HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 7988j •
RESOLUTION NO. 7988
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVING A
MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
CENTER FOR CANCER TREATMENT AND
PREVENTION/AMBULATORY CARE PAVILION PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Background.
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City
Council") finds, determines and declares as follows:
A. Stanford University ("Stanford") has made
application to the City for development of a Center for Cancer
Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion at the Stanford
University Medical Center, (hereinafter "CCTP/ACP" or "the
Project"), filing applications are 97-EIA-37, 97-CPA-3, 97-ZA-14,
97-UP-66, and 97-ARB-214. The Project consists of 218,000
(205,450 net) square-feet of medical care, research, educational
and outpatient care facility located at 875 Blake-Wilbur Drive in
the City of Palo Alto and a 1, 035 space underground parking
garage to be located in the landscaped median of Pasteur Drive
between Welch Road and the Stanford University Hospital.
B. Pursuant to the California Env~ronmental Quality Act
of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Section 2100 et. seq.
(hereinafter "CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California
Administrative Code Section 15000 et. seq., an Environmental
Impact Report was prepared to evaluate anticipated environmental
impacts resulting from changes in land use and land use policy as
a result of the implementation of the proposed development.
C. In accordance with CEQA, the draft EIR was offered
for public review and comment, and written communications were
received by the City during the public review period. The City
fully and adequately responded to these comments in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines, and the comments and responses have been
included in the Final EIR.
D. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Draft EIR and the Project on May 24, 2000. The Planning
Commission reviewed and considered the draft EIR and comments
received during the public comment period, and found that the
draft EIR provided an adequate project description, identified
1
000721 syn 0090633
' '
and analyzed each potential significant environmental impact and
proposed feasible mitigation measures for it, described and
evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project and
its proposed location, including those specific alternatives
required by CEQA, and recommended preparation of a Final EIR
based upon the draft EIR reviewed by them.
E. The City Council has fully reviewed and carefully
considered the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to c0mments
concerning the Draft EIR and all other environmental documents
that comprise the Final EIR, including all information presented
at the duly noticed public hearings on the Project and its
environmental impacts.
F. The City Council has fully considered and recognized
the significant adverse environmental impacts which may .iesul t
from implementation of the Project.
G. Most adverse environmental impacts of the Project
will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
imposition of the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR.
However, there will be temporary impacts on aesthetics, temporary
construction noise, a possibility of significantly increased
traffic delays at certain intersections because the decision to
implement mitigation measures must be made by other agencies, and
a cumulatively significant increase in regional air emissions.
H. The EIR has described a reasonable range of
alternatives to the development that could feasibly obtain the
basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives
might impede the attainment of development objectives or might be
more costly.
SECTION 2. Certification of the EIR. The City
Council hereby finds, declares, and certifies that the Final EIR
has been completed in compliance with the CEQA. The City Council
has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR,
staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public
hearings on the project, and all other matters deemed material
and relevant before considering the project for approval. The
City Council hereby finds the following:
A. That the Draft and Final EIR were prepared by the
City and its consultants and reflects the independent review and
judgment of the City as lead agency.
B. That the EIR has been prepared in compliance with
CEQA. There is no significant new information that would
support a conclusion that the EIR should be re-circulated
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5.
2
000721 syn 0090633
' '
c.
applicable
Act.
The EIR has been completed in compliance with all
provisions of the California Environmental Quality
SECTION 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
As required by Public Resources Code· Section 21081.6 and CEQA
Guidelines 15097, the City has prepared a comprehensive
mitigation monitoring and reporting program, titled "Stanford
CCTP/ACP and PS IV Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan"
( "MMRP") .
SECTION 4. Statement of Facts and Findings. CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve
or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed if the
EIR identified one or more significant effects of the project,
unless the public agency makes written findings for each of these
significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding. The following findings are set forth
pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
A. Land Use
Potentially Significant Effect #1 The Project
would be generally consistent with applicable public plans and
policies. However, the project could not be implemented without
changing the current land use designations on the project site.
Finding The Project approval includes a
Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zoning amendment that will
permit construction and operation of the Project by increasing
permitted density of development and allowing construction of an
underground garage in a landscaped median area. These changes
are consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan, which
contemplates expansion of Stanford Medical Center as an
employment district, (Policy L-4 5) and will not conflict with
land use policies adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental
harm. Therefore, the effect is less than significant.
Facts in support of finding The zone change and
Comprehensive Plan amendment do not introduce incompatible uses
or activities into the area. The CCTP/ATP relocates and expands
existing medical services in the immediate vicinity and is
located in a core area of the Stanford University Medical Center.
The parking garage is primarily a provider of parking spac~ for
the CCTP/ATP itself, and its underground location will permit the
retention and enhancement of open space as described below.
Substantial mitigation of the Project itself result in less than
significant impact from the land use policy changes that are part
of the Project.
3
000721 syn 0090633
' '
Potential Significant Effect #2 The proposed
project is not consistent with the objectives of the Landscape
Combining District of the Pasteur Drive median strip and includes
rezoning to eliminate the Landscape Combining District overlay
zone.
Finding Changes have been required in or
incorporated into the Project which reduce the potential
significant effect on land use to a less than significant effect.
Facts in support of finding -Use of a parking
structure instead of surface parking lots reduces the area needed
to provide parking. However, parking structures interfere with
vistas and eliminate open space. In this project, placement of
the parking structure underground minimizes disruption of vistas
and permits landscaping of the majority of the median area.
Location of the structure in the median of Pasteur Drive
minimizes the length of new access drives. To preserve the
intent of the Landscape Combining District, as a condition of
approval Stanford is required to covenant to maintain the median
as open space. To preserve the visual character, the design is
subject to architectural review to maximize open space and scenic
values while · permitting more active uses of the space by
employees, patients, visitors, and nearby residents when
appropriate. Inclusion, as recommended by the Planning
Commission, of mor~ active outdoor use of the median space is
consistent with the intent of the Landscaping Combining District.
B. Aesthetics
Significant Effect #3 The project would have
potentially significant light and glare effects.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation measures
and through Architectural Review Board analysis.
Facts in support of finding -
As conditions of approval the Project has been
required:
(a) To reduce use of reflective materials and use
non-reflective or less-reflective materials when appropriate.
(b) To design lighting to avoid spillover light and
glare effects on adjacent buildings, using the minimum wattage or
candle-feet necessary to assure adequate safety and circulation.
Significant Effect #4 Visual disturbance from
construction of the project could have temporary adverse visual
impacts.
4
000721 syn 0090633
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation measures
and through Architectural Review Board analysis.
Facts in support of finding -As a condition of
project approval, practices reducing visual impacts must be
incorporated into the construction specifications for the Project
on staging and storage of equipment and materials as well as dust
control. These are described in greater detail in the MMRP.
C. Cultural Resources
Significant Effect # 5 -The project involves ground
disturbance and excavations that may encounter cultural
resources. Therefore, the project has the potential to disturb
cultural resources.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation
measures.
Facts in support of finding -Conditions of approval
require archaeological monitoring and protection of
archaeological resources. These measures are described in
greater detail in the MMRP.
Significant Effect #6 -Excavation activities at the
project sites may encounter human remains and consequently result
in potentially significant impacts.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation
measures.
Facts in Support of Finding -Conditions of approval
require implementation of Section 7050.5 (b) of the California
Health and Safety Code. These measures are described in greater
detail in the MMRP.
D. Transportation
Significant Effect #7 demand for pedestrian
facilities would increase with the project, but none are planned
from PS IV to the west side of Blake Wilbur Drive.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation
measures.
5
000721 syn 0090633
Facts in Support of Finding -As a condition of
project approval, a pedestrian crosswalk across Pasteur Drive
from PS IV at the Blake Wilbur intersection must be provided.
Significant Effect #8 Nine study area
intersections would experience substantial degradation in their
levels of service upon the completion of the Project and thus the
Project would have significant traffic impacts. Two more
intersections, Sand Hill/Sharon Park and El Camino
Real/Valparaiso, would be significantly impacted by cumulative
development, including this Project, by 2010. The EIR
contemplated a monitoring program and phased improvements to
address these impacts.
a. "Sand Hill Project" Mitigation Measures. Five
of the impacted intersections were the subject of mitigation
measures for the Sand Hill Road Project. Stanford has
agreed, as part of that project a development agreement, to
fund the construction of these improvements when they are
needed. These improvements are located in Menlo Park and
San Mateo County. If constructed, these improvements would
fully mitigate the impacts of the Project.
Finding -The impacts at the following intersections would
be fully mitigated if the mitigation measures identified in
the MMRP were implemented by Menlo Park and San Mateo Count:
-Welsh Road/Campus Drive West
-Sand Hill Road/ Oak
-Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue
-Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road/Junipero Serra Boulevard
-Junipero Serra Boulevard/Campus Drive West.
The City Council finds and determines that these mitigation
measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
other agencies and can and should be adopted by them, based
upon the traffic analysis.
Facts Supporting the Finding The traffic analysis set
forth in Section 3.5 (p. of the EIR establishes that these
mitigation measures would eliminate the significant adverse
impacts of the Project on these intersections completely.
The Menlo Park General Plan identifies most of the
improvements proposed for intersections within its
boundaries as needed.
b. "Non-Sand Hill" Mitigation. The remaining five
intersections that would be significantly impacted by the
Project were not proposed for modification to mitigate the
Sand Hill Project.
6
000721 syn 0090633
Finding -The impacts at the following intersections would
be fully mitigated by the construction of the intersection
improvements identified for them ( 7. 3 through 7. 11) at
pages 3.5-63 to 3.5-68 of the EIR and 10.1 through 10.11 at
pages 3.5-87 through 3.5-91) OR by implementation of
congestion management measures by the agencies with
jurisdiction with predicted equivalent impact reduction:
-El Camino Real/Ravenswood in Menlo Park
-El Camino Real/Embarcadero/Galvez in Palo Alto
-Arboretum/Palm in Santa Clara County
-Junipero Serra Boulevard/Stanford Avenue in Santa Clara
County
-El Camino Real/Valparaiso in Menlo Park
-Sand Hill Road/Sharon Park in Menlo Park.
The City Council further finds and
exception of the El Camino
intersection, these intersection
measures, or congestion management
impact reduction, are within
jurisdiction of other agencies
adopted by them.
determines that with the
Real/Embarcadero/Galvez
construction mitigation
measures with comparable
the responsibility and
and can and should be
Facts in Support of Finding Intersection capacity
improvements for each intersection are described in the EIR
as set forth above. As a condition of project approval,
Stanford shall be required to pay to the City of Palo Alto
its appropriate share of the costs of those improvements.
The City may use those funds, or provide them to the
relevant jurisdiction, for the construction of the
improvement intersections. Alternatively, the City or those
agencies may use the funds for congestion management
measures designed to reduce the impact to a level of
insignificance.
The City's Comprehensive Plan encourages transportation
demand management rather than intersection capacity
expansion. This approach may include a range of transit
incentives and demand management techniques. The City may
not, under current state law, require an employee trip
reduction program of an employer. However, Stanford has an
existing, extensive transportation demand management ("TOM")
program which includes employee trip reduction programs. As
a condition of project approval, Stanford has agreed to
implement and report on an intensified TOM program with a
goal of reducing peak-hour trips from the Medical Center so
that the anticipated increase from the project, that is, 200
trips, will not occur. The City believes that this is the
most effective approach to actually reducing congestion and
air pollution. However, the City is not relying on this
7
000721 syn 0090633
program to mitigate the traffic and air quality impacts of
the Project for the purposes of CEQA review.
Significant Effect #9 -Project-related construction
traffic could contribute to increased intersection delays and
interference with pedestrian, bicycles and transit.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant impact with required mitigation
measures.
