any evidence of a large employer that has been in PA being asked to provide housing in order to remodel etc. Why does the council look at Stanford as a cash cow? their list of demands are outrageous and border on extortion (especially given statements by council members that all 50+ demands are non-negotiable.
Any other company/business would say good bye and move to a place where the climate is more welcoming.
The problem is that the council is clueless and listen to residents who claim that the Stanford hospital/medical center should not be a regional hospital. Some people have no clue as to what is going on and what Stanford means to Palo Alto.
I am sure that the council will have no problem exploiting Stanford's athletic facilities to line their own pockets when the Senior Games are in town, as an example of the council's double standard.
|
|
Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2009 at 12:22 pm The Planning Commission should just stick to the Hospital Expansion and drop this "village concept" nonsense. Pushing for additional housing on Quarry Road is just an example of extraneous interference. Stanford should be preparing a Plan B and just move the expansion to Redwood City out of the hands of "the Palo Alto Process."
|
|
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2009 at 12:39 pm "But commissioners agreed that the medical center's expansion -- which includes major additions to Lucile Packard Children's Hospital and Stanford Hospital and Clinics as well as renovations to Hoover Pavilion and to the medical school -- should include amenities and design elements that would make strolling, biking and busing to and from the hospital attractive experiences."
Do the commissioners even have a clue as to what a hospital is or are they just extensions of our city council? People go to the hospital when they are ill--those people and their visitors are not interested in "strolling" nor are they interested in an "attractive experience"--they are concerned about their health or the health of a loved one.
|
|
Posted by Mary Carlstead, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2009 at 1:47 pm It is time for this community to rise up in wrath and tell the Council AND the Planning Commission to back off and out of the Stanford Hospitals project before we lose it all together. We've lost the expanded shopping center. This council was not crowned or anointed. It was elected to take care of the business - particularly now the financial business - of Palo Alto. This council is composed of short term-ers, and come November I hope some will be shorter than others. The council's decisions will impact this city for generations - and they and some previous councils made some pathetically dumb decisions. We need that hospital - and desperately need a large, modern emergency room.
I have no qualms about putting my name on this blog. The council's popularity is spiraling down, and residents feel so helpless to stop the civic carnage. Where is the common sense?
|
|
Posted by Jim H., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2009 at 2:16 pm Housing for the workers? And when those workers move to other jobs, do they lose their home? Housing for medical students is good enough for me. The city's focus on having workers live where they work is ridiculous. Did they do that with Facebook? Have they done it with any other entity aside from Stanford?
|
|
Posted by Linnea, a resident of the Monroe Park neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Housing all along Quarry Road? As a mother who has had to get her child to the Stanford ER or to Packard in more than one emergency and more than one major illness, I think that adding housing and further constricting Quarry Road is outright dangerous. It's already bad enough: you get to the hospital if you can get through the shopping traffic. Making access to the HOSPITAL slower by adding hundreds of housing units in that narrow corridor should not be on anyone's list of desireable outcomes.
|
|
Posted by resident, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2009 at 7:27 pm Making a trip to the hospital, to see a patient, or being an ambulatory patient, should be possible by direct public transportation, and is of vital importance to everyone!
By 'direct' I mean not having to take a VTA bus, or even the Palo Alto shuttle (which has a very, very limited number of hours we can use it, ( no evening trips, nor weekend trips, etc.) then transfer to Marguerite, with ITS limited hours is a nightmare for seniors, and those without a car.
The very real problem of trying to drive to Stanford Hospital, then the prohibitively expensive parking for the public, that is, Palo Altans not connected to Stanford and not having a Stanford parking sticker, is something we should think about. Hopefully the City Council will be specific about that aspect of the traffic problem, and hold Stanford responsible for that. It is not unreasonable.
|
|
Posted by park my car, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 24, 2009 at 7:44 am The first 45 minutes of parking are free for patients. That seems pretty generous already. Then it becomes $6 for 6 hours ($1 per hour). On weekends the commuter permit zones (A and C) become available for the public to park in for free.
Try parking at UCSF the public lot fills up by 11 am and everyone wanders aimlessly looking for spaces. The entrance of the garage won't have a sign saying 'garage full' so drivers wander around 8 levels until they realize no more spaces are left. Then they get suckered into paying for valet parking ($30 + tip).
Parking is Stanford is already very easy compared to other hospitals.
|
|
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 am I have experience with El Camino Hospital - not Stanford. Parking is free at El Camino Hospital.
|
|
Posted by Charlie, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Apr 24, 2009 at 11:17 am
I hope that the PA Mayor and the council read these posts so they can see that they are not representing the concerns or wishes of Palo Altans. I agree with many of the other posts that the hoops they make Stanford jump through are unreasonable and unfair. Facebook and other companies seem exempt from this level of extortion by the city.
|
|
Posted by JO, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Apr 24, 2009 at 12:46 pm Facebook has been occupying pre-existing office space in Downtown Palo Alto, and is moving to pre-existing office space in the Research Park. Though currently vacant, this Research Park space was previously occupied by Agilent.