Facts in Support of Finding -Conditions of approval
require provision of off-street parking for all construction-
related vehicles, maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle access,
restriction of construction hours, designation of truck routes,
protection and restoration of public roadways, protection
maintenance of public transit access and routes, and special
event traffic plans, or preparation of a construction impact
mitigation plan satisfactory to the City. These mitigation
measures are described in more detail in the MMRP.
E. Air Quality
Significant Effect #11 -Short-term construction and
demolition-related activities could result in fugitive dust and
equipment exhaust emissions that would cause a nuisance. Unless
reduced by implementation of feasible control measures, impacts
due to construction and demolition emissions would be potentially
significant.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant impact by required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding -The project sponsor
and contractor shall be required as a condition of project
approval to implement control measures more particularly
described in the MMRP.
Significant Effect #12 -Air emissions caused by
project operation and affecting regional air quality (including
vehicle trips caused by the project and natural gas combustion
for energy use) would not exceed the BAAQMD's significance
thresbolds for emissions of ROG, NOx and PM10 • Impacts to
regional air quality would be potentially significant on days
used for testing the proposed emergency generator.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant impact by required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding -The project sponsor
and facilities operators shall curtail testing of the diesel-
8
000721 syn 0090633
fired emergency generator on "Spare the Air" days. The BAAQMD
declares "Spare the Air" days the preceding afternoon and n
notified the media outlets and other interested parties.
Prohibiting testing of the emergency generator on these days
would minimize the project's impact on regional air quality.
Significant Effect #13 because the Project's
contributions to regional air emissions would be potentially
significant, the Project's cumulative effect on air quality would
also be potentially significant.
Finding -This is an unavoidable significant adverse
impact of the Project.
Facts in Support of Finding The mitigation
measures adopted, and the intensified TOM program that Stanford
has agreed to implement will help reduce vehicle trips and
minimize cumulative impacts to regional air quality.
Implementation of such mitigation measures would be consistent
with Policy N-28 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. However,
they do not assure that the impact will be insignificant.
F. Noise
Significant Effect #14 Operation of project
construction equipment and equipment used for project demolition
would result in significant noise impacts.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings -
As a condition of Project approval, construction
noise "Best Management Practices" are required as well as
construction of a 12-foot high construction noise barrier. They
are set forth in detail in the MMRP.
noise
noise
would
Significant Effect #15
caused by the project could
from other approved projects.
be cumulatively significant and
-Increases in
coincide with
The resulting
unavoidable.
construction
construction
noise levels
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings
noise mitigation measures will be implemented.
G. Biological Resources
9
000721 syn 0090633
the above-listed
Significant Effect #15 -Project construction would
involve removing trees and could pose potential risks to trees to
be retained on site or transplanted.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings -
As a condition of Project approval, the City has
required detailed reports on existing trees and their condition.
Protection of trees during construction and relocation of trees
is also required. These measures are set forth in detail in the
MMRP.
Significant Effect #16 Project-related tree
removals could directly destroy nets, eggs, and immature birds.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings -to prevent direct
taking raptors or disturbing the active nesting of nati ye bird
species, the removal of trees, shrubs, and vegetation and other
potentially disruptive construction-related activities is
prohibited between February 1 through August 31 bird nesting
period, unless a survey establishes that there are no nesting
sites with 150 feet. The survey requirement and attendant
restrictions are described in more detail in the MMRP.
H. Geology and Soils
Significant Effect #17 Construction of the
proposed project could result in soil erosion problems.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings as part of the
required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and erosion and
sediment transport control plan shall be designed by an erosion
control professional, landscape architect, or civil engineer
specializing in erosion control. The SWPPP requirements are set
forth in more detail in the MMRP.
Significant Effect #18 -Excavation at the project
sites would result in potential risks of slope failure.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures.
10
00072lsyn 0090633
Facts in Support of Findings. -As a condition of
Project approval, the walls of the medical facility site, the
parking garage, and the elevator shaft shall be shored to prevent
movement in these areas. For excavation other than for the
parking garage, a cantilever shoring system shall be installed.
These measures are described in greater detail in the MMRP.
Significant Effect #19 Expansive soils at the
project sites could provide inadequate support for the CCTP/ACP
and PS IVB foundations.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings -As a condition of
Project approval the recommendations of the foundation reports
prepared for the building construction shall be incorporated in
the plans and Specifications for the design of the Project. They
are described in more detail in the MMRP. I. Hydrology and
Water Quality
Significant Effect #20 -Grading, excavation, and
construction activities associated with the proposed project
could result in increased deposition of sediment and discharge of
pollutants into the storm drainage system and San Francisqui to
Creek, adversely affecting water quality.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings -
The same mitigation measure identified for potential
geotechnical and soils hazards previously would ·also help to
reduce potential water quality impacts. Additional measures to
preserve water quality are required as a condition of Project
approval and set forth in greater detail in the MMRP. The
following additional measures would be necessary to specifically
address water quality:
Significant Effect #21 -Operation and maintenance
of PS IV may affect water quality in downstream receiving waters
by increasing the pollutant loading at the project site and by
seepage of groundwater through the lowest levels of the parking
structure.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with certain mitigation measures.
Project
000721 syn 0090633
Facts in Support of Findings -As a condition of
approval, specific landscaping "best management
11
practices, and operation and maintenance "best management
practices" described in more detail in the MMRP must be adopted
and implemented.
Significant Effect #22 -The proposed PS IV design
would place the lowest floor below the design groundwater depth.
This design may cause water seepage into the lowest level of the
garage.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with certain mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings -As a condition of
Project approval, waterproofing measures for perimeter walls and
the bottom floor of the parking structure shall be constructed in
accordance with the California Uniform Building Code, Volume 2
(Structural Engineering Design Provisions
I. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significant Effect #23 -Project-related demolition
or renovation could disturb hazardous materials, if any, in
existing building components and thereby cause adverse health or
safety effects.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings -The project sponsor
is required to retain a qualified environment specialists (e.g.,
a Registered Environmental Assessor or similarly qualified
individual) to inspect existing building areas subject to
demolition or minor modifications for the presence of as yet
unidentified asbestos, PCBs, mercury, lead, or other hazardous
materials. If found at levels that require special handling, the
project sponsor shall manage these materials as required by law
and according to federal and state regulations and guidelines,
including those of the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the Santa
Clara County Department of Environmental Health, and any other
agency with jurisdiction over these materials.
Significant Effect #24 -Excavation and construction
of the proposed building foundation could expose construction
personnel and members of the public to existing soil and
groundwater contamination, if any.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with certain mitigation measures.
12
000721 syn 0090633
Facts in Support of Findings -As a condition of
Project approval, the project sponsor must a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment for areas of the project site where
earth-moving activities could occur. If determined to be
necessary as result of the Phase I investigation, the project
sponsor shall prepare a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
Site work shall be performed in consultation with the Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health and other agencies, as
appropriate. If soils or g_roundwater conditions warrant the
preparation of a Site Safety and Health Plan (a California
Division of Occupational Safety and Health requirement for work
at hazardous waste sites), the plan shall minimize the exposure
of the public as well as on-site workers to contaminated soil.
This mitigation measure is described in more detail in the MMRP.
J. Utilities and Service Systems
Significant Effect #25 -The proposed project may
require off-site water utility line improvements, the
construction of which would have a potential impact on the
environment.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings -As a condition of
Project approval the project sponsor must prepare and follow a
construction plan for review by the City of Palo Alto. The plan
requirements are described in more detail in the MMRP.
Significant Effect #26 -The proposed project would
generate wastewater flows that could be accommodated in existing
off-site wastewater lines. However, if the on-site 10-inch
wastewater line requires upgrades, this construction may trigger
significant short-term effects.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with certain mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings the mitigation
measures stated previously shall be implemented.
Significant Effect #27 -The proposed PS IV would
require the relocation of utilities existing within the Pasteur
Drive median and could cause temporary disturbances to the
environment.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with certain mitigation measures.
13
000721 syn 0090633
Facts in Support of Findings -The Project sponsor
shall schedule and plan relocation of the chilled water utility
line to cause minimum inconvenience to facilities at the Medical
Center (e.g., laying the new line before removal of the old line
to minimize the time that supply would be interrupted) .
Significant Effect #28 -The cumulative demand for
water due to various proposed projects in Zone 3 may require new
or expanded entitlements.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-sign~ficant with certain mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings the utilities
mitigation measured set forth shall be implemented.
K. Public Services
Significant Effect #29 -Traffic generated by the
proposed project could affect the response times of the Palo Alto
Fire Department.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with previously required traffic
mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings -The data provided in
the traffic analysis establish that the mitigation measures will
reduce the Project 1 s traffic impact to less than significant
levels.
Significant Effect #30 -The response times of the
Palo Alto Police Department could be delayed by project-related
traffic.
Finding -The project will be mitigated to a level
of less-than-significant with required mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Findings -The data provided in
the traffic analysis establish that the mitigation measures will
reduce the Project 1 s traffic impact to less than significant
levels.
SECTION 5. Other Alternatives.
A. Alternative Location; Renovation of Existing Space;
Single Use Building. Renovation of existing space to accommodate
the CCTP/ATP programs, and their expansion, is not feasible
because of lack of such space. Over-crowding is one of the
driving forces behind the Project. The CCTP /ACP is sited next
to, and physically connected to, the Lucille Salter Packard
14
000721 syn 0090633
Children's Hospital and the Stanford University Hospital. It is
across the street from the Blake Wilbur Clinic. Patients using
those facilities will also use this facility. In-patients may
need the services at the CCTP /ACP and out-patients may need
emergency access to the facilities at the hospitals. The
organizations also share staff. This is an in-fill project
which meets the planning goals of the City and the operational
goals of the project sponsor. Other locations would not obtain
the Project's goals or the City's planning objectives.
Since the CCTP uses sixty percent of the space and the
ATP the remainder, the possibility of constructing a smaller new
building was also considered. Stanford concluded that the
technological and safety requirements of the two programs make
that infeasible. In addition, consolidating these two outpatient
facilities makes overflow accommodation of patients feasible.
Therefore, this alternative would not satisfy the Project goals.
The Council finds that these alternatives were correctly excluded
from the range of feasible alternatives analyzed.
B. No Project Alternative. CEQA requires analysis of
the "no project'' alternative. In this case, none of the Project
goals could be obtained and the Council rejects this alternative
because the CCTP /ATP is a needed and important health resource
for the region and the state. It provides essential patient care
at a level of sophistication only obtainable at regional medical
facilities associated with medical schools, as well as providing
as setting for valuable medical research.
C. CCTP Only Alternative. In this alternative, the
CCTP would be located in a new, smaller building. It would not
reduce significant impacts to insignificance. However, it is an
environmentally superior alternative. Building a smaller
building in this central medical center site would be an
inefficient use of this land and the hospital's resources. The
City believes that clustering development in certain areas with
good access to transportation systems, such as this, is an
essential part of reducing congestion and air pollution. IF the
ATP is not included, outpatients would continue to use scattered,
overcrowded facilities, adding to their hardships. Medical and
research staff would be deprived of the facilities that Stanford
reasonably believes will improve their ability to care for the
ill and devise methods to prevent or treat future illnesses. The
CCTP and ATP are desirable resource for the local and larger
community. Therefore, the City rejects this alternative as
unfeasible.
D. Alternative Parking Structure Location. In this
alternative, the parking structure would be loc~ted along Quarry
Road, across from Andronico's market and next to the Psychiatry
Building. This location would reduce some temporary construction
15
000721 syn 0090633
impacts on hospital operation. It would also preserve the
·Pasteur Median as a more natural open space. However, the
Pasteur Median is already isolated by existing roadways; it has
been disturbed and does ·not represent an important biological
habitat. Mitigation measures will preserve existing trees to the
extent feasible and plant new ones. Because the parking
structure will be underground, vistas will be preserved. All
long-term potential impacts of the construction of PS-IV have
been reduced to a level of insignificance through mitigation
measures. PS-IV's access to the Medical Center will be superior
than at the Quarry location. The City believes that Stanford
should provide additional housing in the area, and that the
Quarry Road site, which is close to the transit center and
shopping, should be reserved for consideration for such a use.
Therefore, the City Council rejects this alternative as
unfeasible.
SECTION 6. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The
City Council finds that unavoidable environmental impacts of the
project are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the
project, even after giving greater weight to the City's duty to
avoid the environmental impacts, and to protect the environment
to the maximum extent feasible. This determination is made based
upon the facts and public benefits identified in the Final EIR
and record of proceedings on the project. The City Council finds
that the mitigation measures found in the EIR, when implemented,
avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant impacts
identified in the EIR. However, the EIR has identified some
significant impacts that are unavoidable even after incorporation
of all feasible mitigation measures. The significant effects are
as.follows:
A. Aesthetics temporary visual impacts during
construction. Construction of the CCTP/ACP and the related
underground parking structure ( PS IV) could result in visual
disturbance from removal of existing landscaping, ground
disturbance from excavation and grading, and unsightly views due
to equipment and material storage. These effects would be
particularly noticeable for PS IV, since the site is along the
main entryway into SUMC and highly visible from Sand Hill Road,
Pasteur Drive and public walkways and plazas around SUMC. These
impacts, though temporary, would constitute short-term,
significant, and unavoidable effects of the project. Although
temporary significant adverse visual impacts from construction
activities cannot be entirely avoided, the mitigation measures
listed in Section 1 of this resolution would reduce the severity
of the impact. The impact, however, would be significant and
unavoidable.
B. Transportation project and cumulative traffic
delays at nine study intersections. Applying the thresholds of
16
000721 syn 0090633
significance adopted by the City of Palo .Alto, the City of Menlo
Park and the Santa Clara County CMA, the project would result in
significant delays in the Year 2003 at the following
intersections: (1) El Camino Real/Ravenswood in Menlo Park, (2)
El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, ( 3) Arboretum
Road/Palm Drive in Stanford and Palo Alto, (4) Welch Road/Campus
Drive West in Stanford, (5) Sand Hill Road/Oak in Menlo Park, (6)
Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz in Menlo Park, ( 7) Santa
Cruz/Alpine/Junipero Serra in Menlo Park, (8) Junipero
Serra/Campus Drive West in Santa Clara County, (9) Junipero
Serra/Stanford in Santa Clara County. The implementation of the
mitigation measures listed in Section 1 of this resolution would
reduce the project intersection impacts to less-than-significant
levels. However, four of the nine intersections are within the
City of Menlo Park's jurisdiction and the City of Palo Alto has
no authority to require that these recommended improvements be
made. If Menlo Park or Santa Clara County do not implement these
modifications, the impacts to these four intersections would
remain significant.
C. Air Quality -cumulative regional air emissions of
NOx. The analysis in the EIR indicates that the project would
cause potentially significant regional impacts of NOx emissions
from motor vehicle trips and stationary source operations.
Transportation mitigation measures listed in Section 1 of this
resolution would help. reduce vehicle trips and minimize
cumulative impacts to regional air quality. However, because the
effectiveness of the mitigation measures cannot be guaranteed to
reduce project regional emissions to below the significance
thresholds on all days, the cumulative impacts to regional air
quality would remain significant and unavoidable.
D. Noise -project and cumulative construction noise.
Construction and demolition noise would create an intermittent
impact on the noise environment that would be short-term because
it would occur only through the duration of the construction and
demolition phases, disturbing the nearest sensitive receptors.
The construction activities would occur close to the existing
hospital and medical facilities and during the normal working
hours of each. The mitigation measure listed in Section 1 of
this resolution would reduce the potential for adverse
construction noise impacts, but the threshold of the City's noise
ordinance could still potentially be exceeded. Therefore, the
impacts would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level and
the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Also,
because the construction noise from this project could coincide
with construction noise from other approved projects, the
resulting noise levels would be cumulatively significant and
unavoidable.
17
000721 syn 0090633
In approving the project, the City Council has balanced
the benefits of the CCTP IACP against these unavoidable
environmental impacts. In this regard, the City finds that all
feasible mi tigatiori measures identified in Section 1 of this
resolution have been or will be implemented with the project, and
any significant remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable due
to the following specific social, economic or other
considerations, all of which are based upon the facts set forth
in the findings, Final EIR and the records of the proceedings for
this project:
A. The CCTPIACP provides a key health facility for not
only the region, but for the country, and the facility provided
critical health services.
B. The project site's current Comprehensive Plan and
zoning designations are inconsistent with the proposed land use
for the CCTPIACP facility.
C. The existing cancer treatment areas at SUMC are
overcrowded and outdated and the project will provide decent,
safe and modern health care.
D. The unavoidable aesthetic and noise impacts will be
temporary.
E. Circulation and transportation will be improved
through implementation of the listed mitigation measures at most
intersections, and the additional TOM measures provided by
Stanford are likely to further reduce these impacts.
F. Implementation of the transportation mitigation
measures will help to reduce air quality impacts.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
000721 syn 0090633
18
G. That the public interest, health, safety and welfare
of both Palo Alto and the health care community require the
CCTP/ACP, as set forth.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: July 10, 2000
AYES: BEECHAM, BURCH, EAKINS, FAZZINO, KNISS, LYTLE, MOSSAR,
OJAKIAN
NOES:
ABSENT: KLEINBERG
ABSTENTIONS:
AT~.£
City Clerk ~ ~
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~
.~_I ~.....___'3-:f/J ~--'r:J~lt ttorney
000721 syn 0090633
19
and
ent
~
Stanford CCTP/ACP and PS IV ·
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
8
H
r:Q
H ::r:: :X: li:j
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting ProcedUre Mitigation Timing
Land Use
2. Inconsistency with the objectives of the Landscape Combining District applicable
to the Pasteur Drive median
2.1.
Aesthetics
Open Space Agreement and Plan. If the City desires to preserve the intent
of the Landscape Combining District, then Stanford University shall enter
into an agreement with the City of Palo Alto to restrict future development
of the Pasteur Drive median strip and to preserve it as open space through
placement of an open space covenant. To preserve the visual character,
Stanford shall design the space in accordance with the following guidelines:
• Minimize grading to protec~ eXisting tree species.
• Minimize hardscape like concrete planters and seat walls.
• Provide a transition between formal and informal spaces by designing a
"meadow" that would need minimal maintenance and create. easy
access to the SUR entrance. This "meadow" would use a diverse
selection of native plants. The.design would have more diversity in
plant species than the proposed design, creating a more ecologically
valuable habitat for native insects and wildlife.
• Create easy pedestrian access to and from the SUR entrance by
minimizing planters and seat. walls.
3. Light and glare effects
3.1. Non-Reflective Building Materials. A glass material with the least
reflective capabilities shall be chosen or the project architects shall propose
an alternate material to glass for the enclosures and access facades above
the roof surface of PS IV~ The specifications for glas~ or other building
materials for the enclosures and access facades shall follow the concepts
and specifications included in the stanford University Medical Center
Design Guidelines. For example, the Guidelines recommend that the
daylight reflective factor of moderately tinted gray, green, and/or "clear"
Stanford University CCTP/ACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reponing Program
s.:\PLAMPLADIV\Lisa\STANFORD CCTP 1-JSc.doc
Document that an agreement has
. been reached and that a revised
plan has been submitted for the
median.
DocUillent that the construction
materials specified in Mitigation
Measure 2.1 have been
incorporated into the project
design by the project sponsor.
Prior to submittal
of Final Design
and Landscape
Plans
Prior to approval
·of Final Design
and Landscape
Plans
Mitigation
Responsibility
Planning Division
Planning Division
I
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoiing Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
glass shall be limited to 30% or less. Appropriate vegetation to hide the
. glass facades and to reduce the possibility of glare can also be adopted as a
suitable mitigation measure. Provisions to minimize glare shall be
incorporated into the project diawings and construction specifications for
.PS IV.
3.2. Lighting Standards. The project architects shall design project lighting for
the CCTP/ACPbuilding, PS IV facilities(including the above-grade
. elevator and stair access), surface parking areas, and walkways to avoid
spillover light and glare effects on adjacent buildings. Lighting intensity
shall be the minimum wattage or candlefeet necessary to assure adequate
safety and circulation. Light fixtures shall be designed to focus
illumination downward and to restrict spill light that e:x,tends beyond the
project site or causes illumination/glow above the light fixtures. In
addition, the concepts and specifications mentioned in the Stanford
University Medical Center Design Guidelines for exterior buildiri.g lighting,
general lighting, corridor lighting, and bollard lighting shall be adopted in
the lighting design for the proposed project. Lighting specifications that
meet these performance guidelines shall be incorporated into the final
design drawings and construction specifications for the proposed project.
4. Visual.disturbance from construction.
4.1. Visual Screens and Construction Period Practices. The following practices
shall be incorporated into the construction specifications for the proposed·
project:
a) On-site staging and storage of construction eqUipment and materials
shall be located at least 100 feet from medical buildin,gs, public plazas,
· and seating areas to reduce visual disturbance during construction.
b) Equipment and material storage on-site shall be visually screened from
motorists, ·pedestrians, and bicyclists.
c) Graded areas shall be watered regulariy (atleasi twice a day) to
minimize fugitive dust.
Stanford University CCTP/ACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S.:IPLAMPLADN\lisalSTANFORD CCTP I-15c.doc
Document that the project lighting
avoids light and glare effects and .
assures adequa.te safety and .
circulation in accordance .with
Mitigation Measure 3.2.
a. Document that recommended
practices in Mitigation
Measure 4.1 are included in
the construction· documents.
b. Document compliance during
construction.
Prior to approval
of Final Design
and Landscape
Plans
a. Prior to
issuance of
Building Permit
b. Periodic
monitoring
during
construction
Mitigation
Responsibility
Planning Division
a. Planning
·Division
b. Public Works
Engineeripg
Division and
Building
Inspection
Division
).
2
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
Cultural Resources
1. Potential disturbance of cultural resources
1.1. Discovery of Cultural Resources. Should previously unidentified cultural
resources be discovered during construction, the.project sponsor shall cease
work in the immediate area until such time as the project sponsor's
archaeologist and the City's archaeologist assess the· significance of the find
and make mitigation recomniendations (e.g., manual excavation of the
immediate area), if warranted.
Document redirection of
construction activities should
previously undiscovered resources
be found during construction.
1.2. Archaeological Monitoring. Construction monitoring shall be conducted at ·a. Project sponsor shall submit
any time ground-disturbing activities (greater than 12 inches in depth) are periodic reports documenting
taking place in the immediate vicinity of cultural resources discovered construction monitoring
pursuant to Mitigation Measure i .1, above. This includes building activities for City review.
foundation demolition and construction, tree or tree-root removal, b. The City's archaeologist shall
landscape irrigation installation; utility line excavation, etc. If data periodically evaluate, through
recovery does not produce evidence of significant cultural resources within ·field visits, the construction
the project area, further mitigation shall be limited to construction monitoring activities of the
· monitoring, unless additional testing·or other specific mitigation measures sponsor's archaeologist.
are determined necessary to ensure avoidance of damage to significant c. Project spolisor shall submit
archaeological resources by the project sponsor's archaeologist and the City qualifications of archaeologist
of Palo Alto's archaeologist. A technical report of findings describing the and field monitors for City
results of all monitoring shall be prepared within a reasonable time period approval.
in accordance with professional standards. The archaeological monitoring
program shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of
Interior Professional QUalifications Standards in Archaeology (36 CFR 61);
individual field monitors shall be qualified in the recognition of cultural
resources of both the historic and/or prehistoric periods and possess
sufficient academic and field training as required to conduct the work
effectively and without ~due delay.