On the other hand, Stanford wants to EXPAND the hospital to add NEW floorspace of 1.3 million square feet (according to the PA Online article), thereby adding an estimated 2,243 NEW workers and generating an estimated 10,061 NEW vehicle trips daily by 2025 (according to the City's Administrative Draft EIR). Stanford's expansion plans create a very different situation from Facebook or any other company that moves into pre-existing commercial space in Palo Alto.
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Apr 24, 2009 at 8:27 pm "The City Council is still negotiating with Stanford over the community benefits the university would need to provide to get the city's approval for the medical-center expansion. The benefits, which would likely include new housing units, will be laid out in a development agreement between the city and Stanford."
Stanford should abandon this effort and simply move the entire Medical Center to Redwood City - where it will be greeted with open arms and probably even a redevelopment agency to help fund this incredible world class institution. Palo Alto's only interest in the Medical Center is as a source of extortion.
|
|
Posted by Bob, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 24, 2009 at 8:53 pm Remember that Larry Klein says he doesn't read the Town Square blogs because they are so 'negative'. I wonder if a majority of the council does that also. They stick their heads in the sand. Too bad we can't kick the rest to get them to wake up and smell the rage.
Council members - if you read this, then tell us so we know that at least we are heard.
|
|
Posted by pat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 24, 2009 at 9:14 pm Does everyone who works in Palo Alto have to live here? I bought a house in Palo Alto when I worked on Page Mill Road. After 6 months, I left that job and subsequently worked as far south as Campbell and as far north as San Mateo.
What about Stanford employees who have spouses/partners who work elsewhere?
I'm fed up with all the plans for urban villages, dense housing, transit-oriented housing, BMR housing, etc. The character of Palo Alto is changing for the worst!
|
|
Posted by rr, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2009 at 8:02 am The solution is quite simple:
Recall the City Council. Clearly, they are out of touch with anything resembling logic or reason. They have been and continue to be constant obstacles to real progress. They do not listen to what the community wants, and if they do, they are afraid to move on anything without hiring a consultant, forming a committee of some kind to 'study' the issue, etc. The list of incompetence goes on and on. It is a fungus that spreads to every council, through the same folks. What happened to the priority of 'Civic Engagement'? That is clearly another buzz word that means nothing.
Seriously, this City is being run into the ground by a bunch of self important babies who have nothing but bickering and indecision running through their veins. Get real Palo Altans, the root of the problem is the City Council. They are clearly out of touch with the rest of the area. If it doesn't show now, wait for the History lessons in a few years.
Recall the Council, it's the only hope.
|
|
Posted by Jim H., a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2009 at 8:03 pm OK "JO", then what about the new building where the Old Pro was? Did they have to provide housing? Or the new Walgreens building that now has more offices above, or any of the other new builds where they put in more office space than the previous building? None of them needed to provide housing. Sure the hospital will create more traffic. But, do you actually think that making them build housing will eliminate traffic? Should the city then institute a new law that if you create "x" number of jobs, you must build a house? Won't those people in that new housing need to go out somewhere aside from "walking" to work? Forcing them to build housing is unreasonable. The additional housing will further overcrowd schools and put an even greater strain on city services that already can not support the current residents.
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Apr 26, 2009 at 12:44 pm Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he replied "Because that is where the money is".
Why does Palo Alto try to extort Stanford - for the same reason. The Stanford goose has decided, in abandoning the shopping center expansion and the hotel, to stop laying its golden eggs in Palo Alto. Hopefully, the Stanford goose will realize that its newest golden egg, the beautiful Out Patient Center, in Redwood City is doing quite well and that it is time to move to a new nest.
|
|
Posted by Its the economy stupid, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2009 at 2:36 pm f the Childrens Hospital is so short of space, why do they advertise so much in all the papers soliciting new patients?
Something funny going on there.
|
|
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2009 at 3:49 pm Peter Carpenter,
What are the chances that Stanford will petition the county/state to incorporate its own city? There seems to be next to no benefit to stay under the sway of Palo Alto.
|
|
Posted by Its the economy stupid, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2009 at 8:20 pm [Post removed by Palo Alto Online due to repetitive post by same poster.]
|
|
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Apr 26, 2009 at 8:25 pm "Peter Carpenter,
What are the chances that Stanford will petition the county/state to incorporate its own city? There seems to be next to no benefit to stay under the sway of Palo Alto."
This idea was discarded long ago when it was realized that such a city would be controlled by the vote of the students - which is probably only slightly worse than being controlled by people who have no real stake in your future except as a source of extortion.
|
|
Posted by Its the economy stupid, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2009 at 12:30 am My last post was removed because I said I had heard an advertisment for patients on Sunday on CBS radio at 7:20 pm by Stanford Hospital.
Why did you delete this original posting? I have never said it before.
|
|
|
| |
2007 Awards from the California
Newspaper Publishers Association
Palo Alto Weekly
First Place
Local News Coverage
Local Breaking-News Story
Feature Story
Second Place
Feature Story
Environmental Reporting
Sports Coverage
General News Photo
Photo Essay
Freedom of Information
The Almanac
First Place
Environmental Reporting
Editorial Pages
Lifestyle Coverage
Second Place
Environmental Reporting
Mountain View Voice
Second Place
General Excellence
Editorial Comment
Front-Page Design
|
|
|
Send this story
Print this story