'·;..
Stanford University CCI"PIACP and PS TV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
.~·!PT .ANIPT .ADTV\Ti.oa\STANFORD CCI"P 1-15c.dnc
During
construction
a. During
construction
b. During
construction
c. During
construction
. Mitigation
Responsibility
Planning Division
(Contract ·
Archaeologist)
Planning ·Division
(Contract
Archaeologist)
3
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
2. Potential disturbance to human remains
2.1. Discovery of Human Remains. Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health
and Safety Code shall be implemented and calls for the following: In the
event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location
other than a dedicated cemetery' there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the huinan
remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10
(commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the
Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of
Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of
law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of
death, and the recommendations concernirig treatment and disposition of
the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the
excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner
provided in Section 5097.98 ofthe Public Resources Code.
The coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American
origin, is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage
Commission within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and
duties· to provide for the ultiinate disposition of any· Native American
remains, including the designation of a Native American Most Likely
Descendant. Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code
also call for "protection to Native American hUman. burials and skeletal
remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction." To achieve this goal,
it is recommended that the constrUction personnel on the project be
instructed as to the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, and
the need for proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences
of failure thereof.
Transportation
3. Absence of pedestrian facilities from PS IV to the west side of Blake Wilbur
Stanford University CCTPIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reponing Program
S:\PIAMPLADIV1Lisa\STANFORD CCTP 1-lSc.doc
a.
b.
In the event hunian remains a. During
are discovered, the sponsor's construction
archaeologist shall ensure the
provisions of Section 7050(b).
are met, and shal1 immediately
contact the City's
Archaeologist to ensure proper
coordination.
Sponsor shall submit b. Prior to
documentation that construction
construction personnel have
been instructed as requ1red,
for City review and approval.
Mitigation ..
Responsibility
a. Planning
Division
(Contract
Archaeologist)
. and sponsor's
archaeologist
b. Planning
Division
(Contract
Archaeologist) .
4
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
3.1. Pedestrian CrosswaUc from PS IV across Pasteur Drive. The project
sponsor shall provide a pedestrian crosswalk across Pasteur Drive from
PS IV at the Blake Wilbur intersection. Tl:iis improvement shall be included
in the final design drawings and construction documents for PS IV and
shall be constructed to the specifications of the City of Palo Alto.
7. Significant traffic impacts at nine study area intersections
Mitigation Measures 7.1 through 7.11, in combination, are required. Mitigation
Measure 7.12 is offered as an option to Mitigation Measure 7. 7.
7.1 Expansion of Stanford's TDM Program. Stanford has an existing
extensive transportation demand management program that includes
employee trip reduction programs. Stanford shall augm~nt this program
with the goal of 200 peak-hour trip reduction from the Medical Center,
which is the number of new peak hour t:ii.ps expected to be generated by
the project, and other daily trip reduction: The impacts of peak hour
trips on intersections are addressed by Condition # 11. This condition is
an additional effort by Stanford to develop, implement and evaluate
TDM measures in conjunction with the City of Palo Alto. Should this
condition, in combination with Condition # 11, resUlt in peak trip
reduction in excess of 200 peak-hour trips, Stanford shall be credited
with the additional trip reduction during environmencil review and
consideration of future Stanford development projects within the City.
Failure to meet either or both goals shall not be frounds for revocation
of this permit .. If circumstances change, Stanford shall be permitted to
petition for modification of this condition at any time and the City shall
consider the matter within 90 days of Stanford's petition. Any
modification of this permit will acknowledge that Stanford has
voluntarily agreed to this supplemental employee trip reduction program .·
and that state law currently prevents the City from imposing employee
trip reduction programs without Stanford's .consent. The City shall
allow Stanford flexibility to select appropriate techniques to meet this
goal as outlined in Condition 12 of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-UP-
66.
Stanford University CCTP/ACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S:\PLAMPLADIV1Lisa\STANFORD CCTP l-15c.doc
Document that the recommended
improvement in Mitigation
Measure 3.1 has been
incorporated into the project
design. ·
Annual report. from project
sponsor on performance of TDM
program, for City review and
approval. The report shall be
performed by a City-approv:ed
independen.t monitor who shall be
an outside contractor. Such
reporting requirements shall
remain in place for ten years and
shall be submitted to the. City each
October. The first report of
October 2000 shall establish the
baseline data, and provide
information about weaknesses in
the transportation system, where
employees live;·etc.
Prior to approval
of Final Design
and Landscape
Plans
As detenDined by
the Chief
Transportation
Official
Mitigation
Responsibility
Transportation
Division
Transportation
Division and
Planning Division
5
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures • Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
Note: Mitigation Measures 7.1 and 7.2 were combined in the Final Em.
7.3. El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue (7) Intersection Inprovements (see
Figure 3.5-13). The Menlo Park General Plan notes that improvements
would probably be necessary at this intersection. The improvements would
be to restripe the northbound and southbound approaches to allow for three
travel lanes in each direction and to provide an eastbound right-tum lane.
The intersection revisions identified in the General Plari do not represent an
approved list of improvements being pursued or· funded by Menlo Park.
Adding a third northbound and southbound through lane would.require the
removal of the right-tum lanes and would also reqUire. the removal of some.
on-street parking. Although this improvement is within the jurisdiction of
Menlo Park, and the. City of Palo Alto has no authority to require this
measure, Stanford shall pay its appropriate share of the cost of identified
improvements to the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto shall use such
funds either to make intersection improvements or to ·implement alternative
congestion management measures, which may include transit or other means
of reducing vehicle trips ..
7.4. El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road (16) Intersection Improvements (see
·Figure 3.5-14). A northbound left-tum lane shall be installed at this
intersection. Stanford shall pay its appropriate share of the cost of identified
improvements to the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto shall use such
funds either to make intersection improvements or to implement alternative
congestion manageiD,ent measures, which may include transit or other means
of reducing vehicle trips.
7.5. Arboretum Road/Palm Drive (21) Intersection Improvements (see Figure
3.5-15). A northbound left-tum-lane shall be installed at this futersection.
Stanford shall pay its appropriate share of the cost of identified
improvements to the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto shall use such
funds either to make intersection improvements or to implement alternative
congestion management measures, which may include transit or other means
· of reducing vehicle trips.
Stanford University CCTP!ACP and PS TV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program·
s.:\PLANIPLADIV\Lisa\STANFORD CCTP 1-15c.doc
Document that sponsor has paid
City for its appropriate share of
traffic improvement. If the City
of Menlo Park elects to make this
improvement, the City may use
funds from sponsor to contribute a
proportionate share of the cost to
implement the improvements
listed.
Document that sponsor has paid
City for its appropriate share of
traffic improvement.
Document that sponsor has paid
City .for its appropriate share of
. traffic improvement.
Prior to issuance
of Building Permit
Prior to issuance
of Building Permit
Prior to issuance
ofBuilding Permit
Mitigation
Responsibility .
Transportation
Division
Transportation
Division
Transportation
Division
6
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
7 .6. Welch Road/Campus Drive West (30) Intersection Improvements (see Figure
3.5-16). A westbound right-turn lane on Campus Drive West shall be
installed by restriping the existing pavement. ·
7.7. · Sand Hill Road/Oak Avenue (32) Intersection Improvements (see Figure
3.5-17c). This portion of Sand Hill Road shall be widened from one
through lane iri each direction to two through lanes in each direction,
consistent with the width of Sand Hill Road to the east and west of this
location. This mitigation is considered feasible as part of the Sand Hill
Road projects if implementation were allowed by Menlo Park. This
improvement is within. the jurisdiction of Menlo Park, and the City of Palo
Alto has no authority to require this measure.
7.8. Sand Hill Road/Sarita Cruz Avenue (33) Intersection Improvements (see
Figures 3.5-17a and 3.5-17b). The Menlo Park General Plan notes that
improvements would probably be necessary at this intersection. These
improvements would be to add a second eastbound left-turri lane.
However, . the intersection revisions identified in the General Plan do not
represent an approved list of improvementS being pursued or funded by
Menlo Park. The remainder of the Sand Hill Road improvements should
. all be made to appropriately connect to adjacent intersections. This
improvement is within the jurisdiction of Menlo Park, and the City of Palo
Alto has no authority to require this measure.
S~anford University CCTPIACP and PS N-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S:IPLANIPLADN\LisaiSTANFORD CCTP 1-15c.doc
Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
Stanford has already committed to
the equivalent of these measures
as part of the Sand Hill Road
Corridor Projects development
agreement. The timing and
responsibility for roadway and
intersection improvements are
documented ill: that agreement.
Stanford has already committed to
the equivalent of these measures
as part of the Sand Hill Road
Corridor Projects development
agreement. The timing and
responsibility for roadway and
intersection improvements are
documented iii that agreement.
Stanford has already committed to
the equivalent of these measures
as part of the Sand Hill Road
Corridor Projects d~velopment
agreement. The timing and
responsibility for roadway and
intersection improvements are
documented in that agreement.
Mitigation
Responsibility
7
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
·Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
7.9. Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road/Junipero Serra Boulevard (34) Intersection
Improvements (see Figure 3.5-18). The Menlo Park General Plan notes
that improvements would be necessary at this intersection. The
improvements would be to add an exclusive right turn lane from eastbound
Alpine Road to southbound Junipero Serra Boulevard. The intersection
revisions identified in the General Plan do not represent an approved list of
improvements being pursued or funded by Menlo Park. This improvement
is within the jurisdiction of Menlo Park, and the City of Palo Alto has no
authority to require this measure.
7.10. Junipero Serra Boulevard/Campus Drive West (35) Intersection
Improvements (see Figure 3.5-19). A second southbound left turn lane on
Junipero Serra Boulevard shall be constructed. Eastbound Campus Drive
West will need to be slightly reconfigured to receive two lanes from
Junipero Serra Boulevard.
7.11. Junipero Serra Boulevard! Stanford Avenue (36) Intersection Improvements
(see Figure 3.5-20). A second westbound left-tum lane on Stanford
Avenue shall be constructed. Adding a second westbound left-tum lane is
physically possible. Southbound Junipero Semi will need to be widened to
receive the second left-tum lane. The widening shall be extended to the
Page Mill Road intersection as an extension of the right-tum lane which is
currently being constructed. Stanford shall pay its appropriate share of ihe
cost of identified improvements to the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo
Alto shall use such funds either to make intersection improvements or to
implement alternative congestion management measures, which may
include transit or other means of reducing vehicle trips.
Stanford University CCTPIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S:\PLANIPLADIVllisa\STANFORD CCTP 1-15c.doc
Stanford has already committed to
the eqUivalent of these meastires
as part of the Sand Hill Road
Corridor Projects development
agreement. the timing and
responsibility for roadway and
intersection improvements are
documented in that agreement.
Stanford has already committed to
the equivalent of these measures as part of the Sand Hill Road .
Corridor Projects development
agreement. The timing and
responsibility for roadway and
intersection improvements are
documented in that agreement.
Document that sponsor has paid
City tts appropriate cost for traffic
improvement.
Prior to issliance
ofBuilding Permit
Mitigation
Responsibility
Transportation
Division
8
Stanford CCTP/ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
7.12. Sand Hill Road Widening. If Sand Hill Road were widened two lanes in
each direction across San Francisquito Creek, some of the traffic volumes
which use Campus Drive West froni the main Stanford Campus and SUMC
to I-280 could shift onto Sand Hill Road. The effect of widening Sand Hill
Road to a complete arterial would change the mitigation measures at some
intersections. Table 3.5-19 summarizes the results of this alternative
mitigation measure. If implemented, this mitigation measure would
eliminate the need for improvements at Welch/Campus Drive West (30),
Sand Hill Road/Oak Avenue (32), Sand Hill/Santa Cruz (33), Santa
Cruz/Alpine/Junipero Serra (34), and Junipero Serra!Campus Drive West
(35). The only intersection that would still require mitigation is Sand
Hill/Oak Creek (31), which would require an eastbound right turn lane.
Backfilling of Vacated Space. No more than 200-new employees shall
reoccupy the .82,000 square feet of space representing the existing cancer
treatment facilities. The mechanism for limiting the number of employees
shall be determined by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment after consultation with the project sponsor.
9. Construction traffic
Either Mitigation Measures 9.1 through 9. 7 and Mitigation Measure 9,9, or
Mitigation Measures 9.8 and 9.9 in combination, are proposed.
9.1. Maintenance of Pedestrian Access. The project sponsor shall be prohibited
from substantially limiting pedestrian access while con8tructing the projeCt,
without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public
Works. Such approval shall require submittal and approval of specific
construction management plans to mitigate the speCific impacts to a less~
than-significant level. Pedestrian.access-limiting actions would include, but
Stanford University CCTP!ACP aiul PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring aiul Reporting Program
S:iPLAMPLADIW.-isa\STANFORD CCfP l-15c.doc
Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
Mitigation
Responsibility
Sponsor has already committed to implementing this measure as part of Sand
Hill Road EIR. However, the measure reqWt"es approval by the City of
Menlo Park and the City has already issued a resolution indicating its
opposition to this measure. As noted in the mitigation measure, if Sand Hill
Road widening does not occur, then the five individual intersection measures
would be require!!.
Annual report from project
sponsor identifying the uses and
number of employees in the
vacated space. Such reporting
shall remain in place until the
space is fully occupied and shall
be submitted to the City each
October. The first report of
October 2000 shall establish
baseline data.
Document submittal of
construction management plan to
maintain pedestrian access, for
review and approval by the City.
As determined by Planning Division
the Chief Planning
Official.
Prior to issuance
of Building Permit
Transportation
Division
9
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure -Mitigation Timing
not be limited to, sidewalk closures, bridge closures, crosswalk closures or
pedestrian re-routing at intersections, placement of construction-related
material within pedestrian pathways or sidewalks, and other actions which
may affect the mobility or safety of pedestrians during the construction
period. If sidewalks are maintained along the construction site frontage,
covered walkways shall be provided.
9.2. Maintenance of Bicycle Access. The project sponsor shall be prohibited
from limiting bicycle access while constructing the project, without prior
approval from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works. Such
approval shall require submittal and approval of specific construction
management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to a less-than.:.signi:ficant
level. Bicycle access-limiting actions would include, but not be limited to,
bike lane closures or narrowing, closing or narrowing of streets that are
designated bike routes, bridge closures, placement of construction-related
materials within designated bike lanes or along bike routes, and other
actions that may affec;t the mobility or safety of bicyclists during the
construction period.
9.3. Restriction on Construction Hours. The project sponsor shall be required to
prohibit or limit the number of construction material deliveries from 7 AM
to 9 AM, and from 4 PM to 6 PM on weekdays. The project sponsor shall _
be required to prohibit or limit the number of construction employees from
arriving or departing the site from the hours of 4:30 PM to 6 PM.
9.4. Construction Truck Routes. The project spmisor shall be required to deliver
and remove all construction-related equipment and materi3Is on truck routes
designated by the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Heavy construction
vehicles shall be prohibited from accessing the site from other routes.
Figure 3.5-21 illustrates the Stanford area truck routes that must be used by
all trucks.
Sianford University CCJ:P/ACP and PS IV~Mitigation Monitoring and Reponing Program
S:lPIAMPLADIVILisaiSTANFORD CCJ:P 1-15c.doc
Document submittal of
construction management plan to
maintain bicycle access, for
review and approval by the City.
Document prohibition or
limitation of construction material
deliveries and ofemployee vehicle
trips in construction contracts.
.Document requirements in
construction contracts.
Prior to issuance
of Building Permit
Prior to issuance
of Building Permit
Prior to issuance
of Building Permit
Mitigation
Responsibility
Transportation
Division
Transportation
Division
Transportation
Division
10
Stanford CCTP/ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
9.5. Protection of Public Roadways During Construction. The project sponsor
shall be required to repair any structural damage to public roadways,
returning any damaged sections to original structural condition. The project
sponsor shall survey the condition of the public roadways along truck routes
providing access to the proposed project site before construction, and .shall
. again survey after construction is complete. A before-and-after survey
report shall be completed .and submitted to the City Department of Public
Works for review, indicating the location and extent of damage.
9.6. Protection Maintenance of Public Transit Access and Routes. The project
sponsor shall be prohibited from limiti.tig access to public transit, and from
limiting movement of public transit vehicles, without prior approval from .
the VT A or other appropriate jurisdiction.. Such approval shall require
submittal and approval_of specific construction management plans to
mitigate specific impacts to a less-than-significant level. Potential actions
that would impact access to transit include, but are not limited to, relocating
or removing bus stops, limiting access to bus stops or transfer facilities, or
otherwise restricting or constraining public transit operations.
9. 7. Construr:tion Impact Mitigation Plan. In lieu of the _above mitigation
measures, the project sponsor shall submit a detailed construction impact
mitigation plan to the City of Palo Alto for approval by the Chief
Transportation Official prior to commencing any construction activities with
potential transportation impacts. This plan shall address in detail the
activities to be carried out iD. each construction phase, the potential
transportation impacts of each activity, and an acceptable method of
reducing or eliminating significant transportation impacts. Details such as ·
the routing and scheduling of materials deliveries, construction employee
arrival and departure schedules, employee parkinglocations, and emergency
vehicle access shall be described and approved.
Stf!llford University CCTPIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S:IPLANIPLADIV\LisalSTANFORD CCTP 1-15c.doc
Document that before and after
surveys of public roadways have
been prepared.
Document submittals of
construction management plan to
maintain public transit service, for
review and approval by the City
and. Santa Clara VTA.
In lieu of Mitigation Measures 9.1
through 9. 7, document submittal
of a de1:ailed construction impact
mitigation phui, for review and
approval by the City.
Prior to issuance
of Occupancy
Permit
Prior to issuance
of Building Permit
Prior to issuance
of Building Permit
Mitigation
Responsibility
Public Works
Engineering
Division
Transportation
Division, Santa
Clara VTA
Transportation
Division
11
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
9.8. Construction During Special Events. The project sponsor shall implement a
mechanism to prevent roadway construction activities from reducing
roadway capacity during major athletic events or other special events.which
· attract a substantial number of visitors to the campus. This measure may
require a special supplemental permit to be obtained to host such events
during significant construction phases.
10. Cumulative traffic impacts at 11 intersections
10.1. El Camino Real/Valparaiso (5) -Intersection Improvement. The Menlo Park
General Plan notes that improvements are necessary. at this intersection.
The improvements identified in the Menlo Park General Plan are not an
approved list of projects being pursued or funded by Menlo Park. The
improvements would be to restripe the northbound and southbound
approaches to allow for three travel lanes in each direction and to provide a
westbound right turn lane. Although this location is within the jurisdiction
of Menlo Park, and the City of Palo Alto has no authority to require this
measure, Stanford shall pay its appropriate share of the cost of identified
improvements to the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto shall use such
funds either to make intersection improvements or to implement alternative
congestion management measures, which may include transit or other means
of reducing vehicle trips.
Adding a third northbound and southbound through lane would require the
removal of the right turn lanes and would also require the removal of some
on-street parking. The northbound and southbound bus stops·wquld either
need to. be relocated, a duck out constructed, or the bus would need to stop
in the through travel lane, temporarily blocking traffic. This measure is
consistent with the findings of the Sand Hill Road EIR.
St~ford University CCTPIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reponing Program
S:IPLAMPLADIV\Lisa!STANFORD CCI"P l-15c.doc
a. Document submittal of
specific construction
management plan as specified
by Mitigation Mea8ure 9.9,
for review and approval by
the City;
b. Document receipt of special
permit to host events as
required.
Document that sponsor has paid
City for its appropriate cost of
traffic improvement. If the City
of Menlo Park elects to make this
improvement, the City may use
funds from sponsor to contribute a·
proportionate share of the cost to
construct the improvements listed. .
a. Prior to
issuance of
Building
Peimit
b. As necessary
·As determined by
the City of Menlo
Park
Mitigation ·
:Responsibility
a. Transportation
Division,
.Police
Department,
Fire
Department
b. Transportation
Division
City of Menlo
Park
12
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation-Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
10.2. El Camirui Real/Ravenswood (7) Intersection Improvement. The Menlo See Transportation Mitigation Measure 7 .3, above.
Park General Plan notes that improvements would probably be necessary at
this intersection. The improvements identified in the Menlo Park General
Plan are not an approved list of projects being pursued or funded by Menlo
Park. The improvements would be to restripe the northbound and
· southbound approaches to allow for three travel lanes in each direction and
to provide an eastbound right turn lane. Although this location is within the
jurisdiction of Menlo Park, and the City of Palo Alto has no authority to
require this measure, Stanford shall pay its appropriate share of the cost of
identified improvements to the City of Palo Alto. The. City of Palo Alto
shall use such funds either to make intersection improvements or to
implement alternative congestion management measures, which may include
transit or other means of reducing vehicle trips.
Adding a third northbound and southbound through lane would require the
removal of the right turn lanes and would also require the removal of some
on-street parking. This mitigation is consistent with the findings of the Sand·
Hill Road EIR.
10.3. El Camino Real/Embarcadero/Galvez (16) Intersection Improvement. To See Transportation Mitigation Measure 7.4, above.
mitigate the peak hour cumulative impact, a second northbound left turn lane ·
on.El Camino Real onto Galvez would be required. Stanford shall pay its
appropriate share of the cost of identified improvements to the City of Palo
Alto. The City of Palo Alto shall use such funds either to make intersection
improvements or to implement alternative congestion management measures,
which may include transit or other means of reducing vehicle trips.
Adding a second northbound left turn lane is considered feasible since it
would mirror the second southbound left turn lane which was schematically
designed in conjunction with the new Palo Alto Medical Foundation El
Camino Real campus. This intersection was not included in the Sand Hill_
Road cumulative analysis.
Stanford University CCI'PIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Lisa\STANFORD.CCI'P 1-JSc.doc
Mitigation .
Responsibility
13
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
10.4. Arboretum/Palm (21) Intersection Improvement. A separate northbound See Transportation Mitigation Measure 7.5, above.
left turn lane or an additional southbound left turn lane would be necessary.
To reduce the cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level, either
improvement should be made. Stanford shall pay its appropriate share of
the cost of identified improvements to the City of Palo Alto. The City of
Palo Alto shall use such funds either to make intersection improvements or
to implement alternative congestion management measures, which may
include transit or other means of reducing vehicle trips. ·
Adding a second southbound left turn lane and an exclusive northbound left
·turn lane is feasible. A slight encroachment into The Arboretum may
occur to add these lanes. This intersection was not included in the
cumulative analysis for Sand Hill Road.
lO.S. Welch/Campus Drive West (30) Intersection Improvement. This See Transportation Mitigation Measure 7.6, above.
intersection experiences a significant impact with the proposed project, and
the proposed mitigation included a westbound right turn lane on Campus
Drive West. To reduce. the cumulative impact to less than siglrificant, the
same mitigation would apply. This mitigation involves restriping of
existing pavement. This intersection was not included in the cumUlative
analysis for Sand Hill Road.
10.6. Sand Hill/Oak (32) Intersection Improvement. This intersection See Transportatj.on Mitigation Measure 7.7, above.
experiences a significant impact with the proposed project. The mitigation
measure called for widening Sand Hill Road to two lanes in each direction.
The cumulative impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level
with the identical mitigation. This mitigation is considered feasible if·
implementation were permitted by Men1o Park. This mitigation measure
was included as part of the project for Sand Hill Road.
·Stanford University CCI'P/ACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
s.:\PLAMPLADN\Lisa\STANFORD CCI"P 1-lSc.doc
Mitigation
Responsibility
14
Stanford CCTP/ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
10.7. Sand Hill/Santa Cruz (33) Intersection Improvement. This intersection was See Transportation Mitigation Measure 7.8, above.
significantly affected by the proposed project. The mitigation measure was
to install a second eastbound left turn lane, as identified by the Menlo Park
General Plan. The cumulative impact could be reduced to less than
significant with the identical mitigation. This mitigation is considered
feasible as a previously discussed improvement of the Menlo Park General
Plan.
10.8. Santa Cruz!Alpine/Junipero Serra (34) Intersection Improvement. This See Transportation Mitigation Measure 7.9, above.
intersection is projected to operate at LOS F iri. the cumulative and
cumulative plus proposed project condition. The cumulative condition
analysis included a northbound right turn lane on Alpine and a southbounq
left turn lane on Santa Cruz as called for in the Menlo Park General Plan
and for the Sand Hill Rmtd projects mitigatiqn. In addition to these.
improvements, the mitigation of a second southbound left turn lane is
needed to reduce the impact to less than significant. The intersection
revisions identified in the General Plan do not represent an approved list of
improvements being pursued or funded by Menlo Park. This improvement
is within the jurisdiction of Menlo Park, and the City of Palo Alto has no
authority to require this.measure.
The northbound right turn lane included as part of the General Plan
improvements would remove some trees along the golf course. The
exclusive southbound left turn would require cutting into the hill and
moving the existing retaining wall. Adding another southbound lane would
require cutting into the hill farther than for the Sand Hill Road mitigation.
Additionally, the dual westbound lane on Alpine should be extended farther
south from the intersection.
10.9. Junipero Serra!Campus Drive West (35) Intersection Improvements. A
second southbound left turn lane on Junipero Serra Boulevai:d shall be
constructed. Eastbound Campus Drive West will need to be slightly
reconfigured to receive two lanes from Junipero Serra Boulevard.
Stanford University CCI'PIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S:\PLAN\PLADtv\Lisa\STANFORD CcrP I-15c.doc .
See Transportation Mitigation Measure 7.10, above.
Mitigation
Responsibility
15
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
10.10. Junipero Serra!Stanford (36) Intersection Improvement. This intersection See Transportation Mitigation Measure 7.11, above ..
is projected to operate at LOS F for the Year2010 without and with project
conditions. To reduce this impact to less th~ significant, the same
mitigation identified for the Year 2003 conditions of a second westbound
left turn lane is required. Stanford shall pay its appropriate share of the cost
of identified improvements to the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto
shall use such funds either to make intersection improvements· or to
implement alternative congestion management measures, which may
include transit or other means of reducing vehicle trips.
Adding a second westbound left turn lane is physically feasible.
Southbound Junipero Serra would need to be widened to receive the second
left turn lane. The widening should be extended to the Page Mill
intersection as an extension of the right turn lane· which is currently being
constructed. The Sand Hill Road cumulative analysis did not include this
· mitigation.
10.11. Sand Hill/Sharon Park (38) Intersection Improvement. This intersection is
projected to operate at LOS F for the Year 2010 without and with project
conditions. To reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, the ·
ide~tical mitigation for Year 2003 ·conditions of a westbound right turn lane
·is required. Stanford shall pay its appropriate share of the cost of
identified improvements to the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto
shall use such funds either to make .intersection improvements or to ·
implement alt~rnative congestion management measures, which may
include transit or other means of reducing vehicle trips.
The westbound right turn lane is physically feaSible. Implementation
would. require a rework of the intersection and a possibl~ shift of the
median to maintain the bicycle lanes and to avoid impacts to the pine trees
on the north side of Sand Hill Road. ·
Stanford University CCFPIACP and PS TV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S:.IPLAMPLADJV\LisaiSTANFORD CCFP 1-lSc.doc
Document that project sponsor has
paid City for traffic improvement.
If the City of Menlo Park elects to
make this improvement, the City
may use funds from sponsor to
contribute a proportionate share of
the cost to construct the
improvements listed.
As determined by
the City of Menlo
Park
Mitigation
Responsibility
City of Menlo
Park
16
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS.JV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
Mitigation
Responsibility
10.-12. Sand Hill Road Widening. If Sand Hill Road were widened two lanes in Sponsor has already committed to implementing this measure as part of Sand
each direction across San Francisquito Creek, some of the traffic . Hill Road EIR. However, the measure requires approval by the City of
volumes which use Campus Drive Wes,t from the main Stanford Campus -Menlo Park and the City has already issued a resolution indicating its
and SUMC to 1-280 could shift onto Sand Hill Road. The effect of opposition to this measure.
widening Sand Hill Road to a complete arterial would change the
mitigation measures at some intersections. Table 3.5-24 summarizes the
results of this alternative mitigation nie~ure. Only Sand Hill/Oak
Creek (31) would require additional mitigation, which would be .an
eastbound right tum lane.
Air Quality
1. Construction fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions
1.1. Control of Construction and Demolition-related Air Emissions. The project
sponsor and contractor shall implement the following control measures
based on the BAAQMD guidelines:
a) Cover all truck hauling construction ~d demolition debris from the
site;
b) Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily;
c) Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures
or break-up of pavement;
d) Pave, apply water three times daily, ;or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabiliZers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas;
e) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging
areas;
t) Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from
the site;
g) Install whee.! washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or
tracks of trucks and equipment leavii:J.g the site;
h) Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward
sides of construction areas; .
. . . i StanfordUniversity CCI'PIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program -
S:\PLAMPLADIV\Lisa\STANFORD CCTP 15-endc.doc
a. Document inclusion of
construction practices in
construction documents.
b. Periodic monitoring during
construction.
I
a. Prior to a. Planning
issuance of Division
Building
Permit
b. During b. Public Works
construction Engineering
Division and
Building
Inspection
Division
17
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
Mitigation
Responsibility
. . i
i). Suspend dust-producing activities during periods when instantaneous
gusts exceed 25 mph when dust control measures are unable to avoid
visible dust plumes;
j) Limit the area subject to excavation,
1
grading and other construction or
demolition activity at any one time.
2. Regional air emissions
2.1. Restricting Tests of the Emergency Generqtor. The project sponsor and
facilities operators shall curtail testing of tb,e diesel-frred emergency
generator on "Spare the Air" days. The BAAQMD.declares "Spare the
Air" days the preceding afternoon and notifies media outlets and other.
interested parties. Prohibiting testing of ~e emergency generator on these
days would minimize the project's impact;on regional air quality.
5. Project's cumulative regional air emissions
.Measures identified in the Transportation sectio;n of this table would help reduce
vehicle trips and minimize ~umulative impacts ~o regional air quality.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 7.1 and 7.2 would be consistent with
Policy N-28 and Program N-45 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Noise
1. Construction noise
1.1. Construction-Related Noise Best Management Practices. The project
sponsor shall requjre contractors to implement the following measures to
reduce construction noise by incorporating them into the construction
specification documents:
a) Limit noise-generating construction activities to daytime weekday
(Monday through Friday) non-holirul.y hours (8:00AM to 8:00PM),·
Saturday daytime hours (9:00AM to 8:00PM), and Sunday or holiday
daytime hours (10:00 AM to 6:00 Pl\.1). . '
StanfordUniversity CCTPIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S.:\PLANIPLADIVILisa\STANFORD CCTP 15-endc.doc .
Sponsor to provide records of
emergency generator testing,
identifying Spare the Air days.
See Mitigation Measures 7.1 and
7.2 un.der Transportation.
I
a. Document inclusion of
construction noise measures
in'the construction
documents. · j
b. Periodic monitoring during
construction.
Annually, for a Planning Division
length. of time as
determined by the
Chief Planning
Official
. See Mitigation
Measures 7.1 and
7.2 under.
Transportation.
a. Prior to
issuance of
Buildin _g
Permit
b. During
construction
See Mitigation
Measures 7.1 and
7.2 under
Transportation.
a. Planning
Division
b. Planning
Division;
Police
Department
18
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure.. Mitigation Timing
. I
b) Use mufflers and muffler maintenance on construction vehicles.
c) Place stationary construction equipment, such as compressors, concrete
pumpers, etc., as far as possible frorp existing hospital facilities and
residential areas, and use acoustic shielding with such equipment when
feasible. Such equipment can be shi~lded by fu.terposing a truck, other
piece of equipment, or a temporary sound barrier when it is being 'used I close to a residential property boundJ;rrY.
d) Select quiet construction equipment whenever possible, particularly air
compressors.
e) Designate a coordinator who will be responsible for responding to .
·public complaints about noise during~ construction. The telephone
number shall be conspicuously poste~ at the construction site.
1.2. Construction/Demolition-Related Noise fo~ CCTP!ACP. Prior to
commencing demolition of 851 Welch Ro~d and co:ilstruction of the
CCTP/ACP, the project sponsor shall require contractors to construct a solid
12-foot-high plywood construction noise b\nrier placed at street level
between the project construction and the n~arest existing hospital facilities
and offices. This barrier would reduce copstruction noise levels by about
. 15 dBA for activity taking place at ground! level.
6. Cumulative increases in construction noise
See Noise Mitigation Measure 1.1., Constructi<jm-Related Noise Best
Management Practices.
Biological Resources
1. Disturbance to trees during construction
1.1. Report on the Health and Value of Trees. :The project sponsor shall augment
its previous findings regarding the conditi<;>n of trees at the project site by
appraising the value of the trees on site. 'fhe project sponsor shall prepare a
report to be submitted to the Palo Alto Department of Planning and
• !
StanfordUniversity CCI'P/ACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Repo(ting Program
S:1PLAMPLADJV\Lisa\STANFORD CCI'P 15-endc.doc
a. ·Document that· construction
barrier is included in
construction documents.
b. Periodic monitoring during
construction .
See Mitigation Measure 1.1 under
Noise, above
Document that sponsor has
completed the. report identified in
Mitigation Measure 1.1.
a. Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permit
b. During
construction
See Mitigation
Measure 1.1 under
Noise, above
Prior to submittal
of Final Design
and Landscape
Plans
a.
b.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Planning
Division
Planning
Division
See Mitigation
Measure 1.1 i.mder
Noise, above
Planning Division
(Contract Arborist)
19
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts .and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
I
Community Environment that distiriguishe~ the values of the trees to be
removed, preserved, and relocated on a tr~e-by-tree basis. The appraisals
Shall be based on the most recent edition of the Guide for Establishing
Values of Trees and Other Plants, published by the Council of Tree and
Landscape Appraisers. 1
i
1.2. Protection of Trees during Construction. 7he report prepared pursuant to
Mitigation Measure 1.1 shall recommend, i and the project sponsor shall
implement, tree preservation and protectidp. measures to minimize impactS
to existing tree resources and to achieve ·c<;>ilsistency with Palo Alto policies
and regulations. The project sponsor shall establish a tree protection zone
for each tree around which site improvements must be planned. The report . I shall specify at least monthly arborist inspections, pruning, protective
. fencing, grading limitations,· and other me~ures necessary to ensure the
survival of the trees.
1.3. Protection of Trees during Relocation. nie report prepared pursuant to
Mitigation Measure 1.1 shall review the feasibility of transplanting-mature
trees, as proposed as part of the project, aPd evaluate other potential
candidates for reloc~tion, especially the native oak species. -The report shall
address storage, care, inspection schedllli4g, and replacement contingencies
in the event that a tree to be transplanted i~ lost. The ·project sponsor shall
implement the recommendations of the report or reach mutually acceptable
standards and actions to protect these trees with the City.
2. Disturbance to nests, eggs, and immature birds! . . :
2.1. Pre._construction Surveys for Sensitive Bir)f, Species. To prevent the
potential for directly taking raptors or distUrbing the active nesting of native
bird species, the removal of trees, shrilbs,! and vegetation and other
potentially disruptive construction-related .activities shall be avoided during
the February 1 through August 31 bird ne~iing period. If avoiding the
nesting period is infeasible, a qualified wUdlife biologist shall. conduct a
survey for nesting birds no earlier than 4~ days, and no later than 20 days, ,
prior to the. removal of trees, shrubs, vegetation, or other disruptive
I
StanfordUniversity CCTP!ACP and PS lV'-Mitigation Monitoring and Rep~rting Program
S:-\PLAMPLADJV\Lisa\STANFORD CCTP 15-endc.doc
Submittal of at least monthly
inspections by arborist, for City
review and approval.
a. Document relocation of trees
in accordance with Mitigation
Measure 1.1.
b. Document monitoring of tree
survival.
a. Document that surveys have
been performed in accordance
with Mitigation Measure 2.1
by a qualified wildlife
biologist.
b. Submit qualifications of field
biologist, for City review and
approval.
During .
construction
a. Prior to
issuance of a
Builctmg
Permit
b~ After
construction
for a period of
5 years.
a. During pre-
construction
season
b. Prior to pre-:-
construction
season
Mitigation
Responsibility
Planning Division
(Contract Arborist)
a. Plamiing
Division
(Contract
Arborist)
b. Planning
Division
(Contract
Arborist)
a. Planning
·Division
b . . Planning
Division
20
Stanford CCTP/ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan .
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
' .
construction.:.related activities (e.g., buildi.D.g demolition and site grading) ..
The survey area shall include all areas witPJn150 feet of construction sites,
access roads, and staging areas. Jf an acti've nest is discovered within 150
feet of an area to be disturbed, clearing and other construction-related I
activities within 150 feet of the area shall be postponed for at least two.
weeks or until a wildlife biologist has detdrmined that the young have . I fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, fand there is no evidence of second
nesting attempts, whichever is later. If construction or tree removal is not
scheduled for the nesting period, no surve~ shall be required.
Geology and Soils
1. Soil erosion during construction
1.1. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. ! As part of the SWPPP, an erosion
and sediment transport control plan shall be designed by an erosion control . I professional, landscape architect, or civil ~;:ngineer specializing in erosion
control. The SWPPP shall meet the following objectives for the grading and
construction period of the project:
a) The erosion and sediment transport cohtrol plan shall be submitted,
reviewed, implemented, and inspecte~ by the City of Palo Alto Public ·
Works Department as part of the approval process for the grading plans
. for each phase of the project. ;
b) The plan shall be designed by the project sponsor's erosion control
consultant, usiiig concepts similar to ~ose developed by the Association
of Bay Area Governments, as appropriate, based on the specific erosion
and sediment transport control needs·¥ each area in which grading and
construction is to occur. The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution ·I Prevention Program's recommended :~;\est Management Practices (BMPs)
for construction activities, as contained in the Blueprint for a Clean Bay
·and the California Storm water Consdction and Municipal BMP
Handbook shall be incorporated into the construction plans. The possible
methods include, but are not .limited t9, the following items, which are
provided as examples: ~
StanfordUniversity CcrP!ACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
s.:\PLANIPLADIV1Lisa\STANFORD CcrP 15-eridc.d.oc
c. Pe~odic monitoring during
construction if active nest is
identified.
a. Document that SWPPP
contains elements identified in
Mitigation Measure 3.1.
b. Submit qualifications of
erosion control professional,
landscape .architect or civil
engineer, for City review and
approval .
c. ·Projecrsponsor shall submit
periodic reports documenting
installation and maintenance
of structures for City review.
c. Duriilg
construction
a. Prior to
issuance of
Grading
Permit
b. Prior to
commence-
mentof
SWPPP
c. During grading
and
construction. ·
Mitigation
Responsibility
c. Planning
Division
a. Public Works
Department
b. Public Works
Department
c. Buildin . g
Department
and Public
Works
Department
21
Stanford CCTP/ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
I
• Confine grading and related activiti~s (demolition, construction, and
site preparation; use of equipment $,d material storage areas; and
preparation of access roads) to the 4rY season, whenever possibie.
• If grading or related activities need ~o be scheduled for the wet
season, ensure that structural erosi~n and sediment transport control
measure_s are ready for implementation prior to the onset of the first
major storm of the season. j
• Locate staging areas outside major ~ainageways.
• Keep the lengths and gradients of censtructed slopes (cut or fill) as I low as possible. Permanent cut and fill slopes, if any, should not
exceed a gradient of 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) in order to ensure
stability .and minimize erosion. Penfan.ent slopes behind retaining
walls should not exceed a gradient of 3:1. .
• Initially stabilize permanent slopes {vith straw plugs and then plant
with native plants, grasses, and sb.rribs consistent with the approved
landscaping plan. 1 .
• Discharge grading and construction! 11lll,Off into small drainages at
frequent intervals to avoid buildup bf large ·potentially erosive flows.
• Prevent runoff from flowing over unprotected slopes. I. • Keep disturbed areas (areas of grading and related activities) to the
minimum necessary for demolition br construction. ·
• Keep runoff away from disturbed a_feas during grading and related
activities_. !
• Stabilize disturbed areas as quickly las possible, either by vegetative
or mechanical methods. '
• Direct runoff over vegetated areas prior to discharge into public storm
drainage systems; whenever possible. • I
• Use straw wattles or bales, silt fem~es, or similar devices placed
around storm drain inlets. i
• Trap sediment before it leaves the Site with such techniques as check dams: sediment ponds, or siltation fences. . ·
• Make the contractor responsible foJ the removal and disposal of all
sedimentation on site or off site that is generated by grading and
related activities of the project. :
StanfordUniversity CCTPIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Rep~rting Program
S:1PLANIPLADIVILisa\STANFORD CCTP 15-endc.dlJc
Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
Mitigation
Responsibility'
22
Stanford CCTP/ ACP mid PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
· Mitigation
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing RespoilSi.bility
• Use landscaping and grading metho~s that lower the potential for
downstream sedimentation. Modifi~d drainage patterns, longer flow
paths, encouraging infiltration into the ground, and slower storm-
water conveyance velocities are exabples of effective methods.
• Control landscaping activities carefully with regard to the application
of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides! or other hazardous substances.
ProVide proper "instruction to alllan:dscaping personnel on the
constrUction team. '
• Stockpile the tap soil separately frob. other excavated material for use
in subsequent landscapillg activity~ i · .
c) During the installation of the erosion arid sediment transport control
structures, the erosion control professioimi shall be on the site to supervise
the implementation of the designs, and 11te maintenance of the facilities
throughout the demolition, grading, ail~ construction period. ·
I
2. Potential t:isks of slope failure during construction
2.1. Excavation and Shoring Plan. The walls bf the medical facility site, the . I parking garage, and the elevator shaft shall be shored to prevent movement
in these areas. For excavatioilS other than: for the parking garage, a
cantilever shoring system shall be installe4. For the parking garage, a stiff
system such as conventional soldier beam ;and lagging shoring methods shall
be installed to prevent the potential impact on adjacent roads and utilities . I from the deflection of the shoring. A gro~d monitoring program during
construction shall be maintained. The co~tractor shall ~e appropriate
measures for protectibn of the shoring, in~luding but not limited, to those ·
listed below:
' a) The contractor shall survey pre.cconst:niction conditions behind the
shoring to study baseline conditions an~ to facilitate measurement of soil
movement during construction. Poin~ along the soldier beam shall be
referenced with respect to a permanent survey point at a distance of at
least 200 feet from the shoring. Baseline surveys of these reference
points shall be conducted prior to cominencement of earthwork, and I
StanjordUniversity CCI'PIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and RepJrting Program
S.;\PLAMPLADIVILisa\STANFORD CCTP 15-endc.doc '
a. Project sponsor shall submit
baseline surveys
b. Project sponsor shall submit
periodic reports documenting
ground monitoring results and
corrective measures for City .
review.
c. Document that final designs
· incorporate relocation or
protection of existing utilities.
a. Prior to
issuance of
Grading
Permit
b. During
construction
c. Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permit
a. Public Works
Department
b. Building
Department
c. ·Utilities
. Engineering ·.
Department
23
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation· Measures Monitoring Reporting·Procedure Mitigation Timing
I
daily surveys shall be conducted befote beginning excavation. The
I frequency of surveys can be reduced towards the end of earthwork.
b) The shoring designer and the geotech¢cal engineer shall monitor the
status of the shoring systems regularly to diagnose any movement
leading to collapse of the soil structurb. · .
c) If the geotechnical or the site engineet finds that the soil structure is
disturbed and the movement and ground loss is difficult to control due
to the presence of cohesionless soil zdnes, an alternate ground control
method, such as grouting, shall be usbd. ·
d) Drilling equipment such as hollow-st~m augers that would prevent
ground loss and minimize potential ~act of vibrations on-adjacent
utilities shall be used. !
e) The contractor shall relocate or prot?ctexisting utilities on the project
s~. i ·
3. Inadequate support for foundations
3.1. Soil Suitability Analysis and RemediatiJn. The recommendations. of the a.
foundation reports prepared for building .I construction shall be incorporated
in the plans and specifications for the design of the project as follows:
Project sponsor shall submit a
site spedfic soil study with
required contents for City
review and approval.
a) During the design phase for. each sit6 where the existence of unsuitable
. soil 1conditions is known or suspect~, the project sponsor's registered
soil engineering consultant shall provide documentation to the City that:
I
• site-specific soil suitability analys~s have been conducted in the area
b. SubJl?it qualifications of soil
engineer for City review and
approval.
of the proposed foundation to e$tablish the design criteria for all c. Submit periodic reports
documenting grading
monitoring activities for City
revi~w.
structures and their support, and i .
• the recommended criteria have rn4n incorponited in the design· of the • I project structures. i
I I b) During grading for these sites, the registered soils professional, as
deemed appropriate by the City's b~ding inspection unit, shall be on
the site to:
StanfordUniversity CCTPIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Rep~riing Program
S.'\PLAMPLADIV1Lisa\STANFORD CCTP 15-endc.doc .
d. Document submittal of "as
built" map.
a. Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permit
b. Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permit
c. During
grading
d. Prior to
issuance of
any occupancy
permit
a.
b.
c.
d.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Building '
Department
Building
Department
. and -Public
Works
Department
Building
. Department
and Pubic
Works
Department
Building
Department
and Public
Works
24
. Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation MonitoriD.g and Reporting Plan
Mitigation
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing . Responsibility
• observe areas of potential soil unsuitability,
• oversee the implementation of soil remediation programs, arid
• verify final soil conditions prior to setting the foundations.
c) The registered soils engineering consultant shall prepare an "as built"
map, to be filed with the Palo Alto Depa.rtlnent of Plimnirig and
Community Development, showing details of the site soils, the location
of foundations, sub-drains and clean-outs, and the results of suitability
analyses and compaction tests
Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Increased deposition of sediment and discharge of pollutants
1.1. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. The same mitigation measure
identified for potential geotechnical and soils hazards.in Section 3.9 (i.e.,
Mitigation Measure 1.1, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan) would
also help to reduce potential water quality impacts. The following additional
measures would be necessary to specifically address water quality.
a) The soil excavated for the CCTP/ ACP and PS IV shall be stockpiled in.
an off-site location and covered or sprinkled as necessary to keep the
surface moist, thus reducing wind erosion. Approximately 1/2 gallon
of water per square yard, sprinkled twice a day over drying stockpiles
. and disrupted surfaces, will settle fine dust raised during earth-moving
procedures. Upon completion of backfilling and landscaping, excess
stockpiled material shall be removed from the site.
b) The excavation shall be de-watered by sump pumping, as necessai"y.
De-watering discharge shall be prevented from flowing directly into
any storm drainages, from eroding new or existing 'gullies, and from
flowing over cleared areas. Spray irrigation, energy-dissipating drip
irrigation, or similar non-erosive methods of releasing de-watering
discharge shall be used.
StanfordUniversity CCTP/ACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
s:\PLAMPLADIV\lisa\STANFORD CciP 15-endc.doc .
Document that stockpiling,
stockpile removal, and dewatering
are perfoimed in accordance ·with
Mitigation Measure ·1.1.
During
construction
Building
· Department and
Public Works
Department
25
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
1.2. Construction Period Sanitary and Solid Waste. To prevent sanitary waste
from discharging into surface waters or onto land srirfaces during ·
construction, temporary sanitation facilities for the duration of the
construction period shall be self-~ontained portable units in designated
parking and staging areas. Additionally, solid waste shall be removed from
the project sites for disposal in an approved facility. · ·
1.3. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Best Management Practices. Prior to
issuance of a building .permit, the project sponsor shall be required to
prepare, retain on site, and implement a: Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) which describes the site, erosion and sediment controls,
means of material storage and waste disposal, implementation of approved
local plans, post-construction control measures and maintenance
responsibilities, and non-storm water management controls. The City Public
Works Department shall monitor BMPs with respect to the sponsor's
construction activities. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris.
(soil, asphalt, saw cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials
into gutters or storm drains. BMPs that coUld be implemented. as part of the
SWPPP are described in Mitigation Measure 1.1, Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan, in Section 3.9, Geology and Soils.
2. Increased pollutant loading and seepage of groundwater through the lowest levels
of the parking structure
2.1. Landscaping Best Management Practices~ Prior to project approval, the
City of Palo Alto shall require that specific landscaping BMPs be included
as part of the project's SWPPP, which must include post-construction
stoi:mwater control measures and maintenance responsibilities .. Such
techniques shall include:
a) proper l.tse ·of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications regarding dosage and application
frequency;
b) landscaping, including borders, using warm-season grasses and drought-
tolerant vegetation wherever feasible to reduce demand for irrigation and
thereby reduce irrigation runoff; and
StanfordUniversity CCI'P/ACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S.'IPLANIPLADIVILisaiSTANFORD CCI'P 15-endc.doc
Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
Document that sanitary and solid
waste are disposed of in ·
accordance with Mitigation 1.2.
a. Document that BMPs are
included in all construction
contracts.
b. Periodic monitoring during
construction.
During
construction
a. Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permit
b. During
construction
Mitigation
Responsibility
Public Works
Department
a. Public Works
Department
b. Public Works
Department
Document that BMPs are included Prior to issuance Public Works
in all construction contracts. of Building Permit Department
26
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
c) installation of efficient irrigation systems in landscaped areas to· minimize
runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach plant
roots. Such irrigation systemS include drip irrigation, soil moisture
sensors, and automatic irrigation systems.
2.2. Operation and Maintenance Best Management Practices. In addition to the a. Document that BMPs are
BMPs in Mitigation Measure 2.1 above, mitigation measures shall be · included in all construction
required for the reduction and avoidance of stormwater cont:amlnation contracts.
during long-term operation and maintenance of PS N. The City of Palo
Alto shall require specific operation and maintenance . phase BMPs and b. Submit periodic monitoring
responsible parties to be included in the project's SWPPP, a8 conditions of reports on the operation and
project approval. Such measures may include: maintenance of BMPs.
a) installation of sand filters for roadway runoff;
b) labeling storm drain inlets to educate_ the public of the adverse impacts
associated with dumping into receivmg waters; and ·
c) cleaning and/or sweeping roadways on a monthly basis.
3. Potential water seepage into the lowest level of the garage
3.1. Waterproofing PS IV. Waterproofing measures for perimeter walls and the
bottom floor of the parking structure shall be constructed in accordance with
the California Uniform Building Code, Volume 2: Structural Engineering
Design Provisions (Appendix Chapter 18). Specific measures would include
but are not limited to:
a) Use of appropriate waterproofing membrane under and behind concrete
floor slabs, consisting of rubberized asphalt, polymer-modified asphalt,
butyl rubber, neoprene, or other approved materials capable of bridgmg
non-structural cracks. Joints in the membrane shall be lapped not le_ss
than 6 inches and sealed in an approved manner.
b) Preparation of wall surfaces prior to membrane application, including
removal of fins or sharp projections that may pierce the membrane and .
.StanfordUniversity CCTPIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S:1PLAN1PLADIV\Lisa\STANFORD CCFP 15-endc.doc
Document that waterproofing
measures are included in PS N
construction plans.
a. Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permit
b. As determined
by Public
Works
Department
Prior to approval
of Final Design
and Landscape
Plans.
a.
b.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Public Works
·Department
Public Works
Department
Public Works . .
Department
27
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation MeasureS Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
filling of holes and recesses with a dry-pack mortar, bituminous
material, or other approved methods or materials.
c) Site grading shall slope the ground away from the side walls of PSIV at
not less than 1:12 (vertical:horizontal) for a minimum distance of 6 feet
to divert water away from the foundation;
Hazardous Materials
1. Potential release of hazardous materials during construction and demolition
1.1. Pre-Construction Hazardous Materials Survey. UCSF Stanford Health.Care
shall retain a qualified environmental specialist (e.g., a Registered
Environmental Assessor or similarly qualified individual) to inspect existing
building areas subject to demolition or minor modifications for the presence
of as yet unidentifi.ed.asbestos, PCBs, mercury, lead, or other hazardous
materials. If found at levels that require special handlin.g, UCSF Stanford
Health Care shall manage these materials. as required by law and according
to federal and state regulations and guidelines, including those of the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, the California Division of Occupational Safety .
and Health, the Santa Clara County.Department of Environmental Health,
and any other agency with jurisdiction over these materials.
2. Potential exposure of construction personnel and members of the public to
. existing soil and groundwater contamination, if any ·
StanfordUniversity CCI'P/ACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
s.:\PLANIPLADIVILisa\STANFORD CCTP 15-endc.doc
Project sponsor shall submit a
Pre-Construction Hazardous
Materials Survey for City review.
If necessary, project sponsor shall
document the special handling of
materials in accordance with ·
applicable laws and regulations for
City review.
Prior to issuance
of Building Permit
Prior to issuance
of Occupancy
Permit
Mitigation
Responsibility
Building
Department
Building
Department
28
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigaqon Timing
2.1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. UCSF Stanford Health Care shall
prepare a Phase !.Environmental Site Assessment for areas of the project
site where earth-moving activities could occur. The investigation shall list
current and past uses of the lot, review environmenui.I agency databases and
records, report site reconnaissance observations, and summarize potential
contamination issues, including any that warrant further investigation. The
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be "completed by a Registered
Environmental Assessor or a similarly qualified individual prior to _initiating
any earth-moving activities at the site.
2.2. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. If determined to be necessary as a
result of the Phase I investigation, UCSF Stanford Health Care shall prepare
a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Soil and groundwater samples
shall be collected as. directed by the site assessment consultant. Sampling
shall extend at least to depths proposed fo:r excavation. The samples shall be
·analyzed to identify and quantify any contamination. The Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment shall be completed by a Registered
Environmental Assessor or a similarly qualified individual prior to initiating
any earth-movirig activities at the site. Site work shall be performed in
consultation with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health and other agencies, as appropriate.
2.3. Site Safety and Health Plan. If soil or groundwater conditions warrl;l.llt the
preparation of a Site Safety and Health Plan (a California Division of
Occupational Safety and Health.requirement for work at hazardous waste
sites), in addition to measures that protect on-site workers; the plan shall .
include measures to minimize public exposure to contaminated soils. Such
measures shall include dust control, appropriate site security, restriction of
public access, and posting of warning signs, and shall apply from the time of
surface disruption through the completion of earthwork construction.
UtilitiesandSernceSyme~
1. Off-site water utility line improvements, the construction of which could have a
. potential impact
StanfordUniversity CCTPIACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S.:\PLANIPLADIV\Lisa\STANFORD CCTP 15-endc.doc
a. Project sponsor shall submit a
Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment with required
contents for City review.
b. Project sponsor shall submit
qualifications of individual
. responsible for Phase I
assessment for City review
and approval.
a. Project sponsor shall submit a
Phase II. Environmental Site
Assessment with required
contents for City review;
b. Submit qualifications of
individual responsible for
Phase II assessment for City
review and approval.
If warranted, project sponsor shall
submit a Site Health and Safety
Plan with required contents for the
City review and approval.
a. · Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permit
b. Prior to
commencing
Phase I.
a. Prior to
issuance of ·
Building
Permit
b. Prior to
commencing
Phase II.
Prior to issuance
of Building Permit
· Mitigation
Responsibility
a. Public Works
Departrrient
b. Public Works
Department
a. Public Works
Department
b. Public Works·
Department
Public Works
Department
. 29
Stanford CCTP/ ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
1.1. · Construction Plan. The project sponsor shall prepare a construction plan
for review by the City of Palo Alto. The plan shall identify the utilities to
be affected, the selected technology, the duration of construction, and
actions to be taken during construction to reduce impacts. Appropriate
contents of the plan to minimize the potential inconvenience and
disturbance shall include:
a) traffic detouring and schedliling to avoid peak hours,
b) maintenance of access to all surrounding properties
c) proper muffling of construction equipment (to be within limits of
allowable standards as sta:ted in the Noise Ordinance [see Section 3.7,
Noise]),
d) dust control,
e) advance notification of adjacent land uses of proposed schedlile and
activities, and
t) identification of a specific individual to contact with any complaints.
Projectsponsorshallsubmita
Pre-Construction Hazardous
Materials Construction Plan with
required contents for City review
·and approval.
2. Potential ·upgrades to wastewater lines, construction of which may trigger See Utilities, Mitigation Measure
significant short-term effects. 1.1.
See Utilities Mitigation Measure 1.1, Construction Plan.
3. Utility relocation that colild cause temporary disturbance
Mitigation Measure 1.1, Construction Plan, with the following addition:
• Schedliling and planning relocation of the chilled water utility line to cause
minimum inconvenience to facilities at SUMC (e.g., laying the new line
before removal of the old lihe to ·minimize the time that supply wolild be
interrupted).
5. The cunil.ilative demand for water due to various proposed projects in Zone 3 may
require new or expanded entitlements; ·
StanfordUniversity CCTP/ACP and PS IV-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S:\PLANIPLADIV\Lisa\STANFORD CCTP 15-endc.doc
See Utilities, Mitigation Measure
Ll.
See Utilities, Mitigation Measure
1.1. .
Prior to issuance
of Building Permit
Mitigation
Responsibility
Public Works
Department
30
Stailford CCTP/ACP and PS IV
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
See Utilities Mitigation Measure ·1.1, Construction Plan.
Public Services
1. Response times of the P AFD
See Transportation Mitigation Measure 7 .5, Arboretum Road/Patm Drive
Intersection Improvements, and Mitigation Measure 7.6, Welch Road/Campus
Drive West Intersection Improvements.
2. Response times of the PAPD
See Transportation Mitigation Measures 7.3 to 7.11, each dealing with specific
intersection improvements;. Mitigation Measure 7, 12, Sand Hill Road Widening;
and Mitigation Measure 9.8, Construction Impact Mitigation Plan.
StanfordUniversity CCTPIACP and PS IV~Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S:\PLANIPLADIV\Lisa\STANFORD CCTP 15-endc.doc .
Monitoring Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing
See. Transportation Mitigation Measures 7.5 and 7.6.
See Transportation Mitigation
Measures 7.3-7.11, and 7.12 and
9.8.
Mitiga~on
Responsibility
31